We have known since late 2007, when Bob Lutz first said it, that the Volt would begin production in November 2010. In early 2009, GM-Volt learned that GM had a specific day in mid-November 2011 to start production of the first saleable build.
According to Aol Autos, GM insiders have confided that the exact start date of launch is November 11. This date, which is also Veterans Day, could also potentially coincide with GM’s IPO giving it some extra panache.
For those who are counting, this means we are a mere 72 days from the start of production of the car whose birth we have been watching for nearly four years. The fact that GM has kept this program so exactly on time in the face of innumerable hurdles technical, financial, and otherwise over these years is nothing short of miraculous.
The report also suggests initial launch market Volt dealers wont start taking delivery of these cars until after November 17 when their exact allocation numbers are posted online.
GM still contends they will be building 10,000 Volts in 2011 half of which will be 2011 model year versions. The DHAM assembly plant in Detroit where the Volts will be built is currently ramping up production of the last crop of pre-production units called validation builds and have produced at least a few hundred of these. Each iteration of those units become more and more refined until they final emerge as saleable units. The first saleable build to roll off the line on November 11 will be referred to as job 1. Where it winds up is anyone’s guess.
Source (AOL Autos)
-151
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:17 am)(click to show comment)
+15
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:20 am)My guess is Lyle, Did I that got it right?
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:21 am)11/11/10 #00001. I don’t want to sound overly dramatic, but the soundtrack from 2001: A Space Odyssey sure rings inside a lot of our heads right now, huh.
+72
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:54 am)Having the first production fall on Veteran’s Day would be an appropriate tribute to those who have been killed or wounded fighting terrorism funded by oil revenue. Perhaps a better End Dependence Day than July 4th — this Veterans Day will mark the beginning of the end of our need to send young men and women all over the world to protect our oil supplies.
Can’t think of a better way to honor heroes.
+48
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:37 am)“Where it ends up is anyone’s guess”
It ought to be Lyle’s garage… Signed on the hood by Lutz and the entire Volt Team!
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:40 am)Images of the Volt on the official Chevrolet page mention the production model may vary. Looking forward to to seeing the final style and texture mods. Exciting times ahead. We’ll be plugging in our Volts by Christmas.
=D-Volt
+13
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:43 am)Just to pick a nit: our oil supplies = the global supply pool of oil
Thus : ” protect our oil supplies” = protecting the world’s supply = insuring world stability
This is how we often go from where we should be praising ourselves for our leadership role in the world to blaming ourselves for somewhat negative traits of greed, etc. ( Please spare me all the “statistics” about how “gluttonous” we are. And how we reduce negative traits of human nature and the human condition to uniquely “American” traits.
Otherwise, DonC, I agree with your post a 109.999 % !
+23
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:45 am)Poser. Bank on it.
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:53 am)The Veterans’ Day launch is, in a word, poignant.
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:51 am)I’m with you Cybereye, Lyle deserves it.
JC NPNS
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:53 am)I like that image of the calender with the Volt on it. It brings to mind those Christmas calenders where each day you open the perforated paper and take out the chocolate.
Hard solid Volt shaped chocolates Monday through Friday. Volt chocolates with a gooey caramel center for the weekends when you’d take the Volt on a vacation hundreds of miles away.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:59 am)#1 to Bob because it’s his baby and he’s a veteran. #2 to Lyle.
(Bob may already have his.)
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:32 am)GM marketing dept. :
How about lifetime eligibility for a Voltec discount for every combat veteran?
1 per family. Whaddaya think?
-10
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:39 am)(click to show comment)
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:53 am)awesome
this one word sums it up for me!
great news, thanks lyle,
go volt
+20
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:57 am)wow grumpy, maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my post.
The gist of it was anti- anti-American.
For example, those who deride the “Ugly American” tourist are not keenly aware that every nationality has “ugly” tourists. I know from personal experience.
I was saying that we’re not just selfishly protecting “our” sources of oil, but protecting the global supply, unselfishly, thus ensuring (insuring?) global stability.
(look at how China exploits African resources in an almost proprietary, and self-centered, way. )
Sorry for the lack of clarity.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:08 am)VOLT is a great start for GM & US. GM has a great concept and I hope they will keep the quality up in coming years. Nothing out there to compete with VOLT. GM should jump on this opportunity and the help govt provided to become the leader once again in quality car production. GM can do it but ….
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:10 am)It would be nice to see Lyle get the first one, but I suspect the first Volt will be kept by GM.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:20 am)“The report also suggests initial launch market Volt dealers wont start taking delivery of these cars until after November 17 when their exact allocation numbers are posted online.”
And I thought allocation was already done. Guess this means there is still some adjustments, probably based on number of units dealers report have already been sold with deposits.
“GM still contends they will be building 10,000 Volts in 2011 half of which will be 2011 model year versions.”
Only 5000 for model year 2011. That means til August. Then they start ramping up production for 2012.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:30 am)A limited run vehicle of historic significance makes for a special collection piece. Of the 10,000 2011 Volts being produced. 1000 will be kept as mint show cars by collectors. 2000-3000 will go to high profile people and government employees. This leaves about 6500 to be distributed to dealerships in launch states. My guess is the first year Volt will hold value pretty well. Look ahead 9 years to the Barret-Jackson Auction. Will a 2011 Volt sell for less than $60k?
=D-Volt
Wednesday September 1, 2010, 7:06 am
BEIJING (AP) — Auto sales in China, the world’s biggest car market, rebounded in August as subsidies for energy-efficient vehicles and a stronger currency spurred demand.
Sales rose 55.7 percent over a year earlier to 1.21 million vehicles, up from 1 million vehicles the month before, the Cabinet’s China Automotive Technology and Research Center said Wednesday.
The increase compared with 17 percent year-on-year growth in July and 19.4 percent in June.
Sales of energy saving vehicles rose 32 percent to 129,600, the center said in a report posted on its website.
Demand was also relatively strong for imported vehicles, as Japanese and European automakers increasingly focus on serving the market for smaller, affordable cars, said the center’s chairman, Zhao Hang, without giving specific figures.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:37 am)I made my deposit a year ago, but I’ll take number 2 so that Lyle can get #1.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:47 am)So I guess there is no reason to reset the countdown clock on the home page!!!
I remember when we made a big deal out of it going under 1000. Now we are at 89…..
This really is a great time to be alive!!!
Great Work GM Volt Team!
NPNS
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:49 am)“Volt dealers wont start taking delivery of these cars until after November 17 when their exact allocation numbers are posted online.”
Posted online? For the public to see? I would like to have that link please.
NPNS!
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:03 am)American troops go where needed to protect freedom. Be it eliminating Muslim pirates who were interfering with tea and spice trade in the 1700s and selling Americans as slaves, or Muslim terrorists who were about to get control of oil supplies in Iraq in the 2000s. Even after the US stops importing oil, American companies will be producing and selling oil Worldwide for many years, I’m sure. All thanks to our Military Veterans.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:10 am)I agree completely.
I will add a comment to yours. I think GM will keep the first Volt for their museum.
+17
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:16 am)I suggest GM should make a statement by offering VOLT #000001 on an eBay Auction with proceeds going to a Veteran’s Group. And if GM can find a way to do it, perhaps there could be 2011 shares of new GMco stock in the trunk to help maximize the benefit…… VOLT #000002 goes to Lyle:-)
I’m sure GM can find a suitable VOLT for their museum.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:38 am)As much as I agree that Lyle has done a tremendous amount of work and effort to keep the Volt enthusiasm alive and rolling and definitely deserves some sort of meaningful recognition from GM I have to disagree that he gets #1. #1 should go straight to the Smithsonian. Although I like #26 LeoK’s idea. Maybe #2 could go to the museum if #1 gets auctioned off with the proceeds going to Iraq/Afganistan disabled veterans.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:39 am)Just ask your favorite dealer. Mine was allocated seven through April. He told me as soon as he knew.
+11
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:39 am)Kudos, Leo! Auctioning the first Volt with proceeds going to wounded soldiers or to scholarships for children of Veterans who have fallen in service to this country would be a hell of a thing for GM to do!
Still thinking about numbers and the Gen II Volt. If they build a 1,000 Gen I in 2010 and 10,000 Volts in 2011, half of which will be Gen II, I am thinking that there are going to be just 6,000 of the overbuilt Gen I’s. I will bet dollars to doughnuts that the Gen II has a slightly smaller battery pack. It is cool to think about what EREV’s will be like in 4 or 5 years. I hope GM maintains their lead, but I also hope they realize that within 10 or 12 years batteries are going to be cheap enough, small enough and able to recharge fast enough that the extra complexity of an EREV won’t be needed by most people. Build the Volt and bring on EREV Orlandos, S10′s and Malibu’s, but spend enough time and money to keep their BEV program state of the art, as well.
Still shaking my head about poster #1. I am a Tea Party supporter, as are a lot of my friends, and my friends don’t talk that way. I think he gave himself away at the end. He is no more a Tea Partier than I am a Saudi. I think it more likely that he is a Leaf Troll. Not that there is anything wrong with wanting a car that 90 mile range! Make mine EREV, though.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:51 am)Thank you Lyle for taking us every step of the way as we approach the finish line! GM may not have been able to do it without GM-Volt.com. I hope you at least get a line or two when the history of the EV revolution gets written.
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:13 am)My resolve is as strong as ever to drive without using OIL. And Veterans day is significant.
I was reading the other day how the improved economy in IRAQ was more responsible for the lowering of violence than the surge from a couple years back. Reason is almost all the violence in IRAQ is funding by IRAN and Saudi Arabia. EVERY TIME YOU PUT GAS IN YOUR CAR, a small percent of the cost ends up in the hands of terrorists that are trying to KILL YOU.
In IRAQ, terrorists typically get paid $5,000 for each attack. Not a bad days wage. I am so sick and tired of people not understanding the importance of us putting an end to importing oil. We need to keep that money in our economy, we need to take it away from our enemies. And we need to get to the point where we don’t have to protect those Oil Shipping lanes of the Persian gulf any longer. The hidden cost of OIL is so easily ended. Just everybody buy an EREV or a BEV and within 10 years these problems of the middle east won’t be ours any more.
We should produce more oil (Alaska, Gulf etc.) and use much less.
I actually haven’t decided on which car I’ll get first. I’m in the Leaf waiting line as I put my $99 to hold a place in line. I’m also sort of waiting for Ford to announce their EV line and costs. But certainly the Volt is the best car of all of these and I imagine in next month or so I’ll go to a dealer and try and get my place in line.
It’s just hard to get excited here in Ohio as I know I’m still more than a year away from being able to actually get one.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:19 am)Shaming or guilting a wealth creator into donating their wealth to someone else’s cause is an old looter’s trick. A true Christian would quietly make their own donation to their cause without trumpeting their deed nor shaming / guilting others. If you have failed to create the wealth to make such a donation, then don’t burden GM with your failure.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:35 am)Since everyone seems to like the Veterans Day is a great day to start production. We all agree it makes a good statement.
Why not let all Veterans have first crack at the first volts. No discount just first chance for the first year Vets are moved to the top of the list.
Are you all willing to make that small sacrifice? For those who have sacrificed for us all?
I am not a Vet. I say yes I would make this small sacrifice! If you would give this post, not me a +1
-12
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:37 am)(click to show comment)
-32
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:38 am)(click to show comment)
-16
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:40 am)(click to show comment)
-29
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:43 am)(click to show comment)
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:46 am)It is a LEAF troll, and I think it is one of the several sock puppets of a very prominent and respected contributor here, probably the last person anybody here would think of.
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:50 am)11/11/10. Will they start the line at 11:01? I think instead of #1, I’d like car 1111. It doesn’t really matter what number it is, it will be an awesome moment when I get it.
I am now a little hesitant about actually using it since it will be a collector’s item according to Dave K. since I’m hopeful mine will be in that 1st run of 5000. Also shipping 2-3K to VIPs seems a little high since there are so few available but I guess that is a marketing reality in today’s world.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:55 am)Agreed. Volt with VIN xxxx00001 will be worth at least one million dollars. (queue MiniMe)
+27
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:00 am)….. And at the 11th minute of the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, the din of the gas pumps fell silent.
