BF2S Forums The power of the Illuminati

ATG wrote:

EVieira wrote:

First they killed the electric car, now this...

Right.

ATG wrote:

EVieira wrote:

First they killed the electric car, now this...

Right.

jamiecracker wrote:

i think the illuminati control the power of street lights the world over and if we dont get stupid threads like this all the time keeping them mysterious and stuff,they will turn out the lights and we wont be able to see where we are walking....something like that anyway

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ATG wrote:

EVieira wrote:

First they killed the electric car, now this...

Right.

Automotive companies did kill the electric car years ago. I don't have time to dig it up now, but there is even a movie by that name that we own.

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ATG wrote:

Right.

Automotive companies did kill the electric car years ago. I don't have time to dig it up now, but there is even a movie by that name that we own.

Please don't start talking about auto companies killing the electric car, the consumer killed the electric car. First off, the electric vehicle was the first automobile ever made, several years before the internal combustion engine. Secondly, there were multiple electric vehicles that tried to enter the market in the past century but they all failed due to low demand and high costs. The reason the roads aren't filled with electric cars now is because of the consumer. That movie was biased about the EV1, even the director admitted it (source: http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/12/mark_phe … kille.html ). Please don't blame auto companies about there being no electric vehicles on the road when the consumers didn't want them, unless you honestly expect companies to make electric vehicles for a major loss of money.

FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ATG wrote:

Right.

Automotive companies did kill the electric car years ago. I don't have time to dig it up now, but there is even a movie by that name that we own.

Please don't start talking about auto companies killing the electric car, the consumer killed the electric car. First off, the electric vehicle was the first automobile ever made, several years before the internal combustion engine. Secondly, there were multiple electric vehicles that tried to enter the market in the past century but they all failed due to low demand and high costs. The reason the roads aren't filled with electric cars now is because of the consumer. That movie was biased about the EV1, even the director admitted it (source: http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/12/mark_phe … kille.html ). Please don't blame auto companies about there being no electric vehicles on the road when the consumers didn't want them, unless you honestly expect companies to make electric vehicles for a major loss of money.

• From General MotorsGeneral Motors (GM) has responded through a blog post entitled Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car? by Dave Barthmuss of their communications department. He does not address the movie directly, since he claims not to have seen it, but tells GM's side of the story, about their big investment before and since the EV1, the limited market in spite of their efforts, and how they maybe could have handled the decommissioning better. A quote:"Sadly, despite the substantial investment of money and the enthusiastic fervor of a relatively small number of EV1 drivers — including the filmmaker — the EV1 proved far from a viable commercial success."He notes investments in electric vehicle technology since the EV1: two-mode hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicle programs. The filmmakers suggested that GM did not immediately channel its technological progress with the EV1 into these projects, and instead let the technology languish while focusing on more immediately profitable enterprises such as SUVs.Barthmuss claims that GM is, in fact, bullish on hydrogen:    Although hydrogen fuel cell technology was cast as a pie-in-the-sky technology by the moviemakers, GM is making great progress in fuel cell research and development and is on track to achieving its goal to validate and design a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010 that is competitive with current combustion systems on durability and performance, and that ultimately can be built at scale, affordably.
• Critical rebuttal of GMThe movie pointed out that General Motors' customer survey may have served to lower demand. GM called interested customers and emphasized drawbacks to the car that were disputed by EV1 drivers. CARB officials have been quoted claiming that they removed their zero emission vehicle quotas in part because such surveys purported to show that no demand existed for the EV1s. Critics interviewed in the movie contend that the cost of batteries and electric vehicles would have been reduced significantly when mass production began, due to economies of scale.
• From Edmunds.comKarl Brauer, editor-in-chief of Edmunds.com, a popular auto market web site, wrote his own criticism of the movie,[2] contrasting the interpretations in the movie with his own in a rumor/fact format. For example, regarding how GM negatively marketed the car, he said:    Rumor: There were 5,000 people who wanted an EV1, but GM wouldn't let them buy it.    Fact: There were 5,000 people who expressed interest in an EV1, but when GM called them back and explained that the car cost $299-plus a month to lease, went between 60 and 80 miles on a full charge, and took between 45 minutes and 15 hours to re-charge, very few would commit to leasing one (not too surprising, is it?). The film likes to quote a figure of 29 miles as the average American's daily driving needs, but that is a national figure and the EV1 was only sold in California and Arizona, primarily in Los Angeles. Anyone wanna guess what the average L.A. resident's daily driving need is? I'm betting it's higher than that national average....