It seems to me the compromises to achieve high efficiency are most likely to be felt on the highway. 3 wheels, skinny tyres?, limited load carrying ability, safety in high speed collisions.
Given that city travelling is more common, would it make sense to make it a dedicated city car. That would allow the designers to concentrate on light weight, maneuverability, accessibility, and less on aerodynamics and high speed handling.
Of course this would be more attractive if the purchase came with a subscription to hire a highway version for longer trips.
I guess this sort of specialization and Transport as a Service really requires a robocar fleet to be truly practical though.

Brad, you missed the point. The solar panels, regardless of how many miles they put in per day is like getting FREE GAS every day that you can park the car in the sun.
Sure, I might rarely use 1000 miles of range, "But I could!" It might take two or three months, but it's there if I need it. NO vehicle has a 1000 mile range, but I have driven KC to Seattle enough times that it would have been handy.
Even if I get 10-15 miles a day of free juice, that's still energy I don't have to pay for.

Interesting, I didn't know that this vehicle was still around. I think it's a decade too late though, this type of hyper efficient design would have made more sense back when batteries were much more expensive. I'm also curious how it handles cold weather, the range hit from using cabin heating should be much greater than for regular electric cars.

It all sounds good. Hopefully this isn't another Elio Motors story.

Everyone bare in mind this is considered a motorcycle platform and comparing it to ANY 4 wheel vehcile (regardless of practical use) isn't a fair comparison.
They did this intentionally after previous/new management wanted to push for a 4 wheel variant. They ended up pushing forward and canning it, they maintained the 3 wheel design specifically to trend in a niche market and that they knew back then wasn't the best time to release their vehcile.
I do agree however that the solar panels are gimmicky and not necessary if the range is as high as it is. But, I see the practical use for many who can take advantage of that depending on climate. Here in Canada, might not be as useful but whatever.
I love Tesla, what they do and who they provide to with their vehciles and advanced autonomy. But cmon these comparisons are dry and so unbelievably tiresome its been almost a decade can we move on already.

An average car is a 2-tonne chunk of metal carrying a single 80kg person 99% of the time (4% efficiency). Infortunately, the alternative, a motorcycle, is riding a naked engine exposed to the elements with a helmet the only safety.
In a parking lot, usually not in a shady grove, on a sunny day a car gets hot as an oven and that lasts for hours if you are at work - all that energy being wasted.
That car ticks all the boxes (provided the body gives reasonable crash protection). I want it. Please bring it to New Zealand.

On much heavier vehicles like the Tesla Model 3, the kind that use two and a half times as much energy per mile as the Aptera, having solar panels on the car does make no sense. With Aptera's much greater efficiency, solar panels on the vehicle do make sense, perfect sense. Yes, solar panels and batteries are much cheaper nowadays. You can get to the trailhead with an Aptera and have a "full tank" by the time you finish your hike. That's golden.
Most of us can't afford houses much less solar houses, and Aptera's solar supply is not only affordable, when it saves you miles of driving to find a charge, that's fewer miles on your vehicle.
It's a cheap car, too. With Biden administration incentives it will be cheaper still. With maintenance and fueling costs minimal, it will earn more in net present costs unspent than the vehicle itself costs over its lifetime. If you could have a beautiful new car for free and you just had to buy gas, grease jobs, and oil changes, you'd take that deal, right?

Right? None of the cool kids live south of Kansas or East of coastal California. For the rest of us, with a black car in direct sunlight in the summertime, all the solar power will go to air conditioning, and not add to range at all.

That said, if other colors are available, and if it has enough luggage space for six bags of groceries, and if it can keep up with 80mph turnpike traffic, I could be in the market for one.

Thanks for this article, it was very informative. However, a few very important points in your discussion about the "green" impact of solar auto energy were completely overlooked.

The argument seems to be that this route is not "green" because placing solar panels on one's home, for example, would more greatly reduce greenhouse emissions than placing them on one's car. This argument fails to address 2 important pieces, and is therefore misleading to the reader.

1. Many folks may opt to utilize solar energy on their car AND their home
2. Solar automobile energy is produces less greenhouse emissions than electric or fossil fuel-based energy.

The more important argument against it's being "green" lays in the lithium ion battery
(as with much of modern tech and EVs), which must be mined at horrific costs to human and environmental livelihood.

I would think for people who drive longer distances the range of this car would be a real draw card. I personally drive from my home to the nearest city once a week, a 750km round trip. With the current range of EV's on offer that is a difficult thing to do, especially since recharge locations are few and far between. If this car ever comes to Australia I'm in.

