DUDE, WHO KILLED MY CAR?
Abstract:
When asked to recall a 2006 environmental documentary, most people think of "An Inconvenient Truth." Al Gore's mega-popular sermon on global warming remained in the public consciousness long after it had left theaters. Only a few people will remember seeing a much smaller film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" that was released shortly afterward....
- Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
doug korthof
posted 6/12/07 @ 10:50 AM PST
Originally posted bykent beuchert
It would be hard to find a film containing more lies than Chris Paine's "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Anyone who can write the line (spoken by EV enthusiast Ed Begley) " The electric car wasn't for everyone. It could only provide the transportation needs of 90% of the public" can't be taken seriously. Did anyone in the audience actually believe that a car that cannot reliably take its owner to destinations
only 35 miles away is the solution to anything? Apparently that $45K price tag and $4,000 per year battery bill (three times anyone's gasoline bill) is for 90%. I far as I can tell, nowhere near 90% of the population even had a place to plug in an EV-1. Does anyone seriously believe that a company with a "can't miss" product that would prevent
its further slide into unprofitability would ever throw it away? And not just one, but all three major automakers - Toyota, Honda, GM ? And why didn't one of those 15 "underling" car companies struggling to move up, build their own electric vehicles? Were they also struck blind? Do you
realize what you're asking me to believe? How come, even today, with batteries that are light year improvemnts over those available just 5
years ago, no company - not Tesla, Feel Good, nor Zap, etc. can market
a practical, affordable EV? Anyone familiar with electric cars knows full well that the EV-1 was no improvement over the Detroit Eelectric built in 1907 - it took just as long to recharge, was expensive, had
expensive battery packs ($20,000 plus) that wouldn't last much past 5 years, took 6 to 8 hours to recharge, might or might not get to and back from a destination a mere 35 miles away. GM's leasees (GM could not legally sell the EV-1, not that any fool would want to buy it).
Paine meekly admits that the car's range (it was, unpredictably, between around 75 and 125 miles. That range shrank as the batteries got older)
MAY have had a negative influence on sales. MAY HAVE? Is Chris braindead?
His technique in the film is that of the infomercial - he doesn't inform
his audience about the car's specifics (cost, range, battery lifespan,
recharge times, etc). Instead he manages to find those treehuggers who
loved the car because it didn't use gasoline. They were the least typical car owners imaginable. GM reports that the two biggest fears
amongst the leasees were 1) running out of juice and being stranded - only a tow truck can get the EV-1 home 2)Having to rearrange their life's activities around the EV-1's charging cycle. Anyone who keeps up to date with EV and plug-in developments should be aware that GM's Wagoner and Lutz both specifically pointed to the VOLT's range extender
as one of the most critical components of this new vehicle. That was a
very obvious reference to one of the monster problems with the EV-1,
although by no means the only one.
This poster could not be more wrong on the facts. Study the facts on http://EV1.org.
The original 1997 EV1 used Delco Lead batteris, and had a 60 mile range. When up graded to Panasonic Lead batteries, the range went to 110 miles.
When GM was forced, by ARB, to put out the 1999 Nickel EV1, it went up to 160 miles on a charge. We have fast-chargers that bypassed the stupid paddle and could charge it from 20% to 80% in an hour.
The Toyota RAV4-EV, which we, and hundreds of others, are still driving (a fact left out of the WKtEC movie), gets up to 120 miles (150 in a pinch) on a charge, and is still running faultlessly after 5 or more years. It's now worth much more than it originally sold for.
The two EV1 drivers who were arrested, Alexandrea and Colette, could have been GM customers. Now, we see GM claiming to re-create the EV, but only two years after finishing crushing it. Who would believe anything GM says?
In almost 500,000 miles of EV driving, we never ran out of electric so far. This poster should visit, take a ride in our EV, and look at our relatively modest solar system, which produces more daytime peak electric than we use by off-peak charging of our two Toyota RAV4-EV.
The money saved on gasoline goes to pay off the solar system.
Why not everyone?
Doug Korthof
posted 6/12/07 @ 10:56 AM PST
Actually, the GM 1999 EV1 was used quite extensively in a construction business, it was great for hauling tools, long-distance treks to building inspections, and emergencies. The Toyota RAV4-EV is now used instead, it can haul 5 workers and a bunch of tools to a jobsite. The range of the RAV4-EV is consistently over 100 miles, afer 5 years, and everyone loves it. We can charge it anywhere there is a plug, using our aftermarket fast-charger. But we prefer to charge it off-peak, when the grid has excess electric.
Originally posted bykent beuchert
Did anyone in the audience actually believe that a car that cannot reliably take its owner to destinations only 35 miles away is the solution to anything?
Doug Korthof
posted 6/12/07 @ 11:04 AM PST
Actually, as WKtEC points out, Chevron now owns the Nickel batteries, and sued Toyota, which had to pay $30M and stopped the production line. So the batteries today are NOT better.
The EV1, as well as the Tesla, uses inductive 3-phase advanced technology brushless motor, whereas the Honda EV and the Toyota RAV4-EV used permananent magnet advanced technology brushless motors.
