EVcast #239: The VOLT is on the Roof

Everybody (except Bo) seems to feel they know more about the EV-1 than Bob Lutz does, and of course that is ridiculous. Without forgiving the lack of vision by GM senior management at the time, the case for "killing" the EV-1 was an obvious one from a business POV. As someone who was working at the time in GM and closely with senior management, I want the automotive necrophiliacs who are so obsessed with the EV-1 to know that there was considerable , debate and practically an open revolt within GM regarding the end of the EV-1 program. Unfortunately, and emblematic of GM at the time (and up until next Monday, June 1, 2009), the lawyers and bean-counters were in control of the company, thanks to a spineless board of directors who couldn't make a decision or form a policy if their own childrens' lives depended on it. To them the EV-1 was simply a liability -- but one that the union and dealers body didn't control, and therefore first to to be led to the scaffold.

quote comment add new comment

Just enjoyed "The Volt on the Roof" Have not heard any mention of Amory Lovins prototype electric car and progress in develoment. Have been traveling, so perhaps missed out. Please reference me to details you may have on one of your EVcasts. Thanks, w. Gilmore Smith

quote comment add new comment

Guest,

I don't think there is anyone who has looked into the case of GM's crushing EV-1 closely and not come to respect the engineers, the marketing people, (Thank you Chelsea Sexton) and the GM service people on the ground, one of whom is married to Chelsea Sexton, who made the EV-1 possible.

The EV-1 probably would not have been marketable even as a gas car due to the fact it was a 2 passenger, 2 door coup when flashier cars like the Chevy Corvette would have attracted buyers who naturally flock to such 2 door cars and the rest of the public preferred larger SUV's, trucks and sedans while gasoline was cheap back in the late 90's and early 2000s. However it was very short-sighted of the board to kill the program instead of using the EV-1 program as a platform to develop more fuel efficient cars, hybrids and a small electric car market. Of course an even bigger mistake on the part of GM's public communications officers, like Dave Barthmuss, were saying that the EV-1's would not be crushed while they were actually were crushed.

As an aside, I was attracted to EV's back in 2000 when I was looking for a new car but was unable to get one as they were only leased and not sold and they were available only in California. This crushed my hopes for an EV back then.

The documentary film "Who Killed the Electric Car," could not have been made were it not for that dramatic contrast portrayed in the film. Toyota and Ford wanted to crush its cars too (and Honda did successfully) but bowed to public pressure and Toyota ended up selling them. In retrospect Toyota and Ford's move was the smarter one because Toyota escaped the stigma of the movie and even featured the jovial Bill Reinert, National Manager, Advanced Technology Group, Toyota Motor Sales USA, explaining the pitfalls of hydrogen and what Toyota's customers liked about their Rav 4 EVs.

Ironically, even GM, did not destroy their GM E-10 electric trucks, probably because they were leased or bought in fleets from utility companies, and these were sold to the public. You can find one every now and then on eBay. They contain the same motor drive and electronics from AC Propulsion that the EV-1 had. It's probably the biggest open secret in the EV world.

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX. 

quote comment add new comment

Definition of 'panelist' for Bo's word of the day:  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panelist

Main Entry: pan·el·ist 
Pronunciation: \ˈpa-nəl-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1951
: a member of a discussion or advisory panel or of a radio or television panel

Nissan Nuvu pix:  http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/02/paris-2008-nissan-nuvu-ev/

As to EEStor- this is still a high risk, high reward type of investment- but if I had $5,000,000 that I could afford to lose, then I would invest in a heartbeat- and not to see an EESU by the end of the year, though that would be nice, but in the hope to bring one to market within the next 5 years.  I really think they are onto something, at least in the lab- now whether they can actually bring it to the production stage is the question.  But the technology is so important, I would gladly throw money at it- well, if I had any to throw;-)

quote comment add new comment

I agree that Americans are not ready for smaller cars and trucks yet but a great deal of the improvements to meet the CAFE rules will come from more fuel efficient ICE's including direct injection and diesel.

