OT-Why doesn’t GM bring back EV-1?

[cogito]

(yes, this is off-topic)
Now that the Chevy Volt is going to cost $35K, blaming radio and windshield wiper development, why don’t they bring back the EV-1?

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/wipers-stereo-p.html

Yes, the car was ahead of it’s time, but if it was packed w/ lithium nano-phosphate batteries, it would get well over 100 miles on a charge. Do EV buyers really want something that looks like a muscle car?
I never drove one, but people I know loved their EV-1s. Development and testing is done, so ramp-up could be quick. We aptera buyers can't be the only ones interested in electric cars at this point. I’m sure I’m missing something.

Is Steve Fambro the Burt Rutan of the car world? Their vehicles have similarities. :)

[Yanquetino]

Cogito:

I have made that very suggestion countless times, in numerous blogs, signed a petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/541959067) to that effect, and even written letters to GM. For the life of me, I can't understand why they don't resurrect the EV1, put lithium ion in it, and call it the EV2.

At this point they can no longer claim that "there is no demand." Just look at all the free advertising that Paine's documentary has given them nationwide. In that film, Alan Cocconi claims that, with the same lithium ion batteries as in his tZero EV, the range could be 300 miles. Folks would be lined up to buy them. And I personally opine that the styling is still much more appealing than that ugly Volt!

It strikes me that there is something odd, inexplicable, about GM's reticence to take that obvious, logical step --but I won't say more than that, lest my way of thinking is attacked again. :(

[KarenRei]

The EV1 cost them over $80k each to make in the volumes that they did, meaning that to turn a profit, they'd have to sell it for over $100k. Mass production would help, but I seriously doubt they could get it down to anywhere close to $35k. Besides, the lines for EV1 parts long shut down anyways; they might as well start from scratch and build it with the latest technology. The EV1 was a "one-off"; it shared hardly any technology with other GM vehicles. The Volt is based off the Chevy Malibu, and is designed to have its drivetrain (the E-flex system) shared with the whole GM car family. The EV1 was made on small production lines with very limited capability. The Volt's lines are designed to produce several tens of thousands per year.

No, switching to li-ion isn't as simple as replacing the battery pack. You change the battery pack, you change the voltage, the charge discharge properties, the cooling requirements, etc. And then to handle all of this you have to change out the charge controllers, the motor, etc. And since these are four-wheelers, you have to recertify all over again. Not like batteries are the only thing that have advanced since the late 90s.

In short, GM actually wants to make a profit this time and save its imploding company rather than simply try and meet CARB requirements so it can keep selling traditional cars in CA while it works to undermine said requirements (as was the case for the EV1). I'm not sure whether they'll pull it off, but kudos to them for trying. The market for EVs has indeed grown a lot since the late 90s, and technology has likewise improved. Combined with the "plug-in hybrid" approach so that there's no fundamental range or charge time limitations, and a price point of $35k, I think they may well be able to sell thousands per year. But they really need to sell several tens of thousands per year if they want to call it a success. This isn't Aptera Motors; big companies like GM live and die on volume.

I will, however, agree with you about one thing: the Volt is ugly. However, that appears to be the trend lately -- tiny windows, huge hood:

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=2008+auto+show&btnG=Search+Images

Don't ask me why.

[cogito]

Ms. Rei’s thoughts re: economies of cross-platform make sense. I wouldn’t think swapping batteries, chargers, controllers, and software would be crazy difficult, but if they’re finding it difficult to manage windshield wipers…

Problem is, there’ll be no market for the volt. People who buy cars that look like a volt, don’t buy electric cars, I could be wrong. Bob Lutz, or whoever replaces him, will say they tried EVs and go back to SUVs.

Is it possible the movie and protests have worked against a reintroduction of the EV-1? Can’t imagine Bob Lutz, originator of the Viper, Prowler, and Explorer admitting they made a mistake. His leadership book is called, “Guts.” Isn’t wikipedia grand?

[Yanquetino]

Cogito:

I have also actively tried to promote the resurrection of the RAV4-EV with lithium ion, and just signed a petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/770590822) to that effect. I have written to Toyota, and even spoken to them on the phone. Their response? "No customer demand" for the vehicle. :eek:

There is something very odd, inexplicable in this instance too. If there is "no demand," why did a used RAV4-EV sell for $67K on eBay last spring? In point of fact, why did Toyota confiscate (http://plugsandcars.blogspot.com/2008/01/toyota-snags-rav4-ev.html) the RAV4-EV whose lessee turned it back into a dealer last month, rather than allowing them to sell it? The Toyota rep could give me no response to those examples.

Toyota still produces the RAV4. It is one of their most popular vehicles. Firing up the EV line again in the RAV4 plant thus would be relatively quick, easy, and painless compared to creating an entirely new vehicle from scratch. Yes, they would have to alter some of the components to accommodate lithium ion instead of NiMH, but it seems to me that, if AC Propulsion or Tesla or Aptera or Phoenix Motorcars can pull it off, certainly Toyota can.

