Sign in to follow this  
DemonKnight

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Recommended Posts

No, no. Clearly the movie says that there is a conspiracy. So there must be one, common sense and logic be dammed.

 

It's easy to label it a conspiracy and laugh it away, but think about it...you thnk these multi-billion dollar industries don't have an influence?

 

fixed.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's easy to label it a conspiracy and laugh it away, but think about it...you thnk these multi-billion dollar industries don't have an influence?

:D

Come on, use a little bit of common sense here. I'm not saying that industries don't have any[/b] influence, but it's not like they control the universe. Do you really think that GM, with all of its financial problems and falling market share, would not sell this wonder car that supposedly everyone would love in order to keep some tacit agreement with Big Oil and Big Maintenence to screw over the average Joe? Does that really seem more likely than the other explanations offered to you? It doesn't to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on, use a little bit of common sense here. I'm not saying that industries don't have any[/b] influence, but it's not like they control the universe. Do you really think that GM, with all of its financial problems and falling market share, would not sell this wonder car that supposedly everyone would love in order to keep some tacit agreement with Big Oil and Big Maintenence to screw over the average Joe? Does that really seem more likely than the other explanations offered to you? It doesn't to me.

 

It sounds like you didn't really understand what DK was saying.

 

Maybe you should watch the movie first before passing judgement on it's point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, no. Clearly the movie says that there is a conspiracy. So there must be one, common sense and logic be dammed.

 

I never said there was conspiracy. Its not a conspiracy anymore than Microsoft bullying PC manufacturers to preload Windows on your PC rather than giving you the choice of OS. The fact of the matter is there was zero advertisinfg done for the EV1. I didnt even know that car was on the market at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one would never buy a fully elertonic car... unless it could be recharged in the same amount of time it takes to fill my car presently and with the same amount of distance of a full tank of gas.....

 

Why? How many times a month do you drive anywhere near a full tank of gas? For me its maybe twice a year. My daily commute is probably 10 miles round trip. If I have to have a meeting in another office maybe it goes up to 30. If i go by a friends house after work maybe I drive 50 miles a day. Thats the max unless I'm going on some kind of roadtrip but then I dont plan on getting rid of both of the gas cars I own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should watch the movie first before passing judgement on it's point.

I don't typically watch movies / "documentaries" like this. They tend to be full of hyperbole and show incomplete pictures of the way an issue really is. This is independent of the maker or their political views; while these sorts of things tend to be the domain of the political "left", there are notable exceptions like John Stossel, who I tend to agree with poltically on many issues. That doesn't make his product any more accurate, though.

 

Regardless, I'm not commenting on the movie. I'm commenting on the insinuation in this thread that an industry conspiricy is the reason why electric vehicles failed/are not prevelant. As I stated before, I don't need to see the movie to do that.

 

It sounds like you didn't really understand what DK was saying.

Right. Please show me how I'm misinterpreting what's quoted below:

 

Thats the point. There are so many industries that would lose money from us buying it that auto makers are being preasured into not making them. From the auto parts dealers to the mechanics to the oil industry. It is in too many peoples vested interest for us not to have this technology. Would you like to save money on something you have grown up thinking is an unaviodable expense?

 

 

A perfect example for why we cant trust the free market to uphold our best interests.

 

 

When released GM wouldnt sell the EV1, they would only lease them. As soon as California repealed the law that was the reason they made the cars in the first place they ended all of the leases on the existing cars. They wouldnt even give the leasees the option to buy out the lease. There were people who had to have them reposessed because they wouldnt give them back. Then they just crushed all of the working, reselable cars. Why? When former owners and advocates of the cars found out what they were doing they found the lot that was holding the last of the vehicles and stood guard to the place trying to get GM just to sell them the cars. They went as far as to present GM with a check for the remaining cars and were refused. Why? Is that a "free" market?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said there was conspiracy. Its not a conspiracy anymore than Microsoft bullying PC manufacturers to preload Windows on your PC rather than giving you the choice of OS. The fact of the matter is there was zero advertisinfg done for the EV1. I didnt even know that car was on the market at the time.

You never used the word conspiracy. However, you did say this:

Thats the point. There are so many industries that would lose money from us buying it that auto makers are being preasured into not making them. From the auto parts dealers to the mechanics to the oil industry. It is in too many peoples vested interest for us not to have this technology. Would you like to save money on something you have grown up thinking is an unaviodable expense?

If you're not implying a conspiracy or agreement between industries to not make / promote an electric car, then what are you saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Electric engines have no moving parts thus dont need the same level of maintainance as a gas powered car, there arent as many parts that need regular replacing (Air filter, oil filter, oil seals, engine seals, most belts, exhaust systems, etc)

 

It has to have moving parts. The power supply may not, but the motors do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has to have moving parts. The power supply may not, but the motors do.

I can see where it would have fewer consumables, though, which I think was his point. No alternator, no (or much less) cooling, nothing associated with the combustion (sensors, spark plugs, etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on, use a little bit of common sense here. I'm not saying that industries don't have any[/b] influence, but it's not like they control the universe. Do you really think that GM, with all of its financial problems and falling market share, would not sell this wonder car that supposedly everyone would love in order to keep some tacit agreement with Big Oil and Big Maintenence to screw over the average Joe? Does that really seem more likely than the other explanations offered to you? It doesn't to me.

Yes. The GM culture is not about risks or chance. Why change what's always worked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. The GM culture is not about risks or chance. Why change what's always worked?

:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. The GM culture is not about risks or chance. Why change what's always worked?