I heard Bob Luts say that the Volt will be sold world-wide, the success of the Volt will depend more on the export program than local consumption as it's size is a better fit to consumer preferences in Europe and Asia. The local GM arm in Australia has confirmed it will come here and I am ready to place an order.

The one car for world-wide markets is the sort of thinking Detroit has needed for a while and is the key to volume efficiency and survival.

quote comment add new comment

Paul,

There's a really good interview with theoretical physics professor Michio Kaku on the technology of Star Trek and one of the most interesting pieces is the one on phasers and other particle beam weapons. He basincally says that the only thing limiting them is the power source. Currently they are powered by nuclear reactors which makes them impractical for a hand phaser for variety of obvious reasons but if a highly energy dense power source like a highly energy dense capacitor using nanoplates that can store vast amounts of energy equal to or even far greater than gasoline than new possibilities open up like practical power sources to make EVs possible.

http://www.popsci.com/entertainment-amp-gaming/article/2009-05/warp-speed-possiblewe-ask-string-theorist

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.

quote comment add new comment

re Toyota vs Toyoda

Vehicles were originally sold under the name "Toyoda" (トヨダ?), from the family name of the company's founder, Kiichiro Toyoda. In September 1936, the company ran a public competition to design a new logo. Out of 27,000 entries the winning entry was the three Japanese katakana letters for "Toyoda" in a circle. But Risaburo Toyoda, who had married into the family and was not born with that name, preferred "Toyota" (トヨタ?) because it took eight brush strokes (a fortuitous number) to write in Japanese, was visually simpler (leaving off two ticks at the end) and with a voiceless consonant instead of a voiced one (voiced consonant is considered "murky" or "muddy" sound compared to the voiceless consonant, which is "clear"). Since "Toyoda" literally means "fertile rice paddies", changing the name also helped to distance the company from associations with old fashioned farming. The newly formed word was trademarked and the company was registered in August 1937 as the "Toyota Motor Company".[7][8][9]

quote comment add new comment

@ ~22:50: A123 L5 HyMotion Ranger Extender for Toyota Prius.

Gee, down to ~$9,000, installed.

Gotta' remember.  Only partial discharge of 60%, for the L5.  Means the marketed 5 kWh only provides 3 kWh in reality!

~$3,000 / kWh!  @~6 miles / kWh, that's $500 for every additional mile all electric range.

Not very economically attractive. 

quote comment add new comment

@~49:20, discussion of EEStor / ZENN.

Successfully achieving the independently verified permittivity milestone did obligate ZENN to pay EEStor $700K.

In addition, the milestone triggered a brief 30 *business* day window for the purchase of a maximum of $5M additional equity in EEStor, spread among 4 (5?) investors.  ZENN's press release said they would offer to buy as much as possible - up to the whole $5M - *IF* any / all of the other (4?) investors declined to maximize their stake in EEStor.

A very bullish (if necessary, as the discussion points out) stance on ZENN's part.

In the end, if ZENN is *limited* to "only" their guaranteed minimum $2M additional equity investment, it is a good thing (in the short term), because that would mean *ALL* of the other (4?) investors *also* bought up the maximum they were allowed to.  OTOH, if ZENN gets more than their guaranteed $2M minimum, 1 or more of the other investors were unable or otherwise declined (full) participation.  That would likely be interpretted as a bad thing, at least in the short term, as far as for the ZENN stock.  It would mean a repudiation, or, at least, a difference of opinion, as to ZENN's due diligence evaluation and their own additional re-testing and re-confirmation of the full information packet they got from EEStor regarding the permittivity milestone.

Obviously, ZENN / EEStor should know no later than about July 3, 2009, how the additional equity investment traspired.  ZENN stated they would release that information.

quote comment add new comment

Are you guys kidding me? You have a show featuring the EV1 and the Rav4 and even the new Prius... and you don't let me know? I'm useless for many subjects... but this is my forte! Hello? Is this thing on?

