Talk:General Motors EV1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Dubious Number 2 Controversy 3 Reten 4 Dubious statements 4.1 Ha ha 5 more technical dubiousness 6 POV tag 7 New Discussion 8 Figures

[edit] Dubious Number

Under the consumer experience section, a claim was made that without the electronic speed restricter, the EV1 could theoretically go up to a maximum speed of 190 instead of the 80 mph preset max. I'm not sure how realistic 190 mph is....or where that number came from.

[edit] Controversy

Some people have speculated that the EV1 program was intended to fail from the start, to demonstrate that electric vehicles could never work. These claims cite inadequate marketing and artificially constrained supply (the factory that EV1s were manufactured at was shared with other models; GM executives repeatedly denied requests to allocate more factory time to their production - which resulted in a lack of supply, which prevented them from leasing more than they had, which figure was then claimed as evidence of poor customer demand despite lack of supply and the waiting lists for new EV1s) as evidence, as well as the insistence on destroying all EV1s rather than selling them at the termination of the program - which, according to these claims, was imposed by upper management when the program threatened to prove successful anyway. Alleged motivations vary, but the most common one is kickbacks from the oil industry. These claims do not suggest any deliberate sabotage by rank-and-file GM employees. [1] [2]

I added an adaptation of an infobox that I created for the Ford Ranger EV. It needs checking and completion by someone with knowledge of this vehicle. Assistance requested. Thanks, - Leonard G. 03:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help, it's about everyting I've found... http://www.seattleeva.org/wiki/GM_EV1 --D0li0 09:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reten

You changed this:

"GM subsequently spent over $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1"

To this:

"GM stated that they spent over $1 billion developing and marketing the EV1"

Why was that necessary?

The source is both implicit and directly referenced in the Fastlane blog. GM said they spent a billion dollars; ergo, GM spent a billion dollars. No one else is in a position to say what GM spent save for GM. This entire article includes all sorts of information from GM; should we put "stated", or better yet, "claimed", before all of it?

There are dozens of less reliable sources with no such phrasing scattered throughout. As I see it, you intentionally and selectively refuted the credibility of perhaps the most reliable source.

Thanks for the contributions. Except for GM statements on the 'over a billion' spent, there are no other verifiable sources of these expenses. Because a private corporation states something several times does not make it true or verifiable. If GM offered transparent accounting or some other methodology to document the expenditure, then it can be offered as fact. For now, the 'stated' verb indicates GM's ability to publicly announce what it spent on the EV1 program. This is no more verifiable than you or I stating that we spent $30 on lunch without a receipt. The only FACT is that GM made a statement. --Reten 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You implicitly acknowledge that GM spent what they say they spent by accepting the statement it was covered by the 1.25 billion government contribution. The goverment would not have provided that sum without documentation of costs. Given the depth of technology in the EV1, and the hundreds of millions it costs to design a traditional gas powered vehicle, the 1 billion dollar figure is not at all out of order. What reason does GM have to lie? There is no controversy over the cost of the program; the word 'stated' subtly calls the source into question without reason.

"GM also cited a lack of demand, and that only 1% of those of an EV1 waitinglist were willing follow through to a lease."

Now here, we do have a controversy. GM says lack of demand, others say no. 'Cited' is the same as stated; you removed half of their argument (qualified by the word cited/stated) simply because you don't like the blog source. That blog, however, was created in direct response to the recent EV1 movie. It appears nowhere else in the EV1 article, and I think it's a tremendous disservice to leave it out. Popular press seems to agree, because dozens of other websites have quoted it and offered their own editorial commentary. SFGate certainly has; it is somehow less disengenuous to link to an SF Gate article instead of the company itself?

Incidentally, how can you allow this:

"Many consumers and government officials questioned General Motors commitment to the EV1 program. Inadequate marketing and artificially constrained supply have led some to believe the EV1 program was intended to fail, and to prove the electric vehicles were not feasible."

.. with no source whatsoever? I took that first line out initially for that reason. It's only in now because I haven't written a better lead-in to the second sentence. You can see my problem, can't you? It isn't just a matter of what you take out, it's what you leave in. If you're going to hold one thing to a high standard, you should do it with all of them.

"GM states that the electric-car venture was not a failure"

I have no problem with this line because failure is not an absolute number; GM can say they felt it succeeded for any reason they desire because it's a question of opinion.

