A directory of links and ideas on how to build an open source car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_car
https://news.mit.edu/2024/design-future-car-with-8000-design-options-1205
https://github.com/Mohamedelrefaie/DrivAerNet
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.09624
Most new car companies are using the luxury car model to support revenue. I am thinking the opposite. The opposite can work if designs are open sourced, and a number of car part manufacturers each obtain a stake in the company.
according to the 5 steps:
"1. Question every requirement
Before changing anything in your processes, the first step of Musk's algorithm is to create clarity about every requirement that exists today.
That clarity can be made by attaching a person—and a name—to every requirement. That is, each requirement should come with the name of the person who made that requirement.
Musk says; "You should never accept that a requirement came from a department, such as from 'the legal department' or 'the safety department.' You need to know the name of the real person who made that requirement."
Once that clarity is achieved—that is, when every requirement has the person's name attached—then you can start questioning whether these requirements make sense. No matter how smart or how 'powerful' that person is.
Musk: "Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous because people are less likely to question them. Always do so, even if the requirement came from me. Then make the requirements less dumb."
Musk’s first step of his algorithm reminds me of the ICE “ABC” tool; A - Assume nothing, turn over all the stones and interrogate the detail. B - Be curious, ask yourself what it is I don’t understand here? and C - Confirm the important, what are we trying to deliver or achieve and what don’t we want.
- Delete any part of the process you can
The second step of Musk's algorithm is all about subtraction—a widely undervalued habit in management. In this case, it is all about deleting any part of the process you can.
In fact, it is all about deleting just a bit more than you feel comfortable with.
Musk: "You may have to add [parts or processes] back later. In fact, if you do not end up adding back at least 10% of them, then you didn't delete enough."
So often in client design work they find it so easy to add to a process or design and not to reduce or take away and simplify. This is a heuristic that is hard wired, people value losing things twice as much as adding or gaining, so when you think let’s get rid of this bit or the design or process, you have to work twice as hard to justify and commit to it, but it must be done.
Step one and two are the whole end to end process, then go to step 3.
- Simplify and optimize
Only when you have walked through steps one and two can you start by simplifying and optimising (parts of) your processes.
The algorithm and the order of steps protects you from doing unnecessary work—it keeps you from improving (parts of processes) that you do not need in the end.
Musk: "A common mistake is to simplify and optimize a part or a process that should not exist."
- Accelerate cycle time
The fourth step of Musk's algorithm is all about speed. It is about finding ways to speed up your bureaucratic processes. In our work with culture and performance, especially in the NHS, bureaucracy is cited as one of the biggest energy suckers for people and teams. If total energy available is 100% then this is often at 30-35% of total energy used, how much loss is that? This energy could be used for productive work!
"Every process can be speeded up," says Musk. "But only do this after you have followed the first three steps. In the Tesla factory, I mistakenly spent a lot of time accelerating processes that I later realized should have been deleted."
- Automate
The fifth and last step of Musk's algorithm involves automation. Now that you have clarity about your processes and have deleted any unnecessary parts to speed up your bureaucratic processes, the final step is to look for what you can potentially automate.
Musk: "[Automate] comes last. The big mistake in [my factories] was that I began by trying to automate every step. We should have waited until all the requirements had been questioned, parts and processes deleted, and the bugs were shaken out."
Automation can be both decision making and mechanical and digital automation. In our current work to scale digital neighbourhoods across the Southwest of England, automation will be both about identifying people at risk, and supporting their decision-making, we have already identified where lack of clarity is on this. My decision will have a huge impact and can be automated. As for the AI tool that will help identify people who, with a different and earlier intervention, will lead more healthy and independent lives and the automation is remarkable."
After watching some videos of 3D printed engines, I have been curious of potentially developing a 3D printed car. It's not the first time I've explored this topic, but starting a repository would be a more organized way to store my thoughts and links.
Mechanics- engines, combustion, thermodynamics, to a person usually interested in computer and software, can appear quite mesmerizing. It certainly requires a different part of the brain to conceptualize, and exercising different parts of my brain is my way of keeping myself from becoming bored.
Create the Linux of Teslas
The following videos I watched today, and all no less than stellar:
First, a conventional, but transparent V8 engine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbhF7jTLlG4
Second, a completely hilarious blast from 1980s Japan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL_T4Lr0uu8
"I Tried 3D Printing a Gas-Powered Engine!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNVx6OBBx-k
I 3D Printed an Air-Powered Engine with Honda's VTEC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46jSDZTs8p4&t=1s
Adding a Carburetor to my 3D Printed Gas Engine, and now it RUNS! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO69UXBT5rE STL files: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1wnR04UQmxZq4GWXaFBBkNswchkaGefuF
I Made a Variable Valve Timing Air Engine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wzbuQT5O0M&t=18s --> Newer video shows the logical deduction to metal 3D printing since plastic tolerances for engines are impractically low using hobbyist equipment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJN1vbyNyTY
"3D Printers Metal Additive" Search query:
https://markforged.com/3d-printers/metal-x
https://nexa3d.com/blog/best-metal-3d-printers
Mechanical dexterity is not my forte, so watching some 3Dp printed parts operate have quite a bit more tolerance than I could design myself. I'm not great at all with 3D design programs, whether it is Blender, CAD or other software. That said, if someone could design a 3D printed engine, I could potentially download it and buy a 3D printer to produce and assemble all the parts.