To out initial "guest" commenter, I have this to say. Nobody doubts that Lutz knows what happened. What is questioned (by everybody but Bo??) is if he is now telling the truth about the situation. It is evident to anybody who was involved in the program (you, for example) that he was not telling the truth. Why, for example, was he compelled to say that they tried really hard to sell the EV1, but that nobody would buy them. So then they had to lease the cars, and could only lease 800 of them.??? Which part of that statement is fully true? None of it, of course.

And that their bean counters were the ones to pull the plug? They don't get to make that decision. To sell cars in CA, GM had to place a bunch of ZEVs on the road - under CA law. What changed? Well, I guess those same bean counters OK'd a whole wad of cash to go and get that law changed at the federal level (must have been cheap, eh?). Which they did... and then killed the EV1 program. GM didn't just kill the EV1 program - they killed the state's ZEV program.... allowing all mfg's to pull the plug.

Of course Lutz knows what happened. And so do you, apparently. And of course this was a sound business decision - at the expense of a better transportation future. Not installing EGRs or CATs or seatbelts or air bags are also all sound business decisions that were fought by the car companies. So stipulating that this was a sound business decision, why does it have to made to sound like the cars were undesirable? Like GM *really* tried to make a go of it when there were some trying to kill the thing before it even made it to the show rooms? Yes, many pulled for the program, and went to heroic efforts.

Bahh. I'm rambling.

quote comment add new comment

Darell,

There is probably an obvious answer to the question I'm about to ask but what accounts for GM's crushing of the EV-1 but some of the GM converted S-10s, the E-10, are saved? You can even find them every now and then on ebay.

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.

quote comment add new comment

   Regarding CAFE standards and small cars, all I have to say is What the *&%$ are you guys talking about.  Have we learned nothing in the past year of EVcast.

  Sigh, Let's review.

   At low speeds, the energy used by the car is mostly controlled by the rolling resistance of the tires and the weight of the vehicle.  So for this lighter cars (not smaller cars) improve efficiency.

   At high speeds (think highway) most of the energy is consumed by pushing the air out of the way.  This is related to Drag-Coefficient and projected frontal area.  Weight does not matter at all.

  1)  So here is an idea.  Take a vehicle like a Hummer H2 with a drag coefficient of 0.58 and change its shape to make it a Cd of 0.29 and 100% better gas mileage on the highway.  Or take the Chevy Tahoe with a Cd=0.39 and change it to 0.29 and get 35% better gas mileage on the highway.

      So there you have it, better efficiency in the vehicles of the same size and weight and perceived safety.  Why did you assume that "small" cars are needed to achieve crash good MPG?

      There is so much more to say about this topic I hardly know where to begin.

2)  The most fuel efficient vehicle currently for sale in the USA (Toyota Prius).  It is a 2900 pound mid-size car with a 4 out of 5 star crash rating.  Not exactly a death trap for a fuel efficient vehicle.

3) For all the SUV drivers that think they are safer, read this. The IIHS report states, "Pound for pound across vehicle types, cars almost always have lower death rates than pickups or SUVs

Let's look at the death rates for very large versus very small vehicles.

US Driver Death Rates from 2002–2005 in recent models (per million registered vehicles)[18]

small 4 door cars (14 models): 45-191

very large SUVs (6 models) 53-122

So the very best small cars have about the same death rates as the very best large SUVs.  So no obvious correlation between car size and death rates.

4) This is not our first time improving the fuel efficiency of vehicles and not the first time that people said it will be dangerous.  The original CAFE standard came out in the 1970's and The traffic death rate has dropped by over half since CAFE's enactment in 1975;  So there is a lot more to death rates than simply CAFE.

5) Smart ForTwo has a five star crash rating.  So before you go making assumptions about its safety, look up the crash rating of your own vehicle and compare.

