Talk:General Motors EV1/Archive 2

Sources

• EV1 White Paper
• GM electric vehicle videos
• Why can't the EV1 simply be reintroduced?
• Video vault
• article

where's the archive? and lede

Where is the archive link. Could the perpetrator please find it.

Also in the lede "The car's discontinuation remains controversial, with electric car enthusiasts and environmental interest groups accusing GM of self-sabotaging its electric car program due to its negative profitability, while also blaming the oil industry for conspiring to keep electric cars off the road.[1]" So the nutjobs think that GM should have persevered with an unprofitable program? How is that self sabotage? Just because a reference says it is so (does it?) it doesn't need to go into the lede. Greglocock (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It's up there in the header. I feel that whatever controversy there was surrounding the car's discontinuation forms a large part of its notability. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was well-hidden, thanks. I still do not see how a business can be rationally accused of self-sabotage for cancelling an unprofitable program, which is how that sentence reads. Greglocock (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought so too, not quite sure how to get it out where it's more visible. As for the sentence, the synthesis could probably use some work. I would disagree with removing references to controversy from the lead altogether; more readers will know the EV1 as "the working electric car that GM cancelled" rather than "the unprofitable program that GM was forced to undertake." I hope I'm making myself clear.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly clear, I concur. --Skyemoor (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This article violates so many NPOV rules it is insane, EV1 page should be about the car itself not the later controversy over the California Air Resource Board's canceled ZEV mandate program. This article needs to split into two SEPARATE articles one about the EV1 car and the other about the whole program itself which 80% of the current content of this article should reside. Wankie (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The article still needs a lot of work, but the fact is that the car's fate went hand in hand with CARBs mandate.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AniRaptor. The car existed only to satisfy CARB and was cancelled as soon as CARB was cancelled. Stepho-wrs (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Impact/EV1 was started BEFORE the ZEV mandate existed not after. CARB started the mandate based on the most optimistic predictions GM had for the EV1 program which of course never remotely panned out. The article actively ignores the other ZEV cars the Honda EV+ ,Chrysler Epic EV, Nissan Altra EV, etc while acting like GM single handily destroyed the ZEV mandate when Honda, Toyota, Nissan and DaimlerChrysler were the ones that started the campaign against the EV mandate. GM only joined after the failure to reduce the exorbitant cost of the Ovonics battery pack, proved the program would simply bankrupt the company if more EV's were required to be sold with the massive subsidy taken out of GM's shrinking cash flow. Wankie (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid argument. Do we have a source, or is it analysis?AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Impact/EV1 was shown at the Jan 1990 Los Angeles car show, the ZEV mandate came in Sep 1990 after CARB members believed that GM was releasing a production car NOT a concept/test mule.[[1]] Thus the 2% EV by 1998 requirement was born. GM believed in ZEV mandate because it was ahead in development over all other EV's but by 1999 the car was still over $80,000 to build with NiMH batteries(not including sunk R&D costs) although down from the six figure prices of the first lead acid models.[[2]] But all the easy cost saving measures were already done. The EV1 was being leased at the principal price of $35,000 aka with $45,000 GM subsidy. GM made on average $1,500 $312!!![[3]] per gasoline car sold in 1998. So Thirty One Hundred and Fifty gas cars had to be sold just to break even for every one EV1. GM's workforce was aging and their profits per car were dropping from pension and health care benefits. If the 2003 10% mandate hit GM simply could never make a profit in California EVER or possibly in the entire United States. The Numbers don't work on ANY level. It HAD to be killed. Nissan was in dire straits during the late 90's before they got purchased by Renault and couldn't afford an EV program, DaimlerChrysler joined the complaint because it wanted to push low sulfur diesel cars it already made in Europe and Honda greatly preferred the far cheaper Insight hybrid to their costly EV+ car.Wankie (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

