This is in response to GM's website GMFactsandFiction.com (http://gmfactsandfiction.com/) reasons for killing the EV1


GM said:

“The EV-1 program ended due to the lack of suitable batteries. Although many people said they wanted an electric car, when faced with a range of 80 miles or less between overnight recharges, most went elsewhere. Other car makers’ EV programs of that era met a similar fate – the batteries weren’t ready for prime time.” Here is a link to a U.S.A. Department of Energy test/specification page for the EV1. http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf Please note the EV1 with NiMH batteries could travel 160 miles at a constant speed of 60 mph, 220.7 miles at 45 mph and 140 miles doing a driving cycle. The EV1 could accelerate from 0-50mph in 6 seconds! Note the graph where the EV1 had the longest range when compared to the other contemporary electric vehicles. http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/compare_graphs.pdf (http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/compare_graphs.pdf)


It had great performance, how many “production” electric cars can spin (chirp) their tires?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ev1+chirping&emb=0# (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=ev1+chirping&emb=0#)
This sounds like a very positive review on the generation 2 EV1 with NiMH batteries.
http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_across_america/charge_html/nimh_test2.html (http://www.ev1.pair.com/charge_across_america/charge_html/nimh_test2.html)

Isn't it strange how GM continually quotes the poorer performing lead-acid batteries and not the high-mileage NiMH batteries used in the gen-2 EV1. Look at the government test results again. It was a very impressive car.

GM said:

“Because of legal requirements to provide warranty service and spare parts, GM could not leave the vehicles in service once the leases had ended.” I'm not a lawyer so the best I can do is look to examples. Toyota found a way to sell their RAV4e vehicles when pressured.

GM said:

“However, the EV-1 became the foundation for future electric vehicle programs at GM. “ Really!?!?!? Let's think about what they could have done.
During the same time period of the EV1, Toyota begin producing a few hundred cars with low demand that we know as the Prius.
* March 1997 - Toyota Hybrid System unveiled.
* December 1997 - first generation Prius launched for domestic Japanese market only (300 sales).
* November 2000 - cumulative sales for Prius top 50 000.http://www.cbn.co.za/pressoffice/mccarthy_toyota/fullstory/682.htm (http://www.cbn.co.za/pressoffice/mccarthy_toyota/fullstory/682.htm)

Note: They started with 300 sales, in November 2000 it was a cumulative sales total of 50,000. Not 50,000 per year it was a total production of 4 years from 1997 to 2000. To date, they sold 1 million, but it took 10 years to do it. Toyota was eating a pretty large amount of development and production costs for such few sales. It was an investment, and it's payed off.

GM, Ford and Chrysler could have turned their electric programs into hybrid/electrics. Why are the three domestics locked hip-to-hip in all of this.

Here's one of GM's entries under President Clinton's program Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV).


April 2000 General Motors Precept
Bearing a strong family resemblance to GM's EV1 electric, the five-passenger Precept is a diesel-electric prototype hybrid that parlays aerodynamic efficiency (0.16 drag coefficient) and low weight to achieve fuel economy in the 80-mpg range. The parallel hybrid system uses a direct-injection diesel to drive the rear wheels and a 35-kilowatt electric motor that turns the front wheels. GM also announced a fuel-cell version of the Precept. The Prodigy and the Precept are products of the federally promoted Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), aimed at producing a so-called supercargo.
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car_news/upfront_detroit_show_goes_over_the_top_car_news (http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car_news/upfront_detroit_show_goes_over_the_top_car_news)
The Precept could have been a reworked EV1 with a diesel engine similar to the Volt concept. It could have happened almost 10 years ago. Here's a little history about the Partnership for New Generation of Vehicle.


Jan 2000, The PNGV (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle) program was started in 1993 with the idea of developing a production-ready, mid-size sedan by 2004 that can achieve 80mpg, while still meeting all of the other constraints provided by federal regulations, consumer preferences, performance and cost.
General Motors, Ford and DaimlerChrysler are all approaching this challenge in their own ways and elements of their work have been emerging slowly. However GM has just opened a sizeable window on its own PNGV concept. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_1_112/ai_59282149 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_1_112/ai_59282149) The program was started in 1993, why didn't GM and the other domestics, instead of wasting (shutting down) the resources already developed for the EV1 and other electric programs, not run with the hybrid idea. Toyota certainly was. Was that just a bad decision from, not one company but all three domestic companies?

