"Who Killed the Electric Car"

[SpeedRacer 1]

One problem I can see: Didn't California have problems with blackouts a few years ago, due to overuse of electricity?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,076]

>Didn't California have problems with blackouts a few years ago, due
>to overuse of electricity?

The primary cause was that there was a market setup whereby the less power utilities generated, the more money they made. They then did what you might have expected.

Electric power supply will be an issue in the coming years, though. As the state grows in population, and gradually gets warmer, there will be an ever-increasing demand for power that can't be met by current power plants.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

If fossil fuels generate the electricity that charges the cars, isn't this whole argument rather pointless?

Engines that run at constant output can be far mor e efficient. You effectively get 100+ MPG. It's also easier to cleanup stationary pollution sources.

You don't have to use fossil fuels; they're just currently the most affordable hydrocarbons.

And you don't have to use hydrocarbons. Nuclear, hydro-electric, wave, and wind are all viable. Solar and thermocline could be.

[billvon 3,076]

>Battery powered electric cars are only marketed in warm weather
> regions because they perform poorly when the weather is cold. I'll
> bet the impressive 0-60 times weren't done on a cold day.

Modern battery packs have thermal controls; if the pack had been charged recently it was probably warm.

Batteries do indeed have increased ESR in low temperatures (which = reduction in power.) In that way they are the opposite of internal combustion cars that lose power at high temps. Automakers have found ways around both problems though.

[lawrocket 3]

The Stonecutters held back the electric car.

They even admitted it in their song:

"Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We Do! We Do!
Who keeps 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 cavefish of their sight
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We Do! We Do!"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dbattman 0]

One of my favorites! Thanks for the memories.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The EV1 absolutely, positively, ROCKED!

Yes, it did a great job of accellerating, turning. I noticed that it even crept when I let my foot off of the gas throttle - I though that to be a clever feature.

However, it would not have worked for me as a primary vehicle, and I had no money for a secondary vehicle. It could not have made the 60 mile roundtrip every day effectively. It was not reliable to get me to and from locations around the LA metro area, as my job required. Thus, I needed a more dependable car, and I always demanded a good safet rating.

The electric car was a great product for a demonstartion of technology. Like many of those, it had too many kinks. But the industry, having learned its lessons from it, have incorporated corrections into their new designs, i.e., hybrids that have more range.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[dbattman 0]

Yes, the range limitation was a big downer. However, GM already had a little known solution to the issue incorporating an APU into the electric drivetrain.

Viola! The PURE ELECTRIC Plug-in Hybrid

GM could have OWNED the Hybrid market but they handed it off to the foreign manufactureres. Now they are playing catch-up, again.

[mrGuy 0]

Quote

>

0 to 60 in 4 seconds is boring?

...um, yeah. Lots of cars could do that...if you strip them down to a frame and allow no room for passengers, or any cargo.

Quote

>Hmm. How do you explain the hundreds of people demonstrating outside the impound lot, trying to get them to sell the cars to people?

Hundreds of people?! WOW!! thats almost .000001% of the US population!! Well, if you put it that way, then I guess everyone really DOES want electric cars!

[rickjump1 0]

If the wheel had never been invented, we would not have these problems or maybe everything would be on skids with bigger problems, but the wheel was invented for the sole purpose of getting beer. Wish I had some.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Didn't California have problems with blackouts a few years ago, due
>to overuse of electricity?

The primary cause was that there was a market setup whereby the less power utilities generated, the more money they made. They then did what you might have expected.

Electric power supply will be an issue in the coming years, though. As the state grows in population, and gradually gets warmer, there will be an ever-increasing demand for power that can't be met by current power plants.

the electric car would have fit in nicely to our power structure since the main draw would be at night, not in the day when peak usage occurs. Fewer generators would have to be spun down at night.

[kallend 2,107]

Quote

Quote

>

0 to 60 in 4 seconds is boring?

...um, yeah. Lots of cars could do that...if you strip them down to a frame and allow no room for passengers, or any cargo.

Quote

>Hmm. How do you explain the hundreds of people demonstrating outside the impound lot, trying to get them to sell the cars to people?

Hundreds of people?! WOW!! thats almost .000001% of the US population!! Well, if you put it that way, then I guess everyone really DOES want electric cars!

I bet Ford and GM wish hundreds of people were outside their showrooms demanding to be sold cars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riddler 0]

Quote

Nope, still way more efficient.