LOL You have the gall to ask this Q: while you continue to quote an "analytical" mockumentary as the prime source of your conspriacy theories?? Too funny WopOnTour (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call WKTEC a mockumentary. If they're pushing a perspective that you disagree with, that's one thing, but calling it a mockumentary is ridiculous. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

'Who Killed the Electric Car?' is a perfect valid reference under WP rules. If you want to disallow WKTEC then you need to find another reference of your own that decisively discredits it point by point (and not just with hand waving).  Stepho  (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My point was WKTEC is an opinion piece, not definitive reference material and one in which numerous statements and innuendo that have in the 4 years since its release have either proven as false and/or in dispute by numerous more knowledgeable sources. I have no problem using it in the wiki article as long as it's mentioned in the text as "according to the 2006 documentary ..." and let the reader decide on the value of the material and NPOV. WopOnTour (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So all I did was ADD what I suggested above (with no change in the WKTEC referenced material)but I moved it AFTER the acute details of the "Program Cancellation" which belong in the lede of that section. After that you conspiracy theorists can stack your prose from WKTEC unneath that OR start a "Conspiracy Theories" section WopOnTour (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough when used to show conflicting views. In this case we have two biased sources (WKTEC is by fanatics and large corporations are well known for lying through their teeth when its convenient). As you said, our best compromise is to present both sides and let the reader decide.  Stepho  (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"WKTEC is by fanatics" Ha! If you knew the folks involved, you would know how wrong this statement is. Yes, there are fanatics promoting conspiracy theories, but the people featured most prominently in WKTEC are, generally speaking, intelligent, thoughtful and well-informed individuals (with one notable exception who I will not name). They are also really nice people. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ebike. WKTEC did certainly express opinions, but at the same time they present a great deal of fact and commentary from notable individuals. It's not like quoting some opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. WopO - I'm a little curious about this edit. What part of this sentence do you contend is opinion? That the waiting lists were full? That GM battled CARB regulations? Please let us know or I'll revert. NickCT (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert for what reasn? I didnt remove a thing. The section is titled "Program Cancellation" but the lead-inof that section did not explain the cancellation details instead it went directly to discussing what did or did not happen (still some inconsistancies here) between CARB, GM and other OEs at the time. I didnt delete that at all. I just moved the entire 2 paragraphs that were specifically referenced to WKTEC (and added the reference in the text) and placed them at the END of that section so it made more sense. About the only other option IMO would be to create another section perhaps relating to the CARB debackle as a seperate section (I'm fine with that too) But CARB didnt cancel the EV1, GM DID. so the section regarding program cancellation should commence with explainin the details of the cancellation (as it does now) and THEN discuss to myriad of potential reasons (from either side of the fence) that precipitated the cancellation. Agree? Disagree? WopOnTour (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WopOnTour: WKTEC may have been an "opinion" piece, but it also included the "opinions" of people involved in what happened, from Ovshinsky to people from GM & Saturn. Far from a "mockumentary" with those types of "opinions" - and in actuality, the only claims one can make against them is that (on the key points as they relate to this) either the people were telling the truth, or they were lying - something I doubt you or I could make a determination on, and something I am sure they would have been fired (from GM or Saturn or whatever) and possibly sued over if indeed what they said were lies.

If it weren't acceptable on those grounds, not much on Wikipedia would be citable.

Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps 'fanatic' was a bit strong. What I meant by it was someone who is extremely enthusiastic on the topic. Strong enthusiasts tend to highlight the bits they want and deprecate the bits they don't want (often subconsciously). I've met plenty of fanatics/enthusiasts who are intelligent and pleasant people, so it's not necessarily a sleight on their character. Anyway, Wop has shown that there are opposing viewpoints and has left them both in with references, so it looks good to me.  Stepho  (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