These motors are light-years ahead of anything available to the Detroit Electric.
Moreover, fast charging (I'm fast-charging my Toyota RAV4-EV right now, directly off the electric produced by my solar rooftop electric system; then, I'm driving to a job site, and then across town to a meeting, all oil-free) does no harm to batteries; we've figured out how to do it, why can't the major manufacturers? Could it be due to the fact that GM is controlled by a number of funds with much bigger stakes in the oil industry?
Why not make more Toyota RAV4-EV, or the GM EV1? We were driving an American car, charged on American electrons, until GM drove us to Toyota. Toyota treated us as customers, while GM treated us like enemies, and had some of us arrested. That's why GM's market value is about that of a motorcycle maker (!!), an incredible failure of what was once a big American company.
The EV1, as well as the Tesla, uses inductive 3-phase advanced technology brushless motor, whereas the Honda EV and the Toyota RAV4-EV used permananent magnet advanced technology brushless motors.
These motors are light-years ahead of anything available to the Detroit Electric.
Moreover, fast charging (I'm fast-charging my Toyota RAV4-EV right now, directly off the electric produced by my solar rooftop electric system; then, I'm driving to a job site, and then across town to a meeting, all oil-free) does no harm to batteries; we've figured out how to do it, why can't the major manufacturers? Could it be due to the fact that GM is controlled by a number of funds with much bigger stakes in the oil industry?
Why not make more Toyota RAV4-EV, or the GM EV1? We were driving an American car, charged on American electrons, until GM drove us to Toyota. Toyota treated us as customers, while GM treated us like enemies, and had some of us arrested. That's why GM's market value is about that of a motorcycle maker (!!), an incredible failure of what was once a big American company.
Originally posted bykent beuchert
How come, even today, with batteries that are light year improvemnts over those available just 5
years ago, no company - not Tesla, Feel Good, nor Zap, etc. can market
a practical, affordable EV? Anyone familiar with electric cars knows full well that the EV-1 was no improvement over the Detroit Eelectric built in 1907 - it took just as long to recharge, was expensive, had
expensive battery packs ($20,000 plus)
Doug Korthof
posted 6/12/07 @ 11:22 AM PST
Actually, GM could have sold the EV1, there was even a proposed price, $54,000. And there were lots of willing buyers, if GM would have sold. Buyer would wait in L.A.'s greatest rainstorm, day and night, for the chance to buy one -- for $25,000 cash. This was not an idle offer, over 100 folks signed up in 48 hours, with cash on the barrel head.
GM reported...that means nothing, since GM knew nothing about the EV1. The people put in charge of the program were assigned, it seems, to kill it. The Volt is questionable. GM claims it's "going greeen", but fails to explain the technical reasons for not using Lead or Nickel batteries, both of which would more than suffice for the Volt's 40-mile all-electric ranges.
You could have a 100-mile Volt, with a bigger battery, or a 10-mile Volt, with a smaller battery; batteries which exist, now, and are in daily use. Why isn't GM using them? It goes to show that the Volt, like GM's pathetic "hybrid" efforts, are all an "image" thing, nothing to do with what GM thinks is important to the "bottom line"...in Waggoner's own words.
GM reported...that means nothing, since GM knew nothing about the EV1. The people put in charge of the program were assigned, it seems, to kill it. The Volt is questionable. GM claims it's "going greeen", but fails to explain the technical reasons for not using Lead or Nickel batteries, both of which would more than suffice for the Volt's 40-mile all-electric ranges.
You could have a 100-mile Volt, with a bigger battery, or a 10-mile Volt, with a smaller battery; batteries which exist, now, and are in daily use. Why isn't GM using them? It goes to show that the Volt, like GM's pathetic "hybrid" efforts, are all an "image" thing, nothing to do with what GM thinks is important to the "bottom line"...in Waggoner's own words.
Originally posted bykent beuchert
...GM could not legally sell the EV-1, not that any fool would want to buy it...MAY have had a negative influence on sales...GM reports that the two biggest fears
amongst the leasees were 1) running out of juice and being stranded - only a tow truck can get the EV-1 home 2)Having to rearrange their life's activities around the EV-1's charging cycle. Anyone who keeps up to date with EV and plug-in developments should be aware that GM's Wagoner and Lutz both specifically pointed to the VOLT's range extender
as one of the most critical components of this new vehicle. That was a
very obvious reference to one of the monster problems with the EV-1,
although by no means the only one.
Chris N. Hanson
posted 6/12/07 @ 9:37 AM PST
I cared about the electric car. so much so that we are ordering one from Pheonix Motorcars- google them.
Doug Korthof
posted 6/12/07 @ 10:39 AM PST
The hidden premise of WKtEC is that you can put in a solar rooftop system and drive a plug-in car, AVOIDING gas stations, foreign oil, smog checks, foreign oil wars, dictators, etc., and pay off the solar system with money you saved by not buying gasoline.
THAT's the hidden message; but it shouldn't have been hidden, shouldn't have been kept oblique and implicit.
