The life and death of the electric car

image courtesy EV1 Club.
Scenario: If a car company like Honda or Chrysler discontinues a line of automobiles citing insufficient sales and demand, would you expect them to recall all leased vehicles of that model so that they could be destroyed?

Probably not. So why did GM recall, round up and destroy almost every EV1 (one was given to a museum)?

This is one of the main question stemming from the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" that I watched this weekend with Wade at the Screening Room in Kingston.

The documentary narrative spann California's intiative in the early '90s requiring automakers to develop ZEVs (Zero-Emission Vehicles), the introduction of several electric vehicles, most famously GM's EV1, the subsequent cancellation of its sales, the complete recall of every EV1* (since all were only available for lease), the grassroots campaign to buy out the vehicles (which was refused), and the subsequent destruction of all the EV1 vehicles on the GM proving Grounds in California.

*At the time, EV1s were touted to be very clean, fast and efficient, because there were no combustion engine, just a set of batteries and a motor. It had a range of about 100 miles on a single charge and had comparable speeds with regular sedans. This would conceivably meet most city dweller's needs since, for the most part, a daily commute very rarely exceed 100 miles.

image courtesy EV1 Club.

To this day, no one really knows why GM decided to round up all these cars to be destroyed. This resonated with me because it reminded me about the cancellation of the Avro Arrow program and the subsequent destruction of all test planes, models and documents. In both cases, it just seems illogical by both parties to destroy technology that was ahead of its time when it could have been stored away for a future opportunity to revisit the techonlogy.

I can understand cancellation of sales if there was insufficient demand (though that's disputed in the film of course). But if existing customers who've already leased your vehicle and want to buy out the lease, why refuse? It doesn't make any sense to alienate customers like that. It can't be because of worry about litigation over maintenance since companies warn about products they no longer provide technical support for all the time. And it's these element that brings a feeling of a sinister agenda behind this action.

One interesting point was the fact that it was a paradoxical product that could never reach its potential. I mean, why would automakers want to sell a product that exposes the inadequacies and inefficiencies of your other products, right? There was never a willingness to push the electic car onto the public consciousness. The ad campaign for the EV1 evokes a stalker movie, for crying out loud. 'I wouldn't want an EV1 to eat my children', is what the message was telling me. An iPod campaign it ain't.

Another interesting point dealt with the maintenance of the vehicle. They interviewed a mechanic who had serviced both types of vehicles. He commented that when an EV1 came in for a service check, all he really did was refill wiper fluid and rotate the tires. He laughed about how his hands were so much cleaner than when servicing regular cars. A car with an internal combustion engine required oil changes, new mufflers, timing belts, etc. Think of the resources saved not having to produce these products and the money saved by consumers not having to purchase these products.

While the EV1 is now dead, others have risen to take it's place, namely Tesla Motors' Tesla Motor and Feel Good Car's (a Toronto company no less) ZENN neighbourhood vehicle. Providentially, there was an article in Monday's Toronto Star about the push for plug-in hybrids (gasoline/electric hybrid cars that can also be run by soley charging the battery, ala EV1 and the rest). The money quote:

"...A few weeks later, Bloomberg News — citing unnamed sources — reported that General Motors was developing a plug-in hybrid. GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz has more or less backed up that report, writing in his corporate blog last month that the auto giant is studying plug-in hybrids and "will have more to say about those soon."

Is GM kidding me?! They're doing research on technology they already have? They could've been ahead of the curve if they improved and pushed the EV1 and are instead playing catch-up. With technology constantly improving, there are already batteries available that can provide the same mileage as conventional cars or hybrids. Way to go guys. I can see why your market share's been dropping.

"No doubt, they're also facing pressure from the U.S. government. Because large-scale introduction of plug-in hybrids has the potential to dramatically reduce oil consumption, and therefore U.S. dependence on foreign oil, George W. Bush is all over the idea..."

You know what would drastically reduce oil consumption more than plug-in hybrids? Cars that didn't rely on gasoline at all. Now where in recent memory did we have cars that could do that...?

P.S. Scariest/Funniest moment in the movie: the documentary interviews Mel Gibson about him owning an EV1. Unfortunately, they were interviewing him when he still had that giant "I've been in the jungle for the last couple years filming 'Apocalypto' so I didn't shave and oops I've now been arrested for drunk driving and saying anti-semitic remarks so it makes me look Ca-Razy" beard. I couldn't pay attention at all to what he was saying because the beard was just too big and scraggly and mesmerizing...