At Witz' End: GM EV1 - The Real Story, Part IV
NOTE: If you missed them, please start by reading parts one, two and three in Gary's EV1 series.What was learned, and is being applied today
"As has been stated in comments [to the] previous two posts by Mr. Witzenburg, there are several things which just don't add up, and make him look like a half-wit." – ABG reader Virgil.
Despite your gratuitous insult, Virgil, you raise a couple good points in your comment ... and one not so good. You wrote:
"First, aerodynamics. Anyone who's ever been in a canoe knows that a 17-ft canoe is faster than a 14-ft canoe. They're the same width, same frontal area, but the longer boat allows a more shallow angle of attack and tail-off, so is more hydrodynamic. Making a longer EV1 would improve aerodynamic performance, not decrease."
Really? Based on intuition, without data, I would tend to agree. But vehicle aerodynamic behavior on a solid surface is not always intuitive. Our body engineers said their aero analysis showed a meaningful increase in drag from a longer (and flatter) four-seat body vs. a shorter, teardrop-shaped two-passenger one. I'm no expert, but given that no other practical production vehicle has come close to EV1's astounding 0.19 Cd, I have no reason to disbelieve them.
Read more after the break.
"Second, adding two passengers does not increase weight that much. Especially since the back-seats (like most coupes) would be small and probably only suitable for children or small adults. So, let's say 200lbs extra - that's not much on a car that already weighs 3000lbs."
Really? Based on what data? The two extra seats are minor compared to the added body and structure, the required bigger brakes, beefier suspension, higher-output HVAC, etc. that make four-seaters substantially heavier than shorter two-seaters. Analysis showed roughly 25 percent lower range (vs. the PbA EV1's 50-70 miles) for a four-seat EV1 due to the combination of added weight and higher aero drag. Later tests on four-seat prototypes confirmed that."Third, don't try and tell me that 3000 lbs is a lightweight car! The 1st gen Miata weighed in at 2100 lbs, and that's including the acknowledged fact that convertibles weigh more due to all the gubbins associated with the roof mechanism. Even the current one is only 2400 lbs and that's including 18 years of increased mandated crash equipment. 3000 lbs isn't even trying."
Really? How much would that Miata weigh if it were toting a 1,175-lb. battery pack (and where would we put it)? The EV1's total weight was 2,970 lb., including the pack. Do the math.
Next time, I'll try to answer some of the reasonable and intelligent questions that ABG readers have left in my series about the EV1. I've got no time for ridiculous "GM is evil" or conspiracy theory comments, though.
What was learned
Most folks view GM's $1 billion-plus EV1 effort as a costly and unfortunate failure. Some technology and business-ignorant cynics even believe that it was intended to fail to demonstrate that it couldn't be done. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the rich body of learning from that effort is paying off big-time today, including in mainstream vehicles.
Gallery: 2011 Chevy Volt
"People don't realize how much was accomplished and how much we're getting out of it, both technically and commercially," insists former ATV Executive Director Bob Purcell, now a GM Powertrain vice president leading that organization's New-Business Development Group. "There was tremendous learning that is fundamental to what we're doing today with hybrid and fuel-cell systems. For example, we designed the Gen II controllers and power electronics for battery EV and hybrid applications and Gen III for all three classes of electric vehicles -- battery, hybrid and fuel cell."
In fact, Purcell says, the first Allison hybrid bus, the forerunner of GM's advanced 2-mode hybrid system, began with EV1 components. "We're licensing hybrid systems and technology to other automakers that desperately need them. They come to us because they recognize us as a leader, and the dollars we generate on these deals are significant."
...and is being applied today
Andrew Farah, who was ATV group manager for propulsion software and controls (and later battery and charging systems), is now Vehicle Chief Engineer on the Chevy Volt program. He confirms that a lot of talented technical people who worked on EV1 are working on GM's plug-in EVs, hybrids and other programs today. "They have made it much easier to crank up the programs for 2-Mode hybrids and extended-range electric vehicles," he says.
Jon Bereisa, ATV propulsion chief engineer in the EV1 days, is now director of advanced engineering for fuel cell propulsion systems and a member of GM's Volt/E-Flex leadership team. He adds that not just technical but also customer learnings are being applied to Volt and other future electrics: "Two big things came out after we launched the car and started talking to people," he says. "We had to solve range anxiety - the 'what if' in the backs of peoples' minds - and we had to provide exciting driving.
