Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Demand for GM's Electric Car Falls
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 18:43:33 GMT

jerry@rigel.whowhere.com (Jerry Aguirre) wrote:

>But GM comes out with a $150,000 vehicle with only marginally better
>performance than what individuals make in their garages.  I suspect
>this tells us much more about Detroit than it does about electric
>vehicles.

The GM EV has to comply with a diverse range of regulations
and operational conditions that smaller producers avoid.
The reason the EV proponents were estatic about the GM EV
was because it had equivalent driveability to ICVs, whilst
complying with all the safety requirements that mass 
production vehicles have to meet. 

GM targetted a specific market niche for the EV1 ( as a third 
or fourth car for 35 - 54 year old, well educated people with 
an annual household income of at least $125,000, and an interest
in new technology and the environment ), and it seems there
aren't as many fools around as they thought. The additional
requirements to pay for house wiring and lease of the charger
probably detered some others as well.

The fact that other road users subsidise them ( 10% Federal tax 
credit, $5,000 LA tax credit ) apparently hasn't helped sales. 
In October 1996, GM said they had 250 consumers who were 
"drop dead serious" about leasing the EV-1. Given that they have
only leased 155, one could assume the other 95 have actually
dropped dead :-).   

EV proponents will probably claim that as dealers only got a 
10% margin on EV-1 leases v 14% for Saturns, the incentive to 
sell them wasn't there. The reality is that the EV-1 is a
niche car, and the niche was smaller than anticipated. Until
the energy storage problem of EVs is solved, the niche is 
going to remain small, despite what some people may believe.
I expect the CARB mandate to continue to move out until a
practical, cost-effective energy storage system is available.
 
Meanwhile, hopefully, the automakers will reconsider and 
implement many of the fuel efficiency features of the 
GM Ultralite, the ICV design prototype that was produced
at the same time as the Impact EV degign prototype. That
would do far more to reduce pollution in the near future
than any EVs, because it offered the same driveability and
performance as existing major market share ICVs.
  
           Bruce Hamilton

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Extrapolating the EV-1 demand for EVs in general?
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:39:58 GMT

Will Stewart <wstewart@patriot.net> wrote:

>Bruce Hamilton wrote:
...
>> GM targetted a specific market niche for the EV1 ( as a third
>> or fourth car for 35 - 54 year old, well educated people with
>> an annual household income of at least $125,000, and an interest
>> in new technology and the environment ), and it seems there
>> aren't as many fools around as they thought. 
>
>When a marketing plan artificially restricts access to a product, sales
>are going to be similarly restricted.  

If Saturn has only been able to find 155, do you really think 
they would retain *all* those criteria?. I'd guess the sales 
people will lease one to anybody prepared to front up with
the money and who is prepared to to sign the conditions 
of the lease ( no shipment to other cities, no fooling with
the car, Saturn servicing etc ). A sales critter would
probably sell one to his blind grandmother to get the 10%.

The fact is that there aren't that many fools around, and when
push came to shove, some of those who said they *really*
wanted one changed their mind. The niche, defined by the
limitations and operating cost of the vehicle, was much smaller 
than GM believed.

>At least those who lease an EV-1 aren't fooling themselves 
>on the nature of the diminishing oil reserves in the US.

Really?. You have evidence that *all* the people leasing EV-1
believe the US oil reserves are diminishing?. Gosh you must
know them all personally to have such chats with them.
In the 1995 USGS reassessment the reserves increased, and
the methane hydrates are going to do some amazing things to
the natural gas reserves next time :-). 

Building cars like the Ultralite would have already diminished 
US fossil fuel consumption, but instead a demented mandate
demanded that automakers sell EVs if they still wanted to
sell ICVs. So the GM Ultralite was ignored, the GM Impact
had hundreds of millions poured into it, and still produced
a lemon. The deadline was deferred because all the promises
about technology forcing were false, and so it will continue
until an energy storage system and vehicle that can compete
with ICVs economically, and also provide equivalent 
performance is developed.

