Smithsonian Removes EV1 Exhibit 420
johnMG writes to mention a Seattle PI article on the Smithsonian's move to remove the EV1 electric sedan from display. From the article: "The upcoming film 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' questions why General Motors created the battery-powered vehicles and then crushed the program a few years later. The film opens June 30th. GM happens to be one of the Smithsonian's biggest contributors. But museum and GM officials say that had nothing to do with the removal of the EV1 from display."
Nothing to see here. (Score:5, Funny)
The funny part is, they're removing an Electric Car display to make room for an SUV display.
Re:Nothing to see here. (Score:2, Interesting)
I would love to tour that facility - there has to be a TON of amazing stuff there that they simply don't have the room to exhibit. On the other hand, it's probably all boxed up or something, so maybe it wouldn't be that interesting. Still, the sheer size of the place and the organization scheme is probably something to s
Re:Nothing to see here. (Score:5, Informative)
You can. http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/wac5/smithtour.htm [flinders.edu.au]
rj
Re:Nothing to see here. (Score:2)
http://www.nasm.si.edu/garber/ [si.edu]
Re:Nothing to see here. (Score:3, Funny)
- G
Riiiiiight (Score:5, Funny)
Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:5, Insightful)
But at least according to the film, more was at work than the market in that decision. They blame the oil companies for anti-market tactics like astroturf groups to oppose charging stations, as well as buying congressmen to give tax credits to SUV owners. (SUVs over 3 tons, most famously the Hummer, were treated as commercial vehicles, and given huge tax breaks. And non-enormous SUVs got to count their potential carrying capacity towards that 3 tons under a 2002 "economic stimulus package").
Oil companies also campaigned vigorously against emissions restrictions and higher CAFE standards. In market terms, those are attempts to monetize externalized expenses.
So the cards were stacked in favor of SUVs and against the electric car. Not by the market, but precisely counter to the market, when powerful companies get a larger say in regulations than consumers do.
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:3, Insightful)
In CA there were charging station going up everywhere.
"as well as buying congressmen to give tax credits to SUV owners. (SUVs over 3 tons, most famously the Hummer, were treated as commercial vehicles, and given huge tax breaks. And non-enormous SUVs got to count their potential carrying capacity towards that 3 tons under a 2002 "economic stimulus package")."
It was a loophole in a bill to help farmers.
Al
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:4, Interesting)
Because they already use bicycles.
Seriously, why do you think China would benefit greatly from electric cars? The population centers are very dense - so cars aren't too useful there, outside of the cities, the roads are not like America's and the majority of people who live outside the cities generally could not afford a card of any sort anyway.
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:3, Informative)
Have you read-up on China since the 1980s? They're second only to the USA in their love for cars. Traffic jams and pollution/smog are very common sights there. You certainly don't see the streets packed with bicycles anymore...
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and do you think the car companies would have been able to make the money they did without the massive taxpayer investment in car transportation? By which I mean the interstate system, traffic lights, safety regulation, traffic cops, paving roads, yearly maintenance, etc, etc. Total cost to taxpayers in 2005 dollars since 1957? At least 5 trillion dollars by my hasty calculations.
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:5, Insightful)
GM knew they could sell electric cars.
I think the point you're missing is this:
Way simpler than ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. ICE's have to have many many moving parts working in sync to even run at all. There's even fluid dynamics involved for air, fuel, and lubricant flow. It's insanely complicated compared to an electric car which happens to consist of only 4 major parts:
That's it. Any other fancy features (like regenerative braking) are just gravy, and you don't need them for a simple functional vehicle.
Car companies could make an electric "VW Bug" type car in their sleep. Hobbyists have been making them in their garages for decades.
The fact of the matter is not that car companies can't make money on them, the fact is that they wouldn't be able to make nearly as much money on them as they do with ICE vehicles. Here's some reasons why:
1. Energy efficiency. All the extras that car companies like to change extra for (power windows, power doorlocks, automatic transmissions, big stereos, heated seats, etc.) become much less viable with small economical energy efficient vehicles. Instead of "features" they become things that reduce how many miles you can go on a charge.
2. Size. EV's tend to be fairly small. Car companies like to charge big money for big vehicles.
3. Parts. EV's are very reliable. We're used to driving vehicles around which have explosions going on inside their engines. This wears ICE's out fast. Electric motors last an very very long time with minimal maintenance. This means car companies will not make much money selling parts. Batteries, OTOH, do wear out. But they're dimensions are currently pretty standardized, and so you wouldn't have to go to the dealership to recycle them.