"On EV1, we had software limitations on acceleration and top speed to protect range, because all the energy we had on board was in the battery. Basically, the Volt is all about taking the knowledge that we got on EV1 and making sure to remove those impediments - hence the range extender, more [four-seat] utility and dramatic, contemporary styling. And it will be absolutely a blast to drive."
Bottom line
"I don't know of anything that will compete with a tank of gas from an energy density standpoint," Purcell sums up. "That is the physics. Did a battery materialize in that time frame that would overcome range anxiety for most people at an affordable cost? No. But did we get [the learnings] out of it that we wanted? The answer is yes."
It is also worth noting that, while no battery-only EV has found marketplace success since the early 1900s, GM's EV1 has been the only purpose-built attempt to reinvent the battery electric automobile and fully optimize its efficiency. All other mainsteam automaker efforts have been low-efficiency conversions of conventional cars.
In my opinion, if road-going battery-only EVs will ever succeed in sustainable numbers, they will need safe, reliable and affordable on-board energy at least close to equivalent to a tank of gas. No amount of wishful thinking or well-intentioned legislation will alter that reality.
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 3)
cazancoz 2:45PM (9/15/2008)
"I've got no time for ridiculous "GM is evil" or conspiracy theory comments, though."
I think most people that may come off with that tone, don't truly think that GM is "evil". However, they realize that a company's prerogative is to profit as much as possible. It's not unfathomable to think that GM would kill the EV1 if it thought it interfered with its bigger plans.
Nor is it "evil" of them to do so! A company can make decisions about their products as they wish, but while they are doing this, they should understand that consumers' perception of them has a big impact on their success in the future. Although this concept is surely true for other manufactures, and even other products, GM has shown its customers that their priority it not making the best possible product, that people "LOVE", and that costs nothing to maintain. Why do this, when you can sell the same old products that require regular maintenance, which in turn means steady income. By making these choices, GM has sent me the message: "Our cars are not necessarily intended to be the best product for your money ... but the products that should make us the most money". Well then GM.. what is my motivation then, to buy your products?
The thing is, in your series, (like other have mentioned) you brush of the important facts that led many people to believe in a "conspiracy theory". For example you say ... "for whatever reason.. only 500 EV1's were built..." . What do you mean.. "for whatever reason" ??? What is the reason?
"130-140 mile range was inadequate" What do you mean it was inadequate? As you mentioned, the EV1 wasn't marketed or meant to be the only car a family/individual would have. 130-140 is PLENTY if the car is to be considered a COMMUTER car.
Bottom line: The EV1 was a GREAT success, in terms of its quality for what it was designed to do. GM invented a great product, but failed to deliver it. You can either assume that GM is STUPID, and doesn't know how to do marketing, or that GM didn't intend to have the car be part of their long term portfolio of products. Their intention for it was something different.. something which they don't want to disclose. And that's fine.. they can keep their intentions to themselves. But then they can't be surprised when consumers come up with their own assumptions and interpretations.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 8:23PM (9/15/2008)
What looks to an INSIDER as Standard Operating Procedure can look to an OUTSIDER AS Fraud or Collusion or Conspiracy.
Conspiracy: a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
For example: Incubation Funds
- A mutual fund company starts a mutual fund with a small initial amount of capital, then loads it up with IPO's ( initial public offerings ). The incubator fund then sells these IPO's to the public and make a huge profit ( relative to it's size ), say 40%. Then a financial magazine taught the fund as the Next Big Thing. The mutual fund company Opens the Fund to the Public and it's size grows 100 fold.
Here's the fraud part. The mutual fund company then doesn't give this fund any more IPO's and even if it did the size of the IPO's would not return enough money to make the fund grow by 4% much less 40%.
Now, if the general public is not made aware of how this Incubator fund was build, and did not know that at it's current size it will never be able to give 40% rates of return, then that's FRAUD.
Err, to the Public it's FRAUD. To the INSIDER it's SOP, and "let the buyer beware( of what we're not telling them )".
Jude Brown 3:14PM (9/15/2008)
Why do you have a picture of yourself on all your posts?
