This week, General Motors North American president Mark Reuss reinforced his company's commitment to electrified vehicles, but cited a need for better education to foster the breakthroughs needed for next-generation electric cars.
Speaking to a crowd of more than 500 automotive engineers and suppliers at the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) Convergence conference in Detroit on Tuesday, Reuss said the US faces a critical need for engineers who can lay the foundation of innovation needed to transform the auto industry. He said:
The young people entering our colleges today are our advanced battery engineers, designers, and light metal experts of tomorrow. If they don't choose those paths or are ill-equipped to do so, we will have a skill shortage that will undermine our resurgence in smart manufacturing and technology.
During the conference's keynote address, Reuss said GM plans to pull the wraps off the company's next extended-range electric vehicle, the Cadillac ELR, at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit in January. Pre-production versions of the ELR, which will use a powertrain like the one in the Chevy Volt, will hit the streets in the fourth quarter of 2013. To build the vehicle, GM has already invested an additional $35 million in a production plant in Hamtramck, Mich., where the Volt is being built.
GM North American president Mark Reuss told an audience at SAE Convergence that the performance of US students in science and math is "disgusting." (Source: SAE)
"Despite what the naysayers will tell you, this industry is headed toward electrification," Reuss said. He added, however, that "it may take a lot longer than we thought until the transformation is truly complete."
Reuss expressed concerns when talking about the availability of talent that's needed to make the transformation happen, however. He cited studies showing that US students ranked 21st in science literacy and 25th in math literacy among the top 30 developed countries. He also said that 68 percent of US eighth graders tested below proficient levels in math and reading. "That's frankly disgusting," he said. "This country simply cannot afford to fall any further behind the rest of the industrialized world in educating its young citizens."
Reuss added that the auto industry should be concerned that many of today's best young technical minds are more attracted to the Silicon Valley than to the Midwest Rust Belt. "We need to convince them that the auto industry is the most dynamic, exciting industry on earth," he said. Otherwise, "they will go to places like Google or Apple or SpaceX or elsewhere."
Reuss emphasized, however, that meeting the needs of tomorrow's auto industry is more than a matter of attracting top people. The industry will need both a depth and breadth of talent, he said. "It's really a simple path: Educate our young people as best we can to prepare them to succeed in these new opportunities," Reuss told the standing room crowd. "Let their innovation and their ideas lead us into a future that's electric."
I definitely agree with Reuss' sentiments, but did he give any suggestions or make any commitments for GM to help foster next-generation EV engineers? It's one thing to admonish an industry or a country for slack education practices, but GM is certainly poised to give back by funding or helping architect curriculum and training that can seed its engineering ranks with the skill sets it requires. Of course, not just GM, but all of the auto makers. Partnership between business and educational institutions is critical for advancing this cause.
Beth, I agree with you. I am tired of people, be they executives or politicians, throwing out statistics they read in a newspaper. I would put our top students up against those in other countries any day. We are also able to attract top students from elsewhere. That is not really the issue.
What the auto industry ought to be doing is to attract experienced engineers from other fields so that they can bring new ideas, and experience, to the business. GM, especially, does not have time to wait for the new engineers to get up to speed.
The issues with electric vehicles are strictly in the storage area. The electric motors are very powerful and weigh very little (the one in the Tesla Roadster puts out about 300 Hp and weighs only 70 lbs. Added to that advantage, it does not require a transmission. Innovations in the chasis are really the same as for a car with an ICE. What GM, and the others, need to do is to invest their own money into critical technologies, like battery technology.
These businesses (the auto industry) started out making everything themselves. They took in raw material (iron ore, coke, rubber) and made the vehicles. I am not advocating that they go back to that, but they certianly are not doing really well with the approach they have now. Perhaps they should rethink the situation.
@naperlou: It's true that the best U.S. students can compete with students anywhere -- but then again, you'd expect the top students in a country of 300 million to be pretty good. It's also true that many people come to the U.S. for post-secondary education. However, few (if any) people come to the U.S. because of the quality of our K-12 education. There are some great schools and some great teachers, but many students are underserved. My daughters went to high school first in El Salvador, and then in the U.S.; when they came to the U.S., they were shocked by how little was demanded of them. Of course, we live in a predominately working class suburb; schools in some of the more affluent nearby suburbs are among the best in the country. But inadequate resources are not the only, or even the main, problem. We have noticed that students who recently immigrated to the U.S. from Latin America tend to have more respect for teachers, a stronger work ethic, and a stronger belief that education is the road to success than their more "Americanized" peers. There are many negative influences in U.S. culture that detract from academic success. Parental involvement is also extremely important. All of these issues need to be addressed if we are going to do a better job promoting a high level of scientific and mathematical literacy across all levels of society.
@Dave, we experience some of the same things here. When my children started school we were in England. We lived in Winchester, an affluent part of England. I was actually on the Board of Governors of the comprehensive school where they were enrolled. Many people would move to the Winchester area who had jobs in England so that their children could go to school there. With the public transport available, it was not a problem.
I live in the Chicago area. I am in the suburbs and we have wonderful schools. The city of Chicago, on the other hand, has some of the worst. In Chicago, they spend about 50% more than we do in the suburbs.
I was talking to my son this morning about this article. I think that when you compare the US to countries that are much smaller and less diverse, you are making an invalid comparison. To compare us to other countries you have to look at the EU as a whole. We have had European students staying with us. The ones who would undertake the effort are, of course, going to top level academic schools. I would put ours up against any of those. And our schools are not selective. In continental Europe, they generally are. By the way, he entered college with 18 credits of AP classes under his belt.
