Page 1 of 1

OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile cars?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:01 am
by Voyager
The technology for full-featured electric cars that run for 2-cents per mile has been perfected for years. Why are the car makers just now getting around to producing them - and why do we have to wait two more years to get one? I'm getting sick of paying 32-cents per mile to drive my 13-mpg gas guzzling Escalade! My question is - why didn't they go this route 10 years ago when the car makers already had the technology? Surely they could have predicted higher gas prices with the all the new Chinese drivers buying cars for the first time at the rate of 28,000-per-day (thanks to the USA transferring our wealth to China via WalMart).

GM charges up the Chevy Volt
General Motors gives the world an up-close look at its new electric car.

Image

Looking to the futureGeneral Motors unveiled the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle on Tuesday, allowing outsiders their first full look at the car GM says will go on sale in 2010.
"The Volt symbolizes GM's commitment to the future," said Rick Wagoner, the company's chairman and CEO.

The Volt will be driven by electricity stored in a large T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack running the length of the car. After charging for several hours, the Volt will be able to run for up to about 40 miles without using gasoline.

GM did not announce pricing for the car, which will have the equivalent of about 150 horsepower and a top speed of 100 mph, the automaker said.

The car's zero-to-sixty time will be under nine seconds, said GM vehicle line director Tony Posawatz. That would make the performance about average for a modern car

"The center of gravity of the car, with the center battery pack, it's going to have real great ride and handling," said Posawatz.

To charge the batteries, drivers will plug a cord into a port just ahead of the driver's side mirror. The cord can then be attached to an ordinary home electrical outlet.

The car will cost "less than purchasing a cup of your favorite coffee" to recharge, and use less electricity annually than a refrigerator, according to GM. The Volt should cost less than 2 cents per mile to drive on electricity, GM said, compared with 12 cents a mile on gasoline at a price of $3.60 a gallon.

As the battery begins to run down as the car is in use, a small gasoline engine will turn on and generate enough electricity to drive the car about 300 miles, said GM.

Unlike hybrid cars, or plug-in hybrids, the Volt is driven only by electricity. The gasoline engine never directly drives the car's wheels.

Image

Based on photos released last week - inadvertently, GM says - many people posting comments on car blogs have expressed disappointment that the production car does not look as angular and aggressive as the original concept vehicle.

"The majority of [the comments] are negative," Lyle Dennis, a New Jersey neurologist who runs the blog GM-Volt.com, said last week. "A lot of people are saying they're very disappointed and 'take me off the [waiting] list.' "

GM executives said Tuesday that those pictures, which were set up to feature the executives, didn't do the car justice.

"I hate those pictures," said Ed Welburn, GM's vice-president for global design.

GM (GM, Fortune 500) regularly uses the Volt concept car, introduced at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show, in its advertising, identifying it as "future product."

That concept car's angular face wasn't aerodynamically efficient enough to make it to the final version as GM engineers and designers tried to extract every extra foot of "all electric" range from the car, GM designers have said.

Even though the car doesn't need very much cooling air, since the gas engine will only be used occasionally, the car maintains the appearance of a front grill. It is mostly closed, though.

The grill was important to maintain the car's design relationship to other Chevrolet products.

"This is in line with Chevrolet," Welburn said. "Maybe more modern than the others. That link is a very important link."

The Volt will seat four, not five as some other cars its size can, according to GM. The space required by the battery pack would not allow for a center seating position in the back.
The interior has a futuristic design, but it maintains the twin-cockpit look derived from the classic Corvette sports car, which has become a trademark design in recent Chevrolet cars.

The gear selector, when pushed forward into the "Park" position, sits in an opening in the car's dashboard creating a smooth appearance. Once the car is turned on, it can be pulled back to "Drive."

The Volt's battery pack goes where the "transmission tunnel" would be in a conventional rear-wheel-drive car. That means the batteries don't take up cargo space as they do in some hybrid cars. Unlike its smoothly rounded front, the back end of the car has a sharp, angular shape. In the rear, where air flows together as it trails off from the vehicle, sharp angles help smooth air flow.

A wing incorporated into the trailing edge of the roof also helps to smooth airflow helping fuel economy.
The center controls on the car are electronic rather than relying on mechanical knobs and switches, giving the interior a more futuristic look. Other electrical features on the car are designed to, in the final analysis, save electric power. The car will have power windows and heated seats because, otherwise, people might overuse the car's climate control system, a GM spokesman said.

The Volt will have a central display screen - similar to one in a Toyota Prius hybrid - that will show how the car is using electric power, when the batteries are being charged and whether the gasoline engine is turned on.