4. Lifetime. As mentioned, EV's last a very long time. Car companies like their customers to drive disposable cars, so they can be sold another car in a few years.
5. Oil. You can't discount the relationship that car companies almost assuredly have with oil companies. It's symbiotic. Do you think maybe GM has heavy investments in several oil companies? I'm sure they certainly do. And widespread EV sales would hammer oil company profits. Do you think maybe oil companies have large investments in automobile companies? Let's listen in on a possible future phone call:
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not as market-driven as you'd hope (Score:3)
The current batteries are expensive, heavy, have to be replaced every 3 or so years, and are slow to charge. As soon as there are batteries that let your drive 450Km ona charge in a car that seats 4 and has a trunk, I think electric cars will become very popular. I also expect charging to be done at home. We ALL have electricity at home.
Instead of an EV1 you got an SUV? (Score:2)
A SUV is functionally a far different vehicle than an EV1. I'd tend to think that a Honda Civic/Accord or similar would have been a better choice if an EV1 would have truly met your needs.
Re:Riiiiiight (Score:3, Interesting)
I skipped a couple steps.... The dot.com years were good, and there's a big trailer that tags along behind the SUV. How much can your Cavalier tow? I managed 22 mpg (sans trailer of course...) on one 2000 mile trip with 6 people in the SUV plus a weeks worth of suitcases and wedding gifts. Your Cavalier would have required 2 trips on that one, and an extra week of vacation. and I'd still be ahead on fuel
Re:Riiiiiight (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Riiiiiight (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for posting (Score:3, Insightful)
By and large, corporations are full of good people who understand that making money ultimately comes from pleasing your customers. If GM dropped the electric car idea, it is not for some nefarious reason, but because the things just couldn't provide a competitive balance of brice and performance at the time. It is also ludicrious to claim that "Big Oil" and th
"Crushed" sounds so much better than "Cancelled" (Score:5, Insightful)
The time will come when all electric cars will be more practical, but in the meantime do we have to be so sensationalistic when something we like vanishes?
Perhaps if there had been a cool movie about electric cars BEFORE they were cancelled we might still have them. If you really like something then now is the time to drum up support for it! Be an evangelist, not a mere consumer.
Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, an all-electric car would most likely be worse than one burning the fuel directly. I have never heard of a perfectly efficient method of transmitting electricty from where it was produced to where it was needed (e.g. charge up the car). Ergo, there would be a net increase in "environmental badness" to use the e-car vs wh
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:2, Insightful)
The key issue is that the energy density and "recharge time" of gasoline make batteries look like toys. Batteries recycle pretty well, so that isn't that big of a deal.
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:5, Informative)
So, it's not actually clear without hard numbers wether or not driving an electric car 500 miles requires more fossil fuels than driving a gasoline car 500 miles.
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:3, Insightful)
If anything, the best point at this point would be the possibility that your plant uses a domestically produced fuel, so we don't have to trash our economy any more h
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:5, Informative)
Sure you can, just not in terms of miles-per-gallon. You have to use the lowest common denominator: BTUs per mile.
Your average 2-ton gasoline automobile uses about 6350 BTUs of energy per mile, and your average 240-ton electric light rail train uses about 1150 BTUs per mile. I would imagine a battery-electric vehicle probably does a bit better than a commuter train.
Let's look at rail transport, which has already gone through this battle almost a century ago. Electric vehicles are more efficient. This was plainly obvious to the railroads very early on. Railroads switched to diesel-electric in the 1960s, which was really taking an old concept (there were a few 100% electrified railroads like Oregon Electric Railway and others by the 1930s, running off overhead wires like many light rail and the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and Florida Funnel lines do today) and making it portable (bringing the power plant along for the ride by installing a few generators on board).
And if you want anecdotal evidence, next time you get stuck at a busy railroad crossing near a rail yard (thus trains speeding up as they leave), watch the locomotive exhaust. It's hardly noticable. Now when the gates go up, look for a dumptruck and watch how much soot it blows out. And the locomotive has four engines roughly the size of the dump truck's cab....
Not all power is fossil (Score:5, Informative)
While your statement applies to much of the US, here in BC, Canada we use mostly Hydroelectric power... which isn't really consumed in use. And of course, many places use other power sources such as nuclear, tidepool generators, etc.