Reply
rgseidl 3:16PM (9/15/2008)
Thank you, Mr. Witzenburg, for your insider account of the EV1 program from the engineering perspective. Summarizing, you say the EV1 was canceled because
a) GM marketing believed a range of 125 miles (at 100% DoD) was required for any practical vehicle.
b) achieving that range with the battery technology available at the time precluded the development of a four-seater model
c) there was insufficient demand for an expensive, limited-range two-seater vehicle for cash-strapped GM to actively develop a market for it. Back in 1999, gasoline cost just $1.42 a gallon in California.
You also touch on several other issues: battery life expectancy, warranty/spares requirements and California ARB's ZEV mandate. If the EV1 had been kept alive, it would have encouraged that agency to interfere even more aggressively with GM's business model. Quickly shifting the focus to hydrogen after the EV1 debacle provided a way for CARB to save face and for the industry to stave off substantive changes while receiving generous grants for additional R&D.
However, GM's greatest failing by far was in public relations. The company simply did not sufficiently engage with EV1 lessees to explain exactly why it had to cancel the program and crush the vehicles. People are not unreasonable, they understand that GM is not a charity. If the economics don't pan out and the pockets aren't deep enough to hang in there until they do, then cancelation is the only option. Perhaps being brutally honest would have made a number of senior execs as well as CARB look really, really bad. Instead, all of GM got tarred and feathered, perhaps unfairly so.
The company did learn from the episode, as evidenced by the unprecedented amount of information it is now disclosing about the Volt during its development. If anything, investors ought to be worried about just how much is being disclosed now. What GM has not done to date - at least in public - to set expectations regarding the number of vehicles it needs to sell to keep the effort alive after the product launches. After all, if customers again fail to materialize, the Volt too will have to be canceled.
Let's hope the accountants will be creative: E-Flex and the Volt will boost GM's corporate image in way that only the Prius has done for Toyota in recent years. If that goodwill can be translated to lower corporate marketing and sales incentive costs across GM's brands, it won't much matter if profit margins on the Volt will be small or even slightly negative early on.
Another thing GM did learn from the EV1 effort is that customers actually accept that a completely different propulsion technology will have completely different characteristics. In particular, range wasn't as critical as the marketing department thought it would be, because those who could afford an EV1 generally owned multiple vehicles anyhow. They adapted their usage patterns to the limitations of the technology much more readily than expected.
This begs the question if the Volt really needs an ICE at all. At least a subset of customers might prefer reduced weight or additional batteries or cargo space. Somehow, I doubt the petrolheads at GM marketing would ever be bold enough to relegate the combustion engine to the options list.
However, wouldn't a folding electric bicycle (FEB) be a better range extender in the summer months, when air quality is worst?
Owners could drive into town, park the car at a recharge station, disconnect the fully charged bicycle from the vehicle grid, remove it from the car, set it up and run their various errands. When they return, the car will be recharged and optionally, ready to transfer a small amount of juice to the bicycle battery while driving to the next destination.
Or, they could drive to a scenic leisure destination and go for a bike ride there, with or without the assistance of the removable battery.
Or, a spouse could drop off a commuter at the train station, let them take the bike along on the train and ride it to work after disembarking. The car would remain available for running errands during the day, with plenty of extra cargo space. Some customers might even choose to leave home with two FEBs.
My point is that the auto industry insiders should dare think outside the box. People do not always need to use a car to get to where they need to be and, finding parking can be a hassle in some places. Also, just imagine where the price of oil - not to mention US marines - will be once just about every person in China, India and Russia owns an ICE-powered car. The best way to save fuel is to use the car - regardless of drivetrain - only when necessary.
I expect GM is actually better placed than anyone else to deliver an affordable Li-ion pack and controller for an FEB application that would integrate with the Volt and other models based on E-Flex. The bicycle as such could be sourced from a third party if desired. This is not as crazy as it sounds: Peugeot, Ferrari, Mercedes, VW, BMW all sell bicycles, albeit non-folding non-electric models. GM has an opportunity to leverage its massive investment beyond the realm of cars.
Reply
zaedrus 3:26PM (9/15/2008)
Thanks for the new installation on The Story.
You're better off sticking to the story line. Introducing your article with a rebuttal gives dignity to the opponent by recognition. If only our candidates could only get that one right...
For what it's worth, I recall a concept car from a few years back that increased length (like a Hasbro Transformer) at higher speeds to help keep it securely on the road. Higher speeds yield greater uplift, and a need to counter with greater counterforce, (demonstrated in this concept by simply elongating the car). Sounds like an increase in drag to me, so supporting your argument.
