General Motor's EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
- Thread starter cy
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
The official line is that they were scrapped because a lack of spare parts might cause liability issues. That's pure BS. They could simply have had anyone buying one of the vehicles sign a general release barring them from such lawsuits. I'd say the real reason is partly that they would lose money on replacement parts since EVs don't break down as often, and partly due to pressure from the oil lobby who stands to lose a lot of business if EVs catch on. GM seems hellbent now on fuel cells so that it can appear "environmentally concerned" when it knows damned well this technology is inferior to plain old batteries, and also will never be economically feasible for production automobiles. Even if it were, it seems like it would be less reliable than BEVs, which I'm sure is another reason GM is pursuing it. Good for GM, bad for the consumer.
It seems our only hope now is for China or Japan to produce the BEVs lots of people would buy in a heartbeat. Wanna bet that if they do the government will be lobbied by the big three to find some half-baked reason to ban importing them? In the meantime all we'll get are commercials for more of the same old crap-SUVs and sedans with huge engines.
The official line is that they were scrapped because a lack of spare parts might cause liability issues. That's pure BS. They could simply have had anyone buying one of the vehicles sign a general release barring them from such lawsuits. I'd say the real reason is partly that they would lose money on replacement parts since EVs don't break down as often, and partly due to pressure from the oil lobby who stands to lose a lot of business if EVs catch on. GM seems hellbent now on fuel cells so that it can appear "environmentally concerned" when it knows damned well this technology is inferior to plain old batteries, and also will never be economically feasible for production automobiles. Even if it were, it seems like it would be less reliable than BEVs, which I'm sure is another reason GM is pursuing it. Good for GM, bad for the consumer.
It seems our only hope now is for China or Japan to produce the BEVs lots of people would buy in a heartbeat. Wanna bet that if they do the government will be lobbied by the big three to find some half-baked reason to ban importing them? In the meantime all we'll get are commercials for more of the same old crap-SUVs and sedans with huge engines.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
The idea that fuel cells will someday be cheap and powerful enough to power cars directly is laughable. I seem to recall that low-temperaure fuel cells require platinum and other none-too-common materials.
With several billion dollars' worth of research, fuel cells might someday be a good technology for cars. But in the meantime, plain chemical batteries are ready now. The electric grid - which is nearly everywhere - is ready now. But America isn't ready now.
I guess that the concept of merely consuming energy on mobile devices rather than (inefficiently) generating it at the requisite point is too radical.
I fear that entrenched interests may be the end of America. What's good for GM is good for (wealthy) America, after all.
Back on subject - I'm not at all surprised that GM scrapped the EV1s. From their standpoint, it makes all too much sense. Keeping the car expensive and unreliable is in their best interests as a manufacturer of durables. No need to deal with vehicles that don't need a flow of new parts and replacing every 5-7 years.
Bah.
The idea that fuel cells will someday be cheap and powerful enough to power cars directly is laughable. I seem to recall that low-temperaure fuel cells require platinum and other none-too-common materials.
With several billion dollars' worth of research, fuel cells might someday be a good technology for cars. But in the meantime, plain chemical batteries are ready now. The electric grid - which is nearly everywhere - is ready now. But America isn't ready now.
I guess that the concept of merely consuming energy on mobile devices rather than (inefficiently) generating it at the requisite point is too radical.
I fear that entrenched interests may be the end of America. What's good for GM is good for (wealthy) America, after all.
Back on subject - I'm not at all surprised that GM scrapped the EV1s. From their standpoint, it makes all too much sense. Keeping the car expensive and unreliable is in their best interests as a manufacturer of durables. No need to deal with vehicles that don't need a flow of new parts and replacing every 5-7 years.
Bah.
Penguin
Enlightened
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
Oh dear.. This is a step back... isn't the public also concerned with the state of our environment? A friend of mine wanted to buy a Prius two months ago but there was a nine month waiting list!! As a result, she got a Civic Hybrid instead. EV1 is truely cutting edge environmentally speaking, Hybrids are helping, but certainly not enough to dig us out of the hole.