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:3, Informative)
so for the sake of argument let's just assume your numbers are correct. you said a gas car is roughly 30% efficient. i read several other comments mentioning that 20% of power in the US is generated via nuclear power. we will even forget that some power is also generated via other clean methods such as wind solor or hydro.
so taking this into account that makes our car suddenly 20% more efficient since 20%+ of the power i
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:3, Informative)
I happen to be looking in on this for something on another board, and I have some differing information.
In 2004, about 71% of the power generated came from coal; petroleum; natural or other gases (read: methane for the former, and butane, propane, and similar for the latter); and wood. About 20% came from nuclear, 7% from hydroelectric, and 2% from other renewables.
Source: Energy Information Administration [doe.gov]
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:3, Insightful)
Winter. Have you ever driven in a vehicle for any length of time when the heater didn't work? When it was below 0F? I had an old blazer that was like that - the hearer fan didn't work below 32F. I don't drive that much so I never bothered to fix it, but one's feet certainly get cold when there's no heat to be had.
In an all-battery powered car, there's only one source of heat. Electric heat from the batterie
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since most electricity is still generated by burning fossil fuels, an all-electric car would most likely be worse than one burning the fuel directly. I have never heard of a perfectly efficient method of transmitting electricty from where it was produced to where it was needed (e.g. charge up the car). Ergo, there would be a net increase in "environmental badness" to use the e-car vs what we have now.
Not necessarily. Your argument is only true if the electric power plant and the gasoline-powered car operate at the same efficiency. If the power plant is significantly more efficient than a gasoline engine, then it is quite possible for the electric car to be more environmentally friendly than the gasoline car, even with transmission losses.
Your argument also ignores the fact that its generally easier to implement and upgrade pollution controls on a few dozen power plants versus several million automobiles.
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:2)
Aside from that and the efficiency argument it also ignores the fact that not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels. Where I live the electricity that would go into charging an electric car would be hydro generated, which does bring up other environmental issues but it isn't the same as burning fossil fuels.
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:2)
I don't agree with this at all. A gas engine is what, 15% efficient? Well it has GOT to be easier to get a large power plant to be more efficient than that than thousands of little engines. It's also easier to reduce emissions and such because it's all in one place.
And what's this fossil fuel nonsense? That's not a problem. It's called nuclear power. It's WAY cleaner than burning fossil fuels. Even many environmentalists who fought it 30 years ago have started to say they were wrong. Give everyone electric
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:2)
New combined cycle plants have a thermal efficiency of 59%. The 25 year old design of the nuclear power plant I work at is 35% thermally efficient or so. If I remember correctly, mitsubishi heavy industries makes a 100,000 hp diesel engine that ran at 100 rpm and was 50% efficient.
The other factors you'd have to multiply i
Not that simple (Score:3, Informative)
In the real world, it doesn't always work this way. For one thing, burning fossil fuels in a powerplant is m
Re:regenerative braking: Today (Score:5, Informative)
Every modern hybrid today (Prius 1997, Insight 1999) have used regenerative braking, or have tried to.
o Highway? Toyota's HSD (Hybrid Synergy Drive) puts the engine into maximal efficient RPMs while you drive and then pumps the excess energy into the battery.
o Slowing down? Engine drag is simulated through regenerative braking until battery is overcharged, then it goes into compression drag.
o Engine braking especially going downhill? Aggressive regenerative braking until the battery is full.
o Coming off the freeway? Again, very light regenerative braking before you even hit the brakes.
It's not just plain red-tail light regenerative braking you're thinking of.
Supercaps? That would be nice, but I think Toyota threw out that idea already. There's a few modders on the Prius using Can-view [hybridinterfaces.ca] to watch the voltages going in and out of the plain NiMH system as well as total state of charge.
Re:Or saw the pollution to supply the e-cars... (Score:2)
Sure, if you live in some armpit of the planet that still uses coal for power. At least in the northwest, the vast majority of our electric comes from hydropower, followed by steam plants and wind.
Re:"Crushed" sounds so much better than "Cancelled (Score:2)
Except that GM never even tried to sell the EV1. Instead they offerred it for lease, with no option to buy at the end of the lease. When the leases did expire, many leasees balked at returning their cars, and begged GM to sell them. You'd think GM would have gone along, to avoid the expense of scrapping them.
GM was obviously gaming the system somehow, though I've never understood exactly how.
Re:"Crushed" sounds so much better than "Cancelled (Score:2)
EVERYONE who leased an EV1 knew they had to return it to GM.