Only to be replaced by the faint whir of the electric meter throughout the land.
Can I get an AMEN ?
+18
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:09 am)Amen to that! From time to time I realize how different mornings would be without my daily ticket to the Volt Adventure ride – all provided by one man making a huge difference. Thanks Lyle!. I know that GM monitors this site, so I hope that someone recognizes that Lyle’s efforts should NOT be over-looked!
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:12 am)Given this news of 11/11/2010 for Job 1, I think Lyle should reset his counter on the home page. Right now its set for 89 days left and could be at 70 days – the time between now and Veteran’s Day. Call it the Chevy Volt time warp.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:13 am)AMEN!
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:14 am)It should end up on the stage of Barrett-Jackson’s next auction to pull in $1,000,000 in charity money for our soldiers injured in the line of duty. Lyle can have #2 off the line. (ahead of Jay Leno)
Thought for the Day:
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:19 am)I’ll agree with Ron64…and bet that one of the first Volts off the line will go to the Smithsonian…we’re definitely seeing history in the making!
LJGTVWOTR!
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:29 am)SHOOT! *I* meant to say that! (lol). I got wrapped up in Lyle’s role in the process and forgot LJGTVWOTR!!!
Be well,
Tagamet
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:29 am)This is the most probable result for car #1. Same as the first ‘new’ Camaro (fetched 350K). Barrett-Jackson just happens to have a auction in Las Vegas on Sept 23rd. Hopefully Lyle gets #2.
Random notes (just as reference):
The new Camaro went into production on March 16th, 2009, and the first one (that was auctioned off) was delivered April 11th to the dealership. The first actual customer order was April 17th.
-25
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:31 am)(click to show comment)
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:32 am)Shoot! I messed up. I meant to say production will start at 11:11. You got me.
-Book
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:34 am)I could easily see the Volt in a display labeled “Bridging Technology”, with a LEAF and MINIe next to that (at this point) could be labeled “The future?“.
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:37 am)Amen! But there’s a bit of poetic license here. Gas pumps don’t make all that much of a din. They’re electric. Just one more energy requirement for the gasoline infrastructure that makes electric cars so much more efficient. Maybe replace the pumps (and ICE engines) with the faint glow of LED smart meters or something…
+22
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:38 am)I’m gonna take some heat for this one but what the heck. Volt45 is right, it’s the world’s oil supply you are protecting, not yours. Stating it’s yours is bound to provoke the ennemies of America.
I wouldn’t go as far as saying that it’s an unselfish gesture. It’s pretty much out of necessity that the US is spending so much to protect the world’s oil supply : your way of life depends on it, your economy requires it. Remember the ’70s ?
It’s that dependance that must be terminated asap. The Volt is a step in the right direction : the end of dependance on cheap oil to sustain the lifestyle of America.
Oh well, hit -1 if you must…
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:49 am)Why not start 2 hours earlier ?
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:51 am)Maybe “The raucous hubbub of a record setting IPO on Wall Street”.
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:53 am)+1
Are you sending these to GM as well?
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:55 am)NOPE, don’t go there. JMO.
Be well,
Tagamet
-3
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:15 am)Hi Tag,
I’m going to pick some nits here:
I see the labels as;
MiniE- recent past:
Leaf- 1st generation of mass production:
Volt- on the roads now and making a huge difference.
Now, the explanation is long so don’t read it!
The MiniE will soon be discontinued. The Leaf it’s rumored will be nearly doubled in range for gen II. Doubling the range practically creates a new vehicle. It starts as a commuter / city car. When the mileage is doubled and there are a few fast charge stations scattered about, the Leaf gen II will be virtually a general purpose car.
Whatever else changes, the Volt will still be EREV. No fundamental changes there until battery prices come down and evolving events make electric cars as conveniently range unlimited as ICE’s. Gen I, II, III will be perceived as so similar, unless the name is changed, that the Volt will be seen as ongoing and steadily gaining in numbers. Where the difference between gen I of the Leaf and gen II are fundamentally different cars.
What about price? Slow start here for the Volt, except for the pent up demand that will sell out every one of the cars. Some one here said that in a couple years the base model Volt will sell for $36,000 dollars. But, the nav system, nice alloy wheels and few other items would be optional, with a loaded Volt selling for, you guessed it, $41,000.
I guess if you take out the destination charge, the Volt would start at 35,300. A couple years of inflation the economy improving job growth returning, and what the average car today is $26,000. Well the Volt is gonna be a lot more affordable for a lot more people once these elements align. Steady growth in sales? Time will tell.
After thought. Could GM lower the Volt price if they gave owners a 9 kWh battery now, and said when prices were lower in 5 years, look if you want come in and for a $50 re-stocking fee, we’ll install another 7 kWh in your pack?
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:39 am)Save it for the Evil Trinity. The West Coast is just about awake …
EDIT: My bad. Charlie is already among us. You know what to do.
Remember to Take Out the Trash!!
–er–
Remember to Volte!! [-1] [+1]
+9
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:44 am)HaHaHaHaHa!! click-click-click-click.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:48 am)Not sure why I wouldn’t want to read the reasoning….. My point in making the “?” bold typeface still stands. We don’t know what the future holds for the LEAF or other electric vehicles. Any company can “project” anything they’d like, but until they actually field the product…… well, did you ever hear of EEStor? I’d love to see double range in the LEAF (or the Volt for that matter), just as I’d like to see the prices of all of the electric vehicles drop precipitously. I just think that we’ll need to *gag* “Stay Tuned”.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:49 am)(concerning post #1)
We have several trolls too cowardly to use even a made-up name consistently. One of the worst (from the past) I nick-named “No-Name.” I don’t think this is him. I’d also be surprised if your “sock puppet” theory is correct (though I have had that thought about one of the consistently-named trolls).
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:49 am)Excellent info, thanks Statik.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:51 am)If the US finds a way to substitute for oil to the point were we can stop importing oil, then I very much doubt there will be anyone else interested in it.
And I really don’t think that the role of the troops is to make the world safe for “American” corporations. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:52 am)I think Viet Nam veterans should get a Volt discount.
And a credit for all their GM card points.
And a credit for owning two GM vehicles.
And a credit for being on Lyle’s sign-up list.
And a credit for visiting GM-Volt.com for years.
But I’m gonna wait for an American private enterprise to make a BEV competitor to Leaf.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:54 am)Drat!! When I first saw this late yesterday, I read it as September 11th …
That would have driven the oil-security point further home, perhaps (and gotten Volts out a month sooner!); but it would also have been more controversial …
Well, this isn’t bad either, and it gives a ‘date certain’ for the peanut gallery to chew on. Oh, who am I kidding? They’ll just pick up a different sign and go back to the picket line …
+22
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:56 am)I work for GM in Detroit, I have seen a few driving around here, I believe they are pre-production models, different colors, I’ve seen it in black and red. They look awesome. Trust me the Volt is a head turner and when I saw one accelerate from a traffic light, it was quick, even with three people in it. This is truly a game changer vehicle and I congratulate all of my co workers who designed, build and will sell the worlds best EREV. GO GM.
+10
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:59 am)… and remember kids; don’t plug too many Volts into one extension cord …
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:01 am)I don’t understand this part. Can you help me out?
TIA,
Be well,
Tagamet
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:02 am)Tag, I saw your posts supporting me on the news article about me and the MINI-E yesterday, thanks! There were a few others I recognized also, like Peder who occasionally posts here.
We may all fight(really debate) here like brothers sometimes, but when outsiders pick a fight it’s good to see we get backup from GM-Volt loyalists!
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:03 am)This is an excellent point so I’ll stand corrected. We get too caught up in and focus too much on “foreign oil” but in truth it’s all oil. Ultimately our success as a country depends on our allies being successful as well. So it’s in our interests to ensure that not only we, but our allies as well, aren’t beholden to foreign governments with interests adverse our own.
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:07 am)What exactly do you see in the ONE BILLION DOLLARS of Research and Development, the years of extensive testing chronicled on this website, the ten-year battery warranty and the zealous commitment of GM to make the VOLT superior in every conceivable way for the future of their company that leads you to believe the quality of VOLT will be substandard in any way?
GM has not missed a beat, a commitment or a scheduled milestone date in Volt development at any time during this remarkably difficult period of their company’s history. They have pursued this project with laser-like focus.
I’m sorry, I just don’t see justifcation for your negative expectations.
GO VOLT!
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:08 am)E who? Oh, you mean the guys in the strip mall in Texas who claim they will have a pilot production line up and running any minute in a rented space the size of typical 7-11 mini market? That’s why I always end my rants with time will tell
+25
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:11 am)The Smithsonian’s core functions is to preserve artifacts related to American history. Whatever else, GM is, or is not, it is a major part of American history. And whether the new company succeeds or fails will have huge implications for the American economy, and American history as a whole.
The Volt is General Motors best attempt at a new kind of car that addresses one of America’s biggest problems head on. So, yes, the first one qualifies for the Smithsonian. IMHO.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:11 am)One of the references to above is at : http://www.theiraqidinar.com/dinar-is-this-the-real-reason-us-troops-can-leave-iraq/
But you can find infinite number of sources that show how Oil Money flows to terrorists from Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular. This is nothing new, I thought everyone knows that oil money funds terrorists who use the money to pay people who need the money to do terrorism.
I believe everyone pretty much knows these facts, they just can’t seem to put 2 and 2 together and realize how much our nation would benefit from ending the importation of Oil. In reducing terrorism, in creating jobs, in improving the environment etc etc.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:12 am)Never a problem! We’re (almost) all family here! (lol). I’m glad that others helped out too. The comments were yet another eye-opener about the level of information “out there” as opposed to “in here”. As Robt Frost would say “And miles to go before I sleep, but I have promises to keep.” On a snowy… something or other (lol, I forget). Evening? I digress.
Two of the national network news stations had whiny reports on today about the Volt. ONE of them actually had someone drive it, and he gave the test ride positive remarks (much better than a golf cart – he took it up to 80 mph on a test track). Most of the griping is about price and gubment money. SIGH, this too shall pass.
Congrats again about the news article!
Be well,
Tagamet
-22
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:14 am)(click to show comment)
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:17 am)With just a LITTLE more publicity, I think they’d get into Webster’s dictionary, as in “Do you think that the Leaf will actually market that, or do you think that they’ll “Pull an EEStor” LOL. This is actually a discussion we had HERE 3 years ago about the Volt!
Be well,
Tagamet
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:18 am)Because if the US finds a way to substitute for oil to the degree that we can stop importing it, other countries will probably also use those alternatives.
Oil producing countries might continue to use oil, as long as it’s cheaper to produce than alternative fuels. (Although by that point, I suspect that most of the reasonably accessible oil will be gone.) But, I doubt American companies would be involved in that.
-2
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:18 am)Statik is my guess.
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:19 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:20 am)I suspect that the Smithsonian solicits *some* things before all the votes are in. I believe that they are collecting things from this past weekend’s get together in DC. Just a thought.
Be well,
Tagamet
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:22 am)Even if it doesn’t. For one thing, at this point, IMHO, GM needs the Volt to be successful. A failure on that scale would also be historic.
Also, even failed attempts at solving problems can be historically interesting. I’ve seen extremely early hybrid cars in museums. I found them interesting, even if, by your standards, they don’t belong there.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:23 am)Now I got it. Thanks!
Be well,
Tagamet
+14
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:27 am)There’s lots of online speculation that the start of Volt production will be timed to coincide with GM’s much-anticipated IPO, as one website suggests by use of the graphic below. I’m curious as to whether those here think: a) that’s the best plan to gain “extra panache”, as Lyle says, or that b) the two events should occur at different times so they won’t “dilute” one another’s “sizzle”.
My own opinion is that the IPO opening and manufacturing start will reinforce each other. Agree with a “+” or disagree with a “-”.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:29 am)Yep, I think, Statik said something about unicorn farts…a few months later you and Statik were so angry at each other I didn’t think you would ever reply to each other again!
