Talk:General Motors EV1/Archive 1

Neutral Voice?

It seems the chapters Project Cancellation and Reaction contain a pro-GM stance instead of just telling the facts. Does anyone else see this? 75.7.1.165 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely you jest. The lack of neutrality in significant sections of this article is so blatant it might as well be a blog! I'm going to get help to have it deemed unencyclopedic unless serious edits and citation cleanup are not made WopOnTour (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand NPOV. The requirement is that OVERALL the article should be neutral, but that all significant POV can be, and preferably should be, represented. Since there is a significant POV that blames the demise of this car on conspiracy theories, as opposed to GM's usual incompetence, it can be and probably should be in the article. Nobody 'deems' anything round here, it is up editors to sort it out. Greg Locock (talk) 20:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I misunderstand nothing with respect to NPOV.So you are saying that "overall" this article (especially topics on "program cancellation" and "discontinuation") are neutral? I think not. An assesment of "significant POV" cannot on it's own establish concensus.The fact that the editors permitted these conspiracy "theories" to exisit in the article without any available verification is ludicrous.Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. WP:SPECULATION It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analysis in lieu of verifiable sources.A great many of these so-called "theories" (your words, not mine) in these sections have now been awaiting citations for almost 2 years. Wikipeda is not a soapbox to generate and garner advocacy in any "cause" and articles that can be reasonably interpreted as an "opinion piece" become unencylopedic and subject to deletion.W:SOAP WopOnTour (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"I misunderstand nothing with respect to NPOV". Hard to believe given your dedication to whitewashing both the articles you edit. I don't think this or the the Volt article were particularly good, but to be honest I don't see you have improved them much. Sure you have changed them, but not all change is good. At some point I'll probably be doing a diff between them as they were and where they are, and keeping the best of both. Greg Locock (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "whitewashing" you mean removing duplicitous soapbox material very obviously designed to create an advocacy of support for conspiracy theories related to the EV1's demise (most of which comprised of uncited and speculative statements with zero balance) then you are correct.Most of what I edited out was duplicate material from the "Who Killed The Electric Car" WP anyways- which is probably where it belongs.(maybe pat down your tin-foil hat and go contribute to it yourself) As far as my edits to the Volt WP, most of which was purely techncial in nature (with GM and SAE references) as opposed to NPOV edits or whitewashing.If you wish to discuss the technical intricacies of the Volt technology in detail, or any errors my edits I'm more than willing to do that over there in discussion or personal talk. WopOnTour (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, you really are barking up the wrong tree. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious to any but the most obtuse that I favour incompetence as a reason rather than conspiracy theories, but, I can only write the words, I can't understand them for you. Greg Locock (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

My my aren't we high on ourselves.All of us "down here" are really quite impressed... WopOnTour (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyon, does anyone know why GM isn't simply using the 10 year old technology of the EVS-hybrid which has a much greater range than the Volt and better mpg? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.111.49 (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

GM thinks consumers will react better to a more aggressive design, larger cabin space (both of which limit range due to less aero-efficiency and higher weight), bleeding edge technology (Li-ion), and a lower price tag ($30k compared to the $80k price of the EV1). Kubel (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what "GM thinks"? The EV1 was not for sale only available on a lease: How do you get to a $ 8ok price? Gatorinvancouver (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably he asked Bob Lutz. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2008/06/times-staff-wri.html Greglocock (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

EV2 designation

Some sources are referring to the four-seat prototype that GM made as a EV2, a short google will bring lots of articles up ( there are countless who dont have a clue and speculate about "potential EV2" too ). A separate article would probably be overkill, but EV2 should probably redirect here and the matter should be mentioned and preferrably clarified with the people who were involved in the program. In the Volt announcement there was mention of using EV2 designation for it as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 April 2007

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.

