# [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Lee,
Somewhere in your rebuttal you can mention that every, almost every, leaser
did not want to give up their car. Something to the affect that EV users
actually love their car? It has more to do with being green and being happy
than the things the article brings out as negatives.

Mark Grasser



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Lee Hart
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:42 PM
To: EV list
Subject: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?

My local EAA chapter had an exhibit at the Living Green Expo in St. Paul 
MN earlier this month. One of our state representatives visited, and 
became quite interested in EVs. He's been contacting us for additional 
information and offering help and advice.

Interestingly enough, as soon as he began talking about EVs, he started 
receiving anti-EV propaganda. The same sort of thing happened to me the 
instant an article mentioning me appeared in Mother Jones magazine. It 
makes me suspect that oil and auto company PR organizations have set up 
"trip wires" that alert them the instant anything appears, and have 
prepared robot responses so they can instantly respond. A friend of mine 
called them "sock puppets" -- robot responses from nonexistent people 
that automatically appear to attack anything counter to the client's 
interests. Be on your toes!

Anyway, here is one he sent us. He asked for a rebuttal. How should we 
respond?

--------begin included document--------

Did Consumers Kill The Electric Car?

As detailed in "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and other sources, many 
observers and passionate EV1 fans feel that automakers and oil companies 
conspired to destroy the electric car. An alternative theory, however, 
is outlined below.

After an early wave of interest, enthusiasm for the EV1 subsided because 
of the car's limitations. First, EV1s were expensive; they cost two or 
three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be 
leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month. Second, the batteries 
"could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market."
Third, the infrastructure for recharging was not in place. Fourth, the 
high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented some 
unique safety hazards, and "only a relative handful of mechanics knew 
how to work safely on the powerful batteries." Fifth, the EV1 was a tiny 
two-seater that simply did not work for families with children. Finally, 
the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy battery. 
These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D. 
Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s "are just not acceptable to 
consumers." Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the 
Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.

The final nail was driven into the electric car coffin by hybrid 
gas-electric cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight, which 
have maintained great popularity partly due to their ability to recharge 
while cruising down the road. Other automakers took note. Now virtually 
every manufacturer has announced that it will produce a hybrid vehicle 
by the end of the decade.

Thus, as one commentator noted, it is likely that market forces, not 
nefarious tactics, killed the electric car: As the market success of 
cars like the Prius and the market failure of cars like the EV1 
illustrate, it wasn't a shortage that prevented battery electric 
vehicles from selling and it wasn't a desire not to offer clean vehicles 
that prompted manufacturers to stop producing them. The reason for the 
market response to these vehicles is because, if given the option, the 
general public would buy environmentally friendly automobiles if the 
sacrifices that had to be made to drive them were minimal. Accordingly, 
the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery electric 
vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic consumers from 
leasing them.

--------end included document--------

Now, this is a *very* cleverly written piece of work. Nothing it says is 
an outright lie that you could prove false. It doesn't rant or rave; it 
sounds completely rational and objective. But it is designed to create a 
totally false impression!

How do you counter such a thing? I think the key is to get as many solid 
facts and references as possible, but not bury the reader in statistics 
or it won't get read. You have to give someone who is entirely 
unfamiliar with the subject an objective view of the situation that will 
stand up to careful scutiny and fact-checking.

-- 
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
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)

> the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery
> electric vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic 
> consumers from leasing them.

This makes me ask the question? What is wrong with supplying those
enthusiastic consumers with what they want? Even if they are few? 

How many Hummer drivers are there? That is also a niche market,
isn't it? 

Why can't we have production EVs with _only_ 60 mile range using
lead acid? If _we_ accept the fact that we may have to replace the
battery pack every 3-5 years why can't they give us the option? Why
does it have to last for 15 years with no maintenance? Why do they
set the bar so high?

How many Toyota Supras are sold each year? Or Skys? I can't believe
that the design of the vehicle should cost so much that it cannot
be recouped with a few thousand vehicles? Do they have to sell 10s
or 100s of thousands to make them profitable?

Back to my (40-50 mile range) lead sled,

Chet

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I often refer people to 'Internal Combustion' by Edwin Black. Its a bit of a read, but explains things very well indeed (just for the record, EVs have been 'killed' by car companies and oil cartels numerous times over the last 17 years).

A lot of people want the short answer though. Car companies did not want a technology that cuts their after-market expenses by 90% (the AC motors used in most of the big-company EVs have a service life of 30 years without maintenance), and oil companies don't want to have power utilities (or whatever other means exists to make electricity) to be a player in their monopoly on transportation. So they colluded to kill the California mandate, succeeded, and that was the commercial end of EVs.

However, since then ('then' being 2003) suppliers of EV components have had difficulty in keeping components available on the shelf! Who is buying them? Consumers.

-Ralph


On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:42:19 -0500


> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > My local EAA chapter had an exhibit at the Living Green Expo in St. Paul
> > MN earlier this month. One of our state representatives visited, and
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Lee,

In this quote:

Accordingly, 
> the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery electric 
> vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic consumers from 
> leasing them.

the word 'leasing' figures rather oddly! Everywhere else in the article, consumers are 'buying' hybrids... funny, don't you think? If I wanted to hide my identity as an author of this text, I would have bothered not to use the word 'lease'. Occam's Razor being what it is, its a good guess as to where this text originated...

-Ralph

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

This is so ridiculously easy to refute.

>
> First, EV1s were expensive; they cost two or
> three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be
> leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month.

As I recall, that $400-600 per month included insurance? Even if it
didn't, in order to be two to three times as expensive you'd have to be
able to lease a car for $200 a month (or less)
What kind of car can you lease for $200 a month (can you lease a car for
that little?)

> Second, the batteries
> =93could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market.=
=94
> Third, the infrastructure for recharging was not in place.

The existing customers seemed to be happy with the range provided. Even
the worst range estimates are more than the average person drives in a
day.
If GM had continued to build them, they could be putting LiPol batteries
in them now and have range that even the worse critics would be happy
with.

> Fourth, the
> high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented some
> unique safety hazards, and =93only a relative handful of mechanics knew
> how to work safely on the powerful batteries.=94

What does this have to do with consumers? Only a handful of dealers were
ALLOWED to lease the EV1 so of course only a handful of them had mechanics
trained to work on them.
Why would you train a mechanic in Ohio to work on a vehicle he'll never see?

> Fifth, the EV1 was a tiny
> two-seater that simply did not work for families with children. Finally,
> the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy battery.
> These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D.
> Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s =93are just not acceptable to
> consumers.=94

Consumers seemed to feel differently. I recall hearing that every dealer
that was allowed to lease the EV1 had waiting lists for more vehicles that
GM refused to make. In fact I recall hearing of dealers that stopped
accepting applications because they already had hundreds on their waiting
lists and it was obvious that GM wasn't going to build any more.

They made exactly the minimum number that California law required them to,
and leased every one they made available.

Since demand exceeded supply, I don't see how you can argue it was killed
due to lack of demand.

> Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the
> Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.

Again, exactly the minimum number they were required to build by
California law.

> The final nail was driven into the electric car coffin by hybrid
> gas-electric cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight, which
> have maintained great popularity partly due to their ability to recharge
> while cruising down the road.

And mostly because there are no alternatives available to consumers.
Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of consumers would buy EVs if
they were readily available.

> Thus, as one commentator noted, it is likely that market forces, not
> nefarious tactics, killed the electric car: As the market success of
> cars like the Prius and the market failure of cars like the EV1
> illustrate,

Another fallacious argument. The EV1 was never given a chance to succeed.

it wasn't a shortage that prevented battery electric
> vehicles from selling and it wasn't a desire not to offer clean vehicles
> that prompted manufacturers to stop producing them. The reason for the
> market response to these vehicles is because, if given the option, the
> general public would buy environmentally friendly automobiles if the
> sacrifices that had to be made to drive them were minimal. Accordingly,
> the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery electric
> vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic consumers from
> leasing them.
>
> --------end included document--------
>
> Now, this is a *very* cleverly written piece of work. Nothing it says is
> an outright lie that you could prove false. It doesn't rant or rave; it
> sounds completely rational and objective. But it is designed to create a
> totally false impression!
>
> How do you counter such a thing? I think the key is to get as many solid
> facts and references as possible, but not bury the reader in statistics
> or it won't get read. You have to give someone who is entirely
> unfamiliar with the subject an objective view of the situation that will
> stand up to careful scutiny and fact-checking.
>
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

I'm sure someone can correct my comments and add more but it seems like =

there can be a sound response to this well-written misinformation. =

>
> After an early wave of interest, enthusiasm for the EV1 subsided because =

> of the car=92s limitations. First, EV1s were expensive; they cost two or =

> three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be =

> leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month. =

- it would be more useful to use second generation EV's for comparison. =

For example the Toyota RAV4 has proven to be exceptionally economical =

both in terms of operating costs and resale value. The long-term cost =

benefits are what really count. There is generally much less =

maintenance, much lower fuel costs and longer life. In comparison to =

ICE maintenance costs, resale values, and longevity, EV's are a great =

value. (add some average cost information. average lifespan of EV =

drive vs ICE. resale of RAV4 increased while SUVs have very high =

depreciation).

