Volt Sleeps With the Fishes

[Lou_Dorchen]

Pete, some of your facts are incorrect.

Teflon was accidentally invented in 1938 at Kinetic Chemicals (which was a partnership between DuPont and GM). It was around long before the Space Race in the 1960s. It was first used in cooking by a French engineer in 1954 whose wife asked him to coat her pans with the material he had been using on his fishing tackle. He created his own company (Tefal) and was selling non-stick cookware in 1956. The first US-made Teflon coated pan (The Happy Pan) was sold in 1961. The US Gov't did use Teflon in the Manhattan Project though, but Teflon had already been patened in 1941. It was later trademarked in 1945.

Japan does subsidize their automakers, but look whats its getting them. Their national debt as a percentage of GDP was 225% in 2010, the highest in the world. Sooner or later the Japanese Gov't will run out of money and not be able to borrow more, and then what happens to those subsidized cars?

You are right about instant maximum torque though. I saw the American Chopper episode where OCC set the world record for an electric/battery powered motorcycle (7.469 @177mph) and even those guys were amazed at how it put down its maximum torque immediately, unlike bikes powered by internal combustion engines. I also agree wholeheartedly that many of the Big 3's problems are the result of Gov't regulations and environmental policies.


http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/77...bt-by-country/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/4/8134...-4-Record.aspx

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Rewriting history isn't the answer either.

The Ford Model T was introduced in 1908, and the assembly line was implemented to meet demand in 1913. Developement of said assembly line had actually been going on for years even before 1913. Ford couldn't make Model Ts fast enough to meet demand. Contrast that to the Volt which has so far undersold predictions so badly that you now have workers at the Volt assembly lines being sent home for 5 weeks due to lack of demand.

If everyone that shares your 'I would love to buy a Volt myself, but....' attitude actually bought Volts themselves, it would have surpassed expectations instead of failing to meet them. Since we are talking about why electric cars dont sell, I'm curious, why didn't YOU buy a Volt?

I'm talking about the cars BEFORE the model T obviously. And I was referring to the potential of the electric cars to sell once the kinks are worked out with the tech and they become more affordable, just like every other new technology.

[JusticePete]

Originally Posted by Lou_Dorchen

Pete, some of your facts are incorrect.

Teflon was accidentally invented in 1938 at Kinetic Chemicals (which was a partnership between DuPont and GM). It was around long before the Space Race in the 1960s. It was first used in cooking by a French engineer in 1954 whose wife asked him to coat her pans with the material he had been using on his fishing tackle. He created his own company (Tefal) and was selling non-stick cookware in 1956. The first US-made Teflon coated pan (The Happy Pan) was sold in 1961. The US Gov't did use Teflon in the Manhattan Project though, but Teflon had already been patened in 1941. It was later trademarked in 1945.

Japan does subsidize their automakers, but look whats its getting them. Their national debt as a percentage of GDP was 225% in 2010, the highest in the world. Sooner or later the Japanese Gov't will run out of money and not be able to borrow more, and then what happens to those subsidized cars?

You are right about instant maximum torque though. I saw the American Chopper episode where OCC set the world record for an electric/battery powered motorcycle (7.469 @177mph) and even those guys were amazed at how it put down its maximum torque immediately, unlike bikes powered by internal combustion engines. I also agree wholeheartedly that many of the Big 3's problems are the result of Gov't regulations and environmental policies.


http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/77...bt-by-country/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/4/8134...-4-Record.aspx

Did a fact check

NOT from the Space Program
Barcodes
Cordless power tools
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Quartz clocks
Smoke detectors
Tang juice powder
Teflon
Velcro

From the Space Program

Advanced artificial limbs
Structural analysis software
Composite Manufacturing
Scratch-resistant Lenses
Ventricular assist device
Fly-by-Wire
Cochlear implants
Medical purposed LEDs
PS300 powered lubricant
Control Algorithms Charge Batteries Faster... to deliver instant torque

Government spending on Defense and NASA fund development of new technologies and manufacturing processes. They are different from subsidies given to Fisker or Solyndra. The research done at the U of I on rapid charging is a developmental technology that will be shared with manufactures. Fisker, Solydra and GM are not in business to share manufacturing secrets with competitors.

Japan's economic malaise and national debt are warnings we should heed. I wasn't promoting direct economic support for industry. I was protesting the unfair economic advantage it provides a Japanese company like Toyota relative to a company like GM. The automotive industry is a brutally competitive market place. When we allow companies to sell products in the USA that are directly subsidized by foreign governments we place our manufacturing base at a tremendous competitive disadvantage.

