Note: read part one of this story here.

Pause and rebirth

I joined the GM EV effort in April, 1991 and began pulling together a small team of test and development engineers and technicians at GM's Proving Grounds near Milford, MI.

One vivid early memory was driving the Impact concept car down a long, steep Proving Grounds hill early one August morning on the way to demonstrate it to a meeting of GM's Board of Directors. There was a sweeping curve near the bottom of this hill that I routinely drove nearly every day on my way to test tracks.

Suddenly, as I sped downhill toward that curve, I remembered that the Impact rolled on skinny, low-rolling-resistance experimental tires, and had almost no brakes. Visions of an expensive career-ending crash flashed through my head. Then I remembered that I could dial up "coast-down" regenerative braking with a rheostat knob between the seats, and that slowed the slippery little bullet enough to make the turn. Whew!

The pause
Sixteen months of hard work later -- on Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7, 1992 -- our fearless leader, Ken Baker, had to tell our Lansing, Mich. Craft Centre plant team, who were preparing to build our breakthrough electric vehicle, that the program had been delayed. Then he had to deliver that same emotional message to his engineers at GM's Warren, MI Technical Center.

The story continues after the jump.

Triumph of technology set the stage for the future

• Our gift is a world of opportunity. To leave it a better place than we found it is our greatest gift to the next generation. – Ken Baker, GM Electric Vehicles
• "Since when does being an auto engineer makes you smarter than scientists specializing in the field?" – ABG reader John, on my 8/3/08 column, "Global Warming Pro." (Yes, "Pro")

Well, John, maybe not smarter, but maybe educated enough to have a valid opinion.

Engineers become engineers because - like people who become scientists - we are good at math and science, including physics, chemistry and biology. We study the same things eventual scientists do, then branch out into specialties. Some choose geology or climatology. I chose automotive engineering because I love cars and wanted to help make them better.

As technically trained people, engineers have a good understanding of what makes things work, how elements interact and what is physically possible...and not. We know that vehicle fuel economy is mostly about size, weight and aerodynamics. We know that technology can incrementally improve efficiency, but also that technology costs money. To redirect an old racing adage, how efficient can you afford to be?

Unlike typical non-technically trained people – including most government bureaucrats, lawyers, legislators and journalists – we form opinions and make decisions based on facts and data, not emotion and opinion. We have long-established BS alarms that go off when someone tries to tell us that something we know is physically impossible is not. We know there is no 100-mpg carburetor or 40-mpg SUV (If either was possible, why wouldn't someone be making a fortune building and selling them and blowing away all their less-enlightened competition?).
That said, let me tell you about the most exciting, challenging and inspiring engineering assignment I've ever had: Vehicle Test and Development Manager for what became the GM EV1. I know the real story behind General Motors' 1990s electric vehicle effort very well; I was there, working my proverbial tail off on it, and you can start reading this tale after the jump. A warning, though: those who harbor strong negative perceptions about EV1 and GM's intent for it - from that recent ill-informed crockumentary or some other non-knowledgeable source - may not want to read this, because the real true story will not reinforce what you already think you know.

Chris Paine, maker of the famous (at least in these parts) documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car," is planning a revival of the topic for his next film. Tentatively scheduled for a 2009 release and titled "Revenge of the Electric Car" (does the sequel look to get some inspiration from the Star Wars franchise?), it certainly wouldn't be a shocker if the electric car in question were none other than the Chevy Volt. While the first documentary focused on the destruction of the EV1 from General Motors - despite the fact that many past EV owners wanted to purchase them outright - the second film appears ready to welcome the electric car back from the dead.

We're not at all certain what the movie will focus on, but it is definitely true that electric cars are seeing a reincarnation of sorts. Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive and General Motors all have plans to create new electric or hybrid vehicles in the coming years, along with many other major automakers. Even if it isn't the beloved little coupe, we join Mr. Paine and the throngs of ex-EV1 drivers in welcoming the electric car's return.