Sigh.... The only way GM will come out from under the burden of the mishandled and squandered technology of the EV1 and NiMH, is a Volt that is at least as good as but expected to have a decade better technology under the hood than the EV1. I'm not just talking about an ICE... that could have happened 10 years ago

[putting on the asbestos suit now.]

Show me a lawyer worth his salt that couldn't come up with a suitable waiver that would absolve GM of all responsibilities regarding the EV1, allowing interested parties to keep them, instead of sending them of to their two-dimensional doom. If GM had wanted it to happen, it could have happened.

Regardless of their back-pedaling, GM still comes out of the EV1 smelling badly.

LET IT GO!!
WHO REALLY CARES AT THIS POINT?

Seriously, what do you hope to achieve? A class action suit, GM vs. the world, where every man, woman and child gets some money to make restitution for depriving them of a solid shiny, happy future that NiMh would have provided? Why can't you move on with the damn EV-1? If you really believe that GM has been big, bad and seriously evil, and that they are still covering this blunder up with their PR site, why can't you just buy a Toyota and move on?

This site is about the future, a future that only GM had the courage to devise a workable solution and set a course to achieve it. It's really not so much about the past. Do you really fear that GM will produce the Volt, lease it to you and then snatch it back leaving you with only gasoline for the rest of your ever living days? I hope not. I hope that you can see that the time is right now for taking steps towards EV domination of the highways. The EV-1 was crawling. We are getting ready to take our first true steps and soon we will be walking. In no time we will be running.

I hesitate to jump into this debate, but I find the vilification of GM on this topic to be really off the mark.

For example, you simply can't make an analogy between the Prius and the EV-1, for at least three reasons:

1) 5 passengers vs 2
2) unlimited range, vs 80/150 mile range (VRLA vs NiMH)
3) $22,000 vs $22,000/$32,000 (VRLA - $150/kWh vs NiMH $500/kWh)

On top of all those differences, there would be very serious performance and lifetime issues in many regions due to extremes of temperatures, creating serious warranty/customer satisfaction issues. Lead-acid and NiMH batteries really aren't great solutions for an electric vehicle meant to work in all of North America. Lifetimes and performance of both of those technologies in extreme climates and deep cycling would be atrocious.

In my opinion, the market for an EV-1 type vehicle would still be very small (a few wealthy urban drivers in mild climates). If the latest Li-batteries really work (this is where GM is taking a huge risk now), the comparison between the Prius and the Volt will be:

1) 5 passengers vs 4
2) $22,000 vs $34,000 ($750/kWh Li)

This at least gets the Volt in the ballpark (I wonder about the 4-passenger decision), especially if government subsidies are provided on the Volt initially as they were on the Prius.

On top of all of that, even so many years later, there are no other companies making an EV-1 type of vehicle. In my opinion, the reason is likely to be that there hasn't been a big enough market to justify such a vehicle. So GM killed a program for which there is still no market, why is that such a vile mistake?

pdt said:


For example, you simply can't make an analogy between the Prius and the EV-1, for at least three reasons:

1) 5 passengers vs 2
2) unlimited range, vs 80/150 mile range (VRLA vs NiMH)
3) $22,000 vs $22,000/$32,000 (VRLA - $150/kWh vs NiMH $500/kWh)
Please note what I said at the head of the thread.

"The Precept could have been a reworked EV1 with a diesel engine similar to the Volt concept. It could have happened almost 10 years ago. Here's a little history about the Partnership for New Generation of Vehicle."

I've said it before and didn't this time because it seemed obvious. GM could have taken the EV1 technology, the technology from the program Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle, put in a gas or diesel engine, AND shrunk the NiMH battery to something similar in the Prius and what do you get? You have a competing hybrid against the Prius and is pretty similar to the Volt! Yes, you could make it a 4 passenger car, that's pretty minor. Does it go 40 miles all electric, no, but it would be a direct competition to Toyota. Could some people modify it on their own to increase the battery capacity and have a plug-in? Yes. People are doing that now with the Toyota. Would it have prepared GM to be fully prepared to quickly convert other auto lines to electric drive and be ready for the high fuel prices today? Yes.