Now back to that instant torque... that concept really intrigues me

[Lou_Dorchen]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

I'm talking about the cars BEFORE the model T obviously. And I was referring to the potential of the electric cars to sell once the kinks are worked out with the tech and they become more affordable, just like every other new technology.

The Ford cars before the Model T were successful as well. The first model was the 1903 Model A. Ford banked all of its entire initial investment funds on it. Despite having mechanixal and reliability issues, it made a profit and thus Ford was able to continue making and selling cars the free market wanted. Chevrolet also made money on their first car, the Series C Classic Six. Chevrolet was started in 1911 and by 1916 it was so profitable they bought a controlling share of GM. Ironically, one of Chevrolet's founders had been fired from GM in 1910.

I really don't know you are debating this. I simply said Americans do not want electric cars in large enough numbers to survive in the free market. That's 100% true, and Buzzy56 posted how this has actually happened TWICE despite favorable Gov't interference in the free market in both instances.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by Brokinarrow

I'm talking about the cars BEFORE the model T obviously. And I was referring to the potential of the electric cars to sell once the kinks are worked out with the tech and they become more affordable, just like every other new technology.

It's important to note that people who are members of a site that focuses on a performance car aren't going to care much about EVs and their views are going to be skewed. It would be like if you posted something about the Camaro on a Prius forum, nobody would care.

I would venture that the majority of Americans find the idea of alternative-fuel vehicles interesting and many would purchase one if it proved affordable and practical. Volt has nailed one of those qualities, the rest of the EVs haven't.

[Oddball]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

It's important to note that people who are members of a site that focuses on a performance car aren't going to care much about EVs and their views are going to be skewed. It would be like if you posted something about the Camaro on a Prius forum, nobody would care.

I would venture that the majority of Americans find the idea of alternative-fuel vehicles interesting and many would purchase one if it proved affordable and practical. Volt has nailed one of those qualities, the rest of the EVs haven't.

^ This. Exellent point Fen.

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Not sure why you think it is impracticle for 95% of the people. It is known that 70% of drivers commute less than 40 miles round trip per day making the Volt ideal for most drivers.

That point has been stated many times by many people but it's not a valid argument for stating that those peeps would be potential customers. The closer people live to their work, the more likely they are going to walk, bike, cab, bus or use rail. No market there so subtract them from the 70% and then tell me what the market is.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I would venture that the majority of Americans find the idea of alternative-fuel vehicles interesting and many would purchase one if it proved affordable and practical.

Holy cow! Someone still knows about the free market!

Now if we could just figure out how to stop well intentioned beaurocrats, and crony politicians from funneling money they are borrowing from potential enemies into these things, the free market will invent them for the purpose of selling them and making money for all involved.

The free market would FORCE them to figure out how to do it practically and affordably.

The present day borrowed/plundered subsidies and graft leave much less incentive to make them both practical and affordable.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Hylton

That point has been stated many times by many people but it's not a valid argument for stating that those peeps would be potential customers. The closer people live to their work, the more likely they are going to walk, bike, cab, bus or use rail. No market there so subtract them from the 70% and then tell me what the market is.

You are completely missing the point. No one ever said that % was the market. It was the % of people that that range would work for. Of course it's a further subset of that 70%. What that point meant was simply there aren't that many people (30%) that need more than the Volt could deliver.

To be practicle a car program does not need to be sold in giant volumes. The Corvette sells today at volumes less than the Volt and no one is jumping up and down calling it a failure.

There is a lot of passion behind this and some is very emotional. Me, I hope to never be driven to an EV. What will do it is the price/scarcity of gasoline. And the Volt stands there, as do all EVs, saying "get ready, the %^&*storms coming"

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Holy cow! Someone still knows about the free market!

Now if we could just figure out how to stop well intentioned beaurocrats, and crony politicians from funneling money they are borrowing from potential enemies into these things, the free market will invent them for the purpose of selling them and making money for all involved.

The free market would FORCE them to figure out how to do it practically and affordably.

The present day borrowed/plundered subsidies and graft leave much less incentive to make them both practical and affordable.

So here is the question for you Captain, and I know you have a good opinion on it, at what point does the government have a duty to foster development of technology? If there is a %^&*()storm of oil scarcity coming, should the goverment get us prepared by "encouraging" the development of EV technology to be ready? Or do we wait?

I've said all along when someone can make money on CNG, EVs, Fuel Cells, etc. there will be CNG, EVs and Fuel Cells, etc in the market. Profit seems to bring out the best (or worst) in people.

