Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NGjvt8tqRYc
RE: Henry Ford -- I think building cars for rich people was the very last thing Henry was interested in. The investors who bet against him lost.
Here in the US, cars must pass safety standards to be approved for highway use.
I don't doubt that Henry Ford wasn't much interested in cars for the rich. He did them anyway, for a while, didn't he? Why do you suppose this was?
Of course, some builders of expensive cars continued to prosper, but most went broke during the Great Depression or "downgraded" their product line.
RE: CAR CRASHES--the point was that some EVs, if not conversions of regular production cars, may not be up to snuff. Buyer beware.
RE: Other EVs
Here's an interesting EV/Hybrid:
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html
No mention of price, but it should crash-test well.
So he didn't need any money from investors to build cars?
...When his investors insisted he devote his energies to building the big Ford model (I think it was called a "K")...
How about models a, b, c, and f? Were they priced for middle-class Americans or for the more well-to-do?
Would Henry have been able to launch the affordable Model T without the money he earned from models A through K?
I'd have to say that he learned what not to build....so in that sense, he did need to do the wrong thing to get to the right thing.
Given the radical design of the Model T, and the radical approach to building it, it seems that very little carried over from the past....but really, who can say. He was an eccentric genius.
As for building ground-up, unique cars for the rich, I can't think of one start-up company that has succeeded in this since Mr. Ferrari in 1949.
History is overhwelmingly against companies like Tesla surviving as a car manufacturer and aside from magical thinking speculations, I think history is correct in this case. But as for developing technology to sell to the big boys, Tesla may be in a good position to sell out and cash in. I suspect that the shrewder investors are well aware of where the money is, in this venture.
So henry did build cars for the wealthy. From your perspective, this was a mistake.
Well, I don't see Henry as a stumbling bumpkin. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. The money to do what he wanted had to come from somewhere.
He couldn't build the Model T without a substantial investment in factory infrastructure.
Before he could do this - and buy the company for himself, he needed money. To get money, he needed investors. Go get investors, he needed a business plan to make the investors happy.
This is along the lines of what Tesla is doing. It's faster and less risky to hand-build cars with large markups that to tool up a big factory. In the process they get some cash and some PR. Their next vehicle will be a more affordable car. There's no guarantee it will work out. But it's a history-tested plan.
Henry went bankrupt twice before Ford Motor company worked.
Yeah but, Chrysler didn't lease them to the public in droves either Shifty.
In the case of the EV-1 people who experienced the EV-1 wanted to keep the vehicle at lease end even. I followed the progress of these cars for more than ten years - still have a copy of the video supplied to the media in 1990. If GM wanted to terminate their liability, then as the financial sophisticates they are, all they needed to do was to form a sunset company to take over the EV-1 assets. A battery manufacturer might have been prepared to assume liabilities since these vehicles had by that time generated substantial operational data. No one could now say they didn't know what they were getting into. Risk assessment should be of high accuracy. Either way this would have given GM the tax writedown they wanted. In the event I feel sure that all the cars would have secured a $100k buyout.
The major problem is not so much the NiMH battery as gagrice pointed out but the ongoing availability of specialised equipment and trained personnel. Who will be paying for that with a total population of just 300 cars ?
And how many of those will be requiring full support in order to make the service viable. "onstar" and "roadside assistance" don't have good renewal rate after the freebie period times out I'm guessing.
Whichever battery type is concerned battery changeout requires the use of a custom scissor jack that removes the 840lb battery tray in one shot from underneath the vehicle. Vehicles that need this service must be shipped in to wherever this equipment resides. Soon we'll hear how Tesla will be handling this delicate problem also.
T2
Again, we just have to look at how Ford and Toyota handled this with the EVs they allowed to be sold. But I don't know why we have to assume that ongoing service would even be addressed. Why would the seller be obligated to do this, if the buyers are forewarned that they are getting 'as-is' cars, and presumably made to sign disclaimers?
