At Witz End - GM's EV1, the True Story, part I
Triumph of technology set the stage for the future- Our gift is a world of opportunity. To leave it a better place than we found it is our greatest gift to the next generation. – Ken Baker, GM Electric Vehicles
- "Since when does being an auto engineer makes you smarter than scientists specializing in the field?" – ABG reader John, on my 8/3/08 column, "Global Warming Pro." (Yes, "Pro")
Engineers become engineers because - like people who become scientists - we are good at math and science, including physics, chemistry and biology. We study the same things eventual scientists do, then branch out into specialties. Some choose geology or climatology. I chose automotive engineering because I love cars and wanted to help make them better.
As technically trained people, engineers have a good understanding of what makes things work, how elements interact and what is physically possible...and not. We know that vehicle fuel economy is mostly about size, weight and aerodynamics. We know that technology can incrementally improve efficiency, but also that technology costs money. To redirect an old racing adage, how efficient can you afford to be?
Unlike typical non-technically trained people – including most government bureaucrats, lawyers, legislators and journalists – we form opinions and make decisions based on facts and data, not emotion and opinion. We have long-established BS alarms that go off when someone tries to tell us that something we know is physically impossible is not. We know there is no 100-mpg carburetor or 40-mpg SUV (If either was possible, why wouldn't someone be making a fortune building and selling them and blowing away all their less-enlightened competition?).
That said, let me tell you about the most exciting, challenging and inspiring engineering assignment I've ever had: Vehicle Test and Development Manager for what became the GM EV1. I know the real story behind General Motors' 1990s electric vehicle effort very well; I was there, working my proverbial tail off on it, and you can start reading this tale after the jump. A warning, though: those who harbor strong negative perceptions about EV1 and GM's intent for it - from that recent ill-informed crockumentary or some other non-knowledgeable source - may not want to read this, because the real true story will not reinforce what you already think you know.
Genesis
GM's 1990s EV odyssey began with the teardrop-shaped Impact concept car unveiled by then-CEO Roger Smith at the January, 1990 Los Angeles Auto Show. Designed by GM but co-engineered and developed with high-tech California contractor Aerovironment, it looked great, sprinted from zero to 60 mph in eight-seconds and had achieved - in one test (from 100 percent to absolute zero state of charge) under ideal conditions at GM's Mesa, AZ Desert Proving Grounds - a remarkable 125 miles of range, better than any practical EV ever built. So positive was press and public reaction to the Impact that at the National Press Club on April 22 (Earth Day), Smith announced GM's intent to produce such a car. "After that reaction from the LA show," recalls then-GM President Bob Stempel, who would soon succeed Smith as CEO, "he felt we needed to follow through with it. He said, 'I want General Motors to showcase its technology, and I want people to understand that we are in the lead on this.'"
Stempel – along with President-elect Lloyd Reuss and Vice Chairman Bob Schultz -- was instrumental in recruiting Ken Baker (then head of Advanced Vehicle Engineering for GM's Chevrolet-Pontiac-Canada group) to lead the effort. Baker, who had been chief engineer of GM's short-lived early 1980s Electrovette (the converted Chevy Chevette EV) program, was reluctant at first. "I'd been to the electric-car show before," he says, "and didn't know that I wanted to go back." But when he learned how serious GM leadership was about it and became more confident of this new EV program's chances for success, Baker changed his mind."All three of us talked to him," Stempel says. "we told him, 'Ken, we've done this before, but we've got better tools now, a much better controller from Hughes and a much better feel for the batteries. We've got an opportunity here.' So he stepped in and took it on with a real vigor. He was a bit of a visionary, a futurist. He had a personal like for that kind of transportation and was enthused about it. He was definitely a good choice."
The mandate
"We recognized the obvious shortcoming of EVs," Baker says. "Our plan was to be battery agnostic - take the best available and focus on engineering the world's most efficient vehicle, which would give dramatically better performance once a better battery came along. We had just come off of the success of the [race-winning solar-powered] SunRaycer and were encouraged by the sold-state electronics that had been demonstrated in that car, and Impact.
"The goal was to do a new car in a new way and see how quickly and efficiently we could do it. The process would be driven by a new Systems Engineering approach, with a top-down set of requirements, and 36 months was our goal for a ground-up car."