The engines I've been interested in are the opposed piston
https://www.aquariusengines.com/ https://achatespower.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoMotors (a company that went defunct in 2017, but had some famous backers)
and the inverse Wankel (rotary) engine:
https://www.liquidpiston.com/
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/11/this-inside-out-design-solves-most-of-the-rotary-engines-problems/
https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2024/03/a-new-take-on-the-rotary-engine/
Figure 4: LiquidPiston’s 25 hp XTS-210 (on left) compared to Kohler’s 25 hp KDW1003 (on right)
1986 Stirling Engine designed by NASA. 4 cylinder, 41mpg: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880002196.pdf (uses no Cobalt)
That is because these engines are potentially much simpler, and do not all (or any) require a crankshaft. While I've thought of electric motors, I've been exploring a basic commuter car that manyŞ could use, in places where electric charging is not feasible or simple.
https://www.eenewseurope.com/en/qorvo-set-to-go-head-to-head-with-ti-on-gan-ipm-power-modules could this power a golf cart? 2kW is a very light golf cart.
Of course, these are state of the art engines that haven't been sold to the market yet, and passenger vehicles for commuters, rather than pickup truck engines as in the opposed 3-cylinder (v6-like in terms of power) Ford F150https://news.yahoo.com/achates-engine-ford-f-150-pickup-targets-37-163000315.html target a price tag above $36,000, sometimes $43,000 for the more advanced engines that offer 37mpg. Thus i would like to focus on an extremely efficient 1 or 2 cylinder engine (or single, opposed piston engine).
I was piqued by this topic when I read about one of the most efficient engines, the Honda Super Cub, which is also historically, one of the best selling motorcycles since the 1950s:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SuperCub/comments/tsmm14/how_does_the_cub_get_its_mpg/
"The biggest factor to consider on those MPG claims is where the article is written... which country/market is claiming the specs. Most of the EU/UK literature claims higher numbers because UK gallons aren't the same as US gallons. The Cub's fuel tank holds the same amount of fuel regardless of locatino, but the measures and calculations are different. The new 2022 Cub is reportedly more fuel-efficient than the 2019-2021 models, but even the older ones were rated at 188 MPG (UK gallons).
I own the 2019 Super Cub, the 2021 Trail 125 (CT125), and the 2022 Navi 110. My Super Cub averages 125-135 MPG in town when the speeds are below 50 MPH, and it will return 109-115 MPG all day long at highway speeds of 60-65 MPH. I averaged 109 MPG while traveling 9750+ miles around the USA last year on it while pulling a 100-lb trailer behind it. The highest numbers that I've been able to achieve with my Cub has been 156.7 US MPG, and that was under real-world city riding at 40-45 MPH average speeds."
They currently average around 114.9MPG: https://www.fuelly.com/motorcycle/honda/ca125a_super_cub/2019/quasimotard/903362
The aerodynamics of a scooter are certainly more favorable than a Prius, but the abductive reasoninghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning exercise of this repository is determining how Elio Motors in 2008 reached the 84 mpg figure and how to reach 100mpg. That is, that number is approximately halfway between a Prius, which gets around 50-57MPG as a hybrid (but starts at $28,000), and a SuperCub, which gets an average of 114MPG. A three wheeled vehicle is also halfway between a 2 wheeled one and a four wheeled one.
Thus the main factors that contribute to the fuel economy are, size/weight, drag coefficient/wind resistance, and engine fuel efficiency. The Prius uses a [CVT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission#:~:text=A%20continuously%20variable%20transmission%20(CVT,gear%20ratios%20in%20fixed%20steps.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission#:~:text=A%20continuously%20variable%20transmission%20(CVT,gear%20ratios%20in%20fixed%20steps., as does the SuperCub. The SuperCub uses fuel injection, as does the Prius.
I am also interested in developing a fuel efficient car that could cost $10,000 or less (perhaps less if parts are sourced,3D printed, and assembled by oneself).
One of the benefits of a three-wheeled car over a 2 wheeled bike is additional stability (the car won't tip over). It would also allow commuters to drive to work without getting soaked in the rain like a biker would. It could also produce enough power (either via combustion or battery) to produce heat and AC. These are modern amenities. Once one starts to add built in navigation and infotainment software, then things get expensive, thus it might be a lot cheaper to include a built-in cell phone holder that clamps down a third party device instead of requiring a hard to manufacture/design touchscreen for a relatively low-tech car. Things like automatic emergency braking would imply several new requirements in new vehicles, thus this type of vehicle wouldn't be easy to sell in any number of quantities since it wouldn't be road legal. Some loopholes such as allowing a car to be sold unassembled (i.e. a kit car), or a trike, might allow for some exemptions. That said, other requirements, such as needing to wear a helmet for any two or three wheeled vehicle in certain states might need to be amendedhttps://www.fox8live.com/story/21995444/no-helmets-required-for-elio-vehicle-under-bill/.
