# Darell's EV1 (and/or EVs in general)



## Darell (Dec 20, 2001)

*Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK, I'd like to start my own thread here for personal selfish reasons (I want to be notified when there are responses!)

It all started with Brock's thread here:Brock's Thread
So take a look to see how it began.

And there have been other threads that I have criminally hijacked: EV thread, Alt Fuels, Bush & H2, Price of Gas, Future Transportation, Hydrogen cars, Green electricity.

My current EV page (in progress): Darell's EV page 

On November 27, 2001 I took delivery of a 1997 EV1 - currently the highest-performance "production" EV. There were fewer than 1000 made, and fewer are being driven today. My lease is for only two years, but they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands to get it back after that...


----------



## papasan (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

what's the chance you could pop the hoods and show us the motor?...too bad about crappy GM politics...just a reflection of the state of the rest of things...


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well, it would be easy enough to pop the hood and snap a shot... but it would be about the most boring picture you've seen a a while. *No user serviceable parts inside* if you know what I mean. What you can see of the motor is just a big, smooth, black blob. It is a monster though - 120kw AC induction motor. That'll blend some ice cubes.

Your best bet is to look here at the EV1 cut-away


----------



## Badbeams3 (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Do you all really think GM will recall and crush them? It would be terrible if this one was stolen...and magically showed up in Darells EV museum 40~50 years from now.


----------



## Brock (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Does it use an automatic transmission? I saw the gears in the cutaway and it got me to wondering. I sure wish someone made an electric car with all the "standard features" of a 4-door sedan. I am seriously looking at the Toyota hy-bred and VW Jetta TDI. The TDI runs on diesel and gets about 50mpg with the turbo direct inject 90HP. The Toyota just seems too small. I would really like a car the size (room) of the Jetta but all electric, a guy can dream can't he?


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ken B:
*Do you all really think GM will recall and crush them? It would be terrible if this one was stolen...and magically showed up in Darells EV museum 40~50 years from now.



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they've recalled them once. And at the time, nothing was mentioned about leasing them ever again. Then, due to various political pressures, they relented.

I'm actually still trying to figure out where the crushing rumor came from... but nobody, including GM, refutes it.

As for Darell's EV museum - there ARE a few EV1 unaccounted for from the first recall as far as I know. Hmmm.


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*Does it use an automatic transmission? I saw the gears in the cutaway and it got me to wondering.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*

No traditional transmission. Single gear ratio forward and reverse. Direct drive. You simply spin the motor forward or backwards depending on where you point the "gear selector." That is one of the beauties of the EV - NO gear shifts EVER. The gears you see are just for reduction. The modified Impact1 did 183mph in first (and only) gear!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I sure wish someone made an electric car with all the "standard features" of a 4-door sedan.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*

Can you wait until this summer? The Rav4 full-electric goes on sale this coming summer. The test vehicles have been fantastic.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I am seriously looking at the Toyota hy-bred and VW Jetta TDI.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*

If you can again wait until summer you'll be able to test-drive the new Civic Hybrid. It is an updated Insight in a Civic's body. Way more room, 4-doors, real trunk and room for four. Should do as well if not better than the current two-seater Insight. I own a 2001 Civic, and it is VERY roomy for it's exterior dimensions (much larger than our 1987 Accord was in all aspects - more power and better gas mileage too!)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*I would really like a car the size (room) of the Jetta but all electric, a guy can dream can't he?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, a guy can. And I'm right there with you. It'll come. It would probably come faster with a different administration, but it'll come. I seriously can't imagine being without an EV now that I've had one for just a few weeks. It would be like losing all my Arc AAA's!


----------



## Darell (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by papasan:
*what's the chance you could pop the hoods and show us the motor*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, don't say I didn't warn you The EV1 Motor

While under the hood (This is the second time I've openened it) I noticed an official CA emissions sticker. It says that there are no adjustments to be made to the vehicle's emissions equipment. I guess that's legal-eze for "this car HAS no emissions equipment."


----------



## papasan (Dec 20, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

ur right, that *is* pretty boring =P...


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Jeez. There I was trying to edit one of my posts in the "other" thread to remove some of the images. Took me three tries before I was bright enough to realize it was locked! Guess we're serious about stopping THAT thread.

I just got back from a spin around town with my daughter. One of the three chargers in town is _constantly_ blocked by an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicle. And it is always the same damn car every day during business hours. Sure, there is a huge blue sign that says "Electric Vehicles Only", but there is no law in Davis to prevent anybody from disregarding the signs. Sigh. There are two chargers there that probably cost us taxpayers about $12,000 to install (not to mention the cost of that nice sign), and nobody can use the chargers all day long. Nice use of funds.

I think the rudest part is that the ICE that blocks the chargers is the biggest frigging 4wd, monster-cab pickup that you've ever seen. I would have felt a teenie bit better if it was blocked by something that got better than 8mpg at least.


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

*Brock* -

Go here: Rav4 EV reservation


----------



## Brock (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I will go take a look at it. We have parking spot here at work that are marked very well and people regular park in them. I have parked my car behind the car in my spot on more then one occasion. It is always nice when they come in and ask if who ever parked them in can move out of the way and then my boss says, "he's busy but he will be out in about an hour, oh didn't you see the sign on each spot that says NO PARKING AT ANY TIME without permit?"






I just looked at the RAV4 site. It is only available in CA again. We never get any good cars here in WI.


----------



## Darell (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*
I just looked at the RAV4 site. It is only available in CA again. We never get any good cars here in WI.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh crap. I forgot - some people _don't_ live in CA.



Sorry about that. Well, us pioneers out here in the West will get all the kinks ironed out for you...


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I looked at the RAV 4 site too, but came back here to remind us that these cars aren't really the "zero emission vehicles" Toyota claims they are..unless of course the electricity you fill them with comes from a purely solar source, (which also includes moving water), if the electricity comes from burning coal PopSci. says in the latest ish, that the EV1 creates more pollution than a 30 (?I'll check this # later) mpg ICE..still it's a neat car, but how about hydro-electric charger stations only? right.


----------



## Darell (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ted the Led:
*...but came back here to remind us that these cars aren't really the "zero emission vehicles" Toyota claims they are..unless of course the electricity you fill them with comes from a purely solar source

...PopSci. says in the latest ish, that the EV1 creates more pollution than a 30 (?I'll check this # later) mpg ICE...*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooh! This kind of misinformation really ICE's me! I get all shaky when I think about it, since this simply IS NOT TRUE. And there are so many reasons why it isn't true that it makes my head spin. I won't go into all the reasons right here, but I will let you in on one very small secret that should squash these rumors:

Let's assume that the average ICE car goes 25 miles on a gallon of gas. Well, that gallon of gas took enough electricity to produce, transport and deliver to power my EV1 at least 25 miles. So, after driving your ICE car 25 miles, you have consumed 25 miles worth of EV1 "fuel" AND you have polluted with your gallon of gas. There is simply no freaking way that an EV1 can ever pollute as much as ANY ICE, and that includes hybrids.

Then add these facts (trying desperately to keep the list brief):

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>1. Here in CA, we have the cleanest electricity in the country.
2. My EV1 is powered by 100% renewable energy sources (I purchase it that way).
3. EVs are typically charged at night with otherwise "wasted" electricity - which means they don't add anything to the pollution equation.
4. EVs charged at night typically make power generators more efficient by keeping the load more constant at the low peak times - therefor actually decreasing the pollution caused by the generators.
5. There are many 100% solar charging stations in CA - a new one goes in this year in my neighboring town. Enough solar power to power City hall, and 25 EV chargers.
6. ICE cars always pollute while EVs, as you can see, can be made to be completely ZEV.
[/list]

My list is damn-near endless, so if you'd like to hear more, don't be shy to ask (just know that I won't be around a computer for several days). There are several things to criticize about EVs. The pollution they generate is NOT one of them. Not by a long shot. Having to argue this point daily has gotten to be like sticking needles in my eye. How can the general public be so bent on wanting to believe that EVs pollute so much? To the point of not even questioning what the mainstream media prints about it...

Please, please, please don't "remind" us of something that is not true. Of course, I'm most angry at Popular Science for reporting on half truths - but then I'm used to hearing this stuff every day. It has become the most popular public sentiment - EVs just put the same amount of pollution somewhere else. Well, nation-wide, charging an EV will create about 3% of the pollution of an average ICE car. In CA, that figure is closer to 1% (due to our cleaner electricity generators using natural gas, solar, hydro, geothermal, wind). And remember - we don't change oil every few thousand miles, we don't release raw benzene to the atmosphere when we fill the tank, we don't drip oil on the roads.... ah, forget it... the list is just too damn long.

OK, don't have any more time (lucky you!) so I'll gingerly step back off my box.

Thanks for letting me run off at the keyboard (but I did warn you in my sig that I'm _passionate_ about my EV1). Guess you won't be questioning THAT anymore, huh?


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,
no, by all means, enlighten me/us! But needles in your eyes?! Sorry! I guess whoever said the truth hurts was right, for both the giving and getting...But, your argument sounds very reasonable, and your points are valid and new to me, so keep up the good fight! There are ears to hear.
I went and got hte PopSci. ish referred to and print the entire lettter and reply by the editor for any further comments you may have, for 2001 or '02




from Popular Science January 2002:
"...According to my calculations, the City electric car produces the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions as an SUV. Recharging the City car after 35 miles uses 22kWh, which produces more carbon emissions than a 13-mpg SUV. If the electricity is generated by natural gas, carbon emissions are equivalent to a 25-mpg SUV. _Steve Schroeder,College Sation, Texas_..." (hope I'm allowed to quote all this-?-TTL)
Ed. reply:_You're right: Despite their reputation, electric cars are almost never as fuel efficient as gasoline cars.The reason is that the energy consumed by a car is a function of the mass multiplied by acceleration; electric cars have heavy batteries, and hence they almost always consume more energy than an equivalent gas car. On the emission side, if the electricity powering the car came from a coal burning plant, it can mean that the car is responsible for higher total emission levels than a gasoline powered car. Don't forget about other sources of electricity, however: If you use hydro-electric power to drive your electric car, the root source of energy is the sun itself; and the process is then emission free..."_ 

So I guess there is a vast sea of BS, (as George Harrison used to say ) awaiting all those seeking the EV truth, provided in part no doubt by those special people with a few sheckles invested in the petro-chemical industry, mm? Thanks for the info Darell. 
Here's wishing you a happy new year, and low cranial rpms, (unless you want them!



)


----------



## Darell (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OW! There go my eyes again!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ted the Led:
*from Popular Science January 2002:

You're right: Despite their reputation, electric cars are almost never as fuel efficient as gasoline cars.The reason is that the energy consumed by a car is a function of the mass multiplied by acceleration; electric cars have heavy batteries, and hence they almost always consume more energy than an equivalent gas car. 
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for keeping an open mind Ted! The more you learn, the more you'll realize what a load of bull we're all being fed. It is the ignorance of the auto industry that is trying to stop EVs from being produced, but Big Oil has a hand in just about everything we Americans try to do. I don't want to, but I just can't help responding again - I MUST get my hands on that issue.

How they can be so wrong is totally beyond me. Here are a few facts to ponder after reading the quote above:

My EV1 holds the equivalent energy of less than 1.5 gallons of gasoline in its batteries. On that amount of energy, I can travel about 80 miles. 80 high-performance miles. Show me the ICE that does that! The reason I can travel that far? Well, something like 70% of the battery energy is converted into propulsion energy in my car. In an ICE, about 20% of the gasoline is converted into propulsion energy. So where exactly is an EV less efficient? An ICE wastest energy in the form of sound, heat, unburt fuel, etc. Spinning an electric motor is FAR more efficient

And again, that quote ignores the fact that it takes tons of electricity to produce and deliver gasoline. Almost nobody considers that fact when they make this argument. I did a rough calculation a few weeks ago. If every gasoline station in CA were shut down, the energy savings (just at the station, mind you) would power 100,000 EVs travelling about 40 miles per day. So just shutting off the gasoline stations would provide 4 million EV miles each day for free - both money and pollution free (considering this electricity was going to be used anyway).

Oooh. My eyes!

I don't suppose you could scan that article for me, could you?


----------



## Brock (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell I just read that PopSci today at work and literally screamed. It drives me nuts to think anyone can think that an ICE (internal combustion engine) is cleaner then any and I mean ANY power plant, be it nuke, coal, whatever. If ICE engines were so great we would have ICE peaker units, and guess what we don't. ICE's are about 100% more pollutant and about 50 times more inefficient then central power plants. Man oh Man... What’s a guy to do.

On a lighter note, is there more detailed info on the Rav4? I looked around that site and didn't find any good info, like size of motor, maybe 2WD with 2 motors? Battery size? I like the size, but would still prefer a mid to full sized all E vehicle.


----------



## Darell (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*Darell I just read that PopSci today at work and literally screamed.
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm really glad Ted pointed out that letter and response, or I would have missed it for sure. I'm STILL screaming. I've forwarded it on to my EV1 listserver. Should get some interesting responses.

Yes, even if all or our power plants were run with gasoline, they'd STILL be far more efficient and cleaner than an ICE. Power plants can operate at peak-efficiency RPM and temp, and can be cleaned with huge heavy scrubbers that are impossible to incorporate on a car. An ICE on the other hand is started cold, run an all kinds of inefficient RPMs and has a relatively crude system for scrubbing the baddies out of the exhaust. Grrr.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>* On a lighter note, is there more detailed info on the Rav4? I looked around that site and didn't find any good info, like size of motor, maybe 2WD with 2 motors? Battery size? I like the size, but would still prefer a mid to full sized all E vehicle.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are some rare brochures for the Rav4 floating around. I'll see if I can get my hands on one for you. There is nothing on the site of any relevance. All I know is that it has advanced NiMH batteries that should be good for 80-100 miles of real-world performance. If the thing were at all aerodynamic, it would, of course, do much better.


----------



## Darell (Dec 22, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Brock - here is a good spot for some Rav4 EV info. Be sure to read the last paragraph where the Toyota guy says, in 1998, that the current EV technology will be outdated immediately. Of course, this is the SAME car that will be for sale this summer, four years later.

And here is a quick Rav EV review


----------



## Darell (Dec 23, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

And I finally found some Current Rav4 EV info on the Toyota site!


----------



## vcal (Dec 23, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell -are you going to write a letter with your observations (above posts) to Popular Science? If you do, I would suggest writing to Frank Vizard personally. I have written some articles for the now-defunct Video Magazine when he was Tech. Editor-in-chief, and always found him to be extremely open-minded and fair.\
-I know, when _I_ really get steamed about a subject, I write letters!


----------



## Darell (Dec 23, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks for the contact name, Doug. No question that I'll write a letter - just a matter of when. I'll try and remember to post it here when I write it.


----------



## Darell (Dec 27, 2001)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

More amo for the "I now hate Pop Sci" club. Here is the official pollution fact sheet from the people who's job it is to save us from ourselves (vs. the Pop Sci editor, who's job it is to sell as many mags as possible)

CARB/EPA

This section summarizes what you need to know:

"EVs reduce pollutants by more than 90% when compared to the cleanest conventional gasoline-powered vehicles. This is true even when factoring in emissions from power plants generating the electricity 
to charge EVs."

And my quick equation shows that my EV1 gets the equivalent of 270 mpg (135 w-hours/mile at sustained freeway speed). Seems like a lot less energy to keep me going 65 than that 8mpg SUV...


----------



## Darell (Jan 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well. Here we go again. The same thing that happened in 1999 when this ZEV mandate rolled around the first time.

GM fights being forced to build the EV


----------



## lightlover (Jan 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Quote from that link:

"The current suit argues the disproportionate economic impact on this primarily agricultural area, where truck sales far exceed car sales, and disposable income is lower."

darell, I'm a believer. Ecological concerns are very important to me. But doesn't there have to be a timescale for the changeover to EV's, and allowances made for the pace of change ? If you don't got the dollars, you can't do it so easy.

lightlover


Btw, in the '70's, a UK scientist designed a wavepowered electricity generating system. The devices could be made in different sizes, and moored far offshore. They generated power by bobbing up and down on the waves, and dipping like a duck. 

Since his name was Salter, they became known as "Salter's Ducks". It was said to be very promising, and with some development, they could have become very efficient.
Apparently, the UK Power Generating lobby destroyed any chance of further R+D funding.


----------



## Darell (Jan 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *something ridiculous ?:
*But doesn't there have to be a timescale for the changeover to EV's, and allowances made for the pace of change ?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*

Absolutely. What you aren't hearing from that suit is that the original mandate was scheduled for 1999. When it was first "mandated" the mfg's had six years to make some sort of dent in their ICE car production. Instead of building EVs, they spend all their money and effort on fighting the mandate, and succeeded in pushing it back another *four* years to 2003. Still don't think they had enough time to do any R&D?



Since 1999 to now, all they've been doing is a) secretly designing EVs in the off-chance they're forced to build them, and b) fighing the mandate with more money than they're putting behind EV development.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>* They generated power by bobbing up and down on the waves, and dipping like a duck.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*

I remember the duckies! I took an undergraduate course dedicated to renewable energy resources, and Salter's Ducks were featured prominently. Really, the only draw-back to wave and tidal power is the harsh ocean environment in which all the stuff has to work.

Yes, there are too many dark forces at work against the ideal of environmental protection. If you read the linked article again (or just see your quote above) you'll see that they've filed suit in an agricultural area of CA where there aren't many cars. THAT isn't the frigging point of the mandate. It is to fix the high-density urban areas, not the wide-open agricultural areas. Of course it makes no sense to start off by forcing farmers to buy expensive EV trucks. But it is the angle that the mfg's think will be the most effective right now I guess. Warn the population that we won't have any food to eat if we force the agricultural areas to buy EVs.


----------



## Darell (Jan 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Lately in the news we hear that Bush is now going to support fuel-cell R&D for the next 10 years (at the expense of battery-powered EVs (BEV). That's a whole 'nuther can of worms. Sounds environmentally friendly on the surface, yes? Well, it ain't. By all accounts, producing electricity with Hydrogen will consume more energy than power an ICE car. It takes huge amounts of energy to extract hydrogen from wherever you choose to get it. I have way more on the subject if anybody is interested....


----------



## Darell (Jan 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here is a quote from a friend on the EV1 listserver. He knows far more about this stuff than I do...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Fuel cells are a bad thing in my opinion, no matter which type.
I'm very hesitant to make predictions about the future, but...

Fuel cells are very costly and far, far from commercialization--
unlike EV's, they have little chance of ever competing with ICE's.

The biggest myth surrounding fuel-cell vehicles is that they
are efficient---they're not! Fuel cells cars are LESS efficient
than battery electric vehicles, less efficient (overall) than
hybrid gas-electric vehicles, and probably less efficient
than old-fashioned gasoline vehicles.
CO2 emissions are therefore higher...

A FC car run from hydrogen will never have much more range
than an EV with advanced batteries---hydrogen is very bulky.

Building a hydrogen infrastructure is an uphill task -- hydrogen
gas is 10 times bulkier than methane (natural gas), it seeps
thru all common pipeline materials, and it only liquifies at a
really cold temperatures.

Producing hydrogen in bulk from electricity would suck vast
amounts of electricity. Outside of Iceland and may Quebec,
forget hydroelectric, wind power, and solar panels; we'd need
nuclear power plants in practically every county to get serious
amounts of hydrogen.

Producing hydrogen from natural gas reformers would suck
vast amounts of gas--keeping the economy tied to just
another hydrocarbon fuel.

Running FC cars from on-board reformers adds the on-board
cost/complexity of driving around with a mini-refinery. Reformer/
FC system are even less efficient, are sure to use as much
fuel as conventional vehicles, and are an even bigger step
backward because they keep the cars tied to conventional
fuels while diverting efforts on technologies that could offer
real progress...

I think that's really the risk with all fuel cell development:
FC efforts are being used to divert attention from real
improvements in pollution, efficiency/CAFE, and energy
sources.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## Darell (Jan 29, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's the link to officially sign up for the Rav4EV lottery.

Rav4

You need to live in CA is the only requirement. Most likely there will be fewer than 180 of these available to consumers (350 total, many of them going to fleets). So it really will be like winning the lottery if you manage to secure a lease. They can be leased for 3,4,5 years and they can be purchased outright. Final cost, after all incentives will be about $31k which includes a charger (I think) and a full warranty (7yr, 60k I believe). There are only 25 CA dealers who will be carrying these.


----------



## Darell (Feb 24, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well... big news - for me at least. Looks like we'll be adding a Rav4EV to the stable this spring. It may end up replacing the EV1, which will be very sad, but we don't really have room for three cars here. The Rav will give us seating for four, and will be MUCH more practical for my young family. The performance will be lacking (compared to the EV1), but I've gotten my ya-ya's out with the EV1 I think. Time to settle back down to saving the world with a more humble, family-man EV.


----------



## sunspot (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

darell. I saw the Rav4EV last week in Birmingham, AL as I was standing on a corner waiting on a traffic light. The only way I could tell was from the one by two foot decal on the rear quarter panel. The decal was the same color pattern as the Rav so it was somewhat subdued, not in your face.


----------



## Darell (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

That's a GREAT idea. A Kydex car! No more door dings.

I certainly don't need a pretend SUV, but I'm not choosing the RAV for aesthetics. There are simply no other choices. None. Zippo. So, suddenly the Rav4 DOES look really nice...


----------



## sunspot (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

darell. The one I saw was white with blue trim and did not have the big EV decal on the door. When I saw it I paid close attention to it thinking to tell you. I did not see any commercial markings on it.
Nah, nah, nah. I saw one first.


----------



## Darell (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by phred:
*
Nah, nah, nah. I saw one first.



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dana -

Don't want to burst your bubble since you've been so attentive... but you did see an old one. By "commercial" I just mean that they were in rental fleets, and used for various utilities and city fleets. There are no markings on them unless the companies want to mark them. The "old" ones had the "EV" on the rear, just in front of the taillights (and on the tailgate). If the EV decal was not where you see it in the picture above, it is not one of the newer ones. Plus, none of the newer ones have been delivered to the US yet... Oh, and you'll ONLY see them in CA. At least they will only be sold in CA.

The "old" model has been out since 1996, and I've driven one twice now. Thanks for keeping your eye on! Except for a few cosmetic changes, these new ones are the same as the old ones. they're just... uh, _new_ and finally available for private ownership.


----------



## sunspot (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh crap. Bubble burst. I'll keep my eye out for more. Alabama Power's HQ's is just around the corner from me and they do have EV's but they like to push it in your face with markings all over the place.


----------



## JollyRoger (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You guys read that article today about GM and how they are opposed to the gas mileage increase?





Bush makes me mad, too....


----------



## Darell (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You and me both, baby!

You must mean this article:
gas mileage should stay low

With the same logic, we should let disease run rampant to keep doctors employed, and we should breed more criminals to keep police employed, and of course we should set more fires to keep fire fighters employed.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:
* With the same logic, we should let disease run rampant to keep doctors employed, and we should breed more criminals to keep police employed, and of course we should set more fires to keep fire fighters employed.



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
..you mean that _isn't _ present standard operating procedure??


----------



## Darell (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's what the new ones look like (up until this year, the only ones available were for commercial fleets). They freshened them up a bit for public consumption (and added the silver color)....but not much!

Few people will even know what the "EV" stands for when they see one. The odd part is that they won't hear it coming.


----------



## Terrapin Flyer (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I believe your EV1 would have fit in a sheath better..........

Sorry Darrell, had to go there






Nice lookin' truck - I say go for it!


----------



## Darell (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

To help with your headache:

I have a Bachelor's degree in Environmental Sciences from Berkeley. And for that matter, so does my wife!

Sorry


----------



## Brock (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Look on the bright side, if G.M. gets it's way we will all be driving EV's sooner. Realistically we will run out of oil between 2040 and 2060 at our current rate of consumption. So if some people want to burn it all up right now the companies like Toyota that have gotten more in to the EV area will benefit when the gas prices hit $5 a gallon. I just don't understand what some people are thinking...


----------



## Darell (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*Realistically we will run out of oil between 2040 and 2060 at our current rate of consumption. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Brock -

I actually wish we knew that for a fact, but we have no way of knowing. We keep finding more oil. Every year, the estimated untapped quantity grows. All you have to do is search in previously untapped (typically pristine) areas, and you're bound to keep finding more. Back in the 70's the accepted thinking was that we'd have already used it all up by today. Yet here we (by "we" I mean the idiots) are, still ignoring the fact that this stuff is finite (probably) in our lifetime.

GM has officially notified all of us EV1 owners that they want their cars back. There used to be a still penalty for early lease termination - now they'll come pick the car up from you at anytime for FREE. This is all so sad... GM can eat my shorts.

As for the better gas mileage argument - GM often plays the "safety" card. You know: To get better mileage, we need to make the cars lighter, and lighter cars are less safe. GM doesn't seem to mind the negative health aspects of air pollution though, huh? On top of that, my 2001 Honda Civic, (ULEV and getting 35 mpg combined driving) is rated as one of the safest cars on the road today.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Is it true the EV's can zero-to-sixty mph in 8.0 secs?

Quite impressive


----------



## Darell (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

My EV1 does 0-60 in 7.7 seconds. Ungoverned top speed of my car (with three extra batteries) is 183mph.

But mine is old technology. Soon there will be a two-seater in production that does 0-60 in under 5.5 seconds. Most people don't realize that it is much easier and more efficient to accelerate an electric motor than a gasoline motor. And the HP rating does NOT tell the whole story. My 7.7 0-60 car's motor is rated at 137 HP. The secret? 100% torque at zero RPM. In an ICE car you've got to get the R's up to get your torque, and that takes valuable seconds...

The land speed record for EVs in general is now 245.524 mph (set by "White Lightning II" in October of 1999.)

You haven't really felt performance until you've experienced the thrill of electric. Off the line I can smoke just about anything this side of $70,000. My only limitation is the traction of the front tires.


----------



## Brock (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey Darell, I was quoting an article in "Home Power" magazine that went in to great depth about it. No matter how anyone figures the amount of oil we have left we are using it faster then the earth can make it. Yes it is a renewable resource, but over millions of years. So my point is the faster the general population uses it the sooner the general population will be forced to find another fuel source.

This is getting off topic, but I believe the general population will never do anything about an issue until it is a problem. I drive a 1989 Mazda 323 hatchback. Sure it is a beater, but I always maintain it and I get over 40mpg on a regular basis. 42.6 for the past 3000 miles to be exact. I often wonder what kind of mileage I would get driving something like a VW Jetta TDI, since they are suppose to get about 42, Since my 323was only suppose to get 27. Hummm… Oh well...


----------



## Darell (Feb 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Brock -

Heck, I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that we have no idea how much is out there still. I completely agree that nothing will happen until we're forced into a corner. Drilling for more oil is NOT the answer, yet it is all that is really being done. Oil companies get tax breaks for oil exploration. Our gasoline is so heavily subsidized by the fed gov't that if we paid the REAL price for it, I'll bet half the cars on the road would be EVs by now. It pains me that some of the income tax that I just paid is going toward lowering the price of gasoline for others, so they can continue in their blissful ways....

We're definietly using the oil faster than the earth is making it, but in the past ten years we've been discovering more reserves faster than we've been using it. And again, that is actually unfortunate in my view. It just prolongs the agony.

I'm afriad this issue will never be a priority with our current administration.

Brock - I'm thrilled that you're so interested in this stuff. Warms my heart on a day when I've been doing battle against my electric company for trying to penalize me for driving an electric car...


----------



## JollyRoger (Feb 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yep, that's the article, darell. You know, my housemate is a P.h.D candidate in atmospheric chemistry at Berkeley...so I'm quite informed....(the other housemate is a P.h.D. in physics from Berkeley! And here I am doing finance/business valuation!)

He talks my head of on these subjects!


----------



## Darell (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The first 2002 Rav4EV has just been sold. To Ed Bagely Jr. Story and pics here:

Ed gets the first Rav4


----------



## Brock (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Interesting stuff. So can you charge this one on a regular 120 20 amp plug? Again I know it take WAY longer, but it seems to me since they exist everywhere it would be the way to go, I mean as an additional on board charger. Do you know what kind of charging connect it uses?

Did I mention I want one?


----------



## Darell (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*
Did I mention I want one?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You did, yeah.





At this point, I know about as much about these things as I ever will, since I've recent been gotten excited about getting one. They use a small-paddle inductive charger currently (though the Rav4 has had four different charger ports in its short life). My EV1 uses a BIG paddle, of course, so I'll have to swap the charger. There is currently no way to use anything other than the 220V inductive charger with these. But since people can now own them, there are plenty of bright folks out there who will create some sort of portable charger, I'm sure. Like you, I don't understand why ALL EVs don't have some sort of emergency 110V on-board charger.

The standard is SUPPOSED to become on-board conductive by 2007. Right now just about every EV has needed an out-board charger. This would mean that all you'd have to do is search out a 220V outlet and just plug in. The drawback is that the EV will now be carrying the extra weight (about 100 pounds) all the time.

I'm looking at between May and June for mine. It will be a big step backward in performance, but a big step forward in convenience.


----------



## Brock (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

If they had an internal charger they should be able to use 120, but the charge would take a LONG time or the 240 for the normal charge. Do you know what the chargers on the Rav pull at 240? It got me to thinking, RV's often use a 120v 30a or 240v 50a plug, they should use those since they are already made to be weatherproof and wouldn't be reinventing the wheel. And you can find them in a LOT more places right now then 240v inductive chargers. We also use them regularly on larger boats. It seems they always want to make new parts or change them just enough so the existing ones won't work. Oh well...


----------



## Darell (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*Do you know what the chargers on the Rav pull at 240? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the 220V (your generous "240V")inductive and conductive chargers currently draw about 30 amps, and use a 40amp breaker.

RV parks are great sources of 220V power, and EV drivers use them all the time. What many people do, who take their EVs on long trips, is to "portableize" a wall charger (by simply adding a 220 plug) and throw it in the trunk. Then you can plug into somebody's electric dryer circuit, or an RV stop, or a welder's shop, etc.

From empty to full, my EV1 would take 5-6 hours to charge with my 220 charger. The 110 "convenience charger" as it is called would take 16 hours to do the same thing. So if you're staying over night at somebody's house, it is definitely doable.

So, now I'm curious - Why is it that you use 240 and 120 as the nominal voltages? 120 and 240 are sort of the max target around here, but 110 and 220 are sort of the accepted standard. Just about every wall-plug-in device I see lists itself as a 110V unit. I know we're talking about the same thing, but I'm just interested in why you consistently speak of 120 and 240...


----------



## Brock (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

We regularly run about 118 and 236 here. Actually the power companies are supposed to put out between 115 and 120, below that and you start to run in to problems with motors. I know CA with all the power problems they toyed with the idea of dropping a volt or two to reduce the overall load. That would only really help with resistive loads. Can you meter you plugs and tell me what you get? Also all the lights I have say 120v right on them. The Trace inverters have a AC input window of 108v to 130v, below that and they will drop the "grid" because that is considered a brownout situation.

Confused...


----------



## Darell (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
* Can you meter you plugs and tell me what you get? Also all the lights I have say 120v right on them.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, well, the good news (for you) is that I'm nuts. I have EV on the brain, I guess.

First off, I just ran around and tested some outlets. 120V everywhere. But I know that this past summer, without being in an official brown-out, we were seeing below 110. I have a power conditioner on my home theater that shuts down at 109, and it shut down several times last summer.

All the EV chargers are rated at 110 and/or 220. Worst-case scenario, I guess. You get a faster charge at higher Voltage of course. And you are correct: Most of my plug-in devices say 120V right there in plain raised-plastic letters. What the heck was I thinking?

Well, I'm glad I asked so that I only look like an idiot here, instead of propogating it into my other areas of interest...

OK, now that we got that cleared up - back to our regularly scheduled thread...

I'm gonna go bug some folks about creating a *120V* charger for the Rav.

Oh, BTW, have I mentioned the "Long Ranger" trailer for the Rav? Really slick little traler. It is a converted Kawasaki 500cc motorcycle engine-powered generator. Towing it makes the Rav4 into a limitless range hybrid. The generator can sustain top speed driving indefinitely (until the gasoline runs out).

Look here.


----------



## Darell (Mar 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Gotta get me one of them TZeros for the stable too!






You wouldn't believe the specs on it. It is as fast as it looks.


----------



## Darell (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This is a very good transcript of a conversation with Ed Bagley, the first lessor of a Rav4EV. He mentions the EV1, and the differences between Toyota and GM.

Ed article


----------



## PhilAlex (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I worked for a Hydro Company in Ontario Canada for the past 10 years.

I can tell you they only drop voltage when they approach peak times... In our case (Basically a Burb... 40% res 30/30 Commercial/Industrial) between 5:30 and 8:00 at night.

Other than that, you'll get 120 or close to it.

BTW: If it's a real problem, they can adjust the "taps" in most cases, of the nearest or upstream transformer to give you a bit more "Umph".

--Phil


----------



## Darell (Mar 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks for the info Phil.

So, I've jumped into the boiling water over on the Honda Odyssey board I used to frequent. My comments start half way down the first page:

CAFE standards on ODY-club


----------



## Darell (Mar 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Other than Ed Bagley's, the first Rav was just delivered to a friend in No. Cal (Berkeley).
http://www.dotcomdetox.com/rav4/


----------



## Darell (Apr 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's one of them cool cut-away pix of the Rav4EV. This thing should have a MUCH lower center of gravity than the regular ICE version. There is an extra 500 pounds UNDER the floor.






Looks like it'll be at least July before I can take delivery.

- Darell


----------



## Brock (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Did I mention I want one?

I am getting more and more tempted to build one myself. Hopefully someone will come out with a 4 door normal sized EV sedan. The Toyota Presius is pretty small. I think I would go with the Jetta TDI due to the larger size, maybe the Jetta TDI wagon. Oh well.....


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The bad news is that home-brew kits (built with professional help and pieces) typically end up in the 50-mile range catagory. To eek the 100 miles out of these things, there seems to be just too many things that need to be "built-in" instead of bolted-on. Regeneration is a biggie, and balancing the power curve with the exact vehicle characteristcs (weight, aerodynamics, rolling resistance) seems to make a big differecne as well.

I can't wait for the day this summer when I have TWO EV's for a while. You should come out to CA and visit Brock! Bring a flashlight though. It gets dark here. At night.


----------



## Brock (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Someday hopefully I will get to at least test drive them, maybe yours, who knows.



Can't you just add more batteries to increase range, although I suppose that adds weight. My work is about 30 miles round trip. Hmmmmmmmm.....


----------



## Darell (Apr 7, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

There's a tradeoff everywhere you look. For each EV design there is a sweetspot for battery weight. Up to a point, more batteries give you significantly more range per pound. But soon you find that the extra weight offers less and less benefit. Eventually, you're charging the extra batteries just so you can push the extra batteries down the road. But you already figured that out. Plus there is cost to consider as well, and where do you put these big heavy breathing things? They all need to vent, and be easily cooled. It quickly becomes an engineering nightmare just to place them correctly. This is actually why the little SUV platform was chosen (Rav4). The batteries hang under the body in the breeze. In my EV1, the batteries ride right along in the cockpit with me. Venting them and keeping them cool was a huge problem.

EVERYTHING about EV design is a compromise.


----------



## Darell (Apr 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

It has been asked for, and unfortunately for those of you with weak constitutions - you're now getting it. A current (as of today!) shot of me with the EV1. There is an annual event at UC Davis called Picnic Day. It is a big open-house party on the campus. I drove my EV1 in the parade, then parked it and talked my head off for many hours. 'Twas a beautiful day! The dork waving - that's me.


----------



## Graham (Apr 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You look suspiciously flashlight-less in that photo...

Come on, 'fess up. Were you 'carrying'?

Or do we need to cite you for "Insufficient illumination tool use by a known Flashaholic"






Graham

PS. Nice pic, by the way. Love the hat.


----------



## Darell (Apr 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, I damn near sleep in that hat when summer comes around these parts. I'm gonna have to retire it soon though - my daughter has chewed a big hole in the back (when I used to carry her in a backpack a lot).

Now, as far as lights - the picture above actually shows proof of my "carry." Look very close at the area on the right of my neck, and you'll see the white reflection from the TripTease line that my Kydex-sheathed Arc CPF lanyard is made from. That stuff is AMAZINGLY reflective. The shot was taken with a flash, fortunately. Otherwise I'd have no obvious proof of my flaholizm.


----------



## Graham (Apr 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:
*...my daughter has chewed a big hole in the back (when I used to carry her in a backpack a lot).
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I want to even start thinking about all the wierd images and jokes that brings up. I know the setup you mean, but saying you used to carry your daughter in a backpack is just asking for bad jokes..





Yeah, I've been wanting to get some reflective line like that to make some lanyards out of. I know I can get some from REI, but need to check around some places here to see if I can get it a bit cheaper..

Graham


----------



## JollyRoger (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, what do you think about the new Civic Hybrid?

I like the mileage of the Insight, and really like the Honda hybrids more than the Toyota Prius, etc...(b/c the way the Honda's work make more sense to me--plus, I w/ the Prius, it's pretty expensive to spend $4K at 80,000 miles to change the battery)

HOWEVER, the Civic Hybrid doesn't seem to get "that much better" mileage than, say, your typical Civic....or even a diesel Volkswagen.

You see, it seems that right now the more important issue at hand is CO2 emissions...sure, diesel is dirty, but particulate emission, in my opinion, can take a back seat when you're getting as good mileage as a diesel volkswagen (which is a lot cleaner--just as clean now as the gas engines of just a couple of years ago).

Don't get me wrong...if I had a choice b/w a clean burning high mileage car and a dirty high mileage car, I'd pick the clean one. BUT...now there's the issue of price.

I have a co-worker who is thinking of buying either of Civic or Civic Hybrid b/c they have such good gas mileage...(kudos to him for thinking about saving gas). But he's probably going to end up buying the Civic. Why? There is currently a mark-up on the Hybrids, b/c they're the hot item...so factoring in the cost of gas savings from a Hybrid...it is still cheaper for him to buy the regular Civic! Sure, dealers are entitled to make a profit...but this is just not right. I mean, here you have a clean, high-mileage car...that is made less affordable (even factoring in the gas savings) than the "regular" version....

Ugh....

I just had to voice all that....
Thanks for listening.


----------



## JollyRoger (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

BTW, where can I guy one of those Tzero's, Darell?

If it costs under 30K, I'm buying it...if it's more expensive, well....I might consider...

EDIT:
Ok, did some searching on the Internet...guess this isn't really in production right now...and if it were...it wouldn't be in my price range...oh well....


----------



## Darell (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well, I just love everything I know about the Civic hybrid. My local dealer just took delivery of one, and I hope to drive it this week. It is better than the insight in every way. More power, better mileage, WAY more usable passenger and cargo space. And personally I just think it looks far better than the Prius - but that's just vanity. The Prius is a fantastic car (I know many owners, so that isn't a guess)

I currently own a "standard" Civic as my second car (driven about once a week). A 2001 EX. And I bought it for much the same reasons you describe. The mileage just wasn't THAT much worse than the current hybrids. But I've learned quite a bit since I made that decision back in 2000.

If the entire decision is based on direct cost to the consumer, then the standard Civic is the better deal. In the typical life of the car, you'll be hard pressed to ever make up the price difference in the gasoline saved. BUT, the hybrid will make a much smaller impact on the environment than it first seems. Per mile, the hybrid is MUCH cleaner (on the order of 50%) than the standard version. And really, the hybrid should get close to twice the mileage as the standard. As far as "impact to society" goes, there are two things to consider: 1)How much gasoline it consumes (and thus how much oil - both foreign and domestic - it will requre to operate) and 2) How much it pollutes when that gasoline is burned.

In that equation, the standard car loses both ways. Burns more gas AND pollutes more (don't get me wrong though - the standard is an extremely thrifty and clean car as compared to others in the same class). It is just that the hybrid is substantially better...

Then there is price. Price, of course, is what it always must come down to. No getting around it. But don't fault Honda too much for the price you see. The consumer still isn't paying what these cars cost to build. The problem is in the economies of scale. In these small numbers they are very expensive to build. The regularCivis benefit from sales in the millions. The hybrids see sales in the hundreds and thousands (hopefully tens of thousands soon).

I don't know if I've helped with my rambling, but that's how I see it. If I wanted a new car right now that does what my Civic does, I'd buy the Civic Hybrid without a second thought. In fact, I still may trade my EX in on one. I still need to drive it first...


----------



## Darell (Apr 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, the TZERO is insane. Not in production yet. Since it will beat just about any other car on the road, you'll have to expect to pay for that performace. Think Porsche Turbo in price. Then think about beating it. Easily.


----------



## JollyRoger (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hehe...I hear you, Darell. I like the Civic Hybrid, too. Practical, roomy, excellent fuel economy...the list goes on and on and on...

I just thought it was kind of ironic that my co-worker was considering not buying it (even though it had superior fuel economy) b/c the dealer had marked it up so much...

Yes, dealers must make their money, too...

I'm looking to buy a new car later this year. I want it to be sporty, roomy, and fuel efficient....hmmm.....I just might have to give up the "sporty" for a Civic Hybrid (which isn't too bad in terms of performance).


