Car Tech forum: Remembering the EV-1

Hi,
Yup I remember the EV1 saw one when I was a kid back in the day. A guy from the states was visiting here in Canada. It was a really nice car and it made sense, all electric no gas. I wondered what happened to them then saw the documentary. Funny thing the Volts frame design with the battery placement is pretty much the EV1, with the exception of the added gas engine. In my opinion they should have just brought back the EV1, but that owuld mean they would have to admit the truth about how they were and still are in cohoots with gas industry and don't really care about the enviroment or what the consumer wants.
As the documentary points out the battery tech does exist, a gas engine is not neccesary for the Volt.

A lot of the research that GM did for the EV1 is going into the Volt, such as low rolling resistance tires and regen braking. The reason they put the gas engine in there is to get range beyond 40 miles. A car that can only go 40 miles (a range that varies drastically depending on how you drive) only works for a niche market. GM wants to market a car that will be at least as popular as the Prius, so it has to have range equivalent to the gas-engined competition.

Yes, you are correct the EV-1 was the right car comming out at the right time back in the mid 1990's for us the consumers of the World. But the wicked intent of the Automakers & Gas Companies is clearly shown in the current Economic Situation all Nations find themselves in Right this moment, triggered by the unrelenting greed of the Gas Companies to strip us all of every possible dime! The same way they Killed the EV-1 they are sabbotaging the Chevy Volt and all other Concept Electric Cars by putting in inferior Batteries with Less than a 50 mile range when 150 mile range units were created in the early 2000's. and putting YES a small gasoline motor to charge thr 40 Mi. units. If that's not bad enough they want to lease the bad batteries to the car buying public for $10,000.00 per car!!! This has now become a National Sercurity for each Country. And Someone has to put their foot down and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH".

What is the answer to the auto mobile industry bail out? Does it make any sense to provide financial assistance to companies that have Board of Directors and CEOs that treat the business like an ATM machine? I agreed with Representative Ackerman getting mad at CEOs callousness to fly personal jets into DC to ask for a hand out. They fought CAF standards for 35 years and GM cajoled Bush to use the Federal Government to help GM fight California Zero Emission Vehicle mandate-ZEV. Why did Japanese companies manage to build a reputation for efficient dependable sturdy small cars at a time while Detroit whined that standards would ruin them? Now they want our help after telling us to take a leap. The reason to bail out these businesses has less than nothing to do with the Management, Board of Directors and CEOs who we should now dismiss.

The foremost reason to save these companies is because so many citizens rely on jobs that exist either directly as employees of Ford, GM and Chrylser or that they work for companies such as Johnson Control maker of lead acid car batteries commonly used in combustion vehicles for starting and for powering other components of their electrical systems. Johnson Ctrl also makes interior modules. Other suppliers would also be adversely effected by further economic turmoil by the auto makers.


Since one of the advantages that foreign manufacturers such as in Japan and Europe seem to have is that because they have national health care systems for working age people, the employer is not burdened with the cost but which is instead spread across the societys population.


Before the company gets a dime it should be stipulated that the economic support is pre conditioned. The CEOS and Bd. of Dir wont like being told that any one kept on will be paid at Federal Civil Service Grade. Next, is that hearings must be held to review subversion of government regulations, officials and state rights. Interview Stanford Ovshinsky and ask him to tell what happened to the car he envisioned. Did GM keep their promises to him?

Ild love to see Stanford Ovshinsky invited to testify and tell his story of 40 years of inventing and founder of ECD and Ovionics. After all his work developing the NiMH battery, GM told him to keep his mouth shut and not advertise his achievement to the world. Tom Hanks would be another interesting individual to testify as a prior GM EV leaseholder. Of all the people interviewed in the movie Who Killed the Electric Car, Hanks appeared to be especially outspoken and informative and seem a compelling proponent. . Another interesting figure could be Senator Nate Holden who also worked 17 years in Aerospace including on the Lunar Module.

November 18, 2008 -- Former California State Senator and Los Angeles City Councilman Nate Holden held a news conference, speaking out against American auto manufacturers and in support of mass-production of the electric car. The Honorable Nate Holden believes that the taxpayers should not bailout the auto manufacturers without The Big Three agreeing to mass-produce the electric car as an incentive


General Motors embarked on a program to deceive the public and the lawmakers. They introduced the EV1 as a revolutionary concept car. The EV1 could have saved the automobile industry from its financial woes. At the beginning, General Motors and the other auto manufacturers never intended for the electric vehicle to be a successful program, specifically the EV1.


GM has had a dubious history subverting ZEV and caf standards. General Motors has had at least ten years notice to develop and mass-produce an electric vehicle and they have failed to do so. They have continuously brainwashed the public and the elected officials, claiming that they were on our side and they are not! Here they are again, demanding that the hard-working taxpayers bail them out. (Them being the automobile manufacturers) They are demanding the bailout funding without any pre-conditions.

Interview an official from Chevron Texaco and ask them to describe their motivation for the apparent mothballing of Ovionics. Are they willing to allow the ovionics technology to again be used so that we can have electric cars with a 150 mile range like we did ten years ago rather than the Chevy Volt 40 mile range? Is it possible to take a new interpretation of imminent domain which I believe generally pertains to the government confiscation of private land for the assumed public good. Allow the transferring the spirit of imminent domain to intellectual property which if actually allowed to be used by interested parties would revolutionize the auto industry with charging ranges almost 4x that of the Chevy Volt.

Ask Toyota management how they managed to make the most popular hybrid ? Have a College Engineering professor compare the GM EV and RAV EV of the early 90s with the Chevy Volt due in another year or so?

Besides perhaps watching Who Killed the Electric Car perhaps also watch Tucker, That was a similar story from over 50 years ago.

The American car company management have been shortsighted and relied on sabotaging innovation to sustain obsolescence as their business model. The answer to management is Game over . We will save the companies for the sake of the economy and employees not for overpaid management ..

these guys should have spent a lot more on R&D than they actually did. in the end i guess most of the blame should go on the shoulders of the management. personally i like chevys very much. i recently got a 75 nova for which i am doing the upgrading. i like it how you can spend hours on these cars and still dont feel tired.