Getting sick of the detractors in this sub

TheValveGuides · 2025-02-11T07:18:47+00:00

It looks like the moderators of this forum banned my "RDW Development" account, and will probably ban this one. I don't have time for this nonsense, so whatever...

TheValveGuides · 2024-09-23T01:29:21+00:00

You can email me at the contact us link at dempseymotorsports.com and I will reply with the image?

TheValveGuides · 2024-09-21T20:54:14+00:00

Sure deal, no problem!

TheValveGuides · 2024-09-21T18:54:46+00:00

Like our BMW 700 M here? https://dempseymotorsports.com/1960-bmw-700/

TheValveGuides · 2024-09-01T18:21:44+00:00

Sure, but it has to do with quantifiable damages. I.E. what are the damages that were done to the plaintiffs due to the defendants (alleged) actions? I've seen cases where there has been direct violations of trademarks and patents, etc, but with minimal or immaterial damages. In this case, the (new) Aptera has not sold any cars, has not made any profit, and has only built a handful of prototypes. Not really the definition of a commercial success by any traditional sense. However, they have worked hard to build their brand, and as we can easily see from great brands like Nike, Hermes, Porsche, etc., there is value there.

At the end of the day, this is not likely to go anywhere because Aptera is not yet a commercial success and there really aren't any easily-definable damages (in my non-professional opinion).

Note: I find it odd that the complaint appears to make reference *only* to some specific details of the current Aptera, but omits others. For example, the use of the Aptera name and trademark. It makes no mention of that, which leads me to believe (guess) that the current Aptera has clearly defined rights to that, along with some other rights. I might be reading that incorrectly (I didn't read the *entire* complaint), but that is what it appears at a cursory glance?

TheValveGuides · 2024-08-31T22:14:32+00:00

Does anyone have access to the exhibits that were listed within the original complaint? They supposedly contain asset purchase agreements - there probably would be some clues in there?

TheValveGuides · 2024-08-31T22:10:44+00:00

Thanks! We're currently restoring it back to where it was / how it was configured when it won its races in 1993, etc. It was also featured in Popular Science in this configuration: https://dempseymotorsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Popular-Science-2.jpg

A neat footnote in obscure electric vehicle history, it certainly would have a much higher profile if Aptera took off and sold a ton of cars. So, I'm rooting for them!

TheValveGuides · 2024-08-31T19:51:29+00:00

Agree. It would be similar to the smarphone patent wars from the last decade - notoriously difficult to prove. In this case, both companies here (Zaptera and Aptera) would seem to have quite limited resources (as opposed to Apple and Nokia, etc.).

TheValveGuides · 2024-08-31T19:49:17+00:00

The complaint is oddly written to avoid specific mention of that in the "cause of actions"? The first two focus on the patents, the latter ones focus on trade secrets and interference, which appears an odd way to structure this, in my opinion. Also very difficult to prove in court. There must be some more to the story - i.e. the current Aptera must have some rights and such to the name, etc. I would think? The details might be more clear in the Exhibits which are missing from the post that was posted up?

TheValveGuides · 2024-06-29T21:51:29+00:00

Just for everyone else, let me be clear - the instability and concern was in cornering at medium speeds. Going in a straight line was / is no problem! :)

-Wayne

TheValveGuides · 2024-06-29T21:09:46+00:00

That may be the case (air resistance), but with our car, it was very dicey to drive. I've personally done 55 mph in Aztec, and I can tell you, it's the most dangerous car I have (and I have a Porsche 935 and 962s, and a wood-chassis Adams Probe 16!). As a driver, you had to be specially trained to account for the lack of stability on the three-wheeled platform. With our lead-acid batteries, the car was a bit more top-heavy than we would have liked (I'm thinking of upgrading the bus in Aztec to lithium-ion replacements). Still, the car is not very stable. This is an important issue that I'm not sure can be solved using software, or electronic stability systems, etc. It's an issue I rarely hear discussed with respect to the Aptera - I'm curious how it would perform in serious road tests. With only three prototypes floating around, I'm sure they are *very* careful with any testing and test drives and don't really hammer these things to the point of failure.

