Who Killed the EV-1?

[JoeyDonuts]

Here's some background info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

Most analysis seems to agree that Chevrolet axed its own program, deeming it "unprofitable." Keep in mind the General Motors CEO who ordered its demise, Rick Wagoner, was the same one asked to step aside following the auto manufacturing crash of late.

What I'm interested in here, though, is the community's thoughts on the idea of oil industry collusion/conspiracy in destroying this thing as laid out in the film Who Killed The Electric Car?

I, for one, don't see it as being that farfetched, although I've heard it tossed and seasoned with the usual knee-jerk Bush-Administration scapegoating which often gives me a little pause.

 

[Shrike]

Can I just once do an appeal to authority?
I'm an automotive engineer and can quite confidently say that the reason that the EV-1 didn't survive was the fact that nobody wanted it. Despite what's claimed in Wiki.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I was holding out for a solid reductio ad Hitlerum, but I'm not sure that applies in this case.

 

[Shrike]

OK, here goes.
Rick Wagoneer, Wagoneer was a kind of Jeep, the Jeep was developed to beat the Nazi's, the Nazi's were founded by Hitler. Easy, actually.

 

[Cuddles]

What I'm interested in here, though, is the community's thoughts on the idea of oil industry collusion/conspiracy in destroying this thing as laid out in the film Who Killed The Electric Car?

From the Wiki article:

GM viewed the program as evidence that electric cars occupied an unprofitable niche of the automobile market, evidenced by their ability to lease only 800 units in face of production costs of US$1 billion over four years...

range of 70 to 100 miles

the car could not be purchased outright

recall for 450 Gen I EV1s... Sixteen "thermal incidents" and at least one fire

eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity

So you have a car that you can't own yourself, takes incredibly long to charge and still can't go very far once it has, half of which were recalled because of faulty components that made them catch fire. Amazingly enough the people who made it didn't particularly want to keep making a car that nobody wanted and didn't make them any money. No conspiracies needed.

The basic problem is that even now electric cars just aren't viable, and over a decade ago things were even worse. The technology isn't good enough and the infrastructure is essentially non-existent. Electrics are great in certain niches, such as public transport, but they're just not ready for the general consumer yet.

 

[Pantaz]

When GM announced the car would be available only by lease, I figured it was essentially an automotive version of a beta test.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

When GM announced the car would be available only by lease, I figured it was essentially an automotive version of a beta test.

The whole thing doesn't make sense as far as the leasing option. It sounds like a good idea that was hamstrung from the very beginning by GM.

Sure, electric cars wouldn't be practical for interstate road trips owing to the range. I don't think their towing capability could compete with diesel, although I could be wrong about that. But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.

Imagine if they'd let a market for this thing form and actually supported it. What kind of advances would have been made in electric propulsion technology once the force of free market competition took hold?

IIRC, the decision not to support the EV-1 is bemoaned by former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner as (paraphrasing) the worst decision he ever made.

 

[Pantaz]

The whole thing doesn't make sense as far as the leasing option. It sounds like a good idea that was hamstrung from the very beginning by GM.

Sure, electric cars wouldn't be practical for interstate road trips owing to the range. I don't think their towing capability could compete with diesel, although I could be wrong about that. But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.

Imagine if they'd let a market for this thing form and actually supported it. What kind of advances would have been made in electric propulsion technology once the force of free market competition took hold?

IIRC, the decision not to support the EV-1 is bemoaned by former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner as (paraphrasing) the worst decision he ever made.

I saw the lease fees as GM just trying to offset part of the cost of the research. (IIRC, GM admitted that the vehicles were far more expensive than the leases reflected.) When they recalled all the cars, I fully expected a new model to replace it shortly.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

In "beta testing" the EV-1, I looked at the lease fees as GM just trying to offset part of the cost of the research. (IIRC, GM admitted that the vehicles were far more expensive than the leases reflected.) When they recalled all the cars, I fully expected a new model to replace it shortly.

I do recall the most vocal proponents of the thing were folks who would have no problem affording it.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

The whole thing doesn't make sense as far as the leasing option. It sounds like a good idea that was hamstrung from the very beginning by GM.

Sure, electric cars wouldn't be practical for interstate road trips owing to the range. I don't think their towing capability could compete with diesel, although I could be wrong about that. But if I had the option to buy a vehicle I could plug in every night and drive to and from work every day? Hell yes, I'd take it.

Imagine if they'd let a market for this thing form and actually supported it. What kind of advances would have been made in electric propulsion technology once the force of free market competition took hold?
IIRC, the decision not to support the EV-1 is bemoaned by former General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner as (paraphrasing) the worst decision he ever made.

Just additional commentary and adding to Shrike's comments also as an engineer who doesa good portion of work in the automotive industry and has been on some of these projects ( industrial and automotive) over the years.

