Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!decwrl!shelby!
lindy!hanauma!rick
From: rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: GM's new electric car
Message-ID: <6877@lindy.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 4 Jan 90 18:34:38 GMT
Sender: ne...@lindy.Stanford.EDU (News Service)
Reply-To: rick@hanauma (Richard Ottolini)
Organization: Stanford University, Dept. of Geophysics
Lines: 11
Posted: Thu Jan 4 19:34:38 1990
announced yesterday, has rather good performance, 75 MPH and 120 mile range.
However, it is only a research model and not likely to see production.
How do people feel about it? I am somewhat positive.
It does show what a "modest" research effort can achieve. Modest with respect
to total R&D in industry but large compared to previous efforts.
I would buy one if the price was comparable to current cars.
Since it requires a lot of new design changes to put into production, I whether
GM has the desire or capital to produce such a car.
GM was probably showing that its technology is still at the state of the
art for publicity purposes and to keep abreast of competitors.
I hope some way can be found to produce it.
Xref: utzoo sci.energy:1256 sci.electronics:9537 rec.autos.tech:13034
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!
zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts
From: mbu...@mentor.com (Mike Butts)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.electronics,rec.autos.tech
Subject: Tech details on GM Electric Car
Message-ID: < 1990Jan16.210512.287@mentor.com>
Date: 16 Jan 90 21:05:12 GMT
Organization: engr
Lines: 42
Page 13 of the 1/15 issue of Automotive Electronics Journal (AEJ) yields the
following details on the GM Impact electric car prototype which was in the
general press lately.
Impact (what a great name for a car! :-) is a two-seat all-electric prototype
car. 2550 pound gross weight, 0-60 MPH in 8 seconds, top speed 75 MPH, 0.19
drag coefficient, cruising range 120 miles. Batteries are a tray of 32 10-volt
lead-acid cells weighing 870 pounds. 25K mile life is given for the battery
set, which is sealed for life and does not need water. Other text vaguely
refers to a one year battery lifetime. Cost of ownership is said to be 2X
gasoline cars, but no other figures are given here. An engineering manager
predicted doubling life within 2-3 years and admits that life needs to be
improved before marketing is feasable. Lead-acid was chosen because it is well
known, but they stressed that production cars could have some other type of
battery. A photo shows the battery tray, which is nearly as long as the car
and about one foot square being lowered from the aerodynamic body, which is on
a lift.
Aerovironment, Paul MacCready's company of human-powered aircraft fame, which
is 15% owned by GM, developed the MOSFET controller which generates AC for the
motors. Delco Remy built the twin motors, one for each front wheel, which
together develop 114 HP and 94 ft-lbs of torque. There is no transmission.
Goodyear did the custom low-resistance tires.
The prototype was said to be ready for production but company officials
expressed mixed feelings about pursuing the project. Company officials believe
a production EV could be built within 10 years.
Roger Smith is quoted saying "There is no sense in just transferring the
pollution problem from the cars to Southern California Edison." The AEJ
article then takes issue with that point, citing statistics from Edison and LA
Power and Water to the effect that transportation accounts for more than 80% of
So. Cal's "air emissions", and the region's utilities account for only 0.5% of
that amount. The utilities would become more efficient because of nighttime
electric car charging evening out load levels, says AEJ (ref. AEJ 12/18/89).
PS: I want one now.
--
Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302
Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005
!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts mbu...@pdx.MENTOR.COM
Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!
tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!mbutts
From: mbu...@mentor.com (Mike Butts)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Tech details on GM electric prototype
Message-ID: <1990Jan18.185413.911@mentor.com>
Date: 18 Jan 90 18:54:13 GMT
Organization: engr
Lines: 63
Posted: Thu Jan 18 19:54:13 1990
At the risk of introducing some automotive technology into rec.autos.tech
;-) here're some details on the GM Impact electric prototype. This material has
also been posted to sci.energy, where you will find a discussion of
alternative fuels:
Page 13 of the 1/15 issue of Automotive Electronics Journal (AEJ) yields the
following details on the GM Impact electric car prototype which was in the
general press lately.
Impact (what a great name for a car! :-) is a two-seat all-electric prototype
car. 2550 pound gross weight, 0-60 MPH in 8 seconds, top speed 75 MPH, 0.19
drag coefficient, cruising range 120 miles. Batteries are a tray of 32 10-volt
lead-acid cells weighing 870 pounds. 25K mile life is given for the battery
set, which is sealed for life and does not need water. Other text vaguely
refers to a one year battery lifetime. Cost of ownership is said to be 2X
gasoline cars, but no other figures are given here. An engineering manager
predicted doubling life within 2-3 years and admits that life needs to be
improved before marketing is feasable. Lead-acid was chosen because it is well
known, but they stressed that production cars could have some other type of
battery. A photo shows the battery tray, which is nearly as long as the car
and about one foot square being lowered from the aerodynamic body, which is on
a lift.