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:41 am)This is an excellent example of how two people can hold strong, opposing beliefs and still become good friends! Of course, it helped that he was wrong (just kidding!). Seriously, he and I are Buds. IIRC, I think that the only name-calling we engaged in involved Optimist (Pollyanna) vs Pessimist (Satan incarnate, er, I mean Realist) (g)
Be well,
Tagamet
-20
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:41 am)(click to show comment)
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:50 am)The result of the GM IPO is controllable. If GM steps up and states that demand for EREV is very good. And they plan on introducing 2 models beside the popular Volt. The IPO will take off and sustain for 2 years. If GM sticks with the current strategy of testing the demand. Then making a small adjustment. Then waiting to see what happens. Then making a small adjustment. The IPO may speculate up and down for a few weeks. Followed by other manufacturers taking the EV spot light. This is an easy call to make.
Make it happen. Create your future.
=D-Volt
BTW: I may speculate the IPO. But, will watch for an early exit. This is unless GM moves forward with bold optimism. And takes controll of the market.
+9
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:01 pm)In the short term, absolutely, the Cruze matters more to their bottom line. But the Volt is much more symbolic. It’s kind of like with Toyota–they’d pick the Prius as their signature vehicle, even though their core business is the Camry, and they make more money with the Tundra and the RAV4.
Also, the Volt could be a turning point for GM. A whole new platform that will provide a significant advantage when we have another oil shock.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:15 pm)There is a huge following for Volt that cuts across social and political differences. There are geeks, car guys, conservatives, liberals, EV enthusiasts, environmentalists, conservationists, and maybe even nudists (we can only hope).
I think this is what will sell Volt and Voltec cars. The cross-section of America that is sick and tired of buying gasoline at whatever price ‘they’ choose to post. Everybody is flinging open their windows and yelling: I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore!.
GM better be ready. This is gonna be one wild ride!
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:21 pm)As a cross between a geek & nerd (a “neek”, I guess) I agree!
/Several friends call me a “techno-weenie”; I tell them, “no, it’s ‘techno-hotdog’“!
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:25 pm)I don’t think anyone meant it that way. When Americans talk about going to war to protect “our” oil supply, I think it’s our way of admitting that we have a problem. We’re not going to war to “promote” democracy” or any of those other ideals that the government told us. We’re fighting wars because we want to maintain our preferred access because we’re addicted. And it’s easier than doing something about that addiction.
I absolutely agree that it’s the world’s oil supply. And our oil addiction has negative consequences for everyone else. So when we help ourselves, we will also help them.
-15
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:27 pm)(click to show comment)
-5
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:27 pm)Based on the poor showing on post #33. I guess many of you talk the talk but are not willing to walk the walk. When it comes to doing something for our Vets.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:37 pm)Perhaps. Questions – what is more important, revenue or the fate of the planet, Market share and quantities of product, or a smoothly functioning economy that’s not dependent on volatile overseas resources?
+21
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:40 pm)But the five or six years is my whole point. The Volt is GM’s attempt at a future. That’s why it belongs in the Smithsonian. It represents a comeback attempt by the largest most influential company in American history. The company that helped create the middle class. The company that helped win WWII. The company’s whose decline has mirrored that of our industrial base and the American middle class. The company that went bankrupt in the middle of America’s biggest financial crisis since 1929.
To me, the Volt represents hope. A chance to correct our past mistakes. A chance to look forward to a future that’s better than the past. A comeback. Economically, environmentally, and spiritually. And a technology that can help us get there. I can’t think of a better symbol for GM, or America, for that matter, than that.
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:41 pm)Has anyone discovered where is “Jolt”, the blue Volt used in the Michael Bay’s “Transformers – Return of the Fallen” movie? That Volt may be well worn, due to all the travelling it did during the movie production, but it would give a good idea of how the Volt faired, and gives us a preview of what to expect after a few thousand miles of wear and tear.
Raymond
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:43 pm)Not at all. It might have done better if you hadn’t mentioned you are a vet (as far as voting goes).
Let me say first, Thank You for your service to our country. At our dealership, I do not have control over allocations, but I can control the order of priority for orders in the system. I took several orders for servicemen on the 2010 Camaro models when they first came out. I thought it was great that some of those orders came from guys still stationed in Iraq and other locations who had contacted me by email. I purposely ‘bumped’ other customer orders and moved the orders for our troops to the head of the line. (I didn’t tell the other customers.. hee hee)… I will do the same for any service man or woman who wants a VOLT.
I can’t speak for all Chevy Dealers, but here we take care of our guys.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:46 pm)No. Just no.
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:50 pm)Inspired and inspirational, Laura! In fact, much of what you’ve written here would be quite appropriate on a permanent placard placed next to a Smithsonian-displayed Volt.
-24
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:51 pm)(click to show comment)
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:53 pm)I am a vet. I didn’t decide to vote for your idea, perhaps because I am a vet. For those on the outside of the category, it is easy (and not a bad idea) to hold the military in high esteem- especially after the way Vietnam returnees were spat upon. However, from an insiders POV, I guess I see our demographic as little different than many others who ‘serve’ in many capacities from fireman, to inner city school teachers, to Salvation Army volunteers to the Red Cross folks who go to Haiti after earthquakes. Further, in the military, I saw a real cross section of humanity. Yes, there are lots who deserve your respect. There are also lots who we would call FLOBs (Free Loading Oxygen Breathers). Life has taught me that getting into a club does not entitle you to anything, you must still strive to do your best after admission to the club. I guess I just knew too many military members who I KNEW didn’t deserve your admiration to vote that vets automatically get some leg up on anyone else.
Maybe if you had refined your classification to Purple Heart Medal Holders (those who have been injured or killed under enemy fire), I might have given it a thumbs up. That is a club that no one raises their hand to join and deserves an extra measure of gratitude.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:53 pm)It’s an interesting idea. But I’m not sure how GM could enforce something like that. I think that’s up to the dealers.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (12:57 pm)Up to that point, I was considering giving a +1 to your post …
… but you lost me there. As a symbol, the Volt is way more significant even if sales of the Cruze will add some value to the bottom line.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:03 pm)Regarding post #33: Actually, starcast said (in his last line), “I am NOT a Vet.” (my emphasis)
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:04 pm)Tucker was just initiating the production of its car. The bankruptcy was just one among others – a modern day example would be Aptera, for instance, if they don’t make it. If they go under, not much of an impact.
GM is a different beast. So much so that it was bailed out by the government. Tucker didn’t have that privilege.
The Volt was a factor in getting bailed-out.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:04 pm)I quite agree with your retort and would add that popularity in no way qualifies anything for distinction. To suggest that sales volume merits this kind of recognition is pathetic. How many here would disqualify the original Wright flying machine? It was greeted with so much skepticism originally that the Wright brothers packed it up and put it away for YEARS until acceptance started to emerge. By then, some of its limitations were already being reconsidered- for example, the original Wright flyer required a whole lot of ‘technique sensitive’ flying methods- what pilot would now want to swivel his hips to control plane movements? Nope, it is the ORIGINAL flyer that the Smithsonian honors- with all its flaws AND its lack of initial popularity.
-29
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:05 pm)(click to show comment)
-28
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:06 pm)(click to show comment)
+12
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:07 pm)Post #1 in today’s thread seems headed for some kind of record. What happens when you get 100 negs? Screen name/IP address disabled for a month?
Now there’s a thought …
-26
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:10 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:13 pm)Hmm. I thought school was back in session …
-24
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:15 pm)(click to show comment)
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:16 pm)They have computers and Internet access in school now. And Droids.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:17 pm)Well, now we know who “Tea Party One” was. Right, Echin?
-21
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:19 pm)(click to show comment)
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:19 pm)(blush) Thank you.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:19 pm)I, too, thought -100 deserved some kind of ‘reward’. Your suggestion deserves consideration. And how about an extra 3 months gets thrown in for it being the FIRST COMMENT OF THE DAY. Those who so readily greet good news with venom deserve to be voted off the continent.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:20 pm)Just a quickie about preproduction quantities. Apparently GM just rolled off number 100 (self promotion to follow):
http://nissan-leaf.net/2010/09/01/volt-100-rolls-off-production-line/comment-page-1/#comment-10786
…and no, I didn’t write comment number 1, lol.
I support, and will buy both cars.
-22
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:22 pm)(click to show comment)
-18
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:30 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:37 pm)You tell him, Laura. I gave you a +1 and him a -1. Wish I could have given you +100!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
-14
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:39 pm)(click to show comment)
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:44 pm)Well, “Tea Party One” was a better speller …
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:44 pm)Your handle alone deserves -1. And given the crass, and unrelated, content of your posts I would imagine you to be the ultimate troll who merrily spreads mayhem about many forums. So until then folks, just give this idiot -1 (as soon as you see his handle) so his offensive garbage quickly becomes invisible.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:46 pm)That’d be like whizzing on a forest fire. They can just make another screen name and use any number of anonymous proxys. Plus any number of free email addresses, so, ya can’t go there either.
Unless Lyle’s programmer does some anti-dufus work all we can do is vote them off the island. Things the programmer could do:
- delay when a new user can post
- allow only 1 user per email address
- email verification via reverse-reply or otherwise make it more difficult to create a screen name
- do some better user name screening
- escalation (or de-escalation) of numbers-of-posts and total-words-allowed per thread.
- assign modulators or super users to police the forum
I’m sure a few of us would volunteer (Tag?) to modulate the forum and make the judgment call.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:48 pm)Too bad we can’t give you more than -1 for such obvious self-absorption.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:48 pm)Is mac address visible to a website administrator? Spoofing a mac address is a chargeable offense. An especially persistent troll would need access to many computers — or a sackful of NICs — to continue.
As for whizzing on a forest fire; “every little bit helps!”
BTW, you won’t find many here more dedicated to the proposition of voting off offensive comments.
Remember to Volte!!
-18
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:48 pm)(click to show comment)
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:51 pm)HaHaHaHaHa!! click-click-click-click.
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:55 pm)(click to show comment)
-20
Sep 1st, 2010 (1:56 pm)(click to show comment)
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:01 pm)The fact is, many people on this board drive Prii, and find the field large enough for both. You were the one objecting, like an islamic mullah; you’ll grudgingly consider the Volt as an ally provided we accept Prius on at least equal terms. I never had anything against either Toyota or the Prius until coming here, and encountering you. Get a clue (and a new forum to haunt). Yes, I know you won’t.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:01 pm)I generally agree with most of what you have stated in this post. Hopefully, the oil saved by using electric vehicles will allow us to continue to use plastics and other petroleum dependent products for some time into the future. However, as long as its available and the price is competitive, there will be a market for it to those who can’t afford the other technology. American oil companies as long as they are in business will be involved. The only way that it could be otherwise would be if all oilmen pass on and their children totally transition over to other technologies away from petroleum industry.
In the future, we have similar problems with other resources and need to find replacement technologies for them. On EEStor, the chemistry is there to have the supercapicitor they have created. The real problem is engineering the machinery to manufacture them. We should not be so fast to disallow its existence. Just as the Volt and other EVs are so disruptive to the normal flow of business, the super-capacitor will be even more disruptive; emerging battery technology will result in major capitol investments in start-ups only to find that a cheaper device will destroy what hope they had for the viability. There may be forces in the works that are slowing ESStor from marketing the product in the open market. The EEStor supercapacitor has powerful military applications which may be reason for not allowing it to come to market.
The answer to end dependence lies in homes with solar power and the move to electric vehicles. It solves the problem that exists in electric power generation using coal or natural gas. Such power plants will be needed until one of the nuclear fusion projects shows the way to practical fusion power plants. I believe that, more and more, this synergy will offer the world it’s best opportunity to address the myriad of facing it.
JMO.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:02 pm)That’s what they use anonymous proxys for.
They appear to be coming from a machine that they don’t own. Their local machine address (or their Internet pop address) is not passed through. If you attempt a ping or trace back, it will stop at the proxy.
The reverse of that is that if you block proxy access to the forum, you will block almost all of us that are surfing at work!