> Second, the batteries =

> =93could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market.=
=94
> =

- range, durability and mass market should be quantified, and again if =

the RAV4 is used as an example then this is not true. The durability of =

the RAV4 battery has proven to be exceptional - over 100K miles and =

several years old with no signs of degradation and no servicing =

required. Range is over 100 miles (?) which should certainly satisfy =

the mass market especially as a second vehicle.
> Third, the infrastructure for recharging was not in place. =

- the infrastructure for recharging is an electrical outlet and they are =

more abundant than gas stations. Normal recharging occurs overnite at =

home. Friends and relatives are typical destinations and they have =

outlets. Many people arrange to recharge at work or nearby businesses =

and shopping areas can easily add EV parking with outlets provided as =

some are already doing (I have no specific examples but they can be added).
> Fourth, the =

> high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented some =

> unique safety hazards, and =93only a relative handful of mechanics knew =

> how to work safely on the powerful batteries.=94 =

- the hazards are different but no worse than the explosive nature of =

gasoline. Mechanics have to respect limitations on smoking, welding, =

and creating sparks. Many people have been killed from gas tank =

explosions. Vehicles require high energy density and no matter in what =

form, it can be very dangerous. One of the benefits of EV's is that =

they should require very little maintenance. Batteries and electric =

motors very rarely require "working on".
> Fifth, the EV1 was a tiny =

> two-seater that simply did not work for families with children. =

- again, RAV4 as an example. Also, a two-seater may actually be =

preferred for commuting and errands, and there are a lot of households =

without children.
> Finally, =

> the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy battery. =

> =

- in comparison to today's typical SUV or a sports car? I bet the =

handling is "odd" in a hummer (it's easy to start sounding sarcastic but =

I'm sure it can be written more objectively). I have not heard about =

the handling of a RAV4, but if it is used for comparison vs the EV1 then =

a lot of this argument just seems to go away. It may raise the question =

of "what ever happened to the battery that was used in the RAV4"? and =

it would be nice if more people questioned that.
> These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D. =

> Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s =93are just not acceptable to =

> consumers.=94 =

- even though those consumers loved them and offered to buy them?
> Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the =

> Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.
> =

> The final nail was driven into the electric car coffin by hybrid =

> gas-electric cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight, which =

> have maintained great popularity partly due to their ability to recharge =

> while cruising down the road. =

- but mostly due to their good gas mileage.
> Other automakers took note. Now virtually =

> every manufacturer has announced that it will produce a hybrid vehicle =

> by the end of the decade.
> =

- largely because hybrids can increase performance without decreasing =

gas mileage. this is another benefit of electric motors, however the =

largest benefits are long-term fuel savings, reliability and very low =

emissions vehicles.
> Thus, as one commentator noted, it is likely that market forces, not =

> nefarious tactics, killed the electric car: As the market success of =

> cars like the Prius and the market failure of cars like the EV1 =

> illustrate, it wasn't a shortage that prevented battery electric =

> vehicles from selling and it wasn't a desire not to offer clean vehicles =

> that prompted manufacturers to stop producing them. The reason for the =

> market response to these vehicles is because, if given the option, the =

> general public would buy environmentally friendly automobiles if the =

> sacrifices that had to be made to drive them were minimal. Accordingly, =

> the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery electric =

> vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic consumers from =

> leasing them.
>
> =

- there was no market failure of the EV1, it was never offered for =

sale. All EV's that were ever offered for sale were sold and continue =

to hold very high resale values.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Lee and all,
I had never heard of this kind of tactic but it
doesn't surprise me. =

As i read the rebuttal to electrics I was almost
convinced and I know better. I drove an EV-1 and know
how wonderful a car it was. I have my stall of home
made electrics and know that they work too and still
almost believed this BS.
The best rebuttal might be the same non-provable, non
arguable stuff. =

something like: =

Why did the auto companies build electrics that were
in a body form that limited their apeal from the
beginning. How many people drive a two passenger
coup?
With the exception of the Insight there are very few
made and they are all exocits. So GM had limited the
potential market right off the bat. regardless of
this almost everyone who drove it loved it. Why
didn't they make the sunrise. a four passenger. or
better yet a 4 passenger, 4 door mid size. this is
what most cars actually are.
Since these cars were exprimental why did they lease
them only. I would have bought the EV-1 I drove for
50k if they would have sold it to me. Since they were
experimental and they (car companies) said they were
loosing money on them. Why not loose a little more
and lease them at the same price as a normal car. =

$200-$300 per month why $600. all these things were
done to ensure failure and "proof" that there was no
consumer demand but as we all know when the recalled
them there was considerable demand.
just a few ideas...

kEVs




> --- Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > My local EAA chapter had an exhibit at the Living
> > Green Expo in St. Paul =
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Guys this is not even worth the watts of energy we are using talking about,
it is propaganda plain and simple, it is just like the boy hit by the too
quiet car story.
Stay focused, do not let crap like this take up your time or it will be
winning, if someone uses articles like this when saying something just laugh
and tell them how funny that sounds as "you" drive past the gas station.
Live by example, show off your car, the car company's will build them but
whine about the cost so they can over price them, the papers will do stories
about the dangers of battery's blowing up.
Yah so what ever, more and more will drive them ,more after market parts
makers will see a chance to make money and build parts.
Look at air bag springs, a small niche market, but after market suppliers
are all over it now.
We are on the cusp of the market swing, we do not have to change others
minds, just live ours, walk the talk, the rest are just followers. so we
just lead.

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, keith vansickle <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> > Lee and all,
> > I had never heard of this kind of tactic but it
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm going to play devil's advocate at the risk of being thrown off this list. 
I do this only because this is a critical issue for the success of our
beloved EVs.

I've always found that discussions of EVs and other environmentally friendly
products always include discussions about the things you must give up to use
them.

Case in point for the EV1. The consumers were told that they had to give up
driving 300miles on one "tank". They have to give up some of their time to
"refuel" every day. They have to give up their "jack rabbit" driving style. 
They have to give up a rear seat. They have to give up the luxury of driving
to any old mechanic. They have to give up a huge wad of cash.

Always the subtle or not so subtle subtext is how you have to change your
lifestyle to fit product XYZ. You can have solar hot water buuuttt you may
have to cut back on those long showers in the winter. You can have solar
electricity in your home buuuutttt you'll have to get rid of that air
conditioner. You can have an electric car buuuuttt you'll have to move
closer to work. (ok I'm exagerating but you get the idea)

So in terms of the article, Lee, I think it might be right on. If GM tried
to sell an ICE vehicle that had the same range, interior to exterior space
ratio, price tag, maintainence restriction, etc, do you think it would sell? 
Does Joe consumer really value the environment enough to put up with all
that?

The electric car absolutely sucks as a product. We all know that. It's not
a good reason to give up and not keep doing work on it. But you cannot
honestly say that you can jump in your EV as a daily driver and give it the
same level neglect that you give to your ICE vehicle. Joe consumer does not
want to have to compromise or change his lifestyle to suit that of his car. 

Oh and one last comment. You can't use the people that DID sign up to lease
an EV1 as a representation of the general public. That isn't fair
statistics. Of course the people that were waiting in line to get one
seemed to REALLY want one! You have to look at the long lines of people
that DIDN'T line up to lease one.

(Please don't kick me off this list. I own / built my own EV...I'm just
being a devil's advocate)

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Did-consumers-kill-the-electric-car--tp17239485p17243307.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> sgomes <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Joe consumer does not
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> They have to give up a rear seat.

Like in a Corvette?

>They have to give up the luxury of driving to any old mechanic.

Considering that maintenance was included in the Lease, I don't think most
consumers would have a problem with that.

> They have to give up a huge wad of cash.

Do you mean like most folks do when leasing any other new car?

GM has no problem selling 30,000 Corvettes a year. However, if you look
only at thecities where the EV1 was available, they sold a comparable
number of Corvettes (less than 1,000)
If GM only sold the Corvette in the same citites, with the same onerous
restrictions; can only lease not purchase, can only lease it if you have a
6+ figure income, can NOT transfer the vehicle to any other state, then
I'd bet they'd sell FAR less Corvettes than they sold EV1s.

Evem with these rediculous restrictions, GM /could/ have sold thousands of
EV1s...if they'd built them.
If they had sold them nationwide, they could have easily sold thousands,
probably tens of thousands of them. They still could.



> Always the subtle or not so subtle subtext is how you have to change your
> lifestyle to fit product XYZ. You can have solar hot water buuuttt you
> may
> have to cut back on those long showers in the winter. You can have solar
> electricity in your home buuuutttt you'll have to get rid of that air
> conditioner. You can have an electric car buuuuttt you'll have to move
> closer to work. (ok I'm exagerating but you get the idea)
>
> So in terms of the article, Lee, I think it might be right on. If GM
> tried
> to sell an ICE vehicle that had the same range, interior to exterior space
> ratio, price tag, maintainence restriction, etc, do you think it would
> sell?
> Does Joe consumer really value the environment enough to put up with all
> that?
>
> The electric car absolutely sucks as a product. We all know that. It's
> not
> a good reason to give up and not keep doing work on it. But you cannot
> honestly say that you can jump in your EV as a daily driver and give it
> the
> same level neglect that you give to your ICE vehicle. Joe consumer does
> not
> want to have to compromise or change his lifestyle to suit that of his
> car.
>
> Oh and one last comment. You can't use the people that DID sign up to
> lease
> an EV1 as a representation of the general public. That isn't fair
> statistics. Of course the people that were waiting in line to get one
> seemed to REALLY want one! You have to look at the long lines of people
> that DIDN'T line up to lease one.
>
> (Please don't kick me off this list. I own / built my own EV...I'm just
> being a devil's advocate)
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Did-consumers-kill-the-electric-car--tp17239485p17243307.html
> Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

Wow, it's like it was written by a veteran speech/public relations writer.
And you're right, it's not lying. But it depends on which group of people
you're talking about. If you as a big name company (especially a car
oriented one) about EVs, they will all say they failed because nobody
wanted one. It's the group of people you're talking to.

Why didn't enough people buy an EV? Maybe because the only 'reports' they
have read about them are negative. Why are the reports negative? Because
nobody is buying them.

I don't follow current media. My reason is because they will all say the
same thing. But who first formed the opinion that they all have? Opinions
are easy to be had. Weather they are founded or not is a whole other
philosophical argument.

There seems to be "the average American" who just does what everybody else
does ("sheeple" <grin>). On the other side are the extremest minority
groups who want the whole world to recognize their cause. But everyone
falls into BOTH groups! As for writing something to stand up to
fact-checking and scrutiny.. I don't know how necessary it may be. I have
some relatives (in-laws) that I consider "the average American". They
follow all the pop news, forward tons of email, and like things because
they are the popular things. Nothing wrong, just not my style. They often
present 'facts' to me that they heard in the media, which I know are
wrong. I can't change them, and they don't like to listen to my argument.
Thats how people are. Not everyone can be convinced by facts or
statistics. They accept what they believe everyone else accepts. Who
controls that, the people or the media?

I better stop before I run off into nonsensicalness!

I hope some of what I wrote makes sense to someone!

-Jon Glauser
http://jonglauser.blogspot.com
http://www.evalbum.com/555

<quote who="Lee Hart">
> Now, this is a *very* cleverly written piece of work. Nothing it says is
> an outright lie that you could prove false. It doesn't rant or rave; it
> sounds completely rational and objective. But it is designed to create a
> totally false impression!
>
> How do you counter such a thing? I think the key is to get as many solid
> facts and references as possible, but not bury the reader in statistics
> or it won't get read. You have to give someone who is entirely
> unfamiliar with the subject an objective view of the situation that will
> stand up to careful scutiny and fact-checking.
>
> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

Well, my initial take on it is that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th reasons given are =

pure "bullpucky"! They had a perfectly (for most people) useable range of 6=
0 =

to 120 miles a charge; the only problem with the recharging facilities is =

that they used a special inductive paddle, instead of using common househol=
d =

receptacles; and they also don't have any higher voltages or operating temp=
s =

than some of the conversions that we (as common tinkerers!) use for some of =

our cars. So where's the truth in this article???