[Source: The Detroit Free Press]

Our friend John McElroy isn't the only person out there who thinks that General Motors should dust off the old EV1 program and re-release it for public consumption again. Apparently, a passionate electric car enthusiast copied Mr. Bob Lutz himself on a letter suggesting that the EV1 needs to be brought back with its original lead-acid batteries. Remember, though, that Lutz is extremely involved in the Volt project, so it's not too surprising that he had plenty to say in response to the letter. In fact, Lutz echoes many of the sentiments expressed by our own Sam Abuelsamid, who recently wrote about the difficulties of reviving the long-dead program. Lutz highlights the fact that the General lost one billion buckaroos on that program the first time around and balks at the suggestion that lithium ion batteries are not yet ready for primetime. According to Lutz's response, the Volt's battery pack will not delay its launch. For our part, we're content to see the Volt picking up the pieces left by the loss of the EV1.

[Source: LA Times]

As I was recording the presentation in GM's mega-expensive Visualization Center, I wasn't sure if I would be able to use it. I mean, the whole point of the VC is to, well, see things. And, since GM prohibited video and still photography on this tour (audio was OK; I checked), what was going to be valuable to readers during this stop on the tour? While I can't hand you the nifty 3D glasses we wore to see the E-Flex structure on the giant screen, I was pretty fascinated by this presentation and think you might be, too.

The presenters in the VC were Sam Lute, the room lead, and Andrew Farah, the chief vehicle engineer of the Volt. Farah might be familiar to some readers for his work on the EV1 - and he was selected to work on the Volt because of his history with EV1. Listening to Farah speak (he takes up about 50 minutes of the 55-minute audio clip below) is a real lesson in what the Volt engineer are dealing with as they design the car. How can the dip in the battery's structure distribute energy in the case of a crash? How will they deal with gasoline (or E85) that sits in the fuel tank for a year? How about if there's no fuel in the tank at all? Are there any parts of the ICE, specifically durability components that are needed in a motor that runs all the time but will just weigh the car down if the engine only turns on twice a day for five miles, that can be removed? How often will you need to change the oil in a car like this? Will there need to be and "driver education" to explain the benefits of driving around with just a third of the tank full of gas? Should the computer be designed to run the engine even if the battery doesn't need to be charged, perhaps even as the car is sitting for weeks on end? Farah doesn't have all the answers, but there's a lot to learn in the clip below.



I also got to speak with Farah a bit more about the potential of using the Volt sans gasoline. His take? Yes, it'd be possible. If you don't have 55 minutes for the full presentation, perhaps this five-minute interview will be more your style:

• Next: designing the Volt interior and exterior

One defining characteristic of Americans is our incessant movement in personal vehicles of all sorts. From the Conestoga Wagons that crossed the continent to Hummers that take (some of) us down the block to buy a quart of milk, our love affair with vehicles remains undiminished. And museums large and small devoted to transport dot the landscape, necessitating further travel to visit them.

The latest is the $17 million, 48,000-square-foot "America on Wheels," opening April 12 in Allentown, PA. With displays including two-wheelers to semi-trailers, it intends to be a comprehensive exhibit. Mack Truck is sponsoring a virtual reality experience, to allow the kids to enjoy the thrill of driving a semi across a construction site. Of special note to ABG readers, there is a "Car of the Future" exhibit featuring a 1997 General Motors EV1. Because GM needlessly destroyed the ability of these racy cars to drive before a few were donated to museums such as "America on Wheels," perhaps GM ought to sponsor an EV1 virtual reality experience. With any luck, within a few short years, an electric "reality experience" will return to showrooms.

[Source: eTrucker.com]

Dr. Gloria Duffy is the President and CEO of the the Commonwealth Club of California, the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum, bringing together its more than 18,000 members for over 400 annual events on topics ranging across politics, culture, society and the economy. Dr. Duffy served as U.S. Special Coordinator for Cooperative Threat Reduction and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration. Her column in the April issue of the Club's magazine, "I Miss My EV1," is a timely reminder of what could have been. Dr. Duffy believes "GM could have scaled the EV1 up to full production and been ahead of the game in producing a relatively affordable zero-emission vehicle."

