5 ms·

Disclaimer: I work for GM, anything stated here is solely my own opinion. I think competition is a great thing. There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at lea

by csours 6y ago

Disclaimer: I work for GM, anything stated here is solely my own opinion. I think competition is a great thing. There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla today). Likewise there would be no Volt PHEV without Tesla, no Bolt EV (My own opinion only). My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild.

gkfasdfasdf 6y ago
> There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla today). Can you elaborate on that? How did the EV1 influence Tesla?
- clouddrover 6y ago
  The EV1 had a few industry leading features: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/ For example, the EV1 had a heat-pump. Tesla only got around to that with the Model Y.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    Using a heat-pump in a vehicle isn't a revolutionary idea, it was just unnecessary as most ICEV can scavenge waste heat from the ICE. Limited adoption in EVs and PHEVs has largely been due to limited availability as there weren't any commercial adaptations for vehicles. Toyota and Nissan have been using heat-pumps for a while now though.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      > Using a heat-pump in a vehicle isn't a revolutionary idea Ah, so it's even worse that Tesla didn't implement it earlier.
      - cptskippy 6y ago
        I'm not sure I would consider it worse. Consider some things: 1) GM chose to put resistive heating in the Spark, Volt, and Bolt. 2) Nissan put a heat-pump in the Leaf. 2) Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps. So perhaps the choice between a heat-pump or resistive heating goes beyond efficiency? Or maybe in terms of biggest bang for the buck, heat-pumps are low on the list. Instead of trying to find fault in Tesla for what must surely be the biggest blunder in automotive history and will go down in the annuls of time as the defining moment where Tesla brought utter ruination upon us all, why not consider alternative theories? Maybe there aren't any commercially available ODM heat-pumps? That would explain why GM didn't use one and why one is absent from the S and Y that are closer to traditional vehicles. As for the Model 3, it's likely Tesla wanted to minimize space and maximize efficiency by integrating a custom thermal solution and a heat-pump just didn't make sense at the time. Heat-pumps are more complex than resistive heating and the Model 3's revolutionary SuperBottle integrates all of the vehicles thermal management systems. Perhaps they were playing it safe, or didn't have the time/budget to do a heat-pump. Regardless, the Model Y comes with a heat-pump to feed the Octovalve, the evolution of the SuperBottle.
        clouddrover 6y ago
        > Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius: https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-technology-development/heat-pump https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-te... > why not consider alternative theories? There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.
        cptskippy 6y ago
        > Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius I'm not sure what you're saying. You're disputing the overall efficiency of a Tesla based on the heat-pump performance of a car that has not yet shipped? > There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first. No one is disputing that the EV1 had a heat-pump first or that heat-pumps are more efficient than resistive heaters. You slighted Tesla for not having a heat-pump as if it were a serious fault. I am stating that the heating system isn't the most critical system in terms of overall vehicle efficiency.
- bdamm 6y ago
  The guys who founded Tesla (not Musk) to produce an electric supercar were coming out of the era where the EV1 had been destroyed. While I don't know if they personally drove an EV1, they were definitely rubbing shoulders with people who were. Did the EV1 product influence their decision to commit fully to developing an electric supercar? We'll never know for sure, but the timing is highly suspect, and suggests that it did.
hedora 6y ago
The EV1 was far from being the first electric vehicle, even from major manufacturers. It wasn’t even the only one being built at the time. I think it’s fair to say there would be no Tesla if so many companies hadn’t colluded with the oil lobby to kill off their own electric car lines. Wikipedia says it better than I can. The article also has a timeline of commercial production of electric vehicles starting in the 1800’s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehi... > In the early 1990s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the government of California's "clean air agency", began a push for more fuel-efficient, lower-emissions vehicles, with the ultimate goal being a move to zero-emissions vehicles such as electric vehicles.[50][51] In response, automakers developed electric models, including the Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV pickup truck, GM EV1 and S10 EV pickup, Honda EV Plus hatchback, Nissan lithium-battery Altra EV miniwagon and Toyota RAV4 EV. The automakers were accused of pandering to the wishes of CARB in order to continue to be allowed to sell cars in the lucrative Californian market, while failing to adequately promote their electric vehicles in order to create the impression that the consumers were not interested in the cars, all the while joining oil industry lobbyists in vigorously protesting CARB's mandate.
