For a change GM has issued a rebuttal to the ill-conceived and rather silly CMU study. A devastating rebuttal. Start off witht eh fact that the CMU study, whose arguments all revolve around battery costs, is absurdly wrong in estimating battery costs. By over 30% just today, and certainly bu over 60% by the time 4 to 5 years hence when the Volt (or Volt-type cars) are out there in force. The study compoounds its errors by claiming that economics drives purchases of cars (Oh, yeah, since when?), and completely misses others in the field right now (like BYD) which is selling Volt type cars (with even MORE electric driving range - 62 miles) at 1/2 the cost of the Volt and a whole lot cheaper than the Prius. The study further distorts reality by claiming people will recharge every 7 miles. The study is so flawed that CMU should issue a public apology. Also in error is CMU's brainless claim of gas avoidance by the Volt. A commuting Volt, even without workplace recharging, can attain 285 MPG, whereas a 7 mile ranged vehicle would be lucky to exceed 75 MPG.
CMU also mistakenly claims that battery weight will make a significant difference with respect to mileage. Well, electrically propelled cars, dear CMU people, are NOT the same as other cars and the weight of the Volt's battery pack (about 430 pounds) will make very little difference
when compared to a model with a battery pack supporting a 7 mile range. Wind resistence and tire rollingresistence are the big factors for EV car mileages, not weight, since the car can recapture most weight induced penalties thru regen braking. CMU has produced perhaps the most invalid and brainless study I've come across in quite some time. This really isn't rocket science, CMU. I'm embarrassed that this college in located in our country.

So, now the whole plugin fantasy is exposed.

They can't make a 40 mile plugin.

The battery technology isn't there.

So they move the goal posts and say "oh you only need 20 miles".

Bottom line, if they actually manage to connive the public into buying these rust buckets, we'll have plenty of them sitting in parking lots at the mall because the charge ran out...

Hydrogen is here and now.

A conversion to all hydrogen will take 5 years and complete remove pollution from all the metropolises.

What GM is selling with the Volt is the idea of using gas only in emergencies. They are selling the idea of a car that uses electricity 99% of the time. So they are selling range "peace of mind".We're starting to see the electric car equivalent of the "horsepower wars", with manufacturers competing to increase the electric-driven range of their vehicles. It's human nature to consider the worst case scenarios when making a major investment of time and effort like this, an old evolutionary trait that calls for an abundance of caution. People will look at these new electric vehicles and say "what if...". Longer and longer range will be the response.

What part of "sex sells" have you forgotten?

These fancy hybrids/electric cars aren't about rescuing us from The Venus Syndrome©.

Good grief.  It's elitist-superioristic pandering.

Electric-hybrids are a design-philosophy that is capable of being so simple and so low-cost, small businesses such as bicycle shops, lawnmower-repair shops and electric motor shops that you find in the average not-too-small town could easily be their own local automotive manufacturing center.

Hybrids are the car-design that Orville & Wilber Wright (bicycle shop mechanics) would have gone for, had someone already beaten them into the air.

This is why major auto-makers cater to dead-end, too-small markets that like being associated with something 'special' ... and that guarantee market & CO2 insignificance.

When hybrids are what you want them to be - common - the snob-appeal will be gone, the cost will be low, and the mega-corporation planned-obsolescence model will be truly & finally bankrupt ... because anybody with a decent set of wrenchs, a welder and a heated garage will be able to build ... the cars you really want to replace today's anachronisms.

"When hybrids are what you want them to be - common - the snob-appeal will be gone, the cost will be low, and the mega-corporation planned-obsolescence model will be truly & finally bankrupt."

"Snob" is not quite the right word, IMO.  But there is a certain "look at me" factor in play with early adopters.  Lots of products are introduced at inflated prices (both simply to make money and in an attempt to ensure recapture of R&D expenses) and sold to people who want to be seen with the latest and the greatest.