The Volt is a huge homerun merely for the technology it developed. Is it a moon shot? Maybe not. I have a lot of passion for the space program and what it does from a pure emotional point of view (exploration, blahbitty blah, blah).

But the Volt has an emotional hurdle to cross to get mass market appeal just as much as a financial one.

[PAUL SS]

Speaking of moon shots, the U.S. made relatively few of those, but look at the technology that came out of that program.

[el ess A]

Originally Posted by Number 3

at what point does the government have a duty to foster development of technology? If there is a %^&*()storm of oil scarcity coming, should the goverment get us prepared by "encouraging" the development of EV technology to be ready? Or do we wait?

The government DOESN'T have a self-proclaimed duty per se, if the people don't want that. If they want to make alternative energy technology grants/loans available for private firms to develop them, like student loans, then let the private industries put their skin on the line instead of our wallets.

I think it's more of HOW government is intervening rather than whether they should or not. Picking who wins and who loses is a game this government can't play well and that's been proven for decades. IMO, they're lucky to pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel.

Look around the globe. Government subsidizing car sales does not work in the long term. Government subsidizing anything doesn't work in the long term. It's been proven. Yet the dummies still keep going back to that trough...our pockets, and we keep letting them.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Number 3

So here is the question for you Captain, and I know you have a good opinion on it, at what point does the government have a duty to foster development of technology? If there is a %^&*()storm of oil scarcity coming, should the goverment get us prepared by "encouraging" the development of EV technology to be ready? Or do we wait?

First of all, the "scarcity" that some predict is about as hotly contests and falsely "settled" as AGW. About the only thing we know is that there is a finite amount of volume in the earth, so there is a fixed supply and it would eventually run out.

What we don't know is exactly how much oil exists and that new depostis are being discovered all the time and new ways to get at previously undiscovered deposts are being discovered all the time.

We also know that certain people are working very hard to prevent the discovery and access of new deposits. These people are mind-bogglingly connected with industries that wish to replace fossil fuels.

We also know that fossil fuels will diminish in supply and access to them will diminish as well but this will happen OVER TIME. Contrary to the "chicken little" scare tactics, we will not wake up one day and find that all the oil is gone. Oil will deplete over decades of time, and the price will naturally also slowly increase as the supply diminishes.

The way this works in the free market is quite simple:
1) Oil prices slowly rise as supply naturally diminishes.
2) Alternative energy prices slowly climb as more research is conducted by people who see a market for something cheaper than oil.
3) One day the price of oil is more than the price of whatever else is invented and people are smart enough to switch over of their own free will to the new energy.

The way this does not work in the current market is quite complex:
1) Oil prices are low but are artificually inflated due to regulation, litigation, and interference.
2) Alternative energy prices are high but are artificually lowered due to subsidies and graft.
3) These price shifts are not gradual and happen rapidly, leaving most people unable to adjust. Most people cannot simply replace their car at the drop of a hat, so they are forced to pay the high gas prices.
4) People paying artificially inflated prices for gas have no money to save and no money to spend on anything else so:
a. They can never afford a new car that uses alternative fuel.
b. They have no disposeable income so they spend less on everything else and the economy collapses.
c. The collapsed economy puts millions of others in a position of not being able to afford a new energy powered car.

This whole scenario is insane and we need to STOP meddling in the free market and let things happen naturally instead of forcing them to happen in ways that nobody can understand.

By the way, we have finite amounts of minerals on the Earth as well as oil. Some of them are depleting a lot faster than oil is. Where's all the PaNiC over that? Why aren't we hearing anything about everything else that will eventually be used up?

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by el ess X

I think it's more of HOW government is intervening rather than whether they should or not. Picking who wins and who loses is a game this government can't play well and that's been proven for decades. IMO, they're lucky to pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel.

Good point!

To take it one step further, it can be argued that the government has NO RIGHT to intervene. Most of the laws that they are supposed to be following actually forbid them from doing most of the things they are doing.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

About the only thing we know is that there is a finite amount of volume in the earth, so there is a fixed supply and it would eventually run out.

You should have probably have added that "fixed supply" describes every resource on the planet. In fact, you'll find some form of that phrase in nearly any definition of scarcity. Now, here's the chance to earn 5 Camaro Points by correctly answering the following question that is probably found in any introductory microeconomics class: what type of economic arrangement is best suited to deal with the issue of scarcity? If you thought market, then you are right! If you thought command-and-control, then you probably failed that class!