Aptera can’t get subsidy money because the 2e has three wheels, not four

Mother Jones went with the makers of the Aptera 2e electric car to Washington, which is apparently not getting any subsidy from the government because it has three wheels instead of four.

GM has requested $8 billion from this same fund.

1. [Anonymous]

   I saw one of these yesterday on the West Side Highway in NY yesterday. It looked pretty cool. Other pedestrians stopped walking and stared at it, too. Didn’t know what it was or that it was electric so thanks for identifying it for me. I had googled “three wheel car” for images and come up empty.

2. [Dillenger69]

   How hard would it be for them to turn the single rear wheel into two thinner wheels taking up the same amount of space? Then it would be four wheels and everyone would be happy.

3. [ROSSINDETROIT]

   I guess this will be the reason cited when Aptera does not overwhelm GM and put them out of business as predicted by so many.

4. [Anonymous]

   It can’t get some of the subsidy because it’s classed as a motorcycle instead of an automobile. However, if they changed the definition to allow it to be considered an automobile, would it then be required to pass automobile crash test standards?

   If so, they may not like what they wish for.

5. [historyman68]

   Reminds me a little of Buckminster Fuller’s Dymaxion car – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_car – Apparently nobody would buy a 3-wheeled car after a fatal crash. Wonder if that bias is still there…

6. [Endo]

   While I’m hoping that the Aptera does well and gets some govt cash, they really can’t complain about not getting the same subsidies as hybrid cars. They went with 3 wheels to avoid the stricter regulations placed on 4 wheeled vehicles. Can’t have it both ways.

7. [edgore]

   Don’t we already know that they win because they are still around when Star Trek (re)starts?

8. [dculberson]

   Anon4, I thought the same thing, but further reading turned up that Aptera claims the 2e meets all automobile crash test standards. Whether that’s true or not I do not know, but that’s their claim. If true, it’s impressive.

   I think the three wheels may have helped it achieve very low drag. An additional wheel pod would add drag, weight, and unneeded complexity.

   I’ve read many comments elsewhere that had people saying it was ugly or “too much function not enough form.” That’s very confusing to me – in my eyes this thing looks awesome. Even my wife loves it.

9. [technogeek]

   Hm. They’ve actually benefited, on some fronts, from the fact that with three wheels it gets classified as a motorcycle rather than a car. This appears to be the downside; subsidies are written to go to car manufacturers.

   Not sure what the best answer is. Give up and put in a fourth wheel, now that the prototype has proven itself? Organize a campaign to get the rules changed (good luck; detroit has lobbyists)? Other?

10. [ROSSINDETROIT]

    IIRC, 3 wheelers with 2 in the front and one in the back = car. One in the front and 2 in the back = motorcycle. There have been 3 wheeled cars for years in Europe. The Reliant Robin comes to mind. Morgan made 3-wheelers.
    There are many motorcycles on the road with 2 wheels in the back. Expect those people to strongly resist having their vehicles classified as cars. The industry of converting touring bikes to stable 3 wheelers for retirees to putter around on would basically vanish overnight.
    Unintended consequences.