Vigil to save EV1

Vigil was held at 1150 W. Riverside Dr., Burbank

Day 54 Nice to see some mention of ETV-1. I worked on that car in 1978-1979 at GE Corp. R&D. It was an excellent design for a commuting car. The motor was designed from scratch as was the controller. I would love to get my hands on one, after owning a Solectria Force for a few years. The T-shaped battery system was clever and allowed for quick replacement of batteries, or update to battery technology. The controller software was soft editable for many key variables, so gains could be adjusted from the driver seat. This was perfect for the ETV-1 role as a test vehicle, where acceleration values and recharger values could be experimented with in realtime. I don't recall JPL having any input to the design, just GE and Chrysler. It was delivered to JPL for testing and I think they did use it to evaluate some other battery chemistries. The ETV-1 body was based on the Omni-024 and was a pretty car when finished. It was a 4 seater, if you can call the back seat of an Omni-024 room for 2 adults. I don't think there was any relation between ETV-1 and any EV1 design. We did design a hybrid, teamed with VW, but that was not ETV-2. I think ETV-2 was the competition to ETV-1, by Garrett, who designed a hybrid flywheel car. I don't think they ever got it to work. I believe GE supplies 3 of these cars to JPL. Keep the info coming. Keep driving and improving hybrids.
15:24, Mon 04/10/2006 Bill Passman ETV-1 update Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day I got to this site by entering "EV1 + Mass", and the recap on Google mentioned "rumors of EV1 in Massachusettes". I can't find that text anywhere below, but I can guarantee that there is at least one, because I was right behind it on Rte. 109 in Westwood for a few minutes earlier this morning (I was on my motorcycle so couldn't grab a pen and take down the plate). I've seen them during visits to California so I know what they look like. My question is, I thought these were all *leased* to consumers, not sold, and I furthermore thought that GM had taken them all back when the leases expire. How did the thing get here?
5:55, Fri 09/02/2005 Hank chieftain_1@juno.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day Correction: When I said "cars now need to go 0-30 mph in about 9 to 12 seconds" I meant to say "cars now need to go 0-60 mph in about 9 to 12 seconds".
10:57, Thu 08/11/2005 Gavin Young of Electric Automobile Alliance gavin@RenewableElectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day The ETV-1 car sold on eBay in 2004 for $4,000 according to an article at http://www.sw.org/sw/portal/.cmd/SWActionDispatcher/_pagr/107/_pa.107/116/.swaction/org.sw.browse/.swdoc/~iwcontent~public~newsroom~en_us~html~newsroom_headlines_electric.jsp/.piid/152/.ciid/253 . http://www.econogics.com/ev/evhiste.htm says the car was a four seater. The 1980 Time magazine article at http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,924216,00.html says this about the ETV-1 "The car has lightweight alloy wheels and plastic windows, and runs on modified lead-acid batteries. It is, however, slow as molasses: 0 to 30 m.p.h. in 8.8 sec., 25 to 55 in an interminable 17.6 sec. It can go only 123 miles at 35 m.p.h. before it must be recharged. The ETV-l's development cost: $6 million." Much more extensive data (including its design) for the ETV-1 is available at http://www.blackvault.com/documents/ota/Ota_4/DATA/1982/8228.PDF .
2:22, Wed 08/10/2005 Gavin Young of Electric Automobile Alliance gavin@RenewableElectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day Joseph, regarding my post of Wed 2005/08/10 01:13, I was responding to yours of Day 29. A moment ago I looked again at the photo you posted and I think I see a bench seat or two bucket seats behind the two front seats, though the car only has two doors. This combined with the Encyclopedia article seems to indicate that the ETV-1 was really a four seater car.
1:24, Wed 08/10/2005 Gavin Young of Electric Automobile Alliance gavin@RenewableElectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day Joseph Lado, you posted a comment and a photo saying that the EV1 was merely an update of the ETV-1 (Electric Test Vehicle) of 1979. You appear to be saying that the GM EV1 was not much more advanced than the ETV-1, however based an encyclopedia article the EV1 appears to be a lot more advanced than the ETV-1. The Encyclopedia Britannica 1981 Yearbook of Science and the Future on pages 392-392 shows a diagram of the ETV-1 (a four seater instead of the 2 seater you mention) and describes it as taking nine seconds to go from 0-30 mph, maintains a 55 mph on a 5% grade, and has a range of 100 mi at a steady 45mph. Those are not impressive numbers by today's standards, cars now need to go 0-30 mph in about 9 to 12 seconds and be capable of driving at 65 to 70 mph. The EV1 was much higher performing than the ETV-1. Do you have information about the ETV-2? I saw a History Channel show (Modern Marvels?) about the GM turbine engine powered car, but the show said it didn't perform well under certain driving conditions - think driving uphill was one of them? However I like the idea of a gas turbine or sterling engine series hybrid plug-in electric car.