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:03 pm)Don’t worry. An insect like you is unlikely to receive 100 negative votes.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:06 pm)Pity.
Young jerks have the advantage of thorough knowledge of newer technologies. This doesn’t make them any less jerks.
I wonder what statik does on his site? You never see a troll over there.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:11 pm)I wouldn’t worry too much about Wall Street’s opinion of the IPO. For one thing, they have a strong “buy” bias for IPOs. They LOVE Ford in spite of their huge liabilities. And GM is still doing very well in China. Which seems to be all they really care about. So, depending on the price, I’m pretty sure they’ll give it a buy rating.
The overall condition of the market at the time of the IPO is a much bigger issue, IMHO.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:13 pm)A homeless person on a library computer?
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:14 pm)It is hard to believe but less than a year ago we were still getting “The Volt is Vapor-ware! Have you seen one yet?” posts on this site. I am unhappy about some of the choices GM has made regarding pricing and production, but I am totally stoked to see Volts in the wild! Now if we can just avoid a double dip recession, oil demand will go up, as will the price of gasoline and this time I won’t be mad about paying $4 a gallon for gas because it will guarantee the success of the Volt, and the Leaf, and the Electric Focus. I want cars powered by domestically produced electricity to fly off the car sales lots!
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:16 pm)That’s because you are. Consistently.
If you’re right about this, it will become evident with time. You aren’t making it more likely by your persistently negative comments. It isn’t that we won’t consider the possibility that bad things may happen, we find it more productive at this time to hope for the best.
Your advocacy for the worst-case scenario is duly noted.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:17 pm)Not yet. Are they hiring? I work cheap!
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:17 pm)Why is it one or the other? Can’t we use both? Having the Volt (and other fuel efficient alternatives), makes the demand curve for gasoline more elastic. With the Volt on the market, when gasoline prices go up (which they eventually will, gas tax or no gas tax), people will have more options. Isn’t that a good thing?
-6
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:19 pm)Avoiding the problem happening now was a benefit from the suggestion of moving discussions from a daily blog to the FORUM.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:20 pm)GM – GIVE the first VOLT to the Veteran’s Administration as a symbol of gratitude for our vets sacrifice and courage. AND as the hopeful symbol that in the future we will no longer fight for or defend foreign sources of petroleum oil.
Go VOLT! You and your supporters are changing the world… for the better!
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:21 pm)Doesn’t matter what their origin computer is.
An anonymous proxy will make their fingerprints on the Internet ‘anonymous’ or untraceable. You would need access to the proxy they are using (not impossible, but, not nice either) to trace back to their origin.
It’s a weakness with open forums. How ‘open’ do you want to be? It’s just some kids messing around. If you ignore them, they will eventually go away. Their MO is FUD.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:22 pm)Hi #65 Shawn Marshall: Let’s make that ALL veterans-from day one. Most of the vets from WWII are in their 80′s (and 90′s). Korean War vets – mostly in their 70′s. And SAC era Cold War vets-our numbers are dwindling.
Maybe make the very first couple VOLTS coming off – if it is around Nov 11 – to a disabled vet.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:23 pm)I just think that by the time the US is able to stop importing oil, the vast majority of the reasonably accessible oil will be gone. So it won’t be price competitive. I could be wrong.
-16
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:23 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:24 pm)It is THIS often-repeated request which makes me suspicious of you as being the alter-ego someone else we know. WHY is this idea so useful or desirable to a pro-Prius cheerleader (who, incidentally, has no forum on his own site)? What possible motivation can there be for our unwanted-resident critic (unless you have some other identity, much closer to home … )
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:25 pm)New forums won’t be noticed for a while. Once his site starts getting as many hits as here, it will become a problem.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:26 pm)So you agree that GM is critical to the US economy?
-15
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:30 pm)(click to show comment)
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:32 pm)I am happy they finally picked a day to start production of the Volt! From what I heard this car has alot of good features and I predict it will be a popular choice for new car drivers!
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:33 pm)(click to show comment)
-5
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:35 pm)Wow. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier.
I was “picking a nit” before but Laura, I *profoundly* disagree with this statement.
Why is “addiction” to oil uniquely an American problem?
And gasoline fuels ambulances all over the world.
Is that addiction or necessity?
You spoke glowingly of GMs efforts in WWII.
Do you realize how much the prelude and the course of that world-wide conflagration was driven by desperate decisions to “secure” access to oil reserves.
Caused by America’s addiction? No.
Jet fuel enables and effects all sorts of cultural exchanges from high school exchange students to high level conferences of NGOs and governmental summits.
Somewhat positive, no?
Some nationalities don’t drive as much as Americans, but Japanese and other Asian tourists are ubiquitous at attractions and cities the world over.
Did an American addiction deliver them there?
(I remember seeing street signs in Japanese in Grindelwald in the Swiss Alps. )
An American addiction ?
No. Not IMO. Not in fact.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:41 pm)No. I’m not happy about LG chem at all. Right now, LG chem seems to be solidifying a monopoly with first mover advantage on electric car batteries. And that’s not good for us at all.
But if I were in charge at the government, I would have used my ownership of GM to make sure that the initial contract was given to A123. Assuming, of course, that the technology was comparable. Even though that would have meant a later launch date since I would have wanted even the initial batteries to be built in the US. (Building them in China would have been asking for piracy, IMHO.)
But it’s not up to me. Is it? Sometimes you have to play the hand you’re dealt. And, I do think that, in spite of the battery situation, the US still needs electric cars. Just like we need trains even though we don’t build them ourselves anymore. And, on the bright side, at least the batteries meant for the US market will, eventually, be built in the US…
-18
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:46 pm)(click to show comment)
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:51 pm)The market will provide? We’ve been following that mantra for the past 30 years, and it hasn’t worked out all that well. Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately? U6 is 16.5%. True that’s a relatively recent phenomenon. But the middle class has been decimated over the past 30 years. That’s not recent. That’s a long term trend.
And I would argue that the heart of the financial crisis is that we’ve been using bubbles to artificially prop up the economy and the employment rate. At some point, you run out of bubbles. And the longer you take to face and fix reality, the worse the damage the bubbles do in the meantime.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:55 pm)No. It’s not uniquely an American problem. The developed world, in general, is addicted to oil. And the developed and developing world all need substitutes. But Americans, per capita, use and waste a lot more of it than anyone else. We are using a lot more than our fair share. And that has an effect on everyone else.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (2:58 pm)At the very least I’d suggest mandatory sterilization (with a rusty cuticle scissors).
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:11 pm)27 mpg in CS mode was, for the surest enemies of this site, a kind of “Climb Mount Nitaka.” The apparent sign of weakness was your cue to attack. The mighty Volt had apparently fallen, and you flocked in to crow. We circled the wagons to fight off you @$$h0les.
And by the way, how are you guys taking the falsehood of that “sign of weakness?” Kind of takes the deliciousness out of your attacks, doesn’t it? Talk about fighting off reality …
-14
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:21 pm)(click to show comment)
-13
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:23 pm)(click to show comment)
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:25 pm)You’re arguing with a blank wall–you will get nowhere. Avoid the temptation, imo.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:26 pm)We’d need more than one person assigned to modulate, but I’d be fine with the job on days that I don’t have to work. Gotta earn my Volt money! There’d have to be some pretty clear-cut benchmarks to define “trolling” though. Though most trolls are clearly trolls, some comments/commentators are pretty marginal, for example john1234. Jackson replies to him as a troll. I ignore him. Some discuss things with him. (SHRUG) Maybe just lowering the bar to -5 to be voted down would help.
Personally, I doubt that the site would lose a single “good citizen” if the task cost for joining was increased (as long as Lyle reserves the handle “Tagamet” for me!).
I know that Lyle feels *very* strongly about freedom of speech on the site, so obviously it’s his call.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:29 pm)Much of which is true. Though I’d likely come up with some different conclusions. Still, I’d like to see answers to the questions I’d asked. I think the answers from lots of different points of view would be interesting.
LauraM and I have debated industrial policy before, though I’m not quite sure I’ve said enough about my views that you should speak for what I would want regarding it
I think it is pure anathema for many people, and smacks of central planning done in planned economies. Though it was once highly lauded and people even supplemented the governments efforts with billions of dollars of their personal savings. That is of course the savings bonds of WW II and continued industrial planning that was shaped by cold war needs, the nascent nuclear industry, university research and funding, NASA, the interstate highway system etc.
Stuff that people like, but if you dared call it industrial planning, there would be a resounding NO for that planning stuff. Many here have said that a Manhattan program to get off oil and the recent start of advanced battery research programs are great ideas. But, thats industrial planning talk too.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:30 pm)Hopefully, oil will become price non-competitive more gradually rather than these wild swings.
I’m with you on having an energy policy that includes taxation on imported oil. The US cannot continue to use 1/3 of the world’s oil production without consequences.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:31 pm)You mentioned that “circling the wagons” occurred at about the time that “27 mpg in CS-mode” was reported; not what your prediction was (low ’30s, wasn’t it? No, I won’t look back).
Don’t confuse the landmarks with the battle. You and the few came on like Custer, and now you’re taking your arrows.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:32 pm)Sadly you had to make your deposit with your dealer. On the day GM starts taking orders from your dealership, the person who actually makes those orders may decide to wait until 10:30 am to actually phone, fax, or email it in.. You may get Volt 1,935 or higher.
-19
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:32 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:34 pm)Unfortunately, wild swings are far more likely to become the norm (and a reason in itself to advance vehicle electrification). The Volt’s dual “fuel” capability is an insurance policy; it offers at least some insulation against such economic shocks.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:37 pm)No, only a handful of Toyo-trolls do find that to be extremely suspicious.
That’s right. Get as much ‘mileage’ out of that tired argument as you can now … It’s going away, soon.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:38 pm)Granted, we use more per capita, but the term “fair share” is one of those really squishy things. Squishy things aside, I’m told that our homes waste more energy than our cars…. Maybe once the Bloom Box hits the market, we’ll reduce our share.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:44 pm)I don’t think we should lower the bar to -5. Some of the remarks that have become my personal favorites, a few even said by me, would never be seen again
LauraM
“But if I were in charge at the government, I would have used my ownership of GM to make sure that the initial contract was given to A123. Assuming, of course, that the technology was comparable. Even though that would have meant a later launch date since I would have wanted even the initial batteries to be built in the US.”
Whoaoooa, wait. Please re-think that option. A no bid / ignore all other bidders contract, that forces GM take a product that it deems is not as well suited to the Volt as the one it’s chosen? You can think of a lot of issues and points of potential abuse easily in that scenario, can’t you?
I propose we build the industry through research and investment incentives instead, and let the OEM’s make their choices in that context.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:44 pm)I owe DonC an apology. Fighting the lunk-heads can become irresistible.
I owe James an apology for writing a disparaging comment two days ago (though not for publishing it; I had flagged it for deletion).
I owe Carcus3 an apology for initially putting him on the “short list” (though that appears to have shocked him out of his two-week trance).
… okay, I guess that’s everybody …
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:47 pm)A website saboteur cruising wi-fi coffee shops?
-16
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:47 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:51 pm)Yeah, to say nothing of the fact that there are more than 5 trolls.
As much as I resist disagreement with you, I think you’d have to try a market less fettered by legislative encumbrances before saying anything like this. That hasn’t existed here for a lot longer than 30 years (and it’s only getting worse. How far are we from full government control over “private” industry?)
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:53 pm)Koolaid is available in more than one flavor, John. Look in a mirror.
I’d still like to know why, if you think it so valuable, you don’t organize such a forum on your own site?
Point taken, although there is very little specific information available here. GM has been very transparent, but rarely specific. Unlike some I could name, I do not feel that this discredits the entire Volt project.
This will also change as Volts actually hit the road.
Lyle take note … I think john-boy may have found an acorn.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (3:57 pm)Yes. Everybody (80% of US drivers) drives LESS THAN 40 miles per day. The 20% can use a little gasoline to generate some electricity and go a little further. OR, they can charge at work. Or, buy something that makes more sense for their lifestyle.
