Electric car engineering issues

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I think GAHD misunderstands how Phoenix makes their cars....gas motor replaced with an electric motor, and batteries and control systems added.

Bit of a nitpick here, but this stops them from taking over the chassis-creation (automated CNC) divisions how? This stops them from wiping out the gas-engine works depts (including drivetrain, exaust, and other associatedsystems they hav e 'experience' removing), how?

Originally Posted by CraigD

Also, although I’m unable to find a populated field for it at any online company profining site, Phoenix Motorcars appears to have on the order of 20 employees. It’s simply too small to take over even the senior management of a large manufacturing company, let alone its actual operations.

IYO. I think one of the major problems is too much management. I'm a fan of 'workers as management' companies. EG the 'cell' architecture of Standard Aero ltd.

Originally Posted by CraigD

If by die, you mean..."recareering" of so many skilled workers is too appalling for me to wish for.

No I mean a complete removal of anyone who doesn't twist a wrench; phasing out high-level management first, followed by and extensive downsizing of 'middle management' untill the company has a more direct communication line between the 'floor' and the 'office' hopefully with with the various 'lead hand' or 'floor senior' workers taking up more pf the papertrail(or eliminating some of it)

It WOULD mean recareering of the various engine related specialists, but machieneing is machieneing is machieneing. Eg: I know a few old deisel tractor mechanics who are now working in aerospace; skills are allways transferable.

tank-makers can still cut & weld: just battery mounts now.
machienists now macheine the various SIMPLE EM fixtures, instead of 400+ inter-connected pieces.

Onboard ECM specialists work off a new wiring diagram

Of course such an initiative would invove a large-scale downsize of the behemoth that is GM, with various facilities getting sold off (eg crash testing: outsourced) But considering the LARGE boondogle that is GM and HAS been GM for the past 10 years...I still think it's worth it.

[CraigD]

Disclaimer: my personal experience in the car manufacturing industry is slight, consisting of work in a replacement car parts warehouse, driving a truck between suppliers’ warehouses and ours and from ours to parts stores, writing software for a similar auto parts distributing company, and, second had, having lived with a former Ford assembly line worker. I’m far from expert.

Originally Posted by GAHD

Bit of a nitpick here, but this stops them from taking over the chassis-creation (automated CNC) divisions how?

A company of 20 people can’t begin doing the jobs of tens of thousands of people, even if trained to do them, because there are simply too few people in it. Even if some part of the whole vehicle manufacturing process, such chassis or body fabricating (hardly any present day passenger car has a chassis, but has instead a unibody, or Monocoque), is so highly automated that only a few people are needed to operate it, other steps, such as assembly, still use human workers. Compared to systems such as automate bottling and food packaging, most car manufacturing remains very hands-on.

If a large car company crashes and burns, whoever picks up the pieces will likely need to employ many of the dead company’s employees at the same factories and offices to do nearly the same jobs as before. Though new senior leaders can change a lot about a company, even following a takeover, companies retain much of their previous identity.

Originally Posted by GAHD

This stops them from wiping out the gas-engine works depts (including drivetrain, exaust, and other associatedsystems they hav e 'experience' removing), how?

The consensus among industry experts appears to me to be that, even if the success of battery electric-only cars in the market place meets the most optimistic reasonable expectations, there remain applications that they simply can’t perform, such as traveling distances longer than a few hundred miles with only brief rest and refueling stops.

I think that emerging battery technology like Altair’s Lithium-titanate battery will prove this belief wrong, and that all ground vehicles (I’ve yet to see a convincing case for the feasibility of electric aircraft) can be powered by electric batteries. I think your vision of wiping out gas engine manufacturing, GAHD, is much less far-fetched than most experts believe.

We’re prudent, however, to keep in mind that these new battery technologies are not quite proven. Until I’ve actually seen them – they will likely appear first in new laptop computer – I’ll remain wary that they may not work as well as claimed, or may be prohibitively expensive or difficult to manufacture in sufficient numbers and size.

Originally Posted by GAHD

No I mean a complete removal of anyone who doesn't twist a wrench; phasing out high-level management first, followed by and extensive downsizing of 'middle management' untill the company has a more direct communication line between the 'floor' and the 'office' hopefully with with the various 'lead hand' or 'floor senior' workers taking up more pf the papertrail(or eliminating some of it)

I don’t doubt that carmakers suffer from the same “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” problem as many other large enterprises. However, I think you might be surprised at the importance of many jobs that don’t involve actually twisting a wrench on a production line.