I really do agree with you, Dave. I have said many of the same things in debates about education. It is not really money, but culture and parental involvement. My father went to high school in Massachusetts in the 1930s. His parents came from a poor farming community in Greece. He took Calculus in 11th grade. I had to take an extra summer course to take it in 12th grade in the 1970s in Maryland. And I was in the accelerated class.
I am concerned that we do something about the inner city schools. I think it would need to be radical. On the other hand, management of our human capital throughout our careers is just as important. Waiting for us to fix the education system for our kids is not going to get us where we need to be. There are many of us who are concerned, but things seem to change very slowly.
Naperlou. Thanks for a voice of sanity on the education issue. Most parents don't really have a clue how the public education system operates. Having spent four years on the local school board in a high-performing public school district I can safely say that just about everybody has an opinion on how to fix the school system. The fact of the matter is that schools have about 35 hours per week with our children over nine months each year. Parental involvement in the education process has a bigger effect, by far, than individual teachers in promoting educational engagement. We need to educate parents as well as kids that reading, discussing social issues, demonstrating critical thinking and showing an interest in learning are all good things. Communities, more than big industrial companies probably have a bigger role to play in making this happen.
I agree, Scott. It starts at home. Almost all of the engineers I've known have come from homes where education is emphasized. The role of the school is simply to provide a place where those students can develop their potential.
Here's a good illustration of your point, Scott: The young Gadget Freak who built the Super LED flashlight shown on our site mentions in the comments that he built the device while working on his homework. Yes, it starts at home.
Good points, Dave. When I was in college, most of my fellow students came from outside the U.S. Virtually all took calculus in high school and were amazed to hear that most U.S. students didn't. For many U.S. high school students, the idea of taking calculus or differential equations in high school is almost unthinkable, and that's largely due to weaknesses at the K-12 levels.
The way I read this is GM has concluded that EV's are the answer, and everyone else had better step up to the plate and make their wish come true.
Since EV's now, and for the forseeable future are only feasible if legislated or subsidised, I can only conclude that the government bailout has firmly entrenched GM into a political agenda. It further supports the notion that the bailout only provided a shot in the arm and GM has nothing substantive to carry them long term.
The elephant in the room isn't that there's a lack of qualified engineers. If GM walked the talk, they'd be posting openings for thousands of EE's, ME's and ChemE's, and they'd have no problem filling them. Graduates aren't going to silicon valley to spite the auto industry, it's because that's where the JOBS are.
If engineers from abroad find opportunity here, I have no problem with that - they earned it with their hard work educating themselves. We are simply reaping the benefit of an education system more concerned about Billy learning about having two mommies and concerns over too many sugary drinks than sitting his a55 in a chair and teaching him to read. I have no more faith in government run education than I do a government run auto (or any other) company.
Here, here. I agree. Also add in the cost of collage skyrocketing, why? Because they can get those students to take out exorbitant loans so they can get their degree in Intergenerational Modal Reflexive Apprecitation with out actually teaching them any useful skills!
My wife and I decided long ago to homeschool our children and my two oldest sons (18 and 19) learned basic calculus by 12th grade. So everyone's comment of parental invlovement not only includes being involved in educational structure but also in educational expectations. We have set the bar low and we feel good about it.
Agree. Like others have said before me, GM is beholden to the whims of the federal government. When folks say "educate" what they really mean is force it on you because these paternalistic folks believe the public at large are too stupid to do what is best for themselves. GM is foolish to push a product on the consumers. Yes, there will be a market for EV's, just not the market the they want see as enlightened scholars in ivory towers. The backlash from consumers will be swift and certain. If the "successes" of the Volt don't drive that point home to these clueless Dolts, nothing will.
EV's are a solution in search of a problem. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why manufacturers are not marketing dual-fuel vehicles in this country. So many people have access to natural gas that is domestically produced, burns clean and provides so much more energy density than rechargeable batteries. Compressed natural gas (CNG) would easily provide the kind of range used by the majority of daily drivers. You eliminate a huge weight penalty of batteries, there is no wear out mechanism like batteries, and you could fuel at home if you had the time for a low-volume, high pressure pump, or you could fuel at CNG stations. For long distance trips, you burn gasoline when CNG is not available or convenient. There is some weight and volume penalty when compared to a petrol only car but the market would eventually tell the manufacturers how many cubic feet of gas people really want and the penalty it extracts. This fixation on EV's is asinine.
I agree that dual fuel is the best solution right now, but in the long run, electric might make more sense. Propane will continue to go up with oil prices, and liquid natural gas is still going to be more difficult to refill and has pollution problems of its own.
I have an EV and a CNG car. For both to be viable, we need *significant* infrastructure upgrade. More so for the CNG car. At least an EV can be charged overnight with a 120V AC system. No such option for a CNG, unless you are willing to spring for a subsidized $2,000 natural gas charging station at home. There are very few high pressure CNG charging stations and they typically only charge one vehicle at a time even when there are multiple pumps. No one wants to fund these and Republicans who are so gung-ho about CNG will not talk about the massive infrastructure upgrades or subsidies needed. That requires government money and tax increases. Private industry is not capable of this. Once this done, hydrogen could also be part of the solution, although it requires even high pressures (10,000 psi). It's cool to throw CNG option out as if it is a panacea, but it is not that easy and painless.