The following is from a post of mine to sci.energy several
years ago. Readers can decide which prototype would satisfy
their needs.

[ Begin extract ]

Sure, at low speeds details such as vehicle mass are dominant, but
it soon changes. For a mid-sided European vehicle:-
                              Fuel Consumption ( litres/100km )
Driving Speed   ( km/hr )        40     80     120     160

Drive Train                     0.2     0.4    0.6     0.8
Air Resistance (Cw*A)           0.5     1.2    4.0     8.0
Rolling and Falling Resistance  1.0     1.1    1.5     2.0
Zero Load Consumption           5.0     4.0    4.0     4.5

Total                           6.7     6.7   10.1    15.3
( From a 1sq" graph in the Bosch Handbook, so excuse errors )
Now while this doesn't give the various engine efficiencies
at the various speeds you can see the relative consumptions.

It may also help you realise _why_ the GM Impact is governed
to 120km/h, because although the vehicle has a low drag
co-efficient of 0.19, the rolling resistance also becomes 
significant at 120km/h+, thus dramatically reducing range. 
It's worth comparing two 1990s GM prototypes of similar drag 
co-efficient.

                              GM Impact          GM Ultralite 
Design                         2 seater           4-5 seater
Horsepower                     114               111 @ 5000rpm
Weight  (lbs)                2,200             1,400
Payload (lbs)                  350               750
Torque  (lb.ft)                 94               127 @ 4000rpm
0-60 mph (secs)                  8                 7.8
Top speed (mph)                 75               135 
Range     (miles)              120               400
Drag Coefficient                 0.19              0.192
Fuel Economy -EPA Highway                         81           
   (mpg)     -EPA Urban                           45

[ end extract ]

>> The fact that other road users subsidise them ( 10% Federal tax
>> credit, $5,000 LA tax credit ) apparently hasn't helped sales.
>> In October 1996, GM said they had 250 consumers who were
>> "drop dead serious" about leasing the EV-1. Given that they have
>> only leased 155, one could assume the other 95 have actually
>> dropped dead :-).
>
>I am personally aware of dozens of people who would love to lease an
>EV-1 but don't live in the SoCal or Arizona areas that GM will allow
>said leasing.  Or they don't meet all of the qualifications you
>mentioned above.

Have you actually talked to Saturn EV-1 sales people?.
I'm sure they'll give you a finders fee.
 
>> EV proponents will probably claim that as dealers only got a
>> 10% margin on EV-1 leases v 14% for Saturns, the incentive to
>> sell them wasn't there. The reality is that the EV-1 is a
>> niche car, and the niche was smaller than anticipated. 
>
>The artifical niche was, as you mentioned above;

Why was it artificial?. 

Oh I forgot, the effect of low temperatures on battery
performance, and the concerns about the effects of 
high humidity, resulted in the selection of warm, 
relatively dry, locations. The vehicle range, and 
restricted availability of high power chargers also 
determined that the owners should have other vehicles
to maintain their lifestyles. Naturally they should
have sufficient income that throwing $480 (car) + $50
(charger) a month down the gurgler for 3 years isn't
important. That's in the South Coast Air Quality area,
in the other cities the car costs $640 a month, and
GM estimated that they may also have to pay up to 
$1,000 to make the house wiring suitable for the charger.  

The niche is defined by the limitations and cost of
the vehicle, and the harsh reality for GM is that there 
weren't as many fools willing to part with their money
as they believed.

>> Until the energy storage problem of EVs is solved, the 
>> niche is going to remain small, despite what some people 
>> may believe.
>
>"Listen to me, don't listen to anyone else."

Well, reality does eventually intrude, it just takes
longer for some EV proponents. 