----------



## Brock (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The Honda looks interesting. It looks like it has a MUCH smaller battery bank and motor then the Prius though. The Prius is listed as having a 44hp electric motor, while the Honda had only a 13.4hp motor.

I am still torn between a hybrid and the VW-TDI. They all say they are low emissions, but how do they really compare? I would imagine the diesel Jetta, even if it gets better mileage, would make more pollution overall since it starts with diesel. Does anyone know, or has diesel been cleaned up quite a bit?

Then again, I am seriously worried if someone else (or maybe even me) used the car and filled it up with unleaded, that would be quite a bummer. I also regularly have gasoline "back up" stored for my genset just in case, and would rather not store 2 types of fuel, even though diesel stores MUCH better and I have been considering upgrading my generator to a better diesel model. 

Hummmmmmm..........

Thoughts?


----------



## JollyRoger (Apr 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Brock, the diesel engines today are much cleaner than the ones in the 1980's, etc. VW uses direct injection, etc. to produce a diesel engine that is cleaner than the gas engines of just several years ago!!! I think this is very, very good.

Plus, you are getting very good gas mileage with one of these VW diesels. Yes, they put out more particulate pollution, but in terms of helping to reduce CO2 emissions into our atmosphere overall, the VW diesel is a lot better than your typical SUV, gas guzzler sedan, etc....of course a hybrid is better...

I like the Honda Hybrids a lot better than the Toyotas....the way they run makes more sense. Plus, with the Toyota, you are faced with a $4000 bill at 80,000 miles when you need to replace the battery! Not so with the Honda.

Darell, correct me if I'm incorrect.

With the Toyota, the car uses the electric engine for city use and the gas engine for highway use. That's why the car actually gets slightly worse mileage on the freeway than in the city...(I think)...when the batteries need charging, the gas engine can also start up and charge the batteries...(in addition to the regenerative braking, etc.)

Honda's use the gas engine around town and on the freeway, but the electric engine for times when you need more power, such as freeway merging (acceleration), etc.
(regenerative braking also used to charge batteries)


----------



## Darell (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi guys -

This'll be a bit short, since I'm on the road, and don't have to time to get into this as much as I'd like. But there are a few things I'd like to point out for fun.

First is that a diesel car does NOT get better gas mileage than a gas car. Might get better fuel mileage though



But seriously on that same subject - modern small gasoline and diesel engines are about equally efficient, even if a diesel car goes farther on a gallon of fuel than does a gas car. The reason is simple: Diesel is more energy dense. There are more calories in a gallon of diesel than in a gallon of gas. The energy density ratio of the two fuels is approximately equal to the ratio of fuel mileage that the two types achieve. This info is more a curiosity than anything else, but it is good to know how diesel engines go farther on a gallon of fuel. There really isn't any magic or higher efficiency involved.

Point number two: Comparing the amount of "pollution" of the two fuels is a difficult task indeed. Depends on what you like better. For example, if you're a big fan of visible particulates in your air, then diesel is for you! Gas and diesel both put uglies in the air, but they spew different uglies. Diesel has more potential to be cleaner, I think. There are very expensive forumlations (that the truckers are fighting for obvious reasons) that burn far cleaner than what we have today. I believe the biggie was the removal of much of the sulfur. Don't quote me on ANY of this diesel pollution business though - I know very little about it.

If I'm gonna have fuel sitting around, I'd definitely prefer diesel. If my car is hit in the fuel tank, I'd also prefer that it was filled with diesel. But for practical reasons, I'd prefer to burn gasoline if I had to choose a fossil fuel.

The Toyota and Honda hybrids do differ in execution, and Roger explained the basics pretty well. The Prius only uses pure battery for VERY slow driving though. They call it stealth mode. The Honda's engine will shut off at a stop, but it fires right back up again when you begin to move. This is the main reason for the bigger electric motor and batteries in the Prius. But with all that "bigness" comes the extra weight, etc. What it really comes down it is driving them. I haven't yet had the pleasure, so I can't comment. But really the specs just aren't enough (as you've found with the TDI). How they actually feel when you drive them is all that matters. I hope to take a spin in the Civic next week, and will report back.

What I want to see is a plug-in hybrid. You can drive it as pure EV for as long as you can make it between chargers (daily commute, etc). If you suddenly find that you have to drive several hundred miles, you just fill the tank, and use the small gas engine to power you down the road just as today's hybrids will. THEN, we'll have something. I'm not a big fan of all this great technology that still forces you to burn fossil fuels to charge the batteries. A BIG part of the solution is missing there still!

So, does it scare you as much as it scares me that this is my "short" response?





Regards, 
Darell


----------



## Brock (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks Darell for that "short" note. LOL, yes I said gas mileage, I never even thought about it





Ok, I also would prefer a true EV that could do short hops without the need for fuel at all. But I understand if it had a fuel generator built in for those long hauls.

Correct me if I am wrong, but an engine set at a specific RPM will be the most efficient. I mean if all the engine did was charge or maintain the batteries it could run at the most efficient speed and it wouldn't need to be as large as current engines, say 20hp vs. 80hp.

Also what is the most efficient engine? Isn't it a turbine? Couldn't they make a gasoline-powered turbine to do nothing but charge the batteries?


----------



## Darell (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

All you say is true, Brock. But there is lots more the the equation... (nothing is ever simple, is it?)

There is always a most efficient RPM for an ICE and the current hybrids take advantage of that fact. There is a serious loss of efficiency in charging though, so only using the ICE to charge (this is the "serial" version of hybird) means a net loss in efficiency vs. using the ICE for direct propulsion as well (this being the "parallel" version). There are advantages and disadvantages to each design, of course. But for efficiency, the parallel design seems to win.

AC Propulsions (a private company) has built a "Long Ranger" trailer for the Rav4 that effectively turns the Rav into a plug-in hybrid. But even though the trailer consists of an extremely efficient custom ICE-based generator, the Rav can only acheive about 30 mpg on the freeway.

It always comes down to compromises - and hybrids are the ultimate compromise.


----------



## Brock (Apr 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

JollyRoger, what you said is what I am thinking also. I just don't know if the Jetta diesel is comparable to a gas engine with say 30mpg? as far as emissions output goes. I would believe it is better then just about any SUV.

The odd thing about the Jetta is it has about the same HP as the Honda or Toyota, but about twice the torque of them. You can really tell driving them. I can't believe the pickup the Jetta has for such a small engine. My father said it has to do with the way diesel engines are, they just have more torque for the same size, I don't really get it but I certainly believe it after driving them.

I guess I am also leery about the hybrids right now. I mean they don’t really know how they are going to hold up over the long run, or what kind of maintenance is involved. On the other hand diesels are generally more durable then gas engines and last about twice as long. I tend to drive car for all there worth, the last three cars I had all were over 200,000 miles, one over 300,000. So the Jetta looks good to me for that reason.


----------



## JollyRoger (Apr 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks for the note on diesel fuel (energy density, etc.), Darell...I knew that, but just failed to mention it...

Well, in terms of "driving pleasure," I can say that the Honda Civics seem definitely very peppy, according to Car and Driver (my favorite, and in my opinion, the best car magazine for the masses). You almost don't really know it's a hybrid, they claim...well, you don't. The electric motor kicks in when you need the extra ooomph, and it's actually a pretty quiet, very refined-feeling car.

Brock, regarding your question about engines being more efficient at a particular rpm, etc...you can get the Civic Hybrid with a CVT transmission (continuously variable transmission). This works with a series of "bands" and pulleys. It's a sort of "automatic" transmission, but the funny thing is, since the pulleys are continuously varying the gear ratios, etc...you NEVER feel a shift! It's like smooth acceleration. These are the most efficient "automatic" transmissions so far. I know Honda uses this CVT in some Civics, including on the Hybrid (as an option). Audi also offers it with their A4.
The result is that you get the engine revving at a constant rpm while the car accelerates and picks up speed...weird feeling. (Think of a rubber band effect.)

Brock, if I needed a really fuel efficient car right now, I'd probably get the Civic Hybrid. But that's just me. My Acura Integra (based on the civic platform) is over 7 years old now...almost 8...and I've NEVER had a problem with it...and believe me, its engine has spent plenty of time at its 8100 rpm redline!

Darell, you scare me with you "short" posts.


----------



## Brock (Apr 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ok, I was looking at the torque since I am understanding it more now. The manual transmission on the civic hybrid had about 20 ft/lbs more then the CVT version. I am finding the torque relates directly to the pickup you feel in the car. I rarely actually "step on it" from a stop, but it does feel nice. I think for that reason I would go with the manual transmission.

But since I am soon to be a dad, my wife is leaning towards the Jetta TDI wagon, just because it has more room. 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Darell, you scare me with you "short" posts.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya whats up with that


----------



## Darell (Apr 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
* ya whats up with that



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What can I say? I scare myself too...

Torque is the fun part of power that most people ignore. You always hear about the HP of an engine, but that isn't what smokes the tires. It is the torque. Tractors, for example, are the ultimate low HP, high torque machines. I've spent quite a few summers moving great gobs of dirt with a 10hp Ford tractor. The thing has a top speed of 15 mph, but in low gear you can climb a tree with it. Torque is the fun part, and guess what? That's where EVs shine. An electric motor has effectively 100% of its torque at zero RPM. A gas engine has to wind up to the sweet spot in the RPM range before full torque is realized. My EV1's motor is only rated at 135 HP, but I can hustle to 60mph faster than my 250HP Volvo V70 T5 (that's with the high-pressure turbo) could. More than a full second faster!

But enough about that. A manual trans will get you off the line faster than an auto trans, no question about it! I tried to drive the new Civic yesterday but they thought it was sold. Just got the call that I can drive it now, since the deal fell through.


----------



## bigcozy (May 11, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Very good info in this thread. 

While in engineering school I was obsessed with self suffcient living. Growing food, making electricity, and powering a vehicle. I put myself through college as a heavy equipment mechanic, working primarily on diesels. I began to make bio-diesel and variations of it. Here is a link on that if you are interested, I did not make it this way, but it works:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_mike.html 

I agree and applaud everyones effort and hard work on researching on EV's, and in Darrell's case, living it and investing in it. I totally disagree with some of the opinions here, however. I respectfully disagree.

I don't believe that several countries and millions of people that in many cases have opposite goals are in collusion to drive up oil prices and retard electric vehicles. 

I believe there is enough oil to last as long as the technology allows it. That is to say technology will surpass fossil fuels before we run out. 

I believe the market will dictate when, and if, electric vehicles are viable. I also believe that no government body or corporation will be able to stop this.

I don't believe anyone is trying to hamper the development of cleaner burning fuels or more efficient cars.

I will also reply to every Bush or Cheney bashing I hear from now on. If you can write it, I can reply. The real world doesn't turn on a dime and market forces, and political forces, do not handle shocks well. Be optimistic, work on technology, but be realistic.

I also don't believe that even a modified EV can outrun my ZR1.


----------



## Darell (May 11, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Great to hear from you!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bigcozy:
*I totally disagree with some of the opinions here, however. I respectfully disagree. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*
That is by FAR the best way to disagree.



And thanks for the nice words.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I don't believe anyone is trying to hamper the development of cleaner burning fuels or more efficient cars.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*
Now this one is a REAL tough one for me. Are you pretty sure that oil companies want to sell less of their product? You're sure that truck drivers want to double their fuel bill to fill up with "clean" diesel? I'm going to have to repectfully disagree right back on this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I also don't believe that even a modified EV can outrun my ZR1.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, no. But this certainly will: 
Tzero

I don't kid myself that the EV1 is all-powerful. I just like to mention that it'll do 0-60 much faster than the average vehicle on the road. 7.7 seconds is nothing to sneeze at. Especially in a car that most consider to be a glorified golf cart.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I will also reply to every Bush or Cheney bashing I hear from now on. If you can write it, I can reply. *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Easy there. I can't speak for others, but I'm not trying to pick a fight. Certainly not over politics. I have plenty of Republican friends... Even watched the last election results on TV with some of them.... We don't need to agree on politics to want a better environment. But at the same time, I don't need to say nice things about Bush if what I know about him doesn't make me happy, right? This doesn't have to be an either/or deal. Are you implying with your comment that somebody HAS bashed Bush here? Mentioning actions that the current administration has taken that don't make me happy does not constitute "bashing" in my book. Of course you are welcome to respond to anything that anybody says on this thread. But if it reverts to "bashing" either way, there is no real point to the exercise.


----------



## Darell (May 11, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ok, I've a bit more time now, and I'd like to expand on these a bit if I may.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bigcozy:
*I don't believe that several countries and millions of people that in many cases have opposite goals are in collusion to drive up oil prices and retard electric vehicles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*
Well, I can talk a bit about gasoline prices. We pay far more for gasoline than what we are charged at the pump. Much, much more. And it isn't really a matter of other countries being in collusion. The US has the cheapest gasoline around (as paid at the pump). But those pump prices do not reflect the federal tax advantages oil companies recieve for exploration and development, nor the cost of defending our foreign oil rights. Regardless of the fact that I don't burn gasoline for the most part, by paying my taxes, I still subsidize everybody who does burn gasoline. The price of gas appears low since we judge it by pump prices. If we all paid at the pump what gas really cost, hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles would seem very cheap indeed. No, it may not be a sinister plot against alternative fuels, but the scales are heavily loaded in favor of fossil fuels.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I believe there is enough oil to last as long as the technology allows it. That is to say technology will surpass fossil fuels before we run out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*
This implies that the biggest worry is running out of oil. That doesn't even enter my thinking. Doesn't matter if we run out tomorrow or in 100 years. My concern is the health effects of refining and burning the stuff, and the political effects of fighting for foreign supplies of the stuff. No, running out is not my concern here. Can't happen soon enough as far as I'm concerned.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I believe the market will dictate when, and if, electric vehicles are viable. I also believe that no government body or corporation will be able to stop this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*
The market sees gas as cheap and alternative fuel vehicles as expensive. If the market was aware of some of the items I mentioned above, things might be different. The market didn't want unleaded fuel. The market didn't want restrictive CAFE numbers. But the government made it happen, and as far as I can tell, we all benefitted from these mandates. The auto industry and the oil industry fought these every step of the way, by telling the market that we didn't want this stuff. We would lose our choice in vehicles, we would lose our lives. But here it is. Forced upon the market against its will. And today we have a bigger choice of huge, safe cars with lower emissions. Bummer. 





OK. That's probably enough fecal-stirring for a bit. I'll just zip up the ol' nomex and stand by.

Thanks for breathing new life into this thread Bigcozy. Without dissenters, it starts to get dull.


----------



## Brock (May 11, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Maybe it is the baby



I guess I just don't think of the government as an entity, it is us. And yes I agree that truckers (as well as other groups) can and do hold back advancements in fuel and EV things. Remember I can't get a permit for a wind generator because they are too dangerous and to near the water, so I know what people (the government) can do. The government regularly listens to the majority, isn't that what they should do? I guess as you mention, in the case of unleaded fuel the government did step in and make the situation better. The problem is I have seen the government step in and “help” only to make things worse. Look at what happened when the government set limits on power companies in Calif. They basically crippled the power companies, and even when the power companies repeatedly told the government this was going to happen, nothing was done, and no one listened until they ran out of power. I am not saying the power companies did everything right, they seriously messed up, but the mandates they had on them didn’t help the situation. My father worked for a large utility company here and had an inside scoop on what was going on. Darell I would like you take on that situation also. 

Don't get me wrong. I wish we could "guide" people in the right direction, but from my experience it just doesn't seem to work. I talked to people until I was blue in the face, but I still don't have a wind generator. Darell maybe your just more optimistic them I am, then again you can buy a Rav4 EV, and I can't. I am sure you know what I mean about educating the public about off peak power. I have even had people tell me in disgust I shouldn't even consider an electric vehicle because of the energy crisis.

Personally I would drive a larger car, with a little motor, say a station wagon with a 60HP engine. I don’t need the HP, as long as it can go as fast as traffic I am happy.

In any case you’ve inspired me, maybe I should buy the Honda Civic, just so they make one more and become more common. If only they made it in a larger wagon size.

Or maybe I should visit Darell and buy a Rav4 EV while I am there.


----------



## Brock (May 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I agree with bigcozy, I mean I don't think the oil companies or truck drivers are intentionally doing anything to stop cleaner fuel or stop the growth of EV. I honestly believe the market is doing it. I myself have a hard time justifying buying a car that cost almost twice as much just to save fuel. I know environmentally it is a good thing, but financially it is not. It is getting better as time goes on and fuel prices go up. So I think the population is more to blame then anyone else. If everyone wanted to buy only EV's then all the car companies would make them, it is a matter of supply and demand.

Another thing to keep in mind is Shell and BP are the biggest producers of solar panels, meaning they are thinking ahead. When they run out of oil, or people won't pay that much for their product they are making a place to fall back to. I think that is why some of the smarter carmakers are starting to get in to hybrids. Again it is supply and demand. If Toyota and Honda have the know reliable cars when the time comes, who do you think everyone will buy from?

Darell or anyone, I hope you don't take offence to this because I gratefully respect your opinions.

As long as I am at it really bugs me when some people claim to be environmentalist, yet don’t drive clean cars, and don't conserve energy. I believe there is a balance between living "clean" and living comfortable, and that is what I am shooting for. 

Ok I think I am done.


----------



## Darell (May 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey, don't worry about me. I've very tough to offend. If we all thought the same stuff, we wouldn't have very interesting conversations, would we?

I must say that I'm a bit surprised to hear this from you though, Brock. But hey, surprise is good... and I know exactly what having a baby does to your brain





As for the truck drivers (just one example that I'd thought of), they ARE the market. And they're striking, and signing petitions, and hiring lobbyists to block the clean diesel from being mandated. They are therefor cetainly intentionally doing something to stop it. Ay, don't even get me started on oil companies.

And yes, the population (we'll call them the market) is absolutely to blame. But mostly they should be blamed for being sheep, really. The market is being led down the path of least resistance. Most people fear change, and that fear is used to the automaker's advantage. More fuel efficient cars will kill your families, we're told. We're told time after time after time, that we, the motoring public, can NOT make do with 120 miles of EV range. It would severely hamper our lifestyle! Yet in almost all of the multi-vehicle households in the US, at least one of the cars is never driven more than 30 miles/day on average. So the facts, the presentation by the media, and therefore the "needs" of the market, don't jibe. My wife and I constantly fight over who gets to drive the EV. I mean every day! So we're getting a second one which will mean our gas car will be driven about once every two weeks.

Now, for price. I'm seeing a $2000 premium right now to choose the hybrid Civic over the standard Civic EX (after incentives). That certainly isn't a deal-killer for me. And over the life of the car (if you keep cars as long as I do!), you'll probably come out even from fuel savings.

You are right about some of the oil companies hedging their bets. I love to see it, and those are the companies that have the best chance for future survival.

Yeah, when you see the parking lot at a "save the trees" rally full of Suburbans, you really have to wonder.

As always, these are only my opinions, for the most part. But sprinkled in amongst my opinions are facts. I don't want everybody to think they way I do. I just want everybody to be informed of, and to think about their choices, and to question what the public is constantly being told we "want."

Really this whole thing boils down to a chicken-and-egg deal. The new technology is *initially* expensive, so few are willing to spend the money. Since the buyers aren't there, the mfg's see that as no market. With no market, there is no reason to make more than a few hundred of these "new tech" vehicles. When making so few, the price remains high. As the price remains high, few are willing to spend the money... repeat. The same arguments were used back when we removed lead from gasoline (the public won't be able to afford the new technology needed. Lead isn't *that* bad) and when the first CAFE standards went into effect (the public won't have a choice in what vehicle to buy. Nobody will be able to drive a "safe" car). Well, big surprise. We have much more efficient and cheap unleaded cars, and so many SUVs on the road that you can't count them. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes force to get the change we need.

So it comes down to this: Do we need to stop burning so much gasoline? If the answer is yes, we need to figure out HOW to achieve that goal. Do we force mfg's to make better, affordable cars (thus forcing a market)? Do we think waiting around until the mfg's run out of reasons NOT to build these cars will work? There are no easy answers. But the solution has to start somewhere. If we wait for the "market" to solve the problem, we're depending on Joe Six-pack to keep my air clean, and my dependence off of foreign oil. Now THAT scares me.

OK, off my box for today. Gotta go do something with my life...


----------



## Brock (May 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You know the more I think about all this, the more I think it is me being pessimistic. I am glad you made me think about it Darell. All this makes me want to get a straight EV instead. Then I can make some of my own power for it.


----------



## Darell (May 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*I am glad you made me think about it Darell. All this makes me want to get a straight EV instead.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah good. Then my work here is done.





The single greatest thing about an EV is that the power can be made 100% clean. That can never happen in an ICE vehicle, of course. No matter how much technology you shove into it. Hybrids are a great interim measure to get the public used to alternative vehicle concepts while still allowing them the "comfort" of driving out of their way to the gas station, standing around on greasy asphault and breathing raw benzene. How many people realize that they're "plugging in" their ICE cars? Yup, right there at the gas pump.

Yes, I get the ol' "how can you even think about driving an EV when we have this energy (or electricity) crisis? So few people realize how efficient EVs are. 90% of the energy in my batteries gets to the pavement. My EV1 only holds the equivalent energy of one gallon of gasoline in the batteries. I dare anybody to drive an ICE 100 miles on a gallon of gas. About 15% of an ICE's stored energy (in the gasoline) gets to the road. And, as I've said many times before, the general public never seems to consider the important facts in this matter:

1. Grid-charged EVs use electricity that is otherwise wasted (after midnight, at off peak times). We actually help balance the grid, and thus help to make the generators more efficient. Crazy to think that EV charging can SAVE electricity, huh?

2. The refining and distribution of gasoline uses as much electricity as does simply charging my car. There's one that NOBODY remembers. So I can drive my EV probably 50 miles on the same electricity that it took to produce an ICE's tank-full of gasoline. To review: You have two cars: An ICE that hasn't yet been started and an EV that has just commuted to work an back. At this point they've both polluted the same amount, and consumed as the same amount of energy. Might want to bring that one up at your next cocktail party....

Believe me when I say that I'm no fan of government mandates. Wish we didn't need them. They certainly have a poor track record...


----------



## Darell (May 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oops. Missed some stuff
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*Darell I would like your take on [the A electricity] situation also.... 
Or maybe I should visit Darell and buy a Rav4 EV while I am there.



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, yes you should come visit. Come when I have the EV1 AND the RAV4. You simply won't beleive the performance of the EV1. I'm out there ironing the pucker wrinkles off the passenger seat all the time





As for the CA power situation. Oooh. Just don't have the time right now. There were/are so many things wrong with it that it boggles the mind. I really hate how our gov stepped in when it was too late to save the situation, and spend all the money that we didn't have. He was NOT on the ball as he should have been. More later if I find some time... Gotta run.


----------



## Darell (May 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's some interesting info on the Civic Hybrid that may interest you: http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news090502-02


----------



## Brock (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Does anyone else sell true EV's used or otherwise? I looked all over EVWorld, but couldn't find any links. I found those small NEV's but I was thinking of something I could actually drive to work and back.


----------



## Darell (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The only EVs for sale right now, are the Rav4 and the NEVs (Ford Th!nk, GEMs, etc) Those are this country's ONLY options, sad as that sounds. You see, according to the media, there are no EV's to buy because nobody wants to buy them. Uh-huh. That's why I have a waiting list of about ten people from several hundred miles away who are begging to assume my EV1 lease if I decide to give it up. And I haven't even advertised it!

In five years, I can't imagine a world without many more EV options from which to choose. But what you're witnessing today is truly the genesis of a new automobile era.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

darell,
ok, debil's advocate again; (ready the 9 inch nails!)
what if you don't plug in your car after midnight,
and/or, what if your electric source isn't so green? suppose your electricity comes from hydro electric - do you consider the square miles of land flooded to make the reservoir, and the energy involved in building the damn and running it? did you know they pump the water back up from downhill sometimes, and run it through the turbines again? how can this be efficient -- I guess they charge alot more for the power sold than they spend on the power to pump the water back uphill..answered my own question I guess..
or what if the electricity comes from the burning of other fossil fuels? what does that do to the efficiency figures?
Is there a way to ensure that the electricity coming out of the socket is green?
(edit-- OK I see the original posts about this are still on page 1 of this string, I had thought it was a new string -- and darell answers most of my questions about green energy in California. But I'll let it stand in case darell has any more info to share in this area..? Don't misunderstand my pov though, it has become more obvious to even myself that electric cars are far less poisonous than internal combusters!)


----------



## Darell (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

All pretty good questions. I LIKE it when people ask these questions because it means they aren't just sitting there blindly believing what they're originally told to think!

> what if you don't plug in your car after midnight?

Well, around here, you get charged about three times the amount you would be charged after midnight. If you're willing to pay the price, you can charge whenever you like.

> what if your electric source isn't so green?

Well, then that's not so good, but I'll get into that in your latter questions.

> suppose your electricity comes from hydro electric - do you consider the square miles of land flooded to make the reservoir, and the energy involved in building the damn and running it?

Well, there is no easy way to compare these apples with oil's oranges. But the energy to build and run a hydro plant would pale (when amortized over the life of the plant) with the energy and expenses involved in oil refineries. No, I have no references for that, but refining gasline is VERY energy and pollution intensive, where generating power with hydro is not. The social cost of flooding is a tough one. But how do you compare it to the social cost of killing people via lung disease? Flooded rivers vs. deadly air.... Those are all political decisions, typically. Dams are also put it for many other reasons... flood control, recreation (devil's advocate right back atcha). Gasoline refineries can only do one thing.

> did you know they pump the water back up from downhill sometimes, and run it through the turbines again?

Yup. I actually majored in this stuff way back when... The way they get away with this, is the same way EV charging helps power plants become more efficient by charging after midnight. Large amounts of power is thrown away during the off peak. If you can use that "free" power to pump water back up a hill (or to charge a car), you've killed two birds with one stone.

> or what if the electricity comes from the burning of other fossil fuels? what does that do to the efficiency figures?

Well, what it mostly does is increase pollution (over greener, non-combustion sources). But still, it needs to be pointed out that if you fill an EV with "fuel" made with fossil fuels (always in much less-refined forms than gasoline, and now cleaner, for the most part per energy unit than a vehicle's exhaust), the EV wins in efficiency and in pollution every time. The refining process for gasoline is a huge energy hog, then you add to that the fact that a typical ICE vehicle puts about 15% of it's energy to the rear wheels. An EV puts 90% to the rear wheels. I realize I'm not explaining this well, but I'm having a heck of a time thinking with my daughter screaming at me.... Bottom line: The most polluting electricity generator in the US will make an EV about 50% cleaner, and 170% as efficient as the cleanest current ICE vehicle. That's the worst-case scenario -comparing the dirtiest plant and the CLEANEST ICE vehicle. But what you count as pollution is a slippery thing, so there really aren't hard numbers on any of this.

> Is there a way to ensure that the electricity coming out of the socket is green?

Oooh. An easy one finally. *Yes.* Around here you can buy green certificates. You buy enough to cover your whole usage, and you're guaranteed that it's all green. You can purchase any percentage of green power that makes you happy. Of, of course, you can install PV panels and use net metering.


----------



## Graham (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darell:
*I LIKE it when people ask these questions because it means they aren't just sitting there blindly believing what they're originally told to think!
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I always blindly believe everything *you* tell me to think, Darell





In other news, aren't there locations where it would be possible to build hydroelectric plants which can take advantage of natural water resources/flows? Surely there are spots where the natural flow rate is high enough to generate a reasonable amount of power, without flooding a large area to create a dam.. Or are there too many other factors involved?

Graham


----------



## Brock (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I know nobody else makes them for the general population, but what about shops that convert cars? I wouldn't mind buying a used converted car. I know quite a bit about electricity, I have a minor in EE and wired my own house, so charging isn't a problem. I know quite a bit about lead acid batteries, so again that isn't a problem. I don't know much about DC motors or motor controls or how to install them. I would even be willing to pay someone to put all the "stuff" in my old car. But I just don't know how to do it myself.

I always thought it would be neat to leave my old car (1989 Mazda 323) the way it is. Then add a 20hp or so electric motor to the rear wheels and use that most of the time, leaving me the option of starting the ICE when I run out of battery power or need the heat or have to go a long way. Maybe someone around here does that, but I haven't found anyone yet. I did ask around at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair, but no luck, I probably just haven’t found the right person to help.


----------



## Darell (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Graham:
*aren't there locations where it would be possible to build hydroelectric plants which can take advantage of natural water resources/flows? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are getting Veeeeery Sleeeeepy. Now listen to me, my little friend. Electricity GOOOOOD. Gasoline BAAAAAD.

Ok, but seriously.... YES. There are pleny of what they call "low head" hydroelectric plants around. Mostly smaller ones though (< 25 MW), as it takes vast amounts of slower-flowing water to spin the turbines. The water is still slowed, of course, so it would still alter the natural flow of the river, but you don't need to create as much of a lake. Certainly all the old paddle wheel mills were that type. Pretty amazing that about 15% of the world's electricity is generated by hydro plants of one form or another.

There are also tide generators in areas that have huge tide fluctuations, and wave generators.


----------



## Darell (May 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*what about shops that convert cars?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We have an abundance of them here in CA. Places that'll convert just about anything you can bring in. I'll ask my list server about your neck of the woods. But remind me where your neck of the woods is again???


----------



## Brock (May 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I am in Green Bay, WI. Just remember the Green Bay Packers NFL, you know football. Home of the first, second, and 31st (should heave been the 32nd also) superbowl trophies






Oh it is also right under all my posts


----------



## Darell (May 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Did I mention that having children makes you stupid?

Oh, and did I mention that having children makes you stupid?

- Darell (49ers in the 80s!)


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (May 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

do you think if they geared it down enough I could turn my ice vehicle into a quadracycle? Every passenger could have a set of pedals ..might not be the fastest on the road, but...


----------



## Darell (May 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Take the ICE out, take the gas tank out, remove all the glass, overinflate the tires. You could probably do it provided there was no headwind or hills. You'd be the talk of the town, certainly. Maybe add a sail if you get breezes there...


----------



## Darell (May 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK, here's a pretty good resource with some phone numbers. You really need to link up with an EV club in your area, provided any exist (I'm still looking)...
http://home.netcom.com/~slh4/EVHints.html


----------



## Darell (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK Brock -

Here are clubs, parts and whole cars for sale. Check around and see if you can turn anything up locally:
http://pages.prodigy.net/noela/new_page_2.htm 

(yeah, sorry for the three posts in a row, but if I just edited, you might miss something important!)


----------



## Brock (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks I will start looking.


----------



## Darell (May 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

In the meantime, enjoy this Haiku from the front page of the LA Times:

Fast electric car
Has no gas cap nor tailpipe
Needs no foreign oil.

It plugs in at night
EV runs around all day
Never stops for gas.

Two cars at stop light
Peel away when light turns green
Electric car wins.


----------



## Darell (May 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hybrid owners may be seeing a tax break soon too:

WASHINGTON (CNN) - U.S. buyers of
the Toyota Prius, the Honda Insight and 
other hybrid gas-electric cars may soon 
be getting a nice tax break. 

The hybrid cars will qualify the original
buyers for a federal income tax deduction
of up to $2,000, the Internal Revenue 
Service said. 

The amount of the deduction hasn't yet
been set, and will depend on how much
extra was spent to put electric power into
the vehicles, the IRS said . . .


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

What's an EV-1 without a 24 volt electric skate board in the trunk for those larger parking lots??!! This guy was demonstrating them at the mall (under the "no skateboarding" sign) at Point Dume the other day...0-22 mph in 4 seconds, handheld wireless remote control, $800., kind of funky website; http://www.exkate.com/


----------



## Darell (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Dang. Nothing to hang onto? What keeps you on the thing with that kind of acceleration? I can see an unguided missle in a hurry! I've seen quite a few electric scooters lately, but they all have handlebars (like large Razors). Never anything that was literally a skateboard. Wow.


----------



## Saaby (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I am still on a save bandwidth kick so I feel somewhat guilty doing this because around 12:00 AM (Mountain time, 11 over in California) seems to be when this board is most loaded down but...

I am replying just for the sake of replying, hope you get a message indicating this




(Oops, more pipe out the window)


----------



## Darell (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Don't tell me you've read the entire thread already?


----------



## Saaby (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh no no no no no, while you people are posting happily



I have to do something far more logical...sleep. See when this is posted? It's 6:30 here and I am all ready to leave the house, this is my SUMMER VACATION and I am getting up before 6! My own fault though..

Anyway I havent read it all jsut kinda skipped through and planned a more thurough reading later today...

I have no life!

Hey, how come under the button where it says "Add Reply" there is like the whole thread? Maybe THAT's half the bandwidth problem!

**EDIT 5 minutes later
Darell, are you going to make them lease you a gen II EV1 (Why not just call it a EV2? Maybe I mis-read it) when you trade in your Grn I EV1? Come on you can get NiMh batteries...


Gen II EV1


----------



## Darell (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The whole thread is show under there so you can refer back to it. I use it all the time, actually.

There were about 500 Gen I's made, and 500 Gen II's made. They're all the same car, but the Gen II had NiMH batteries. Those batteries don't do well in the heat, and provide less HP, so I specifically wanted the lead acid car. When these leases expire, they ALL go back to meet their maker.


----------



## Saaby (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh, I must have read it wrong then...Not that I don't believe you because I do, (my first mistake, no just kidding) but if all 1000 are already leased out, why do they still have all the Saturn dealers that can lease you one listed? Huh, I suppose that page on the GM site is just sitting on some server somewhere and nobody even remembers it exists anyway, yeah thats it


----------



## Saaby (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OH well what can I say it was early!


----------



## Darell (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ah, well no. You failed to read the fine print at the top of the "retailers" page:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The following select Saturn retailers are responsible for servicing the EV1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We still need service, but no, we can't lease them anymore.

Here's another important quote from the "pricing/availability" page:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>All EV1s have been allocated and delivered to customers. Specific pricing information is no longer available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well, check this out:





This is Ford's Th!nk City for 2003. Finally has some serious style. This is a pure EV, but is only around-town capable, NOT a full-function EV. I'm mightily impressed with the style though. If one of the family's cars just boogies around town, this would be a lot of fun. Big step up from a golf cart for the retirement communities too!


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Probably more than you EVER wanted to know about it here.

They put an MSRP of $27k on the car for insurance purposes, but you can only lease it. They're capable of 55mph. Nice place to visit, maybe. But I wouldn't want to live there


----------



## Saaby (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Speaking of insurrence Darell, I was jsut thinking about your whole EV ownership experience (more specifically...what are you going to do with your EV(s?) while you're in China) and...what exactly did your insurrence agent say when you called to put your EV1 on your policy.

"Hi I'd like to add a car to my policy"

"What make sir?"

"It's a GM"

"What make sir"

and so on...I mean it's not like you can get on Edmunds and look up the blue book value on a used Ev1...


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Actually, a city council member here will be borrowing it while I'm gone. Then he'll return it to my neighbors who will play with it for the rest of the time. It'll get used. Don't want the batteries to go stale.

There are about seven large insurance companies that are willing to insure EVs. AAA is one of them, and that's who I use. They actually call my car a Saturn sedan, which isn't close, but what the heck. I get offers all the time by phone and mail. They all guarantee that they'll save me $100's per year if I allow them to carry my auto insurance. Well, big surprise, they have no GM EV1 listing, and can never help. So now, that's the first thing I ask.

You don't know how many times I've been told that my car is NOT a GM brand, seeing as how there are NO GM cars that aren't branded as one of their branches. Sorry folks. This here is the world's only GM car. And while GM should be extremely proud of this vehicle, they've instead decided to spend billions fighting the mandate that will require this car to be driven.

sigh.


----------



## Saaby (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

So you do not have the Toyota Rav 4 EV? What ever happened there...

Tell your neighbors they're welcome to just "play" it right up here to Utah...I even get my drivers permit tomorrow


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yup. The first thing I want you do do with that shiny new permit is to drive my $million car! NOT.





The Rav4 is coming. I've been trying to put it off until after China so that I don't end up paying two leases for cars I'm not able to drive... I hope to have the Rav in August or September at the latest.


----------



## Saaby (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh why not?? GM is just going to smash it anyway



Ok I don't blame you. Insurrence claim wouldn't look that good either...


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Saaby:
*Oh why not?? GM is just going to smash it anyway



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good point. Never considered that. Wonder if they'd pay me to pre-smash the thing for 'em. I'll check and let you know...


----------



## Saaby (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ohhhh Darell...shhhh but here comes another of my big ideas:

I can "smash it"...notice though the "" around that, see I'd only fake it, then you wouldn't have to give it back. You'd be in buisness...until it needed service I guess.


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, all of us "owners" have fantasies about keeping our cars. Tough to hid a spaceship though. Maybe if I built an SUV body around the thing, I could drive incognito...for about six miles.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah,
Looks pretty neat but it should have a red vinyl tongue coming out from the front hood





Any idea on $$


----------



## Darell (Sep 3, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

A great, very CURRENT article on the EV1, and the car's future: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/09/04/woe_to_ev1/index.html


----------



## Saaby (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> GM and other automakers have long argued that electric cars are not economically feasible or marketable; they maintain that no one, outside of a few technophiles and environmentalists, wants to drive a battery-powered car that needs to be charged about every 100 miles.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hellooooo? Do you see them offering EVs HERE?!? There are only so many "technophiles and environmentalists" in California and Arizona...



> Yet, even as General Motors and other car companies are turning away from the electric zero-emissions vehicles that they've put on the road, they're crowing about their new whiz-bang advances in fuel-cell technology, another zero-emission source that's still off in the misty future


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Fuel cells are bogus. Hydrogen cars are bogus. The technology in the car is efficiant but the technology to get the energy to the car (I.E. Hydrogen refining) is *extremely* inefficient...



> These fuel cells that they're so happy about, they're probably only so happy about because they're perpetually 10 years way," says Hanssen, who as of March 2003 will convert from his EV1 to Toyota's Rav4 EV, a small electric SUV that's still available and can actually be purchased, not just leased.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Too bad it's not nearly as cool as an EV1, but you going to try and buy Darell?


----------



## d'mo (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ford just announced the scrapping of the Th!nk product line. Bummer. At least it was a start...


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

d'mo. Yes, I'm saddened too. That leaves just the Rav4 as the only EV available to the "public" that can travel faster than golf cart speeds. A sad day indeed. The Th!nk was also the only vehicle that would use the extensive infrastructure of Avcon chargers (conductive). Now all those chargers will just sit unused, as other drivers scratch their heads and wonder why there are EV parking spaces with no cars to put in them. Sad indeed.


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *Toyota's Rav4 EV, a small electric SUV that's still available and can actually be purchased, not just leased. Too bad it's not nearly as cool as an EV1, but you going to try and buy Darell?*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'll be leasing one, probably within the month. I chose not to buy because if everything works out how I've planned it (not real likely, as you can imagine), there will be some awesome products to choose from in three years when my lease expires on the Rav. The Rav is an excellent, reliable vehicle that has proven itself in many years of fleet use. But, DAMN! No remote entry, no cruise control, and no power (half of the EV1!). Great car, but I want more. Right now, the RavEV is simply the only choice. And now we'll be able to travel as an entire family in an EV. THAT part will be fantastic. We can take the kid AND the dog!


----------



## Brock (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> That leaves just the Rav4 as the only EV available to the "public"


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure, as Saaby noted, "public" if you live in Calif. Did I mention I WANT ONE? What are all the folk in the other states suppose to do? My closest options are the 2 Honda's and the Toyota. I need something with a bit more room. The civic is close, but it looks like the Jetta TDI wagon is going to be the car for me.

Darell give me your take on this issue, since I will be buying something in the next 6 months.


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

First off - I hope you don't mind me editing my typo in your quote of me





And yes, that is why "public" is in quotes here. The RavEV is available in Arizona and Georgia, actually. So they're getting closer - slowly.

I know exactly what you mean about having more room. We can't wait for something with more than two seats AND cargo room. I'm a huge fan of wagons (my last car was as Volvo V70 T5 wagon), so I can understand your desire. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the TDI, so can't comment with any modicum of authority. If I was buying a hybrid today, it would be the Civic. If only because I have the gas version and really like it. Something to look into is CNG (compressed natural gas). Those are just now gaining in popularity here, and enjoy many of the benefits of EVs. You can drive them in the HOV lanes alone, park for free, etc. The infrastructure isn't as widespread, of course, but home refueling is what you would be counting on. Still a fossil fuel, unfortunately, but no gas engine can come anywhere near as clean.


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I don't know how it is in other places, but if you buy a CNG in CA, you must prove that you have a home refueling pump (which is included in the price of all CNG cars here). Same with an EV - you can't have one unless you prove you can fill it up at home (and again, the charger is included with the car). So, essentially, a CNG is the same as an EV if you only use home refuelling (which I do about 98% of the time).

I don't know what the specs of Civic are off the top of my head, but a friend who has one is getting an average of over 50mpg... so how does 650 miles between tanks sound?

For practicality, nothing beats a wagon in my book. I only wish that somebody would make a great EV wagon. I'm tired of everybody using SUV's for their platforms. Toyota is working on a fuel cell vehicle, and it too will be shoved into an SUV body.


