Design News for Mechanical and Design Engineers

Disney fairy tale?

I will not render an opinion on your pros and cons of using a "golf cart" on city streets, but to print the "facts" you did in the second-to-last paragraph showed a pure lack of knowledge. Here are some simple facts you missed or had grossly in error:

The EV1 didn't sell for $33,995. In fact, they wouldn't sell it despite over 20,000 requests to purchase. GM would only lease it, with no buy-out provision.

Toyota's RAV4 may have cost $42,000, but was not available to the general public. Only the utility companies had an offer to purchase them. Twice as many people wanted to purchase them over the EV1. As with the EV1, the RAV4 cost so much to make because the auto companies only wanted to make a few, and not make them available for public purchase. Over 250,000 Californians signed petitions telling CARB that they would purchase an EV1 or RAV4 if only they could.

Your article was written like a "Disney fairy tale," only small intellects wouldn't know better.

Mike Brace

EPT Sr. R&D Engineer

Maysville, KY

DN responds: Your letter is filled with the typical misinformation disseminated by the electric vehicle community, as outlined below:

1. Although GM leased most EV1s, rather than selling them, the vehicle did have a selling price and GM did sell some vehicles in California early in the California demonstration period. We use the selling price, rather than the lease rate, because it serves as a benchmark for comparison to conventional vehicles.
2. Yes, the Toyota RAV4 was offered to ulility companies AND to government fleets, if you want complete accuracy. But the government fleets refused to buy them because they complained that they were too expensive. We talked directly to fleet managers about this.
3. The 250,000 Californians who signed the petition (to purchase or to lease) never agreed to put forth any money if the vehicles were made available. GM and other automakers placed absolutely no stock in that petition.
4. Yes, vehicles cost much more in low volume. All vehicles do. But marketing studies done by all automakers showed little or no real interest on the part of consumers, and automakers hesitated to invest a billion dollars or more to create automated production facilities. GM is said to have lost upwards of half a billion dollars on its facility in Lansing, and they had to lay off workers in Lansing and Shreveport for lack of interest in both of its EVs. They, like all the major automakers, were hesitant to invest heavily, based on promises of environmentalists and EV advocates.

There is no giant automotive conspiracy, Mr. Brace. The "fairy tale" is perpetuated by those who have failed to examine both sides of the situation. Please talk to the automakers for more information.

In your article "Automakers look to the links for Evs," you explain the conundrum that faces the automakers in trying to meet the California EV mandates but say nothing about the effect it will have on the power shortages that they already are experiencing. The EV needs to be charged if it is going to roll. So if there gets to be too many of these EVs on the left coast, the only thing that will be rolling are the blackouts. Like many children these days the California Air Resources Board seems to have a problem discerning between fantasy and reality and perhaps that's partly why they are in such a fix.

Rod Cain

Deer Park, WI

It seems to this retired heat power engineer that the California Mandate for electrically operated vehicles is not based on engineering analysis, "Disney method" or any other kind. It is really more like bumper cars.

Doesn't the California Air Resources Board even consider the fact that the batteries on virtually all of these electrical vehicles will have to be charged from the local power grid, the same grid that has been stretched to its capacity limits? Few vehicle owners will actually use alternate power sources, such as wind or solar, for charging. The current mandate seems like the hard way to realize a very small increment in OVERALL pollution reduction from vehicles and stationary power facilities.

Richard Bailey

Tucson, Arizona

I read your cover story (DN 04.09.01) on the stern drive with interest. Combining the outstanding new VolvoPenta stern drive with a T-drived inline six or eight cylinder spark ignition or diesel engine, such as that developed by Ford Motor (1993), would permit placing the engine crankshaft centerline perpendicular to the boat axis, the drive coming out the engine side and into the sterndrive, reducing the engine intrusion inside the boat and adding greatly to the boat interior deckspace, with this ultimate engine/sterndrive combination.

Donald Carriere

Delta Research Corp.

Livonia, Michigan