She and her husband each leased the GM electric car, which they dubbed Red Sparky and Blue Sparky. She reminisces about how her "long commute turned into a dream - affordable, quick and non-polluting." Recently she met with some GM execs and was shocked by what she heard. She writes, "I nearly fell off my chair when one of them apologized for the way GM handled the EV1 episode. He said GM should have sold the cars to the people who leased them." You can read the entire article here.

[Source: Commonwealth Club]

Roger Smith, the former General Motors CEO who oversaw the company through the '80s and had a very green vision for GM, died two days ago. Here is a quote from the LA Times by Roger about hybrid cars from an interview he did in 1990 with University of Michigan business historian David Lewis.

Wait until you see what the car of the year 2000 will be ... I'm absolutely convinced it will be a hybrid, part electric, part engine.

In 1986, Roger was the one that agreed to enter GM in the Australian solar race which led to Paul MacCready creating the car that would become the EV1. In 1990, before he left GM, Roger promised that the EV1 could be made, and it was his statements that were probably the reason California created the ZEV mandate. That is not how Roger will be remembered or the way things worked out at GM.

Roger Smith is known in popular culture as the target of Michael Moore's Roger and Me, a movie about GM closing plants in Flint, Michigan and Moore's quest to try and talk to Roger about it. Honda released the first hybrid in 1999 and, as Roger predicted, GM released the EV1 but then they killed it. CEO Rick Wagoner has downplayed the potential of hybrids for years, only recently showing support for the technology. Would things have been different if Roger were CEO of GM in the '90s?

Rest in peace, Roger Smith.

There was a big push for electric cars in the '70s because of energy concerns. There was another big push in the '90s because of a California law. The two videos below the fold are of the two iconic cars from those bygone decades: First, the triangle on wheels, aka the CitiCar City Car. In a 1974 video, we get a look at the batteries, which were located directly under the seat. Second, is a video from 1990 all about the GM Impact (later renamed the EV1). The Impact videos tells the story of how Paul inspired GM to make the car. Hopefully, 10 and 30 years from today, we'll have more than old videos of the current crop of electric cars, and those that should be coming out very soon.

[Source: YouTube]

Paul MacCready, a true green transport pioneer, died recently. Ted.com has made available a video of a 21-minute talk he made in 2003. The talk has great stories about his amazing career, like the inspiration to create his first human-powered flying vehicle. It seems Paul had a $100,000 debt at the time and thought winning the $100,000 prize for the first human-powered flight vehicle was the perfect solution.

He spent $65,000 to make the Gossamer Condor so that's why he had to win second human-powered flight prize of crossing the English channel. The real money maker, it turns out, was selling the plane to the Air and Space museum, which reduced Paul's income taxes by two-thirds. My favorite moment from the talk is Paul's description of a flexible solar powered plane he made with NASA. He said "the wings could touch together on top and not break... we think."

Paul also mentions the EV1 and CARB's decision to to pull the electric car mandate. His son then ends the talk by demonstrating a great flying toy.

[Source: TedBlog and tipster Natasha]

it may not be the most original take on the question of why we don't have a robust EV infrastructure in America today, but Michael Kanellos's post over on CNET on just who killed the electric car is nonetheless a very good read.

Take this line as an example: "This is General Motors and Ford Motor we're talking about. U.S. automakers are the last bastion of industrial feudalism on the planet. The most innovative things they've come up with in three decades are the cupholder and the Lee Iacocca goggle glasses. (It was a huge fashion statement back in the '70s, kids.) These people are going to engineer a global conspiracy that eludes regulators around the world, financiers and competitors? GM execs are more concerned about who gets named to the Rolling Hills Country Club membership committee."

You like? There more where that came from, but if you're pressed for time the takeaway point is that making a "real" EV for the masses is no easy task, and the difficulty means there are a lot of reasons why no automaker has tried since the EV1 and RAV4 EV and Ranger EV went away. The success of hybrids, trouble with building a better battery, the inherent difficulty in making and selling cars and - very importantly - cheap customers are all to blame.

I heartily disagree with Kanello, though, when he says that understanding something by "follow(ing) the money", is something only crazy people do. There's a lot that gets revealed when we look at financial motives.