While a production EV1 could not reach that speed (primarily because of improper gearing and inappropriate tires), the calculated top speed of the vehicle from power, drag coefficient, mechanical drag, and frontal area is indeed north of 180 MPH. Dave Indech 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As indicated in Michael Shnaeyerson's book "The Car that Could", a specially modified EV1 was taken to a test ground (I believe the same proving ground on which the EV1's are now stored) and run ungoverned, regeared etc. in an express attempt to set a LSD for electric vehicles. It is true that the car topped out at approximately 190mph, it is not true it was a production EV-1. The statement is technically accurate, but misleading. With regard to the supply/demand issue, this is also covered in the book. GM approved a limited production of the EV-1. There was no hope of recouping development costs as part of this, so the number of cars produced was limited. With a wholesale unit cost in excess of $25,000, GM did not feel they could sell the cars (MSRP would have had to be in the $40,000 range) even at cost + dealer markup. Other manufacturer's cars in this segment (though not electric) were selling at $13-15,000 in the late 1990s. I can't help but wonder if the waiting list for the EV-1 would have been as "lengthy" as claimed if the car was available for purchase at that price, with routine maintenance including a five year battery pack life w replacement cost of $5-7000 per? As for the liability issue, it is my understanding from speaking to product law specialists and consumer advocate groups that it is not possible under US law to completely absolve the maker of a product for any and all liability associated with that product. The waiver consumers offered the company would, in light of this, have been largely meaningless. It is also a common practise under US litigation laws for plaintiffs to pursue action against whomever has the money to pay, regardless of their actual liability. In addition to this, the company was very concerned about public image issues resulting from selling off the cars (should they begin to fail prematurely or otherwise underperform), and - as indicated in the article itself - long term parts supply/repair costs. I'm no fan of General Motors (having filed action against them myself on unrelated issues), but I can absolutely understand as a business owner why they felt that selling what were, in effect, experimental prototypes was not an acceptable option. Lastly on this topic, the suggestion that the US Gov't paid GM's development costs is not accurate. The Gov't program involved in backing next generation vehicles did kick in what amounted to "seed" money. This incentive in no way covered the EV-1's development cost nor even a significant portion thereof.

Incidentally, I have updated the article with a significant amount of information from Mr. Shnaeyerson's book on the EV-1. A user has removed the links that were inserted alongside these statements as references and replaced them with "citation needed" flags. Anyone know who did this or why? It seems a bit much to wipe out citations and then flag them as missing... I have not replaced them as, Wikipedia being what it is, they won't stay long.

I agree with much of the discussion surrounding the controversy section. Although it would have been my preference to eliminate the subjective info, that would have left the article mute on the (very real) public controversy surrounding the car. Rather than wipe out vast swaths of the article, I added statements from the book that illustrate GM's stated position on the controversies noted in an effort to provide balance. Other users can decide whether this is a reasonable response or not. While it would be fair under wikipedia guidelines to suggest that all that information is POV and should be removed, at least the article now reflects both sides of the argument rather than just the "Roswell" theorists view of it. While Wiki purists will no doubt say the article should contain nothing but basic facts surrounding the vehicle, I believe that Wikipedia should contain information in addition to that which can be found on corporate websites (stats, production facts etc). Absent additional information, there is no legitimate reason for users to visit Wikipedia over other sites.

Finally, for anyone who believes the EV-1 was deliberately scuttled by it's maker, I suggest a weekend spent reading Mr. Shnayerson's book on the technical challenges involved in it's production, and the known limitations it went to market with. As is often the case, where knowledge is lacking, conspiracy is assumed. I doubt very much whether anyone who delves into the detail of the development of the car (independently) can reasonably continue to believe this is a conspiracy. Does anyone really believe that if GM (or Ford, or Honda) had invented the better mousetrap, the MS-Windows of the automotive world, that they would not have done everything in their power to seize and dominate that market niche? John Posthocergopropterhoc 06:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadyes (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 August 2006

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)

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?

I think this clarification may have to do with the Federal subsidies that GM may have received. The Feds dished out $1.5 Billion dollars to many automakers for R&D and marketing on such vehicles. GM may have disbursed $1 billion dollars in the development but, after subsidies, they may have only spent $500 Million. The sentence could have been reworked in many ways. I would have liked to have know from source was the $1 billion spent after deducting the Federal subsidies or not, but my guess is that the subsidies are not always clearly linked to the projects... In addition to those subsidies I recall the Feds offered $4,000 grants for the purchase of such vehicles. GM (or GMAC) might have qualified as the owner of the vehicle and been entitled to this grant, in addition to grants for developing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond.myers (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 June 2007

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

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

Comments like these by the primary editor fail to inspire NPOV this whole WP is on the verge of "Unencyclopdic" It wont be difficult to get support for this unless serious NPOV edits and finished citations don't occur here WopOnTour (talk) 07:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

Agreed. Not only that, user "Ken Arromdee" has done absolutely nothing on wikipedia since. A paid troll? User:fallout11 14:09, 28 February 2006.

Thanks. Not sure, but I'm still here waiting for a Electric Car! --Reten 20:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.145.251 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2006

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

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

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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.117.33 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2006

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)

First, who posted the paragraph just above reten's response? We need to know who we are talking to. Personally if a person posts without ID that's an invitation to ignore the post. Second, the technical section of this article clearly lays out all of the advances and new technologies inherent in this design. These advances clearly point to development costs that would be above and beyond ordinary automotive development costs. Development costs, unless this is a concept vehicle, are always rolled into the figure used to calculate the price of the vehicle. So the figure is not only plausible it might actually be too low. Additionally, GM often made unsourced statements regarding the EV1. Finally one unnamed source stated that these cars were largely handmade. A "fact" not mentioned in the article. Of course, if this is true, labor costs for this vehicle would be well beyond the norm. William (Bill) Bean 22:23, 26 July 2007 (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.)