The reasoning is, cars like the Aptera and the Elio were designed to be the helmet, with 5-star crash test ratings. The early website promotional material for the Aptera suggested a cage-like strength capable of withstanding elephant like weights on top of it. But not everyone will feel as safe in a small car compared to a Hummer, and this repository isn't here to justify the merits of why everyone should own an SUV, because then everyone would feel less safe some might opt for a cement truckhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MqDYI2Oq2A or even an MRAPhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP. One way to reduce collisions is to have more safe drivers.
Having spent years on the internet, eventually one will encounter some relatively scientific, or statistical terms such as the micromort: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
"A micromort (from micro- and mortality) is a unit of risk defined as a one-in-a-million chance of death.[1][2] Micromorts can be used to measure the riskiness of various day-to-day activities. A microprobability is a one-in-a million chance of some event; thus, a micromort is the microprobability of death. The micromort concept was introduced by Ronald A. Howard who pioneered the modern practice of decision analysis.[3]"
Travel
Activities that increase the death risk by roughly one micromort, and their associated cause of death:
Travelling 6 miles (9.7 km) by motorcycle (collision)[23][verification needed]
Travelling 17 miles (27 km) by walking (collision)[24]
Travelling 10 miles (16 km)[25] or 20 miles (32 km)[24] by bicycle (collision)[a]
Travelling 230 miles (370 km) by car (collision)[23][verification needed] (or 250 miles)[24]
Travelling 1,000 miles (1,600 km) by jet (collision)[25]
Travelling 6,000 miles (9,656 km) by train (collision)[23]
Thus, driving a car is 38 times less likely to involve a fatal accident, or, by some estimates, four timeshttps://krystof.litomisky.com/2023/02/20/life-death-and-motorcycles/#:~:text=Traveling%206%20miles%20by%20motorcycle,dangerous%20than%20driving%20a%20car. less likely.
I am interested in low-risk, high impact research. Though, sometimes any kind of research can appear expensive- while I am ok with doing my own unpaid, independent research, it can't be sustainable if I did it indefinitely. Eventually, I would run out of money. But that's a topic for another day, if that day ever arrives. Researching the facts shows, that mainstream TV have covered a story in August 2023, just three months ago, that only one new car in the United States sells for under $20,000: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mitsubishi-mirage-cheapest-new-car-2023-below-20000/
A great analysis on EVs https://getpocket.com/explore/item/20-questions-evs-environmentally-friendly
My blog post on affordable cars: https://medium.com/@techrecount/cafe-and-traditional-automakers-cynical-use-of-electric-cars-to-meet-standards-93b5e2b3b69c
Reading this, obviously is encouraging to "rando" hobbyists like me, who for years knew how expensive everything has become. In my humble opinion, a minimum wage should be a high enough wage to allow someone working full time to pay off a car in 3 years, and a condo or small house in 15 years. But since our system isn't designed that way, the only other options to create lower prices is to design more efficient vehicles and lower the cost of construction, some of which includes lowering the cost of new housing, and restoring antiquated zoning laws (or lack thereofhttps://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-01-20/sb9-single-family-zoning-reform-takes-time that existed before the early 1900s.
While the regulations that led to safer homes, such as building codes were and still are certainly important, the reality for the majority of Americans is that owning a new home is nearly impossible, with interest rates and inflation making rent the only option, something that eats into savings which could go towards a college fund or future medical care.
And while I would like to explore that more, I have another repository and [essay](https://github.com/hatonthecat/Biology/blob/main/I%20wrote%20t o%20Freeman%20Dyson%2015%20years%20ago%3B%20he%20responded%20nicely.pdf) for that.
In short, I'd like to put a small engine like this
into this:
"General Information
Model: Honda Super Cub 110 / NBC110BN
Engine and transmission
Displacement: 109.00 ccm (6.65 cubic inches)
Engine type: Single cylinder, four-stroke
Power: 8.00 HP (5.8 kW)) @ 7500 RPM
Torque: 8.50 Nm (0.9 kgf-m or 6.3 ft.lbs) @ 5500 RPM
Compression: 9.0:1
Bore x stroke: 50.0 x 55.6 mm (2.0 x 2.2 inches)
Fuel system: Injection. PGM-FI
Fuel control: Overhead Cams (OHC)
Cooling system: Air
Gearbox: 4-speed
Transmission type
Final Drive: Enclosed Chain
Fuel consumption: 1.58 litres/100 km (63.7 km/l or 149.82 mpg)
Greenhouse gases: 36.4 CO2 g/km. (CO2 – Carbon dioxide emission)"
8HP, however, is probably too weak for a three wheeled car. While it might be able to reach a top speed of 60MPH+ on 2 wheels, it will probably need at least 20HP to reach a top speed of 55mph, which I think would be acceptable for most urban areas, small towns and country roads (excluding state routes and interstates where the speed limit is 65 or 70). This could minimize the losses in efficiency from a larger engine, while maintaining the simplicity of a small engine. Thus a 2 cylinder engine or an opposed single cylinder engine might have its own efficiencies, but I do not have any automotive simulation software nor know how to calculate the theoretical efficiency of various displacements. Would 125CC be enough? The newer Super Cubs use 125CC- I use this older photo because it was clear and easy to view. A 250CC motorcycle is typically the minimum to ride on the expressway. The Fiat 500 Twin Air 0.9 is 875cc: https://www.carscoops.com/2011/05/fiats-09-liter-twinair-scoops/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_500_(2007)#Engines
Thus, making a rough estimate, a 30 horsepower engine could probably reach a top speed of 50 miles an hour, probably more for a three wheeler and more aerodynamic car, than a 4 wheeler.
