Three questions: Understand that GM took back and crushed all of their EV1s. Toyota sold their Rav4 EV. Seems the existing ones sell for more than the original price, which would seem to indicate a demand for the product. Why doesn't Toyota restart production of the Rav4? If this is because an oil company owns the patent to the batteries, maybe the patent should be taken and the oil company tried for treason. (Forget that last thought, so we do not have to put this in FHOP)! Second question, will the Aptera ever go into production? Last question, what would we be driving today if the auto companies had seriously pursued the EV development that was started in 2000?
Toyota took back many rav ev's As well making the supply very small. The evil battery patent expires in parts but by the end of this year most of it will be gone.
I'm a member on ApteraForum.com - Unofficial Aptera Car Forum - for the last couple years. I'm also have a reservation hold position on the vehicle. Production has been delayed for years, the design has been changed, and the founder and chief designer are ousted. The new head of the company, Paul Wilber used to work for one of the big 3 American car companies. Most people following Apteraforum aren't a fan of Paul and don't trust him. Maybe if they win the Progressive X prize money, things will change.
Answer #2 ... who knows Answer #3 ... who knows I too am on Aptera's wait list. Many have abandoned ship due to the wait. That's dropped my spot down into the low hundreds ... not that it matters if they never build it. It'll likely be the Leaf that gets put out first. Volt? malorn says he'll sell me one ... but if they only build a couple hundred this year (at best) I figure that'll be just one more broken GM promise. .
Excellent question!!! I have been advocating this for a long time. The purpose of patents is to allow an inventor to profit by his invention. When a company uses a patent to keep a product off the market, this is a perversion of the patent process. And when that patent has national security implications (in this case energy dependence vs independence) then withholding the product is, if not treason, certainly an assault on the security of the nation. I advocate depriving them of the patent and putting it in the public domain. As another poster mentions, though, it's a moot point for two reasons: the patent is about to expire, and there are now better batteries available, based on lithium. I suspect that the adoption of EVs would and will be slow. Lots of people would still be driving stinkers. But there would be a large number of EVs on the road. There would be charging stations to serve them. People would understand that EVs are viable, even if they do not drive one themselves. And there would be a variety of EVs to choose from, from single-seat commuters to electric versions of sedans and SUVs.
The Aptera story is a very disappointing one. I never got on the list because they said they would sell them only in California for the time being, but I thought it looked like a great car and a great concept. I'd have bought one three years ago had it been available, and I'd buy one today if it was available.