I agree with your comment that the best of our best is as good as in the rest of the world. However, in many/most schools I also notice that we are presently pandering to the bottom tier students. In much of the world, China, Europe, etc, Secondary Schooling is more rigorous and there are many students who don't even attend at this level. They go directly into a trade school. The US seems to think that every student can be a top level engineer, businessperson, or whatever, and because the schools are measured by the students grades, the school administration pushes down on the rigor to allow the bottom tier student to "pass" (grade inflation). Many high performing students are not challenged, and they don't perform to their best potential. I am proposing more STEM magnet schools, especially ones that aren't afraid to return low performers back to their home districts. This will generate the class of Scientists and Engineers necessary to move technology forward. Thank you (Long time reader, first time poster - very important topic).
@Dave Palmer: I agree with what you said, I want to take it to the next level. I have been shocked as my kids grew up by the contrast between their education and mine. I was also horrendously disappointed when I took my oldest son to college and was given a tour by a college junior in engineering that couldn't put together a coherent sentence and couldn't stay on topic for more than three sentences. I also would pit the best US students against the best in the world, but based on what I have seen, the gap between our best and our average is HUGE. It is the average education that will determine our prosperity, not the top 5%. I don't care how good our top 5% are, if the rest of the country doesn't get it, they will drag us all down and the top 5% will leave.
The first thing that we need to do is set world class standards for education. We need as a country to say 90% of our kids will have aquired this skill, knowledge, or understanding by this age. That target needs to compete with the best countries out there (like Finland), and be realistic. We need to measure both kids and schools performance against that metric, and we need to do something about the ones that don't meet it. Before you say, "this sounds like no child left behind", No Child Left Behind was terribly implemented and did more harm than good. But, it did get one thing right, we have to measure if we are going to improve.
Second, we need to make teaching a respected and valuable profession. We need to end the days of "Those who can do, those who can't teach." We need a few of our best and brightest to pitch in and lead the way and we need to make it worth their while to do so. Having math taught by someone who has never used it for more than their checkbook is not acceptable. A teacher should be an example of someone who is GOOD at their subject. Someone who the students will never outshine while they remain students. Someone that they can look up to.
Third, we must show kids the VALUE of education early. Even in Kindergarden kids can understand the idea that learning is about being able to do things that you otherwise couldn't do. If they believe that our lives are ruled by the rich, and we will never get our due, there is simply no reason for them to do better than retail clerk. If union labor makes more than an engineer, why get your degree? If they see amazing opportunities out there that they must climb the educational ladder to reach, but if they do so they are guaranteed to have them, they will make that climb. But they have to see them, and they have to see the need for education to get there. Media plays a role in this. Unfortunately, most screenwriters are very nearly technically illiterate and couldn't portray a technical hero accurately if they tried. That needs to change, too.
We have more than enough of the intelligent and educated people. Our problem is in management, not technical. We can make anything, but management has to correctly decide what to make.
Rigby5 you are so correct. We already have high school kids that have built better EV's and higher mileage hybrids than GM, etc has.
The problem is political and corporate, not technical. GM built the vehicles needed in the UltraLite and Impact showcars. Both were lightweight, eff and made a generation ago!!!
What is needed is as he said someone like SpaceX, notice he didn't mention SpaceX founder also owns Tesla, as big auto isn't going to do what is nessasary as clearly been shown or they wouldn't be building overweight, overpriced and oveteched EV's, hybrids.
But as gas prices rise fleets are going to demand EV's, plug in and NG hybrids as they have no choice to lower costs from ever rising oil costs.
Big business is about to go down the tubes as their advantage is being overcome by new tech allowing small companies to directly compete with and beat them with their bloated overhead and lack of ability to change fast enough.
And education too is about to be rocked as MIT, Yale and others put free classes online, etc. Knowledge is getting close to free is going to make many schools of all types obsolete. These trends along with higher energy costs and a likely world depression if Romney wins means little is afe in the near future.
I agree in general about partnerships between industry and engineering education. This tighter integration between the two is one goal of the larger effort--National Network of Manufacturing Innovation--that includes the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute we wrote about here http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?section_id=1392&doc_id=251513
He did not give details as to how we could improve the educational system in this country, Beth. Reuss seemed more concerned with the big picture, and how lack of education will affect their ability to make electric cars that can compete with gasoline.
Charles, I believe Reuss was more concern about replenishing the Automotive Engineering pool with his comment on engineers being drawn to the Silicon Valley and not the Midwest Rust Belt. I'm not knocking the Auto Industry because my engineering origins started with GM in a Detroit suburban manufacturing plant but the big picture is educating kids to be technically and scientifically literate. With this diverse knowledge, all problems confronting business and industry sectors would have a good chance of being resolved. STEM is a very good initiative that can accomplish resolving challenges in the business and industry sectors. Also, the engineering knowledge pool should be spread throughout the nation and the world to help make life a little better.
I agree with many of the comments posted on this subject, but no one has hit on the biggest problem when it comes to encouraging and attracting talent to US EV auto manufacturing - i.e. The false front on the achievements. To build a viable industry, building viable products, anyone, engineers included (especially), must believe in the product - must bleieve that his or her time is well spent. This is true in school as well as industry. The individual must believe that he is making a contribution to society that society wants. The false front is created when the government decrees behaviors that the observer can see don't make sense, aren't practical and or can't succeed in the marketplace. EV is a prime example.