Oh dear.. This is a step back... isn't the public also concerned with the state of our environment? A friend of mine wanted to buy a Prius two months ago but there was a nine month waiting list!! As a result, she got a Civic Hybrid instead. EV1 is truely cutting edge environmentally speaking, Hybrids are helping, but certainly not enough to dig us out of the hole.
FlashlightOCD
Enlightened
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:
... I seem to recall that low-temperaure fuel cells require platinum and other none-too-common materials ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why assume that low-temperature fuel cells are a requirement? Certainly on the larger scale the heat of fuel cells can be used in combined cycle applications to produce more energy with better efficiency than a fuel cell alone. The Stanley Steamer was powered by a simple steam engine, so could the heat from a fuel cell be used to drive a small steam engine as well as produce electricty?
Also note that the majority of the US power grid in place today is driven by fossil fuels, so I'm not sure about the overall efficiency of rechargeable batteries or if they really have any role in the reduction of pollution.
HowStuffWorks has a very interesting article on The Hydrogen Economy. It is definitely worth reading if you have the time.
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:
... I seem to recall that low-temperaure fuel cells require platinum and other none-too-common materials ...
[/ QUOTE ]
Why assume that low-temperature fuel cells are a requirement? Certainly on the larger scale the heat of fuel cells can be used in combined cycle applications to produce more energy with better efficiency than a fuel cell alone. The Stanley Steamer was powered by a simple steam engine, so could the heat from a fuel cell be used to drive a small steam engine as well as produce electricty?
Also note that the majority of the US power grid in place today is driven by fossil fuels, so I'm not sure about the overall efficiency of rechargeable batteries or if they really have any role in the reduction of pollution.
HowStuffWorks has a very interesting article on The Hydrogen Economy. It is definitely worth reading if you have the time.
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
[ QUOTE ]
FlashlightOCD said:
Also note that the majority of the US power grid in place today is driven by fossil fuels, so I'm not sure about the overall efficiency of rechargeable batteries or if they really have any role in the reduction of pollution.
[/ QUOTE ]
For starters about one-third of the grid is non-fossil fuel, so that reduces your pollution by 33%. Second, those power plants that use fossil fuel are about 60% efficient at turning it into electricity compared to the 20% of an automobile engine. This cuts pollution by an addition two thirds, bring the net amount to under 25% of what it would be. Third, the pollution is contained in one place instead of being distributed. Thus, it is easier to have much stricter exhaust standards. Some fossil fuel power plants only emit CO2 for all intents and purposes because everything else is removed. There are even ideas floating around for containing the CO2. Short answer-EVs can reduce the pollution problem by quite a bit short term. Longer term we can convert 100% of the grid to non-polluting sources to get rid of the problem altogether.
As for fuel cells, you still need grid power to make and transport the hydrogen. It's no cleaner than just taking that grid power and using it directly to charge batteries on EVs. In fact, it's dirtier because the overall process of making hydrogen, transporting it, and then using it in a fuel cell is less efficient than simply charging a battery. I've never understood the logic behind the hydrogen economy other than being due to a silly obsession that cars must generate their own power instead of just collecting it from the grid. It's a complex Rube Goldberg scheme to do something we can already do much better.
[ QUOTE ]
FlashlightOCD said:
Also note that the majority of the US power grid in place today is driven by fossil fuels, so I'm not sure about the overall efficiency of rechargeable batteries or if they really have any role in the reduction of pollution.
[/ QUOTE ]
For starters about one-third of the grid is non-fossil fuel, so that reduces your pollution by 33%. Second, those power plants that use fossil fuel are about 60% efficient at turning it into electricity compared to the 20% of an automobile engine. This cuts pollution by an addition two thirds, bring the net amount to under 25% of what it would be. Third, the pollution is contained in one place instead of being distributed. Thus, it is easier to have much stricter exhaust standards. Some fossil fuel power plants only emit CO2 for all intents and purposes because everything else is removed. There are even ideas floating around for containing the CO2. Short answer-EVs can reduce the pollution problem by quite a bit short term. Longer term we can convert 100% of the grid to non-polluting sources to get rid of the problem altogether.