Obviously, you don't know what is then. Start signing your stuff. William (Bill) Bean 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.146.231 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2006

• Last I heard, about one. --Eamonnca1 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, their is only one remaining. It is in a museum in Los Angeles (don't know the name of the museum though). Xen 1986 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No there are maybe about 10 remaining. Three that we know of, the Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles has one that is featured in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit has one on display, and of course the Smithsonian Institution famously has one in "permanent" storage. In addition GM has retained some, and may have given others away. 199.125.109.120 13:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I added the neutrality warning to this section as a service to the unknowing public. What a can of worms here. This section needs much so much work ... no justifying of why GM did this ... or why the CARB did this ... or why GM was in bed with big oil. The controversy section must present both sides and let the reader make the conclusions. 69.174.99.67 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the controversy or need for a neutrality warning, as the article stands now it seems very fair and balanced overall, with no outstandingly directed POV displayed. Hence I am removing the neutrality warning, for now. fallout11 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt

... is based on the technology researched in EV1 Series Hybrid according to the PR. Time to update the tone of the article? User:85.140.236.144, 21:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Unencyclopedic

I added the Unencyclopedic template today. The content is more typical of a "blog" than an encyclopedia. It seems to be a contest between GM bashing and project supporters. Please edit this section, removing words and phrases such as sinister, perilously low range, etc. In general, write in language of a neutral point of view. mbbradford 02:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the above comment, I'm suggesting that this article be written so that it is interesting for a million people to read and learn about the EV1 and electric cars, as opposed to being written for the 1000 people who are angry about GM cancelling the program, or 1000 people at GM who are defending the program. We hope every wikipedia article will end up being a well written, interesting or fun to read, article. Non point of view does not mean that there are equal points and counterpoints -- that's called a debate. Non point of view means that the article is written to focus on what is generally accepted, rather than what is generally controversial. mbbradford 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing sounds like a better idea than deleting. Schmiteye 21:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the EV1 entry? Are you kidding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.41.3 (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2007

I agree the article should be here, precisely because wikipedia is what it is (a changing/able) entry, and the wording could be changed but as I understand the format any can chime in and say nay. However this should not be a blog maybe you need another entry, EV1 Setup to fail, or EV1 the best electric car, whichever (EV1 THE Debate). I would suggest hold to hard facts as many kids use this a learning / research tool as I do myself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.239.20 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2007

I believe the NPOV or cleanup tags would be more appropriate. "Unencyclopedic" is for stuff that should be here at all (eg, the personal life of Joe Smith) --Astronouth7303 01:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the whole article should be deleted. I placed the template in one section because I intended to imply that one section should be considered for deletion. The end of the EV1 program is an interesting part of the story, but it should not dominate the article. Let's write a good article that is not a campaign for or against a product, or a company. This EV1 article seems to attract a crowd of editors with an agenda. Please read a few of the featured articles to get an idea of how a good article is written. Please read what wikipedia is not. While no offense is intended, I say to those few that if you wish to write an editorial, then please go elsewhere and do so. You can always start a blog. But please do not corrupt a community attempt to write an encyclopedia article by insisting that your point of view should dominate. mbbradford 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The topic is definitely encyclopedic. If you have issues with lack of NPOV, then add the appropriate template. The existing one suggests deletion based on the topic and ought to be replaced. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the topic is clearly a soapbox, and is a perfect example of what wikipedia is not. It's reasonable to give the origional authors a few more days to edit the section and temper their POV, before making a judgement of it's encyclopedic value. mbbradford 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary mbbradford, it seems that most readers do not share your sentiment on the matter. The topic is most definitely encyclodedic per WP's definition of same. As suggested by Erikster, if NPOV is a problem then edit the offending section accordingly rather than passing personal judgment on the intrinsic value (or lack thereof) of an entire article. fallout11 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, since there seems to be a desire to better source this article, I notice that a citation request now exists due to an earlier primary source now being behind a pay wall (at the Arizona Republic newspaper). What, if anything, can be done about something like this? fallout11 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

New Movie about the EV1

There is a very interesting movie out called "Who killed the electric car?" It answers many of the questions asked in this discussion and contains a lot of factual information about the oil and auto industry and their suppression of electric autos. Ben Bennett, Lake Havasu City, Az— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.230.195 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2007

The movie is a possible source to use, but having seen the documentary today, I'd suggest caution in using the documentary as the basis of the article. There should be a healthy mix of sources from both sides, or neutral if possible. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a reference to the movie in the article, and there is also a wik article on the movie. See Who killed the electric car? mbbradford 19:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

General Motors badge?