Re:"Crushed" sounds so much better than "Cancelled (Score:2)
NAH! Of course it didn't. (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, the insistence on making electric vehicles look as unsexy and unstylish as possible was not a deliberate ploy intended to kill public interest in them. We all know that most people would just love the chance to be seen driving around in something which looks like a French milkvendors cart.
Re:NAH! Of course it didn't. (Score:2)
Re:NAH! Of course it didn't. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because some people like that look (like me, for instance -- my family owns a nice wine red one). I'm sure some people liked the look of the EV1 as well (I didn't, but I do like the Insight which is kind of similar).
If you want an example of an ugly car, try the Pontiac Aztek -- don't nobody like that one!
Re:NAH! Of course it didn't. (Score:2)
rj
Who Killed the Electric Car? (Score:5, Funny)
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscars night?
We do! We do!
GM loves corn (Score:5, Insightful)
About that Corn (Score:4, Insightful)
As it stands, the US Gov't pays farmers not to plant fields, subsidizes the farmland that is planted, and buys up excess product to keep prices up. This practice isn't limited to corn, most independant/corporate farmers recieve gov't handouts.
Ontop of that, the Feds have tariffs to keep the domestic price of ethanol up, because ethanol production (like farming) is heavily subsidized and not exactly profitable.
The entire market that is/would be involved in large-scale ethanol production is heavily skewed because of subsidies. The cheapest route would be to import ethanol from places where it is cheap.
On a side note: Why do SUVs belong in museums?
Like trucks and the TUV (Truck-UV), they fill an important niche.
The SUV is just a vehicle, maybe your problem is with the people who drive them.
Re:About that Corn (Score:5, Insightful)
Ethanol can only be efficiently produced from very high-energy crops like sugar beets - or even better, sugar cane. Unfortunately most of the land that's being used to grow corn doesn't do very well growing sugar beets, and can't be used to grow sugar cane at all. In fact, the places best suited for both of these crops are in central and south America. That is, places where there aren't any American farmers, nor any representatives in Congress.
You ever wonder why corn syrup is used as a sugar substitute in so many things, like, for instance, cola drinks? Because Congress, in it's infinite wisdom, outright bans the import of sugar past a certain allowed tonnage each and every year. The sole reason for doing so is to support corn farmers, who'd otherwise lose the corn syrup business to sugar cane farmers in other countries (it takes far less sugar to make something taste sweet than it does corn syrup, and sugar tastes better than corn syrup). It makes no economic sense for the rest of the country, but there you have it - your tax dollars at work in a government protection racket.
These same farmers push for corn-derived ethanol despite the fact that it can never be efficient, nor can it ever be economical for the rest of us - those of us who aren't corn farmers. Ethanol from corn is a bust, but don't expect the government to ever admit to that, or to admit that the only truly productive ethanol will come from places like central or south America, or Hawaii, or perhaps southern Florida. Too many Congresscritters would be out of a job if they ever admitted to that.
Max
Re:GM loves corn (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because there is this nasty little law that allows car makers to in effect grossly inflate the stated mpg of flex-fuel vehicles %20 over what they actually get. Many good selling vehicles (i.e., pickups) actually are flex-fuel, but the only way that you'd know it is from the VIN. You see, they don't actually *care* about you being able to burn flex-fuels; what they care about is artificially raising the fleet average fuel economy rating.
Cheat number two:
MTBE was added to gasoline as an "oxygenate" to make it burn cleaner. Only one company (arco?) was making it at the time and they lobbied heavily to make sure that the specs in the law pretty much spelled out that only MTBE would fit the bill, if you will excuse the pun. It gave them a six month lead on the market until other manufacturers could ramp up. Well, it turns out MTBE is really nasty stuff that gets into ground water, and causes the birth of three headed monkeys from otherwise normal canaries. And they had no idea. Oh, and Congress is working hard to make sure that you can't sue them. Anywhoo, now that it is acknowledged that MTBE is bad, new law has been constructed that pretty much guarantees that Ethanol will replace the previous 10% by volume oxygenate. Problem is, Ethanol gets something like 20% worse mileage than MTBU (Ethanol 76,000 btu/gallon, MTBE 93,500 btu/gallon, US gas 115,000 btu/gallon). Work out the math and you see that once again, the oil industry wins big time. Under the guise of "cleaner fuel, cleaner air, cleaner water", we are going to be filling up MORE often with MORE expensive gasoline that will create MORE pollution! Oh, and Ethanol might be worse for groundwater, as it is totally mixable in water and carries lots of other things from the gas with it. Can't smell it like you can MTBU, though, so you'll be drinking it for years before you realize it. Of course, the replacement of MTBU with Ethanol was enacted within a day or so of the Big Head Cheese giving a big "I understand the concerns of the simple folk" speech about how we are going to cut our reliance on foreign oil and clean the air and water by "doing things" with alternate energy. Same time that the alternate energy budget allocations were cut. Doublespeak at it's best...