As for fuel cells, you still need grid power to make and transport the hydrogen. It's no cleaner than just taking that grid power and using it directly to charge batteries on EVs. In fact, it's dirtier because the overall process of making hydrogen, transporting it, and then using it in a fuel cell is less efficient than simply charging a battery. I've never understood the logic behind the hydrogen economy other than being due to a silly obsession that cars must generate their own power instead of just collecting it from the grid. It's a complex Rube Goldberg scheme to do something we can already do much better.
twentysixtwo
Enlightened
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
Sorry guys, I have to disagree that these were scrapped because EV's are too reliable. With 3/36 warranties standard and some going to 5 years, warranty is a huge sinkhole for OEM's As far as after warranty service, the dealers make all the money, OEM's break even.
Furthermore, with Toyota, Honda, and Consumer Reports breathing down your neck, the last thing you'd want to do is try to build in any type of planned obselesence or wearout into your vehicle.
I'm disappointed that GM wasn't able to figure out how to save these vehicles, but the money they would get from selling the cars is a drop in the bucket compared to one lawsuit. Let's say you buy one of these cars for $27k and a year later the airbag sensor dies. Are you going to be willing to scrap it and eat the loss? If you continue to drive it and get killed, what about your family? they didn't sign the waiver. What happens when you want to sell the vehicle - are you going to force the buyer to sign a waiver?
I'm all too familiar with the legal implications of these decisions - waivers discourage lawsuits, but certainly don't stop them. No court ever throws out a lawsuit because of a waiver.
Sorry guys, I have to disagree that these were scrapped because EV's are too reliable. With 3/36 warranties standard and some going to 5 years, warranty is a huge sinkhole for OEM's As far as after warranty service, the dealers make all the money, OEM's break even.
Furthermore, with Toyota, Honda, and Consumer Reports breathing down your neck, the last thing you'd want to do is try to build in any type of planned obselesence or wearout into your vehicle.
I'm disappointed that GM wasn't able to figure out how to save these vehicles, but the money they would get from selling the cars is a drop in the bucket compared to one lawsuit. Let's say you buy one of these cars for $27k and a year later the airbag sensor dies. Are you going to be willing to scrap it and eat the loss? If you continue to drive it and get killed, what about your family? they didn't sign the waiver. What happens when you want to sell the vehicle - are you going to force the buyer to sign a waiver?
I'm all too familiar with the legal implications of these decisions - waivers discourage lawsuits, but certainly don't stop them. No court ever throws out a lawsuit because of a waiver.
turbodog
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
[ QUOTE ]
twentysixtwo said:
Sorry guys, I have to disagree that these were scrapped because EV's are too reliable. With 3/36 warranties standard and some going to 5 years, warranty is a huge sinkhole for OEM's As far as after warranty service, the dealers make all the money, OEM's break even.
Furthermore, with Toyota, Honda, and Consumer Reports breathing down your neck, the last thing you'd want to do is try to build in any type of planned obselesence or wearout into your vehicle.
I'm disappointed that GM wasn't able to figure out how to save these vehicles, but the money they would get from selling the cars is a drop in the bucket compared to one lawsuit. Let's say you buy one of these cars for $27k and a year later the airbag sensor dies. Are you going to be willing to scrap it and eat the loss? If you continue to drive it and get killed, what about your family? they didn't sign the waiver. What happens when you want to sell the vehicle - are you going to force the buyer to sign a waiver?
I'm all too familiar with the legal implications of these decisions - waivers discourage lawsuits, but certainly don't stop them. No court ever throws out a lawsuit because of a waiver.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. And you don't even live in MS, lawsuit heaven/haven. We took on big tobacco, and won. Imagine what we could do to GM.