        Bruce Hamilton

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Demand for GM's Electric Car Falls
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 19:20:19 GMT

Rick Downer wrote:
>Bruce Hamilton wrote: 
>> jerry@rigel.whowhere.com (Jerry Aguirre) wrote: 
>> >But GM comes out with a $150,000 vehicle with only marginally better
>> >performance than what individuals make in their garages.  I suspect
>> >this tells us much more about Detroit than it does about electric
>> >vehicles.
>> The GM EV has to comply with a diverse range of regulations
>> and operational conditions that smaller producers avoid.
>> The reason the EV proponents were estatic about the GM EV
>> was because it had equivalent driveability to ICVs, whilst
>> complying with all the safety requirements that mass
>> production vehicles have to meet.
> 
>Specious arguement. EV conversions of production IC vehicles 
>_also_ meet all safety requirements; without a gasoline tank, 
>they're argueably safer.

Talk about specious!.

Conversions, retrofits, and limited production vehicles do not
have to demonstrate the same safety as a mass-produced car, until 
their production numbers reach a certain threshold. No major
automaker would be able to sell a car that was not designed for,
and tested, to demonstrate that the 1000 pound plus of batteries 
and other mechanical and load distribution changes do not affect 
safety. The EV-1 was hailed by many EV proponents as the first
of the EVs that conformed to the more onerous design and testing
requirements imposed on major manufacturers. 

>Now, if you were arguing the GM EV1 vs. the "golf cart with 
>fiberglass body" garage-built vehicles that some pro-EV folks 
>call automobiles, then you're arguement would work. But the 
>previous post was about existing companies that convert 
>brand-new IC vehicles to EV for approx.$10,000US more than the 
>IC price. 

As above, they parasitise on the safety performance of the
major manufacturer. All they have to do is obtain an engineer's
report that the changes don't affect safety. No crash testing,
no extensive engineering modelling etc etc. GM was correctly
very proud of the fact that the EV-1 was one of the first 
production EVs that had been tested and complied with all the 
requirements for major automobile producers. 

Adding a 1175lb mass that generates 312V isn't necessarily
enhancing occupant safety, despite your claim. GM would 
remain the target for product liability lawsuits. I'm sure 
being sprayed with 37% sulfuric acid in an accident wouldn't 
thrill most occupants. Great care is already taken to ensure 
Pb/H+ batteries on existing cars can't either trigger a spark 
or spray acid over humans in an accident. A large amount of
money has been spent on developing the EV-1 battery holder,
and it won the major award in the 1996 Society of Plastics
Engineers' Automotive Division Awards for the ability to safely 
contain the batteries in an accident and also contribute
to vehicle rigidity.

>The question was why doesn't the GM EV1 simply cost $10,000 
>more than a new Saturn? You don't answer that; instead, you 
>cut the question so that your "answer" would fit.

No, you just demonstrate that you don't know anything about the
differing safety testing requirement between minor and major
automobile producers in the USA. Having a engineer state that
safety hasn't been compromised ( in a report that would also
probably disclaim future liability ), is somewhat different to
actually performance testing components and crash testing 
the vehicle, and performing or computer simulating various 
accident scenarios to confirm predicted performance. 

        Bruce Hamilton

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Reuse of engineering knowledge
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:28:35 GMT

Will Stewart <wstewart@patriot.net> wrote:

>> GM was correctly
>> very proud of the fact that the EV-1 was one of the first
>> production EVs that had been tested and complied with all the
>> requirements for major automobile producers.
>
>And there have been others since that have passed.
>http://www.solectria.com/pressrel/crash.htm

Strange, I could find no mention of the NHTSA side impact test
in that press release, a side impact test is also required
for compliance. 
 
NHTSA have apperently conducted 4 tests on Solectria EVs, 
including the side impact test,  but the results weren't 
immediately obvious at the NHTSA site, and I didn't have
to dig deeper, as the link was very slow.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/  
Given the location of the batteries, I would have thought
that it would be a very important test. Quite a number of
EVs have been tested in their EV safety programme, but I
could find the final reports in the time available.
I'm not even certain that the crash tests would necessarily have 
fuel or batteries in them - does anyone know?