The 'greenness' of vehicle mounted solar cells depends on your baseline for comparison. The net emissions from an Aptera with solar cells will probably be lower than any ICE vehicle, or grid charging where fossil fuel generation is in the mix. It is probably less 'green' than a grid connected solar array. The net balance will vary depending on time, location, the alternative grid generation mix on offer, and the amount of curtailed solar generation. The reality is therefore more nuanced.

The fact that a homeowner could maybe get more solar for the money does not mean this car is "not green." Also, apartment dwellers exist. A lot of them.

Brad, you sound like a typical POTEC (Prisoner Of The East Coast). I was one in my youth but now enjoy my freedom in a flyover state (Nevada). The 1000-mile range Aptera offers owners the freedom of planning cross-country trips based on route efficiency, not charger location. Most of us who live in the desert already have roof-top solar, so that is a moot point...I do not understand why so many POTECs do not use roof-top solar, not even a small solar hot water heater. For us desert rats (DR), an EV top-off charge every month will be great. The majority of us DRs have no worries about solar panels on our vehicles being blocked by shade trees--the $900 solar option is the best way to go. It provides enough energy for most people 40-44 miles per day, out here in the desert. I foresee many Aptera owners using these super-efficient 1000-mile range vehicles on long trips--that is what I intend to do. Enjoy...

As I see it if solar panels are able to provide a significant of your daily milage are a game changer for people without a convenient access to home charging (I own an ev but I have to plug a power extension cord into amy home's 110V outlets,run it through the front yard to the lvl 1 charger, and plug the car curbside). it means potentially multiplying your ev's effective daily range by a large factor.it means you can maybe pick a less expensive, lighter battery. for raid trips, it won't change anything , the added range while driving at highway speeds will probably hardly offset the added weight of the panels and maybe a couple of additional miles at most.

Not only ecologically, but also economically. When I think of the Aptera I think of all of the students living on meager sums. They might be in college, living in dorms. No way to put solar on their roof. No way to plug in in the parking lot. They don't drive much but every time their Aptera is retrieved from the parking lot (where it has been charging for free) it is ready to go. They don't need to go to the gas station, the auto mechanic for oil changes (yes some of them might know what that is) or a charging station for a fill-up. They don't have a lot of spare cash so buying stock in a wind farm would be out of the question. They would prefer thinking they are self sufficient and not ask mom and dad for more money. If they live off campus in an apartment, same thing goes. Their car was out on the street charging until they drove it to school, where it will continue to charge while they are in class. I can easily see this as a never charge vehicle, even with the lower range battery (250 miles). Most people probably would not get the 1,000 mile range model, but for some there are good reasons. Fuel, whether used to drive the vehicle or charge it, will always go up. The value of self charging will always increase. The less things we burn to continue our lifestyles the better. To me, the answer is as clear as black and white and there is no gray area, although Apteras are going to be produced in all three colors.

Brad, a correction is in order. Continued misrepresentation of the previous iteration of the Aptera company is disingenuous at best. Aptera did not declare bankruptcy. They simply closed the business because they couldn't get the funding they knew they would need to make it to production. There is a huge difference in the minds of consumers and clearly in your mind.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aptera-idUSTRE7B201D20111203

Read your article twice. Very good points.
Comparing solar panels on the Aptera to house panels is apples and oranges. Aptera is efficient and green transportation.

What is not green is a 15-20MPG SUV / luxury car. The debate between the efficiency of solar on a house vs. a car is only a debate between shades of green.

As far as I know, the original company didn't go bankrupt, but was liquidated after they couldn't secure a government loan that they needed to start production.

Interesting article, but I'm throwing something else into it.
They say they want worldwide sales. I live in the UK and in fact an acquaintance has put down a deposit a while ago. So I got interested, it looks great and 'green', though heaven knows how much it will cost after shipping and all the Government taxes like VAT.
Then I noticed the width. 88" !! That is 24 " wider than my Skoda!
Good luck driving that in most of our cities and NO chance in a great many rural areas.

First, I appreciate the tone of the article.
That said, I think the "not green" has some evening out factors:
1. not everyone can install solar. EG Renters, a target market.
2. You can move a car, you can't move a house, and many residential solar installs have shade.
3. Most roofs are not optimal tilt and adding tilt is $$$.
Flat is 10%-20% less efficient in the continental US. (Check pvwatts)
4. V2G is one solution to overcharging. Also, most drivers start with a morning commute. Many stop at 70%-80% charge as NMC Batteries are best at 70% charge.
5. In the northern US you park in the sun to heat the car as often as the shade to cool it.