 

GM is "working" right now? It doesn't appear that way to me. The labor contracts that they signed with the auto workers unions weren't "risky"? Not sure I agree with that, either.

 

Some other things to consider about the lack of popularity of electric cars: (1) Most of them look like the "smart cars" that are popular in Europe and that nobody in America (outside of maybe a few college professors in Vermont) would be caught dead driving. Some of the first hybrids (like the old Toyota Prius) looked more like something out of a Jetsons rerun than a car that an average Joe would want to drive. (2) When something goes wrong with these vehicles, you're at the mercy of the dealer because the local auto body shop doesn't know how to repair them. All of the money that you save on gas will be offset if a hybrid is in need of significant engine repair after the warranty expires, as the dealer will absolutely screw you with repair costs. This is why many people are still shy about purchasing hybrids. (3) I'm not sure what the electric cars cost, but the hybrids are still about $3,000-$6,000 more expensive than their traditional gasoline-powered equivalents. I imagine that the electric cars would be about as expensive as hybrids have been. People like me who have a short commute to work aren't going to see enough of a price break at the pump to spend several thousand more dollars on a car simply because it's a new technology.

 

I completely agree that the oil industry has a very powerful lobby and a ton of influence on much of the economy, but consumer demand is what ultimately governs what the auto manufacturers will do. My feeling is that demand just hasn't been high enough. And that may change when we see $5/gallon gas and more reasonable prices for these new vehicles.

Edited by Bill Swerski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see it and it reminds of what the car and oil companies did earlier to get rid of trolleys in cities.

 

They were crushing brand new cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the movie a few months ago. What I didn't like about it was that it tried to avoid answering the question of why they failed. Instead, it sorta started with the premise that this is how the free market works -- sorta what az was arguing -- and then said here was the product, here were its customers, and why in a free market are the customers being denied the product?

 

No grand conspiracy theories -- as I recall at the end, it blamed a lot of different groups, including consumers, for its failure. The point of the movie that I took anyway was more along the lines of why would GM destroy something that was working and had a demand, albeit a limited demand, but certainly a demand that was at least equal to what they were producing. And then it doesn't really answer that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right. Please show me how I'm misinterpreting what's quoted below:

 

Simply put, you were making hypotheses on why the car wasn't being sold, and DK had said that the movie showed that cars weren't just "not sold"... but they were collected and destroyed.

 

I saw the movie... No grand conspiracy theories

 

Wait... what???? You're making comments based on actually seeing the movie??? :D Do you think that makes you better qualified to judge it? What-ever, dude.

Edited by AtomicCEO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole f'ing premise of the film implies a conspiracy. who killed the electric car? like it's some sort of murder mystery. and obviously, according to the movie, the answer is not, "GM killed it because it was a product with virtually no demand, impossible for them to produce at anything close to a profit"...the film's answer is more along the lines, "GM killed it because they're in bed with big oil, and love selling spark plugs, and because ultimately they don't want the technology to succeed". so they point to a fact like refusing to sell the vehicles to a handful of lessees as some sinister proof of "killing". the filmmaker is a hugh EV advocate, so clearly the simple, obvious answer -- that GM ended it's EV program in the late 90s because the technology just wasn't capable reaching any significant customer demand -- will not do. so let's turn it into a corporate murder mystery with GM and big oil as the dastardly villains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the whole f'ing premise of the film implies a conspiracy. who killed the electric car? like it's some sort of murder mystery. and obviously, according to the movie, the answer is not, "GM killed it because it was a product with virtually no demand, impossible for them to produce at anything close to a profit"...the film's answer is more along the lines, "GM killed it because they're in bed with big oil, and love selling spark plugs, and because ultimately they don't want the technology to succeed". so they point to a fact like refusing to sell the vehicles to a handful of lessees as some sinister proof of "killing". the filmmaker is a hugh EV advocate, so clearly the simple, obvious answer -- that GM ended it's EV program in the late 90s because the technology just wasn't capable reaching any significant customer demand -- will not do. so let's turn it into a corporate murder mystery with GM and big oil as the dastardly villains.

 

You've seriously crafted 5 posts judging a movie that you haven't seen, admittedly based only on it's title, and you don't think that's weird.

 

So noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've seriously crafted 5 posts judging a movie that you haven't seen, admittedly based only on it's title, and you don't think that's weird.

 

So noted.

 

no, based on what DK has represented here, and what i have read here and here.

 

The film explores some of the reasons that the auto and oil industries worked to kill off the electric car. Wally Rippel is shown explaining that the oil companies were afraid of losing out on trillions in potential profit from their transportation fuel monopoly over the coming decades, while the auto companies were afraid of losses over the next six months of EV production

:D:D

 

pretty sure i'm not very far off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no, based on what DK has represented here, and what i have read here and here.

:D:D

 

pretty sure i'm not very far off.

But have you seen the movie?

 

Jeez, some people are thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But have you seen the movie?

 

Jeez, some people are thick.

 

It's not that hard a concept.

 

Here's some options:

a. See the movie

b. Ignore the movie

c. Jump into an indignant debate on the movie based on it's title, and the comments of someone who watched it which you didn't even bother to read all the way through.

 

Wouldn't you be puzzled what would motivate 3 people to choose option c?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Atomoranic, have you read all the pentagon papers released on the Iraq conflict? You know, the hundreds of thousands of peices of paper?

 

No?

 

Then please withhold all future opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, Atomoranic, have you read all the pentagon papers released on the Iraq conflict? You know, the hundreds of thousands of peices of paper?

 

No?

 

Then please withhold all future opinions.

 

You first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.