| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/27/2007 10:23:08 PM · #101 |
It's hard to have a lot of people interested in a car when A) you have horrible advertising B)make it hard as hell to get one [the salespeople selling the EV1's had to write up resumes why some people should get the EV1's.]
Well, besides the Ford Ranger EV, Rav 4 EV, Ford Th!nk (which they shut that plant down over in Europe); nobody, I guess.
Minimal Improvement in MPG? Are you freaking serious? some of those hybrid cars get SIXTY MILES PER GALLON. Holy crap man, look at the numbers. Do you know why Honda and Nissan sell more cars than GM and other domestic companies? Domestic cars suck.
Source me on that thing about Honda and Toyota getting CARB to let them by on the 2% zero emissions thing.
All of this begs to ask one question:
WHY DID GM TAKE BACK ALL THOSE CARS AND SMASH THEM?
WHY DID FORD TRY TO DO THE SAME THING? [at the time of the EV1]
SAME WITH TOYOTA?
|
|
|
|
01/27/2007 10:29:20 PM · #102 |
Not part of the fight going on here, but on the up side, they will need a lot of promo images to sell the new whatever it is when they finally go into production.
There, I posted something to do with digital photography on this thread. : )
|
|
|
|
01/27/2007 10:33:05 PM · #103 |
No fight, just debate.
You can't take pics of the new cars though; it's a conspiracy :P
|
|
|
|
01/27/2007 10:52:02 PM · #104 |
Man, when I first saw this thread, I knew it was going to go down this road. I'm not trying to be police here, just expressing my feelings on a topic I am also interested in.
Saj. please. you've made your point to all except big-alpha.
Don't worry. There are others out there that understand what you are saying.
BigAlpha - slow down please. Please. is arguing your point of view going to make a difference? I agree that Batteries are great and are a good way to go. So does Saj. Read his posts.
This kind of bickering makes me feel bad.
I've learned a few things myself from the thread, but the thrust parry is just unpleasant.
Anyhow, my contribution is that in mainland China, there are a few companies that are working in establishing a network of battery exchange systems. If the batteries are common and not really owned, then that cost will be removed from manufacture of the car. All that would be needed would be a standardization of power requirements and supply. This would also allow the state to control and streamline charging as well as recycling methods.
I'm sorry that I cannot supply links or anything, but I worked for a company that is currently working on this.
It's not going to happen immediately though. Politics is a big slowdown.
Additionally, I would like to mention that while laptop batteries might cost 150 dollars or so, they contain small individual lith-ion cells which are really not that expensive. There are usually 6 of them. I obtained some direct a while back for about 12 bucks US equivalent.
Sure, there are options out there.
Personally, I'm with the others that feel that car companies have been lazy inasmuch as they aren't interested in shaping their own futures, but rather look to ride the waves of popularity.
Incidentally, on the Ev-1 issue. I was told by Ford Motor Company some years ago regarding my Ford Tempo Diesel (which got 65mpg highway and city - wow) that they were only required to supply parts for 7 years after production.
Does anyone know if this is Canada-specific or if legislation has changed in the last 10 years on this issue?
Most of those parts were made on the initial production run. The solution to these issues that is currently being employed is by using alternate power solutions in existing vehicle frameworks.
Regarding the EV-1's that were crushed and the 25,000 per car by the 80 people. I still feel that it's strange that GM would turn down 2 million bucks for basically nothing.
Perhaps my POV is wrong on that, but it seems to me that 3 years had already elapsed on their parts support requirement. Further, they had 1000-80=920 vehicles they could have used for parts supply instead of actually making new parts (this is pretty standard practice. the law doesn't say that they have to produce parts every day, just that they have to have parts available for a certain amount of time. So the parts would need to be disassembled and warehoused - true, the parts would not be new, but hey, that's what contracts are for). Further, this could have been qualified by contracts very easily. "I can't find a dashboard panel" is hardly a cause for a big lawsuit. If there were safety issues, it wouldn't have been too difficult to arrange periodic mandatory safety checks.
What good could possibly have come from this? Well for one, it would have been free marketing for GM's electric division (Leaders in electric vehicle production since the ground-breaking EV-1... blah blah), these vehicles could have been provided to other groups that could have done FREE R&D for GM and provided something to keep them in the game. Oh and a couple million bucks for 80 vehicles that are on their way to the scrapyard ain't too bad... I think I got 80 bucks last time I sent a car to be scrapped for metal.
This is what is called 'micromanagement' though and big companies hate this kind of thing. Micromanagement IS wasteful because it's the opposite of streamlining via volume. Having dealt with this issue with my own bosses a number of times though, I will say that it's almost universally imagined to be a much bigger headache than reality would suggest. You can understand why GM would have wanted to simply not deal with the headache. On the other hand 2 million bucks is 2 million bucks and would at least have represented a minimal added return for a 'failed' production run. |
|
|
|
01/27/2007 11:28:43 PM · #105 |
Eschelar, you're right....we're essentially beating a head horse (probably more so beating the 350 dead horses of a V-8) *lol*
BigAlpha...I am done. I rest. I hope you'll understand what I'm expressing.
:)
More so, I hope that one day we will have a electric powered vehicle with an aux. fuel cell run off of hydrogen produced via solar powered extraction from water. That's my hope anyways... |
|
|
|
01/28/2007 02:25:52 AM · #106 |
Regarding GM's crushing of the EV1's vs selling them, ONE lawsuit by an owner would wipe out that 2 million dollar income. I'm not surprised at all.
R.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2007 02:57:53 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding GM's crushing of the EV1's vs selling them, ONE lawsuit by an owner would wipe out that 2 million dollar income. I'm not surprised at all.
R. |
you're right
|
|
|
|
01/28/2007 03:00:04 AM · #108 |
| There used to be an EV in epcot. I wonder if it is still there? |
|
|
|
01/28/2007 12:42:34 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
More so, I hope that one day we will have a electric powered vehicle with an aux. fuel cell run off of hydrogen produced via solar powered extraction from water. That's my hope anyways... |
+1 FTW
|
|
|
|
02/01/2007 12:35:46 PM · #110 |
Nikolai Tesla has always been my favorite scientist. I just read this about a car he made that is "mysterious". I actually fully believe this guy was capable of this sort of deal. He was amazing.
Tesla Black Magic |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 01:13:23 PM · #111 |
To whomever said that 60 mpg wasn't *minimal* improvement. Considering that my mini-van gets 28 - 34, 60 in a car doesn't impress me a great deal. Couple that with the fact that I drove a GEO metro for years that got 53 - 58 mpg, and 60 doesn't impress me at all. |
|
|
|
02/01/2007 02:34:39 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by karmat:
To whomever said that 60 mpg wasn't *minimal* improvement. Considering that my mini-van gets 28 - 34, 60 in a car doesn't impress me a great deal. Couple that with the fact that I drove a GEO metro for years that got 53 - 58 mpg, and 60 doesn't impress me at all. |
I agree. That is why I want a tesla roadster or a volt. I think the world is ready for a "major" advancement in transportation.
Message edited by author 2007-02-01 14:35:40. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/01/2025 08:38:33 AM EDT.