But even after electrics get affordable (and an electric is likely to become cheaper than a comparable ICE) there is going to remain the desire for something new and the pressure of latest fashion.

Just look at how the backs of many closets are stuffed with clothes still in excellent shape but "not this year's style".  

The same operates with cars.  Manufacturers will change appearance so that you can easily check to see how you are doing in your attempts to keep up with the Jones family down the street.

thebike45: You are largely correct that weight has reduced importance in a car with regenerative braking.  However, rolling resistance is a function of weight, so additional weight will result in additional losses.

biodiversivist: I believe that the tax credit is sized to match the Volt, not the other way around.

I guess CMU overlooked this fatal flaw in the Volt?  It has 3 times the hp it needs.  That makes the 40 mile battery range prohibitively expensive.  

We have mentioned this here ever since the Volt was first touted by GM.

Another obvious problem, it is made of steel intead of carbon fiber, making it's weight thrice what is should and could be.

A properly designed Volt, actually a Lovins Hypercar, could get a 40 mile range off of 3 or 4 Oasis truck batteries which way 70 pounds a piece. They are foamed lead/acid and last for 1500 charge cycles.  And because they do not use exotic material, cost isn't even a signifigant factor in a $20k car.

And here's another fact CMU might want to check, BYD in china manufactures a Toyota Corrolla sized plugin hybrid with a 40 mile range that sells for 22k.

They might check out the Audi A1 plugin hybrid too, the only other mass produced plugin hybrid.  Or the Toyota 1x plhin hybrid concept car, it's carbon giber and weighs 962 pounds and has the performance of a Prius.  It goes 600 miles on a full battery charge and 4 gallons of gas.

Or maybe they could just read this blog?  That might provide a better research direction than they are used to.

On the range debate:   Some people will benefit from a 60 mile range, others will only need a 10 mile range.  It depends on their commute, but the average is 23 miles.  Some people don't even need a backup generator, they could use exchangeable zinc/air batteries for emergencies.  

Plugin hybrids should be designed with this in mind and have easily plugged in anmd out extra battery packs of different sizes and backup generators.  This is the optimum solution, an efficient, safe, affordable electric vehicle platform with easily adjustable backup power and storage.

For a vacation, a customer with a 40 mile battery pack, that normally never drives over 30 miles a day and doesn't need a backup generator,  could swap it for a 10 mile battery pack and a backup generator.

If it did any good to complain about the sorry lack of renewable technology understanding in academia and main stream media, they would already be up to speed on plugin hybrids and a lot of other new energy economy devices and systems.  It doesn't.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Came from a joint Toyota/GM study that found that 80% of American "drive days" are 40 miles or less.

Drop the range to 20 miles and you are going to be burning a lot more petroleum.  Average commuting distance is not the proper target.

..Just get along?  Long enough to endorse a new platform to add any particular electric power source and storage system onto.

A carbon fiber unibody that uses an electric motor coupled to front wheel drive.   Around 1000 pounds suitable for 5 passengers.  Similar to a small aerodynamic SUV body like the Hypercar or the Toyota 1x conscept car.

A "model T" plugin car underbody that any car company could design an exterior and interior for, that fastens on.  Government should order a million units, with the big three each adding their own styling take on their share of the contracts.

Battery pacls or backup generators could be determined by the asutomakers too, within goveernment parameters for their specific range desired.  Exchangeable emergency zinc air batteries with a 10 mile range could be used for ultimate backup for pure electric urban versions.

Would the fuel cell and fuel farm fans be ok with this?  How about the boiogas guel cell fans?  I think we could all get behind the basic platform.  it would revolutionize car making and revive the US auto industry.  And triple mileage instantly from weight savings.

Exotic batteries or guel cells and so forth can come along later.  This is practical right now with inexpensive batteries and backup.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

A company like Fiber Forge could take on the carbon fiber mass production, fit to order for each automaker, but similar in design for manufacturing efficiency.