- csours 6y ago
  Tesla started in California after the EV1 was retired. I seem to recall hearing someone from early Tesla talk about the retirement of the EV1 being a catalyst for them wanting to start Tesla. I don't have a reference for this. They could have been referring to the other compliance vehicles as well. This is only my own opinion, again. The section titled "Select historical production vehicles" [0] is interesting. There were EVs being produced at times before 1996, but they don't really look like anything I would want to drive in traffic. Maybe the Skodas, but nothing besides that. When it comes to accusing corporations, I think it's fair to judge on outcomes, but also remember that the people who work at corporations have their own opinions and values. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle#Select_historical_production_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
cptskippy 6y ago
> My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild. That's really only true when the car is intended to be sold in volume. Many vehicles are introduced as compliance vehicles designed to bring down overall fleet emissions levels. The Volt and Bolt were both compliance vehicles and when the Bolt exceeded expectations in terms of popularity, GM's response was to eliminate the Volt platform entirely as it was redundant to the purpose of the vehicles.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. Also, GM argues that PHEVs were a no longer necessary transition technology for past years and the present is now full BEVs.
  - cptskippy 6y ago
    > Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. The plant wouldn't have been closed if the Volt, which was a compliance car, were necessary. To my original point, the Bolt's popularity removed the need for the Volt as a compliance vehicle and thus made the plant closure feasible. > Also, GM argues That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
    - WorldMaker 6y ago
      The plant closed because Ford decided Americans don't want an American-built sedan this decade, to great shareholder applause, and GM was forced by activist shareholders to follow suit. The Gen 2 Volt was a sedan in the sedan plant. It had nothing to do with the Volt itself and everything to do with killing the Cruise, with the Volt merely a casualty. (The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback intended to push the Hamtramck sedan plant away from being entirely sedans. A huge mistake with the Gen 2 was sedan-ifying it to cut costs at that plant rather than moving it to another plant or following the original Gen 1 plan to move Hamtramck to mixing in more "light cross-overs".) > That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions. Who said anything about GM Marketing? I'm talking about GM Shareholder reports. It's an arm of marketing, sure, but with the activist parasites chumming the GM Shareholder waters, their Shareholder reports have been quite honest.
pmorici 6y ago
Bit of revisionist history. The EV1 only came about because California was passing laws requiring ~2% of vehicles sold in the state to be EV's by 1997. A regulation which GM campaigned against and then sold their interest in the battery technology to an oil company once they got it scuttled. The oil company proceeded to prohibit NiMH battery technology's use in vehicles through patent licensing and enforcement. Tesla was only possible because Lithium Ion battery technology came along and supplanted NiMH. They also weren't motivated by government regulation so much as the desire of the founders to make it work. In 5 years I would be willing to bet GM goes the way of every other company who killed newer technology in order to extend the market for their incumbent products. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries#Chevron_and_Cobasys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_au...
- csours 6y ago
  Imagine I said: "There would be no iPhone (at least as we know it) without the Blackberry". I guess that could sound like I was minimizing the iPhone. I didn't mean it that way, but if you don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt, ok. I was only trying to talk about the marketplace, perhaps I should have used more generic terms. As for the regulatory stuff, it is fair to judge a corporation by outcomes, just remember the employees have their own opinions and viewpoint. As for what happens in 5 years, we'll see. If gas stays super cheap (it won't) and regulations are removed (they won't be) and EVs stop being more fun than ICE (they won't), then maybe GM will go back to ICE only. Feel free to be skeptical, but I think a lot of people at GM are excited about EVs. All of the above is my own opinion only. --- Below is a statement from my company: "As General Motors continues to drive toward an all-electric future, we’re also ensuring that the charging infrastructure can keep up. To that end, we recently announced a collaboration with EVgo, ChargePoint and Greenlots to establish the largest collective EV-charging network in the United States with access to more than 31,000 charging ports." https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/gm-technology-paves-the-way-for-an-all-electric-future.html https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/gm-technology-pave...
  - 6y ago

by csours 6y ago

gkfasdfasdf 6y ago

> There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla today). Can you elaborate on that? How did the EV1 influence Tesla?