How much would a lithium battery pack for the RAV-4 cost Toyota? $20,000, like in the Tesla? The ICE model has a starting price of $21,250 ($150 more than that for a Prius). For argument's sake, let’s say that swapping out the ICE with the EV powertrain doesn’t save them one red cent: the batteries only add to the cost. Well… a price tag somewhere between $42K and $45K doesn’t sounds that bad to me! After all, that's thousands cheaper than what used RAV4-EVs are going for --if you can find one.

Toyota could thus be the first --and only-- major car manufacturer to have a pure EV for sale on the market. The range would obviously be even greater than the 120 miles achieved with NiMH, probably closer to 200 miles. Heck, they could even offer factory built range-extenders (http://evnut.com/images/rav4/rav_longranger/rav_longranger02.jpg) as an option, if they were worried that some customers might want even greater range for cross-country trips.

Toyota could then use said revenue from the RAV4-EVs to continue to research batteries, develop plug-in REEV Prii, design an even better EV from the ground up, or whatever else strikes their fancy to compete with the Volt in 2010 and beyond.

My opinion is that customers would line up to buy a resurrected RAV4-EV. What is Toyota waiting for? Otherwise, Mitsubishi (with its iMiEV) or Subaru (with its R1e or G4e) will just beat them to the punch.

[cogito]

Today GM reported a 2007 loss of 38.7 billion, with a ‘B.’ Aptera might be the larger car company soon enough.

[palmer_md]

Today GM reported a 2007 loss of 38.7 billion, with a ‘B.’ Aptera might be the larger car company soon enough.

But if you read the rest of the report, you'll note that they only lost 23 million in the vehicle sales. The majority of the losses were the 38.6 Billion they gave to the Union to transfer the retirement benefits program. Now the union has to deal with retirement issues and the income figures for GM will better reflect the actual health of the car business.

[KarenRei]

If there is "no demand," why did a used RAV4-EV sell for $67K on eBay last spring?

To Toyota, "no demand" means "less than ten thousand sales per year".

Firing up the EV line again in the RAV4 plant thus would be relatively quick, easy, and painless compared to creating an entirely new vehicle from scratch.

Not really. When you shut down a line for a couple years, it's gone. It's the same reason NASA can't just make another Saturn V. We have all the design specs, but we don't have anyone making all of the little parts any more.

In point of fact, why did Toyota confiscate the RAV4-EV whose lessee turned it back into a dealer last month, rather than allowing them to sell it?

Because they don't want vehicles that are only a loss to them on the road. Lawsuits adds an extra $500 to the cost of every car in the US. If you're not making a profit on something, and it's posing a liability risk to you, you don't want it out there.

Yes, they would have to alter some of the components to accommodate lithium ion instead of NiMH

Components like "the whole drivetrain", since you're likely going to have a different voltage, and at the very least, different charge/discharge properties.

$20,000, like in the Tesla?

And they'd get to replace it every few years like Tesla owners do, too! And it'd catch fire in an accident like Tesla owners' cars' batteries will.

Tesla uses laptop batteries, which are currently cheap because they're used in, well, laptops. But they suffer from the same problems that all laptop batteries do -- fire risk and lifespan.

Well? a price tag somewhere between $42K and $45K doesn?t sounds that bad to me!

Even if your numbers were accurate, they need to be assured that they can sell *tens of thousands per year* at that price. It's all about volume. Just ignoring economies of scale and vehicle design costs, car certification alone can easily run in the tens of millions. There's a reason why many of the new EVs like the Aptera are trikes.

Toyota could then use said revenue from the RAV4-EVs to continue to research batteries,

Revenue means profit. Just a couple thousand sales a year or less for a big car company doesn't produce "revenue"; it produces only red ink.

Today GM reported a 2007 loss of 38.7 billion, with a 'B.' Aptera might be the larger car company soon enough.

We can hope :) Aptera apparently plans to scale up to 10k Typ-1s a year, sold on international markets. While that'd be nothing special for any of the industry giants, for a small startup, that'd be fantastic.

Can't imagine Bob Lutz, originator of the Viper, Prowler, and Explorer admitting they made a mistake.

Nor can I. To me, he always comes across as a know-it-all who actually knows very little. Did you hear his "global warming is a crock of s***" line back in January?

[Yanquetino]

Let's see... last year Toyota sold over 181,000 Prius hybrids in the U.S alone. Does anyone else here think that they just couldn't sell at least ten thousand RAV4-EVs per year?

[KarenRei]

At ~50k+ each, with typical EV stats? Yes, that's pretty much assured. GM is going to struggle to turn a profit on the Volt (a lot of investors are skeptical), and that's being produced in 40k/year numbers for sale at $35k and is extended range (which market research says is in more demand). It'll probably take them half a decade to get in the black on that one.

[Yanquetino]

Yes, I know what your vote is, KarenRei: that's why I asked if anyone else thinks that Toyota couldn't sell at least 10,000 RAV4-EVs per year. My opinion is that they could. And yes, I'd pay $50K for one, even if it only achieved the same EV stats as the ones now in owners' hands.

Anyone else?

Never-aired RAV4-EV ad (http://www.a52.com/oldqt/Toyota_Rav4.mov)

[palmer_md]

ok - I'll vote no also.