Government could provide specifications and verify production, private industry would still be in charge of operations, that's still capitalism.  WW II style capitalism, directed by government.

Once this new design is mass produced for government orders, the assembley lines can turn them out for consumers.  Toyota and Honda and Korean and Chinese  automakers and others would soon be ordering from Fiber Forge or opening their own versions.

As US consumers choices change, manfacturing will follow.  This isn't socialism, it is directed capitalism.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

There is quite a market for kit cars Ted, fiberglass parts that replace metal parts on "donor" cars.  They make Ferrari-like cars out of regular steel gas cars by stretching frames and modifying the body.  

I wonder if mass produced kits could be applied to plugin conversion?  Aluminum frame, fiberglass body kits that you can bolt all the rolling, running parts from your donor car onto.  

Then the electric motor/battery and backup generator completes the vehicle.  All the legally operable wheels, breaks, suspension, steering and so forth remains the same as on the donor car.

The donor interior, seats, dash, lights, windshield could all be used.  How would an assembley line work to convet cars this way?  All of the same model used cars could be scheduled for a production run, you could pick up your conversion at the factory in a week or so after bringing the donor car in.

I'm thinking layed off auto workers could form  companies to do this with a little government help to get started, maybe a 500 car conversion contract?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Starting with donor-cars is the epitome of the 80% solution!  (Of which I highly approve!)

Donor-machines can be cheap, but they are highly variable/non-standardized.  As a private modifier on a budget, we first shop for a light, used compact in good condition.  What make/model, isn't that important.  Then we shop for a suitable motor for it, after carefully determining what that motor might be...

But on a "production" basis, a conversion-business needs a standardized donor-component.  The motor and other components they install will have been figured out for a fairly specific base-machine.  They will have had to make custom, nitty-gritty solutions for a number of unglamorous problems that will always arise ... and the fixes & parts will vary with the make/model of the donor.  The conversion business can't go with whatever good-condition vehicle we bring in, and then solve all those 'nuisance' factors, for all the various cars the public might find.

To a considerable degree, a successful conversion-hybrid will be operated by a person who is educated, trained & committed to the project.  That's not normal - many folks won't even know what it means.

Really, 'having an electric' is like 'having a horse'.  Many will not realize it, but there is no such thing as a 'turn-key' horse (except at the crudest level).  There is considerable person investment & demand involved, in using any individual horse well.  Same goes for simple, more-practical, lower-cost electric cars.

A business doing conversion-hybrids for today's population, faces the expectation of a turn-key product.  That the new owner will be an active participant in the success of the hybrid car, is likely to be a tough & frustrating sell.

Notice that if we wanted to make our own methamphetamine, it wouldn't be like that.  Most meth is made in little backyard & bathroom labs.  It goes without saying that we will ourselves be fully responsible for the entire production-process.  That kind of willingness & dedication is what we want in simple-hybrid owners.  

Simple batteries & electric motors are low-cost, suitably efficient & adequately effective, but they must be taken care of & managed like a horse or meth-lab.  Consumers today aren't used to that.

While the donor-conversion-hybrid is a practical project for the backyard mechanic/enthusiast, wholesale conversions for public sale would be more like doing NASCAR race car conversions ... or building & selling kit/experimental airplanes ... both of which are done, but not at 'socially-significant' numbers.

So ... how is the crowd led away from the consumer/turn-key product expectation?  How do we make it like dealing pot - where you darn well need to know 'grades', clean stems & seeds, break it down properly, weight/measure accurately, keep records ... and otherwise behave as though you & me are actually in charge  ... instead of Detroit & assorted jerks in expensive suits?

That's why it's not a matter of technology, or even business:  It's a matter of tweaking us, rather than proprietary battery-packs & styling-packages.

This is a broad, pervasive truth:  Our real problems are not with techological & industry, or even with corrupt business & politics.  We are the basic difficulty & limitation.