clouddrover 6y ago
The EV1 had a few industry leading features: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/ https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/ For example, the EV1 had a heat-pump. Tesla only got around to that with the Model Y.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  Using a heat-pump in a vehicle isn't a revolutionary idea, it was just unnecessary as most ICEV can scavenge waste heat from the ICE. Limited adoption in EVs and PHEVs has largely been due to limited availability as there weren't any commercial adaptations for vehicles. Toyota and Nissan have been using heat-pumps for a while now though.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > Using a heat-pump in a vehicle isn't a revolutionary idea Ah, so it's even worse that Tesla didn't implement it earlier.
    - cptskippy 6y ago
      I'm not sure I would consider it worse. Consider some things: 1) GM chose to put resistive heating in the Spark, Volt, and Bolt. 2) Nissan put a heat-pump in the Leaf. 2) Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps. So perhaps the choice between a heat-pump or resistive heating goes beyond efficiency? Or maybe in terms of biggest bang for the buck, heat-pumps are low on the list. Instead of trying to find fault in Tesla for what must surely be the biggest blunder in automotive history and will go down in the annuls of time as the defining moment where Tesla brought utter ruination upon us all, why not consider alternative theories? Maybe there aren't any commercially available ODM heat-pumps? That would explain why GM didn't use one and why one is absent from the S and Y that are closer to traditional vehicles. As for the Model 3, it's likely Tesla wanted to minimize space and maximize efficiency by integrating a custom thermal solution and a heat-pump just didn't make sense at the time. Heat-pumps are more complex than resistive heating and the Model 3's revolutionary SuperBottle integrates all of the vehicles thermal management systems. Perhaps they were playing it safe, or didn't have the time/budget to do a heat-pump. Regardless, the Model Y comes with a heat-pump to feed the Octovalve, the evolution of the SuperBottle.
      - clouddrover 6y ago
        > Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius: https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-technology-development/heat-pump https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-te... > why not consider alternative theories? There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.
        cptskippy 6y ago
        > Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius I'm not sure what you're saying. You're disputing the overall efficiency of a Tesla based on the heat-pump performance of a car that has not yet shipped? > There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first. No one is disputing that the EV1 had a heat-pump first or that heat-pumps are more efficient than resistive heaters. You slighted Tesla for not having a heat-pump as if it were a serious fault. I am stating that the heating system isn't the most critical system in terms of overall vehicle efficiency.
bdamm 6y ago
The guys who founded Tesla (not Musk) to produce an electric supercar were coming out of the era where the EV1 had been destroyed. While I don't know if they personally drove an EV1, they were definitely rubbing shoulders with people who were. Did the EV1 product influence their decision to commit fully to developing an electric supercar? We'll never know for sure, but the timing is highly suspect, and suggests that it did.

hedora 6y ago

The EV1 was far from being the first electric vehicle, even from major manufacturers. It wasn’t even the only one being built at the time. I think it’s fair to say there would be no Tesla if so many companies hadn’t colluded with the oil lobby to kill off their own electric car lines. Wikipedia says it better than I can. The article also has a timeline of commercial production of electric vehicles starting in the 1800’s. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehi... > In the early 1990s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the government of California's "clean air agency", began a push for more fuel-efficient, lower-emissions vehicles, with the ultimate goal being a move to zero-emissions vehicles such as electric vehicles.[50][51] In response, automakers developed electric models, including the Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV pickup truck, GM EV1 and S10 EV pickup, Honda EV Plus hatchback, Nissan lithium-battery Altra EV miniwagon and Toyota RAV4 EV. The automakers were accused of pandering to the wishes of CARB in order to continue to be allowed to sell cars in the lucrative Californian market, while failing to adequately promote their electric vehicles in order to create the impression that the consumers were not interested in the cars, all the while joining oil industry lobbyists in vigorously protesting CARB's mandate.