6) There is something about the news media that loves a story about the government is doing "XYZ" and it is putting your life at risks.  This gets unreasonable and thoughtless attention.  Meanwhile, we are creating pollution with our SUVs that are polluting the air and causing health problems including premature death.  When with the media cover that story.

/RANT

quote comment add new comment

Bo and Ryan,

When issue of smaller cars colliding with larger cars was raised by a feedback caller he raised the possibility of mitigating it with using lighter carbon nano-fiber materials. While this would certainly contribute to the durability of the car it would do very little to help the passengers inside the car. So Bo, score one for you for pointing out that light weight, high strength carbon nano-fiber technology, while admirable, would make cars light enough to decrease stopping distance and avoiding collisions. However it does not make these smaller cars safer in an accident when they involve much bigger, heavier mass vehicles. The laws of physics still apply and large mass vehicles impacting small mass vehicles always win automobile collision arms race whether they're made of carbon nano-fiber, steel, beer cans or feathers.

A car collision is really three collisions. The first is the car to car or other physical object capable of causing damage to the car. The second is the human collision with the steering wheel windshield front seats or possibly other passengers. The third collision is the internal organ injuries against other internal organs or the skeleton. It is this third collision that the application of light weight, high strength carbon nano-fibers cannot correct for in a small car that impacts a larger heavier vehicle.

A larger car, like a Chevy Tahoe, traveling at a sufficient speed that impacts a sub-compact car, like a Smart car, even with carbon nanofiber construction, will not likely save the internal occupants of that Smart Car from internal organ damage. The issue is not about the durability of the car but does the car have sufficient crumple zone space to absorb most of the energy of the impact while maintaining the basic internal structural integrity of the driver and passenger compartment. This was an issue that Ralph Nader raised in his book, "Unsafe at any Speed," where the cars would survive the accident but the cars occupants would not often survive because the cars didn't crumple in to absorb the impact, engines where pushed into the passenger compartment instead of under the chassis like they do now or they were impaled by any number of sharp objects in the car like the steering wheel.

Crumple zones help to absorb much of the energy of the impact. Air bags helped absorb the remainder of the impact. A car needs sufficient crumple zones to absorb the impact and using carbon nano-fiber technology would not contribute to impact safety. It is the use of a myriad of car impact strategies like crumple zones in cars, steel reinforced doors, air bags, seat belts, collapsible steering columns and engines that are forced under the cabin of the car that prevent serious injuries and fatalities. A small car like the Smart, while it does have ample crumple zones for cars of similar size or a little larger in a collision are still inadequate for collisions with much larger heavier mass vehicles.

Where light weight carbon nanofiber technology helps is making the car light enough to shorten stopping distance so at least you can avoid a potential front end collision by allowing the car to stop short of impact.

I tried finding some information on internal organ damage that wasn't linked to someone with a particular financial interest, like say lawyers, but it has proven difficult so I posted some information that is as neutral as I could find for the time being. It is written for a young audience but it is still worthy of a read.
http://www.piercefire.org/up/Fireflies/Safe%20Zone%205-6%20Jan%202008%20web%20secure.pdf

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.

quote comment add new comment

Rick,

    If your analysis is correct, then you should universally have higher death rates in small cars than in SUVs.  This is NOT THE CASE as I have provided the statistics in a previous post.

    So the question is why.  I think the reason is that there are many different types of accidents and details in the ways vehicles are constructed.  Certainly there are many single car accidents for which the vehicle size is less of an issue (it only needs to decelerate its own mass.).  There are roll over accidents that are more dangerous and common in SUVs than they are in cars (particularly sports cars).  There are driving styles that vary with how safe the driver perceives his vehicle to be.

    In any case, I think it is important to look at death rates as well as the physics of collisions before we jump to a conclusion.

    I think we can all agree that air-bags save lives, right?  Well, apparently, that has not been the case statistically in the death rates.  There was an expection that death rates would decrease when airbags were mandated.  It is my understanding that there is no clear reduction in death rates that corresponds with the introductions of air bags. WHY?  No one knows.  It is supposed that perhaps we are now taking more risks because of airbags.  But that is just speculation.

