Electric vehicles!

[Darell]

We spill about twice as much gasoline in the USA ever year while filling our lawn equipment than the volume of the Exxon Valdeze oil spill. Millions and millions of gallons are spilled.

But like you say... no biggie. We're used to it.

[McGizmo]

Darell,
You have no doubt seen this interview of Bob Lutz on Letterman?!?

He mentions that the maintenance cost of the EV1 was so great that they had to pull the plug?!?!

I think it is clever how the Volt still has a gas tank. Clever for keeping us dependent and likely good for the GM parts department but I sure look forward to buying a pure electric car and thumbing my nose at a couple industries...

[Darell]

Don -

Oh yeah. Knew it was coming, and recorded it. Several blogs on it all over the place. Why GM feels it necessary to keep lying about the past is beyond me. The truth can't hurt them at this point - could only help them really. But no. We have to keep hearing that:

1. They desperately tried to sell the silly things, and nobody would buy them. So finally they managed to lease a few.
2. As soon as costs hit $1 billion, the bean counters pulled the plug on the program.
3. The cost of maintenance was so high, that they were just saving us from ourselves by killing the program vs saddling the poor consumer with all this maintenance.

All crap. And Lutz knows it is all crap, of course. And here my Rav4EV sits - designed for the same model year as the EV1. I've replaced the tires and the wiper blades once. Even refilled the washer bottle under the hood. And today - 6.5 years after driving it off the lot, and using it every day - it still returns 100 miles of range and takes the whole family almost everywhere it needs to go. Yeah. These cars SUCK. Good thing we finally figured out how to pair an EV with a gasoline engine to fix all the problems. Now, 13 years after the EV1, we can manage 40 miles of battery range. Yay!

It is quite fortunate that I've not remained bitter after all these years.

[McGizmo]

Darell,
I also caught an interview with some guy at Nissan and it sounds promising that they might be offering a full EV next year.


I like how the Volt has now slipped into early 2011. I think they want a small fuel cell that will be used to start the gas engine that will charge the batteries and they are hedging some on the technology.

[Darell]

Don -

Yeah, the Nissan folks are serious about this. I just attended a meeting with them last week, in fact. All good news. The only place where they missed the mark is they still contend that we need infrastructure in advance of the cars. That aside, I think they're car is on targe to be exactly what we need. A small/mid-size car with REAL 100 mile freeway EV range, in the $30,000 range. Their goal is to show folks that for less money, you can get significantly more BEV range than the Volt and end up with a FAR lower cost of ownership.

[Darell]

Check it out! Electric Jet Ski.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL5Ia...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM7WK...eature=related


"We have developed the world’s first 100% pure electric personal watercraft, capable of reaching speeds of 50+ mph with longer run time than a gasoline versions. A real 3 person jetski with the most technologically advanced electric propulsion system in the world. We have filed patent on our proprietary technology and we will be the first American PWC manufacturer. We will also be the world’s first 100% emissions free Jetski maker in the world. "

[McGizmo]

Darell,

From my perspective, that is HUGE!! I just sent a link to their web site to a number of people I think might be interested. The JetSki has a number of great applications beyond being a toy and I have often been enticed by their size and maneuverability but completely turned off by them because of their pollution and damn noise!! This represents a real breath of fresh air and tranquility for the senses!!

I swore I would never own another boat but this electric Jet Ski may even change my mind!

[Darell]

Don -

Oh, I totally agree. While these *will* sell as toys (and I'm OK with that!) there are many fantastic uses beyond that scope as you've noticed. I especially liked the comments from the swimmer. Can you imagine being followed/filmed from one of these things for a couple of miles in the water? Idling? Crap.

Yeah, this is what will save the PWC platform. It is being banned in more and more places because of the double-whammy of noise and exhaust pollution.

[Darell]

Here is my friend Chelsea on the Volt proto:

http://evchels.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/poker-faces/

[McGizmo]

Well now that we, as represented by our government, have majority interest in GM, will we have more say in what the Volt is all about?

