GM: First VOLT, NOW Spark..

On 10/15/2011 2:23 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-10-15, > wrote:
>> My guess is that most old folks drive considerably less then young
>> folks. I'm entitled to my opinion as are you. So there! :-)
>
> But I *am* one of the "old folks" and know from personal experience
> rather than idle speculation. So there! :-) :-)
>

I never said you drove considerably less that young folks - I was
referring to most old folks.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:08:48 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 10/13/2011 9:41 AM, bob urz wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 10:43 AM, Steve W. wrote:
>>> hls wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "J R" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> It will probally be a roaring success like the Volt.
>>>>> cuhulin
>>>>
>>>> The electric car market, I understand, is far below expectations.
>>>> Money spent on development of new age batteries seems to
>>>> have been peed away.
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't seem to be the way of the future.
>>>>
>>>> "Keep the change, Obama"
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a surprise that electrics don't sell. They are not even close to
>>> being a practical vehicle for 99% of the population of the world.
>>>
>>>
>> I would be ironic if GM had to go back to old school Gasoline heaters
>> like the 60's VW's had to make the cars suitable for cold climate use
>>
>> bob
>
>As I recall, GM had gasoline heaters in the Corvair and it used a spark
>plug and a separate coil and points system to ignite the mix. I can only
>imagine that it must have been on the noisy side in operation.
>

Actually, it was not noisy. It was great. I had one and could get in
the car on a cold morning and in less then a minute have heat. The
only noise inside was the blower, just like any heater. Mine always
worked properly but I heard they occsassionally messed up and blew the
hood off. I also heard that Chevy bought the design from Chrysler who
had used in many years earlier in one of their cars.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:59:37 -0500, "hls" > wrote:

>
>"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
>> On 10/13/2011 11:57 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> well theoretically, they're perfect for the vast majority of urban and
>>> suburban users and their normal routine usage if you're doing traffic
>>> analysis. but a car is not just transportation, it's freedom. freedom to
>>> go and do stuff outside your routine, even if you don't do it very
>>> often. that is what people won't sacrifice. i know i won't.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My guess is that an aging population will find that it suits their needs
>> well. They don't commute or take long trips. Mostly they need a grocery
>> getter, something to get them to church on Sundays, and a way to get to
>> their many doctor's appointments. They won't have to mess with oil, gas,
>> and water either.
>
>The aging population is not too stupid. These cars make no sense at all for
>the majority of people.
>
>If many of these older people have been screwed by GM over the years, it
>means even a leaner market.
>
>Your arguments are basically bull****. I dont know many people who would
>buy into this crap.
>

The only thing that doesn't make "sense" is that they cost too much
right now because of the battery. If and when they finally solve the
battery issues (capacity and cost) they will sell like hotcake's.

On 10/15/2011 2:35 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> Actually, it was not noisy. It was great. I had one and could get in
> the car on a cold morning and in less then a minute have heat. The
> only noise inside was the blower, just like any heater. Mine always
> worked properly but I heard they occsassionally messed up and blew the
> hood off. I also heard that Chevy bought the design from Chrysler who
> had used in many years earlier in one of their cars.

Thanks for the info. Sounds like a neat system. Heating and cooling
seems like a bit of a problem for electric cars.

On 10/15/2011 2:41 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:59:37 -0500, > wrote:
>> The aging population is not too stupid. These cars make no sense at all for
>> the majority of people.
>>
>> If many of these older people have been screwed by GM over the years, it
>> means even a leaner market.
>>
>> Your arguments are basically bull****. I dont know many people who would
>> buy into this crap.
>>
>
> The only thing that doesn't make "sense" is that they cost too much
> right now because of the battery. If and when they finally solve the
> battery issues (capacity and cost) they will sell like hotcake's.

That's the way it is with crabby old guys and new technology. These guys
want everything to stand still because they can't handle change.

It's always the same old thing. Cars with radial tires, front-wheel
drive, air bags, fuel injection, electronic ignition, computer control
systems, keyless start/entry, etc, etc, won't work and nobody will want
such technology. They've been around since day one saying horseless
carriages will never catch on.

The reality is that technology will continue to move in whatever
direction it chooses, and things will change whether we like it or not.
That's the breaks.

On 2011-10-16, dsi1 > wrote:
> That's the way it is with crabby old guys and new technology. These guys
> want everything to stand still because they can't handle change.

No, what we hate is crappy new technology that is all flash with little
or no substance. Until the battery problem is solved, electric cars will
continue to be rubbish.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/16/2011 2:36 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2011-10-16, > wrote:
>> That's the way it is with crabby old guys and new technology. These guys
>> want everything to stand still because they can't handle change.
>
> No, what we hate is crappy new technology that is all flash with little
> or no substance. Until the battery problem is solved, electric cars will
> continue to be rubbish.
>


Sounds like you're saying that there's a problem with the current state
of battery technology. Do you think that you're the only person that
knows about this? We already know about the battery problem. Everybody
knows about the battery problem - it's a big problem. We've known about
it from the start.

Most new technologies don't arrive fully formed or developed. In the
early days of cars, there wasn't even a national interstate highway
system or even proper roads. This would probably be a major problem. I
got an idea, lets just ditch all new technologies. Yeah, that makes a
lot of sense.

P.S. About the matter of the batteries - yeah, we know there's a problem
with the batteries. It's a big hoot how people go on about this like
it's too big a problem to solve. What a short-sighted and unimaginative
view!

On 2011-10-16, dsi1 > wrote:
> P.S. About the matter of the batteries - yeah, we know there's a problem
> with the batteries. It's a big hoot how people go on about this like
> it's too big a problem to solve. What a short-sighted and unimaginative
> view!

Yeah, a "big hoot." I've been watching you "imaginative," "far-sighted,"
"visionary" types working on this problem for over 40 years. In that time
I have seen electric cars go from totally impractical to almost totally
impractical. Quite an accomplishment!

Yep, it's a "big hoot" all right. While you visionary types spend another
few decades getting your **** together the rest of us that actually need
usable vehicles will be sticking with internal combustion.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Oct 16, 2:27*pm, Roger Blake > wrote:
> On 2011-10-16, dsi1 > wrote:
>
> > P.S. About the matter of the batteries - yeah, we know there's a problem
> > with the batteries. It's a big hoot how people go on about this like
> > it's too big a problem to solve. What a short-sighted and unimaginative
> > view!
>
> Yeah, a "big hoot." I've been watching you "imaginative," "far-sighted,"
> "visionary" types working on this problem for over 40 years. In that time
> I have seen electric cars go from totally impractical to almost totally
> impractical. Quite an accomplishment!
>
> Yep, it's a "big hoot" all right. While you visionary types spend another
> few decades getting your **** together the rest of us that actually need
> usable vehicles will be sticking with internal combustion.
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
> * Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)
>
> * "Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
> * *protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
> * *an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
> * *resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

You must be having a lot of fun living in the 1980's. :-)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 00:27:18 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
> wrote:

>On 2011-10-16, dsi1 > wrote:
>> P.S. About the matter of the batteries - yeah, we know there's a problem
>> with the batteries. It's a big hoot how people go on about this like
>> it's too big a problem to solve. What a short-sighted and unimaginative
>> view!
>
>Yeah, a "big hoot." I've been watching you "imaginative," "far-sighted,"
>"visionary" types working on this problem for over 40 years. In that time
>I have seen electric cars go from totally impractical to almost totally
>impractical. Quite an accomplishment!
>
>Yep, it's a "big hoot" all right. While you visionary types spend another
>few decades getting your **** together the rest of us that actually need
>usable vehicles will be sticking with internal combustion.


What's impractical about them?