Then, that Sept. 28, even as Baker was assembling his team of some of GM's best, brightest and most dedicated engineers to get it done, California's Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated the seven top-selling automakers to make a percentage - starting with two percent and ramping up over time - of their California sales "zero emissions" vehicles.
If a practical EV could be developed and built at a price people would be willing to pay, GM wanted to be there first and lead an emerging market for them. No one knew how many EVs could be sold, and no company wants every one of its toughest competitors forced into an unpredictable new market segment all at once. Also, no business wants to be told how many of anything it must sell, since no mandate can force people to buy something they don't want.
In the next installment: Pause and Rebirth
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
rev0lver 11:10AM (8/15/2008)
Since you're obviously an expert in anything technical, I was wondering when you are going to start staking bookings for surgeries? My knee is killing me and I want an engineer to operate instead of some idiot who actually works in the field.
Also, I was wondering if you would be able to help me with the vacation I will be taking. I was going to fly but then I found out that the plane is piloted by, get this, a PILOT. I would rather you fly because of your overwhelming expertise in everything.
Finally, I was looking into making some investments and I was going to go to a stock broker but I would rather you tell me witch stocks to buy, since you are the all knowing renaissance man that you are.
Reply
EVan 11:38AM (8/15/2008)
@rev0lver...
You're missing the point. He was talking about engineers' ability to analyze data and facts and come up with conclusions "based on facts and data, not emotion and opinion." He doesn't state that engineers know everything.
This is an interesting piece and your comments just make you sound like a jerk.
rev0lver 12:10PM (8/15/2008)
I got the point.
I’m trained in psychology, I know the structure of the brain and I know what these structures do. Does that mean I could perform brain surgery? By the author’s logic apparently it does.
P.S. I am a jerk
someEEguy 12:54PM (8/15/2008)
I have to agree with rev0lver. The author needs to stay within his field of expertise if he wants his words to carry any weight. Furthermore if he has concerns about a field other than his own, he should take it up with an authority in that field rather than posing as one.
P.S. and yes, I’m a jerk as well.
EVan 2:35PM (8/15/2008)
Did you guys even read his post on Global Warming or just the first couple sentences?
He actually makes a very valid case FOR human-caused global warming and why we need to work to prevent it. He supports his arguments with data and identifies the sources of that data. At no point does he claim to be an expert except for the light-hearted title of the post "Global Warming Pro."
Can jerks read?
AMcA 10:11PM (9/06/2008)
C'mon, guys, Revolver knows that the author worked for GM. You know, GM, the source of all evil? Yeah.
So obviously the guy doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to electric cars.
I mean, he's only an engineer who's built one.
kert 11:56AM (8/15/2008)
Ok, i do hope that one of the part of the story covers also the Gen2 body and powertrain prototypes, especially the series hybrid one. Somehow with all the hoopla about Volt this little car is mostly forgotten.
a 60mpg plug-in hybrid, four seater on NiMH batteries, built in 1998.
Reply
Alric 12:03PM (8/15/2008)
Wether you are an engineer or a scientist you discredit yourself by making arguments from authority. When I make a scientific argument it has to be based on my own data or data from published peer-reviewed articles.
In your previous articles many of your statements contradicted the scientific consensus and the published data. This further lessens your credibility.
I look forward to your account of the EV1 program.
Reply
Stan-O 12:05PM (8/15/2008)
"recent ill-informed crockumentary or some other non-knowledgeable source" -- cheap shot. Maybe you should have put this aside if you weren't ready to confront the "crockumentary" in this article.
Also, that "crockumentary" was created with a great involvement from the most loyal customers of the vehicle you were in charge of "Test and Development" of, I don't think that's the way to address them.
Reply
Richard 12:24PM (8/15/2008)
'We know there is no 100-mpg carburetor or 40-mpg SUV (If either was possible, why wouldn't someone be making a fortune building and selling them and blowing away all their less-enlightened competition?)'
This statement shows your ignorance to financing and/or ulterior motives. There may not be a carburetor that gets 100 mpg because the oil companies did everything possible to prevent its sale to the public, just as there may be a 40 mpg SUV but manufacturing methods were too expensive and hence made the final price too high that it would never sell as the proposed end product. The old addage "If it existed, it would be sold" is utter BS. Not everybody knows how to bring a product to market, unlike yourself, who knows everything.