>> Adding a 1175lb mass that generates 312V isn't necessarily
>> enhancing occupant safety, despite your claim. 
>You wish us to just take your word for it?
>For a more indepth analysis, see
>http://www.calstart.org/reference/papers/ev_safe.html

The NHTSA has a complete research programme on the topic,
I'll await their reports, rather than a WWW site that was
established to promote EVs and similar transportation concepts. 

>"For consumers the principle issue with any mode of transport is safety.
>This report of the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA)

Who?.

>The initial task of the report was to assess and compare the risks
>present in current internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with those
>risks in electric vehicles. The report examined eleven major safety
>issues: (1) Fire; (2) Steam Burns; (3) Heat Burns; (4) Chemical Burns;
>(5) Refueling; (6) Electric Shock; (7) Collision; (8) Rollover; (9)
>Toxic Fumes; (10) Noise and (11) Manufacturing Defects.

You're joking. Why not provide a review of the NHTSA EV impact
reports - they are impartial, and their safety programme have
tested quite a few. In my opinion, anyone who considers that 
steam burns is a major safety issue in vehicles immediately 
disqualifies themselves from being considered expert. I'm 
surprised they didn't have a category "gasoline burns".

>> remain the target for product liability lawsuits. I'm sure
>> being sprayed with 37% sulfuric acid in an accident wouldn't
>> thrill most occupants. 
>
>"CTA found that EV batteries do not present a serious risk of burns from
>electrolyte spillage. 

Strange, if I spill 37% acid the risk is quite serious.

>today's ICE vehicles because of their use of flooded lead acid
>batteries, most EVs use batteries which are sealed, maintenance-free and
>use either starved or gelled electrolyte.

Assignment. Put gel in rigid plastic container. Hit vigorously with
sledgehammer. Report final distribution of gel. Repeat with liquid.
you might be surprised at the distribution.

> Moreover, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), in conjunction 
>with existing federal safety standards, has established standards 
>that regulate the amount of electrolyte allowed to escape during an 
>EV accident.

So where are the results that show all EV batteries comply?
I haven't found any data.

>> A large amount of
>> money has been spent on developing the EV-1 battery holder,
>> and it won the major award in the 1996 Society of Plastics
>> Engineers' Automotive Division Awards for the ability to safely
>> contain the batteries in an accident and also contribute
>> to vehicle rigidity.
>
>So acid burns *don't* seem to be a concern with the EV-1. 

I never implied that. I noted that GM were very proud of the
fact that they had built and located the battery housing to
minimise the danager. The T shaped housing ( with the upper
crossbar between the backwheels, and the long arm down the
centre of the vehicle ) is probably the best for a 2 seater, 
however the back passengers in a family sedan EV might not be 
so thrilled.

       Bruce Hamilton.

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Demand for GM's Electric Car Falls
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:26:44 LOCAL

In article <3338685D.21BF@ballard.ca.boeing.com>
 "Richard K. Downer" <rkd7949@ballard.ca.boeing.com> writes:

>Bruce Hamilton wrote: 
>> Rick Downer wrote:
>> >Bruce Hamilton wrote:
>> >> jerry@rigel.whowhere.com (Jerry Aguirre) wrote:
>> >> >But GM comes out with a $150,000 vehicle with only marginally better
>> >> >performance than what individuals make in their garages. 

Marginally better?. It complies with all safety requirements
for vehicles from major automobile producers, it has superior 
range and performance at speed. How many of those home
built $10,000+ cars can actually match the range at speed of 
the GM EV-1 over road speeds of 40-70 mph?.

Given the huge GM investment in lowering the mass, rolling 
resistance, and drag, I'd suggest very few. Currently, the GM 
EV-1 is the best lemon on the tree. 

>> >> The GM EV has to comply with a diverse range of regulations
>> >> and operational conditions that smaller producers avoid.
...
>> >Specious arguement. EV conversions of production IC vehicles
>> >_also_ meet all safety requirements; without a gasoline tank,
>> >they're argueably safer.