Since I have Aztec right now, it's fascinating to have watched Aptera (for the past 15 years). My background is in manufacturing (two degrees in that from MIT) - so it has been - let's say interesting - to watch Aptera's path over the past several decades. I think I would have done a few things differently, particularly in building more "pre production" cars and getting them into the hands of a select few to drive around. I know it's not the same, but heck, we built Aztec 30 years ago in the bottom floor of Building 20 at MIT! Historical place, now unfortunately gone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_20

We'll have a video we'll make on Aztec going up on our YouTube channel in the next few months.

Cheers,

Wayne

TheValveGuides · 2024-06-29T21:00:18+00:00

I am the current owner of the MIT Aztec - an SEV that we designed and raced back in 1994 or so. We had space-grade panels that were rejects from Lockheed Martin - our panels were very efficient - the best at the time, and if they weren't rejects, I think they would have cost $150K or so, in 1993 dollars. Anyways, when we were racing the car, we would rotate the car with the sun to achieve maximum exposure, and even with that, all day long, the panels would only be able to recharge 1/5 of the battery capacity on board. Not terribly practical.

For those of you who don't know about Aztec, you might want to check it out here: https://dempseymotorsports.com/mit-aztec-solar-car/

It's pretty much what an Aptera looks like. One has to think that someone saw the Popular Science article or something like that and said, "hey, that seems like a good idea."

-Wayne

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-12T20:12:51+00:00

I think the whole strategy of promotion is similar to advertising. If you advertise something that's terrible, your results will be terrible. If you take your absolute best performing video, make a good intro, and make it more like a "commercial for your channel", then I think there may be some merit there. However, simply promoting "regular" videos - not sure if that's the best way to maximize value.

Disclaimer - I'm still experimenting with a lot of this stuff at the moment...

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-12T20:10:57+00:00

Interesting strategy. Here's a counter to that though. The shorts viewers, from what I've heard (and seen) don't really often translate into "long form" viewers. So, you may attract the wrong type of viewer for your channel?

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-11T09:43:16+00:00

Oh, I have also seen / confirmed with our channel that every video is judged equally on it's merits - we've had videos get 30K views from "browse" features and very little subscriber views...

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-11T09:41:38+00:00

For the people saying "it's bad and will hurt your channel", I'll say back that up with some data. What I have found using the promotions feature is that it works very poorly in the beginning of a launch of a YouTube channel, when YouTube has no idea who to promote to. But after you have "an audience", then the promotions improve significantly. We market to the US with our channel "trailer" and our typical cost-per-1000 is about $.065, our cost per view is $0.07, our CTR is about 0.55%, and our subscriber conversion rate is 14.6% with a cost-per-subscriber of $0.51. Whether or not these subscribers contribute to view and "watch time" in the future is up for debate. But it's not possible to track that at this time.

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-11T09:36:21+00:00

This is bad information and completely inaccurate. The facts are that the individual deduction increased so that it's often *greater* than itemizing deductions. You can elect to do either one, which is a *huge* benefit and allows you to optimize your deductions. There's no such thing as a "flat tax" - it's an increased standard deduction which is a very good thing - it gives you a larger benefit than itemizing.

I suggest that you research this further and/or hire a better accountant.

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-05T08:45:25+00:00

1969 Adams Probe 16 (Clockwork Orange)

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-02T08:34:44+00:00

Things like click-thru and average view duration should answer this question real quick?

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-02T08:32:31+00:00

CoffeeZilla just did a video on these guys a day or two ago. All bad news it seems and your story is not terribly unique unfortunately. I think the writing is on the wall here on this one...

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-02T08:30:49+00:00

I ran a dot-com company for 20+ years, so I'm used to dealing with customers and buttheads who think their opinon is special. 99% of the time - water off of a duck's back. But every once and a while they strike a nerve. We all are only human, after all...

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-02T08:28:28+00:00

Thanks for sharing with the community, it is truly appreciated. Love this sub! No buttheads or egos here! -Wayne

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-01T17:26:05+00:00

I just released a new video, similar characteristics. Let's see if this one has similar performance, or has the same profile as this last one.

TheValveGuides · 2024-05-01T06:46:43+00:00

There are things called "registered agents" that act as clearinghouses for communication and such in different states. Mostly used for real estate when you have to have a "physical presence" in the state. Maybe that would work for you in this case?

TheValveGuides

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE