raptor213
Elio Addict
With the swirling speculation and hearsay surrounding the dubious and mysterious ATVM loan, I decided to research a bit. While some/most of this might be known by many of you, I felt a condensed synopsis to review how we got here could be beneficial.
The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program was instituted by law in 2007 with $25 billion in direct loan authority appropriated by Congress. Since its inception, just over $8 billion has been disbursed to corporations like Ford Motor Company, Nissan Motors, Tesla Motors, and lesser known automotive suppliers and startups. More than $16 billion in lending authority remains available for disbursement to qualified applicants.
Enter Aptera Motors.
For those that are unfamiliar, a California materials engineering firm called Accelerated Composites rebranded itself as Aptera Motors before the 2008 financial collapse with a mission of developing an ultra-efficient, three-wheeled, two-passenger, composite construction vehicle. And develop it, they did. If all else held true, their Aptera 2 Series stood poised to be labeled the most efficient consumer transport vehicle in the world, with an all-electric Aptera 2e and a series plug-in hybrid variant called the Aptera 2h.
When the leadership at Aptera Motors filed their application package for a loan through the U.S. Dept. of Energy's ATVM office, they figured their product and corporate vision, with all of the stated benefits in reducing national oil consumption, supporting and/or substantiating American manufacturing jobs, etc., aligned perfectly with the loan program intent. However, their initial application was denied as a result of a legal interpretation that vehicles with less than four wheels did not qualify for funds under the letter of the law.
The original language as the law had been written, whether intentional or an oversight, ruled that the program was only eligible to manufacturers of and component suppliers to vehicles governed by federal motor vehicle safety, emissions, efficiency, and other regulatory guidelines. Unfortunately, this stipulation warranted that eligible vehicles needed to have four or more wheels in order for their application packages to pass muster in even the earliest review stages. While not explicitly stated in original documentation, Aptera's application denial and its associated legal interpretation ruling substantiating that action made it very clear.
Moving forward, the leadership team at Aptera Motors believed they still had a compelling project and a deserving loan application for the DOE to reconsider. So they successfully lobbied their local California delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives in a campaign to amend the language of the ATVM loan program eligibility criteria to include a new category classified as "ultra efficient vehicles", defined as:
"
Ultra efficient vehicle (defined as fully closed compartment vehicle designed to carry at least two (2) adult passengers that achieves either (x) at least 75 miles per gallon while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel or (y) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a hybrid electric-gasoline or electric-diesel vehicle or (z) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a fully electric vehicle)
"
Now that the loan eligibility criteria was in their favor, Aptera Motors re-submitted their loan application package. Unfortunately, the startup company became insolvent, declared bankruptcy, and had its assets liquidated before ever receiving a second response from the Dept. of Energy loan program office.
Enter Elio Motors.
There are similarities between Aptera and Elio. Both companies showcase prototype vehicles that are/were fully-enclosed, carried two occupants, had three wheels in a tadpole configuration sporting a front-wheel drivetrain, and featured driving controls representative of a standard automobile. Both were upstart companies in a dominated market where cash flow infusion to bring a viable road-worthy vehicle to mass-market production is not impossible to achieve but very close.
But there are also many distinct and telling differences. Aptera sought to bring revolutionary powerplant, drivetrain, fabrication, and assembly materials/technologies/processes to bear while Elio strives to incorporate no new technologies, thereby reducing or entirely negating technical risk. Aptera intended on selling their two models of ultra efficient vehicles at price points between $25,000-40,000 while Elio has a fixed base model price of $7,300 established for the first 65,000 deposit holders. Aptera reportedly raised as much as $24 million in capital as it attempted to gear up for production and unofficial reports indicate refundable deposits surpassed 5,000 but not much more, whereas Elio has raised over $99 million to date and has more than 57,000 refundable and non-refundable reservations and/or purchase commitments at various levels.
Elio has Aptera Motors and its prior company executives to thank for breaking down the barriers of entry for manufacturers of three-wheeled vehicles to at least qualify for consideration under the ATVM loan program guidelines.
The Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program was instituted by law in 2007 with $25 billion in direct loan authority appropriated by Congress. Since its inception, just over $8 billion has been disbursed to corporations like Ford Motor Company, Nissan Motors, Tesla Motors, and lesser known automotive suppliers and startups. More than $16 billion in lending authority remains available for disbursement to qualified applicants.
Enter Aptera Motors.
For those that are unfamiliar, a California materials engineering firm called Accelerated Composites rebranded itself as Aptera Motors before the 2008 financial collapse with a mission of developing an ultra-efficient, three-wheeled, two-passenger, composite construction vehicle. And develop it, they did. If all else held true, their Aptera 2 Series stood poised to be labeled the most efficient consumer transport vehicle in the world, with an all-electric Aptera 2e and a series plug-in hybrid variant called the Aptera 2h.
When the leadership at Aptera Motors filed their application package for a loan through the U.S. Dept. of Energy's ATVM office, they figured their product and corporate vision, with all of the stated benefits in reducing national oil consumption, supporting and/or substantiating American manufacturing jobs, etc., aligned perfectly with the loan program intent. However, their initial application was denied as a result of a legal interpretation that vehicles with less than four wheels did not qualify for funds under the letter of the law.
The original language as the law had been written, whether intentional or an oversight, ruled that the program was only eligible to manufacturers of and component suppliers to vehicles governed by federal motor vehicle safety, emissions, efficiency, and other regulatory guidelines. Unfortunately, this stipulation warranted that eligible vehicles needed to have four or more wheels in order for their application packages to pass muster in even the earliest review stages. While not explicitly stated in original documentation, Aptera's application denial and its associated legal interpretation ruling substantiating that action made it very clear.
Moving forward, the leadership team at Aptera Motors believed they still had a compelling project and a deserving loan application for the DOE to reconsider. So they successfully lobbied their local California delegation from the U.S. House of Representatives in a campaign to amend the language of the ATVM loan program eligibility criteria to include a new category classified as "ultra efficient vehicles", defined as:
"
Ultra efficient vehicle (defined as fully closed compartment vehicle designed to carry at least two (2) adult passengers that achieves either (x) at least 75 miles per gallon while operating on gasoline or diesel fuel or (y) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a hybrid electric-gasoline or electric-diesel vehicle or (z) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while operating as a fully electric vehicle)
"
Now that the loan eligibility criteria was in their favor, Aptera Motors re-submitted their loan application package. Unfortunately, the startup company became insolvent, declared bankruptcy, and had its assets liquidated before ever receiving a second response from the Dept. of Energy loan program office.
Enter Elio Motors.
There are similarities between Aptera and Elio. Both companies showcase prototype vehicles that are/were fully-enclosed, carried two occupants, had three wheels in a tadpole configuration sporting a front-wheel drivetrain, and featured driving controls representative of a standard automobile. Both were upstart companies in a dominated market where cash flow infusion to bring a viable road-worthy vehicle to mass-market production is not impossible to achieve but very close.
But there are also many distinct and telling differences. Aptera sought to bring revolutionary powerplant, drivetrain, fabrication, and assembly materials/technologies/processes to bear while Elio strives to incorporate no new technologies, thereby reducing or entirely negating technical risk. Aptera intended on selling their two models of ultra efficient vehicles at price points between $25,000-40,000 while Elio has a fixed base model price of $7,300 established for the first 65,000 deposit holders. Aptera reportedly raised as much as $24 million in capital as it attempted to gear up for production and unofficial reports indicate refundable deposits surpassed 5,000 but not much more, whereas Elio has raised over $99 million to date and has more than 57,000 refundable and non-refundable reservations and/or purchase commitments at various levels.
Elio has Aptera Motors and its prior company executives to thank for breaking down the barriers of entry for manufacturers of three-wheeled vehicles to at least qualify for consideration under the ATVM loan program guidelines.