[Source: CNET]

There are three video interviews on YouTube from The Charlie Rose Show with GM's president and CEO Rick Wagoner. They were done in 1999, 2002 and 2006. It's really an amazing look at the developments in the car industry over those years. In the 1999 interview, the two men talk about "unheard of" price reductions and the 2000 SUV, which is larger than ever. Rick is also really excited by the new technology called Onstar. That video is below the fold.

In 2002, they get into deeper price reductions and talk of slowing sales for SUVs. You can almost see the interest in green issues grow, becoming equal to concerns about market share and China. This interview is the most interesting and is at the top of this post. 26 minutes in, after asking Rick about fuel cells, Charlie asks if Rick believes electric cars and hybrids are "the wave of the future." This is what Rick says.

"I think we tried electric and I think the conclusion is honestly that doesn't look like the answer. We think we can improve gas engines. We think that there will be a role for hybrids, which is a combination of some form of battery power and gas or diesel. We think there is a role for those but they are inherently at a disadvantage because you are paying for two propulsion systems. So we think there is going to be a role and this will evolve. But if you ask what could 10,20,30,40 years ultimately replace or begin to replace the internal combustion engine without big consumer trade offs, I think the best best bet is fuel cells."

He is then asked about peak oil and global warming. The 2006 interview, also below the fold, talks about the shift to cross overs and "imminent" release of hybrids. GM's doubts about hybrids is not really news. I could write about the rise of hybrids, growth in cross overs, public attitudes towards climate change, etc. but you see it in the greying hair of the CEO of GM in these videos.

[Source: YouTube]

A123 Systems, based in Massachusetts, was included in Congressional hearings the last few days discussing the conversion of hybrid vehicles to plug-ins. We have covered this story a few times already, so I won't be discussing it here, but something else of interest apparently came out in the discussions. It seems that employees of A123 Systems were given a sneak peek at the Volt, and even got to drive prototypes of the vehicle. The cars were apparently very similar to the one that we all saw in Detroit at the Auto Show. A123 is involved with the lithium ion batteries that will likely be used in the vehicle.

This all reminds me of when my older brother worked in the IT Department at Alcoa. You might remember that Alcoa built the aluminum structure of the EV1. He got a chance to drive prototypes of the EV1 before it was for sale. This all gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling for the Volt, because as you know, the EV1 did in fact make it out into the wild. I know, I know... these are totally unrelated instances, but at least it makes me feel better.

[Source: The Detroit Free Press]

The press and consumers alike are already questioning so-called green cars like the pricey hybrids from Lexus as to just how "green" they really are. The same goes for the Prius, as the well-known debate over whether the "well to wheel" environmental cost is not only just not worth it, but worse than even the "anti-green"-est vehicle than them all, the Hummer H2. We're not really collectively buying that particular argument, but it would be a hard sell to convince anybody that the vehicle in the above video is green in any way. Sure, the e-Jet might have started as a plug-in electric GM EV1, but as soon as the jet engine was attached to the rear end, it lost any and all of its eco-conscious credibility, while undoubtedly picking up some other types of street-cred.

[Source: Youtube, thanks for the tip, Joseph]

The first time that The Truth About Cars wrote about the Tesla Roadster, the results were less than thrilling to fans of the electric sports car. They have since decided that the vehicle is worthy of another of their editorials. This time, how will their readers react?

In this latest editorial, the fundamental issues of electric vehicles are considered: range and speed. The article mentions that electric cars already have quite a history behind them, from the early 1900s all the way until the GM EV1 hit nearly a century later. The article focuses on the perceived shortcomings of using lead-acid batteries and rehashes all of the known questions surrounding new advancements in lithium ion batteries. Those known questions, oddly enough, surround the unknown quantities of the batteries, because they have yet to see widespread use in electric vehicles.

Their conclusion? "Hard-core EV freaks and eco-poseurs are going to love the Tesla, despite the fact it doesn't have room for a suitcase or a couple of bags of groceries."

[Source: The Truth About Cars]