GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
23 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Lee Hart
 > GM Will Need to Provide Big Subsidies for Volt
 >
 > There will likely be a big gap between customer expectations and the
 > actual cost to build Chevrolet’s first plug-in hybrid, the Volt, a
 > senior General Motors executive tells TheCarConnection.com. That
 > means, at least for the first few years of production, the automaker
 > will have to heavily subsidize production of the high-profile,
 > high-mileage vehicle.

Carmakers don't supply fuel for any of their other cars. They expect
consumers to go to a gas station and fill it up themselves. The fuel
used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol, etc.)

Lots of products are sold "batteries not included." Consumers have
to buy the batteries themselves. The performance of the product
natually depends on what batteries the consumer buys (cheap ones, or
expensive ones).

So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car. It's lighter, cheaper, and
not much harder to build than any other car. They wouldn't have to spend
a penny on exotic battery R&D, and could introduce the Volt in the same
time frame as any other car.

But, include a "battery box" in the trunk that fits standard size
batteries. There are already dozens of battery manufacturers, and dozens
of standard size batteries they could choose from. Consumers could buy
plain old lead acids to save money (but get shorter range), or more
expensive and higher performance nimh or lithium-ion for more range.

And, if GM builds it, the batteries will come! GM would create the
market, and you can bet dozens of companies would rush to make something
that drops into that battery box!

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Roland Wiench
I try to license and register my EV back in 76 without the batteries.  Did
not think at that time of having the manufacturer sell me the car,
separating the cost of the car and the fuel for the vehicle which is the
batteries.

I had to pay property tax on addition $2700.00 worth of batteries which was
use up in about 10 years and still paying some taxes on that increase the
value of the EV.

Its like buying a vehicle with a 1000 gallons of gasoline that increases the
value of the machine about $3000.00 which you paid the gas tax on it, and
then pay the property tax on that value and still pay the vehicle tax on
that value after you use it up.

Roland




----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <[hidden email]>
To: "EV list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: [EVDL] GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"


> GM Will Need to Provide Big Subsidies for Volt
 >
 > There will likely be a big gap between customer expectations and the
 > actual cost to build Chevrolet’s first plug-in hybrid, the Volt, a
 > senior General Motors executive tells TheCarConnection.com. That
 > means, at least for the first few years of production, the automaker
 > will have to heavily subsidize production of the high-profile,
 > high-mileage vehicle.

Carmakers don't supply fuel for any of their other cars. They expect
consumers to go to a gas station and fill it up themselves. The fuel
used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol, etc.)

Lots of products are sold "batteries not included." Consumers have
to buy the batteries themselves. The performance of the product
natually depends on what batteries the consumer buys (cheap ones, or
expensive ones).

So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car. It's lighter, cheaper, and
not much harder to build than any other car. They wouldn't have to spend
a penny on exotic battery R&D, and could introduce the Volt in the same
time frame as any other car.

But, include a "battery box" in the trunk that fits standard size
batteries. There are already dozens of battery manufacturers, and dozens
of standard size batteries they could choose from. Consumers could buy
plain old lead acids to save money (but get shorter range), or more
expensive and higher performance nimh or lithium-ion for more range.

And, if GM builds it, the batteries will come! GM would create the
market, and you can bet dozens of companies would rush to make something
that drops into that battery box!

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

John Thornton
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
Lee Hart wrote:

>  > GM Will Need to Provide Big Subsidies for Volt
>  >
>  > There will likely be a big gap between customer expectations and the
>  > actual cost to build Chevrolet’s first plug-in hybrid, the Volt, a
>  > senior General Motors executive tells TheCarConnection.com. That
>  > means, at least for the first few years of production, the automaker
>  > will have to heavily subsidize production of the high-profile,
>  > high-mileage vehicle.
>
> Carmakers don't supply fuel for any of their other cars. They expect
> consumers to go to a gas station and fill it up themselves. The fuel
> used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol, etc.)
>
> Lots of products are sold "batteries not included." Consumers have
> to buy the batteries themselves.