1:13, Wed 08/10/2005 Gavin Young of Electric Automobile Alliance gavin@RenewableElectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day we need to save the ev-1, electric cars need to be the adjustment point from gas powered automobiles to fuel cell cars, which are no where near mass production or even practicality stages. The electric vehicle needs to be the stepping stone from one to the other...or even just the next wave of automobiles and the ev-1 was one of the first steps in the right direction. so save the ev-1, or continue to suck down gas like there is a never ending supply. Hey man its your money....but most people can't even balance a check book, so I guess we shouldn't except them to make an investment they couldn't possible see the benefits for. I know i am not going to be spending $11 dollars a gallon for gas, when it comes to that. Which is the price in London mind you. But us americans are blind with out SUV's and lead feet...I guess the only way to remidy such things, sadly, is bybeing humbled with gas prices people aren;t going to be able to afford cause they commute 80 miles to work everyday. Oh well...
6:33, Thu 08/04/2005 Adam Casella ihateprod@gmail.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day Evan, I appreciate some interest from Michigan on this subject but want to follow up a bit.1. Is the EV1 at the GM Heritage Center working or is it just stripped of any evidence of its performance (ie batteries and power electronics) and buried in a freak show exhibit saying how bad it was? As far as I know all EV1's that were donated to museums and schools had all the key guts stripped out.2. Most of us really would have been more than happy to take our EV1 off the road were GM to continue the line with newer and improved versions instead.3. Last time I checked, dealership network is GM's interface with the public. While I haven't protested at a dealership myself, they seem like the logical place to do so. Unfortunately, from what I hear it is a waste of time though since there is nobody at the GM dealerships in CA anymore except depressed sales people and a few irrate former customers at the service line. There are very few customers shopping.Note that rumors exist that there are a few EV1's in Mass and NY being driven by GM people as part of a propaganda exercise to appease some environmental interests in those state governments. They clearly will never let them into the hands of consumers though as doing so tends to bring on dire consequences such as bringing conservatives into league with liberals! There's documented evidence of late night rendezvous of Republicans and Democrats in front of GM training centers in the name of protesting the crushing of the EV1 :-) I agree that there is a possibility of reduced performance in cold states but I don't see that as a show stopper or even a problem in most states most of the time. As you know even ICE powered vehicles need to be plugged in overnight in some states to keep them warm in the winter but they still seem to sell better than sled dogs and Icelandic Ponies, even there :-)
4:40, Fri 05/13/2005 earl earlsemail@charter.net Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day GM still owns around 5-10 EV1s. At least two are here in Michigan. EV1 #1 is in storage at the GM Heritage Center. I have also seen a green M-plate EV1 running around the Auburn Hills area. This could either have been owned by GM or Ovonics.While I liked the EV1s, let's face it: in MI, or other cold weather states, they're not all that viable. While I don't nessecarily think they should have scrapped them all (albeit it later becomes a parts/liability nightmare -ever think about that?), protesting at GM dealers does nothing. It wasn't their decision - it was that of GM R&D. Leave the stealerships alone.
11:34, Wed 05/11/2005 Evan etmccaus@oakland.edu Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day Check this web page http://trillions.topcities.comalso in it id a maglev system for those EVs
15:23, Mon 05/09/2005 jack marchand jackmarchand@hotmail.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day Check this web page http://trillions.topcities.com
15:18, Mon 05/09/2005 jack marchand jackmarchant@hotmail.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 71 Please help me distribute this Letter to the Editor by spotting articles of George Bush’s meeting with the Saudi Crown Prince and filling in the blanks before sending it. Thank you for your help. ----------------------------------------------------------You recently reported that President George W. Bush met with Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz of Saudi Arabia in an article titled _____________________ By ____________________ published _____________. I imagine that President Bush hopes to get the Saudis to produce more oil, which he believes would reduce oil prices. However, last week I read that Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi said that the Saudis could increase production capacity to 12.5 million barrels per day by 2009, up from the 9.5 million barrels produced today. These increases will have virtually no effect on the increasing demand for oil coming from countries such as China and India. As more and more economies emerge from third world status into the global economy their increased demand for oil will drive prices ever higher. Unlike the oil price rises of the late 1970s, which were an artificial creation of an OPEC embargo, this price rise is due to significant increases in real demand. Demand of this sort can only be solved in three ways, either a tremendous increase in output of oil by producer nations creates a surplus of oil, or consumer nations reduce their consumption thereby creating an over supply of oil, or that the United States look at possible substitutes or alternatives for oil to moderate demand by providing consumers choices or substitutes. The first approach is necessary; however, as we have heard from the Saudi Oil Minister, increases in production won’t be coming any time soon. There is also a good chance that by the time the extra oil capacity comes online the emerging economies will grow to soak up all of that capacity. The other option, to find substitutes, is also a long term solution; however, unlike finding more oil, substitutes will have a strong moderating effect on future oil prices because consumers can switch to a substitute if oil prices get too high. The two oil substitutes that need the fewest infrastructure changes for distribution are natural gas and electricity. Unfortunately natural gas prices have risen dramatically in resent weeks and the added demand created by shifting America’s motive power to natural gas will probably push prices up much higher. Electricity, on the other hand, has the added advantage of being produced from a variety of fuel sources such as natural gas, coal, nuclear, as well as renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric power. This variety keeps prices for fuels under control by distributing demand among a wider variety of fuel suppliers. Both electricity and natural gas can be used to provide choices to consumers and provide a moderating force on run-away oil prices. Some other reasons for using alternatives to oil are a lower impact on the environment and lowering our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Still, for strictly economic reasons, alternatives are now a necessary strategic response to preventing future economic hardships caused by oil price increases.