Aerovironment, Paul MacCready's company of human-powered aircraft fame, which
is 15% owned by GM, developed the MOSFET controller which generates AC for the
motors. Delco Remy built the twin motors, one for each front wheel, which
together develop 114 HP and 94 ft-lbs of torque. There is no transmission.
Goodyear did the custom low-resistance tires.
The prototype was said to be ready for production but company officials
expressed mixed feelings about pursuing the project. Company officials believe
a production EV could be built within 10 years.
Roger Smith is quoted saying "There is no sense in just transferring the
pollution problem from the cars to Southern California Edison." The AEJ
article then takes issue with that point, citing statistics from Edison and LA
Power and Water to the effect that transportation accounts for more than 80% of
So. Cal's "air emissions", and the region's utilities account for only 0.5% of
that amount. The utilities would become more efficient because of nighttime
electric car charging evening out load levels, says AEJ (ref. AEJ 12/18/89).
A bit more about the GM Impact from the pages of this week's AutoWeek (1/15/90,
p. 22):
The car was GM's surprise showing at the LA Auto Show. Its range is 125 miles
at 55 MPH, it takes six hours to recharge on "household current" (presumably a
good, fat 220 volt connection), and the battery pack would cost $1500 to
replace. AutoWeek notes with interest that it's "the first electric car that
can get out of its own way, be honest ticket-bait on urban freeways, and
recharge itself in less than half a day." :-) There's a nice photo of the car
(very swoopy and sharp) with the caption "Electric GM Impact generated enough
news clippings to outweigh its 870 lbs of batteries."
I think it's likely that Road and Track will have a detailed feature on the car
in a few months. They had an excellent, detailed piece on alternative fuels a
few months back.
PS: I want one now.
--
Michael Butts, Research Engineer KC7IT 503-626-1302
Mentor Graphics Corp., 8500 SW Creekside Place, Beaverton, OR 97005
!{sequent,tessi,apollo}!mntgfx!mbutts mbu...@pdx.MENTOR.COM
Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of Mentor Graphics Corp.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!jarthur!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!ophiuchi!dsill
From: ds...@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Electric Cars: Against the Current?
Message-ID: <1990Mar12.130928.7489@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Date: 12 Mar 90 13:09:28 GMT
Sender: ne...@relay.nswc.navy.mil (News)
Reply-To: Dave Sill <ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA
Lines: 295
Xref: gmdzi sci.energy:1283 sci.environment:4248
Posted: Mon Mar 12 14:09:28 1990
[From the March 11 Washington Post, without permission.]
Electric Cars: Against the Current?
Curtis A. Moore
Despite its head-turning shape and head-snapping power, the most
remarkable quality of General Motors' new prototype car, the Impact,
is its tailpipe.
It doesn't have one.
The Impact is powered soley by batteries. But this is no golf cart:
Quicker than 95 percent of the cars on the road--and less polluting
than 100 percent--the only smoke in its wake is likely to come from
its tires. The car accelerates from 0 to 60 miles per hour in 8
seconds, enough to beat the Mazda Miata and Nissan 300ZX.
Because it's also sleek and comfortable--and has a range of 125 miles
between battery charges--many consider the Impact to be the first
truly practical electric car.
Others see it as a "platform"--a series of design advances which could
be incorporated into a wide variety of vehicles whether they ran on
electricity, gasoline or something else. One industry analyst
speculates that if an Impact (which on electricity gets the equivalent
of 86 miles per gallon) were fitted instead with a small gasoline
engine, it might achieve 100 mpg--maybe even 130.
A U.S. auto fleet composed entirely of Impact-like cars could cut
automotive pollution--and the fuel consumption that causes it--to
about 30 percent of current levels, according to an analyst at the
Office of Technology Assessment. If even a substantial fraction of
our rolling stock were electric, it could dramatically reduce oil
imports and improve the balance of trade--all without sacrificing
performance. Moreover, the Impact employs technology which, though
new, is virtually "on the shelf" already. When the car debuted at the
Los Angeles Auto Show in January, GM executives said it could be
rolling off the assembly line within five years.
However, because future production of the Impact will depend almost
entirely on its profit potential--not concern over smog, acid rain,
greenhouse gases or energy independence--it may never be built.
Some states, notably California, are moving toward requiring electric
and other alternate-fuel vehicles, but they lack sufficient clout to
influence the Big Three car makers to gamble corporate money. And
congress, despite all its hand-wringing talk about global warming,
seems in no mood to support innovative auto technology. On the
contrary, the first page ripped from the current Senate clean-air bill
was a provision to encourage electric and other high-efficiency
low-pollution cars by regulating tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide,
one of the gases that causes global warming. One of the next
deletions was a requirement that "alternate fuel" vehicles--cars and
trucks that run on fuels cleaner than gasoline, whether that's
electricity or alcohols--be put on the road in large numbers.