Joseph H. Strubhar

Web: www.gremcoinc.com

E-mail: [email protected]
----- Original Message ----- =

From: "Lee Hart" <[email protected]>
To: "EV list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:42 PM
Subject: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?


My local EAA chapter had an exhibit at the Living Green Expo in St. Paul
MN earlier this month. One of our state representatives visited, and
became quite interested in EVs. He's been contacting us for additional
information and offering help and advice.

Interestingly enough, as soon as he began talking about EVs, he started
receiving anti-EV propaganda. The same sort of thing happened to me the
instant an article mentioning me appeared in Mother Jones magazine. It
makes me suspect that oil and auto company PR organizations have set up
"trip wires" that alert them the instant anything appears, and have
prepared robot responses so they can instantly respond. A friend of mine
called them "sock puppets" -- robot responses from nonexistent people
that automatically appear to attack anything counter to the client's
interests. Be on your toes!

Anyway, here is one he sent us. He asked for a rebuttal. How should we
respond?

--------begin included document--------

Did Consumers Kill The Electric Car?

As detailed in "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and other sources, many
observers and passionate EV1 fans feel that automakers and oil companies
conspired to destroy the electric car. An alternative theory, however,
is outlined below.

After an early wave of interest, enthusiasm for the EV1 subsided because
of the car=92s limitations. First, EV1s were expensive; they cost two or
three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be
leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month. Second, the batteries
=93could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market.=94
Third, the infrastructure for recharging was not in place. Fourth, the
high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented some
unique safety hazards, and =93only a relative handful of mechanics knew
how to work safely on the powerful batteries.=94 Fifth, the EV1 was a tiny
two-seater that simply did not work for families with children. Finally,
the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy battery.
These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D.
Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s =93are just not acceptable to
consumers.=94 Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the
Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.

The final nail was driven into the electric car coffin by hybrid
gas-electric cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight, which
have maintained great popularity partly due to their ability to recharge
while cruising down the road. Other automakers took note. Now virtually
every manufacturer has announced that it will produce a hybrid vehicle
by the end of the decade.

Thus, as one commentator noted, it is likely that market forces, not
nefarious tactics, killed the electric car: As the market success of
cars like the Prius and the market failure of cars like the EV1
illustrate, it wasn't a shortage that prevented battery electric
vehicles from selling and it wasn't a desire not to offer clean vehicles
that prompted manufacturers to stop producing them. The reason for the
market response to these vehicles is because, if given the option, the
general public would buy environmentally friendly automobiles if the
sacrifices that had to be made to drive them were minimal. Accordingly,
the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery electric
vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic consumers from
leasing them.

--------end included document--------

Now, this is a *very* cleverly written piece of work. Nothing it says is
an outright lie that you could prove false. It doesn't rant or rave; it
sounds completely rational and objective. But it is designed to create a
totally false impression!

How do you counter such a thing? I think the key is to get as many solid
facts and references as possible, but not bury the reader in statistics
or it won't get read. You have to give someone who is entirely
unfamiliar with the subject an objective view of the situation that will
stand up to careful scutiny and fact-checking.

-- =

Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

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


-- =

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1432 - Release Date: 5/14/2008 =

7:49 AM


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Gary wrote:
> 
> > I'm sure someone can correct my comments and add more but it
> > seems like there can be a sound response to this well-written
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Roger Stockton wrote:
> >>> Second, the batteries "could not supply the range or durability
> >>> required by the mass market."
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)
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----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I disagree with Randy's comments. Lee specifically asked how he would counter this document. Even more important, he's trying to lay his case before a public official who sets public policy (law). It's important for us to stand up for a concept that we believe in, and that we believe is beneficial to our country (for whatever reason that you choose to embrace).

Lee as everyone seems to agree, there really aren't any falsehoods in the document. People's attention spans are short so I guess I'd just give it to him point by point:

1. Even without hard numbers, is there really any denying that shifting the bulk of our transportation energy burden from foreign petroleum supplies to domestically supplied utility companies would cause an enormous economic shift throughout the world? What about the national security aspect?

2. The personal transportation "environment" is vastly different than it was only 10-15 years ago. The price of fuel is XX% higher, the roads are more congested so more fuel is wasted in idling, Two of the most populous nations on earth have suddenly become prosperous, driving demand to an unmanageable level for a single, finite, energy source (oil). The price of crude is now disconnected from "supply & demand" because investors decided it is a commodity. This means the consumer no longer pays a "fair" price for gasoline. If gasoline was $8.00/gallon, but that was what supply and demand dictated, I wouldn't be angry. Instead, the price is where it's at because Iran makes a public statement that makes investors nervous. That isn't fair, and I won't pay for it. Notice that I haven't even touched on any potential environmental benefit of mass electric personal transport. Let me finally get to the point: What customers wanted then, is different than what they want now. So is w!
hat they're willing to pay for it. So is the technology to provide it. The American consumer WAS partially responsible for the death of the electric car, but not exclusively. Now, they're trying to give it mouth-to-mouth rescusitation.

3. Infrastructure: Lee, ask the state rep to point to the nearest electrical outlet. Then ask him to point to the nearest gas station. Next, ask him to point to the next Hydrogen fueling station. Americans want solutions "now". "Now" is unreasonable, considering how deep the hole is that we've dug ourselves, but ask him which of the 3 infrastructures is most ready to assist in a solution NOW. EV's have ONE main hurdle to overcome: Increase energy density in storage to parity with gasoline. Biofuels, & hydrogen have many obstacles: Crop space, how it affects the food supply, refining, distribution just to name a few. Which one sounds easiest to get in people's hands soonest?

4. Cheap, abundant energy and transport is tied to an entire host of social issues in this country. If people are not spending every cent they earn on powering their homes and transport, they are mobile, productive, prosperous, healthy and happy. Often, they are more educated because they have access to more opportunities. Domestic energy makes us secure. Better still, "de-centralized" energy production (multiple sources) makes us even safer. We need to marry these concepts.

This last part is just my personal opinion, not something I'd necessarily say to a legislator; I read incessantly. I watch CSPAN to hear what the industry experts say, and to hear what questions the federal legislators are asking. I'm way behind on my energy education and I'm ramping up as quickly as I can but it seems to me that now the argument is between people who want to drill for more domestic oil supplies at any cost and people who want to preserve our national natural treasures at any cost, yet keep buying energy from non-domestic sources. That's asinine. We have the ability (but not the will) to develop economically viable, clean, abundant, modern, domestic energy production and storage.

I'll close by pointing that all of the politicians are campaigning on the platform of "change". We need change, but they are NOT preparing the public for change. They're being disingenuous, making change sound like a gentle, fun, happy event. Well it's not. Change is often a painful, brutal, necessary and unavoidable occurrence that hurts people. Those who embrace change, survive. Those who don't, become a failed state. The bulk of the American people will reject change because it's scary, inconvenient, and uncomfortable. I apologize for the length of my reply Lee. Hopefully you can take some of this to your state Rep.
_________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 14:42:19 -0500
From: Lee Hart 
Subject: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?
To: EV list 
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 

My local EAA chapter had an exhibit at the Living Green Expo in St. Paul MN earlier this month. One of our state representatives visited, and became quite interested in EVs. He's been contacting us for additional information and offering help and advice. Interestingly enough, as soon as he began talking about EVs, he started receiving anti-EV propaganda. The same sort of thing happened to me the instant an article mentioning me appeared in Mother Jones magazine. It makes me suspect that oil and auto company PR organizations have set up "trip wires" that alert them the instant anything appears, and have prepared robot responses so they can instantly respond. A friend of mine called them "sock puppets" -- robot responses from nonexistent people that automatically appear to attack anything counter to the client's interests. Be on your toes! Anyway, here is one he sent us. He asked for a rebuttal. How should we respond?

--------begin included document-------- 

--------end included document-------- 

Now, this is a *very* cleverly written piece of work. Nothing it says is an outright lie that you could prove false. It doesn't rant or rave; it sounds completely rational and objective. But it is designed to create a totally false impression! How do you counter such a thing? 

-- Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



________________________________

Rich A.
Maryland
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/371.html
http://patriotfuel.blogspot.com/




_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends.
http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

excellent points (all of them but I snipped). that may be a good way to 
address the original article - not just addressing the details and 
getting lost in a useless argument, but adding a big picture overview 
that would be harder to counter. The individual point rebuttals could 
still be addressed but an overview would be a nice lead-in.

gary



> Richard Acuti wrote:
> > I disagree with Randy's comments. Lee specifically asked how he would counter this document. Even more important, he's trying to lay his case before a public official who sets public policy (law). It's important for us to stand up for a concept that we believe in, and that we believe is beneficial to our country (for whatever reason that you choose to embrace).
> >
> > Lee as everyone seems to agree, there really aren't any falsehoods in the document. People's attention spans are short so I guess I'd just give it to him point by point:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Several People emailed me about my post-

It has a typo. It should have read that the electric car has been 'killed' numerous times over the last **107** years, not 17!

-Ralph

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks folks, for taking the time to think about this and respond. I'll
try to combine my responses to save time and reduce IN box pollution.



> Richard Acuti wrote:
> > I disagree with Randy's comments. Lee specifically asked how he
> > would counter this document. Even more important, he's trying to
> > lay his case before a public official who sets public policy (law).
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Lee Hart wrote:
> 
> > Gary wrote:
> > > a good way may be to address the original article... by
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Rick Beebe wrote:
> 
> > Roger Stockton wrote:
> > >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Whether or not the person ever drives 300mi in their ICE without stopping,
> the fact that they *could* results in an unwillingness to accept an EV
> with lesser range.

True, for some people. Certainly NOT true for everyone.

There are enough people willing to accept the limitations of EVs to make
them a viable product, IF THE AUTO MAKERS WOULD SELL THEM.

Their claims that consumers don't want them is pure BS.

Back in January 2003 Toyota (who was the only manufacturer actually
SELLING EVs) told a many of their customers, who had paid a deposit on a
RAV4EV, that they couldn't build enough of the 2002 model to meet the
demand and that they would have to either cancel their order or accept a
2003 model.

A couple months later California caved in and dropped the law mandating
ZEVs. As soon as they did that, Toyota canceled the RAV4 EV citing
insufficient demand.

How can you tell costumers one month that you can't keep up with demand
and then the next month cancel all orders because there is "insufficient"
demand?