Careless Use of Assets (Score:4, Funny)
Repressed technology (Score:4, Informative)
Alternative fuels have always been repressed by the US government and big auto makers because of the global dependence on oil. Do you think it has taken us 50 years to get a car to go supposedly 40mpg?
.
Back in the late 70's there was a little know company called AMECTRAN, that a the first production ready electronic vehicle that could go 80mph, had a range of 100+ miles, and costs less than $10,000. Electric cars suck? Yea right! Take a look at the inventor's website: [amectran.com]http://www.amectran.com/ [amectran.com]
Re:Repressed technology (Score:2)
This makes no sense. The Automaker that makes an effeciant electronic car would not need the big oil companies.
If big oil company(now known as Energy Companies) have the technology to have effecient vehicals, or vehicals that are not dependent on petroleum, would make a lot of money. 9 Billion dollars a year would be chump change.
Fnally, I can't seem to find a link on that site that talkes about how itr works. Am I just missing it, or is thes magica
Re:Repressed technology (Score:2)
Why would auto makers want to promote oil dependence when they make no money from selling oil?
Re:Repressed technology (Score:3, Informative)
$10K? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the site:
"The interesting thing about the EXAR-1 was, that the pictures never did the car justice. When seen in person, the car was as beautiful as any foreigh exotic costing 7 or 8 times more; as well as the fact, that the EXAR-1 sported advances that even the most expensive automobiles in the world would not have for many years in the future."
"Mr. Ramirez, actually built an electric automobile, making sure that details, such as matching ring and pinion gears to ti
You have some apples and some oranges. (Score:5, Insightful)
The *SAME* car? No - the problem is that the American consumer will pay more for a car that is heavier (safer) and has more features/trunk space/acceleration/handling/etc than they will a car that has the weight, trunk space, acceleration and handling of a car from the 1950's that gets 80 MPG.
We have gotten REMARKABLY more efficient with engines in the past 50 years. We just spend that efficiency on things OTHER than MPG because that's what the consumer wants.
Conspiracy nuts, rejoice (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit! (Score:5, Interesting)
the cars couldn't be sold for the amount of money it took to build them
Change that to "the cars could not be bought for any amount of money". That's right: GM never sold a single EV1, they were all leased with no option to renew the lease or buy the damn car! On top of that, GM made the customers jump through hoops to even get an EV1.
Still some people were persistent and patient enough to get their hands on EV1s. But after the leases had expired, they had no choice but to return the cars to GM. What did GM do with them? They crushed them! Every single one! Crushed them and dumped them in a junk yard! Seems like the prudent business decision would be to *ahem* sell your product rather than trashing it, no?
Here is more information on the whole fiasco: link [wikipedia.org]. My take on it is that GM set EV1 up for failure so that they could point at it and say "see? no one wants electric cars!". But when, despite GM's best efforts, customers actually showed interest in it, GM decided to pull the plug.
Re:Bullshit! (Score:3, Informative)
Batteries.
No vehicle in the world has, either before or after, had the sheer volume of batteries of the EV1. The expected lifespan of the batteries was the same as the expected life of the lease. No one in their right mind would buy a car knowing that in 3 to 5 years, another $50K would have to be plunked down to replace the entire array of batteries.
There's no magic or mystery here. The car was killed because it wasn't sustainable.
Don't believe me?
Re:Bullshit! (Score:3, Interesting)
I know this nice fellow who runs the Duffy Electric Boat Company [duffyboats.com]. He made a great big pile of money from Duffy Electric Boats, and he bought an EV1 to support the idea of electric car technology.
The Duffy Boat story is a pretty interesting one for those who are skeptics about electric propulsion technology. Turns out the Duffy Electric Boat was a truly f
$1 billion dollars to prove a point? (Score:3, Insightful)
GM Would NOT sell them (Score:3, Informative)
I waited three months for one of the first Priuses and a whole year for the hybrid Highlander. But GM wouldn't do even that much. BTW, the Prius was heavily subsi
The reason the electric car died . . . (Score:5, Informative)
So why did they make them at all?