All things being equal- an electric motor is "true' hp and IC engines are just above .5 ( look at air compressors to see this- a 5 hp pump has a 10-15 hp engine turning it ) so diesel or not- you hook up an equal hp electric ( with proper service factor) to it- it will twist the shaft out of the IC engine.

Put a transmission to it and theres more torque.

You can make a motor in the same configuration as a current car with transmission or put tractor motors on each individual wheel- they all work.

They will also give you several hundred thousand miles with high reliability.

That part of the technology exists now, has for decades ( since before my 30+ year career so this isnt anything new) and has been proven ( diesel locomotive is a prime example)

The problem is ( and has always been) a reliable POWER source that will compete with a gas stop and range and maintain constant power to the motor while it is discharging. ( one of those conservation laws)

I personally dont think any kind of battery will ever be made because of size/weight and draw- if anything, there will need to be like the locomotive and have a generator plant powering it consuming some type of fuel.

Then, theres always Mr. Fusion

 

[Arus808]

when they make an electric car (or hybrid of some sort) that has manual transmission (automatics are for wussies ^_~), can get 200-500 HP and travel huge distances without charging/refueling (and i mean like a trip for the California/Mexico border to the Oregon/California border) and have it cost under $25K then that would be something Americans would be interested in buying

This has been my huge reason why I havent decided in buying a hybrid now. No manual transmission ( i haven't had an automatic car since i was 17 and that was my only automatic car), and no power (110 HP for the Prius - I currently drive a 200 HP car and RACE a 500 hp Mustang). I feel weird not having a third pedal to drive with.

Even with current mpg for hybrids, I still can get 33/35 mpg freeway for my car.

EV-1 was a piece of crap electric car. A friend of mines, her father owned one of the major dealerships in Hawaii and was able to get an EV-1 (mostly for display). Not impressive, lacked power, broke down often and even the mechanics had no idea on how it was supposed to be fixed.

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

when they make an electric car (or hybrid of some sort) that has manual transmission (automatics are for wussies ^_~), can get 200-500 HP and travel huge distances without charging/refueling (and i mean like a trip for the California/Mexico border to the Oregon/California border) and have it cost under $25K then that would be something Americans would be interested in buying

This has been my huge reason why I havent decided in buying a hybrid now. No manual transmission ( i haven't had an automatic car since i was 17 and that was my only automatic car), and no power (110 HP for the Prius - I currently drive a 200 HP car and RACE a 500 hp Mustang). I feel weird not having a third pedal to drive with.

Even with current mpg for hybrids, I still can get 33/35 mpg freeway for my car.

EV-1 was a piece of crap electric car. A friend of mines, her father owned one of the major dealerships in Hawaii and was able to get an EV-1 (mostly for display). Not impressive, lacked power, broke down often and even the mechanics had no idea on how it was supposed to be fixed.

when they make an electric car (or hybrid of some sort) that has manual transmission (automatics are for wussies ^_~), can get 200-500 HP

Those are on the shelf right now and any transmission ( or no transmission) can be hooked to them. ( thats just a matter of preference)

and travel huge distances without charging/refueling (and i mean like a trip for the California/Mexico border to the Oregon/California

Goes back to the power source

have it cost under $25K then that would be something Americans would be interested in buying

Thats going to be harder- a proper motor with service factor and control package costs way more than that.

Not impressive, lacked power, broke down often and even the mechanics had no idea on how it was supposed to be fixed

side note from my experience. First, the proper motor and construction is on the shelf. What the Automotive industry wants to do is make a smaller motor ( windings, bearings and such) do a larger job. Thats begging for trouble because it stresses the system and the result is constant problems. ( happens every time you undersize a motor/control package)

The proper motors are big and heavy and the power plant ( battery, turbine,engine/generator, hybrid or whatever) is even bigger. ( go back to the locomotive) so to do it right- cars will have to be larger.

Thats one reason I kinda got out of it- what they want ( in a small package) isnt feasible with current materials and technology.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Good responses all.

LONGTABBER, are you referring to some concepts I've heard about where the propulsion is provided by four smaller motors located nearest the wheels rather than by one larger centrally located powerplant?

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

Good responses all.

LONGTABBER, are you referring to some concepts I've heard about where the propulsion is provided by four smaller motors located nearest the wheels rather than by one larger centrally located powerplant?

Yes, I design these systems for all kinds of industrial applications.

Both are proven and reliable.

The advantage of 4 wheel tractor motors is much higher torque and pull power and obviously less power train components as well as when turning you can maintain control and constant torque thru the radius because each motor can be controlled thru RPM and torque thru the radius as each wheel turns differently.

Its not the motor/controller configuration and thats never been the problem.

Its making them small enough, light enough to do the job ( sacrificing reliability thru weaker components) and a power plant.