10:33, Wed 04/27/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 69 American Auto companies are not selling any hybrids or EV's. WHY? Ford has 1 hybrid the Escape, but is said to be a joke with 25mpg average as compared to Toyota Prius with mileage of 50 to 60 mpg. The major stock holders and corporate leaders of German and Japanese auto manufacturers most likely do not own oil wells and refineries and do not have ties to the oil industry, therefore when they produce electric cars it will not have a negative impact on their other businesses. On the other hand GM, Ford and Chrysler most likely have major stockholders and corporate officers that own or have stock in oil and gas and refineries. If they start making electric autos that pass up the gas pumps then their oil related businesses won't make any money. Profits on auto sales are a mere shadow as compared to the massive profits on oil and gas especially at $50 a barrell. If half the autos in the USA passed up the gas pump in an EV or hybrid their revenue will fall by leaps and bounds. Toyota and V.W. auto companies are primed and ready to take the lead as American number 1 automakers as they rescue America from the tyranny of high OPEC oil prices, while American automakers set on the fence and watch their stock dwindle to junk status. GM stock has already been downgraded to near junk status as GM officers seem to be willing to sacrifice THE COMPANY RATHER THAN LET IT INTERFERE WITH THEIR OIL PROFITS. PATHETIC LACK OF CONCERN FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN AUTO BUYER WHO IS SICK OF PAYING $2.50 A GALLON FOR GASOLINE.
13:48, Mon 04/25/2005 tom sanderson sander804@comcast.net Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 39 1) There is no conspiracy by GM or other Auto Makers. I used to not think so, however, it doesn’t explain why GM is also destroying the S-10 Electrics. Most automakers make some electric vehicles for fleet sales to electric companies. There is no need to destroy any of those vehicles but they are? Why? 2) The EV1 was a huge money looserI know that one billion dollars in a program seems like a lot of money, but in vehicle production it is not. Ford spent 40 million dollars on developing the paint process of the 1st Taurus alone. EV1 was a money loser only because they didn’t go into full production and sell it across the country. What is a 5,000 people waiting list in San Francisco when mapped out across the entire country? Ford’s Escape Hybrid becomes profitable after 18,000 vehicles sold. I think you could have found 18,000 EV1 buyers in California alone. 3) Electric Vehicles are the wrong technology for the road You were with ATV? Hydrogen Photon Exchange Membrane fuel cell vehicles are electric vehicles with the electricity coming from a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen. The future seems to be going in one direction, electric drive train. You & ATV know this. You must have been their when Ballard Power Systems dropped off the “roller skate” proto type that GM has been driving around as their vision of the future. ****) Lifetime-buy, where you build enough parts to last 10-15 years of service…This is normal business practice. If you are trying to keep a line going for 5 to 10 years it is not such a big expense. Cost is made up in parts sales. If your planning to kill the line before it takes hold it is. *****) Batteries were not the answer. You need to take a look at some of the battery technology that had come out just at the time GM was trying harder than ever to kill the EV mandate and the EV1. Lithium Ion, Lithium Polymer and NiMH have advanced dramatically. Panasonic just announced that their new NiMH versions for EV application are 30% more energy dense and 30% lighter than last years! Why did GM sell its investment of Ovonics (inventors of NiMH)? Why to Texaco oil? ******) GM should have immediately followed-up the EV1 with a hybrid vehicle. Why didn’t they? Precept – GM taking tax payer’s money to produce a prototype that it never will produce. Its not the first time. Look at the 1969 StirLec1 a) Please stop bashing GM Saying that GM isn’t doing good business isn’t bashing GM. I think all of us want GM to get its act together but it keeps making the same stupid mistakes, big cars during the last energy crisis and SUVs during this one. Tell GM to make a stylistically distinct fuel efficient hybrid SUV. b) End the protest in exchange for an annual progress report by GM to CARB.What is the use of a progress report if GM doesn’t make any progress. The total fleet fuel economy peaked in 1987 was 26.2 mpg, but by 2001 total fleet fuel economy fell to 24.4 mpg. Its no better today. What keeps the pressure on is competition. As for me it looks like I am going to buy from the company that produces the product I want. What I want is a car that doesn’t pollute!! Toyota is on its way. GM is not. And that’s the market talking. You remember the market, it’s the reason that GM claimed it could not continue with the EV1 and is the reason why GM is getting its butt kicked.