EVs can't be forced on society not because they can't be built, but because their cost/performance envelope doesn't make sense in today's (nor the forseable future's) economics. Why would an engineer want to work for a company producing a product that is doomed in the rational marketplace. Challenging an engineer to innovate in this space is quite another matter, but to make that happen there has to be a potential for success not precluded by the laws of physics and economics. A lone wolf entropreuner might take up the challenge to create a breakthru and thus stimulate this market. It is also possible for large companies to fund R&D that might result in a breakthru or combination of breakthrus that have the same effect, but to put people to work designing upholstry for EVs until that time is a dead end and engineers assigned to that task either won't stay very long or they are not the kind of engineers this country is looking for.
Education is important, but without motivation it will not succeed. Govt. mandate is a push, the opportunity to innovate is a pull. You can't push a chain!
I disagree. It would be easy to build electronic vehicles that people would want to buy. It is the car makers who are the problem. For example, no maker has introduced a battery standard that could make batteries easily exchangeable. And until that happens, no practical person will buy an EV. It makes no sense. The recharge time is too long and the cost/risk of a bad battery is too high.
If car makers were serious about EV, then they not only would design a common battery that was easily exchanged, but develope the network of battery exchanges necessary. In fact, they would have also recognized the need for an external generator trailer for long trip, infinite range extention.
This is not rocket science. It is simple marketing, that is obviously being deliberately sabotaged by the car makers. EV are way too easy for this to have anything to do with eduction, talent, students, etc.
We have been through a period of "The New Math" which has destroyed maybe 3 generations of students.
I recently wrote a letter to the editors of Free Press that I am getting disgusted by Engineers complaining about the education system without offering any solutions.
It seemed to me that it was getting unconscionable talking just in generalities and not in specifics.
You can't design anything just talking in generalities.
I recently helped ALSoftware in designing a Logo, assisting in the Website, suggesting, then starting a Minimanual and in designing many skins for the magnificent emulator of the HP41CX that Steve Wozniack may well have worked on some 32 years ago. It remains the finest calculator ever and it wiped out the slide rule and was providing accuracy to a higher degree than some mainframes.
The i41CX+ is beyond that masterpiece, and it will only be found in the iOS environment. Some have said that it is the main reason to have an iPhone.
It should be used extensively in the educational environment throughout the world. And since it is programmable the kids could learn the rudiments of programming which is essential now for an engineer.
I think that it should be introduced as low as Junior High and what could happen is that as the students progress through the grades they could create programs for every formula that they encounter so that by the time of graduation they all could have developed a library of important formulas that they can always refer to. And they even could carry on into college with that App.
Is this a specific enough recommendation?
Then we ought to look into the textbook publishing/Educational complex... it really has gotten out of hand with pictures of long haired authors and outrageous graphics. Never a full blown essay, just quick quips.
Many of you have no idea how horrible things have become with the "new" educational philosophies.
I'll never forget telling my Daughter's Grade School Math Teacher that she ought to be drilling the kids on their math facts. Her retort was, "Why nooo Mr. Deeekins, that is YOUR responsibility! We teach them how to think!"
That, my dear friends is THE formula for disaster.
And when the Principal of MLKing in Detroit invited me into a huge Parent Conference for failing 9th Graders, and I witnessed people telling the Parents that they have to take and drill their kids in the most fundamental math facts I wondered where all the money went? Perhaps the fancy clothes and expensive cars.
Kumon works. Implement it! Set up a Kumon Corps so that the children of parents that can't help can be assisted by Children who are bright.
It probably will be more effective than the Brownie and Cub Scout programs.
Oh gee, I probably just upset someone!
Bill
And as I said defending the Volt before, we will be going electric. Faster with the Government involvement, slower without.
Math and science grades do not indicate the ability or the creativeness to properly design products. A creative mind cannot be taught in school. Most companies hire based on grades because they are not capable of properly measuring creativeness. Most creative engineers I know own the companies because their grades were not high enough to be hired by the big companies. I would bet the next major development in electric vehicles will be created by a small startup and not by one of the big companies.
"Government Motors" has long ago lost sight of the fact that the customer is always right, hence their trouble - startups know this instinctively.
Now you can see that GM is now busy getting all the help they can from lawmakers and liberal institutions to cram their products down your throats without following the basic rules of commerce.
ChasChas, the customer has always wanted an EV. It is not at all the customer that is holding back the EV. It is entirely the car makers. No one has ever made a decent and practical EV since 1912, with the Baker, Columbia, Anderson, Edison, Studebaker, Riker.
It is obvious that electric cars have to be lighter, but also need quick swap of generic battery packs. If we were serious, we would also consider things like overhead power cables, genrator trailers, etc., that could extend range when needed, like for highway driving.
EV is great as a short range commuter, and it is the car makers who are at fault for not even considering alternative solutions to the obvious differences between electric and internal combustion. Buyers know the difference and want solutions that the makers have totally and deliberately ignored.
@Jammags: I don't like being negative, but a creative person without math skills is not an engineer. The difference between an engineer and others is that the engineer can analyze a problem and give you a quantitative result. An engineer can ensure a feedback circuit will be stable under all conditions, not just the few that have been tried. An engineer can tell you how thick the cables need to be on a suspension bridge, or how long the road bed will be when those cables have stretched into position.
I don't care how creative you are. If you can't do the analysis, you aren't an engineer and it doesn't matter who slaps the title on you, it doesn't fit.
