# Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*



> Dan Frederiksen <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > "No legal threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
> > Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Why speculate? The media does a fine job with that as it is. Wait 
till you hear it from the Horses mouth then decide. I really hate 
speculation. You should too.




> Ben wrote:
> 
> > On Dec 21, 2007 11:00 AM, Dan Frederiksen
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

I just hope someone archives any and all video of the
restored EV1, and anything that does go on, so that it
can get out to the media afterwards........ Then for
sure, GM will be seen as the Jack**S that they really
are.

Maybe, we can get a sequel to the "WKTEC", with this
additional event, if it is actually happening. 



--- [email protected] wrote:

> Why speculate? The media does a fine job with that
> as it is. Wait 
> till you hear it from the Horses mouth then decide.
> I really hate 
> speculation. You should too.
> 
> 
>


> Ben wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 21, 2007 11:00 AM, Dan Frederiksen
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Thanks, Dan. Good work!

It is always best to confirm before deploying the lynch mob!

Ken



-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Frederiksen <[email protected]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:00 am
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)



I just got a response from GM.

Chris Preuss (GM) didn't know anything about any legal reactions but
asked a coworker Dave Barthmuss to comment and he wrote me this:

"No legal threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
drive at a local enviro envent and in no way did it involve and threat
of litigation."


I'll dig deeper.
if someone is on the WWU end can they check what their side of the 
story
is? if the GM reaction is just a complete fabrication or if we have
actual controversy.

Dan

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

i have a copy of the video for safe keeping.

: )




_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

I just spoke with Eric from the WWU EV1 resurrection team. He stated that 
they have not been threatened with a lawsuit. They did receive a phone call 
from GM reminding them of the agreement they signed when they received the 
gift not to run the car on any public or private road . They also mentioned 
that part of the agreement was not to mar GM's image. So It appears that 
Dave Barthmuss of GM was telling the truth when he stated: "No legal threats 
at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief drive 
at a local enviro event and in no way did it involve and threat of 
litigation." Anyway, I thought I would look into the truth of this matter a 
little more and squelch a possible fire storm against our buddies at GM ;-)


Roderick Wilde


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)


> Thanks, Dan. Good work!
>
> It is always best to confirm before deploying the lynch mob!
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Frederiksen <[email protected]>
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
> Sent: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:00 am
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)
>
>
>
> I just got a response from GM.
>
> Chris Preuss (GM) didn't know anything about any legal reactions but
> asked a coworker Dave Barthmuss to comment and he wrote me this:
>
> "No legal threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
> Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
> drive at a local enviro envent and in no way did it involve and threat
> of litigation."
>
>
> I'll dig deeper.
> if someone is on the WWU end can they check what their side of the
> story
> is? if the GM reaction is just a complete fabrication or if we have
> actual controversy.
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
> http://webmail.aol.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 
> 12/19/2007 7:37 PM
>
> 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

good. that sounds like it is true. I'll innocently ask Barthmuss why 
they feel the need to keep the EV1 off the road.
just have to find a way to word it such he wont just lie that it's to 
avoid being sued for missing parts or similar.

I asked him what their reaction was then if it wasn't a threat of 
litigation. he gave me this line of smelly liquid:

"That we continue to appreciate and recognize the passion and enthusiasm 
for electric vehicle technology, and hope that the issues we face today 
in terms of energy security and the like will encourage hundreds of 
thousand if not millions of consumers to consider purchasing or leasing 
our EFlex extended range electric system as illustrated by the Chevy 
Volt when it is ready for prime time."

I then asked him if GM in any way contacted WWU about the public showing 
of the EV1 and what the intent was of that communication. let's see what 
he says next if anything. having considerable experience pushing people 
that are wrong but not willing to admit it I expect we are reaching the 
end of his patience though, where he will lock up and start blaming me 
for various things as a way to avoid the uncomfortable truth. 2-3 emails 
more at best. he would like to not have to answer me anymore at all but 
the appearance of ducking such a pertinent question gnaws at him and he 
will likely feel obligated to answer. but his mind will be racing to 
find a way to get out of this situation even though it is not a 
conscious effort.
the fascinating and terribly foolish state of humanity.