In fact, Senate leaders not only dropped the CO2 standard but
announced that they would oppose any attempts to reinstate it on the
grounds that it would be, in the words of Max Baucus (D-Mont.), floor
manager of the amendments, a "deal-breaker" which might shatter their
agreement to control virtually every pollutant other than those that
cause global warming.
Electrifying Features
----------------------------
The Impact's remarkable performance derives in part from its electric
power system and in part from super-efficient materials and design.
A conventional gasoline engine operates at 18-percent efficiency when
idling and 28 percent under full load. Electric powerplants convert
fuel to electricity at an average of 34 percent efficiency. And
electric engines don't run while they're sitting at stoplights or
stuck in traffic.
Realistically, of course, most American cars may never have the
Impact's design advantages. Nonetheless, depending on whether your
analysis is conservative or optimistic, the United States could reduce
total net vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 to 50
percent--even when pollution resulting from producing more electricity
at existing plants is factored in.
Analyses conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute, the
research arm of the U.S. electric-utility industry, conclude that
powering some vans electrically would cut their net tailpipe emissions
of CO2 by 54 percent and smog-forming oxides of nitrogen by a third.
(EPRI concedes that emissions of sulfur dioxide, the pollutant that
causes acid rain, would increase 14-fold unless stringent controls
were installed on generating plants. Congress seems extremely likely
to enact such a program.) James MacKenzie of the World Resources
Institute in Washington calculates that converting the average U.S.
delivery van from gas to electricity would reduce its net CO2
emissions by roughly 20 percent.
All this assumes that electricity is made at current powerplants,
which operate at roughly 34-percent efficiency--thus wasting
two-thirds of their fuel. But companies such as General Electric,
Siemens and Mitsubishi market systems which can boost plant efficiency
above 50 percent.
Other engineering innovations exploited in the Impact include:
BODY DESIGN: Probably the sleekest car built to date is Ford's Probe
V, with a drag coefficient (a measure of wind resistance--the lower
the number, the less the drag) of 0.14. That compares to 0.15 for an
F-15 fighter jet. Impact's coefficient of 0.19 is the result of a
sculpted front end, an aerodynamically efficient "belly pan" (because
there is no drive shaft or exhaust system, the underside can be
smooth), "skirts" over the rear wheelwells and a ducktail shape in the
back. One industry analyst, skeptical of the overall importance of
the Impact, nevertheless calls the drag coefficient "the real story."
BATTERIES: Impact relies on lead acid batteries--superficially similar
to those found under the hood of virtually every car made in the last
half-century. "This isn't a K-Mart battery," says AeroEnvironment's
engineering director Alec Brooks, though "it's probably the cheapest
electric vehicle battery yet conceived."
Sealed for life, Impact's lunchpail-sized batteries, rated at 42.5
amp-hours each, need no maintenance and produce no dangerous gases
during recharging. Thirty-two of them nestle inside a tunnel running
between the two seats which doubles as an arm rest, providing 13.5
kilowatt hours of electricity, which is roughly enough to power the
average U.S. home for half a day or a hair dryer for 10 hours.
The batteries can be recharged in six hours on 110-volt household
current or as little as two hours on the 220-volt circuits frequently
used for electric ranges, hot-water heaters and furnaces. A
50-percent recharge takes only 20 minutes.
Power: Two basketball-sized electric motors, one mounted inboard of
each front wheel, provide "virtually instant" response with so much
power that "within milliseconds you're pushed into the back of the
seat," according to engineer Paul MacCready, whom many consider to be
the inspirational genius behind the car. The induction motors (the
kind most commonly used in electric devices) together produce 114
horsepower at 6,600 revolutions per minute. By comparison, a Buick
Skylark puts out 110; a Honda Accord 125. Both weigh about the same
as the Impact--2,500 pounds. The gearbox is mounted directly on the
motor and has only one gear ratio. This means no shifting, and many
fewer parts.
A gasoline engine operating at peak efficiency--with the throttle open
and steady--loses over 70 percent of its energy to friction and heat;
Impact's virtually friction-free motors lose only 2 to 6 percent. At
a stoplight, electric motors are off, using zero energy. A gasoline
engine, however, is running at about one-fifth its peak RPM just to
keep the crankshaft turning.
Impact differs from earlier electric vehicles, which generally used
bulky motors employing direct current--the kind that flows only in one
direction, as in a flashlight. Modern, powerful induction motors,
however, require alternating current--the sort that comes out of a
household outlet. So "inverters" are used to convert the DC from the
Impact's 870 pounds of batteries to AC. Also, the older DC motors
rely on internal windings and brushes which begin to fail when speed
climbs.
BRAKING AND REGENERATION: Impact's motors can also function as
generators as well as aiding the car's brakes to slow the vehicle.
When accelerating, the motors convert electric current into mechanical
energy. When braking, however, the opposite happens: With the current
off, mechanical energy from the spinning wheels turns the motor shafts
and produces electricity while resistance from the rotors slows the
car. In this process, called "dynamic braking," the "regenerated"
electricity is fed back and used to charge the batteries.