Remember that we are talking about the mass market
> here, not someone who would choose an EV because it is an EV. I think
> mass market acceptance of the EV will be achieved when someone can walk
> into a dealership and choose their new vehicle by the same criteria they
> do today, with no more thought to the type of drivetrain than if they were
> choosing between the 4cyl or 6cyl models instead of the EV or ICE models.
>
> Very few people use the size of the fuel tank, or the driving range per
> tank of fuel as a factor when choosing which model of car to buy. They
> may consider fuel economy, but that is not the same thing even though it
> will impact the range per tank.
>
> As production EVs become available, I expect that gas stations will adapt
> to serve this new market by offering high-power quick charges. Unless EVs
> can be made significantly more efficient than they are now, it will not be
> practical to recharge a long range EV with residential electrical service
> in a reasonable time. Gas stations/service areas already exist and are
> spaced out more-or-less in accordance with existing ICE driving range, so
> EVs will need to be capable of similar ranges in order to take advantage
> of the existing infrastructure.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

i think that is a good view point, if the following
contract was offered to ICE drivers how many would
agree?

CONTRACT: 

for the next year you can only drive 40 miles a day,
but you will get gas for 50 cents a gallon. in
addition you can fill up at home and pay for the gas
automatically thru your existing utilities



> --- Rick Beebe <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Roger Stockton wrote:
> > >>> Second, the batteries "could not supply the
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> 
> > > Whether or not the person ever drives 300mi in their ICE without
> > > stopping, the fact that they *could* results in an unwillingness to
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Roger Stockton wrote:
> > Rick Beebe wrote:
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I haven't had time to keep up with the list, but could not help 
commenting about the EV1. I had limited experience with this car, 
having rented one for a week while you still could get them through 
evrentals at LAX. My wife and I drove one to San Diego and back, 
stopping along the way to do lunch while charging, or do a little 
shopping.

Bad handling because of heavy batteries? Not a bit of it. This thing 
was dangerous only because of its awesome acceleration. I had my 
first really big EV grin driving down the freeway a few miles south of 
LA, handily keeping up with traffic in this incredible car that 
promised to go 80 miles on its lead-acid batteries and did.

No room for kids? Leave them at home! What sports car has room for 
kids? Gimme a break! $600 per month lease? I laugh. Maybe that was a 
big deal then, but here I am paying nearly $800 per month (financed at 
1.8%, not leased) for a gas-guzzling Subaru XT that I will be happy to 
sell as soon as I get my Scion conversion from Randy Holmquist.

You couldn't get near an EV-1 without loving it.
The reason it failed was that you couldn't get near one at all.

Mike Hoskinson


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

The majority of people were never even aware of the EV1 or the RAV4EV, until
after the fact. My father has owned each version of the ICE powered RAV4's
but was unaware that an EV version was ever made. This is someone who has
bought only Toyotas for the last 20 years or so. 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Did-consumers-kill-the-electric-car--tp17239485p17265403.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

That just shows that if you advertise it people will buy it, if you don't
advertise it they don't know about it thus they don't want it thus the car
companies can say there is no market for it.

Mark Grasser

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of AMPhibian
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 8:34 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?


The majority of people were never even aware of the EV1 or the RAV4EV, until
after the fact. My father has owned each version of the ICE powered RAV4's
but was unaware that an EV version was ever made. This is someone who has
bought only Toyotas for the last 20 years or so. 
-- 
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Did-consumers-kill-the-electric-car--tp17239485p172654
03.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
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)

Reminded me.... As I make my rounds driving a school bus, I would see a gu=
y in a Plymouth/Chrysler Prowler (a fun, but quite impractical car). Passe=
d by his house and he has TWO Prowlers in his garage. Chrysler doesn't see=
m to have any trouble selling this expensive two seater. Nor do they have =
a problem selling the Dodge Viper, even a more expensive niche car. =


I had a chance to test drive an EV1 and loved it, but, being on the east co=
ast, could not even lease one. Show me any other car that was leased, not =
sold; that you had to jump through a multitude of hoops to even lease; that=
was only available through a few select dealers in only two states; where =
customers were not even allowed to continue leases once they expired; and w=
here even the old turned in cars were destroyed rather than sold. These ca=
rs were not marketed, not sold, initially had battery problems, and yet eve=
ry single vehicle available for lease was leased. If GM had offered the ca=
rs FOR SALE throughout the country where you could just walk into a dealer =
and drive out with one, I believe they would have been a huge success, cert=
ainly outselling the Corvette, at whatever price they chose to put on it.

Dave



> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 10:02:55 -0400
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?
> =

> Just a few...
> =

> The "lease" issue was not the car's fault.
> Cost? There are a lot of very expensive two seater cars on the road. =

> People obviously do buy them and they are not routinely used as long =

> haul vehicles.
> The issue of battery temperature is false. I drive electric in all =

> seasons. I have never measured battery temperature over ambient - and I =

> don't drive Mrs. Daisy. Also, no EV parts develop the temperature of =

> an ICE exhaust manifold.
> Infrastructure? I have never experienced an infrastructure problem. I =

> charge at work, grocery store, etc.
> It was even mentioned on this list that driving an EV required giving =

> up time to charge. I drive electric every day and have never had to do =

> that. I spend less time charging than I ever did pumping gas. The =

> difference? I don=92t have to go somewhere else to fill up, and I don=92=
t =

> have to stand there holding the nozzle while the car is filling.
> =

> Just a few off the top of my head.
> =

> Ken
> =

> =

> =

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Hart <[email protected]>
> To: EV list <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wed, 14 May 2008 2:42 pm
> Subject: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?
> =

> =

> =

> My local EAA chapter had an exhibit at the Living Green Expo in St. =

> Paul
> MN earlier this month. One of our state representatives visited, and
> became quite interested in EVs. He's been contacting us for additional
> information and offering help and advice.
> =

> Interestingly enough, as soon as he began talking about EVs, he started
> receiving anti-EV propaganda. The same sort of thing happened to me the
> instant an article mentioning me appeared in Mother Jones magazine. It
> makes me suspect that oil and auto company PR organizations have set up
> "trip wires" that alert them the instant anything appears, and have
> prepared robot responses so they can instantly respond. A friend of =

> mine
> called them "sock puppets" -- robot responses from nonexistent people
> that automatically appear to attack anything counter to the client's
> interests. Be on your toes!
> =

> Anyway, here is one he sent us. He asked for a rebuttal. How should we
> respond?
> =

> --------begin included document--------
> =

> Did Consumers Kill The Electric Car?
> =

> As detailed in "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and other sources, many
> observers and passionate EV1 fans feel that automakers and oil =

> companies
> conspired to destroy the electric car. An alternative theory, however,
> is outlined below.
> =

> After an early wave of interest, enthusiasm for the EV1 subsided =

> because
> of the car=92s limitations. First, EV1s were expensive; they cost two or
> three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be
> leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month. Second, the batteries
> =93could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market.=
=94
> Third, the infrastructure for recharging was not in place. Fourth, the
> high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented =

> some
> unique safety hazards, and =93only a relative handful of mechanics knew
> how to work safely on the powerful batteries.=94 Fifth, the EV1 was a =

> tiny
> two-seater that simply did not work for families with children. =

> Finally,
> the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy =

> battery.
> These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D.
> Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s =93are just not acceptable to
> consumers.=94 Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the
> Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.
> =

> The final nail was driven into the electric car coffin by hybrid
> gas-electric cars like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight, which
> have maintained great popularity partly due to their ability to =

> recharge
> while cruising down the road. Other automakers took note. Now virtually
> every manufacturer has announced that it will produce a hybrid vehicle
> by the end of the decade.
> =

> Thus, as one commentator noted, it is likely that market forces, not
> nefarious tactics, killed the electric car: As the market success of
> cars like the Prius and the market failure of cars like the EV1
> illustrate, it wasn't a shortage that prevented battery electric
> vehicles from selling and it wasn't a desire not to offer clean =

> vehicles
> that prompted manufacturers to stop producing them. The reason for the
> market response to these vehicles is because, if given the option, the
> general public would buy environmentally friendly automobiles if the
> sacrifices that had to be made to drive them were minimal. Accordingly,
> the level of sacrifices that has to be made to drive battery electric
> vehicles discourages all but the most enthusiastic consumers from
> leasing them.
> =

> --------end included document--------
> =

> Now, this is a *very* cleverly written piece of work. Nothing it says =

> is
> an outright lie that you could prove false. It doesn't rant or rave; it
> sounds completely rational and objective. But it is designed to create =

> a
> totally false impression!
> =

> How do you counter such a thing? I think the key is to get as many =

> solid
> facts and references as possible, but not bury the reader in statistics
> or it won't get read. You have to give someone who is entirely
> unfamiliar with the subject an objective view of the situation that =

> will
> stand up to careful scutiny and fact-checking.
> =

> --
> Ring the bells that still can ring
> Forget the perfect offering
> There is a crack in everything
> That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
> --
> Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
> =

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

> =

> _______________________________________________
> 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)

> <sigh> We're not talking about whether these is *someone* who will accept
> EVs with their present limitations, but rather that it would take for
> *mass market* acceptance.

And you're not paying attention. Not everyone wants a Corvette, not
everyone wants a Minivan, not everyone wants a hummer, and not everyone
wants a Smart Four2, and yet ALL of these are mass produced.


They sell 30,000 Corvette a year, that's less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the
passenger cars sold per year.

You don't have to sell them to everyone, not even most of the population,
not even a significant percentage, not even 1 percent.

If even 1/2 of 1 percent of the driving population in the US wants an EV,
that is over 1 million people.

>
>> How can you tell costumers one month that you can't keep up
>> with demand and then the next month cancel all orders because
>> there is "insufficient" demand?
>
> Easy. If you are producing 100 cars a year and have orders for at least
> 101, then demand exceeds supply. If you need to be selling 10,000 a year
> to be profitable/make it worth your while,

We're not talking a tiny demand here. Prior to canceling the RAV4 EV,
Toyota stated that the orders FAR exceeded their expectations, they
weren't even close to being able to produce enough to keep up with demand.
And they didn't even advertise it very well, the DEALER here in town had
never even heard of them.


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Perhaps the trick being employed in this article is the premise in the
title doesn't match the true points supporting it. They try to trick
you into believeing Consumers are at fault but supply arguments for
something entirely different.

Maybe it would have a different impact if the only the question was
changed. Perhaps "Did Automakers really offer viable electric cars"

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> > .....
> >
> > Maybe it would have a different impact if the only the question was
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> A couple months later California caved in and dropped the law 
> mandating ZEVs. As soon as they did that, Toyota canceled 
> the RAV4 EV citing insufficient demand.
> 
> How can you tell costumers one month that you can't keep up 
> with demand and then the next month cancel all orders because 
> there is "insufficient"
> demand?

