Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
 I will be more than happy to back her up since I am a former GM channel partner employee. Let me state the FACTS: Billy Boy |
And I will be even more happy to provide actual
F-A-C-T-S since I am a current and very active GM employee DIRECTLY involved in the product planning for vehicles and powertrain systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
-GM is getting kickbacks from big Oil..
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
Must I remind you who owns the patent rights for the nickel metal hydride battery- Chevron/Texaco. Although GM owned 61% of
Ovonic Battery Corp., they determined it was in the best interest of US to sell one of the most critically required of an EV – the batteries to BIG OIL. Hmmm, seems like Big Oil to me. Not only do they own exclusive rights to the battery but they made the determination to dismantle and destroy the EV-95 AH battery. Oh and by the way the patents are not expiring until 2015.
|
You should actually be supportive of the fact that oil companies see the handwriting on the wall wrt batteries. Batteries serve two purposes in a hybrid vehicle.....energy storage and power delivery. In the energy storage area, batteries are akin to fuel tanks that store gasoline. If you look at the gasoline companies like Chevron/Texaco as providers of energy storage, then you might be able to see that they are hedging their bets in the event that batteries do eventually displace gasoline tanks on a large scale as energy storage units.
The JV that you speak of was joined to develop a particular type and chemistry of battery. Advances in battery technology have led GM to move away from that type of battery system to more advanced systems. The JV was no longer necessary and interest in it sold. What does it matter who we sold it to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
GM destroyed all the blueprints for the EV1..
Why don’t we all make a request to Iron Mountain for configuration managed PDM Engineering documents of the real EV1 name- the GM Impact? This is the location that maintains all data center backups of the datasets. Good luck with that one!
|
I could easily refute this statement, but I'd probably lose my job for disclosing confidential information. Suffice it to say that I am on a first name basis with the man who led the EV-1 program and developed the Precept concept vehicle. Suffice it to say that a lot of the people working on hybrids and Chevy Volt have EV-1 on their resumes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
-GM had the technology for the EV1 then..
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
Let me correct you further. It was not GM that engineered the EV1, it was AeroVironment otherwise known as the GM Impact, in a last ditch effort to meet the California error resource board zero emission mandate.
|
You almost got this one right. GM did engineer the EV-1, and as I stated earlier, I am very closely connected to many people who were involved. GM did develop the EV-1 as a result of the original California ZEV Mandate, but not as a last ditch effort. It was originally part of a cooperation with California to study what it would take to achieve the mandate. California's part in all this was to develop an infrastructure to support the EV-1s and other potential electric vehicles to be marketed in California. California never came through on their commitment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
the Volt, if it comes to the market, it only available by lease..
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
The Volt lease was confirmed by numerous GM representatives. And, it will be a closed end lease (no option to buy). This is the only way GM can remotely have any luck of being successful with the Volt due to the high cost (which is currently projected at $48,000 and supposedly 2 years away). Oh and by the way, closed end lease means – you will have no legal way to keep the vehicle at the end of the lease, this guarantees GM full control of the fleet. If GM determines they want the Volt vehicles back, you MUST return the car – no questions asked!
|
The lease you may be speaking of is a CONSIDERATION of having a separate lease agreement for the battery, to protect the customer from high cost / potential obsolescence. Do you have any documented proof or statement from a GM spokesperson to substantiate the O-P-I-N-I-O-N stated above in
BLUE text? Keep in mind, I am VERY familiar with GM product plans. Seeing as how that's what I get paid to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
-if the Volt is successful and there is a need, GM will take it back from you and crush it, just like the EV1..
|
Again, O-P-I-N-I-O-N or do you have facts or a statement to back this up? Nevermind.....I know FOR A FACT that you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by indyr4400
Let me just point out one fact Billy Boy – let’s not forget taxes which comprise a good bulk of the fuel price consisting of local, state and federal taxes. All GM has to do is lease ONE vehicle to fulfill all of their requirements to delivery a product to the public. I do not know if you have ever seen one but who know drives an EV1? We had two good friends that had EV1s (1999 and a 2000 model) which GM abruptly taken away from them without explanation.
|
The whole argument of "GM swooping in and taking EV-1s away with no warning" is a questionable premise at best. The EV-1 program was designed as a closed end lease from day 1 for a number of reasons.
- The battery technology in the EV-1 is primitive compared to where it is today. It was decided early on that the vehicles would need to be brought back after lease to spare the customer the then unknown cost of having to deal with battery replacement and/or retrofitting to a new type of battery at the end of the original battery life. Customers knew on the day that they signed the lease that they were going to have to give the vehicle back. There are two programs currently inplay that are operating similarly. In California, you can L-E-A-S-E a Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Vehicle. Guess what happens at the end of the lease? GM is also executing a fuel cell demo fleet in California, New York, Florida, and Washington DC. In this case, the vehicles are not being leased, they're being loaned. Why? Because at the end of the program we want them back. Why? Because there is no infrastructure to support these vehicles once the program is completed. Sorta like the EV-1, because.......
- There was no guarantee that California would follow through on its committment to deploy the infra-structure to provide away-from-home recharging capability. The EV-1 had range up to about 200 miles, depending on driver habits, but if you were stuck away from home, away from your specialized induction charger, you were screwed. The point of the Volt is that you can drive for 40 miles (covers daily commute for 78% of US population) without ever turning on the gas engine. If you do run low on charge, the gas engine turns on ONLY TO CHARGE THE BATTERY. This extends the range of the vehicle to 640 miles, compared to 200 for the EV-1
- It was unknown whether or not electric vehicles would be accepted outside of California, Nevada, Arizona, and eventually New York where the EV-1 fleet was deployed. This would mean that the vehicle would be of limited or no value in the other 46 states. Now that it is clear that there is a demand for electric vehicles AND the ability to provide the range extending features, that concern has gone away, there is no concern about 50 state viability.
Peace,
Martin