You've now conceded that the safety requirements are 
different, and as you worked for GM, surely you should
have known than. Note your claim about "argueably 
safer" EV conversions, and consider:-

>> Adding a 1175lb mass that generates 312V isn't necessarily
>> enhancing occupant safety, despite your claim.
>I never claimed it would! I said getting rid of the gas tank was a plus;

Describing EV conversions as "argueably safer" strikes
me as suggesting that the battery is more safe than the
gasoline tank.

>> Conversions, retrofits, and limited production vehicles do not
>> have to demonstrate the same safety as a mass-produced car, until
>> their production numbers reach a certain threshold.
....
>> >Now, if you were arguing the GM EV1 vs. the "golf cart with
>> >fiberglass body" garage-built vehicles that some pro-EV folks
>> >call automobiles, then you're arguement would work. But the
>> >previous post was about existing companies that convert
>> >brand-new IC vehicles to EV for approx.$10,000US more than the
>> >IC price.
>> 
>> As above, they parasitise on the safety performance of the
>> major manufacturer. All they have to do is obtain an engineer's
>> report that the changes don't affect safety.
...
>"Parasitise"? Clever word. I would have said "capitalize" or "leverage."

I wouldn't, and didn't. A parasite lives off a ( usually unwilling )
host and doesn't provide any significant benefit to the host.
a good description of retro-fitted EV conversions.

>> >The question was why doesn't the GM EV1 simply cost $10,000
>> >more than a new Saturn? You don't answer that; instead, you
>> >cut the question so that your "answer" would fit.
>> 
>> No, you just demonstrate that you don't know anything about the
>> differing safety testing requirement between minor and major
>> automobile producers in the USA. Having a engineer state that
>> safety hasn't been compromised ( in a report that would also
>> probably disclaim future liability ), is somewhat different to
>> actually performance testing components and crash testing
>> the vehicle, and performing or computer simulating various
>> accident scenarios to confirm predicted performance.

>Well, you _still_ haven't answered why the EV1 doesn't simply cost
>$10,000 more than a new Saturn, despite starting your rebuttal with the
>word "no."

1. The EV-1 has a drag co-efficient ~30% better than any other 
production vehicle in the USA. Given how important CAFE is,
that's no cheap achievement ( but easier on an EV because the
underbody can be flatter ).

2. The EV-1 has a very lightweight body structure that has to carry, 
protect and contain an 1175lb Pb/H+ battery. The parlous state 
of battery technology means that it represents the major mass 
of the vehicle. Compare the weight of a full gasoline tank to the
ICV mass.

3. Consider what happens when rollover tests are conducted,
how many of those +$10,000 plus cars can be assured that the
acid will not slowly drip down and dissolve trapped occupants.
or hoping all those batteries will stay in the back when hitting an 
object head on, must be comforting that the engineer thought
it would be OK..  

4. The design requirements for a car from a major manufacturer
means that issues such as driveability, performance, safety and 
range etc. have to be considered for a range of climates. The fact
that GM curtailed the leasing of the EV-1 to warm, dry climates, 
especially those that offer financial concessions indicates the
parlous state of battery technology.

5. The EV industry praised the EV-1 because it extended the
performance envelope of existing EVs, and demonstrated
innovative solutions to problems that have plagued the industry
- the battery case is an obvious example, as is the low mass
structure and body.

6. The EV-1 is composed of novel structural elements because
the battery mass is located differently to conventional vehicles.
Thus issues such as crush zones ( no heavy engine/transmission
 to protect occupants ), structural deformation on rough roads,
weight distribution during acceleration, coasting, and braking,
and providing similar driveability to ICVs, all required extensive 
development and validation - just as front wheel drive cost a
lot to develop from front engine and rear wheel drive vehicles. 

These days even conventional cars have development and
tooling costs near to, or exceeding, $1 billion ( Ford Mondeo ), 
so the number of vehicles produced to recover that cost  must
affect price. I've no idea what the value is that GM assigns to
a specific EV, but they have also spent a fortune on battery
technology as well ( Ovonics ).  

>As for your arguements, you are absolutely correct! But it doesn't
>matter. It costs GM just as much to perform proper design and testing on
>the EV1 as it costs for any other car they make. To compare GM with a
>little company doing EV conversions is simply not fair. 

*You* were the one who made the claim that the testing requirements
were satisfied, I merely pointed out they had different requirements.

>The little guy can't afford to crash test their designs; that's why the 
> Federal Government grants them a waiver. They leverage off of the 
>design work and volume of the big companies to offer safe, roomy, 
>well-finished EVs at an affordable price. 

I'm sure they'll rush to hire your opinion. I wouldn't call most of the 
glorified electric milk carts ( also built on chassis from others ) 
safe or roomy - most are based around economy-class cars.
I haven't seen any large family car conversions that retain all
their ICV spaciousness, performance and range, perhaps you'd
like to provide specific examples. 
 
>The question was why couldn't GM do the same? Lots of other 
>manufacturers are doing it.

Name one that has the same range at 70mph as the Impact?.
60mph?, 50mph?. Might as well get out and walk...
 
>The numbers quoted here - and not disputed by you - as the "true cost"
>of the EV1 are in the neighborhood of $130,000 to $150,000! Since I used
>to work for GM I actually believe that number.

As I understand it, GM has steadfastly refused to publish any
"true cost" data, so the above are speculation. I'm not commenting
on speculation, nor do I care. 

> But I don't understand it. Maybe they've charged all their EV 
>work from the 1950s up through SunRaycer to the EV1 project.

I doubt it, that should have been wriiten off at project completion,
and any relevent tax credit claimed. Given the recent claims by 
Ford ( Mondeo ) and others, of the cost of recent conventional 
vehicles, billion $ development costs aren't unusual these days.

>I doubt if Ford is going to lose that kind of money on their 
>Ranger Electric (http://www.ford.com/electricvehicle/ranger.html), 
>and I doubt if it's going to sell for anywhere near that, either. 
>If Ford can do it,why not GM?

First of all you speculate on the cost, and then imply your numbers
have some tenuous link with reality. Well, Ford sure filled a fairly 
large hole with the money thrown at Na/S and other technologies 
that were intended for their EVs. Remember that these obscene
lemons are purely the result of the ridiculous deferred ZEV mandate.

> Did you know that in the late 1970s (when I worked there;
>I'm sure the figures have only gone up) it cost about $1,000,000US to
>emissions certify a new car? And that's for one
>engine/transmission/differential/body combination! That's a development
>cost the EV1 avoids.

But, given the typical development cost for a whole new model
( Ford Modeo ) is in the billion dollar region, that's less than 
0.1% of the cost.

             Bruce Hamilton

Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: EV safety vs Gasoline burning vehicles
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 18:07:10 GMT

Will Stewart <wstewart@patriot.net> wrote:

>  1.  EVs such as the EV-1 have a battery containment structure that
>greatly reduces such a risk; GM even won a safety award for it.  Honda's
>EV Plus has the batteries underneath the vehicle.

Care to name the award?. AFAIK, it won the Grand Award at the 1996
Society of Plastics Engineers' Automotive Division Awards. The reason
was that it replaced the original 50 lb aluminium tray with a
30 lb plastic tray with superior properties and lower cost. 

The first plastic prototype was too rigid and transmitted excessive 
crash forces into the EV-1's cockpit, so the design had to modified 
slightly to reduce that transferral of force. Not many other 
existing EV production vehicles have the sophisticated engineering
design and component testing that went into the EV-1. That's why
I was curious that Solectria mentioned only one of the 4 or so
crash tests performed by the NHSTA, and no mention is made of the
required side impact test.

>  2.  The acid used is in a gel form, as opposed to liquid.

I've responded to this previously. Gels may not significantly 
reduce disperal in an impact.

      Bruce Hamilton

Newsgroups: sci.energy
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: GM EV1 Range May Double in Fall '97
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 19:32:33 GMT

Will Stewart <wstewart@patriot.net> wrote:

>Bruce Hamilton wrote;
>>Will Stewart <wstewart@patriot.net> wrote:

>> and note that NiMH batteries
>> are only regarded as a "near term" solution,
>
>Here you confuse a "near term" solution with one that is _only_
>effective in the near term. NiMH is a technology that is _feasible_ in
>the near term AND long term and is not like some other battery
>technologies that are _not_ feasible in the near term but may be
>feasible in the long term.