A motors heart,soul,power and reliability is in the rotor mass, winding size and bearings. You reduce those things and you have heat, stress and all kinds of feedback/resistance under load and it kills them. If torque/speed is equal- you reduce a motor size to a point where it simply wont work. ( or will work- just not for long)

Thats what the automotive industry wants and nobody is going to be able to build it unless there is a new generation of materials and someone rewrites all the laws concerning energy conservation.

Option 2- use the standard stuff that works off the shelf- the size/weight goes up ( obviously- go to a motor rewind shop and look at a 50hp ( equal to a 110 hp IC engine at the PTO) motor with a 1.5 service factor and its size,weight.)

In either case- "something" has to power them- thats always been the major insurmountable problem.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

In either case- "something" has to power them- thats always been the major insurmountable problem.

I noticed that the NiMH "ovonic" batteries place in the 2nd generation EV-1's were able to extend the range of the car, but caused extended charging times and excessive heat gains (necessitating running the AC full blast and reducing the gains in drive time.)

It would appear that the GM shop in charge of the project was expecting breakthroughs in battery/power management technology that didn't happen.

The argument could be made that GM could have devoted more resources to the project, and I'm sure in hindsight they wish they had. If I were to look at this from a GM management/fiscal point of view, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have canceled the program at the time, too.

 

[Arus808]

Thats going to be harder- a proper motor with service factor and control package costs way more than that.

-----



Thats one reason I kinda got out of it- what they want ( in a small package) isnt feasible with current materials and technology.

agreed.

Hybrids are too costly. YOu can't get any hyrbid under $22K. In this economy, no one is going to plop down $25K for a car let alone one that is only going to save you pennies instead of the "dollars" that everyone wants you to believe that you will be getting out of your hybrid.

yes, technology and current materials of toda isn't feasible to build a economic, cheap car that uses alternative energy.

and keep in mind that we also want to make these cars safe to drive.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Who holds back the electric car?

Who makes steve gutenberg a star?

We do! We do!

 

[LONGTABBER PE]

I noticed that the NiMH "ovonic" batteries place in the 2nd generation EV-1's were able to extend the range of the car, but caused extended charging times and excessive heat gains (necessitating running the AC full blast and reducing the gains in drive time.)
It would appear that the GM shop in charge of the project was expecting breakthroughs in battery/power management technology that didn't happen.

The argument could be made that GM could have devoted more resources to the project, and I'm sure in hindsight they wish they had. If I were to look at this from a GM management/fiscal point of view, I'm not sure that I wouldn't have canceled the program at the time, too.

Not really ( speaking from experience) GM discovered what anyone in industry could have told them.
In order to get what they want the way they want it- they will have to revolutionize the motor/control industry and the battery industry first.

Those are the hurdles- the power train can be put in any casing you want in any configuration you want.

GM knows how to build cars- they arent in the motor/battery design business.

One of the partner companies I worked with on our project was Johnson Controls.

They still experiment but came to the same conclusion regarding electric cars.

Battery technology will NEVER be able to match an IC configuration with routine fill ups for overall ease.

Any battery will have to have not only recharging but periodic conditioning ( gotta do that too)- will be HEAVY and GENERATE HEAT.

All of them will have a duty cycle and for there to be any kind of realistic infrastructure- there would need to be chargers everywhere ( rewiring all kinds of facilities) as well as interchange stations ( all manufacturers will have to standardize) and this will take TIME ( which people dont want to invest)

All the industry proponents i have ever worked with agree the only realistic solution is to have multiple inputs in some kind of power generation system. ( vortex turbines, solar panels and maybe a small engine) all turning some type of generator.

In order for the concept to work- "something" is going to have to generate more power than the prime mover can consume thru all normal ranges and be able to sustain that delivery for a substantial time- otherwise, people still wont buy it.

Someone has to design that "something"

 

[SezMe]

From Cuddles quote of the Wiki article:

range of 70 to 100 miles

the car could not be purchased outright

eight hours for the cars to charge to full capacity

For the mass of suburban commuters the first and third are not usually a problem. Most commutes are around 40 miles and the car sits the garage overnight anyway. There should have been a mass market for it.

Regarding lease only, I have never seen any explanation for this. What other car was introduced as a no-buy vehicle? Do you know why this approach was taken.

Finally, much was made in the film Joey cited about the cars not only being recalled but destroyed. Is this true and, if so, again what was the rationale?

 

[SezMe]

when they make an electric car (or hybrid of some sort) that has manual transmission (automatics are for wussies ^_~), can get 200-500 HP and travel huge distances without charging/refueling (and i mean like a trip for the California/Mexico border to the Oregon/California border) and have it cost under $25K then that would be something Americans would be interested in buying.

ANY company that designs a car to your specifications will be bankrupt within the week. Your criteria are fine but have nothing to do with the market and viability of the mass market electric car.