Those of us in the EV owner community are quite used to the idea of driving orphan cars.
Yes and apparently Toyota felt differently. In retrospect I think from a PR perspective Toyota made the correct decision.
Hey, here's a gasoline powered car shredding itself in a crash test - the dummy had to be removed in PIECES! Clearly, this proves that all gasoline-powered cars, if they are not major brand-name cars, may not be up to snuff.
Chery crash test
It's a cheaply made Chinese car. But the important thing is that it's gasoline powered. Yes, of course, that's obviously the real reason it's shoddy.
Actually, his first "rich man's car company" became Cadillac. His second evolved into the Ford we have today.
192 AA batteries and 75 MPH here we come !!
Very funny, though.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Alkaline batteries can be recharged (though it's against the manufacturer's recommendations.)
I wonder how many charges a $60 set of alkaline AA cells could take?
You can buy rechargeable alkaline batteries as well, which are great in remotes and other devices that won't work very well(if at all) on NiMh or other rechargeables.
http://store.sundancesolar.com/rayrecalaaab.html?productid=rayrecalaaab&channeli- d=FROOG
Roughly 1.25 each - they *claim* 500 cycles. 15-20 is more common if you recharge when they get drained(as opposed to topping off after an hour or so/daily use).
Most people don't know about them and it's a shame. (in theory, alkaline and dry cell batteries never go bad, but 1V isn't usually going to run a device. ie - they still hold a charge, but not enough of one - the same with most old car batteries, which is why it's usually better to keep old ones around for other projects, since 9-10V is still useable(just not for starting a car)
Does a recharged battery standard alk battery.,.say on the first or second recharge have a charge close to a new battery?
I guess I should have asked before I got the set. :surprise:
Try them - you'll be a believer.
YOU (yes YOU, don't look around curiously) killed the Electric Car
perspective Who really killed the electric car?
You did. You and the periodic table of the elements, with a little help from physics. Don't feel bad. Any individual responsibility seems to be spread pretty thin, but I figured it was about time to speak on the issue.
In the past few years, a theory has developed hinging on the notion that oil producers, in cahoots with auto manufacturers, conspired with each other in the mid-'90s to throttle the electric car in its crib. As a result, we've all been consigned to environmental doom.
The doom part actually seems to be on track, but the rest of the theory doesn't hold up that well upon closer inspection. Don't get me wrong: I think electric transportation (along with clean diesel) will become more prevalent over the next 20 years. And automakers have worked to keep emissions standards low.
The fact is that every time they make EVs available, it's lease only. Then when the lease is up, THEY CRUSH THEM. There are no resales, no certified programs... It met the government's CAFE and legislation requirements and nothing more. People plead, beg, and yet they still crush them. GM's EV1 - the dealers would literally drive them off to the crusher when the owners would come in for repairs or an oil change. No warning, no anything - just drive them off and tell them that the car is gone - tough luck.
Currently, only the few in museums exist. 0 are on the road today.
Toyota also did this, as did all of the rest, without exception(Zap and tiny companies aside)
At one time there were thousands of electric RAV-4s running around. Now, the only ones are a few dozen that Toyota actually sold in the first month or so to a few lucky people(then they changed their plan and made it lease-only)
Without a used market and the cars being driven/seen, it's like having to start over to gain recognition and a viable market every time they offer one.
I'll respond to each of his points:
Points 1 and 2: He harps on 'conspiracy theory' repeatedly. This straw-man term is invoked by opponents of electric cars, not supporters. I do not personally believe that any conspiring between oil producers and car makers was necessary to kill the electric cars of the 90's. These two entities did not need to conspire simply because they shared the same goal. So all the points he makes showing how unlikely a conspiracy would be, are just silly.