Aptera has roughly 2500 people on its waiting list for a $30k vehicle.

you hypothetically reply but what about a mainstream car manufacurer like Toyota or GM?

GM's Volt got about 10,000 people to sign up for a waiting list for a $30k car but none had to put any money down, and when they announced that the car would likely cost $35k about half of the people said they would no longer purchase the car. (look at the user comments after the announcements of the price increase on the gm-volt website) (also look at the poll about how much you would pay for an electric vehicle).

Anyhow, I think they should build an ev but they wont because it is too risky and there is not enough profit in spending their money on that type of project. Its going to take some independant companys like Aptera to get the ball rolling and then the big companys will follow suit when there is a proven market.

[cogito]

Palmer-
2500? Really? Last I saw was 1227 a week ago.

[palmer_md]

that was a typo. I meant to type 1500 as a guess, because I dont know where they post any number. They just give out slots as people sign up.

Whether its 1500, 2500 or even 7500, its not enough for Toyota to worry about. In any event the point is that while there are enthusists out there like those of us on this forum, the large manufacturers need to look for large volume sales, and an EV unfortunately has not proven to be a big seller yet.

I think the time is comming. With all the advancments in batterys due to the Plug in hybrid technology that the large manufacturers are pursuing, this will lead to pure EV's that perform to meet what the customers are looking for.

[drivin98]

That's 1227 people putting $500 on a two* seater with radically different styling than any car on the road today that's never been built and hasn't had any amount of marketing and only available to people in California.
Yeah, I think Toyota could easily get well over 10,000 people to buy a newly styled e-RAV4. Maybe not for $50,000, but they were willing to take a substantial loss on the Prius for some time (as mentioned in this article (http://www.thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=773)).

I don't know why they aren't willing to take on any electric car risk now but I hope Mitsubishi and Nissan eat their lunch in a few years.

[Yanquetino]

Actually, as of this morning there are "over 11,835" on the waiting list for the Volt --despite the announcement that it might cost $35K to $40K. The list has only been running since January 12, i.e., 34 days. I would say that there is certainly a "customer demand" for alternatives to ICEs.

To each his/her own, of course, but I would much prefer a pure EV RAV4 over a series hybrid Volt any day of the week. As for the price, I was merely speculating the worst-case scenario with $50K, in which the battery pack only adds to the cost of the ICE model rather than substituting one expense for another. In all likelihood it would end up costing about as much as the Volt.

And if it did cost more? I, for one, would still prefer it. In our household we currently spend $2,700 on gasoline per year. In 10 years' time, assuming that gas prices remain the same (ha!), that amounts to $27,000. Well, I would rather spend that additional amount of money on an EV up front :) than continue putting it into the pockets of the Middle East fat-cats, perpetuating our oil addiction, and eschewing CO2 into the atmosphere for another decade. :( But like I said: to each his/her own. I guess some people would opt for the latter rather than pay the higher price for an EV.

I only wish that Toyota would also post a waiting list for a new RAV4-EV. My prediction is that it would quickly match the Volt's numbers --if not exceed them.

[palmer_md]

The wait list has been running for over one year on the volt. I dont know tht start date, but the site went up just after the Detroit Auto Show last year, so 1 year and 34 days. And as I said these are just people giving an email address. They did not put down $500 like we did for the Aptera, so the numbers are not as realistic. Also if you go to the post where Bob Lutz initially indicated a price increase from $30k you'll see hundreds of people respond that it is now beyond what they would pay for the car. The response follows exactly with the other Poll that has been on the site for over a year and has over 5000 responses to it.

How much are you willing to pay to own a Volt?

25-30K (43%)
20-25K (29%)
30K-35K (19%)
35K-40K (6%)
45K-50K (1%)
>55K (1%)
50-55K (1%)
Total Votes: 5,394

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the question asked was could Toyota sell over 10,000 Rav4-EV's at a price of $50k ? My answer was no not likely, so Toyota is not going to go down that road.

If you change the question and say sell it for $35k-$40k thats another question.

Mike

[Yanquetino]

Mike: Hey, thanks for clarifying about the starting date of the Volt's list. The site had stated the month --but not the year! The "over 11,835" total on their waiting list is not that impression then. Still... according to KR's assertion of how a major auto company defines "customer demand"... GM seems to to be close to that hurdle, if it hasn't already crossed it.

I did, by the way, read many reactions in the blog after GM announced the possible price increase. They seemed mixed to me: some did say they were no longer interested; others said that they were still interested. As for polls, I tend to take them with a grain of salt. When you ask people "how much are you willing to pay?", they are inevitably answering "how much do I WANT to pay." Rarely are we willing to reveal up front the top dollar we would pay. It's kind of a Mexican marketplace mentality: they offer high, we answer low, etc., etc., until we both agree on a compromise price. It wouldn't even surprise me if some folks stated in the blog that they were "no longer interested" just to "threaten" GM with the loss of their potential sale.

As for the prices thrown out for a RAV4-EV, it's sure funny how figures can end up convoluted in a thread. KR was the one who upped my quick-and-dirty $42K-$45K 'guess'timate to $50. I just let it slide, basically because, after taxes and registration, the price tag might end up that high anyway. But let me clarify, then, what price I think Toyota could sell an RAV4-EV for.