[ QUOTE ]
twentysixtwo said:
Sorry guys, I have to disagree that these were scrapped because EV's are too reliable. With 3/36 warranties standard and some going to 5 years, warranty is a huge sinkhole for OEM's As far as after warranty service, the dealers make all the money, OEM's break even.
Furthermore, with Toyota, Honda, and Consumer Reports breathing down your neck, the last thing you'd want to do is try to build in any type of planned obselesence or wearout into your vehicle.
I'm disappointed that GM wasn't able to figure out how to save these vehicles, but the money they would get from selling the cars is a drop in the bucket compared to one lawsuit. Let's say you buy one of these cars for $27k and a year later the airbag sensor dies. Are you going to be willing to scrap it and eat the loss? If you continue to drive it and get killed, what about your family? they didn't sign the waiver. What happens when you want to sell the vehicle - are you going to force the buyer to sign a waiver?
I'm all too familiar with the legal implications of these decisions - waivers discourage lawsuits, but certainly don't stop them. No court ever throws out a lawsuit because of a waiver.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. And you don't even live in MS, lawsuit heaven/haven. We took on big tobacco, and won. Imagine what we could do to GM.
NewBie
*Retired*
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
California Energy Output by Source (Electrical Utilities plus
Independent Power Producers) 2002 [1]
Source Megawatts % of Total
----------------------------------------------------
Coal .............. 2,327,809 1.3
Petroleum ......... 1,961,066 1.1
Natural Gas ....... 89,624,044 48.7
Other Gasses ...... 1,240,053 0.7
Nuclear ........... 34,352,340 18.6
Hydroelectric ..... 30,899,631 16.8
Other Renewables .. 23,680,568 12.9
Other.............. 124,520 0.1
California Gross System Power 2003/Fuel Type Gigawatt-Hours [2] [3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Type GSP % of Total
Coal ............... 59,016 21.3
Large Hydro ........ 44,926 16.2
Natural Gas ........ 102,005 36.9
Nuclear ............ 41,925 15.2
Renewables ......... 28,740 10.4
Renewables Breakdown:
Biomass ....... 5,574 2.0
Geothermal .... 13,771 5.0
Small Hydro ... 5,146 1.9
Solar ......... 758 0.3
Wind .......... 3,491 1.3
--------
28,740
And a significant portion of the Hydroelectric is sent down from Oregon and Washington...looks like 10%.
The Southwest sends California 13% more of the power they need.
Read as California already has 23% deficit for electric power generation, with the bulk of their power comming from Natural Gas, Coal, Nuke.
California Energy Output by Source (Electrical Utilities plus
Independent Power Producers) 2002 [1]
Source Megawatts % of Total
----------------------------------------------------
Coal .............. 2,327,809 1.3
Petroleum ......... 1,961,066 1.1
Natural Gas ....... 89,624,044 48.7
Other Gasses ...... 1,240,053 0.7
Nuclear ........... 34,352,340 18.6
Hydroelectric ..... 30,899,631 16.8
Other Renewables .. 23,680,568 12.9
Other.............. 124,520 0.1
California Gross System Power 2003/Fuel Type Gigawatt-Hours [2] [3]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Type GSP % of Total
Coal ............... 59,016 21.3
Large Hydro ........ 44,926 16.2
Natural Gas ........ 102,005 36.9
Nuclear ............ 41,925 15.2
Renewables ......... 28,740 10.4
Renewables Breakdown:
Biomass ....... 5,574 2.0
Geothermal .... 13,771 5.0
Small Hydro ... 5,146 1.9
Solar ......... 758 0.3
Wind .......... 3,491 1.3
--------
28,740
And a significant portion of the Hydroelectric is sent down from Oregon and Washington...looks like 10%.
The Southwest sends California 13% more of the power they need.
Read as California already has 23% deficit for electric power generation, with the bulk of their power comming from Natural Gas, Coal, Nuke.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
With Oregon and Washington generating far more cheap (taxpayer-subsidised) hydro power than they can use, why not import it? I seem to recall that the federal government encouraged the aluminum industry to move into that area simply because they couldn't use enough power after the dams were constructed.
