Volt Birth Watch 126: There's a New Kid In Town (Aptera)

kgurnsey, GM has a cash burn rate that took them out of business 40 days ago - except for the largesse of the taxpayer. The Volt is being introduced in negligible volume in 2010Q4/2011Q1. No significant revenue until 2012. Maybe. GM itself has guaranteed this car will lose money for years. You're saying it's OK, admirable even, to sink a couple billion into a Hail Mary play that saves you two or more years after you're dead? I can't agree to disagree. That's just wrong. I also don't believe GM is the spur that's goading Toyota or anyone else into doing anything. Battery-powered vehicles have been looked at for decades and people come around and look again every few years. All the major auto companies do it. The competition probably thinks GM has ADD on this, anyway, and the Volt will never happen (certainly won't if GM goes belly-up). It's more interesting to contemplate what is said to have spurred GM to action - Tesla! I couldn't believe it when another netposter said so, but I've since seen it reliably reported that Lutz threw a fit over the Tesla and its a-few-K-per-year boutique manufacturing plan for a $100+K car of extremely limited utility. Uh... Bob? You never noticed that Toyota was selling 150-180K Priuses per year and making money on them? The GM that's capable of building over 4 million vehicles per year is worried about a crew that's jamming laptop batteries into a midget car hand crafted by Lotus? Both Toyota and Ford can build RE-EVs by removing parts from their existing cars. Both Toyota and Ford - and I don't think this is coincidence - have declined to go the Volt route, saying it's uneconomical. Both Toyota and Ford have working hybrid programs. Toyota has recently said they think 20 miles AER is a sweet spot and it looks very much like they, and Ford, will hit this with their HSD and HSD-like systems. They're handicapped by the same thing that's going to be problematic for GM; is a suitable battery ready? What's going to happen when a suitable battery is ready is an evolutionary step that everyone can take. For Toyota and Ford, it's like a better D cell - just buy one for your existing flashlight. Toyota and Ford won't even have any outrageous development cost on this; it's a tweak to existing product. From the consumer's perspective, capability and cost are the drivers. The consumer isn't really going to care how anybody's system works (although they're more likely to trust the leader). For reasons I can't fathom, GM didn't even go all the way on this. Their vehicle has a higher Cd than the Prius, leaving the door open to situations where the Prius will beat it on fuel economy (unrefueled long-range 70mph travel, for sure) GM's welcome to do this, if they like, but it's just an act of vanity on Bub Lutz' part. Like blowing your brains out with a pearl-handled, nickel-silver .44 revolver instead of a cheap blued 9. The result's about the same.

Bob Lutz just announced that he'll retire at the end of 2009. That can't bode well when your biggest champion decides to punch his ticket before the ride begins.

KixStart: It's not just plain wrong, it's simply an entirely different perspective, and a valid one in my mind. Please do not dismiss my argument out of hand. I am not an idiot, I have watched the EV industry for some years, I'm an engineer and businessperson in my own right, and have given this issue some serious thought. I have not once said that it's good business, in fact I have said several times that it is in fact not good business for GM, but there is much more to the world than just "good business". I understand cash flow, building products that the public want to buy, and proftability. I understand the concepts of lesse faire capitalism, and know that, while an admirable philosophy in some ways, it is also idealistic and flawed in many respects. I agree whole heartedly that the path that Toyota and Ford are taking is better business, and have said so on mulitple occasions. Your argument is not lost on me, however we are arguing a point from completely different perspectives. You are still arguing from the stance of good vs. bad business, which I have agreed with you on. I am arguing my point from a perspective of pure innovation, and freeing us up from the technical stagnation surrounding the ICE. The Volt is a more complicated solution technically, due to the greater stresses and demands on the battery, but one with greater long term promise. PHEVs still rely on the ICE as the core of thier motive power. E-REVs do not. There is a fundimental, if not subtle, difference in thier approach and long term intent. The Volt may have been spurred in large part due to Tesla, but Tesla owes is heritige to AC Propulsion, the T-Zero, and ultimately the EV1. Yes, manufacturers have played with EVs off and on over the years, but the EV1 was the first EV in modern times to be produced by a major manufacturer to all current (at the time) safety regulations, as a real car, for sale to the general public, with potential for mass manufacturing. In this light it is signifigant, and the major reason for a resurgence in the popularity of EVs. GM proved at that time, to everyone's surprise, that an EV could be produced, marketed, and that there would be demand for it (as much as they later tried to cover this up). They showed the world, and all the other major manufacturers who then clamered to catch up, that EVs could work. The outcry stemming from thier blatant reversal spurred companies like Tesla and Aptera to pick up where the major manufacturers had faltered, using the excuse of "good business" to give up on a good idea. Even the mighty Prius, hailed as such a technological wonder, is a lame duck compared to what could have been. GM was working on a 4 seater prototype EV1 with a range extender back then. We could have had a Voltesque car being mass produced years ago, if it weren't for "good business". The small companies, like Tesla, and the public support they garnered, in turn inspired GM to re-reverse, and build the Volt. Whether the decision to produce Volt itself spurred other manufacturers down the path of plug in cars, or they were all motivated by the growing support for plug ins, and challenges from Tesla and other small companies, is a debatable point, but like I said, all of that ultimately owes it's existence to GM. Necessity is often the mother of invention. No greater technological strides are taken in times of need or fierce competition. Often the desperate are the ones who push the boudaries hard enough to truly innovate, and come up with a revolutionary solution to an old problem. Say what you will about bailouts and whether GM, as a busines, should be allowed to live or go into bankruptcy. Car companies are businesses, and should idealy live and die as such, but they are also the only entities in the world with the size and reach, given the extreme complexities of the modern automobile, to truly innovate and fundimentally change the way we, as a people, use personal transportation. They are much more than just a business, and to look at them only as such is simplistic in the context of a society, civilization, or global population. They hold the keys to the revolution we need in personal transportation, and they alone. Still, among the few major auto manufaturers that span the globe, one at least must push the envelope for that to happen. As far as innovation goes, and pushing the boundaries of battery technology, GM is pushing the hardest. As far as Max Bob is concerned, I could care less where he goes from here. His part has been played.

I can't help but wonder if the Volt will go the way of the Chevy SSR. A halo vehicle designed to up the corporation's reputation more than anything else...