   I wonder if death rates are higher for bicycle commuters than with car commuters?  If not, perhaps bicycle commuters are a very careful lot. (for good reason).

Later
John C. Briggs

quote comment add new comment

short video( 1:14) about Richard Titus (Executive producer of Who Killed...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqryrhcUy_o

Basically he says that he is proud of the movie because it changed the conversation from "why electric cars failed" to "how the electric car was killed".

  It is a subtle but very important change in focus about how EVs are perceived.

quote comment add new comment

John,

I would agree that small cars generally have been involved in fewer accidents than trucks and SUVs. There's certainly been much agreement, unfounded in my opinion, that these large trucks and SUVs are safer. A small car can be a safer car and I think real world experience reflects this. I'm not sure it can be measured statistically though. I think that can be explained this way. Small cars have shorter stopping distances, are much more maneuverable and therefore can swerve to avoid accidents and have a lower center of gravity than trucks and SUVs. (Especially the ones you need an airplane staircase to get into.) It is also possible that small car drivers have to be more vigilant with their surroundings and the other drivers than the large truck and SUV drivers.

Interestingly the most fuel efficient cars are not the smallest. The Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry Hybrid and the Ford Fusion Hybrid are very safe cars and are also fuel efficient. They contradict the popular myth that fuel efficient cars are unsafe.

I drive a 2000 Camry and I'm quite confident that it is safer than the big trucks and SUVs.

So I'd be interested in any information you have that can make a good case that small cars are safer than the big trucks and SUVs.

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.

quote comment add new comment

Rick,
     So the sources that I found are
   1) IIHS (insurance institute for highway safety) death rates
   2) Crash tests
   The crash test data shows small cars and SUV can get 5 star rating.  Unfortunately for SUVs, they cannot get 5 star roll-over rating.  This is a real problem for
SUVs.  People tend to think of Roll-overs as a single car accident, which is true, but it is also to have another type of roll-over.  An SUV hits another car and then rolls over.  This can happen at speeds as low as 20mph.  Given the shape of vehicles, it is difficult to protect the driver in a roll-over. 

     A possible down side of the crash test data is (as far as I know) there is no simulation of SUV to car collision.  These types of collisions are difficult for the car for several reasons.  The SUV has higher mass, higher bumper high, and higher center of gravity.  This might defeat the crumble zone in the car completely by going over the hood of the car.  So in any case, I think there are limits to using crash test data in predicting passanger safety.

    The great news, is that 10 or 15 years ago, no vehicles got 5 star ratings and now many do.  I think this means we are all a lot safer.

     For the death rates, it is clear that there is a lot of spread in the data. 

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

So it is difficult to conclude too much about the relationship between vehicle size and death rates.  Looking at the data for "mid-size SUVs" we see one model has a death rate of 13 deaths per million register vehicles.  This is about as low as any vehicle.  Another model of "mid_size SUVs" has a death rate of 232.  This is the worst of any vehicle.  So are mid-sized SUVs safe or unsafe?  Well it might depend on the model that you choose.

   Also, you safety might depend on your driving (big surprise).  The death rates don't factor in age, gender, driver ability, etc.  So there is a limitation to death rate data.  It is reasonable to assume, perhaps it can be proven statistically, that people who like to drive Corvettes (as an example) are less safe drivers.  Now if the death rate is higher in Corvettes, it is an unsafe car, or an unsafe driver.  The data might be confounded and you might not be able to prove the answer one way or the other.

   Mostly, I am upset by the common assumption that more fuel efficient cars means less safe cars.  I don't think that is clear at all.  The media keep making the claim and people buy SUVs that may actually be less safe (can anyone remember Ford Explorer's rolling over?).