The base model of its ICE version costs $21,250. I think it's reasonable to assume that replacing the ICE with an electric motor, controller, on-board charger, and battery cooling system would be a "wash." The real killer... is the cost of the batteries themselves. I have heard that Tesla's 6,831 batteries cost them about $20,000 per vehicle. I don't think that a RAV4-EV would need that amount of power, however: the same 5,300 batteries that AC Propulsion puts in the eBox would likely more than suffice. At Tesla's price (about $2.93 per battery), it would cost Toyota an extra... $15,529.

My best 'guess'timate for a base model RAV4-EV is therefore: $21,250 + $15,529 = $36,779. (*IF* Toyota can sell at the very least 10,000 of them per year, of course --just in case that caveat comes up yet again.) And no, that *DOESN'T* yet include taxes and registration, which will raise the price higher.

On the other hand, I think it's also reasonable to speculate that Toyota --unlike a small company like AC Propulsion or Tesla or Phoenix Motorcars-- could probably swing an even better "deal" on those batteries simply by buying in larger "bulk" --which would drop the price lower. For every 10 cents less per battery, the vehicle's price tag would drop $500.

At any rate, all this gets me back to my original opinion: if Toyota would resurrect the RAV-EV and put it in their showrooms, I think that at the very least 10,000 people would jump at the chance to buy them. I would.

[KarenRei]

50k was being kind to *you*.

The base model of its ICE version costs $21,250. I think it's reasonable to assume that replacing the ICE with an electric motor, controller, on-board charger, and battery cooling system would be a "wash."

It doesn't work that way. First off, Toyota isn't a "conversion shop". They build vehicles from scratch. Secondly, you change a vehicle, you have to get it recertified. Third, you have to address liability concerns, which means you need to design the heck out of it. Fourth, you have to do market research. Fifth, you have to advertise. Sixth, you have to set up mass production lines. And on and on it goes. You can't simply just take existing cars and modify them that extensively and expect the vehicle to be even remotely affordable because labor costs get too high. Haven't you noticed how much cars from legit conversion shops that convert ICE vehicles to EVs have to mark the EVs up? $50-60k is a pretty typical price for a true convert. You can get as little as $10k for converting an existing parallel hybrid like the Prius into a plug-in hybrid if you use a small battery pack, but this is a pretty lousy conversion -- the electric motors on such vehicles aren't generally designed to meet the full horsepower needs of the vehicle, so the gasoline engine still runs more than it should.

I have heard that Tesla's 6,831 batteries cost them about $20,000 per vehicle.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Tesla's prices are that cheap because they're using *laptop batteries*, which are mass produced. They need to be replaced every few years. That's not a realistic option for anyone but the rich.

I don't think that a RAV4-EV would need that amount of power, however

The Tesla is a relatively lightweight, low drag vehicle. The RAV4 is a heavy, high drag vehicle. So, in short, no. Tesla only gets its >200mi range when not being driven to its sporty potential -- when you're only making use of its low drag coefficient and reasonable weight.

the same 5,300 batteries that AC Propulsion puts in the eBox would likely more than suffice.

The eBox is 35kWh. That'll barely get you any better range than the existing RAV4-EV. Perhaps 120 miles if you drive it nicely.

could probably swing an even better "deal" on those batteries simply by buying in larger "bulk"

That's already bulk for laptop batteries; they're already mass manufactured, so how many you buy generally won't make a difference unless you transition a good chunk of the auto industry. On the other hand, "safe, long life" li-ions like the phosphates and titanates are *not* mass produced. But if you want them to be mass produced, you have to pay the capital costs to help get them mass produced (because companies like AltairNano and A123 certainly don't have the cash on their own) and hope that mass production works out at all for them (with high tech devices that rely on chemistry working right, sometimes mass production never works out at all).

Oh, and did I mention that high risk requires even more profit to be accepted by investors?

: if Toyota would resurrect the RAV-EV and put it in their showrooms, I think that at the very least 10,000 people would jump at the chance to buy them. I would.

At the price it *actually* cost them to make them? Not a chance. Even at the $42k list price, very unlikely.

[drivin98]

Toyota doesn't have any future eRAV4 plans so any speculation about said vehicle and it's price is, well, speculation. I'd rather speculate about cars that will be built. Like the I-miEV, for instance. A converted from i.c.e. city car with a hundred mile range and a projected retail cost of about $24,000 (at least I think that's the number I read).

[Yanquetino]

You know what? I'm outta here. It is one thing to exchange different opinions; it is quiet another to snidely demean others' intelligence, perception, naivety, education, experience, common sense, and grasp-on-reality because they have different opinions. I have already tolerated far too much of that here over the last couple of weeks. At this stage in life, I no longer need to hear a condescending lecture that there is something "wrong" with me.

[KarenRei]

Who said something was "wrong" with you? The word "wrong" doesn't even appear on that page; I checked.

Please, don't run off because of a disagreement.