I recall reading that The Elio tested some of their prototypes with an older 3 cylinder enginehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo_Metro, which also used a 1.0 Liter like the Fiat 500 Twin Air. "Unlike that, The three-cylinder, 1.0-liter throttle body injected engine, still used on base models, was available for non-LSi models in 1997. The 1.0-liter became the last engine on a vehicle available in the US to use TBI." I am curious if the patents on any of these engines expired in such a way that might allow them to be manufactured and still meet emissions guidelines with more advanced transmissions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Cultus
After googling the answer, minutes later, I've found the answer to one of the first engine patents:
https://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/the-selden-patent-and-its-role-in-auto-history/328352.html
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/the-withering-dream-of-a-cheap-american-electric-car-ad7e1113
"Henry Ford By 1903, Henry Ford was ready to begin making a low-cost car and applied to the ALAM for a license, which was rejected. Apparently ALAM members, who were selling expensive cars, feared Ford’s low-cost offerings and told Ford he could have the license if he limited his production to 10,000 cars per year and sold them for at least $1,000 each.
Jim Couzens, Ford’s right hand man, told them to go to hell, and he and Henry walked out. Ford continued to build cars and Selden and EVC sued. The trial dragged on for nearly six years while Ford was cranking out cars by the tens of thousands and getting richer all the time.
In fact, someone calculated that if he had paid the Selden royalty it would have cost him $12.50 per car, but the cost of the litigation was only $6.80. When the judge finally ruled in 1909, it was against defendants Ford and the French auto firm of Panhard et Levassor, who were selling cars in the U.S.
The defendants promptly appealed, and during the appeal hearing one of the Panhard lawyers managed to debunk the testimony of one of the ALAM’s “expert witnesses.”
Early in 1911 the appeals court rendered their Solomon-like decision. They said that while Selden’s patent was valid — for a car with a Brayton type engine — there was no infringement by Ford and the others because their cars used Otto type engines and were vastly different than the single Selden that had been built.
The court even added, “The defendants, neither legally nor morally owe him (Selden) anything.”
The ALAM and Selden, who had already collected several hundred thousand dollars in royalties, although much of it was spent on legal fees, decided not to appeal the new verdict as the patent would expire in less than two years."
I will continue this later, but for now, I realize this is a multi-dimensional project, and I haven't really addressed the 3D printing aspect of the engines I've been interested in. Perhaps it might be simpler to purchase a motorcycle engine, assemble a car transmission that allows it to move in reverse. Some very technical videos have been made on this. One new one I just found but haven't finished watching is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU98_D2sE1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsbfzmPCYX4
The Lotus Elan pioneered much of the lightweight, aerodynamic design. found from watching the third video in the sequence from the previous link.
1991 Light Car Company Rocket
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw43m0TVsZE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw43m0TVsZE 770Lbs https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1115866_jay-leno-revisits-gordon-murray-designed-light-car-rocket
Apparently, the reverse is called a "Chain Drive Forward Reverse Gearbox": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DZ1WlJ5Ox4 and there are several ways to do that: https://www.google.com/search?q=motorcyle+engine+attached+to+car+transmission+to+move+in+reverse&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS924US924&oq=motorcyle+engine+attached+to+car+transmission+to+move+in+reverse&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDg5ODRqMGo5qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Once I finish watching some of these videos, I'll return to listing what ideas I have and what I think might be a low cost option of building a 20-30HP car capable of reaching 55MPH and getting 84MPG, just like the Elio, but open sourced. As AT&T later closed source for System III , eventually it led to, indirectly, to alternative operating systems, Linux being formed separately. The same could and should be said about computer and automotive hardware that's been aroud for decades and even centuries. It seems that unlike small appliances, cars are a much more sensitive status symbol: https://www.fsu.edu/news/2008/11/26/car.personality/ which is why so many TV commercials revolve around cars.
Never Just A Car https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayJ3ktqJ4L0
11-19-2023
These turned out to be quite conventional sports cars with minimal solar panel coverage since the horsepower/weight of the car would not allow the solar to charge enough to charge enough power than a few miles per day:
However, an interesting spoiler used a solar panel, which I was impressed (ignoring the unoptimized wind resistance)
Two, though turned out quite well (except a little too low for the street height):
Ford's electric car competition https://www.motortrend.com/news/secret-affordable-ford-evs-coming-to-take-on-tesla-and-china/
11/29/2024
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_car
"A kit car is an automobile available as a set of parts that a manufacturer sells and the buyer then assembles into a functioning car. Usually, many of the major mechanical systems such as the engine and transmission are sourced from donor vehicles or purchased new from other vendors. Kits vary in completeness, consisting of as little as a book of plans, or as much as a complete set with all components to assemble into a fully operational vehicle such as those from Caterham."
