 |
|
EV WORLD EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE |

Chelsea Sexton at February 26, 2005 rally at GM's Burbank California training center. She and other former GM EV1 specialists contend that they have evidence of strong consumer demand for the two-passenger battery-powered car.
|
Former GM EV1 specialist gives her perspective on the current stand-off between the corporation and electric car enthusiasts
Open Access Article Originally Published: March 05, 2005
UPDATE: Saturday, March 5, 2005. GM successfully removed 5-6 EV1s from the Burbank storage area on Friday, but not without a brief confrontation with one vigiler blocking the truck, until Burbank police arrived. The truck was later involved in a freeway accident when the driver apparently hit a concrete medium, disabling the truck for 5-6 hours, at last report.
It's 3:30am, and I am sitting in front of the General Motors training facility in Burbank, a place most people don’t even know is here. From the front, it is innocuous enough- a wide brick building in a residential neighborhood, bearing the name and logo of the largest company in the world. Normally the gates to this facility are wide open during the week, but today the guards are just arriving for their 12-hour shift, guards that are only here because I am. It is day 14 of the 24/7 EV1 Vigil, otherwise known as the California GM Car-sit.
In 1996, General Motors debuted the EV1, the first mass-produced modern electric car, and their bid to meet the California Zero Emission Vehicle mandate. It was sleek and fast, completely dispelling the "EVs are golf carts" myth- a sporty little 2-seater that could take a Viper off the line and has a range up to 140 miles per charge… and it didn’t pollute. In short, the EV1 was good, clean, fun.
To bring the EV1 to market, General Motors hired 13 passionate young people as EV Specialists- "the Originals". I was one of these Specialists; at age 20, I was the youngest, and it was my dream job. The technology was amazing, the people fascinating and the potential intoxicating. We were responsible for leasing the vehicles to customers, working the Saturn retailers through which the EV1 was leased, designing and executing events, creating marketing materials – and for me, the line between job and life blurred further. I met and married an EV1 technician, and had my son Chris, who as a baby slept in EV1’s while they were up in the air with his dad working on them from underneath, and attended so many EV1 events that he became the unofficial mascot. What started as my own passion became a family project, and what once was just a car, had clearly become my life.
Eventually, when we ran out of cars to lease, the EV Specialists started a waiting list, not having any idea how controversial that move would become. "If there’s enough demand, General Motors would tell us, we will build you more cars." Problem was, they would never quantify just how many orders constituted "demand"- and so our list just kept growing with the names of people willing to wait an unknown period of time for the possibility of getting a car. Many of the people who were able to lease EV1s had to wait up to a year to do so.
Eventually, GM wouldn’t just settle for not building more cars, they wanted back the ones that had been leased, no matter how much their loyal drivers begged to keep them. Not only did they take them back, they laid off the EV Specialists and shipped the most environmental car ever to hit the road off to Mesa, Arizona and crushed them, after only a fraction of their useful life. And kept crushing them, until there were only 78 left in Burbank. And so began the California GM Car-sit.
A coalition of former EV1 drivers, current EV drivers and supporters, and environmental organizations makes up the coalition currently sitting vigil in front of General Motors in Burbank. And there’s me, one of the most enthusiastic employees GM ever had, but someone who also can’t sit by and watch them kill the car I’ve dedicated a third of my life to- and lie about why they’re doing it. Because as much as General Motors would like the government and the public to believe that there was no demand for the EV1, just the opposite was true.
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.
A few days ago, we vigilers decided to test the "no demand" theory. We asked whether anyone would be willing to purchase one of the incarcerated Burbank EV1s for $24,671.60, which is the residual price stated in the original EV1 lease. As these are six year-old cars, these cars would have no warranty, and we are willing to release GM from all liability relating to parts or service. We received over 80 orders in 48 hours. On Saturday, February 26- day 11 of the vigil, we held a rally to announce our offer of approximately $1.9 million to purchase the EV1s that have "no demand." Adding that to the $18,000 in lease payments and up to $13,000 in public tax money they have already received on each car, General Motors will have been paid or offered up to $56,000 each, on cars that cost only $44,000 in the first place , negating their argument that they couldn’t make a profit on electric vehicles. As we await an answer, we continue our round-the-clock watch over the EV1s.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 7072 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
31 comments so far...