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Re: Fuel cells -


> Originally posted by Saaby:
> * The technology in the car is efficiant but the technology to get the energy to the car (I.E. Hydrogen refining) is extremely inefficient...*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, the technology IN the car is efficient because at that point, it is an EV. Due to the power required to extract hydrogen from whatever it happens to be hanging onto, a fuell-cell vehicle is half as efficient as a battery EV. In other words, on X amount of electricity, I can go twice as far in my EV as somebody who is piloting a fuel-cell car. Most people don't realize large energy penalty, and think that you can simply pump water into your tank and drive away happily. Just as few people realize that at heart, a fuel-cell car IS and EV.

As inefficient as fuel-cell's are as compared to batteries, they're still WAY ahead of gasoline engines.


----------



## Brock (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hummmm, I didn't know they could/would supply a home refueling "kit" for CNG. Wouldn't that be expensive for everyone with one to install rather then getting the CNG from a more central location? In any case I will have to look in to that.

I would believe the civic could get over 50mpg, I am just looking at the specs from the dealers. My 1989 Mazda 323 hatch back is suppose to get 26-32, but it gets about 40-45 regularly. I am sure it has to do with how we drive it, so I would guess we would get pretty good mileage on which ever car we get, but the higher the better.

Next week we are going to go sit in the Civic and Jetta again. Neither of the cars is in stock, but they have the regular Civic and regular Jetta, so we can compare for size.

So what kind of overall % efficiencies are we talking with all thing considered between ICE, fuel cell, and EV. I thought I remembered the ICE was around 20%?


----------



## Saaby (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*





Darell, want to edit *my* typo? Efficient not efficiant!

Anyhew--the beauty of CNG is (Is this still true) that should you go on a long vacation of something you can switch back to gasoline. 

The sad thing is nobody makes a real good wagon anymore--last "good" wagon was 96 Volvo something...T5 (I think) repaced it.

Saab 9-5 Sportswagon- Nice, no third seat.
Volvos-Perfect! If you like repair bills




Ford Taurus Wagon-Just not...refined
Audi A4 Avant-No third seat, repair bills
VW Pasat Wagon-Uhhh, see above.
Mercedes Wagons-You find me one and I'll buy it. Only one within 200 miles of Salt Lake is a 1994 and costs $14,000. 

Some of my facts may be a bit off but in looking for a reliable, large wagon with a third seat I found none, save it the non-existant Benzes...

ANYWAY!
Darell, this being your thread about everything (Not just EVs right? Even though the title implys that?) I wanted to say that I don't have the URL yet but Kyra is featured on a website I made for school...nothing big, but she's there...oh wait, it IS EV related--she's in it


----------



## Saaby (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

HE he he, reading my chemistry book...have some quotes for ya...

"From entertainment devices to watches [and flashlights] to medical appliances such as hearing aids, batteries have numerous applications. The development of practical electric automobiles is on the horizon. Just imagine what life yould be like without batteries!"

and...

"Electric Automobiles will need powerful storage batteries to make them a practical alternative to vehicles with ICEs. Fuel cells under delelopment are a promising source of pollution-free energy."

Sad thing is these are brand new books--15+ years from now when they are finally being retired the kids reading them will be laughing at how out of date they are


----------



## Saaby (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

LOL!!! Ready for part of the next section? Here it goes:

Preface: It's about the scientific methood, which I haven't already learned 1000 times (See the sarcasm?) I would probably skip over it, but it made me chuckle:

"Suppose you want to use a flashlight, but when you turn it on, it does not light. You have made an *observation*- that is, you have used your senses to obtain information directly. In this case your observation is that the flashlight does not light. This raises a question: Why am I still using incandesents for stash lights around the house, er, I mean, what is wrong with the flashlight? You guess that you never spend more than $1 on a flashlight and so you can and should throw it away and get something decent like an Arc AAA or Surefire E2, er, I mean, you guess that the batteries are dead. By guessing, blah blah blah, you will probably want to test your hypothesis with an experiment. An experiment is a means to test a hypothesis. Most likely, you will put new batteries in the flashlight, if the flashlight lights, you see the sick yellow beam from it and decide to throw it away.




(So maybe it was edited just a little)


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Brock:
> *Hummmm, I didn't know they could/would supply a home refueling "kit" for CNG. Wouldn't that be expensive for everyone with one to install rather then getting the CNG from a more central location? *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Just about everybody has natural gas already. You just add a compressor. The "stations" would be able to fill you in a matter of minutes at high pressure, your home refuel would take all night at lower (read - cheaper) pressure.



> *
> So what kind of overall % efficiencies are we talking with all thing considered between ICE, fuel cell, and EV. I thought I remembered the ICE was around 20%?*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The only numbers I know are tank to wheel. Ice is 10-15%, fuel cell and EV are equal at 85-95%. If you're talking well to wheel, the only think I can tell you is that ICE will look much WORSE when compared to the EV, and the fuel cell will be half of whatever the EV number is.


----------



## Darell (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *Anyhew--the beauty of CNG is (Is this still true) that should you go on a long vacation of something you can switch back to gasoline. *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">While the conversion is possible, it is NOT something you'll do on the side of the road. It would be involved and quite expensive - unless of course the expense first went into designing the cars to switch over easily. But the ones I'm aware of can ONLY be run on CNG.

What I'd like to see is a plug-in CNG/batter hybrid. Do away with gasoline all together, and only burn CNG for longer trips.


----------



## Brock (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> First off - I hope you don't mind me editing my typo in your quote of me


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">typo, what typo, remember I am the king of poor English skills and bad spelling





Anyway it is good to know the EV's are becoming more common, but unfortunately I can't wait that long, hopefully my next-next vehicle. I used to work for our local utility and they had a fleet of CNG vehicles. So I know who has CNG and how to get it, but unfortunately none of the stations are anywhere in my normal travel and I would hate to drive an extra 20 miles to "fill up".

So that leaves me with the Diesel Jetta wagon and the civic hybrid. The thing that kills me with the civic is that the back seats don't fold down because that is where the batteries are. The Jetta wagon has much more "trunk" space, but about the same space for passengers.

I do like the 15 gal tank in the Jetta, with even 45 mpg that would be over 600 miles between fill ups. The civic at 40 has a 13 gal tank is just over 500. I know it's not a big deal, but I like the idea. I wouldn't mind an EV because I could just plug it in every night and it would be full the next morning.

Ultimately the decision will be made by the space in the car for us and cargo, and my wife


----------



## Kirk (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hello Darell!
I'm an EV nut wannabe. I think the RAV4EV would be a great car, except for the cost. I'll have to wait for off-lease or used ones to come on the market. Until then I drive a Prius. This is great car! I like the "stealth" mode, something missing from the Civic Hybrid. Plenty of room and more than enough power. Have you read "The Car That Could", by Michael Shnayerson, the story of the Impact (EV1)'s development? Very cool book! One thing that has intrigued me from the beginning of the EV1 is, could GM have given it a substantially longer range by making the motor smaller and/or gearing it "higher" to make the 0-60 times in the 10-11 second range? It would still be peppy enough for most people and possibly have a 175? mile range. Maybe that would have convinced more people that the car was a bit more "practical". Have you seen the EV1 graveyard in San Bernardino? Any idea the fate of those cars?
Kirk


----------



## Saaby (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks for the hint about "The car that could" I'm always looking for a good Car read (My #1 hobby).

So if there is some other good car read, let me know





EDIT:
*Wahooooooooooooooooooo!* the Salt Lake County Library system even has 2 copies of it



hold placed


----------



## Darell (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well done! I was pretty happy to find mine in the Amazon used section. It was brand new, out of print, and I got it for 70% of retail. Not bad. This is, as you can imagine, a keeper for any EV1 driver. Especially since the car itself has been "out of print" for so long.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'll have to see what I can do about getting my own copy but in the mean time I think I better finish my current book--"Comeback: The rise and fall of the American automobile industry"

Heh heh heh, anyone ever drive a Pontiac Fiero? LOL the issues they had.

Ok, so anyway, there's a really cool article in one of my Car and Drivers about the GM EV1 but I can't find it on the internet...what I did find was this, don't know if it says good or bad things as I



haven't previewed it yet but anyway here it is...

(Warning: Reading this is likely to make you wish you had an EV even more...)
*Read this:*There's a blurb about the Honda EV after the stats for the GM EV, just keep hitting "next"
Article

OK well since you've got me so trained on these things I'll point out the inaccuracies as I go...

#1 "To start the EV1, we simply tap in a five-digit code on a keypad located on the consolethe same code opens the doors"
Only if you set it up that way...

#2 Their range test is maybe (Darell can, er, will confirm this) a little biased as it is done on a steep hill. They did this to test it on, well, hills, but don't seem to realize how much more efficient they (Evs) are in real life day to day situations like going to the store or work or the other 95% of driving you do.


----------



## Darell (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well done, grasshopper! And thanks for the link. I'm glad to have brought you up right!

Here's the book at Amazon. Way pricier than when I bought mine a year ago - but still available. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/offering/list/-/0517328127/all/ref=dp_pb_a/102-5795327-2130560


----------



## Saaby (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

"The Car that Could"

Back in print??

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067942105X/qid=1031272551/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/002-7469742-3513652?v=glance&s=books&n=507846


----------



## Saaby (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Wow Darell...that's scary





Everyone: That wasn't planned! I SWEAR!! (Darell posted while I was typing in my post)


----------



## Darell (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Wow, the more I read the article, the more I realize how much they have wrong.

Here's another:



> This system, along with the A/C, the radio, and the other in-cabin devices, is powered by an auxiliary 12-volt source that does not operate off the 26 traction batteries but can be recharged from the main battery pack by pressing a button in the cabin.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do they really think I have to maually push a button to recharge my aux battery? In a car that is completely computer controlled? Yikes. There IS a button to press if something fails, and the aux needs an extra boost, but most drivers don't know where it even is, and have never used it.

The range numbers are bunk. I can easily go 90 miles at 68mph. They're talking about 50. Today the car woke up with 92 miles showing on the range-o-meter, and I almost always beat the guess with "normal driving" Show-off driving is a whole different animal, of course.

And then there are the normal anti-EV comments:



> It is quiet, it performs well, and it emits no pollution, but the range problems, the recharging time, and the high purchase cost (see sidebar) are obstacles that will have to be overlooked or overcome before the EV1 presents a viable alternative to gas-powered cars. Still, its a start.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Our EV1 is driven more miles than our ICE car (about 2:1, actually), we rarely worry about recharge time since it happens when we sleep, and this is the cheapest car I've ever owned and operated. For me, it isn't just a "viable alternative" to an ICE car - it is a far superior alternative. Nobody ever complains about having to drive out of their way, stand out in the cold/hot/rain/snow to fill the car with gas. That's a huge inconvenience that I don't have, yet it is so rarely mentioned as a plus for the EV. Hmmm. Then there is tuneups... and oil changes. Taking the car in at regular intervals. Who'd want to deal with that? I think these hurdles need to be jumped before ICE cars are "viable alternatives" to EVs.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well to be fair on the range numbers you ARE a trained EV driver, did you get those kind of numbers right off the dealer lot? Not to mention they ARE Car & Driver, they're hardly EV friendly drivers





So where is the secret button? Furthermore...where's the fuse panel?


----------



## Kirk (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,
Thanks for the info on motor sizes. Why doesn't the electric-car literature mention that? I've done searches on the web and nobody ever said anything about motor size doesn't matter to range. All this time I thought GM blew it by making the EV1 a "sports" car. 
Tehachapi is about 40 miles east of Bakersfield, in the mountains. I don't get up your way too often. So, you think the EV1 is the "funnest" car I'll ever drive? Take a look at http://www.libby.org/~noush/PONY.html . I used to own this exact car! I bought it new in 1983 and sold it in 1986. That was/is the funnest (and funniest) car I've ever driven! How does 2 cylinders and 602 cc's sound? 35 HP! 0-60 in about 35 seconds! A top speed of 75! The gas mileage isn't that great either because your foot is always in it. The wife and I took the Pony to Colorado and Utah. Did you know Arizona takes 2 whole days to get across? Well it does if you top out at 45 MPH! Arizona is one big HIGH plateau, and the car lost about 50% of any "power" it ever had in that thin atmosphere! God, I miss that car! Oh, and I bought my almost brand-new EV1 book at the local library for 50 cents! Somebody donated it, and I grabbed it. Talk about a Best Buy!
Kirk


----------



## Darell (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

*Which* fuse panel? There's a few of them, as you can imagine. The user-serviceable ones are under the dash.

You're right about the range thing. I'm talking about what it is like to live with the car, and the "test" talked about what it was like to drive it for four days on an unknown battery pack.

When I first picked my car up, it said 29 miles of range. But you need to understand (well, C & D needs to understand) that my car had been sitting for two YEARS without being driven. So the car was effectively getting zero miles per KWH for two years. So, not knowing any better, I expressed my concern to the lease person that I lived 35 miles away. No worries, I was told. Sure enough, when I returned home, the car was showing 30 miles remaining. Kept going up from there. I think the worst range I've ever accomplished is 55 miles. And that took a lot of work. Basically smoking the tires at every take off, driving like a maniac, pegging the thing to the speed limiter, demonstrating to other freeway drivers that they didn't need to feel sorry for me and my golf cart - that sort of thing. I've NEVER driven an ICE car as hard for as long as I have the EV1. So with complete flogging, we're looking at 55 miles. With finesse I can do over 100 miles. What percentage of US drivers commute over 100 miles do you suppose? Probably not quite as many who think that same 100 miles will really cramp their style.


----------



## Darell (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ryan - I just noticed that article was written in 1997, the year the first cars were released. NOW I know the problem. The batteries these cars started with sucked. But GM was under contract with the battery mfg and had to use them. The batteries were all replaced the next year with much higher quality Panasonic packs. The range went from 60 to 100 miles. The suspension was also improved during that "recall." So considering all that, the review is actually quite glowing.


----------



## Brock (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, Darell, Darell, your not helping me. The more I read the more I want a true EV. I guess I will have to add the prius back to my list of cars to drive again, I jsut don't think I will have enough room.


----------



## Darell (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Kirk:
> * Why doesn't the electric-car literature mention that? I've done searches on the web and nobody ever said anything about motor size doesn't matter to range.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The main reason? Because there just isn't much relevant info out there - because the public doesn't care - because they're told they shouldn't care. Bummer.

Ha! Neat car. I think I had a lawn mower with more power once...


----------



## Saaby (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You know the only thing that keeps me going through all of this (Well, *that* sounds much more depressing than it actually is...) is the fact that ideally I'll be driving lots of fun cars--some that will never go public.

I'd just like to once again remind everyone and myself that it's not the engineers fault we don't have EVs.


----------



## Tater Rocket (Sep 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Guess what I found out today. GM donated a brand new EV1 some time ago to my school, the *******s. No, they aren't *******s because they donated a brand new car, they are *******s because they took out the wiring harness and batteries, so it is illegal to make it drivable. So, it sits covered, in the way at the student design center, taking up space that one of the 5 teams that uses it could use the space. 

Spud


----------



## Darell (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi Kirk! Thanks for driving a Prius while we wait for the rest of the world to make EVs more popular (read - affordable).

The Rav IS a great car except for cost (not all that much more than a standard Rav after incentives though), no cruise control, no remote entry, and the fact that it is as aerodynamic as a barn door.

So you like the stealth mode, do you? Everybody does. Funny that EVs are more desirable, since they operate in stealth mode ALL the time, and with real power.

I bought "The Car that Could" (currently out of print) well before I took delivery of my EV1. Amazing that this car ever saw the light of day, huh?

As for increasing range with taller gearing and smaller motors - it simply doesn't work that way (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it). If you take equal cars and equal driving styles but put a smaller electric motor in one - the two cars would have equal range (except for the probably unmeasurable benefit of having less weight in the car with the smaller motor). Spinning a large electric motor with a light load doesn't take significantly more energy than spinning a small motor with the same load. The good news is that once you pay for the larger motor, you have that extra power *potential* for free. If you never use the extra power that is available, you drive as efficiently as if you had a smaller motor. But stick the pedal to the floor, and hang on. So, in short - different size motors allow for the same range on a given set of batteries, but a larger motor gives you the option of leaving Corvettes standing at the line.

Where is Tehachapi? Anywhere near Sacramento? Do you ever come this way? Wanna go for a spin in the funnest car you'll ever drive?


----------



## rlhess (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

A friend of mine just got an EV RAV4. For his commute it makes sense. It's reasonably comfortable, but I'd hate to be rear-ended in it...it looks like they forgot the rear bumper.

It's VERY quiet.

I live too close to work to justify an EV as a commute car.

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## Darell (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Tater Rocket:
> *donated a brand new car*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I can tell you with some certainty that it wasn't "brand new." I don't think any of the EV1's have sat un-driven, and the last one rolled off the line in 1999.

But yes, GM wants to keep tight wraps on their proprietary electronics. Wouldn't want anybody else to make a great car since they're now saying that it can't be done....


----------



## Darell (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi Richard -

Wow, that's exciting news indeed. When does yours come in?






> Originally posted by rlhess:
> *I'd hate to be rear-ended in it...it looks like they forgot the rear bumper.
> *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Yeah. What's up with that? These things DON'T have a rear bumper, and I can't figure out why. But, these cars have to pass the same minimum safety requirements of any other car... and that's all that most of them shoot for anyway. Still, a bumper in and of itself does not make for a safer car. Most of the bumpers on cars today are useless above a 5mph impact anyway.


> *
> It's VERY quiet.
> *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Almost eerily so, huh?


> *
> I live too close to work to justify an EV as a commute car.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Wow. That's the first time I've EVER heard that comment! You live too CLOSE to justify an EV? Heck, if that's true then you live too close to work to justify driving a gas car! Especially if the ICE never reaches operating temp. There is no trip that is too short for an EV. It reaches full efficiency before you have time to buckle your seatbelt.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Psst...Darell, I think he's maybe, just maybe, implying he works at home.


----------



## Darell (Sep 6, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hmmm. Ok. I can deal with that. But then I work at home too, and I've managed to justify TWO EVs.





Ok, Ok. My wife drives the EV1 to work every day... but still. The Rav is for ME.


----------



## Darell (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

http://cleanupgm.com/cbc-as-it-happens.mp3

A good interview with an EV1 driver and with a GM executive. The big question: Why aren't EV's more popular? The segment is 10 minutes long, but well worth listening to if EVs interest you in any way.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OOOOOOOOhhhhh! When the manufacturer is talking about how "terrible" a car is, you just have to *know* something is wrong. Also, the manufacturer rep said, and I quote:

"General Motors invested more than 1 billion, that's billion with a b, dollars in the EV 1 program. Umm, we were loosing 10s of thousands of dollars for every car we sold."

Darell, tell me...how many EV1s were *sold*?


----------



## Darell (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, good point. Of course there were several little items that he mentioned... like when he was asked WHY take all the cars back after investing all that money? The answer was that there *WAS* lots of in-field effort to make sure the cars kept running right, and safely. Well, guess what? There really haven't been any frigging problems, and that in-field work has been reduced to almost nothing. It costs GM very little to keep these on the road now.

But to answer your question: Zero were sold of course. A few more than 1000 were produced, making each car worth about one million dollars.


----------



## rlhess (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,

As to "too close to work to justify an EV" I meant on a financial basis. Of course less pollution is better.

If I just commute to work, my monthly Suburban gas bill is about $30. We have decided we need (OK want) a Suburban for long trips (which we do several long weekends a year and on vacation) and so to have an EV to commute would mean a second car. We're in the mode of trickle-down SUVs at the moment. My wife uses the 1994 Suburban, I drive the 2001. We historically keep vehicles 15 years. It didn't make sense economically to sell the 1994 Suburban when we got the 2001 one. Oh, and her trips are typically 1-2 miles. 

I offered her the new one, but she wanted me to get the first dings in it.

In a few years, we hope to drive to Alaska (we did that before kids) and for that we'd take the older Suburban. We did that trip in 1989 in my 1979 Jeep Grand Wagoneer.

By the way, the 2001 Suburban is 2WD (the 1994 is 4WD) and the 2001 gets about 40% better gas mileage. The 1994 Suburban gets about 20% better gas mileage than the 1979 Wagoneer (which it replaced).

Anyway, I drive typically 12,000 miles per year. 50-75% of that (recently) has been in 3-4 weeks.

If I commuted 10-15 miles each way (as my EV colleague does), the scene would be different.

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## Darell (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Richard -

Gotcha. I can't think of a single sane person who'd drive to Alaska in an EV.





The only part of your message that makes me cringe? The "typical" 1-2 mile trips in a Suburban. THAT's where EV's shine - the quick trips where gas cars are terribly polluting and inefficient.

We're buying (leasing actually) the second EV simply to put my money where my mouth is. We certainly don't need three cars when only one of us commutes to work...


----------



## Saaby (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

We're buying (leasing actually) the second EV simply to put my money where my mouth is. We certainly don't need three cars when only one of us commutes to work...

What?



so what you're saying is you're leasing the second EV because you like them--not because you need one right? Oh yeah...that does make sense now that I've written it out. How about you get real brave and go ICEless...rent a car for when you go on trips.


----------



## Darell (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I would love to see an easier way to rent. As it is now, I would have to spend half a day doing it, and since we travel about 200 miles every weekend, it simply isn't practical. A hybrid would be practical for the weekend trips, but the 4-doors weren't available the last time I was in the market.

The second EV is not *needed* in the traditional sense. But it means that the ICEmobile will now ONLY be used for freeway trips, and will never be run for anything less than 100 miles at a time. This means that I burn less gas overall (for obvious reasons of fewer miles travelled) but also that each time the ICE is run, it runs in the most efficient way (hot and long).

If we weren't working so darn hard on fuel cell technology, we'd probably have cars with twice the battery range today....


----------



## rlhess (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darrel,

You're right. It just doesn't work out economically for us. Insurance is pretty spendy down here in SoCal. A third vehicle at this point is out of the question.

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## Darell (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm still wondering why you need two 'Burbans though. Isn't one enough for the weekend trips and Alaska hauls? If you work far enough from home to drive *any* car, then an EV is the perfect answer for short trips. If you just go a few miles a day, you only need to charge it every week or two.

I know, I know. I'll stop shoving it down your throat. I'm just glad you're interested enough to post here.



I'll be good.


----------



## rlhess (Sep 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The TWO 'Burbans has to do with trickle down economics. We replace one car every 7-8 years. If we bought the new Suburban then we'd sell the old Suburban and buy a new EV as well. The only reason in my opinion to sell a vehicle is when it starts costing you money--either operations (say my job moved 25 miles and I didn't) or maintenance. The old one (with about 80K on it) is humming along just fine thank you (otherwise I wouldn't think of taking it to Alaska in a few years).

Selling the 2nd Suburban would cause us to have two new cars and then theoretically have to replace both in 15 years. 

It just costs a LOT more money the way I see it.

The economics aside, I really LIKE the idea of my wife and kids inside that strong metal box. A friend of mine saw a Suburban T-boned by a Mack Truck and the occupants were OK. Another friend of mine's brother was forced off the 101 near San Jose and down a 40 foot embankment in a Suburban. He was out of the hospital in a few days.

It's not rational. It's not as good as I could do for the environment. It's comfortable and affordable.

I don't know what I'm going to do in 2009 when the older Suburban is 15 years old. At 8 years old it's doing better than my old Jeep Grand Wagoneer...so we may keep it longer.

Thanks for being good <smile>.

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Just listened to the interview, and I'm wondering about the part about 'setting emission standards by California'.... could there be any truth in there?




Also, the statement that there would not be a market for the present electrical vehicle is a cheap way of ditching a project. I'm sure there are a substantial number of people willing to use the technology, but, I agree that at the same time this thechnology is beeing developed, more should be done to provide alternatives for those times a 'normal' electric vehicle is not sufficient. But, even if this isn't the case, there is a true market for non-polluting vehicles, so every effort in making this a known fact to the general public, is to be encoureaged.

btw, Darell, ever considered a HPV?


----------



## Darell (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Agreed, Bart!

HPV? Hydrogen Powered Vehicle? Hewlett Packard Vehicle? Hydrogen Peroxide? Which HPV did you mean? I'm serious that I'm not really sure what an HPV is...


----------



## Saaby (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

What? We turning Ink Jets and calculators into cars now?? How does *that* work?!?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Sorry Darell, I should have been more specific...
I'm referring to a Human Powered Vehicle, such as this one...




Flevobike Versatile


----------



## star882 (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The perfect solution is a hybrid car with a jet engine and an electric motor.
The jet engine can use either gasoline or hydrogen.
The car usually runs on the motor, but when the batteries go low or if more power is needed, the jet engine starts up and recharges the batteries and powers the car.
How good is this?
Is this car idea more effcient than a regular car?
Does it make less pollution?


----------



## x-ray (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by star882:
> *The perfect solution is a hybrid car with a jet engine and an electric motor.
> *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Too late, it's been done


----------



## GJW (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

One of the weekend auto-review programs did a "one year later" look at one of the hybrids (I think it was the Honda).

They said that after a year of real-world driving the got an average MPG (combined city and highway)of....
....
....
....
....
....
....
wait for it....
....
....
30 MPG.

There are plenty of gasoline cars that can compete with that and not have to be sold at a subsidized loss.

I'm all for alternative fuels and research but I think this proves that despite the hype we've still got a ways to go.


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Bart, that thing is BEAUTIFUL! How much do I PayPal you to send me one of those?! I already use the heck out of my HPV though. And mine is a two-seater (baby seat on my Mt. Bike). Excellent thinking of course. The less we drive *any* car, the better we are if even to relieve congestion and allow ICE cars to funtion more efficiently. EVs do NOT solve congestion.

mmmm. Batmobile....


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by GJW:
> *30 MPG.
> 
> There are plenty of gasoline cars that can compete with that and not have to be sold at a subsidized loss.
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">GJW - I appreciate your input, but I'd be quite hesitant to use the word *proves* when quoting from an unknown study. And if we do have a long way to go, then research is of course mandatory!

First let me say that I currently drive a Honda Civic EX for my long-range car. It is rated for 34 mpg on the freeway. My car is used almost exclusively on the freeway, and my *average* over 10K miles has been just shy of 35 mpg. There is little possiblity that the Civic Hybrid would get less than that if *I drove it the same way I drive my full-ICE Honda*.

Here's what I know about the current crop of Hybrids: I know at least one person who drives each one of the popular three, and there is at least one driver who keeps accurate records in each car. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but NOBODY is getting less than 50mph in mixed driving. This included the Honda Insight, the Civic and the Prius. The Prius driver has an average of over 70mpg with 15k miles.

There is no question that the cars can be flogged to the point of getting terrible mileage, but when driven by a normal human they are doing WAY better than 30mpg.

And I should point out a BIG chunk of the equation that is missing from the MPG numbers - the pollution produced by the hybrids *EVEN WHEN BURNING THE SAME AMOUNT OF GASOLINE AS A STANDARD CAR* is all but undetectable. These cars are CLEAN as compared to standard ICE cars. The exhaust sniffers of just a few years ago were not sensitive enough to even register the pollutant levels produced by today's hybrids.

There are two main point that I try to live by: 

1. Consume less oil/energy
2. Pollute less

Even if the hybrids do not live up to point 1, they help out tremendously on point 2. Motorcycles, on the other hand are the reverse. They get good mileage and pollute more.


----------



## GJW (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I agree that one television review can not be called proof but neither can the experiences of 3 anonymous owners.
The savings in emissions is undisputed but not even the makers themselves are claiming mileage like you've quoted.

But I didn't want to start a fight.
I was simply replying to the fellow who claimed that the hybrids are the answer.
One day they may indeed be but as of yet there is more work to be done.
The hybrids cost almost twice (in some cases more than twice) what they're selling for and that difference is being paid for by the government.

That just doesn't seem like a long-term solution that the masses will be happy with.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hybrids are odd vehicles, moreso than EVs...but lets look at the following: Oooh, anybody ever watch Bill Nye? Haven't seen that show in forever, but please, if you will, "Consider the folowing"

Magazines, such as the famed Car & Driver, often report EVs with a range of 50-60 miles. This, though, is with hard driving/lots of hills that were visited all in the name of killing the batteries. Typical EV drivers can easily get 100 miles. Under ideal circumstances (I'm thinking a mostly downhill trip) one could probably get well over 100 miles.

When the Honda Insight came out, Honda had a contest with all the magazines to see who could get the best range. Car & Driver won. They cheated. They drove 10 feet behind a Ford Excursion with it's tailgate door thinies open and a specially fabricated piece of plywood on the hitch, thus more or less turning it into a 0.00 drag vehicle. They got an average range of 180 miles per gallon.

What I am getting at is that, well what am I getting at? Maybe I'm just bestowing some useless trivia in everyone...


----------



## GJW (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Bill, Bill, Bill!


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by GJW:
> *neither can the experiences of 3 anonymous owners. *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Just so we're clear on this. These are not anonymous owners. These are my friends who live here in town with me. These are real people who have families and jobs, and who use their cars like normal people do. By definition they are more ecologically minded than the typical Corvette driver, and I'm sure that helps in their mileage numbers. The web is filled with private homepages of hybrid owners. Many claim fantastic numbers while others complain that the mileage is no where near what the mfg stated. It just goes to show how powerful the phrase "your mileage may vary" is.



> *
> The savings in emissions is undisputed but not even the makers themselves are claiming mileage like you've quoted.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Reducing emissions is a big part of the "answer" so in at least a small way, that makes Hybrids part of the "answer" as well. I'm not going to dig up the mfg mileage claims right now (I'll bet Saaby gets them for us eventually), but I seem to remember that they're mostly around the 50mpg mark. Some a bit lower, some a bit higher. Don't know exactly. But consider this: The ICE car that I drive is supposed to average 30mpg in combined driving. I average 35 in combined driving. Just because a driver can beat the mfg estimates does not make the driver's findings unreal.



> *But I didn't want to start a fight.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Please... disagreement and education (both ways) is what this is all about. No offense taken here at all. And please don't let me offend you with my comments. It is more educational for everybody if there is a disagreement. Nobody ever learned much who agreed with everything the other person said. No, no. I don't want a fight either. I want to hear what you think. Really I do.



> *
> I was simply replying to the fellow who claimed that the hybrids are the answer.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
See above for my blub on Hybrids being part of that answer due to lowered emissions if nothing else.



> *
> One day they may indeed be but as of yet there is more work to be done.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
And that is exactly why we need to buy them and drive them now. If nobody drives them now, the automakers have one more arrow in their quivers to shoot at emission mandates. The work *won't* be done until the public perceives the need. That hasn't happened yet.



> *
> The hybrids cost almost twice (in some cases more than twice) what they're selling for and that difference is being paid for by the government. That just doesn't seem like a long-term solution that the masses will be happy with.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Before I start, let me reiterate that I'm simply voicing my opinion and the facts that I've learned. I'm not attacking you, just the info...

The "masses" are completely happy with government-subsidized gasoline. Seems to be a pretty long-term solution for the petroleum industry. Why wouldn't it work for hybrids or EV's? In my book, there are few better ways to spend government money than to offer incentives for people to buy efficient, clean vehicles. If the government were to stop subsidizing gasoline today, hybrids and EVs would suddenly seem like a bargain.... even at full price. And if we were to have mass production of these vehicles they (EVs at least) would end up being far cheaper than an ICE vehicle. It is the tiny scale of production that keeps the cost so high. Why aren't more sold? Well, because gasoline is so cheap to buy at the pump.

My point: If the pump price of gasoline is considered to be the "real" cost of gasoline, then the subsidized price of hybrids (which isn't much more than their full-ICE counterparts) should be considered the real price of those vehicles.

This sort of stuff makes me smile. I immediately jump in to defend hybrids agains detracters, yet I'm the first one to criticize them when anybody says they're the answer to our pollution/oil problems. It is a double-edged sword for me. In my mind they are a great stepping-stone to what really needs to be done. Everybody I know who has driven a Prius falls in love with the full-electric "stealth mode". But before driving the Prius, they never would have considered an electric propulsion system to be viable. We just need to take that next step and leave gasoline behind...

Wow! If you made it this far, thanks for listening. I do value your input and opinions.


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *often report EVs with a range of 50-60 miles. *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good points, Ryan. Our EV1 goes 80+ miles every day (without intermediate charging) at 75 mph freeway driving plus around-town driving. So in other words, not being careful, 80 miles is easy in a car that most magazines report as a 60-mile car. If I am careful, I can, and have, gone over 100 miles. Beating the crap out of the thing has returned 65 miles on a charge... but that wasn't easy. Then consider that I have one of the last lead acid cars. The NiMH cars have 20% more range than mine.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> This sort of stuff makes me smile. I immediately jump in to defend hybrids agains detracters, yet I'm the first one to criticize them when anybody says they're the answer to our pollution/oil problems. *It is a double-edged sword for me.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, yes it is. They are a hybrid in more ways than one. For some reason I felt compelled to dig up some numbers:

(The numbers are averages obtained by taking the official EPA city and highway and dividing by 2, with the exception of the Ford Excursion--which is heavy enough that it's not required to show gas milage on the window sticker, long enough that 7 more inches and it'd requite a commercial drivers license, and unpopular enough it last yesr of production is this one)

PS--to be fair, when there are several engine options I took the worst overall engine.

OH yeah, I choose several vehicles almost at random too just to show how much it can vary from category to category yet still be the same...

SUVs: 4x4 or AWD
Ford Excursion: ~12 MPG
Suburban/Ykon XL: 15 MPG
Ford Exploder: 16.5 MPG
Honda Passport: 18 MPG

Minivans:
Chrysler Town and Country (AWD): 19.5 MPG
Chrysler Town and Country (FRW): 21 MPG
Ford Windstar: 20 MPG
Honda Odyssey: 21.5 MPG

Plethora of passanger cars, large to small:
VW Passat W8: 21.5 MPG
Ford Taurus: 23.5 MPG
Mercedes Benz S600 (V12): 18.5 MPG
Saab 9-5 (200 hp V6): 22 MPG
Saab 9-5 (250 hp I4): 26 MPG
Honda Civic: 28 MPG
Chevy Prism: 31 MPG

Sports Cars:
Chevy Corvette: 21.5 MPG
Dodge Viper: 16 MPG
GM Ev1: Virtually Infinite MPG
Saab 9-3 Viggen: 23.5 MPG

And FINALLY--The numbers you've all been waiting for:

Honda Insight: 64.5 MPG
Honda Civic Hybrid: 47.5 MPG
Toyota Pirus: 48.5 MPG

So there you have it folks. Know though, that this is only the beginning of the story. Driving a Ford Excursion down a 20 mile hill, or rather coasting it down, and very very sloppily driving a Honda Civic up the same hill could result in the Excursion getting better gas milage. Yes yes, your milage truly will vary.


----------



## Kirk (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey All!
We have a Toyota Prius. We live outside of Tehachapi, California, at an elevation 5,800 ft. We drive to town (4000 ft.) to work. On weekends we drive to Bakersfield to shop (elevation ca. 500 ft.). We have been averaging 41.7 MPG for 33,000 miles. We get 100+ MPG going downhill (5-6% grade) to Bakersfield at 65-70 MPH and about 25 MPG coming back up at the same speed. I see 50+ MPG on the "telescreen" while cruising at 70 MPH. Our mileage is low compared to the EPA rating because of the ugly hills we drive every day. I also don't baby this car. I want more people to take a look at this car (and the Civic Hybrid) and see that it's not a "slug". I can "floor" this thing all the time and not get below 25 MPG. Those are real-world mileage figures. This car is fantastic! It rides nice. It has lots of interior room. It's comfortable. Even the trunk is decent sized. For everyday driving (in everything but snow) it is darn near perfect. I think I done pretty good! 
Kirk


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You have done well Kirk! Happy to hear from you, and to hear how happy you are with the Prius. You like that stealth mode, I'll bet.





That's some awesome elevation change that you deal with. Around here you'd do MUCH better. Our biggest hill is the sidewalk cut-out to get into the Safeway parking lot.


----------



## rlhess (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Some interesting things. My 1994 4WD Suburban was giving my wife some fits this week:

Intermittent "check engine soon light" and being powerless. She hasn't taken it for a freeway ride in two months. So I get in. No check engine light. Nothing wrong (you can't take it in for service if there's nothing wrong). I aggressively drive it up the freeway (uphill, right lane, being passed...doing 80.) 

I tell her that the problem is not her driving but her route and driving requirements. The only type of vehicle that would really perform and thrive in this environment is an EV.

So we go to Toyota Dealer #1 "I'm sorry we're not authorized to sell the RAV4EV"--that was after several "RAV4EV??? We don't have one, do we?" -- Yes, I drove in one two weeks ago.

Go to Toyota Dealer #2 and get to sit in one. My wife says, "It feels like a tin can." It's the 1998 body style. The charger is NOT included for $42,700 sticker. Yes you get $13,000 back from the state.

So, since I like numbers, to supplement Saaby's EPA numbers with real numbers, on our recent driving trip to Winnipeg, Manitoba, via US395, some real back roads, I-15, thru Glacier National Park, and back thru Yellowstone and Grand Teton, here are the MPGs at all the fill-ups for the 2001 2WD Smaller-engined Suburban. 

15.85
16.99
17.13
17.68
17.60
16.20
17.79
14.50 (something unbalanced here with next one)
21.32
16.54
17.43
17.28
16.62
15.44

For local driving, a tank lasts a month and I get 10-11 mpg. On our last trip over the long holiday weekend to Cambria, we filled up only once and got 16.07 mpg...I'm still commuting on that tank of gas.

Not great compared to the EVs. The 1994 4WD Suburban does a bit worse, staying between 9.5 and 10 mpg in the short-haul driving my wife does.

On its last long trip, in 2000 we did the following MPGs driving from Toronto to Glendale:
14.60
15.71
13.77 
14.79
13.27 MPG

I think I'll wait a while before replacing the 1994 Suburban--it's scheduled to be replaced in 2009, actually. Let's hope that there is a good EV solution then--but then the trickle-down effect doesn't work. WE'd then have an older Suburban (2001) for the long treks.

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> "It feels like a tin can." It's the 1998 body style. The charger is NOT included for $42,700 sticker. Yes you get $13,000 back from the state


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah, it IS a tin can. I prefer to think of it as the 2000 body style as I *think* they changed the style in 2001... but I know what you mean. I'd prefer the new style too. Even more than that, I'd prefer a 4-door style that was NOT shaped like a barn door. Something in the NON-SUV catagory, in fact. But there's your options folks. If you want a factory EV, your choice comes down to two: A white Rav4 or a silver Rav4.

After incentives, the purchase price is just under 30k. Factor in fuel cost and maintenance, and it will cost you less to own the EV version of the Rav4 over the ICE version. Factor in lung disease and oil wars and... well, never mind.





Are you serious that you acutally went shoppin for a Rav4EV? Awesome! Now you have a little taste of just how much any auto mfg wants to sell these things. "We have those?" Aye.

Almost every owner and lessee is being mailed a dealership coupon that states "We know your vehicle better than anybody else. To demonstrate how well we can service your vehicle, please bring this coupon into the service department for a FREE OIL CHANGE." Oooh, classy. And valuable too!

While on the phone with one dealership, I was told I should really come and drive one to appreciate what an EV can do. I told him that I already have an EV1. "Well, that can't compare to THIS one. Ours can be driven on the freeway!" Oh, the humanity. There are about five full-function factory EVs in existance. You'd think somebody who was selling the latest one would at least be aware of the others.


----------



## rlhess (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Right, but the EV doesn't replace my primary vehicle which is why I keep referring to "trickle down" Suburbans.

It was a thrilling experience shopping for an EV. They did try and sell me a Prius...and I said why? It would solve SOME of the problems, but even with a hybrid vehicle, there would be short run cycles (It takes my wife about 10-15 mins to drop off the kids at school).

What are the other EVs? The RAV4, the EV1, and ??? Someone said Ford had one.

Only TWO people at the second dealership were allowed to talk about the RAV4EV.

It was one of these two who said 1998 style, BTW.

Well, don't you have to change the oil in an EV? The transformer oil???? <smile>

Seriously, what's in the EV? Is the motor connected directly to the wheel? I haven't looked at the details of the engineering.

Are fuel cells a ZEV?

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## Saaby (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

A note on EPA numbers...of COURSE your milage will vary, but my theroy is that if I drove all those cars, my milage numbers would vary (Just like my spelling) but the ammount/degree of varyness would be directly porpotional to the EPA quoted numbers.

Our minivan has a trip computer which includes MPG numbers. It almost always (For average MPG, not instantanious) reads 17-18 MPG. My grandparents awesome Buick was reading at 28 MPG last time I checked, my grandpa said they were getting about 32 on their last big trip.

Like I said (or meant to say anyway) those EPA numbers are just the beginning of the story, I quoted the worst performing engine/transmission combo except in the case of the Chrysler minivan because they're the only manyfacturer that still makes a AWD van, and the Saab got 2 spots because the V6 is the mid level engine and gets great gas milage but the premium 4 cyl actually has more power *and* gets better gas milage. Maybe this has to do with the fact that the 6 cyl is from GM and the 4 cyl is pure Sweedish engineering, but here's not the place for that...