Related terms A subset of the kit car, commonly referred to as a "re-body", is when a commercially manufactured vehicle has a new (often fiberglass) body put on the running chassis. Most times, the existing drive gear and interior are retained. These kits require less technical knowledge from the builder. Because the chassis and mechanical systems were designed, built, and tested by a major automotive manufacturer, a re-body can lead to a much higher degree of safety and reliability.
The definition of a kit car usually indicates that a manufacturer constructs multiple kits of the same vehicle, each of which it then sells to a third party to build. A kit car should not be confused with
a hand built car or special car, which is typically modified or built from scratch by an individual for a specific purpose (such as hillclimbing, road or circuit racing, or record attempts). "Rally specials" and "homologation specials" have, especially since the Second World War, typically referred to special series-produced cars built by manufacturers.
a component car, which is a self-assembly car in which 100% of the parts required to build the car are purchased from a single company. Component cars are distinguished from kit cars as all parts are quality controlled and designed to fit together perfectly. They can be built in significantly less time than a "kit car". See also knock-down kit, a term usually applied to a similar but larger commercial exercise.
"The law and regulations are based on NHTSA’s regulatory approach for kit cars assembled from parts by enthusiasts or nearly finished automobiles that lack an engine and drivetrain (“rollers”). Kit cars are subject to NHTSA equipment standards but not vehicle standards." From: https://www.sema.org/news-media/magazine/2022/08/its-time-replicas#:~:text=Kit%20cars%20are%20subject%20to,annual%20reports%20on%20vehicle%20production. An
A distinction can be made from designing a new car, similar to a component car (see above), that can be sourced from a single manufacturer that have already been quality controlled and designed to fit together perfectly, and one where the parts are still quality controlled an designed to fit together perfectly, but the specifications, blueprints (STL files, etc) are freely available so that any manufacturer or hobbyist can manufacture them, provided that there is an independent test and verification processing center. This could still reduce costs because the manufacturers may not need to produce all the components of a car- They could be like Etsy sellers.
Another distinction that can be made is that kit cars are typically designed for vintage and sports cars, rather than necessarily modern drivetrains, however, this is perhaps the most under-utilized aspect of the kit car design market. A number of exemptions are possible to create kit cars, as it requires annual inspections:
"Low-volume vehicle manufacturers, such as ICON with their FJ40, must first register with NHTSA, EPA and CARB before selling vehicles (a process that may take several months) and thereafter submit annual reports on vehicle production." One of the regulatory hurdles would most likely be emissions, therefore designing a kit car would be wise to steer clear of anything involving internal combusion engines (ICEs). Nonetheless, there would likely be still several hurdles, even for electric vehicles manufactured by low volume manufacturers. Another point of contention would be that kit cars might face a similar limitation similar to that allowed for replica manufacturers:
"The long wait is over: The replica car law has finally taken effect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a regulation in March permitting replica car manufacturers to begin production. The law allows low-volume manufacturers to sell up to 325 new replicas a year that resemble production vehicles from at least 25 years ago. Consumers will now be able to purchase reimagined versions of classic vehicles, including everything from Roaring Twenties cars and ’30s roadsters to ’70s musclecars and more."
For example, if I wanted to design a clone or knockoff of an Electric Elio, or Aptera, I wouldn't be seeking to develop a kit car for a replica of a vintage car- I'd be interested in designing a practical commuter car with possibly decent range (i.e 250 mile range). The only difference is that if a car company like Aptera or Elio never produce a car, or go out of business, there would be a limited component aftermarket. This open-source system is designed to prevent that, by allowing a open source designers to reproduce the parts needed, and presumably, if the car is popular enough, there will be enough manufacturers to have a surplus of all the components needed to assemble the vehicle. TThis might sound like additional regulatory hurdles, but a time-tested and crash-tested car needn't be discontinued just because the car went out of production (e.g. discontinnued). It is possible that with multiple manufacturers using various machining tools, that the measurements might have ill-fitting parts, but as long as there is an independent clearinghouse for parts to verify, there should be no difference in the quality of the decentralized nature of manufacture. A car company can't go out of business if there is no business to own or control. That is the point- similar to bittorrent.
The chassis could be multi-compatble, so that multiple outer frames/bodies could be designed to fit a chassis.
What do I consider a modern car? Air conditioning, Heat, Radio. My family's first car had an 8-track slot, which was left empty, because at the time, there was a concern someone one would try to steal it. It had a radio. With so many options for portable phones and tablets and on-dashboard navigation, a USB-port and tablet holder might be the only thing needed- to allow upgradeability of the navigation system, but not requiring it to be wired to all the on-board electronics.
From a Quora answer 9 years ago( approx 2015):
"Cars have gotten exponentially more parts as they have become more complex and efficient, fuel injectors, electrically controlled components and other modern advances are usually quite complex. Because of this I'd say that companies that produce older style cars without a lot of complex modern components (such as tata cars) would be the lowest current production vehicles. Companies that produce kit cars (Build it yourself Vehicles) tend to be fairly simple as well. Manuals have less mechanical components, smaller vehicles have less components and smaller engines which have less components, anything without a turbo, aircon, direct injection (though carburettors are rare now) etc will have less parts.