Since we couldn't outlaw car production even if we all wanted to, wouldn't you have to get along with this compromise too?  None of us want vehicles that are four time as heavy as they should be and use many times the fuel really needed to get the job done.

And we would rather have cars that use renewable electricity instead of oil or biomass guzzling engines.  Face it, you won't get the pure solution you want unless Kunstler is right.  Hehey.

Ted I think you could pick a unbiquitos popular used car like the Accord, then do 500 Accord sedans in a production run.  Then do Corrollas the next week.   And so forth.  These could be smaller limited assembley line shops too.  Mass production of the retrofit kits could be real industrial sized.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

...that carbon fiber is still too expensive to use in a mass-market automobile. Do you have any solid numbers as to what a car like, say, the Prius would cost if carbon fiber was used in place of the steel body panels, amazingdrx? Yes, I recognize that the hybrid system could be downsized because of the reduced weight of the carbon-fiber body, which would offset some portion of the higher body cost.

Any proposed solution that is too expensive for large numbers of people to afford isn't really a solution at all. That's the problem with the Volt. Most Americans haven't been willing to consider a full or mild hybrid up 'til now despite the fact that the price difference between hybrids and comparable conventional cars is much less than the premium one will have to pay for a Volt if it ever actually comes to market with the advertised capability.

"You can never get enough of what you do not really want." - Huston Smith

Remember that in the early 1940s we were still largely an agrarian society.  People, like my family, didn't use cars all that much.  Lots of people still drove little if at all.  Some still used horses to drive to town and church.

In our cities we had more public transportation per capita than we have today.  Look at the pre-WWII cities and compare them to the post-WWII cities that developed during the age of the car.

We quit building cars for a few years.  A very few years.  

People patched together the existing cars and rationed gas cut usage to absolute minimums.

At the end of the war there was an incredible build up of demand for cars.  Detroit worked 24/7 cranking out cars that people wanted.  It's not like demand disappeared.  

I think it very, very important for those of us who would like to solve our environmental problems to keep foremost in our thoughts that worldwide we have mostly left the era of monarchy behind us.

Most of the world is more or less democratic.  Even in those places controlled by "strongmen" there is an large amount of "people power".  There are few places like Myanmar or North Korea where the government can issue demands and not worry much about an uprising.

There's only the most minuscule chance that significant change could be rammed down the public's throats.  Change has to come in ways that are acceptable to the majority of the populace.  

We need to look for solutions that are easily embraced by people.  Cars that cost less to "fuel" and cost less to maintain is something that can be sold.  A willing, even eager, buyer is going to make change much easier to accomplish.

The world is in terrible danger.

There's the short term danger of a deep, prolonged depression.

IMO, we need to keep car manufacturers in business.  In the US Ford, GM, Chrysler, and all their suppliers employee a very large part of our work force.  We might destroy our economy were we to put all those people out of jobs.

We can (I think) keep those plants viable and make more ICE vehicles while we develop greener machines.  

I don't think we have an alternative.

Then there's that other great danger that's a few more years out.  Global climate change could destroy our way of life and cause incredible suffering.

We don't have a "right now, this moment" solution for cars that solve our personal transportation needs.  We can shift ICE vehicle manufacturing from larger, less efficient models to smaller, more efficient ones.  And we are.

We are just starting to introduce PHEVs to the roads.  We still don't have the batteries that we need to make really usable BEVs.  (But I think we're close.  I suspect that we are within three years of producing viable electric cars.)  

Electric cars are going to bring a new type of manufacturing into reality.  I suspect car manufacturing of the future will something like the manufacturing of desktop computers.

Look at Michaelin's 'motor in the hub' component system.  They make a standalone wheel that contains an electric motor, regenerative braking, and suspension.  They also sell the electronics to make the wheels work.

In the future one could buy their motors/wheels from one company, battery packs from another, buy a generic frame, seats, door systems, etc. from other specialized manufacturers and bolt it all together.  