According to Ohio State University, not true. In general, electric cars today still produce more emissions than gas autos in the US, because the US still burns too much fossil fuel for electricity.

The advantage of everyone using electric is that it makes it easier to control the source pollution. Government just has to put better emission control on the power plants.

Of course, the power plants are paying off the politicians, just like every other industry, so it's not likely to change anything. Too many people making too much money killing the environment. That will never change with the US government.

*Edited for URL string

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[RMURRAY 1]

electric cars for short range and fuel cells for long range. Stop burning coal for electricity. I hope this is the (near) future. in the mean time, I am going to get a smart fortwo if a gearbag will fit in the back.

rm

[tdog 0]

Quote

electric cars for short range and fuel cells for long range. Stop burning coal for electricity. I hope this is the (near) future. in the mean time, I am going to get a smart fortwo if a gearbag will fit in the back.

rm

I loved the concept of the Smart cars when I was in Europe... Now I see a modified version here (USA). And I saw the consumer reports article said that it was the WORST car they ever tested, and suggested for the same gas mileage to go with one of the toyota/honda hybrids. The only plus they had was it's ability to be parked in tight spaces, but they pointed out for a cleaner reliable fuel efficient car, choose a hybrid... Too bad...

[billvon 3,076]

>In general, electric cars today still produce more emissions than gas autos
>in the US, because the US still burns too much fossil fuel for electricity.

If you burn coal to generate the power - true, because coal is the dirtiest source of power we have.

If you burn natural gas, or use nuclear power, or geothermal, or hydro (which is what california uses; coal makes up less than 10%) then it's a lot cleaner and more efficient to charge and run electric vehicles with the fuel.

[tdog 0]

I guess this discussion left the point of the documentary - but I guess all discussions do after a while...

The question the movie raises - albeit a bit conspiracy theory, did GM kill the electric car by:

1) Bad advertising, or actually advertising in a way that people did not want the car. The ads did look ominous when you viewed them - did not make you want to drive the car, and did not answer any of the popular misconceptions about range and quality or advantages.

2) By putting electric cars in specialty only dealerships (limited Saturn Dealerships) - and making people "prequalify" in a very long process to own one. Mel Gibson is in the movie describing how he had to go thru a background check that was absurd just to buy the car.

3) By only leasing them on very restrictive leases.

4) By reprimanding GM employees who actually sold the autos and met quotas.

5) By when the public leased them the installation of the charging station at the home took weeks to install.

6) By using inferior battery technology, even after GM purchased a company that designed a better battery, keeping the technology behind the power curve.

7) By making the waiting list so long that people, by the time their name came to the top, already had purchased other autos.

8) By immediately canceling production of the autos the moment California canceled the incentives, and not allowing owners of existing autos to purchase them, even when they agreed to hold GM harmless for parts supplies and future maintenance - and GM instead shipping them out of state to be crushed.

The documentary actually has multiple former GM employees, such as the person in charge of marketing EV cars, the sales managers, and even a former GM board member - all saying that behind closed doors GM did not want the car in the market place and tried to kill it's success.

Basically the point of the documentary is that GM did everything on the outside to say, "Look California, we made them and no one will buy them, we honestly tried, look how much money we spent, now can the regulation go away" when on the inside they either set themselves up for failure accidentally by the worst management and sales plans ever - or intentionally caused their failure, as the documentary would like you to believe.

How many times do you see children doing things to prove to their parents they can't actually do it... Did GM do this with the electric car? Well, it is pretty clear they did with the evidence, but the question is, did they do it intentionally or out of their own stupidity.

[dbattman 0]

It's amazing the kinda of things corporations keep around, isn't it? Check out 'The Smartest Guys in the Room' next about Enron. Absolutely damning- taped phone calls, internal videos shot about their phantom accounting methods, internal memoranda. Geez louise guys- when someone sends you a memo documenting activity that could put you in jail shred the sucker!

I've been waiting to see 'the electric car' myself [haven't seen it at Blockbuster yet], but I would lean towards calling the debacle a pure lack of leadership and vision. If memory serves GM started discontinuing the EV leases and began collecting and disposing right about 2000-01. The hybrids were offered late '02 which was the same time I was in the market for my car.

So, they collect about 1000 production EVs over the next few years and crush them.

Well, guess what. After doing all of that they should have moth-balled them somewhere or put them out on the 'future car' demo tour. Now they need to build them again.