Points 2 and 3: Toyota's electric car disappeared from the market because the batteries did. The patents for the NIMH batteries used in the EV1 and Toyota RAV4 EV were obtained by GM and sold to Chevron/Texaco. Toyota was then sued by the oil company (through Cobasys, the company they formed to manage the patents.) Toyota was forced to stop making EV sized NIMH batteries, and signed an agreement specifying exactly what they could use NIMHs for.
Incidentally, why did Cobasys stop the manufacture of all EV-sized NIMH batteries? There are other markets for large capacity batteries, too (golf carts, boats, power leveling, etc.) Why did they give up all those markets for large batteries? (Cobasys is beginning to relent now that there's competition in the EV battery business. But just a little.)
'
Point 4: '...Sales weren't great and neither were the cars. There was a lot of customer curiosity, but few walked out of the showroom with a sales contract...'
Why do the EV history revisionists continue to pretend that these cars were for sale? Only leases were allowed, and for most of the RAV4 EVs life, only fleet leases were allowed. Only a few RAV4 EVs were ever permitted to be sold, at the conclusion of California's program. Those few used RAV4 EVs sell for record prices on eBay now, usually for double or better their original selling price. What does that say about potential demand?
The EV1 had a waiting list with at least 5,000 people on it - just to lease the car. If the car had been marketed, and was actually for sale, then conclusions could be drawn. You certainly can't comment of the sales of cars that weren't for sale.
Point 5: '...The battery still only had a five-year life. It didn't last the life of the car, so how do you handle that issue?'
The Toyota RAV4 EVs from that period that are still on the road today have well over 100,000 miles on the original NIMH batteries. Newer EV batteries, like Altairnanos, promise lifetimes 2 or 3 times that. Ditto supercapacitors, if we ever get that technology. But even lead-acid batteries aren't so bad. My own EV has a $800 battery pack that lasts about 20,000 miles. That's 4 cents per mile - add that to my electricity cost of 1 cent per mile - and that's 5 cents, which handily beats the 10 to 30 cents/mile that gasoline costs.
Point 6: '...There is no Moore's Law for batteries that allows them to get cheaper, faster and better at a steady rate over time.'
That statement would have been true 20 years ago, but not now. It's no coincidence that there has been little progress in batteries until recently. That's because it's not autos that drive battery innovation (car makers couldn't care less), it's cellphones and notebook computers that are spurring research. So the pace of battery research is suddenly lurching forward. There's lots of exciting battery technology evolving now, like Altairnano, EESTOR, Firefly, NIMH, and A123, just to name the better known ones.
Point 7: '...Batteries are expensive too.'
EV battery expense is mostly a function of low sales volume. But even with expensive batteries, if the cost is amortized over the miles driven, as I did in point 5 above, battery costs can be offset by low operating and fuel costs.
Point 8: '...consumers are cheap and don't want to be inconvenienced by a car that will die on the freeway'
I'm cheap, too, and it is exactly why I drive an electric car (an inexpensive conversion - EVs can be made inexpensively.) As I pointed out above, my cost per mile is only about 5 cents, several times cheaper than my gas vehicle. I don't like cars that die on the freeway either. My EV, built in 1981, has never stranded me, or had motor trouble of any kind - electric motors are extremely reliable. I don't run out of juice on the highway for the same reason I don't run out of gas on the highway - I'm not stupid!
Well done!
But I kid..does say something about the purported problem of using electric for climate functions, et al.
DETROIT - Beneath your car's hood, there are belts hooked to the engine, running the power steering, air conditioning and other items that drag on the engine and cut gas mileage. But as fuel efficiency becomes paramount with high gas prices and pending government regulations, automakers across the world are trying to get rid of as many belts as they can, switching them to electric motors.
The power steering pump is likely to be the first casualty. Toyota Motor Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. already have electric power steering on some models, with more in the works, and they report fuel efficiency gains of up to 8 percent.
Other manufacturers and parts suppliers also are using or developing the motors, which could spread to air conditioning and power brake assist devices run by belts that suck power from the engine
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_electric_motors_5
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5injP_H-HkCkxCFHZ0ryEBSrvGgWQ
Apparently they have a relationship with Zenn.