Later, you removed the section on range. You should not have. The numbers in the side column are outliers, and in the case of the lead-acid numbers, somewhat inaccurate. They give no sense of what the car was actually like in real use.

Sorry, should of explained that one. I removed it because it was redundunt. Also, it seems to editorialize. There is already a pargraph stating the range of the different battery technologies. See the line that begins with -

The "GEN I" cars got 55 to 95 miles...

But that paragraph and the GEN I performance seems a bit high. I will adjust those based on XP. --Reten 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Under spirited driving, I personally witnessed less than 40 miles from my Impact from a full charge.

There is no editorializing in the range paragraph. There are three points not in the main article: 1) The actual range was on the short end of the scale, 2) Charging stations were few and far between, 3) A conclusion on how the EV1 was actually used. Though you may desire the to have stale list of facts, I feel personal input from experience adds to the article, and my reputability as a source, having actually used the vehicle, is substantially higher than many of the opinion pieces that appear in the footnotes.

I know what it was like because my family had one, back when it was called the Impact, and before GM started leasing them. We paid nothing; they wanted only feedback, which we were happy to provide.

Great. Very cool to contribute to the development of the EV1. --Reten 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, almost every point of the anonymous Hughes employee is verifiable through other sources. Because it was anonymous, I'll leave it out for now. Most of the content is already present in other sections.

I'm glad you agree that an anonymous posting on a usenet group is not credible. --Reten 04:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

-David Indech, 7/16

Also, I prefer the statement 'zero emissions' versus 'no emissions'. Zero implies the 'gold standard' which the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate had in mind (see CARB). I think no emissions undersells the idea that the EV1 itself had ZERO emissions. --Reten 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not worth the argument, though I think it's redundant and reads poorly.

Anyway, I'll be reverting many of your changes in a day unless you post a compelling argument otherwise here. Personally, I think the article would benefit from a new section titled "Opinions and Controversy". Out of errant curiosity, what is your experience with the EV1?

Regards, David Indech 7/18

[edit] Dubious statements

"Despite long, unfulfilled waiting lists and customers motivated enough to market the EV1 on their own"

Where is the source for the statement about unfulfilled waiting lists? It isn't in the article linked at the end of the paragraph, which in fact says "Very few people would be willing to pay even $500 extra for a clean vehicle", which doesn't suggest long, unfulfilled waiting lists. Ken Arromdee

Source Added. User:reten

Likewise, the statement "Every EV1 that was offered for lease was placed in service by a willing consumer." doesn't appear to be sourced, and the linked article nowhere states such a thing. Ken Arromdee

Sentenced modified slightly. User:reten

And how is it relevant that customers are motivated enough to market it on their own? It's quite possible for something to have few customers, but for the ones that do exist to be highly motivated. The obvious intent of this sentence was to imply that the existence of highly motivated customers also means a large number of customers, but there is no reason to believe that.

"Obviously, it would be difficult to sell/lease any type of vehicle with all these impediments."

This seems like a prime example of POV. Ken Arromdee

The POV sentences was removed/adjusted. User:reten

The line about marketing it on their own is still in there. Whether customers are motivated enough to market it on their own is not relevant. Ken Arromdee 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed/adjusted line. POV removed. User:reten

"GM claimed a lack of demand, even though GM insiders later provided documentation of long waiting lists that went unfulfilled."

The linked article is by a non-notable source proudly describing himself as a "conspiricist" on a site called "conspiracy corner" which is devoted to conspiracy theories. Moreover, the article doesn't say that there were long waiting lists. It does say that "5000 letters of inquiry about owning electric vehicles were presented as evidence of consumer demand", but letters of inquiry aren't waiting lists, and I'd expect a far larger number of people to ask about it than want to buy one. Ken Arromdee 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Source Added. Link to credible Yahoo article added. Waiting lists where provided from the GM Insider. See Yahoo Link. User:reten

This still has problems. In fact, the same problem appears in two places. Here it says "GM claimed a lack of demand" and earlier, it says "GM claimed that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable". But there is a difference between:

• 1) GM claimed there was not enough demand to buy all the cars they made
• 2) GM claimed there was not enough demand to make a profit
• 3) GM claimed they could not make a profit

It is entirely possible for there to be more demand than the number of cars, yet not enough demand to make a profit. (The demand might be more than the size of the pilot program, but less than the size needed for a full-scale program to be profitable.)