[RoxChkPlusOny]

KarenRei, "wrong" was not a literal reference, but a summary of your tone. Look over your forum-leading 123 posts and see if any of them have any hint of chiding or belittling someone else's post as irrelevant, wasteful, or downright wrong. I value the volume of facts you bring to the table, but we all come in with some bias (like for me, I am very emotion- versus fact-oriented and they get the best of me sometimes). Then see Yanquetino's 92 posts and see how his posts might differ in tone, respectfulness, and constructiveness. You are a comparatively recent addition to our forum family, compared to Yanquetino and myself, but you have dominated the airwaves and, personally, I have been put off by your consistently confrontational tone. And so, perhaps we just have a few differences in style, but since we're all here, can't we work together in expressing our shared enthusiasm for the Aptera?

[Matthijs]

What I really do not understand is that there are still people out there against EV's or making up excuses for giant car manufactures that making a EV is not possible. They are making so much money that if they had an EV in the program that would only loose them money they still make money with the ICE cars. Why can't I have a choice buying an EV? They make nice cars for almost everyone out there! Or does anybody need an BMW X6? :D

I know this post is not filled with hard facts or calculations but it has a core of truth in it. They don't give you a choice but ICE!

(And Yanquetino please do not leave the forum over this, there are allot of people with the same opinions as you and also try to defend their opinions. (I for one) I fully go with what RoxChkPlusOny posted in this tread, just agree to disagree and make this forum a nice place to be!)

[palmer_md]

I for one am a huge fan of EV's. I've been driving one since 1998. I forsee many choices for us in the very near future. Aptera is going to kick of a revolution in the auto world. Venture Vehicles EV is not too far behind. After all the large car makers get the Plug-In hybrids going, battery technology will continue to improve and we will see pure EV's from them as well. We already see the beginnings of this with the batteries being developed for the Volt project at GM. Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi and the others have their programs in the works. Its a very exciting time for those of us who are EV fans.

[KarenRei]

KarenRei, "wrong" was not a literal reference, but a summary of your tone.

I'm confused. I'm looking through the history, and I'm not seeing any different tone between myself and Yanquentino. I see a fairly normal debate over an issue, up until the point where Yanquentino suddenly decided to run off. I see no point in which I did any sort of personal attack against Yanquentino themself, and certainly never intended to belittle them as "irrelevant or wasteful". Yes, I have suggested that they were wrong, but that's what a discussion is. If you're agreeing with everything that they say, then there's no issue up for debate. The worst I can see is my use of an exclamation point in the middle of my first post in response to Tesla's use of laptop batteries, but that seems to be about on par, tone-wise, with Yanquentino's first post on page 2.

Then see Yanquetino's 92 posts and see how his posts might differ in tone, respectfulness, and constructiveness.

You mean like the dismissive, "Yes, I know what your vote is, KarenRei: that's why I asked if anyone else thinks that Toyota couldn't sell at least 10,000 RAV4-EVs per year. " in response to my sincere attempt to answer a question that I thought was addressed to everyone?

I must be missing something here.

You are a comparatively recent addition to our forum family, compared to Yanquetino and myself

You only joined nine days before me (January 11th vs. January 20th).

but you have dominated the airwaves and, personally, I have been put off by your consistently confrontational tone.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone; why are you trying to do so with me? All I've been doing on this thread is defending my points in a standard back-and-forth debate: one side presents their points, the other argues against them and presents counter-points, the first person responds, the second person responds again and so forth. I've never intentionally attacked another person on this board. What I'm not getting is how personal attacks (which is what you're doing right now) got involved.

And so, perhaps we just have a few differences in style, but since we're all here, can't we work together in expressing our shared enthusiasm for the Aptera?

I'd certainly hope so. But writing a post calling me "chiding", "belittling", "dominating the airwaves","consistently confrontational", and so on isn't a very good start. Why did you turn a legitimate debate over whether automotive giants can make money in low volume, production prices, and what the public is willing to buy at what price, etc, into a personal attack?

[G-Jet]

The EV1 has been surpassed technologically, but not cost wise. It really makes no sense to bring it back. Now making a new one is a different story. GM has chosen to go a different and potentially much better route, for them. (Volt).

G

[butter]

I don't want to add too much more fuel to the fire, but I feel obliged to comment: as a longtime lurker on the forum and brand-new reservation-holder, I must say that I have found all of KarenRei's posts to be nothing but informative in the most helpful and relevant way.

I come here to read more about the incredibly exciting Aptera and any and all related subjects, so I can be a more informed consumer. I really don't know much about electric vehicles (or vehicles in general), but I am fascinated by what I can comprehend, because my personal focus is simply on reducing my carbon footprint on the environment, not about the cost of gasoline. I'm not rich, either -- I savor every last penny of my hard-earned money -- but for me, driving an all-electric car isn't about how much money I can save.

Ack, I'm sorry that I have a horrible tendency to blather -- I wanted to say that I actually enjoy KarenRei's posts because they open my eyes to the world behind the shiny car dealerships -- i.e., the pre-production process, and how agonizingly slow and difficult it can be, no matter how idealistic and consumer-conscious a car company may be.

I never got the impression that she was even remotely condescending -- with all the facts that she steadily doles out, her posts are pretty emotionless. If anything, at worst she is simply playing devil's advocate to the other ideas that are put out -- only to further the discussion and to add nuance and some real-world practicality to the understandably passionate opinions expressed.

