At Witz' End - Range Anxiety Q&A II
I really stepped in it last time by stating that GM never owned patent rights to Ovonic's NiMH batteries and never sold them to an oil company, and that no one sued Toyota. I believed those statements to be true at the time, but several of you straightened me out.However, since that complex issue has little to do with range anxiety, I'll come back to it at the end. Meanwhile, I wanted to address more of your comments and responses before moving on to new topics in future essays. Here goes:
EV1 was a low-volume vehicle made of a bunch of low-volume parts with little shared with GM's other products and released on a limited-availability basis. I have no problem with GM portraying it as a testbed, an excellent testbed at that, but to use the defense that GM was trying to make it succeed in the marketplace is just plain silly. – meme
To make the assumption that GM's BEV program was about only EV1 is silly. It was the pioneer vehicle on which the technology was developed. We hoped it would have more takers but never kidded ourselves that an expensive two-seater with very limited range would sell in big numbers or ultimately turn a profit. What should have been profitable long term, if only the enabling (lithium-polymer) battery had arrived as planned, were more practical and affordable follow-on BEVs, plus selling the technology to other automakers.
(more after the jump)
EV1 was a test of the technology as well as a test of the market at that time. Its demise is due to the results of that test pointing to a technology that wasn't yet matured enough and a market acceptance not high enough to justify the premium the new technology would cost. So they scrapped all their cars to keep R&D from leaking to competitors. I get annoyed at conspiracy theorists who watched "Who Killed the Electric Car" too many times. It seems that people like giving GM a bad name for giving the technology a shot when no other car maker was considering it, because their test proved that it was not financially viable at that time. I'm not a fan of American cars, but they innovated when no one else dared. Any reference to "evil oil companies" and GM conspiracies come from those who are ignorant of R&D work and basic engineering project management. -- Avro
Instead of innovating and competing against the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius and producing fuel efficient alternative vehicles, GM has...declined to compete. Now you say that an affordable electric vehicle cannot be built. -- paulwesterberg
Paul, as GM has repeatedly said, after giving up on volume BEVs in 1999 for lack of a suitable battery, it decided to leapfrog gas/electric HEVs - preliminary work had shown them to be a bad business case in terms of cost vs. benefit - to invest heavily in fuel cells for future FCEVs, a much longer shot with a huge potential payoff. Company officials have also said it underestimated the PR value of hybrids and regretted not developing them sooner...hence its heavy investments in both highly sophisticated 2-Mode hybrids and range-extender EVs. I have never said that affordable BEVs "cannot be built"...only that they present a formidable challenge, mostly due to battery cost and limited range, that no one has yet overcome.There's no evidence that any auto manufacturer, even Toyota, wanted to continue EV development after CARB dropped the "pure" ZEV mandate. NiMH packs with the capacity to move a regular vehicle (not a glorified golf cart) were and continue to be expensive. I know hobbyists are upset that they can't get large capacity NiMH packs without paying $1000/kWh or more, but exactly how would any battery manufacturer make a profit producing a relative handful of NiMH packs? Even if EV conversion enthusiasts could put together 1000 orders for a 25 kWh pack, it is unlikely such a small run would be profitable. -- Bill
We are all basically interested in achieving the same goals. Let's let the Teslas, Fiskers and others compete in a marketplace that has been closed to all options for 100 years. It's been ICE or nothing, to our extreme detriment, since cars came into existence. -- Ken Muir
Gallery: Detroit 2009: Fisker Karma S
Who is stopping Telsa, Fisker or anyone else from competing? What has prevented other options from succeeding? Only the irrefutable laws of physics and economics. The market has always been open to any technology that can meet our (myriad) government rules and satisfy customers at an affordable price. Problem is, only ICEs have been able to do that since steam and electrics died in the early years. When EVs finally get there, count me in.