01-Jan-2007
43160
| |
Here's the Tesla Free Energy Documentary Race to Zero Point Energy ( 1 hour 49 mins )
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7485732493597773138
Posted by: ed briggs
|
|
18-Nov-2006
37433
| |
I was poking around and found this isn't the first time that electric cars have been shot down. there was an invention by nikola tesla that would provide clean free energy to the entier world. he also had methods of harnessing that power. With this the range of an eletric car would be indefinite and batteries would be almost unnecisary.
thanks
Posted by: Jason Dodge
|
|
01-Sep-2005
9222
| |
Whats goin to happen when theres no more gas how are we soppose to get around ride horses, that wont work because they will pass some stupid law that we will need a lisence to ride horses i say find another fuel sorce that will last longer than gas
Posted by: Tony Ryers
|
|
24-Nov-2005
11133
| |
Hi:
I think that who ever said or supported "Stop production" should be held accountable.
Posted by: John Hristoff
|
|
16-Mar-2005
6602
| |
this proves what we already knew,the electric car people are nuts if you don`t like what GM does with their car build your own!Cry babies"
Posted by: keith lee
|
|
15-May-2005
7607
| |
We did build our own. See the AC Propulsions T-Zero and new SCION conversions. The designer made the original EV1 that GM tried to make. Al quit and make his own that goes 300 miles on a charge.
No crybayies her, just real technology people that are making a differance with no mandates.
Just wait to see what comes next.
Jim"
Posted by: Jim Stack
|
|
07-Jul-2005
8321
| |
Dear Fuck-u-all- So, what grade are you in? I'm guessing forth or fifth. Maybe when you get to high school you'll try the debate team, where you'd have a chance to learn some skills at expressing your views in an intelligent, convincing way. Then, even if people don't agree with you, they won't think you're just a meat head who's only communication tool is potty talk. "
Posted by: pril johnson
|
|
05-Mar-2005
6400
| |
How about one courageous vigilist stealing an
EV1 from the lot. Unfotunately, GM would
probably have Bush send out one of his Apache
attack helicopters and fire an anti-tank missle at it in order to prevent it from being copied!"
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
05-Mar-2005
6402
| |
I see a pattern here. GM and Bushelbrains are pushing hydrogen, which
has many problems, like leaking, possible greenhouse effects, and difficulty
in converting other forms of energy into hydrogen -- at the exprense of
pure electric systems, and similar things like
flywheel systems.
Electricity also has problems, especally its current limited range and long
recharge times, but these can be solved. But, electricity has a
well-established infrastructure. Home recharging of electric vehicles
can take care of most uses of cars, short trips and commuting. Longer
trips on future automated highways can involve recharging as the car is
traveling, and very long trips on the
LeviCar system involve replacing the drive-train batteries
at the end of the trip, along with the rest of the underchassis. In
other words, the electric car of the future might not need a 300-mile range.
So, why the push for hydrogen? Is it because they don't want it to
succeed? Do they have a vested interest in the current infratructure,
including gasoline stations (which would also dispense hydrogen in the future)
and conventional highways (which can be dangerous at times)? I guess
that's their vision of the future.
My vision of the future is no "gas" stations, automated expressways
safely carrying cars at 95 m.p.h., and magnetic-levitation (MagLev) rails
carrying freight containers and passenger-car bodies (LeviCars) at 300 m.p.h. between cities.
Destruction of the EV1 vehicles is just one symptom of this
dangerous mind-set."
Posted by: Joshua Levin
|
|
06-Mar-2005
6403
| |
Could GM be taken to court and an injunction granted somehow?"
Posted by: Sheane Meikle
|
|
06-Mar-2005
6404
| |
Reply to Sheane Meikle: No. These cars are GM's
private property, and they can do with them as they please.
It's like the owner can put down a perfectly good dog
or horse (provided that it is done humanely).