I don't want to minimize the importance of creative people. There are an awful lot of engineers that do a wonderful job of solving problems, but couldn't come up with a new product idea if their lives depended on it. Both are needed. The creative people set the direction, the engineers work out how to actually get there. The best startups are started by people that are both (and there are quite a few that are). Or by partners in which one is creative and the other is the engineer.
It is really scary to me the number of times that I see people with no analysis capability designing products. I have seen some really dangerous or unreliable things on the market, and it is all because some creative person thought he could do an engineer's work.
For too long, industry has sat idly while watching teachers that have little scientific background and no private-sector experience educate our children. How can we expect to produce quality engineers when classroom discussions are heavily biased toward "fun" things like bashing industry for pollution instead of teaching students the basic engineering principles needed to create a cleaner world?
It is obvious that schools are not going to change quickly enough to prevent a serious decline in the knowledge base (and probably the living standard as well) of the U.S. The only solution is for industry to offer some of their best minds to spend some time in classrooms along side the teacher. If every company with over 100 employees sent one qualified person to a local school for a half-day once a month maybe we could reduce the anti-industry (and physical science) bias, and get some more children interested in the skills that will help us get out of this mess.
I read with amazement the comments on this board regarding the electric cars future and the status of US education.
GM speech is right on - we have an abysmal illiterate general populationj with the lowest standarsds in curiculum amongst the leading nations.
If we had not been propped up by immigrants who have the drive and desire to learn - we would have to make fire by rubbing sticks together (in not too distant future)
This situation is driven by teachers who push against ceritfication process and the substandard subject knowledge base amongst them.
US MUST wake up and start making some standards that may not be "tasty" to teachers unions - but must be implemented to save our nations future.
In math, physics, Chemistry - our curriculum in schools (exept some very expensive private schools and some very exclusive neighborhoods public schools) is laughable.
Now to the electric cars - it is shocking that majority of contributors on this board are so musch against EVs and further are so uninformed about the subject.
Electric cars ARE the future - burning carbons for energy on our day and age is barbaric - like cavemen.
True that EVs are using electricity that is produced in power plants that also burn fuel - but if you consider the emissions to produce equivalent KW or HP or BTU by burning fuel in the cars vs burning fuel in Power plants - the cars will produce 1000 more emissions.
If you consider Nuclear power - and solar/wind power there is no comparison.
Oil companies are very good in forming public opinion via disinformation - they have plenty of our money to do so. We cannot cut dependency on Middle East oil - because they would stop buying or planes and weapons and bulldozer and such using our money. Therefore they spread all kinds of negativity towards EVs.
Some years ago, there were studies that showed that we have about 100 years worth of oil reserves left in the world - so we started making more efficient cars 30-40MPG and up - BUT what this did is that oil companies keep raising prices and make same amount of money selling way less oil and now they are guaranteed that there is 300 years of reserves left.
The world must stop being stupid - we need to invest in technologies that will completely eliminate (not reduce) dependence on carbons energy and take the power away from oil producing nations completely. These new tecnolgies canno be expected to just jump to be less expeensive and more efficient - as any new technology we need to invest and suppot these.
and we need more smart students and more smart engineers and scientists to get there we must make sure that we shake up our schools system to get to the front and get rid of the weeds And we need to provide our engineers with an elevated status and not be second or third to lawyers and stock borkers in their earnings
I doubt if there will every be any kind of electrical storage unit that comes close to the engergy per pound contained in fossile fuels. That will always translate into short range, weak vehicles which will put the beautiful mountains and forests of the West out of reach. I think electricity is fine for powering golf carts, wheelchairs and indoor vehiles but that is about all. I think the next good thing is fission power.
No, one rarely drives to the mountains and forests, so that has nothing to do with what we need in our daily driver cars. There are lots of other solutions to the weekend car. It could be rented, have a temporary generator trailer attached, have batter exchanges, have highway overhead cables, or dozens of other possible solutions.
The point being that we should not be trying to replace current gasoline cars with an identical electric car. We should be optimizing much more, and not try to make one car be such a multipurpose vehicle. We can't afford to do that because oil is not going to be available eventually. For example, most cars are occupied by only one person, so then most cars should be built for a single occupant.
The problem is not students or education. We know how to make good electric cars. We don't have to import talent, because we already have more than enough excellent talent in the US. The problem is that manufacturers refuse to make good cars. They refuse to address the problems with the current electric vehicle designs.
The batteries are too expensive and risky, so should be rented and exchanged instead. The cars are too heavy, and should be all aluminum, kevlar or carbon fiber. There are no standards, so batteries and other parts can not be exchanged or stocked. There is no infrastructure for extending range, such as battery exchanges, overhead cables on the highways, or rentable generator trailers.
The problems are all easily fixed, so clearly the real problem is the manufacturers don't want to fix them, and are just trying to maximize profits on their old technologies.
GM's private CEO was fired by the current and I hope soon former President of the United States and the company in essence is now ran by a political hack. They can not make good business decisions because of the bondage involved with bailout funding and continued union obligations bought with that funding. The list of failed "green" energy companies is getting longer each day and the closer GM stays tied to this go-electric mantra, they are also doomed to failure and this time there will be no public funding support. The once great company was bailed out by politics and now is managed by the same so it is a political corporation. I don't buy into the "Global Warming" hoopla and the CO2 malarkey. CO2 is green the more there is the better things grow. We were lied to. We were lied to about the fossil fuels supply and the false hyper environmental effects by the likes of Al Gore and James Hanson, who are two more political hacks. Lets please return to a real free market and allow the consumers choose what they want and allow the manufactures to provide without centralized government interference. I want you all to read the posts of how we must somehow force people into these areas of education. Does this not sound like a communist management style of a people? Certainly is not how we were founded.