csours 6y ago
Tesla started in California after the EV1 was retired. I seem to recall hearing someone from early Tesla talk about the retirement of the EV1 being a catalyst for them wanting to start Tesla. I don't have a reference for this. They could have been referring to the other compliance vehicles as well. This is only my own opinion, again. The section titled "Select historical production vehicles" [0] is interesting. There were EVs being produced at times before 1996, but they don't really look like anything I would want to drive in traffic. Maybe the Skodas, but nothing besides that. When it comes to accusing corporations, I think it's fair to judge on outcomes, but also remember that the people who work at corporations have their own opinions and values. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle#Select_historical_production_vehicles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
- VBprogrammer 6y ago

cptskippy 6y ago

> My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild. That's really only true when the car is intended to be sold in volume. Many vehicles are introduced as compliance vehicles designed to bring down overall fleet emissions levels. The Volt and Bolt were both compliance vehicles and when the Bolt exceeded expectations in terms of popularity, GM's response was to eliminate the Volt platform entirely as it was redundant to the purpose of the vehicles.

WorldMaker 6y ago
Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. Also, GM argues that PHEVs were a no longer necessary transition technology for past years and the present is now full BEVs.
- cptskippy 6y ago
  > Volt was the unfortunate casualty of an unrelated plant closure to make shareholders happy. The plant wouldn't have been closed if the Volt, which was a compliance car, were necessary. To my original point, the Bolt's popularity removed the need for the Volt as a compliance vehicle and thus made the plant closure feasible. > Also, GM argues That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
  - WorldMaker 6y ago
    The plant closed because Ford decided Americans don't want an American-built sedan this decade, to great shareholder applause, and GM was forced by activist shareholders to follow suit. The Gen 2 Volt was a sedan in the sedan plant. It had nothing to do with the Volt itself and everything to do with killing the Cruise, with the Volt merely a casualty. (The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback intended to push the Hamtramck sedan plant away from being entirely sedans. A huge mistake with the Gen 2 was sedan-ifying it to cut costs at that plant rather than moving it to another plant or following the original Gen 1 plan to move Hamtramck to mixing in more "light cross-overs".) > That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions. Who said anything about GM Marketing? I'm talking about GM Shareholder reports. It's an arm of marketing, sure, but with the activist parasites chumming the GM Shareholder waters, their Shareholder reports have been quite honest.

pmorici 6y ago

Bit of revisionist history. The EV1 only came about because California was passing laws requiring ~2% of vehicles sold in the state to be EV's by 1997. A regulation which GM campaigned against and then sold their interest in the battery technology to an oil company once they got it scuttled. The oil company proceeded to prohibit NiMH battery technology's use in vehicles through patent licensing and enforcement. Tesla was only possible because Lithium Ion battery technology came along and supplanted NiMH. They also weren't motivated by government regulation so much as the desire of the founders to make it work. In 5 years I would be willing to bet GM goes the way of every other company who killed newer technology in order to extend the market for their incumbent products. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries#Chevron_and_Cobasys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_au...

csours 6y ago
Imagine I said: "There would be no iPhone (at least as we know it) without the Blackberry". I guess that could sound like I was minimizing the iPhone. I didn't mean it that way, but if you don't want to give me the benefit of the doubt, ok. I was only trying to talk about the marketplace, perhaps I should have used more generic terms. As for the regulatory stuff, it is fair to judge a corporation by outcomes, just remember the employees have their own opinions and viewpoint. As for what happens in 5 years, we'll see. If gas stays super cheap (it won't) and regulations are removed (they won't be) and EVs stop being more fun than ICE (they won't), then maybe GM will go back to ICE only. Feel free to be skeptical, but I think a lot of people at GM are excited about EVs. All of the above is my own opinion only. --- Below is a statement from my company: "As General Motors continues to drive toward an all-electric future, we’re also ensuring that the charging infrastructure can keep up. To that end, we recently announced a collaboration with EVgo, ChargePoint and Greenlots to establish the largest collective EV-charging network in the United States with access to more than 31,000 charging ports." https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/gm-technology-paves-the-way-for-an-all-electric-future.html https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/gm-technology-pave...
- 6y ago