Dan




> Roderick Wilde wrote:
> > I just spoke with Eric from the WWU EV1 resurrection team. He stated that
> > they have not been threatened with a lawsuit. They did receive a phone call
> > from GM reminding them of the agreement they signed when they received the
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

IIRC, I believe Brigham Young University has run their supercap-powered EV1
down dragstrips around the country for a couple of years now, including at
PoDC in Hagerstown, as I recall. I would think that a dragstrip could be
considered a "private road", and in addition to that, is certainly a very
public setting. Does anyone know if BYU has ever received such a phone call
from GM anytime in the last couple years reminding them of the same
agreement that *they* signed with GM when GM gave them the car as a gift?

Charles Whalen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roderick Wilde" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)

>I just spoke with Eric from the WWU EV1 resurrection team. He stated that
>they have not been threatened with a lawsuit. They did receive a phone call
>from GM reminding them of the agreement they signed when they received the
>gift not to run the car on any public or private road . They also mentioned
>that part of the agreement was not to mar GM's image. So It appears that
>Dave Barthmuss of GM was telling the truth when he stated: "No legal
>threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
> Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
> drive at a local enviro event and in no way did it involve and threat of
> litigation." Anyway, I thought I would look into the truth of this matter
> a little more and squelch a possible fire storm against our buddies at GM
> ;-)
>
>
> Roderick Wilde
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)
>
>
>> Thanks, Dan. Good work!
>>
>> It is always best to confirm before deploying the lynch mob!
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dan Frederiksen <[email protected]>
>> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:00 am
>> Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)
>>
>>
>>
>> I just got a response from GM.
>>
>> Chris Preuss (GM) didn't know anything about any legal reactions but
>> asked a coworker Dave Barthmuss to comment and he wrote me this:
>>
>> "No legal threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
>> Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
>> drive at a local enviro envent and in no way did it involve and threat
>> of litigation."
>>
>>
>> I'll dig deeper.
>> if someone is on the WWU end can they check what their side of the
>> story
>> is? if the GM reaction is just a complete fabrication or if we have
>> actual controversy.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For subscription options, see
>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
>> http://webmail.aol.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For subscription options, see
>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date:
>> 12/19/2007 7:37 PM
>>
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Liability. They're an automaker, and I'll bet that changes their 
product liability picture *dramatically* as compared to you and I.

What's more this is a completely NEW car with totally new technologies 
no one had built before. They weren't just slapping Optimas and a Zilla 
into a Camaro. Most of the features on this car, nobody knew how this 
stuff would age. Would the frame deteriorate over time and shatter on a 
pothole on the 101? Would corrosion in the controller cause traction 
current to be exposed to the driver? What if a future owner took one to 
road-salt country? Nobody knew. This car is a wild weasel of 
liability risk.

So cut GM some slack on this one. What a horrid day for EVs if one was 
publicly involved in a freak accident!

Now the EV1 race car is a different thing. People expect race cars to 
explode in a ball of flames. Nobody sues Ford when a Mustang dragster 
blows up because the racer is expected to modify every aspect of the 
vehicle for racing. Plus I believe this donation was prior to the 
others (Sept. 2002)?


Robert






> Charles Whalen wrote:
> > IIRC, I believe Brigham Young University has run their supercap-powered EV1
> > down dragstrips around the country for a couple of years now, including at
> > PoDC in Hagerstown, as I recall. I would think that a dragstrip could be
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Not any more than it does for, say, ... hhhmmm ... how about Toyota?, for
example, ... which produced the RAV4-EV at the same time that GM produced
the EV1. Only difference being that I happen to own two RAV4-EVs, along
with 337 other RAV4-EVs also privately owned and operated as daily drivers,
compared to exactly none in the case of the EV1. Why? Because Toyota
decided to take all of those kind of liability risks that you speak of,
arising out of all of those unknowns and uncertainties you mentioned,
whereas GM did not.

> What a horrid day for EVs if one was publicly involved in a freak
> accident!

Hhhmm, ... somehow I don't think so. RAV4-EVs are, unfortunately,
occasionally involved in accidents (just like any other make and model of
car), some pretty bad in which the insurance companies have made initial
determinations to "total" the car. ... "A horrid day for EVs"? No, not by
any stretch of the imagination. ... A horrid day for that particular
RAV4-EV owner? Yes, absolutely! That it is not "a horrid day for EVs" is
evidenced by the fact that you and most others on this particular list have
probably never even heard of such accidents, which however are discussed on
the RAV4-EV list. There is enough overlap of subscribers between the two
lists, but I have never seen anyone come running over from the RAV4-EV list
to the EVDL making a big deal about a RAV4-EV accident and exclaiming "what
a horrid day for EVs".

None of which, however, is very relevant to nor answers the simple question
I asked.

Charles Whalen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert MacDowell" <[email protected]>
To: "Charles Whalen" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle Discussion
List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)

> Liability. They're an automaker, and I'll bet that changes their product
> liability picture *dramatically* as compared to you and I.
>
> What's more this is a completely NEW car with totally new technologies no
> one had built before. They weren't just slapping Optimas and a Zilla into
> a Camaro. Most of the features on this car, nobody knew how this stuff
> would age. Would the frame deteriorate over time and shatter on a pothole
> on the 101? Would corrosion in the controller cause traction current to
> be exposed to the driver? What if a future owner took one to road-salt
> country? Nobody knew. This car is a wild weasel of liability risk.
>
> So cut GM some slack on this one. What a horrid day for EVs if one was
> publicly involved in a freak accident!
>
> Now the EV1 race car is a different thing. People expect race cars to
> explode in a ball of flames. Nobody sues Ford when a Mustang dragster
> blows up because the racer is expected to modify every aspect of the
> vehicle for racing. Plus I believe this donation was prior to the others
> (Sept. 2002)?
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>


> > Charles Whalen wrote:
> >> IIRC, I believe Brigham Young University has run their supercap-powered
> >> EV1
> >> down dragstrips around the country for a couple of years now, including
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

In a message dated 12/21/2007 12:29:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:

> I then asked him if GM in any way contacted WWU about the public showing 
> of the EV1 and what the intent was of that communication. let's see what 
> he says next if anything. having considerable experience pushing people 
> that are wrong but not willing to admit it I expect we are reaching the 
> end of his patience though, where he will lock up and start blaming me 
> for various things as a way to avoid the uncomfortable truth. 2-3 emails 
> more at best. he would like to not have to answer me anymore at all but 
> the appearance of ducking such a pertinent question gnaws at him and he 
> will likely feel obligated to answer. but his mind will be racing to 
> find a way to get out of this situation even though it is not a 
> conscious effort.
> the fascinating and terribly foolish state of humanity.
> 
> Dan

------------

Dan, you really like to needle people don't you????

Keep us posted with the answer.

Jim




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*



> [email protected] wrote:
> > Dan, you really like to needle people don't you????
> >
> > Keep us posted with the answer.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*



> Robert MacDowell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Liability. They're an automaker, and I'll bet that changes their
> > product liability picture *dramatically* as compared to you and I.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*



> Zeke Yewdall wrote:
> > I don't really buy the liability argument....
> it's a lie of course
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

In a message dated 12/22/2007 5:51:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


Dave Barthmuss (GM) stalled for a few hours and then sent me an 
automessage saying 'not here, out for christmas holliday, won't be back 
until jan 1'
Chris Preuss (GM) said that I need to 'get some perspective' and that I 
should enjoy the hollidays

however bizarre, it's important to realize that they don't consciously 
lie. they don't know they are liars. someone once said it's hard to make 
a man understand when his job depends on him not understanding.

what Dave also doesn't realize is that I will be with him again on 
january 1st  there is a very small chance that if I make him say that 
they did contact WWU that he will see his action for what it is. but it 
has to be a big pill to swallow to admit to yourself that you are a bad 
guy. but worth it if he can.

the truth sets us free.

Dan

-------------------

Guess that calls for an Amen...............hope you have a nice "christmas 
holliday" and "get some perspective" for the new year, GM will bee waiting. 
Do you think you will make it to the "ElectricDragin " end of Jan , should 
be fun and we could get your opinion on how things went. (just kidding) but I 
would like to meet you.