Simple .... the backlog of orders and sales were for a vehicle that was
HEAVILY subsidized. It they probably couldn't come up with even a break
even scenario for many many years. 

Lets say they needed 100 times their best estimates to make it a viable
commercial product (based on actual sales, backorders, and optimistic
projections from notoriously wrong sales departments). It's a no-brainer to
discontinue production once the legal requirement was gone. 

Compare it with the progression of production/sales numbers on the Prius.
They started out FAR higher than the EV numbers, and still Toyota had to
subsidize it for years to get it to break even. A huge risk - the kind
CEO's are fired for if they don't pan out. If gas prices hadn't picked this
point in time to spike, the Prius may have been a footnote in Toyota's
history book, and the CEO might have been looking for a job.

Try and convince your shareholders that throwing away LOTS of money for say
10 years without any real evidence of a likely successful outcome is a good
idea. Public companies are by nature conservative institutions. It's built
into their structure and governance. No one should expect a cow to behave
like a race horse. A good marketing department might dress it up to LOOK
like a race horse, but it still won't win any races.

What surprises me is the number of comments on this list expressing surprise
at this kind of behavior from some of the biggest public companies on the
planet. As an example, while most car companies have small "experimental"
programs to develop alternate fuel vehicles, GM is committing to something
different. The Volt/eflex program and their public commitment to production
is an ENORMOUS risk, and is only possible because of their precarious
financial position going in. The CEO decided that in order to survive and
grow, they will have to re-invent the company, and he's betting his career
on it. If it flops, he's history and probably won't find another job in
this business. If it succeeds, he'll preside over years of growth and
prosperity for his company.

We'll see if he can sustain the commitment in the face of corporate risk
aversion long enough to get it to market and test his theory. I know there
is HUGE skepticism on this list about that, but I think $3.50+/gal gas is a
game changer, and I don't expect it to come down. Many people are seeing
for the first time that the cost to operate their vehicles equals or exceeds
the cost of the note to buy it, and the difference impacts their ability to
buy groceries, pay the rent, etc. That's changes the rules of the game more
than anything in the last 75 years.




Just my 2 cents.

Jeff Andre'
Chapel Hill, NC

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi Jeff and All,

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: Jeff Andre <[email protected]>
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:36:36 -0500

>> A couple months later California caved in and dropped the
>> law mandating ZEVs. As soon as they did that, Toyota
>> canceled the RAV4 EV citing insufficient demand.
>> 
>> How can you tell costumers one month that you can't keep
>> up with demand and then the next month cancel all orders
>> because there is "insufficient"
>> demand?
>
>Simple .... the backlog of orders and sales were for a
>vehicle that was HEAVILY subsidized. It they probably
>couldn't come up with even a break even scenario for many
>many years. 

While they were subsidized, the US makes at least,
were by us as they got about $1 bill in grants to make them.
Thus they made money and a lot of it!! So let's not say poor
Auto companies, they screwed us big time.


>
>Lets say they needed 100 times their best estimates to make
>it a viable commercial product (based on actual sales,
>backorders, and optimistic projections from notoriously
>wrong sales departments). It's a no-brainer to discontinue
>production once the legal requirement was gone. 

Only if they want to be left behind as within 10
yrs almost all cars will be electric drive because of fuel
cost, CAFE standards Like the Volt but with the small ICE
hooked to the driveshaft/s too for higher long range eff.


>
>Compare it with the progression of production/sales numbers
>on the Prius. They started out FAR higher than the EV
>numbers, and still Toyota had to subsidize it for years to
>get it to break even. 

Another red herring as all cars are subsidized for 2+
yrs before their tooling, design, ect can be paid for. One
reason composite will rise is their tooling can be paid for
in as low as 1000 units in large corporations, as few as
3units in small operations. I'd bet the Prius was
profitable in the 3rd yr. 


A huge risk - the kind CEO's are
>fired for if they don't pan out. If gas prices hadn't
>picked this point in time to spike, the Prius may have been
>a footnote in Toyota's history book, and the CEO might have
>been looking for a job.

Sorry but the gas didn't even start to spike until
the Prius was in production 3-4 yrs. And the CEO looks like
a genius now doesn't he? They just did the millionth
Prius!!

>
>Try and convince your shareholders that throwing away LOTS
>of money for say 10 years without any real evidence of a
>likely successful outcome is a good idea. Public companies

You mean like Fuel Cells? They have got another
billion in subsidizes for them. Where are they?

>are by nature conservative institutions. It's built into
>their structure and governance. No one should expect a cow
>to behave like a race horse. A good marketing department
>might dress it up to LOOK like a race horse, but it still
>won't win any races.
>
>What surprises me is the number of comments on this list
>expressing surprise at this kind of behavior from some of
>the biggest public companies on the planet. As an example,
>while most car companies have small "experimental" programs
>to develop alternate fuel vehicles, GM is committing to
>something different. The Volt/eflex program and their
>public commitment to production is an ENORMOUS risk, and is

GM, ect has to do the Volt or they are dead as their
CEO has said!! The risk is not doing it. It is viable even
with lead batts.


>only possible because of their precarious financial
>position going in. The CEO decided that in order to
>survive and grow, they will have to re-invent the company,
>and he's betting his career on it. If it flops, he's
>history and probably won't find another job in this
>business. If it succeeds, he'll preside over years of
>growth and prosperity for his company.
>
>We'll see if he can sustain the commitment in the face of
>corporate risk aversion long enough to get it to market and
>test his theory. I know there is HUGE skepticism on this
>list about that, but I think $3.50+/gal gas is a game
>changer, and I don't expect it to come down. Many people

I'd bet oil will drop after the Demo's get control, 60
seats, of the Senate then able to pass good legislation
without Bush, Senate Repubs blocking it.
The biggest reason for the high price of gas/oil is
the value of the dollar which has dropped 50%, thus raising
oil/bbl cost 100%. Now add balancing the budget, raising the
dollars value, the higher CAFE, other Fed requirements the
Demo's have tried to pass already will drop demand for oil,
raise the dollar, dropping oil's price a lot.
Then they will add a tax to cover oil's real cost
bringing the retail price back up to keep conservation
going. While some will scream TAX!!, it's better it going
into the US, state gov to do Alt fuels, EV's, Hybrids, High
speed and local trains, mass transit, ect than into the
pockets of dictators, terrorists as 30% of it does now. They
will probably cut the payroll tax some to make up for higher
gas prices. 

Jerry Dycus


>are seeing for the first time that the cost to operate
>their vehicles equals or exceeds the cost of the note to
>buy it, and the difference impacts their ability to buy
>groceries, pay the rent, etc. That's changes the rules of
>the game more than anything in the last 75 years.
>
>
>
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>Jeff Andre'
>Chapel Hill, NC
>
>_______________________________________________
>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)

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> 
> > > <sigh> We're not talking about whether these is *someone* who will
> > > accept EVs with their present limitations, but rather that it would
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 14 May 2008 at 16:49, sgomes wrote:
> 
> > (Please don't kick me off this list. I own / built my own EV...I'm just
> > being a devil's advocate)
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Hi EVerybody;

"Did consumers kill ther electric car?" Bah Humbug! Horse Exhaust! They 
were never OFFERED any electric cars, to begin with! Sorta like talking 
about the lost horses AFTER they got away. We KNOW that if they were offered 
at dealerships, like ICE mobiles, they would be selling! Anybody that has 
driven an EV-1 or Rav-4 from Toyota, I have, and marvelled that if EVERYBODY 
could share the experiance, they, the car builders COULDN'T make enough of 
them, for years, they would have a backlog! Hell! I get calls EVery day 
about "How can I get Started?" with BUILDING an EV.For every one of these 
guyz there are folks that would just love to go into a EV dealer and just 
DRIVE out! Amps, Smamps, Volts ,Dolts, like my Mom, they wouldn't care. Car 
RUNS that's all that matters. Like my computer I don't know or CARE how many 
gigabytes RAM or Smigabites It better WORK when I turn it on in the AM! I 
THINK it's a Compac, but not sure? It works, MOST of the time, that's all I 
care.It runs on Micro Sloth ,THAT I know!

I'm preaching to the Choir here, anyhow. You know we'd ALL go buy EV's 
IF we could? Right? Or go out in the garage and diddle with our conversions, 
taking a "It'll do" mentality, for now. Prei are just training wheels for 
the Next Generation of EV's. A Sunrise EV-2? WhatEVer we can afford? Which 
isn't gunna be a lot, with the way the US-ian economy is going, 
nowadaze!Christ! We'll be lucky to be able to AFFORD frivilities like 
HEATING oil, electricity, gas, other stuff, like food, because of the 
Ethenal Scam, you guyz(me) that buy food know where that's heading. Howcum 
Real Estate taxes are going up yet you can barely give away your house with 
the real estate market in the toilet?

A few points to ponder. Wree spinning our wheels here asking and using up 
bandspace on " Consumers killing the EV" We knowe better. Let's talk about 
the nuts and volts reality of getting the damn Vacuum Pump quieted down, 
Important stuff like that<g>?!

Seeya at P of DC, gunna be a Biggie!

Bob

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "gary" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?


>
>


> > Jeff Shanab wrote:
> >> .....
> >>
> >> Maybe it would have a different impact if the only the question was
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Roger Stockton <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> >
> > It may be possible to produce a limited range EV and sell it in 30k volumes
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I know I'm way late on this topic.

I recall when the EV-1 was still around that many EV-1 enthusiasts, 
particularly members of the EV-1 Club, were pretty angry at GM for 
not promoting or advertising the car more.

The advertisements that did come out weren't very entising. One was 
particularly dark. And several didn't show the car for very long. The 
best one was the appliance one. That one was cute but the EV-1 wasn't 
it it that long either.

Proof that GM failed to advertise the car can still be proven today 
when you show your EVs and people ask you why can't the OEMs make 
them. I respond that GM did make an electric car called the EV-1. And 
most of the time their response is "I never heard of it."

GM was overly pessimistic of the EV-1 from the beginning. Proof of 
this is with the pilot program they did before selling the car. 
First, only select people could be chosen. None were EAA members that 
I know of. We believe GM didn't want to have EV enthusiasts test the 
cars first. Kind of makes sense I suppose. But EV owners could have 
provided some suggestions for the car. They only sold them in two 
markets. They limited them in production. They limited even limited 
production of parts which they later used as an excuse to not let 
leasers buy the cars before crushing them. They ignored waiting lists 
for the car as a measurement for demand. The fact is, GM did what 
they could minimally do from production to advertising. The consumer 
is never going to get a fair chance to review or see the product if 
the manufacture doesn't get it out there. So how can the consumer 
even get a chance to know a car like this actually exists.