On the other hand, I'm still scratching my head from this statement on your last post (#3):
"Those aware of serious liability risks with aging 300-plus-volt batteries, and state laws requiring parts and service support for decades after vehicles are sold, should understand why GM chose to lease, not sell, these early technology EVs. And why they had to be recalled and destroyed when their leases were up."
I can see that the liability would play into the terms of use, but not the recall or destruction. There are other options that limit liability. That's why suspicions of a bigger political motive abound. Give a better, broader explanation of how liability necessitated total destruction, and you'll win over a bigger audience.
You'll also have to explain how the PROGRAM failed, not the technology. You've outlined the limitations of the technology in exhaustion, but it's the limitations of the program that people are interested in.
Reply
Tim 4:22PM (9/15/2008)
If the aging batteries were the main concern, why not sell the cars without the batteries when the program was cancelled? Or even to strip all the electronics and sell them (like the ones in museums/etc). This way the company would have saved some face, regained some money, and not have to maintain the vehicles because they were simply sold as bodies and not as usable cars.
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 4:37PM (9/15/2008)
Stealing from Wikipedia, the EV1, if built today, would still be a leading technical marvel:
Aluminum frame
Dent resistant side panels
Anti-lock brakes
Traction control
Heat pump (Heater/AC)
Keyless entry and keyless ignition
Special one-way thermal glass to allow for better heat rejection
Regenerative braking
Very low drag coefficient - Cd~0.19, CdA~0.36 m² (3.95 ft²)
Super light magnesium alloy wheels
Self-sealing & low rolling resistance tires (developed by Michelin)
Automated tire pressure loss warning system
Magnesium framed seats
Time programmable HVAC (cabin heating or cooling) settings
Although, you could probably drop the Magnesium seats and add in the Li-ion batteries. New batteries would drop the weight of the car and increase it's range. Or you could simply down-size the batteries to return the same 125 mile range and decrease the battery cost.
I'm fairly sure GM had a CAD/CAM system in this time frame, where are the backup files?
Reply
Mike!!ekiM 4:41PM (9/15/2008)
How about this, next time GM goes to the Fed's for a 25-50 Billion dollar bailout, the Fed's get the EV1 CAD files.
One way or another, this car should be re-built.
This should be a part of Barack's Re-Build America program.
Reply
Sean 5:30PM (9/15/2008)
I'll keep this short since there is quite a discussion going on here.
I love the article, very interesting read. My only one comment would be an electric car doesn't need the energy equivalent of a tank of gas. It simply needs enough energy to be completely functional for the day and be able to fully recharge overnight. You can refill an EV at home in your garage, you can't do that with a gas car thus the need for lots of energy storage.
Combine that with charging stations in parking lots, offices, etc. and I think replacing gas is feasible with current technology in most circumstances.
Reply
Chris M 3:55AM (9/16/2008)
An electric car doesn't need the energy equivalent of a tank of gas, because an electric motor is far more efficient than an IC engine. To get the same range, an electric car needs only 1/6 the energy of a tank of gas. Considering a tank runs 12 to 24 gallons, that would be the equivalent of 2 to 4 gallons - quite a bit more than the half gallon equivalent on the EV1! Considering the far higher energy density of LiIon, that capacity is now possible.
For local use, an electric car doesn't even need the "same range", as it can be conveniently refilled at home every night, not just once a week or so at a not-so-convenient gas station. All that is needed is the longest expected daily commute plus a reserve for safety.
Kevin M 8:17PM (9/15/2008)
This is actually in regards to a claim in part 3:
"Those aware of serious liability risks with aging 300-plus-volt batteries, and state laws requiring parts and service support for decades after vehicles are sold, should understand why GM chose to lease, not sell, these early technology EVs. And why they had to be recalled and destroyed when their leases were up."
So... what about the S10-EV? Those are still out there. Why haven't you recalled and destroyed those?
Reply
trustus 5:46PM (9/15/2008)
I got lost at the beginning.
A 17' boat goes faster than a 14' boat because it has a longer wavelength. So taught my Coast Guard Boating instructor. I'm not sure an EV or PHEV needs to consider this unless it is amphibious.