What frightens me is that GM also own a bunch of useful
patents, and can, effectively, suppress them (that is, refuse
to license them to others), and nobody can do anything about
that, unless it's a matter of national security.
Now, looking at Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution,
we have: "[The Congress shall have power] To
promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right
to their respective writings and discoveries;".
I would like to see a change in the patent law. If a
patent holder suppresses a patent, then there should be a
process by which the patent can be rescinded, and the ideas,
concept, and inventions would revert to the public domain.
-- Josh
Levin"
Posted by: Joshua Levin
|
|
06-Mar-2005
6409
| |
Actually the patent law has a similar provisiion. It stipulates that the patent holder must actively work to improve his patent and market the invention. However GM can say they are doing this, to the degree that we are using their electric car patents in their development of hybrid gasoline-electric and fuelcell cars.
Regarding lawsuits, I think there is a way to sue GM. It would on the grounds of breach of contract (written or oral contract). If GM really did promise to repair/upgrade the cars and them return them to the leasees, then GM has breached those contract terms. Likewise if the contract had terms enabling the leasee to buyout the cars, then GM has breached the contract buy not allowing the leasees to exercise their contract right to buy the cars."
Posted by: Gavin Young
|
|
06-Mar-2005
6413
| |
I hold three US patents. A patent gives the legal
owner the exclusive right to manufacture and sell his invention in the country in which the
patent has been granted. That is all it does. In the US, the period is for 17 years.
The owner retains the patent rights as long
as he or she pays the periodic maintenance fees.
If the fees are not paid the patent expires and anyone can then manufacture and sell
the device."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
06-Mar-2005
6414
| |
The North American auto industry just does not get it. They seem to think that consumers are stupid! The argument that electric cars are more expensive to produce than conventional vehicles is ridiculous. They can explain away EV's all they want but as long as events like this occur, and as long as the media reports on them, consumers will get more and more knowledgeable about what is available and what SHOULD BE available. The press is extremely powerful. The more media outlets report on stories like this, the more public pressure will be applied on the auto industry.
I am writing from Toronto Canada. Last saturday one of our all news radio stations reported on your vigil at GM regarding the EV1. I almost drove off the road. For this station to do the story was incredible for me to hear. We don't have any EV legislation anywhere in Canada yet. For those that have EV's and are able to drive them, count yourselves lucky and spread the word.
The other thing consumers have going for them is buying power. Look at how popular Toyota has become with the Prius. If you truly want to make your opinion count, don't buy their products. For those of you who work for the auto industry, ask your managers, why GM cancelled the EV1? why Ford cancelled the THINK? why Toyota cancelled the RAV4 EV? Shareholders in these companies should be going to shareholder meetings and demanding to know why these companies have abandoned pure battery powered vehicle programs? The more we know as consumers, the more powerful we become to evoke change.
"
Posted by: Trevor Parker
|
|
06-Mar-2005
6415
| |
The advocates of EV's, including myself, have
to understand that companies are in business to
do one thing, make a profit. If a product is not
making a profit it makes no sense to continue
to try and sell the product, despite the fact that
the product is better for the enviornment. I do not think GM and other manufacturers would abandon
a money making product. After all, they sell
things to make a profit and apparently the EV's,
at this point, are not making them any money.
Still there is no good reason for shredding the existing EV1's. The only one I can think of is
political."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
07-Mar-2005
6426
| |
While you couldn't sue GM to stop them crushing cars, a shareholder could start asking some nasty questions such as why GM isn't taking the 1.9M offered by the drivers.
I am not too up on the law but I think even a small shareholder could require GM to provide a list of shareholders that they could contact to make them aware of the situation. In the end Lutz and Co work for the Shareholders and if they decide that GM sells the EV1 or Lutz and Co go then I bet the EV1s get sold really quickly.
It would probably be impossible to get a majority of shareholders to go against the GM board but enough shareholders could make the guys at the top really sweat."
Posted by: Noel Adams
|
|
08-Mar-2005
6436
| |
Every time I mention the idea that the automotive companies and the oil companies are in bed together to keep control I get comments like, 'You give them too much credit for their intelligence', 'They don't have the ability to do that'. This just goes to show me that they do!