I believe that charging at work, mall, grocery, home depot, starbucks, will become a normal thing to do and will be a free service for customers of those establishments.
Some will say that a BEV would do the same job. And maybe it would. But, the fanboys, as you call us, prefer the Volt for the near term. Long term, GM will just leave out some parts and have a BEV version for those that want to go that way.
-14
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:00 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:02 pm)It has been a long time since I’ve visited the Smithonian. When there I only got to see a small part of the exhibits. I wonder if there is a display with the first electric vehicle before Ford came out with the ICE Model T? The Volt will no doubt find its place next to that vehicle in time.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:04 pm)(click to show comment)
-18
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:09 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:11 pm)I wouldn’t presume to usurp Lyle’s reign.
I don’t know that stamping out 3 weeds constitutes deforestation (or that an attempt to muzzle three over-the-line @$$h0|e$ constitutes “a crusade to stamp out dissent”).
The closest thing to truth you’ve ever uttered here:
… though maybe you should have omitted the “sometimes” to go for the win.
-18
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:12 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:15 pm)Wow. Another truth! Are you actually changing your ways?
I cannot help but wonder how much time you’ll spend here railing against people who have wisely chosen to IGNORE you?
Tell you what. If I put you on an IGNORE list, sometime later in the day, I’ll do a search on your name and give you a fat juicy -1 to each comment for old times’ sake. How’s that?
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:16 pm)So the Volt is a good fit for your next car then. Now I understand why you like to hang out in this forum.
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:16 pm)(click to show comment)
-18
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:18 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:20 pm)Some here are more optimistic than others. I happen to think that the Volt’s CS-mode mpg won’t be as disappointing as you seem to think.
In any case, if you exceed the range of a BEV, you’re on the side of the road. If you opted for a plug-in Prius, you’re still going to buy gas for the portion of your drive (whatever it’s length) which exceeds 50 mpg.
There are trade-offs to be made for adopting any of the coming alternative-energy vehicles. Does this make one better than another? I think it probably does; but I’ll leave that up to the regular posters here to decide for themselves. You’ve made it impossible to wonder what choice you’ve already made.
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:21 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:22 pm)Why all the concern about banning or somehow containing “trolls”? (Troll being defined as anyone who doesn’t have the same views as the majority on the site)
What ever happened to free speech and hearty debate? Life is no fun when everyone thinks the same way. If you are confident in your views, it shouldn’t matter if someone holds a dissenting view…
My 2c anyways.
-17
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:22 pm)(click to show comment)
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:24 pm)Nice shot
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:27 pm)I think you’ll find that you are only deluding yourself. Perhaps you honestly don’t realize just how you come off in print (more likely, you just don’t care).
Even under the present voting system, it’s possible to figure out what has been said because of the responses to the invisible comments.
The issue here is less one of ‘poisoning their minds’ than it is one of seeing the discussion led, again and again. down the distracting path by those with a single-minded and unalterable purpose. This is supposed to be a Volt fan site, not an argue-down-the-troll site. I’d far rather see you become a voice in the wilderness than be the object of a concerted campaign to deny you a floor for your distract-til-they-drop program. However, voting is what we have, and it’s a shame if we don’t use it.
I hope we get the IGNORE feature.
-16
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:29 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:32 pm)You’re the notable exception. Your driving force is internal, and persists regardless of all reason. The irony is that I’m now campaigning for something which you brought up, here.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:32 pm)I’ve gotten to the point that if your comments have over ten votes and are blanked, i don’t bother reading them. You just make more inane comments as time goes on. Once in while I admit, I do click to show your comment, just to see if you have changed one little bit. But no; you just keep it up. So now I just give you a -1 and don’t both reading it. Maybe when you start getting lower minus numbers, then I will start looking at what you have to say.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:35 pm)There is no debate with the closed-minded. That’s 3 people that I think need special attention, out of hundreds. There is no particular reason to follow me, this isn’t my site. You don’t even have to participate in voting. What happens, Brian, when 1/3 to 1/2 of the discussion is effectively dominated by 3 people? That isn’t a debate. It’s an invasion.
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:36 pm)There are plenty of sound arguments to consider other than your inane statements. We won’t miss you in your present state of mind.
OH, and by the way
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:40 pm)Please Jackson DNFTT…
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:44 pm)Your definition of ‘troll’ is slightly off.
We generally define a troll as a poster who consistently goes off topic and their MO is FUD. Also, anyone that uses a childish screen name.
If their post does not contribute to the ‘hearty debate’ then they are not needed.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:45 pm)You just can’t please some people. Okay, I won’t do a search on your name and give you a fat, juicy -1 for each comment, just for old times’ sake.
You really don’t get it, do you? I don’t give a fat, farting fig who *everyone* chooses to ignore. Let the readers exercise the freedom to choose what poster(s) they won’t waste their time on. Then, there won’t be replies to tip off what was said to invisible comments; voting and invisibility will become superflous. Not seeing your persistent comments, I won’t be distracted, and neither will anyone else opting you out. You’ll be here arguing with Seawolf and Eric, and very few will ever know.
You’ll be here
arguingagreeing with Seawolf and Eric, and very few will ever know.FTFM
+16
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:45 pm)I used to peek occasionally, but now my curiosity is quenched. When I see certain handles, I just just hit -1 and move on. Nothing to see there.
I’m *especially* saddened to see Jackson reduced to the demonstrable mental age of a 3 yr-old.
Lyle we REALLY need an “Ignore” button. HELP US. Ok, that last part was over the top, but you get the idea (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:46 pm)I say if a comment gets 20 negative votes, it is gone from the site.
Trolls really destroy the fun being here.
Jackson has hit the nail right on the head.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:52 pm)Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Apology accepted.
Yeah, it can actually be fun if you don’t have other more interesting options. Yesterday I was stuck for almost the whole day on really boring conference calls, so endlessly arguing proved a welcome diversion. Plus some of the stuff was amusing. But a steady diet of it would probably make you crazy.
As for people being negative about the Volt, I’ve seen this happen before. People get really invested in their toys, so when something new and obviously better comes along some people always fee compelled to rain on the parade. Maybe it’s just retribution for the psychic toll inflicted by the new product? LOL
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:53 pm)I tried that yesterday. Didn’t help, did it?
DonC’s up tomorrow. Ya ready, Don?
+7
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:54 pm)Brian,
I have seen what happens when just a few negative thinkers, no let me term them hooligans, end up forcing every meaningful blogger to leave out of frustration because they post so many long comments full of name calling, and hatred for the Volt. Often they post outright lies, and fabrications about the Volt. Lyle has created this website to disseminate information about the Volt; instead it has become, a place where we have to put up with these trolls who are mainly Toyota Prius Fans. Instead of visiting those blogs about the Prius, they have decided to disrupt our conversation of the Volt. They insist that they won’t leave and will keep re-posting their inane comments along with persistent name calling. They can continue to post here but we reached the point, I might add after requesting some civility from them and getting nothing after consideration we are giving them, of just voting -1 so eventually there comment is blanked from view. You can still waste your time reading by clicking to view. But I believe you will discover the same profanity and inane comment from them that we no longer will put up with.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (4:54 pm)Is that your official diagnosis?
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:01 pm)Actually, I was being generous (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
+13
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:03 pm)Ummm
REALLY?
Shows how much you know.
I certainly can’t speak for the other Detroit companies (or Toyota for that matter, which you claim to represent), but GM has always defined fuel range as being distance travelled up to the reserve point. (or more correctly these days, the point at which the “Low Fuel” warning is initiated.) So whomever you are quoting and cuttng down is 100% right on the money. (and no real surprises that your really didn’t have a clue and just pulling more BS outta your a$$)
You should really try refreshing your browser just a little more often, so you can better witness all your closed comments. Must give you a real sense of accomplishment.
WopOnTour
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:07 pm)Tag, Jackson’s right. This is getting beyond ridiculous.
We know who the trolls are. I’m all for free speech and all, but this is not helpful.
They don’t progress the discussion, they degrade it.
Lyle’s site is very popular. It needs a way to squash these trollish comments.
We know who the trolls are, so my idea would work.
I think there are some people here who think Charlie_H is a troll, but sometimes I give him a positive vote. Even John1701a gets a positive vote from me, although that is extremely rare.
My point, it will get balanced out. The Trolls comments can be replaced with **DELETED**
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:18 pm)Please provide link. I promise to treat you better there, than you’ve treated us here.
You are all my witnesses.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:23 pm)I actually agree with you, Rashiid. I’m just poking Jackson for rewarding the trolls. Attention, and getting people angry is what their sad, sad, lives are all about. Given that some of their posts remain viewable, I think that -20 is setting the bar too high. I can’t imagine how the antics of these few must pain Lyle. If the site couldn’t survive (and thrive on) debate, it’d have been dead years ago when Statik and I were going 15 rounds. That’s definitely not the issue. It’s a few bad actors who are ruining the site. I hope something is done. I’m fed up (to the hair-line).
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:24 pm)“LauraM:
We are using a lot more than our fair share.”
Fair, huh. Fair share.
Who decides which continent gets how much?
In reality the market does. During the recent oil price spike we were outbid by India and China for demanding oil. Our “fair share” became less.
When you say “fair share” it reminds me of that scene in the movie Amadeus, when Mozart is puzzled why the Austrian emperor doesn’t like his music, and the king says that it “has too many notes.”
And Mozart says “I simply use how many I require. ”
I would also add that the American people have been victimized by statistics.
For example, we’ve got a complex about our students underperforming compared to “other developed countries.” But the reality is that the other countries are only measuring the creme de la creme of their students. And we measure everyone.
We probably use a lot. But 25% ? Maybe. Maybe not.
We have a huge economy. For the time being.
But we return a lot to the world.
Using the phrase “our addiction” ignores complex global ties and the “big picture. “
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:26 pm)I assumed that he meant here!
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:28 pm)LOL I hear ya.
Like the goofs that are STILL PO’d and fighting for and defending HD-DVD, or BetaMax
Give it up aleady. The rest of the world has moved on…
WOT
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:31 pm)You have a hairline?!!!
… consider yourself poked back.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:41 pm)Second try at getting this one posted. I’m still loosing my comments before posting: not sure what I’m doing wrong. But here goes.
About fifteen years ago, I was an operator in a chat room. Whenever anyone came on and was insulting or misbehaved in a way that was disruptive, we had the power to kick them out. It didn’t stop them from coming back but it did let them know that we were watching their behavior. If they re=entered the chat room and continued the bad behavior a few more times, we would ban them. We were given that power by the owner who often got complaints that we were being unfair in banning them. After discussion with the owner and review of the logs, together with promises to behave properly, they would be allowed back in.
By having software blank out a poster comment after ten negative votes together with “chick to view” option, Lyle has effectively provided a means to “kick” trolls out. In effective, this method is more liberal than the “kicking” done in a chat room. Their freedom of speech is maintained but when other viewers don’t think well about there comment, they can vote -1. Eventually, after ten people vote -1, the comment is blanked from view but not discarded. Your suggestion, Rashiid, takes it to the next level. After -20, they would have their complete comment erased.
I’m sure that Lyle is not happy about these trolls. It costs him to store all of these comments in an achieve and will eventually require more band width to carry all of the inane and non-sensible posts written by this group of trolls. Lyle should post the rules to have any comments posted here and advise anyone that their comments will be blanked from view but with a “click to view” option to show it after -10 votes, and also erased completely after -20 votesl
After -20, just dump the comment from the database! None of the programming would be needed to ban a blogger by users address. Us users would be the moderators. The only question, I have is “will 20 negative votes be too high a number?”
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:43 pm)BetaMax…ouch. You don’t have to get personal ya know
-4
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:46 pm)GM Turns To Scare Tactics To Sell The 2011 Chevrolet Volt
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1048918_gm-turns-to-scare-tactics-to-sell-the-2011-chevrolet-volt
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:52 pm)We offer support for the Volt here, but not for GM marketing.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:53 pm)Uncontested (g).