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by rlhess:
> *What are the other EVs? The RAV4, the EV1, and ??? Someone said Ford had one. *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Let's see. Off the top of my head there are the two you mentioned, the Chevy S10 pickup, the Honda EV+. Hmmm. I'm gonna have to go with just four full-function EV's unless I forgot one. The Ford Th!ink (which was just canned, BTW) was capable of about 55mph, but was not legal for the freeway). And there are several other "neighborhood" EVs that are not freeway legal. I don't really count them as *real* EVs since they really are glorified golf carts. Many of them have no doors, etc.



> *
> Well, don't you have to change the oil in an EV? The transformer oil???? <smile>
> *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Ha! Nope. In fact there is no scheduled maintenance. You keep water in the windshield washer tank, and air in the tires. No oil changes, and no oil drips on the driveway.



> *
> Seriously, what's in the EV? Is the motor connected directly to the wheel?
> *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Yes, the motor is directly coupled to the drive wheels via reduction gears. The car is always in gear, and always in that ONE gear. To reverse, you sping the motor backwards. For neutral, you simple don't supply power to (or take power from) the motor, and it freewheels, though still coupled to the front wheels.

You want to study the engineering? Click the "super closeup" link found under the pictures on this page. 



> *
> Are fuel cells a ZEV?
> *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Nope. But they certainly would be if they existed.


----------



## rlhess (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

No chassis lube? Brake Fluid? NO scheduled maintenance???

Hmmm..

Besides, I was KIDDING about the transformer oil...it's just that old transformers have PCB-laced oil in them which is REAL messy...SMILE!!!

Cheers,

Richard


----------



## Darell (Sep 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Chassis lube? Just how old ARE your cars?



Most new cars these days (certainly the ones I've owned recently) require no chassis lubrication for the life of the vehicle. I haven't lubed a chassis since my 1966 Volvo P1800 graced my driveway.

Yeah, there's brake fluid. There is even some coolant for the charge port. But the longest lease of these vehicles was three years. Unless something goes wrong, none of this stuff needs to be touched for the life of the lease, thus no sheduled maintenance. So far, in 9.5k miles, I've added 3lbs of air to the right rear tire. That's the extent of the maintenance I've performed so far.

This lack of maintenance is something that is rarely taken into consideration when the cost of ICE cars are compared to EVs. Even the brakes (one of the few wear items) last two or three times longer on an EV because of how much electronic (regeneration) braking is used. If you drive defensively, you rarely use the friction pads at all.


----------



## Brock (Sep 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I suppose I should add this to the "what do you drive thread" but we just ordered a 2003 VW Jetta TDI Wagon. So there you have it. Now I will have to wait 3 to 5 years to replace the large car, a Mazda 626, our big gas guzzler that is getting about 35 mpg pretty regularly. Supposedly the Jetta will get 42 to 49, but I will bet we will average over 50. I will let you know once we get it, now I have to wait until Dec to get it since they are all made to order. Maybe I will have a 5w luxeon by then.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*




New cars are always fun! Congrats on your purchase, watch out for that german engineering


----------



## Darell (Sep 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Wow! Finally went and did it. Excellent. You're the first guy I know to own a TDI, so I can't wait to hear your results. Don't forget that whatever mileage you get, it will always be better than mine (at zero)





Let's hope that in three to five yours you have more choices. I'm certainly counting on it (which is why I'm only going to lock in a three-year lease on the Rav4).


----------



## mekki (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I went for a visit to Ballard Power here in Vancouver the other day, and it got me thinking about fuel cells, the "hydrogen economy" and what not. The guys at Ballard said the now-familiar "10 years" thing. 

After my visit, I started talking with my brother (who is a tad more sceptical/pragmatic than me) about fuel cells and EVs. He raised a number of interesting points that I thought I would throw out for comment here.

1) Tailpipe emissions on a new car are really quite clean. Probably a bit of an urban legend, but I've heard the tailpipe emissions of a new Civic are cleaner than the ambient air in LA (as far as SOx, NOx and hydrocarbons). CO and CO2 are another issue. True?

2) The amount of money pouring into the "10 years out" fuel cell programs is enormous. If reducing air pollution and increasing efficinecy is the goal, why not offer incentives to owners of 1978 Oldsmobiles to trade in their noxious cars? 

3) Fuel cells are neat, but where is the hydrogen going to come from? I've heard of solar and wind electrolysis, but surely there must be significant losses in this process. Why not just charge up batteries? The giant hydrogen producing algae ponds are neat, but... Also, the infrastructure to deliver H to people is going to be a massive undertaking. 

I used to get really jazzed up about fuel cells and the "transportation revolution", but now am a little more jaded. My interest right now is personal electric transportation (bikes, scooters and mopeds) as they seem the most economical and convenient EVs for those of us living in dense urban centers where pollution and traffic suck. An auto-EV still has to sit in traffic





Anyway, I'm interested to hear comments from others, and good work on the TDI Brock! I just saw an ad for your wagon: "Lethbridge to Vancouver on one tank of gas"! ~1120 km. 
Not bad!


----------



## Sean (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well at least after reading this thread I now know what "Darell, the EV nut" signature means!





I agree with Darell about EV. I think it's the best alternative. It does really concern me how after making such a sucessful & heavily sought after car that GM would dump the whole project. They don't even want to run these into the ground and see how long they can last!?

I hate to sound all conspiracy driven



but you don't invest that much into a project that WORKS and abondon it completely. Especially for a mandated zero emmision product. It would seem that once the true potential was realized, especially after continued investment & refinement, that somehow this project was terminated. I mean, they had to know going into this that it was going to be expensive. And then, all of the sudden, when people are begging to keep these going & putting their name in a lottery just to buy a RAV4 we are told no one wants them. 

Hmmm...If only the great HDTV conversion was so sucessful. To have people begging for it.




We have HDTV forced down our throat, mandated by big brother because it's "better". At the same time EV cars are taken off the market because no one wants them.





That's my nutty opinion anyway.


----------



## Darell (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by mekki:
> *I went for a visit to Ballard Power here in Vancouver the other day, and it got me thinking about fuel cells, the "hydrogen economy" and what not. The guys at Ballard said the now-familiar "10 years" thing.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Fantastic mekki! Thanks for dropping by here. It is clear that you've thought this through quite thoroughly. You (and serveral of us here) are in the clear minority that way. You ask some excellent questions, and I'll see if I can do any of them justice. I like your brother too!







> 1) Tailpipe emissions on a new car are really quite clean. Probably a bit of an urban legend, but I've heard the tailpipe emissions of a new Civic are cleaner than the ambient air in LA (as far as SOx, NOx and hydrocarbons). CO and CO2 are another issue. True?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">They are quite clean yes. The way it is presented by the auto industry, the answer is *true*. The whole story is a bit different, as you can imagine. First off, this ONLY applies to a brand new car. As ICE vehicles age, they ALWAYS pollute more. EV's don't have that problem. Next, ICE tailpipe pollution is composed of hundreds of nasty little items. While a few of the components of the (new) vehicle's exhaust may be lower than the ambient air, the vast majority of them are far higher. Here's an example that should bring it home: Start a new "clean" ICE vehicle in an enclosed garage while I start my EV in my garage. We'll both stand in the garage with our cars. After about 15 minutes, give me a call and let me know how well you're breathing. And finally, all this "cleaner than air" exhaust doesn't take into account any of the upstream pollution. Generating electricity *can* (and I say can because mine does not) create pollution, but it is nowhere near as nasty as generating gasoline - which takes as much, if not more electricity as simply charging my batteries would. OK, I guess I beat that one into submission.



I love the fact that ICE cars are SO much cleaner now then they were. But all this is to keep us buying gas.







> 2) The amount of money pouring into the "10 years out" fuel cell programs is enormous. If reducing air pollution and increasing efficinecy is the goal, why not offer incentives to owners of 1978 Oldsmobiles to trade in their noxious cars?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Good point. And also, why does my ICE car have to pass smog *inspection*? I added a high-efficiency carb to one of my ICE cars a while back, and even though it made my car cleaner in every way that they tested it, I had to remove it since it did not conform to THE BOOK. So the goal doesn't seem to be cleaning the air here - but making money appears to be a priority. There is so much money to do things like fuel cell research. But heck if there is any money to refine the EV, buy polluting cars back, install more photovoltaics, etc.



> 3) Fuel cells are neat, but where is the hydrogen going to come from?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Easy: We're going to make it... using lots of electricity. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is half as efficient as battery storage because the hydrogen has to be pulled off of whatever else it happens to be sticking to at the time. And it LIKES to stick, so lots of energy is needed. So, for a given unit of electricity, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will travel one mile while a battery EV will travel two. Almost sounds like the technology is going backwards, huh? The most promising fuel cell right now is one that contains a gasoline reformer. Yup, that's right. A fuel cell car that still burns gasoline. The reason this is more promising? Because we have no hydrogen infrastructure. Electricity and gasoline is everywhere, but not hydrogen! Oh, the humanity. And people will love them because they won't have to do anything different - still get to go fill up with that comfortable gasoline at the icky pump.



> My interest right now is personal electric transportation (bikes, scooters and mopeds) An auto-EV still has to sit in traffic


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm right there with you. An EV does NOTHING to help with grid-lock. I'm still causing ICE mobiles to sit in traffic and idle. Not proud of that. But at least when *I* idle, it is as close to 100% clean (even including upstream pollution) as can be. If you have some good dirt on electric motor bikes, please pass it along. I would LOVE to get something with some performance! Been looking on and off for a while now.

Sorry about the typos which I'm sure are all over that!


----------



## Darell (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Sean:
> *Well at least after reading this thread I now know what "Darell, the EV nut" signature means! *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">



Excellent. You should see what I do with my time away from the CPF! This is nothing. I never thought I'd be an activist, but this has put me right over the edge.

You make great points, and I share in your confusion



> I hate to sound all conspiracy driven


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We all hate to sound that way... but if the shoe fits....

This is a long read, and it certainly isn't a "feel good" story, but much of it really hits home. I don't take much of anything that I read for fact, but so much of this rings true, that it is worth paying attention to, at least: squashing EVs

"But driving electric cars is a direct challenge to the auto industry and the oil industry. They hate us."

"There are billions of reasons why automakers, oil companies, and other industries reliant on the status quo want the state mandate dead. Those reasons are the dollars to be made from a complex worldwide transportation system built around an internal combustion engine fueled by dead dinosaurs.


----------



## Sean (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ok, now the devil's advicate: 

How long do the batteries last before they need to be replaced?

Where do they go when they are replaced (hopefully not the landfill, are they recycled)?!

How much do/would new batteries cost?

The questions above are the only ones that I can come up with that would possibly question the "zero emission" claim since batteries are pretty toxic to the environment, especially if everyone had an EV.

Set me straight on this.


----------



## Darell (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Sean:
> *How long do the batteries last before they need to be replaced?*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Longer than in an M6, that's for sure. It totally depends on the chemistry and manufacture. The latest EV, the Rav4, has seen 80% battery life after 100k miles. In US terms, that is the life of the car. The Rav4 has been tested in commercial fleets for about ten years, so there is excellent, valid data on them.



> Where do they go when they are replaced (hopefully not the landfill, are they recycled)?!


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">All the batteries in use today are about 98% recyclable. Cost and energy-effectively recyclable as well. EV batteries will never be thrown away. Nobody could afford it. Plus shade-tree mechanics can't change them themselves - it is a literal ton of batteries.



> How much do/would new batteries cost?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This, unfotunately, is impossible to answer. It is like asking how much a single SF123 cell would cost to make, if you only made 200 of them total. Since there are so few EVs on the road, there has never been large-scale production. It is why we don't know the true cost of EV production or the true cost of the batteries. Currently, the customer is not responsible for the battery pack. That is covered under warranty. Realistically it should cost about the same as an ICE replacement in a standard vehicle.



> The questions above are the only ones that I can come up with that would possibly question the "zero emission" claim since batteries are pretty toxic to the environment, especially if everyone had an EV.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There are certainly other upstream pollutants to consider, of course. But they all pale in comparison with the manufacture of oil and gasoline.


> Set me straight on this.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Thanks for allowing me the chance.


----------



## Wolfen (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I want an EV


----------



## Sean (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Before this thead I had just considered EV a dismal failure due to the fact there are so few, not really knowing any better.

I would buy an EV given the chance at a resonable price. No gas, oil changes, environmentally freindly etc.

Oh yea, how does the AC work? And the heat & power steering? Since there is no engine to turn the PS pump & compressor. And no engine heat for the heater.


----------



## Darell (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Auto manufacturers have claimed that EVs are a flop in the marketplace because the public isn't buying them. First off, there never HAS been a market. They've never really been advertised, and nobody has made more than 500 at a time. Then add the fact that every EV that HAS hit the market has had a waiting list longer than the mfgs could handle. There are people who have been waiting five years to drive an EV1. No EV of any discription has ever sat around on the dealer's lot and wasted away. When the Ford Think was just terminated, there were many hundreds of people on the waiting list. Ford could not make them fast enough to meet demand - yet when asked why the program was terminated, the official answer was: "Not enough interest." When I considered transferring my lease when my new Rav4EV shows up, I was inundated with lease offers literally overnight. There are five people in LA willing to drive the length of CA to come pick mine up *And Drive it Home!* Ok... enough ranting. It has been a tough week for EV enthusiasts - we've been trashed again by some large newspapers.

Your questions. The EV1 is the most technologically advanced automobile ever. And it would have been a 1995 model year car if everything went as planned! Everything in it is electronic and drive-by-wire. The AC and heat use an extrememly efficient heat pump (though the heater also scavenges some of the waste heat off the electronics). The power steering pump is electric. Even the rear brakes are electric. The only thing analog about this car is the dolt sitting behind the wheel.





In your list for desiring an EV, you missed one HUGE point that few realize - performance! My car does 0-60 in UNDER seven seconds. All the literature says under 8 seconds - but the literature never changed once the cars came out. The new Panasonic PbA packs lent some extra ponies. Until you've experienced 100% torque at Zero RPM, you haven't yet lived! I haven't yet found another car around town that I can't smoke off the line. They exist, certainly....but there aren't all that many of them. My EV1 is the fastest car that I've ever been in for 0-60.

You really don't realize what a pain it is to visit gas stations... untilyou don't have to do it anymore.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Everything in it is electronic and drive-by-wire.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That one threw me for a loop for a moment...I thought that all the auto magazines have everything wrong, but they don't--technically.

For those who don't already know this:
In a traditional car when you push on the gas it pulls a cable that changes the throttle on the engine...

In a drive by wire ICE, when you push on the gas pedal a computer adjusts the throttle...

In an EV you can ONLY drive by wire...push the pedal and the computer sends more juice to the motor.

Well, actually I guess the gas pedal could act as a huge potientiometer but that would be extremely inefficient now wouldn't it...


----------



## Darell (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The EV1 is the only vehicle that is also "brake by wire." There is traditional hydraulic front brakes for failsafe, but they saved several pounds by using electronic rear brakes. And speaking of brakes - EV brakes tend to last three or four times as long as an ICE's. The reason is because of blended regeneration/braking. For the fist 50% or so of braking (and that is 100% of your braking if you drive defensively) you are only using regeneration to slow you down (by loading the drive motor in reverse, and using it as a huge generator). Filling the batteries instead of wearing out your brake pads. Slick huh?


----------



## Saaby (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

No sir...Mercedes Benz now has a brake by wire car. The Saturn VUE is steer by wire. There are now (But there wern't in 1997) many gas by wire cars.


----------



## Empath (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

_EDIT:_ Fine little topic y'all got here. Carry on.


----------



## Darell (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Empath - got it.


----------



## mekki (Sep 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Good stuff Darell! I never really thought about the cleanliness of an ICE diminishing over its life, but it makes sense. I took my Civic in for an engine flush (or something), and the guy showed me the blue/black smoke pouring out of the exhaust as the deposits were burned off. Yuck!






In other news, our local EV club (VEVA) is going on a tour of the reincarnated Dynasty IT plant next week. I'm pretty down on the NEV thing, but I guess it fits the bill for some people. Should be an interesting trip none the less.



> Originally posted by darell:
> If you have some good dirt on electric motor bikes, please pass it along. I would LOVE to get something with some performance! Been looking on and off for a while now.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Me too! It looks like the focus now is on moped-class bikes like the Voloci (real product) and the Viento (soon to be.) Both have relatively tame specs. I haven't ridden the Voloci yet, but the weight and convenience are amazing and it has had generally good reviews. The MoRad 1500 has that cool, retro-Vespa look, but again, a 1500 watt motor hauling a heavy bike like that seems underpowered. As an aside, the Viento is made by the Denali guys. Their super hi-torque dirt bikes make me drool



. Not street legal though...


----------



## Darell (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, those Denalis are the ones I've had my eye on. Last I checked that had a high-performance street bike in the works. I'll have to do some more current research, obviously. Give me a ping if you dig up anything cool, and I'll do the same!


----------



## Darell (Sep 23, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *No sir...Mercedes Benz now has a brake by wire car. The Saturn VUE is steer by wire. There are now (But there wern't in 1997) many gas by wire cars.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hmm. I guess I'll start having to say "was" more often now then. Is the Merc 100% brake by wire? The EV1 guys were a bit shy about trusting electronics *completely* to stop the car. Servos or stepper motors?

I'm not sure what the point of steer by wire is, and the safety aspect has me a bit concerned on that one as well. I actually like road feedback in the wheel, and am not power steering's biggest fan. But I'm weird that way.

My 2001 V70 was throttle by wire. And it sucked. At idle (to about 2k RPM) you could stomp the accelerator to the floor, and get back off real quick, and there would be NO response from the engine. This is how they save fuel, I'm told. Great, but how do I accelerate like a bat out of hell when I want to? Just wait around for it? Not in a $40k car, thankyouverymuch.


----------



## Darell (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's a fuel-cell bike that is supposed to be first to market. As usual, it is two years out...

http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=413&subcookie=1


----------



## mekki (Sep 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

 Here's  a picture of an un-folded Step Compo I took in Tokyo this summer. Cool bike! As I recall, they were selling for about $1300 US at (where else?) Tokyu Hands!

What's happening with the Tzero? Are they in production? Any orders? Did you get to ride in it?

I had a fun EV weekend too. The Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association got a tour of the new  Dynasty IT factory here in Vancouver. I'm a little down on the Low Speed Vehicle category myself, but the IT is a really cute and well executed car-type thing.


----------



## Darell (Sep 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*






I had a big EV weekend. 

http://www.darelldd.com/ev1/49mile/

Here are the pictures I took during our Club meeting and the famous 49-mile Scenic drive through San Francisco. There were 15 EV1's and several other EV's sprinkled through the lineup. The awesome yellow car is the Tzero. The CEO and president of the company was there to drive it with us! I put a little over 200 miles on my EV1 on Saturday. A record for me.


----------



## Darell (Sep 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This Thing is an electric-assist folding bicycle made by Honda... that doesn't exist yet. Only sold in Japan so far (seen these, Graham?)

I had the pleasure of riding it, and it is really slick. Like nothing else I've ever seen. There is no throttle, just a toggle switch. The pressure on the pedal determines how much E-assist it dials in (much like power steering on modern cars). If you pedal lightly, it offers no assist, stand on the pedals, and you've got a wheelie in no time. Weighs about 35 pounds and charges on 110V. I want one.

I didn't want anybody to think that it was a crushed EV awaiting the recycler or something.


----------



## Saaby (Sep 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

There's that Saab again


----------



## Darell (Sep 30, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I figured you'd notice that. That thing is only black on the BOTTOM, BTW.


----------



## Wolfen (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

One last post and I'm hitting the sack. This was in Thursdays paper. A guy who converts Suzuki (and a few others)cars into EVs. Though they are not as hi-tek as darell's car.
http://www.cloudelectric.com/


----------



## Darell (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm thrilled to see a business like this. The sad part is that retrofitted cars rarely have the range that ground-up EVs have. And just like with the small "neighborhood" EVs, this tends to inspire casual observers to snub EVs in general.


----------



## Darell (Oct 8, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

So here's the latest news on the Hydrogen fuel-cell front: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/breaking_news/4233510.htm

Can anybody spot the inconsistencies with the story?

"First retail ZEV," my ***.

Also...
The best guess, after hydrogen infrastructure has been built, and hydrogen is produced in great quantities - that the 41-gallon tank-full of hydrogen will cost the driver about $150.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 8, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm too lazy to read the article (right now). How far will that 41 gallon tank get me?


----------



## Darell (Oct 8, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The first line is this:
"The first retail zero-emissions car available in the United States will be delivered to the city by the end of the year by Honda, officials said Monday."

Jeepers! Once again battery EVs are totally ignored, though they are the ONLY ZEVs available at the retail level...

And the answer to your question: 220 miles. The fuel for my EV to travel that distance would cost $3.50 and is available right from my outlet NOW. And people complain about the size/weight of batteries. Do you know how big a 41-gallon tank is? Yikes.


----------



## Darell (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well, exactly three pictures from our 49-mile drive made it into the San Francisco Chronicle article. And not the ones I would have chosen, either.

Here's the story: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/10/10/BA163801.DTL


----------



## Darell (Oct 10, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Late last night, the Bush administration filed what may very well be the EV death-sentence.





http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2002/10/10/national0705EDT0532.DTL

A whitehouse brief was filed that sides with the auto manufacturers in a lawsuit against California Air Resources Board (CARB). This is the first time that the fed gov't has stepped into CA clean air affairs, and it is a sad day for me indeed.

As objectively as possible, there are two sides to this issue: California's air, and car makers. The Federal gov't has now sided with car makers.


----------



## Darell (Oct 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

From the New York Times:

Retreat on Clean Air
October 14, 2002

The Bush administration has taken another step backward in 
the fight against air pollution. Last week, it joined the 
automobile industry in a lawsuit charging that a California 
program encouraging manufacturers to sell cleaner, more 
fuel-efficient "hybrid" vehicles - cars powered by a 
combination of gasoline and electricity - usurped federal 
authority. 

The suit is a direct challenge to California's longstanding 
authority to set emission standards tougher than the 
federal government's. More broadly, it is further evidence 
of President Bush's unwillingness to offend his political 
allies by pushing the industry to develop cleaner cars and 
thus lessen urban smog and the dangers of global warming. 

At immediate issue is California's right to set its own 
emission standards. The Clean Air Act gave California this 
power partly because its pollution problems were uniquely 
severe. Over the years, the state has used it to drive 
industry to develop cleaner cars and cleaner fuels, thus 
benefiting not only California but the whole country. 

As part of this effort, California decreed several years 
ago that 10 percent of the vehicles sold in the state 
between the 2003 and 2008 model years must be "zero 
emission" vehicles, meaning electric cars. But since there 
is no viable commercial market for electric cars, 
California said that Detroit could meet part of its quota 
with hybrids. The auto industry, which opposes quotas of 
any kind, resisted even this overture and went to court 
claiming that the California plan pre-empted the federal 
government's authority to set fuel-economy standards. 

It's a dubious argument. Hybrids do get more miles to the 
gallon than conventional cars, and for that reason create 
fewer of the gases that cause smog and climate change. 
California's interest, however, lies not in setting 
nationwide fuel standards, but simply in getting a cleaner 
car for California. It is to be hoped that the United 
States Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which will decide 
the case, appreciates this distinction. At a time when both 
industry and the federal government seem content with the 
status quo, California should be allowed to pursue its 
useful role as an advocate for technological change and 
cleaner air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/opinion/14MON3.html?ex=1035833987&ei=1&en=e4b72b2dbf13de97


----------



## Saaby (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> But since there
> is no viable commercial market for electric cars


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">


----------



## Tree (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*






***disclaimer*** This pic in no way reflects the opinion of this forum, this poster, this thread, or anything else for that matter. _Darell, I'll remove it if no one finds this funny or it starts a political debate._


----------



## hotfoot (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by darell:
> *Late last night, the Bush administration filed what may very well be the EV death-sentence.
> 
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That. REALLY. S-U-C-K-S. I was hoping that I'd get to drive your EV (if you'd let me pretty please with sugar on top...) the next time I was in town. I hope GM doesn't abandon it. As much as I like fire-breathing cars - I really LOVE the idea of charging up the car like a mobile phone and not EVER having to gas up or lube. No air filters, spark plugs. Great for everyday driving in the city. Oh, and that linear accelerative RUSH!


----------



## Darell (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ryan - regarding your comment (really the only comment that didn't go over too well to our ears): Here's a letter to the NYT Editor - written by one of our club members - that was published today:

October 17, 2002

The Electric Car Market

To the Editor:

I strongly agree with your Oct. 14 editorial condemning the Bush 
administration for teaming up with the automobile industry to oppose 
California's right to clean its air. However, I was surprised by your 
assertion that "there is no viable commercial market for electric cars."

Just about every electric car ever offered in California by a major 
manufacturer has had a waiting list. This past year, Ford quickly leased 
every 100 percent electric Think City, the car I drive daily, that it 
brought into the state. Without advertising.

The "zero emission" vehicles mandate in California has proved two things: 
that General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford can successfully make a 
marketable electric car; and that they have never met the demand. As with 
hybrids, once cleaner cars are actually marketed, consumers flock to them. 
Electric cars have never been available in sufficient numbers in California.

MARC GELLER
San Francisco, Oct. 14, 2002


----------



## Darell (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Tree:



> "If you're one of those people who puts solar panels on your house
> or drives a battery powered car, you might as well vote for Gore"


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">-- **** Cheney Oct 3, 2000


----------



## Tree (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

And I did.


----------



## Darell (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Better yet: I have, I do, and I did.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hmmm....

I think, therefore I EV?


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi Darell! This is an exellent thread...when I get the chance I'll pitch in my $0.02.

In the meantime, in what I'm sure is a direct attempt to further annoy you personally



PopSci's latest issue is laden with fuel cells...two separate car articles and one on Honda's Hermes fuel-cell trike-thing. Not a peep on batteries.

rusty


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yep, no problem...I knew you'd be the one to ask





I just found out Pennsylvania and New Jersey were also considering California-ish ZEV laws...didn't know that. The New Jersey one apparently had a real shot, but now with this lawsuit against California, who knows?

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by rrtanton:
> * but now with this lawsuit against California, who knows?
> *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah... now it doesn't even look like CA has a shot.


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK, I'm done. Plenty of typos left, I'm sure....



> Some SAABs have been throttle-by-wire since at least ‘92. It’s my understanding that, as part of the intended 42 volt switchover, we would be seeing electric brakes pretty regularly...and I thought even without hydraulic failsafes? I thought space/weight savings were the advantages of e-brakes, plus perhaps a more reliable system and simpler/cheaper manufacturing?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think we should see what Saaby knows about this kind of stuff as well. Especially where Saabs are concerned... The one thing I can tell you as that the blended brakes (three separate systems) on this car work so well, that I prefer them to the brakes on my 2001 Volvo V70T5 that was famous for its brakes. I'm a proponent for "by-wire" when it is designed well. That Volvo had a terrible "by-wire" throttle system that made me want to get out and walk several times!



> I must admit that although I didn’t discount batteries before, I had thought fuel cells would be the first publicly accepted EVs.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I really don't think fuel cells will be the most accepted, but I've been wrong before. They are, however the best perceived EVs - due to government backing and vague advertising. But the fact is that the public hasn't even a clue that fuel-cell vehicles _ARE_ EVs. It is always a pleasure to have a discussion with somebody who realizes this. The big question that you have to ask is why would people NOT like BEVs, while they DO like FCEVs? The only answer is that they don't realize how similar they are. They've been told that BEVs suck and that FCEVs are the future. The only benefit of a FCEV is the *potential* for a quick fill, and the *potential* for longer range. The drawbacks, however, are too numerous to list.

Please realize that I think fuel-cells are fantastic for many things - just not for powering an automobile. And certainly not at the expense of BATTERY EVs, as is the case currently.



> The bulk issue might be soluble (liquid hydrogen would be compact enough, no?), but at what cost and risk? The price of H2 really catches my eye, and I don’t see any logical way around it...if you want truly “green” H2, you have to use “green” electricity, and we know how the numbers come out there. Even if electricity might someday be ridiculously cheap, what’s the point in wasting it?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Amen. The bulk issue isn't my biggest problem by a long shot. It is begin able to produce it efficiently, store it and distribute it in a cost-effective way. I just can't see that happening. The public already complains that we don't have enough CHARGERS, and there are over 1200 public chargers across CA right now.



> You mention subsidized gasoline quite frequently. Do you have any data on this? It makes sense that tax breaks and foreign policy would influence the price, but how precisely do we know these effects? How well do we know the “real cost” of gas presuming no direct or indirect government assistance? I’m afraid that for convincing the general public you’ll have to leave “oil wars” out of the equation, despite the steep price tag...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do have data on this, but I'm hesitant to share it. The reason? Because most of the data can be contested - and I don't need that kind of grief right now



. There is one fact that is public knowledge, and is never contested: The oil industry, through tax breaks, recieves federal incentives to make gasoline. Gasoline is subsidized by the federal governemnt. That's a statement that I'm willing to back, and has no subjective aspect. The only question here is: by how much is it subsidized? That part is far more subjective. Nobody knows the "real cost" of gasoline. To figure that out, one would need to answer many impossible questions. Not the least of which is "how much is a human life worth?" The guesses (not counting human life) range from $6/gallon (war not taken into account) to $15/gallon (war taken into account). But I'm not backing up those numbers, just relaying what I hear.



> Conversely, I’m pretty sure you mention somewhere here that, properly mass-produced EVs would be cheaper than comparable ICEs. Even without subsidies? Do you have any more details on that? Where are the savings?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is a much easier question. Yes, I mean that EVs would be cheaper than ICEs if built in the same quantity *without* any subsidy. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that before. That fact is that EVs have far fewer (thousands fewr!) parts, and many of those fewer parts are high-precision (read-expensive). In quantity, nobody questions that EVs would be cheaper, and that batteries would be cheapers. The problem, as most people see it, is that we'll never reach that quantity. With today's thinking, they're correct, unfortunately. But gasoline won't be with us forever...



> It would be okay to take the (presumably) much lower maintenance costs and a portion of the fuel savings into account.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heck, we don't even need to take that huge savings into account. That's just icing on the cake.



> What needs to happen to make EVs appear viable to the public?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The most concise answer? Take away gasoline. Cigarettes kill people from exhaust, so there are now laws keeping people from smoking within so many feet of public areas. My idea is to make it illigal to burn gasoline within so many feet of anybody else.







> I’m thinking of two particular issues; battery range/charging and performance. I know off-the-line is great, but tires/suspension...how much efficiency does the Tzero sacrifice for performance “feet”?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now THIS is where it gets fun for me. I'll start here with performance. An electric car sacrifices no efficiency to be more powerful. For something to keep up with the Tzero, it would need about an 500-700hp ICE. Imagine the average fuel consumption on something like that, even when driving normally! Well, the Tzero electric motor is as efficient as a golf cart when driven normally, and as blistering fast as a modified Viper when driven hard. Performance is where EVs shine! Why? Because they're insanley more efficient than ICEs. They perform the same when bone cold as they do hot, they perform the same at low RPM as they do at mid and high RPM. In any situation, they use their fuel at least 75% more efficiently than does an ICE.

** Crap! I just re-read the question and realized that I didn't answer it. Hate it when that happens! Here's your answer: High performancd tires and suspension will effect the efficiency of an EV just as much as it will effect the efficiency of an ICE. There's no magic here, and I'm not really sure what the point of that question is (maybe that's why I made up my own question to answer above?



)



> As for batteries...I would think range and “refuel” time are the obvious sticking points for consumers. Are there theoretical limits to battery capacity and “compactness”?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not that I'm aware of. Battery R&D simply takes money. Money that is currently being spent on fuel cell research. The introduction of NiMH batteries increased the range of the EV1 from about 90 miles to about 140 miles. NiMH batteries were developed as part of the EV1 program. Yup, EVs brought us cool battery technology that is now used in all kinds of devices! Given enough smart people and enough money, amazing things can be done.



> Will batteries truly be capable of providing 250-300 typical-driver miles in a full-size sedan (yet remain compact) AND be capable of a ten-minute recharge?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Loaded question. Here's why: 70% of Americans put fewer than 50 miles per day on *one* of their vehicles. We don't need 300 miles out of a tank of fuel unless we're driving to grandma's house. Right now, an EV is the perfect commute and soccer mom vehicle. NOT the perfect vacation vehicle. In the typical American household, there is one car that does NOTHING but commute. An EV is the perfect replacement. An easy test for this is: Do you need to fill up with gas every day? If the answer is no, then you don't need the range that your tank gives you. Batteries are already capable of 10 minute recharge, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread. The capacity that you're looking for (and I realize you bring this up as what the public is looking for) is still a ways off. We can get there, but for EVs to be viable for a large percentage of a driver's needs, they don't need that sort of capacity. My wife and I BOTH use a single EV right now. We're on track to putting 16,000 miles/year on this thing. We aren't crazy (debatable) and we want a SECOND EV, so neither one of us needs to drive the ICE except for long trips.



> In other words, can a battery EV replace an ICE car with no effective sacrifice?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This has to be my absolute favorite question. This question presupposes that ICE vehicles are better in every way because:
1. They can be refueled quickly
2. They can drive for 300 miles without refueling
If that is the only criteria for a viable vehicle, then EVs lose. What is ignored is all the advantages of an EV, that no ICE will EVER be capable of. I can't possibly list them all, but here's a start: How much money and time is spent on ICE maintenance? Oil and filter changes? Who enjoys driving to a gas station to fill up while standing on greasy asphalt and breathing raw benzine? The driving performance of an EV is so vastly superior to an ICE, that words can't do it justice. Driving an EV reduces health risks (and deaths!) from air pollution, it reduces our dependence on foriegn oil, it protects are environment form further oil drilling... oh, you've heard it all before.... I'll stop

The REAL questions that I'd like to see answered: Why do people see the two benefits of ICE fueling time and capacity as more important than the HUGE list of EV benefits? *Why does the general public sacrifice so much to drive an ICE vehicle when they could be enjoying an EV instead?* More important than working toward increasing the range for EVs is working toward changing public perception and attitude toward this form of transportation. The current range and home charging is sufficient for so many driving needs already!

Whew! One question at a time from now on!





Thanks for the questions, Rusty. I do realize that many of your questions were asked from a "public view" standpoint, and you are quite accurate in your stance. The only way I've been able to change anybody's perception on EVs is to take them for a ride! Nobody is ever the same after that!


----------



## Saaby (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> *What needs to happen to make EVs appear viable to the public? I’m thinking of two particular issues; battery range/charging and performance. I know off-the-line is great, but tires/suspension...how much efficiency does the Tzero sacrifice for performance “feet”? As for batteries...I would think range and “refuel” time are the obvious sticking points for consumers. Are there theoretical limits to battery capacity and “compactness”? Will batteries truly be capable of providing 250-300 typical-driver miles in a full-size sedan (yet remain compact) AND be capable of a ten-minute recharge? In other words, can a battery EV replace an ICE car with no effective sacrifice?*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'll take a shot at this...the last part anyway...

It's all a visious loop, as you'll see:

You're talking about touring...road trips and such. A mid-sized ICE, lets look at the Honda Accord, gets 34 MPG with it's most fuel efficient engine. It has a 17.1 Gallon tank. IN theroy you could drive 509 Miles, at which point the gas tank would be about 1/8th full and you would need to refuel. That's the high end, on the low end we have the Ford Explorer with a range of about 374 miles...

Now, you drive 300 miles and gas , drive another 300 miles and gas up...

In an EV it would be more like drive 100 miles and charge...This is kinda a vaporware number--The EV1 has a range of 50 or 60 miles, but put it on the freeway--where it's like get it up to speed and let it go, and your range goes way up. IN an ICE the engine keeps running, and running hard, to keep you at speed...an EV doesn't have to do much. It literally coasts--Darell says for miles--and when you need a little power it takes a little and puts you back up to speed. It's fair to say a Honda Accord sized EV could probably get the same type of range because sure it's heavier and less aerodymanic, but there have also been many advances in battery technology and motor technology in the last 5 years.

So right now ICEs are better for road trips...but that's not the point--95% of your driving is *well* within that 60 mile range.

So use your ICE on the 200 mile trips--the engine can run hot and efficient. Too bad it costs $30 to fill up the tank...a trip that takes hundreds of dollars in gas in an ICE could probably be done on less than $20 worth of electricity in an EV.

See what I mean about it being a terrible circle? EVs would be better for trips is they made larger ones and if you wouldn't mind charging every 100 miles or so for 10 minutes (You're supolst to take a break every few hours of driving anyway) and cheaper to run on a trip too--but it's not bad to run an ICE on a trip because they're "efficient" (Relatively speaking) in that kind of situation, but....it goes around and around...

But now, to answer your ultimate question:


> *Will batteries truly be capable of providing 250-300 typical-driver miles in a full-size sedan (yet remain compact) AND be capable of a ten-minute recharge? In other words, can a battery EV replace an ICE car with no effective sacrifice?
> *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*

A battery EV can replace an ICE car with no effective savrifice for 95% of your driving. It's those 5% long hauls where the sacrifice is made--and that's when you use your ICE because the engine can run hot...for now anyway.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh...I only spent 20 minutes concocting that post (Running those numbers...10 minutes fighting with windows Calculator and I gave up and got my HP



) and I see Darell has started to answer your question, and it finishing answering it as we speak.

I just Monday read a review on the new MB E Class with Throttle by wire brakes (Pure, mechanical backup but the key word here is *backup*--I don't think the regular pedal is connected mechanically to the wheels at all though) and the verdict is...they need some work.

Basically they take ABS to the next step. When you press on the brakes 4 pumps drive the brakes for each wheel individually. A computer predicts how much braking power is needed, and that is precisely where the problem lies...the computer algorithms need some work, IE when taking your foot off the gas totally and then going to the brake, like getting ready to take a corner, the computer misinterprets this as needing emergency breaking and you get a little whip lash action...there wern't enough "braking levels" that is to say, there was "Gentle Slow down" and "Emergency Stop"


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *The EV1 has a range of 50 or 60 *


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
*** Warning ***

Old data. The original EV1 with Delphi batteries had a range of about 60 miles. Since GM has abandoned these vehicles, they've never updated the spec page. The same test that returned 60 miles on the first batteries, returns almost 100 miles on the new Panasoncs that my car is equipped with. The lowest capacity pack in these cars is the same pack that I have. Three days a week now, I'm getting 120 miles range.

As hard as I've tried, I've never been able to crush my range to 50 or even 60 miles. And the kind of crazy driving that would require would give your Honda Accord about a 200 mile range. It would require flogging the hell out of the thing (which by the way is quite fun, but can be tiring as you constantly scan the mirrors for flashing blue lights).

The Accepted "average" easy-to-obtain-even-for-idiot-driver range of an EV1 is 80 miles. With a modicum of talent, 100 miles is available.


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This just in:

Massachusetts is preparing to adopt California's ambitious 
zero-emission vehicle legislation, which would require 10 percent of 
cars and trucks sold within the state to produce no pollution. For 
the moment, though, the U.S. government is still bickering internally 
over whether California's legislation is legal. Earlier this month, 
the Bush administration said California had overstepped its authority 
by trying to regulate not only emissions but also fuel efficiency, 
and as a result the Justice Department put the new standards on hold 
until 2005. The U.S. EPA, however, has proposed supporting a similar 
program in Massachusetts that calls for low (rather than zero) 
emissions. The agency is accepting public comment on the plan 
through the middle of November.


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by rrtanton:
> *how much efficiency does the Tzero sacrifice for performance “feet”?*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Though I'm still not sure about the relevance of this question, I feel bad about missing it the first run through.

First off, the Tzero is a niche vehicle if there ever was one. The people who will buy the Tzero are the same type of people who'd by a Ferrari. The difference is that the Tzero folks will whup-***.



So really, the Tzero is as much a normal EV as a Ferrari is a normal gas car.

But that said - a car with this much power NEEDS a way to put the power to the pavement. And that means sticky tires. Does it rob efficiency? You bet. But due to the low weight and awesome aerodynamics, the Tzero is approximately as efficient as my EV1 with low-rolling resistance tires. The Tzero is one of the few cars that makes my EV1 look BIG.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hm...despite my wordiness, only really one other question, near the end here.

Yes, I'm very much trying to roleplay what I THINK is the average american consumer. Had I the money an EV would be the ideal vehicle for me (guess I'd need to not live in an apartment though...) You have my complete agreement on the "ICE as your secondary car" notion. But I also think the american public will think that they can't do without the range (we really would have to have ten minute rechargers as well...I presume that would take a very special, expensive charger, but that's what the gas stations are for, right? They'd probably sell more candy bars if you had to wait a few more minutes, too.) We want the range, and we think we NEED the range. Convenience, complacency, whatever...I readily admit such things influence my own decisions daily. I honestly think the best way to beat that problem, in the face of all the factors against us (including oil/auto industry recalcitrance) is to surrender to it--to give us that range.

Now, understand I'm hesitant when I come across ideas of "oh, we'll be there eventually, we just need the money for research." So, so often that just betrays excitedly blind optimism. I have incredible respect for research and technology--that's not a figure of speech, I AM one of those blindly optimistic people. I just try to temper my excitement with a huge dose of caution. In this case, though, history and current evidence back up the optimism. You're listing EV1s going from roughly 60 miles range to roughly 120, first through improving lead-acid and then through NiMH (which itself seems to be still advancing.) And today we have lithium-ion coming into common use in portable devices. And I know there's plenty of other battery technologies out there right now. This is wonderful progression, still going on today, and with fertile ground for future gains.

