The road-legal car has a top speed of 145 kilometers (90 miles) per hour. On a sunny day, its battery range is around 710 kilometers (441 miles) on roads, and around 550 kilometers (342 miles) off-road, depending on the surface. In cloudy conditions, the team estimates the range could be 50 kilometers less.
This actually seems pretty good. I suppose those numbers would go down over time and depending on how dirty they are.
Those filthy numbers will go down all day
Wait what are we talking about?
That’s by draining the battery, not by sustaining a charge. If it gets 710km in the sun and 660km in cloudy weather, it probably gets 610 without any solar panels at all.
Wait, someone above stated that this took them a week and half of travel time. If they could go 441 miles on a single charge, why did it take them an additional 8-9 days to accomplish the remaining 179 miles?
To charge the battery with solar while standing still I guess
Ugly as sin but I’m down if I can drive it mostly solar and plug in when needed in a more temperate climate
Edit: I feel like a lot of you are forgetting it just needs to get you to work, where it sits in the sun for 8-12 hours, then home where it can be plugged into homes or left outside for non-homeowners. If it can build enough charge during that work parking lot for me to get home and then top up on the home charger, that’s a huge plus over just plugging in and eating grid energy all the time. I’m not expecting the thing to have no battery and just convert sunlight to movement like magic jfc….
You wouldn't, there is actually very little energy in solar for an array the size of a vehicle roof, and it would likely take days to recharge.
Well, I wouldn’t expect a bunch of engineering students to be on the cutting edge of style anyway, so I’ll cut them some slack in that department.
Www.Aptera.us has 700 watts of solar and consumes ~100wh/mile.
Powered only by the sun and pure ugliness
The car is a prototype built by a team of students to maximize sun-exposed surface area and minimize air drag, wtf does it matter if it's ugly to you? Fucking car fetishists.
There is no actual information on how self sufficient the car actually is. There is only 1 number which states how long the car drives on a sunny day with solar+battery combined.
The car probably needs to charge for days via the solar panels in order to fill up the battery.
In cloudy conditions, the team estimates the range could be 50 kilometers less.
In other words, the solar only adds about 50-60km/day to the battery.
Another case of putting solar panels on specific things not being a great idea. Chuck the panels on a convenient surface pointing at the sun and connect them to the grid. Connect your load to the grid. Job done.
We can talk about solar windows/roads/cars/rivers/canopies when we've run out of space on houses and commercial roofs. They already have grid connections, structure, and are protected from damage.
the solar only adds about 50-60km/day to the battery.
How do you say that so nonchalantly
Compared to the 700km claimed range (which seems very optimistic), that implies you would need to let the car sit for two weeks to charge on solar alone - more if the weather is not totally perfect or there is any shade.
So if you're wanting to do a multi-day road trip, it's of stuff all use. You're going to be relying on the big battery and the grid; the solar is a rounding error.
If you're planning to do <50km/day commuting/shopping etc... please don't get an off-road SUV tank, and probably not anything with 700km of range. Get something that weighs half as much and put 5x as much solar on your roof. It'll still be cheaper overall and the panels will last longer.
If you're actually in the small segment that needs off-road capability and an SUV (say, a farm run-around), congratulations. Definitely don't get a car with solar on the roof because it will immediately be covered in dust, and the minor dents and whoops-a-small-tree-fell-on-it will break the panels in the first year. You also probably want to park it in the shade wherever possible.
Again, stick 5x the panels on the garage roof and get something cheaper.
It can be useful if you live out of the grid, like in the middle of Morocco dessert.
Yeah, nothing on how much is pre-loaded battery and how much is solar charging, or how long the trip was.
None. It was entirely solar based. This is their 2nd vehicle smaller and lighter than the camper they made. So 440 ranged is fully charged, otherwise 620 miles in a week and a half off of just solar.
there doesn't need to be. It's not. plain and simple. There just isn't enough area on a car's body (remember, most of them won't even be oriented properly most of the time) for panels to generate enough power for self sufficiency. Even if the panels were 100% efficient. This will always be the case for any solar car.
How on earth can they get that much solar area power on a car? Many others have tried and it has always said there is just not enough space on a car to generate the amount of solar you need less ultra light, impractical cars. Feels like BS especially since there are no details.
There is no bullshit. they claimed 620 miles in a week and a half off of just solar power. The converter they used is 97% efficient. They just hid the week and a half travel time.
If I calculated this right, assuming it drove continuously, they were only able to travel at around 2.5MPH with this thing?