Be quiet,
Tagamet
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:58 pm)Speaking of interesting views, I found the time to look over the Argonne study you cited yesterday. It’s interesting but it doesn’t support in any way what you said it did. For starters, on the pollution front, it doesn’t say anything about pollution. Just not part of the report. So in no way does it refute the rather obvious fact that the Prius is a gross polluter when compared to the Volt.
Here’s why this will be the case. Most pollution, like 90%, is emitted when a car first starts. After the converter warms up all vehicles emit very little pollution — which is why as I pointed out yesterday a Buick LaCrosse emits only marginally more pollution than a Prius. Since a Prius will cold start just about every time you drive it, it’s going to be polluting every time you drive it. The Volt may go days between cold starts so it’s just going to pollute less. And even the plug-in Prius will have far more starts than a Volt since it’s battery will need help from the engine in a far greater number of instances. So it’s pretty simple — the Volt will have fewer cold starts and thus pollute far less than the Prius. This is not even close and, to the extent the report addresses this issue, it simply confirms that an urban capable PHEV like the plug-in Prius will have more many more cold starts than a serial hybrid like the Volt.
As for gasoline displacement, the report seemed to use the utility factor approach under which the Volt gets its 230 MPG so I’m completely at a loss as to why you think it suggests the Volt will use more gas than a Prius.
Do you have a page you can cite supporting your claims?
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (5:58 pm)What are they threatening? If we don’t buy one, they’ll make them 42 thousand dollars? (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:02 pm)The last time there was anything this lame AOL was trying to trademark “You’ve Got Mail”.
If the guys and gals in marketing aren’t smoking something maybe they need to start.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:03 pm)Jackson: I wonder what statik does on his site? You never see a troll over there.
Perhaps there are only so many trolls to go around and lately it seems their attention is focused here. I guess in LIGHT of the impending production of the Volt, they are congregating. Too bad there isn’t an IP bug lamp to zap them. We’ll just have to use -1 and no retorts to minimize there infestation.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:05 pm)And let me add a little more to this.
I stated at one point that I had previously participated in a forum (years ago), left and avoided all such opinion forums until I found this one. I got a number of +1s for it, so I can only assume other (reasonable) people like me want to engage brain (vs temperament) and have been turned off by forums that degenerate into purely opinionated rants. In my case, my last straw was when one (overbearing) participant wrote me outside the forum and had the nerve to call himself the ‘Four Star General of ___ (the forum)’.
I have actively participated in this forum for several months now and, at first, enjoyed reading PARTICIPATING comments. It is clear that a few lunatics have, recently, not only invaded this place but made it a not-very-enjoyable waste of time. It only takes a few and we have now become familiar with who they are. You know, there is such a thing as freedom of speech and then there is a thing called ‘inciting a riot’. Reasonable people know the difference. Those who don’t are candidates for irradication from this place.
There is nothing stopping these jerks from opening their own ‘I hate the Volt’ site so they can all enjoy each others rants. That is freedom of speech. To actively take over a site you don’t agree with and dominate its regular participants into submission- well, there oughta be a law against that. Protesters are kept from invading private property in trying to spread their message. Cyberspace should have the same options.
-3
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:06 pm)Ha.
They’re trying to trademark the term “range anxiety”.
It’s hard to imagine that GM would run with this on marketing the Volt — incredibly short sighted imo.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:08 pm)I didn’t know this at all. I assumed the range was the distanced traveled before the car stopped and you called for the tow truck. Hmmmm……. there goes the idea of dividing 300 miles by the size of the Volt gas tank to find MPG in CS Mode.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:11 pm)Well said, Laura M!
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:11 pm)8-track
LP
.
.
.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:16 pm)Say it ain’t so. GM people, if you read this, tell your lawyers to cease and desist. I am not so much of a GM fan (and I have a GM credit card) that I can’t see BS when I see it. If we didn’t have enough trouble with the trolls before, this website will become a field day for them.
GM, please tell me you were taken out of context with this crap. And if you weren’t, what will you do when YOU try to sell pure EVs?
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:26 pm)That’s ridiculous.
We are still the #1 manufacturing country in the world and we have some of the top productivity per worker rates in the world.
Of course we use more energy, we need it.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:29 pm)45 rpm singles!
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:29 pm)I would argue that the range extender is essentially the Volt’s concept. It is an electric car but what makes it special is the range extender and the ability not to lose power.
I sure hope they hammer this message home again and again. There has to be some reason to pay 10K more for the car over a pure electric.
+9
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:30 pm)To everyone responding to Charlie H’s posts:
It does a disservice to Lyle and your fellow posters here to use the “Quote” function for Charlie H or the other trolls. We finally get him to shut up by negative 1′ing his comments into invisibility, then YOU QUOTE HIM? We can’t neg -1 your quotes.
Please, if you must respond to Charlie H and his ilk, resist the temptation of the “Quote” button. (Yes, I know it’s tempting). Just type Charlie H and his post number – then respond to it. We can go to his post number and unhide his comments if we really want to read them.
By quoting the trolls, you undo all the good that the negative -10 does. Don’t help them – stop quoting them. Please ! Thank you.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:34 pm)“The fact that GM has kept this program so exactly on time in the face of innumerable hurdles technical, financial, and otherwise over these years is nothing short of miraculous.”
GM Volt … the best technology to date.
+6
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:37 pm)The real price of a gallon of gas now over $12 per gallon.
As a veteran who proudly served, I can’t thank the “General” (General Motors) enough for launching a flagship redirect auto to get us the ____ off oil.
The real cost of oil, for those Un-Americans finding anything to bash this car over, we as a nation have subsidized our direct competitors such as China, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, and add 100 more since we have trade deficits with everyone. We spend nearly $400,000,000,0000.00 every year in military expenditures to do little more than send the blood and guts of our young men and women over to serve Middle-East oil barons. Slap that tab on the $200,000,000,000.00 in our American dollars going out the door to pay for oil to those nutjobs. They despise our freedoms, religions, democracy, independent thinking, women’s right to simply drive a car and have a life. My wife was Air Force too and had to serve in that “holy” place. Our competitor’s spent how much on protecting the oil highway? We pick up the tab, spread that huge cumulative sum over every American product and service and then take those products into a very highly competitive, low wage world market and lose.
Get a grip Un-Americans. By subsidizing this and ANY electric which replaces foreign terrorist oil with American supplies of energy, we can nearly buy every American a Volt simply by trading out the valuations of exports and delete the need to do these inane, neverending military oil patrols by rethinking energy problems at the macro level. Believe it or not, government can play a role – step on the neck of oil. “Markets take care of all ills” – Sorry, we nearly went into a depression over that stupid thinking in banking, airlines, real estate, and the CEOs raked in the bucks, the average Joe Plumber picked up the tab. Modernize the brain cavity and we have a chance. Get us the ________ off oil so we can strengthen this country. No apologies here VOLT45.
-22
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:41 pm)(click to show comment)
-20
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:45 pm)(click to show comment)
+8
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:50 pm)Thanks for your family’s service.
Be well,
Tagamet
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:56 pm)I assume you’re the one who negged me. There is a HUGE difference between capitalizing on your advantage (which I am ALL for) and using the freaking LEGAL SYSTEM to put a TRADE MARK on a piece of language which you did not originate. You need to research what a trade mark is before you decide that what they did (if they indeed did it and this is not taken out of context) was not the STUPIDEST PR move possible. A trade mark means that NO ONE will be able to use the term in car advertising without facing civil legal remedies or paying a royalty. DonC pointed out the idiocy of AOL doing it with “You’ve got mail”. This is a hundred times more idiotic. Personally, I doubt that they would ever be granted a registered trademark for such an already pervasive (and generic) phrase (and concept). However, there is nothing stopping them from using it as a service mark. A service mark means the phrase has not been sanctioned by an official source, but it does mean that the holder of the service mark intends to sue anyone who uses the phrase without authorization.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (6:57 pm)I was just saying that several of your “thought for the day” posts are as good, or better, than what they are paying big bucks to some ad agency for. IMHO
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:06 pm)#245:
Give it up, dude. You’re busted. The only thing pending at this point is sentencing.
And notice how your 2 fellow transgressors have left you here, floundering by yourself.
-15
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:07 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:35 pm)OK, now I’ve got multiple -1s for my original comment, so I feel compelled to expand more on the concept. I own a business and have researched registered trade marks, service marks, etc. From the article, “GM has applied to trademark “range anxiety” in order to promote “public awareness of electric vehicle capabilities”. A trade mark is used so that people cannot invade your territory and perhaps confuse your product with a competing product. You are granted a trade mark for one business application. In other words, it is expected that no one will be confused by the same phrasing if used in tires as in baked goods. If you coin a phrase that you want to use exclusively, you apply for a trade mark. You can do it with a font style or an image. The point of a trade mark is so that a consumer is not fooled into buying the wrong item.
However, once granted a trademark, you gain COMPLETE rights to it in many different venues. Do you folks who negged me understand that GM is applying to be the ONLY ONE allowed to use the phrase ‘range anxiety’ in ANY article related to selling automobiles? It is like Tylenol trying to preserve ‘head ache’ for itself. To be granted a trademark, the phrase needs to be unique enough that it is not an everyday statement, but still not be a single universally understood concept. Gillette- “The best a man can get”. Avis- “We try harder”. Bounty- “The Quicker Picker Upper”. Tylenol could try, “Headaches Begone”, but they would never get away with “Headache” alone.
As stated, I believe ‘Range Anxiety’ alone would never cut it or be approved. This is why the news article may be out of context or sensationalized. GM could try “Range Anxiety Begone”. I am ALL for that. It would be approved and I like the Volt because of this reason. But if GM is really trying to trade mark the phrase ‘Range Anxiety’ by itself, they are out to lunch and we (as GM fans) should tell them they are NOT helping themselves in the public eye (as the news article is indeed focusing on). GM did NOT originate this phrase and it is already in public lexicon. It is no different than ‘sprained ankle’ or ‘God bless you’. Let’s hope GM’s lawyers and marketing folks didn’t smoke something funny (like DonC alluded to) and if they did, we here should speak up about it before they go too far.
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:47 pm)I would add that if a poster accumulates -50 in any given thread, all of their posts would be eliminated from that thread. If anyone decides that something intelligent or worthy of saving was posted by one of these trolls, they could quote it before the poster and their posts go Poof!
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:51 pm)Did not neg you but now that you mention it….
Anyway,
I was just responding to your comment on the article which I read and found that GM was trying to scare people by insinuating that they will be stranded along side of the road in their electric vehicle.
I am missing your “trade-mark” discussion completely. The point of the scare tactics, the way I read it, is simply range anxiety.
My point is that GM should point this out. That is why they put the engine in the volt.
Having lawyers debate trade marking a common term is another issue that I missed in the article. I was just commenting on scaring people with range anxiety.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (7:54 pm)Ah, Mr. Jackson Sir, #245 was Tag. Me thinks we should go by Captain Jack’s for a drink.
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:01 pm)On second thought, not quoting the trolls is a drag; fraught with peril, as the numbers tend to shift around as posts get removed or unmodded. Of course I meant — goes to see — Hey! It still shows as 245 (and I didn’t mean Tag, who is showing up at 247). What gives?
Could there be a variation based on what browser you’re using?
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:04 pm)Yes, I see what you did there, lol.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:06 pm)I use Firefox, pretty much just because it has a spell checker. I’d guess that editing a post may cause the renumbering.
Be well,
Tagamet
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:07 pm)I suppose it’s too late now, but hopefully this isn’t the only shell in the ammo box.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:19 pm)SEE! You even reply to MY inappropriate remarks! (lol)
Be well,
Tagamet
-14
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:35 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:47 pm)The question here is why. And how do we change those incentives. And we can’t do any of that without a viable auto industry. If GM had gone under, the supply base would have followed. That would not have been a good thing for the US industrial base.
I agree with you that the stock market, and the incentive structure encourages undue focus on short term gain. And CEO’s have outsourced for their own benefit regardless of what’s good for America. Or even the long term theoretical good of their own companies. But many of those who didn’t? Went out of business.
