Talk:Who Killed the Electric Car?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

rxdxt 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Rxdxt - not sure what is meant by this. is there something broken?

Contents

[edit] Where can I get my boycott GM button?

But really, why complain about GM. If California really wanted to have an electric car, they could have contracted with a local company to build one. Electric motors are really simple technology. BTW I've owned two electric bikes. They cost under $300 each, and they go 20 miles on a ten cent charge.

If government had any balls, it could control what happens. Look at the chinese, they made running microsoft windows illegal and linux the standard. Let's face it. We have government by the corporations for the corporations. For me the only solution is not to buy their products. I have a car, but I rarely use it. I would really love to get rid of it entirely. I think I could get by renting a car a couple of times a month. I never "joy ride." For me, nothing is more joyless then sitting in traffic. Nothing would please me more than an electric car - except perhaps to charge it by solar power.

To me the most telling section of the film had to do with the oil companies buying up the enhanced battery technology. Of course this is a blatant antitrust issue. Really, these companies should have the battery company interest seized by the government - you know, the way meth dealers would have their assets seized. For one, I would rather have a meth lab down the street then a petroleum distillation plant in my neighborhood. A meth lab would probably kill fewer kids. But don't worry big oil. You are perfectly safe. There is no way in hell that our government would ever protect us little people.

[edit] Edmunds criticism

This is a little ridiculous, don't you think? Criticizing critics smacks of bias (or POV issues) and is just pointless. Let people decide for themselves. I agree with the movie's message, but this is just too much. I'd remove it myself, but I thought I should at least ask first... 199.230.36.74 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's essentially someone's original research, and off topic. So I took it out. Like you, I pretty mjuch agree with the movie and think the Edmund's guy is nuts, but unless someone has rebutted him, we shouldn't take that on. Dicklyon 03:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I posted a rebuttals to Karl on Car's Edmunds article and they deleted it within hours. I posted again and they deleted it within minuets on a Saturday. You can see my empty post as erevman. If they wont let people post rebuttals to their articles then I dont think they deserve to have a part of this page. Let us please remove this junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome movie

This movie is a million times better than An Inconvenient Truth. Spiro Bob 23:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think both are well done and important films.24.215.253.143 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An Incredible Story

Saw it at a sold out screening at Sundance and was tremendously surprised to see how moved audience members were for a film about a car. It's not just about a car, however. It's about the oil dependency crisis, politics, passions, and Californian ingenuity in the quest for cleaner air and cheaper sustainable options to oil. Al Gore remarked at Sundance that this film was at the top of his list of films to see. In a sense, An Inconvenient Truth presents a problem to which Who Killed the Electric Car? supplies a truly key part of the answer. Highly recommended. --David Lane

[edit] Criticism section & hydrogen

With regards to factual statements and opinions, if we are going to allow information to be presented as fact, when it's indeed opinion, shouldn't that be struck from this page. E.g.:

"Fact: There were 5,000 people who expressed interest in an EV1, but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease, went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one (not too surprising, is it?). The film likes to quote a figure of 29 miles as the average American's daily driving needs, but that is a national figure and the EV1 was only sold in California and Arizona, primarily in Los Angeles. Anyone wanna guess what the average L.A. resident's daily driving need is? I'm betting it's higher than that national average...."

The last sentence is where this information departs from factual statement.

Richardault 17:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the whole thing is bollocks. GM did present it this way, and very negatively.. they were saying things like "Are you SURE you want to lease this car?" and etc. Secondly, they lied through their teeth. When they made the supposed phone calls (which there is NO evidence that they did, in fact, call anyone) the range on the EV-1 was 120 miles, not the original 80 miles. Also, it took less time to charge than mentioned. They also did not bother to mention the fact that the consumers would never have to pay for gasoline, for any maintenance on an internal combustion engine, or anything else for that matter that didn't relate to the tires or suspension. They didn't bother to mention the city charging stations, nor the tax credit, nor anything else that might incent the consumer to buy. Odd, huh?
Also, anecdotally, there were more likely 10's of thousands of people on the combined waiting lists. All of which already knew exactly what the car could do and wanted to get one anyway. Knomegnome 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there some reason we should care about what you have to say? Is it in the movie? Do you have a source making these comments, so we can do something about it in the article? Or just venting? Dicklyon 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not presented as fact, but as a quote from a reviewer. The point is that HE is promoting his POV as fact. If that's not clear, please do edit it (not the quote, but the material around it) to make it more clear. Dicklyon 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed my original part about the film's analysis of hydrogen technology. In fairness, I've trimmed it to be less speculative, but I've also included some rather good articles on the subject, including the film's own website. The scientific american article is worth reading through thoroughly to understand why the film gives h2 a bit of an unfair time, especially since even fuel cell prototypes are essentially plug-in hybrids with EV1-esque AC motors and batteries. The two technologies (h2 and battery electric) go hand in hand rather well, and help counterbalance each other's weaknesses.

