More positive VOLT news

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 18 2007, 08:33 PM) [snapback]425716[/snapback]</div>

Unfortunately, it's more complicated than the first delivery. They have to also commit to high-volume production. Otherwise, it really won't make any difference. Token numbers aren't enough. Consumers want something to actually buy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 18 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]425662[/snapback]</div>

I was trying NOT to tell you that, of course. Frankly, it took me quite a while to figure out how to word that bit! I'm not trying to wave the "I know a secret" flag - and yet I have trouble stomaching the implication that Toyota is just sitting around content with what we have on the road today.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Apr 18 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]425703[/snapback]</div>

Well said, Evan!

As long as I didn't say it, we're good to go.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 18 2007, 05:33 PM) [snapback]425716[/snapback]</div>

I don't always succeed, but I do try! Thanks for the nice words. Breaks up some of the monotony of the hate mail.

And I HAVE to add, that your subject bi-line has to be one of the all time best! Seriously.

 

This weeks (April 23) Autoweek magazine is the annual Earth Day issue, and they tested the Ebox out at the California Speedway. The 0 to 60 time was 7.02 seconds which really impressed them since the Ebox is about 650lbs more than a xb. This is a real positive article about the Ebox and about the future of EVs in general.

The best quote "So by any measure, except maybe driving from Los Angeles to Phoenix, the Ebox is the better performer".

The writer also was impressed that the car was driven to the track(25-30 miles) did all the testing and drove back on one charge with plenty left.

The article isn't online yet but it should be within the next week.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Apr 18 2007, 12:11 PM) [snapback]425550[/snapback]</div>

Just for grins, I'm going to try one more angle on this.

While you are accusing the general membership of being blinded by Toyota's halo, and suggesting the GM is "not that bad" - I'd like you to consider a few things in Toyota's favor that you likely should at least acknowledge:

1. As Toyota was furiously trying to get market share with the Prius in the early days, GM was spouting off about how they would NEVER build hybrids because that's not what the American driving public wanted. GM was here for us - the smart consumer.

2. Toyota produced the Prius. GM has subsequently built what it calls "hybrids." 'nuff siad.

3. GM was the most proactive in killing their own EV program, and the whole sheebang for everybody.

No, Toyota is not always the good guy. GM is not always the bad guy. But to ignore significant accomplishments to make your point, doesn't make your point any stronger.

 

EVs are a long way off, in my opinion, because of the simple fact that their rapid adoption will kill off 95% of the auto maintenance/repair industry (read dealerships). PHEVs do not "suffer" from this "problem" (ah, a Chris Farley moment) so the mfgs will be much more inclined to develop them. However, once somebody starts everyone will have to follow suit, kicking and screaming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 19 2007, 07:44 AM) [snapback]426017[/snapback]</div>

This is a really important point that I was hoping somebody else would bring up. Tripp wins!

There is a significant, logical reason that we do not yet have a PHEV on the market. It has nothing to do with batteries or warranty. It has nothing to do with auto companies being evil or in bed with the oil industry. It has everything to do with the sound business practice of milking the most profit out of the risky and expensive (hard-fought!) current hybrid technology. Think about who's ahead in that regard. If you're the leader, you stay there... until that lead is threatened. And only THEN do you play the cards that you've been holding close to your chest.

Or you could take the other approach, and bluff. That works for a short while, at least... until somebody calls you, and you lose everythign - including your ante.

Today the kicking and screaming is coming from the folks who are trying desperately to get a reasonable hybrid on the road to compete with Toyota and Honda. No PHEV is needed to be the leader. But that time will come.... some will still be playing catch-up and some will lead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 19 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]425985[/snapback]</div>

Well, Darell, you have to admit, there's a lot of hypocrisy going on here. It's just like politics, professional sports, and operating systems. "My team can do no wrong. The other team is Satan incarnate." It's like Republicans vs Democrats, or Windows vs Linux/Macintosh, or my sports team vs your sports team. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

In Toyota's defense the bottom line for me is that Darell is STILL to this day able to drive his EV Rav4. His GM EV1 was crushed.