This first-generation Chevy Volt is expected to be fairly expensive, Posawatz conceded. (Some reports have put the price at $40,000.) But GM is not looking to make much money, if any, on the car, he said.

GM is expecting to produce at least 10,000 Volts in the car's first year and higher numbers after that, he said.


8)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:06 am
by Don
Wasn't there a rumour that the oil companies really owned the patents for all this electrical car stuff and were waiting until they milked everything out of the old designs money wise before they start a new monopoly?

Is that what you call a run on sentence?

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:09 am
by Voyager
Gunbot wrote:Wasn't there a rumour that the oil companies really owned the patents for all this electrical car stuff and were waiting until they milked everything out of the old designs money wise before they start a new monopoly?

Is that what you call a run on sentence?


No, it was just a paragraph forced into a sentence - LOL!

I don't doubt that the oil companies own the patents on this stuff. That would explain everything. Our politicians are in their pockets, so they didn't push for it either.

8)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:13 am
by RedWingFan
Voyager wrote:I don't doubt that the oil companies own the patents on this stuff. That would explain everything.

I heard they planted the patents on Bigfoot and sent them both to the moon while the government was filming that fake moon landing in the desert!!! :lol:

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:18 am
by Don
RedWingFan wrote:
Voyager wrote:I don't doubt that the oil companies own the patents on this stuff. That would explain everything.

I heard they planted the patents on Bigfoot and sent them both to the moon while the government was filming that fake moon landing in the desert!!! :lol:


I've got some other crazy stuff from the rumor mill in the back of my notebook, just waiting to unleash them. :lol:

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:37 am
by Arianddu
Gunbot wrote:
RedWingFan wrote:
Voyager wrote:I don't doubt that the oil companies own the patents on this stuff. That would explain everything.

I heard they planted the patents on Bigfoot and sent them both to the moon while the government was filming that fake moon landing in the desert!!! :lol:


I've got some other crazy stuff from the rumor mill in the back of my notebook, just waiting to unleash them. :lol:


But do you have the one that claims Steve Perry spends most of his time in a stasis machine, which is why he isn't in the public eye and seems to be aging so slowly? :lol: :lol:

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 11:49 am
by Voyager
RedWingFan wrote:
Voyager wrote:I don't doubt that the oil companies own the patents on this stuff. That would explain everything.

I heard they planted the patents on Bigfoot and sent them both to the moon while the government was filming that fake moon landing in the desert!!! :lol:


[img][img]http://www.myebayfiles.com/stuff/evh-bigfoot-moshzilla.jpg[/img]

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:20 pm
by separate_wayz
Voyager wrote:The technology for full-featured electric cars that run for 2-cents per mile has been perfected for years. Why are the car makers just now getting around to producing them - and why do we have to wait two more years to get one? I'm getting sick of paying 32-cents per mile to drive my 13-mpg gas guzzling Escalade! My question is - why didn't they go this route 10 years ago when the car makers already had the technology? Surely they could have predicted higher gas prices with the all the new Chinese drivers buying cars for the first time at the rate of 28,000-per-day (thanks to the USA transferring our wealth to China via WalMart).


But that's just it .... the technology has not been "perfected for years". GM is working furiously -- over 24 hours each day, in three shifts per day -- to develop the battery necessary for the Volt. It is far from perfected yet. There are issues of heat, weight, holding a charge, and a number of other problems. And that doesn't even begin to address issues about manufacturability of these things.

Normally, a company would develop the battery first, then develop the vehicle around it later -- GM is attempting to develop both at the same time. If it works, it will be a first. This has never been done before.

The other point is: it's ultimately the economic factors that determine whether the Chevy Volt (or any other car) are a net benefit to consumers, not the technological factors. Unless the total cost of operating the car are less than a gasoline-powered car, it's not a benefit.

The article talks about 2-cents per mile. That's a very one-sided way of looking at things. That figure (if it's even accurate) only considers the variable cost, not the fixed cost. To consider the total cost per mile, you have to consider both the variable cost and the fixed cost.

TC = FC + VC

The reason why this is important is the estimated cost figure mentioned in the article: $40,000. That's the fixed cost. If amortized over a period of time, and divided by number of miles, that figure will dramatically increase the FC part of the equation. The cost per mile (TC, total cost) will shoot up.

