AutoblogGreen

Note: read part one of this story here.

Pause and rebirth

I joined the GM EV effort in April, 1991 and began pulling together a small team of test and development engineers and technicians at GM's Proving Grounds near Milford, MI.

One vivid early memory was driving the Impact concept car down a long, steep Proving Grounds hill early one August morning on the way to demonstrate it to a meeting of GM's Board of Directors. There was a sweeping curve near the bottom of this hill that I routinely drove nearly every day on my way to test tracks.

Suddenly, as I sped downhill toward that curve, I remembered that the Impact rolled on skinny, low-rolling-resistance experimental tires, and had almost no brakes. Visions of an expensive career-ending crash flashed through my head. Then I remembered that I could dial up "coast-down" regenerative braking with a rheostat knob between the seats, and that slowed the slippery little bullet enough to make the turn. Whew!

The pause
Sixteen months of hard work later -- on Pearl Harbor Day, Dec. 7, 1992 -- our fearless leader, Ken Baker, had to tell our Lansing, Mich. Craft Centre plant team, who were preparing to build our breakthrough electric vehicle, that the program had been delayed. Then he had to deliver that same emotional message to his engineers at GM's Warren, MI Technical Center.

The story continues after the jump.

Triumph of technology set the stage for the future

• Our gift is a world of opportunity. To leave it a better place than we found it is our greatest gift to the next generation. – Ken Baker, GM Electric Vehicles
• "Since when does being an auto engineer makes you smarter than scientists specializing in the field?" – ABG reader John, on my 8/3/08 column, "Global Warming Pro." (Yes, "Pro")

Well, John, maybe not smarter, but maybe educated enough to have a valid opinion.

Engineers become engineers because - like people who become scientists - we are good at math and science, including physics, chemistry and biology. We study the same things eventual scientists do, then branch out into specialties. Some choose geology or climatology. I chose automotive engineering because I love cars and wanted to help make them better.

As technically trained people, engineers have a good understanding of what makes things work, how elements interact and what is physically possible...and not. We know that vehicle fuel economy is mostly about size, weight and aerodynamics. We know that technology can incrementally improve efficiency, but also that technology costs money. To redirect an old racing adage, how efficient can you afford to be?

Unlike typical non-technically trained people – including most government bureaucrats, lawyers, legislators and journalists – we form opinions and make decisions based on facts and data, not emotion and opinion. We have long-established BS alarms that go off when someone tries to tell us that something we know is physically impossible is not. We know there is no 100-mpg carburetor or 40-mpg SUV (If either was possible, why wouldn't someone be making a fortune building and selling them and blowing away all their less-enlightened competition?).
That said, let me tell you about the most exciting, challenging and inspiring engineering assignment I've ever had: Vehicle Test and Development Manager for what became the GM EV1. I know the real story behind General Motors' 1990s electric vehicle effort very well; I was there, working my proverbial tail off on it, and you can start reading this tale after the jump. A warning, though: those who harbor strong negative perceptions about EV1 and GM's intent for it - from that recent ill-informed crockumentary or some other non-knowledgeable source - may not want to read this, because the real true story will not reinforce what you already think you know.

There are cogent arguments on both sides

If you read my first ABG column a few weeks ago, you know that I'm no believer in human-caused global warming. My logical, data-driven engineering mind can't wrap around the idea that the 4% of CO2 created by all of the planet's human activity (96% is naturally generated), which goes into the less than 4% of greenhouse gases (95% is water vapor) and the 380 parts per million of the atmosphere that is CO2, can really be making much difference.

But wait! Before you begin writing the usual angry, insulting comments questioning my intelligence and ancestry, be aware that I recently wrote a pretty good argument supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Why? It was an assignment for a major web site that wanted a balanced presentation of both sides so its readers could decide which to believe.

Part of the problem is speculation: individual and institutional investors betting on higher future oil prices. Another big factor is the very weak U.S. dollar. But the bulk of the reason oil and gas prices have climbed so high is that age-old Economics 101 supply/demand equation. Global demand, especially by developing countries, continues to grow, while supply does not.

Most agree that conservation is the critically important first step in altering that equation. Next comes development of alternatives, some that can propel our vehicles, others that cannot but can displace oil and natural gas now being used for energy production.

Left: "We can't drill our way out of this!"
Right: "We can't conserve our way out of this!"
Chorus: "We must innovate our way out of this!"

(Maybe, but how long will that take? What will it cost? Who will pay?)

Democrats: "Big Oil's fault! Confiscate their profits!"
Republicans: "Environmentalists' fault! Drill here, drill now, pay less!"
Chorus: "Speculators' fault! Pass a law!"

(So, investing in things -- stocks, bonds, collector cars, commodities such as oil -- that may, or may not, increase in value in the future should be illegal?)

The price of just about anything is mostly about supply and demand. This is Rule #1 of Economics 101 -- which they made me take, along with English, history and a few other useful things, in engineering school:

1. Demand goes up, supply doesn't: price goes up
2. Demand goes down, supply doesn't: price goes down
3. Supply goes up, demand doesn't: price goes down

Oil will bring whatever buyers are willing to pay and sellers are willing to take, and buyers are willing to pay very dearly these days. Nearly all economic activity runs on oil, and it is extremely difficult for any society to reduce its usage without cheap and plentiful alternatives.

Petroleum products are not just in transportation tanks; they are in almost all consumer products. Take off your jacket, check your watch, dial your phone, boot up your computer, plug in your iPod – these things and nearly everything else contain them as fundamental elements.

Most things consume oil as they are manufactured, and all things consume it as fuel in shipment to market. And so, as we have been learning all too painfully lately, as the price of oil goes up, the price of everything follows in the same direction. So, given that the price of oil depends mostly on supply and demand, what can we do to drag it back down? Reduce demand? Increase supply? Yes, and yes! Anyone who thinks we can make enough difference by working just one end of that equation is wishfully thinking.

Continue reading after the jump.

Scientists challenge today's biggest and most dangerous lie

A few months ago, I was asked to speak to a group of engineers and researchers toiling on high-tech projects under the auspices of USCAR (United States Council for Automotive Research), the umbrella organization for collaborative research among Chrysler, Ford and General Motors. The occasion was an annual luncheon where awards and recognitions are handed out for successes, extraordinary efforts and hard work well done.

Hot news at that time was Toyota's potentially passing GM in global sales...one more major milestone in the woeful declines of General Motors, "Detroit" and industrial America in general. But I noticed no one reporting the pertinent fact that Toyota sells some 2.5 million vehicles a year in its highly protected home market, to GM's next to none. Or that GM handily outsells Toyota nearly everywhere else, including here in the U.S.

Then I saw a cable-news panel of supposedly smart investment advisors attributing Detroit's ongoing woes to inferior quality and fuel economy. These tired, old misperceptions, blithely communicated as facts, provided inspiration for my talk, "Lies and Misperceptions."

Following a brief introduction, I asked the group for a show of hands: "How many believe that import-vehicle quality is better than domestic?" Not one hand went up. "Japanese vs. domestic?" Still none. Good! I cited some proof from J.D. Power and other quality surveys. "Imports deliver better fuel economy than domestics." Still no hands. Excellent! "An 'American' car is one built in America." A scattering of hands. I suggested that an "American" vehicle is one that wears a domestic brand, regardless of assembly location, because it supports U.S.-maker headquarters jobs (not just assembly and sales jobs), and the money it brings stays in this country to support this economy and that American company.

At Witz' End continues after the break.