@Wop - I wasn't complaining about your shifting the location of the text. I didn't like the changes you made to the wording. I've reworded and expanded. Let me know what you think. NickCT (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand why would want to remove the reference to WKTEC? There has always been some dispute of the "throngs" of people that wanted an EV1.WKTEC is one of few references as such. So it should be stated "according to" in the text, unless you can find another reliable source that can substantiate these "full lists" JMO WopOnTour (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WopOn - Your point is taken. We should probably find additional RS to substantiate the claim that there was demand for the EV1 before stating it without a qualifier. Any editors here know where we might find some more references either for or against this tidbit? NickCT (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I did some research - I asked one of the most outspoken proponents of the concept that there was a long waiting list if she could provide me with a solid reference. She said, "No," that all her evidence was anecdotal as well. I'm leaning back to my original suspicion that, if that long waiting list existed, it only came into being AFTER it was clear that GM would not be leasing more EV1s under any circumstances. It's easy to sign up for a waiting list when you know that your name will never be called. In any case, I'll keep researching and post a good reference if I find one. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Further research - WKtEC contains footage of one or more of the GM employees who were responsible for the EV1 waiting list attesting to its existence. I'd say that was a pretty credible reference. Also, I found a link to an L.A. Times article in which the author states that he contacted Saturn and was told he could put his name on the waiting list, another credible reference. I'll include the L.A. Times reference in the article ASAP. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please dont knock your heads over this. It's common knowledge that there was "a list" of some sort, and numerous petitions etc etc. But what's really in dispute is exactly "what" constitutes a "full list" as stated in the wiki? 5? 500? 5000? So as long as the article continues to state "according to WKTEC ..." I have no problem with it. Thanks for working with me. Regards WopOnTour (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with WopOn. Unless there is some good reference specificly stating the waiting lists were "filled", adding the adjective is probably inappropriate. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, but let's keep in mind that a substantial amount of research went into the claims presented in WKtEC, and a substantial amount of evidence is presented within the film supporting those claims. This was not a piece thrown together by uninformed idealists. It is a well-researched documentary, and the research presented in the film should not simply be presented as unsubstantiated claims. Rather than saying "WKtEC claims...," this article should state, "WKtEC contains footage in which...," "WKtEC presented evidence, based on XXXX, that...," or something similar. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'd agree with all of that Ebike. I'm specificly talking about WopOn's comment about the waiting lists being "full". Does WKtEC specificly call out that the waiting lists were "full" or did they just say that waiting lists existed? NickCT (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No mention of "full" that I'm aware of. In fact, I think the conspiracy theory folks are claiming somewhat the opposite - that the list was immensely long and getting longer all the time. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ebikeguy, one question regarding your edit based on this discussion. Your text reads "The documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" presents evidence that GM stuck with plans to cancel and scrap the car, despite apparent public interest. The film includes footage of GM employees on the EV1 team discussing a waiting list of people interested in leasing or purchasing EV1s." Since the EV-1 was never offered for sale, what General Motors employees would be discussing the purchase of EV-1s? What would be the approximate time stamp/code for this sequence? Also please keep in mind, at the time most of the WKTEC footage was taped, certain people prominent in the film were no longer under the employ of General Motors (and most of THEM were never anything other than local "contractors" hired by Saturn and not salaried employees of the Corperation) Go ahead, ask her! ;) WopOnTour (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I returned the DVD to Netflix, so I cannot give the exact location (yes, I finally watched the darn thing). Dave Barthmuss made the statement. He is definitely a GM employee. He is now the lead guy for the traveling dog and pony show around the Volt. Note that, while Barthmuss acknowledges a list of "about 4000 people," he also says that when push came to shove and GM asked for a real commitment, only 50 signed up. Others (including "her") dismiss this claim, saying that people were never really given the chance to sign up. So, we should proceed accordingly in terms of editing. Also note that Chelsea Sexton and the other "specialists" were also GM employees, not local contractors. BTW: there were people "interested" in purchasing EV1s; GM just was not interested in selling them, that is why I phrased that sentence as I did. We can eliminate "or purchasing" if you think we should. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well another reason I asked is there are scenes in the film (and screencaps floating around) that show the check that the EV1 owners and activists in the documentary had offered GM to save the EV-1 was written for $1.9M from 77 EV-1 leasees (in the "RE:info" section of the check) which works out to $24,675 each. GM obviously turned that down, so it's suppose true that GM wasnt interested in selling them for %24,675 each but that was about all that can be accurately extrapolated from that.WopOnTour (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to tweaking the current language, but the "waiting list" and the big check are two different issues. One deals with leasing new EV1s. The other deals with buying out the leases of EV1s which were already in the hands of customers. In any case, tweak away and lets see how things settle out. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Octane for gas turbine fuel?