The ability to control what the public can buy and use has gone far beyond marketing. Those of you who think we are in a free market - think again. Look around you. Aren't we losing our freedoms? We are less in control of our lives than we were only 10 years ago. Big business tells us what we can buy and at what price and when. Why? Because it keeps them in control. Look at the current fiasco on getting your prescription drugs from Canada.
The electric car returns control to the consumer in its own small way. That is why it is being squashed.
Peter"
Posted by: Peter Fynn
|
|
08-Mar-2005
6450
| |
No news is good news. I haven't see or heard one mention of the EV1/2 sit-in from any media source here in Detrot. I wonder Why? The sit-in should be here at the Troy Mi. EV site on Technology Dr. also. It has been 18 degrees here at night. That would make it tough thats for sure. How many of the fine engineers that developed the EV1/2 would put there jobs on the line for the good of the country? Thats an unfair question I know ,but broken dreams are hard to live with to.
"
Posted by: Lin Higley
|
|
08-Mar-2005
6452
| |
If one were to consider national security as a valid excuse for having the patents for the EV1 distributed, I would postulate that this indeed a matter of national security.
The oil supplies have peaked and AFAIK there is now a quickly dwindling supply of crude remaining which means that very soon this country will be held as a de facto hostage by OPEC. The Chinese are already bidding on the massive oil sands in Canada which just might put that source out of our reach.
I'd say that our national security is truly in jeopardy right now. Let's start petitioning.
"
Posted by: Gar Harris
|
|
10-Mar-2005
6480
| |
I didn't appreciate your slam of President Bush.
Personally, I think people like you should have the right to keep the GM EV1 if you wish, but that has nothing to do with slamming an honorable man.
He won the election. Get over it. By insulting a president I support, you come off looking like a bunch of tree-hugging, SUV-burning extremist elitist.
This does NOT help your cause!"
Posted by: Joe Wiggins
|
|
10-Mar-2005
6483
| |
As for the gentlem who is personally upset by comments about george bush, I can only suggest that you read your posting again, look in the mirror and and repeat out loud 'I am a narrow minded idiot'. "
Posted by: doug seiler
|
|
10-Mar-2005
6488
| |
Bush honorable?!!! There are about 30,000 dead Iraqis that would disagree!"
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
10-Mar-2005
6493
| |
Canadian goop and natural gas? That's what NAFTA is for. Sure we can get cheap tomatoes and volkswagens (both from Mexico). One of the most important parts, though, is that we can get cheap energy.
Of course, if China decides that the US Dollar should lose value quickly, we might not be able to outbid everyone else."
Posted by: steve Erlsten
|
|
11-Mar-2005
6498
| |
GM did not deserve to have this product - and they blew the chance to market it. But its only a matter of time before some other group of inspired innovators creates an even better product. If they market it properly the honour and profits will go to them. In the meantime, we should avoid all GM and Ford products like the plague. Calling a taxi? Getting a ride from the boss? Imagine their shock and bewilderment when you refuse to ride in their vehicle because of the brand. If enough people do this, the big guys get punished. "
Posted by: Tom King
|
|
11-Mar-2005
6503
| |
Bush and the neocons are behind the nixing of the EV1. These oil heads want to drain every last penny possible from existing oil resources. They cannot envision a world without oil. Take heart, someday soon all the oil will be gone and likewise will the neocons. Hopefully the latter before the former. On that day we will have our electric vehicles."
Posted by: Theodore Ritz
|
|
12-Mar-2005
6512
| |
It seems kinda obvious to me why these companies are not pushing this technology harder. If I ran a company and I had a solution to reduce/eliminate pollution from cars and reduce are dependance on oil based energy considerably I would also be elminating/reducing thousands of jobs and putting businesses out of business by shutting down the need for gas stations. By pushing a gas based energy for replacement the impact is not as bad to the economy since gas stations could convert the tanks to hold the gas based fuel sorce. While the impact on the economy and air would be great and for the better, the impact on the economy would be great and not for the better. The change has to happen and I personally would rather it happen now than later when we have NO oil based energy left. I would love to be able to hop into a car and not have to worry about gassing up before going anywhere, it won't happen until someone stands up and says we are going to do this all out and take the heat for the economy. I can't see any of the big three wanting that responsibility though."