TIRES AND WHEELS: Those tires that prospective car buyers are supposed
to kick gobble considerable energy. According to Deborah Bleviss, the
executive director of the International Institute for Energy
Conservation, reducing a tire's "rolling resistance"--the energy lost
when the rubber meets the road--by 10 percent increases gas mileage by
about 4 percent. Impact's tires nearly halve normal rolling
resistance by using specially designed Goodyear radials with thinner
sidewalls, less rubber depth and higher inflation pressure--about 65
pounds per square inch compared to the usual 32.
These components yield a car so efficient that, in the words of Tom
MacDonald, a vehicle specialist with the California Energy Commission,
the Impact "enters the realm of road vehicle utility. To me it
illustrates the arrival of the electric car at an efficient, practical
point."
From the Ground Up
---------------------------------
Paul MacCready attributes the car's success to the ability of its
developers to start "with a blank sheet of paper." Unlike its
predecessors, Impact is the first car to be developed from the ground
up as an electric vehicle. "What's unique in the Impact is the
systems analysis--a combination of many, many modest improvements to
produce a car that is a giant leap forward. It suddenly makes
vehicles which seemed fairly pedestrian now look practical."
The Impact was a joint effort of GM and AeroEnvironment, a small
California-based firm founded by MacCready, who was named "engineer of
the century" by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. (The
two firms had collaborated before on Sunraycer, an ultra-efficient car
that averaged 41.6 mph across Australia powered soley by sunlight.)
This investment notwithstanding, GM executives say that to justify
production they must be assured of "strong buyer intention," which
means annual sales of 250,000 or more.
That's unlikely in the United States at present. But whereas
President Bush may believe that not enough is known about global
warming for the United States to act, other nations do not necessarily
share this view. Only last week, for example, a Japanese government
official visiting here described that country's long-range plan to
move toward a future devoid of fossil fuels. But even without
encouragement from the federal government, many experts believe that
America will be driving electric vehicles within 15 years. (See box.)
MacCready, despite his work on the Impact, says "battery-powered cars
are not a panacea for the energy and pollution problems"--but "they
can provide substantial improvement and may buy society more time."
Meanwhile, electric cars are just one in a burgeoning series of new
technologies ready to be commercialized:
o Toyota has developed an experimental prototype, the AXV, said to
achieve 100 miles per gallon while seating four comfortably. It uses
a direct-injection diesel engine, aerodynamic design and many of the
qualities found in the Impact. Yet the only place it can be found is
on a pedestal in Toyota City, Japan.
o Volvo has built four copies of the LCP 2000, a four-seater
prototype that gets 83 mpg (highway) and 63 (city) while designed to
meet all U.S. crash and pollution standards. Such cars, according to
the head of the Volvo's design team, could be modified to run on
virtually anything from palm oil to Kentucky bourbon.
o Mercedes and BMW have each built hydrogen-fueled cars. Although
the two firms consider such cars to be at least 20 years away from
mass production, they are continuing to pour money into their
development.
Yet for all this innovation, it seems as if each passing year brings
only more talk of what the future may hold, rather than progress
towards it. Most industry-watchers blame the relatively low price of
fuel for stalling these technologies. "If you could get gasoline to
cost $5 a gallon instead of $1," says MacCready, "the inventive muscle
of the United States would be harnessed. What the U.S. needs is an
environmental Gorbachev."
What's Good for GM?
------------------------------
Because of the long-term commitment required to develop, manufacture
and sell vehicles employing advanced or nonstandard
technologies--especially in a period of fluctuating fuel
prices--automakers say they need federal incentives or attractive
market potential. At present, American society offers neither,
entrusting the fate of our most promising innovations to business
executives.
It was Charles Wilson, a former president of GM, who in 1963 said that
"For years I thought what was good for our country was good for
General Motors and vice versa." Some industry observers are beginning
to question that sentiment. Even Fortune magazine--not noted for its
sharp criticism of U.S. industry--wrote recently: "Customers prefer
steak, but Detroit continues to market sizzle."
Perhaps. But if so, the White House and Congress are planning the
menu.
(Box)
FUTURE SHOCK
Around the world, numerous corporations are showing increasing
interest in electric automobiles. Earlier this year, six Japanese
manufacturers--including Nissan and Toyota, the country's
largest--unveiled electric cars at the Tokyo Auto Show. In addition,
BMW, Peugeot and Volkswagen have developed models powered in whole or
par by electricity. The BMW already has a range of over 100 miles in
city driving, and the company's target is to hit a 133-mile range with
this model, which is their bottom-of-the-line 325i equipped with
sodium sulfur batteries.
This summer, the first copies of battery-powered "G-vans"--essentially
conventional GM vans converted to electrical power--will roll off
assembly lines, destined for 43 customers. Early versions of the
vans, produced by Canadian conglomerate Magna International, have
collectively logged 300,000 miles since 1985.