The Gen II EV1 had a range of 75-150 miles on its [NiMH] batteries. What would it's range be with Li batteries? 300? I could charge a Gen III EV1 ONCE every two weeks. GM should have sunk 50% of its profits into EV development since 1999. -- Mike!!ekiM
Yes, a same-size (1200-lb.) Li-ion pack, had it been available then, could have doubled the NiMH EV1's range. Then it would have been a much more expensive two-seater with 150-300-mile range. GM profits have been precious few since then, yet its substantial investments in EV and HEV technology have continually increased.
Gary, thank you for your rational and positive look on battery electric vehicles. From following a lot of these blogs, it's clear that many BEV-advocates have their head in the clouds and no feet on the ground. It's good to be positive, but that can only get you so far. In order to make anything meaningful happen, you've got to be grounded in reality regarding the challenges. Only then can they actually be addressed. What's clear to me is that more than one type of vehicle is needed. The common theme will probably be electric, but batteries alone won't make a multi-purpose, long-range, family-sized vehicle anytime soon. -- PatrickS
As some of you pointed out, most of the facts on that ongoing Ovonic NiMH battery issue are available here. It is true that in 1994 GM bought a 60 percent interest in Ovonic Battery Company, including patents, and that Texaco purchased GM's share in 2001, and that Chevron acquired Texaco soon after that. And it is true that Ovonic Battery Company, a subsidiary of Energy Conversion Devices, sued Matsushita Battery, Toyota, Panasonic EV Energy (PEVE) and "several related entities" for patent infringement.
In 2003, that company was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics, in which Chevron also held a 19.99 percent interest, and in 2004 it was renamed Cobasys LLC. The suit was settled later that year in Cobasys' favor, and a total of $30 million in patent license fees was awarded. Other provisions awarded royalties on specific batteries sold by Matsushita/PEVE in North America and prevented it from selling "certain NiMH batteries for certain transportation applications" here until after June 30, 2007.
There's a lot more to it, and it's far from over today, as commenter Yanquetino points out: According to the current SEC filings, Chevron still holds 50% of Ovonics Battery, and the exclusive right to decide who to build automotive application NiMH batteries for, and how many. Currently they are being very selective about who and in what quantities they build, namely only for gas burning HEVs and only for GM. They are also currently still vying legally for complete control of the NiMH intellectual property.
Conspiracy theorists contend that Chevron-controlled Cobasys is doing everything it can to keep large NiMH battery packs (needed for BEVs) off the North American market for fear of competition. Business-savvy observers counter that it merely wants to protect its patent rights and own the market should they become affordable enough to be sold in profitable volumes. And while the facts are readily available, the motivations can only be assumed.
Award-winning automotive writer Gary Witzenburg has been writing about automobiles, auto people and the auto industry for 21 years. A former auto engineer, race driver and advanced technology vehicle development manager, his work has appeared in a wide variety of national magazines including The Robb Report, Playboy, Popular Mechanics, Car and Driver, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Autoweek and Automobile Quarterly and has authored eight automotive books. He is currently contributing regularly to Kelley Blue Book (www.kbb.com), AutoMedia.com, Ward's Auto World and Motor Trend's Truck Trend and is a North American Car and Truck of the Year juror.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
SteveCT 12:41PM (6/04/2009)
"Paul, as GM has repeatedly said, after giving up on volume BEVs in 1999 for lack of a suitable battery, it decided to leapfrog gas/electric HEVs - preliminary work had shown them to be a bad business case in terms of cost vs. benefit - to invest heavily in fuel cells for future FCEVs, a much longer shot with a huge potential payoff."
Oh good, I'm SO glad GM was investing in fuel cells. Never mind that they would require a list of breakthroughs and a massive investment in infrastructure to be even remotely viable. Never mind that GM needed a product that would sell in the here and now, not 20 years from now, BECAUSE IT'S GOING BANKRUPT. No, it sure was a great idea to skip hybrids and go right to fuel cells. I'm sure Toyota is in awe of GM's brilliant strategy of going bankrupt instead of building cars that sell.
No wonder GM went off a cliff--they employed morons like this clown.
Reply
Aceman 12:46PM (6/04/2009)
In his 1st sentence, Witzenburg acknowledges that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Then he wants us to continue reading his piece?