Posted by: Tony Snyder
|
|
13-Mar-2005
6514
| |
The Bush administration *did* play a role in stalling the EV by attacking the mandate. Andrew Card, former auto industry lobbyist and later a Bush administration Chief of Staff acted as plaintiff in a case against California's ZEV mandate and under Bush the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting GM in its quest to kill the mandate. The repealing of the mandate was the death knell for a viable technology. It is no coincidence that this occurred, considering that George W. Bush received over $1.3 million from the Auto Industry in campaign funds for the 2000 election. Vice President Dick Cheney made his intentions for energy policy quite clear when he stated, 'Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.' How people who want to see EVs gain a foothold in this country as a means to end dependence on foreign oil can continue to support a president that wants to stifle adoption of EVs continues to baffle me."
Posted by: John Westlund
|
|
13-Mar-2005
6517
| |
Cheney's secret energy task force meeting, attended by Ken Lay of Enron and other top level
executives, undoubtedly set the stage for the
Bush administration's enviornmental policies.
I would not be surprised if they all agreed that
EVs would be a target and that tax breaks for
SUV ownership would be promoted."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
14-Mar-2005
6536
| |
Put them on E-bay...let them go to the higgest bidder. Perhaps donate the proceeds to charity or worthy benifit."
Posted by: William Valenta
|
|
15-Mar-2005
6544
| |
EV1 may seem to be a technological marvel it really wasn’t. The design was largely based on the same design created in 1979 in a project funded by the Department of Energy and produced by Chrysler, GE and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Libratory (JPL). The project was called ETV1 (Which stood for Electric Test Vehicle, sound familiar, ETV1, EV1). It was an all electric two seater sports car with a T shaped battery compartment that went between the passengers. Don’t believe me? Take a look at it. http://home.earthlink.net/~vincewirth/etv1.jpg and http://home.earthlink.net/~vincewirth/etv1bat.jpg . The first EV1s weren’t much more sophisticated than the ETV1. However, the advances to batteries, electric drive systems, controllers and more that have been developed since the EV1’s introduction, largely spurred on by the California CARB board’s original Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, haven’t disappeared. Many of the advancements have kept going. Alan Cocconi, one of the main designers of the Impact, (GM’s prototype for the EV1), has gone on to produce the tzero electric super sports car. http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm Electrovaya and produces the most energy dense battery in existence, the paper thin lithium polymer battery. http://www.electrovaya.com/innovation/zev_tech.html New Generation Motors, the company that produces most of the motors for the World Solar Challenge vehicles is making motors for an electric vehicle for India and has motors on the drawing board for many types of vehicles. http://www.ngmcorp.com/ Lets face it, EV1s are/were great, but the technology that could be available today would make an EV1 type car a much much more desirable and practical vehicle. In fact that may be the entire reason to be so active in killing the EV1, and that is that electric technology advanced so rapidly in that time period that it could very well have overtaken the internal combustion engine. There was another car built in that project. It was called the ETV2. A parallel hybrid almost identical to the 1st Prius only with bulky lead acid batteries requiring it to have two sets of rear wheels to support them. "
Posted by: Joseph Lado
|
|
15-Mar-2005
6545
| |
Going on from Peter Fynn's comments regarding how the USA no longer has a free market because of the hold big business has over what's available to the public and what is not, I will never forget learning the unbelievable news that the California mandate was being rescinded ... If you're interested in when the date of that event was, and/or when it was the announcement that ZEV credits were no longer going to be a factor in the grander scheme of things, simply think back to when statues of Saddam Hussein were being toppled in Baghdad. That's just about the same time when the American Dream was being sabotaged and the oil heads, as one reader wrote, were taking over and creating dectates of their own. Blind followers and blind leaders following other blind leaders will eventually end up together in the same ditch .. now who do you suppose made that declaration?!!"
Posted by: David Cutter
|
|
|
|
|