The US government has created an environment that’s actually hostile to domestic manufacturing in so many ways. There are actually tax advantages to moving jobs overseas. It was a deliberate decision because the US government wanted to rebuild Europe after WWII. That made sense then. It does not make sense now.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:49 pm)Checked with Firefox and Internet Explorer…
Tag still sitting on #245. Some things are a mystery to me.
Thanks for your service Jackson on cleaning up this forum! I do get tired of all the trolls.
So have a good evening guys. See you tomorrow.
Cheers
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:55 pm)Agreed. Unfortunately, without a smoothing mechanism–that’s not how the market works.
Agreed.
Sep 1st, 2010 (8:59 pm)You too. And I *am* losing weight. WAY under 245 now (#212 this morning).
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:00 pm)I don’t expect to “get anywhere.” I doubt I’ll convince him of anything. Just like he’s not going to convince me. But I still find many of his answers intelligent and informative. As long as he refrains from insulting me (or any other poster), I personally don’t have a problem with him. I know I’m in the minority, but I actually enjoy many of his posts.
I do have a problem with the troll who changes his name on a regular basis in order to make random insults…
-14
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:02 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:07 pm)No it isn’t. Oil is a non-renewable substance that we’re valuing purely in terms of present demand. And we’re fighting wars in order to maintain our preferred access. Why do you think we attacked Iraq? Because Saddam Hussein priced his oil in euros. Do you think that’s a valid reason to go to war?
Also, we’re not paying for what we consume. We have a rather massive trade deficit. The only reason we’re able to maintain our consumption of oil levels is because other countries like Japan and China are buying our debt.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:07 pm)I’m sure Laura knows the difference and meant batteries in terms of battery cells.
Tthere are a significant number of battery plants under construction in the U.S. I believe the number is around twelve.
Because GM bringing the Volt EREV concept to market, IMHO, many foreign companies are looking at moving production to the states. The same is evident with Wind Turban manufacturers. The U.S. Green technology move is attracting a lot of offshore interest. All good for the future employment of skilled employees throughout the country.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:10 pm)Actually, the US army does. And I personally don’t want my country acting as bully raiding other countries and helping dictators in order to preserve our access to foreign oil.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:16 pm)That would make this blog like a chat room with banning someone. The problem is if we us -20 for the cut-off to totally delete their comment from the archives, we will never get to any further vote on the post since it won’t be there anymore.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:19 pm)The problem is that the first mover who reaches a certain level of production achieves an economy of scale that it’s extremely hard to compete with without government help. That’s why Intel has a basic monopoly on chips.
Right now, LG chem has parlayed that contract with GM into an advantage that basically resulted in them signing every automaker for their batteries. There’s a very strong possibility that they will walk away with a monopoly over electric car battery cells. I’d rather an American company get that advantage. And the jobs and R&D spillovers that come with it. And I think that the American government should play its cards (access to what is still the most lucrative market in the world, EV subsidies, etc) to help make that happen. Every other government in the world does what it has to help their own domestic players. We need to do the same.
I don’t like having only one bidder either. But sometimes it’s worth it, IMHO.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:22 pm)Tonight, I kind of miss the back and forth nonsense from the Anti-Volt crowd…
nah.
Finally, the counter has worked, as it should, to self edit this forum for civility.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:32 pm)You’re more than welcome to disagree with me!
As far as a market less fettered by legislative encumbrances–I have a lot of problems with how the US government regulates. There are lot of laws and regulations I think are destructive. But completely unregulated markets don’t work either. The stock market wasn’t regulated at all in the 1920s. We all know how that turned out.
Basically, we need regulations to ensure transparency. To enforce contracts. And to put a price on things like water and air pollution. And grazing on public lands. Prevent overuse of underground aquifers (Which we don’t do, but should.) Etc.
In this context–if a “free trade” country trades with a mercantalist country, the free trade country will wind up bankrupt with a greatly reduced standard of living. Basically, if one country uses the other country’s intellectual property without paying for it, it gives them an enormous competitive advantage. And if a country requires a corporation to manufacture in that country if the corporation wants access to its market–Economies of scale often dictate that there will be only one factory. And it will be in the one that demand jobs in exchange for market access. Etc. I could go on…
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:36 pm)My belief is that, like every developed country in the world believed, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he had used against his own people. Sometimes there are worse things than going to war.
And now back to the Volt.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:38 pm)There’s a lot more to it than that. And more than I can get into here. There’s a very good book about this called “The Betrayal of American prosperity” by Clyde Prestowitz.
But, say, for the sake of argument, that I agree with you. What would you suggest we do about it?
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:39 pm)I took the same tact with EricLG. But he didn’t get it and just kept up his non-sense and insults.
They have the right to speak their opinions and we have the right to vote them off the blog. Ten negative votes is easy to reach and maintain. Rashiid’s suggestion to ban them when they reach 20 negative votes, I felt is a good suggestion. Voting should not only be used to judge whether you like the comment or not but in the case of the negative vote an indication of their comment not being civil. We still need to monitor the comments and vote. To my way of thinking, this method is the simplest and allows each troll to change his behavior and make constructive posts.
If we find a troll persists in bad behavior, we just negative vote his comment to the point that no one will see his comment unless they “click to view”.
I am more concerned over the band width and memory necessary for Lyles website to handle all the nonconstructive inane useless dribble the trolls produce. That is why I believe that Rashiid suggestion is worth considering.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:47 pm)It’s interesting to note that the article referenced was written by an individual fostering BEV’s, someone who would disdain from using the phrase. If GM owned a copyright to the phrase, it will be used as a term to denigrate GM as an anti BEV company.
Does GM really know what it’s doing to the grass roots popularity of it’s own vehicle by claiming fame to this phrase?
On the other hand,
I can understand the desire to keep other manufacturers from using “range anxiety” to describe their own EREV’s. Perhaps GM believes that Voltec is indeed the next big thing in transportation and is only trying to protect a marketing advantage with this phrase.
In reality, range anxiety never really was used much as a term until the Volt started to become production viable. I don’t like the path GM has taken, but to me it’s marketing 101.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:52 pm)Ditto.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (9:57 pm)Pranayama brother. Do we think has a significant chance of getting its application granted? I sort of thought that the AOL case had put to bed the idea you could claim known phrases such as “You’ve Got Mail”.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:02 pm)I disagree. But even aside from that–we’ve helped numerous dictators stay in power because we want access to oil. Including Saddam Hussein. Look at Saudi Arabia. Do you think we’re doing the people there any favors by helping the Saudi Royal family stay in power? What about the Shah of Iran? The Iranian people weren’t exactly crazy about him.
Basically, I don’t think the United States has any business going into other countries no matter how abhorrent we find their governments. Our track record of improving things isn’t exactly encouraging. Look at Somalia.
Also, it’s rather expensive. And we’re kind of broke.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:02 pm)It’s important to note that, by contrast to a patent, a trademark is both easy & inexpensive to obtain. So GM won’t have invested much in “Range Anxiety(tm)” —and there’s certainly no reason they MUST use it! IOW —though I don’t like it either— I suggest we not make “much ado about (almost) nothing” about this (to me) non-issue.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:03 pm)I’m thinking their batteries are lower quality but cheaper than A123′s. Also, the biggest manufacturer of large format cells for EVs is going to be Nissan, which has offered BTW to sell cells to other companies.
Personally I’m more concerned about where they are being made than by who is making them. I’d love to US companies like A123 be selected as suppliers but the reality is that, to survive, car suppliers are going to have to have global operations just like the car manufacturers.
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:10 pm)The Iraq invasion was so dumb that I find it comforting to think the rationale for it was really to obtain oil. The alternatives are actually more frightening. We suffered a lot of killed and wounded and spent over a trillion dollars and what we have to show for it is a stronger more influential Iran. Which BTW was what the invariably derided “experts” said at the time.
So I’m voting for the “oil theory”.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:10 pm)On this (alone) we can agree (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
/night all.
-6
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:10 pm)That’s a good question. I don’t have an answer specifically for it.
However, we should do something about corporate office compensation and the markets to encourage long-term thinking. For that, I have three suggestions…
Tax policy that encourages executive compensation in the form of options that can’t be cashed out for some time – several years – and which aren’t super sweetheart options but something discounted reasonably and then perhaps some sort of encouragement to hold the stock for a time.
I’d suggest a variation of the Ben & Jerry’s Rule… the CEO can’t make more than N times the median salary. I don’t have a magic N. Maybe 20. Well, the CEO could make more than that but the portion over that is not a writeoff against taxes.
A 3-tiered system for capital gains. Long, taxed at an advantageous rate (maybe half one’s normal rate); mid-term, taxed at one’s normal rate; and very short-term, taxed at double one’s normal rate. Very short term profits come from speculation and/or insider knowledge. Some details would need to be worked out, I imagine, but the idea would be to encourage shareholders to invest for the long term, which would reduce market volatility. I also like the idea of “qualified” dividends being taxed at a lower rate but I’d make the holding period longer than the current qualifying period, which I think is 60 days. I’d make it 180 days or maybe a year.
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:11 pm)I must have missed many of his posts. But I have a distinctive dislike for anyone who feels the need to wave his wallet around. Probably comes from too many bad dates…
Since everyone seems to feel really strongly about it, I will refrain from arguing with Charlie H. I don’t think he’s that bad since he stopped the insults. But, apparently, I’m the only one who feels that way…
I doubt the bandwith is an issue for Lyle. I suspect the advertising revenue makes up for it. But if the nuisance factor will drive other people away, then, absolutely we need to do something about it.
-7
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:16 pm)That’s really depressing, you know? My prediction at the time was that Iran would be strengthened and further radicalization would be the result. I was concerned that further radicalization would destabilize Pakistan, which could still happen. which would be really, really bad, as Pakistan is in The Club.
However, in Iraq proper, the war went better than I expected. I never made an open prediction on how long it would last but my thinking was “eternal.” The violence has subsided to levels I never expected. I can only hope they remain low.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:17 pm)The most likely cause of number variation is moderated posts. Since you think a post is #245 that others have as #243 or #244, you may have one or two earlier modded posts. That has happened to me when I referenced a “not to be mentioned” website.
-10
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:19 pm)(click to show comment)
-10
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:20 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:21 pm)The largest market for high density large format batteries will be the US. No other country has the history of putting miles on their cars as we do. The Volt will be good for 2 days for the average driver in France, a little more in Japan and 3 days in China.
If EV’s work, we will buy them.
The precedent has been set in the US that we want to be the leader in battery technology and manufacturing. How far will taxpayers go in supporting politicians that continue to underwrite start up expenses for these companies for the next decade is the next question. Will we tarrif the crap out of imports to protect our manufacturing interests or not? Will we actually be the worldwide leaders in building the best?
I hope we will be, but Chinese manufacturing sure is cheap.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:22 pm)I think “not to be mentioned” websites are before your time.
+5
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:23 pm)I know I’m close. We need an ignore button.
Be well,
Tagamet
/night deux
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:26 pm)Congrats on the weight loss? G’night to you. As they say in Amish country, “sleep tight.”
+4
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:39 pm)I agree with most of what you said here. I think they’re very good suggestions. I completely agree that too much investment is short term. And that it creates a lot of problems in our society.
I think you agree with many of the people on this site about so many things. Oil addiction. The numerous consequences. The environment. The decline of the middle class. I don’t understand why it bothers you so much that we are rooting for an American made product. No. It won’t solve our problems. And, in and of itself, it obviously won’t eliminate our oil dependence. There is no one solution. But I think it will help. And that’s the important thing.
Personally, I don’t want you to leave the site. I enjoy many of your comments. And I’ve enjoyed our conversations. But I also don’t want to annoy the rest of the regular posters. I really am sorry. But it’s not my forum, so it’s not my decision to make. So I’m not going to respond to any comment in the future once it’s invisible.
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:45 pm)You’re not the only one that feels that way
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:47 pm)But as the largest market, the US could still parlay that into giving a homegrown manufacturer a major advantage that other country’s manufacturers would have a hard time competing with. Just like access to the Japanese market gives Nissan an advantage. And access to the South Korean market gives LG chem an advantage. (Although not as much.)
