since watching GM right now is.. exciting in lack of a beter word, why not post some GM related videos.
from youtube:
EV1 was a big success, not a failure! GM lies, claiming that it was the range that caused people not to buy it; but it was never offered for sale, and no one complained about the range!
It's an illusion to think that because you sometimes might want to go 1000 miles, that your car has to be able to do that on any day. Instead of touring the USA in a car, use your RV!
We've driven 600,000 miles in EVs since 1997, that's a lot of driving; and the point is, you don't do it in long-distance driving.
The fact that not everyone wants an EV should not be the reason to stop EVERYONE from buying one!
All we ask is to make them available on the free market at a fair price.
But GM continues to mischaracterize the EV1 as not being the success that it was, and continues to pretend that there were not millions of EV miles driven -- and still being driven!
The VOLT is a HOAX.
If GM were serious, it would first admit that past Electric cars, such as the EV1, RAV4-EV and HondaEV, were successful and worked well, were beloved by their drivers, and didn't have any problem with "RANGE" or "RECHARGE".
In fact, there were no problems with the EV1 or any other Electric car except the fact that the Alliance of Auto Makers (AAM) members were unwilling to sell them to willing buyers. Unique to auto sales, the AAM just would not let go of EVs, insisting on keeping their mitts into the panties of EV buyers, controlling the EV, keeping it and refusing to alienate it by selling it.
If GM were honest, it would admit that the EV1 didn't have a range problem, wasn't turned in because it took too long to charge, and there weren't drivers sitting on tenterhooks afraid of running out of juice. All those "reasons" were just plain false, and, if repeated by GM, just plain lies.
Secondly, IF GM were serious and the VOLT were not a HOAX, GM would look to past experience: instead of waiting for the perfect battery, past SUCCESSFUL EVs were started with the batteries that existed, and later upgraded to better batteries.
GM carefully defines the VOLT as a 40-mile-range Electric car with a range-extending genset, what Alan Cocconi used to call a "Long Ranger" which he had mounted in a trailer for hooking onto the T-zero (successor to the EV1) for long trips. This trailer was so sophisticated, it just plugged into the EV and had automatic backing software built into the system.
GM supposedly can't produce a 40-mile-range Electric car without using $20,000 Lithium batteries that don't yet exist.
RAV4-EV and HondaEV: the first versions had lead-acid batteries, later upgraded to NiMH.
S10E: This Chevy electric truck first came out using lead, then was upgraded to NiMH.
RangerEV: Ford's electric pickup came out using lead, then upgraded to NiMH.
If the VOLT were not a HOAX, GM would issue it with LEAD batteries, which is all you need for 100 miles all-electric range, and which are very cheap (as proven by the 1997 and 1999 lead-version EV1, which got over 100 miles range on the PSB EV-EC 1260 lead-acid battery).
But the VOLT, is a HOAX, for these exact reasons. GM is supposedly waiting for a battery that does not exist; they are just delaying until the price of gas comes down.
Now let's see if 8 kWh of golf-cart batteries would run the VOLT for 15-miles of all-electric range. These batteries RETAIL for $1600 for the entire 8 kWh, and last over 50,000 miles. They recycle. Each kWh yields 3 to 6 miles, so if you only use half of the 8 kWh, you have at least 12 and possibly 24 all-electric miles; if you use all, you have over 20 to perhaps 40 miles all-electric range.
Now let's look at the weight; the 20 to 40-mile range lead pack weighs 480 lbs (60 lbs. per battery, with racks); the supposed VOLT $20,000 16 kWh Lithium battery (8 kWh useable) weighs (in GM's imagination) over 400 lbs. and doesn't yet exist.
So with the same weight, low cost, and the imperative of getting them on the road, you can see why successful EV makers in the past started with cheap lead batteries as proof-of-concept and to run them (some S10E and RangerEV are still using lead-acid to this day).
Hence, GM is not serious, or is ignorant, or arrogantly denies the facts and the truth.
Thus, the VOLT...is a HOAX.GM is postponing producing a plug-in car until 2011 or later; but it doesn't have a battery that's proven to work.
The Extended Range Electric Vehicle (EREV) like the VOLT, a serial hybrid, only needs a 40 mile range.
If GM were no on a hoax, it would, like all successful EVs, sell it with lead-acid batteries first, and then later upgrade to Nickel or Lithium.
But the evidence is that GM is just waiting, hoping for the price of gas to come down and the whole Electric car thing will be dropped.
13 Comments
OrnthoronSad story. Maybe * lies?
NetRunner^ Yes, debunking *lies goes in the lies channel.
siftbotAdding video to channels (Lies) - requested by NetRunner.
campionidelmondoOh guys, please get your heads out of your asses. I know those lil electric cars look promising, but they can only be part of a solution when used in connection with clean energy. Right now, these electric cars won't solve anything, because the additional energy that would be needed to "fuel" these things would have to be generated from coal and nuclear power plants.