Your quotes clearly disprove claim 1, but the sources only quote GM as making claims 2 and 3. I don't think these quotes belong here unless they refute something GM actually said. Ken Arromdee 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how I'm supposed to defend inconsistant statements made by GM throughout the years? GM has claimed at different times all three statements. [3] User:reten

"General Motors claims that they could "only" lease 800 cars in 4 years, and that they shut down the program because it was an economic failure. The truth is GM only made 800 vehicles available. They ignored the Specialists’ and the public’s pleas for more, and sued the State of California to get rid of the California mandate. But they’ll tell you in their sincerest Midwestern accent that they tried as hard as they could to make a business out of it." User:reten

But, again, the POV was removed, so we are debating nothing here. User:reten

The article is full of statements that have not been removed and whose relevance is obviously to refute claim 1. There is, however, nothing showing that GM makes claim 1, only claims 2 and 3, which you've interpreted as being claim 1. (And therefore no inconstency on the part of GM.)

And while the quote from evworld appears to show GM making claim 1, it's not actually quoting GM. Do you have the words that GM said? Ken Arromdee 13:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A little Googling later, "Claim 1" was found coming from an GM spokesperson. BTW, "article is full of statements" does not equate to TWO STATEMENTS at this point. Of course, the way your worded claim 1 is not precise. "Claim 1" should be GM claimed lack of demand. I'll add the link to the article. --Reten 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"GM stopped EV1 production, spokesman Dave Barthmuss said, because "after spending over $1 billion over a four-year time frame, we were only able to lease 800 EV1s. That does not a business make. As great as the vehicle is and as much passion, enthusiasm and loyalty as there is, there simply wasn't enough at any given time to make a viable long-term business proposition for General Motors." --Reten 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/04/24/MNGDTCEA9B1.DTL --Reten 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one, which is a little subtle.

"Over 100 people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive liability, but GM refused."

The problem with this statement is that implies that the people offered to waive all liability that GM might be subject to.

This implication is not in any source--the sources just claim they offered to waive "liability", without being more specific about exactly what liability they offered to waive. And of course actually waiving all liability is impossible (you can't waive liability that GM might have to third parties, like if your car short-circuits and hurts a pedestrian).

But it's not clear how to reword the statement to be less misleading. The best I can come up with is something like "Over 100 people offered to purchase the electric cars and waive 'liability'. It is not known if this includes liability of GM to third parties, however."

I also suspect that none of the people who offered to "waive liability" consulted with a lawyer to determine if waiving product liability even to oneself is legally possible. Ken Arromdee 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

These above statements seem like FUD. Lawyers had been consulted and Toyota or Honda (looking for Link) accepted similar terms. These sentences demonstrates GM's willingness or unwillingness to cooperate with Leasees. User:reten

I would be really surprised to find that any lawyer said that party A can contract with party B to disclaim liability owed by B to C. Ken Arromdee 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You being surprised has nothing to do with reality or POV. I did not state WHAT THE LAWYERS was asked, merely, that they where consulted. Some of the people that asked GM are LAWYERS. User:reten

If you have statements saying that some people who asked are lawyers and believed that GM could disclaim all liability, please add them. Ken Arromdee 13:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on getting a link. Ford sold EV's that where leased as well. A lot info out there. BTW, Again your intepretation of "disclaiming all liability" is not what is quoted in the article. The article currently says "waive liability". Does that imply waiving all liabilty? Probably not. The article is not a 'legal' document and I think that statement represents (without complexity) what was offered. [4] --Reten 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Honda EXTENDED the leases to work around this issue. --67.78.35.102 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike GM, Honda extended leases for some drivers, and about 100 of its original 300 or more EV Plus cars are still on the road." [5] User:reten

[edit] Ha ha

User:reten,

I just love when people come and attack an article, like User:Ken Arromdee and someone like yourself, User:reten turn around and bury every one of their arguments, and make the article stronger as a result, and even MORE damning.