The turbine could run on a number of high-octane alternative fuels, from octane-boosted gasoline to compressed natural gas

Octane or performance numbers have no relevance for fuels used in gas turbines because gas turbines cannot knock or detonate. For instance, Jet-A, the most common commercial gas turbine fuel, has a performance number somewhere around 10. I'd like to know what authority claimed this particular turbine required high-octane fuels. I'm guessing this is a mistake and comes from the persistent confusion of octane/performance number with other concepts like energy density or fuel purity. I'm strongly inclined to edit out the references to octane unless they can be cited. 208.0.239.148 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Very surprised this hasn't been scrutinized before. To the best of my knowledge, General Motors has never stated their reasoning's behind the demise of the turbine range-extender (and besides the quoted source does not support this analysis either). Considering the time and events that have transpired since, there are obviously very good, practical reasons why a turbine RE solution was never a consideration for the upcoming Volt.Unless there's a reliable source to the contrary I would support it's deletion as well. WopOnTour (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Drivetrain

This statement is wrong: "Like all electrically powered cars, and unlike a car powered by an ICE, the EV1 could deliver its full torque capacity throughout its power band, producing 110 pound-feet (149 newton-meters) of torque anywhere between 0 and 7000 rpm, ..."

It is possible that the EV-1 had full torque from 0-7000 RPM, but highly unlikely. (It's exceptionally difficult getting information on the EV-1; General Motors is attempting to erase history for this vehicle.) Certainly, most electric motors are not designed this way, because it would mean that you only develop full power at maximum motor speed; when (as with the EV-1) there is no gearbox, this means maximum motor power is developed only at maximum vehicle speed. Usually, the starting torque runs out at around 1/3 of maximum speed, entering a so-called "constant power region" after that (in reality, the power usually reduces from a few percent to perhaps 50% over the region, typically 20% or so). The point where the constant torque region ends and the constant power region begins is called the "base speed" of the motor.

At the very least, the text as quoted needs modification. I found clues that 7000 RPM corresponds to 60 MPH, and that maximum power is attained at 7000 RPM, and maximum speed is governed at 80 MPH (if ungoverned, it is capable of much higher speed), so perhaps full torque (or close to it) is available over 3/4 of its power band. It would be good for someone who has access to some book on the history of electric vehicles to give a more accurate statement.

Mike Van Emmerik (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree the statement "like all electric cars" is clearly inaccurate and poor. But the EV1 DID in fact utilize a final drive gearbox and since the induction motor specs are not properly referenced (dead link), I agree we can either modify or remove the torque spcifications from the article or attempt to find the old reference.

However your statement "General Motors is attempting to erase history for this vehicle :)" makes me question your motives and ability to maintain NPOV in any edits. You DO realize it's been nearly 5 years since the release of WKTEC don't you?? WopOnTour (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Internal Combustion Engine link

Why does the Engine(s) label in the data box link to Internal combustion engine? I suspect some assumptions in a data box template somewhere need fixing. EdDavies (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming of citation needed templates

I have removed eight citation needed templates from one of the sections of the article, the one which has the citation banner in it. Spamming CN templates is categorically inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. It's distracting and reflects poorly on the project. Please do not add them back.

Sven Manguard Wha? 00:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I know this looks silly, that's the bloody point. I hope whoever caused this mess decides not to do it again.