So I can see why Darell would at least want to defend Toyota on that front. If it wasn't for Toyota Darell wouldn't own his nice handsome EV Rav4. B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 19 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]426028[/snapback]</div>

Boy that's not how I run my businesses. I play my cards ALL OUT and get SO far ahead of everyone else that there's NO possible way they could ever catch up to me. Then I can sit back and not have to worry about my competition. It's just fast forward in the fast speed lane B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Apr 19 2007, 08:16 AM) [snapback]426051[/snapback]</div>

I understand, and see it too, of course. I think your point is stronger if you avoid swinging so far the OTHER way that you become just as guilty of having blinders on. It is OK to admit that Toyota does some good. Just like it is OK to admit that they do some bad. Simply slinging mud (on either side) helps nobody - just like in all the examples you gave above. So why add to it? Unless feeding into it gives you a sense of satisfaction, just ignore it, and add what you can to the discussion. Swinging the pendulum wildly the other way is of no benefit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 18 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]425263[/snapback]</div>

I agree - I was just assuming they had to use one of the existing Cobalt-platform bodies. Putting the Volt drivetrain in the retro and non-aero HRH body would not be my first choice. I just want the functionality and rear legroom of an HRH-like layout. And, really, couldn't make much use of the car if it was in the existing Cobalt body. My take on the prototype is that you can't put adults in the back and that rear visibiity is victim to the high-concept styling.

For me, an aerodynamic shell over a layout with 2+2+2kids seating would be optimal, if they could cram that into the Cobalt platform. Prius-on-steroids would be a fine exterior look as far as I'm concerned. But the current approch of low-sitting quasi-sportscar with no rear visibility and vestigial rear sets just doesn't cut it as a usable family vehicle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tracysbeans @ Apr 19 2007, 08:46 AM) [snapback]426079[/snapback]</div>

The auto industry is one of the biggest (the biggest?) in the world. Small business is another animal entirely. When you plunk down multiple billions of dollars to gain the lead, you don't just toss that away and move on to the next thing until you have to. For example, I'd guess you don't have shareholders eyeing your every move!

I'm not defending any business practice, really. Just trying to explain how it appears to be happening in the situation at hand and wondering how you're handling "their" profits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Apr 19 2007, 01:13 PM) [snapback]426117[/snapback]</div>

I made a mistake in my post you quoted. I meant to say that's NOT how I run my businesses. (I see you figured that out though)

Yeah I suppose if I had shareholders to worry about it would be different. Glad I don't. I like to run my race car by myself B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 19 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]426017[/snapback]</div>

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I think there's more to the battery issue than is being addressed by "hey, the RAV4 works".

In a thread maybe a year back, somebody pointed out that for (say) a 20 mile PHEV pack:
1) You plan to run the batteries from full to empty every day.
2) The rate of energy release, per cell (or per unit of battery), would have to be 7x as large as for a (say) 140 mile pack.

Item 2) occurs because you'd have roughly 1/7th as much battery as a 140 mile EV, but you still have to accelerate acceptably on that much battery. So the rate of energy discharge per unit of battery has to be 7x higher.

Can I put that in context? Item 1) says that the equivalent, for a 140-mile EV, would be driving it from full to flat every day, or 51,000 miles per year. Item 2) says that, the equivalent for the 140 mile EV is that you are driving pedal-to-the-metal at all times.

So, now ask this: If you drive a RAV4 EV 51,000 miles a year, flat out at all times, how many years do you think the battery pack would last? Three? Four? I think that's the right comparison for judging the feasibility of a PHEV pack, and I think that's why the majors are still shying away from this. (And it explains why the firms offering or proposing commercial Prius PHEV conversions offer either no or at best a 2-year warranty on the battery).

I completely agree that the dealers in particular are going to lose a huge chunk of existing profitable repair business if EVs take off. I'm looking forward to it, actually, because I hate having to do repairs and maintenance on the car. But I wouldn't say that putting out a reliable PHEV right now would be a slam dunk. The batteries in a PHEV take a lot of abuse.

Finally, for an EV, people shy away from the issue of the high cost of batteries. Once upon a time I checked the replacement cost of the RAV4-EV battery pack (no idea now where I found that), and it was listed at $17,000. I still think of that figure as roughly the premium you'd have to pay, over the price of the base RAV4, to get the EV version in an un-subsidized market, with nickel batteries. It scales OK against the cost of the Prius pack. It might cost more now (due to commodity price increase), maybe less, but somewhere around that.

Now, even with that, I figured that over the life of the car, the energy cost savings would pay for the battery. So, me, on a straight dollars-and-sense calculation, if I wanted a RAV4, then yes, I'd buy the EV over the gas model, with a $17K EV premium. But I'm not sure many others would.