Of course the big players such as GM can do the same and be very competitive because of economy of scale.  But they won't own the market as they now do.  And that will be a good thing.  Innovation is easier done by smaller companies.  We will see new ideas tried and proved by smaller companies and then the best of those ideas will spread to the larger companies.

Here's a company that is producing lightweight, innovative bodies.  (They need to make some "market acceptable" models as well.)

Michelin is making the drive units.

Battery manufacturers are getting their acts together.

It's the direction in which the industry could go....

Me, personally?

Or the hundreds of millions of current car owners and the billions of people who want to be car owners?

We can't stop making new cars.  Our existing fleet's lives can be stretched only so far.  Go somewhere that uses salt to de-ice their roads and look at the condition of 10-15 year old cars.

We are going to keep making cars.  The majority of the populace is not willing to look far enough ahead to stop buying and driving cars.

We've just got to make cars in a wiser manner.

(And at the same time improve public transportation and build our communities so that there is less need for transportation other than a decent pair of shoes.)

I'd rather see the old ones converted to plugin hybrids, and no new ones built, but that is virtually impossible.

I like the idea of electrified rail taking the place of new car manufacturing, car conversion could provide jobs for auto workers too.  

It isn't likely unless a major depression sets in, and in that case we probably won't be building new trains either.  Just scrounging, living off the old stuff and making do.  

That might happem, who knows?  But I'm not rooting for it.  As much as I despise the consumption=happiness addictive culture.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

We need to get smaller, lighter, more efficient cars on the road.

Lots of people are willing to give up their gas hogs.  (Or at least they will be once the economy has made significant recovery and fuel prices have moved back to higher levels.)

Give drivers a safe, comfortable alternative to their oversized SUV/sedan and those energy wasters will make their way to the crusher sooner rather than later.

We need to get some PHEVs into people's hands so that they can have the experience of driving without burning fuel.  That will make people more comfortable with buying a car that has no internal combustion engine.

How can you create two million jobs in the next six months or so?

Or do you want to keep a couple of million people on the dole for the next few years while you come up with an idea?

BTW, you seem to have a unique definition of the word "we".  "We" don't want the cars that Detroit, Japan, Korea, Europe make - you think?

"In yet another endless thread where car-crazed boys masturbate furiously to visions of the latest wondercar fantasies, its always about how we have to have cars very different from the cars we have."

What a childish post.

Chapter 11 won't stop then JMG.  None of them, auto makers, cable companies (charter is going 11), regional banks, or any corps(e) except AIG, Shitibank, and Stank of America.  These too big to fail multinational banking, trading, and RICO scamming corps(e) are too big to fail.

They will take it all with them, then you and Jim will have your agrarian horse drawn feudalism that you masturbate over.

The course Lovins has already set out, over the last couple  decades, is a much better scenario than you guys can come up with.  I'll admit endless repitition on my part of various rescue plans following his and other similar precriptions.

To get the points he makes across that seems to be the only method that works.  You use it to get your POV out here.

Corps(e) use it to get their lobbying across in the form of ads and think tank propaganda.  It's a fact of mass delusional, reality avoiding human existence.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Yeah, well, so ya flipped out there for a minute and went to wackin' off in public.  Lot better than having an active interest in the 'blu pil' spam, eh?

But hey - is that true what Amazing says, that you're some sort of atavist, agrarianist, paleo-tribalist or something, at heart?  A bit o' all the above, maybe?

Because, ya know, you would not be exactly the A-Lone A-Ranger, or anything.

'Course, it has been scientifically observed that there isn't really much of anything you can do to actually save Sodom & Gomorrah.

You can wander the streets with a lantern for as long as your conscious says you must, but in the end all that can really be done is to knock the dust off your tires, hit the road heading outa town, and don't look back.