So your objection is primarily aesthetic? I'd have thought that the obvious thing to do was to find cites rather than indulge your whims. I'd have thought explicit rquests for cites were easeier to work with than just a general whinge. Anyway many of the cites were long outstanding, I have removed the offending claims in accordance with policy. If you replace them the onus is on YOU to provide cites. Greglocock (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Greglocock.While I totally understand what you are saying Sven, I'll not apologize. I added a great many of these "citations needed" templates repeatedly over a long period of time with many being a very long while back, over 3 years IIRC.I found it neccessary only as some editors of this page have persisted in referencing original research and certain "purpose built" web-pages that a number of us have been disputing based on WP:SPS for years. At this point I am in favor of just removing the uncited items completely from the article (as Greg has started doing) and commence to make a concerted effort to finally start improving this article as opposed to pushing political agendas and edit warring. I'm hoping we can get a concensus from those that have been involved... WopOnTour (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC) 18:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah... then I suspect there's the error. Citation Needed is not the correct tag to use when a citation exists already, but is deemed not suitable as the main cite. I suspect we'll find the appropriate tag with some digging. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have a few more seconds before I have to get off this computer thingy. Here's the more appropriate tags for the issues WopOnTour brought up:

• {{Primary source claim}}

• {{Or}}

There's a couple others that may be helpful too. One probably should not tag a small sentence with "blah, blah, blah[citation][citation needed]" as that doesn't say much since there is a cite there. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well insead of all the "references required" or {{citation needed}} I propose that all statments that directs to references of "Who Killed" be removed as original research not meeting the defination of a {{verifiable source}} Instead we just keep the section on Who Killed as opposed to having to be inserted as some sort of blanket reference in every single section WopOnTour (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean references to the movie or the website ev1.org ? The website is definitely fan made, self published and low quality (sheesh it lacks only blink tags) and therefore does not qualify as a WP reference.  Stepho  talk  08:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious that the film was made for advocacy purposes and to push conspiracy theories, and therefore, it is not a reliable source. I support removing all content based on the documentary, but the film was notable enough to justify keeping the section on Who Killed. There are plenty of reliable sources around to cover the content on that section.--Mariordo (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I beleive WKTEK deserves mention or even a special section in this article,but it literally permeates every 2nd sentence and detracts from the article as a piece of automotive and EV developmental history.What I dont agree with is WKTEK was/is NOT a published work that meets any wiki description for RS. Citations to it lacks any direct links to a quotable publlished point of reference (script?) other than "watch the movie", it offers no available peer review as in other citationable wiki references, and does not maintain a neutral point of view. So I feel an active discussion is necessary such that at some point a concensus can be reached as to how deal with this properly, fairly, and in an encyclopedic fashion. WopOnTour (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth reading up on the definition of RS, as neither NPOV or peer review is required. On the other hand yes I agree, looking up refs in a long film clip is not feasible. Greglocock (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Turbine fuel

Presumably somebody had a reason to emphasise that the turbine needs/takes high octane fuel. I would have thought this is complete borrocks, since octane rating is irrelevant to a blowtorch, but at the same time it seems such a weird claim to bother making I wondered if there was any rational explanation? FWIW the stuff that high performance jet engines runs on is pretty much the same as (very low octane) road diesel fuel, with a few additives to do with waxing and the like. Greglocock (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I always presumed those statements came directly from the article referenced for that portion of the "variants" section. The link provided doesn't seem direct to anything related to the EV1 so I'm good with requesting a supporting citation, and if none is provided in the appropriate amount of time, removing that material. WopOnTour (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:General Motors EV1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 19:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	WP:OVERLINK in lead	Don't know

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Fail
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