And, yes, lithium batteries ought to be cheaper but so far lithium has a lot of drawbacks, like limited calendar life, that are still being addressed.

Anyway, I don't mean to be my usual negative self, but my take on it is that the major manufacturers aren't kidding when they say that manufacturing a durable PHEV is a challenge or that there might not be enough of a market for EVs (given the price premium you'd likely have to pay). I still want one, but I don't think the majors are neccessarily wrong about the technical and economic challenges in making and selling mass-market EV/ PHEV vehicles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jonathan Rohr @ Apr 18 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]425263[/snapback]</div>

I have to strongly disagree on this one. The Prius is successful because it gets great gas mileage in a family-functional car at essentially a normal-car price. The HCH comes close to that, and it's the second best selling hybrid. The fact that the Prius doesn't have a gas-only twin is irrelevant. Well, maybe not completely irrelevant, but I bet the effect is neutral. I know I thought about not buying it because it is so identifiable (to those aware of the Prius, otherwise it's just a mini-Aztek to the average onlooker). Also I really didn't care for the styling (thought the Aztek was ugly), but I knew it was largely dictated by the aerodynamics and functionality, and as an engineer I could appreciate that. So it's growing on me a little now.

Sorry to interrupt the Toyota vs. GM debate. I'm thinking the real winners will be neither GM or Toyota, but the small guys once they get actual products on the road, because they aren't beholden to the existing supply chain and service centers. The ideas are coming from all over and they'll be the rule-breakers and we could see a real shake-up of power in the automotive-production area, unless the big players can buy up the important patents to keep the little guys in their place.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 19 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]426017[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. However, it may take entirely new companies, with a new vision and a new business model. These are just getting started. Tesla and Zap and others. It is terribly frustrating that the old companies won't do it, and that it takes new, small companies so long to get going. But it may come sooner than you think. And exponential rises in gas prices will seal the fate of the ICE.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tracysbeans @ Apr 19 2007, 10:22 AM) [snapback]426128[/snapback]</div>

I hope you will forgive me, but this forced an image onto my mind's eye, of you in your GEM truck, hunkered over the steering wheel, pedal to the floor, going 25 mph on the race track, as grand prix race cars zoom past at 325 mph (or however fast they go -- I'm revealing my ignorance of auto racing here) trying desperately not to crash into you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Apr 19 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]426143[/snapback]</div>

This is a trivial matter. For any given number of amp-hours (the measure of the total energy capacity of the pack) engineers can easily design the voltage and amperage they want for the application. Essentially, in this case, where a 20-mile car needs the same total power as a 140-mile car, both battery packs would have approximately the same number of cells, at the same voltage, but the bigger pack would have bigger individual cells. Or, by a similar token, small cells can be arranged in parallel to give low-voltage, high-amperage units, and those units can be arranged in series to give the desired amperage. The smaller pack for the 20-mile car has fewer cells in the units, but the same number of units, so that it has the same electrical charactertistics but less total energy, as the larger pack.

HOWEVER...

All it would take to change EVERYTHING in this story is the development of capacitors with sufficient energy density. In an eyeblink, all the problems about charge rate and discharge rate disappear, and as gas stations run out of gas and electric charging stations pop up next door to them, the cap-EV would become the car of choice for cross-country driving. The complaint would be that the car "fills up" too fast to give the kids time to run to the rest room.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 19 2007, 03:10 PM) [snapback]426390[/snapback]</div>

Ha! Made me laugh.

 

Searching around for eBox information, I found, "At 50,000 to 100,000 units manufactured per year, we could bring materials costs down to a retail price equivalent of $10,000 per drivetrain." (http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?archive=1&storyid=1084&first=4291&end=4290)

That would be about $20-25k for a Scion. That would worth it for my drive to work mobile. It's so so close.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zzyzx @ Apr 20 2007, 06:35 AM) [snapback]426701[/snapback]</div>

Yup. Chicken and egg problem.

Without cheap product, few can afford it. Without people buying what's available, the numbers aren't there to bring the price down. I hear all the time: "I'll buy it when it is cheap enough." Well, folks, it won't get there until enough people buy at the beginning.

This is where subsidies would be well used. Maybe take a bit away from the "Hummer subsidy" to use for this?

 

And here's the eBox test I spoke of earlier:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...18009/1007/FREE