In Los Angeles, authorities are determined to put 10,000 electric cars
on the road within three years. The author of the program, City
Councilman Marvin Braude, says unequivocally: "We're going to ride
them, use them and buy them."
[Curtis Moore served for 11 years as counsel to the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, and is a Washington environmental
analyst and writer.]
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de!ira.uka.de!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!
psuvax1!psuvm!k02
From: K...@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Articles on GM's Impact and the power of the pen.
Message-ID: < 90080.1...@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 21 Mar 90 20:42:23 GMT
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 31
Posted: Wed Mar 21 21:42:23 1990
I am interested in reading more about GM's new electric car called Impact.
I quickly looked through recent issues of Automotive Engineer and
Automotive Engineering but found nothing. I have read short articles
in Popular Science and IEEE Institute, but I am looking for something
more in depth. Can anyone help me? Has GM published anything?
Also, like many netters, I find the possibility of an electric car
produced in large numbers by a US carmaker quite exciting. In order to
help this along I propose a write-in campaign aimed at GM. Does anyone
know where such letters should be addressed? I know Roger Smith is
retiring. Is there an executive more sympathetic to the Impact (perhaps
at Hughes) than the others who we might be able to supply with ammo by
writing letters? If anyone has the inside scoop, please contact me.
If there is an interest, I will draw up a standard letter in a number
of formats like troff, script and postscript and put it on the network.
I was thinking of a letter just stating that we thought the Impact was
a good idea and should be made available as soon as possible. I also
thought that we should state in the letter that we will consider
purchasing the Impact when it is produced.
Never underestimate the power of the pen. Remember what happened when
Coke changed its formula?
Thanks in advance. And let me know what you think (I guess I already know
that you will).
/ US mail: P.O. Box 622
/ / /___ / Milesburg, PA 16853
/ _ (_ __ / \ __ /\ (_ __ MCI: (814) 353-8514
(__/ (_)_/ (_/ (_ / \ (_(_/(_)_/ (_(_(_ Bitnet: k...@psuvm.psu.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!
haven!udel!princeton!samadams!tr
From: t...@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Articles on GM's Impact and the power of the pen.
Message-ID: <25183@princeton.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 26 Mar 90 19:57:37 GMT
References: <90080.154223K02@psuvm.psu.edu> <2651@limey>
Sender: ne...@princeton.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 14
Posted: Mon Mar 26 20:57:37 1990
What's so exciting about a battery powered car? It's probably less
fuel-efficient than petroleum, because recharging a battery is probably
less efficient than burning fuel directly.
The problem with internal combustion cars is not the kind of engine,
but the fact that it is private motorized transportation. It's a very
flawed idea that we have bought into en masse over the past decades.
Sure, everyone loves the independence it gives, but it costs more to
everyone than just the out-of-pocket expenses. If gasoline were priced
according to the real costs to society, things may change. (The same
goes for garbage, but I've already digressed too much.)
--
Tom Reingold
t...@samadams.princeton.edu
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!
hpcc01!gph
From: g...@hpcc01.HP.COM (Paul Houtz)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Articles on GM's Impact and the power of the pen.
Message-ID: <10760007@hpcc01.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Mar 90 17:41:06 GMT
References: <90080.154223K02@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: HP Corporate Computing Center
Lines: 59
Posted: Tue Mar 27 18:41:06 1990
t...@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) writes:
>What's so exciting about a battery powered car? It's probably less
>fuel-efficient than petroleum, because recharging a battery is probably
>less efficient than burning fuel directly.
Do you really want to know what is so exciting abnout a battery
powered car?
Did you hear in the national news last night how the incidents of
skin melanomas is so high now, due to extra ultraviolet coming
through the depleted ozone layers, that the are recommending that
NO ONE go out in the sun unless they are wearing at least a
15 sunblock?
Do you know that global warming is expected to have a significant
impact on the world climates within the next 20 - 30 years?
A battery powered car is NOT less fuel_efficient that gasoline. Period.
The people who advertise that kind of HOGWASH are making a very SIMPLE
mistake. And they are not going to tell you what it is. But I will.
They compare the so called "cost of energy" of a battery operated car
with the cost of energy of a gasoline powered car traveling at 55mph
on the highway. This is totally bogus.
It is absolutely true that a gas powered car going down the highway at
55 mph is very efficient to run. But look at a city like Los Angeles,
or New York, or even San Francisco. What percentage of the driving is
done on highways going 55 mph?
In fact, battery powered cars should be used for the short trips and
errands that are so unbelievably hard on gas cars, and cause so much
of the waste in fuel and unnecessary pollution.
Another LIE that the gas powered car supporters like to use is that
battery powered cars can't run on solar power, and that they have a ]
limited range.