My Guestimate for the fewest parts on a modern recently designed vehicle would be one of the low end Tata cars or something similar (like the nano) though even these have a decent number of electrical components.
For example for cost saving the Nano,
has 3 wheel nuts (due to smaller wheels)
only has 1 windscreen wiper
only has access to the trunk through the rear seat (no rear hatch)
two cylinder engine
no power steering
only one wing mirror,
optional radio
no airbags or aircon
integrated headrests
etc
All of these things mean less components, I don't know if it's the lowest number of parts modern production vehicle but it would have substantially less than the typical modern car"
I am aware of the Nano's Crash Safety ratings. I have never driven a car without power steering (at least not that I am aware of), and would probably prefer not to drive one without. However getting a feel of a car without one, or having the option to turn it off, might allow for a cheaper manufacturing supply chain for an open-source car, even if it doesn't require a ton of complicated electronics. I am merely using the Nano as a starting point for conceptualizing a simplified car, but one of many possibilities- the first consideration should be safety, but overcomplexity (in electronics/ a complicated supply chain) can lead to declining safety and expenses.
At the top of this repository is 5 steps for reducing bureacracy. Obviously designing a company product and the trying to reform a NHTSA standard are two different things, but the Tesla CEO is going to be in charge of a DOGE, and it would not be surprising if some regulations get relaxed, while others get stricter. However, I am skeptical they will necessarily address things like kit cars. A fortune 500 company is not going to be interested in low-volume sales that one day (possibly a distant future, 15-20 year from now), that competes with its own Teslas. In fact, Teslas might costs less than $20,000 some day, but... not everyone wants to drive one, let alone an autonomous one.
Aptera has been making some progress, albeit slowly. One of their mottos I saw recently on their website was "Make Driving Fun Again."
I think that captures the sentiment more clearly than a lot of the other AI-generated LinkedIn posts that dominates industry chatter. With all the chipmakers making heavy investments in AI, very little has been said about old fashioned driving. The Silicon Valley divide is between accelerationists/futurists that want to see autonomous everything, and those that merely want to improve some basic electric vehicles as their era has barely arrived. I would be happy with a generation of EVs where market share reaches 40% before all the noise about AI arrives, but like a rowdy cousin, AI and EVs have become mainstream relatively within the same decade, much to the detriment of EVs. AI needs a lot more testing before it can be road-safe. But some carmakers are more than willing to push AI to tech unsavvy municpalities and states, embracing it as some revolution in driving when it continues to cause unforced errors. I may be a better driver than most people, and perhaps this is why I don't like AI- because regulations one day might force people to become passengers in driverless cars when perfectly good drivers exist, even in the minority.
My name is Roman J Israel. Advocate for civil rights, consumer rights for over 25 years.
I am an Aptera fan for over 14 years. In 2010, I posted on a solar panel forum inquiring about the feasibility of powering an Aptera with solar panels on rooftops, getting only the most close-minded responses. Since then, Tesla has soared in popularity, and Mitsubishi recently discontinued their Mirage, one of the last remaining cars under $20,000. After 2025, even sub-$20,000 is going away.
The article concludes:
"What is the best cheap new car? We don't want them, or so automakers suggest. Yet, of the dozen or so new cars priced less than $25,000, there's one that stands out so much it earned The Car Connection Best Economy Car To Buy 2024. It's the Chevrolet Trax, now on sale as a 2025 model for just $21,495 in the base LS grade. Redesigned for 2024, the Trax grew longer, larger, and prettier, with a sophisticated interior and excellent infotainment and safety features."
Even adjusting for inflation $20,000 is still more expensive than a 1916 economy when you could buy a Model T for $360 ($10,000, adjusted for inflation), and offers a lot more for the money. But for those who prefer not to waste money on things with a limited lifespan, it makes a lot more sense to invest in a car that can last 50 years, at least its chassis, that is arguably offers a lot more for the money.
Clicking on that link, I find marginally better fuel economy than my 2000 Ford Focus:
"Chevrolet's put a peppy 1.2-liter turbo-3 with 137 hp and 162 lb-ft of torque under the hood of the Trax. It mates with a smooth-shifting 6-speed automatic transmission that does its best to keep the turbo spooled through first and second gears. Every Trax is front-wheel drive as all-wheel drive isn't an option. While it's not quick–we'd peg the 0-60 mph time in the eight-second range–it seems to have enough power to get out of its own way. Active noise cancellation damps the drivetrain and works well. The turbo-3 emits a low growl when pressed hard, but day-to-day it blends into the background.
The turbo-3 pays off at the pump. While it's not a hybrid, it sips gas with EPA fuel economy ratings of 28 mpg city, 32 highway, 30 mpg combined."
Really, Car Connection? Really?
The LX Sedan 4D had an MSRP of $13,335, which in 2024 dollars is $24310.
Thus, while a Chevy Trax might offer more features for slightly better fuel economy, the question is does the cost to maintain a Trax for 10 years add up if the manufacturer discontinues it after just a couple years, and the electronics lose support/development? Suddenly a formerly non-essential touchscreen that needs to be running to display lane migration turns a car into an expensive brick.
