and want to see a remarkable example of GM’s genius, and then truly incredible stupidity ?
then see the documentary, “who killed the electric car ?” on DVD.
so what does this film show? among other things, it shows that the skills and talents of american technicians, designers, and engineers are extraordinary and world-class. ***but ***that the foresight of american corporate management and CEOs (at least at GM) is pathetically absent. GM had an enormous head start over Toyota in cutting-edge hybrid and electric car technology.
and then they simply let it go. see the film and you will not believe your eyes and ears …
You need to take into account the system effect when evaluating the actions of domestic management in the auto industry. Namely, the stock market values companies first and foremost on near term pofitability and this is how senior executives are incented from a compensation perspective. While long term market leadership is important, it does not drive valuation in the near term timeframe, and therefore senior management derives limited, if any, benefit from actions (namely capital expenditures) that are taken to insure it. If a CEOs lifespan in the auto industry is 5 years (and I think it is less), he has no incentive to subjugate near term profits to build long term corporate viability since his compensation is driven by the former and not the later. So what you view as stupidity, I view as a system limitation. To fault someone for a failure when his/her behavior is in fact driven by our own predilection for near term wealth creation is somewhat oxymoronic. Society created, rewards and continually reinforces this sort of decision making.
i guess then the US system of valuation and CEO compensation is highly flawed.
in any case, somehow the managers of toyota are consistently making better decisions than at GM in terms of revenue, profit, and both long and short term valuation. and soon, toyota will be no. 1 in the world and, at this rate, GM will be bankrupt.
the ignorance of the decisions shown in this film make one’s jaw drop to the floor …
I haven’t seen the movie, but trying to develop electric only cars on a commercial basis was an absolutely stupid thing to do. Electric cars suck, they always have sucked, and they probably always will suck. You just can’t store enough power for a reasonable weight to make them practical. No battery that won’t explode is going to come close to delivering the power to weight ratio of a gallon of gas, ever.
Now, doing the research to eventually enable the development of a plug in hybrid or some such car on a commercial basis is another matter entirely. The problem is that takes big bucks and a long time.
GM is going to be hard pressed to do that. In order to undertake such a project, you need profits. Big, long term, reliable profits. Their labor/retirement/healthcare obligations coupled with international competition make those profits impossible.
I often wonder how people can imagine that ending profits in other research intensive industries, like drug companies via government intervention, will do anything other than stop innovation there.
I haven’t seen the movie, but trying to develop electric only cars on a commercial basis was an absolutely stupid thing to do. Electric cars suck, they always have sucked, and they probably always will suck. You just can’t store enough power for a reasonable weight to make them practical.
very impressive. your authoritative view and expertise must mean that you know a lot more about this technology than the so-called scientists who discuss advanced battery technology in the film. do you think maybe they were all just actors playing fake scientists and battery engineers? the movie might have been all fake, or maybe it was one of those new style of “mockumentaries”?
you obviously know your stuff here. no need for you to see the film, as there is nothing new for you to learn in it, i am sure. heck, you probably could have made the film all by yourself, eh? so how did you learn so much definitive info about the current and future electric car technologies?
American society in many respects is highly flawed. However, just as you are condemning a group of people for the failure of a system, I think you allocating praise to a group of people when it is the system that is producing the positive result in this context. Toyota could make those decisions because the system emphasized long term market leadership. However, as evidenced by the most recent Japanese recession, that system has some fundamental issues as well.
GM’s underperformance as a company is due to a myriad of issues both company specific and market related. Their inability to become the market leader in electric cars, had and will continue to have little if any impact on their long run viability. On the flip side, Toyota’s ability to produce an electric car will ultimately have not impact on their long term viability. To suggest either shows some ignorance of the market realities regarding the future of autos. The electric car has already been deemed a fundamental failure – it cannot manage the weight/power tradeoff. Hybirds are clearly the way to go. The parties who will benefit most from this are those who did not spend a nickel on electric car research who can then piggyback on other people’s historical R&D to produce a market competitive product. Neither of those parties are named Toyota or GM. Their are a myriad of examples where a company spent million, if not billions, to define a market only to lose to the fast follower who was able to focus the impact of their investment dollar.
Very good LR room response, with lots of sarcasm and exactly zero facts.
How about maybe one fact somewhere, like how you can build a commercially viable car (i.e. one that people actually want to use with things like AC and such) with a reasonable range, cost and weight given battery limitation reality.
A few egg heads with no responsiblity for sales, profits or shareholders is interesting, but just not sufficient.
If these guys are so smart, why don’t they make a company and auto instead of a movie?