LG chem is going to build battery cells here. Because the US government is paying them to do so. For the moment anyway. But the R&D, and the most advanced battery assembly will be in South Korea. Also, we’ll probably have to pay them more to build here than we would a US based manufacturer.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (10:54 pm)Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. We went in during the first gulf war and saw them. Most were labeled with names like DOW chemical. We took them off of Saddam’s hands in the first Gulf War. Three guesses as to what country authorized the sales and which country they were Irancough, they were intended to be used against.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:10 pm)I feel caught in the middle, which is the last place I want to be. I think it’s wrong to exclude someone because you disagree with him or her. And I’ve always believed we can learn from people we disagree with. And, like I said, I think a lot of Charlie’s posts are interesting and valuable. Especially since he stopped the gratuitous insults.
But at the same time, I don’t want to force people to read his posts if it bothers them that much. Which it clearly does. I suppose they could always stop reading my posts too, but…And I do think that Charlie has a tendency to push a little bit too much..
Honestly, I really really hate this.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:18 pm)I didn’t have a chance to respond to this earlier. But ICAM. If GM is trying to trademark “range anxiety” for the Volt, that’s rediculous. It doesn’t even make sense. By definition, a trade mark is suppose to identify a brand in the public eye. Range anxiety is what the Volt is intended to eliminate.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:35 pm)Think in terms of where the U.S. could have military bases. If Iraq survives its reorganization into a strong democracy and becomes/remains an ally of the U.S., we could maintain a strong military presence in the Far East if they permit us to have military bases there. Look up the Wolfowitz Doctrine under Wikipedia. Afghanistan plays into the squeeze on Iran being between Afghanistan and Iraq. The years ahead will bare watching to see if this is our real goal in the region. Under Bush, I believe that was the true goal but circumstances have changed greatly in the region. We still remain loyal to our commitment to Israeli defense. Now that we are moving away from petroleum, so the friendship/partnership with the Saudi’s may not be as solid as in the past. The United States had been under powerful pressures to close its bases in Arab countries where they were long established. A new strategy had to be found to maintain our military presence in the region. That’s the way I see it in light of the Wolfowitz Doctrine whose many “tenets have since re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine.” (Wikipedia) Oil was an important part of the doctrine but not the premise of the plan.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:40 pm)Maybe they plan to name a new vehicle by that name.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:47 pm)300+ posts – it took 5 minutes for the ‘refresh screen’ to complete. Take out all troll posts and responses to them, and it would have been half as long.
Please – on Thursday, don’t respond to the trolls – just give them a -1 and move on.
I think the subject will be GM’s decision to trademark ‘range anxiety’……
+1
Sep 1st, 2010 (11:53 pm)stuart, you need to defrag your computer or get a new one; mine refreshes in well under one minute.
I do believe you are right about getting rid of the troll posts that have more than ten negative votes and are blanked out.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Sep 2nd, 2010 (12:11 am)Bet you’re right. Google search reveals lots- ie
WSJ http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/09/01/general-motors-wants-trademark-for-range-anxiety/
If you put WSJ comments together, and if they are all valid, it would STILL be stupid to pursue this, because if origin indeed starts with EV-1, WHY ON EARTH would they want to keep reminding people ‘who killed the electric car?’ Back to DonC’s comment, what are they smokin’?
Hey GM people, take it from a true Volt fan- this is NOT smart PR!!!!
Sep 2nd, 2010 (1:30 am)The US Army does? Prove it.
No. It does not.
Thus we truly part ways.
-9
Sep 2nd, 2010 (8:27 am)Still waiting for an example.
-9
Sep 2nd, 2010 (8:34 am)Do they supply that figure to Edmunds?
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2011/chevrolet/aveo/101339879/specs.html
-8
Sep 2nd, 2010 (8:40 am)On the Chevy web site, we find: “Chevy Aveo sedan offers up to 420 miles of highway range.”
That’s tank size times highway fuel economy. Where’s the reserve?
-8
Sep 2nd, 2010 (8:47 am)And just to clear up a few matters… I have never claimed to represent Toyota… I have been accused of representing Toyota.
Also, I see you got a +12, so far, for abuse, thinly disguised profanity and what are plain errors of fact. Clearly, the voting plan is “working.”
-2
Sep 2nd, 2010 (8:55 am)Totally unrelated, but that also happens to be my birthday!
+1
Sep 2nd, 2010 (9:32 am)AMEN!!!!!
+1
Sep 2nd, 2010 (9:57 am)I clearly stated I am NOT a Vet
Sep 2nd, 2010 (10:19 am)I don’t hate it and it doesn’t even bother me. If people feel so horrible about posts from people they disagree with they have the right not to read their comments. The world is full of all kinds of points of views. And t’s easy to feel good when someone is saying exactly what we believe.
But much of the time real learning involves discomfort and even pain. Admitting we learned something sometimes means we also admit that everything we had been talking about and hoping people would agree with, was a bit off, just because we learned some new knowledge. New knowledge that makes us step down from the soap box for a minute and say, folks what I said before, wasn’t correct.
It’s something that people with different points of view challenge us with. They make us defend our positions. They make us review our weaknesses, out in the open. And it’s taxing. So if that bothers people they can skip over it. I think real trolls just look for ways to play to your emotions. People like Charlie H think about their answers. Sometimes Charlie H is annoying to me because he appears to be defending his position more than thinking through the answers. But all in all it’s amazing how he can stick to the subject after being hit with so much constant disagreement.
+2
Sep 2nd, 2010 (10:53 am)Oil is priced in dollars. That’s not controversial. That’s fact. We have bases in the middle east. That’s also a fact. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together. That’s also a fact. Are you really positing that this is unrelated? What kind of proof do you need?
What’s also not controversial is that we have a massive trade deficit. In other words, we’re not paying for the oil we consume. We, as a country, are borrowing to pay for it. We’re not trading manufactured goods or services. We’re selling debt. It’s hard to see that as a market outcome. And, by the way, it has huge repercussions for the dollar if we ever lose reserve currency status. Which almost has to happen at some point, IMHO.
What sources (other than Fox news, where, for the record, the second largest owner is Prince Alaweed of Saudi Arabia) would you trust?
But here:
Oil is priced in dollars:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03cnd-oil.html
US military in the middle east:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/world/middleeast/11military.html
Us trade deficit:
http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html
+1
Sep 2nd, 2010 (11:27 am)I agree. But I frequently disagree with many of the posters. As do several others. And no one has labeled me a troll. Yet anyway. It’s not like everyone here agrees about everything.
When Charlie H first came here, he regularly insulted every poster here in pretty much every post. Just for being here. He has since stopped and become much more civil, which I, for one, appreciate. But I can see why people would be annoyed and not notice the difference. And I’m not here all the time, so it’s possible he still writes those types of posts, and I just haven’t read them.
Mainly my decision was more about–I’m not going to take a guest to a party that I know most of the people there actively don’t want to see. I don’t like it. But, it’s not my choice to make. Not when over twenty people have said they don’t want him here.
And if I continue to respond to his posts–anyone who reads my posts will have to read at least part of his.
Charlie H is the only one I would miss. The other people on Jackson’s list–John’s boring (to me anyway) with his constant Prius chatter. And his unrealistic demands for GM. I think he’s harmless, but his constant repetition gets very old. Eric is new (to me anyway), so I really shouldn’t judge. Carcus hates intelligent women, so I’m definitely not going to defend him. And the guy who changes his name all the time–classic troll.
+2
Sep 2nd, 2010 (11:49 am)I think that you skipped a lot of facts, not the least of which is that America is the greatest country on the face of the globe. Maybe we differ on that (but I sure hope not).
Of course we’ve made some mistakes. Name a country (or individual) that hasn’t. But when it comes down to democracy: If not us, then who? If you really believe that we go to war with nations capriciously (for example, for their resources), then it’s hard to understand why you stay in America. What could possibly offset that level of evil behavior? You travel the world, so you’re not “stuck” here. You don’t *have* to be an American. Why choose it?
Be well,
Tagamet
PS: As I type this, I’m following the efforts toward Middle-east PEACE talks. Of course, we’re probably only doing it for self-interest.
PPS: Yes, I’m trying to get you to say *something* positive about America! Anything.
+1
Sep 2nd, 2010 (1:15 pm)My first response is in moderation. But since you asked for something positive…
The United States is the least racist place on earth, IMHO. Racism is a problem here. But it’s a lot worse everywhere else. And where it does exist, we address it. We don’t define ourselves by one particular ethnicity. Which I think is amazing. We don’t have a historic aristocracy, so people are much less class conscious. And while we are far from being the land of opportunity we used to be, there is still social and economic mobility that I believe is unmatched. Anywhere.
Also, the United States is a free country. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom to choose whatever profession you can get someone to hire you for. It’s a concept that we came up with. I do think it has been abused sometimes. (Freedom, to me, does not include the “freedom” to trample over other people’s rights.)
The United States is the first country founded on the idea of “we the people.” We were the first true democracy. That’s an amazing accomplishment. And, on the international front, nothing the US has done, IMHO, comes close to the abuses of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or even the British Empire. Or, basically, every other world power in human history.
+1
Sep 2nd, 2010 (2:37 pm)OK. I checked my response, and I don’t think it’s getting out of moderation anytime soon. (Lyle probably has better things to do with his time than check old threads.) So, long story short. Yes. I love the United States. No. I don’t think it’s evil. I do blame George Bush for getting us into a war I think is immoral. But there’s way more to the United States than one action. And it’s not like Iraq was a peaceful, well run, human rights observing country that just wanted to be left alone.
But just because I love my country doesn’t mean I’m blind to our mistakes. If we don’t face our mistakes, we’ll never correct them. Yes. Other countries frequently make mistakes. Many of them much worse than ours. But I’m talking about how to fix our problems. Not theirs. Their problems are none of my business, IMHO. Unless they make it our business.
+2
Sep 2nd, 2010 (5:19 pm)That “in moderation” place is a special kind of hell (g). Been there for using the word “Y@wn”! I hope this doesn’t take me there again.
Thanks for the positive reply. I’m really glad that you are among the ranks of America lovers. On a personal note, I marched against the Vietnam War back in the 60′s in Washington, DC. I’ve always respected people in the military, so I’m not in the category of people who mistreated our returning Vet’s, but now that I’m kinda grown, I really regret having marched against that war. I believe that my beliefs back then were uninformed (or at least ill-informed). I know that you read far more than I choose to make time for back then, so who knows, maybe your perspective will change too.
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Sep 2nd, 2010 (7:27 pm)I am just saying that if a person persists in putting up posts that get knocked down they would be banned for the day. In other words 5 posts of -10 and they would be gone for the day. They could come back the next…
If you think some has a valuable comment, especially if it is mixed in with the trash I would encourage you to save it with a quote…
We built the Volt!
+3
Sep 2nd, 2010 (10:49 pm)Actually, I think that the Volt *will* put something positive in the American history books. Whether it’s a footnote or a chapter, will be determined by GM’s continuing commitment to the project (read production). I’m (still) praying that they don’t let us all down.
Be well,
Tagamet
/Night.
Sep 6th, 2010 (9:29 pm)See the Greenhouse Gas emissions in the Executive Summary on Page 5.
“PHEVs achieve greater petroleum energy savings with increased electric range. Conversely, more GHG emissions are produced with increased electric range unless renewable or nonfossil electricity generation is used for recharging.”
For detail breakdown by region, operation mode, etc… start from Page 102. Page 107 (Fig 6.10) has the summary of GHG emission of U.S average.
Reducing / displacing petroleum consumption increases GHG emissions. We have this trade-off until we clean up the grid in the future.
This reports shows that PHEV-10 is the only plugin that cut both petroleum consumption and GHG emissions over a standard HEV. PHEV-20 increases GHG slightly; therefore PHEV-14 is probably the ideal choice to reduce petroleum consumption without increasing GHG emissions.
Is it a coincidence that the demo PHV Prius can power 14 miles using electricity from the plug?
DOE report in discussion: http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2010/06/67242.pdf