Do any other states worry about other "interstate" defecits? I imagine that California farms feed a great many other states. Wyoming's coal powers many other states.
With Oregon and Washington generating far more cheap (taxpayer-subsidised) hydro power than they can use, why not import it? I seem to recall that the federal government encouraged the aluminum industry to move into that area simply because they couldn't use enough power after the dams were constructed.
Do any other states worry about other "interstate" defecits? I imagine that California farms feed a great many other states. Wyoming's coal powers many other states.
Darell
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
Psst. Hey guys. Seen this?
If you want to maintain a separate thread just about the EV1 deal, that's great. But if we're gonna rehash the same news here, we might as well keep it in the relevant thread.
If anybody has any questions about the EV1 "action" I'd be happy to take my best stab at them. I've been somewhat *ahem* involved.
As for all the scary pollution from electricity generation... never forget that the oil industry is the single largest consumer of electricity in this country. So, while using gasoline consumes gobs of electricity, BEVs can certainly operate pretty well without gasoline.
FCV's will consume somewhere between 3-4 times as much electricity as a battery electric.
OK, I was short - but I still shouldn't have posted them here. If we want to talk alt fuel/alt transportation, let's keep it in the one thread. Thanks!
Anything about the EV1 action?
Psst. Hey guys. Seen this?
If you want to maintain a separate thread just about the EV1 deal, that's great. But if we're gonna rehash the same news here, we might as well keep it in the relevant thread.
If anybody has any questions about the EV1 "action" I'd be happy to take my best stab at them. I've been somewhat *ahem* involved.
As for all the scary pollution from electricity generation... never forget that the oil industry is the single largest consumer of electricity in this country. So, while using gasoline consumes gobs of electricity, BEVs can certainly operate pretty well without gasoline.
FCV's will consume somewhere between 3-4 times as much electricity as a battery electric.
OK, I was short - but I still shouldn't have posted them here. If we want to talk alt fuel/alt transportation, let's keep it in the one thread. Thanks!
Anything about the EV1 action?
Darell
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
Ah... well, I just followed the opening link. I've read so many of these in the past week that I can't see straight. Problem is, this one has the facts even wronger (heh) than usual. They have NOT all been taken yet. There are still at least 50 on the lot. They are all "scheduled" to leave this week, but they haven't left yet! We still have more actresses to arrest. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
And the program ended in 2004, not 2003.
And as for the whole spare parts thing - this is only the latest "reason" they've come up with. We haven't heard this one until just a couple of weeks ago. Turns out that GM has lots of cars on the road that it doesn't make parts for any longer. There are some relatively modern trucks where you can't get new steering wheels (just an example one owner came up with). Lack of parts. Just boggles the mind. Strip the scary irreplaceable parts off the cars and let us have those great aluminum shells. But no. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
Ah... well, I just followed the opening link. I've read so many of these in the past week that I can't see straight. Problem is, this one has the facts even wronger (heh) than usual. They have NOT all been taken yet. There are still at least 50 on the lot. They are all "scheduled" to leave this week, but they haven't left yet! We still have more actresses to arrest. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
And the program ended in 2004, not 2003.
And as for the whole spare parts thing - this is only the latest "reason" they've come up with. We haven't heard this one until just a couple of weeks ago. Turns out that GM has lots of cars on the road that it doesn't make parts for any longer. There are some relatively modern trucks where you can't get new steering wheels (just an example one owner came up with). Lack of parts. Just boggles the mind. Strip the scary irreplaceable parts off the cars and let us have those great aluminum shells. But no. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
twentysixtwo
Enlightened
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
It's sad, amd I don't agree with the decision, but that's how big companies think. When you're a small company, you have a lot less to lose. Nobody bothers suing someone who doesn't have money, on the other hand, everybody sues Ford and GM because they do.
The sadder story is Ford and Think! Think! was a small Norwegian EV maker. Back in the Jac years, Ford bought them, thinking of selling their cars big time. Then CA rescinded the zero emission rules and *poof* no more Think!.