If you're going to delete info claiming it to be non-factual, please do your homework next time.


That being said, this is still a really good film. It's thought-inspiring, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, just as with any other documentary.


I agree with some of those points, but your sources are questionable at best. "Factual" as it comes from the PR department of GM is probably not "factual" at all, but spun from a different direction. And that guy Karl's blog? That's a SOURCE? His facts are equally as dubious as GM's PR man and his spin is suspiciously similar. Laikalynx 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


The Karl blog is the opinion of a very reputable automotive journalist - the editor in chief of Edmunds.com. Also, despite the obvious bias in the GM entry, someone from within GM would probably be MUCH more familiar with the strengths and weaknesses (both technological and commercial) of the EV1 program than anyone else. So their counterargument holds a lot of weight, and by all means deserves to be included as a source. RydDragyn

Surely you don't mean a primary source. The GM piece is just another partisan commentary. Dicklyon 03:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (note that "primary" was edited out later, in case anyone thinks this comment makes no sense)
If Karl is so reputable then why did they delete my rebuttal to his article twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A primary source "refers to creation by the primary players", i.e. the creation of the EV1 by General Motors. No, not a dictionary definition of primary, I'll concede, but GM's argument for axing the EV1 is the same now as it was in the late 90's, and you can't blame them for defending their decision. The reference should stay. I HAVE added some counterarguments for balance, however.

Also - "partisan commentary". That describes all sides of the argument, so it's a meaningless accusation. --Ryddragyn 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not an accusation; "just another partisan commentary" is simply a characterization to distinguish partisan commentary from a primary source. A primary source is like a document of what actually happened, as opposed to retrospective commentary on it. The whole movie is partisan commentary, and criticisms of it that are also partisan are to be expected, but should not be labeled as something different from that. Dicklyon 19:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm at least glad you can recognize the partisan nature of all of this. Primary or not, the GM criticism is legitimate and deserves to be included in the article. Congrats on knowing someone in the film by the way. --Ryddragyn 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)RydDragyn

Dick Lyon - thanks for rewriting the section a bit, it was getting kind of unwieldly. There were a few references you deleted that could have been useful though, such as the recent reports on GM's plug-in hybrid project. It was the bloomberg reference, I'm sure you can find it in the archives of the article. Also, the scientific american article specifically included a proposal for BEV's that used hydrogen as a supplemental power source. I first read it in hard copy since I'm a subscriber, but I'm pretty sure the full article is available online. --Ryddragyn 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)RydDragyn

I left out those references because I didn't see how they relate to criticisms of the movie. Put them back if you can find a logical place for them. Dicklyon 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Bloomburg news article on the plug-in hybrid program helps to add support to GM's efforts at EV's post-EV1, since the electric drive systems are in the same "lineage" (for lack of a better term) as the EV1. Let me know what you think and we can put it back in. Might have to wait following a possible rewrite (see my comment below).--Ryddragyn 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)RydDragyn

Thanks to Dicklyon for the re-write, it helps. I no longer see the re-statement of the GM response by Dave Barthmuss that purported to elevate their position to a "fact"; so I no longer see the need for the tag [citation needed]. However, now the criticism section is as long as the article itself and so dominates the entry. The section also is not NPOV in that it recites responses without explaining the predicate information provided in the film. A future solution would be to migrate the debate surrounding the answer to the film's question to a separate page. Castellanet 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It didn't get longer, just takes more space with subsection heads. I think the right answer is to put more info and structure into the rest of the article, e.g. the summarize the main points that it makes. Dicklyon 01:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

personally, I've looked at other movie pages there is NOTHING like this section. this is a factual section about the movie and imho should remain such. if desired, and I would call for a vote, the controversy section should be made into its own page, just like on farenheit 911. However, frankly give the source of many of these edits and the fact that it's obviously someone with a political axe to grind I say delete the section entirely.rxdxt 00:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, I just started to clean up the suspects and I've realized neither of you has seen the movie. this is really not a factual, unbiased approach and I would propose simplifying the article by deleting both sections. rxdxt 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

The "Plot Summary" as it now stands reads like an advertisement. It needs to be reworded or removed, especially the line

It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry.