Chip



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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Some additional comments from someone who leased the "other" EV - the Honda
EVplus:

1.EV1s were expensive; they cost two or
three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be
leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month.

The Honda leased for about $500/month, which included ALL the maintenance
and ALL the insurance. It was a great deal, for such a limited production
vehicle. And Honda had no intension of selling them, so you had a chance to
lease a $100,000 car for a very affordable price.

2. the batteries"could not supply the range or durability required by the
mass market."

The 100 miles-per-charge range ment that you could easily drive 400-600
miles per week with only recharging at night, at home, while you slept. That
more than meets most people driving needs, where they fill up with gas 1-2
times per week. The durability issue is only a problem because this was the
first release of the vehicle and they still needed to work out some issue
there. But obviously this is solvable since the RAV4 EV batteries last quite
long.


3. the infrastructure for recharging was not in place.

Not a problem with the Honda EVplus. 90+% of the charging is done at home.
Opportunity charging is done with specific AVCON stations, like at Costco,
and a 110vac adapter which could be used with any electrical outlet.
Electricity is everywhere.

4. the high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented
some
unique safety hazards, and "only a relative handful of mechanics knew
how to work safely on the powerful batteries."

None of the problems were high-voltage electrical. The maintenance and
service issue are soooo small on EVs. The main problem is the lack of
problem - no enough business for the automobile industry to stay alive.

5. the EV1 was a tiny two-seater that simply did not work for families with
children.

Not the Honda EVplus - designed to see 4 adults comfortably. It could have
been setup for 5 people but this was a limited production vehicle and they
wanted to keep the vehicle weight under control. And the rear seat spacing
was actually too much - we could have a parent buckling up two children in
seats with the front seats in the upright & locked positions and have plenty
of room to move around due to the completely flat floor.

Finally, the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy
battery.
These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D.
Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s "are just not acceptable to
consumers."

We could leave most gas vehicles behind from 0-35+ mph from a stop without
flooring it. It drove great, on city streets and freeways. The battery
weight was all in the middle and we never experienced and handling or
driving problems. It was a joy to drive.

Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the
Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.

Honda only agreed to build 100 per year for 3 years, nothing more. Honda
didn't advertise, and only listed information hidden on their website. In
California there were less than a dozen authorized dealerships - started in
LA area (how many dealers?) and included Sacramento (the state capital and
seat for decisions, with only 1 dealership), then extended to SF Bay Area
with 3 dealerships. We leased ours about 1/2 way through the program and by
the time people started asking how to lease the pool was dry. No option to
buy. Wonderful, wonderful vehicle. Zero emissions over 4 years and almost
zero maintenance issues for a first-generation vehicle.


BR,
Ed Thorpe
ex-Honda EVplus leasee
90,000 all-electric miles in 4 years
http://www.evalbum.com/268.html
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Zeke Yewdall wrote:
> 
> > You are most likely right.... however, from a purely logical
> > standpoint, it makes no sense at all that a 350 mile range is
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Chip Gribben wrote:
> 
> > GM was overly pessimistic of the EV-1 from the beginning.
> > Proof of this is with the pilot program they did before
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Let's think about this for a minute.

Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last decade
that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet (many
of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )

For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment how
much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take to
"Fast Charge" it?

Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
voltage is 370V. To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300 kw. 
Assuming normal charger efficiency
I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE car.
Can you imagine what the charger would look like? Or how HUGE that charge
cables will be?

It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require 750
KCM cables. Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
foot. 8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.

The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build a
"fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.

We simply are not going to be routinely making 2,000 mile trips in EVs any
time soon. Battery swapping might make it work, but there is too much
resistance to this idea.



>> You are most likely right.... however, from a purely logical
>> standpoint, it makes no sense at all that a 350 mile range is
>> needed -- or will help with the problem of running out of
>> juice either.
>
> That is a very interesting observation. I agree w.r.t running out of
> juice, but there *are* logical reasons in defense of a 200-300mi range
> (i.e. similar range as a tank of fuel). First is the one I've been
> harping on, which is that if EVs had such range I think it is very likely
> that they would be embraced by such a large fraction of the population
> that OEMs would address the need/market segment. The other that I
> mentioned is that I think it likely/reasonable that once there are
> sufficient OEM EVs on the road, existing service stations will offer fast
> charge service, and EVs will need to have enough range to make it from one
> service station to another if they are ever to replace ICEs for most
> personal transporation needs.
>
> Until then being able to plug in and refuel overnight at home greatly
> reduces the odds of running out of juice no matter how large or small the
> tank, as you point out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

> Roger Stockton wrote:
> > Sorry to debunk this, but GM *did* solicit input from people without
> > any sort of selection process, and EVers at that.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build a
> > "fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I have a 1KA conductor sitting on my desk... Here's a photo of it:
http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/trotfox/pix/work/cable.jpg

I think the key to a rapid-charge station would be voltage. Push
1000V through the charge cable and you only have to carry 425A.
Granted, this would require safety interlocks due to the high voltage
but that is not un-doable. For the power demand I think flywheels are
the answer. Modern composite flywheels are great at storing massive
amounts of energy efficiently. Have a bank of them that get
preferentially charged at night and you're on your way to a
fast-charge station that can operate from mains power.

Of course, I haven't done the math on that... nor do I intend to. I
hate tha maths. (no, not really.)

Trot, the shocking, fox...



> Peter VanDerWal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Let's think about this for a minute.
> >
> > Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last decade
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

This reminds me of a scientist at the early part of the previous
century who calculated what sort of rocket would be required to fly to
the moon. He came to the conclusion that it would have to be as tall
as 40 story building, weigh 3 million metric tons, and consist of ~80%
fuel, produce mega Newtons of force, etc. Such a rocket was obviously
unthinkable and his conclusion was that we'd never be able to get to
the moon. His numbers were largely correct.


> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last decade
> that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet (many
> of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )

Many of them required the A/C to run in order to cool the NiMH pack
thereby using quite a bit of electricity while charging. 150-250
Wh/mile from the pack was pretty typical consumption. Lets instead use
a pessimistic 200Wh/mile for a sedan like the solectria sunrise.

>
> For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment how
> much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take to
> "Fast Charge" it?

Why are you using consumption from the outlet to calculate the pack size?

Using 200Wh/mile we get 60kWh pack. No pack can be fast charged to
100% SOC so the required charge amount is more like 50kWh.

>
> Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
> voltage is 370V. To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300 kw.
> Assuming normal charger efficiency
> I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE car.
> Can you imagine what the charger would look like? Or how HUGE that charge
> cables will be?

Here's a 250kW charger, what you would need to charge 50kWh in 15 minutes.
http://www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_product_details.asp?Prodid=20

This is a bidirectional unit with built in utility transformer, so
it's a bit larger than a dedicated charger would have to be.


> It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require 750
> KCM cables. Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
> foot. 8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.

My less pessimistic numbers lead you to 550Amp cables. Of course, that
is only for 15 minutes so a chart that presumes continuous rating, no
cooling and cables in a conduit will give you the wrong number.
Instead size the cables for acceptable temperature rise given
realistic duty cycles and presence of cooling system and you actually
get manageable cable sizes.



>
> The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build a
> "fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.

Hint:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2087692423/sizes/l/

-- 
www.electric-lemon.com

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

So if it were done inductively and the car inductor was on the bottom of the
car and the feed inductor were in the pavement and you drove over on top of
it, high frequency of course, could this work? How far away would you have
to stand, etc?

Mark Grasser



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Peter Gabrielsson
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:43 PM
To: [email protected]; Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?

This reminds me of a scientist at the early part of the previous
century who calculated what sort of rocket would be required to fly to
the moon. He came to the conclusion that it would have to be as tall
as 40 story building, weigh 3 million metric tons, and consist of ~80%
fuel, produce mega Newtons of force, etc. Such a rocket was obviously
unthinkable and his conclusion was that we'd never be able to get to
the moon. His numbers were largely correct.


> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last decade
> that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet (many
> of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )

Many of them required the A/C to run in order to cool the NiMH pack
thereby using quite a bit of electricity while charging. 150-250
Wh/mile from the pack was pretty typical consumption. Lets instead use
a pessimistic 200Wh/mile for a sedan like the solectria sunrise.

>
> For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment how
> much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take to
> "Fast Charge" it?

Why are you using consumption from the outlet to calculate the pack size?

Using 200Wh/mile we get 60kWh pack. No pack can be fast charged to
100% SOC so the required charge amount is more like 50kWh.

>
> Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
> voltage is 370V. To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300 kw.
> Assuming normal charger efficiency
> I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE car.
> Can you imagine what the charger would look like? Or how HUGE that charge
> cables will be?

Here's a 250kW charger, what you would need to charge 50kWh in 15 minutes.
http://www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_product_details.asp?Prodid=20

This is a bidirectional unit with built in utility transformer, so
it's a bit larger than a dedicated charger would have to be.


> It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require 750
> KCM cables. Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
> foot. 8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.

My less pessimistic numbers lead you to 550Amp cables. Of course, that
is only for 15 minutes so a chart that presumes continuous rating, no
cooling and cables in a conduit will give you the wrong number.
Instead size the cables for acceptable temperature rise given
realistic duty cycles and presence of cooling system and you actually
get manageable cable sizes.



>
> The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build a
> "fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.

Hint:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2087692423/sizes/l/

-- 
www.electric-lemon.com

_______________________________________________
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)

>> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last
>> decade
>> that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet (many
>> of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )
>
> Many of them required the A/C to run in order to cool the NiMH pack
> thereby using quite a bit of electricity while charging. 150-250
> Wh/mile from the pack was pretty typical consumption.

No it's not typical. I doubt you're going to beat the GM EV1 for
efficiency. The EV1 used 168 wh/mile FROM THE PACK at 60 mph.
I doubt our hypothetical consumer that won't buy an EV unless it can go at
least 350 miles on a charge will accept driving long distances at only 60
mph.

Charging LiPol batteries at 2C is less efficient than charging them at
sub-C levels and at sub-C I believe they are around 85% efficient.

When you figure the real power needed to move something as efficient as an
EV1 at real highway speeds and figure in battery efficieny, even if you
ignore charger efficiency 250 wh/mile is very optimistic.

>>
>> For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment
>> how
>> much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take
>> to
>> "Fast Charge" it?
>
> Why are you using consumption from the outlet to calculate the pack size?