It's sad, amd I don't agree with the decision, but that's how big companies think. When you're a small company, you have a lot less to lose. Nobody bothers suing someone who doesn't have money, on the other hand, everybody sues Ford and GM because they do.
The sadder story is Ford and Think! Think! was a small Norwegian EV maker. Back in the Jac years, Ford bought them, thinking of selling their cars big time. Then CA rescinded the zero emission rules and *poof* no more Think!.
Darell
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
Well, I shouldn't have bothered typing about the EV1s not all being gone. They are now! There is exactly one running EV1 in CA that I'm aware of now - and that is in the hands of CARB. One more year on that lease - which was part of a penalty that GM "paid" for illegally taking the cars off the road the FIRST time they tried it.
All gone. The vigil is over.
Well, I shouldn't have bothered typing about the EV1s not all being gone. They are now! There is exactly one running EV1 in CA that I'm aware of now - and that is in the hands of CARB. One more year on that lease - which was part of a penalty that GM "paid" for illegally taking the cars off the road the FIRST time they tried it.
All gone. The vigil is over.
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
Bad news about the last EV1s. This is a sad day in the history of transportation. The only consolation is that some day a company will figure out how to meet the demand for BEVs and it will tear a nice chunk out of GM's market share.
Bad news about the last EV1s. This is a sad day in the history of transportation. The only consolation is that some day a company will figure out how to meet the demand for BEVs and it will tear a nice chunk out of GM's market share.
Darell
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
[ QUOTE ]
Lurker said:
The only consolation is that some day a company will figure out how to meet the demand for BEVs and it will tear a nice chunk out of GM's market share.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you compared the share price trend of say, GM and TM over the past year?
[ QUOTE ]
Lurker said:
The only consolation is that some day a company will figure out how to meet the demand for BEVs and it will tear a nice chunk out of GM's market share.
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you compared the share price trend of say, GM and TM over the past year?
Darell
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
[ QUOTE ]
cobb said:
Darrell, in the other thread, I was of the understanding that these cars where destroyed several years ago, not march 15 this year. Am I missing something here?
[/ QUOTE ]
There were about 800 of these cars leased. The crushing began when the leases began to come due about five years ago. The last cars came off lease last summer, and abou 180 (iirc) headed to New York (not to be leased, but to be driven by GM employees - GM won't make THAT mistake again!). About 80 were kept in Burbank for probably several reasons. Now those 80 are headed to the scrap heap, and the New York cars are likely to follow. So yes, the crushing began many years ago, but they have unfinished business.
[ QUOTE ]
cobb said:
Darrell, in the other thread, I was of the understanding that these cars where destroyed several years ago, not march 15 this year. Am I missing something here?
[/ QUOTE ]
There were about 800 of these cars leased. The crushing began when the leases began to come due about five years ago. The last cars came off lease last summer, and abou 180 (iirc) headed to New York (not to be leased, but to be driven by GM employees - GM won't make THAT mistake again!). About 80 were kept in Burbank for probably several reasons. Now those 80 are headed to the scrap heap, and the New York cars are likely to follow. So yes, the crushing began many years ago, but they have unfinished business.
Darell
Flashaholic
Re: General Motor\'s EV1 Electric Cars Scrapped
[ QUOTE ]
cobb said:
Oh, ok. Thanks Darell. I just thought it was an old story or something or a newer series of cars.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this was the first round from a few years ago:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ev1_crushed.htm
And this was last month:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ev1_vigil.htm
The first batch were all lead-acid cars. This latest batch are all NiMH cars - the only ones they kept around, though the lead cars were better vehicles all-around.
[ QUOTE ]
cobb said:
Oh, ok. Thanks Darell. I just thought it was an old story or something or a newer series of cars.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this was the first round from a few years ago:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ev1_crushed.htm
And this was last month:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/ev1_vigil.htm
The first batch were all lead-acid cars. This latest batch are all NiMH cars - the only ones they kept around, though the lead cars were better vehicles all-around.
