Why EV startups fail. Let's watch it together. 

IF (big if) Aptera makes it to production for less than 250 million and survives, Chris Anthony and Steve Fambro are going to become B-school rockstars. Articles, and possibly textbooks, will be written about the "Fambro/Anthony method".

@@robertkirchner7981 I had the same thoughts for a while now. If a auto-mag like Motor Trend features Aptera as Car of the year and documents its journey that would be wonderful, not just for Aptera, but for the American auto industry (even for the domestic economy). I also hope that the Federal EV tax credit will be extended to the Aptera. The American auto industry is a mess and America really needs the Aptera right now.

I agree. They should have a long discussion about this to the public.

@@ernest795 Maybe not to the public, but to investors or potential investors.

2nd that

"keep the pockets lined"

Gadzo! A seasoned and well thought View/Thank You

Sandy is a huge part of that. If aptera can reach production and scale a lot of the credit for it goes to Sandy and CPC.

I really think Aptera will struggle to branch out to other vehicle segments. The lightning in a bottle for them is this hyper efficient electric solar sports car. If they try to make an suv, truck or hot hatch they are competing on price with tesla and others with directly comparable products. That said if Aptera only ever makes their niche and owns that segment they can still do very well. Globally the market for a sporty solar 2 seater with substantial storage should be solid; boomers are retired, those not having kids are more common, and 1 of 2 vehicles being a commuter focused for a couple is a solid choice (I'd love to see the Telo + Aptera combo long term). Perhaps they can branch into a solo version or motorcycle version (which are not crowded markets) and still reuse some of their core tech and experience but I really think anything bigger than the Aptera is a tough space to compete.

@@ccibinel I tend to agree with you on that. I'm excited to see what actual plans they have for other vehicles, but right now I'm having a hard time imagining how they transfer the magic of this car into different vehicle types. Maybe a four door. But suv/truck/van? I can't see it, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong Honestly maybe a semi is the one that could actually work. Looks don't matter as much as performance and efficiency there, so they could go crazy making it aero, unlike anything else on the market, and probably sell quite a few

@@ccibinel I don't think Aptera has plans to move out of their segment but they will offer other vehicles in the hyper-efficient solar power segment of the market that they will own.

I think the logical thing is build your car, sell it, make gain, solidify your market lead, then expand. Tesla should be considered an exception because of its eccentric founder.

@@adimchionyenadum2962 most companies going for growth will extend themselves with debts or additional investors, in order to fund that growth. The theory is that whatever you lose by taking on additional investments or by servicing that debts will be dramatically outweighed by the game you get from faster and bigger growth

Good info. This answers the questions some had about what body this is: P1, P2, etc.

Why wasn't she in the UAE? Her and her co worker should hve been there making videos and interviewing people like they did in France. The UAE is where the cash is and with her interviewing skills along with Chris would be paramount in showing us how the people in the UAE accept the Aptera.

@@billsmith5960 Someone had to mind the store and I had this appointment with her sense November. In fact there were less then 6 people in the bulding, friday is there work from home day if they can. The rest of the leaders are in the UAE and Chris M. can make videos.

That is a rather strange comment. They have a building for assembly. They don't need metal stamping machines. They don't need welding robots. Most of the vehicle is carbon fiber in one form or another.

@@fredbecker607 That's what I said. They don't need those things. What's strange about it?

I believe they have some robots. They may be used to apply glue and move parts from storage to the appropriate part of the assembly line. Also, the line is mechanized by robotic sleds that move the assembly through the assembly stations.

@@robinpettit7827 They only have that in a 3D program.

This is true. Tesla was the first American car company in how many years?

Yep - apart from the molds most parts tooling are relatively commodity. If Aptera didn't find CPC no way they would be pressing their own carbon.

Frisker is an example of this.

Solana’s blockchain is also like this. 70% failure rate on transactions but very fast. Never the right way to do things. Nice and steady wins the race.

Actually, an excellent point.

And thus part of the appeal to me.

@@iansmith6728 It will be great seeing Aptera make it on the roads.

@@iansmith6728 Me too, just like the attraction of the original VW Beetle in that both are lean. AND Aptera is also mean!

Nobody seems to point out what this implies to me - they hope to sell them at way over what it costs to make them - as an investor and accelerator I'm scared about how much my Aptera will really cost when it becomes available. If the price increases by more than 10% from what I was originally quoted, I'll pass.....

@@ericstarmer7779 I remind myself that our investment is in the planet. Climate science is ominous. We owe our best effort to our kids and grandkids. I am an investor on a retirement fixed income. If Aptera fails, I will have given my best in spite of the fact that I will feel the financial impact. I believe in the technology. I know that I can't save the planet. I can do only my little part. Good luck my friend.

I'm really hoping my faith in Aptera doesn't follow a route similar to my faith in Brammo! Both innovative, unique concepts...

But one has to recognize the quality problems BYD has. IF the make it to the US market, service and repairs will be a major issue.

I think Aptera was below the radar and everyone was focused o electric CARS that was going to be the future and demand for the was going to be through the roof (regardless of cost). These other car companies were expected to be the next Tesla.

That's true. Tesla realized that just making one model wasn't going to cut it. So once the current product was on it's way to production, the new product development team was working on the next model all while current product development was doing their job. Then there was the expansion of the company on an international level.