Result

Result

Notes

Fail

Given the results of the peer review report[4] and the fact that the nominator has never edited this article, I'm considering a quick fail. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC) After looking at the article, I see many quotes lacking citations, many existing "citation needed" tags, and many unsourced sentences and paragraphs. In addition to the many MOS problems listed by the peer review report, I'm also quick failing this because the nominator has never edited this article. If you are still interested, please put this article through peer review first. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on General Motors EV1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.greencar.com/features/gm-ev1/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.greencar.com/features/gm-ev1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Motors EV1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628194634/http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1997/b3557013.arc.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1997/b3557013.arc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on General Motors EV1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071216090230/http://www.evworld.com:80/article.cfm?storyid=1053 to http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1053
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326150713/http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf to http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927011128/http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/energy/eng-9.cfm to http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/energy/eng-9.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060513004320/http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=622 to http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=622

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on General Motors EV1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118115822/http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Btochures---November/1996-GM-EV1-Concept-Folder/1996-GM-EV1-04 to http://oldcarbrochures.org/New-Btochures---November/1996-GM-EV1-Concept-Folder/1996-GM-EV1-04
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628194634/http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1997/b3557013.arc.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1997/b3557013.arc.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid%3D1053
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070315220506/http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_33/b3694130.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_33/b3694130.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304053713/http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/sce_rpt/2000panpbaev1report.pdf to http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/fsev/sce_rpt/2000panpbaev1report.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/eva/ev1_eva.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423191449/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11986 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11986

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass production

I rather intemperately removed an edit that deleted the mention of the EV1 being mass produced. Firstly, lots of ghits on it as being mass produced, and secondly, although the craft centre is not a huge assembly line, the method used, basically with workers walking to each car, has been used by some OEMs in preference to an assembly line. For example Volvo and Lotus have used this method in the past. However, I am open to persuasion. the ghits could be a case of lazy writers cutting and pasting from wiki, an increasing problem of circular citations. Greglocock (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a reversion. Comment

curprev 16:54, 28 November 2021‎ Gil Dawson talk contribs‎ m 78,547 bytes +123‎ Undid revision 1057626274 by Benny White (talk) undo Tag: Undo

curprev 10:58, 28 November 2021‎ Benny White talk contribs‎ 78,424 bytes −123‎ →‎Driving experience: questionable statement that contradicts source given undothank Tag: Reverted

I'm new at this, and I messed up the opportunity to say why I clicked "Undo" on Benny White's reversion. So here is my explanation:

Benny object to, and removed, Dewalttx's insertion...

"though the EV1 was not a production car as it was available only through lease, and was never actually sold to the public"

...with the comment...

"Driving experience: questionable statement that contradicts source given"

Dewalttx's insertion is absolutely true. We EV-1 owners protested and offered many times again to buy our cars. GM personnel came to our homes and physically took our cars in spite of our protests under threat of litigation because our leases had expired.

Toyota was not so lucky. Their leasing contract had a supposedly cosmetic error that allowed RAV-4 drivers to buy their cars. 400 people took advantage of that error. GM stood firm.

Perhaps I am also contradicting "the source given". Not so, Benny. I quote from Ref 9, https://web.archive.org/web/20090123001021/http://www.greencar.com/features/gm-ev1/:

"EV1s were leased only and no purchase was available. This was a nod to GM's need to maintain ultimate ownership over highly advanced and extremely expensive vehicles, using all-new technology, that were being marketed in a deliberate way to feel out the market."

Give it up, Benny.

--Gil Dawson Gil (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer in my edit summary. Yes, the EV1s were only available for lease, which is mentioned elsewhere in the article. The reason I removed that statement is because it says the EV1 was not a "production car". The full context (with the questionable statement in italics) is: "The EV1's drag coefficient of Cd=0.19 was low compared to production cars of the time, though the EV1 was not a production car as it was available only through lease, and was never actually sold to the public,[9] while typical contemporary production cars had a drag coefficient in the range Cd=0.3–0.4."

I'm not sure that being only offered for lease means that a car is not a production model. If that is the common definition of "production car", we can adjust the wording of the article. As it is, the statement about it not being a production car seems odd since itcontradicts the wording immediately before it wording elsewhere in the article. It also contradicts the source, which consistently calls the EV1 "production" or "limited production".