Sorry; you lose --- I should have trusted my spidey sense when I saw that you enjoy attaching pictures of yourself along with your postings.
The only thing worse than someone creepy is when that creepy person is uneducated --- a fraud.
Reply
End Witz 10:34PM (6/04/2009)
I figured out a way to block Gary Witzenburg's picture from ever appearing on AutoBlogGreen again! Download Firefox as your browser ( http://www.firefox.com ) and then download Ad Block Plus ( http://adblockplus.org/en/installation ). Install Ad Block Plus as an extension to Firefox and then right click on Gary Witzenburg's picture. Select Adblock Image... and choose to block the first option: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/08/garyw-headshot.png
You will never see Gary Witzenburg's face on AutoBlogGreen.com again, at least not until he uploads a new photo. As an extra bonus Ad Block Plus will get rid of all of the advertisements on AutoBlogGreen.com.
Gary Witzenburg 4:31PM (6/04/2009)
Aceman,
You choose to insult, I'll try not to. From my engineering education and advanced technology experience, I know a lot about EVs, HEVs and automobiles in general, and EV1 in particular. I know what actually happened when, and why, because I was there. But until about a month ago, I knew next to nothing about the Ovonics/Chevron/Matsushista/ Toyota/Panasonic patent infringement legal saga -- not my area of expertise -- and I'm man enough to publicly admit it. Where did you get your engineering degree, and what is your experience? My ABG contributions are opinion columns, not technical research papers. I offer opinions based on known facts and experience; you disagree with them. We both have a right to be wrong, but I'll put my knowledge and factual accuracy up against most. BTW, opinion columns typically have authors' photos attached. I don't do it, ABG does.
meme 12:52PM (6/04/2009)
"We hoped it would have more takers but never kidded ourselves that an expensive two-seater with very limited range would sell in big numbers or ultimately turn a profit."
Finally, some honesty from a GM guy on this front. It stands as a stark contrast on what GM repeatedly told the public was their excuse for killing the program. Random examples:
---
www.electrifyingtimes.com/GM_yanks_EV1.html
“The bottom line is there was just not a mass market that evolved in California or frankly anywhere else where we were offering EV1s that made the EV1 profitable for General Motors,” said GM spokesman Dave Barthmuss, who manages California environment and energy issues. “We were able to only lease 700 EV1s in a four-year time frame and that’s after spending well in excess of $1 billion developing and building them.
---
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/455.html
"We have to have advanced technology on the road in extremely large numbers -- hundreds of thousands of units, millions of units," he said. "The EV1 was not going to get us there."
---
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5524892
GM denies that it did not want the EV-1 to succeed, pointing to its billion-dollar investment in the program and claiming that consumer interest in the car was too low.
---
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/12/local/me-electric12
Dave Barthmuss, a spokesman for GM in Thousand Oaks, said he understood the affection the protesters have for the EV1 but that there wasn't a big enough market to support the car.
"The loyalists who are gathered in Burbank are very passionate about the vehicle, but there simply weren't enough of them at any given time to make the EV1 a viable business opportunity for GM to pursue long term," he said.
---
And on and on and on. That was GM's excuse #1 for killing the car: they couldn't sell enough. But that was never the car's design intent.
Again, I have no problem with the EV1 having been used as a testbed or, as you put it, GM "never kidding themselves" that it'd be a mass-market car. I fully respect and appreciate the approach of introducing a car as a technology demonstrator while you work on improving the technology to the point where you can make a mass-market model. But it bugs me to no end that GM's excuses for killing the entire program were that it didn't sell enough when this vehicle was clearly not designed to be a mass-market car.
If they had been honest about it -- that they didn't think they could make a profit-turning follow-on -- I'd have no complaints (apart from my disagreement about whether they could or not). But I hate lying PR guys.