What that means is that a car that's cheap to operate ($0.02 per mile) may really be cost-prohibitive when the price of the car itself is factored-in. The Wall Street Journal showed this a few months ago. Because huge discounts on SUVs are now offered by dealers, you may be better off financially buying one of these as a second vehicle (for, say, 8-10,000 miles a year) rather buying a no-discount Honda Civic or Toyota Prius (which may now actually sell over MSRP). The FC is lower on the one with the VC higher (Ford Explorer); in comparison, on the other one, the FC is higher with the VC lower (Toyota Prius). Although it seems against common sense, you might be MUCH better off buying the Ford Explorer and driving it 8,000 miles a year, rather than buying the Toyota Prius and driving it 8,000 miles a year.

One analysis of the Chevy Volt concluded that it would be so cost-prohibitive (Total Cost), that it would only be useful as a third vehicle for most families. Maybe it'll be a technological breakthrough, but it might be an economic step backwards for most families.

I wish GM all the luck in the world. But from what I've seen so far, it's far from certain that this will be the breakthrough that's been hyped.

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:39 am
by jrnyman28
Voyager wrote:
GM charges up the Chevy Volt
General Motors gives the world an up-close look at its new electric car.

The Volt will be driven by electricity stored in a large T-shaped lithium-ion battery pack running the length of the car. After charging for several hours, the Volt will be able to run for up to about 40 miles without using gasoline.


This is where I am confused. I can only drive @40 miles on one charge?

Technology costs. Seems like if they want to convert people's way of thinking the easiest way is to make it cheap. Same as eating healthy. If "we" really want to change the mindset of the nation and help everyone eat healthier than healthy choices would cost less. Instead, they cost more because retail is targetting the people who WANT to eat healthy. If "we" really want to change to a society who does not rely on oil, then the alternatives need to be cheaper than the norm.

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 5:51 am
by Enigma869
jrnyman28 wrote:Seems like if they want to convert people's way of thinking the easiest way is to make it cheap. Same as eating healthy. If "we" really want to change the mindset of the nation and help everyone eat healthier than healthy choices would cost less. Instead, they cost more because retail is targetting the people who WANT to eat healthy. If "we" really want to change to a society who does not rely on oil, then the alternatives need to be cheaper than the norm.



Excellent post! I agree with you, 100%. I have never been able to figure out why it costs so much more money to buy healthy foods. Some healthy food products have more than a 100% markup, over their less than healthy counterparts, and it simply makes zero sense.


John from Boston

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:12 am
by Rick
According to a video I watched, the U.S. economy will collapse if we don't buy oil from the middle east. Why? Well, take some time and watch it yourself. See what you think. I'm not sure whether to believe this guy or not.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7167011147

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:17 am
by conversationpc
Rick wrote:According to a video I watched, the U.S. economy will collapse if we don't buy oil from the middle east. Why? Well, take some time and watch it yourself. See what you think. I'm not sure whether to believe this guy or not.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7167011147


I watched a few videos by this guy a few weeks ago and, at first, it was pretty stunning. However, there are some good arguments out there against what he's saying. I'm not sure how much to believe of what he says.

I can't remember right now but at least one of his predictions didn't come to pass. I can't remember which one right now but I'll post it here if I find it or remember it.

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:36 am
by Blueskies
Enigma869 wrote:
jrnyman28 wrote:Seems like if they want to convert people's way of thinking the easiest way is to make it cheap. Same as eating healthy. If "we" really want to change the mindset of the nation and help everyone eat healthier than healthy choices would cost less. Instead, they cost more because retail is targetting the people who WANT to eat healthy. If "we" really want to change to a society who does not rely on oil, then the alternatives need to be cheaper than the norm.



Excellent post! I agree with you, 100%. I have never been able to figure out why it costs so much more money to buy healthy foods. Some healthy food products have more than a 100% markup, over their less than healthy counterparts, and it simply makes zero sense.


John from Boston
First off...cured and or healthy people don't bring repeat business. The insurance companies nor the medical industry don't really want everyone to be healthy....that would seriously cut into their profits.....the payoff is better for people to be sick a lot and to die.....look at the pharmacutical industry....you know...the drug pushers....every other commercial is hocking some pill or another.....and when your in the doc's office 9 times out of 10 you'll see a salesman coming in hocking his wares...they get the docs promoting certain pills...heck they'll even give out free samples as a promotional tool...the entire industry as a whole have people thinking that they should take a pill for every little thing...real or imagined....but the companies that are promoting prevention, healthier alternatives, holistic approaches and foods are making great strides in the market now due to consumer demand....and due to that demand they can increase their profit margins as well by claiming the demand is not enough so therefore the higher price.....battle for the buck.....want to be healthier?...it's gonna cost ya......want to continue eating crap it will cost you...but not only with your wallet. So...what to do? More and more consumer demand for healthier choices and their availability and at a reasonable price ...once they dominate the marketplace the price will reflect that pressure and demand.