She's just trying to be real. At least that's the way I see it -- and I like it, cause I want to drive a *real* car that is seriously eco-friendly for a reasonable price before I die. We all want this to happen, all of us, that's why we're Aptera fans -- and KarenRei is simply trying to help us understand our frustrations when things aren't happening at a rate or in a way that we'd prefer.

[qpham63]

No one has the time to be able to find all the information on all things EV or Aptera particularly in this case.

I read what I can and with what I know I form an opinion that I hold to be true or hope to be true. Please, this is why we express on these forum right? If we are wrong and it is pointed out and backed with facts, we would have learned and have been enriched from additional information and a different point of view from our own right?

I take all comments with a grain of salt and I also try to put myself in other's shoes in a matter of speaking only.

Heck, I am trying to get some contract for production tooling from Aptera Motors and I can't seem to get all the information I need even after talking to the ENGRs there and tour the facilities.

Last year I hear a presentation on the Teslar at the NOR CAL SAMPE meeting in the Bay Area. The batteries they use I recall was ~10,000 AA sized Li-ION battery and they were built into a pack in Taiwan. They may have used laptop battery at one time (just my guess as Tesla type vehicles does not turn me on) the same way I would look at say a Viper...Not my cup of Joe (not a tea drinker). I am pretty sure if you cracked a lap top battery you will find these little AA size batteries wired to make a higher voltage/amperage pack?

I have a 24V-20AH pack for my assisted HPV trike. It powers my 500W Cyclone (just google these words) permanent magnet DC motor assisted kits and they do seems like they are a bunch of laptop batteries controlled by a pretty sophisticated electronic board an the whole thing is shrink wrapped in plastic and put into a nylon bicycle rack for use on very light weight 2 or my case a 3 wheeler configure much like the Aptera.

We got one of our HPVs in college to go almost 50MPH with just human power (750w). Still it will take $10/gal gas and possibly rationing before hybrids like the Aptera is fully appreciated. We like comfort, rocking out in the morning sipping our coffees and cruise down the road with the heat blasting at our face to warm us.

I have felt since the mid 80s that the most efficient way to go is the way of the Aptera but I was willing to for go creature comfort such as heat and air leaving all power for propulsion. I was in love with the idea of the Aptera two decades ago. I promised myself and to my son that I will eventually build something like the Aptera. My 8 years old son think my past HPV involvement in college is the coolest thing about me. I am his hero when I pull up in front of his school on my trike pulling a bike trailer every other Friday to pick him up in the 1st grade and the 2nd grade. He is now pushing 100 lbs so I have given that up...Hopefully before he finishes the 4th grade, I can drive up in an Aptera to pick him up from school.

We like to drive (oh please, I am generalizing, I am saying WE as in people in general) big cars, let's face it, first year in physics would have shown that a larger mass would see less impact when colliding with a lighter object. Also higher unsprung mass makes for a more comfortable ride.

Please don't say this is only an American phenomenon. I travel abroad a minimum twice a year. I have been to South East Asia more than 40 times...I have stopped counting after 40. I have been to Canada, Mexico, Europe, Australia although not Africa or South America though. I have yet to find a country where people would not like to have nice cars, nice big cars. Fact is in France and England say, fuel is so expensive and the cities so crowded with really cr@ppy parking that little tiny cars make sense. People don't drive big cars because they can not afford to, not because they hate them. Again I am generalizing, please for give me but if I was talking about 90% of the people, I can lump them in the the "people" group right?

We drive BIG SUVs because we still can, we make enough money and fuel is relatively (compare to our income) cheap so we continue to drive a lot, and do so in big cars.

It is for this reason that people like the US big three, the Japanese, more recently the Koreans and now the Chinese are getting into the car market in the US and guess what? Their cars are getting bigger to respond to the demand of the consumer.

It take as much to develop an E car or an ICE car and more to do a hybrid of the two. So economics will always prevail, if you can make more money selling ICE why sell E? Why sell hybrids? No impetus better drive production of any thing except for the all mighty dollar (well, money in any form really) to get things moving.

I am a late comer on to the Aptera list. $30K, are you kidding me? The development that has been done on this vehicle? Wow, producing these cars for $30K per copy? I have been building composite structures for 20 years although most of the stuff I work on are space bound or at least will be flying so cost comparision wise, I am not sure how they will make it happen but I am confident that if they can do this and if fuel prices continue to climb into the $6/gal range, the fuel saving will drive this thing into production just on pure economic.

The 20K subcompacts on the market now with 40 MPG will still have a hard time competing with the Aptera.

Until that day, the "different" E or E assisted ICE or ICE assisted E or well what ever combination will always have a niche. This niche is best filled by people like Steve Fambro and the Aptera Motors Inc and the supply chain that they can put together to produce the cars for the small but well informed group such as our selves.

There will have to be a lot of events to propel these niche vehicle builder into mainstream acceptance. Remember that caring or not, if it hurts the average consumer financially, it will sell, if the savings in efficiency will not offset the initial upfront investment, it will not sell. This is why the EV1 will not come back, the Volt may flop...$45K? Gas has got to be pretty expensive. Now $30K, is much more suitable. Leave you enough to buy a 2nd slightly used 4 door sedan for those times that you have to pack the whole family and a couple of suitcases for a long weekend.