Jim.............NEDRA almost VP






**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*



> [email protected] wrote:
> > Guess that calls for an Amen...............hope you have a nice "christmas
> > holliday" and "get some perspective" for the new year, GM will bee waiting.
> > Do you think you will make it to the "ElectricDragin " end of Jan , should
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Do you think GM is using reverse psychology here? Everything they do, good 
or bad, nevertheless brings attention to GM. What if GM makes a surprise 
announcement that they are bringing back the EV-1 just as it was or with 
improvements. WKTEC has already done the advance advertising for it. Isn't 
everyone convinced now that the EV-1 is practically the pinacle of EV 
achievement? I can dream, can't I?





On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:06:43 EST, MrGoFast99 wrote
> In a message dated 12/22/2007 5:51:58 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> Dave Barthmuss (GM) stalled for a few hours and then sent me an 
> automessage saying 'not here, out for christmas holliday, won't be 
> back until jan 1' Chris Preuss (GM) said that I need to 'get some 
> perspective' and that I should enjoy the hollidays
> 
> however bizarre, it's important to realize that they don't 
> consciously lie. they don't know they are liars. someone once said 
> it's hard to make a man understand when his job depends on him not 
understanding.
> 
> what Dave also doesn't realize is that I will be with him again on 
> january 1st  there is a very small chance that if I make him say 
> that they did contact WWU that he will see his action for what it 
> is. but it has to be a big pill to swallow to admit to yourself that 
> you are a bad guy. but worth it if he can.
> 
> the truth sets us free.
> 
> Dan
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Guess that calls for an Amen...............hope you have a nice 
> "christmas holliday" and "get some perspective" for the new year, 
> GM will bee waiting. Do you think you will make it to the 
> "ElectricDragin " end of Jan , should be fun and we could get your 
> opinion on how things went. (just kidding) but I would like to 
> meet you.
> 
> Jim.............NEDRA almost VP
> 
> **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
> (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

In a message dated 12/22/2007 8:18:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes


I hope that's a good thing  but I live in Europe so it's a bit of a 
hike : )
but thanks for the invite. I often wish we would have ufo like vehicles 
so distance wouldn't so enslave us. now that's an EV 

Dan

--------------

they are out there we just don't have access to them yet, like those other 
EV parts.

Jim 




**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

>>who knows why we do as we do but I guess you could say I am driven and =

>>like justice. I shine the light of truth and sometimes I leave it on for =
>>longer than the darkness likes
=

Everyone has thier own idea of Justice, and truth. =

Judging and condeming always goes both ways.
=

Forget the PR boys. Likely you should move on in life, without dragging the=
m along for the ride.
=

Here's yet one more truth. What they know or don't know doesn't matter as m=
uch as what you deside to do with yourself. What we all deside to do. =

=

I for one am not going to waist my energy trying to get GM to do what they =
don't want to do or say. I plan on using this forum to learn what I can abo=
ut EV's, teach others what I find out, and be an example of accomplishing s=
omething. That is not at all a primary goal that any major business has.
=

Now when the world moves on, GM will have to deside if they want to survive=
as a company. I now can deside if I want to buy anything they have to offe=
r. I know something about the subject now. =

=

What GM really has to worry about is US teaching each other how to do a tru=
ley good EV before GM produces something. Or rather what other makers learn=
from all inputs, including ours. (US =3D All of us)
=

To tell the truth, none of the big makers are telling anything about thier =
real developments. You will mostly see it in the products. (NOT the prototy=
pes or PR cars) You deside which to reward with your purchases. We are doin=
g the right thing by being smart enough to pick out the right ones, and not=
being fooled by PR word-smithing.
=

Frankly, GM should get some cuto's for even having tried to build a EV. Nob=
ody else did that at the time. Beating them up is teaching them the whole i=
dea was a mistake. Well show them, by buying the next really good EV to com=
e out by any maker.
=

Morally speaking, GM is no worse or better than any of the others. You and =
I must become smart enough to teach them what we want through our purchasin=
g powers. And not be fooled by pretty.
=








Arak Leatham - Web and Desktop Systems Developer> Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 14=
:49:58 +0100> From: [email protected]> To: [email protected]> Subjec=
t: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)> > MrGoF=


> [email protected] wrote:> > Dan, you really like to needle people don't you????=
> > > > > Keep us posted with the answer.> > > > Jim> > > who knows why we do=
> as we do but I guess you could say I am driven and > like justice. I shine=
> the light of truth and sometimes I leave it on for > longer than the darkn=
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

> > Liability. They're an automaker, and I'll bet that changes their> > product liability picture *dramatically* as compared to you and I.> > I don't really buy the liability argument.... >

I'm not completely sure about it either way. People ARE stupid, any time you get over 100v power some idiot is pissing on it to see what happens. Or some other silly thing like opening the box under power to check the temp with thier hands.

