After our expose of the scandal over at Aptera Motors, Aptera quickly put out a new monthly newsletter -- the third one for the year. This was revised from an earlier version, and is now subtitled the "new Constant Contact Aptera Newsletter" and no longer contains phrases like, "So strap on your cowboy boots ladies and gents....we're goin' ta' Texas!!".
What's interesting is what was said and what was not said as they responded to our claims.
The newsletter mentions an appearance of the 2e at a Texas football game and that the company is working on reapplying for DOE loans -- in contradiction to earlier reports that they were already submitted. Most importantly, they took the time to address our expose's core claim.
We cited sources stating that the vehicle was ready to roll out in Q4 of 2008, including the oft-cited delay of the roll-down windows which had actually been designed in February of 2008. Our expose stressed that when Paul Wilbur (Aptera's current CEO) and his team took over, they insisted on the redesign of 60-80% of the vehicle, often micromanaging the process down to the component level.
The newsletter doesn't deny these claims. Quite to the contrary, it embraces the fact that the company undertook significant redesigns a year ago, but justifies it by claiming that they were necessary. They cite the specific example of changing the composite formulation to get a better finish and "high quality, cost effective manufacturing". They also claim "These same materials would not have passed the FMVSS standards for flammability."
In the interests of having both sides heard on this issue, we can now reveal what, exactly, those composite formulation changes were: the original 2e shell was fiberglass over DIAB foam cores using vinyl ester resin, while the new shell uses epoxy resin. While this may sound like a relatively small change, it basically meant hitting the reset button on the vehicles' production process.
What exactly do these different resins mean?
---
Composites, by definition, are materials made from several different substances with different properties, designed to get the best properties of each. The best lightweight vehicle composites use layers of high tensile strength fabric around a lightweight, rigid foam core, with the fabric impregnated with a durable resin to make it rigid. This yields several times the strength to weight ratio of the best steels, as well as other desirable properties.
The most common resin type, historically, is polyester. While inferior to other resins in terms of most structural properties, it's cheap, at only about $18/quart. It interlinks and sets as solvent evaporates from the formulation, leading the product to shrink about 9% (as well as retaining a "new boat smell" for a period). This shrinkage means that the fabric beneath the resin becomes more visible, yielding a finish worse than that of most cars (say, a Camry or a Prius). As this is the most common resin, most composite vehicles that one might picture -- such as most corvettes -- are made with this resin, and that is the degree of finish you can expect. The weak bonding strength of polyester means that it is more prone to delamination of the fabric in wet environments, although this generally isn't an issue for cars. This weakness to delamination generally limits its use to glass fiber, which is less prone to delamination than more exotic fibers such as carbon fiber and kevlar. It also limits the ability to bond repairs and requires a larger joint between parts being bonded together.
On the other end of the spectrum is epoxy resin. Coming in at about $40/quart, it is quite expensive. Unlike polyester, it sets due to the reaction of two different reactants which are consumed in the process. This is sometimes a slow process, and can be trickier to work with (for example, to prevent sticking to the molds). Some people have severe reactions to epoxy fumes and dust; however, it has no outgassing, and due to lower shrinkage (about 3%), provides a better finish. Epoxy products tend to be strong, and unlike with polyester and vinyl ester, flexibility can be customized. Epoxy also has an extremely high bonding strength, allowing for its use with more exotic fibers and making it more suitable for bonding composite elements together (regardless of what resin they were manufactured with).
Vinyl ester resin has an epoxy backbone, but bonds in the manner of polyester. At about $25/quart, it is only marginally more expensive than polyester, but slightly outclasses even epoxy in terms of structural strength. Vinyl ester has approximately 20% the bonding strength of epoxy, although several times higher than that of polyester. On the other hand, it is generally more resistant to heat-induced delamination than epoxy, an issue that can be of practical consequence for a composite car. Vinyl ester sets in the same manner as polyester -- relatively quickly, with the downside of similar outgassing and shrinkage as polyester, and thus similar finish (Corvette-like rather than Prius-like).
Concerning flammability: not only do vehicles like the 2e not have to pass the same FMVSS standards that cars do, but we were unable to find anyone who works with composites who felt that the difference in flash points between epoxy and vinyl ester would have any practical difference for such an electric three wheeler. Quite to the contrary, vinyl ester is approved for use in everything from internal combustion engine parts to helmets -- areas where if the fire danger was significant, you would never expect approval. Polyester and vinyl ester have similar flash points, and polyester has long been the most common composite resin used in vehicle manufacture.
"Fire resistance of straight laminating resin is like any similar plastic. It will burn if you give it reason to - a strong heat/energy source," said Adriaan Snyman, a composite boat builder. "Bottom line is that metal cars burn every day. Electric cars will too. Good electrical design and testing will reduce this risk hugely over time."
While one can certainly disagree about the merits of vinyl ester versus epoxy (we found a wide variety of opinions on the topic in the field), our sources from Aptera were consistent on two things. One, even if one argued for using epoxy over vinyl ester -- debatable, given the low price point and high production rate target of this vehicle -- it certainly didn't merit throwing away a nearly complete production process rather than making a later model revision. Aptera was a company that sorely needed to start moving products to earn greater publicity and investor confidence. And secondly, Paul was not an engineer; he should not have been making specific engineering decisions, let alone ones so fundamental as which resin to use.
---
The 2e newsletter didn't stop at claims about the resin: they also discussed how the vehicle was put together. They noted that the design of the vehicle as primarily two shell components, one top and one bottom, posed various quality and warranty problems. What they didn't mention, and what my sources inform me, is that Chris Anthony, former head of Aptera's composites operations, had already begun this transition before Paul's team came onboard. The two-part shell was only done for prototyping, not production, as it was easier to produce. All of my sources who read the newsletter and commented on the issue were in agreement that this was Paul's team taking credit for Chris's ideas.
What happened to Chris? Shortly after the arrival of Paul's team, Chris left the composite shop, which he had run since the company's inception and which, under his leadership, had rapidly churned out Aptera prototypes on much lower budget and with significantly fewer staff. Sources are unclear over whether he was forced out of the position or left voluntarily.
---
One swirling controversy that the newsletter failed to mention was that of Laura Marion -- Aptera's CFO who was, in 2006, accused by the SEC of cooking the books at Delphi. Indeed, a source inside Aptera states that Paul was furious about who "leaked" information about Laura to the public -- despite the availability of this information in public documents.
According to sources, shortly after this information became public, Paul organized a "pep talk" to boost sagging employee morale. He told employees that the Aptera Forum had been infiltrated by competitors such as "Tesla" and "Fisker", and that from now on, anyone caught reading or posting on the forum -- very popular among employees -- would be "out" (fired). Ignoring issues of enforceability, it seems unlikely that Aptera's employees would be unable to tell that some of the company's harshest critics on the forum these days had been its biggest fans for years prior to the recent scandals.
With Aptera's cash reserves dwindling, one might wonder why they didn't pursue the approach Tesla is reported to be considering: a capital-raising IPO. In a traditional Initial Public Offering, founders and early investors cash out on their investment by offering shares of the company up for public investment. However, when large amounts of capital need to be raised in tight capital markets, a company that has the public eye can launch an IPO to raise money to instead expand operations. This leaves the investors with a smaller stake in a more valuable, growing company.
Why Aptera never pursued this approach is unclear, although most speculation is revolving around Laura Marion's background. As time goes on, it increasingly appears that getting the ATVM loans is Aptera's plan A, B, and C. But will the DOE really be interested in investing money in a business troubled by the same problems that are driving off private capital? Only time will tell.