I did have the pleasure of driving an EV once, and it was a non-performance-minded truck, yet it was impressive. If I recall, it was using molten-sulfur (!!!) batteries. And fuel efficiency for ICE cars keeps climbing...that's not just engine, of course, but other components as well. I confess I have this vague fear of some theoretical limit that some battery chemist could point out, saying "chemistry and physics won't allow more than X power out of any rechargeable battery design" but at this point I haven't seen anything to make me think that would happen, or at least that it would happen anytime soon.

Regarding the tires question: Yes, sorry it's a bit misleading. I was just trying to point out that I think a mass-market-targeted EV would have to ideally have LRR tires that perform just like good all-seasons, or at least have the juice to compensate for the (minor?) range hit squishier tires would cause. Again, public expectations.

Despite my thinking that EVs need to meet public expectations/habits, I do wonder about one EV-promoting idea to publicize their advantages. True, more money should be going into batteries--perhaps with the proliferation of portable electronics this is beginning to happen anyway? But let us assume that, at some point not terribly off, Toyota (or somebody) markets a Prius-class battery EV for general consumption, with battery tech advanced enough to give us an average-driver 150 miles, including some pretty good air conditioner use. You've convinced me we can get there...and beyond. The fuel-cell kick helps a bit since (as you point out) the energy source is interchangeable, so at least fuel-cell EVs will further the EV concept.

We want the public to accept the EV. Best way to do that is for them to own one. But who will buy this new Prius, even with subsidies? The public doesn't seem to identify with the typical EV buyer. They think Saturn owners are weird, for cryin' out loud, and that Saab nuts are from Alpha Centauri...

So...here's where "we" (the EV community) step in. Someone has a lot of money. He buys lots of these off-the-shelf new Priuses...and gives them away, as a sweepstakes perhaps. He assembles a wide, diverse cross-section of Americans, and randomly selects from that list. He promotes the whole thing heavily and provides detailed firsthand accounts from the winners. Perhaps in this way you could provide enough consistent reports from people who would never normally buy an EV, people who would the public would see as themselves when they either say "this car is perfect" or "this car is perfect except I can't charge it anywhere!" Either way, maybe it would break through into telling people that EVs would fit their lives just fine? Maybe we could drum up some demand in this way, start putting pressure on manufacturers to explain just WHY each EV costs too much to build?

I know...I'm probably dreaming...



Anybody out there with a disposable $100,000,000 or so wanna give it a shot?

rusty


----------



## Saaby (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> *we really would have to have ten minute rechargers as well...I presume that would take a very special, expensive charger, but that's what the gas stations are for, right? They'd probably sell more candy bars if you had to wait a few more minutes, too.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's what I thought too. We were both misled...the technology (yes, for a 10 minute charge) is actually *in* the car. GM choose not to put a few more electronics onboard and have, well, onboard chargers. The technology is there though. 10 minute charge from any 220V outlet in the world.



> *Saturn owners are weird, for cryin' out loud, and that Saab nuts are from Alpha Centauri...*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">



What are you saying?







> *So...here's where "we" (the EV community) step in. Someone has a lot of money. He buys lots of these off-the-shelf new Priuses...and gives them away, as a sweepstakes perhaps. He assembles a wide, diverse cross-section of Americans, and randomly selects from that list. <snip>*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have to quietly disagree. I read this book once, a car book, called "Getting the Bugs out: The rise, fall, and comeback of Volkswagon in America" and it talked a lot about advertising.

Ford comes out with a new Taurus. They put an ad on every TV show in america, every man woman and child should know that there is a new Taurus.

This isn't the strategy VW used in the 80s when they were broke. (Things may have changed) Instead they looked at who was driving VWs. Then they said "What TV shows are VW drivers likely to watch?" and advertised durring those shows. Somone needs to do some research and go "Who is likely to take the "risk" on an EV?" and advertise for them. Look at VW now...everyone loves them!

As for the average American consumer--Darell is usually a road warrior on the weekends. He needs more range often...he has an ICE. For many people though they wouldn't need a second car. Going on a trip? Rent a car...expensive for people that need a second car often (Darell) cheap for people that don't (People that don't)


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 18, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well...I have to admit targeted advertising like that is good...I was just assuming that the EV "niche" would be small enough to require acceptance beyond your standard "likely buyer." Maybe I don't give the marketing folks enough credit...supposedly they can know whether I'll buy something or not before I even know myself.

I share your concerns about drive-by-wire tech, though I think ultimately it'll be worked out. Still, the reasons you discuss would suggest to me that the stone-axe simple tech will in many cases be the best for some circumstances (gee...did I mention racing enough times yet? Direct manual steering, no suspension, solid rear axle, direct hydraulic brakes, motor under your elbow...that's the way to do it!) Of course, I guess Formula 1 is quite the exception.

There should be more encouragement for racing EVs...it'd be nice to have some competition encouraging further development. Hey, you have 2525 posts, Ryan! Good job...I think...

rusty


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Okay, as promised, some thoughts/questions.

Some SAABs have been throttle-by-wire since at least ‘92. It’s my understanding that, as part of the intended 42 volt switchover, we would be seeing electric brakes pretty regularly...and I thought even without hydraulic failsafes? I thought space/weight savings were the advantages of e-brakes, plus perhaps a more reliable system and simpler/cheaper manufacturing? I suppose the same would apply to steering. But I prefer manual steering, the less assisted the better. I can pilot my go-kart fairly well, but put me behind the wheel of a racing game (even with force-feedback) and I’m hopeless. I’m sure a big part of that is the lack of communication through the wheel.

I must admit that although I didn’t discount batteries before, I had thought fuel cells would be the first publicly accepted EVs. The details of this thread have turned my thinking on its head. You’ve made a very solid case against fuel cells. The bulk issue might be soluble (liquid hydrogen would be compact enough, no?), but at what cost and risk? The price of H2 really catches my eye, and I don’t see any logical way around it...if you want truly “green” H2, you have to use “green” electricity, and we know how the numbers come out there. Even if electricity might someday be ridiculously cheap, what’s the point in wasting it?

You mention subsidized gasoline quite frequently. Do you have any data on this? It makes sense that tax breaks and foreign policy would influence the price, but how precisely do we know these effects? How well do we know the “real cost” of gas presuming no direct or indirect government assistance? I’m afraid that for convincing the general public you’ll have to leave “oil wars” out of the equation, despite the steep price tag...

Conversely, I’m pretty sure you mention somewhere here that, properly mass-produced EVs would be cheaper than comparable ICEs. Even without subsidies? Do you have any more details on that? Where are the savings? I’d guess a lot of it would found in simpler mechanicals. It would be okay to take the (presumably) much lower maintenance costs and a portion of the fuel savings into account.

What needs to happen to make EVs appear viable to the public? I’m thinking of two particular issues; battery range/charging and performance. I know off-the-line is great, but tires/suspension...how much efficiency does the Tzero sacrifice for performance “feet”? As for batteries...I would think range and “refuel” time are the obvious sticking points for consumers. Are there theoretical limits to battery capacity and “compactness”? Will batteries truly be capable of providing 250-300 typical-driver miles in a full-size sedan (yet remain compact) AND be capable of a ten-minute recharge? In other words, can a battery EV replace an ICE car with no effective sacrifice?

Wordy, I know...



...that tends to be me.

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks for joining in, Rusty! You've asked some excellent questions, and I have answers for many of them. I look forward to answering these kinds of questions, as you well know. I'm away from home right now, and don't have to time to do your post justice, so my reply will have to wait until later.


----------



## Darell (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by rrtanton:
> *it'd be nice to have some competition encouraging further development.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Absolutely. You've seen these guys?
http://www.oeva.org/woodburn2002/

Great comments, Rusty. I'll revisit them when I have a bit more time...


----------



## Darell (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> surrender to it--to give us that range.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agreed. And that's just what I'm trying to accomplish. But I can't while I'm blind and with both hands tied behind my back. If there is no backing, no enthusiasm, and no marketing for EVs, there's nobody to work toward these ideals. Totally a vicious circle. Nobody wants EVs, so we can't make EVs that people want. Grr. Just shoot me!

More to come... (We've got a World Series happening on the West Coast today!)


----------



## Darell (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

And finally, to answer the actual questions in your post...



> Regarding the tires question: Yes, sorry it's a bit misleading. I was just trying to point out that I think a mass-market-targeted EV would have to ideally have LRR tires that perform just like good all-seasons...Again, public expectations.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yup, and although there has never been a "mass market" EV, the ones we have on the streets today all have LRR tires that perform very well indeed. The Honda EVplus, the EV1 and the Rav4 all have LRR tires that perform at least as well as the tires that came stock on my Honda Civic EX. Vehilcles like the Tzero will never see mass production. They have few creature comforts and are built for one thing: Beat the pants off of anything else on the road. You don't need much range for that!



> We want the public to accept the EV. Best way to do that is for them to own one. But who will buy this new Prius, even with subsidies?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm not so sure that placing EVs into households that don't really want them is the way to go about this. The way to change public opinion is to advertise! Currently we're told that you're not a real man unless you drive an SUV. See, here's one climbing straight up a sheer cliff while your buxom wife in the passenger seat is fixing her makup. *shouldn't this be you!?* Every hunky man at the gym has a SUV - what are you doing in a Civic? Are you a sissy? We're also told again and again that if the CA tree-huggers have their way, we'll all need to give up our beloved SUVS - our CHOICE in cars - and be forced to drive little economical coffins that are sure to kill our families. That's the crap that has to change.

There has never been effective EV advertising. The only thing that comes close is what we call "green washing" - showing the world that you (the auto manufacturer) are producing green vehicles like EVs... but then not really telling anybody that there are great benefits to owning them. Toyota is guilty of this with the Rav. They have some billboards and some magazine ads, but the only benefit they proclaim is "use the HOV lane." Big whoop. A good ad campaign can convince anybody that they need anything - regardless of the truth. Shouldn't the convincing be even easier if it is the TRUTH?


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You're right, the advertising hasn't been designed well...even the smartest "green wash" ads I've seen pretty much leave everything to the consumer to decide about the car--and who wouldn't look at an ad screaming about how "green" something is and think "yeah, but it must putter along like a half-dead golf-cart and goes 60 miles." We just assume there's a serious compromise there. I have great difficulty explaining to folks that NiMH rechargeables are pretty much equivalent to alkalines and even better in many cases...they still think of NiCads when you say "rechargeable." So you need an EV ad showing a lot more than green, maybe even ignoring green altogether.

So...it comes back to money. I could think of various directions to aim it, but ads still take money. Maybe that's the cheapest way to bring in the R&D funds? The public can be a bit short-attention span, though...get 'em all excited about these wonderful cars and then tell 'em they can't have 'em for 5-10 years 'cause the infrastructure isn't there yet...

Oh...about mass-producing Tzero style cars? Well, think about it...if EVs are so wonderful performance-wise already, wouldn't it seem likely performance manufacturers would be interested? I'd love to see what Porsche could do with an EV. I confess, though, for me it isn't the raw power that satisfies me quite so much as the poise of the chassis, the integrated and wonderfully communicative, responsive whole of the car. Drop your EV1 acceleration numbers into a Boxster chassis and I'd be tickled pink.

Yes, okay Saaby, or into a Saab chassis. Ya know, that new 9-3 platform is gonna be GM's mainstay for that class of car...hm...what an interesting opportunity for an EV...

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 19, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh, how I wish you could swing by CA and take a ride in the EV1. I think you'll be amazed at how this car speaks to you. It isn't the best at getting around the corners, but it provides the most fun that I've EVER had in a car. Talk about integration! Driving a car with no throttle delay OR transmission is like a dream. Then ad the fact that it'll be 95% of the cars on the road. Whoooo Ahhh!



> The public can be a bit short-attention span, though...get 'em all excited about these wonderful cars and then tell 'em they can't have 'em for 5-10 years 'cause the infrastructure isn't there yet...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Remember though... this is exactly what is happening with the fuel-cell vehicles right now! We could have EV infrastructure up the wazoo within a year if we wanted it. In fact we do have it - Electricity is everywhere. We just need vehicles that can take advantage of every outlet. But hydrogen infrastructure? If we have anything useable in ten years I'll eat my shorts. But here we are, getting everybody excited about this wonderful technology that we can't have. There ought to be a law. Or at least a government that understands these things (and doesn't stand in the way of state governments that do!)


----------



## Darell (Oct 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> the technology (yes, for a 10 minute charge) is actually *in* the car. GM choose not to put a few more electronics onboard and have, well, onboard chargers. The technology is there though. 10 minute charge from any 220V outlet in the world.[/QB]


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">True to a point. The technology IS onboard for a quick charge. But to get a quick charge, you need more than 220V. 220V CAN be boosted, however, but that is more equipment needed offboard. But it installing these certainly is nowhere near as involved as a gas station with huge underground tanks full of flamable, toxic liquid.

The rate of charge is proportional to the voltage shoving it in there.


----------



## Darell (Oct 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by rrtanton:
> *Now, understand I'm hesitant when I come across ideas of "oh, we'll be there eventually, we just need the money for research."....In this case, though, history and current evidence back up the optimism. *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You make some excellent point here. The reason that I'm so optimistic is because of what the EV1 showed was possible. The car was originally released with the best battery technology that was available at the time - and saw a range of 60 miles. It was obvious that the capacity needed to be improved, and an international coalition of battery experts was formed to produce a better product for the entire world (back when it seemed like ALL mfg's would be producing an EV). NiMH came into being, and suddenly we were seeing 120 (easy!) miles of range. There are drivers of these NiMH cars who regularly put 150 miles between charges.

In the meantime, lead-acid technology improved as a by-product of the NiMH research, and BANG, in two years, the capacity of the batteries (with the same chemistry even) was increased by about 50%.

What did it take? A need, enthusiasm and money. Currently none of those requirements exist, sadly.

So the best the cars could do in 1997 was 70 miles. The best they could do in 1999 was 150 miles. And this was TOTALLY due to battery technology. But guess what? (Ryan already brought this up) we now have far more efficient electronics to convert the battery power to road power - and from outlet power to battery charge. The technology that we have at our disposal now would add another 10-15% of range (and even decrease charging time!) So let's call our new range 170 miles. Easy to see where I'm going here. We HAVE technology to make a 200 mile car. Probably even a 250 mile car. And that's without even really trying. What we don't have is the interest of a company that is large enough to make it happen. My car was designed in the late 80's early 90's. Just imagine what we could do with 10 more years of technology under our belts - remember that my car has...(8? 12? I cna't remember) a LOT of computers. How far has computer technology come in 10 years? Day and night...

If we gave the public a 250 mile EV, they'd suck 'em up. The auto manufacturers don't WANT the public to suck them up, so they aren't going to make them. Crazy, huh? And around and around we go.

The auto industry said they could NEVER meet the fist CAFE numbers of 20 years ago. "Couldn't be done. We'd all be forced to drive small unsafe cars. Our god-given right to drive huge blvd barges would be taken away!" But they were forced to do it, so they spend millions of dollars and came up with.... drum roll... fuel injection!

Yay. We could keep driving our big cars and STILL meet the CAFE numbers. Time and time again we see that need and money really can fix these things. But time and time again we have to drag the auto mfgs kicking and screaming down the road - we effectively have to shove the "need" down their throats. They don't want to change because they make their profits without effort or change right now.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh...right...forgot about HEVs. Okay, so the only infrastructure we need is large battery mass-producing and modifying gas stations with chargers.

I'm not a conspiracy-minded person either. Yet it seems to make a lot of sense to me that the primary reasons for automaker resistance are "we-know-what-makes-profit-so-let's-stick with-it" complacency, as mentioned (amusing when you consider how innovative they can be), and then resistance from oil outfits and their influence on government. With the advent of reformers, THAT seems to me why fuel cells are so popular among them now...they could still make and sell gas.

You have to admit, from their perspective EVs would be a genuine disaster.

I'd love to try an EV1 sometime, but as I mentioned I did get to drive a more utilitarian EV for a while. That'll have to hold me over. Maybe at some point I'll get the chance, who knows? Maybe if I had the money someday I'd build my own "proof-of-concept" EV.

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Geez, Rusty... where have you been?

You seem to have an excellent grasp of this stuff! Plus you've even managed to decode my ramblings pretty well.






As far as I see it, the federal gov't, the auto makers and the oil companies are pushing fuel-cell vehicles because:
1. They doesn't exist
2. They won't exist for quite some time
3. They will be as easily disparaged as EVs when it does exist (Hey, we made them, but nobody wanted them because the range sucks, and they're too expensive, and thre is no where to refuel them)
4. We can fuel them with gasoline (!)

Because if those AREN'T the reasons to like fuel cells... we have BEVs RIGHT FRIGGING NOW! Currently there are no reasons for liking fuel-cell vehicles that involve divorcing the automobile from oil in the foreseeable future. Surprise.

No, I don't like being thought of as a conspiracy nut either. But when the evidence keeps stacking up, I find myself going "hmmmm?" more and more.


----------



## Termac (Oct 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darrell, thanks for this topic. After all these months, I have finally gone through it from the beginning. It's always seemed somewhat incredible just to have an EV1 owner at CPF (sorry I know that's a sore point about the lease), but I'm very impressed by this whole topic. Anyway, I just thought I'd mention that Car & Driver did an editorial about a year ago, which tore apart the fuel cell propaganda. Also, this topic just makes me wonder how a person outside of California could get an EV, and it seems that the best way would be to customize a hybrid type. Maybe more E could be put into the HV by adding a supplemental battery bank and changing system. The system would just have to fool the stock hardware into thinking that the original batteries were doing all the work. Well, as I type this I realize that the electric motor in the Honda Civic HV might not be powerful enough to do very much with the extra juice. Oh well, I'm interested in any thoughts on the upgrade potential with these HVs.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 20, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Tarmac--which issue? (Fellow C&D reader here)


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Tarmac -

Wow! There aren't many of us who've read all the posts in this thread. Getting pretty long, isn't it? If you get bored, be sure to follow the Brock link at the beginning of the thread to see where this mess started (and to follow my learning curve). I've written tons about my EV on other automotive boards, and the education level on this board better lends itself to understanding the issues.

While I consider hybrids (HV) to be a great stepping stone - it bothers me greatly that they're advertised as "you don't even need to plug them in!" Which is first and foremost a fallacy - you plug them into a gasoline nozzle all the time. But what would make hybrids REALLY great in my mind is making them parallel instead of series as they are currently. A parallel configuration could run pure EV or pure ICE or a combination. With that one car, you could commute in it every day under clean EV power, then when you decided to take an extended trip, you just fill it with gasoline and never look back. Vehicles like this exist. We have several of them here at UC Davis... but of course there are none to buy. This concept requires no different technology than is currently being used in the serial hybrids - Just more battery, and a way to charge them from an AC source. I currently have to own two cars to have what ONE car could do in this configuration.

Converting an existing HV would be prohibitivly difficult, I'm afraid. We just need to convince the mfg's that we WANT a plug-in hybrid! How do we do that though?

Answer that one, and I'll buy you lunch. For life.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

But then doesn't the parallel EV haul its ICE everywhere it goes as dead weight? I like the "ICE trailer" idea featured in photos earlier here...

Maybe this could be something of an evolution. I really like the way some of the future hybrids are planned, such as the ones replacing the starter motor with a beefier auxiliary electric, pretty much integrated right into the ICE, and just a larger version of the standard battery. I think this is also intened to mesh well with the new 42 volt systems. The electric lends assistance under heavy acceleration/load.

I like this concept because (as I understand it) we're almost going to that kind of system anyway with switching to 42 volts...beefier alternators and batteries, etc. If cars started to become more EV-like essentially by accident...and people suddenly noticed they loved getting great mileage out of a gutsy car...well, at least that could be a foot in the door.

rusty


----------



## Saaby (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> *But then doesn't the parallel EV haul its ICE everywhere it goes as dead weight?*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yup, but you're missing the point. The point is that a hybrid is already ~50% EV. Add some stuff so it's 65% EV and you could run it as a pure EV 90% of the time and have that engine for the other 10% of the time, and than another 80% of the public would actually consider it! Then they'd find they were running it in pure EV mode (IE the Pyrus' "stealth" mode) most the time and push for pure EVs.

How many people drive 4WD SUVS? The 4WD system is dead weight 90% of the time--and that's not stopping them.


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> But then doesn't the parallel EV haul its ICE everywhere it goes as dead weight? I like the "ICE trailer" idea featured in photos earlier here...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You bet. Another word for "hybrid" is "compromise." But building an EV that also hauls a small ICE around would still be far more efficient than driving an ICE-only vehicle. Hauling the small engine around wouldn't be much more extra weight than a passenger. Make no mistake, I'd always rather drive a pure EV - but for right now a compromise vehicle is a GREAT way to get people used to the concept of driving ICE-less.

Hauling an ICE trailer has its advantages and disadvantages. You have to plan on taking it with you when you'll need it, you need to store it somewhere when you aren't using it... and currently they cost as much as an entire new Civic! Once again - there are no numbers, so the price is insane.

A parallel hybrid would have a small ICE that would be assisted by the electric motor for acceleration. Just like in today's hybrids. The main difference is that the electric motor and the battery capacity would both be larger. 


> If cars started to become more EV-like essentially by accident...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The Prius already does this. Up until a certain speed (15-20mph?) the Prius can drive totally E. They call it "stealth mode" and everybody who has a Prius brags about how great it is. So like you said, we've tricked them into driving an EV! It still doesn't seem to easily spill over into pure EV, but it is a start. Double the batteries and the motor size, add a charger, and you've got the perfect parallel hybrid.

*** Edit - Saaby beat me to it.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Even 50 miles of range (Or in other words, half the batteries of Darells EV) would be sufficient for a Hybrid because at the end of that 50 miles you can start the engine and charge the batts--or (Like in most conditions) when you havent driven 50 miles in 1 day, charge it up.

How long can the Pyrus go in pure EV mode? 5 Miles? I don't know but I think I know somone that does...


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This just in...

http://cleanup-gm.org/kpix.rm

It is a news segment that our local newscast just did on the EV1.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh goodie! Time to gat Real Media player with Linux....


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *How long can the Pyrus go in pure EV mode? 5 Miles? I don't know but I think I know somone that does...*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It isn't far. Five miles at under 15mph sounds about right. Just perfect for cruising in and out of parking lots.

I have seriously had a Prius driver ask me how long I've made my "stealth mode" last. When I told him 110 miles, he then asked what sort of mileage I get.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

After 5 minutes of internet searching, 8 minutes of newsgroup reading and a 14 minute nap I gave up and watched the clip on my sisters machine--great clip, my favorite part is the fact that the News anchor guy thinks he'll be able to buy it at a car show in 5 years--HA!


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Chuckle. Yes darell, what sort of mileage does your HYBRID get? Hehehe. Poor guy. Probably thought you had a Honda?

I'm...slightly stunned at the price of an ICE trailer. That seems woefully excessive! I mean, I could put together a small generator on a very small tow-dolly-like trailer and even an aerodynamic nose (no joke) for prolly under $1500. Wouldn't be pretty, but I would think it'd work pretty well. I'd use one of those compact Honda generators...I know the ICE trailer discussed uses a motorcycle engine, and that could be arranged too...oodles of engine types are available on the go-kart market, but then I'd have to mate a separate alternator to it. Surely working out a cable to run to the vehcile (to the charger port?) wouldn't add that much in price. What am I missing here? Gotta be something...

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The main part that you're missing is the time and expense it takes to prove to Toyota that your product should not void the warranty. Another is liability concerns. Tons off money went into the development and proof-of-concept models of the generator trailer - and since exactly three have been built, they're pretty pricy. Build 20,000 units and you get to amortize those fixed expenses.

I might just be looking you up when I need my generator trailer


----------



## Saaby (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

"I might just be looking you up when I need my generator trailer



"

After you don't give your EV1 back right?





(I know, I know, the Rav4...and what is it with EVs and numbers? Rav4 EV1...madness)


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *...and what is it with EVs and numbers? Rav4 EV1...madness)*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, what GM was trying to say with EV1 is pretty obvious. The Rav4 doesn't count since it saw light as an ICE. The Honda EV+ wasn't a number - but it was more than *some* number apparently.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

How about the "Darell 1?"

As the trailer goes, I don't have the skills to manufacture the thing...but I probably know folks who would. I certainly can think of many off-the-shelf parts that could probably go into it. Smallest 2-wheel flat trailer you can find, a plastic go-kart nose, a small generator behind it. Or maybe there are even some pre-existing tiny egg-shaped trailers out there? Why does that ring a bell...something I saw behind a Goldwing maybe? Or (though I'm sure the DOT might have something to say about this) perhaps you could fit it into one of those luggage-shell thingies on the roof! That might be a nice self-contained approach.

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 21, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

My first thought was to mount the thing to the vehicle behind the bumper too. That way you have no parking/reversing problems associated with having a trailer. The problem would be lifting the thing up there, of course. But still, you could have a winch system in the garage. Let's face it - there are lots of ways to make this work - there just needs to be more interest so more mfg's want to take it on and get competitive.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hm...now how did I miss this? The current issue of PopSci also mentions that the '03 Navigator and Aviator SUVs (yuk!) are getting white LED interior lighting (yay!) I'm amazed it's taken so long. The little article is a bit poorly worded, it makes it sound as though Lincoln designed the LEDs themselves.

So...could that mean one of Lincoln's designers is a LEDaholic? And if so...might he drift on over to CPF one of these days? And if so...might he stumble across this thread?





What?



It could happen!








rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I have an EV1-LED story...

When I first picked up my 1997 EV1, I was amazed that LEDs were only used as indicators. Not as dash lights or anything else at which we know they'd excell. I sent a message out to our club listserver to ask why such a high-tech, efficient vehicle would NOT employ LED lighting. The answer I got made me feel stupid, of course. Three of the engineers that helped design the car responded, and they all said the same thing. The high-output LEDs that we're injoying today were many years off when the car was designed in the late 80's and early 90's. Oops. They all went on to say that any new EV would absolutely use LEDs in many, many applications for their energy savings, weight savings, assembly savings and safety.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Neat story! I was hoping it was something like "design lag" or whatever you might call it and not some vast conspiracy among incandescent bulb manufacturers...

Technically, my dad's Boxster (read: Retirement Toy) has LED internal lighting...very dim amber LEDs strategically hidden and aimed at various places in the cabin where you might need a tiny bit of ambient light. Haven't driven it enough to say how well it works...





This indirectly reminds me of another thing. Does anyone know why new trucks and truck trailers seem to all have LED signal/marker lights and taillights? Yeah, I know you can say "because they're better" but I think there's more to it, just don't know what, especially as it seems almost all the new ones have 'em yet still nearly no cars do. Less man-hours spent replacing bulbs? Fewer citations for lights out?

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You've got some of them. They are CHEAPER in the long run. Remember that a truck travels MANY more vibrating miles than a normal car ever would it its life. The labor for one bulb replacement would more than offset the extra initial cost of the LED module. For that reason alone it is a logical choice - add to that the safety (trucks tend to back into things like loading docks, errant trailers, etc more than the average passenger vehicle - and the LED module won't break when whacked) and reliability and you've got a win-win situation. These won't have to be replaced for the life of the truck, and I'll bet normal bulbs need to be replaced many, many times on trucks. I think we'll see more and more cars with LED marker lights once the auto mfg's figure this out as well. It has been established that the labor for a single bulb replacement in any vehicle would offset the extra expense of buying an LED light in the first place.


----------



## Kirk (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi Darell!
Haven't perused this thread in a while, so forgive me if this was mentioned. Do you kinda think GM made a boo-boo by making the EV1 only a two-seater? I know the average car carries 1.4 people on average, but if you have 3 people in your family, and you never ever travel more than 50 miles, you still have to have 2 cars--either an EV1 for commuting and a 4-seater for going to grandma's house or 2 EV1s and 2 drivers--kinda dumb. And don't forget insurance on 2 cars. Or forget the EV1 and just buy the 4-seater. I'll bet for a lot of people, the 2-seat thing was the biggest turn-off. I think Honda goofed, too, with the Insight; let's see ... $20K for 2 seats (Insight)or $20K for 5 seats (Prius)? It appears you get more car for the same dinero. A lot of families just can't swing more than 1 car, so they weren't able to buy an EV that fit their family, until the RAV4-EV came out. And that's pretty spendy. I wish the car makers had enough money to bite the bullet and subsidise electric cars; add a little to the price of the ICE cars and eat the loss on the EVs so they were more equal in price. $100 per ICE x 17,000,000? new cars sold per year and they'd have almost 2 BILLION dollars collectively to play with. But that ain't gonna happen with shareholders screaming for more and more profits. Your thoughts?
Kirk


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi Kirk -

GM made (and is still making) plenty of boo-boos in regard to the EV1, but I don't think that making it a 2-seater was one of them. The EV1 was to be a proof-of-concept vehicle, followed up with a range of different EV platforms. Had to prove that it would work first, and a two-seater was the most effective way to get it done. GM WANTED to market a sports car, not an electric slug. Nobody that I know of was "turned off" by the EV1. There are so few of us who've ever had a chance to own one, that the general public didn't even have a chance to be turned off. Everybody who drives one wants one. The waiting list was in the thousands. GM didn't stop EV1 production because the public didn't want them. No way. I was on the waiting list for 3.5 years. I still wouldn't have one if I didn't luck into it. There are people who were on the waiting list long before I was who are still SOL.

Remember that the EV1 was the very fist EV in modern times. Similarly, the Insight was the first hybrid - and it is a two-seater for the same reason. Honda didn't goof - shortly after the Prius is out, they now have their hybrid 5-seater Civic out in the same price range. Today's choice is Civic or Prius, not Insight and Prius - though some drivers still prefer the Insight.

The Rav4 isn't more spendy than any other EV that has been out. It is actually far cheaper to lease than the EV1 was when it came out.

I agree that EVs need to be subsidized - but I think it should be the federal government that does it. If they can find extra tax dollars to throw at the oil companies, the least they could do is give EVs a hand. The big three auto mfg's funded a study that found producing EVs would add $53 to each ICE vehicle. That number, they say, would create more smog than it clears because people would put off buying a new, cleaner ICE car and keep driving their old dirty car for a bit longer. $53. And this was THEIR study to prove that EVs would cost too much money to produce. $53 won't even buy you a decent set of floor mats!


----------



## Saaby (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Short answer on Red LEDs and why car's don't have them, but first this message:

Makes sense with the LEDs on the EV1--relize that right now today they're working on models for 2010+ 

And now back to our message--
All cars sold in the US have high mount stoplights. Watch them, you'll see that many of the newer cars' hi mounts are LEDs. On the main tail lights it's a different story though. Enginners design cars and then bean counters water them down. When a bean counter sees a LED stop light trimming $2+ off the profit of each car, that bean counter is going to tell the enginners to ditch their LEDs.Did you know that the most decked out Chrysler Minivan only costs about $1,500 more to build than the base model...but goes for twice the price on the market? That's why you see LEDs in expensive cars--profit margins are much looser.

And while we're at it Cadillac was the first manufacturer to use LEDs for the full tailights on the current generation Deville. LEDs come on faster than a bulb. At 60 MPH this faster cycle time ammounts in something like 60 feet...


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

If I did my math right, 60 feet is covered in 0.68 seconds at 60mph. 30 feet (0.34 seconds)might be more reasonable/conservative for the "on" difference - but PLENTY significant.

Honda went backwards with the high-mount 3rd light. On the first Odyssey, it was LED. On the current, FAR more expensive Odyssey, it is incandescent.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm sure you're right about the bean-counter effect. Near the end of college, my dad thought working for GM would be just the greatest thing ever. He attended a seminar intended a seminar for interested engineers. First thing the GM representative told them was "throw away your slide rules, boys." In other words, he knew how eager they were to start engineering with all their bright young ideas, and GM wanted none of it. New ideas cost money, $1 a car becomes $millions out of GMs pocket.

Dad went to work for the power company.

Certainly there's a lot of truth in that kind of thinking but...I have to think it can be far too easy to allow it to rule you...what if that $1 a car brings in $2? Sometimes you've gotta take risks. Way back when, I thought that's what GM was doing with the EV1.





The latest BMW 7-series also now has LED taillights and...something else on the road that I can't remember, a Mercedes I think?

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by rrtanton:
> *Way back when, I thought that's what GM was doing with the EV1.
> 
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You and me both.



I'll never forget way back in 1996 when I test drove the Impact (the proto for the EV1). I'd already been turned down for leasing the first batch ($100k salary required). And I remember thinking to myself that when I finally was financially able to own one, that we'd be on the second or third generation of EV. This was just the beginning of something GREAT! Fast forward six years and here I am driving the most technologically advanced EV on the road. And that car is the SAME damn prototype car with a new name. Zero advancement except for battery capacity. Sucks.


----------



## Brock (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ok, I think I am caught up.

I would think for most of the consumers a Prius type car that had larger batteries, bigger electric motor and smaller gas generator would be the way to go.

Here is why, even a big SUV only need about 30hp to cruise at 70mph, so why does the Prius have a 70hp ICE motor? I have no idea; well actually I do, because the electric motor is to small. If you put a 30hp generator that did nothing but charge the batteries when they hit say 50% (user selectable), you could drive 95% of the time on batteries and charge them at home. Then if you do need to drive to grandmas you start the generator and your off, you could run just the same distance and speed as any ICE, probably further on 12 gallons. If you built the genset to run at a specific speed and efficiency your set, you could easily get 50+ mpg of fuel, and driving around town you would get MUCH higher

So someone tell me why this is a bad idea. I know the up here we would have a heat issue in the winter (a heat pump maybe), but what else? Maybe the Prius is the beginnings of this car? Only time will tell.


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Brock:
> *So someone tell me why this is a bad idea.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
We're told that this is a bad idea because (we're also told) we don't want to plug anything in. That's new and somehow "bad." It is also a bad idea in the eyes of those with their hand on the auto-making button because so much time can be spent driving the car without burning gasoline. That's downright anti-American! That'll cost jobs in the oil industry!

You've nailed the power thing. The Prius has an oversized ICE because of the undersized motor. Everything we need for a plug-in hybrid exists *EXCEPT* for the perceived need of such a great vehicle.



> I know the up here we would have a heat issue in the winter (a heat pump maybe


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That REALLY isn't a problem, Brock. Building an efficient electric heater is child's play. Couple it with NiMH batteries which love the cold, and you're good to go. Lots of other things to worry about - don't let this one keep bothering you. An EV will keep your tootsies warm.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hmmm...you know when it's late at night and 2 ideas do a little Nuclear Fusion in your brain? I just had that happen...

If we all switch to EVs the gas stations will go out of buisness, but the space left over (Combined...I know you can't "move space" but remember this is all theoretical) would be more than enough to put up scrudloads of Wal-Mart Supercenters. These places supply literally 100 or 200 jobs! And make wayyy more income (Probably not but...) than the Oil industry.

Then Wal-Mart can monopolize the retail industry (like they don't already <snicker>) and combine with Microsoft to take over the world!

Ok ok so the fusion of these 2 ideas wan't all that clean but...


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm thinking that it's past somebody's bedtime.

We'll still need those minimarts for our quick charge and Snickers stop...


----------



## Saaby (Oct 22, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

yup, the fact that I would forget about the minimarts *proves* I need to go to bed






so I will...

Bulldoze mini-marts, what was I thinking...


----------



## Darell (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Really great article in the NYT today. Find it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/23/automobiles/23PHIL.html

You'll have to register (for free) to read it, or I can send it to you. I'd post it here, but it's a bit lengthy - and I didn't want to chew up that much bandwidth. The article DOES feature a SAAB ad, so I'm sure Ryan will get there. It is about Bob stemple and Lee Iacocca designing EVs


----------



## Darell (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

"But No One Wants It"

This is the "kicker" in the title of an article in the current issue of MIT's Technology Review Magazine. Article HERE 

Within the article are described several proven technologies which would bring to market engines that would increase the fuel efficiency of even SUVs to 40 mpg (one of these is already running around UC Davis - and it has more power than a stock Suburban). One of the technologies described therein is identical to that currently used by Honda in their Insight and Civic hybrids and by Toyota in the Prius. Another technique which is still in the emerging stage is the cam-less engine. The software control of timing, valve lift and duration of each valve's motion has been shown to provide 10 - 18 percent more miles per gallon, while at the same time increasing engine torque by 15 - 20 percent at low speeds, providing faster acceleration.

So why is nothing happening in Detroit? Well according to the article, without a mandate from Washington or overwhelming public outcry (like that would make any difference as we EV drivers know) the domestic auto industry has little incentive to change. To quote a portion of the next to the last pararaph from the article, "Even if tough new efficiency laws are passed, recent history suggests the auto industry won't accede without a fight. 'Industry leaders have fought catalytic converters. They fought fuel injection, they fought seat belts. They said air bags would bankrupt the industry. But once the requirements are passed they find a way,'..... ".
So says Roland Hwang a vehicle expert at the National Resources Defense Council.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Lee A. Iacocca, 77, ranks the development of the Mustang for the Ford Motor Company in the 1960's and the minivan for the Chrysler Corporation in the 80's among the pinnacles of his career. What ties his new venture to those successes is a focus on the baby boomer.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">




SO the largest misconception in the Automotive market pops up. Lee Iacocca had close to nothing to do with the development of the Minivan...in fact, in his Ford days a similar project was proposed and he flat out said "No" Whatever...


----------



## Sean (Oct 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, Do you have any idea how fast (seconds) your EV will run a quarter mile?


----------



## Darell (Oct 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I could probably figure it out mathematically. The limiting factor is the 80mph speed-limiter. It'll hit that before it hits the quarter mile, for sure. I know that several people have taken them to the track for times. Let me as around - I'll bet I can come up with an anwer. But again - it really isn't a valid measure of the car's capability due to the artificial speed limit.

A fun fact that some of you may have missed: One of the EV1 prototypes with two more batteries (sitting in the passenger seat) and taller gearing went 183 mph in 1997 to hold the EV land speed record at the time.


----------



## Darell (Oct 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Not bad... I found a guy who lives 20 minutes from me, and he's had his car officially timed at the Sacramento Race Track. His name just happens to be Darrel, and he drives the same model (and color!) of EV1 that I do. Small world.

He hustled his car to the 1/4 mile in under 15 seconds at - you guessed it - the governed 80mph (official track speed was 79.6mph. I'll be meeting with Darrel next weekend - and will ask him all the details (like WHEN he hit the limiter).


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Oct 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

uh oh one more darell and you'll all have to wear matching farmer John overalls




you know; darell, darell, and the other darell?


----------



## Darell (Oct 27, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm ordering LED Xmas lights from Daryl. Does that count?


----------



## Darell (Oct 29, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's one of the 1/4 mile time answers that was too good not to pass along (really, this stuff is interesting to those of us with EV1's. Humor me).

Here's a secret way to better the EV1 1/4 mile time---just 
replace with tires that are one size bigger. The max. motor 
power and torque parameters of the EV1 drive system are 
locked in by firmware. But with bigger tires, you can reach 
a higher (actual) top speed, and that's important for the 1/4 
mile time. But be careful; a larger diameter decreases the 
final drive ratio meaning less torque at the wheels and 
therefore slower acceleration when the motor is in torque-
limited mode. Increasing the wheel diameter by say 2" out 
of 24" increases the actual maximum speed to 86.7 mph. 

There's something interesting to point out here. The EV1 
odometer / speedometer is calibrated based on wheel 
speed with a fixed wheel size (stock EV1 tires). Increase 
the wheel speed and the display will still show 80 mph at 
the top end, but you'll actually be going 86.7 mph. That 
also means the odometer will under-report actual distance 
travelled. So for those of you approaching the dangerous 
(expensive) 48,000 mile wall on your EV1 lease, you 
could just get bigger tires. While you're zipping into the 
automotive future at 103 kW, why not leave all sensibility 
behind? Raise the suspension and switch to 48" tires. 
If you can't beat the Humvee/Excursion/Dualquadcab 
crowd, join 'em! The governor would be off-line until 160
mph, and when you get a 120 mph speeding ticket, 
appeal---"impossible, it's electric". As a side benefit, 
you'll get 2 miles out of every 1 mile shown on the odo. 
(sorry for that crazy tangent)...


----------



## Sean (Oct 29, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,

Have you ever heard of cars that run on compressed air?


----------



## Darell (Oct 29, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You betcha. As luck would have it, we talked about it right here. 

Energy density would be an issue in making these "full featured" vehicles. I like the idea though!


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm sure this has been discussed somewhere (had no luck searching CPF), and I'm sure it's opening another can of worms, and I'm sure there are very specific reasons why this isn't being discussed as a viable option (think I have a rough understanding of why), BUT for the sake of getting better information I'll play dumb:

What about ethanol? And/or other "biofuels?"

rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh, I think they're viable. And there are many benefits of using them. They're far cleaner burning than fossil fuel engines - but they are still internal combustion engines. And it turns out that whenever you burn something, you typically create something that we shouldn't be breathing.