Thanks User:Ken Arromdee, you came here to dicredit the article and you actually strengthed it. LOL Travb (talk) 02:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more technical dubiousness

I agree with the above poster. I also have a technical suggestion. Lithium ion batteries have not been used in electric cars (or hybrid cars) yet because of the hazards of this battery type during collisions. As far as I know, safer lithium batteries both then and now still remain on the horizon (I am a mechanical engineer). The article does not cite where these batteries were or are available. If this was an unsubstantiated prod at GM engineering, then I feel it should probably be removed or altered

Agreed. The statement seems superflous. I haved altered and removed the entire statement. Also, Lithium-Ion vehicles have been produced for vehicles. - [6] Please remember that you are comparing Lithium Batteries safety to Gasoline - a known UNSAFE fluid. User:reten

Companies are concerned about safety when failure to keep things safe results in liability. Even if lithium batteries and gasoline are equally unsafe, only lithium batteries face the possibility of safety-related lawsuits. Ken Arromdee 15:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting statements, but not noteworthy since the Lithium-Ion statement has been removed from the article. A NON issue now. User:reten

[edit] POV tag

I have added the POV gripe tag to this article. It has a pretty unambigious anti-GM tone. The reasons are pretty clearly laid out above. Nova SS 14:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Please Note that GM's POV is not necessarily factual either. We will work on getting exact references and links to claims. Please provide more specific POV details. Would like remove the POV gripe when issues are addressed. User:reten

[edit] New Discussion

Please start new discussions below here for easier reading. User:reten

I believe all POV gripes have been addressed. Removing the POV tag. Please post here to give time for rebuttal before adding the POV tag back to the artilce. Thanks. User:reten

You have to be kidding. About the only thing this article doesn't do is ask when GM executives stopped beating their wives. This is POV out the wazoo. For example: ""One industry official said each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research and development costs." [7] Normally, the R&D and Marketing costs per vehicle drop as the cars are sold in greater numbers."

Not sure that is terribly constructive. Please post a sig on your comments. As far as the Marketing quote, the first sentence is a quote directly from a GM Executive. The 2nd sentence clarifies basic economics of consumer products. If you have upfront and fixed costs such as research and marketing, as you sell more units, those cost are spread out. To say the vehicles cost $80k is misleading because they only made ~1100 of them. It is difficult at best for a large company like GM or Honda to estimate what it costs to build a limited run vehicle like the EV1. (BTW, this misleading cost logic was used by Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc). Both sentences are FACTS about the EV1 and it's estimated costs. If that seems unreasonable, maybe it can be changed?? Thanks for the feedback. --Reten 05:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unsigned user above. This article screams POV and still deserves to have the POV tag prominently displayed. Nearly everything attributed to GM uses the loaded word "claims". How many times can you read "GM claims X" in one article, before you're either highly suspicious of GM or highly suspicious of the author? And sentences like "Despite long, unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feeback from the leasees, GM claimed that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable." -- if that's not POV, I don't know what is. (In addition to the POV problems with that particular sentence, there are also factual questions concerning the waiting list that have been raised in comments above, and are not addressed by the cites. GM points out, rightly, that just because someone is on a waiting list doesn't mean they will actually convert into a buyer/leaser when the opportunity presents. They asserted a 1% conversion rate on the original list of 5000. And even if they got 100% conversion on a list of 5000 potential customers, that's not nearly a viable market.)

I note that you do include GM's rebuttal at the end of the list of links, but for this article to become neutral, it really ought to incorporate much more of the material from GM's rebuttal and present it in a balanced fashion. Something more like: "The cancellation of the program was controversial. GM's position is X. Critics counter with Y." --TomChatt 09:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the specific feedback. I agree, the 'Claims' verb seems to be overused. There are also a few sentences that were added that are a little harsh. We can work to smooth those rough edges out. However, I'm not sure the goal of the this WikiPedia is to represent "GM's Position", but more FACTS about GM's actions and the EV1. Thanks --Reten 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The best parts of this article are where it sticks to clear facts. The facts are things like the price of the car, its speed and range, how many were made, when the program began and ended, etc. Getting into GM's motivations and second-guessing their marketing assessment departs from facts and ventures into speculation (and in this case, accusation).

It is also a fact that there has been controversy around the ending of the program. The best way for a Wikipedia article to deal with such controversy is to create a clearly bracketed section of the article (set apart from the other just-the-facts sections), and present the competing positions in as balanced and neutral a way as possible. Note that you're already presenting the "conspiracy theory position", so why would it be inappropriate to present GM's position as well? You should have both or neither.