When the thing gets old and insulation gets damaged, some will try and blame GM for thier own accidents.

Also traditional batteries under marginal conditions blow-up and start fires or ??? when crushed. At least GM thought so. Having no history with the situation, they may have overreacted. 

The only way to guarentee closure was elimination. OH and yes, they were mostly concerned with knocking the rules out. Even if they got bad press for it.
Anyways, I think the bigger picture was to put any of the messy situations behind them. It almost worked too, until that dang movie came out, lol.








Arak Leatham - Web and Desktop Systems Developer
_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Just thought I would mention something that I have learned through life. To 
maximize information from someone, the most important thing is to maintain 
focus on the subject and to ensure the person feels comfortable. Staying on 
subject means you can't attack or insult the person, because as soon as the person 
feels attacked, the subject switches to the attack. The person is 
immediately put in a defensive / protective position and the attack is now the subject. 
I have found that asking a question in a friendly manner, that does not 
offend or accuse the person, will start them talking and almost always result in 
them telling on themselves beyond their intent to disclose. It may require 
several encounters to make them feel comfortable, but as soon as they feel 
attacked or accused it is all over. You won't get anything.

Just some for what its worth notes from personal experience.

Ken





In a message dated 12/22/2007 7:50:46 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email protected] writes:


> [email protected] wrote:
> > Dan, you really like to needle people don't you????
> >
> > Keep us posted with the answer.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

I apologize, I was unclear. When I said "accident" I did not mean 
"routine traffic collision". I meant catastrophic failure of the 
vehicle itself due to one of the radical design elements failing. 
Nightmares like a carbon fiber chassis delaminating with age and then 
the whole car literally coming to pieces when hitting a bad pothole at 
freeway speed. Or the brakes responding surprisingly badly to deferred 
maintenance -- deferred *because* parts were unavailable.

See, the EV1 was a unique *chassis*. It deliberately employed a variety 
of "never tried before on production automobiles" tchnologies 
specifically to test them for use in future EVs. It was a testbed, an 
open beta. The idea was always that GM would take the cars back to 
study and/or retrofit. That's why they were leases. Am I wrong about 
that?

My impression is that powertrain failure mainly results in you stopping. 
Chassis failure can lead to a serious accident.

So on that basis, I'm calling Charles on his claim that Toyota selling 
RAV4s and GM selling EV1s was an equal liability. The EV1 chassis was 
far more experimental than the RAV4. The RAV4 was a production car, 
evolved from the Corrola. Millions are on the road and NAPA stocks 
parts for them.

Zeke, your '48 Ford it was a conventional, common car built with 
ordinary technologies *at the time*. The long arm of product liability 
isn't that long. But it certainly is long enough to give us Pintos and 
"Unsafe at any speed" by Ralph Nader, and which company was burned by 
Nader? Once bitten twice shy.

Now, I am not trying to defend what GM did. Nor am I saying they 
crushed them for liability reasons. My opinion is that they crushed 
them and placed smashed parts in the beds of various CARB 
administrators, a-la the Godfather. However I believe the liability 
issue on the chassis would have certainly prevented their outright sale 
to consumers.

I also believe the Japanese automakers are equally culpable with GM. 
They too leased (for far shallower reasons than GM). They too crushed.

I am sick to death of GM being singled out for criticism by people 
blinded by some sort of "halo effect" by which, in their eyes, the 
Japanese can do no wrong!

If you're going to criticize automakers, do so fairly and equally. 
That's all I ask.

Charles, I tried to answer the question you asked. You dismissed it as 
non-relevant, whilst Dan Frederickson out and out called me a liar. 
That surprised me, as I thought this list had higher standards than 
that. Am I misinformed about those standards? I mean, hey, I own the 
mud, but it tends to make the good people of the world leave the list.