I haven’t seen the movie, but trying to develop electric only cars on a commercial basis was an absolutely stupid thing to do. Electric cars suck, they always have sucked, and they probably always will suck. You just can’t store enough power for a reasonable weight to make them practical.
very impressive. your authoritative view and expertise must mean that you know a lot more about this technology than the so-called scientists who discuss advanced battery technology in the film. do you think maybe they were all just actors playing fake scientists and battery engineers? the movie might have been all fake, or maybe it was one of those new style of “mockumentaries”?
you obviously know your stuff here. no need for you to see the film, as there is nothing new for you to learn in it, i am sure. heck, you probably could have made the film all by yourself, eh? so how did you learn so much definitive info about the current and future electric car technologies?
Greg,
Glad you are willing to listen to “experts” cause there on a DVD, but others try to educate you and you mock them. Gee maybe I will have to send you a DVD of myself and co-workers then you might open up your mind.
American society in many respects is highly flawed.
sure it is, but it also has huge advantages. and i am not condemning US culture, as within the US system, some companies and groups of people innovate and prevail enormously. but some entrenched groups kick and scream against technological change and then fail. some individuals make great choices. some individuals make disastrous choices.
GM’s inability to become the market leader in electric cars, had and will continue to have little if any impact on their long run viability.
this is not a fact, it is your opinion. it may be correct or it may be incorrect. in light of the rapid change in economic and environmental conditions just on the horizon, no one can predict this future with certainity.
Toyota’s ability to produce an electric car will ultimately have not impact on their long term viability.
this also is not a fact, it is your opinion. it also may be correct or it may be incorrect.
The electric car has already been deemed a fundamental failure – it cannot manage the weight/power tradeoff.
this is a funny and interesting conclusion in light of an infant technology in the course of extraordinarily rapid change. this statement reminds me of various predictions made a few years ago about the practicality of a certain new-fangled technology called the aero-plane.
but if you do take the time to see the film, i would be interested to re-visit all of these topics with you. the films suggests that limitations of technology was not the main force to kill the car. unfortunate politics also played a very large role.
“What the detractors and the critics of electric cars have been saying for years, is true. The electric vehicle is not for everybody. Given the limited range, it can only meet the needs of 90 % of the population…”
From wikipedia:
From Edmunds.com
Karl Brauer, editor-in-chief of Edmunds.com, a popular auto market web site, wrote his own criticism of the movie, GM’s EV1 – Who Killed Common Sense?, contrasting the interpretations in the movie with his own in a rumor/fact format. For example, regarding how GM negatively marketed the car: 1. Rumor: There were 5,000 people who wanted an EV1, but GM wouldn’t let them buy it.Fact: There were 5,000 people who expressed interest in an EV1, but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease, went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one (not too surprising, is it?). The film likes to quote a figure of 29 miles as the average American’s daily driving needs, but that is a national figure and the EV1 was only sold in California and Arizona, primarily in Los Angeles. Anyone wanna guess what the average L.A. resident’s daily driving need is? I’m betting it’s higher than that national average…
Mr. Brauer’s conjecture that “the average L.A. resident’s daily driving need is…higher than that national average” is supported by a federal report that in 2001 the average Los Angeles commute was 16.2 miles (32.4 miles daily round trip), which was the highest of all American cities, though that distance is still much less than the typical electric vehicle range.
i would be delighted to see a DVD of anything you have. i want to learn about *all *views.
i did not know mr. frank of ST was an expert on state-of-the-art battery technologies and the economic viability of mass-produced electric cars. if this is correct, i will reply to him again.
“What the detractors and the critics of electric cars have been saying for years, is true. The electric vehicle is not for everybody. Given the limited range, it can only meet the needs of 90 % of the population…”
Ya and so would a Yaris, but most people buy vehicles that greatly exceed there needs, and that is where an EV fails.
i would like to ask for more info, as davehamm has shared with me that you are an expert in this field. so since you are an expert, would you share some of your knowledge on state-of-the-art battery technologies and the economic viability of mass-produced electric cars? thanks.
“this is a funny and interesting conclusion in light of an infant technology in the course of extraordinarily rapid change.”
Pretty funny. Could have sworn batteries have been around for over 200 years.
How about one fact, somewhere, GregX. What is the power to weight ratio of the best commercially viable battery for this application compared to a gallon of gasoline.
wow, excellent. in light of the coverage of the film, did you at all find that perhaps the GM EV programs were killed before they had a chance to fully explore their potential?
for example, i have heard that although toyota hybrid sales are brisk, toyota still sells them at a small loss to develop the market.