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:48 am
by RedWingFan
Blueskies wrote:The insurance companies nor the medical industry don't really want everyone to be healthy....that would seriously cut into their profits.....the payoff is better for people to be sick a lot and to die

Yeah, that's why American's lifespan is so much shorter than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. :roll:
Blueskies wrote:look at the pharmacutical industry....you know...the drug pushers....every other commercial is hocking some pill or another.....and when your in the doc's office 9 times out of 10 you'll see a salesman coming in hocking his wares...they get the docs promoting certain pills...heck they'll even give out free samples as a promotional tool...the entire industry as a whole have people thinking that they should take a pill for every little thing

Look at how long it takes to get a drug approved and on the market. Look at the amount of money it costs. Then figure in that the company only has a certain time period to hold exclusive rights to the patent before a generic version hits the market. They only have that short timeperiod to make money off their investment. Bastards. :roll:
Blueskies wrote:battle for the buck.....want to be healthier?...it's gonna cost ya......

Oh yeah? A head of lettuce is still a buck, and I'm not aware of any toll booths you have to squeeze through to walk around the block. :lol:

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:58 am
by Blueskies
RedWingFan wrote:
Blueskies wrote:The insurance companies nor the medical industry don't really want everyone to be healthy....that would seriously cut into their profits.....the payoff is better for people to be sick a lot and to die

Yeah, that's why American's lifespan is so much shorter than it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. :roll:
Blueskies wrote:look at the pharmacutical industry....you know...the drug pushers....every other commercial is hocking some pill or another.....and when your in the doc's office 9 times out of 10 you'll see a salesman coming in hocking his wares...they get the docs promoting certain pills...heck they'll even give out free samples as a promotional tool...the entire industry as a whole have people thinking that they should take a pill for every little thing

Look at how long it takes to get a drug approved and on the market. Look at the amount of money it costs. Then figure in that the company only has a certain time period to hold exclusive rights to the patent before a generic version hits the market. They only have that short timeperiod to make money off their investment. Bastards. :roll:
Blueskies wrote:battle for the buck.....want to be healthier?...it's gonna cost ya......

Oh yeah? A head of lettuce is still a buck, and I'm not aware of any toll booths you have to squeeze through to walk around the block. :lol:
Don't dissect!...I don't have time to go one for one on talking points today! :lol:....and besides...lettuce has very little nutritional value! :lol: :wink:

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:59 am
by jrnyman28
Like I said: catering to those who "want" to be healthy or ecologically friendly. Those who "want" will pay.

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:11 am
by Enigma869
Blueskies wrote:Don't dissect!...I don't have time to go one for one on talking points today! :lol:....and besides...lettuce has very little nutritional value! :lol: :wink:



Good point there! Iceberg Lettuce has ZERO nutritional value. It's almost 100% water, which is why it's the only food that people perceive as "healthy" that is inexpensive. As soon as you decide you want lettuce that actually is healthy (like Romaine), the price immediately doubles or triples :shock:

John from Boston

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:11 am
by brywool
Rent "Who Killed The Electric Car" from Netflix. It will SERIOUSLY piss you off. We will never get cars like this because the oil companies and everything else that's tied to gas production. If you think we'll EVER get away from Eastern Oil, think again. It'll never happen.

With the Electric car in the (90s?) they had the answer. They leased a few hundred of these to prominent people (hanks, cruise, many others). They sung the praises of the car to everyone they could. It was a trial-type of thing where they got to lease it and check it out. At the end of the lease period nearly (or maybe) ALL the owners wanted to buy them. The company rounded each and every one of them up and destroyed every last one. Even in one of the major auto museums, there's one but they took out the motor and so you just see the car's body. The oil companies absolutely freaked out and their lobbiests killed it.

SERIOUSLY- Those that keep chanting "Green Green" are fooling themselves if they ever think our government will let us have these cars.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Re: OT: Why have the car makers hidden the 2-cent per mile c

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:28 am
by Sarah
Voyager wrote:I'm getting sick of paying 32-cents per mile to drive my 13-mpg gas guzzling Escalade!

There, I found your problem.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 18, 2008 8:30 am
by brywool
Rick wrote:According to a video I watched, the U.S. economy will collapse if we don't buy oil from the middle east. Why? Well, take some time and watch it yourself. See what you think. I'm not sure whether to believe this guy or not.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7167011147


DANG. Real interesting stuff. Not sure if you can believe it, but it makes sense when it's spelled out.