Anyways, I hope non of you feel offended if my view aren't reflective of yours. I am simply expressing my opinion. If you agree, please let me know, if you don't, by all means please let me know and please state why. I am anxious to learn what it is that makes our opinions different and perhaps I will gain new knowledge from our exchange.

I promise to not get up set if you promise to be completely honest and constructive.

qp in Lodi CA...Yep, like the song. I have heard about it but never heard it. I am of the B-52s, Oingo Boingo croud:cool:

[fritzponds]

I agree with you all the way. Nice to see others up at 3 a.m.

[Dilekz]

I think GM will never get the volt up to the market. They already said that the first fleet will be in lease contract. ( Ooooh people... do I feel a EV1 story here ? ):D

And GM was showing off with its Fuell cell propaganda... Well if you all are geeks or a little. You should know that fuell cell will never work in a million years.

Electric is "THE" way. ;) And car manufacturers don't want to step into the EV world. So we need new fresh company's like aptera and tesla.. etc etc.

[KarenRei]

You don't tool a factory to produce 10k+ units a year for your own amusement. Nor do you repeat the exact same mistake twice in a row unless you're an absolute idiot.

The fleet lease is also being seen on the new EVs. It's a great way for vehicle manufacturers to get tons of real-world testing on their cars before the general public gets them, so that any screw-ups in the cars don't tick off tens of thousands of buyers and doom the model.

Fuel cells work just fine. They're just expensive to buy, expensive to operate, and bad for the environment. ;)

[Dilekz]

This is exactly the way it should go...

New company's making EV's WHY?
Because the big 4.. toyota GM etc.. have a diffirent way of making money:

Never thought about spare parts ?? well they really earn alot on THAT !
EV on the road.. doesn't need alot spare parts. Less profit.
And i think with the 100 year of relationship with those oil company's who have alot stock from car company's. It's hard to get away from ICE.
And the problem is with Stock.. they have a vote in decisions that the car company's make.


EV1 story: the car costed about 80 000 dollar to make.. and they leased them without profit.

I know how those big car company's think... they think $$$$ And thats why new company's have to start up like Tesla roadster and Apetera.
Because they have a different look on the market.
Big car company's are too big to start with such concept.

And BMW or GM or whatever, would never sell a car like aptera.

[DDB]

I think GM will never get the volt up to the market. They already said that the first fleet will be in lease contract. ( Ooooh people... do I feel a EV1 story here ? ):D

And GM was showing off with its Fuell cell propaganda... Well if you all are geeks or a little. You should know that fuell cell will never work in a million years.

Electric is "THE" way. ;) And car manufacturers don't want to step into the EV world. So we need new fresh company's like aptera and tesla.. etc etc.

I don't mind opinions, but this is misinformation. I've been Volt and there has been no announcement with the lease idea. In fact, at VoltNation last week in NY, I believe Lutz indicated just the opposite and the Volt would sell for about $40K. GM doesn't know the price yet because they don't know the compoents. Moreover, he said he said it wasn't a matter of "if" GM was going to build, it's a matter of when they are going to produce. Likely November of 2010, but we'll see. I do agree that electric is THE WAY, but GM has over 400 dedicated engineers on this project and are spending millions--likely billions. Yeah the EV-1 was a fiasco that we all wish didn't happen, but GM's sole purpose is to make profits for shareholders. Beyond that, nothing matters.

[KarenRei]

Re, Volt pricing: Originally they said $30k. Then they said "$30-40k,closer to 40k". Last I heard, they were saying $35k. I think mentioning 40k was simply to soften the blow for $35k.

[Matthijs]

At 03:03 PM 6/27/2008 -0400, bob.lutz@gm.com wrote:
>Doug, the EV-1 will not meet any current safety laws. Putting a version into production that meets regulations would put us out to '11 or '12. They cost us well over $80,000 to produce, and, being a two seater, we could only sell 800 in four years. We lost over one billion dollars on that experiment.
>And I don't know why you insist that lithium-ion doesn't exist. We are getting packs from our suppliers, they test well in both hot and cold, they store the energy as claimed, we are fast-cycling them to make sure they last, we are doing high-temp, high load testing with the cooling system shut down and are experiencing no thermal problems. Trust me, the battery will not delay the car. And almost every major maufacturer is turning to lithium-ion, including Toyota. It's a mystery to me why you hate this chemistry so much!

This is what Bob Lutz says about the EV1. The information can be found in the electric_vehicles_for_sale yahoo group.

This is the reply by Doug Korthof who drives a RAV4EV. What about his case on Lithium-Ion batteries?