which is demonstrably false; electricity doesn't just magically appear, it has to be produced at power plants. Most plants in the US burn fossil fuels, so charging the vehicle did indirectly produce air pollution. Miraculouschaos 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure enough, it was copied word-for-word from the movie's official site. Deleted. Miraculouschaos 02:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

actually, it's the 1st line of the movie, but I agree with the edit, think the plot summary needs work, not my forterxdxt 00:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms section needs a rewrite

The Criticisms section is not encyclopedic. It uses passive voice to introduce criticisms without saying who said what specifically. This is not a place for us to make our own criticisms, which is what the hydrogen part is mostly. I recommend a subsection for each criticism that should be reviewed. One for the GM reponses, one for the Edmunds editor, and more as needed. Focus on who said what, not on introducing new opinions here. OK? Dicklyon 19:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The hydrogen proponents section still needs a reference. If it's all from the same GM blog, then yes please do move it into that section. Dicklyon 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole article might need a rewrite, given that a lot of the point of views contained with the film are only introduced in the criticism section. --Ryddragyn 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)RydDragyn

OK, I started a stab at it with the complete list of suspects and verdicts. Someone please verify and expand on these. Dicklyon 02:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose deleting both suspects and criticism, neither is encyclopedic and frankly seem like efforts to move the page away from a factual report on the film to a POV punching match. I propose deleting both sections.rxdxt 00:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree the criticism should be moved to a separate page (or deleted here). Editors usually aren't happy about having their entire contribution removed completely, and I don't see the harm in a documenting the debate. However, the debate in the "criticism" section is about facts and causation surrounding the reality that no production electric car is now available, not about the film itself. While that debate is the subject of and reason for the film, I see it as separate from the entry about the film.Castellanet 03:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section might simply benefit from being included in a more general section called "response", or something similar. That is a legitimate part of an article, plus I have seen many Wikipedia articles document this aspect of a film, though maybe we've overdone it a bit in playing devil's advocate. That being said, any good documentary film is one that provokes thought and debate, so the criticism section shouldn't be deleted altogether.--Ryddragyn 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Rxdct, I think you missed the point of the Suspects section. This is just to summarize the points made in the film, not to introduce any opinions of us editors. The film is organized explicitly around this list of suspects. As to the criticisms, I think it's not a bad idea to summarize who is criticizing the film, with what points. Again, let's avoid introducing editor opinions. Same with reviews section; it's to link and optionally summarize reviews, not to introduce our own. NPOV should help make it all encyclopedic. Dicklyon 05:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test spin in a plugin Prius

http://hybridblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/test_spin_in_a_.html

75.35.113.208 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing the critique of GM's survey?

Which is your favorite source for the stuff being taken out? 75.35.113.208 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And how is this related to the section that it has been put into? Make a new section? Dicklyon 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

68.164.57.195, thanks for fixing the section into the form of a rebuttal. But statements of the form "Critics contend..." are still not encyclopedic. They are begging for an attribution. Are these rebuttals from the movie? Or from other sources? Please state the source, or someone will feel justified in removing them, which we wouldn't want, would we? Dicklyon 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are mostly in the movie; the one that wasn't was deleted. Please see the movie before editing the article about it. Starcare 00:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I second that suggestion to the random contributors. I've seen it twice; the second was useful in updating some sections; but I wanted to give the contributor of these a chance to attribute them. Since they didn't, thanks for fixing them, Starcare. Dicklyon 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lease requirements

GM's lease requirements included;

  • minimum $125k income (think 10 years ago)
  • EV-1 would be 3rd or 4th vehicle

A survey by the independent Doring Company found that 33.4% of Californians wanted to purchase an EV-1, even knowing the range limitation. [1] Skyemoor 12:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was able to drive an EV1 during its life. It was when I worked for Hughes Aerospace (a GM company), and they had several available in the motor pool. They were sluggish, limited range, and were in reality not very practical. When you combine that with the high cost and limited load capacity (tiny trunk, only 2 seats), they were doomed to failure. After all, for the same cost you could buy yourself a Toyota Supra Twin Turbo or Jaguar XJR. Given the cost and choice to consumers, it is no wonder that nobody wanted the things. And if GM had sold them outright, they would have been obligated to provide replacement parts. However, the EV1 lives on in the generation of hybred vehicles that followed (which did not suffer the problems of the EV1. Mushrom 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] misleading rebuttal to the los angeles commute

Mr. Brauer's conjecture that "the average L.A. resident's daily driving need is...higher than that national average" is contradicted, however, by other sources such as California's Department of Transportion, which reports an average commute distance of 13.3 miles in Los Angeles County in 1993 [2].