Can't slow charge at home with current electrical service.
I know standard capacitors don't hold their charges nearly as long as batteries. Having to visit a station every day or two isn't appealing to me.
Say a 250 mile range.
Ability to start each day with a full tank via home charging.
Charging facilities available at parking structures, street meters, restaurants, motels, etc. Giving you the ability to top off the tank conveniently.
Limited fast charge stations where you can fully charge in 15 minutes when needed.
Would that work for you?
Colin Powell's involvement has sparked rumors that EESTOR is a front for releasing military tech into the marketplace. Of course, if the military doesn't have this already, they will be wanting it (can't beat fast charging ultracaps for energy weapons.)
You will indeed be able to charge at home - overnight. The fast charges will be limited to service stations. Capacitors do lose charge (batteries do too, albeit less so), so it's a good idea to plug in every night. Frankly, fast charges are just for emergencies or long trips. Charging at home will probably be lots cheaper and more convenient for most people.
The "function" that must be served is that of the vehicle that an EV will replace.
I wish there was more new information coming out as well - EESTOR has been trying to stay under the radar, which could be a good sign. I.E., if it were an investor scam, there would be more noisy press conferences, specious claims, and showy demos. None of the PR so far has come from EESTOR itself.
The fact that they are not trying to raise more than a few million is a good sign, as well. As you pointed out, from the claims they are making, they could be running a much larger operation (scamming lots of investors) if they wanted to.
I agree that if everyone started driving EVs and stopped purchasing fuel then there would need to be an adjustment of the tax system in order to compensate for lost revenue. However when you are talking about electricity there really exists the potential for maybe not a free lunch but a very cheap one. Electricity can be produced from a lot of sources that are free. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are some examples. The only cost is the conversion and storage devices, which are not ongoing costs like paying for gasoline.
And the alternative energy sources that you cite are hardly free, they require tremendous capital investment, O&M and distribution costs. Wish as you may, there is NO free lunch!
Thanks.
The minute electricity prices or attached taxes get prohibitive, I will install an EV-sized solar panel or windmill (a couple thousand dollars for either option.) If they decide to tax these things, I can build my own windmill (plans are available on the internet.)
Meanwhile, the remaining petro-powered drivers are being taxed into the next century. I'm not saying this is fair. But I aim to win this game.
You wouldn't do this from the same outlet you charge your vehicle from. First of all, unless the EV you buy has the necessary circuitry already, you need a power inverter to turn the DC from your car into home AC. If you want to power your whole house, it needs to be a very large inverter. This is not an off-the-shelf item right now; it would need to be engineered.
An approach that had occurred to me (I drive an old electric car) would be to take several small 12-volt inverters (readily available at low prices) and connect them across each battery in my pack. This would provide me with (in my case) 9 ac outlets to power various items from, using long extension cords.
Not as ideal as patching into my house's electrical wiring, but OK in an emergency.
Yes, of course you are correct. My point is that the tax 'loopholes' will likely be with us for quite a while, as it will be decades before EVs are widely adopted. Even if all the EV 'kinks' were worked out - people are slow to adapt and change. Gasoline consumers, meanwhile, are an easy target - and so will be taxed more and more heavily to compensate for EV defectors.
Even if EVs were the norm, and fairly taxed, most people wouldn't go to the trouble to build backyard windmills. So I believe there will always be a way to escape high energy prices and taxes for sufficiently motivated EV drivers.
Something else that just occurred to me - how would electricity be taxed? A blanket tax on electricity affects all consumers, not just EV drivers. If my EV charging socket was metered for charging extra taxes, what would stop me from plugging it in somewhere else? An EV electricity tax would be a hard one to enforce. How would this be done?
And if the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow, you don't drive???
How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? If it is a regular thing, you are most certainly an exception. Most of us would only rarely have to deal with fast charges.