Well, California was going to impose a zero-emissions vehicle standard, that required a fixed percentage of the vehicles sold in California from every manufacturer be zero emissions. GM figured it could own the Californian market if it could put together a from-the-ground-up electric car, while companies like Chrysler were doing things jurry-rigging electric Voyager minivans. After all, if GM were able to dominate the electric car market, then the percentage-of-sales rule would allow it to dominate the normal auto market in California. Who cares if you're losing thirty thousand dollars per vehicle on a couple of percent of the Californian auto market, if you simultaneously wind up with much higher, law-guarnateed market share on profitable cars?
So, after GM puts in all this investment, California repeals the law just as it's going to go into effect, leaving GM with no way to actually make a profit from the vehicles. They go ahead with the program anyway (it's too late to save much money, since the tooling was already ordered on year-plus lead times), they recoup some cash leasing the cars), and then when the liability calculations make it cheaper to recycle and scrap than continue to lease or sell them, they got rid of them.
Five gets you ten that the movie comes up with some wild-ass conspiracy theory involving oil company influence at GM, though. After all, when an activist-favored technology fails utterly in the marketplace, it has to be the fault of Big Evil Corporations.
Re:The reason the electric car died . . . (Score:2)
Tucker, Chrysler Turbine (Score:2)
The Chrysler Turbine car of the mid 1960s was given out for trials by dealers and loyal Chrysler customers, collected, and cut up for scrap. The excuse not to save even one for a museum was that they avoided paying h
Re:The reason the electric car died . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Although IANAL, I'd be willing to bet that GM's law
Alternate explanation for the demise of the EV1 (Score:3, Informative)
1. GM sponsors an entry in the first Solar Race Across Australian
2. GM's Sunraycer runs away from the competition
3. a. The board says, "rah rah, good PR opportunity. Now back to our business of making gasoline-powered cars."
b. The engineer CEO says, "Build me a prototype, I want GM to be a leader instead of playing perpetual catch-up!" The board says, Are you sure? Might give those crazy CARB regulators ideas...
4. Impact pr
Re:The reason the electric car died . . . (Score:2)
Working in the electronics industry RoHS [rohs.gov.uk] has had a similar effect for lead-free R&D.
You see similar dropping of Pb-free technology development not because of pressure by "big lead," but rather, whenever there is an exemption [arrow.com] added to the list.
I forgot about that CA program... (Score:5, Interesting)
The California regulations required that some percent (5%? 10%?) of the cars sold in California be zero emissions by a certain date. So companies start to make electric cars.
And what does California do? Back away from the regulations. First, they declared that some gas-powered could be qualified as partial zero emissions vehicles (PZEV) and thus qualify for the regulations. I don't have a problem with SULEVs (the less Orwellian name for PZEVs), but anyone who thinks they deserve credit for being zero emissions should have to sleep in a bedroom ventilated by the exhaust of PZEVs for a couple nights and report back how the "zero" emissions are treating them.
So after GM spends a lot on real ZEVs, California allows other companies to spend less than 10% as much and make the grade. then they flat out ditch the program making GM (and Honda's) efforts an almost total waste of money.
No wonder the car companies fight new regulations that seem likely to force them to make vehicles there probably isn't a market for. Once bitten, twice shy.
S.U.V. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:S.U.V. (Score:2)
fatalities per million vehicles shows that many smaller cars are safer than large vehicles. The active safety of stopping distance, agility, and unit-body construction are better than the passive saftey of size and weight.
The fact that people are just giving up and saying "I can't avoid crashes" is just retarded. These people are a danger to everyone around them and should be taken off the road.
Who killed the EV....Physics (Score:3, Interesting)
EVs have nice performance and are can be fun cars. But there is a practical side that needs to be factored in. They typical person may have a EV capable commute, but odds are they also make a few trips a year that are outside the range of the car. That alone makes them a no go for most people. Also they tend to be small 2 seat vehicles. Which again are not practical for most people. People want 1 vehicle that does it all.
Furthermore, hybrids are far more practical in the end and much more environmentally friendly from an entire life cycle standpoint. That's why all the car companies killed their EV programs (EV1, S10, Ranger, Epic.. All now dead).
The EV1 was also not that spectacular. I've worked on one. It's a 1980s tech car developed by Aerovironment and sold to GM to put into production. It was a very crude and dated car when it went into production. GM dumped 2 billion into the program, and never even leased 1000 units in the couple years the program ran. They lost money hand over fist on it. It also had technical problems of the charge port catching the car on fire which was the final nail in the coffin.