Once we become convinced that the people of S & G are not going to wake up and see what they've become, recoil in horror and turn over a new leaf, all you can really do is leave them to their fate and make sure the consequences of their folly don't overtake you & yours.

Although urbanization has led to blight and social degeneration, it directly affects only limited land-areas.  It's social tentacles, though unpleasant, are not all-encompassing.

Though I acknowledge that the car-heads (using them as a proxy for wider problems) might indeed bring the temple down on their heads, it's not for-sure, and certainly not at any particular time.  It's even possible that urban culture could - as time & conditions shift & vary - pull it's head out of it's butt, though I'm certainly not holding my breath.

In the end though, we each have to follow our own vision (regardless of uncertainties), and if what we see is The City going up in a gigantic mushroom cloud (due to whatever cause), then clearly we should gather up our marbles and go find a game that we have more confidence in.
===

During the great Alaska Land Claims Settlement phase 30 years ago, I was greatly excited to see them create "Subsistence Provisions" - laws that would support & protect the practice of atavistic lifestyles.  Not just for Natives, but for any who take up residence in outa-the-way places where the 'cash-economy' is iffy.  

Tok, for example, the first meaningful burg you come to on the highway into Alaska, is officially classed as "Remote & Isolated", qualifying it for 'subsistence provisions'.  Other podunk towns with roads, likewise.  (And of course, all the fly-in only villages, and off-in-the-brush homesteads & residences.)

Well, though I was excited about the subsistence provisions, I was of little faith.  Opponents of this tantalizing if novel set of laws were strong, and vehement.  I figured it was only a matter of time, and it would be overthrown or degraded beyond recognition.

Sometimes, though, I turn out to be wrong, and this was one of those cases.  Subsistence has met the challenges, and has persevered.  It is alive & well and highly valued in Alaska today.

I am saving up my pennies and studying the map out of Sodom (actually, I live on the gorgeous Olympic Peninsula ... gradually being eaten by the greater Puget Sound megalopolis ... so I'm not running from horror, but from beauty being overwhelmed by horror).

Alaska & it's subsistence is by no means the only hills into which one can flee from Sodom.  There are plausible contexts to be found all over the USA, and Europe has some interesting themes in the same vein.

The key thing is, you can't save everybody - even doing what's right & best for yourself is tough enough, as Lot will attest.  And, you certainly can't save people from themselves.

The Volt will not be the car for the masses. It will be too expensive. The Prius is hardly the car for the masses, even though it is much cheaper. The Prius, at least, has become the car for those who can afford it and still want good value (see the latest Consumer Reports). The Volt won't be that -- it will be a showcase car. It will be the first car you see as you enter the GM showroom (along with lot of big splashy signs). It will signal to the rest of the auto industry that GM can make something that is as good, if not better, than the rest of the auto makers. Politicians will buy it, as will movie stars and others trying to impress people. But people just looking for a car to transport themselves from one place to another will buy something else.

As a showcase car, it may provide a boost for the company. In the early eighties, the reputation of American cars took a big hit (for good reason). It was obvious that Japanese cars were more reliable. It was also obvious that GM's attempts to deal with the higher mileage requirements produced ugly, underpowered big cars (Cadillacs, Buicks, etc.) while the Japanese were making zippy little hatchbacks. When GM launched the new Corvette, it sent a signal to the rest of the world, that, if nothing else, GM could make a great sports car. This allowed them to secure some part of their reputation and sell a lot of small cars (Chevettes and the like) as well as muscle cars (in a bad era for muscle cars). Look for GM to do the same with this car and produce a scaled down, people's version. Of course, the big question is whether GM can stay alive long enough to do this.

It will be interesting to see what Ford does during this period of transition (as car makers realize they can't depend on making all of their money from truck/SUV sales and credit). While most American cars from the late 70s to 80s were mediocre (at best) and lacked innovation, Ford created the Taurus, a remarkable car that showed great creativity while being quite practical.