Reply
Yanquetino 11:03PM (6/04/2009)
IMHO, worst of all were the lies that the GM bosses were feeding to their own EV1 spokespeople, who trusted their bosses enough to repeat them to consumers. Note these minutes from the second meeting of the EV1 Club --in 1997!-- at which the featured speaker was Bob "Mr. EV1" Purcell himself:
---------------------------
http://ev1-club.power.net/newsltr/vol1_3.htm#lead2
"One of our members Gardner Harris then asked the most controversial question of the day. Gardner had heard on the internet and other places that GM was not really behind the EV1 and maybe they secretly wanted it to fail. This allegation clearly got Bob's attention. He unequivocally rejected that conspiracy theory and backed it up with some facts. Most significant was the commitment already expended. Said Bob, "No company invests over half a Billion dollars to prove that they are wrong. " He also pointed out the number of Phd. Engineers and Scientists that he still has committed to the project. Bob also pointed out, "The core EV1 technology will support all new high technology vehicles to come." Finally he reassured everyone that GMs top brass is totally committed to the EV1 and pleased with the results thus far. Bob made it clear that the EV1 is here to stay."
Ouch...!
gwitz 9:14AM (6/06/2009)
Yanguetino,
So you're saying that when Bob Purcell told that EV1 Club meeting in the spring of 1997 that "GM's top brass was totally committed to the EV1" that he was being lied to by them, and (by implication) that he was too stupid to know it?
Baloney!!! Bob was no "spokesperson." He was executive director of GM's Advanced Technology Div., which had been organized, chartered and funded by "GM top brass" when the program was revived -- following a long hiatus due to GM's 1992 financial troubles -- in 1993. His mission was to "make a business of" battery electric vehicles, he and his bosses were committed to doing exactly that, and everything that he (and I, and others) said at that meeting and many others in those years was 100% true. It was well more than two years, and a paltry 700 EV1 leases, later when GM leadership finally gave up on BEVs (but not HEVs, FCEVs and other advanced technology vehicles) and stopped EV1 production -- at least until a better battery could be developed that could make them more affordable and practical.
Now, a full decade later, Li-ion may well turn out to be that better battery, but it will need many more years to prove itself over time, and its cost will have to come way down.
Gary Witzenburg
Yanquetino 3:49PM (6/06/2009)
Gary:
No, I never said that Bob Purcell was "too stupid." Personally, I opine that he was simply committed, trusting, hard working, and optimistic --all very admirable qualities.
As to whether or not his bosses were lying to him... I cannot say, as I was never a fly on the wall at their board meetings. BUT... I don't think we can ignore the fact that, even as far back in 1997, the lessees themselves "had heard on the internet and other places that GM was not really behind the EV1 and maybe they secretly wanted it to fail."
That's a bit odd, isn't it? Whence did such "rumors" originate?
I suppose you are asserting that they were simply NOT true at that time, a mere "conspiracy theory." Could be, sure. But they nonetheless turned out to be alarmingly prophetic, didn't they? Ultimately, the "top brass" ended up NOT being "behind the EV1," and it consequently failed --precisely what those rumors were "theorizing" way back then.
A mere coincidence? Well... I guess anything is possible, but that Bob would have to respond to such a question and put down such "rumors" as early as 1997 (!) raises my eyebrows.
Anon 12:58PM (6/04/2009)
Dear Autobloggreen:
Please get rid of this EV1 apologist called Gary Witzenburg. The reason why GM is bankrupt today instead of building 500,000 hybrids a year (like Toyota) or 500,000 EVs is because of people like Gary Witzenburg. The guy writes at most one article a month, doesn't research his material, is inaccurate and spends most of his time reliving and trying to justify the blunders that GM made with their first electric vehicle program.
There are some absolutely undeniable facts:
1. The primary reason GM developed the EV1 was in response to California legislation requiring manufactures produce zero emission vehicles. When these requirements were loosened GM dropped the program.
2. GM designed the program to fail. They would not sell the vehicles. They would not let lessees buy / keep the vehicles. They never tried to market the vehicles. They ignored the existing market that DID want to BUY the vehicles.
3. While other manufacturers like Toyota used government mandated studies to test battery systems, test engineering ideas and develop viable technology, GM primarily just went through the motions. Now they are bankrupt.