Now let me try to answer your question better. Wikipedia says the EV1 
program was canceled in 2003. The BYU racer was donated in 2002.
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/39888
So my guess is it predates the "donate but don't drive" policy.

Robert





> Charles Whalen wrote:
> > Not any more than it does for, say, ... hhhmmm ... how about Toyota?, for
> > example, ... which produced the RAV4-EV at the same time that GM produced
> > the EV1. Only difference being that I happen to own two RAV4-EVs, along
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

sounds to me like you are making excuses for what GM did Robert. don't

Robert MacDowell skrev:
> I apologize, I was unclear. When I said "accident" I did not mean 
> "routine traffic collision". I meant catastrophic failure of the 
> vehicle itself due to one of the radical design elements failing. 
> Nightmares like a carbon fiber chassis delaminating with age and then 
> the whole car literally coming to pieces when hitting a bad pothole at 
> freeway speed. Or the brakes responding surprisingly badly to deferred 
> maintenance -- deferred *because* parts were unavailable.
>
> See, the EV1 was a unique *chassis*. It deliberately employed a variety 
> of "never tried before on production automobiles" tchnologies 
> specifically to test them for use in future EVs. It was a testbed, an 
> open beta. The idea was always that GM would take the cars back to 
> study and/or retrofit. That's why they were leases. Am I wrong about 
> that?
> 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

there is some truth to that. but there's also some peace making bullshit 
to it. I would like you to tell me how comfortable you think the car 
makers felt watching WKTEC and if we would be better off if the movie 
was never done.

I believe in telling the truth even though it will upset evil men. it 
might just save those evil men. some of which were given ample 
opportunity to do the right thing.

Dan



> [email protected] wrote:
> > Just thought I would mention something that I have learned through life. To
> > maximize information from someone, the most important thing is to maintain
> > focus on the subject and to ensure the person feels comfortable. Staying on
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Yes, when making excuses for others, I always use references from _The 
Godfather_ to liken them to mafia thugs.

Read the rest of my message, Mr. Attention Span.

Robert



> Dan Frederiksen wrote:
> > sounds to me like you are making excuses for what GM did Robert. don't
> >
> > Robert MacDowell skrev:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

<<< Yes, when making excuses for others, I always use references from _The
Godfather_ to liken them to mafia thugs.

Read the rest of my message, Mr. Attention Span.

Robert >>>

Don't worry, Robert, not *all* of us have a false sense of 
superiority, as if the the "truth" has a single definition; there are 
many sides to every issue, and only a politician or an egotist would 
try to blinder everyone else to that. Thanks for another perspective 
on the EV1.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Robert,

You may have *tried* to answer my question, but you did not do so, because
you did not have the knowledge to answer the question. Instead you offered
your own opinions and speculation on peripheral matters. Chip Gribben, on
the other hand, *did* answer my simple question, simply and directly, as he
had the specific knowledge to do so and was good enough to share it with us.
No disrespect intended to you, however. And nothing personal, although you
seemed to take it personally. If you choose to leave this list, that's your
choice. Whether you blame that on me, as you seemed to imply, is of no
concern to me, certainly nothing I would give a second thought to.
Hopefully you will choose to stay around a while and continue the learning
process that all of us are engaged in.

Merry Christmas,

Charles Whalen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert MacDowell" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)