Reply
Randy C. 6:15PM (9/15/2008)
"Some technology and business-ignorant cynics even believe that it was intended to fail to demonstrate that it couldn't be done. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the rich body of learning from that effort is paying off big-time today, including in mainstream vehicles."
Yeah, right! GM really wanted the EV1 to be a success :( That's why the leasees had to be able to comply with a long list of conditions BEFORE they could be put on the list to be allowed to lease an EV1. Things like you had to have a garage and you had to park your car in the garage every night. GM never asked someone who was buying a 1999 Corvette to do this.
Reply
Luke 8:00PM (9/15/2008)
So the 1999 Corvette was an EV? Duh!
Mike!!ekiM 8:10PM (9/15/2008)
Randy point is, there were Limits on who could buy the car. Typically, the only limit there is to buy a car is how much green stuff is in your wallet. Money, is typically the ONLY criteria for sale.
Because GM didn't actually build a, you know, Real assembly line for this car, it seems plausible they didn't really want to sell a lot of them. Therefore, restrictions and limitations on who would be Qualified to purchase one would be necessary to Match the Planned Output( 300 cars ).
Duh.
Luke 9:22PM (9/15/2008)
Yeah, and Randy missed the point. GM was concerned about how the EV's electrical components would withstand weather. Apparently it has not occurred to Randy that protecting the car was to ensure the success of the ones that were produced. The controllers, for example, are prone to crap out. The very thing Randy points out disproves his conclusion.
Duh! Duh!
Randy C. 2:46PM (9/16/2008)
The garage was just an example. My point is it was exceedingly difficult to lease an EV1. The process and delays put many people off. Rules that were applied to an EV1 were NEVER applied to any other GM car. The EV1 was not given a fair and equal chance to succeed. It was stifled from day one.
Tim 9:59PM (9/15/2008)
Try telling these people that existing GM cars make lousy EVs:
http://www.evalbum.com/type/CHEV
http://www.evalbum.com/type/GMC
http://www.evalbum.com/type/PONT
(there's some Saturns and a couple Saab projects there too)
Granted, the EV album does not have Buicks, Hummers, or Cadillacs listed... but all those are ridiculously large and heavy vehicles, and I think Hummers were not around at the time anyway.
Just because GM did not want to do it does not mean that it could not be done.
Reply
Matt Lenart 12:54AM (9/16/2008)
mr. witzenburg:
thank you for cleaning up GM's lousy image w/ your honest, candid and unbiased expose in time for their upcoming VOLT launch (coincidentally also advertised on ABG's home page).
in your next revelation, would you kindly address the 3000-lb gorilla in the room by acknowledging the current RAV4 EV's still being driven today... and how toyota managed to avoid having to crush their vehicles.
many of these posts are coming straight from the general's keyboard, and they are getting closer to their ultimate goal of sweeping this huge oversight under the rug by having "skeptics" argue with "conspiracy theorists" into an eventual stalemate... brilliant.
from an engineering standpoint... if i were you, and had any dignity whatsoever, i'd be downright furious w/ GM for killing off a project that so many bright, hard-working people, such as yourself "busted their tails" working on. the technical problems you attempt to address are borderline ridiculous, since the EV1 was designed from the ground up, w/ a significant budget, unlike the RAV4 EV that just had the ICE gutted and batteries retrofitted into an existing drivetrain. other ma & pop companies... very SMALL companies are offering battery retrofits to saturn's sky, prius, etc. and offering similar if not better performance than the tragic EV1 at a very affordable price, even at a very limited production level.
so please. PLEASE... don't punish us w/ another article unless you plan on addressing the success of the inferior RAV4 EV still being "tested" , getting upwards of 80000 miles today, charged off rooftop solar panels.
Reply
Luke 3:10AM (9/16/2008)
I nearly fell out of my chair reading post #36. So the Rav4 EV is a "success" and is "still being tested"??? Sorry, but Toyota stopped making it long ago. Under your definition, the Ford Model T is still being tested.
And GM killed its project but Toyota didn't kill the Rav4 EV???? LOL!!! The only difference between the two is that GM recalled the cars. Considering the liability of controller failure while in motion, it probably made total legal and economic sense.
I hope to soon drive and EV made by GM or Toyota (mostly GM). But when that day happens, where will I get my daily dose of histrionics once you goof-balls have nothing to complain about?