Debate Arises on 3 Wheeler

[question everything]

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009

Debate Arises on 3 Wheeler

By STEPHEN POWER
WSJ

WASHINGTON -- Is a three-wheeled vehicle an automobile? That question is at the center of a vigorous lobbying effort in Washington. The vehicle in question is the Aptera 2e, a machine that looks like a cross between a Cessna plane and a tricycle. It's the brainchild of Aptera Motors Inc., a three-year-old, closely held car company in Vista, Calif.

Aptera wants to borrow $75 million from a Department of Energy program created by Congress in 2007 to speed development of fuel-efficient cars. Aptera's backers include some big-money donors to the Democratic Party, and its quest for help has received a boost from a group of mostly California lawmakers who want to help a home-state enterprise. Allies of Detroit's big auto makers are lined up against them. The DOE ruled last year that the electric 2e didn't qualify under the $25 billion loan program. A three-wheeled vehicle doesn't meet the definition of an automobile under federal law as being "any 4-wheeled vehicle," according to a letter to Aptera last December from Lachlan Seward, the loan program's director.

(snip)

Enter Congress. A provision in a spending bill approved by the House before its August recess would expand eligibility for the loan program to include any fully enclosed vehicle designed to carry two adults and that averages at least 75 miles a gallon. Those criteria would cover Aptera's vehicle, which company officials say will go 100 miles on an electrical charge. The legislation, which must still be reconciled with a Senate bill and signed by President Barack Obama, also stipulates that the DOE "shall reconsider applications for assistance" that were filed last year and rejected on the basis they didn't meet the definition of a qualifying vehicle... "We need to think outside the box when developing new fuel-efficient vehicles," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who led the push to attach the provision to the spending bill. "Obsolete bureaucratic definitions should not create roadblocks and stifle innovation."

(snip)

Aptera's quest for federal help raises a bigger question about Washington's effort to subsidize fuel-efficient vehicles: How much of the money should go to traditional companies with the most customers, versus start-ups with unorthodox ideas? "Novelty vehicles are not really the ones that will help the U.S. address the growing concern over U.S. oil consumption," said General Motors Co. spokesman Greg Martin. GM, majority-owned by the government, is awaiting a decision from the DOE on three loan applications totaling more than $10 billion. A DOE spokeswoman said the Obama administration hadn't taken a position on the provision, but "shares the goal of ensuring that the program is flexible enough to account for the full range of available technologies." So far, the agency has awarded roughly $8 billion in loans to three companies: Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co. and Tesla Motors, a California start-up.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125288146359206959.html (subscription)

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16

[ddeclue]

1. well it looks a lot more like a Cirrus than a Cessna to me..

that said the Feds might not consider it a car but I'm sure most states would consider it either a car or a motorcycle.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Meet George Jetson...

[Libertas1776]

3. "Is a three-wheeled vehicle an automobile?"

That depends, can it stand up to Mr. Bean?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMR70aZoJyw

[DCKit]

4. ""Novelty vehicles are not really the ones that will help the U.S. address...""

Because GM has been so damn innovative on the government tit all these years?

WE paid for the R&D that resulted in the EV-1 and nearly every other advancement in automobile engineering over the past two decades. The only reason GM couldn't bring the EV-1 to market at an affordable price is because they put cutting edge technology into every facet of the car - all the things we now take for granted in our every day rides.

Now that the technologies GM developed for the EV-1 are mature, they could easily bring the same concept to market for less then $30K, without billions in government subsidies.

The big corporations have failed, why shouldn't the government give some of that socialist corporate money to small, innovative players for a change?

[berni_mccoy]

5. I suspect the auto industry will fight this. They will cry foul because any 3-wheel vehicle

is going to beat a 4-wheel vehicle in efficiency.

[NBachers]

6. Aptera's hot. I want to see 'em on the road

http://www.aptera.com/

[Rosco T.]

7. Nothing really new, meet the Morgan...

1911-1952

Company still in business working on the Morgan LIFECAR



Fuel Cell Powered

[question everything]

12. Fascinating. I've never "met" one

and I should. If and when I am in the market for a new car - which is not in the near or even distant future.