I'm not, I'm using to calculate how much power we have to put back in to
get that range. Even if the pack is 15% smaller, it's still going to be
expensive.

> Using 200Wh/mile we get 60kWh pack. No pack can be fast charged to
> 100% SOC so the required charge amount is more like 50kWh.

I have already accounted for not fully charging it by using only 300
miles, instead of 350. Whether we fill it full or not, it still takes AT
LEAST 75 kwh input to charge it enough for the next 300 miles.

>
>>
>> Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
>> voltage is 370V. To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300 kw.
>> Assuming normal charger efficiency
>> I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE
>> car.
>> Can you imagine what the charger would look like? Or how HUGE that
>> charge
>> cables will be?
>
> Here's a 250kW charger, what you would need to charge 50kWh in 15 minutes.
> http://www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_product_details.asp?Prodid=20
>

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it's not going to happen.

>
>> It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require
>> 750
>> KCM cables. Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
>> foot. 8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.
>
> My less pessimistic numbers lead you to 550Amp cables. Of course, that
> is only for 15 minutes so a chart that presumes continuous rating, no
> cooling and cables in a conduit will give you the wrong number.

Your less realistic numbers might indicate that. I came up with 750 KCM
assuming it was a continuous use cable in open air, not in a tray or
conduit.

> Instead size the cables for acceptable temperature rise given
> realistic duty cycles and presence of cooling system and you actually
> get manageable cable sizes.

If it's a charging station, then it's is possible to have the cables in
near continuous use as one person pulls out and then next starts charging
immediately. NEC would require the cable be sized for continuous use.
>
>
>
>>
>> The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build
>> a
>> "fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.
>
> Hint:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/2087692423/sizes/l/

Allow me to rephrase. Nobody is going to build an actual station, that
people can actually drive up to and pay to actually recharge a real EV
with 350 mile range.

Please note: I'm NOT saying it can't be done, I'm saying it isn't going to
happen.


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

While we're talking about fantasy methods for long-range EV driving...
Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter. Charging
stations that can compete with a gas pump are also a bit problematic,
not to mention the expense of the batteries needed for such high-power
and high energy requirements.

So maybe charge-as-you-drive is the answer? I'm not sure about an
inductive system, it would probably be lossy and very expensive, on a
par with mag-lev trains.

But how about conductive charging? On multi-lane roads, reserve the
lane closest to the central barrier for EVs, and put a high-voltage
conductor along the top of the barrier. To use it, a car just needs a
pick-up arm and a brush to return the current to a steel track in the
roadway. Obviously there would be operational and safety problems to
overcome, but the infrastructure seems simpler and cheaper. You are
just giving electric trains a second chance!

20KW per car say? That's quite a lot of power, you might need 2MW per
mile capacity or more for peak times.. So you would need one wind
turbine per mile to go with it 




> Mark Grasser <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So if it were done inductively and the car inductor was on the bottom of the
> > car and the feed inductor were in the pavement and you drove over on top of
> > it, high frequency of course, could this work? How far away would you have
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

What better place than on the center of the freeway for a wind turbine and
during off peak hours it could supply the grid.

Mark Grasser


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Evan Tuer
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:42 PM
To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?

While we're talking about fantasy methods for long-range EV driving...
Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter. Charging
stations that can compete with a gas pump are also a bit problematic,
not to mention the expense of the batteries needed for such high-power
and high energy requirements.

So maybe charge-as-you-drive is the answer? I'm not sure about an
inductive system, it would probably be lossy and very expensive, on a
par with mag-lev trains.

But how about conductive charging? On multi-lane roads, reserve the
lane closest to the central barrier for EVs, and put a high-voltage
conductor along the top of the barrier. To use it, a car just needs a
pick-up arm and a brush to return the current to a steel track in the
roadway. Obviously there would be operational and safety problems to
overcome, but the infrastructure seems simpler and cheaper. You are
just giving electric trains a second chance!

20KW per car say? That's quite a lot of power, you might need 2MW per
mile capacity or more for peak times.. So you would need one wind
turbine per mile to go with it 


On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Mark Grasser <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> > So if it were done inductively and the car inductor was on the bottom of
> the
> > car and the feed inductor were in the pavement and you drove over on top
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> 
> > Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs
> > from last decade that our hypothetical EV requires only 250
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Evan Tuer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter.
> 
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Zeke Yewdall <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Evan Tuer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Zeke Yewdall wrote:
> >> Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter.
> >
> > Why? Compared to doing an overhead catenary to recharge en-route, it seems
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> > Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> >
> >> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs
> >> from last decade that our hypothetical EV requires only 250
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>


> Evan Tuer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

>I'll admit "vast majority" was incorrect.
>
>However, they all took more than 250 wh/mile from the outlet.

Grrr, (edit first, THEN hit send)

"vast majority" was incorrect...
it should have read they ALL required more than 250 wh/mile from the outlet.



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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> 
> > What we have to put INTO the vehicle is what counts when we
> > are figuring out how to get it in.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Of course, there is always the super conductor route. Use a coaxial
super conductor cable just between the main and the vehicle to keep it
manageable.

PS I am not one who cares about rapid charging, but would like to have
150 mile range.


I wish I could find the link but this stuff is getting more and more
popular in battleship wiring and transmission lines.
I think they call it HTS cable for High Temp Simiconductor.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Are we are forgetting duty cycle?

For example someone pushes 2000 amps thru much smaller wiring in the
zombie because he doesn't have to do it for very long.
Perhaps 50% duty cycle would reduce the cable size.

(at least it will become more flexible faster)

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I saw an interesting futuristic proposal once that had a slot in bottom
of the car. You drove up to a station and right on to the monorail.
While on this commute freeway you don't have to steer and the battery
gets a charge. When you get to your destination station you disembark
and drive under your own power.

They had some interesting method of getting off the track but I never
did find out their solution when a person has a flat or breakdown.


I also like the driveon/driveoff train. If we plug in the train can use
it's dynamic breaking to charge the vehicles.


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I recently installed a KWH meter in order to figure out what Sparky
was really costing to drive. (There are a bunch of them on Ebay.) It
is very close to .5 KWH per mile. With $.20/KWH electricity here in
Bob's beloved Corrupticut, that comes out to $.10/mile for
electricity. Based on my onboard meter, I had estimated 350 watt
hours/mile. Are these numbers reasonable? Is my ferroresonant charger
that inefficient?


-- 
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1059
http://stormselectric.blogspot.com/
Storm

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Jeff are you thinking of the system that was tryed in Holland back in the 
early 70's more like trolly car teck but it was for city use. Gary Foster
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?


>I saw an interesting futuristic proposal once that had a slot in bottom
> of the car. You drove up to a station and right on to the monorail.
> While on this commute freeway you don't have to steer and the battery
> gets a charge. When you get to your destination station you disembark
> and drive under your own power.
>
> They had some interesting method of getting off the track but I never
> did find out their solution when a person has a flat or breakdown.
>
>
> I also like the driveon/driveoff train. If we plug in the train can use
> it's dynamic breaking to charge the vehicles.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

> Are we are forgetting duty cycle?
>
> For example someone pushes 2000 amps thru much smaller wiring in the
> zombie because he doesn't have to do it for very long.
> Perhaps 50% duty cycle would reduce the cable size.
>
> (at least it will become more flexible faster)
>

What are you refering to?

My cable size figures?
Recharging at a public charge station could be close to 100%. I.e you run
at max amps until you're full, pull away and the next guy in line starts
charging at 100% You have to assume that this will happen at least some
of the time.

The 30 seconds between cars won't have any significant effect on the
overall duty cycle. Especially when you take NECs typical derating into
account.


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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I'm not sure if I posted this to the list, or off list.
The initial argument (not mine) was that EVs can't be successful until
they satisfy the majority of consumers.

Hence the need for a 350 mile range and fast charge capability.

If you are going to impose those restrictions, then my contention is that
you must satisfy ALL of the expectations of Joe Sixpack. I.e. he needs to
be able to do long distance trips at high speeds (like he does in an ICE)
so you have to assume at least 65-70 mph.
Jo also expects to refuel his vehicle in a similar time as he does now,
roughly 10 minutes or so. 15 minutes sounded to me like a reasonable
compromise.

Joe is NOT going to accept a 1 hour recharge times or even 30 minutes.




> > Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> >
> >> What we have to put INTO the vehicle is what counts when we
> >> are figuring out how to get it in.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> On 20 May 2008 at 8:38, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> 
> > Again, battery leasing could solve this, IF the company leasing the
> > batteries was scrupulously honest ... Then what happens if some Chinese
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > I don't expect "fast charging" long range EVs to happen in my lifetime,
> > even if I live for another 50 years.
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> > On 20 May 2008 at 8:38, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> >
> >> Again, battery leasing could solve this, IF the company leasing the
> >> batteries was scrupulously honest ... Then what happens if some Chinese
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[email protected]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?




> >> On 20 May 2008 at 8:38, Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> >>
> >>> Again, battery leasing could solve this, IF the company leasing the
> >>> batteries was scrupulously honest ... Then what happens if some Chinese
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> storm connors wrote:
> > I recently installed a KWH meter in order to figure out what Sparky
> > was really costing to drive. (There are a bunch of them on Ebay.) It
> > is very close to .5 KWH per mile. With $.20/KWH electricity here in
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Thanks, Lee.
Since I started using the Landis controller (see
http://stormselectric.blogspot.com/) there hasn't been any heating or
gassing. Water level has stayed exactly the same for months. I think
that is because as the voltage gets higher, it is only applied for 5
minutes. The batteries don't have time to heat much. As the batteries
near full charge, the resting time increases as the controller waits
for the battery voltage to fall below whatever the controller has been
set to. (Mine is at 2.17v/cell.) I am also carefully watching battery
balance since the normal equalization does not take place. No problems
so far. It has seemed to work so nicely that I am thinking about
having Harry build me another controller for my on board boosted bad
boy. The only thing holding me back is that the on board charger is
used so seldom.

There has to be some problem with this unusual approach to battery
charging, but I haven't experienced it yet. All I have to do is turn
down the charger when I hook it up to the car so that I don't pop the
charger's 15 amp breaker. If I think of it, I turn up the charger so
it keeps producing 15 amps at the start of a 5 min cycle. In the end
cycles, the amps drops off quickly as the battery voltage increases.