Reply
tankd0g 1:25PM (8/15/2008)
One assumes that for something to be sold it would have to be priced at a marketable level. So what he says holds true. A 40 mpg SUV is possible, given enough carbon fiber and disregard for luxuries and safety features, but a 40 mpg SUV as we know it, as an affordable consumer good, is not possible.
And carbs don't actually produce any locomotion, so even 1mpg would be exceedingly difficult to achieve.
mrbell 1:36PM (8/15/2008)
I'm interested to hear this story even tho the author does come off a bit self important. I think that's a matter of connotation and writing style, rather than actual meaning and relevant content.
First of all, lets give the guy a break. He obviously has a different opinion than many of us, but understand that he is starting off on the defensive. GM has been under fire from EV1 proponents for years, and you have to admit that we don't know the inner workings of GM that cause the EV1 to be discontinued. What a company says necessarily goes thru many filters after the decision has been made. I think something less filtered is what many of us would like to hear.
I am also an engineer and I have a BS alarm as well. My BS alarm goes off when someone says something along the lines of "we don't know so it MUST be a problem"(virgil) and when someone implies there is some global conspiracy to keep some technology out of our hands(Richard). You guys do make some valid points, tho, so I think we should let Mr. Witzenburg make his. Let's hope he gets to it at some point.
axiom 12:49PM (8/15/2008)
"We have long-established BS alarms that go off when someone tries to tell us that something we know is physically impossible is not. We know there is no 100-mpg carburetor or 40-mpg SUV (If either was possible, why wouldn't someone be making a fortune building and selling them and blowing away all their less-enlightened competition?)."
So anything that isn't already "blowing away the competition" is physically impossible? This is the kind of stuff that autobloggreen puts out? A 40mpg SUV is "PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE"....really? God this site is become a joke fast.
Nobody today selling an electric car with fast recharge thats under $30k - even though they would be "making a fortune" dong it - does that mean its physically impossible? No it has to do with investment, initiative, short-sighted profit seeking, and in some cases, who controls the patents. Since when did pencil nosed middle-schoolers become writers on autobloggreen??
Reply
Jameson 1:00PM (8/15/2008)
rev0lver,
He never said he was an expert in anything technical, he said he was capable of giving a valid opinion. Two very different things you obviously have trouble differentiating.
Reply
someEEguy 1:20PM (8/15/2008)
The author’s opinion on this is as valid as, a climate scientist’s opinion on my microprocessor design.
Jameson 1:52PM (8/15/2008)
If by "this" you mean climate change, maybe.
However the primary topic of this post was the EV1, thus he is much more informed about it than most of us who learned about the EV1 from typical media outlets and the internet.
someEEguy 2:06PM (8/15/2008)
Yes, I was referring to climate change. On the topic of the EV-1, I’m very interested in what he has to say.
virgil 1:05PM (8/15/2008)
Mr Witzenberg, you are an idiot. An engineer you may be, but you are an idiot with a large ego, who thinks we should listen to you because you're important. Just because you say something, doesn't make it so.
Take your comment on global warming..."My mind can't wrap around the idea that the 4% of CO2 created by the planet's human activity can really be making much difference". Couple this with the evidence you cite... "From a pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm, atmospheric CO2 has grown to 380 ppm today" ... and you quickly see that you're a f***wit! Thanks to humans, CO2 levels are now 36% higher than they were before.
The problem is, you don't know the difference between a RATE and a STEADY-STATE CONCENTRATION! Global warming doesn't really care about rates, because the CO2 clock doesn't get set back to zero every year. So, it doesn't matter how quickly we arrive at some critical threshold due to human activity, or what percent of that RATE of change is human caused. All that matters is the steady-state level, which is causing warming. To claim that right now we are a small part of the rate of change may indeed be true, but it doesn't matter because the steady-state is FUBAR thanks to the cumulative efforts of humans over the past 2 centuries.
No wonder the EV1 got screwed, if idiots like you were involved.
Reply
Epyx 1:08PM (8/15/2008)
I am looking forward to the rest of the EV1 story. Appears that no matter what comes out about the EV1 if it does not fuel the conspiracy theories than the news itself is part of the conspiracy.
Reply
axiom 2:19PM (8/15/2008)
"WHAAAA! where are all the sheeple like me! WHAAAA! Big oil profits are marginal if you compare them to other businesses, and 40mpg gallon SUVs are physically impossible! where all the sheeple like me?! WHAAAA!!"