>I apologize, I was unclear. When I said "accident" I did not mean "routine
>traffic collision". I meant catastrophic failure of the vehicle itself due
>to one of the radical design elements failing. Nightmares like a carbon
>fiber chassis delaminating with age and then the whole car literally coming
>to pieces when hitting a bad pothole at freeway speed. Or the brakes
>responding surprisingly badly to deferred maintenance -- deferred *because*
>parts were unavailable.
>
> See, the EV1 was a unique *chassis*. It deliberately employed a variety
> of "never tried before on production automobiles" tchnologies specifically
> to test them for use in future EVs. It was a testbed, an open beta. The
> idea was always that GM would take the cars back to study and/or retrofit.
> That's why they were leases. Am I wrong about that?
>
> My impression is that powertrain failure mainly results in you stopping.
> Chassis failure can lead to a serious accident.
>
> So on that basis, I'm calling Charles on his claim that Toyota selling
> RAV4s and GM selling EV1s was an equal liability. The EV1 chassis was far
> more experimental than the RAV4. The RAV4 was a production car, evolved
> from the Corrola. Millions are on the road and NAPA stocks parts for
> them.
>
> Zeke, your '48 Ford it was a conventional, common car built with ordinary
> technologies *at the time*. The long arm of product liability isn't that
> long. But it certainly is long enough to give us Pintos and "Unsafe at
> any speed" by Ralph Nader, and which company was burned by Nader? Once
> bitten twice shy.
>
> Now, I am not trying to defend what GM did. Nor am I saying they crushed
> them for liability reasons. My opinion is that they crushed them and
> placed smashed parts in the beds of various CARB administrators, a-la the
> Godfather. However I believe the liability issue on the chassis would
> have certainly prevented their outright sale to consumers.
>
> I also believe the Japanese automakers are equally culpable with GM. They
> too leased (for far shallower reasons than GM). They too crushed.
>
> I am sick to death of GM being singled out for criticism by people blinded
> by some sort of "halo effect" by which, in their eyes, the Japanese can do
> no wrong!
>
> If you're going to criticize automakers, do so fairly and equally. That's
> all I ask.
>
> Charles, I tried to answer the question you asked. You dismissed it as
> non-relevant, whilst Dan Frederickson out and out called me a liar. That
> surprised me, as I thought this list had higher standards than that. Am I
> misinformed about those standards? I mean, hey, I own the mud, but it
> tends to make the good people of the world leave the list.
>
> Now let me try to answer your question better. Wikipedia says the EV1
> program was canceled in 2003. The BYU racer was donated in 2002.
> http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/39888
> So my guess is it predates the "donate but don't drive" policy.
>
> Robert
>
>
>


> > Charles Whalen wrote:
> >> Not any more than it does for, say, ... hhhmmm ... how about Toyota?, for
> >> example, ... which produced the RAV4-EV at the same time that GM produced
> >> the EV1. Only difference being that I happen to own two RAV4-EVs, along
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

*Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)*

Since we have not seen the contract that *they* received 
from GM, we can't judge if the "do not even use on private
roads" is really in the contract.
That seems odd, though. How are you supposed to test if the
modification of a car is working if you can't take it to a
(private) road or track?
Only drive it off-road???? 
Serious - there is no fun in running a car only indoor or
even simulate its track capabilies on a dyno.
Note that the recent discussion about the EV1 contract
brought me to dig our Chelsea's email pointing to another
contract that does not mention "roads" at all.
Just that they do not sell or transfer ownership and that
they do not try to make it run as the original EV1.
And the offer that GM will help them in scrapping it, yes,
I believe they have some experience. 

Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [email protected] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [email protected]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roderick Wilde
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 11:42 AM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)

I just spoke with Eric from the WWU EV1 resurrection team. He stated that they have not been threatened with a lawsuit. They did receive a phone call from GM reminding them of the agreement they signed when they received the gift not to run the car on any public or private road . They also mentioned that part of the agreement was not to mar GM's image. So It appears that Dave Barthmuss of GM was telling the truth when he stated: "No legal threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief drive at a local enviro event and in no way did it involve and threat of litigation." Anyway, I thought I would look into the truth of this matter a little more and squelch a possible fire storm against our buddies at GM ;-)


Roderick Wilde


----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)


> Thanks, Dan. Good work!
>
> It is always best to confirm before deploying the lynch mob!
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Frederiksen <[email protected]>
> To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
> Sent: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:00 am
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] GM reacts to the WWU EV1 Resurrection. (or did they)
>
>
>
> I just got a response from GM.
>
> Chris Preuss (GM) didn't know anything about any legal reactions but
> asked a coworker Dave Barthmuss to comment and he wrote me this:
>
> "No legal threats at all. I know what our reaction was to the Western
> Washington University's vehicle being trucked to LA and making a brief
> drive at a local enviro envent and in no way did it involve and threat
> of litigation."
>
>
> I'll dig deeper.
> if someone is on the WWU end can they check what their side of the
> story
> is? if the GM reaction is just a complete fabrication or if we have
> actual controversy.
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! -
> http://webmail.aol.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 
> 12/19/2007 7:37 PM
>
> 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------