We've been using CNG (compressed Natural Gas) in busses and some personal cars for quite some time now. They work great - and again are far cleaner than their gasoline counterparts.

Nothing really wrong with these technologies beyond the typical stumbling blocks of infrastructure, distribution and public acceptance.

I find ALL of these technologies to be worthwhile pursuits as we slowly move everybody away from oil-based fuels.


----------



## rrtanton (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yes, but who will buy it? The railroads don't want an engine with a plug. It has no range. It has no power. It's too quiet, it'll confuse engineers. It generates more pollution than an idling 2000hp diesel.





Ahem. Sorry. Something came over me... About ethanol...I thought it was technically even more attractive than that. Yeah, I see the "it probably spits out some things you don't want to breathe" issue. And I'm aware of the "energy density" issue...I understand that alcohol-fuelled race cars burn through fuel faster. But...on the CO2 front, agricultural ethanol technically ends up being (or capable of being) a net zero, right?

I was wondering if there were issues with the efficiency of production. Growing corn, trucking it around, fermenting it into ethanol, waste products...is this more/less financially practical than the current oil/gasoline infrastructure? And didn't I hear Brazil or another major South American country uses primarily ethanol, in part because they have corn coming out of their ears? What's the catch? It sounds to me like it's a somewhat indirect way of doing solar power. There's always a catch...








rusty


----------



## Darell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I really don't know what the catch is either. I don't know enough about the various bio fuels to discuss it with a reasonable level of confidence. What you say makes sense to me. *EVERYTHING* can be considered indirect solar power, of course. Yes, even Oil.



But I understand what you're saying and wonder about it myself. I'll go do a little digging.

As for the "things you don't want to breathe" issue - I aways use this acid test: Are you willing to cut a hole in the floor of the car and route the exhaust into the passenger compartment? I am.





Great news for Darell today: The Rav4EV program just started for me, so this is FINALLY going to happen. We'll be a two-EV family for a full year before the EV1 goes back to GM.


----------



## mekki (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Found a site that sells the super-cool Honda Step Compo e-bike in NYC! Check it out here!


----------



## Darell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeow! Price is a bit steep, isn't it. Never seen them for sale in the US though. Thanks for the link!


----------



## Saaby (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

So when will the Rav arrive, when will I..er...we see pics, and when shall I come visit


----------



## Brock (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ohhhhh, I can run my new VW Jetta TDI (once I get it) on bio-diesel. A lot of people are running it pure, the only catch is you can't use it much below freezing without a bunch of additives. But all summer long I can drive on US grown diesel, and get 50mpg to boot. I can't wait. Bio-diesel is running about $2 per gal, but I think it is worth it, now if only we could get the gov to put some of that same $ they subsidize oil with it would be far cheaper (actually I don’t like the idea of subsidizing anything), but it will be cheaper eventually, when we run out of oil that is



ThenI can drive out to see Darell and we will have the freeways to ourselves


----------



## Darell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Brock:
> *Then I can drive out to see Darell and we will have the freeways to ourselves
> 
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Cool Brock. I'll be waiting for you. Bring your wife - I'll have an extra car.


----------



## Darell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *So when will the Rav arrive, when will I..er...we see pics, and when shall I come visit
> 
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The program manager wants me to take delivery before the first of the year. It *may* make more financial sense for me to wait until the first of the new year. Either way, it'll be pretty soon.

Here's what it'll look like exactly. Even with the same kid crawling in it. This is the shot of my brother-in-law's the day he picked it up. Kyra christened it for them by climbing all over the thing with her dirty shoes.










You guys would come out and kill me if you found out how little this car is going to cost me. So I won't tell you.





Ryan - you have one year to come visit! That way you'll maximize your trip and get to ride in TWO EV's! Start planning now. Don't forget that Sasha is a travel agent...


----------



## Saaby (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I thought I had 2.5 years? When in fact does the EV1 have to go back. I *need* to get down there. It's, uhhh, necessary for my future as a sucessful (Maybe EV) engineer...


----------



## Darell (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The EV goes back in November, 2003. Somewhere in the middle, I think. Only one year left on the EV1...

Tell your parents it is an educational expense.


----------



## Saaby (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hmmm...that's a little Early to push for a December 2003 Disney trip, so I'll have to see if I can work any Magik™ for Summer 2003...or maybe Spring break?


----------



## Darell (Nov 1, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I've been meaning to post this for some time. Here's the kind of thinking that makes so much sense it hurts. A Railroad switching engine that uses a 100hp diesel generator, a huge bank of batteries and electric motors in place of a 1500-2000 HP diesel that sits and idles 90% of the time.

http://www.railpower.com/greengoat.php


----------



## Darell (Nov 5, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Cool news - I'm one giant step toward being a two-EV family. I paid my non-refundable deposit on my RAV4EV yesterday.

Now I wait for the charger to be shipped, then I install it, then I get it inspected, then the vehicle begins its two-week, 600 mile trip up from So. Cal. A month after the deposit was paid it should be parked in my driveway.

Yeah, they sure make this process fun, painless and quick. What a surprise that consumers aren't falling all over themselves to hurry up and wait for one.


----------



## mekki (Dec 3, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Wondering what's happening with your RavEV. Any news?

Also, whaddaya think about the new Toyota nd Honda FCVs delivered in CA? Are any of them near you? Can you get a peek at one?

I'm always kind of amazed by the ingenuity shown by these two companies. Sure, the cars are proably worth many, many, millions each, but it seems that Toyota and Honda have a 10 or 20 year plan and not the myopic "sell em now and quick" vision of other auto companies (*cough* Big Three *cough*)


----------



## Darell (Dec 3, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The big news on my Rav is that it was supposed to have been delivered to me last week, but wasn't. It hasn't budged an inch from where it has been parked at the port, but should be on the way "any day now." I have a VIN and my car will be on the next transport heading North, I'm told. The one guy who is responsible for delivering the EVs to the dealers took all of last week off. Apparently he also spent much of the week BEFORE that preparing for his big holiday. The car was officially released to me more than two weeks ago, but is still parked in LA.





In the meantime, I've had the time to yank my permitted and inspected charger back off the wall, and make it portable. I've added miles of extension cord, built every 220V adapter I can think of, bolted the charger onto a plywood backboard, made some clips to hold the cord and hung it back on the wall. I'm ready for action now! I can charger from anybody's house where a 220V dryer receptacle exists. Or an RV recept, or a welder recept - damn near ANY 220V source. Dealing with the plugs, receptacles and wires for high-aperage 220V applications has been an expensive experience, let me tell you. Two full days of labor and $500 later, I'm ready to roll





As for FCVs, one of the Toyotas is right here at UCD, just a mile from my house. I suppose I could go see it, but I doubt I'll get a test drive. I already know what a Toyota SUV looks like, so that won't be much fun. These vehicles are being leased for $10,000/month. That is not a typo. $10k per month. FVC's will forever be more expensive to build and fuel than a battery EV, yet the push for the Fuel Cell "power of the future" is the excuse that all mfg's are using to avoid building those pesky BEVs. If today's excuse for not building BEVs is that they're too expensive with not enough range, can you take a wild guess at what the excuse for not building FCVs in ten years might be? I'd ask you not to get me started, but I guess that ship has sailed.



I have three meetings this week in Sacramento to try and get the EV-drivers' voices heard. CARB is considering allowing ZEV credits for H2 infrastructure and for gasline hybrids. If the mandate is dulluted to that point, we might as well not have a mandate. Certainly not one called a ZEV mandate. 

I'm amazed at the ingenuity of both Honda and Toyota too, but I'm equally upset at both. Toyota has just yanked the Rav4EV. Yes, just three days after my order was offically placed, the Rav4EV can no longer be ordered. No indication of future builds is being given. The reason? Because they don't have to. The Bush Administration is suing CA over the ZEV mandate, and it looks as though the mandate will be crushed once again. It has been dilluted and pushed back three times now. This would appear to be the nail in the coffin for EVs. As of right now, there is no way for anybody in the US to purchase or lease a production EV.

Summary: This just sucks.


----------



## Wolfen (Dec 3, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

What a shame. I had hoped that EVs would become more available in the next few years. I would have liked to purchase one.

RIP EV!


----------



## Darell (Dec 3, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The first mandate was to have begun taking effect in 1996 (that is why the EV1 was born), then it was pushed to 1998. Then it was set at the 2003 model year (now!). And now.... anybody's guess. The mandate started at 10% ZEV, and now the push is for 1% ZEV, but with all the earned credits on the book already, nobody has to do ANYTHING until 2012 and still meet the 2%.

Insanity. I hate to sound so abrupt, but this week has brought about many frustrating meetings that have been taking most of my time.


----------



## Brock (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Bummer, that means I will have to wait forever to get my EV.

Darell can you charge with 120 at all? I know it would take much longer, but it would seem to be much lighter and more portable and obviously a LOT more common. What does the charger put out as in voltage and amperage, on the car side that is?

You sort of mentioned this before, but the good thing about Toyota and Honda building the hybrid is they are great test bed's for EV's. They can get the bugs worked out with batteries, braking, and all the other things and be set to roll out a true EV without to much change. Well a lot, but at least they won't be starting from scratch.

They should put the VW lupo engine in a hybrid, it gets about 100mpg, but only has something like 50 HP, perfect for a hybrid.


----------



## Darell (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The EV1 will charge on 120V, but it does so at less than 4 miles/hour. Not very practical. Compare it to 25 miles/hour at 220V and you can easily see why you only do that in sticky situations. The Rav will have no 110V facility.

There exists a way to charge on anything from 90V to 500V, and the additional weight to the vehicle would be under ten pounds. All you'd need to carry is an extension cord. But no, that has never been incorporated into a production car. But it is not a pipe dream. All AC/Propulsion cars have it, and it works perfectly. You can set the ameperage draw from the cockpit.

More later. Gotta run.


----------



## Saaby (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I *do* believe AC has patents on it though...and after reading teh EV book I can understand why they wouldn't want to sell it (to GM).

Don't see why nobody else is using it though...


----------



## Darell (Dec 4, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Of course they have patents on the reductive charging! That's the best thing to happen since sliced bread. Paying the royalties for the technology and paying for the parts is STILL less than the $200O for the current 70-pound charger that I'm forced to use. But if nobody is building cars, nobody needs charging technology, do they?


----------



## mekki (Dec 7, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I may be de-railing this thread (if I am, feel free to ditch this post), but I just read a pretty good article about SUVs. This review of a book called "High and Mighty: SUVs " is pretty interesting. 

Did you know that for every million Chevy Tahoes on the road, 122 people will die, while the Honda Accord's number is 24 per million? Interesting stuff. and something for the "SUVs are safer" crowd to think about...


----------



## Saaby (Dec 8, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks mekki, I'm always looking for a good car read. Also, you brought this thread to the top so I didn'g have to go digging for it--I just read this tonight and as a result of Darell's brainwashing it made me mad!



> Popular Science, December 2002, Page 55
> *Only about 1,100 electric EV1s were leased over four years of production. The 90-mile range didn't help; more important, hybrid technology quickly made it obsolete.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">


----------



## Darell (Dec 8, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Mekki -

No worries about derailments here! You're squarely on subject as far as I can tell.

Ryan -

What is it with Pop Sci? Are these guys nuts? A while back they wrote that EVs used more energy than ICE vehicles. The reason they gave is that batteries are heavy - and everybody knows that heavy cars are less efficient than light cars. Crazy, I tell you! And now they say "1100 EV1's were leased over four years of production." Nice. Makes it sound like there were tens of thousands made, but only 1100 were leased because of no demand. The facts: They were made over two years of production, there were only about 1100 ever made, they were never marketed, and there was a huge waiting list (still IS a huge waiting list) the whole damn time! In fact, I have been on that waiting list since 1996 - and I have yet to be contacted. And hybrid "technology" made it obsolete? The electric drive-train technology that made hybrid cars possible came from the EV development program. Of course it was a big step backwards...

I'd hate to give these idiots any of my money, but I guess I'd better buy that issue.


----------



## Brock (Dec 8, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Does anyone know of a sight that list safety records for cars and trucks? I remember seeing an insurance one, but all it had was a number between 1 and 30 I think and that was for what rate the insurance company gave cars or truck. I would like to see a list similar to the x per million on each car, maybe it doesn't exist.


----------



## Brotherscrim (Dec 12, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

On NPR this Monday (I think - he's been on NPR every 5 minutes lately), Al Gore said that "Fuel Cell vehicles produce no pollution."

ugh.


----------



## rrtanton (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell...I've emailed you an article from the Chicago Tribune website. They just ran this week an intriguing, very large 3-part story about the Supercar project (remember that--the project trying to make a viable 80 mpg car?) I haven't found enough time to read all of it, but I've read some. The author was also on WGN radio talking about this (WGN is, of course, THE radio station in the midwest, so millions heard it.)

I can't really post a link to it here because you need an account for the Tribune, plus they only archive stories free for 7 days (I think you have to pay after that) so if anyone wants to read it they'd need to go set up a free account soon, then just search for "supercar" and it'll come up.

I sent an email off to the host of the radio show (John Williams) complimenting him on this good piece, but also expressing my consternation that batteries weren't even mentioned and that the author seems convinced fuel cells are the ultimate future. I included links to this thread, perhaps he'll check it out, he did reply saying he was interested. Couldn't find an email for the author/reporter, Sam Roe.

Anyway, just thought you'd like to know that there's some good exposure out there right now on the fuel-efficiency front, and that I at least did what little I could to stick up for the battery camp!





rusty


----------



## dilettante (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Brock:
> *Does anyone know of a sight that list safety records for cars and trucks? I remember seeing an insurance one, but all it had was a number between 1 and 30 I think and that was for what rate the insurance company gave cars or truck. I would like to see a list similar to the x per million on each car, maybe it doesn't exist.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">www.crashtest.com compiles data from US, European and (I think) private insurance sources to come up with their color coded ratings. They also have a tool that permits you to compare vehicles.

Compare the VW Golf, Honda Civic and Toyota Prius. It may not be as "green" or cutting edge as a hybrid, but I'll take my TDI Golf. If I want to be green i can always run it on biodiesel (as I often do in the summertime).


----------



## Saaby (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell--explain this one:

I have heard/read that they spent 10 times more money advertising the EV than a normal car program--what are they talking about? The PREview program?!?? I never lived in Ca, but I think I saw 1 Ev1 ad on TV once and that was it. I may not have even seen it on TV! First time I learned about the Ev1 (Years ago) was when I was surfing the GM website.


----------



## lessing (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I recently saw an ad for a hybrid car that was supposed to be limited availability soon that got a whopping 60mpg, not quite the super car from the prvious post. The I thought about the three different people I work with that have volkswagon jetta diesels and stick it in everyones nose that they have never gotten less than 48mpg and average 52. That is my distaste with hybrids, they are not there yet.

The military is upgradeing the humvee with a new hybrid electric diesel that doubles its efficiency from 8 to 16 mpg and cuts its acceleration to 50mph from 16 to 9 secs. This sounds like a decent use of the technology " lets get a very expensive truck up to speed faster so that when it takes over 30 secs to stop from 50 mph when its loaded we destroy that nice new engine."


----------



## mekki (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Fair enough lessing, but the Volkswagon diesels are all classed Tier 1 by the EPA, while cars like the Civic Hybrid are ULEV. These are measures of the NOx and hydrocarbon output.

Fuel economy is only one measure of a car's footprint.


----------



## dilettante (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Agreed, but VW says the TDI emits fewer grams of total pollutants per kilometer and fewer grams of every individually measured pollutant per kilometer than any of their gasoline engines with two exceptions--The TDI emits more NOx and particulates. Source: Volkswagen 1999/2000 Environmental Report.

The EPA's system measures pollutants per gallon rather than pollutants per mile or kilometer, which is why there are LEV and ULEV SUVs






The EPAs system of converting pollutants into "CO2 equivalents" counts NOx against diesels _twice_. First a smog forming pollutant and then as a greenouse gas. Never mind that the TDI emits way less CO2 than any of VW's "cleaner" gassers. I wonder just how much worse NOx is than CO2 and who decided how much worse NOx is?

If you dig around the EPAs website, you can get into their certified test data. I've posted instructions for doing so in the forums at www.tdiclub.com. I'm talking acout actual measured test data and not the BS star rating system or tons of CO2 equivalent pollutants.

Now I'm not saying the TDI is "green", but it's a damned site greener than a ULEV Toyota Sequoia. There are greener cars out there. If emissions are your top concern, think about an EV or a hybrid. The point is to weigh all the factors. Economics (including the $2K US tax deduction for a hybrid), Safety, Environmental Impact (broadly defined), etc. (I've got a safe 44mpg commuter I only have to refuel every 600+ miles and I can put three other people and luggage in it and cruise over Snoqualmie Pass at 80mph if I want to



)

I saw an old Honda CRX the other day. On the back window, the owner had written 253,000+ miles on one side and 43+ mpg on the other and that was what? Early 1980s technology . . .


----------



## dilettante (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's that EPA link: Annual Certification Test Results and Data


----------



## Brock (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Another thing to keep in mind with the new diesels is that once low sulfur diesel is introduced it will be about 2 to 3 times cleaner then the current rating for diesels. I believe in Calif the low sulfur is already standard issue? This will bring the rating on the TDI's even lower.

I also agree that they should rate them on emissions per mile, or km rather then per gallon or liter, after all that who care if the hummer has ½ the emissions per gallon, if it uses 6 gallons to 1 gallon on the TDI..

Dilettante do you remember what the record was for the TDI, over 1100 miles on 15 gal? I know it was over 70 mpg! If you drive either of the hybrids at 60+ mph the TDI will win in mpg. The hybrids do much better in the city, where the TDI only gets in the mid 40's.

I can't wait for my TDI wagon, someday I hope to get it


----------



## dilettante (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Not to get us too far off EVs (I like EVs. An EV would work great for my 25 mile round-trip commute accross a bridge closed to bicyclists) but you can get sulphur free diesel in many places right now. It's called *biodiesel* and it works just fine in my TDI. If that's not your style, Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel and particulate traps will make diesels much cleaner in the near future . . .

It's expensive--around $2.50 a gallon--but you can get much of the environmental benefits by using a mixture of biodiesel and OPECdiesel. Twenty percent biodiesel or B20 significantly reduces particulate emissions.

Any new EVs out there, or is everyone betting on fuel cells?


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *Darell--explain this one:
> 
> I have heard/read that they spent 10 times more money advertising the EV than a normal car program--what are they talking about? *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My only hope of explaining this is if I know the source. I've never heard that before, and can't believe it.


----------



## Saaby (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I think it was in "The car that could" but who knows--I swear I've seen it more than once, I'll alert you next time I see it.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by dilettante:
> *I saw an old Honda CRX the other day. On the back window, the owner had written 253,000+ miles on one side and 43+ mpg on the other and that was what? Early 1980s technology . . .*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Quite true. But as has been pointed out time and time again, there are TWO main factors at play here:

1. Use of fossil fuel (mpg)
2. Emissions (however you want to measure them)

A 1980's CRX had GREAT gas mileage going for it, but they were quite dirty by today's standards. Your new Sequoia will most likely be quite a bit cleaner than your 1980 CRX.

Motorcycles are another example of this. While they get better mileage than most cars (that margin is narrowing - and has been surpassed in many instances) they typically pollute more. Gasoline cooters demonstrate that dichotomy even better.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Brock:
> *If you drive either of the hybrids at 60+ mph the TDI will win in mpg.*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Brock - by "either of the hybrids" I assume you mean the civic and the Prius? If so, then you're comparing miles per gallon of *gasoline* vs miles per gallon of *diesel*. Not an apples to apples comparison since diesel is more energy dense than is gasoline. Still, your statement is true as written.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by dilettante:
> *Any new EVs out there, or is everyone betting on fuel cells?*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">More accurately, I think one could say that the auto manufacturers and our fed gov't are simply *using* the promise of fuel cells as the reason to abandon anything that would truly reduce our dependency on oil for personal transportation. But in all this, let's not forget that a fuel-cell vehicle IS an EV. Just an extremely expensive, complicated and inefficient one with no fueling infrastructure.

No, there are no new full-function production BEVs on the horizon. There was the EV1, Chevy S-10 (same platform of the EV1), Ford Ranger, Honda EV+ and the Rav4EV. There is some indication that there will be a very limited number of 2003 Rav4EVs to be released after the first of the year, but nothing concrete has been stated by Toyota.

Nope. No new EVs. Why? 'Cause nobody has to make them - by law or for profit.


----------



## mekki (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I noticed Sabby lusting after an EV in the diesel thread and thought I'd respond here.

You seem like a pretty bright guy, handy with the tools and stuff. Why not pick up a junky old Firefly, Swift or Rabbit and do a conversion? 

Lots of guys are driving conversions and are pretty happy. You have the freedom to load up a Firefly with 172 volts of tire screaming power, or go for a more sedate but miserly cruising machine. 

You could also checkout the EV Tradin' Post and eBay to see what's around. You may be able to find a cheap, decently converted car that justs needs new go-bricks and a little TLC!

As much as I would wish it to be otherwise, I seriously doubt the Big 3 (or the other guys) will be coming out with many more BEVs, especially with the "miracle technology" of fuel cells "only" 10 or 20 years away. 
Conversions are gonna be where it's at for pure EVs, IMO.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The really tough part about conversions has always been range. Your typical conversion gets about half the range of your typical production EV. BUT, as I've said many times, there are many, many, many cars in the US that don't travel more than 35 miles/day - and conversions with 50 miles of range are relatively common.

I agree with mekki - there are many EV conversion resources, and you just might stumble upon an excellent deal. Rarely do I see converted Saabs though.





The one little teeny tiny silver lining on the production BEV cloud is that we'll always have RAV4EVs running around. About 1/3 of the ones put into personal service this year were purchased instead of leased. There have been no other production EVs available for purchase as far as I know.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by mekki:
> * You have the freedom to load up a Firefly with 172 volts of tire screaming power, or go for a more sedate but miserly cruising machine.
> *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'd be remiss if I didn't point out something here that I know to be true: EV power and "miserlyness" are not mutually exclusive. While a larger motor will weigh a bit more, it can actually be more efficient due to such things as more copper windings. A large electric motor is just as efficient as a smaller one (within reason) but with the option of pulling more current for tire-smoking performance when "needed."





This is quite different from equipping the same car with a small 4 cyl vs. a V8. With cars both cruising at 60 mph, the V8 will be sucking more fuel while it awaits the tire-smoking request.


----------



## Saaby (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> This is quite different from equipping the same car with a small 4 cyl vs. a V8. With cars both cruising at 60 mph, the V8 will be sucking more fuel while it awaits the tire-smoking request.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's where the turbocharged engine comes into play. (Hmmm...I wonder who makes turbocharged engines) But seriously, due to reasons that won't be discussed here I've pretty much decited my first car WILL be a Saab. I'd reconsider for electric though...I mean the fact that my parents would, unknowingly, be paying for all my fuel (Notice I didn't say gas) is just 1 advantage.


----------



## Darell (Dec 13, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I've driven an electric Saab. You put the car in first gear, let the clutch out, then turn the ignition key to "start." It is a bit rough and plenty slow, but there you go on pure EV. Helps if you remove the plugs first to avoid compression AND the possibility of combusting fossil fuels.

So, did I mention yet that I'm picking up my Rav4EV tomorrow? This thread is so damn long now, maybe I should start a new one after I pick up the new car (but then, as always, this thread will never be seen again).


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Brother - I'm afriad that the common belief is that we will just tank up a fuel-cell car with, oh, AIR, and drive away with pure water dripping from the tailpipe. Depending on context, I suppose he could be correct though. Fuel cells (like EVs) don't produce any pollution from the tailpipe. If all the power needed to create the H2 is obtained from PV panels or some other green source, then there really is effectively no pollution.

Rusty - Thanks for the great article, and your effort in BEV education. I don't know if I'll ever understand the blind "fuel cells are our future!" feeling Too many people just don't understand what is involved. The same people who say BEVs are too expensive, and that there is no infrastructure are the same ones saying that fuel cells are the answer. It just makes no sense to me! My educated guess is that this country will NEVER see H2 infrastructure at a 100,000th of the coverage that we have with electricity right now. The production, the transportation and the storage of that fuel is a daunting task to say the least.


----------



## whiskypapa3 (Dec 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell;

If that Saab qualified as an EV then my '34 Ford could have qualified as a Hybrid.

Clutch arm broke off 90 miles from home. Solution: put in first gear, turn on key, push starter button. Ran as electric for a while, engine seemed to sense the load was to much for electric motor and kicked in and away we went. shifts were a bit loud and reverse was two passengers got out to push. After replacing the clutch arm it ran for another two owners over the next three years,,


----------



## Darell (Dec 14, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

There ya go!

I drove my 1966 Volvo P1800 six miles in reverse once. Through town and everything. My trans had been reworked, and after the first eight or ten shifts (you know, enough to get me six miles down the freeway), it would never again go into anything but reverse. Heck if I was gonna sit around and wait for a tow! OK, that has nothing to do with interesting motive power, but it does help demonstrate that I am, in fact, a nut.


----------



## mekki (Dec 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This story was posted today on the Zappy electric scooter group, and I thought you guys would get a kick out of it (I'm almost wetting myself




)
Ultra, super-duper LiIon Polymer Batteries
Clarification on a couple of points

Here's a story about the car in question.

For those to lazy to click, here's a summary:
1150 lb electric car, won the EV class at the last Pike's Peak race. 
*0-60 mph in 3.2 secs (!!)* 20 KwH pack, full charge in 20 mins.

PS. I know Ken Trough, the guy who wrote it, and he knows his stuff. He just got back from the covering the ETIC conference in Florida for his eScooter magazine  V is for Voltage, and I assume that this is where he got a ride in this beast.


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks mekki -

I was just talking about these batteries at my EV1-club meeting yesterday. With the same physical volume of battery, the polymer batteries in an EV1 would allow for a 300 mile car. These things can be charged really fast too!

What we have here is the technology that we need to throw money at NOW. These batteries can give us the 300-mile range car with six-minute recharge. Not to be a pessimist - but who do you suppose will come around and crush these?


----------



## mekki (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm really not that pessimistic. 

These seem perfect for use in hybrids. These batteries would seem to make it possible for a car like the Prius to be fully electric in the city (up to 60 or 70 km/h?), only using the ICE for highway, and all at a reasonable price. I think this would be an amazing advance and I'd buy one in a second and I bet many, many others would as well. 

My fantasy for BEVs involves an uber-rich tech geek like Paul Allen deciding that clean, affordable transportation is the next frontier and sinking mega-dough into a new kind of car company. This paradigm shifting car wouldn't require huge production lines, but would be doable in many small scale plants that produce cars tailored for the local market. 

I have no idea if such a thing is feasable, but I like the dream!

The way I see it, unless things swing in a big way politically here in North America, the above may the only way we're gonna see production EVs in the nearish future. I don't think the big guys are quite ready to move out of the ICE age, and with the billions already invested in fuel cells... 

I figure a hybrid like the above is the best compromise for both the auto industry and the majority of consumers, especially if it can smoke a Vette at a red light!


----------



## rrtanton (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I hope you're right. If these batteries offer this much more performance in an EV, this is just what we needed. You could even scale the expected mileage back to 200 and better account for driving habits, air conditioning, or compromises in design (perhaps smaller battery packs.) I wonder...are there hurdles in scaling battery technology up, since lithium polymer isn't currently in such large batteries (that I'm aware of?) Maybe not, since NiMH seems to cover the range of possible sizes?

I also wonder what "reasonable price" really would be and how we could figure that out. I would think one possible flaw with the idea of small houses making these EVs would be that the overall sales volume would still be low, and so perhaps economy of scale wouldn't impact battery price enough. That, and the fact that small-house produced vehicles tend to be inherently more expensive. Price will still ultimately be very important in all this...if lithium is much harder to get (and thus more expensive) than lead, or some other components of the batteries inherently pricey, a great capacity might not help us...





On the plus side, Darell, any calculation/notion on weight savings of lithium polymer vs. lead-acid? Is there a number out there for different weights at the same volume? Or, if we knew what the NiMH EV1 packs weigh, then we could get someone to weigh a NiMH cellphone battery and a Li-poly battery and do the math...

rusty


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The lead pack in my car weighs about 1200 pounds. The NiMH packs are a few hundred pounds lighter. What I hear of the Li Poly batteries is that they're quite a bit lighter still than the NiMH. Don't know what the numbers are though.

Your points are right on the money as to economy of scale. The reason that batteries are so expensive is because so few are made. Same with EVs in general, of course. There have been many innovative ideas proposed for fixing this. One is (this is REALLY simplified) is to basically have a pool of money for batteries. If you make enough BEVs then the batteries are almost free for you. If you make none, then you are funding the batteries for the OTHER mfgs to build BEVs. Has some promise...


----------



## mekki (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I guess the above re: economies of scale is where I see hybrids filling the void. 

If Toyota, Honda, and Ford(?) produce a combined 100K hybrids/year, I bet this would make a significant dent in the cost of the LiIon packs above, just as the proliferation of laptops, cell phones, and PDAs has done for the price of smaller Li and NiMH batteries.

The numbers for the LiIon Polymer pack quoted here are:
Specific Power (~2,000 W/kg) 
Specific Energy (95 Wh/kg)

How does this compare to the Pb pack (or the NiMH) in your EV1 Darell?


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well, let me check on that and get back to you. Right now I have a brand-spanking new Rav4EV parked in the driveway and I'm busily strapping the child seat in the back before we go check out the neighborhood Xmas lights. I'll get back to the nitty-gritty when the new car smell lessens.





I've been a EV driver before. But this is the first time I've been and EV *owner*. I bought this thing - I'm in deep now!


----------



## mekki (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Congratulations! That is sooo cool!

I wish you many, many, clean, safe, and quiet miles!


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks Mekki -

I'm not exaggerating when I say that my bicycle is louder than this thing. The EV1 has quite a bit of gear whine and clicking of electronic breaks - the Rav has none. Scares the bajeezers out of pedestrians.

Our local high-end mall is IMPOSSIBLE to park at this time of year. Except for the eight reserved EV charging spots directly in front of the main mall doors. I think I'll drive up there tomorrow and just park for the fun of it.





Wish you could see the huge smile on my face right now. OK, time to go drive.


----------



## Saaby (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*


----------



## Darell (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah baby! And now the sig is finally valid. OK, I'm out of here for the evening - time for a DRIVE.


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 16, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*


----------



## Saaby (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by darell:
> *Yeah baby! And now the sig is finally valid. *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah...I probably shouldn't bring it up, but I've always wanted a VE


----------



## Kirk (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darrell,
Congratulations! I was getting kind of worried when you posted that Toyota wasn't going to make any more RAV4EVs. It wouldn't have surprised me if the dealer called and said "we're sorry, Toyota has decided NOT to sell any more EVs, here's your deposit back"! Their website says they're out of 2002s and you can leave your name if you're interested in a 2003, but they're not really taking orders, it appears. Glad you got yours and keep us updated as to range, speed, etc., etc.
Kirk


----------



## Darell (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *I've always wanted a VE
> 
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Took me a bit, but I finally get it. Mirrored Rav sticker, right? (Or is it left?)


----------



## Darell (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hi EVerybody -

My silver 2002 Rav4EV is currently parked in my driveway. And I OWN it! I
took the huge leap, put my money where my mouth is and just bought the damn
thing. I’m in this deep now. And for the time being – I have two EVs in
the family (until the EV1 goes back to GM next November).

The dealership experience: Well it sucked. No other way to put it. It
took over a month for my car to be delivered AFTER my charger was certified.
I was guaranteed that my car would have been built after September 1
(important to me for child seat anchor laws) but mine was built in June
2002. I was never kept informed of the progress of my order, and promises
of communication were never realized. The guy I handed the money to asked
why I chose the Toyota EV over the others, and I said that the Rav was the
ONLY EV in production today. “What about the Honda Insight?” He asked.
Then finally, when it was time for somebody to “show me the ropes,” I was
sent outside with a youngster who first informed me that this was the first
Rav4EV that he’d delivered. Not only that, but he has never driven an EV of
any type before. In short, he knew absolutely nothing about the vehicle and
insisted on pulling each booklet out of my package with great flourish and
explaining to me “this is the "Owner’s Manual” and “this is the “tire
warranty” etc. It wasn’t long before I just asked if I could have the key
and leave. While I needed no explanations, a first-time EV owner will be
absolutely lost with this kind of treatment. I mean this guy didn’t even
know there was a charge port door release – much less a charge port. Didn't
know when the EV tech was available, and didn't know anything about the
service intervals or costs.

Couple of things that surprised me about the car, even after having some
brief, previous Rav4EV experience:

The driver window has auto up AND DOWN. I really like that feature on
another car I owned. There are buttons mentioned in the owner’s manual that
simply don’t exist (snow mode, rear seat heaters). The “cogging” feel is
quite noticeable going slowly uphill in reverse. Feels like a shudder or
clutch chatter. I notice it going forward, but not nearly as much. I’m
also a bit concerned about the software-limited torque in reverse as has been
mentioned earlier. If I stop on my not-so-steep driveway, I have to floor
the throttle to move backwards again. This is going to be a bit scary when
I park on the hills in SF. I’m not sure where to put my remote GPS antenna
now that there is no sloping rear window (stock antenna doesn’t work behind
the heated windshield of the EV1, so I assume it won’t work behind the Rav’s
either). The EB regen mode is less effective than the EV1’s, but of course
the B mode is quite a bit MORE effective. Except for the slight jerk when
lifting off the throttle (vs. the slight jerk AT the throttle), I can barely
notice the difference with the EB button on or off. I really like the
integrated feel of the car, though I miss the zip of the EV1, certainly.
How come there is no 12:00 am on the charger timer? (just reads 0:00 – I
assume that’s the same as midnight. Would make sense if this was a 24-hour
clock, but it is not)

For my needs the car needs (and will eventually have, if I have any say):

1.. Tinted rear windows (the ICE has factory tint, why doesn’t the EV?)
2.. Remote door locks
3.. Cruise Control (HUGE oversight)
4.. Console arm rest
5.. Carpet protector tray for cargo area
6.. I’m ready for Li-Polymer batteries!

This is the abridged version, but I’m still sorry for the length.


----------



## Saaby (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Nice little review Darell.

You probably know all this but I'm going to say it anyway:
1...Yeah, tinting is a snap--just make sure somone good does it so you don't end up with a "bubble window" like on my sisters car...it's like the window is foggy all the itme.

2...I suppose you can add one of those bulldog Wal-Mart $50 specials. Won't be able to make use of the "remote start" function I guess but other than that...

3...I doubt this can be added. I know what you mean about huge oversight though. Like throttle-by-wire ICE cars, the cruise would just add a few lines of code to the software...so I'm way surprised they didn't add it, not like it would have added much weight. Few ounces for the buttons and wiring...

4...The rear arm rest in the 1992 Ford Taurus was chopped to save $12 per car. Silly the things Detriot (Toyota is Detroit now as far as I'm concerned) will do to save a few buchs.

5...Adds weight I guess?

6...I've got them! In my cell phone...


----------



## Brock (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well congrats anyway. The Prius doesn't ahve cruise either, and for us that was a big issue. I know it seems small to somepeople, but I use cruise everyday to and from work, it would be a pain without it. They said there was no way to add cruise to the prius.

Let us know how it fairs as time goes on.


----------



## Brock (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Check out
http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news061202-02
they are using super capacitor in place of batteries. But it sounds like they are using it more along the lines of regen braking, similar to the hydraulic pressure breaking they were going to try out on SUV's.


----------



## Darell (Dec 17, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh yes Cruise Control CAN be added. Especially to the Prius: http://www.coastaletech.com/cruise.htm

I've been trying to get these guys to make one for the Rav. And they said they would if I could loan them my car (in Florida) for two weeks. There have been EV1's driven across the country, so maybe somebody will venture out in a Rav one day.

I'm quite the tint officianado, so no worries there! Toyota makes a great console arm rest that bolts right in: http://www.romaniatoyotaparts.com/199800models.html I think I'll be OK.


----------



## Darell (Dec 28, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Anybody think that EVs and hybrids are the only vehicles getting incentives? How about a $35,000 tax write-off for buying a Hummer (and the other huge SUVs) for business?

See:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0E17FE35590C738EDDAB0994DA404482
and
http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=343
and
http://www.detnews.com/2002/autosinsider/0212/18/c01-38875.htm


----------



## Saaby (Dec 28, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

There you go Darell--reading my mind again...I was just off to dig up this article and *BAM* there it is on the top 50.

Anyhew I was coming over to post this article you missed...show's once again that H cars really aern't all they're cracked up to be

Link


----------



## Saaby (Dec 28, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by darell:
> *There ya go!
> 
> I drove my 1966 Volvo P1800 six miles in reverse once. Through town and everything. *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If you drive an EV backwards does it charge the batteries


----------



## Darell (Dec 28, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

And just for comparison, that V-dub has a 180-HP motor. The neck-snapping performance of my EV1 comes from a motor rated at 135hp.





These guys made some great presentations at the recent CARB hearings. CARB goes to THEM for accurate information. And yet we're still giving ZEV credits to Hydrogen fuel cell development at the expense of Battery EV tech improvements.


----------



## Darell (Dec 28, 2002)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Saaby:
> *If you drive an EV backwards does it charge the batteries
> 
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually yes. Sort of. At least the regen braking still works in reverse.


----------



## rrtanton (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey Darell...I should remember this but I confess I'm not sure if you discussed it earlier. In another thread, you mention your EV1's maintenance costs since you've owned it have been $0. I'm slightly confused...surely you've had to have something fixed, or adjusted, or...something? Is it that GM is paying those costs? Either way, what sort of maintenance has been necessary? Are there statistics on the maintenance/repair history of EV1s collectively?

rusty


----------



## Darell (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

There are statistics, I'm sure. But not for public consumption. I'm fortunate to be in the area where most of these are serviced today, and am friendly with the service tech.

Most frequent maintenance item: inflate tires to optimal pressure.
Next most frequen maintenance item: rotate tires

You can see it is pretty boring. I had a rubber door seal replaced since my car leaked when I picked it up, but that's about it (my car was a pre-leased 1997 model, mind you - so not new to me). Under GM's contract, my $170/month covers EVERYTHING from tires, wiper blades, light bulbs, batteries, towing. I make the lease payments, and have NO other financial obligations for this car beyond insurance and not getting speeding tickets. This is the cheapest car I've ever had the pleasure of operating. That it is also the quickest is just icing on the cake.


----------



## rrtanton (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Most impressive... I just finished reading the two part "Fuel Cell Disruptor" article on EVWorld, written by the AC Propulsion head. Very interesting piece. Wish I had a bit of money to burn...I'd ask him to build me one of his concepts.

rusty


----------



## Darell (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The AC Propulsion guys are some of the best in the business. Friendliest guys you'll ever meet too. I hope they can get their business off the ground, eventually. They're sitting on some unique technology that would blow the EV market wide open if the big auto makers would take a stab at really producing these things correctly.

They'll build you a T-zero for $120,000. Cheaper, rarer and faster than a Lambroghini.

I know exactly what you mean, Rusty. This is the kind of American company that I'd like to invest in if I had the money. What we need to do is to convince some movie star, or sports hero that this would be a good thing to do with his or her spare cash.


----------



## Saaby (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The cheaper, faster, rarer than a Lambroghini is nice, but the best thing about the T-zero is that you can charge it from a banal Edison outlet.


----------



## Darell (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The one I saw could be charged from any outlet, rated at any amperage, and any voltage. You want existing, free, infrastructure? This is the way charging should be implemented. All you have to carry with you is an extension cord.

But no, the nicest thing about the Tzero is still the acceleration!


----------



## rrtanton (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ya know, another reason that's not such a dumb idea for a sports car is the practicality issue. Beyond Porsche, supercars fall off rapidly in "daily driver" practicality and become toys for very special occasions. So what if the Tzero isn't quite perfect in the range department? And if they're right about the upcoming battery technology, that won't matter soon anyway. Well...I guess I can let myself be at least a LITTLE bit excited...





rusty


----------



## Darell (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Wait until you experience one! Did you see my pictures? Look for the yellow car (can't miss it): http://www.darelldd.com/ev1/49mile/

If you flog the hell out of the thing you can still manage almost 50 miles. Drive it nice, and you can see 100. You want low air drag? This is it.


----------



## Darell (Jan 6, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

http://www.msnbc.com/news/854650.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1

So, the company that says the EV1 couldn't be produced economically is contemplating a car that will sell "at most, 1,000 copies a year" and it will "cost close to $1 billion to put the Sixteen into production". So, at $250K each, that's four years of gross receipts, just to break even.

The are the *identical* reasons that EV1 could not be produced (almost to the penny!) Hmmm... what's the difference... Oh yeah, this one might burn a little more gasoline. Hell, it might make a Hummer look like a green car.

As the article also states, "Lutz worried his V-16 would have people asking, *How can you guys be so stupid?*" 

Exactly.