[Darell]

Of course there is no way that any one car can "save" GM. Not at this juncture! Sure would have been nice to see them come out with some more competitive cars *before* it was too late. :Sigh: That bit about how they had to kill the EV1 program because it wasn't fair to the shareholders to continue still rings in my ears. How are those shareholders feeling today, I wonder?

I see the Volt as either continuing on the same course, or being abandoned all together. I don't see it changing before coming to market. But my crystal ball has been wrong before! I sure like to see the thing. I'm not sure how it will happen though. They either sell it for over $40k or they take a bath on each one. I don't think they can afford to do either, frankly. It would appear that Toyota, Mitsubishi and Nissan are going to eat GM's lunch once again.

[McGizmo]

Darell,
What do you know about Coda Automotive?

[Darell]

Don -

Only that I'm a bit skeptical. They were showing off an entirely different car for the past two, years, and now suddenly they have this that nobody has seen. And their big news release? It is the announcement of a pending "launch" of said car. In other words, they don't have anything to sell. If Tesla can hit their price point with the Model S, they'll eat this cute little thing for lunch.

[McGizmo]

Thanks. The Tesla is about 20% more in price I think and clearly a "fancier car" but what bothers me most is their 2011 target date. Perhaps they are just more realistic than some of the others but dang, I want to see some options available for purchase now!!

[McGizmo]

I just got an e-mail from Pluginamerica.com and Darell would be the one to know how legit they are but I was sent to this LINK to let my representatives know that I wanted CARB to close the loop hole that allowed BMW to get full credit for their "experimental" lease program with the mini. It seems like a good idea to me so I did respond and send off the supplied canned response along with some words of my own.

As I see it, CARB turned its back on the EV's about 10 years ago and can take some of the credit for killling the EV when it was a reality. I wonder what would have become of GM had they been mandated in continuing on with their EV?!?

[Darell]

Don -

PIA is *the* plug-in-vehicle advocacy group. There's nothing more legit. It is this group that tried to save the EV1, and then DID save the Ford Rangers and the Rav4's from the crusher. They even saved the Th!ink Cities - that were to be crushed here, and instead were shipped back to Norway and sold... and are still in use. Many of the Board Members of PIA are the ones interviewed in Who Killed the Electric Car. Chesea Sexton who features prominently in that movie was the Chair at inception. She has since moved on, but is still a very active member.

Every serious mover and shaker in the EV "movement" is somehow a part of PIA. I'm even on the Executive Committee - not because I was asked but because they couldn't say no since I administrate the email lists.

And as for the loopholes... when the hell will they learn? This one is very similar to two that have come before:

1. Allowing full credit for electric Golf Carts. When that was discovered, everybody made a 25 mph "car" and basically gave them away to get their clean air credits without all that pesky expense of making a real car.

2. Allowing full credit for cars that are only in service for a couple of years... and then allowing another state full credit for the SAME cars that were taking away from drivers in state #1. (This was the EV1 - Full CA credit first, then take them away and let somebody in NY driver the same car for full credit there as well. Then crush them for our own good). And while THAT was happening, drivers of SUVs that weighed more than 6,000 pounds could write off the entire lease amount the first year in service.

[McGizmo]

Thanks for the info and insight Darell. I won't hold it against them that they include you in their ranks.

Well I think there is enough momentum now that unless they close the borders to EV's we will see them on the road. If the US and CA don't want to be part of the solution then so be it. Business as usual for Detroit just isn't what it once was anyway.

[idleprocess]

I got that email too and sometimes I wonder why Plug In America doesn't just rename itself Plug In California. They dedicate disproportionate attention to the actions of CARB - a single state agency whose corruptability (if not actual corruption) has been repeatedly demonstrated - in some bizzare attempt to force the automakers to produce something they don't want to make... then wonder why the goalposts keep moving in the automakers' favor.

Then the membership flips it around and rails against the one domestic car company that has committed to producing an electric vehicle with good odds of increasing public acceptance of BEV's. I understand the anger about the EV1, but why can't the community get beyond the truly irrational phenomenon of crushing the cars and admit the possibility that the best-possible-conditions business case for the EV1 just didn't make sense? Before you mention the Corvette, bear in mind the very real effect of "win Sunday, sell Monday" when it comes to auto racing and brands (be they a mere sponsor or the factory sponsor)... also keep in mind the marketing reality of "sell the sizzle not the steak" (namely, you it helps if something celebrated and high-profile can be associated with your brand even if you're selling something low-end and mundane).