Imagine this scenario: Every family that now has 2 gas powered cars trades
one in for an solar-rechargeable battery powered car. Then, when they
go on a long trip to visit grandma, they all pile into the gas powered car
or van.
However, for most of their driving around town, they use the battery powered
car. This scenario would drastically reduce the amount of urban air
pollution,and would probably make gas powered cars last 5 times longer.
This is exactly why the car companies DON'T want to produce an electric car.
They would sell much fewer cars in total if they did, and their only reason
for existence is to sell as many cars as they can.
I believe the main problem is the size of the automobile manufacturers.
They are so big that they must sell many cars to survive. It is no longer
possible for them to consider a different way of doing business.
I strongly believe that the technology now exists to make a viable and
marketable electric car. But it will NEVER NEVER NEVER come from GM, or
FORD, or Toyota.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!rcsac1!rhaar
From: rhaar@rcsac1.UUCP (Bob Haar CS50)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Articles on GM's Impact and the power of the pen.
Message-ID: <22716@rcsac1.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 90 14:04:13 GMT
References: <90080.154223K02@psuvm.psu.edu> <10760007@hpcc01.HP.COM>
Reply-To: rhaar@rcsac1.UUCP (Bob Haar CS50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI
Lines: 92
Posted: Wed Mar 28 15:04:13 1990
In article < 1076...@hpcc01.HP.COM> g...@hpcc01.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes:
>t...@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) writes:
>
>>What's so exciting about a battery powered car? It's probably less
>>fuel-efficient than petroleum, because recharging a battery is probably
>>less efficient than burning fuel directly.
>
>A battery powered car is NOT less fuel_efficient that gasoline. Period.
>The people who advertise that kind of HOGWASH are making a very SIMPLE
>mistake. And they are not going to tell you what it is. But I will.
>.....
>
>Imagine this scenario: Every family that now has 2 gas powered cars trades
>one in for an solar-rechargeable battery powered car. Then, when they
>go on a long trip to visit grandma, they all pile into the gas powered car
>or van.
>
>However, for most of their driving around town, they use the battery powered
>car. This scenario would drastically reduce the amount of urban air
>pollution,and would probably make gas powered cars last 5 times longer.
>
>This is exactly why the car companies DON'T want to produce an electric car.
>They would sell much fewer cars in total if they did, and their only reason
>for existence is to sell as many cars as they can.
>
I don't follow your reasoning here. Given your scenario, LOTS of people
would be buying electric cars to replace internal combustion cars that
they have now. This sounds like a huge market to me. If you think that
GM or Ford or Japan-Inc., etc. wouldn't like to sell these electric cars,
you are wrong.
>I believe the main problem is the size of the automobile manufacturers.
>They are so big that they must sell many cars to survive. It is no longer
>possible for them to consider a different way of doing business.
>
Yes, GM has to sell many cars, but it is not tied to the internal
combustion engine. GM would gladly sellcars that use hamsters in a
squirrel cage if there was a market.
>I strongly believe that the technology now exists to make a viable and
>marketable electric car. But it will NEVER NEVER NEVER come from GM, or
>FORD, or Toyota.
The consensus of people I have talked to and read is that electric
cars are technically possible, but not practical yet. There are two
problems: energy storage and public acceptance. The average person
would have to change his habits to use an electric car - you can't
just pull in the service station and get you batteries "filled up"
in a few minutes whenever needed. You must plan to recharge during
uused periods. Not insurmountable, but this kind of problem means
that market acceptance is very iffy.
The engineering show-stopper is energy storage, i.e. batteries. Before
electric cars can be practical, we need bettery technologies that
are lighter, store more energy, recharge faster, have longer liftimes,
and are cheaper. There are techniques in labs now that show promise,
but none are ready.
I am not involved with the electric car project in GM, but I do know
that GM is reconsidering the issue because they were suprise by
the response to the Impact. I guarantee that if GM management thought
we could make money selling electric cars, we would. If you want
to see this happen, let GM know that you would buy one. Write to
Roger SMith (his address was posted recently). ALso, visit your
GM dealers and tell them you would like to buy this new Impact you
have been hearing about - those vultures will jump at anything that
smells like money.
GM is exploring a number of alternative power systems. There is a
major effort in two-stroke engines that will be lighter, smaller,
and cleaner than a four-stroke of the same power output. In the
past there has been research in gas-turbine and rotary engines.
One program that seems more likely IMHO than a pure electric car
is the hybrid car that combines electric motors with a small
internal combustion (IC) engine. The IC engine runs at a constant
speed and can be vvery efficient. It is only used when need - when
the batteries are low, when extra power is needed for acceleration,
etc. - or when travelling at steady highway speeds. This sounds like
the best of both worlds, but the practical problem is still batteries.
GM is incredibly slow in responding to market changes. It takes us
about five years to go from concept to production cars. There
are lots of reasons for this and GM is trying to change, but this
is the current situation. If you want electric or other alternate-
power vehicles, speak up now.
ps. I can also guarantee that none of the GM upper management read
this news group. Posting here will not get the message to them.