Good point, thank you! The real problem is when a company doesn't direct the income to improve itself, and just take it home as a profit.

@@liorsinger1 - That's right. This is why using Tesla as an example and somehow people try to use it to somehow compare that company to Aptera confuses me. I am thinking because Tesla is successful and they want to correlate that company's successes to show how Aptera will be better. That's like looking into a crystal ball and getting the answer you believe.

That's how the Wall Street mafia takes control: You can be absolutely sure that those 10 C-suite execs are hand-picked by the VC to be loyal to the VC, not the company. The company is just a vessel whose success is a secondary concern. It's why Aptera has not taken on a VC investor: They don't want to give up control like last time, and I applaud them for it.

Why are you NOT paying attention?

@@rchender I get tired of watching videos that tease but never give definitive answers as to WHEN.

@@ModernNeandertal Lord give me patience and give it to me right now! 😉

@@ModernNeandertal tooling and manufacturing partnerships take time to create, what is important is that progress is being made. they have the tooling to stamp out car body parts(in italy) so they can start working on actually assembly process design. they have partnerships for the battery packs and wheel hub motors, just need to setup the supply chains for those parts. those are the key elements aside from all the interior and interface parts after that it will all start to come together

model s and roadster (as well as x) were luxury cars to gain revenue to fund the manufacturing of model 3 and Y

There was an earlier company founded by these same guys, but they lost control of the company in a board fight, and the company pivoted to make four wheelers in an effort to chase government grants. It eventually failed and was liquidated in 2011. These guys had an opportunity to repurchase the original IP in 2019, and decided to take another crack at their original vision of making the worlds most efficient car. And to be frank, what they are doing *is* a completely different model of production. There has never been a car built in this manner before. There is almost nothing they are doing that is copying what others have done. If you want to criticize someone for copying others, look at almost any other EV startup. These guys are doing things differently, and they're likely to bring these to market after spending ~$250M, where most EV startups burn through billions before failing.

@@GoClimbARockEh I dont really agree with much of that, it seems to me from an interview with fambro when asked about buying back the IP that the company went bust. So I dont think they have bought any IP back, they have instead taken a design patent ( registration) on the general shape of the vehicle, thats a very weak way to protect the very specific shape only. Considering they modified a shape already published it doesn't mean much. I dont think there is much new in the manufacture, its all been done before, maybe the bent solar panels is novel, carbon fibre shells etc all done before. What concerns me is that they have taken money from people who want one of these vehicles, and they think their investment is going to get them one of these cars. But alas their money has been spent without any oversight, they have had cash to burn, other peoples cash who believe in them, and the chances of them actually producing one vehicle for sale in very slim indeed. Also they have been saying these vehicles will be cheap, I think they will find they are going to be very expensive vehicles. The directors I dont think are being very honest about some basic things: no actual test data available, all figures are theoretical, I dont think they have any idea of how much it will cost to produce a vehicle.

@@namenotshown9277 you have an interesting take, but it's mostly pure conjecture. It's established fact that they lost control of the company, and that the original company went bust, and that the original IP was sold to a company in China. Chris and Steve were able to buy it back in 2018. That's all on the record. No one who invested in this company is doing so because they think it's going to get them a car. They do it because they believe the company might be worth something down the line. If they want a car, they also made an investment. As to burning through cash, that's what startups do. Investors put money in so that the company can spend that money in order to build production capacity out. You say they're not being honest, but you don't provide any evidence of that. It seems to me they're being very honest. As honest and open as they can be, given the nature of business itself. I look forward to them coming into production in the next year.

I think CA said in some recent interview that they could provide a set of replacement body parts to customers for $10k, not that it costs them $10k to make them, but I'm not sure. A large portion of the expense of making those parts is the amortized expense of creating the actual molds, and the molds are supposed to last for 100k parts each, IIRC. Some quick math: we know they've spent ~$120M total as of Dec 2023, so let's guess that $40M of that was on producing the molds (this number is probably high). If those molds can produce 100k cars, then the molds themselves cost Aptera $400 per car to make. Sure, there are a lot of assumptions in there, but I seriously doubt they are spending anywhere near $10k per car to build the body components

Say Aptera orders a week’s production of body panels (if 20 tubs are needed per day, that’s 100 of each) at $100 each, that’s a $10,000 order. So on for each part; very capital intensive. Even though they’re playing the game much smarter than the rest, it’s the same game.

@@lamboman2 For the world of me, I could not fathom your numbers. Could you go over in a different way? How is it 10,000 $/ week is capital intensive?

Yeah, I think the root of this calculation is the person mistaking cost of the tooling for the cost of the actual part.

@@Kukaboora because there are over 2000 parts to pay for and coordinate the shipment of, every week, from cheap screws to expensive panels; that’s many checks to write, constantly, while managing the delay of getting paid.

🤣😆

I am a fan of BYD. They are EXTREMELY successful and PROFITABLE. They are battling Tesla for dominance of the EV space worldwide. They have extensive, well funded R&D, really good engineering, and really, really, good business practices. And, as mentioned, the backing of the Chinese government.

Good to see Aptera is saving the planet and going after making money. I don't understand why they told us they only need to make 6K to be sustainable. I would have thought they would say something like, we are here to save the planet and make small money. As you know, that's what investors want to see and especially after Aptera does an IPO.

@@billsmith5960they want us to see just how easily their methods will produce early profitability