----------



## Darell (Jan 11, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

It was a sad day in EV-land today. Toyota just announced the termination of the Rav4 program. Though two model year's worth of production vehicles (a total of 700 including fleet vehicles) were sold in only nine months, Toyota (following in the footsteps of every other EV mfg) has stated that the sales volume was not high enough to support the production. I'll never figure out how more people are supposed to buy cars that are not made, but that's their story. They built 700 of them to sell over two years. All 700 were leased or purchased in nine months. There is an ever-growin waiting list, and no more vehicles. To Toyota, that's considered "not enough sales volume."

So now I have two cars that were only produced for a very limited time, and will never again be produced. There are probably only 30 Rav4EVs that are privately owned in the world today, and there won't be any more. The rest of the 350 that are being driven privately were leased.

Soon the Rav4EV will be the only production EV on the road. So if you ever see a Rav4EV, the chances are quite good that it'll be me driving it!

As of today, there is no way to purchase or lease a production EV anywhere in the country. Would everyone please take one GIANT step backwards?


----------



## rrtanton (Jan 11, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

No. I refuse.





In seriousness...I really do refuse.



"Ah feel your pain" Darell...you converted me so emphatically to the bev fold. So Toyota playing the same game as GM is painful to me as well...I'd hoped for better from them. But when I look at the way things are, I (perhaps because it is my nature) still see the positive of where we stand today. Even without the help of the Big Boys, battery tech is still evolving...even in the area of large batteries. Cheap, mass-produced ones, of course not...but the tech is there, and our skill IS improving. It's there...waiting for the right time.

And the push for fuel-cell vehicles provides nearly all the research we would need, save for large-scale batteries. Hybrid vehicles may be set to explode onto the market...the switch to 42 volt systems the automakers are already planning to exploit to make cheap "mild hybrids." Carrol Shelby himself is quoted as saying hybrids should be the way of the future, and criticizes Detroit's glacial pace.

For all their experience, Detroit is capable of stupidity on a grand scale. At a time when Mercedes and VW are sweating bullets over their commitments to the Maybach and Phaeton, vehicles intended for the disposable wealth that abounded at the peak of the dot-com bubble, GM's attempt at trying to make Cadillac compete by matching their mistakes is boggling. But not surprising.

But I refuse to be discouraged, Darell. We may lack the cars, but not the knowledge. I believe the time will come when the massed public will ask with dollars, and Detroit will then finally listen.





rusty (the eternal optimist)


----------



## Tomas (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK, Darell, I wandered over from that "other" thread so you can slap me repeatedly about the head and shoulders until I admit that almost any EV would be a more practical vehicle *for my uses* than my aging ICE. 

In actuality I would enjoy having an EV, and for a number of years looked forward to that opportunity - which alas never became a real possibility.

As to the current flock of EV's, I am unaware of any that would make a suitable vehicle for me, even were it given to me free of charge. 

I could easily be wrong since I am no longer paying attention to developments in that area, since there is a zero chance that an EV will ever be more than a rather remote curiosity to me.

Anyway, you had something you wanted to say?










 -= MICROSOFT FREE ZONE =- 

*EDIT: *_To give you a reference point to start from for expenses, my current total vehicle expense is running in the neighborhood of $663 a year including insurance, fuel, maintenance, and license. As a starting point for utility uses, the vehicle is used for necessary transport of myself and one other person, along with my non-folding manual wheelchair and whatever else we may need to transport. When not in use it is parked in random non-reserved parking slots in an apartment building lot._


----------



## Darell (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thomas -

I'll get right on this when I have a moment... in the middle of Valentine's celebration now. Just taking a guilty moment to check up on things. But trust me - I'll be back!



I greatly appreciate you taking me up on my offer to come and chat. Thanks!


----------



## Darell (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Tomas:
> *...until I admit that almost any EV would be a more practical vehicle for my uses than my aging ICE.*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
OK, UNCLE. Come on now, be nice. If you have the spare two or three days that it would take to read this entire thread, you'll realize that I am fully aware that EVs are not perfect for every purpose. Not by a long shot. They do happen to be the best choice for the car that commutes, typically, but that isn't my main point for being such an annoying advocate. Mostly I want to set the record straight. The typical American driver knows precious little about the advantages of EVs, and only concentrates on the negatives. Besides, say, pollution and noise - what advantage of EVs pops into your mind right now? If you're like most people, NOTHING popped into your mind. And that's the sad part that I'd like to fix.


> In actuality I would enjoy having an EV, and for a number of years looked forward to that opportunity - which alas never became a real possibility.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">And that's why I'm such a fanatic about this stuff. If we roll over and play dead, we'll never see an appreciable number of ZEVs on the road until we've burned the last drop of oil that we can mine. Your statement both gladdens me at the beginning, and saddens me at the end. EVs have not become a reality. In deed. But this sad state of affairs is NOT due to any technological or practical stumbling blocks. The limits that you see on today's cars are manufactured limits. With the batteries and charges that we have the technology for today, we could have a 250 mile EV with a 10 minute refuel. The sad truth is that the auto manufacturers don't want us to have these cars. I've written volumes about that in this thread, and can innudate you with links if you're interested in why that is.


> I am unaware of any that would make a suitable vehicle for me....since there is a zero chance that an EV will ever be more than a rather remote curiosity to me.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have seen the little graphics in my sig, yes? The Rav4, with the two rear seats folded could hold two full-size wheelchairs in the cargo area, and seat two adults in the front. This wouldn't work for you? I'm curious as to why you think that EVs will never be more than a remote curiousity to you. Is it because you don't think they'll ever be offered again, or because you don't think they'll ever suit your needs?



> To give you a reference point to start from for expenses, my current total vehicle expense is running in the neighborhood of $663 a year including insurance, fuel, maintenance, and license.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My point about the money was that you were implying that you, as an ICE driver and Costco shopper, were subsidizing my charging. I do realize that you were trying to point out that nothing is free, but I felt the undercurrent of being put-upon by these uppity EV drivers.



I'll open the wound here by pointing out that I am subsidizing all the folks who are using gasoline in their vehicles. The oil companies are given federal tax incentives for exploring for oil. Yes, they're being paid to find the stuff that they sell at a profit. Who pays them? All of us who pay income tax. Even those of us who don't want anything to do with consuming it.

Then, just to run with your statement, I'll mention here that EVs cost the same to insure as their ICE counterparts, they have close to zero maintenance (there are no "tuneup" items like filters, plugs, oil, etc. But there are still brakes and tires and a bit of coolant). Typical maintenance costs for an EV are about $50/year. Then we get to fuel. I pay about 1/5 of the cost - not because electricity is cheaper than fuel (it is in fact quite a bit more expensive, since there are no federal subsidies), but because electric motors are incomparably more efficient than ICEs.



> As a starting point for utility uses, the vehicle is used for necessary transport of myself and one other person, along with my non-folding manual wheelchair and whatever else we may need to transport. When not in use it is parked in random non-reserved parking slots in an apartment building lot.


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I have just one word to answer this: Rav4EV.

I truly hope that you'll reconsider your thought about your aging ICE vehicle polluting less than any EV. An EV charged from even our dirtiest power source runs cleaner from the "well to the wheel" than even our cleanest (hybrid gas-electric) ICE vehicles. One reason is because of the huge quantity of electricity that is required to produce gasoline, another is because of the superior efficiency of electric motors. Then toss into the equation that an EV can be powered with 100% renewable energy (PV, wind, etc) and you see that the potential for EVs to be truly clean is something that no ICE vehicle can ever hope to achieve.

You mention the self-discharge of the batteries being a bigger burden on our environment. It would take about 1kWh of juice to bring me back to where I was if I let the Rav stand around for two weeks. That's 5c of electricity. I would guess that the gasoline evaporation from your non-sealed fuel system would be FAR more harmful to the environment than any battery self-discharge. Typically just filling the tank of a gas car causes more negative environmental impacts than does driving an EV for a day.

Whew! With that, I'm going to bed. And I won't be around a computer for several days. Now's your chance to get a good dig back at me, since there won't be anything I can do!

I appreciate the chance to hold this discussion with you, Tom. My hope is that we can each learn something before we beat each other senseless





(Yeah, I bunch of spelling errors - but they're so damn hard to find when you go back to edit and the formatting is all different. Sorry)

Best,


----------



## DieselDave (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

* Originally posted by darell
Whew! With that, I'm going to bed. And I won't be around a computer for several days. Now's your chance to get a good dig back at me, since there won't be anything I can do! *

Darell single-handedly caused the rolling blackouts in CA. last year by driving his EV's. The electromagnetic waves his vehicles emit caused cancer in several thousand kittens, spotted owls and little bunny rabbits. Hundreds of whales have beached themselves and died as a result of being drawn to Darell's humming electric motor. Darell's batteries have leaked more acid than Ozzie Osborne has consumed in a lifetime. It takes over 1,000,000 barrels of oil to produce a single battery for an EV. 

Darell, have a good trip, see ya when you get back. If you can’t refute these made up, baseless and all in fun accusations then don’t reply or post anything on CPF for a few days.


----------



## Darell (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Heh.






Look, wireless works! Sure it took me 12 minutes to load the pages, but hey, it was worth it for the chuckle. Just wanted to prove that you never really can trust what I say...

Somebody get a leash back on that DieselDave guy.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

darell, you said 5 c a kwh ??!! wow and wow. is that your special night time rate? that is so incredibly cheap, not only from the standpoint of the average cost of grid electricity, but also from just the work that 1000 watts for an hour can do!! looking at it from just a human labor pov, I figure it would take several men all day with pick-hammers to do the work a 5 cent kwh of electric jack-hammering could do! there must be something wrong with electric power being SO cheap, it just doesn't feel right.. I need to have $4000 worth of solar panels in the sun or
run a big noisey generator for 45 minutes to put that much juice back into my batteries when the sun won't shine - and burn a dollar, buck fifty of fuel doing it too..sure it's an inefficient use of the power (the gen is producing more power than I can harness at one time)
no wonder the nation is addicted to the gluttonous use of electricity/oil...was that the power companies plan all along? to make a society so heavily dependant and habituated to the massive use of nearly 'free' electric, so it couldn't refuse any price hikes that might be imposed in the future - (well, now actually, for that matter..)
we all better start economizing and conserving...fer sher..dude. 
we should be building houses that don't require so much heating and cooling, (there are 'underground' earth-bermed really, houses that can be heated in winter with candles!) this is entirely feasible..more efficient refrigeration..you know the drill by now..
..and I should buy more converters to use all the power coming from the gen to charge the batteries!

(...applies oxygen mask...)


----------



## ikendu (Feb 15, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Ted the Led:
> *...electric power being SO cheap, it just doesn't feel right.. I need to have $4000 worth of solar panels in the sun or run a big noisey generator for 45 minutes to put that much juice back into my batteries when the sun won't shine - and burn a dollar, buck fifty of fuel doing it too*


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yup. I went to an "alternative energy" seminar last Fall (2002) and listened in on "Living off the grid". Two guys whose homes are not connected to the grid at all, both had solar & wind generation.

They said: "If your reason for designing an off-the-grid system is with the idea of saving money, forget it!". Basically, our electical utilities can deliver electricy SO cheaply that local home electrical creation is simply not competitive. But...if you are doing it to reduce CO2 or other pollutants, or to prevent creating more nuclear waste, etc. ...then you've got something to work for.

'Course now...using that cheap electricity off the grid DOES leave you at the mercy of what they charge for electricity (ala Cal energy crisis).


----------



## Tomas (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Thanks for the well thought out responses, Darell. 

I'll try to respond in kind, though I'm not as good an "adversary" as I once was.





When I said I had looked forward to electric vehicles, that goes back to even before you were born (_When Worlds Collide_ and _After Worlds Collide,_ written in the 20's or 30's had some wonderful electric cars in the second book, and I'd still like to have one. Yes, I'm a SciFi reader and have been since the '50's, PLUS I was an EE who spent many years thinking and doing electronics.

When I said an EV was no longer a possibility for me, it was not necessarily a reference to the pitiful state of electric vehicle development, but a reference to my current economic situation, which you are unaware of. (Briefly: Having had a massive stroke in 2000 I went from being decently well off to having lost my business, house, most of what I owned, and ability to be gainfully employed. I'm currently living on less a month than I used to tuck away in a week. That's the end of THAT information.)

Right now the vehicle your EV would have to compete with is a '90 Ford Tempo with just over 50,000 miles on it. The insurance cost is much lower than you would find on ANY electric simply because the vehicle is worth, essentially, nothing, and no money is owed on it. 

The very low mileage does honestly reflect very low use, especially since there are a number of 600+ mile trips thrown in there. (The Tempo was bought new by my mother, and she obviously didn't drive much.)

What I'm saying there is that ANY electric vehicle would cost me more than my current non-electric, while only gaining me a warm fuzzy feeling for reducing pollution on the planet approximately 0.00000000000000003 percent ... (sorry for the inaccuracy, I ran out of zeros ...



)

Considering my last year's vehicle use averaged less than 200 miles/month, changing over to an electric in order to be a less polluting good guy is obviously not practical. Just the oil used in producing the plastics and other materials to make a new electric is a larger load on the environment that my vehicle will probably be in the remainder of my life. I'll be a "good guy" by not causing the pollution needed to create a new vehicle for me.





I'll just throw in a few odds and ends to cap this, Darell. 

Where I currently live, there are no parking places closer than about 20 feet to a building, and there is really no place to install/use/protect a charging station on the property. Period.

I currently have a paid-up lifetime oil change contract for my vehicle (doesn't reduce pollution, but reduces my future cost to zero).

An EV can be nothing more than a remote curiosity to me these days because the term "disposable income" no longer has a whole lot of meaning. Heck, over 1/3 of my income is spent on out-of-pocket medical expenses these days.

This is one of the huge problems any "new" and initially expensive technology runs into: Only those who have more than adequate funds available to them can even begin to adopt those technologies. It will take many years for the technology to "trickle down" from those early adopters to the less affluent members of our society. 

Only when charging connections are standardized and ubiquitous, only when the flood of decent condition used EV's has reached a point where they are on every used car lot across America at low prices, only when it has become impossible to continue using one's existing smoke belcher will EV's finally reach all levels.

Sadly, I'm in the last group who will have EV's.

Take care,





 -= MICROSOFT FREE ZONE =- 

Oh! My only real involvment in the "other thread" was my strenuous objection to the incorrect use of the term **free**



Gotta run, though, and use some of those **free** cellular minutes ...





*TANSTAAFL!*

_Tom_


----------



## Darell (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Ted the Led:
> *darell, you said 5 c a kWh*


*<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">*
Ted, Ted, Ted. I hardly know you anymore. using time-saving terms like Kwh, can't, POV, gen... Are you the same guy I've come to know and love?

OK, I'm on a difficult connection here, but I'll do my best....

Let me put this cost of electricity into perspective for you. I am on a Time of Use (TOU) meter. If I use electricity between the hours of 2pm and 9pm (You know - when EVERYBODY uses power for making dinner, watching TV, A/C - you name it) I pay over 30c/kWh. That is more than twice what my neighbors are paying while they enjoy their electric enjoyment machines. If I wait until after midnight, the cost of my power drops to 5c so that I can afford to "do the right thing" by driving electric. I've mentioned this before, but it bears repeating: The power during off-peak is often a burden for the power generators. There have been several times over the past few years when CA has PAID money to have somebody take excess power during off-peak times. In those instances, I am saving the utilities money by consuming the power. Power consumption is ALL about timing. It is very expensive to produce and distribute power during peaks because of all the power that is wasted during off-peak. Anything that can be done to ballance this load hels everybody, and makes all power cheaper. Crazy, but true. At 5c/kWh, I'm paying more than my share for that off-peak electricity than my neighbors are paying for thier on-peak power at their fixed cost (about 15c/kWh.)

So, does this make more sense now? The folks using the peak power at the "average" cost are the ones getting the bargain. I'm forced financially to only use power during off-peak - and for that I'm still paying more for it than its worth.

No, doing the right thing is almost never cheaper. Though the price of the fuel is less per mile, and the maintenance costs for an EV are far cheaper - choosing to drive an EV today, as an early adopter - is obvoiusly not the brilliant way to save money. I do it because it is important to me. (And I simply enjoy the driving experience of an EV so much more than an ICE, that I can hardly explain!)


----------



## Darell (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Tomas:
> *
> I'll try to respond in kind, though I'm not as good an "adversary" as I once was.
> 
> ...


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Tom -
You've covered everything beautifully, of course. I can't find a single thing to beat you upside the head for now! Not much more to say - you have an excellent grasp of the issues, and I can't fault you for any of the logic you've used.

I only wish that we, as a society, could have managed to be much further along the EV development path today so that the technology could have trickled down to the "masses" already. And with every passing day, it looks like it will be yet another generation before the dream is realized. I will be passing my Rav4EV along to my daughter (what she now calls the "quiet car"), along with (I hope) my passion for these vehicles.

My best to you, Tom.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Something that won't happen with an EV...








Impossible to do in the EV1, but possible in the Rav (well, taking the charge paddle with you, not the fuel nozzle, natch). You'd have to be on an incline, turn the key to "run" (but not actually start the vehicle), slide the shifter into neutral and roll away with gravity. That's the only way to do it, and the EV1 won't even let you do that much. (impossible to shift out of P when the paddle is in). Neither vehicle will allow you to "start" the car with the charge paddle inserted.

Is it just me, or does it look like maybe somebody was shooting at the back of that car? Almost looks like bullet holes.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

originally posted by darell:


> Ted, Ted, Ted. I hardly know you anymore. using time-saving terms like Kwh, can't, POV, gen... Are you the same guy I've come to know and love?


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">guilty your honor.. with an exspaination; I do use acronyms, but only at night, to save time, when I'm on the battery power, that's it, yeah....





but at twenty or even thirty cents a kilowatt hour, it still seems like alot of power/potential for doing alot of work, for the pennies -- from my point of view..
and where are those miniature turbine generators we've been hearing about? Thought they were going to use them in cars too. I could use a powerful quiet, wear free (if the pivot points were magnetically free-floating) one-moving-part generator..!


----------



## Saaby (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

You're Right Bart, that won't--EVs won't let you start them up unless they're unplugged.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Beam there, done that, _ALMOST_





I wonder why it doesn't happen more often? they must attach those hoses expectingthat to happen and make some sort of break-away provision..?


----------



## Tomas (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yes, Ted, laws in MOST areas require breakaway valves (ALL areas in US, I believe). Here's an example:






Did you notice also that the BMW has a burned out brake light and that the "third-eye" brake light is inop? Just goes to prove that just because one can afford an expensive car does not mean one is qualified to drive it ... *sigh* 










 -= MICROSOFT FREE ZONE =-


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

wow everything I ever wanted to know about breakaway valves! thanks Tomas..next time at the filling station I won't be so timid about driving away with the nozzle still in my tank..I see they're made to not get damaged tiger-tailing down the highway!? perfect..
(just have to make sure the local Chevron isn't the shear-pin type )


----------



## Saaby (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I can just hear it now.

Ted: "Oh, I'm so sorry! I don't know what I was thinking."

Chevron: "Eh...no problem. Happens all the time."


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 16, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*


----------



## Darell (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*



> Originally posted by Ted the Led:
> *....but at twenty or even thirty cents a kilowatt hour, it still seems like alot of power/potential for doing alot of work, for the pennies -- from my point of view..
> *


<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Indeed. Bear in mind that the cost of gasoline, per unit of energy, is far CHEAPER than is electricity. Do you suppose gasoline is cheaper to make? Ha! Nope, it is that nastly little "free" business cropping up again. Our taxes are going toward lowering the price of gas - not so for electricity. If there ever was an energy source that should be considered too cheap, it is gasoline. If the oil industry were to be charged for the health costs associated with the use of their product (like, say, tobacco companies currently are) then I think we'd probably have a few fewer people commuting to their offices in trucks.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

darell, yes, and a few million more with jobs...


----------



## Tomas (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

_(Keep in mind that the roughly 30% who work - or at least "have a job" - support the other 70% ... )_


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Tomas, I don't think so.. underground economies, and all that...not everyone who is considered 'unemployed' by the government eats off your plate...though everyone who is jailed by the government sure does...


----------



## Darell (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The entire "number of jobs-work-support" issue went right over my head. What the heck are you guys talking about?

Isn't more jobs a good thing? Wouldn't more jobs mean fewer need to be supported by the ones who are working. I'm not afriad to admit that I'm lost...


----------



## DieselDave (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Come on Darell don't you get it. The more that work is less unless you go to jail. Then more or less everyone is unemployed unless they get gas. It is clear as mud to me.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Diesel is endeavoring to obfuscate I do believe..
Did the train derail at my 'few million more jobs" post? If so what I meant was that if the fuel to run the machinery were not so cheap, human labor would be more cost-effective, therefor more people would be employed in production..of course getting rid of the machines that replace over, say 1,000 humans each, also, wouldn't be such a bad idea either.. 
Are we perfectly clear?

..and the jail comment; means when a person is in jail he is no longer a producer, he is a dependant to the tune of $50,000 a year... what's so difficult to understand about that...???

"No spelling or logic errors were found in this text."


----------



## Darell (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Excellent. The good news is that I confidently understood the prison part the first time. I'd also guessed correctly at the point of your initial "jobs" comment. So it would appear that I DID understand your posts. Yay for me.

But NOW, I'm still confused about Tomas's comment in parethases. And your prison reply seemed to imply that you understood what he was getting at there. That's where I'm still lost. Was Tomas supporting the "more jobs" position with his post? If so, then I'm good to go.

Man, I must have taken extra dumb pills this morning.


----------



## Tomas (Feb 17, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Just think of my comment as a non-sequitor, eh? 

The viable workforce runs about 30% or so (yes, it varies). The rest are either too young, too old, too dumb, too sick, too injured, too disabled, in jail, or doing something that prevents them working outside the home (full-time parenting, caring for relatives, etc.). 

I'll reserve my opinions on how many of that viable 30% are actually doing something *useful*. 

In any event, this is OT ...


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Feb 18, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

..and of course the whole of my point is; maybe there are no jobs available for more than the "viable work force" -- if there are even that many in reality to begin with... and I don't see being old, dumb, and/or sick stopping many (or 'some') people from financial/political success either..


----------



## Darell (Feb 18, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

It is ALL clear to me know.

I just LOVE a good non-sequitur - just didn't recognize it this time.

OK, nothing profound to say tonight. Too damn late!


----------



## Darell (Feb 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey -

Where were Tomas and I discussing "clean" electricity generation? Between my computer going belly-up and the forum switch, I've lost it. I promised to get back to it, and I'm ready for action... but where did that bugger go? I've looked in what I thought was all the normal places we'd been hanging out... but no dice.

I'm effectively going to admit defeat anyway, so no harm if it can't be dug up. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Really, there is just no hard evidence that I can find to support my "factual" statments that I used to stipulate. I learned quite a bit in my research though, so all is not lost...


----------



## Tomas (Feb 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hmmmmm ... 

I was looking for that, too, but couldn't find it - I'll poke about a little more (I thought it was in the cost of gas thread ... ), and try to post a link here if I find it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif 






 -= MICROSOFT FREE ZONE =-


----------



## Tomas (Feb 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, I found the start of the _Clean California Energy Quest_, and here's a post from the middle of it: Clean Power 

Thing is, it wouild probably make more sense to start a fresh thread on *just that topic* rather than stuff it back into one of these very long threads ... 






 -= MICROSOFT FREE ZONE =-


----------



## DieselDave (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

What's the latest and greatest in the EV world? I heard a well known radio talk show host today say the people in northern CA. are getting very angry about fuel prices. I won't comment on what else he said about them. That should help the cause of EV's or better yet Diesel/Hybrids if people get sick enough of high fuel cost.
What say our resident EV Nut?


----------



## Saaby (Mar 6, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

"help the cause of EV's or better yet Diesel/Hybrids"
Hmm...something that takes fuel...something that takes none. Somethign that takes fuel....something that takes none /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif


ANYWAY Darell's a bit busy lately so I'll give you a few cents to chew on until he can reply. You know the saying no news is good news? Well not in this case. CARB is meeting sometime later in March and may change some things that will basically put a nail in the coffin for EVs. More details to come...


----------



## Darell (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This was a good follow-up on an EV-bashing piece that this same reported produced early last week.

rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030325_atc_22.rm


----------



## DieselDave (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,
The link above is not working for me.


----------



## Darell (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hmm. Still working for me. It requires RealAudio (which I hate, but that's another story)

If you think NPR is liberal, you've got another thing coming, my friend. You should have heard the pro-oil, pro-big auto piece that this same reported spewed last week. Grrr. I just searched for the link and can't find it.


----------



## DieselDave (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
If you think NPR is liberal, you've got another thing coming, my friend. You should have heard the pro-oil, pro-big auto piece that this same reported spewed last week. Grrr. I just searched for the link and can't find it. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Darell, I bet you can't find it! They probably hung the guy up by his, uh, well, toes yea toes until he came out with a counter to the article. After they hung him up they formatted their server to clear out any remnant of non-liberal thought. 

NPR is well left of me but they do report on interesting topics. I haven't listened to them in a some time but I will give them a look-see in the near future.

I will try the link from work tomorrow.


----------



## Darell (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

It wasn't NPR who hung the guy up by his toes. It was US, the EV drivers who were not interviewed for an in-depth (NOT) report on EVs.

Just one more thing to tick off your list: I have never knowingly listened to NPR. I just listen to the links that are sent to me.


----------



## treek13 (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Oh my! You mean you car nuts don't listen to Car Talk, with Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers.

Shame on you,
Pat /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## Darell (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*treek13 said:*
Oh my! You mean you car nuts don't listen to Car Talk, with Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers.


[/ QUOTE ]
Since I have no tappets, nor does anything go click or clack on my cars, I figured it wasn't relevant to me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## ikendu (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, I gotta hand it to you!

How you could get your voice to sound like all of those people! Wow! I mean, you could really convince us that a lot of people share the view that you've been expounding! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But seriously... I do really wonder what is at the root of the EVs being taken off the market. One guy on the piece said it was that "they hardly require any service" aspect. That could be right. Although, people used to say the same thing about making cars better...if they lasted longer it would really screw Detroit. But, they did make them better (although, Detroit was really forced into this by Toyota/Honda competition), the cars DO last longer and it didn't kill Detroit.

Although, there are so many car companies now (Japanese, Korean, American, European) that it seems unlikely conspiracy theories would be correct. Maybe it's like the Hybrid cars. The technology HAS gotten to the point where a really viable electric car is possible (on a production scale) and either Toyota and/or Honda will make it happen thus dragging all of the other auto makers with them.

Toyota seems to be committed to bringing Hybrid technology to every vehicle in their product line. Maybe the battery capacity will simply get larger and larger and the liquid fuel motor get smaller and smaller over time. Once you can buy a Camry that gets 40 mpg (my guess) maybe this technology will really start going mainstream...then it's only a short step to electric mainstream.

I bet you that Toyota/Honda aren't turning a deaf ear to these reports of EV1 owners desparate to buy their cars rather than have them taken back. THAT means something market-wise and I think they will hear it and listen.


----------



## Saaby (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, Toyota is *totally* comitted to electric vehicles, that's why they canceled the Rav4 EV program, giving the same excuses GM did for ax-ing the EV1

Anyway here's the link Darell was looking for:
rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030313_atc_13.rm

I don't know if it works or not and I can't check it from this computer so...


----------



## Darell (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well, by "us" I mean the small, vocal crowd of production EV drivers. We're a tight little bunch, and some of the folks listen to NPR. When that first report came out, the poor reporter was just flooded with phone calls to find out just when and where the auto companies were "giving away EVs because they would not sell."

The conspiracy theory has many components. One of them is the aftermarket money, for sure. Scheduled service consists of rotating the tires and checking the brakes (which, by the way, last about 3x longer than ICE brakes because of the regenerative braking). Service after the sale is a LARGE part of dealer profit - make no mistake. Take that profit away, and you can see why dealers aren't so thrilled about selling EVs. Another indication that this is happening is that the EV1 was designed with the charger onboard. You carry an extention cord and plug in anywhere. Simple, eh? Well, sure and a big loss of after-sales profit! So the charger was yanked out of the car, and sold individually for $2500. Every public charging station had to have one of these installed (instead of a simple outlet) and each owner had to buy or lease one as well. At every turn, steps were taken to assure money kept coming in after these vehicles left the showroom floor - and it wasn't easy.

The other biggie is profit margins. It is EASY to make profits on SUVs. That is the biggest margin vehicle class sold in the US today. Why mess with that? It will take years to make a profit on a new type of vehicle as the market it built one car at a time. You can't blame them for wanting to stick with the status quo - but at the same time it is quite myopic. They're making money on ICEs so why rock the boat? Auto companies tend to concentrate on profits at the end of each quarter. Not ten years from now.

There are many more reasons for big auto to be resistant to EVs. And it should be obvious why oil companies would also lobby hard against them. The only people who want them is the small percentage of the driving public who are aware that they exist.

It isn't so much conspiracy as it is "if nobody else has to suffer lower profits, then neither do we." Toyota sold the Rav4EV briefly until it was obvious that they ZEV mandate was being deflated yet again. It was one day after CARB staff report to that effect that the Rav program was cancelled.

Toyota had the chance to show what they were made of with the Rav4 program, and they followed the same path as GM. The only difference is that Toyota is at least at the forefront of hybrid technology. GM is now forced to buy that technology from Toyota to play catch-up.

If any company can make a hybrid for a reasonable cost, then that same company can make a pure EV for even less. But they won't, because of the reasons mentioned above. Too much profit to lose. A hybrid requires even MORE servicing than does a traditional, modern ICE because now you have two complete systems that need to function together. Lots more after-sales profit potential, yes?


----------



## Darell (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Saaby said:*
Yeah, Toyota is *totally* comitted to electric vehicles, that's why they canceled the Rav4 EV program, giving the same excuses GM did for ax-ing the EV1

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly!

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway here's the link Darell was looking for:
rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030313_atc_13.rm


[/ QUOTE ]
That's IT! Thanks, Ryan. I'll include it in my post above. Please listen to this one, then the one and tell me just how sympathetic NPR sounds to a typically liberal concept (EVs). Then listen to the next one by the same reporter and let me know what you think.


----------



## Darell (Mar 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK, here are the two links in order. These two reports were release by the same reporter about 2 weeks apart. 

<a href="rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030313_atc_13.rm" target="_blank">rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030313_atc_13.rm</a> NPR #1
<a href="rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030325_atc_22.rm" target="_blank">rtsp://audio.npr.org/atc/20030325_atc_22.rm</a> NPR #2[/url] After attack of the production EV drivers.


----------



## Darell (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Sheesh - haven't seen this thread in a while. Should I start a new one? The problem with that, is that nobody every bothers reading preceding threads that are linked. I'll leave it for a bit longer...

I started teaching myself Dreamweaver, and finally began an EV site for myself. Still new, and needs lots of work, but the building blocks are finally in place. Take a look, if you dare: Darell's EV page


----------



## Darell (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Here's a nicely-written piece by another disgruntled EV1 driver who is about to lose her car. My favorite part? The author's name is "Bev." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

More than 10 years ago, the California Air Resources Board took the courageous action of demanding that automakers produce cars that did not pollute California's air. No other state could make such a demand. 

Actually, very few countries have the bargaining power of California when it comes to negotiating with General Motors et al. California, one of the largest car markets in the world, told the world's largest carmakers that if they wanted to sell their cars in this state, they better get on the trail to pollution elimination. Thus the "zero-emissions mandate" was born, requiring automakers to develop and mass-market electric vehicles. 

As a resident of a Bay Area refinery town, I was inspired to lease a GM EV1 electric car and become one of the first test drivers in California. As my neighborhood's Jane Jetson, I found myself behind the wheel of the most progressive transportation experiment since the horseless carriage. With a (governed) top speed of 80 mph and 0-60 mph acceleration of about seven seconds, this marvel has far exceeded my expectations. 

My EV-1 stores its power in a battery that can be recharged over and over, not a gas tank. It draws its energy late at night when the power companies have a surplus, or it can be successfully powered up with solar panels during the day. It's been using about $8 a month for electricity while I enjoy the convenience of having a full tank every morning. A quick plug-in when I get home enables me to zip the 100-mile round trip to San Francisco easily without a charge. And no more oil changes, smog checks or stops at the gas station -- ever. 

Although I love this car, come May 25 it will be taken away, at the end of its nonrenewable lease. The mandate responsible for this car's existence is in danger of expiring, too, spurred on by automakers and oil companies. Why? The carmakers claim that people don't want electric cars. 

The "people don't want electric cars" myth -- perpetuated by the barrage of prime-time gasoline-powered car ads -- results from the resistance of an auto industry fearful of anything challenging the paradigm or distracted by technologies like fuel cells. 

"Drivers didn't want electric cars" because they never knew there were electric cars. Instead, they've been sold the concept of hybrids and fuel cells. The electric car I drive offsets our increasing energy consumption by offering a clean, efficient vehicle today. Hybrid cars, no matter how efficient, still depend on oil imports and still pollute far more than my car, but don't perform nearly as well. Fuel cells mean more dependence on the same fossil fuels we're trying to free ourselves from. 

It's hard to gage whether the California Air Resources Board had a vision of what the world would look like today. Could it have known that just 13 years later we'd be straining the relationships with our international friends and attacking oil-rich nations to keep the pumps pumping? That the petroleum age was going to have a prolonged and bloody ending? How successful their industry-prodding would be, to the point of causing the auto and oil industries to spend more money covering up their electric car success than promoting it? 

Waves of people could be driving zero-emission vehicles in a matter of a few years. Is that what the car companies and oil industry are afraid of? The rare visionaries at CARB knew that we had to get off oil and knew that with moderate and reasonable prodding, the engineers and suppliers could meet the challenge, despite the shortsighted goals of their auto/oil executives. They were right. And they were right at the right time. If our world could ever use a monumental shift from a precarious, dirty business to a clean and efficient future, it's now. 

The electric car was an experiment. It's not any more. It's proof. It's testimony to our resolve and innovation. It's hope for our future. It's the little spark. I thank the previous members of CARB who championed the mandate that revolutionized the way I travel. They offered me freedoms far beyond the rhetoric of the politicians. Their small action truly made a difference.


----------



## dilettante (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

This reminds me of an episode of "Frontline" I saw on PBS the other day. They said a significant percentage of US electricity production (10% IIRC) or about half of all nuclear generated electricity comes from the "Megatons to Megawatts" program. Running a car on soviet warheads is even cooler than running one on biodiesel /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif


----------



## Darell (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*dilettante said:*
about half of all nuclear generated electricity comes from the "Megatons to Megawatts" program.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'll be dipped. I didn't even know of this program. This is why I like hanging out on this forum. I'll soon be getting my power for the reactor in the sky... It's all good.


----------



## Brock (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell check out this info on diesels over on the TDI forums. So far we have 550 mile and are just below 1/2 tank on the wagon.

Shorter Link


----------



## Darell (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:*
Darell check out this info on diesels over on the TDI forums. So far we have 550 mile and are just below 1/2 tank on the wagon.

Quoted Shorter Link


[/ QUOTE ]
Say, nice new Avitar there, Brock /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

At this rate you're going to have to fill up some time in May. Careful there, Sparky.

Wow, reading that thread makes my head spin. Nice to see that other vhicular technologies go through the same challenges as batteries. You TDI guys are brutal, yet beautifully civil.


----------



## Brock (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

It is probably the most "discussing" I have seen on the site. But in this case it gets a lot more info out for people like me who don't as much as either of them.


----------



## Blikbok (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Okay, now I'm mad. I have a 25.1 mile commute. I've got my first car completely paid off at 66k miles and I'd love to commute at least in an electric car.

The automakers selling EVs sounds like the projects I've seen at work. All noise and waving of hands at "how hard we are trying to make it work, but look, it's impossible".

Bah. I want to build one. Who do I talk to?


----------



## Darell (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Blikbok said:*
Okay, now I'm mad.

[/ QUOTE ]
As well you should be. There are billions of people in this country that commute a similar distance - and all but about 1000 of us are being convinced that we MUST burn fossil fuels to make that commute.

[ QUOTE ]

Bah. I want to build one. Who do I talk to? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Well for a production car you first need about $1 billion.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Do you mean that you want a conversion? I can point you to a few sites if you'd like, or you can simply do a Google search for conversion EV and you'll probably come up with all kinds of information.


----------



## Lurker (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, your EV website is very slick. Nice job. Might I suggest you add an FAQ that addresses common percieved weaknesses of the technology and points out why Fuel Cell Vehicles are inefficient, etc. You have written volumes of really interesting stuff in these threads and it would be great to pull some of it together in one central spot. You could also put a link to your site in your signature line.


----------



## Blikbok (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I found a few sites, Darell. Doesn't seem any more complicated that the normal gearhead stuff my friends do. I can probably find a few volunteers with the tools. Now the cost... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


----------



## Darell (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Lurker said:*
Darell, your EV website is very slick. Nice job. Might I suggest you add an FAQ that addresses common percieved weaknesses of the technology and points out why Fuel Cell Vehicles are inefficient, etc. 

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the nice words and suggestions, Lurker. The "documents" section of my site is supposed to be for the FAQ sort of stuff. There are already two "why EV" articles there already. I didn't write either of them, but I did mildly tune them up a bit. It should get better as I have more time...


----------



## Blikbok (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, your web page doesn't seem to work. Is http://www.darelldd.com/ev1/ the right url?


----------



## Darell (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Nope. Just EV. I *used* to have an EV1 page at that address, but I tossed it when my new page went up.

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Forwarded to me by my friend Patty who was in attendance with me at the CARB rule making meeting yesterday, and who is quoted in the Times article. Bottom line:

Auto industry and Federal Gov: 1
American driving/breathing public: 0

---------------------------
California Regulators Modify Auto Emissions Mandate
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, April 24 ‹ California regulators, responding to legal pressure from
automakers and the Bush administration, amended a plan today to force the
industry to produce clean cars but kept it ambitious enough to please
environmental groups.

By an 8-to-3 vote, the California Air Resources Board altered the
influential Zero Emission Vehicle mandate so it will require fewer vehicles
to be sold in California with no tailpipe emissions and more with modest
emissions, like hybrids that supplement gasoline with electric power.

"Our greatest benefit here is to try and identify technologies that can be
commercial successes," said Alan C. Lloyd, the chairman of the California
Air Resources Board, adding, "This regulation ensures we are getting this
technology on the road."

The mandate has been one of the most effective regulations that never was.
It has been blocked by challenges and revisions since it was first set in
motion in 1990, but because car production cycles take years, its mere
threat has led to the production of thousands of battery-powered vehicles.
California is the nation's largest auto market, and other states, like New
York, have adopted its stringent air standards. The mandate has also been an
impetus in the development of hybrids as well as fuel-cell vehicles, which
use hydrogen to generate electricity and are a favorite of the
administration.

The new version of the mandate takes effect in the 2005 model year, barring
legal challenges, and offers automakers the choice of two compliance
options. Each option requires 8 percent of sales to come from vehicles
classified in one of two low polluting categories ‹ highly efficient
versions of the Ford Focus and Honda Accord qualify ‹ though various credits
can alter the numbers significantly.

For vehicles with no tailpipe emissions at all, automakers in aggregate must
produce 250 fuel-cell vehicles from the 2005 to 2008 model years; 2,500 from
2009 to 2011; and 25,000 from 2012 to 2014. Alternatively, they can choose
to sell more battery electric cars. Under the old mandate, a full 2 percent
of autos sold in California had to have no emissions.

With the state's latest revision, attention shifts to whether General Motors
and DaimlerChrysler will proceed with their lawsuit contending that
California's zero emission regulation is superseded by federal fuel economy
standards. It has been supported by a legal filing from the Justice
Department and, last July, a federal judge in California blocked the mandate
from taking effect in the 2003 and 2004 model years.

"The question remains, will automakers bring their lawyers or their
engineers to the table in California?" said Jason Mark, a spokesman for the
Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group.

California regulators said they had addressed the legal arguments against
the mandate by removing some of the language linking credits automakers can
receive to efficiency.

Asked whether the changes were sufficient, David Barthmus, a spokesman for
G.M., said the automaker was still studying them. "It's too early to make a
statement," he said.

But he added that tensions between California regulators and G.M. had eased.

Kathy Graham, a spokeswoman for DaimlerChrysler, agreed that more time was
needed before commenting on the lawsuit, but said, "It looks like we have a
set of regulations that better reflect the state of technology and what
consumers will buy."

She found a proposal by the board to review the mandate annually to be
troublesome.

"Right now, we're working on the '05, '06 model years and vehicles," she
said, adding that frequent reviews "can really cause some havoc with your
product planning." 

Environmentalists were generally pleased with this latest version of the
mandate because it kept in place ambitious targets for efficient vehicles.

"The board rejected the automakers' broken-record refrain that they can't
build better cars," said Roland Hwang, a senior policy analyst at the
Natural Resources Defense Council.

One ardent group that has not been happy about changes to the mandate is
made up of drivers of battery electric cars, who have strongly criticized
the proposals as taking away a product they grew to love because the mandate
brought them to the market. The new plan has no guarantees that production
of battery electric vehicles will continue.

"The people who have them want to hold onto them and rave about them," said
Patricia Lakinsmith, a research scientist in Los Gatos, Calif., who drives
an electric version of Toyota's Rav-4 sport utility. She said she believes
the air board is overemphasizing fuel cells, a futuristic and complex
technology, and largely giving up on battery electric cars.