No. The US Advanced Battery Consortium had clearly defined
their "mid term" and "long term" criteria in 1991. " Mid term "
was considered as batteries that would be available in 5 years
and included NiMH, NaS, NiFe etc. "long term" were those
expected in 5-10 years, including Li polymer and LiFeS2. It's
now 1997. 

Primary Criteria                       Mid-term             Long-term

Power Density           W/l              250                    600
Specific Power          W/kg             150 (200 desired)      400
 (80% depth of discharge/30seconds)
Energy Density          Wh/l             135                    300
 (C/3 discharge rate )
Specific Energy         Wh/kg             80 (100 desired)      200
 (C/3 discharge rate )
Cycle Life              cycles           600                   1000
 (80% DOD)
Ultimate Cost          US$/kWh          <150                   <100
  
So how does the Ovonics battery compare, well the only test data that 
I have ( Chemtech Nov 1994 ) shows that the testers found it had ;-

                                 Ovonics      1991 5 year goal.
Power Density           W/l                        250                    
Specific Power          W/kg         175           150 (200 desired)      
Energy Density          Wh/l         152           135                    
Specific Energy         Wh/kg         55            80 (100 desired)
Cycle Life              cycles       505           600                   
Ultimate Cost          US$/kWh     450-550 (1)    <150 
                                   250-350 (2)

Following data is from GM Ovonics submission to Kalhammer's report 
( that resulted in the deferrment of the ZEV mandate )
(1)  For 2000 batteries / year in 1996-1997
(2)  for 20,000 batteries / year in 1999

Also note that Kalhammer's projections ( based on information
from Ovonics and other NiMH suppliers ), show that NiMH batteries
are not expected to meet the "long term" goals for Specific Energy, 
Specific Power, or Ultimate Cost in the required timeframe, if ever,
so your claim that NiMH is a feasible "long term" battery solution  
is not supported.

>> and will still not provide comparable performance to an ICV.
>Nor need it.  The requirements of many commuting, errand, and other
>local transportation profiles make the ICV an overkill.

Strange that GM are having so much trouble finding leasees for
the EV-1 then...

>> >> Just what market segment do you think GM should have targeted?
>> >An unrestrained one.
>> GM has invested very large sums of money in the EV-1,
>Nothing like their usual first time product lines, which can be over a
>billion USD.

>32 million USD suddenly seems like a shot in the dark, a simple
>handwaving exercise.Your response doesn't address the market point.

You have comprehension problems? I wrote
>> It turns out that the $32 million, 50 vehicle,
>> GM EV assessment programme produced a perverted market 
>> perspective.

That money merely applied to the market evaluation programme that
GM used to assess the potential of making the EV-1, and then
went ahead and made it based on that assessment. The whole 
EV-1 programme has been reported to cost hundreds of millions 
of dollars. 

>> When it is confirmed that it is a lemon, 
>Bruce doesn't have any predispositions now, does he  :-)

A lot of advertising and media hype have resulted in leases of :-
December 1996      39
January 1997       71
February 1997      24
March 1997         17
April 1997         25

They expected and wanted sales of at least 100/month, and have
now reduced the basic lease from $530/month to $399/month.
Seems to be a lot of lemon flavour in those numbers, but perhaps
some people wouldn't recognise a lemon in a basket of peaches.    

>> they can collect up
>> all the SoCal and Az leases, trash the cars, and write off the
>> project with no further costs. An unrestrained market would have
>> left them with a nationwide long-term liability to support the
>> lemon. 
>
>You make unusually sharp comments for a vehicle that is 4 months to
>market.  You make it sound as though GM had it planned this way all the
>time...