Granted, the film already tries to do too much, but some of the less-useful stuff could have been taken out, or else they could just have added ONE MINUTE on the "live oil free" lifestyle.
That's the powerful message, THAT's what people want to do as soon as they find out about it. That's the way individual people can do something immediate to end their "oil dependence anemia" and return us to being independent of succubus oil companies and greedy foreign oil mongers. Who would, BTW, have nothing if not for our oil addiction and the money that flows from our health, education, building and other funds into their dark terrorist-oriented world.
THAT's the hidden message; but it shouldn't have been hidden, shouldn't have been kept oblique and implicit.
Granted, the film already tries to do too much, but some of the less-useful stuff could have been taken out, or else they could just have added ONE MINUTE on the "live oil free" lifestyle.
That's the powerful message, THAT's what people want to do as soon as they find out about it. That's the way individual people can do something immediate to end their "oil dependence anemia" and return us to being independent of succubus oil companies and greedy foreign oil mongers. Who would, BTW, have nothing if not for our oil addiction and the money that flows from our health, education, building and other funds into their dark terrorist-oriented world.
Doug Korthof
posted 6/12/07 @ 10:43 AM PST
This is the best review of WKtEC that has ever been published. It's right-on.
The hidden premise of WKtEC is that you can put in a solar rooftop system and drive a plug-in car, AVOIDING gas stations, foreign oil, smog checks, foreign oil wars, dictators, etc., and pay off the solar system with money you saved by not buying gasoline.
THAT's the hidden message; but it shouldn't have been hidden, shouldn't have been kept oblique and implicit.
Granted, the film already tries to do too much, but some of the less-useful stuff could have been taken out, or else they could just have added ONE MINUTE on the "live oil free" lifestyle.
That's the powerful message, THAT's what people want to do as soon as they find out about it. That's the way individual people can do something immediate to end their "oil dependence anemia" and return us to being independent of succubus oil companies and greedy foreign oil mongers. Who would, BTW, have nothing if not for our oil addiction and the money that flows from our health, education, building and other funds into their dark terrorist-oriented world.
The hidden premise of WKtEC is that you can put in a solar rooftop system and drive a plug-in car, AVOIDING gas stations, foreign oil, smog checks, foreign oil wars, dictators, etc., and pay off the solar system with money you saved by not buying gasoline.
THAT's the hidden message; but it shouldn't have been hidden, shouldn't have been kept oblique and implicit.
Granted, the film already tries to do too much, but some of the less-useful stuff could have been taken out, or else they could just have added ONE MINUTE on the "live oil free" lifestyle.
That's the powerful message, THAT's what people want to do as soon as they find out about it. That's the way individual people can do something immediate to end their "oil dependence anemia" and return us to being independent of succubus oil companies and greedy foreign oil mongers. Who would, BTW, have nothing if not for our oil addiction and the money that flows from our health, education, building and other funds into their dark terrorist-oriented world.
- Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
kent beuchert
posted 6/11/07 @ 7:18 AM PST
only 35 miles away is the solution to anything? Apparently that $45K price tag and $4,000 per year battery bill (three times anyone's gasoline bill) is for 90%. I far as I can tell, nowhere near 90% of the population even had a place to plug in an EV-1. Does anyone seriously believe that a company with a "can't miss" product that would prevent
its further slide into unprofitability would ever throw it away? And not just one, but all three major automakers - Toyota, Honda, GM ? And why didn't one of those 15 "underling" car companies struggling to move up, build their own electric vehicles? Were they also struck blind? Do you
realize what you're asking me to believe? How come, even today, with batteries that are light year improvemnts over those available just 5
years ago, no company - not Tesla, Feel Good, nor Zap, etc. can market
a practical, affordable EV? Anyone familiar with electric cars knows full well that the EV-1 was no improvement over the Detroit Eelectric built in 1907 - it took just as long to recharge, was expensive, had
expensive battery packs ($20,000 plus) that wouldn't last much past 5 years, took 6 to 8 hours to recharge, might or might not get to and back from a destination a mere 35 miles away. GM's leasees (GM could not legally sell the EV-1, not that any fool would want to buy it).
Paine meekly admits that the car's range (it was, unpredictably, between around 75 and 125 miles. That range shrank as the batteries got older)
MAY have had a negative influence on sales. MAY HAVE? Is Chris braindead?
His technique in the film is that of the infomercial - he doesn't inform
his audience about the car's specifics (cost, range, battery lifespan,
recharge times, etc). Instead he manages to find those treehuggers who
loved the car because it didn't use gasoline. They were the least typical car owners imaginable. GM reports that the two biggest fears
amongst the leasees were 1) running out of juice and being stranded - only a tow truck can get the EV-1 home 2)Having to rearrange their life's activities around the EV-1's charging cycle. Anyone who keeps up to date with EV and plug-in developments should be aware that GM's Wagoner and Lutz both specifically pointed to the VOLT's range extender
as one of the most critical components of this new vehicle. That was a
very obvious reference to one of the monster problems with the EV-1,
although by no means the only one.