Who Killed The Electric Car

Question

Are white lies and half-truths okay even when they're loaded with good intentions?
[nq:1]From the beginning, the movie sounds like a sales pitch praising themerits of the product before hitting you wiht the steep price tag and small print.[/nq]
Not sure exactly what their point is in opening with a little exposé on global warming and green house gas - sure, cars are responsible for most of the earth's pollution, but how does that tie in with GM's shutting down of the EV1 program? There's no cause and effect, and as far as I can see the film is only trying to raise a sense of alarm, perhaps the better to swallow the porridge of vague and incpmplete facts they proceed to feed the audience.
I don't doubt for a moment that the program was prematurely shut down, nor that the oil companies might have a hand in its demise. But when I see the film makers resorting to the same methods as their opponents in twisting the truth, the film loses all credibility with me.

"It's fast" one person says of the EV1. Okay, how fast? Dunno. "It's fast enough to get a speeding ticket", says another person. Right, but HOW FAST IS IT? I have to search Wikipedia to find out that the EV1's top speed was about 80 mph. It's not so bad, but the fact that the film makers beat around the bush reveals their reluctance to be upfront about the EV1, and their maneuvering to stretch the truth - even if just a little bit.
Since I was looking for facts, not slogans printed on t-shirts, it was Wikipedia rather than the "documentary" that taught me what I wanted to know about the car, in particular one discussion page on the neutrality of the "facts" offered both by GM and the film
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General Motors EV1).

For one thing, the car had a maximum range of 60-80 miles in between charges, and its performance dropped as much as 50% in cold climates; it could take as much as 15 hours to fully charge; it was only a two- seater; and it cost between $34,000 and $44,000. Hardly an appealing choice for anyone but single, professional city-dwellers.

Several of the "facts" in the documentary are also ... well, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that, in their enthusiasm, they forgot to check the veracity of some of them. The legendary waiting list of 5,000 potential customers who clamoured for the car when GM pulled it off the market, for instance, turns out to be 5,000 inquiries about the car - people who simply wrote to ask about it, before they knew of its steep price tag and its limitations.
Why did the film makers feel compelled to lie? Surely there's plenty of material here to make a convincing argument for the electric vehicle - the EV1 was by no means perfect, but it was promising. But by stretching the truth and offering dubious facts, all the documentary does is create more misinformation. And propaganda is propaganda, regardless of its colours.
jaybee

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Are white lies and half-truths okay even when they're loaded with good intentions?[/nq]
[nq:2]From the beginning, the movie sounds like a sales pitch praising the[/nq]
[nq:1]merits of the product before hitting you wiht the steep price tag and small print. Not sure exactly what their ... offering dubious facts, all the documentary does is create more misinformation. And propaganda is propaganda, regardless of its colours. jaybee[/nq]
Is it an Al Gore Production? '-)
Caroline

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Are white lies and half-truths okay even when they're loaded with good intentions?[/nq]
[nq:2]From the beginning, the movie sounds like a sales pitch praising the[/nq]
[nq:1]merits of the product before hitting you wiht the steep price tag and small print. Not sure exactly what their ... offering dubious facts, all the documentary does is create more misinformation. And propaganda is propaganda, regardless of its colours. jaybee[/nq]
I haven't seen it, but everything surrounding the documentary just struck me as selling an unlikely idea as conspiracy theory thinking.
Clearly, it's not as if GM was not in possession of any set of facts or under any different set of business pressures when they put this car into production than they were when they took it off. What are we to think happened? That they suddenly discovered that they had some symbiotic relationship with the oil industry that would be endangered if the electric car took off?
Are we to think that they didn't know that previously?

And, really, just how endangered would the oil industry be? After all, it's not as if the batteries in those cars filter the electricity out of the stratosphere. They get it from somewhere. And the somewhere they get it from are powerplants.
Now, some powerplants are driven by water, others by nuclear power, others by coal but I believe that a majority of the power plants in our nation are still driven by oil and natural gas. Stuff that the oil industry is still supplying to us.
I think that it flopped for the reason that most products flop too expensive, not enough people wanted it, not competitive.