No you make it sound like that, GM invested an awful lot of money
in this programme, and have given it every chance to succeed, but
every major manufacturer knows that you have to have 10s of 1,000s 
of identical components out in the maket to justify service 
support over the life of the vehicle. If they manage to overcome the
battery price problem they would then offer to sell the cars to the
leasees and run with the market. This is a prudent financial decision.

In reality, the fact that CARB have finally been forced to accept 
hybrids, means that GM will probably move much of the EV-1 technology
to their hybrid. They are now looking at producing a hybrid using a 
modified 40KW cruise missile turbine engine probably running on diesel
or gasoline, perhaps dual-fuel capable. All those false promises of
the battery makers eventually wore thin.. 

>> > Bill Ward wrote:
>> >> I can't think of a better place to test market the concept than SoCal,
>> >> and apparently neither did GM.  The only "more indicative response" I
>> >> can see would be even _worse_ results if they try to sell in cold
>> >> climates
>> >There are lots of other states that have temperate climates.
>> Yup, but were not all so stupid to give all EV owners a $5,000
>> tax credit bonus, and GM's lobbying for other states to follow SoCal
>> stupidity has apparently been very unsuccessful.
>Tsk, tsk, you are being extremely judgemental.  It really does bother
>you, a citizen of New Zealand, that Californians have an opportunity to
>reduce their urban pollution?

Nope, they can throw their money away however they like, but if
they had shown sense, they would have forgotten about ZEV, and helped 
push appropriately-sized vehicles with low-polluting ICVs. The
result would have already resulted in lower pollution, because
more people would have swapped.

>Where so you have evidence for GM's lobbying efforts?

Automotive News October 21 1996 p.60
"GM is trying to persuade utilities and air quality districts
in Phoenix, Tucson, and San Diego to match the SoCal offer..." 

>> >The people are the ones who matter, and right now the oil
>> >companies are operating a disinformation campaign against EVs
>> >aimed at the general populace, so consider me skeptical about
>> >some of the "skeptics".
>> Given the rubbish that EV proponents told about technology
>> forcing battery development by 1997, and the fact that
>> people aren't rushing to lease or buy EVs, it seems that
>> the public have already made up their minds.
>That they have.  Of course, that doesn't stop you from trying to
>establish a perception.  See
>http://www.calstart.com/reference/papers/dohring_study.html
>"A total of 1,253 respondents were surveyed from across the 50 United
>States in proportion to their household populations. All respondents
>were surveyed by telephone during January, 1997, and were qualified as
>intending to purchase a new or used vehicle in the future from a new car
>dealership.....

Hey, that's a bit like the Saturn survey, according the above
Automobile News article, Saturn said " At least 250 people are
"drop-dead serious" about being first on their block to have
an EV-1. Well, the above numbers indicate that only 176 have
leased EV-1s.

>> It turns out that the $32 million, 50 vehicle,
>> GM EV assessment programme produced a perverted market
>> perspective. Apparently, some of those who said they would
>> lease one if it was available, haven't. Simple really.
>You seem to think that the EV-1 is available to everyone. 

No, I posted the Saturn criteria last year, and you missed 
several, including off-road parking, house power-supply 
capable of being upgraded, and well-educated 35-54 year-olds with
interests in new technologies and the environment. 

>When GM asked for volunteers to test drive the EV-1 prototype, the
>Impact, the initial response was over 7000, surprising the GM staff. 
>From all indications, only a very small percentage were actually allowed
>to lease it

That was the $32 million dollar survey that produced perverted
market results.

>> The EV-1 does bear some physical resemblence to a
>> lemon, but fortunately it looks nicer than an Edsel.
>You struggle to make metaphors a part of your argument, but that simply
>shows the lack of real substance in your position.

Well, I concede defeat. In amongst the millions of ICV vehicles
criusing Americam highways daily, there are 176 EV-1 leasees, 
especially when GM only expected to have at least 500. 

It seems that one was not born every minute, but once every
59,768 minutes (176/20yrs) - around here that would be citrus 
fruit country for any major automotive supplier.

         Bruce Hamilton