That's correct, I don't believe it. I have not drank the cool aid. Antarctica has record amounts of ice build and several sources have sited that the warming cycle ended 10 years ago and are driven predominately by the sun, you know that hot ball in the sky that provides all our heat. When I was in the government public indoctrination center 40 years ago they were preaching a new ice age coming or global cooling. We are being conned to separate us tax payers from more of our money. Be a fool if you like.
Antarctica is also having massive melt off and calving of huge sections of what used to be the stable ice shelves. It is true that the total amount of ice in Antarctica is increasing instead of decreasing, but that is only because there is so much more snow fall on the insulated land mass. Which also is proof of global warming.
There is no warming cycle. We are supposed to be entering another cooling cycle according to the historical records, hundreds of years ago.
Yes there was concern over global cooling at one time, but that was because of particulates and aerosols that were blocking sunlight. We used catalytic converters to reduce the dimming problems, and thus accelerated the warming problems. There can be no doubt it is a fact. No one is getting any money off global warming.
The Northwest Passage has not been open for thousands of years until now. Take your head out of the sand.
@Rigby5 - "No one is getting any money off global warming."
Just try to install and commission a large Diesel generator for a data center in Kaleefornya. One has to now pay what amounts to a large fine to CARB (California Air Resources Board cap-and-trade program) to be awarded the "privilege" of allowing it to run a few hours a year. Because of this huge up front cost, we cannot afford to build data centers in CA anymore. It just does not make business sense. That's what your wacko global warming propaganda gets you. Thanks governor Moonbeam.
G-whiz, that is wrong. If you run the diesel generator on biodiesel instead of fossil fuel, then you pay no CARB tax. Nor does it make any sense to rule your own generators when all you have to do is rent power from Utah. If you refuse reasonable alternatives, then you deserve to pay more.
@Rigby5 - We are deviating from the GM EV topic quite a ways, but I don't think you understand how these 3MW Diesel generators are used in a data center. They provide standby power when there is NO utility, whether it is generated across the street or across the country. These gensets are not warranted to operate on biodiesel, biodiesel does not keep well and requires extensive polishing and it costs a lot more per gallon. We don't run data centers as a "hobby", we operate them at a profit. Your comment that we "deserve to pay more" is exactly the attitude that kills jobs and economic progress in this country. We no longer provide the hundreds of good paying construction and operational jobs that comes with building and operating a modern data center. A "reasonable alternative" for us was to get out of California. Many other companies are following.
The normal biodiesel cost less, but I agree it may not have a good shelf life. The expensive biodiesel however does have a good shelf life, and is what the Navy is experimenting with for its jets.
{ ... biofuel that comes from camelina, a hardy U.S.-grown plant that can thrive even in difficult soil.
The Defense Energy Support Center, which oversees procurement of biofuel for the Navy, recently awarded a $2.7 million contract to Sustainable Oils of Seattle and Bozeman, Mont., for 40,000 gallons of camelina-based fuel. The Navy's ultimate goal is to develop protocols to certify alternative fuels for use in its aircraft and ships.
"The aircraft flew exactly as we expected- no surprises," said Weaver, F/A-18 project officer for Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 and pilot for the Earth Day flight test. "The fuel works so well, all I needed to do was just fly the plane."
"Our mission today and for the rest of the flight tests is to confirm that the fuel makes no difference in performance across the Super Hornet's entire flight envelope, from subsonic to supersonic operations," said Mark Swierczek, Naval Air Systems Command propulsion flight test engineer. "Preliminary results show there was no difference in engine ops attributable to the biofuel. Engine performance is normal and as expected."
The Navy Fuels Lab at Patuxent River is developing certification standards for a variety of renewable, alternative fuel sources. ... }
You should have looked into the alternatives better. If it takes taxes to make people be more responsible, then it is our own fault.
I worked at GM 25 years ago, and upper management couldn't make good business decisions then. Why should now be any different.
And, really, the only thing wrong with electric vehicles is that they still can't think outside the same box they've been stuck in for the last 50 years. That's not just GM, that's the entire auto industry.
The way they should be building electric cars is to put an electric motor in each wheel. That gets rid of most of the drive train: transmission, clutch, driveshaft, differential, u-joints, all of the stuff they're used to, plus gives you AWD and regenerative braking. Put in enough batteries to handle acceleration and hills, with maybe a 40 mile range on battery power. Then put a small engine under the hood, using gas or CNG or alcohol or whatever, matched to a generator large enough to keep that vehicle moving at a constant 70 mph, + maybe 10%. That engine would be optimized to run at constant speed, constant load. That would make it a lot easier to get good fuel economy.
But they're stuck with the idea that all the motive force comes from under the hood, and has to be distributed through the same mechanical interface we've been using for decades.
How is the Volt "inventive"? It doesn't seem to be any different, really, than a Prius, or any other plug-in hybrid. Once you get past the engine, it has a totally conventional power train.
I agree. The Volt is not impressive. It should be all aluminum, light alloys, plastics, fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc., and should not need any transmission, differential, drive shafts, etc.