EVs do have a place. Fleet service they can work out well for. There you have a fixed usage, daily schedules you can use it around. So the limits of an EV are not a problem. And the durability is a plus. But for consumer usage, they just aren't there.
Now if you manage to make a battery pack that fits in a 13 gallon space, and has the same amount of energy as 13 gallons of gasoline, and weights the same. Now you are on to something. But that isn't going to happen tomorrow.
Re:Who killed the EV....Physics (Score:5, Informative)
How about asking those who actually drove them every day?
I drove the Smithsonian's car here in San Diego for two years. (Yes, the very same car. See http://www.ka9q.net/ev/ [ka9q.net]). After that, I drove another EV1 for three years.
The EV1 was a great car, a lot of fun to drive, and it met nearly all of my needs. I don't know about you, but none of my other cars could do 0-60 in 7 seconds, and I considered that pretty spectacular. In fact, my gasoline car went unused for so long that I lent it to a friend. I had a charger at home, and I was also lucky enough to have one at work. (Truth be told, I didn't really need the charger at work.) Since those are the two places my car spends most of its time parked, it was nearly always fully charged when I came out to drive it. I never had to go out of my way to a gas station (except to use the car wash), and I hardly ever had the need to drive more than its range in a single day. On the rare occasions I traveled out of town, my EV1 could still take me to the airport. And on the even rarer occasions I needed to drive out of town, my EV1 could easily take me to the local Enterprise lot where I could rent a vehicle more suited to the purpose (such as a SUV for desert camping).
The charge port problem to which you refer was only in the Gen 1, model year 1997, which includes my first car. It was caused by a defective capacitor which had already been removed in the Gen 2 (1999 model year) design. I know of no problems with Gen 2 cars, and I'm pretty sure I would have had there been one.
This is what's so frustrating about having been an EV1 driver: knowing from personal experience just how great a car it was, and seeing others without that experience mouth total gibberish. But I guess we just have to educate people one by one.
Fishy (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason this is so fishy is because GM denied renewal of leases (despite begging and protest) and took back cars back to have them destroyed. They seemed intent on obliterating the EV1 to remove it from public memory, much the same way the Egyptians did with Akhenaton [cartage.org.lb] when he tried to change the whole of Egypt to a monotheistic religion. And now, on the eve of the release of a motion picture that brings light to a set of events not many people are aware of, the Smithsonian removes (AFAIK) one of the last places people can see a real-life EV1 (like so much stone from a bas-relief sculpture), making a documentary seem, for all intents and purposes, more like fiction in the public eye. Oh, and GM had nothing to do with it. They were not under pressure to engage in some uber sparagmos-like act of worship to the oil gods at the detriment of all EV1s ever made.
Makes me wish I had GTA'd one and hidden it somewhere for future generations.
Well, that was a fun conspiracy theory. I'm going to drink some more vodka.
Interesting Story (Score:4, Interesting)
Open Source GNU-Car (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not create a set of plans based on the Open Source model that could be used to bypass GM like FOSS bypasses Micro$oft.
Eventually, a RedHat will come along and produce the hardware for the masses.
It may not look sexy like a Jaguar, but it will get you there.
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:5, Insightful)
They need better ads, depicting them zooming along, speed of a dead dinosaur vs. speed of a lightning bolt... meanwhile, last I heard, people were selling Hybrids for more than they paid, and some delivery/shuttle fleets are getting them. Like with Natural Gas vehicles, they may be more economical if your business is willing to provide the infrastructure themselves.
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why, sure they have! The only issue is that, because of the range problems, they're only working on vehicles competing in the "rich-guy's occasionally-driven toy" market (i.e., the market populated by exotics like the Lotus Elise and Enzo Ferrari -- not stuff suitable for daily driving, like the Corvette). Here are some examples:
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:3, Interesting)
who stands to lose the most? (Score:5, Insightful)
Electric cars are a threat to auto makers because there is much less stuff to break and they are simpler to make (think about that one for a long time, it is a critical part of the equation), and they are a threat to governments because there is no way to apply the road fuel tax to them (short of the GPS tracking deal they just started in oregon). You can theoretically own an electric vehicle, own some solar panels, and eventually be driving for pretty darn cheap per mile. Many people are happily doing that today, proving it is possible and can fill a lot of niche driving. As to range,50-100 miles on a charge is doable *now*, which would handle just millions of commuter profiles, that is *easily* extended and handled by having an additional tow behind trailer with a fuel burning generator in it for trips, which would then morph your ride "on demand" into a hybrid vehicle..
