Did consumers kill the electric car?

[Peter VanDerWal]

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
> “could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market.”
> 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 “only a relative handful of mechanics knew
> how to work safely on the powerful batteries.”

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 “are just not acceptable to
> consumers.”

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

[Peter VanDerWal]

> 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

[Lee Hart]

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

[markgrasser]

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: ev-bounces@... [mailto:ev-bounces@...] 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

[Ralph-54]

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 <leeahart@...> 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
> 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

[Jon Glauser]

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

[Ralph-54]

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

[Chet Fields]

> 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

[gary k]

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’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.
- 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
> “could not supply the range or durability required by the mass market.”
>  
- 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 “only a relative handful of mechanics knew
> how to work safely on the powerful batteries.”
- 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 “are just not acceptable to
> consumers.”
- 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

[kEVs]

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 <leeahart@...> 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
> 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

[Randy Eckert]

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 <keithvansickle01@...>
wrote:

> 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 <leeahart@...> 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
> > 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
>

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

[sgomes]

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