Later

John C. Briggs

quote comment add new comment

John,

I can personally attest to the fear of rollover in an SUV. I owned a Ford Explorer until I used it for a trade in for my new 2000 Toyota Camry. I always worried about what I would do to prevent a rollover if one of my front tires had a blow out.

I think the alledged safety defects of fuel efficient/small cars is a result of car companies' marketing campaigns claiming that trucks and SUVs are safer combined with reporters not digging deep enough due to lack of time, not enough thorough investigation and so on. I've certainly seen this phenomenon over the alledged larger carbon footprint of the Prius over the Hummer spun by Art Spinella and his marketing group. That one still makes the rounds.

Perhaps a letters to the editor campaign of the major news papers when this subject comes up can address this mistaken perception.

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.

quote comment add new comment

Hi Rick -

re. why we still have Chevy S10's around with the EV1 drivetrain.

This is a point that many of us bring up all the time - if the EV1 was such a troublesome car, with obvious safety defects - to the point where the cars needed to be crushed to protect the consumer... then WHY were some of the S10's left out in the wild? Well, the answer, of course, is that these scary problems with the EV1 (and the "need" to keep parts and trained techs around for ten years) was hogwash. The still-operating S10's prove this! The only real difference in the cars is the shape of the body on tope.

The EV1s were all leased, so they were simple to round up. The S10s on the other hand, were all placed in "fleets" and some of those businesses would not agree to lease. So a few were sold. Once sold, GM couldn't get them back, and now most are still happily plying the roads.

quote comment add new comment

Regarding GM they did not have to provide service they could have just given the cars away to the protesters that wanted them as-is. To crush cars is wasteful. It reminds me of how they are bulldozing new homes in California after the bank received bailout money and they determined it would be better for the long-term health of the market to reduce demand and destroy the homes. The truth is electric cars are too reliable. Just ticks me off so much that I recommend to everyone not to buy a GM car until the Volt is on the road and for sale. A 9 mile plug-in Prius would be very good for $9000. I would buy it. There should be a rebate $50,000 rebate to do this, payed for with a sin tax on gasoline (air pollution and global warming) and coal (which is poisoning fish and tuna with mercury). I would put the tax at $10 a gallon if I were king. Gas cars are like cigarettes. BillBerggren

quote comment add new comment

I would not invest $500 to own 5% of eestor. There is many fraudulent solar-electric-energy companies. The reason is very simple there is no prototype. Why has eestor not made a capacitor as a model on a small scale? The real deal is the premlis. BillBerggren

quote comment add new comment

I was a little skeptical of the "bulldozing new homes" comment.  But it looks to be real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvrc7x3Amps

quote comment add new comment

Tesla's recalled for loose bolts.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=149209

quote comment add new comment

Good thing Bo isn't getting one.

quote comment add new comment

How hard is it to set a torque wrench to tighten those bolts to the correct in/lb tension?

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, Texas.

quote comment add new comment

Rick,
    I don't know man.

    How hard is it to know that torque is measured in

      in-lbs (inch-pounds) and NOT

     in/lbs (inches/pound).

 I guess people make mistakes.

:)

Later
John C. Briggs

quote comment add new comment

John,

touché

Rick, from the oil capitol of the world, Houston, TX.

quote comment add new comment

Well, I think the Tesla issue arose where it was manufactured in the UK- it was probably one of those Metric to SAE conversion things- or was it pounds to dollars?

Oh, and thanks for the link to the PopSci article, Rick- most enjoyable interview concerning Star Trek physics with Dr. Michio Kaku.  How can you not like a respectable Trekkie! I still remember sneaking down the hall when I was supposed to be in bed, to watch Star Trek- I hated that 9:00 bedtime!  Way too early for an 11-12 year-old! At least, so I thought until I had my own kids;-) 

For my birthday about 3 years ago, my wife and two daughters came out, to the Star Trek theme, in outfits covered with foil and holding Phasers, with a cake in the shape of the Enterprise (well, close enough;-)- I never laughed so hard in my life!

quote comment add new comment