One kind of job that’s obviously very important is design.

Management/clerical is also more important than one might think. Components and subassemblies of most vehicles are made at many places by many different companies. Tracking and managing this can be as critical to successful production as actual hands-on work.

[belovelife]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zPSoNfmuBXc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zPSoNfmuBXc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lyYBh4ec05c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lyYBh4ec05c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[belovelife]

YouTube - Electric Car in-wheel motor Siemens...

YouTube - Lithium ion Polymer Batteries

[GAHD]

Some video

How to Make a Car Video ? 5min.com

neat docu about the body structure. Lotta robots.

YouTube - How It's Made (Season 2 / Episode 12 /...

"Discovery Channel: How It's Made === 025 How It's Made 2x12 (Cars, ..."

Again, divide the big corp down and let the small companies have pieces like this. For in-city use in places not subject to ecological extremes making current battery tech viable for in-city bulk use, and current capacitor technology for necessary burst draws, I don't see many issues. The bolt-fitters in the engine in dept get replaced with tester-wielding sparkies checking in-wheel motors and cap systems.

Don't think many chariots get made

shelby

cobra

style anymore...

Originally Posted by CraigD

... A company of 20 people can’t begin doing the jobs of tens of thousands of people, even if trained to do them, because there are simply too few people in it. Even if some part of the whole vehicle manufacturing process...is so highly automated that only a few people are needed to operate it...

I was referring to having these various parts of the bigger GM conglomerate 'sold off' as whole to other smaller manufacturers to prevent the "too many eggs in one basket" problem that is currently threatening to continue an economic collapse.

Originally Posted by CraigD

If a large car company crashes and burns, whoever picks up the pieces will likely need to employ many of the dead company’s employees at the same factories and offices to do nearly the same jobs as before. Though new senior leaders can change a lot about a company, even following a takeover, companies retain much of their previous identity...I don’t doubt that carmakers suffer from the same “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” problem as many other large enterprises. However, I think you might be surprised at the importance of many jobs that don’t involve actually twisting a wrench on a production line.

I think we're on the same page, but looking at different angles. Yours appears to me to be that the large company needs to remain as is and as a whole, while I think that having it go under and be portioned-out to existing companies like phoenix/zenn to be converted into a different type of personal conveyance manufacturing plant. It is my understanding that there are different plats set up for different vehicles, though I may be wrong. Having them transfer to a wider audience of owners promotes competition, and stops the eggs being in one basket (and oh no the basket went rotten!) problem.

I'm not saying that any one small company should get the whole pow-wow, rather that that huge horde of cheifs stops sitting in one camp and instead goes out to make preparations and do economic war with each other, some of them going to the smaller camps with less horse dung.

Originally Posted by CraigD

The consensus among industry experts appears to me to be that...there remain applications that they[electric vehicles] simply can’t perform, such as traveling distances longer than a few hundred miles with only brief rest and refueling stops....

This is why different companies make busses and planes. Im shure the ICE experts will still have work for years to come even if the personal motor vehicle industry has a shift.

Any further spinoff (like legalised nuclear batteries) to help the "industry" needs is a seperate issue IMO since GM doesn't do aircraft; that's boeing/magellan, standard aero, RR, WP, etc...

Originally Posted by CraigD

...I think your vision of wiping out gas engine manufacturing, GAHD, is much less far-fetched than most experts believe.

More a vision of wiping out gas engines as a bulk-use thing. They have their uses! I don't deny that. I just think that there is too much infrastructure dedicated to them.

Originally Posted by CraigD

We’re prudent, however, to keep in mind that these new battery technologies are not quite proven...

Management/clerical is also more important than one might think. Components and subassemblies of most vehicles are made at many places by many different companies. Tracking and managing this can be as critical to successful production as actual hands-on work.

Yyup, if it was all fractured into say 10 smaller corps i could see a lot of job-hires.

[CraigD]

We’re wandering out of engineering into the realm of business economics and economic policy, and should IMHO eventually move some of these posts to another forum, but it’s an interesting discussion.