So now the EV1 morphed into a 1997 Volt becomes:
1. 4-5 passenger car
2. 40 - 50 mpg car with unlimited range.
3. a cost distributed $22,000 -car like the Prius.

It appears that GM had suggested in 1998 the "** The M.S.R.P. of the EV1 is $33,995." according to this and other sites http://ev1-club.power.net/bayintro.htm
Of course with a much smaller battery the costs should much lower and the series hybrid could compete with the parallel Prius hybrid or at least it would have had a chance.

pdt said:

Please note what I said at the head of the thread.

"The Precept could have been a reworked EV1 with a diesel engine similar to the Volt concept. It could have happened almost 10 years ago. Here's a little history about the Partnership for New Generation of Vehicle."

I've said it before and didn't this time because it seemed obvious. GM could have taken the EV1 technology, the technology from the program Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicle, put in a gas or diesel engine, AND shrunk the NiMH battery to something similar in the Prius and what do you get? You have a competing hybrid against the Prius and is pretty similar to the Volt! Yes, you could make it a 4 passenger car, that's pretty minor. Does it go 40 miles all electric, no, but it would be a direct competition to Toyota. Could some people modify it on their own to increase the battery capacity and have a plug-in? Yes. People are doing that now with the Toyota. Would it have prepared GM to be fully prepared to quickly convert other auto lines to electric drive and be ready for the high fuel prices today? Yes.

So now the EV1 morphed into a 1997 Volt becomes:
1. 4-5 passenger car
2. 40 - 50 mpg car with unlimited range.
3. a cost distributed $22,000 -car like the Prius.

It appears that GM had suggested in 1998 the "** The M.S.R.P. of the EV1 is $33,995." according to this and other sites http://ev1-club.power.net/bayintro.htm
Of course with a much smaller battery the costs should much lower and the series hybrid could compete with the parallel Prius hybrid or at least it would have had a chance.

Correct me if I'm wrong but paraphrasing this to, "GM could have morphed the EV-1 into the Volt program back in 2000." You still have the battery performance/durability problem with Pb-A and NiMH and you had gas prices in 2002 of $1.20/g. In the mean time you have Li-ion technology starting to become available that might make the vehicle practical now. I'm not saying GM is perfect, but the decisions about the EV-1 and Volt don't seem terrible to me.

LET IT GO!!
WHO REALLY CARES AT THIS POINT?

Seriously, what do you hope to achieve? . . .

Chill, dude. :cool: Just because something is being discussed, doesn't mean we haven't "let it go". I doubt if the issues surrounding the demise of the EV1 are the central focus of anyone's life here. I'm sure we are all anxious for GM to succeed (wildly) with the introduction of the Volt. It's not that we are trying to "achieve" anything - it's just that some of us have a bit of skepticism based on GM's handling of the EV1. Leave it at that.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, feel free not to.

pdt said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but paraphrasing this to, "GM could have morphed the EV-1 into the Volt program back in 2000." You still have the battery performance/durability problem with Pb-A and NiMH and you had gas prices in 2002 of $1.20/g. In the mean time you have Li-ion technology starting to become available that might make the vehicle practical now. I'm not saying GM is perfect, but the decisions about the EV-1 and Volt don't seem terrible to me.I'm not understanding these statements.

1. "problem with Pb-A and NiMH" What problems are there with NiMH batteries during that era? Obviously Pb-A (lead-acid) batteries are bad, even GM recognized that by producing the gen-2 EV1 with NiMH. Why bring up lead-acid? Performance of NiMH is very good. “The GM 1999 EV-1 utilizes a high-performance, longer-lasting GM Ovonic NiMH Generation I battery which stores twice the energy of a lead acid battery for the same weight and volume. It also utilizes a second-generation electric propulsion design that reduces cost and complexity while improving performanceand reliability.” http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19990104/press002055.html Here's a Chevron press release. “The advanced Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems NiMH batteries provide more than twice the energy and life cycle of conventional lead acid batteries, are maintenance free and are environmentally benign. NiMH batteries are the enabling technology for electric and hybrid electric vehicles to meet the requirements for next-generation fuel-efficient vehicle applications. Other applications include telecommunications, uninterruptible power systems (UPS) and distributed generation segments of stationary markets.” http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=350875&highlight= The Toyota RAV4e seemed to run for many years on NiMH battery alone, no ICE to charge them while going down the road. Some RAV4es are claimed to have exceeded a 100,000 miles. Toyota has been using it in the Prius for 10 years.

