Talk:Aptera (solar electric vehicle)

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment: Green vehicle Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.

This article is basically an advertisement. Very biased, sales-like marketing lingo throughout the whole article. Wikipedia should be better than this.

OK, Anonymous 83.145.54.195. I disagree. What would you change? This seems like a straight "just the facts" article with sufficient references, for a vehicle not yet available to the public. I would like to see more reputable 3rd party references. Did you expect a critical car review? Wikipedia doesn't do that. Compare this article with other EV and car articles on Wikipedia. Fotoguru (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "just the facts" article because there's no actual facts there, only pastes from the marketing copy from individuals with a long history of overblown claims if not outright falsehoods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.27.87.206 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I counted 7 independent sources in the 26 references currently cited in the article. I'd like to see more. Do you know of others this article could use for balance? Do you have any evidence of any falsehoods? What would you add? Fotoguru (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that struck me was the Size section. It says it has more luggage space than a Prius (25 cubic feet vs 21.6). However the Prius is listed on other sites as over 27 cubic feet, and that's before you lower the back seats. The references in this section all come from Aptera marketing. Nerfer (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. You know that Toyota makes multiple Prius models? Some smaller than the others? And the models change year after year? What's the cargo area of the largest and smallest Prius? Some research is needed here.Fotoguru (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just my two cents, but the phrase Aptera's efficiency is obtained by combining two factors: low drag aerodynamics and lightweight resin-filled sandwich-composite construction is advertisement lingo. I'd LOVE to see an actual representation of the cargo area . can I fit in 2 luggages? 2 luggages and a hand luggage? I'm a PhD candidate, assistant to regular professors in a course of urban micro mobility design, and I see fantastic promises all the time. However I'm nobody on the internet as it should be, but I can provide evidence if questioned; this page is almost scam and should be flagged for deletion. Awambawamb (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think light weight and aerodynamic shape lead to efficiency? Then I suggest you talk to a mechanical engineer.

I recommend you review the definition of "scam". The word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

(The best representation of Aptera's cargo area I've seen is their video, "Aptera Goes On A Grocery Run", at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odhTdf9S9h0 .) Fotoguru (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awambawamb, I reverted your destructive edit. Your edit removed many important well documented facts about this vehicle. Do some research about it if you have doubts. I suggest you start with the IEEE Spectrum article about it (Reference [1]). The IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, an academic institution of some renown. Fotoguru (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we might need an administrator onto this, since it's blatant you have interests in this topic and you think Wikipedia is your advertising space. I suppose this page can be flagged for deletion. Awambawamb (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refute your false opinion of my motives. However, you have raised a good point that the article needs a more neutral point of view. I will heavily edit the article to make clear what claims about the vehicle are yet unproven and list concerns about the vehicle. Fotoguru (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've seen the tone of the article has changed to a more encyclopedic one. So, I've removed a couple of buzzwords (like: unique) and a major edit in the outsourcing that might need a deeper explanation: as stated in the edit, not even CPC of modena talks about their customers, you can see for yourself on https://www.cpcgroup.it/en/mission-s1 ; the only partnership waved around is the one with a (public) university. Blurting out "my customers are very famous and luxurious automotives brands" without a source from the very same company is unprofessional and doesn't really add anything. Awambawamb (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The customer list came from the Aptera press release which I'll add as a citation. Fotoguru (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's a one-source material, and it's highly commercial. Create an article on the CPC company at this point, otherwise it's blatant advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awambawamb (talk • contribs) 21:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising def: "the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., especially by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc."

What I've written is not advertising. It is not my product. No one is paying me to write what I write. What I'm writing are technical descriptions of things, in this case a company's. A good documentary/promotional video on carbon fiber in the the automotive industry on YouTube features CPC and includes some of CPC's automotive customers. I'll try to dig up the link to it. Fotoguru (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the movie: "Lords of Carbon: The history of composite materials - by Davide Cironi", at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cIXzTu1hm0 -- Fotoguru (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has the new model's automobile drag coefficient been published? Has it changed much since the Aptera 2e listed in that table? --IanOsgood (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I've expanded the Efficiency section to include its drag coefficient and weight.Fotoguru (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one article with the drag coefficient https://insideevs.com/news/676974/aptera-pininfarina-wind-tunnel-validation/ 24.94.66.125 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reference a few other hyper-efficient solar car designs, but I'm surprised there are no references to Alberto Morelli's pioneering 1976 research, of which the Aptera models are nearly perfect realizations. One reference: https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/body-shape-minimum-drag-20683.html --IanOsgood (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to automobile drag coefficient. I'll add a link to it in the article and add the new Aptera to the list there. Regarding Alberto Morelli, this article is not on the history of low drag cars and so I don't see how mentioning him applies. Many others also worked on this problem. Others added the mention of other similar cars. Perhaps Morelli's contribution belongs in the article you referenced. (I'm no expert on the subject.) Fotoguru (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned in the