"We might be making two mistakes at once," Ms. Lakinsmith said, "dropping
something that works while investing in something that still would be
risky."


----------



## Blikbok (Apr 25, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Shame when CA has to use laws to force people to sell things that we want to buy.

Btw: I've recruited two gear-heads into my electric car-building insanity. Still just a dream, but I'll keep you posted if we do more than consume pizza, sketch, and scribble notes. My dad has a 4-mile commute, and I'm trying to convince him to join us. He's got an old 1983 wagon in which the entire powerplant is dying. Hmmm. Large, rear cargo area....


----------



## Darell (Apr 25, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The official Rule Making is up on the CARB site now. See:
CARB.


----------



## Darell (May 11, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

In a fit of frustration, I ended up typing this letter to the chairman of the board on my last vacation. Any input is welcome before I fire this off. The first draft of this letter was already published in an LA paper before I knew what had happened!

-------------------------


Dear Dr. Lloyd –

I own a Rav4EV, and for a few more months I am also an EV1 lessee. It excites me as much as it saddens me that in my garage are parked a significant percentage of all production battery electric vehicles ever produced.

I attended the California Air Resources Board hearing on March 27, 2003, and the follow-up meeting in April 2003. I did not testify in March because I found it intimidating and uncomfortable to attempt to make a compelling, valid point within the three-minute constraint that was imposed on public testimony. Like the rest of the concerned public in attendance -- but unlike the board members, the CARB staff, and the automotive lobbyists -- I was in attendance at these meetings at my own inconvenience and expense. The testimony from the paid auto industry lobbyists went mostly unchecked, while the testimony from those of us who were there for no financial gain was cut short almost without exception. This is not a reasonable way to balance public opinion with industry lobbying.

Here are some issues that I wanted to share with the CARB during testimony.

In your position as Chairman of the CARB, you have stated several times that it would be best to allow the automobile industry to decide what technology it would like to use to meet the Zero Emissions Vehicle Mandate. Their choice -- and yours -- is obvious: The hydrogen fuel cell. The industry that so desperately wants to continue building gasoline vehicles has now been allowed to choose which technology would be most effective in making gasoline vehicles obsolete.

The industry that just convinced the CARB that it foresees a viable market for astronomically expensive, inefficient, no-fueling-infrastructure FCVs is the same industry that views the efficient, easy-to-refuel BEVs as non-marketable. This is the same industry that claimed bankruptcy would be the only result of enforcement of the original CAFE standards. The same industry that claimed unleaded gasoline would put carmakers out of business. The same industry that insisted that airbags and catalytic converters would price vehicle out of consumers’ reach. An industry that has such a dismal track record of forecasting the viability and affordability of past solutions to pollution and safety concerns should not be counted on to pick the technology that will generate a mass-market ZEV.

I think we would all like to see FCV technology come down in price to that of current BEV technology. We would like to see FCVs demonstrate the simplicity and reliability of BEVs. We would like FCVs to have the range and convenient home refueling option of BEVs. We would like FCVs to have the performance of BEVs. We would like the availability of hydrogen fuel to match the ubiquitous electricity infrastructure. We would like to have hydrogen that is cost-competitive with electricity. We would like to have fuel cells that are as energy efficient as batteries. But we do not. And we will not for the foreseeable future. What we do have is low cost, simple, reliable, easy-and-cheap-to-fuel, high performance zero emission vehicles right now – and they run on batteries, not hydrogen.

By choosing FCVs as the Holy Grail of the undetermined future, we are forsaking BEV technology that is available today. Battery electrics are effective vehicles here and now, while the “hydrogen economy” may never happen. But CARB has now swept BEVs under the rug on the insistence of the auto industry that BEVs are “too expensive to build, and too difficult to refuel.” The auto industry has now convinced CARB that instead of building vehicles with a solid track record, it would be a better choice to pretend to want to build vehicles that are orders of magnitude more expensive, more complicated, and have in effect no fueling infrastructure. Allowing the auto industry to meet the ZEV mandate on their own terms is akin to allowing Ferrari owners to set the speed limits. We have had quick-charge technology for many years, and today we have high-density batteries. Why not just build the cheap, effective, desirable BEVs for which we have the technology today, instead of betting the future of air quality and oil dependence on something that is still so far out of reach?

The latest amendments to the ZEV mandate have resulted in the elimination of available ZEVs today. What went wrong? All production BEVs are now orphaned; all BEV production has stopped. How can the current amendments be considered “an effective path toward zero” if there are no ZEVs being produced for the public to drive? Many of us who replaced our gasoline vehicles with GM EV1s are now being forced to purchase another gasoline vehicle to replace the perfectly functional EV1s that are being taken out of service in California. We are going backwards, away from the goal of zero emissions. The auto industry could build BEVs when it thought it had to, but now the industry has found yet another perfect delay tactic: Promise a vehicle that appears “green,” is not expected to be in production for 10 or 20 years, and that will eventually be considered too expensive, too complicated, too inefficient and too difficult to refuel. Due to the latest amendments, the original and effective ZEV mandate that gave us our first and only ZEVs is today responsible for taking those same vehicles off the road. Those disappearing ZEVs are necessarily being replaced with gasoline-burning vehicles. I ask again: What went wrong?

Respectfully submitted,

Darell ****ey


----------



## ikendu (May 12, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell, good letter!

Although, it sounds so much like the many, many people that did testify that day at the CARB hearings (apparently to no effect?) that it seems unlikely to sway Dr. Lloyd or the "staff". Still...I can't think of anything better so I'm encouraging you to keep going with it.

I came across a sheet comparing biodiesel vs. hydrogen that might be useful to show how energy wasteful it is to convert perfectly good electricity to water split hydrogen.

Fuels of the future...BioDiesel vs. Hydrogen 

Although, it probably "muddys the water" for the case for battery EVs so, I won't encourage you to use it unless you can see a way for it to help.


----------



## Darell (May 12, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*ikendu said:*
I came across a sheet comparing biodiesel vs. hydrogen 

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the encouraging words, ikendu. I was a bit more blunt and specific than many of the testimonies...

I'll take a look at the comparison when I have more time and a faster connection. Probably won't use it in my letter, for obvious reasons, but I agree with your assessment of wasting perfectly good electricity to make H2!


----------



## Saaby (May 12, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

How about adding ICE and Electric to that chart, "Energy Units" for H2 made from fossil fuels (IE Coal), the MPG of the "typical sedan" at the bottom of the chart, and calling it a day?


----------



## ikendu (May 14, 2003)

*How to promote EVs?*

I was really impressed with the California experiment of setting a 10 year goal of getting practical ZEVs on the street. However...it does seem to have gone all wrong here at the end. Perfectly workable Battery Electric Vehicles being jerked off the streets and away from their users (I almost said owners).

So...it this approach hasn't worked. What would?

As I thought about this, it seems that part of the problem is that the technology is having to be developed and marketed by every manufacturer making no one maufacturer seem like it will have a decent sized market over which to amortize ("spread") the costs of initial development. And...since many manufacturers are doing the development...the cost of initial development is multiplied by many times ultimately driving up the total costs for the vehicles.

So...in these early stages, before a really BIG market has materialized, how to get a good EV on the market without these problems?

How about the way that UPS or the post office or military does it when they have a special purpose vehicle need? They do a design competition, pay some (or all) of the development but then only go to production with one design that is the winner of the competition.

Maybe if a large state (like CA) put out a design bid competition for some thousands of state fleet vehicles that are to be EVs...but then allow the design to be sold commerically?

Just a notion about another way to skin the cat.


----------



## Darell (May 14, 2003)

*Re: How to promote EVs?*

I appreciate your thoughtful post, ikendu. The basic problem that needs to be address before any "new" way to market EVs can work, is to first convince the federal government and the auto manufacturers that BEVs are a good idea.

The only reason BEVs didn't sell is because effectively none were produced, they were never marketed, and we were told they didn't sell, that we didn't want them, that they can't fill our driving needs. We were and ARE told lies about BEVs. I can't be convinced that the problem is tied to parallel technology development. Certainly it isn't convenient to develop things in parallel, but carmakers purchase technology from other makers all the time. The latest demonstration of this is GM purchasing hybrid tech from Toyota so they can hurry up and play catch-up. Not everybody needs to develop BEVS (though they all already have now!) they just need to purchase it and produce it. But they don't want to because they won't make a profit from it _in this quarter_.

I do agree that your suggested approach would make lots of sense if there was even a glimmer of hope that somebody *wanted* to produce these cars. But I'm afraid we have a WAY bigger hurdle than that right now. Yes, carmakers have used "they cost to much" as a reason not to build them. But I think we all know that is an argument of convenience that is self-fulfilling. Build a couple of hundred by hand for $50,000 and say they're too expensive to build. (Oh, but in the meantime, feel free to build some million dollar FCVs and say they're the wave of the future /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif). I wonder how much it would cost to build ONLY a couple hundred Honda Civics by hand?


----------



## Darell (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Cool. Zero to 70mph in 1/8 of a mile.
EV1 with ultra capcitors


----------



## FalconFX (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I don't know if you want to drag race an EV though. It can't be good for the powerplant... 
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif 

Although I have to admit, if you can make an EV that puts a Rice Rocket to shame, I'll take one!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif


----------



## Darell (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*FalconFX said:*
I don't know if you want to drag race an EV though. It can't be good for the powerplant... 

[/ QUOTE ]
Me thinks that dragging ANY type of vehicle puts a bit of strain on several components, yes. But I'll tell ya, there is WAY less to get stressed on an EV. No transmission for one thing. NO piston, cam, connecting rods, crank, etc, etc.

These guys do it all the time: http://www.nedra.com/index.html

[ QUOTE ]

Although I have to admit, if you can make an EV that puts a Rice Rocket to shame, I'll take one!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif 

[/ QUOTE ]
Name your rocket, and I'll show you an EV that'll beat it. My EV1 will certainly beat most cars on the road. And I'd even be happy to drive the 1.7 miles to your place to demonstrate it!


----------



## FalconFX (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Wow! 

I think it's time to change my perspective on electric driven cars!

That's a cool read... Thanks Darell!
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif


----------



## Darell (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*FalconFX said:*
Wow! 

I think it's time to change my perspective on electric driven cars!


[/ QUOTE ]
Hell... it's time for the whole damn country to change its perspective on EVs! But I have to content myself with doing it one person at a time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## ikendu (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I does seem like Ultra-capacitors would make more sense in the Hybrid cars that are on the market now (Prius, Insight, etc). I wonder why that is not being used?


----------



## Brock (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

$


----------



## Darell (May 23, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Brock was close. Technically, it is:

$$$


----------



## Darell (May 24, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK, so the real reasons are starting to come out. Turns out that money really doesn't have anything to do with it - it is the technology. Here's what one guy had to say, who obviously knows way more than I do:

--------------------
Here's another analogy that will help you understand the difference between batteries and capacitors. In the electronic flash circuitry for a camera, the flash tube gets its power from a capacitor discharging in a fraction of a second. The capacitor gets its power from a DC-to-DC convertor that is powered by four AA batteries. The batteries have enough energy for dozens of flashes while the capacitor can only store enough energy to fire the flash tube once. It takes much longer to charge the capacitor than it takes to discharge it. Also, the batteries are inherently low voltage devices while the capacitors in these applications operate at a much higher voltage.

In electric vehicle applications, ultra capacitors are useful for quick acceleration but not for sustained cruising. Honda is using ultra capacitors in their fuel cell vehicle for this very reason since fuel cells are not good at dealing with sudden demands for electricity.


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey look! The EV1 featured on National News!

http://www.evchargernews.com/otherinfo.htm

See it while you can...


----------



## Saaby (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


----------



## ikendu (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell... I think Sabby said it best.

I'll just add this...

You know there is something seriously wrong with the "leadership" of our nation when we have an effective technology to reduce our dependence on foreign oil...and people's attention is so unfocused on this issue that almost no one cares about the issue and the fact that we are letting this technology alternative slip thru our fingers.

I heard a Bush administration spokesperson talking about U.S. foreign policy the other day. I don't remember the exact quote but it was something like "We have to be extremely careful about what we say about the Saudi gov't... our continued access to their oil is highly important". This was in the context of the Saudi's having ignored our warnings to beef up security before the recent terror attack in Saudi Arabia that killed a number of people including 8 Americans.

So... here is a repressive regime (yet another) with no freedom of speech or religion or equal rights or right of self determination (democracy), that we have allied ourselves with so that we can continue to see their oil flow to our country. We did this decades ago with the Shah of Iran. Not only was that policy wrong (you might say "un-American") but it DIDN'T EVEN WORK. The population in Iran got so fed up with the repression, torture, secret police, etc. that the population revolted and threw the Shah out. So, our alignment with a completely un-American gov't didn't even ensure the continued flow of oil and has resulted in decades of hate in Iran toward America.

I guess we just don't learn. Whatever policy suits our moneyed, special interests best...is what our gov't will do. Will Rogers said "We've got the best gov't money can buy".


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Even more troubling to me lately is the "green and environmental" image of California that is so stained. We don't allow clear-cutting here. But since our appetite for wood is ever-increasing, we just use wood from clear-cut forests in Canada where we can't see it. We are preventing oil rigs off our shores. But since our appetite for oil is increasing, we just rape and pillage the Amazon for our black goo. And on and on...

The body in CA that has the best chance of regulating our EVs is CARB. But by definition, they are only really interested in *California* and they are only interested in *air* pollution. So they're plenty happy that we have "clean" burning gasoline vehicles on the road. Doesn't seem to matter to them that all these hybrids and PZEVs running around still require oil to be drilled for, transported, stored, and refined into gasoline - and the resultant, tragic pollution.

Burns me up I tell you. I have my EV1 for just four more months. Our EV message boards are filled with people returning their cars these day. GM is taking away perfectly good (did I say good? - I meant the best frigging car on the road!) vehicles that are our best hope for true ZEVs - now and in the future.

At one point we had a governor who said we'd lose ZEVs over his dead body. Unfortunately, the flowers are now being arranged, I'm afraid.


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

My heart felt condolences, Darell. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mecry.gif Maybe there needs to be a more grass roots approach to this, such as converting existing vehicles to BEV specs. I've recently been entertaining the thought of converting my '96 Dodge Ram 2500 HD from V-10 to V-6 and using a series mounted electric motor for acceleration assist (much like the Honda Civic Hybrid). Right now, I'm doing this more as a mental exercise than an actual project. However, despite some minor technical obstacles, I feel this conversion is quite doable. Just so you know, I designed a series hybrid conversion for a Honda 600 sedan in 1975. Aside from some technical issues involving motor speed control, the biggest stumbling block was....my Dad wouldn't sell me the car! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Dan


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

The most likely bet is that somebody willing to gamble will buy up a bunch of 2004 Prius's to base a sweet conversion on. The current Prius has a motor that is the same size as is in my Rav4. All the car really needs is an enginectomy, more batteries, and new software. It has everything else it needs right out of the box. Guestimates are that it can be converted *nicely* for under $5,000 in small quantities. And by nicely, I mean this wouldn't really be a conversion since it'll have regen braking, and all electric auxiliaries (AC, power steering, brakes, etc).

The other option is make the Prius a plug-in hybrid. Meaning it could have 50 miles of pure electric range, but still have the gas motor as an option when long distance was required. 90% of the miles could be clean that way.

trucks are about the easiest candidates for conversions. Lots of room. That's why the Rav was chosen by Toyota to be their first electric.


----------



## ikendu (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

*Darell said: The other option is make the Prius a plug-in hybrid.*

Hmmm. So...the 2004 Prius will already be fitted with an electric motor suitable to serve as its only motor? ...and just by adding additional battery it could be a BEV for as long as you have battery power?

Highly interesting. Anyone you know actually considering this?


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*ikendu said:*
*Darell said: The other option is make the Prius a plug-in hybrid.*

Hmmm. So...the 2004 Prius will already be fitted with an electric motor suitable to serve as its only motor? ...and just by adding additional battery it could be a BEV for as long as you have battery power?

Highly interesting. Anyone you know actually considering this? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, the motor is functionally the same as what powers my (bigger and heavier) Rav4EV. It is enough to give a small car pretty peppy performance. Just needs battery. The 2004 Prius will have longer "stealth" range because of this, and will be able to accelerate away from a stop with no gasoline assist. There are lost of people considering this. The only thing they lack is the millions of $$ that it'll take to accomplish it initially. Now, if the frigging car had just been desgined "correctly" from the beginning, it could have been built cheaper than what it is, and it would have solved many of our problems. But that goes *directly* against the auto-makers motto of "you DON'T want to plug it in." Never, it seems, do they consider shoving the gas nozzle into the tank as "plugging it in." Their other motto: "Alternative fuel vehicles are dandy - just so long as they burn gasoline."


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

So maybe the "Kit Plane" approach is what is needed. Instead of offering complete BEVs, offer conversion kits targeted at affordable used vehicles such as older Toyota Tercels, Mazda 323s, Subarus (spelled backwards is U_R_A_BUS /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif ) etc., etc., etc.. Low initial purchase price of the vehicle, $5k for the kit, money left over to doll the ride up, no crash testing for the manufacture, minimal liability for the manufacture (customer installed) and on and on. This approach would also get more BEVs in the public eye and would therefore increase public demand for complete units, raising profitability for savvy auto manufactures, causing an evolutionary change in existing support infrastructure (remember....one out of three jobs in this country have something to do with the automobile) and Darell gets what he wants. Am I all wet or what?

Dan


----------



## Darell (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

While you are right that getting Darell what he wants is of utmost importance /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif, I'm not sure this is really what I want.

Conversions are NOTHING like production EVs. Typical range is 50 miles, and there is no regenerative braking. The weight distribution is typically screwed up, and they're harder to maintain. We might get a few thousand people interested in this. What we need is *millions* of peope interested in this. And that will require a turnkey approach, and a rock-solid design. Much like the EV1 and the Rav4's that no longer exist...

We need REAL cars. Those of us with real EVs still take flack about being weirdos. Conversion drivers are yet another step away from acceptance, I'm afraid.


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
While you are right that getting Darell what he wants is of utmost importance /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif, I'm not sure this is really what I want.

Conversions are NOTHING like production EVs. Typical range is 50 miles, and there is no regenerative braking. The weight distribution is typically screwed up, and they're harder to maintain.

*In dealing with FWD vehicles (which traditional have upwards 60/40 front to rear weight distribution), the addition of battery racks in the areas normally occupied by the fuel tank and the exhaust system (allowing for the trunk floor to be lowered) would actually improve the weight distribution. Certain modifications would be needed to the rear suspension (such as different struts, springs and sway bar) but this is nothing undoable or expensive. By using a dc series-wound drive motor and a bank of ultra-capacitors, you have your regenerative braking.*

We might get a few thousand people interested in this. What we need is *millions* of people interested in this. And that will require a turnkey approach, and a rock-solid design. Much like the EV1 and the Rav4's that no longer exist...

We need REAL cars. Those of us with real EVs still take flack about being weirdos. Conversion drivers are yet another step away from acceptance, I'm afraid.

*Well Darell, there are kits and there are kits. In my 26 years as an auto mechanic, I have installed after-market items that I thought weren't worth the cardboard they were packed in. Conversely, I have also installed items that were well engineered (from the initial design and installation standpoint), constructed of quality materials that in my opinion were worth twice the price. So in some ways, I agree with you on the point that if a bunch of poor quality conversion kits were made available, it would hurt your cause. However, if these kits were well engineered, constructed, installed and maybe approved by an organization like SEMA ( Specialty Equipment Market Association), it could help. I guess the bottom line is, unless something major happens (such as another oil embargo), consumer interest in BEVs will lie fallow unless the BEV cause can figure a way to be in their collective face, 24/7. Personally, I think conversions may be a start. Just my two cents.

Dan*

[/ QUOTE ]


----------



## Darell (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Dan -

Yeah, sorry. I didn't mean to sound like I was crapping on your parade.

I just can't shake the feeling that for EVs to be "mainstream" that they need to be production cars. Something else that gets lost in the equation is infrastructure. That has to come from somewhere, and all the car makers that gave a feeble EV attempt put in some infrastructure. With no new production cars coming out, the cost of the infrastructure is now on the drivers' shoulders. That would be like asking each ICE driver to pony up a few thousand $$ for gas stations every year - on top of their gasoline. It is a serious chicken-and-egg problem. And having conversions won't help that part of it.

I do understand your point, really I do. And the more electrics we have around, the better - no question about it. We need to move this out of the niche market though, and in my mind, kits won't answer that issue.

Man, I'm really tired. Hope I don't sound too bitchy. All EV support is good support!


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Well....its all got to start somewhere, Darell. Remember, the owners of the first internal combustion automobiles used to have to go to apothecaries to buy jars of naphtha to fuel their cars with. Infrastructure follows demand and need creates demand (or damn good marketing /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif). Go get some sleep now, Darell. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepy.gif

Dan


----------



## Saaby (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

What Darell didn't mention is the fact that the reason we need infrastructure (He he, we...er...he. I wish we) is that all the current cars are inductive, or require external chargers. There is no real logical reason for this but I won't get into that right now.


Future EVs could very well be CONDUCTIVE. Got a plug? You got infrastructure. No extra charger required.


----------



## ikendu (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

*Darell said: ...the cost of the infrastructure is now on the drivers' shoulders.*
*Saaby said:Got a plug? You got infrastructure.*

I agree. Darell, I really think the idea of a car that just commutes from home and back is a truly viable option...at least for those with 2 cars (and that is a lot of Americans). So, if you can charge at home...and plug in to an outlet somewhere in a pinch, you've got all the infrastructure you need IMHO.

I'd buy one tomorrow if I could get it (although... I'd have to look at the price at least a little!).

I'm definitely still back on my theme of "one size does not have to fit all" for renewable energy strategies. For my self, I do a lot of commuting (every day, 5 days a week, 40+ miles round trip)...so a BEV would definitely fit that need, and be excellent at it!

My other driving is long trips from Iowa-Colorado or Iowa-South Dakota or Iowa-Michigan (just 3 I'm doing this summer). For that need, I don't think the BEV works so very well. But, we are a 2-car family (like many Americans). So my other Renewable Energy Vehicle (REV) is a diesel (2003 Golf TDI) running on biodiesel (BD). It is scaleable (start small with a few BD fill up stations). If I'm on a long trip and can't find BD...there is dino-diesel _everywhere_ . Even when I'm running on dino-diesel I'm helping to reduce imported oil 'cause the diesel gets such excellent mileage!

2 needs. 2 cars. Renewable energy for both.


----------



## Brock (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Ok, why can't they make an "upgrade" option for the new Prius that has 2x larger battery pack and a small 120v 15A charger? I would have considered that instead of my diesel. Like Ikendu said we have two cars and the other is a traditional gasser, fine for trips or towing, although with the ice in the Prius you have the range of any ice. Maybe by the time our other gasser dies they will have done this with the Prius and I could drive to and from work on electric. I can't tell you how much I would like that!!!


----------



## Saaby (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*ikendu said:*
*Darell said: ...the cost of the infrastructure is now on the drivers' shoulders.*
*Saaby said:Got a plug? You got infrastructure.*

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya missed something. I'll say it again.
What Darell said is absolutely right, the cost of the current infrastructure is now on EV Drivers shoulders, because the current infrastructure takes a plug AND a charger.

EV's, however, don't need (external) chargers. The chargers can be put on board and it adds minimal weight--that is, the benefits literally outweigh the 10 or so lbs it adds. If you do an external charger, however, then you still have a need for all those street corners where the gas pumps are. See what I'm getting at?

Anyway, there's another infrastructure that's needed too. Dealer infrastructure. Autos are the perfect example of economics of scale. Sure a conversion for the Prius is great, but how you going to distribute it nationwide?


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Brain Storming....I LOVE IT!! So....the current largest complaint about BEVs is (other than the lack of "Motor Music") limited range. Sticking with a FWD format and traditional series-hybrid configuration (engine only drives the generator), one could design in a modular engine-generator-fuel tank assembly, positioned in the rear of the vehicle. For strictly urban operation, this assembly could be removed and replaced with another bank of batteries. With the technology that has been available in the motorcycle market over the last decade, the generator assembly could be made to weigh less than 250 lbs.. This would be inclusive of engine, generator, fuel tank (empty) and support frame. With an eye on a simple installation design (minimal connectors, "Post & Hole" front supports (2), two rear latches, etc.), an owner (or service technician) would be able to swap said modules with the aid of a hydraulically actuated, foot operated "hand fork lift" (without having to lift the vehicle off the ground).

Actually, a lot of this stuff is a no-brainer and I'm sure that somebody has thought of this before. What keeps designs like this from showing fruition, is public perception. Darrel has stated concern over the effects that poorly design conversion would have on the BEV cause. To this I will also add my concern that "City Electric Vehicles" will only enhances to golf cart image that BEVs suffer from. So on this, Darell and I are in agreement (sign of the Apocalypse?). What is needed are real vehicles with day to day flexibility to change the public's perception about BEVs. Designs like this would most certainly help (either as an option or standard equipment) and if no manufacture wishes to invest capital in such a venture, I guess it will have to fall to the hands of individuals.

Dan


----------



## Saaby (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Welcome to the club Dan. You give them too much credit. They're not City Electric Vehicles. They're NEVs. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles.


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Actually Ryan, I've been a member of the "club" for a long time now. In 1971, I did a term paper (complete with diorama, yeah...I was a geek before it was cool /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ) for my 10th grade social studies class. In it I expounded on the virtues of maglev trains and hybrid-electric vehicles . My fellow classmates looked at me like I was nuts! It was like they were saying to themselves "Why conserve gas? Its 20 cents a gallon!" (incidentally, this was 2 months after the passage of the Clean Air Act and Denver was worried about having a "Killer Smog"). Less than 3 years later, the first Arab Oil Embargo occurred and their lives were changed forever. 

It was actually concern for the environment (and my natural ability /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif ) that led me to become an auto mechanic. I prefer, however, to think of myself as a conservationist more than an environmentalist (that label has picked up a negative connotation over the years). I feel that the resources we possess are there to use wisely and not there to squander. But this is a line of thought for another time and another thread and I'll meander back on subject now.

I guess what I want to say is that I'm more of a series-hybrid fan than a BEV fan. Growing up in Colorado, I personally know how recalcitrant electro-chemical reactions can be when the mercury drops below freezing. This is particularly problematic with lead-acid batteries as they possess less than 30% of their amp/hour capacity at the freezing point of water. Cells which are endothermic on discharge do fair better though (such as Nicads and Lithium-Ions) but still suffer from slowed chemical reactions. Another thing I noted (during my BEV/Hybrid research in the early '70s) was the concept of diminishing returns, particularly when applied to pure BEVs. Simply stated this means, no matter what you do to increase the range of the vehicle, you will only reduce it (ultra-capacitors aside, back then you dumped the regenerative braking current back into the batteries). Case in point; if you add more batteries to increase the range, you increase the weight of the vehicle and you have to install tires with a larger foot print to handle the weight. The larger tires have more rolling resistance which takes greater power to overcome. The greater power, the higher current drain and that eats the additional battery capacity that was installed to increase the range. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif The idea of the series-hybrid seemed like a nice technological work-around for this at that time and I believe that it is still a viable alternative (despite the higher energy densities of the newer battery chemistries), because the concept of diminishing returns is still applicable and many of us live in regions with less than desirable winter weather. To bottom line this, there's room for both of these automotive technologies. 'Nuff said for now....I'll be baaack (in my best Schwarzenegger voice).

Dan


----------



## Saaby (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

All I meant was...uhh..well...


I'm sorry you had to be a nerd before it was popular. It's still not THAT popular though. Ask...er..somebody that would know


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yellowlaugh.gif

Dan


----------



## Darell (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Good stuff guys. I'm not ignoring you - just been away all day. I have lots to say, as you can imagine, but I just rolled back home and am beat. Count on reading some disjointed, rambling, pointless posts soon!

I *really* want to get into this self-defeating range extension thing. Really I do!

I'm thinking that I should really start a new thread too! Too many damn pages on this one. I'm sure it scares folks away...


----------



## Darell (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Saaby said:*
Welcome to the club Dan. You give them too much credit. They're not City Electric Vehicles. They're NEVs. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take this one just because it is easy....

City EVs are like the Ford Th!nk. Top speed of 50mph. Can comfortably cruise on anything short of a highway.

NEVs are, well, golf carts. Top speed of 25mph. They don't replace an ICE, they replace walking or bicycling. And yes, they **** me off. Most recently because GM dumped them on the market to satisfy their mandated number of ZEVs. GM found a loop hole, and drove several thousand golf carts right through it.

The only place NEVS make sense is in retirement communities where folks who can't walk so well really do need to get around, and would otherwise driver their Buicks.


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*

I *really* want to get into this self-defeating range extension thing. Really I do!



[/ QUOTE ]

OK Darell....but I might not be here when you get back. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Dan


----------



## Whistler (Jun 28, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,

I'm very sorry to hear that you have to give back YOUR EV1 soon. I'm even more sorry that ALL EV1 will go back... I can't understand that some of them will end crushed (sorry to break your heart Darell by saying this so rude). This is the kind of stuff what brings up a feeling of unbelief and anger. You get that urge to chain you at the car of GM president /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif .

Is this all a sign of lack of vision concerning the future? I'm afraid it is. 

Perhaps we should start a letter writing action to let you keep the EV1. A little Amnesty International. But since it is too late (?!) it will not work I'm afraid. 

Due to an accident I can't cycle (now) anymore -what is the best for the environment beside walking /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif- so I have to take the car. Since there is no real alternative I 'had' to take a car (Volvo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). I would have loved to have an EV1!


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

OK Darell, I'm back and ready for you to rip my statements apart. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Oopps, I mean logically disassemble my statements. Sorry, my bad. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif 

Darell? 


Oh Daarreellll.....come out, come out where ever you are......


Dan


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Yeah, yeah. I just wanted to terrorize you. Wasn't actually gonna follow up on it. You know me - I don't post much. My life has been getting in the way of CPF, ya see. But the good news is that I'm just freshly back from a Norther CA production EV meeting that filled in a few gaps in my knowledge.

Stand by...


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Brock said:*
Ok, why can't they make an "upgrade" option for the new Prius that has 2x larger battery pack and a small 120v 15A charger? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Keep your fingers crossed. The fine folks who have brought us the Tzero are the best candidates to do this. They are the ones, in fact, who have discovered that the new Prius already HAS everything needed to be a real electric car. A parallel hybrid (as a plug-in would be called) would be my ultimate "second" car, for sure.


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*PercaDan said:*
So....the current largest complaint about BEVs is (other than the lack of "Motor Music") limited range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually no. The largest single complaint I here is that they're too expensive. Two other common ones are range and refuel time. That right there is your big three - and that right there are three of the simplest obstacles to overcome. The seemingly impossible one is public perception.

We can go 300 miles with Li-ion batteries. We can charger them in 10 minutes. BEVs would be cheaper to build than ICEs if they were both built in the same quantities.

[ QUOTE ]
Sticking with a FWD format and traditional series-hybrid configuration (engine only drives the generator), one could design in a modular engine-generator-fuel tank assembly, positioned in the rear of the vehicle. For strictly urban operation, this assembly could be removed and replaced with another bank of batteries. With the technology that has been available in the motorcycle market over the last decade, the generator assembly could be made to weigh less than 250 lbs.. This would be inclusive of engine, generator, fuel tank (empty) and support frame. With an eye on a simple installation design (minimal connectors, "Post & Hole" front supports (2), two rear latches, etc.), an owner (or service technician) would be able to swap said modules with the aid of a hydraulically actuated, foot operated "hand fork lift" (without having to lift the vehicle off the ground).

[/ QUOTE ]
Wild! You just designed the same car that AC-Propulsions (the Tzero folks) built four months ago. They used a VW Golf, and the thing was driven from LA to Sacramento for the CARB hearings.

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, a lot of this stuff is a no-brainer and I'm sure that somebody has thought of this before. What keeps designs like this from showing fruition, is public perception.

[/ QUOTE ]
You nailed it!

[ QUOTE ]
Darrel has stated concern over the effects that poorly design conversion would have on the BEV cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, my main concern here is that it is too little too late. We already have FANTASTIC production EVs, and they never went anywhere. I have two of 'em right here, and nobody really knows that they ever existed. A conversion really could never be as user-friendly as a ground-up EV integrated vehicle. If we can't make the production units stick, I don't think we can "start" with conversions again. There are WAY more conversions running around this country than there are production vehicles. I mean thousands of times more. But you sure don't hear much about them, do you? And many of them are simply awesome.


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*PercaDan said:*
I prefer, however, to think of myself as a conservationist more than an environmentalist 

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too! And yet I'm not a conservative - go figure.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I want to say is that I'm more of a series-hybrid fan than a BEV fan.

[/ QUOTE ]
You SERIOUSLY need to drive an BEV. I do understand your reasoning - but you seem like a guy who enjoys the "motoring" exerpience (as anybody who rides a motorcycle damn well better!). There is NOTHING that'll make you grin faster than a scoot in a high-performance BEV.

[ QUOTE ]
Growing up in Colorado, I personally know how recalcitrant electro-chemical reactions can be when the mercury drops below freezing. This is particularly problematic with lead-acid batteries as they possess less than 30% of their amp/hour capacity at the freezing point of water.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's one of the stumbling blocks of conversions. No production EV designed today would even think of using Lead/Acid. For conversions it is by far the most popular choice due to availability and cost. NiMH has shown excellent performance in sub freezing temps, actually (as you've stated).

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing I noted (during my BEV/Hybrid research in the early '70s) was the concept of diminishing returns, particularly when applied to pure BEVs. Simply stated this means, no matter what you do to increase the range of the vehicle, you will only reduce it (ultra-capacitors aside, back then you dumped the regenerative braking current back into the batteries).

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, here's where it is gonna get fun! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif First off, except for some rare exotics, we still dump the current back into batteries. The Fuel Cell program will probably use ultra caps since cost as well as design and build time are no object.

[ QUOTE ]
Case in point; if you add more batteries to increase the range, you increase the weight of the vehicle and you have to install tires with a larger foot print to handle the weight. The larger tires have more rolling resistance which takes greater power to overcome. The greater power, the higher current drain and that eats the additional battery capacity that was installed to increase the range.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, OK. But where does CURRENT reality fit in here? The EV1 started off life with crappy lead-acid batteries. Range, about 50 miles. A year later, a super high-density lead-acid battery was produced by Panasonc, installed in these same cars, and presto! Range, about 100 miles. Taht is what I'm driving today. A year after THAT advancement, NiMH batteries were designed for the car. Range, about 140 miles. In three years, we ended up with a lighter car that went more than twice as far on a charge. Tires didn't get bigger. Drag didn't increase.

And what I leared at today's meeting is that the next Tzero being built RIGHT NOW will have Li-ion batteries. Uh-oh. This car will be doing the quarter mile in 10 or 11 seconds. It will weigh less. There will be more cargo capacity. It will be rechargeable in minutes with a specialized charger. Presto! There aren't diminishing returns if technology can get you over the hurdles.

[ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohgeez.gif The idea of the series-hybrid seemed like a nice technological work-around for this at that time and I believe that it is still a viable alternative (despite the higher energy densities of the newer battery chemistries), because the concept of diminishing returns is still applicable and many of us live in regions with less than desirable winter weather. To bottom line this, there's room for both of these automotive technologies. 

[/ QUOTE ]
What we have today (Honda and Toyota) are series-hybrids. The main problem? You MUST burn gasoline to drive them out of your garage. To go ANYWHERE, the motor must start. Give me a parallel-hybrid, and I'll smile bigger and even do a little jig. As I've said, the concept of diminishing returns is not quite as drastic as you might be thinking. If we were to put half the effort and money into batteries as we are currently putting into fuel cells, I think we couldn't help but have a BEV with awesome range and recharge times. The technology is HERE. We just need to build the damn thing.

No question that there is room for both of these technologies. There is room for both in the SAME CAR! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I appreciate your comments Dan. I know we're both on the same side of this issue, and I do enjoy hearing your comments. Any discussion on this issue is good discussion! Thank you, thank you, thank you.


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Whistler said:*
Since there is no real alternative I 'had' to take a car (Volvo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). I would have loved to have an EV1!

[/ QUOTE ]
Music to my ears, my friend. We just need to say these things louder and louder until somebody who matters can hear us.


----------



## Saaby (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

At least he's using a decent ICE...Whistler that is...


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I'm just going to post a couple of links for our members of the viewing audience before hitting the hay.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepy.gif

Hybrid Cars 

Electric Cars 

....and Darell, I'll get back to you ASAP. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Dan


----------



## Whistler (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Darell said:*
[ QUOTE ]
*Whistler said:*
Since there is no real alternative I 'had' to take a car (Volvo /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). I would have loved to have an EV1!

[/ QUOTE ]
Music to my ears, my friend. We just need to say these things louder and louder until somebody who matters can hear us. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Very loud: 'IIII WAAAANNNNNT OOOOONE!!!!!'

Checking outside. I think it was not loud enough, no EV1 outside yet /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif . but I will continue... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif 







certainly no EV1...


----------



## ikendu (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell...I've been interested in the parallel hybrid since I sketched together a schematic for one at GM in the 70's (but couldn't get any of my management excited about it).

You said this thread was getting too long, so... I'll start a new one!


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*Whistler said:*

certainly no EV1... 

[/ QUOTE ]
The CityEL is a nice little scoot. We have four of them in town. They're like riding a powered bicycle.


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*PercaDan said:*
I'm just going to post a couple of links for our members of the viewing audience before hitting the hay.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sleepy.gif

Hybrid Cars 

Electric Cars 


[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting links for basic knowledge on these subjects, for sure, but out of date, I'm afraid. On the electric side - discussion of battery packs that last 20,000 miles are quite misleading. There hasn't been a Rav4 pack to have gone bad in 3,000 vehicles - many of which have close to, or over 100,000 miles. It is predicted that these packs will go over 150,000 miles with 90% of their capacity remaining. There are 2,000 of these vehicles with over 60,000 miles on them. And not one has had a pack replaced. Next "old" issue is the 50 miles range. Part of the problem here, is that a conversion, using quite old battery technology, is being presented. Folks who read this stuff just can't imagine owning a vehicle that'll need a batteryectomy in 20,000 miles when they have to suffer with a 50 mile range.

The hybrid article doesn't mention the new Civic has "available." So while it does have relatively current information (at least it speaks of production cars) it does miss the current crop. The Civic an the second generation Prius.


----------



## NightStorm (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Darell,

I just posted those links to bring the other forum members "up to speed" (being as there are 3 BEV/Hybrid threads currently running in this forum), _not_ to refute the information gleaned from CPF's most excellent "BEV Master". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif I'm sure that most of the readers of this thread realize that a mere $10k conversion can't hold a candle to General Motor's (million dollars a copy) EV-1.

With that aside, I've got a lot of things on my plate today and will be returning to this discussion when time allows. However, I do have enough time today to post this link, and this link and this link in hopes to clear up some confusion that I sense exists over the types of hybrid vehicles. Enjoy the day, ya'll.

Dan


----------



## Darell (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

[ QUOTE ]
*PercaDan said:*
I'm sure that most of the readers of this thread realize that a mere $10k conversion can't hold a candle to General Motor's (million dollars a copy) EV-1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Be fair now. In mass quantities, it is consistently stipulated that the EV1 would cost about $25,000 to build today - or roughly the cost of a Honda Accord. The oft-quoted million $ number is what GM *wants* the world to hear. Interestingly enough, they are now pushing hard for the Fuel Cell vehicles which really DO cost a million per copy (just in build costs, not design), and most of the car is an EV already. So you amortize some of the EV1 development cost into the Fuel cell side of the biz, and you quickly see the EV1 program get a lot cheaper, and the Fuel Cell program get more expensive. Many, many of the systems that were designed for the EV1 are now standard features on GM ICE vehicles. But you won't see GM paying for those features out of the ICE budget. Nope, they want to hang all the costs on the EV1 program to demonstrate what a financial disaster that program was.

[ QUOTE ]
With that aside, I've got a lot of things on my plate today and will be returning to this discussion when time allows. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm with you there! With these exciting alt fuel discussions going on, I have no time for the flashlight side of the forum!


----------



## Graham (Jul 13, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

I vote that Darell start an EV manufacturing company and produce a BEV with the latest technology that will put regular car makers to shame.

Any disgustingly wealthy philanthropists out there want to give Darell lots of money?

Man, wouldn't it be cool if someone like Bill Gates used some of his billions to produce good mass-market BEVs in such numbers that they were cheaper than ICE vehicles?

Ah well, I can dream. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Graham


----------



## Darell (Jul 13, 2003)

*Re: Darell\'s EV1 (and/or EVs in general)*

Hey, you aren't so far out there, Graham!

One thing that we're tying to do is woo these uber rich guys over to our side. We have plenty of millionairs in the club, but we need bigger fish than that. My god, we're trying to compete against some of the largest companies in the entire frigging world! The biggest thing we're trying to do is something that I can't discuss publicly, actually. But it is quite close to what you're talking about.

I would suck as a businessman, I'm afraid. Talk about your ultimate micro-manager! I always want to do everything myself... even when I don't have the skill or knowledge to pull it off - like in this case.


----------