Look! It's the series EV1 (the EV1 with an onboard generator) which had a working prototype in 1998-99. Now the foreign manufs will offer their own series versions but GM will be fighting uphill the entire way against the existant market penetration and brand recognition.

Plus Toyota and Honda already have several years of real-world field data and shake down time on their systems which they've undoubtedly been incorporating in their own models under double-secret development.

[url "http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0720/p02s01-ussc.html"> The next stage- already behind

It looks like GM got faked out. The foreigns went along with the whole 'no electric car' plan but came around the back way and sucker punched 'em. Could it be a double-fake out with GM pushing their project underground years ago? I honestly doubt they're that smart. Ford, GM, and Chrysler sold millions of E85 vehicles (years before the foreigns offered them) to boost their CAFE, but most of the owners probably have no clue that they bought one. Imagine the marketing coup that would have been! Forget the wimpy hybrids - power your truck, van, or auto with Clean, Domestic, grown by the salt of the earth backbone of the free world 'American Farmer' ETHANOL!

Ah well, it goes as it goes.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

Most of us in the US like to drive, even in LA.

I don't think so.

Most American cars have automatic transmission.

Many, many Americans cannot drive a car with a manual transmission.

No serious car is built without a manual transmission, with the possible exception of F1 cars due to the human frailties of requiring a gear change a second for 2 odd hours.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Most of us in the US like to drive, even in LA.

I don't think so.

Most American cars have automatic transmission.

Many, many Americans cannot drive a car with a manual transmission.

No serious car is built without a manual transmission, with the possible exception of F1 cars due to the human frailties of requiring a gear change a second for 2 odd hours.

You make a good point. However, some cars don't "need" a stick-shift, even if they're available for the car. Either way, it doesn't diminish one's enjoyment of driving. Where else of on earth is there a highway system like the "great American interstate"?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Most of us in the US like to drive, even in LA.

I don't think so.

Most American cars have automatic transmission.

Many, many Americans cannot drive a car with a manual transmission.

No serious car is built without a manual transmission, with the possible exception of F1 cars due to the human frailties of requiring a gear change a second for 2 odd hours.

t

For every day driving, I like to drive... I have a Tiburon with automatic (that I can "manually" shift as well. Sort of). I've owned her 4 months and have over 11k miles on her.

But... when I drive on the track I LOVE to drive.

But this is kinda off the Electric car thread...

So back on it.

The reason that I don't have electric or hybrid (cuz I did look at the options just 4 mos ago)... didn't care for the way they looked... not really sporty looking enough. And yeah... looks were on the list for car buying.

[billvon 3,076]

>No serious car is built without a manual transmission . . . .

That's starting to change. The advantages of manual transmissions (less losses, mechanically simpler, ability to manage torque and engine braking directly) are gradually being eliminated as "automatic" transmissions are improved. (I put "automatic" in quotes because the ordinary planetary-gear, brake-band-actuated, hydraulically-controlled transmission is no longer the only option for automatics.)

In many ways, a directly controlled PSD transmission would be superior to most manuals. You'd have a lever for ratio instead of a stickshift, and have an infinite ratio available.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

No serious car is built without a manual transmission, with the possible exception of F1 cars due to the human frailties of requiring a gear change a second for 2 odd hours.

Audi's 3.2 liter TT has a pair of automatically controlled clutches that allow shifting without completely disengaging both.

BMW's M3 and M5 are available with sequential gear boxes with automatic clutches that are quicker than the conventional 6-speed.

While available with a conventional 6-speed or tiptronic, the Porsche type 997 turbo does 0-60 in 3.7 seconds with the tiptronic automatic versus 3.9 seconds for the manual.

[happythoughts 0]

As far as the use of electric "cars" goes, I live about 40 miles from a retirement community. Almost everyone who lives there has an electric golf cart. They use them for everything.

The main road is a 4-lane cars-only road, but beside it is 2-lane cart-only road. They drive them to visit friends and grocery shop.

It serves two purposes. First, 80+ yo people can get to where they need to go without driving a car. Second, the cost savings because most don't need a car to live their lives.

They save on the initial cost of a car, the insurance, and maintenance.

I realize that this is not practical for most communities, but this is a very large retirement community.

[Tonto 1]

See. That's why I used the word "serious."

Then you mention 3 german cars.

t

It's the year of the Pig.