As it stands now, portions of this article stand out as having strong POV. Those portions are:

• In the top section, most of the 3rd paragraph
• In the top section, the speculation about the production cost of the car in the 2nd/3rd sentences of the 5th paragraph
• Consumer Experience (entire section)
• Cancellation (entire section)

Note that adding footnotes does not cure a POV problem. POV comes down to this: if a person who's never seen this article and doesn't know the authors, reads the article, will that person know what the author's personal opinion is? In this case, if someone were to take a quiz at the end of the article that asked: do you think this article was written by (a) Chris Paine or Arianna Huffington, (b) a GM spokesperson, or (c) a neutral observer? The goal is for (c) to be the answer, but as it stands, anyone who reads this would answer (a) without much hesitation. --TomChatt 06:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Modifed one of the 'claims' to 'stated'. Will work on more later. I would be more inclined to discuss with the above poster if you had less 'opinion' in your post such as 'screams' or other posts besides these TWO. BTW, you are the only person implying there is a 'conspiracy theory position" since most of the statements are sourced from reputable news sources and an ex-GM employee. We'll work to clarify, but the article merely points out that some facts differ from GM's POV.

Also, one of the 'facts' that you mentioned is mis-stated. You liked the 'clear fact' about the 'price of the car'. The car was never sold. It was a what could be called a 'LEASE COST'. Consumers never OWNED the CAR. We could state how much the RAV4 EV cost, because they sold them. So the price is not a 'fact'. As stated, it reads correctly: "The price for the car used to compute lease payments was..."

As far as removing the entire 'Consumer Experience', again I would disagree. Maybe a few verbs / pov cleanup can take place, but if you look at other articles such as the De_Lorean_DMC-12 in Wikipedia, they contain sentences like these:

"There were extensive waiting lists of people willing to pay up to $10,000 above the list price; however, after the collapse of the De Lorean Motor Company, unsold cars could be purchased for under the retail price."

This sentence give you an ideal of demand for the vehicle. The 'Consumer Experience' sections explains the difference between the EV1 and other vehicles when those factors are considered. How many "Eclipse Convertibles" would they sell if the only leased them and had a 2-4 month waiting list? Even the DMC-12 eventuallly had a much smaller delivery time-table. Of course, I could be biased since I wrote that section.  :-) --Reten 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the "screamed" comment, that was a bit uncivil. And it's fair to notice I have no Wikipedia track record (yet :-)). I've just filled in my User page with a bit of info, you can look there and follow it to my blog if you want to get a sense of who I am and where I'm coming from. I actually landed here because I had been reading Arianna's blog (a regular read, I respect her a lot), and wanted to get some neutral background so I turned to Wikipedia. Not that I'm unsympathetic, but I have a critical mind and like to get all the info and make up my own mind. Honestly, I was disappointed as the tone of this article quickly raised my hackles as not being neutral, rather it was like an extension of Arianna's blog. I hope we can work together to fix it. I do think it will require more than just minor tweaks. When I get a bit more time, perhaps I will take a stab at writing an alternative proposal, and see what you think.

By the way, one accusation which is not fair: saying I'm the only one to see a "conspiracy theory" here. Some previous commenters above on this very page have raised that issue. And one of your own footnotes leads to some guy's blog entitled "conspiracy corner". Having sources like that does little for your cause. --TomChatt 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The "conspiracy corner" link is gone (AFAIK) and the comments above refer to an older version. It only remains as part of this discussion's history. --Reten 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Check again. The "conspiracy corner" link is still there, footnote [11] (middle of three consecutive footnotes at the end of the "Consumer Experience" section). --TomChatt 06:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed it. It's gone now. The Yahoo article next to it provides a more credible source. Thx. --Reten 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence seems unabashedly pro-GM: "However the true magnitude of GM's commitment in developing the EV1 project is shown by the fact that without government subsidies each of the 1100 cars produced would have cost the company in excess of $900,000." It seems to me that the goverment subsidies strongly reduce any credit GM deserves for going forth with the program. They likely wouldn't have spent as much had the government not been handing out subsidies. It's easy to spend other people's money. Besides, part of the "commitment" might simply have been that GM did not want to be locked out of the California market given the CARB mandate, a theory bolstered by the cancellation of the EV1 program soon after GM had the mandate struck down. They built EV1s because they felt had to in order to remain in its biggest state market, not because they were "committed." Sorry, but this seems to be strictly opinion and defininely not neutral POV in trying to make GM sound like some incredible corporate citizen willing to spend enormous sums of its own money to save the environment. 24.58.29.164 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Figures

The second paragraph states that "GM leased over 800 EV1 cars out of about 1100 manufactured". The third paragraph states that "every EV1 that was offered for lease was placed in service". These two statements do not contradict each other, indeed they make perfect sense. But I have to wonder what happened to the three hundred cars that were not offered for lease. The article does not say. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How many EV-1's are left intact?