From my armchair (I mention this sort of as a joke), I see PIA and its membership fighting the wrong battles in a losing rear guard action. Much like I don't think that gun nuts who talk about offing "blue helmets" are good spokespeople for the Second Amendment, the apparent inability of PIA and its membership to focus on the relevant and connect to the general public hurts the message. Chevrolet is struggling to bring the Volt to market (to the point that they no doubt had to fight Congress and the Administration to save the project during bailout negotiations), but PIA and its membership continue to hurl invective at GM over the EV1 and are nattering about CARB policies? Do they think that the general public has any idea what CARB is? Or the ZEV mandate and its complex, ever-changing quota system?

I'm not saying everyone needs to stand 110% behind GM, Tesla, Fiskar, Mitsubishi, Aptera, or one of the other companies promising an EV, but I believe that expressing interest in and enthusiasm for their offerings is a better approach than the policy wonkery and symbolism I see out of PIA...

I expect that Darell will tell me that PIA does other things, but CARB and other obscure legislation/regulatory action is the number 1 topic in their emails to me, which I find annoying ... and I'm sympathetic to the cause!

[Darell]

Originally Posted by idleprocess

I got that email too and sometimes I wonder why Plug In America doesn't just rename itself Plug In California. They dedicate disproportionate attention to the actions of CARB - a single state agency

The easy answer there is that wherever CA goes, so goes the rest of the country. Should we be working with the Indianna Air Resources Board?

Then the membership flips it around and rails against the one domestic car company that has committed to producing an electric vehicle with good odds of increasing public acceptance of BEV's.

This part I don't understand. Are you seeing stuff out of PIA that rails against GM? I'd sure like to hear about that, as this is something that truly the opposite of what PIA is trying to do. I guess I'm not clear on who you mean by "the membership." PIA has been supporting GM's efforts to an extent that you would find astonishing, I think. Are you possibly confusing comments from other EV lists with those from PIA? Remember that anybody can become a "member" of PIA. But they should not be confused with PIA proper. That would be like implying that CPF rails against the price of SureFires.

I understand the anger about the EV1

I won't even comment on the EV1 situation. Everybody seems to have made up their minds on what should have happened and what did happen - even when most of their info seems to come second and third hand.

From my armchair (I mention this sort of as a joke), I see PIA and its membership fighting the wrong battles in a losing rear guard action.

I'm getting the idea that you're not completely clear on which battles are being fought. I certainly don't agree with everything PIA does. Yet as an entity, they have created more positive change for clean transportation than any other group I know of.

Do they think that the general public has any idea what CARB is? Or the ZEV mandate and its complex, ever-changing quota system?

Because the public is ignorant of something, PIA should stop pushing for what it believes in?? Amazingly enough, I think a large part of the population is learning what CARB is, and what it has done and is doing. And I think MORE people need to know.

I believe that expressing interest in and enthusiasm for their offerings is a better approach than the policy wonkery and symbolism I see out of PIA...

Wow. I truly don't understand this. It is as if we're talking about two completely different groups. The group I know if is so positive and supportive of all companies who intend to offer EVs that most members either already own one (in the case of Tesla) or have firm orders in on promised ones. They're not just shouting and screaming for the cars, they're actually putting their money where their mouths are. If PIA isn't doing it right - and you want to help the cause - get in there and straighten them out! I hear what you're saying PIA should *not* do. What is it that they *should* do? What you suggest they do here is already happening. Thinking more... you're going back to complaining about the BMW loop hole, possibly? If that's what you call policy wonkery, then I guess we'll just have to disagree. Some of the PIA principals now have a Mini-e parked in their garages, btw.

I expect that Darell will tell me that PIA does other things, but CARB and other obscure legislation/regulatory action is the number 1 topic in their emails to me, which I find annoying ... and I'm sympathetic to the cause!

Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure what gets sent out to the "public" or what lists you're on. I do know that they enlist letter-writing help for the causes that will benefit from numbers. I'll forward your message onto the PIA ExCom for you, and in the meantime, I suggest you figure out how to unsubscribe from those messages!

[Darell]

Here is one concise response from our past chair person:

PIA is CA-centric, obviously. But it may be worth a bit more explanation in the FAQ perhaps or else where on the site about why so much effort is focused on CARB- i.e., that by the time the other CARB states are tallied, they represent about half the car-buying public in the nation.

Maybe more strongly solicit input about other state actions that need help? Florida's had a lot going on lately, for instance.

I agree, btw, that PIA remains less than supportive about GM. Reference to the EV1 crushing finds its way into most of the public statements, but little about the fact that GM was first back into the fray and for 2 1/2 years has been more open about its project than any other automaker.

[Darell]

> I understand the anger about the EV1

I'd like to clear up a bit of that as well. The EV1 project spanned all kinds of technology. GM even made a "Volt" back in 1994-1995. Yes, a real-live series hybrid.



Much of the anger directed at GM comes from them dismantling the EV1 program, only to come back 15 years later with a car that they'd basically already developed... and calling it "new" and "first of its kind" etc. If GM did what it did and was honest about the whole process, sentiment would be different. May not have been *better* but it would have been different. My biggest gripe isn't with what GM did, but in how GM went about doing it...and how the truth was hidden for so long. Those of us EV1 drivers were marginalized, demonized, and thrown out with the bath water. Wasn't my best automotive experience there at the end!

I'll be thrilled if they can come out with a great car at a reasonable price (Volt) and make a go of it. I'm just tired of hearing how this is going to be the first desirable EV ever made. (Oh, and that 40 miles of battery range is good enough for most commuters, when the 130 miles of the NiMH EV1 was NOT enough). I'm not numbered among the GM haters. I simply hate what GM did.

But I digress... we were discussing PIA's positions. I just wanted to toss in mention of the "Volt" Ev1 from way back when.

[idleprocess]

Every now and then I get irritated and write an email or post then usually have the good sense to let it sit until I can reflect. I will let the reader decide whether my last post was is one of those times.

I'll add that I'm probably confusing PIA's positions and those of its membership with the chatter on the mailing list, which oftentimes just makes me shake my head or grit my teeth.

[Darell]

Originally Posted by idleprocess

I'll add that I'm probably confusing PIA's positions and those of its membership with the chatter on the mailing list, which oftentimes just makes me shake my head or grit my teeth.

Makes *way* more sense to me that way.

[McGizmo]

Darell,
What's the skinny on the Maya 300. From what I could gather at a quick glance, it sounds like a cool car but with ExxonMobil involved and fleet and rental focus is it even going to be available to John Q?

[Darell]

We're still trying to figure that one out, Don. At this point, you have about as good a grasp as anybody, unfortunately!

The Nissan unit is still the one I'd put my money on for being what it says it'll be... and affordable available in the near term.

[McGizmo]

Thanks Darell. Is my impatience showing?

[Darell]

The more I learn, the less I like.

"Beyond building a limited number for fleet testing purposes, the company has no intentions of going into series production for the consumer market. The company is, however, interested in talking with fleets who might like to purchase small numbers of the vehicles. While currently classified as a low-to-medium-speed vehicle depending on state regulations, the vehicle does come with the safety features found in most cars, including air bags. The cars are priced at $25,000 and have a range of 80-to-120 km depending on battery options. "

Basically, we're SOL as usual.

[McGizmo]

Yeah,
I ran across verbiage like that and never even gleaned what low to medium speed meant?!?! Perhaps this is a glorified NEV that wouldn't cut it on the open road anyway?!?

[Darell]

Don -

Low speed typically means 25 mph. Mid-speed is likely 50 mph (in other words not really freeway capable). And above that is "full featured" or "high speed." A 50 mph car is a very handy vehicle - works for everything but freeway. Low speed, I'm not so fond of. I don't need a car that is slower than my bike.

[McGizmo]

Thanks for the clarification.