Most cars come with a free tank of fuel.
No one in their right mind is going to buy a brand new car they can't
drive off the lot.
"Oh look dear, the tow truck just delivered our new car. Now when we get
the batteries delivered the day after tomorrow we can go for a drive."
The competitors EV's will all be sold as "The car you can actually drive
home."
Consumers do not want to have to wade into unknown waters and try to
pick which batteries they want with their EV.
The choice of batteries is not analogous to grades of fuel.

John Thornton

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Lee Hart
In reply to this post by Roland Wiench
Roland Wiench wrote:
> I try to license and register my EV back in 76 without the batteries.
> Did not think at that time of having the manufacturer sell me the
> car, separating the cost of the car and the fuel for the vehicle
> which is the batteries.

That's a good point. The batteries can be considered as not part of the
car. They could be purchased or leased separately. This would make the
initial purchase or lease price of the car cheaper, and depending on
state regulations, reduce your registration costs as well.

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Lee Hart
In reply to this post by John Thornton
John Thornton wrote:
> Most cars come with a free tank of fuel. No one in their right mind
> is going to buy a brand new car they can't drive off the lot.

Ah, but the Volt is a gasoline-powered car with an ICE. It can be driven
*without* batteries! The batteries just add some pure-EV range.

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Roger Stockton
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
Lee Hart wrote:

> Carmakers don't supply fuel for any of their other cars. They expect
> consumers to go to a gas station and fill it up themselves. The fuel
> used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or
> gasohol, etc.)

> So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
> batteries*?

Basically, becasue of your first point:

"The fuel used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol, etc.)"

The type of battery, its presence or absence, and how it is managed impact the emissions performance of the vehicle, and so it (and its associated electronics) is considered part of the vehicle's emissions control system and is subject to similar standards for performance and reliability, etc.

Just as you won't find a manufacturer selling you an ICE vehicle without an exhaust system (catalytic convertor, etc.) anytime soon, you will not be able to buy a ICE hybrid vehicle without a complete battery pack and battery management system.  Obviously, this consideration would not prevent OEMs from offering pure-electric vehicles with batteries not included.

Cheers,

Roger.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Steven **
But in the Volt's case (and even the case of the Prius), aren't the
emissions performance and mpg performance better than most cars even
when the battery is dead?  Wouldn't removing the battery actually
increase the MPG in this case (not carrying the dead weight)?

I imagine the Volt will be advertised with several MPG ratings:
1. MPG for 40 mile commute
2. MPG for 100 mile commute
3. MPG for max mile(as far as you can go on a full tank of gas) commute

I'm assuming #3 will have to be reasonable for them to pass emissions
standards even if they had a very large battery pack installed.

-Steven

On Feb 8, 2008 2:36 PM, Roger Stockton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The type of battery, its presence or absence, and how it is managed impact the emissions performance of the vehicle, and so it (and its associated electronics) is considered part of the vehicle's emissions control system and is subject to similar standards for performance and reliability, etc.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Roger Stockton
In reply to this post by John Thornton
John Thornton wrote:

> No one in their right mind is going to buy a brand new car
> they can't drive off the lot.

Lee was referring specifically to the Chevy Volt, which is not an EV but a hybrid and so *might* be driven off the lot even without a battery.  It is entirely possible that it could be fully functional without a battery pack (it is also possible that without some minimalist pack or capacitor bank to handle peak loads, the ICE might not have the peak power capability to make the vehicle usable  without the battery pack).

It is unlikely that an ICE hybrid can be offered for sale without its battery due to the present laws, as I explained in my prior post, but I don't think the concept is at all unfeasible for pure EVs.  I think it entirely likely that pure EVs might be offered in various "trim" levels, including a choice between a few battery options, and possibly including the option of "none".  That is, "I'll take my EV without a factory battery, thank you very much; I plan to have a high-performance aftermarket battery installed elsewhere".