Pure electric cars are a clear cut example of what is called "disruptive technology" that threatens big auto, big oil and big government. A lot of big money and big juice there that doesn't want that sort of threat, yes? That is why electric cars "failed",not that they don't work or can't be built in mass productyion style, of course they can,but they were never offered in the first place.
When is the last time you saw a pure electric car at a normal mainstream dealer *for sale*? I'm an old gear head,and I have *never* seen one for sale, never. I have seen anything and everything else under the sun with an engine that moves for sale, the only electric "car" I ever saw for sale was a golf cart, not a real car. I have seen a few low production prototypes that people hand built, and you were able to buy them used that way as one or two-offs,but that's it, nothing mass produced.
They say "there is no market", well it is a self fullfilling prophecy if you never even try to sell them.
Re:who stands to lose the most? (Score:2, Informative)
It seems to me that if there really is a large market for electric cars someone would be making them. If GM, Ford, and Chrysler stay out of the market, that just makes it easier for a smaller startup to get in. I agree with your statement that an electric car would be easier to make and maintain, resulting in less profi
Re:who stands to lose the most? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perh
Re:who stands to lose the most? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that's the justification for those premiums though. But insurance companies are usually pretty rigorous with their statistics so I think more powerful cars statisticall
0 to 60 in 4.1 seconds (Score:2)
There's a tradeoff between acceleration and range, so you will meet people who've seen anemic electric cars.
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:5, Informative)
a. most of the vehicles were kept in a specialized lease program that generally didn't allow the leaser to purchase them at expiration even if they wanted to. You're claiming to know how people who weren't allow to vote would have voted there. Very few of these vehilces are in the hands of actual owners today. There are people wanting to purchase one even today who simply can't get one. GM isn't selling, even at prices above the initial new value.
b. The State of California decided in the middle of the 3 year lease program, that inductive charging was out, and only conductive charging would qualify a vehicle for the state's 0-emissions tax breaks. (That's from GMs own letter to EV1 leasers)
c. At that time, there were about 210 stations with inductive paddle charging in the state of California, and about 80 stations in Ga. and Fla. If you lived in any of the other 47 states, you couldn't get charging. Over 1/2 the Ca. stations were in the process of converting to a smaller paddle size when the Ca. board announced its decision, and GM had to eat all those costs at once, plus in some cases drivers had to deal with their local stations being down for days or weeks as part of the policy turn-around.
d. GM mentioned in their same letter that some people had asked to get out of the lease program early. Yes, that might support your statement, but there has never been an automobile leased in numbers where some people didn't want out early. GM hasn't disclosed what the percentages were, and saying that less than absolute perfect consumer satisfaction was a factor in their decisions isn't really telling the rest of us anything. You can infer suckage from that if you want, but there are several alternate inferences. Ca's decision alone was certainly enough to make the program unprofitable, so this and other subsidiary factors cited in the letters seem to be just additional justifications for a decision already made.
e. The 1997 model 1 had very poor range, with some leasers reporting as little as 40 miles on a charge. Suckage indeed. However the 1999 Model 2 used a Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) battery array, and was officially rated for 100 Miles. A substantial number of users reported it did far better than the rated milage, typically reporting 140 to 180 miles/charge for mixed highway/city. This is the origin of some of the claims that the project was deliberately screwed up - why would GM underate its own product? Leasers also praised the car's pickup and sportscar like handling. Apparently there were weight savings from NiMH that made the second generation quite a bit better in multiple respects.
e. The design had near instantanious heating and cooling for the passenger cabin, and, at least for the Model 2, near noiseless driving (I don't know that the first designe wasn't quiet as well, just that I haven't seen leters specifically praising it as I have the 2nd. generation). Offsetting this was charging time and limited range, but just offhand I'd suspect that the charging station problem, making that range more for round trips than one way, was a more important factor, and that came almost entirely from the state government's actions.
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:Who killed the electric car? (Score:2)
Re:G W Bush (Score:3, Informative)
No, they are just links, but not to articles
Apparently this is a non-news outside of a scientific community, for some reason...
It is non-news because most people outside the scientific community aren't going to pay to read these articles. And no one who has read it has thought it newsworthy enough to discuss on a mainstream, nonscientific or free website.
And what's with all the ellipseses, I didn't insert those. Why must all your sentences end with 3
Re:G W Bush (Score:2)
Re:maybe it's because... (Score:2)