2. "you had gas prices in 2002 of $1.20/g" So? The Prius was designed and built during that period of low gas prices.

3. “In the mean time you have Li-ion technology starting to become available that might make the vehicle practical now.”

Toyota should have waited to build the Prius until Li-ion came out? Maybe we should wait until the silicon – Lithium batteries arrive? “The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries.” http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

Again, I'm not suggesting the EV1 had to exist in it's 1999 form (all electric) GM could have created a series hybrid using that periods technology. GM, Ford and Chrysler could have all been into hybrids. I'm not just pointing out GM. Look again at the Department of Energy charts for electric cars of that era, notice the range bar graph. http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/compare_graphs.pdf The EV1 was the most advanced car out there, likely GM could have held the title to the most technologically advanced production car on the road. Toyota did it. “The Prius continues to be the top seller and one of the most technologically advanced and complex passenger vehicles in the market today. It’s also one of the most reliable.” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/01/business/fi-prius1


I'm hopeful about the Volt. It's General Motors opportunity to shine. For now all I have is an established past behavior (a conflicted electricity/gas propulsion car company) and words of what they will do.


Thanks to everyone for their constructive comments as we review history. History provides the foundation upon which we build toward the future.

pdt said:
I'm not understanding these statements.

1. "problem with Pb-A and NiMH" What problems are there with NiMH batteries during that era? Obviously Pb-A (lead-acid) batteries are bad, even GM recognized that by producing the gen-2 EV1 with NiMH. Why bring up lead-acid? Performance of NiMH is very good. “The GM 1999 EV-1 utilizes a high-performance, longer-lasting GM Ovonic NiMH Generation I battery which stores twice the energy of a lead acid battery for the same weight and volume. It also utilizes a second-generation electric propulsion design that reduces cost and complexity while improving performanceand reliability.” http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19990104/press002055.html Here's a Chevron press release. “The advanced Texaco Ovonic Battery Systems NiMH batteries provide more than twice the energy and life cycle of conventional lead acid batteries, are maintenance free and are environmentally benign. NiMH batteries are the enabling technology for electric and hybrid electric vehicles to meet the requirements for next-generation fuel-efficient vehicle applications. Other applications include telecommunications, uninterruptible power systems (UPS) and distributed generation segments of stationary markets.” http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=350875&highlight= The Toyota RAV4e seemed to run for many years on NiMH battery alone, no ICE to charge them while going down the road. Some RAV4es are claimed to have exceeded a 100,000 miles. Toyota has been using it in the Prius for 10 years.

2. "you had gas prices in 2002 of $1.20/g" So? The Prius was designed and built during that period of low gas prices.

3. “In the mean time you have Li-ion technology starting to become available that might make the vehicle practical now.”

Toyota should have waited to build the Prius until Li-ion came out? Maybe we should wait until the silicon – Lithium batteries arrive? “The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries.” http://newsservice.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

Again, I'm not suggesting the EV1 had to exist in it's 1999 form (all electric) GM could have created a series hybrid using that periods technology. GM, Ford and Chrysler could have all been into hybrids. I'm not just pointing out GM. Look again at the Department of Energy charts for electric cars of that era, notice the range bar graph. http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/compare_graphs.pdf The EV1 was the most advanced car out there, likely GM could have held the title to the most technologically advanced production car on the road. Toyota did it. “The Prius continues to be the top seller and one of the most technologically advanced and complex passenger vehicles in the market today. It’s also one of the most reliable.” http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/01/business/fi-prius1


I'm hopeful about the Volt. It's General Motors opportunity to shine. For now all I have is an established past behavior (a conflicted electricity/gas propulsion car company) and words of what they will do.


Thanks to everyone for their constructive comments as we review history. History provides the foundation upon which we build toward the future.

