GM-Volt founder stranded, learns why EVs take so long to bring to market
MINI E - click above for high-res image gallery
Over the last several years, many of the fans of battery-powered vehicles here on ABG have asked quite vociferously why it's taking companies like General Motors so long to bring cars like the Volt to market. Many of you seem to think you can convert an existing platform and have it on the market in six months. While it is certainly plausible for individual conversions to be done in that time frame, mass production is a very different matter. Media guru Jeff Jarvis even recommended that automakers follow the Google model of just releasing cars as betas and fix them as they go along. We've already denounced that idea, but GM-Volt founder Lyle Dennis recently learned the hard way the down side of this approach.
Dennis is one of 500 Americans selected to test drive the MINI E for a year. He has had recurrent problems with the shift lever popping into neutral and, ultimately, BMW replaced an electronic control unit to "fix" the problem. It mostly went away until he hit a pothole recently that caused the car to go into neutral and stay there permanently. After the car was hauled away on a flat-bed, a similar solution rectified the problem but only after several days. Undoubtedly, this is an excellent way for BMW to learn the pitfalls of EV use in the real world and they have always maintained that the MINI E fleet is meant to do just that. In fact, BMW is planning to expand the trials to Australia.
This is the sort of issue that is normally found and fixed in the hundreds of thousands of miles of durability testing done before a car is put on sale. All of this applies to every new vehicle regardless of powertrain. Is this public beta testing really what you want automakers to do? Or would you rather be patient and have the car come to market right? I think most people would opt for the latter.
[Source: GM-Volt.com]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Derek Jones 8:28PM (10/28/2009)
Apples & Oranges. Or Lemons maybe the better term... but the reality is if the Government and car manufacturers worked together to allow less "sophisticated" EV's on the road at a much cheaper price than what's being offered maybe all the testing and such would be further along. They've had small EV's running all over Europe for quite some time and although they are not up to speed (sorry) as the average ICE's out there they have a place. Small EV's without all the bells and whistles won't break down every time they hit a pothole. The trouble with letting lawyers into the design studio I guess.
Reply
Laurens 6:32AM (10/29/2009)
Innovators will accept a non developed product, just to be "cool" => Tesla. Reducing the number of outlets to 1st close to factory 2nd suitable climates etc. builds the image. When expanding to 3rd rest of the world is where it usually goes wrong.
Established manufacturers can't afford to make an "Edsel", because their client base just wants a reliable product, to go to work and drive the family, everyday and every time., in every weather condition.
nwkma0101 2:04AM (10/31/2009)
Laurens,
I agree with you.
Nick From Montreal 8:42PM (10/28/2009)
I agree with @Derek Jones: Everyone knows that BMW's Mini-E project was never handled seriously. They had to meet a CARB deadline and they did. So as far as this project is concerned, these rental "trial" tests are the same joke as the EV-1.
GM is more serious about the Volt and I'm pretty sure that Dr.Denis would be in EV heaven had GM provided him with a pre-production unit. Same with the Leaf.
You can't compare a rush job with a well-engineered, well tested EV.
Reply
ziv 8:53PM (10/28/2009)
The Mini was an interesting test but it really doesn't mean much to me. Chevy and Nissan are the companies that seem to be working towards a workable product. BYD is looking worse all the time. But I am not too sure about the Leaf, Nissan has given us just enough information to come to the conclusion that they are not being altogether truthful about the AER of the Leaf. It can't go 100 miles AER with the battery they are talking about, maybe they can go 100 miles at 25 mph, but I doubt it. There are no BEV's on the horizon that can come close to what GM claims the Volt can do. Maybe GM can deliver, maybe they can't, but my money is on GM. I won't bet on whether GM can decrease the price of the Volt enough to sell more than 10 or 20 thousand of them a year, though.
Reply
Hans Wurst 9:30PM (10/28/2009)
Hey, at least he gets to pay a shitload of money for the privilege of driving the piece of junk! 8oP
Reply
Andy 9:40PM (10/28/2009)
It's a fair enough point to say a new car platform needs a few years of development and reliability testing before bringing to market.... But...It doesn't take so long to integrate new components into a proven and tested platform. Especially if the components are already of known reliability e.g. electric motor.
Bringing up one bad customer experience doesn't make a powerful argument. It's not like a class issue or recall. In fact it's a testament to the maturity and reliability of electric drives that BMW could get this far so quickly.
I don't like it that ABG bloggers get suckered by this type of industry double talk. Manufacturers are NOT making a mad rush to convert existing platforms because it's difficult to commercialise and get a better profit margin than existing ICE. It is not really about technical limitations or customer acceptance.
Surely you can see it's just like the crap that GM spewed. Customers ONLY want big trucks and SUV's. Is it just coincidence they happened to be the most profitable lines for GM?
Reply
Chris M 11:14PM (10/28/2009)
Since the "shift lever" just activates switches for forward and reverse, neutral being neither forward or reverse, it sounds like a switch problem. They need to use a more reliable switch, or perhaps replace the lever with pushbutton switches.
Reply
nrb 11:50PM (10/28/2009)
"Google model of just releasing cars as betas and fix them as they go along"
Nice analogy, except for one big flaw. Google doesn't charge you $900/month to test their software.
Anyone remember the old days when you got paid to test products for companies, rather than the other way around?