I find it hard to believe that the EV1 "was the only vehicle in the history of the company to bear the 'General Motors' badge." Or am I misunderstanding what's being said? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Veatch (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

GM markets its vehicles through the brand names of Cheverolet, Buick, Oldsmobile, and recently Saturn and GMC. The EV1 is the first vehicle whose badge said "GM." mbbradford 19:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to open our eyes?

Let's keep this article alife in WP, and please not remove it. The EV was a revolutionary step that was oposed by corporations (and by the creator itself), so they can make more and more money off gas powered non efficient SUVs... But... our planet is already in trouble... I'm converting my car into an electric one, and those modifications costs me $6,000. I will be able to make 70 miles a day on new batteries with average speed of 65Mph, I will not pollute the air, and I will save money on oil changes and gas (I'm spending about $170 a month on gas and oil, so I will return my investment in about 3 years, but I'm glad I will produce zero Co2 emmission) - though, it's not about money anymore - it's about saving our kids and grand kids from astma and other health problems... 24.211.174.203 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How does one go about converting a car to electric. If you have resources or tips, please post them as i would assume that there are others with curiousity as well. 24.183.49.206 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Kate, Madison, WI

Please, keep in mind where your electricity is coming from. Zero emission at the tailpipe does not necesarily mean zero emission into the atmosphere. Electric energy in the U.S. is still produced by a strong fraction of power plants using fossil fuels (although strongly depending on region). The whole energy conversion chain is crucial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.85.110.100 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2007

That's true, but keep in mind that electricity is slowly becoming cleaner-- with wind power, solar energy, even water being harnessed for electricity needs. Oil is not becoming cleaner (or more prevalent). Gloriamarie 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Origins section

Does this section belong here? I expect to read about the origins of the EV-1, and instead I'm treated to a seemingly POV talk about CARB's ZEV mandate! Now, there may be a place to talk about these things, but it seems like it should be elsewhere.

My recollections may be a bit vague, but the origins of the EV-1 stem from the GM Impact, which was GM's attempt to make an electric powered sports car. Indeed, I remember following the development of the car in articles in Motor Trend Magazine, and wuold expect a section entitled "Origins" to be about the development of the car, and not about automakers trying to modifiy the ZEV mandate!69.110.26.96 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I cut down the origins section quite a bit. Its interesting stuff but get way deep in the weeds. This article is about the EV1, not legislation. Dman727 20:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the third paragraph in this section. It has nothing at all to do with the EV1. If there's a ZEV mandate page on Wiki, it belongs there, not here.HubcapD 05:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The ZEV mandate was central to the introduction of the EV1 and should be included. 199.125.109.51 21:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look, it is mentioned in relation to the EV1. The paragraph I took out had nothing to do with the EV1 itself. Again, if there's a page for the ZEV Mandate, the paragraph I removed belongs there.HubcapD 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Owned by Chris Paine?

Since GM never sold an EV1, and retained ownership of all the vehicles - as the article clearly states - how can Chris Paine be said to have "owned" one? 67.170.212.250 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly he did not own it. He leased it. Of course I know of many people who lease cars and its not unusual to refer to it as "your" car, or consider it "owned. I see no reason not to change the referenced in the article to "leased". Dman727 01:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy controversy

I'm not sure, but there's a lot of things under 'controversey' that are facts. Maybe they are unsourced, but doesn't mean they are part of some debate. Is this controversy:

"The process of obtaining an EV1 was difficult when compared to the purchase of any other commuter car. The vehicle could not be purchased outright. Instead, General Motors offered a closed-end three year lease, with no renewal or residual purchase option. The EV1 was only available from Saturn dealerships (then less prevalent than they are today), and only in California and Arizona (for technical reasons)."

All facts above. We need references, but I'm sure if you ask anyone that worked at Saturn at the time, they would confirm. How a car is marketed and sold is certaining interesting information about the vehicle.

"Before reviewing lease options, a potential lessee would be taken through a 'pre-qualification' process in order to learn how the EV1 was different from other vehicles (a similar 'buyer familiarization process' was standard for all Saturn buyers). Following this, prospective lessees would be placed on a waiting list with no scheduled delivery date. After an average wait of between two and six months, the leasee would be allotted a vehicle. Installation of a home charger took one to two weeks and cost an additional US$2500 (on average)."

Again, all fact, not in debate. We might need a source, but does this tell an story of how the car was marketed and sold?

These sections used to be under "Consumer experience". Now, the "Consumer Experience" are all engineering numbers and figures and specifications about the car. How is that Consumer Experience? Consumer Experience was trying to summarize how the car was marketed and leased. It's important information in restrospect because it implies a 'different' experience (positive or negative) about the car.

Let me know what you think. --Reten 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)