Bidoulerouxsays...>> ^campionidelmondo:
Oh guys, please get your heads out of your asses. I know those lil electric cars look promising, but they can only be part of a solution when used in connection with clean energy. Right now, these electric cars won't solve anything, because the additional energy that would be needed to "fuel" these things would have to be generated from coal and nuclear power plants.
Maybe so, but power plant emissions are easier to manage than those of millions of cars, especially old cars. Remember that the first cars were electric, but that petrol won in the end because of the convenience factor as there was no national electric grid yet. In pre-war days, fuel efficiency was low and roads sparse. People used mass transit to go from city to city, or even from place to place in a big city. In fact, subways predate the automobile and are still run by electricity to this day.
But this is primarily a North American problem/misconception, that anything that doesn't let you go in the remotest of places the instant you think of going there is "not good". Let's quote Wikipedia: "Some cities have built urban rail transit systems that are so comprehensive and efficient that the majority of city residents use it as their primary means of transport. This is common in many of the largest cities in Europe, such as Berlin, Paris, London, Madrid and Moscow, many large cities in Asia, such as Hong Kong, Osaka, Seoul, Taipei, and Tokyo; in North America the only city matching these is New York.[52]" And so the conundrum: if you're working in a big city where mass transit is useful and ubiquitous, do you really need a car to commute? No. If you're not working in such a city, do you need a car? Potentially yes. Then, would you need a car that can go 500 miles in a day to commute? Not useless you're crazy. And if you really need to go from Los Angeles to New York in your car (because you're mentally ill or on a road trip), why don't you take an electric car and take your time? Driving too many hours in the same day only increases the risk of accidents. And if you don't have the time to take your time, what the hell are you wasting time driving for?
elyssesays...>> ^campionidelmondo:
the additional energy that would be needed to "fuel" these things would have to be generated from coal and nuclear power plants.
Nuk-u-lar. It's pronounced Nuk-u-lar.
legacy0100something deathcow would like.
spoco2I do take issue with his whole 'nasty' destruction of the cars that they lent to people. It was supposed to be a trial where the people had them on lease. At the end of their trial they decided they didn't want to move forward with the EV project and took the cars back. They destroyed them and did not allow people to buy them because they didn't have a maintenance plan in place. As a car manufacturer you aren't going to keep plants tooled up to make spare parts for a handful of cars, so they couldn't keep them running as bits broke, and they wouldn't be able to keep them safe. So... it was actually not ridiculous for them to do this.
Declaring the trial a failure and the concept not worth pursuing, well, yeah, definitely there's issue there and that's where the argument should start, but don't begin with the whole 'hey, they crushed our cars' thing... as it's stretching the truth a lot.
Now, people touting this 'What's the point of driving an electric car if the power is produced in dirty coal plants anyway?'... well, I watched another video where a woman has one of the Toyota EV Rav4s and another electric car, and has solar panels on the roof of her house. She charges these TWO electric cars and runs her whole house off the solar... and her total power bill was only $2 and change a month. THAT'S IT... that's almost ENTIRELY running off solar. If the government heavily subsidized solar panels for residential houses we would largely remove the problems of power generation.
Oh... and this guy takes about 5 times as long to make about one point as needed.
BoneyDBut why did they make the EV1 look like hairy arse? As much as I love the idea of fuel free vehicles, I just couldn't be seen dead in that bollockery. It's the same with the current hybrids aswell, surely they could make them look like a proper sedan instead of this unconventional gimmicky stylised nonsense.
MarineGunrockUm, not to mention that generating power in bulk is MUCH more efficient than creating it in small quantities.
joedirtI agree that all electric vehicles are totally stupid idea until there is either an energy savings somewhere in the system or more energy added. Right now if cars were 100% electric, the demand would be huge and the needed extra aluminum to add powerlines to charge all these batteries would be staggering.
However, we have to start somewhere with some medium volume electric cars, also a hybrid that turns gas into power would really be a great thing strategically. Imagine if 50% of the cars on the road were designed to plug into the grid? We would never have blackouts, or extra energy could be added in the summers. Also mass production of these cars drastiaclly brings down the costs and makes it easier for next generation technologies.
GM are a bunch of crooks and everyone should tell Congress they deserve NO BAILOUT. They would be rolling in money now if they didn't crush all their EV1s. They would literally be a decade ahead of competitors.
I drove and EV1 and they were unbelievable. They were sportscars in a retarded ufo looking shell.. Truly amazing.
arvana*length=6:14
siftbotThe duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:14 - length declared by arvana.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.