[formercia]

8. Old whore in a new dress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200

Messerschmitt, temporarily not allowed to manufacture aircraft, had turned its resources to producing other commodities. In 1952, Fend approached Messerschmitt with the idea of manufacturing small motor vehicles.<3> These were based on his Fend Flitzer invalid carriage.<4>

The first of Fend's vehicles to enter production at Messerschmitt's Regensburg factory was the KR175.<5> The title Kabinenroller means "scooter with cabin".<6> While the Messerschmitt name and insignia were used on the car, a separate company, incorporated as Regensburger Stahl- und Metallbau GmbH, was created to manufacture and market the vehicle.<5>

The KR200 replaced the KR175 in 1955.<5> While using the same basic frame as the KR175 with changes to the bodywork (notably including wheel cutouts in the front fenders) and an improved canopy design,<2> the KR200 was otherwise an almost total redesign.<7>. The rear suspension and engine mounting were reworked, and hydraulic shock absorbers were installed at all three wheels. Tire sizes were enlarged to 4.00x8.<2>

Retailing for around DM 2,500, the KR200 was considered an instant success with almost 12,000 built during its first year.<8> A maximum speed in excess of 90 km/h (56 mph)<8> despite a claimed power output of only 10 PS (7 kW; 10 hp)<8> reflected the vehicle's light weight.

In 1956, Messerschmitt was allowed to manufacture aircraft again and lost interest in Fend's microcars. Messerschmitt sold the Regenburg works to Fend, who formed Fahrzeug- und Maschinenbau GmbH, Regensburg (FMR) to continue production of the KR200 and his other vehicles.<9>

--snip--

[eShirl]

9. automobile or not, 4 wheels will make a more stable base than 3

[question everything]

10. Perhaps, but why not open all options?

As mentioned above, GM can easily bring back the EV-1 and many former owners may actually forgive them and purchase one.

[Stevenmarc]

15. Oh really, let me introduce you to the Carver One

Unfortunately the company producing it went bust but the technology is out there and I think BMW is using it in their BMW C.L.E.V.E.R. Concept


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGfWDgMfk_Q

[Froward69]

11. three wheels is a trike.

regardless of wheel configuration or enclosed passenger compartment.

[formercia]

13. There are reasons why Trike ATV's aren't sold any more.

It has to do with safety and stability.

[Edweird]

19. These aren't 3 wheeled ATV's. Their wheelbase is longer and wider AND

the center of gravity is typically much lower. Not even close to the same.

[dysfunctional press]

18. i've seen a few 3-wheeled motorcycles around here lately...

mostly driven/ridden by late-middle-agers...

some of them have two wheels in front, while some have two wheels in the back...

[snooper2]

20. Top one is a Can-Am spyder

by buddy I go riding with has one...

( Motorcycle Plates FYI )

Also has traction control, ABS, electronic stability control...and will smoke the back tire for a city block

:)

[Stevenmarc]

14. Let's not forget Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Car in the 30's

video link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlLZE23EJKs

[eppur_se_muova]

21. more on Dymaxion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_car





"The 1933 Dymaxion Car was intended to fly, jump-jet style, when suitable alloys and engines became available. Meantime, it did pretty well on the ground: It got about 30 miles per gallon, and could smoothly hurtle eleven passengers at 120 miles per hour--far better performance than a 1996 minivan.

Though not much heavier that a VW Beetle, the Dymaxion was nearly 20 feet long. That was too big for urban traffic, despite extraordinary maneuverability--it could U-turn in its own length.(qt movie, 2.7mb) The adroit rear-wheel steering also proved counterintuitively tricky, especially in a crosswind. A fatal crash, wrongly blamed on the steering instead of the other car involved, was also fatal to investors, and the project failed.(qt movie, 2.3mb)

Ten years later, Bucky put what he'd learned to work in a much handier five-seater with a tiny engine at each wheel. This time, the front wheels steered, but all three could be steered for tight city turns and crabbing sideways into parking spaces. High speed stability was enhanced by extending the rear wheel on a boom to lengthen the wheelbase."

more: http://www.thirteen.org/bucky/car.html

[Stevenmarc]

16. k&r

[hedgehog]

17. How does it handle in the snow?

[eppur_se_muova]

22. Well, it's light, so should be easy to carry over the drifts.

Can't have everything. :\