14:04, Sat 03/26/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 32 It’s OK. I am glad that you have made this space for lively discussion. I know that the focus of the vigil is to save the remaining EV1s. Have you given any thought to what you are going to do after this ordeal is over? We have attracted a lot of attention and focus on the idea of an EV in the market place. I studied the markets of automobiles at the turn of the previous century (1900). EVs failed to gain market share not because of technical inferiority but because of various other problems. The greatest of these problems was a enormous financial scandal caused by unscrupulous financiers and the Electric Vehicle Company (EVC). EVC was attempting to monopolize automobile transportation. It may be hard to believe but the EVC was the bad guy. The other big problem was that even though there had been various technological breakthroughs they were typically held by single companies. If some coordination could have been used to put all of the innovations together of the time a viable two product market ICEs and EVs could have lived on to today. The same thing is happening now. There are a lot of advancements in EV design and mechanics, but the technology is again held by individuals and separate companies. If some coordination and technology sharing could be done we could have a vehicle that could compete with ICEs. I would like the focus on this vigil to turn into a way for all the people and companies involved in EVs to work together to produce a market worthy, highway capable EV. What do you think?
20:20, Sat 03/19/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 31 Joe, sorry if I sounded hostile, of course it's nice to have the option of a higher mileage battery pack!
GM is being incredibly cruel, destroying 90% of the original EV1 fleet -- and not even salvaging the marvelous drive train, motor, controller, gearing, great cooling/lubrication pump and system, and all the other great parts we'd love to have. It's almost as if they have decided to punish the EV1 for being forced to make it in the first place!
16:08, Fri 03/18/2005 doug doug@seal-beach.org Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 31 GM/Opels 1969 series hybrid was called the Stir-Lec 1
12:40, Fri 03/18/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 31 Doug, I am sorry if I sounded like I was trying to show evidence to support the destruction of the EV1. I was not. What my survey discovered was that with a 400 mile range EVs would trump the market standing of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cars. Because of the reasons I mentioned before, the people I surveyed said that an EV would be superior to an ICE vehicle. MAKE NO MISTAKE I know that EVs have a ready market waiting and willing RIGHT NOW! GM is not being smart about its business. The future is going to be electric. A stronger commitment to hybrids on the market from GM would indicate that they understand this. Their “skateboard” design for its future Hydrogen program is an electric vehicle that gets its electricity from a Photon Exchange Membrane (PEM) instead of a battery pack. PEM or Hydrogen vehicles will probably never reach consumers in a significant way. The barriers to sale are enormous, price, reliability, range, cycle-life and more. Series hybrids are electric vehicles that get their electric energy from a generator. GM had one of those in 1969. Prototype built by Opel and combined a Sterling Turbine engine with electric generator and boasted the 84 miles to the gallon you talked about. My survey found that people had no problems with plugging an electric car in. However, I did remember reading about other reported objections to EVs and one of them was plugging the vehicle into a power source. My solution was to have an automatic connection. I called my first crude brain child of an idea for an automatic connection the “Power Wand.” Imagine an electrified rod (male) with positive, negative and ground contacts on the sides. By lining up the vehicle with a line on the dash and a line above the power wand and driving the car forward the female receiver tube mates with the power wand and begins the transfer of electricity, so to say. I hope people aren’t blushing too much at this point, but this was one non-high-tech way to overcome the objections of having to plug the car into an electric source. Now that I have had to repeat the idea, I figure I must have been feeling the need for some human contact as well. Later (in a more puritan moment) I imagined robot arms doing the connecting. After my survey results came in, I discovered that people weren’t bothered by plugging an EV in. All that thinking for nothing. However, the “Power Wand” idea was one that would help develop competitive advantage over ICEs. With an automated connection system EVs become even more convenient then ICEs in my silly little survey. I would like to add that I am so proud of your efforts on the vigil. You did what the most you could do. A group of braver more dedicated people you just couldn’t find. Gob bless you and the others. I will remember you and the vigil always.