"
And when some people likes to share a joke for couple 7 years DAYS years, you get a very knee jerk response:
Fortunately, some car websites don't take such a dismissive tone and at least try to explain the situation: https://jalopnik.com/every-car-looks-like-this-thanks-to-a-gigantic-regulato-1849837803
"Every automaker wants to save money on engineering and technology. If categorizing your vehicle as “off-highway capable” means you can shoot for a lower fuel-mileage target and skip some pricey emissions controls, that’s a no-brainer decision for carmakers. And when every carmaker is designing vehicles to fit in the “off-highway capable” box, you get a bunch of similar-looking crossovers."
Except EVs shouldn't get an easy pass either:
"Automakers are pivoting to electric vehicles, which don’t have to meet any tailpipe emissions regulations and, for now, aren’t penalized for being overly electron-thirsty. "
I'm interested in a an EV that maximizes range on a 10kWh battery using optimized aerodynamics/low drag-coefficient -i.e something like an open-source Aptera. EV makers should NOT just develop cars that are "OVERLY ELECTRON THIRSTY," just because they CAN.
While I don't often make a huge stink about the shape of cars, especially since many generations had similar competing shapes, the fact that there aren't any sub $20,000 cars, and that car websites are recommending a jelly-bean shaped car instead of a sedan, which has been disappearing for decades from the U.S. market, and the fact that Stellantis's Fiat 500e costs over $38,000 without tax credit eligibility, and the fact that they have halted production due to lack of demand (due to pricing the car too high, which is their fault, and expecting their customers to have the wealth of an Italian prince)
Britt Ekland and Peter Sellers Rome 1965 by Douglas Kirkland (Fiat 500)
How times have changed (The Colloseum hasn't)
To be fair, the style of the 2024 500e is actually quite nice. The color selection uses a lot of natural creams and tones. But it's not worth $38,000. I wouldn't even pay $19000 for it. I wouldn't even be eligible for a tax credit even it were available. Would I pay $16,000 for it? Yes, probably since inflation has increased since I last purchased a car for $13,500 (excluding 10 year extended warranty, which I hope I never need to use)
"The debut of this, the first modern mini car, generated a lot of interest in its native country. Billed as "A miniature big car" (there'll always be an ad man—even in Italy during the '30s) it represented quite a value. For $500 a fortunate Italian owner got four-wheel hydraulic brakes, four-speed synchromesh gearbox, independent front suspension, hydraulic shock absorbers, electric windshield wipers, interior light, adjustable bucket seats, sun visors, safety glass all around, sunshine roof, instruments (including oil pressure gauge!) and the unalloyed envy of all his neighbors. Some of these features have only come into use on low-cost American cars since World War II.
The factory claimed 53 mph and 47 mpg for its new baby. In an "Autocar" road test of the period both figures were exceeded. The testers said that the car's free-revving engine and smooth shape put 60 and over on the clock whenever road conditions were the least bit favorable."
from: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15141680/fiat-topolino-the-original-500-archived-feature/
"From the March 1964 Issue of Car and Driver
Not long ago different countries made different cars. This simple automotive fact is best demonstrated in the inexpensive vehicles built to put wheels under the masses. In the United States there was the Model T. Big, uncomplicated and cheap. More like roadable tractors than proper cars. They somehow mirrored the American spirit with their Puritan appearance and blacksmith approach to engineering problems. England had its Austin 7. Small, with quick steering to make it useful on twisting English roads. They were scaled down versions of contemporary big cars—it wouldn't do to have some clot of a pedestrian think that a proud owner was in command of a toy or a gadget. It spoke volumes about the very nature of the English character—both pro and con."
You could also include the early Volkswagen in this group. It was rational to the point of uglification. There was not an unnecessary line or part. To this day no one has dared call it a "fun car"—including Madison Avenue's high priests of the researched phrase.
Each one of these vehicles spoke volumes about the people that put them together and ministered to their ills. And about the owners who learned to live with their little grace notes of individuality.
CAR AND DRIVER AND THE MANUFACTURER 1948–1949 Fiat Topolino 500 B
The common market, low-cost jet travel, Telstar, engineering by committee, and hundreds of other landmarks on the path of progress have put an end to the small "foreign" car. It has been replaced by computer-confected automobiles intended to serve faithfully the largest number of buyers—if not drivers—without a thought given to national temperament. Yes, the new cars last longer. Yes, they have better performance. Yes, they are better value for money. What they lack, in most cases, is soul.
The last of these supranationalistic cars was the front-engined Fiat 500. Introduced in 1936, it remained in production until 1955—not quite a record for one-design longevity. In all over half a million A, B and C models were built before the production lines were cleared to make way for the present rear-engined 500-D model."