Reply
Mark Kiernan 4:11AM (10/29/2009)
Well said. That is why I find the whole thing sinister. Why do you charge someone through the nose to test your car? Why not give the car to a specific group of people chosen by the company who would fit the needs. Charging is like some sort of scam, and those who paid were truly scammed.
I have said it before, BMW make good cars, but they don't give a rats behind about EVs, they they truly did they would have made a proper Mini EV, not this piece of junk. They will continue to drink the diesel kool aid for a while to come.
miles 6:15AM (10/29/2009)
Hi nrb & Mark, I'm not knocking your point, but I always gotta chuckle at the google analogies. It's a fine business model for software, but it doesn't much apply to the auto business - especially when you consider product liability and potential damage to corporate image. Can you imagine ANY auto company surviving after giving cars to customers with the ridiculously bad quality that is common in the software industry?
The cost and effort required for product validation is a completely different world. Once the first copy of beta software is available, what does it take to produce 100,000 test copies? (hint - It costs nothing) Once you've built the first copy of a beta automobile, what does it cost to build more copies? (hint - it's a few hundred thousand dollars EACH)
What happens if beta software has severe flaws? Users will roll their eyes and say "oh well, it's beta". Then the company releases Beta 2.0.
What happens if the beta auto has severe flaws? People could die and the company may get sued out of existance. This is one of the major reasons the leadership in auto companies is so much more conservative. It's required to stay in business.
While there are surely better business models to be had in the auto business, but we need to keep in mind the realities of the industry.
nrb 9:41AM (10/29/2009)
"Can you imagine ANY auto company surviving after giving cars to customers with the ridiculously bad quality that is common in the software industry?"
That reminds me of this old joke:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/crash.htm
Anyway, back to me being a grumpy old man, reminiscing of the the old days. A couple of decades ago, Beta software meant it was done. All features were in place. All testing was complete. The company thought they had a final product, but wanted a little real world test before releasing it. Often it went from Beta to GA with no changes. We're way too forgiving of Beta software now.
mike 12:19AM (10/29/2009)
Your argument implies the traditional route has always given us cars with no problems upon release for retail sale.
That is very clearly not the case.
Reply
KK 1:26AM (10/29/2009)
It implies that this sort of problem happens much less often on production cars. That's not the same as "never."
mike 6:44AM (10/29/2009)
@KK
..fair enough. But this single occurrence is not really valid to support either of those arguments. It's being used to say that this would be the common outcome or at least a reasonably likely outcome and it is assumed that the traditional development route leaves such an outcome as highly unlikely.
It would be very easy to find any number of vehicles that have been recalled though, due to problems discovered after release for sale.
In the end, almost every released vehicle will have quite a few technical service bulletins built up for it. And most will have corrective modifications of one type or another in subsequent years of build.
watcher 12:31AM (10/29/2009)
more bullcrap from the people responsible for killing off a car that would've revolutionized the auto industry. I don't see anyone getting bent out of shape this bad about range when a petrol filled car runs out on the side of the road. "oh EVs have a short range" BFD so do many petrol automobiles that get under 25 mpg combined city and highway. if people did their homework, yes EVs get roughly 40-60 miles on a charge, but alot of people also don't travel that far in a day commuting to work. if people drove EVs instead of the petrol cars, even limited range would be no big deal as there'd be recharging spots either alongside or replacing petrol stations or maybe even at the workplace parking lots. it's all about adaptation.. people did it with the petrol car, putting refueling stations every few miles, this would be no different and with more people driving/ buying these cars costs would go down and the tech would improve until these got over 300 miles on a charge or heck maybe even reach some sort of holy grail with perpetual motion (far far future maybe) but it's this guy's rant about limited range that will end up crippling EV's from ever being mass made by the current automakers like the big three or others like honda, and thus limiting it to small companies like tesla or to the enthusiast that retrofits an old car to electric. I'd take an EV-1 or Tesla Roadster over a 2mpg Hummer or Tahoe anyday.. plus I don't need a huge petrol guzzling car to make up for something
Reply
Ignatius 1:00AM (10/29/2009)
The car didn't run out of charge, its power control unit malfunctioned and forced the car into neutral after hitting a pothole. That doesn't normally happen to a production vehicle, but this isn't a production vehicle.
Randy C. 12:54AM (10/29/2009)
It sounds like BMW tried to reuse a part meant for gasoline cars. As a result they are having trouble with it working with the new power plant. A friend of mine is having similar problems with his EV conversion. He is trying to reuse the automatic transmission and not having much success because the gear ratios are wrong and pushing the fluid around eats up battery power.
If the entire power train was made to be an EV there would be no transmission problems. Why, might you ask? The AC Propulsion drive system does not require gear changes. A single speed gear reduction box will take the car from 0 to 90 MPH before a gear change would be needed. Since the highest speed limit I've seen on a US highway is 75 MPH, who needs any other gear ratio?
Reply
mark 2:46AM (10/29/2009)
One should never use an automatic in an EV conversion, it's inefficient and designed for the curve of an ICE.
RAN 12:33PM (10/29/2009)
I've only heard of one EV conversion with an automatic transmission that apparently worked well. Fortunately, I saved the site: http://www.htcracing.com/electriccar.htm
The general rule of thumb seems to be, with a DC motor convert a car w/manual transmission, and with an AC motor the transmission is generally not needed.