If you have a car that, ninety-five percent of the time, you just drive to work what happens if you want to drive a couple hundred miles out to the country a few weekends a year? If it's a regular car you just go. Drive one of these things, you've got to rent a car.

Or if there's an emergency, and you've got to leave from work and drive somewhere, and it's a hundred miles away. Again, if it's a regular car you just go. If it's this pain in the *** electric car, you've got to somehow get to a rental office, leave your electric car, drive to where-ever you're going.
It's a pain in the ***. And if your regular car is running low, you can pull in somewhere and top up in a few minutes. If your electric car only has a few miles of charge left what can you do? If you're close to home, you pull in and plug in and wait for hours. If you're miles from home, you're just screwed. It's not like a tow truck is going to come along, plug in and charge you up.

I'll tell you something there are people now working on cars that, strange as it seems, work on these big cylinders of compressed air made of light-weight composite material. And on a couple of these cylinders (these are still experimental cars) you can actually go over a hundred miles. With a built-in gas-powered compressor, you can go incredible distances off of a single gallon of gas, since all it does is re-fill the compressed air tanks. Or you can stop at a service station and use their compressed air to refill your tank.

Let's see what conspiracies stop that car from selling.

NMS

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Clearly, it's not as if GM was not in possession of any set of facts or under any different set ... that they had some symbiotic relationship with the oil industry that would be endangered if the electric car took off?[/nq]
The Wikipedia articles mention that the car cost about twice its ticket price to make - each car was made at a loss and GM relied on a lot of government money to keep the project afloat. Thing is, even with streamlined production costs and eventual increased sales, the car had insurmountable obstacles (not the least of which was a limited market due to its poor performance in cold climates) that ultimately made it a commercial failure.
And while the oil industry may have wished the EV1's demise, I don't buy that Detroit conspired to kill the project - for one thing why would they even launch the project in the first place, and for another, capitalism being what it is, GM would sell cars that ran on baby blood if that's what consumers decided to buy by the millions.
Also, hybrid cars have demonstrated that car makers will design and sell cars that use less fuel - it's just that, for now, you still need combustion-assisted electrical engines to achieve power, autonomy and performance under a wide range or conditions.
The film was just a huge steaming pile of half-truths and misinformation.
jaybee

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Why did the film makers feel compelled to lie? Surely there's plenty of material here to make a convincing argument ... and offering dubious facts, all the documentary does is create more misinformation. And propaganda is propaganda, regardless of its colours.[/nq]
I saw this film a couple of months ago and I have to agree with you they are trying to imply some sort of conspiracy. It's the same attitude behind the stories that the tyre people can make a tyre that lasts a million miles but it would put them out of business.

I think the implication here was the oil companies won't permit the electric car because their sales and profits would dry up.

I quite liked the film, though.
If I recall they said that GM claimed potential sales of only 800. Entirely believable. It's one of those items that is good in theory but a pain in practice.
The auto makers haven't given up, but they want someone to share the risk. Viz:
"January 09, 2007
"Detroit Automakers Want Half Billion For Battery Research Do the Detroit automakers want to move toward electric vehicles? GM just introduced their Volt electric car prototype which would go 40 miles on a wall socket charge and further on a 3 cylinder engine recharge. Now the US automakers want the US government to spend $100 million per year to speed up the development of batteries that can work better in cars and trucks.
"General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG have asked the U.S. government for $500 million over five years to subsidize research into advanced batteries for cars and trucks.

"The automakers made the request last month after meeting with President George W. Bush in the White House in November, said Stephen Zimmer, an advanced engineering director at DaimlerChrysler's Chrysler unit."

Who Killed The Electric Car

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions