I test-drove an older lead-acid ev1 yesterday, along with a NiMH Honda (thankyou DKCTX). The EV1 is a fine 2-seat car, not completely unlike a smooth driving Japanese sports car such as an Integra or Celica (albeit with serious range and recharge issues). I compare it thusly partly because of the extreme rake of the windshield and the low center of gravity that lends itself to a certain type of handling. Wasn't able to determine if it's front-wheel drive or not.
It's difficult trying to carry on this campaign to continue discussion of why GM has not delivered more of these, because solid info seems difficult to come by, but here are some of the present issues.
As near as I can tell (I apologize if this is inaccurate) there is a wait-list for the present GM EV's.
GM claims that demand does not presently warrant further "builds" even though there is a wait-list.
Again, as near as I can tell, about 300 vehicles exist which could be used to satisfy some or all of the present wait-list. It is difficult to ascertain GM's excuse as to why they will not deliver those vehicles. One person had heard that GM wanted to deliver the cars "smoothly". I.e., that they did not want to deliver all of them right away and then have the further wait-list people be forced to wait with no vehicles to deliver. This sounded so absurd that I couldn't believe that GM would stoop to such an obscenely disrespectful policy, but most of this situation fits that qualification.
There do seem to be some real issue of quality control and/or maintenance issues with the batteries. One speculation was that since GM had the cars sit for so long with some full charge, then this was understandably bad for the batteries.
If anyone has any solid info to confirm or counter what I have written, then I should be glad to read it.
As to ECD, bought back into it today. Good batteries in my camera, CDRW and DVD-Ram look like things I might get.
I still don't buy their royalty policies, but a bit of speculation can't hurt me. Too much.
and ovonic partnership with GM if they aren't pushing ev and batteries and joint venture with a smaller car company that needs an edge to get ahead of the big boys like HONDA years ago. If ENER would start to make contracts that pay, that force production #'s, and pay a high dollar value, maybe they would be producing their own cars today. Call ENER. Wake them up. Start selling stuff. Start selling motorcycles like HONDA did. DO SOMETHING YOU FOOLS. All sharholders should get together at the next stock meeting and be heard!!!!!
Having thought about it a bit more, I don't think a small company like ECD could have a legal battle with a company like GM and come away better for it, unless there were some very strange circumstances.
As it stands, the most positive thing I see going on is the apparently real commitment of Honda and Toyota to their respective hybrid car efforts. This is positive for us, I think, because those cars require genuinely excellent batteries, and that's where a company like ECD comes in. Furthermore, Honda, at least, appears to be committed to *selling* *lots* of these things and has talked about incorporating the strategy into other cars. Toyota has apparently sold more than it planned in Japan.
Furthermore, although I have not seen it mentioned anywhere, it seems to me that a primary aspect of hybrids is that, theoretically, one could recharge the electric aspect of it from a plug rather than from the onboard engine. So, if one were merely making many small trips (as so many of us do during stretches of our lives) one might theoretically treat the vehicle as an electric, using the hydrogen or hydrocarbon aspect of it only very rarely.
From a business standpoint the hybrid allows for the perpetuation of the long-range battery aspect of future vehicles while allowing for time to improve those batteries. At least, that's how I see it.
Can't comment as to the wisdom of such a proposal. Guess it's just not up my alley.
There's a CARB meeting of some sort in Sacramento coming up, though, that I've heard people are going to attend and attempt to be heard. Their point, I think, will be the viability of the excellent ev's they've already leased and bought, and the need to make sure that the carmakers don't claim that no more are necessary. GM will be a focus for some, as GM is obviously dragging its feet in the most disrespectful of manners.
The EV1 is more popular and in greater demand than GM wants. They are trying to find a pretext to kill the program so they can get away with what they planned all along, which was to build the absolute bare California legal minimum.