Most likely the car was parked during the day and charging from the sun as it would take hours to charge even a small battery. They then drove at night/early evening/late afternoon over a couple of hours at around 30mph until the battery was empty and repeated.
If it was 10 days of driving with an average of 62 miles a day, that only needs to be a very small battery even compared to even a gen 1 Renault Zoe that has 22kwh. They could probably get away with 15kwh or so (approx. 4 miles per kwh), which would make charging it off car sized solar panels possible in a day.
Majority of Europeans only do very low daily mileage. The UK journey average is only 8 miles. So this car works for those sort of use cases, although there are always going to be outliers who need more, so good job there already cars that cover them.
I imagine the car wasn't moving for the entirety of the 2 and half weeks. Drivers probably had to sleep.
Even accounting for 10 hours a day to rest, that still only comes out to an average speed of 4.4MPH over 10 days. This is obviously mostly charge time I'd imagine, but you still need to account for that time when you're embarking on a trip.
I'm curious how much of that really is charge time. They may have left it charging all through the daylight hours and then drove 60 miles every evening.
So the solar panels contributed an effective 1.2 MPH to the trip.
That car looks very funny
And yet, still better looking than the cybertruck.
Misread headline as “world’s worst off-road solar suv” and thought, “it’s nice there’s enough competition in this space for there to be a worst one.”
Imagine what the best one could do
Impressive work by the students IMO, a 1200kg EV campervan that achieves a realistic range extension with its solar power roof. Great to see that this is even possible with current solar tech though - I wonder what something like this would look like in the future with more efficient panels.
Let's say this matures, what would be the stand out differences between something like this, and a normal combustion vehicle? The main advantages the combustion has would be really good fuel density (longer range) and no waiting on the batteries to recharge, however the solar vehicle is much more lightweight (harder to get stuck, as mentioned in the article) and requires almost no maintenance... maybe just dusting off the panels after driving through a sandy region
My gosh that’s hideous.
Literally looks like The Homer — the Car Built for Homer.
uses “lightweight and robust” composite materials to cut weight
Pretty great as an experiment. I wonder how this would fare in crash tests, whether there's a way to make composites work in practical scenarios.
Ok now do british columbia
Of course its the Dutch.
This is a neat project....and terrible reporting.
Did they start out with any charge? How long to charge it fully via solar? How long it took them to do their trip? You could easily read this and think they did it by driving the full range (one of the few stats they give) out every day unless you're knowledgeable enough to see what they're not telling you. Is that range at 30mph? People are reading range figures and thinking, "well, gee, the EVs I can buy only do X and this does Y!", which isn't comparable at all without how that range is defined. If those figures shouldn't be compared to regular cars, then say it in the article! This is a 20-30 mile a day charged-by-solar-in-the-desert-near-the-equator vehicle, which isn't nothing, but not really as presented. Greenwashing (it's probably not) or whatever this should be called doesn't help the needed planetary shift away from fossil fuels.
Looking for other reporting (where are other commenters finding the duration of the trip?):
Guardian - no mention of time.
bonus: “We hope this can be an inspiration to car manufacturers such as Land Rover and BMW to make it a more sustainable industry. The car was actually very comfortable in the off-road conditions as it is very light and does not get stuck.”
Remind me how it was so lightweight again? Does it have LR & BMW level noise damping? It surely had AC and all that right? I don't know because that info wasn't provided. You don't need to convince LR and BMW, you need to convince consumers to go without those.
Daily Mail - no mention of time
Designboom - no mention of time
Jalopnik - no mention of time, which is disappointing for a car specific site
This is a cool project and it's cool university students did it, but why leave out such a misleading pieces of information? It's bandied about as a "showing people it's possible" thing as in, "you could have a solar car!", but leave out all the bits that really make it possible, like forgoing AC or the daily miles driven. That none of the reporting on this has this information either means [puts on tinfoil hat] it's a vast conspiracy to make green stuff look more palatable [tinfoil off], it's all confluence of interest in making it look more palatable, or the information just wasn't given out, or they're all referencing the same source news-wire style. Frustrating.
Where's the real information? I feel like we're in a race against time to move away from fossil fuels so things like this need to not be misleading.
Edit - I'm stupid, it does say week and a half long...which only proves the point I think in not contextualizing range and such, because that's a long time
Okay now imagine a future where we're able to beam power down from space, which is .
I know it's probably not viable for a million reasons but how cool would it be if this tech truly is viable and the air force is able to develop it to a point where they can start offering it to the public, to support infrastructure, such as in-transit charging, or even just to support rural applications like farming? Would probably help with climate change at least.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