$5,616.80 in Oct. 2024 equals $500 of buying power in 1957 (Average). https://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html?cstartingamount1=500&cinmonth1=13&cinyear1=1957&coutmonth1=10&coutyear1=2024&calctype=1&x=Calculate#uscpi
1960-62 Mitsubishi 500
MSRP: 390000¥
MSRP: https://www.in2013dollars.com/japan/inflation/1960?amount=390000Amount
Result: ¥390,000 in 1960 → ¥2,354,321.30 in 2024 = 15,737.02 United States Dollar
"Cost of Ford Model TT The Model TT was so accessible to the average American that the price actually dropped every year during the production run. This is unheard of, especially in today’s market when seemingly all prices – especially car prices – seem to tick up with the blink of an eye. In 1908 the Model T cost $850, or around $24,835 in today’s dollars when adjusted for inflation. In 1916, the prices had dropped to only $360 for the most basic Model T, or around $9,059 in today’s dollars. In 2012, the least expensive new car was $10,990. Henry Ford still has us beat."
Considering 65" Flat Screen TVs can be purchased on Black Friday (today) for $249 and TVs being affordable for over 10 years, it's high time manufacturers focus their efforts on cheaper cars. It's likely cars from China at 200% tariff will be imported if not for the U.S.'s unwillingness to make cars more affordable.
I am also a signatory to the Open Source Hardware Association in 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_hardware
I prefer to adopt the Frank Pierre Resort and Casino motto when it comes to open-source utilization: "Dining without eating."
"Eat or don't. We don't Care!"
Manufacture your own car parts, or not. We don't care.
If I were the owner of a successful open source car company that made complete cars and car parts as well, I wouldn't really be concerned if I didn't have as many sales for complete cars- if I could sell enough parts to stay in business. The definition of auto-industry need not be the conventional "car-maker" but "part maker". If a car gets crash-tested and road-approved by a third party, the car maker does not have to become responsible for the final assemble. Does it really matter if the profits from a car part manufacturer are separate from an independent entity that specializes in assembling complete cars? That's basically what Boeing became- they outsourced parts, but, there is no reason they can't continue to outsource, as long as there are agreed-upon specififications. Boeing's loss came from designing and delegating parts to outside manufacturers that did not fit when they arrived. The issue wasn't that they were outsourced, it was that there was not enough communication during the development and testing phase to know the parts would fit. Open source could fix or at least ameliorate this issue by accelerating the development timeline and ensuring multi-lateral development amongst multile parties, preventing bottlenecks from ambitious and competing project managers who prefer to control much of the project.
Who are all these cloners?
I think I've figured out the framework for an open source car.
It would be similar to a pure play foundry, except with assembly: programmable robots that can put together various car types using the same chasses.
While initially this would work with maybe a single model, the design could be modifiable to a point that requires minimal robotic reprogramming.
Also, the assembly plant wouldn't own the parts nor the final car that gets assembled-that would be ordered by the consumer, who would pay for the assembly and testing phase. The buyer could order the parts individually and then have them shipped over, or the assembly plant could have a limited stock of parts that they buy for known and complete models, but not own the design or exclusive rights to produce that car (in other words, if another competing assembly plant wants to assemble the same vehicle, they could).
Its basically the difference from producing a car to create capital as opposed to the capital of service.
Eric Hunting mentioned something similar to this in his solar punk essay in 2021: https://www.sciphijournal.org/index.php/2021/09/30/on-solarpunk/
"Solarpunk explores a culture and habitat aspiring to optimum circularity in resource use. Where unsustainable materials like plastic have been largely obsolesced along with the equally unsustainable and pathological practices of the market economy, such as disposability, planned obsolescence, sliding scales of economy, and speculative production. Again, we must emphasize that this is not about some return to the hand-made past, even if, in the near-term, we might expect a revival of many old techniques as part of the transition from Industrial Age paradigms. Automation is prominent, even ubiquitous, in the imagined Solarpunk future, but in forms very different from the Industrial Age retrofuturism of corporate techno-utopianism. It is local, non-speculative, demand-driven, highly generalized production enabled by robotization and emerging as a community/municipal utility. The paradigm of centralized mass production has been supplanted by a new paradigm enabled by new technology; cosmolocalization. Design global, make local. The key to freedom and resilience is in the communal and personal ownership of the means of production and the digital globalization of open industrial and design knowledge. Counterintuitively, Solarpunk is very much about anticipating the impacts of robotization and even more advanced nanotechnology.
Solarpunk (or more generally, Post-Industrial) design and artifacts may often have features we might associate with old Modernism, but now pragmatically adapted to the service of environment and social empowerment. Minimalism for the purpose of enabling adaptive reuse and easier recycling. Modularity to allow immediate reuse and empower the end-user to undertake their own design, customization, and repair."
some resources include open source ecology (Global Village Construction Set): https://www.opensourceecology.org/gvcs/
and Replimat: https://wiki.replimat.org/
https://youtu.be/-WC1Yq1S7lY?feature=shared
The solar powered Formula 1 cars above that I used Chat-GPT to generate last year look not so unlikely now: https://youtu.be/h0it7F9VBWg?feature=shared Drew builds a solar powered car with 1500 watts of power (six 175 watt panels weighing 7 pounds each + 4lbs for custom wooden frame) and travels 244km (151 miles) in 7 hrs of sun. generates 1.3kw of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_(solar_vehicles) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Solar_Challenge
https://insideevs.com/news/731199/infinte-range-solar-ev-home-build/