Even with ICE hybrids, I think it possible that the manufacturer could offer the buyer a choice between different battery options at different performance and price levels, just as they do with any number of other options.  The choices for an ICE hybrid simply wouldn't include the option of buying the hybrid without any battery due to the manufacturer's obligation to meet specified emission performance and to warranty the emissions system components.

Cheers,

Roger.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Roger Stockton
In reply to this post by Steven **
Steven ** wrote:

> But in the Volt's case (and even the case of the Prius),
> aren't the emissions performance and mpg performance better
> than most cars even when the battery is dead?

I don't think the rules are particularly concerned with the mileage as it can already vary so dramatically due to factors beyond the manufacturer's control (ambient temp, snow, under-inflated tires, the nut behind the wheel, etc.).

It is the emissions system behaviour/performance that the original manufacturer is responsible for ensuring, and it is not of particular concern how the vehicle's emissions compare to some different make or model.  If the emissions system on a SULEV or PZEV malfunctions such that the vehicle violates its preformance requirements within the emissions system warranty, the original manufacturer is on the hook even if it still has better emissions than the SUV next to it.

> Wouldn't
> removing the battery actually increase the MPG in this case
> (not carrying the dead weight)?

Difficult to predict.  Those who have compared hybrid performance with/without the battery charged or disabled have found that even on the highway (where one would expect the battery to have little impact) the mileage decreased.  Removing the batery entirely might offset this somewhat due to the weight reduction, but one can easily pick up and carry the entire battery pack from present hybrids without much strain at all so the weight reduction is not particularly significant.

> I imagine the Volt will be advertised with several MPG ratings:
> 1. MPG for 40 mile commute
> 2. MPG for 100 mile commute
> 3. MPG for max mile(as far as you can go on a full tank of
> gas) commute

Perhaps.  It will be interesting to see.  My expectation is that the typical marketing will quote the best possible number, and perhaps the standard city/highway ratings the same as for any other vehicle.

Cheers,

Roger.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Rodriguez, Jennifer
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
Oh yeah, that's brilliant.  Then they will be as environmentally
friendly as the flex-fuel Yukon my neighbor just bought that runs on
E85.  Too bad you can't buy E85 within 100 miles of here.  He probably
got some kind of tax break on it, though, even though it will never run
on anything but gasoline.  Just think of all the people who would buy
the Volt and never put batteries in!

(Anyway, I thought the Volt's gasoline engine only served to charge the
batteries, not to propel the car?)

Jenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Hart [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:07 AM
To: EV list
Subject: [EVDL] GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

 > GM Will Need to Provide Big Subsidies for Volt
 >
 > There will likely be a big gap between customer expectations and the
 > actual cost to build Chevrolet's first plug-in hybrid, the Volt, a
 > senior General Motors executive tells TheCarConnection.com. That
 > means, at least for the first few years of production, the automaker
 > will have to heavily subsidize production of the high-profile,
 > high-mileage vehicle.

Carmakers don't supply fuel for any of their other cars. They expect
consumers to go to a gas station and fill it up themselves. The fuel
used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol,
etc.)

Lots of products are sold "batteries not included." Consumers have
to buy the batteries themselves. The performance of the product
natually depends on what batteries the consumer buys (cheap ones, or
expensive ones).

So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car. It's lighter, cheaper, and
not much harder to build than any other car. They wouldn't have to spend

a penny on exotic battery R&D, and could introduce the Volt in the same
time frame as any other car.

But, include a "battery box" in the trunk that fits standard size
batteries. There are already dozens of battery manufacturers, and dozens
of standard size batteries they could choose from. Consumers could buy
plain old lead acids to save money (but get shorter range), or more
expensive and higher performance nimh or lithium-ion for more range.

And, if GM builds it, the batteries will come! GM would create the
market, and you can bet dozens of companies would rush to make something
that drops into that battery box!

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net



_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Doug Weathers
In reply to this post by Lee Hart

On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Lee Hart wrote:

> So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
> batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car.

Are you sure about that?

The description of the Volt is a series hybrid.  The wheels are driven
100% by an electric motor, which is fed 100% by the battery pack, which
is kept topped up by a small, efficient generator (the ICE) that's
probably not up to the demands of accelerating a complete car by
itself.