Is somewhat misleading. The average LA resident is not necessarily "the average LA commuter." Anyone who has lived in LA will tell you that a commute across the 10 or the 405 is going to be longer than 13.3 miles. ... aa:talk 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add more refined, or less misleading, statistics, if you find a reliable source. Keep in mind the whoever's inequality, though, which says that if the mean is 13.3, then the percentage of people that drive 10X that or more must be less than 10%. With such interpretations, it seems clear a great majority of LA residents could easily use an electric car, while the ones who do the long commutes may still need to use gasoline. The percentage of commute miles converted to electric would be smaller than the percentage of drivers converted, of course. But this is my own WP:OR, not verifiable info unless you find a source. Dicklyon 15:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

13 seems too low, i guess they aren't including all those people who cannot afford to live close to main cities and thus commute and hour or longer from a newly built suburb.

Perhaps not. But it's hard to tell from an average whether the number makes sense. I think the San Fernando valley is part of LA, but maybe they're not counting the inline empire. The point, though, is that even those who commute twice the average, or more, could do so easily in an electric car. That's got to be a majority. If only the long-distance commuters need to stick with gasoline, that still leaves a huge potential market and benefit for electrics. Dicklyon 15:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Acid Batteries

I believe the mileage given in the Edmunds article refers to the initial lead acid batteries, I believe subsequent batteries where NiMH and had a much greater range. There were also talk of another battery type came out after the car was destroyed that would have increased the range to around 300 miles.

Hobbyists were already getting over 200 miles before GM ever released the EV1. GM made a mockery of science. This is probably why the autos were only leased - if they were sold then they could be modified and reality shone through to the masses.

[edit] Reviews

The OC Weekly Review is not a movie review (as stated), but a political commentary loosely related to the movie. It does not belong in the review section for this movie. Tomteboda 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a reviews section at all? I don't see reviewer blurbs on other movie articles. Phiwum 20:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Where else are you going to find attributable reliable sources about the content of a movie if not from reviewers? It doesn't have to be a section, but it seems to work OK that way. Dicklyon 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers?

Is there any need for the "Spoiler" tags in the conclusions section? This isn't really a murder mystery. —wwoods 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Home Video Market

What does the term "Home video market" mean in a world wide web project such as wikipedia?

[edit] GM 'review'

The GM section does not actually review the movie itself, so does not belong here; perhaps EV-1 article. --Skyemoor 15:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is not "reveiw" per se, the GM blog entitle "Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?" mentions the movie title in its opening sentence and is obviously written as a reaction to the movie, not about the EV-1 more generally. It belongs here. Dicklyon 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Since they claimed they didn't see the movie, their blog entry is not a criticism of the movie, and hence has no place in this article. --Skyemoor 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the article already state that they said the didn't see the movie; still, it's a reliable source, and it's about the movie and the points made in the movie. Why are you so keen to remove it? Do you not like to see GM looking like fools? Dicklyon 17:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electricity Costs and Crisis

I wish the film had explored the typical electric bill increase for one who trades his car for an electric. I also wonder how the California electricity crisis of 2000-2001 influenced the consumer demand for electric cars and influenced GM's decision to pull the car. Would it be worthwhile to include links to this information?

If the film did not explore it, why would think it would belong in the article? Dicklyon 19:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crushing of cars

It seems that the crushing of the cars was something that the companies were trying to hide; it was only possible to know about the crushing because this was filmed from a helicopter in Arizona. It should be examined in the article whether Dave Barthmuss's statement that "every part" of the decommissioned cars was to be recycled was true. He continues to claim that "crushing is part of the recycling process." I find this very difficult to believe. Badagnani 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The cars were crushed because the program was being shelved. There was no ongoing way to service or maintain any of the vehicles, and the last thing GM wanted was vehicles with absolutely no support, service, parts, remaining out there. Hobbyists who may have wanted/been able to independently maintain their own EV-1s personally (arguments about whether this would even be possibly over long periods of time in any meaningful sense) are utterly irrelevant. If you want to believe that they were crushed because of a government conspiracy, Big Oil, aliens, or a combination of the above, be my guest. The film is extremely biased. The fact of the matter is that GM realizes it made a mistake by killing the EV-1 Hybrid, which was really where the market would be...but there was no way to know that then. There are numerous arguments about how poorly managed this process was; many of them true. But the focus on the fact that the cars were crushed is just too much. That's the ONLY way to insure they don't get back out into peoples' hands again via various means. It's not like GM is trying to hide anything; the EV-1's capabilities are well documented and well known. das (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)