• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

An interesting take why the Auto Makers haven't moved to Electric Cars

T

Texmaster

Banned
I had dinner last night with a guy who is very high up in one of the big three auto companies. We actually had different business to discuss but I remmebered the great info I learned here about fuel cell technology and since he is part of the new technology divison for his company I asked him about it. He told me about a new Lithium Ion battery about the size of a 19 inch television that has the power of 3 cars full of regular lead batteries. Now the cost is still pretty high but it is workable.

So, I asked why the big three in the US have been so staunchly against getting off the combustable engine. I was expecting to hear as we all do about the oil company pressure but he had a different take. What he said was putting it bluntly, a big move toward electric cars would take the power of building cars out of the hands of the big three.

The reason he gave is that electric motors are FAR less complicated than building a gasoline engine so the competition would increase dramatically. He brought up Tucker, for auto guys is a blast from the past. Tucker was famous for going up against the big three auto makers with new ideas like seatbelts and moving headlights. But my friend also pointed out, he couldn't build the engine and instead used an aircraft engine as a model.

Its the complexity of the gasoline powered engine that chokes competition. Not that the big three wouldn't do their damnest to knock out a competitor like they did to a company based in Oaklahoma who was making an electric powered car that could go 0-60 in 4 seconds!

It was really interesting discussion so I thought I'd share it with the guys that gave me the interest to explore electric and fuel cell driven cars of the future.
 
I've always blamed big companies for quashing innovation either the oil companies or in this case auto manufacturers.
Just like Microsoft quashing the competators and heard Balmer say in an interview. "Yes we have been an average product"
when pushed about MS's woeful stability. Cause they focused more on killing the other guy than making their product the best.
Seems like that mentality applies across more than just SW
I wondered why they never pursued a hybrid or even a hydrolic car 'ever see one of those?" I mean Deisel/electrics have been around on trains forever!
 
we were having a discussion about this the other day.. and the discussion will continue on monday ....

This is definately news I can add into the discussion.
 
Also, I would think, that none of the big three want to initiate building a huge fleet of electric cars in the case that they don't sell well at all. That would be alot of resources wasted in the neverending race to be #1 in North America.
 
It is the nature of business to protect itself from competition, b/c it's all about money. If something threatens that, they respond.
The big 3 have a sure thing going. Why would they want to stop that? Doing what they do makes money. Only when there's a demand will they sell the electric car and only if they think it will pay and continue to pay.
 


<< Its the complexity of the gasoline powered engine that chokes competition. Not that the big three wouldn't do their damnest to knock out a competitor like they did to a company based in Oaklahoma who was making an electric powered car that could go 0-60 in 4 seconds! >>

I don't doubt for a minute that the Big Three would do this, but how exactly would they put this other company out of business?
 


<< I don't doubt for a minute that the Big Three would do this, but how exactly would they put this other company out of business? >>



Good question. The only case I know of that speaks of direct intervention by the big three was the company in Oklahoma who began to mysteriously loose connections to companies that supply the materials and equipment for body frames and other basic car components upping the price until it was out of reach.

 
Thanks Tex for the insights 🙂. I never really thought about it like that, but now that I do, it actually makes alot of sense.

What we need now is a new automobile-manufacturer, with needed resources to make a electric-car that works and ability to succesfully market it to the public. It would also be strong enough to survive the attack of the traditional car-manufacturers. If it survives the attack and it's car is popular, it would force other car-makers to follow with electric-cars of their own.

In short: What we need is a disruptive shift in technology. Easier said than done though...
 
3 cars full of lead-acid batteries huh? So it would have a range of maybe 200 miles then? Still unacceptable. Range needs to be at least 300 miles and I'm not about to wait 4-5 hours at every stop to "refuel" an electric. Hydrogen fuel cells need to get a little better, then electric technology will take off.

ZV
 


<< 3 cars full of lead-acid batteries huh? So it would have a range of maybe 200 miles then? Still unacceptable. Range needs to be at least 300 miles and I'm not about to wait 4-5 hours at every stop to "refuel" an electric. Hydrogen fuel cells need to get a little better, then electric technology will take off.

ZV >>



Actually the report was 300-400 miles but I agree with you. Its a long way from becoming a standard vehicle. if you can't "recharge" anywhere but home.
 


<< The reason he gave is that electric motors are FAR less complicated than building a gasoline engine so the competition would increase dramatically. >>


If they really wanted to do it ( and I still think them and big oil are being short sighted) any upstart company would have as much chance of surviving as the local Mom and Pop does when Super Wal-Mart moves to town.
 