Take out the battery pack and I think acceleration would become
unacceptable.

Am I wrong?

I think a really good place for your idea would be the Prius.  Toyota
could build a Prius with an empty battery box in the trunk.  Use it for
groceries, or, fill it with batteries and get better mileage.

--
Doug Weathers
Las Cruces, NM, USA
http://www.gdunge.com/

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Dan Frederiksen-2
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
Lee Hart wrote:
> Ah, but the Volt is a gasoline-powered car with an ICE. It can be driven
> *without* batteries! The batteries just add some pure-EV range.
>  

it could perhaps be designed to work without batteries but I don't
believe it's being designed to work without the batteries at all.
the idea suffers from the same as exhangeable batteries, it could be
done but not practical. the shape of the pack is not universal nor
easily accessible nor specialized integration or performance. it further
suffers from a lack of mass production pricing.

as the aitalians say, forget about it.

the only merit would be to play with the idea of batteries not included
in the advertising as a joke.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

kEVs
In reply to this post by Doug Weathers
This is ot such a radical idea.  The Nordic
manufacturers of the Th!nk are selling the car and
leasing the batteries.  This was announced last
year...weather or not it has happened or not I do not
know.  It will for sure be the way we will proceed in
the future as the fuel is separate from the vehicle
and taxed differently ad supplied by different
sources.

--- Doug Weathers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Feb 8, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Lee Hart wrote:
>
> > So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply
> the Volt *without
> > batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> The description of the Volt is a series hybrid.  The
> wheels are driven
> 100% by an electric motor, which is fed 100% by the
> battery pack, which
> is kept topped up by a small, efficient generator
> (the ICE) that's
> probably not up to the demands of accelerating a
> complete car by
> itself.
>
> Take out the battery pack and I think acceleration
> would become
> unacceptable.
>
> Am I wrong?
>
> I think a really good place for your idea would be
> the Prius.  Toyota
> could build a Prius with an empty battery box in the
> trunk.  Use it for
> groceries, or, fill it with batteries and get better
> mileage.
>
> --
> Doug Weathers
> Las Cruces, NM, USA
> http://www.gdunge.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Lee Hart
In reply to this post by Doug Weathers
Lee Hart wrote:
>> So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
>> batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car.

Doug Weathers wrote:
> Are you sure about that?

Well, the Volt isn't really designed yet. No one knows exactly how it
will work. But my assumption is that they *could* design it to work
without batteries, if they want to.

> The description of the Volt is a series hybrid.  The wheels are driven
> 100% by an electric motor, which is fed 100% by the battery pack, which
> is kept topped up by a small, efficient generator (the ICE) that's
> probably not up to the demands of accelerating a complete car by
> itself.

Series hybrids don't require batteries. A diesel-electric locomotive is
an example; the diesel engine drives a generator, which drives electric
motors to drive the wheels, with no batteries. The electric motor and
generator basically function as a continuously variable transmission.

> Take out the battery pack and I think acceleration would become
> unacceptable.

It could if they seriously undersized the ICE; but I doubt GM will think
like that. They will insist that the ICE needs to supply enough
horsepower to cruise uphill at 70 mph, fully loaded, with all the
accessories on, and no electric assist. They won't trust the battery or
electric assist.

Toyota did the same thing on the Prius. Its ICE is small, but it still
has sufficient horsepower for acceptable performance even with the
hybrid battery too deeply discharged. Not "fast"; but acceptable.

> I think a really good place for your idea would be the Prius.  Toyota
> could build a Prius with an empty battery box in the trunk.  Use it for
> groceries, or, fill it with batteries and get better mileage.

Yes, they could do it, too.

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Lee Hart
In reply to this post by Roger Stockton
Lee Hart wrote:
>> Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without batteries*?

Roger Stockton wrote:
> Basically, because of your first point: "The fuel used affects the
> performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol, etc.)"
>
> The type of battery, its presence or absence, and how it is managed
> impact the emissions performance of the vehicle, and so it (and its
> associated electronics) is considered part of the vehicle's emissions
> control system and is subject to similar standards for performance
> and reliability, etc.

The fuel affects the performance; so the EPA testing specifies the fuel
to be used during the test. In fact, almost anything can affect the
test, so the EPA specifies every aspect of the test, in an effort to
obtain repeatable results.

This is a game that GM and the other auto companies are experts at
playing. They know precisely how the emissions tests will be run, so
they build and program their cars to produce the best possible numbers
*when tested exactly that way*.

If GM produced a Volt without batteries, they would of course program
its engine computer to pass the EPA tests in that configuration.

> Just as you won't find a manufacturer selling you an ICE vehicle
> without an exhaust system (catalytic convertor, etc.) anytime soon,
> you will not be able to buy a ICE hybrid vehicle without a complete
> battery pack and battery management system.

A vehicle's exhaust system *is* specified by the EPA as part of the
emission control system. So, there are serious restrictions on changing
them. Basically, you have to leave them completely stock.

But right now, a car's battery and BMS system (if any) are *not*
specified by the EPA as part of the emission control system. So,
manufacturers and customers are free to change whatever they like. The
EPA doesn't care what batteries you put in any car, including a Prius.

My whole point for suggesting this mad idea is this:

1. The superbattery doesn't exist.
2. If GM depends on it, then the Volt will never exist, either.
3. But, GM *can* produce a Volt *without* the superbattery; it
    becomes just another new car, only with an electric transmission.
4. They can also offer an extra cost "electric supercharger" option,
    which is just a plain old lead-acid battery pack for (let's say)
    faster acceleration and 5 miles EV range.
5. The place where this battery plugs in can be made "open source",
    so any battery manufacturer can build batteries to go into it.
6. GM does not have to design, test, or pay for any of this work.

So, if GM really wants to sell the Volt, they can do it, *without*
waiting for the superbattery.

What's in it for us? At last, EV hobbyists would be able to buy a car
that really *is* built to be an EV. We could play with different battery
arrangements to our heart's content. Basically, the Volt would be just
like that original IBM PC, that everybody and their brother started
making add-on boards for.

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

shred
In reply to this post by Roland Wiench
To my why of thinking the batteries in a BEV are not synonyms with the fuel you use as an energy carrier to move your vehicle, electricity is the energy carrier. The batteries are the high tech holding tanks, equivalent to a very expensive fuel tank.
Neal
Roland Wiench wrote
I try to license and register my EV back in 76 without the batteries.  Did
not think at that time of having the manufacturer sell me the car,
separating the cost of the car and the fuel for the vehicle which is the
batteries.

I had to pay property tax on addition $2700.00 worth of batteries which was
use up in about 10 years and still paying some taxes on that increase the
value of the EV.

Its like buying a vehicle with a 1000 gallons of gasoline that increases the
value of the machine about $3000.00 which you paid the gas tax on it, and
then pay the property tax on that value and still pay the vehicle tax on
that value after you use it up.

Roland




----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hart" <leeahart@earthlink.net>
To: "EV list" <ev@lists.sjsu.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: [EVDL] GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"


> GM Will Need to Provide Big Subsidies for Volt
 >
 > There will likely be a big gap between customer expectations and the
 > actual cost to build Chevrolet’s first plug-in hybrid, the Volt, a
 > senior General Motors executive tells TheCarConnection.com. That
 > means, at least for the first few years of production, the automaker
 > will have to heavily subsidize production of the high-profile,
 > high-mileage vehicle.

Carmakers don't supply fuel for any of their other cars. They expect
consumers to go to a gas station and fill it up themselves. The fuel
used affects the performance (regular or premium, gasoline or gasohol, etc.)

Lots of products are sold "batteries not included." Consumers have
to buy the batteries themselves. The performance of the product
natually depends on what batteries the consumer buys (cheap ones, or
expensive ones).

So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car. It's lighter, cheaper, and
not much harder to build than any other car. They wouldn't have to spend
a penny on exotic battery R&D, and could introduce the Volt in the same
time frame as any other car.

But, include a "battery box" in the trunk that fits standard size
batteries. There are already dozens of battery manufacturers, and dozens
of standard size batteries they could choose from. Consumers could buy
plain old lead acids to save money (but get shorter range), or more
expensive and higher performance nimh or lithium-ion for more range.

And, if GM builds it, the batteries will come! GM would create the
market, and you can bet dozens of companies would rush to make something
that drops into that battery box!

--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev 

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Morgan LaMoore
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
On Fri, Feb 8, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Lee Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  So, if GM really wants to sell the Volt, they can do it, *without*
>  waiting for the superbattery.

A123/LiFePO4 is enough of a "superbattery" for now. Sure, it doesn't
provide the range of gas, but it can provide a 40-mile range and
plenty of battery power.

>  What's in it for us? At last, EV hobbyists would be able to buy a car
>  that really *is* built to be an EV. We could play with different battery
>  arrangements to our heart's content. Basically, the Volt would be just
>  like that original IBM PC, that everybody and their brother started
>  making add-on boards for.

Personally, if I'm buying an OEM car, I would rather it come with an
OEM Lithium pack instead of no batteries or Lead Acid. If GM has to
subsidize part of the cost until battery prices drop, so be it.

Undersized or weak packs in the Volt would just hurt EVs in the eyes
of the public. People would remember the Volts with lackluster
performance due to no battery or a heavy lead pack and it would turn
them off to EVs.

Also, if Lithium is only for the high-end cars, it won't drop in price
nearly as fast as it will if every Volt has the same Lithium pack.

One thing that I really like about the Volt is that mass production
should make Lithium batteries much more affordable. They're a big
company; they can absorb the start-up costs of large-scale battery
production.

Even if A123 makes a custom cell just for GM, they should be able to
improve their production process and improve on other cell
manufacturing as well to reduce prices.

-Morgan LaMoore

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Jeff Shanab
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
My first thought was that this wouldn't work because of the way auto
companies trade emmision standards around.  (They meet the required
average MPG by makeing enough high milage underpowered cars to allow
them to make GasNoxious SUV's) .

After following the discussion though, it sonds like there are some good
ideas.

Maybe this will become the next stepping stone. Buy a hybrid with the
hybrid pack included. Then make it a plug in hybrid by adding the second
pack.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

Robert MacDowell
In reply to this post by Lee Hart
Lee Hart wrote:

> Lots of products are sold "batteries not included." Consumers have
> to buy the batteries themselves. The performance of the product
> natually depends on what batteries the consumer buys (cheap ones, or
> expensive ones).
>
> So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
> batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car. It's lighter, cheaper, and
> not much harder to build than any other car. They wouldn't have to spend
> a penny on exotic battery R&D, and could introduce the Volt in the same
> time frame as any other car.
>
> But, include a "battery box" in the trunk that fits standard size
> batteries.

Or sell it with available batteries, and let the consumer upgrade if so
inclined.

Precedent 1, lots of gadgets are sold with lame batteries and an
"optional, better battery" you can buy (wasting the lame one).

Precedent 2, hot-rodding cars is the American pastime.  A vibrant
aftermarket will emerge to fill that battery box.

Robert

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GM should sell Volt "batteries not included"

storm connors
The BMS has to be designed for the battery used and the battery pack
is a buffer between the charger and the motor. Part of the efficiency
supposedly comes from running the engine at a relatively constant
output rather than the constantly varying output required for auto
operation.

Leasing the battery pack might be a viable option. Trade in your old
pack for the new and improved model next year.


> Lee Hart wrote:

> > So, I have a radical idea. Why doesn't GM supply the Volt *without
> > batteries*? It still runs as a gasoline car. It's lighter, cheaper, and
> > not much harder to build than any other car. They wouldn't have to spend
> > a penny on exotic battery R&D, and could introduce the Volt in the same
> > time frame as any other car.
> >

--
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1059
http://stormselectric.blogspot.com/
Storm

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
12