1) I just mentioned Pb-A because they are so much cheaper, making the purchase price more reasonable. The performance and durability issues are really problematic with them, but they're cheap. NiMH batteries have durability and performance issues in a vehicle application when the vehicles need to work in temperature extremes. The performance drops in low temperatures and high temperatures reduce lifetimes dramatically (there is a great paper from Argonne about how the batteries in the hybrid Camry and Escape are managed. High and low temperatures are a big problem and handled in different ways in each vehicle.) Let's take 2X cycle life of Pb-A and NiMH, so you go from 3 years to 6 years (yes I'm sure you can find someone still driving a car with NiMH batteries, but have they been driving the car in upstate NY or in Pheonix? Have they deep-cycled the batteries every day?) You still need to replace some very expensive batteries in many cars at least once in the vehicle lifetime. I don't think an EV would be successful with NiMH batteries due to these issues. That's one reason the EV-1 cancellation makes sense to me. I'm also skeptical about the overall market for pure electric vehicles in general in the U.S., due to the range issue.

2) I agree, GM should have pursued Prius-like hybrids sooner, taking into account the probability of higher gas prices and the consumer demand for "green" products. I think they'll admit that too and they're really not happy about playing catch-up. I just mentioned gas prices, because EV's are not even close to economically viable with gas prices in that range.

3) Obviously a Prius-like hybrid is viable with NiMH batteries, but as I said above, I don't believe EV's were, or are now, viable with NiMH batteries. I also don't think a Volt-type vehicle would have been competitive with NiMH batteries, since it's essentially an EV and would suffer similar performance and durability issues (although somewhat mitigated by the availability of the engine). I do think Li-ion batteries that are now becoming available are likely to make the Volt a viable vehicle. I think the Volt is probably going to prove to be a good move (though I still question the 4-seat choice).

Bottom line: I don't think a Volt-like vehicle has been viable until the availability of recent Li-ion batteries (hopefully) and gas prices over $4/gallon. That's why no company has built one...yet.

Why did RAV4EV production stop? Did Toyota kill that project because the car was "too limited?" Or was it because Chevron sued them over battery production rights?

I can easily imagine a market for limited range, even limited speed EVs. The "lack of demand" that GM always cites just doesn't sit with me. It's another one of their spin-phrases to go along with their dishonesty over battery technology (only mentioning lead acid batteries, downplaying range and battery life). It seems to me that electric cars died ten years ago due partly to conventional thinking at GM, and most of all, entrenched special interests in the industry: oil.

I find GM's propaganda site hilarious. It's the same dishonest crap they've been claiming for years. They aren't fooling too many of us on this forum, though.

Who cares I do, ten years ago gas wasn't four dollars a gallon if GM had continued the ev1 look where we might be today, the reason I think GM is taking so long they are waiting for gas prices to come down again and then everything we be back to normal. but its not going to be. GM could come out now with a ev that would save the planet but we just hear about why they cant, if you don't think they know how to do it just what have they been making for so long horse carts, come on GM just do it and stop all the hype

LET IT GO!!
WHO REALLY CARES AT THIS POINT?

. I whole-heartedly agree. :rolleyes:
WopOnTour

WOPONTOUR I love your logo and thanks

Let it go? Let GM make outright lies and get away with it unchallenged? Why exactly should we do that?

Let it go? Let GM make outright lies and get away with it unchallenged? Why exactly should we do that?

I wouldn't say unchallenged. They didn't get away with much. They had a whole multimillion dollar documentary made about it and they'll probably never live it down, at least not until they have totally proven themselves to have turned around. GM started losing money by the truck loads since that movie came out and it will probably take at least ten years of PR to come back. Nothing we say on this forum will change the past, or the present really, and it certainly won't keep GM from getting away with anything.

At first I was miffed by the whole thing too, but then I thought about it, and obviously if there was a market for it, at least ONE auto maker would've made at least one electric car in the last 10 years. Either that or Chevron's rumored ban on plug in NiMH in vehicles is what's keeping them from doing it (we really can't know because the settlement was kept under wraps). But Sanyo has the NiMH patent now (great...give Asia more control over important technology), and they have made a lot of progress with NiMH (heard of their Eneloop NiMH batteries? Amazing!) and are committed to improving it even further over the next few years at least. I'm excited to see if they can make NiMH batteries competitive with Li-ion. I think they can, and we'll just have to wait and find out.

On top of all of that, even so many years later, there are no other companies making an EV-1 type of vehicle. In my opinion, the reason is likely to be that there hasn't been a big enough market to justify such a vehicle. So GM killed a program for which there is still no market, why is that such a vile mistake?

If every innovation waited for a market, there would be very little innovation. Innovators see opportunities where none exists.