Hello Bob Lutz,
Thank you for your resonse to my call for resumption of production of the EV1. A lot of folks have been emailing me with their approval of this idea; I'm sorry that you disagree.
Please allow me to respond to your objections. Bob Lutz claims:
1. "EV1 would not meet current safety laws". Exactly which law? The Tesla, T-zero and eBox all meet "current safety laws". If not, GM could fix it. It's much cheasper to fix a door latch than to build a whole new car, which may not even be ready until after GM's fiscal crisis is resolved.
2. "Bringing it up to standard would bring us to 2011": I doubt it. GM can work miracles, when it wants to. The original EV1 prototype was delivered for $3M, in less than 2 years.
3. "Cost over $80K" each -- Well, that would be $100M for the 1150 EV1 which were built and leased; but in mass production, the cost would come down. GM's strong point is mass production: the EV-FC1260 battery only costs 20,000 yen FOB Japan, that's about $5K for the battery pack. There really isn't much else to the EV1 than ergonomics and bent metal. And if you sell them, the pack is OUR problem. The lead acid batteries last at least 50K miles; GM could sell us replacement packs.
4. "Lost over $1B on that experiment" -- I doubt it. Did that include the elegant dinner at Universal City? It wasn't an "experiment", it was required by California Air Resources Board, back when they had some integrity left.
5. "We could only sell 800 [EV1] in four years" -- Bob, you need to go back and check the facts. There were two "builds" of the 1997 EV1, totalling 650, and one "build" of 1999, of which 465 saw the light of day. None of those 1100 cars were ever offered for sale, nor would GM honor the residual lease price when we tried to buy them at the end of the lease. Instead, GM crushed or gutted them all.
6. "We need Lithium" -- There's a telling article about GM in the Washington Post. It sort of wonders about the wisdom of betting on a battery that has not gone through the 10-year proving cycle, because you promised it in advance of that.
As http://ACPropulsion.com (http://acpropulsion.com/) will tell you, bench testing is fine, but it can only go so far. Lithium is a complicated technology, and so far, NO ELECTRIC CAR WITH LITHIUM BATTERIES HAS GONE OVER 50,000 MILES ON THE SAME BATTERY PACK.
As you know, Bob, there's a thing called life-cycle cost: Lithium doesn't last as a long as lead or Nickel, costs more, and has no scrap value. This means the life-cycle cost is MUCH HIGHER.
If, as the articles cited claim, GM needs a fast infusion of a flashy, successful car, there is no need to gamble: the car can be released now, with lead-acid or Nickel batteries, and, when Lithium is proven, deliver that version too.
After all, the original EV1 was delivered with lead, and later upgraded to Nickel; similarly, the HondaEV was originally lead, and upgraded to Nickel, as was the Toyota RAV4-EV.
The Chevy S10-E Electric pickup, also, was originally released using lead batteies, and then upgraded to Nickel; also the Ford RangerEV came in both lead and Nickel versions.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-autos27-2008jun27,0,5737426.story
"U.S. Carmakers flat-out hurting".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/23/AR2008052302456_pf.html
"Wake Up, America. We're Driving Toward Disaster."
Thanks for the reply, I hope you will reconsider; GM is too important a company to let flounder.
And this issue of independence from oil is too important to ignore, it's the most important issue of our time.
Doug

[KarenRei]

I really sympathize with the owners of EVs back from the '90s CARB era, but their hatred of lithium ion tech and conflation of all li-ion variants to the properties of laptop batteries, as well as their refusal to acknowledge the drawbacks of NiMH and lead-acid, is beyond me. They've latched onto the old tech as the salvation of the world, when it's really nothing compared to what we have now.

I guess they're just afraid of disappointment if anything new is tried. They want what they have experience with. It's understandable, but it's the wrong approach to take. We never would have made it to the moon if we kept on insisting that rockets had to run on gunpowder and rely on a stick for stabilization :P Tech has advanced like crazy, and we need to take advantage of it in order to reach a wider market instead of producing niche-market EVs. The Typ-1 would have a range of something like 50 miles on NiMH and 30 on PbA, and its performance would be appalling due to the majorly reduced power output. That'd be a tough sale :P

They also seem unwilling to accept the true cost of the EVs that were produced under CARB. Yes, mass production would have made them cheaper, and they could have reached a wider market, but they still wouldn't have been mass-market. I'm sure the program could have been *more successful* if the major auto makers had wanted it to, but it could not have, in its incarnation at the time, been "successful". It would have taken successive generations of vehicles -- and, quite possibly, successive generations of batteries -- to do so. Vehicles designed for mass production. It's a telling sign that the EV1 hardly shared any parts with any of GM's other models. They had no plans for it to ever be profitable.

[evolutionmovement]

Karen, the electric advocacy's lost-in-the-past thinking is the reason electrics aren't out there in any consequence. They don't understand the market at all and never will and they'll never get anywhere. Luckily, the energy crunch has gotten other people into the industry where they have the likelihood of saving the electric and making a viable competitor to ICE.

Oh, and to be anal - fuel cell cars are technically electric cars as well. The motor doesn't care where it gets its electricity from.

[Matthijs]

ABG (http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/28/veteran-journalist-john-mcelroy-calls-for-ev1-revival-too-bad-i/)did an article today on the reviving of the EV-1. Coincidence? :jumping0007:

[Matthijs]

Now there is also an article on gm-volt about Doug's Letter: Link (http://gm-volt.com/2008/06/28/lutz-explains-why-the-ev-1-cant-simply-be-reintroduced/)