With the title that you have placed on your blog you sound a bit inexperienced.
As an Architect, I have won Awards, as a Construection Manager I have also done that, and as an Artist I have done so as well. And I was instrumental in getting an award for the i41CX+.
In every instance the award was given by a sincere and thoughtful group of critics.
In no case would I say that they were insincere, seeking political gain, or having devious motives. In all cases I would say that the objective was clearly stated and that the award was thoughtfully and intelligently given.
And in all cases I would say that there was a spirit of delight and joy in presenting and receiving the award.
Perhaps you are having trouble with the notion of integrity and are a bit nervous.
Calling the General Motors Company as you have clearly indicates a misreading of the facts. Bob Lutz spoke clearly and forcefully about the circumstances some 6 months ago. He was there, he saw what was happening, and he understood completely what was going on. And I say that he was hurt and possibly GM as well in that process but it exists and it is doing very well producing products developed under his reign.
You weren't playing the game on the field, you were watching from the sidelines. Being on the sidelines you get to say and scream outrageous and mean spirited things that are completely disingenuous if not simply ignorant. So you have done.
GM, just like all of us, has made mistakes in the past and it was well on the way to solving them before the cost of the Wars and the refusal to pay for them placed us in dire circumstances along with other machinations. Many of the wonderful automobiles that GM is now producing were well underway before the crash. And GM, thanks to Mr. Lutz, had taken the lead in developing electric vehicles long before you knew it.
In another DesignNews blog there were complaints about the cost of the Volt. In your comment, now they are giving them away. I don't believe that but the recent discussion about tablets it's indicated that several of the manufacturers are selling theirs at cost. Certainly every manufacturer has that option and even loss leaders in order to generate a new sales movement.
If you believe in Ayn Rand it would be sad. She had no idea of what the obligations of Government are. One of them IS education and she indicated only protection, Police, and Army. So her horrible example of Government gone corrupt obviouly is disgusting. Government has always assisted in moving the country forward. It has assisted in Power Generation, Transportation, Agriculture, Water control and distribution, and Communication. That we can talk here illustrates that.
When the mechanic, George Carramagna, complained about the costing out of a sway bar, Government stepped in. Although there were many complaints at the time, I suspect that we would all agree that the Automobile of today is far superior to that of the mid 60's when the Bean Counters and MBA's were in control. And the Foreign Manufacturers had to toe the line as well so our Federal Government actually caused the improvement of the automobile around the world. Electrification is simply one more step in the evolution.
This is not written to obfuscate the issue of comparison. I will attempt to gather more facts so that you can have an honest comparison. The comparison aesthetically is another matter. From my design background I'd say that there is no comparison.
And I will never forget driving a Volt in a ride and drive onto I-96 south of Milford and seeing a prius excitedly pull alongside. I blew him away.
I took to asking Detroit's best Auto Critic and here is what he had to say:
Bill,
You can't really compare them. They're very different.
The Prius is an excellent hybrid, but its engine does nearly all the work of moving the car.
The Volt can cover around 40 miles on battery power. It's engine will never turn on during trips of that length. And, unlike cars like the Nissan Leaf, you can keep driving after the battery is drained.
The Volt costs more than a Prius, but it delivers more, too.
I hope that's some help.
In answer to the question of performance Mark said this:
I prefer the Volt's handling and steering. It's acceleration on battery-only power is outstanding, too.
The Prius has pretty good acceleration, though. The battery supplements its engine's output.
Again, the cars are so different, it doesn't really make sense to compare them. The Volt costs $39,145; Prius starts at $24,000. It's not really a fair comparison. It's like comparing a V6 Mustang to a V8.
Mark Phelan Auto Critic Detroit Free Press
With all the rebates and discounts maybe they aren't all that far apart. If they are giving them away, take the gift horse! But don't pinch his butt and spit on him.
The VOLT has pure electric drive and that accounts for it's vastly superior performance and since the Prius is partially electric, should it be considered electric at all?
It's difficult to figure out how to reply to you, since you're all over the map, replying to things I never said and wandering off into who knows where. The point that I was originally trying to make is that there isn't much that's actually new about the Volt. All they really did was change a bit what's under the hood, and kept everything else the way they're comfortable with. What I'm saying is that they should go the rest of the way.
Of course, as with the Fiero, they might be constrained by what they think they can get away with.
And the proper comparison wouldn't be between the standard Prius and the Volt, but between the Prius Plug-in and the Volt. Which, despite being available in only 15 states, has almost half the YTD sales as the Volt.
Yes, I did. There really isn't much that's actually new about the Volt. What's new about it is that it made it into production.
As for the Fiero, I worked at Pontiac for a bit during the '80s. The scuttlebutt was that the Fiero was nixed by GM upper management as not what they wanted from the Pontiac label, but Pontiac designed it on the sly (mostly because they were jealous of Chevy and the 'Vette) and presented GM management with a fait accompli. It did remarkably well, considering that upper management didn't like the car. Eventually it suffered the same fate as Saturn did later: a good idea ignored until it went away.
I deal, mostly, with reality, though I often have to deal with others' fantasies. I don't name-drop and I try not to wander too far from the subject.
So there's your beef and the reason for your disingenuous renaming of GM.
I too liked the Fiero and was saddened to see it go. The last ones were great, but so too for the Oldsmobiles. The Saturn remained a great competitor to the 1978 Honda for at least a decade and a half, that is if you didn't mind driving around looking like a dufus idiot. Lutz turned it around but it was too late, the respect had been lost.
