Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:58 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Note that GM didn't want to build the thing in the first place. > > They didn't. They fought the concept all the way, even though the > EV-1 was an exceptionally good car. I did drive a couple of them. It > was stable, handled beautifully, was quick and comfortable. Given > that the infrastructure for their use was put in place (and is still > in place !!!), even the 125 mile range per charge was not a big deal. > Even long commute folks here run average mileages that make it quite > reasonable to run to work and do incremental charging during the day > when parked.
125 mile range is useful only as a commuter, and even that's iffy in many places (125 mile commutes aren't unheard of here in Southern Ontario). That essentially makes it a second car (As people will want to drive longer distances in one go). a 250 mile range would make it far more useful, but still limited. > > Do you spend two to three hours a day driving? Few people do. 125 > miles represents about three to four hours of use per day. 250-300 > miles represents five to six hours driving every day. No, it doesn't > satisfy *all* needs. But it satisfies enough for a viable vehicle for > about 90% of the market. > >> The fact that a much later product from another company worked >> better is >> irrelevant to the discussion, > > Sure it is. The EV-1 worked just as well as the RAV4 EV. The > technology involved is quite similar. Similar, but the RAV4's are a generation newer, with better battery tech. And based on a production platform unlike the EV1, which makes them a lot cheaper to build and support. > >> as is the fact that GM didn't support a >> 3rd party who made a powerplant replacement. > > A company developed a battery package specifically applicable to the > electric cars. GM bought the company and refused to release the > batteries for use in EV-1. That's not "refusing to support a third > party company products", that's quashing the technology. Ah, didn't know that. I agree. > >> GM's in the business of selling cars. If they thought EV1's were >> viable >> products, they wouldn't have killed it. > > Guess you never heard of politics, eh? Oh, I know politics. Politics is what stuck GM with the EV1 in the first place. > >> Part of the issue is that unless >> battery technology changes dramatically, Electric Vehicles simply will >> not be viable in much of the US (California being a major exception). >> Batteries simply don't hold a charge well in sub-zero centigrade >> weather. > > Not entirely false, but not entirely true either. And who said that > they would have to produce ONLY electric cars? If you had ever driven > one, you'd be much better informed about why people felt so > passionately about them. > > On the other hand, this conversation is beginning to approach typical > "film vs digital" debate levels .. > > Godfrey > > I'll just note that a car that's essentially warm weather only would have a very restricted market in the First World (essentially the southern US, Southern Europe and maybe New Zealand). One that's a commuter and warm weather only has an even smaller market. I think electric cars are a nice idea,and a niche product that will eventually find a (small) market, but the hybrid solves most of the same problems with far fewer downsides. I'm expecting hybrids to move more towards electrics with onboard charging as battery capacity increases though. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
