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 3 of 3)
ivan 1:07AM (9/18/2008)
why did GM ended car as soon as the CARB cancelled the original ZEV mandate?...i mean they were lobbying for it...and i am pretty sure you already heard the CEO of GM say in his words, that the worst mistake he ever made was to kill the EV1.
sorry man, nice article. but I just dont believe that BS.
concidencially u posted this a day before the volt will be made public. I wonderrr!
Reply
Matt Lenart 7:38AM (9/16/2008)
toyota stopped making the RAV4 EV a long time ago?!?!?
boy am i ever embarassed... :(
time to pick yourself up off the ground, as soon as you're done laughing that is, and look up "sarcasm". then you can re-read my initial comments and determine the role quotation marks play with certain words based on the general theme.
then you can watch some recent footage on youtube of how university students revived their donated EV1's by fixing the disabled "controller" or in some cases rebuilding this "complex" device which simply manages the current going into and coming out of the batteries, to bring those EV1's back to life.
when you're done w/ that bit of research, check out some footage of existing RAV4 EV's being "tested" by private citizens in california, "tested" for 80,000 miles w/o any problems, w/o any support/parts from their manufacturer, zero maintenance, zero emissions, charged off solar panels and you can decide for yourself how successful it would be compared to the upcoming volt.
glad i made your day though,
regards,
goof-ball
Reply
Luke 8:23AM (9/16/2008)
I both read and understood your comments, along with the quotation marks. You fail to realize that the legal and economic liabilities of having a couple hundred EV's are not necessarily worth the cost. Each manufacturer has to weigh the risks, but in both cases the manufacturers decided to kill their projects.
Also, I didn't say it wasn't possible to repair ANY vehicle that exists or has existed, including any EV on the planet. What I said is that the failure of the system while is motion can be a huge liability, and each manufacturer must consider whether or not it is worth their risk. Transmissions that fail are recalled for the very same reason.
Finally, I'm glad that the R4 EV is still around and has proven itself worthy of consideration to a limited market (today's batteries are better, obviously). The fact that there are people fixing them on youtube affects nothing that I said (see above). There are people on there that are shooting rockets into their crotches on youtube, too. Perhaps Toyota will start making rockets. They sure don't make any EVs, because their "testing" showed the product to be unworthy at that time, and with that design.
Long+5; 9:38AM (9/16/2008)
GM still has not learned its lessons. EV1 failed because of pricing and limited offering. If GM is a start-up like Tesla then selling $40K Volt is fine. Or if GM plans on selling the Volt as a novelty for the rich in small number for the bragging rights like Corvette then fine! Where as, Toyota sold Prius at a lost in the beginning to prove its technology and educate the consumer (PR cost if you want to think of it that way) thus became the world leader in hybrids in the consumer eyes. Look at the opening price of Prius, $20K in 1997 in Japan. Engineering does not stop at safety, performance, and cup holders. It also include affordability and maintaintability.
In that senses EV1 was an engineering failture! Unless GM pile on a huge profit onto EV1 real cost? Lets wait and see if the VOLT will be a failure once again... history always repeat itself if the same people are involved. GM needs fresh ideas... Out with the olds and in with the youngs. Get people who do breakthrough things because they do not know that it could not be done!
Reply
Serge 11:12AM (9/16/2008)
I've really had high hopes for this series in terms of getting some insight into a story behind the EV-1 program. However, I find little of value in between discussions of out-of-context / least relevant reader comments and refusal to elaborate on the most critical decisions made (or not): 1) planning of low production numbers, then using it as indicator of poor sales performance and reason for cancellation of program; 2) closing of EV1 plant despite Gen II's improved performance with Ni-Mh batteries; 3) not exploring EV1 PHEV beyond the prototype stage; 4) sale of stake in GM Ovonics Battery Systems to Texaco, effectively closing the door on use of Ni-Mh tech for automotive applications.
From the outside looking in it seems that GM did not commit to success of EV-1 Program despite tremendous efforts put into it initially. I'm still interested in the story, so decided to order a copy of Shnayerson's "Car That Could: The Inside Story of GM's Revolutionary Electric Vehicle".
BTW, Tesla Motors has disproved Witzenburg's opinion expressed in the last paragraph.
Reply
C. 11:50AM (11/15/2008)
RE: "no other practical production vehicle has come close to EV1's astounding 0.19 Cd"
Actually the Tatra T77 and T87 (4 door cars produced in the 1930s) both had a cd of 0.212
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatra_T77
Reply
Chris M 6:19PM (9/21/2008)
It is interesting to note that the EV1 was canceled AFTER high energy LiIon batteries went into mass production and were starting to show up in consumer products. GM appeared to be in a hurry to get the program canceled and all the leased cars returned and crushed before someone pointed out the obvious: Batteries that could give the EV1 over 240 miles per charge are now available!
Oh, I suppose it is possible that the entire GM team of engineers and executives were, until recently, unaware of LiIon battery technology...
Reply
Lukas Nosek 11:06PM (11/11/2008)
Hello,I am a headhunter and I am looking for an E-Vehicle Program mnager. Could anyone recommend an individual who lead or is now managing an electric vehicle program?If you need more info, please send me an email: Lnosek@spenglerfox.com.Thank you.Lukas Nosek
Reply
Ben 6:22PM (11/30/2008)
GM always has an excuse as to why electric cars won't/didn't work (Actually any fuel efficiency increase). Yet, others seem to be doing it successfully.
The idea that somehow what is important is that they learned something from it is retarded. Imagine if NASA had stopped the space program in the sixties after the first failure and just said, "At least we learned some things." Last time I heard of a recall they didn't recall the entire vehicle. If they really had a problem they should have fixed the problem and kept testing until they had a viable product. That is part of R&D.
We know what really happened is that they scrapped it and moved into a pricing model that focused on higher profit per product by selling SUVs and other big ticket vehicles.
GM could have prepared for what any reasonable person saw coming and done a little of both. Instead of diversifying their product line to hedge against a drop in one or the other they put all their eggs in one basket and bet on cheap gas. Perhaps the lessons they really should have learned from were the lessons of the seventies.
You might say that they did some of what I said, or that there is some reason they had that was better, but the truth is that they did none of what I said and any ideas they had have proven not to be better. Perhaps, if they had stepped out of their dream world long enough to see the market they wouldn't be bleeding cash and begging us for our tax money. GM should stop being protectionists and start competing in the market.
You say they had some technological advances that they now sell to other car companies as if that means they are doing OK and justifies what they did. I have a real idea, instead of focusing on small improvements to minor automotive systems, how about innovating a car that people can afford and gets good gas mileage. Foreign companies are beating the crap out of GM because they innovate in luxury items such as blue tooth cell phone linkage while maintaining good gas mileage and a reasonable price. GM could take a lesson. GM reserves these items for their 30k - 50k $ vehicles.
Now GM boast of their 28-30 mpg cars that, in reality, are junk compared to other cars that get 35-40 mpg. Are these the lessons that GM learned you refer to?
Reply