However, if you are saying that GM has never been an innovator, I would agree with you. The Volt is the only possible exception that I can think of unless you want to include inventions going back to Charles Kettering.

Also, didn't Richard Waggoner say something like he regretted his stupid decision to kill the EV program?

However, if you are saying that GM has never been an innovator, I would agree with you. The Volt is the only possible exception that I can think of unless you want to include inventions going back to Charles Kettering.
What a troll, a green one at that!
And you obviously know very little of automotive innovation or it's history. FYI over the past 100 years, GM has more patents and engineering awards for automotive innovation and technology advancement than ALL of the other manufacturer put together.

Park your little bandwagon ass over in Priuschat perhaps...
WopOnTour

What a troll, a green one at that!
And you obviously know very little of automotive innovation or it's history. FYI over the past 100 years, GM has more patents and engineering awards for automotive innovation and technology advancement than ALL of the other manufacturer put together.

Park your little bandwagon ass over in Priuschat perhaps...
WopOnTour

Really? How did all that innovation work out? Is there a relationship between patents and valuable innovation? HARDLY.

Here is a list of innovations I give GM credit for:
Inventing planned obsolescence with the Vega (35,000 miles)
Being the last company to figure out that 1 key works better than two
Understanding the importance of quality after everybody else had implemented it
Innovating the ugliest design, the Aztec, since the Edsel.

Attack me as a troll if you want. A really knowledgeable person would actually list out some of these breakthrough innovations and the dramatic influence they had on GM's success.

Why don't you be innovative and contribute something besides slime.

I have a very simple rule when it comes to forum trolls
Identify them, <check>
then either ban them. <I'm working on it>
and/or ignore them.<check>
<ignore>

If every innovation waited for a market, there would be very little innovation. Innovators see opportunities where none exists.

However, if you are saying that GM has never been an innovator, I would agree with you. The Volt is the only possible exception that I can think of unless you want to include inventions going back to Charles Kettering.

Also, didn't Richard Waggoner say something like he regretted his stupid decision to kill the EV program?

Plenty of innovations are made that do not find a market, existing or new. They are called failures, at least for the short term. Some come back later as a result of added innovations or simply because of the failure of some other alternative to remain competitive. PV is a good example. PV was an innovation that had a very small market for a very long time. Further innovations and the changing dynamics of the energy market are changing the picture.

Just because EV's may find a successful market 20 or 30 years later does not mean that market would have existed at the earlier time. If full EV's do become successful it will be due to the new battery innovations and the changing dynamics of the energy market.

Personally, I think pure EV dominance of the automotive market is a long way off. I believe EREVs will rule the roost for at least 20 to 30 years. I believe this because the infrastructure needed to get the same utility from EVs as we get from EREVs is enormous (big, underutilized batteries, and swap or quick-charging infrastructure). Don't get me wrong, I think there will be markets for electric vehicles now that batteries are better. The best markets will be for local fleet vehicles like postal vehicles and short-range delivery vehicles where the daily range needed is very consistent (no long trips ever). These will be cheaper overall due to lower maintenance and energy costs and provide the same function as current vehicles (also the battery can be sized exactly right for the application so that the expensive battery will be fully utilized). I imagine there will be some demand for "city" vehicles and from people who don't mind the cost of two vehicles or the inconvenience and cost of renting vehicles for longer trips. Still, I think by and large people will prefer EREVs and they will dominate as fuel prices rise.

If there were a big enough market for EVs with NiMH batteries in 1990, someone would have built them. Why blame GM?

I have a very simple rule when it comes to forum trolls
Identify them, <check>
then either ban them. <I'm working on it>
and/or ignore them.<check>
<ignore>

Yes, you proved it. You are unable to post anything with content. Oh, so you are working on banning me!!! You are wasting your time but your posts are a waste of time.

I would be very pleased indeed if you ignored my posts. Ban away.

Attack me as a troll if you want. A really knowledgeable person would actually list out some of these breakthrough innovations and the dramatic influence they had on GM's success.

Why don't you be innovative and contribute something besides slime.

You have proven you aren't a knowledgeable person. You must be a GM engineer.

If there were a big enough market for EVs with NiMH batteries in 1990, someone would have built them. Why blame GM?