Hmm. Yes, Morelli is mentioned, but apparently without any citation. What is cited is a Popular Mechanics article that quotes Steve Fambro saying that the body shape was inspired directly by the shape of the Volkswagen 1-litre car (the original concept car version) of 2003. Of all the designers and influences for the design, why are you singling out Morelli? Fotoguru (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the diagram from Morelli's 1983 paper here; the Aptera body line follows it perfectly. (That Jason Hill used that paper as the inspiration is in some personal notes from a decade ago, probably from an Aptera forum post. I'll look for a more usable reference.) --IanOsgood (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I heard Steve Fambro mention Morelli's design in an interview earlier this year, but now can't find it. Probably it's on YouTube. I've seen too many of them. Fotoguru (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were incorrect statements that Elaphe is a small company and that it is based in Slovakia, which are both incorrect. A company of 180 in automotive world isn't considered small so ajdective "small" was removed, and Elaphe Propulsion is also based in Slovenia, not Slovakia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljazd (talk • contribs) 08:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the history was deleted by CNMall41 - need to add some historical articles from earlier than this year. Some of the info on the company press releases must be available in articles if you search for it.

There was one mention of company needing 50M to begin production over a year old. It would seem if that is discussed then progress toward that goal should be with it, thus references to 20M+ grant from an article and 20M+ from their investor leaderboard page. The company leaderboard shows that as much has been raised through their accelerator program as the grant, and there are news articles from other sources that reference the leaderboard, but they are stale. If the NFL rules can reference be referenced from the NFL corporate website, then it makes sense that the leaderboard should be OK to reference directly from the company as it is more up to date than the numerous stale articles that reference it. For this reason that reference is being added back. If you find a better reference that is up to date, go ahead and replace the reference to the original source that articles referenced historically, and keep the text. Using text with numbers from stale articles would not be accurate/up-to-date.

As stated in the edit summary, Wikipedia is

WP:NOTNEWS and not here to promote a company or its product. You are welcome to suggest edits but would advise not engaging in an edit war. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You should know that anonymous user has just as much right to edit here as anyone, including you.

CNMall41, I also suggest you refamiliarize yourself with the Wikipedia Infobox feature, the Help section there includes, "all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article..."

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut MOS:INFOBOXREF

You deleted basic specification references for this article's Automobile Infobox, against this guideline, as well as much other significant information. Fotoguru (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war?

Some help, please. I have attempted to add some basic history to the article as requested above, but all my edits have been repeatedly reverted by CNMall41. Please review the article's recent revision history. Do his revisions seem proper to you?

To CNMall41 and others: I ask that you review the Wikipedia articles of other announced but not yet produced EVs, especially from startups, including

I have re-opened the discussion at

List of production battery electric vehicles, why did you remove this saying there is no online presence and calling it a scam when there is a reference that goes to a reliable source (and other reliable sources online)?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've replied to your post at

WP:COIN

.

Re. removing Humble Motors from the list, when I searched the internet I could find no mention of the company beyond a bunch of copies of their March 2021 announcement. No web site nor other company reference showed up. No previous or followup news either. They appear to no longer exist. So the car is apparently no longer planned, if it ever was. And I didn't call it a scam. I simply questioned whether it was. The claims for it were incredulous. Fotoguru (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"No online presence" (your edit summary) is different than "could find no mention of the company beyond a bunch of copies of the March 2021 announcement." And your summary about it being a scam may not be a direct claim, but definitely an implied one. However, not something for discussion here I guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By "no online presence" I mean I can find no company reference online. No web page and only Facebook accounts for auto repair shops and used auto dealers by that name outside the USA. Can you find a link to such a car company anywhere? Fotoguru (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm being blocked from restoring this article by CNMall41 and Bri, perhaps some of you could help update it instead. To help I'm including below some of the secondary references that used to be included in the article. These contain interesting detail about this solar EV and its history. Of course the Aptera web site and videos contain more detail, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]}

Hope this helps add some meat back into to this article.

Fotoguru (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC); Fixed Washington Post link 9 January 2024[reply]