« Return to Thread: Did consumers kill the electric car?
Re: Did consumers kill the electric car?
by Peter VanDerWal
::
Rate this Message:
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
>
> 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
« Return to Thread: Did consumers kill the electric car?
| Free Forum Powered by Nabble | Forum Help |