And I went to GMI and was sponsored by GM Engineering Staff / Car Development.
Back then the Corporation was something of an agglomeration of 6 different Companies, each doing it's own thang. Engineering Staff had the responsibility to see if the separate divisions were telling the truth in it's advertising and if the cars were properly designed as well as working on venture designs and military vehicles.
I sat at the Dynamometer when they tested the first Corvette V8, heard the loud bang and watched the exhaust manifolds turn cherry red and watched the operator slapping the red emergency stop button and yell. He was very upset. And he told me that we could have been killed. There are codes now about how to design the adjacent control room with bullet proof glass.
GM, has been totally restructured and the wonderful vehicles that it now has were underway before the Republican Crash.
All vehicles now are designed in the new Car Development Building at the Proving Grounds under a totally revised approach with the Corporation in control
Right, there is nothing different about the Volt... it has 4 wheels, except that the tires are low rolling resistance tires and the wheels are specially light weight out of consideration for the unsprung weight that you ignore, an exhaust pipe, lots of radiators, a huge temperature controled battery, an engine and a couple of motors under the hood, the ride is fantastic, more Cadillac Like than Chevrolet,
It really is like a WWII Submarine with a motor generator set on board, just like every other car as you would have it.
That you can obtain well over 100 mpg driving it is irrelivant to you.
That it does not have lawnmower wheels like the Prius obviously is of no interest to you.
I'ts a very fine automobile which escapes you, and reveals that you probably are not an engineer, do not understand the difference between Engineering Design and Product Design and simply cannot comprehend that GM was quickly saved from the disaster and that the Federal Government actually does not manage or control it in it's day to day operations.
If your concerns are regulations and codes, as an Architect I'd have to say grow up. While George Caramagna did precipitate that effort relating to the Automotive Business, there are all sorts of fitting and proper regulations and codes developed by each body of knowledge for the protection and betterment of life iself.
That our codes and regulations have been adopted around the world should tell you something, but it probably doesnt reach many boneheads who think that they have all the answers, that all business must not be regulated, and you get to do anyting that you feel like whenever the feeling strikes. I'd really hate to be around you when you are full of flatus, you twitch too much.
The problem with Saturn was that it was left to rot for over a decade (I had an '02 Saturn SL. Great for long distance driving, 37 mpg, but a bit anemic and the interior was dated), then was changed from "a different kind of car company" to Yet Another GM Division. With little or nothing to distinguish it from other GM divisions, it became expendable, like Olds and Pontiac. GM divisions used to exist in a relationship to each other, Chevy and Pontiac on the bottom, for families and singles, respectively, with Buick being the upgrade from Chevy and Olds being the upgrade from Pontiac, and Cadillac at the top of the heap. When that ended, then there was no more need for separate labels.
I didn't say there's nothing different about the Volt, and I'm not saying it's not a fine auto. Hell, I'm always correcting people who say it's worthless because it's another short range EV. I said there's nothing much that's new. The driving force still comes from under the hood, with a mechanical linkage to the wheels. They can't get away from the need for all that extra hardware, and the additional costs and maintenance it requires.
As I originally said, put a motor in each wheel (see, for example, PML Flightlink's Hi-Pa Drive (yes, I know they're out of business)). If you're worried about unsprung weight, then work to create lighter motors. That would get rid of the entire drive train and replace it with much simpler power and control cables. Then you put batteries and a much smaller engine under the hood, matched to a generator, and optimized to run at constant load and speed. That should improve gas mileage all by itself, not having to compromise on engine design to handle all ranges of load and speed.
This would also give you complete control over which wheels get power at any particular time. You get AWD and more effective regenerative braking.
Besies that, you didn't say anything that was at all relevant to the conversation.
If it's valid to blame tepid electric vehicle adoption in the US on the state of the US education system, then we should see dramatically higher EV adoption rates in "better" education nations. This bonad is for more government money and control in more areas of our professional & personal lives, period. GM shareholders should throw him out and pick someone interested in building vehicles their potential customers are willing to purchase.
Perhaps what is needed, and what would satisfy all the arguements in this thread is a complete restructuring of Detroit. Throw out all the old ideas, the old technology and the old business models. Streamline management, create the partnerships at the ElHi school levels and develop a leaner workforce able to adapt quickly to changing needs of the customers.
In other words, Romney was right. They should have been forced to go through bankruptcy, clean house, and come out the other side ready to do business in the 21st century.
GM did go through bankruptcy and all would have been well except that the Administration stepped in and placed UAW interests (pension and contract protection) ahead of secured creditors and bondholders. The net result is that GM wasn't able to shed significantly higher labor costs which will drag them into bankruptcy court again within 2 years. An unintended consequence is that never again will a US automobile company be able to sell low interest bonds to finance the debt needed to expand, finance auto loans, etc.
With LEDs dropping in price virtually every year, automakers have begun employing them, not only on luxury vehicles, but on entry-level models, as well.
The 3D printing revolution seems to have a knack for quickly moving technology ahead by way of collaborative effort and even a little friendly competition -- all of course in the name of scientific advancement.
Advantech has launched a new series of motion-control I/O modules to meet the increased demands that come with more distributed industrial systems that require control of a growing number of axes and devices.
Using almost 200 light-emitting diodes in the front and back of the new 2014 CTS, Cadillac designers are showing how LEDs can change the character of a vehicle.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
0 