I'll move the reference placement to begin with, so that the article doesn't misrepresent the source. Benny White (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that statement doesn't technically contradict the statement just before it, but it is at odds with other parts of the article that call the EV1 a "production vehicle." Benny White (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the explanation, Benny. I had not realized that Dewalttx's insertion was intended to draw a distinction on the term "production car" based on it not having been available for purchase. I have no opinion on that particular matter, and I misunderstood the point of your reversion. My apology. Gil (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I will probably go ahead and remove the statement after a bit if no one objects. Benny White (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Date format

Along with other more substantive edits, I recently changed the date format for the article to {{Use mdy dates}}. @Stepho-wrs reverted that, along with the other edits, with the summary

Retain original reference date format, as per MOS:DATEFORMAT, WP:DATERETAIN and WP:CITEVAR. It's complex but articles are allowed to have MDY in the text and YYYY-MM-DD in references - only change after consensus on talk page.

I agree that it's allowed, but I disagree that it's a good idea. I like and use CCYY-MM-DD for my own use, but I've found that it confuses many people. I propose changing this article to using mdy throughout because mdy is understandable to everyone and the article is about an American manufactured car leased only in the US. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reinstated the edits I made with the exception of keeping or changing CS1 dates to YYYY-MM-DD. I also noted another problem with YYYY-MM-DD dates. It means using both "March 2022" and "2022-03-16" because "2022-03" can be ambiguous and is not to be used. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The MOS team have consistently allowed yyyy-mm-dd while disallowing yyyy-mm, which gives credence to arguments for removing yyyy-mm-dd from articles while not explicitly disallowing it. It means they we have to choose whether we violate WP:DATEUNIFY or WP:DATERETAIN.

I've found that some people don't like ymd but these are the generally the same people that don't bother to look up reference details anyway. The type that look up references seem to have no problem with ymd. And, of course, the article text should remain as mdy.  Stepho  talk  10:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: I told myself that I wouldn't argue about this, but here I am. Wouldn't it be better for the reader if we consistently used mdy? Is there any advantage to mixed use? If we decide to make a change, create a consensus, that's not a violation of WP:DATERETAIN. Thanks, and enough from me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Use mdy This is the first time I've even seen {{Use mdy dates|date=March 2022|cs1-dates=yy}} on Wikipedia. This shouldn't need to be discussed. – The Grid (talk) 02:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. So why do you say that my opinion is not even allowed to be discussed?  Stepho  talk  11:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is really my first time being someone uphold a nonstandard citation method. We're talking about a U.S. centric vehicle in which federal and state regulations apply. I think a case for MOS:DATETIES prevails above all. – The Grid (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

S10?

GM also made an S10 version of the EV1 starting in 1997. (I saw one in North Carolina advertised for $2,500 on ebay recently.) Shouldn't this be mentioned? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good. Technically, the Chevrolet S-10 EV was a Chevy S-10 with a drivetrain based on the EV1 but it's still worthy of linking from here.  Stepho  talk  02:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No mention of backfeed?

The article contains this section;

"Like electric trains and all vehicles with an electric motor (and unlike a car powered by an internal combustion engine), the EV1 could deliver its full torque capacity throughout its power band, producing 110 pound-feet (149 newton-meters) of torque anywhere between 0 and 7000 rpm, allowing the omission of a manual or automatic gearbox."

Except this is not true, electric motors create backfeeding when they rotate which reduces torque output per power input the higher the RPM is, as well as at very low RPMs. Here is a wiki article on the phenomenon though I am no expert so you'd need someone who is to properly confirm it, I am just pointing it out as I stumbled on to this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-electromotive_force

Basically an electric motor has an optimum RPM and anything above or below that has reduced efficiency. 2A02:C7C:2ED1:D300:B808:1DE5:47A5:5869 (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Back-EMF is a property of all electric motors, therefore a property of all electric cars. We don't mention it here for the same reason that we don't talk about tyre technology on every car article - it's a universal for the entire field - not specific to any particular model.  Stepho  talk  19:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)