4. Gary Witzenburg's constant arguments that a "two seat" car is not marketable is just ... stupid. I guess if Gary was in charge GM would have dropped that car called the Corvette a long time ago.
Oh yea, but the Corvette has a market niche for people who want a very powerful sports car that they can tool around town in and that market is large enough to justify Corvette as a viable production car. The thing is that a car like the EV1 had a similar sized market niche which has dramatically increased in size during the past decade but the nuckleheads at GM chose to ignor this market niche completely. Toyota nurtured this market niche. Now GM is bankrupt and Toyota is the largest automobile manufacturer in the world.
What GM should do is fire every single last individual like Gary Witzenburg for cause and nurture new leadership which will follow through with a product launch. Bob Lutz pushed for this to happen with the Volt and hopefully the vehicle will see the light of day.
I am sick and tired of seeing Gary Witzenburg's face on the blogs of Autobloggreen. I long ago vowed to avoid reading his bland dribble but you keep on shoving it in front of me and he keeps on rehashing the same old same old.
Gary Witzenburg is offensive to many of the readers on Autobloggreen. Please get rid of him.*
Reply
Gwitz 4:37PM (6/04/2009)
Anon,
You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but your "absolutely undeniable facts" are mostly lies and opinions.
1. As I have written before, GM showed the Impact concept EV in January, 1990 and launched a production program that April. The California mandate came several months later. Everyone else's (ultimately unsuccessful) production EV efforts resulted directly from the mandate, not GM's.
2. GM absolutely intended its production EV program (not just EV1) to succeed and profit, both initially and after it was relaunched following a long hiatus due to the company's 1992 near-bankruptcy. Your "fact" is just your opinion based on bad assumptions and misinterpretations.
3. The government didn't mandate "studies," it mandated sales. While Toyota and others converted small numbers of existing vehicles, GM alone invested $1B in a long-vision BEV program that began with an all-new ultra-efficient showcase vehicle that could squeeze 50-70 or more miles out of the on-board energy equivalent of a half-gallon of gas.
4. Of the 30-plus two-seat cars on the U.S. market today, Corvette remains one of a mere handful that sell in profitable numbers. EV intenders are typically not sports car buyers. Most, even in this age of expensive gas, want more than 2-passenger capacity. Cost, range and two-seat impracticality were three strikes that combined to severely limit its appeal.
stevejust 4:48PM (6/04/2009)
I'm not so much in the "get rid of him" camp as I am in the, 'if you're going to give this guy a chance to publish crap, at least set up one of those live blogging/Q&A type chat rooms every month with this guy so that all of us who disagree with him so vehemently can have an opportunity to rebut what he's saying before it gets set in stone as a post on autobloggreen, where subsequent retractions in more recent posts might never be seen to the casual person stumbling upon something he writes via google' camp.
Seriously.
And Gary, if you're reading this, my offer to take you for a ride in my Fisker Karma (when it gets delivered) still stands. It should be sometime early next year, but your guess is as good as mine whether they'll reach that target delivery date or not.
Anon 10:34PM (6/04/2009)
Gary Witzenburg, you are a lying, misinformed, uneducated fraud. You were just an engineer inside GM during the EV1 era. There are plenty of things about the EV1 which you know nothing about. Instead of doing research to find the truth you just spew your opinions out in a arrogant manner as if they are fact.
1. California's legislation had been in the works for years before GM's launch of the Impact. Legislation just doesn't get written in a few months. You have no idea what you are writing about, yet you write in such an authoritative manner. Fraud.
2. Were you privy to the executive level discussions at GM at the time? GM used a bonded aluminum body which had never been tried before in any mass production automobile. If GM had ever intended to mass produce the EV1 they would have used some mainstream manufacturing processes which could be manufactured in a cost effective manner. There are plenty of examples of problems GM designed into the EV1. The plain truth is that you do not know what you are talking about. You don't know what the executives at the time were thinking. Fraud.
3. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. When I said "government mandated" I was not talking about California. Actually I was speaking directly to a government mandated program in China in the 1990's where both GM and Toyota participated. GM went through the motions just to satisfy the Chinese government requirements. Toyota used the Chinese mandate as a platform to test battery technology and report the results back to Japan. This Chinese government mandated study ended up providing the foundation for the battery technology which is now the core of the Prius which today makes up 500,000 vehicles per year for Toyota. GM went through the motions and never sent the information from China back to the USA. Of course you know nothing about this. Fraud.
And this drivel about investing $1 Billion. GM invested this money so they could say "we invested $1 Billion but it can't be done". YOU are personally part of the problem. You designed a car which was too expensive to build, not just because of the batteries but because of everything. Fraud.
4. You are an engineer. Where did you get your MBA in market research? If the market does not exist then why has Aptera been able to secure orders with $500 deposits for a crazy three wheel car that will probably never go into production? How do you know this? Did GM ever offer the car for sale? Did GM ever promote the car? What upsets me most about your pathetic misinformed blogging is your willingness to go outside your very limited area of knowledge and provide your authoritative opinion on things you know nothing about. Like marketing. You are a lying fraud.
It is a waste of time to try and point out all the mistakes, misinformed opinions, misleading statements of fact and outright fraudulent statements in your writing because you are who you are. I am not alone in the long list of people who loathe to have another one of your collection of lies appear on AutoBlogGreen on a monthly basis.
You profess that AutoBlogGreen is responsible for putting your picture on your articles. Well tell them to remove it! You are just a conceited engineer who wants to be considered more important than you really are. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Mike!!ekiM 1:01PM (6/04/2009)
>> We hoped it would have more takers but never kidded ourselves that an expensive two-seater with very limited range would sell in big numbers or ultimately turn a profit.
It seems "meme" understands that this was a Research Project, dressed up as a production product, but, you still don't. You cannot make any judgements about sales numbers, because you don't have the true cost of the vehicle, unit cost, because you didn't set up a True Production Run. You have an inflated unit cost. A pet project to build a few hundred cars, and restrict sales thru multiple means is no test of the market. You only sold in two city's and you had a waiting list, in a market with low gas prices!
Reply
meme 1:02PM (6/04/2009)
And just to recap on the whole "not intended for mass market" aspect that has been discussed before:
* The car was built on a unique platform, rather than sharing lines with other vehicles, thus guaranteeing it'd be expensive. As an example of how isolated and limited its production was, there was only a single robot used in the entire factory (it installed windshields).
* The car was not presented for sale, only lease. A common approach for concept cars and testbeds, but an approach essentially never taken by cars intended for mass adoption.
* GM tightly controlled who was allowed to lease, turning down more applicants than they accepted, and when the program was terminated, there was a huge waiting list. Again, absolutely nothing wrong with that for a testbed, but clearly not something you do if you're trying to move a lot of units.
As Witz notes, they had no illusions that they were going to market a ton of these vehicles. It wasn't designed for that. But that's the excuse they gave when they terminated it. I.e., they're liars, and the reason for the existence of all of these conspiracies is that they were so transparent about it. You can't design a car to be built on an isolated line in small numbers and say it's too expensive, put strict requirements on who can lease and prevent people from buying and terminate a program with a big waiting list and say there was no interest, without it being obvious that you've lying. And combine that with crushing the vehicles, and is there any wonder in the slightest why the conspiracy theories arose?
Reply
mister nomer 7:00PM (6/04/2009)
But don't you think that using an existing platform would've had problems as well?
Considering how bureaucratic GM is, I suspect that trying to arrange for a platform from another division would be almost as hard as coordinating with an outside company. Maybe even harder.
I suspect that using a non-standard platform allowed the EV1 team to get the program up and running more quickly than they otherwise would have and that's why they did it.
Still you bring up an interesting point, and perhaps my questions here are for Gary as much as they are for you and me:
1) Which platform would you have picked?
The platform would've had to be lightweight but strong enough to support the weight of a 1,000 lb battery, hold it firmly in place in case of an accident, and hold it in such a way as to not impinge on passenger or cargo space. This would've been tough because meeting the light weight requirement may have required using a small car platform.