Anyway, so far I'd recommend the approach for those who have a dumb
charger and would like to avoid babysitting each charge.
storm



> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> > storm connors wrote:
> >> I recently installed a KWH meter in order to figure out what Sparky
> >> was really costing to drive. (There are a bunch of them on Ebay.) It
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Tue, 20 May 2008 01:47:29 -0600 (MDT), "Peter VanDerWal"


> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >Let's think about this for a minute.
> >
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:42:06 +0100, "Evan Tuer" <[email protected]> wrote:


>So maybe charge-as-you-drive is the answer? I'm not sure about an
>inductive system, it would probably be lossy and very expensive, on a
>par with mag-lev trains.
>
>But how about conductive charging? On multi-lane roads, reserve the
>lane closest to the central barrier for EVs, and put a high-voltage
>conductor along the top of the barrier. To use it, a car just needs a
>pick-up arm and a brush to return the current to a steel track in the
>roadway. Obviously there would be operational and safety problems to
>overcome, but the infrastructure seems simpler and cheaper. You are
>just giving electric trains a second chance!
>
>20KW per car say? That's quite a lot of power, you might need 2MW per
>mile capacity or more for peak times.. So you would need one wind
>turbine per mile to go with it 

I think that something along these lines is the ONLY thing that will make EVs
generally acceptable. A catenary overhead and a return rail in the pavement
would be fairly inexpensive to install and uses old, proven technology. Pickup
arms to contact the overhead wouldn't be terribly pretty but people would get
used to them.

With this architecture, the built-in battery would power the car to and from
the expressways and major roads. Otherwise the car runs on utility energy.
The power demand would be MUCH lower than your estimate because a car's demand
would be the basic 2-300 Wh/mile plus the recharge energy to replenish that
used to get to the highway.

There are still a few other "minor" problems to solve, such as providing the
grid capacity for any significant amount of electrification but that's for a
different thread 

John

--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
There are only 10 types of people in this world
Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Tue, 20 May 2008 23:16:42 -0400, "storm connors" <[email protected]>


> wrote:
> 
> >I recently installed a KWH meter in order to figure out what Sparky
> >was really costing to drive. (There are a bunch of them on Ebay.) It
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Neon John wrote:
> Evan Tuer wrote:
> >> So maybe charge-as-you-drive is the answer? I'm not sure about an
> >> inductive system... But how about conductive charging?
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Like those trucks they have out here with drop down train wheels! I
could see a live spur like on-ramp where you just drive over it on your
rubber tires and with some carwash style tire guides to line you up then
lower the rail wheels and accelerate off the spur and onto the main track.

a large metropolatian area could create a series of loops N/S and E/W
orientations that always go the same direction running down the middle
of the street. At certain areas you could just raise the track wheels
and drive off into the right, left or main traffic lanes.


I think a good safety feature would be to segment power to the track
every couple of car lengths and disrupt power if the car in front is
stopped or slow.

I suppose a fixed frequency, since it might as well be AC mains, could
set the speed (limit). If everyone goes the same speed once cruising,
less problems with bumping into each other. The problem is, if we
depend on the humans, we have to keep them engaged in the process or
automate it completely. Having 90% of time without driver input and 10%
requireing driver input is a prescription for distraction disaster.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

You mention the low rolling resistance and the need for high voltage.
Now that I think about it we used to push a railcar with 120,000 lbs of
plastic in it around by hand. That was in addition to the weight of the
car. The low rolling resistance is because of the single point of
contact, crowned rail and round wheel and near zero deformation. I think
it is like 2 orders of magnatude less coeff of rolling resistance over
rubber on road.

Unfortunately I think passing large amounts of dc power through this
point would actually be a problem. It might cause pitting. So a high AC
voltage would probably be more manageable.

What I think is more of a problem is keeping a light vehicle on the
tracks, trains stay on by sheer weight. (thats why the axles are strewn
about in a de-railment, they arn't bolted on at all. ) I think existing
rail would need a little more enhancement.


Of course, maybe this has been solved before. San Francisco cable cars.


I like caterny for the safety aspect. (heck some of these kids spoilers
out here are half way there)

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Jeff Shanab wrote:
> > Like those trucks they have out here with drop down train wheels! I
> > could see a live spur like on-ramp where you just drive over it on your
> > rubber tires and with some carwash style tire guides to line you up then
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Lee, make sure you let us know what happens with the legislator. Oil just
topped $133! I bet his ears are wide open.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Did-consumers-kill-the-electric-car--tp17239485p17396888.html
Sent from the Electric Vehicle Discussion List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
> > Recharging at a public charge station could be close to 100%. I.e.
> > you run at max amps until you're full, pull away and the next guy in
> > line starts charging at 100%. You have to assume that this will
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Yes and yes. I don't recall what Sparky is but for a home conversion that
> doesn't sound bad. My Citi, a real pig as EVs go, used between 400 and 500
> Wh/mile from the pack (E-meter data), depending on terrain and how well I
> controlled my right foot.

Wowsers, that's a lot of watts for a rolling cheese wedge! What are 
your usual driving conditions for this measurement? Based on the Avcon 
announcement, my Ranger uses up to 500Wh/mi at 75mph, 400Wh/mi at 
60mph, and less than 350Wh/mi if I keep under 55mph - a couple decades 
of EV development and AC drive could explain the difference, unless 
you have a more specific reason...?

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> >> a large metropolatian area could create a series of loops N/S and E/W
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Maybe 15 or 20 years ago I designed such a system, up to the point of making
drawings and calling out many part numbers. I was intending to apply for an
SBIR grant but other things got in the way. I did write about it on the net,
in rec.autos.tech, I think.

My concept used little propulsion units that I called spiders that ride on
flush mounted rails located between the tire tracks of the highway. The
spider glides up under the car on the on-ramp and lifts the tires off the
ground. The reason for spiders instead of attached rail wheels is to avoid
the cost, weight, complexity and maintenance of such devices on every car,
even those that might not hit the interstate very often.

Once on the highway, the spider use radiolocation to locate other groups of
vehicles and attaches itself to the front or rear. I called these groups
"caterpillars". Only one or two spiders in a caterpillar actually provided
propulsion, locomotive-style.

As a car in the caterpillar approached the pre-programmed exit point, an alarm
sounds in the exiting car to wake the driver , the caterpillar split into
three parts (front, exiting car, rear) and the exiting spider leaves the
expressway. On the exit ramp, the caterpillar glides down under the car to be
recycled at the accompanying on-ramp. Meanwhile the car simply drives away.
The car could be gas or electric powered. If electric powered, it could
optionally inductively charge while on the spider.

Back then we didn't have GPS or many of the other enabling technologies so
some parts of my plan were excessively complicated. Such as determining
where to exit. No problem now.

The basis for this system was that there be only minimal modification to the
roadways and cars. For conventional cars, there would be essentially no
modification other than adding the control electronics. The system would be
compatible with conventional use, that is, cars not on spiders, large trucks,
etc., so no special interests would have any reason to get up in arms about
being excluded. The incentive would be that caterpillar travel would be MUCH
cheaper than independent travel, at least assuming not too much greed is
allowed in.

Like a lot of my good ideas, it went nowhere and I drifted off to other
interests. I still think it a viable plan, one that requires minimal road
infrastructure changes, moderate electrical infrastructure changes and no fuel
infrastructure changes. Advantages include railroad-like efficiency, very
high speeds possible, high safety factor since the human is out of the loop
once on the highway and no single-point failure that could cripple the system
- a fatal flaw of most centralized intelligent (sic) highway proposals.

John




> Lee Hart <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >Neon John wrote:
> >Evan Tuer wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> >> Yes and yes. I don't recall what Sparky is but for a home conversion that
> >> doesn't sound bad. My Citi, a real pig as EVs go, used between 400 and 500
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

I don't know if you are addressing me or Lee, and I don't know what
the Avcon announcement is, but the wh I am talking about is the AC
input to the charger. My 350wh/mile measured on board swells to 500
from the wall.



> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Yes and yes. I don't recall what Sparky is but for a home conversion that
> >> doesn't sound bad. My Citi, a real pig as EVs go, used between 400 and 500
> >> Wh/mile from the pack (E-meter data), depending on terrain and how well I
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> Neon John <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> >>20KW per car say? That's quite a lot of power, you might need 2MW per
> >>mile capacity or more for peak times.. So you would need one wind
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:15:07 +0100, "Evan Tuer" <[email protected]> wrote:


>How much do you need for "normal" sized cars doing 80MPH, actually?
>(Peter's original challenge)

That varies hugely, depending on the vehicle's frontal area, Cd and rolling
resistance. My Caprice, a moderately slippery full sized car, takes about
18hp at 70 mph.

>
>I thought I was being conservative with 20KW because my van requires
>about this much to do only 60 (=330 or so Wh/mile).

Your van probably approximates pushing a brick wall through the air  That's
kinda the worst end of the spectrum for passenger vehicles (not counting
trucks and SUVs)

If we're talking about an automated scheme like either mine or Lee's then we
gain the benefit of drafting or in my case, actual contact.

>
>Perhaps you're assuming a more sane and reasonable 55mph, in which
>case I'd agree..

No mon! My idea of reasonable is triple digits. It is REALLY enjoyable
driving in west Texas and environs where the speed limit is 85, cops as rare
as hen's teeth and 100+ is the norm.

Seriously now, it's a crime how many human resources were wasted in the early
days of Carter/Nixon's 55 when it was actually enforced. With an automated
roadway, some of that wasted time could be recovered, of course. I could read
or compute or (after I got comfortable with the system) nap. I hope I live to
see something like that, though it'll be from afar since I'm retired 

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
What do you call a blonde's dildo? Pneumatic tool.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> --- Neon John <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:15:07 +0100, "Evan Tuer"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

Just an analogy, The gas stations have more than one pump and there is
time to move the cars.

Simply putting 4 cables on a "pump" 2 for each side should allow the
pump to enforce 50% duty.

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


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> I don't know if you are addressing me or Lee, and I don't know what
> the Avcon announcement is, but the wh I am talking about is the AC
> input to the charger. My 350wh/mile measured on board swells to 500
> from the wall.

Neither - the response below was to the quote regarding a C-car just 
above it, which came from Neon John, who may know that the Avcon box 
used by Rangers for conductive connection to the AC lines has the 
option to announce total kWh through-put. His response about toe-in 
and a hot DC motor supplied the reason for the comparative inefficiency.


>


> <cowtown at spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>> Yes and yes. I don't recall what Sparky is but for a home conversion that
> >>> doesn't sound bad. My Citi, a real pig as EVs go, used between 400 and 500
> >>> Wh/mile from the pack (E-meter data), depending on terrain and how well I
> ...


----------



## EVDL List (Jul 27, 2007)

> paul holmes wrote:
> > Lee, make sure you let us know what happens with the legislator. Oil just
> > topped $133! I bet his ears are wide open.
> 
> ...


----------