12:01, Fri 03/18/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 30 Thanks, Joe, for the historical note;
However, most EV drivers have found that survey to be bogus. That is, you really don't need 400 miles of range, you need about 100. 60 is too little, and 160 is too much, unless you travel a lot.
The proof was in the deed, as most 2-car EV families found that they could do with the EV almost exclusively, only moving the gas car to avoid the streetsweeper. You don't know this until you drive one, which is why the survey is flawed.
Similar flawed surveys "showed" that people didn't like to plug in the car; but that's false, too. People don't like gasoline, but they like to fill their tank.
The major drag on a car on the highway is wind resistence; there is a barrier of about 5.5 miles per kwh (about 200 mile per gallon gas equivalent, mpgge) that just can't be broken. Just as a gas car cannot break the 80-mpg barrier. The EV1 was the most aerodynamic production car ever made (Honda Insight is, now), at .19 (a wing is .11, they tell me), but at high speeds, it takes energy to push the air out of the way. At slow speeds, say 30 mph, the RAV4-EV can easily do 150 miles on a charge of less than 1 gge; Also, if there is a tailwind!
22:27, Thu 03/17/2005 doug doug@seal-beach.org Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 30 I support whole heartedly the idea of pooling our money and either starting an EV manufacturer or purchasing controlling interest in a major automaker and forcing it to be responsive to the EV market. Unlike GM I don’t believe that the market for EVs is small. I did my master’s thesis on the barriers to market for alternative fuel vehicles. Doing research on historical attempts at making and marketing electric vehicles is how I found out about the ETV1 and ETV2. As part of my research I surveyed of 700 people chosen at random and found that most people find electric vehicles superior to an internal combustion engine if the range of an EV could be extended to about 400 miles at 50 miles an hour. What the surveyed focused on most were things like never needs a tune up, no oil changes, no visits to the gas station, quiet operation, immediate torque, higher reliability rate, longer lasting, lower cost of fuel and more. Range was the biggest barrier to EV sales if the vehicle looked and functioned like the vehicles they are familiar with. My conclusion at the time was that a plug-in hybrid would be the best interim vehicle that would achieve maximum penetration in the market place. Consumers would have a choice of fuels to use to propel their vehicle, (either gasoline or electricity). For low range travel, it is an EV, but for long range highway travel it can switch to powering the electric motors with a small gasoline generator conserving the batteries for in town travel. I said it was “interim” because there have been major advancements at making EVs much more efficient during steady highway travel. Minn Kota makes electric trolling motors for personal fishing boats whose motors have to maintain a steady speed for long periods of time. Minn Kota markets an electric motor system that produces steady propulsion for 8 hours on a single standard 12 volt deep cycle lead acid battery. It isn’t a large leap to doing the same thing with a road worthy EV. Electric power consumption once a vehicle is moving is relatively little. It was fun writing the report. I hope to turn it into an article or a book soon.
21:49, Thu 03/17/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 30 My correct link is Electric Automobile Alliance webpage.
11:21, Thu 03/17/2005 Gavin Young of Electric Automobile Alliance gavin@RenewableElectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 30
Thanks Joseph Lado for the info! I like the look of the ETV1 at ETV1 photo! It looks like a late 1990's sports car yet it was designed in 1979! Since it was funded by DOE and says DOE on the license plate, maybe any company can license or buy the technolgy rights from the DOE, update the technology and begin production. Rather than try to force the major automakers to produce electric cars, we EV fans should pool our money together and start our own EV automobile manufacturing company (perhaps as a cooperative so it can't get manipulated by greedy stock holders and oil companies)! See my Electric Automobile Alliance webpage.