Bob Haar
Computer Science Department
G.M. Research Laboratories
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!
hpcc01!gph
From: g...@hpcc01.HP.COM (Paul Houtz)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Articles on GM's Impact and the power of the pen.
Message-ID: <10760008@hpcc01.HP.COM>
Date: 29 Mar 90 19:00:16 GMT
References: <90080.154223K02@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: HP Corporate Computing Center
Lines: 67
Posted: Thu Mar 29 20:00:16 1990
rhaar@rcsac1.UUCP (Bob Haar CS50) writes:
I wrote:
>>This is exactly why the car companies DON'T want to produce an electric car.
>>They would sell much fewer cars in total if they did, and their only reason
>>for existence is to sell as many cars as they can.
>>>
He writes:
>I don't follow your reasoning here. Given your scenario, LOTS of people
>would be buying electric cars to replace internal combustion cars that
>they have now. This sounds like a huge market to me. If you think that
>GM or Ford or Japan-Inc., etc. wouldn't like to sell these electric cars,
>you are wrong.
Note that Bob is writing form General Motors, and there seems to be no
disclaimer. So we must assume that the opinions expressed are not only
Bob's, but also GM's.
Here is the reason why GM will never voluntarily produce an electric car:
Electric cars have few moving parts, therefore, they require less service,
maintenance, and last longer.
If electric cars are used for short errands, the gas powered cars in the
same households will be used mainly for long trips, which could increase
their life by 4 - 10 times (see "Drive it Forever" by Robert Sikorsky).
Therefore, each electric car sold by GM could possibly result in a loss
of 4 - 6 sales of gasoline powered cars. GM, Ford, and Chrysler simply
can't take that risk. I don't believe that the Japanese car companies
would take the risk either.
Regarding the other point of whether battery operated cars are practical,
the answer simple. Of course they are.
Look at the stupid little two battery golf carts running around on the
golf courses. If they had a solar panel on the top of their little
umbrellas, they probably wouldn't use as much energy on the golf
course as the get from the cell. My father-in-law, who is a former
GM personnel manager, drives one around all the time.
If you put 10 such batteries in the same size vehicle, you could EASILY
use it to drive a mile or two to the grocery store, post office, or
shopping mall. With a couple more batteries, you could do your daily
commute in it, if it is a short commute. Sure you might have to
restrict the speed to 40 mph, but I seem to see a lot of mopeds running
around with that kind of speed restriction, and less safety and storage
room, all the time.
I would LOVE to have one. I would pay $10,000 for one right now. I think
that there are probably at least a few million people like me in California
right now, who would buy one. If I knew anything about manufacturing, I
would start my own company and go into production right now. One of these
days some little company is going to do it, and then the electric cars will
get better and better and better, and the gas powered cars, and major auto
manufactureres, will go the way of the dinosaurs.
Finally, I don't actually care whether GM management reads this newsgroup
or not. Because someone out there could get an idea from what I post, and
soon I could be seeing an ad for the car I want. That's all I care about.
gph
Note: The opinions expressed above are my own, and have nothing to do with
the company I work for.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!rcsac1!rhaar
From: rhaar@rcsac1.UUCP (Bob Haar CS50)
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Articles on GM's Impact and the power of the pen.
Message-ID: <22751@rcsac1.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 90 14:49:10 GMT
References: <90080.154223K02@psuvm.psu.edu> <10760008@hpcc01.HP.COM>
Reply-To: rhaar@rcsac1.UUCP (Bob Haar CS50)
Organization: GM Research Labs, Warren, MI
Lines: 146
Posted: Fri Mar 30 15:49:10 1990
In article < 1076...@hpcc01.HP.COM> g...@hpcc01.HP.COM (Paul Houtz) writes:
>rhaar@rcsac1.UUCP (Bob Haar CS50) writes:
>
>I wrote:
>>>This is exactly why the car companies DON'T want to produce an electric car.
>>>They would sell much fewer cars in total if they did, and their only reason
>>>for existence is to sell as many cars as they can.
>>>>
>
>He writes:
>
>>I don't follow your reasoning here. Given your scenario, LOTS of people
>>would be buying electric cars to replace internal combustion cars that
>>they have now. This sounds like a huge market to me. If you think that
>>GM or Ford or Japan-Inc., etc. wouldn't like to sell these electric cars,
>>you are wrong.
>
>Note that Bob is writing form General Motors, and there seems to be no
>disclaimer. So we must assume that the opinions expressed are not only
>Bob's, but also GM's.
My mistake. The opinions stated were my own, not official GM policy. I did
say that I am not connected to the electric car project. I get tired of
reading half-page signatures that disclaim everything including the
existance of the author so I leave them off. I am writing my own, personal
opinions based on public knowledge, persaonl experience. I am not part of
any production program in GM. At GM Research Labs, we are charged with
basic research and long term R&D (10 to 20 years). My project is investigating
computer architectures for vehicles in the year 2000 and beyond. In doing this,
I talk a great deal with GM engineers who are design the production vehicles,
so I do know something of their position.