I would have guessed it would be more along the lines of the big oil companies wouldn't like it and therefore politicians wouldn't pass favorable laws. Then perhaps public reception of the new technology, esp if we couldn't get similar performance from it.

If it is the case of competition, then I'm sure someone would have built a car by now and marketed it. Korean companies have recently entered the car market and you don't see problems building engines there. Perhaps the big 3 don't feel comfortable manufacturing these types of cars, so they have concocteed some excuse about some start-up squashing one of them. Maybe they should be worried about the Japanese companies, asHonda and Toyota have electric vehicles.

Granted I don't know much, but I think that "big 3" guy's take is more of an excuse than realistic.
 
Texmaster: Whose your big Detroit connection? A lunatic janitor, perhaps?

Let's assume that Texmaster's black helicopter theory about an evil Detroit mafia is true (though, if it was true, you'd figure that all the bosses at Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, etc. would be dead by now, but we won't explore that little inconsistency). If it was so simple to make even a remotely feasible, desirable electric car, then someone half-way across the world would have made one already, and made billions of dollars off it.

Electric car technology is limited by chemistry. You can only get X amount of energy from a chemical reaction. The GM EV1 has a range of 130 miles. There are electric cars that were made 100 years ago, which have a range of 90 miles. The technology is a dead end, pure and simple. Lithium batteries are no big secret. I have a lithium battery in my cell phone. Lithium is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth's crust (also not a secret) - any freshman chemistry student can tell you that. But even Lithium batteries can't provide enough juice to power cars that you would actually want to drive.

The oil industry puts no pressure on the car industry. The car industry puts no pressure on the oil industry. If there were, I'd see conspicuous redneck Texans all over the place in South-East Michigan, liasons to the Big 3 (which - BTW - I don't). There is no conspiracy to make big SUVs. They make big SUVs because that's what people like to buy. When they start making European style, 1 Liter minicars, the divisions are usually sent into bankruptcy pretty quickly. All of you like to come here and b|tch about gas guzzling cars, and their supposed effects on oil prices. How many of you actually own GEO Metros?

GM has invested more in electric car technologies than everyone else combined. Their $1 billion EV1 project was an absolute failure. The car barely sold any units.

If you jack@sses cared so much about electric cars, why didn't you buy one at that point? There is no conspiracy, fools. Please do think, before you make uneducated comments.
 
While it's hard to warm up to the tone of Shantanu's reply, I do agree with his assertion that seemingly insurmountable problems with energy storage in batteries make the all-electric car a dead-end idea. I think that energy storage will continue to be chemical; gasoline moving to hydrogen. And I also expect that combustion engines will give way to electric motors powered by improving fuel cell technology (which should be at least as technically demanding to manufacture). The real problem (as discussed in other threads) is how to find enough energy to create the hydrogen.
 
That's capitalism, that should be expected! I'll take capitalism's little faults like these over socialism or any other economic/political system anyday.
 
i dont get why all the electric cars that do come out, or prototypes, look like crap...why dont they just pop an electric motor into a ford 350 4x4? yeesh
 


<<

<< 3 cars full of lead-acid batteries huh? So it would have a range of maybe 200 miles then? Still unacceptable. Range needs to be at least 300 miles and I'm not about to wait 4-5 hours at every stop to "refuel" an electric. Hydrogen fuel cells need to get a little better, then electric technology will take off.

ZV >>



Actually the report was 300-400 miles but I agree with you. Its a long way from becoming a standard vehicle. if you can't "recharge" anywhere but home. >>



Hey nice story above there Texmaster. As far as re-charging goes there is "free" re-charging units in downtown SanLuisObispo Ca.

It's totally believeable Li lasts 3X as long since your laptops today (which also use Li) last 3x as long as thier NiCd predecessors. Remember the early fires though? Li is extremly flamable when it contacts water!!! That's the real crux. Waters everywhere (your from Texas HUMIDITY) and the car/ oil companies have a very good lobby to "protect public safty".
 
I also wanted to add that near its melting point of 157C, lithium ignites in air. Lithium posses a dangerous fire and explosion risk when exposed to water, acids or oxidizing agents. It reacts exothermally with nitrogen in moist air at high temperatures. Also, Li is toxic and targets the central nervous system when in solution. With these facts I can see how it would be easy to prohibit use on roadways in the generous quantities which would be required to drive a car. Basically the only way to extinquish a Li fire/explosion is Halon which is difficult in the open where accidents are likely to occur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top