11:17, Thu 03/17/2005 Gavin Young of Electric Automobile Alliance gavin@renewableelectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 29 The EV1 may seem to be a technological marvel, but in fact it really wasn’t. The design was largely based on the same design created in 1979 in a project funded by the Department of Energy and produced by Chrysler, GE and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Libratory (JPL). The project was called ETV1 (Which stood for Electric Test Vehicle, sound familiar, ETV1, EV1). It was an all electric two seater sports car with a T shaped battery compartment that went between the passengers, just like the EV1. Don’t believe me? Take a look at it. http://home.earthlink.net/~vincewirth/etv1.jpg and http://home.earthlink.net/~vincewirth/etv1bat.jpg . The first EV1s were not much more sophisticated than the ETV1 However, the advances to batteries, electric drive systems, controllers and more that have been developed since the introduction of EV1. These innovations have been largely spurred on by the California CARB board’s original Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. Those technologies have not disappeared even though the ZEV mandate has been weakened. Many of the companies and organizations developing those advancements have kept on innovating. In fact that may be the entire reason GM was so active in killing the EV1. Electric technology advanced so rapidly in that time period that it could very well have overtaken the internal combustion engine. From the sound of the gun of the CARB boards ruling came a flood of new technologies. The Department of Energy put its money behind Stanford Ovshinsky’s invention, the NiMH battery. http://www.time.com/time/reports/environment/heroes/heroesgallery/0,2967,ovshinsky,00.html. Alan Cocconi, one of the main designers of the Impact, (GM’s prototype for the EV1), has gone on to produce the tzero electric super sports car. http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm Electrovaya produces the most energy dense battery in existence, the paper thin lithium polymer battery. http://www.electrovaya.com/innovation/zev_tech.html New Generation Motors, the company that produces most of the motors for the World Solar Challenge vehicles is making motors for an electric vehicle for India and has motors on the drawing board for many types of vehicles. http://www.ngmcorp.com/ WaveCrest, Valance, Glacier Bay, the list goes on and on. Let’s face it, EV1s are great, but the technology that could be available today would make an EV1 type car a much much more desirable and practical vehicle. Back to the ETV1, there was an ETV2. A parallel hybrid mechanically almost identical to the 1st Prius only with bulky lead acid batteries requiring it to have two sets of rear wheels to support the weight. NiMH made the Prius practical.
21:14, Wed 03/16/2005 Joseph Lado joelado@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 29 Bravo for Anastasia comments! I am just an "average jane", doing daily errands and school juggling with my children, demanding clean air, decided to stop whining about the smog in the LA basin, and doing MY part to solve MY problem that I'd created. My Toyota RAV4-EV is not a toy, it is an alternative mode of transport to the existing system, it happens to be electric. And yes we have solar too on our roofs, and we only charge at public station unless absolutely necessary, as we do not know where the electricity come from. We can't go back on our mistakes, but we move on and do what we can when we can, and every year is better than the previous, as we find more ways to change our lives to tread lightly on this Earth.
9:02, Wed 03/16/2005 Cathy Lam none@none.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 29 If you'd read the previous posts, you'd have gathered that many of those involved don't have to "think" about where the power to charge their "electric toys" comes from. They know where - from the solar panels they've installed at their homes. Anyway, even for those who haven't, if you insist on a perfect solution before taking any action at all, you're making an excuse for doing nothing. Besides, your "modern clean diesels" are nothing if not an imperfect solution.
0:21, Wed 03/16/2005 Anastasia anastasi@ucla.edu Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 28 You people are insane if you think your EV1s are oil-free. Where do you think the electricity that charges up your electric toys comes from? What built these things - Shalers with wood planes and hand drills?Remember: Ed Begly Jr. riding a skateboard is not pollution-free - Ed's exhaust is the much-feared CO2.Instead of whining about GM regaining possession of its property, why not do something that will actually benefit the environment? Like get modern, clean diesels made legal in California?Mike
9:24, Tue 03/15/2005 Mike Costello beach_bum_mike@juno.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 27 Hi Vigilers, One idea would be to initiate solidarity vigils at other G.M. facilities around the country. Local E.A.A. chapter members could form the core vigilers - hopefully attracting other people to the vigils and building into an unstoppable critical mass........ Mark
11:11, Mon 03/14/2005 Mark Freidberg mark5815@netzero.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 26 I have discovered the pleasure of driving an electric vehicle. Every day, I commute 5 miles to work with my dog in a trailer behind my 700-watt vespa-style electric scooter. This is the biggest scooter I could buy, yet it is not big enough. The extra weight definitely slows me down and forces me to monitor my acceleration carefully so as to not stress the batteries.So I have resolved to build my own electric vehicle from scratch. It is not easy, but I am highly motivated. I am not an engineer, I am an artist, so it will look beautiful, but I am relying on local experienced EV builders to help me design this 3-wheeler.From all that I have read, there is a definite and growing niche in the market for an economical, short-range commuter electric vehicle. I do not understand GM's refusal to enter and expand this market, and the recall of the EV1 appears to be a tragedy. I think that some small, upstart company may just see its opportunity here and push the GM dinosaur out of the picture.
7:05, Sun 03/13/2005 David Hazen innercom@peak.org Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 23 Electric cars are in the future of transportation in the Los Angeles area and work well solar panels that can be installed on houses. With houses valued at $500,000, solar panels could be installed on nearly every house with financing. The solar powered electric car brings a nearly no maintenance, near zero cost per mile, zero emission solution answer to transportation in the Los Angeles area. Most of the people in the Los Angeles area can get by using an electric car recharged with home solar panels and with recent improvements NMIH battery technologies such as the ones installed in 2005 model hybrid cars, the electric car can be even be better. So if the users of the EV1 were happy, they would like the car refitted with newer batteries NMIH even more. Or I suppose GM could let these loyal customers buy new Toyota hybrids and recharge the hybrid's batteries using solar power panels as many are now doing and loose more loyal customers to Toyota.
7:13, Thu 03/10/2005 Jack Lee quietjack@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 23 Electric cars are in the future of transportation in the Los Angeles area and work well solar panels that can be installed on houses. With houses valued at $500,000, solar panels could be installed on nearly every house with financing. The solar powered electric car brings a nearly no maintenance, near zero cost per mile, zero emission solution answer to transportation in the Los Angeles area. Most of the people in the Los Angeles area can get by using an electric car recharged with home solar panels and with recent improvements NMIH battery technologies such as the ones installed in 2005 model hybrid cars, the electric car can be even be better. So if the users of the EV1 were happy, they would like the car refitted with newer batteries NMIH even more. Or I suppose GM could let these loyal customers buy new Toyota hybrids and recharge the hybrid's batteries using solar power panels as many are now doing and loose more loyal customers to Toyota.
7:12, Thu 03/10/2005 Jack Lee quietjack@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 19
I posted the following comments on the pages for those attending the vigil only before I noticed I was supposed to only post them on this page. The comments are as follows:
Since GM is taking the cars away from the lot, even when some of us are keeping watch, how can we prevent the destruction of the cars? Is it simply by us video taping the events and releasing the video to the news media?
Can't GM be charged for breach of contract (oral or written) for not returning the cars when they said they would? If the lease had a buy-out option, then GM can be sued for breach of contract for not honoring those contract terms. Has anyone of the leasees hired an attorney to look for grounds to sue GM?
From my small webpage (now located at Electric Vehicles - Electric Automobile Alliance ) and from my signature gathering in downtown Portland, I collected names from over 100 people who have pledged to not buy another new car unless it is an electric car or a plug-in electric-biofuel car. The pledge states that the names, city, and state of the pledge signers will be released to the automakers and the news media to show the demand for the electric cars. I can organize the data and send a report to the vigil group if that is helpful. I didn't collect nearly as many names as I hoped, but that could be because my website is very small.
12:35, Sun 03/06/2005 Gavin Young gavin@RenewableElectricity.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 17 I think more people need to hear about (and invistigate) the ev1.org vigil! Everyone should go out and buy some window paint and write EV1.ORG on their car or business windows, perhaps with a nice personal comment! Mine is going to be "What! No Gas?". It's hard to not cover a story that has just popped up out of nowhere all over the world!
2:46, Fri 03/04/2005 Ryan ev1@dolio.net Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 13 EV1s should be conserved for our environment, not be taken away!
6:50, Mon 02/28/2005 Robert M. Taylor rmt_1_2000@yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 12 I'd never be able to afford one, but I wish I could have driven one! I am not anywhere close to being an enviromentalist, but I support you guys in trying to keep the dream alive! Talk about the front row parking spots for EV at my workplace, or the fact that single occupants can jump in the HOV lanes during rush hour! I can't believe that I can't get an electric car anywhere! If they can make a 'hybrid' that regenerates batteries, why can't they make an EV that regenerates while driving - an "unlimited" driving machine! Good luck trying to keep them alive!
16:27, Sun 02/27/2005 Adam Scheblein adamscheblein@spam.yahoo.com Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

Day 8 Count me in as one who is willing to pay $24,000, cash for an EV1. I have a friend who also would buy one for cash, no warranty, sign a waiver, whatever it takes. Mercedes is building a plug in hybrid van on the Sprint chassis, but it isn't slated for mass production yet.
23:57, Wed 02/23/2005 Pat Williams fyrecaptain@comcast.net Comments owned by poster, the website is not the author

china is the nation that could really push EV cars!!!! 7:26, Sun 02/20/2005 anthony deni smallwld@rochester.rr.com

I would definately buy an EV if it were available and NOT made by GM due to its past history. GM like Ford clearly has no interest in EVs, hybrids and most ideas related to the environment. Why spend the energy on GM? Toyota or Honda would be easier to convince into selling EVs and would probably make a better product. The EV1 is also old technology. EVs should be using Lithium-ion or Li-Sulfur batteries. I would also like to see solar panels on EVs to help them charge during the day when not being driven.
02/18/2005 17:13 tad noemail@mail.com

Just drop by the vigil to say hi!
02/17/2005 10:19 doug doug@seal-beach.org

This a long term suggestion that probably has been mentioned before, but here goes. Why not build a car that can accept swappable battery packs. I know this would require a huge undertaking for creating the "refill" charging and "swap" stations. They would have to be strategically placed for long drives. Maybe a pilot program could be done for a run from LA to Las Veagas or LA to San Diego. Here is a comment about government & industry foot-dragging. I remember years ago during one of the oil crises, when we were being dictated to by OPEC, one of the oil refiners came up with a solution to our oil usage problems. That solution was a "miracle" battery pack that would be in place in cars by the mid 1980's. This company ran full page ads in the LA Times implying that our worries would be over once this aluminum based battery, powered the electric driven cars of the 80's. Well, of course it never happened. I personally believe it was only meant to placate the average U.S. car driver and perhaps buy time with OPEC until the oil companies could make some deals. I think we are doing it again with the Bush's 20 year program for developing hydrogen based technology. It's easy to say we'll have something ready in 20 years and then promote the status quo until the next crisis. It's a clever way of putting off the issue. GM is the biggest foot-dragger of all. To their credit, they built the EV1, but would that have happened at all if there was never a CA zero emissions program. Now they seem to be falling behind the others in promoting and building hybrids. Their emphasis on fuel cells, to me, seems like yet another smokescreen. But the biggest obstacle to getting off of this oil dependence and cleaning up the environment, is with each one of us and our desire to drive big, huge, gas-sucking vehicles. The best favor OPEC could do for us is to push the cost of oil to $100 per barrel. How many of us would be driving those 10 mpg SUV's then ? OPEC & the oil companies play a very careful game of managing the prices so that they are just barely palatable to the public. Ultra high prices could be the best lobby effort we could ever have. Has anyone ever considered a graduated "technolgy" tax on oil. The funds would go to new energy technology companys, completely separate from the oil industry and perhaps even separate from the auto industry. I really don't think anything is going to happen until our backs are to the wall. We can choose to do it now or wait until the next crisis, like an Al Queda type takeover of the Middle East. Well, I guess I've vented my energy technolgy spleen long enough for today. I am a small voice, but maybe if we get enough small voices together, we can get something done.
02/17/2005 14:00 Jerry Shoudt jshoudt@att.net

with the oil companies owning the lions share of alternative fuel technologies, (the fox guarding the hen house) I am curious if this isn't a violation of some of the anti trust laws. It is definitely a situation that is stifling competition. But I gues we would need a federal government that cared and wasn't in bed with the oil companies.
02/17/2005 14:19 don chesler dmchesler@juno.com

I only wish I could be there, but health and distance prohibit that. I do support your efforts. We need electric cars. My golf cart is electric and I would drive an electric car if it were available.
02/17/2005 14:20 Carl E. Paschal CarlPascha@aol.com

rescue electric cars and free the evi ...........we here in westerrn new york state, believe in cutting oil imports......
02/17/2005 16:51 anthony deni smallwld@rochester.rr.com

I want to offer GM a check offer to buy at least ten of the EV1. Included in the offer is a disclamer relieving GM of all liability, future service responsibilty and buy as is. I learned of a person who bought one after the lease agreement. Does anyone have a GM email address? Thank you, Doug for your info and efforts. Your friend, John
02/17/2005 20:37 John Fletcher Fletchul@pacbell.net

Rescue and revive the electric vehicles! I've been fortunate to ride in several EVs, for thousands of miles. In fact, just a couple weekends ago, 4 adults piled into a Toyota RAV4EV for a run up to Bear Mtn. It was great! We all fit in, with our gear, zipped up the mountain, and recharged at our hotel. It was a nice day for offroading for the driver, but I went skiing. Afterwards, it was back down the mountain, so smooth and quiet. Battery EVs are totally viable, useful, and a true pleasure. Let our EVs go!
02/18/2005 6:51 fred regenerative@earthlink.net

Quite frankly, I believe that an electric automobile will work quite nicely for about 80% of people driving. Yes, the range of the vehicle is short, but how many people drive 125 miles at one time? Most people's commutes to work, at worst are 30-40 miles away from their place of work. An electric car plugged in every night would be ready with a 125 mile range everyday! Americans are also lazy people when it comes to routing service and maintaince to any mechanical device. An electric car would need no more routine service than a refrigerator...okay, you'd need to replace the tires every so often, but you can drive right by the oil & lube shop, the tune-up shop, the radiator shop, and even the brake shop...because the car uses dynamic regenerative braking. Americans can abuse and neglect their electric cars just like they do everything else, and the car could care less! OOPS, maybe that's why GM doesn't want these things on the road...they'd be too reliable! One of the biggest issues however is why we need to drive so much anyways. This is due to poor city planning. Before WWII, most people got around on foot to neighborhood grocery stores, drug stores, Post offices, schools, and all the other places we go to regularly. Nowadays, these places are located too far away to reach on foot. With all the communications breakthroughs avaliable these days, why do we even still make our employees go to an office building. Administrative employees could perform the same work at their homes that they do in the office building.
02/18/2005 9:41 Steven Winner cybrvanr@yahoo.com