The Cobasys patent surely has had a chilling effect on the EV industry in the 1990s and beyond. Although GM was an early player in this debacle, it seems most fingers may be rightly pointed at Chevron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies)

The Cobasys patent surely has had a chilling effect on the EV industry in the 1990s and beyond. Although GM was an early player in this debacle, it seems most fingers may be rightly pointed at Chevron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies)

In my opinion, this is a flaw in our patent system. In the long term the patent system is good, it forces companies to disclose information in order to be able to have exclusive rights for a fixed time to avoid the risk of others discovering the same thing and losing exclusivity. This motivates companies to publish so that over the long term information flows and is used. But when a company uses the patent system to prevent innovation from being practiced at all, it's apparently legal, but in my opinion not in the spirit of the law. An extreme example would be someone who invents a vaccine for AIDS, but refuses to allow any to be produced and sold so that they can profit from AIDS treatment drugs that must be taken for life.

All that said, I'm still not convinced that there was a huge market for NiMH-based electric cars. I'm not saying none, just not huge. They would still be very heavy and expensive, with quite limited range, and poor cold-weather performance.

If there were a big enough market for EVs with NiMH batteries in 1990, someone would have built them. Why blame GM?


DING, DING, DING. And we have a winner. All the whiners in this thread should reread the above statement and think about it. Then go sit in the corner and cry about it. The rest of us are sick of listening to you.

In my opinion, this is a flaw in our patent system. In the long term the patent system is good, it forces companies to disclose information in order to be able to have exclusive rights for a fixed time to avoid the risk of others discovering the same thing and losing exclusivity. This motivates companies to publish so that over the long term information flows and is used. But when a company uses the patent system to prevent innovation from being practiced at all, it's apparently legal, but in my opinion not in the spirit of the law. An extreme example would be someone who invents a vaccine for AIDS, but refuses to allow any to be produced and sold so that they can profit from AIDS treatment drugs that must be taken for life.

All that said, I'm still not convinced that there was a huge market for NiMH-based electric cars. I'm not saying none, just not huge. They would still be very heavy and expensive, with quite limited range, and poor cold-weather performance.

It's hard to say, but I can imagine that if the NiMH batteries could have been used freely in the automotive market space, who knows how far they might have gone? It is also likely that the desire for automotive-capable batteries could have spurred the development of other battery technologies (e.g., Li-ion), and we could be much further along today.

Anyone who has worked for a large engineering company knows there is a huge difference. GM MANAGERS killed the EV1. GM engineeres did an excellent job with what they had to work with. If I am not mistaken GM was the first company to invent electric powered airconditioning compressor which Toyota used many years later.

Anyone who has worked for a large engineering company knows there is a huge difference. GM MANAGERS killed the EV1. GM engineeres did an excellent job with what they had to work with. If I am not mistaken GM was the first company to invent electric powered airconditioning compressor which Toyota used many years later.True, General Motors management team killed it. But that was "The Plan" plan all along.
The EV1 was merely an engineering exercise and marketing experiment that had run it's course. It's the primary reason why the EV1 was only ever available as a 1-year (renewable) lease. It was NEVER GM's intention for these vehicles to remain on the street in active circulation. In fact, they were destined for the crusher long before they even reached the end of the assembly line!

Thus, despite the innovation potential, ANYONE with any sort of business education would have been forced to come to the same conclusions based purely on the business case that developed:
Given the California EV1 market study and the 5-year projected sales-can we afford to SELL something for $30-40K that cost us $60-80K+ to build? Hmmm...

To GM they had learned what they wanted to learn- but a costly lesson financially. Then only to blunder in their poor execution during the program wrap-up to the point it became a public relations nightmare.
The CARB lawsuit fiasco, and Cobasys sale was IMO merely a case of coincidental "bad timing" that simply added fuel to the conspiracy theorists that this was ALL part some master plan to enslave the population to the whim of "Big Oil" :confused:

You can either buy into that and hate GM for it, or look past it as quite possibly one of the most important date:time stamps in the development of EVs and detrimental to their ever increasing acceptance in public opinion.

JMO
WOT

The EV1 was a start, there is no reason for it to be much else. The thing I am currently into is China. They for several years have had a new battery that is far above Top Secret in their way of doing things. It is strong, efficient, requires very little recharging time. They also have the natural resources it needs to be a high volume product. We need to create a real two way street with the Chinese, they gave the world gun powder and we gave them the atomic bomb. It is not like we should not pool our resources when this makes sense.