2) What modifications do you think would've been necessary to make the platform work for EVs?
Modifying a platform for a special model happens from time to time in the car industry. There may be instances from the past which we can use as a guide. I'm guessing it's expensive and requires an expectation of solid sales and healthy margins before companies commit the engineers, managers, suppliers, and workers to do it. This probably would also factor in to trying to convince another division to let you use one of their plants for one of their platforms.
So, to me at least, the question becomes:
Would (modified platform development and manufacturing cost + NiHM battery cost) / 10,000 units a year = ? acceptable consumer cost, i.e. mid $20s ?
Considering the original Honda Insight cost only $19K, got at least 56MPG (At $4/gal, $8,571 buys enough gas for 120,000 miles), and Honda only sold 18,000 of them in 7 years, I'm still skeptical that GM would've sold that many EV1s.
Thanks... = )
NeilBlanchard 1:15PM (6/04/2009)
Hi,
I'd swear that I read somewhere that GM had a *4-seat* version of the EV1 nearly ready to go out the door, when they scraped the program?
Sincerely, Neil
Reply
Nick P. 1:21PM (6/04/2009)
I have no idea why this guy is a guess blogger on AutoBlogGreen. He doesn't research his posts and is totally stuck in the past. This is awful blogging: misleading information coupled with strong disdain for EV enthusiasts.
I dunno...why should we read this guy again?
- Nick -
Reply
Throwback 2:36PM (6/04/2009)
"This is awful blogging: misleading information coupled with strong disdain for EV enthusiasts. "
Mis-leading information, from a blogger? I'm shocked, shocked by this development.
paulwesterberg 1:41PM (6/04/2009)
If GM decided to leapfrog gas/electric HEVs then where are the next gen vehicles they have been working so hard on?
Serial hybrid? - If they had been working on the volt since 1999 it would be on showroom floors by now. By the time it gets to market it will face stiff competition with many HEVs PHEVs BEVs available from many other manufacturers.
Hydrogen? - GM has been working on it since 1999 even though the myriad of problems plaguing hydrogen are well known. Hydrogen vehicles are essentially range extended electric vehicles because all the components are electric rather than mechanical. You would think that the r&d invested in hydrogen would have helped development of the volt platform.
Two Mode Hybrids? - get only marginally better gas mileage, not worth the cost to most buyers, inferior to Toyota's synergy drive.
GM abandon electric technology in favor of large SUVs and short term profits.
Reply
mister nomer 12:24PM (6/05/2009)
paulwesterberg says "If they had been working on the volt since 1999 it would be on showroom floors by now."
I don't think we're ever going to know for sure one way or the other but (like you) that's not about to stop me from speculating. = ))
I am not so sure that the Volt would be ready right now if GM had started in, as you suggest, 1999. From what I've read, what allows the Volt to work is GPS. The Volt will use GPS as part of its charging algorithm. It will know where home is, where it is right now, what the route is, and will determine how to run its generator engine accordingly.
http://jalopnik.com/5050833/gms-lutz-chevy-volt-will-use-gps-to-determine-distance-from-home-adjust-engine-accordingly
The civilian GPS signal did not get improved until 2000 and, of course, it took a few years before GPS nav units became common and prices came down. All that had to happen before the Volt (as we know it) could begin to take shape.
Plus, the batteries are still pretty new too. A123 had to rush to get their cells ready for GM and were even a little late. The LG Chem cells that the Volt will use aren't exactly old tech either. http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/10/bob-lutz-admits-battery-advantage-over-toyota/
It's possible GM could have tried to develop a GPS-less, NiMH battery equipped Volt but your guess is as good as mine as to how well it would've worked and how much it would've cost.
And, an even bigger question is how much of that knowledge would've helped develop the Volt (as we know it). Seeing as how Boeing's and Airbus's years of experience building big planes didn't help them that much when it came to building the 787 and A380, it doesn't always follow that experience in one area helps you in another.
Later... = ))