A press release issued today by Aptera indicates the co-founders, Steve Fambro and Chris Anthony will be stepping aside from day-to-day operations. The PR on why each is stepping back is vastly different. According to the release, co-founder Chris Anthony is stepping aside from day-to-day activities to concentrate on his two other companies, Epic Boats and Flux Power. On the other hand, Aptera's other co-founder, Steve Fambro, is taking "a short leave of absence and will re-engage with the company in the new year." Umm, yeah, right. We think that means if Aptera ends up getting money from the DOE he'll be happy to come back and work.

Aptera'll need that money as we're also told production on the all-electric Aptera 2e's been moved from 2009 to 2010 because it's run into a bit of a funding snag. Yeah, well, we'll wait and see what happens. In the meantime, here's the full press release from Aptera:

FIRST ALL-ELECTRIC APTERA 2e PUSHED BACK TO 2010

Co-founders Fambro and Anthony step aside from day-to-day operations

VISTA, Calif. (Nov. 18, 2009) — In September 2008, when fledgling vehicle manufacturer Aptera named Paul Wilbur president and CEO, the 27-year Detroit auto executive set forth a series of financial goals and product deadlines. "Aptera's production and delivery will be tied directly to funding," said Wilbur.

During the past 12 months, the company's initial offering – the aerodynamic Aptera 2e, an all-electric, three-wheeled two-seater that gets the equivalent of 200-plus mpg – has evolved from concept to near reality. Companies including Google and IdeaLab have made significant investments in the southern California auto manufacturer, and numerous potential private and public backers are in the process of doing their due diligence. However, according to Wilbur, the vehicle development progress has been outpacing the rate of fundraising.

"We're making significant progress every day with product refinements, the completion of engineering and design details, and securing meaningful strategic partnerships," says Wilbur. "However, we now have to adjust our production schedule to align with financing realities. Properly managing the resources of the company means we'll complete our first vehicles in 2010, not by the end of 2009 as previously projected.

"Aptera management is being a prudent steward of all resources to ensure future viability for the company and strong returns for its stakeholders. Therefore, we'll begin volume production vehicles once our current series of private funding has closed or when we secure financing through the Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicle loan program, whichever comes first."

The aerodynamically-inspired Aptera 2e goes from zero to 60 in under 10 seconds, tops out at 90 mph and has already received nearly 4,000 deposits, which are fully refundable and remain in an escrow account. The production vehicle includes enhanced safety features, a redesigned interior cabin that is airy and user-friendly, a monocoque, structural composite body as well as a telematics and infotainment system.

"I'm as disappointed as any of our depositors and loyal followers around the country that we're delaying initial production," says Wilbur. "There's no one who's more anxious than we are to put the 2e on the road.

"Because of this production delay, we've unfortunately been forced to lay off some hard working employees. It's a strategy to streamline our spending to hone in on the items that advance our fundraising and completion of our first vehicle.

"Additionally as part of this plan, co-founder Chris Anthony is stepping aside from day-to-day activities to concentrate on his two other companies, Epic Boats and Flux Power."

Aptera's other co-founder, Steve Fambro, who started tinkering with the idea of building an aerodynamic vehicle five years ago, is taking a short leave of absence and will re-engage with the company in the new year.

"Right now my advanced work is a lower priority for Aptera," said Fambro, the company's Chief Technical Officer who directs all advanced concept development activities. "We've got to be wholly focused on funding and getting the first 2e on the road.

"Paul's leadership and (chief engineer) Tom Reichenbach's talent have led to changes in the vehicle that are spot-on. They've made the vehicle safer, it's better handling and more comfortable. Once we get through this stage, we'll begin mass producing the 2e – the most aerodynamic and efficient vehicle in the world."

According to Wilbur, "Building and launching a new car company is the challenge of a lifetime – even in the best economic times. At Aptera, this is especially true because we didn't start with an existing architecture for our vehicle. The 2e was designed from scratch, which is why we're focused on properly, and painstakingly, creating a foundation that can succeed over time; it's a chance for everybody working at Aptera to reshape the automotive world for the next generation."

About Aptera
Aptera Motors (www.aptera.com) was founded in 2006 to develop and build the safest, most energy efficient commuter vehicles on the road. Utilizing streamlined aerodynamic design, lightweight composite structures and unique drive systems, Aptera (which means wingless flight) delivers vehicles that are attainable and efficient. The company operates two Southern California facilities in north San Diego County, where it designs, engineers and manufactures the vehicles and their composite systems to create an exceptionally strong, sleek body.
# # #

We always thought a comparison was just that — all the cars equipped as equally as possible, with the same driver, tested in the same place, at the same time and with the same environmental conditions. Especially in a segment like Muscle Cars, where it's all about the numbers. The problem with all of these "comparisons" is none of the outlets actually tested the new 2010 Chevy Camaro alongside the 2010 Ford Mustang alongside the 2009 Dodge Challenger in the same place and at the same time for all of their testing.

Some are up front about it in the text of their reviews. Popular Mechanics, for one, says clearly:

"...this test was unlike most of our comparisons. It was a logistical puzzle that involved testing a Camaro SS in Detroit and running numbers on the Mustang GT and Challenger R/T in California. Timing was so tight, and the Camaro SS was in such high demand, we had less than three short hours to gather all three manual transmission cars together in the same place at the same time. So we were unable to compare the real-world fuel economy of the three or perform our usual handling tests. But we did manage to test the more expensive Dodge Challenger SRT8 in Michigan too, just to see if Dodge's quickest could take on the Camaro."

Edmunds does too, even going so far as to blame GM for being draconian in access to the cars:

"Unfortunately, nobody told GM. No production examples of the 2010 Chevy Camaro SS exist yet, and these circumstances dictated that our driving time was split between two preproduction cars: a red 2SS we tested at GM's Milford Proving Grounds to provide all the go-fast numbers, and an identically equipped but silver 2SS we evaluated on the streets of Southern California (pictures of both are included).