Originally Posted by GAHD

I was referring to having these various parts of the bigger GM conglomerate 'sold off' as whole to other smaller manufacturers to prevent the "too many eggs in one basket" problem that is currently threatening to continue an economic collapse.
…
I think we're on the same page, but looking at different angles. Yours appears to me to be that the large company needs to remain as is and as a whole, while I think that having it go under and be portioned-out to existing companies like phoenix/zenn to be converted into a different type of personal conveyance manufacturing plant. It is my understanding that there are different plats set up for different vehicles, though I may be wrong. Having them transfer to a wider audience of owners promotes competition, and stops the eggs being in one basket (and oh no the basket went rotten!) problem.

The basic idea I think GAHD is proposing is monopoly breaking, a complicated and controversial one many times older that the car industry.

The core of the idea of what constitutes an unfair monopoly that should be broken, is, I think, that large companies use the influence arising from their size to prevent small companies from competing with them. The “big 3” US car companies, then – Chrysler, Ford, and GM – can be seen as the only surviving companies by virtue of being similar enough in size that they were unable to ruin one another in this way.

Following the same logic, small companies like Phoenix, ZENN, and Tesla survive only because they occupy niche markets the big companies see as too small to warrant their competing in, and overlapping their main markets too slightly to much affect their revenues. Where the market of these companies to grow, the big companies would likely buy them from their original private owners or shareholders. In the business world of the last few centuries, in fact, being acquired by a large company is considered a sign of great success, and how many owners of small companies become rich. Without strong contradicting statements, we can reasonably assume that the owners of Pheoneix, ZENN, and Tesla would be delighted to have their companies acquired by Chrysler, Ford, or GM.

The only effective way, then, for there to truly be many small, independent companies competing in the main markets, is for governments to force this to occur by breaking up large companies, and forbidding more successful ones to use their relatively greater size to ruin less successful ones, or recombine via acquisitions. The main problem if government does this, is how to avoid unfairly protecting smaller, less successful companies that are less successful because their cars are simply less good, resulting in many end consumers being stuck with inferior products.

The ideal scenario is one in which a small company with a superior product is able, with only minimum support from the government in the form of assuring that their large competitors don’t ruin them with outright criminal acts (eg: threatening to or actually murdering their employees or vandalizing their property), win a growing share of the market. However, there are more barriers to this than just competition.

One of the greatest barriers involves how cars are actually sold to consumers. In the largest part, this is done through “brick and mortar” car dealerships that have contracts with one or a few manufacturers in which they agree only to sell only those manufacturer’s cars. Although niche market companies like Phoenix and Tesla are able to sell small numbers of cars via the internet and word of mouth, this can accommodate only a small number of customers.

To sell numbers of cars approaching those of the current big companies, new, small companies likely will need dealers. Creating a large number of contracted dealers, however, is difficult, so some alternative seems needed.

One possibility that come to mind are large, multi-store, nation or world-wide independent dealerships. Currently, in the US, only two to my knowledge, AutoNation and CarMax, matches this description, and only on a small scale, less than 2% of total new car sales (both are primarily used car stores).

Were business modeled after AutoNation and CarMax able to gain the majority of new car sales market from name-brand dealerships, the dealership bottleneck for small manufacturers could be reduced.

[GAHD]

Obviously neither of that big 3 is too big to be ruined or they wouldn't need bailouts

and I'm not talking about the monopoly breaking procedures (that bill Gates proved were futile and silly not too long ago). I'm talking about what happens when a company fails: It is put on the chopping block by the creditors who then sell off it's various pieces at discount auction prices.

I think that needs to happen and SHOULD happen.

I just HOPE that one or two of those plants continues producing the shells it currently does, and get bought out by Phoenix/zenn/others who might make a better go of it.

Dealers don't really care what they sell, just that it sells. And obviously "less successful companies that are less successful because their cars are simply less good, resulting in many end consumers being stuck with inferior products" Applies to the current situation quite a bit, or the big boys wouldn't be screaming for government milk.

[robnibg]

I know this is a bit off topic.

What's the minimum it would cost to build an electric car with a decent 200 mile range? Using either Lithium ion or Nano titanate batteries? What would batteries that large cost at current prices?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

probably no more than it would cost to build any other type car...I'd say roughly 10 or 12 grand

[Zythryn]

10-12 Grand?? Not right now, although hopefully soon.
For a 200 mile range you need about 50Kw battery.
That alone would run well over 12k. Closer to 30-40k.
Now, in the future I would expect that to come down. Tesla's model S is planned to come in with a range of 160 miles for a total cost of $50k. While it is much closer to a reasonable price than the Roadster that is currently being sold, it is still a ways from affordable.