One of the frustrating things about working at GM is that we have to
depend on public media to learn our own product direction and high level
policy decisions that effect us.
>
As announced on local radio yesterday, GM will be marketing a small-
volume ( ~2,000 vehicles) electric van based on the full-size GMC G-van
next year (i don't know if this means MY91 or 92) with 15,000 vehicle
production in the following year. The electric van is apparently targeted
commercial use in urba areas - uses like local deliveries and household
services (plumbers, etc.). In my (personal, not official GM) opinion, this
seems like an ideal test market.
>Here is the reason why GM will never voluntarily produce an electric car:
>
>Electric cars have few moving parts, therefore, they require less service,
>maintenance, and last longer.
I can tell you from personal knowledge that this is misleading at best.
This type of reasoning may be how marketing people think, but it is
not how GM engineers operate. The are striving for simplicity, dependability,
and servicability. GM is currently working on car designs with the intent
of having a 100,000 mile warrantee on all emissions-related components.
I am not saying that GM does a good job of carrying thorough on these intents.
There are many internal forces that work against it. The amount of
corporate beauracracy and divisional infighting is incredible.
>
>If electric cars are used for short errands, the gas powered cars in the
>same households will be used mainly for long trips, which could increase
>their life by 4 - 10 times (see "Drive it Forever" by Robert Sikorsky).
>
I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I have seen studies that
show that most multi-person households that own any vehicles already
have at least two cars and use them in much this fashion. my own
persoanl observations bear this out.
Also, most families would really need two "local-use" vehicles. Either both
spouses work in different locations or one works and the other needs a
vehicle for grocery shopping, etc.
>Therefore, each electric car sold by GM could possibly result in a loss
>of 4 - 6 sales of gasoline powered cars. GM, Ford, and Chrysler simply
>can't take that risk. I don't believe that the Japanese car companies
>would take the risk either.
>
The Japanese car companies are very good at recognizing and meeting
small niche markets quickly. If there was a real opportunity here
today, at least one company would be selling electric commuter cars.
>Regarding the other point of whether battery operated cars are practical,
>the answer simple. Of course they are.
>
>Look at the stupid little two battery golf carts running around on the
>golf courses. If they had a solar panel on the top of their little
>umbrellas, they probably wouldn't use as much energy on the golf
>course as the get from the cell. My father-in-law, who is a former
>GM personnel manager, drives one around all the time.
>
>If you put 10 such batteries in the same size vehicle, you could EASILY
>use it to drive a mile or two to the grocery store, post office, or
>shopping mall. With a couple more batteries, you could do your daily
>commute in it, if it is a short commute. Sure you might have to
>restrict the speed to 40 mph, but I seem to see a lot of mopeds running
>around with that kind of speed restriction, and less safety and storage
>room, all the time.
There is more to feasibility than building a souped-up golf cart. I don't
believe that most people would accept such a vehicle today. Things my
be different where you live, but around my home, you must travel on roads
with 45 mph speed limits and 55+ mph traffic to get to any stores. The top
speed and acceleration of a gold cart , even with twice the battery supply,
would get you killed quickly.
There is also the problem of meeting saftey regulations. As it stands now,
electric cars would have to meet all the same regulatory requirements that
internal combustion powered cars do. Mopeds are comparatively free
from regulation. Even if building these in was free, the added weight would
require much more power than you can get by adding some battery capacity.
There is a real snowball effect. You add batteries, this requires a heavier
structure to support, which requires bigger motors, which reuires more
batteries, etc.
>I would LOVE to have one. I would pay $10,000 for one right now. I think
>that there are probably at least a few million people like me in California
>right now, who would buy one. If I knew anything about manufacturing, I
>would start my own company and go into production right now. One of these
>days some little company is going to do it, and then the electric cars will
>get better and better and better, and the gas powered cars, and major auto
>manufactureres, will go the way of the dinosaurs.
>
>Finally, I don't actually care whether GM management reads this newsgroup
>or not. Because someone out there could get an idea from what I post, and
>soon I could be seeing an ad for the car I want. That's all I care about.
Then I ask, what are you doing to make it happen? What are you doing to make
GM and the other car companies aware of what you want? If you really believe
that a little company could successfully build and market electric cars today,
why don't you start your own company and get rich?
>
>gph
>
>Note: The opinions expressed above are my own, and have nothing to do with
>the company I work for.
DISCLAIMER: I am a General Motors employee, but everything written here or in
earlier messages is my personal opinion based on public information and
personal experience. They should not be interpreted as statements or
implications oof official positions taken by General Motors or any of its
officers.
Bob Haar
G.M. Research Labs
umich!sharkey!cfctech!rphroy!rcsuna!rhaar