Unlike the Camaro, the Challenger and the Mustang were put through our battery of tests at our usual facility in SoCal, but as you can see from the photos, we spent the better part of a foggy cool day north of San Diego driving all three cars back-to-back."

Then there's Motor Trend. They're not entirely clear on what went on with their vehicles...saying on page one of their clickgasmic ten page story:

"So...we proudly present our exclusive, first-ever, side-by-side-by-side comparison of the new Chevrolet Camaro SS, the Dodge Challenger R/T, and the Ford Mustang GT. All the numbers, all our driving impressions...just one winner."

But MT doesn't explain in detail that there's something a bit off in normal testing procedures until page three:

"We gathered all three players together in the lightly traveled, serpentine hill country east of San Diego. Armed with a full battery of track numbers, courtesy of an instrumented test conducted just three hours earlier in Detroit and beamed to us via BlackBerry and iPhone by technical director Frank Markus, our comparo team — editor-in-chief Angus MacKenzie, senior editor Ed Loh, and yours truly — strapped in, kicked the spurs into our pony trio, and galloped into the twisties."

Even then, they don't actually say that the 'stang and Challenger weren't track-tested in Detroit with the Camaro. To be fair, MT, like the rest of the comparo-crazy mainstreamers, did get a chance to drive all three of the vehicles back-to-back-to-back in sunny SoCal, so we don't draw into question the road impressions. But it's a far cry to make the leap from road impressions all at once and with the same driver for car-to-car photo sessions to doing instrumented testing in the same place and at the same time — something every muscle car-crazed enthusiast wants to see more than any other story.

But these discrepancies aren't stopping all of them from marketing the hell out of their stories as actual comparisons despite the fact it's basically just a run-down of close-to-approximate instrumented tests — a story no different than the one we ran last week. So we really got to hand it to the "mainstream media" — they've learned from us blogs, sensationalizing a story that, basically, we'd already beaten them to the punch on. Mazel Tov guys, y'all are learning. Look at you, we're so proud you're becoming all grown up!

But the really funny thing is we were once told by a certain buff book editor (Cough! Cough! Dutch. Cough! Cough! AutoEveryOtherWeek. Cough! ) that the reason print media was better than internet auto media was print media had their "asses properly calibrated to review cars." The comment was perplexing to us and initially we thought it meant something about print media having the ability to ingest larger quantities of free food at press events to better simulate real American rear ends. But that didn't make sense. Now what we think he meant was that print media's more experienced (re: much older) than internet media. While I may disagree with that assertion as there are quite a few internet-only media with more years of experience and seat time in their niche areas than almost anyone in print (Example: Mike Levine at PickupTrucks.com). I have to say, after reading through these "comparisons," I'm now a little worried about who now has their asses appropriately calibrated to be doing comparisons. At least not the type of comparisons real muscle car enthusiasts are looking for — a test that equalizes as much as possible by putting all three 'merican muscle cars in the same place, at the same time and with the same driver. But we guess this just means there's still one more exclusive out there to be had on the new Camaro. We'll be interested to see which publication gets it first.

Photo Credit: Popular Mechanics

[via Popular Mechanics]

5.) They're Damaged
So... you're telling us damage is bad? Wow. Guess we'll have to stop carving "Jalopnik was here" with a knife into people's tires and calling it a PR stunt. Actually, a careful inspection for missing chunks of rubber, bulges (unsightly or otherwise) and evidence of curb or debris damage can keep you from having to call a tow truck when you're miles from home.

4.) They're Deteriorated
Not to be confused with damage, deterioration happens over time due to atmospheric conditions — mainly ozone in the air acting on the rubber to produce dry rot. Deterioration can be sneaky, resulting in weak spots that can lead to a blowout. Look for spiderweb cracks in the sidewall and a dull, dusty appearance to the rubber.

3.) They're Overinflated
Contrary to what your friend Jeff told you, inflating your tires well beyond the suggested pressure will not increase your fuel economy to 95 MPG.

2.) They're Underinflated
The corollary to overinflated, this condition is not to be confused with a "flat" tire (which is also bad). An underinflated tire doesn't just decrease your MPG, it can also lead to irregular wear. Want to know what the right inflation pressure for your tires is? Don't use the number on the tires — that's just the tire manufacturer's suggested maximum inflation pressure. Instead, check the sticker on the driver's door frame or inside the glovebox for the right pressure. Also, check the owner's manual.

1.) And the number one reason your tires fail is... (it's almost too obvious, but place your bets and check it out here.)

In all seriousness, the points themselves may seem obvious, but PopMech does a good job of explaining the hows and whys behind their top five failure modes, and they might just clue you in on something you've forgotten.

PM: As I mentioned, the Internet geeks are already pumped up about the show—my buddies at Jalopnik are already calling you the "proto-Clarkson," and I'm sure fans of your radio show and accompanying blog have been hammering you about which rides you're pulling out of that stacked garage of yours and onto set. But Top Gear in the UK is kind of an online phenomenon in this country to begin with—it's gotten bigger on YouTube than some of your old Man Show tricks. What do you make of that, and are you as into the, well, insane stunts of the original as we are?
AC: You know, it's funny. I like cars more than I like stunts. The stunts are cool, but I would much rather just see ... I was just watching a rerun and Jeremy had that Aston Martin DBS in the Aston Martin Racing Green and he was turning some hot laps with that thing on an Air Force base they have over there in the UK. For me, as a viewer, in terms of just pure eye candy, I like watching that more than I like them turning a car into an amphibious landing craft or something. That's all well and good, and there's a place for it, but for me it's really about the cars.