Category Archives: Electric Vehicles

Fisker’s Quality SWAT Team?


A recall of up to 600+ Fisker Karmas is underway to replace faulty battery packs.  The batteries are manufactured by A123 Systems.  The problem that the Consumer Reports had with the Karma that failed in testing is believed to be the issue with the batteries to be recalled. The Consumer Reports were told by the Karma dealership that the failure was a:  “…fault was found in the battery and inverter cable. Both were replaced as a unit.”

A123 Systems at its Livonia, Michigan facility, said that the problem could result in “battery underperformance and decreased durability.” Fisker  said that the problem was discovered by Fisker’s “Quality SWAT Team.”

One blog has several postings from owners. It seems that besides the power train,  there are some systems problems.   Several quotes:

“I’ve had zero powertrain/drive issues but certainly did have some software glitches involving infotainment/navigation.”

“The car has some rough edges; there have been some software glitches and quirks that lead to erroneous indicator lights and some challenges with the entertainment/nav/climate command center. Many of these have already been addressed by Fisker in software updates, and I’m confident that the remaining issues will likewise ultimately be resolved.”

It seems that the Quality SWAT Team is behind the curve.

According to the Wilmington (De) News Journal:“….. in October, Fisker pushed back its production schedule for the Karma and the Nina, saying it would not begin high-volume production of its second line of hybrids in Delaware until mid- 2013. Production had been expected to get under way this year. “

cbdakota

Fisker’s Nina To Be Shown At NY Auto Show—“Kinda”


Fisker has informed reporters that at the 3 April 2012 New York Auto Show, they will provide a “business update and a glimpse of the future” when they reveal the Nina.   Well sort of, because it is not likely that they will have an actual operating Nina, but rather a design model.   The power train is still in testing and probably won’t be available for installation in the design model being shown.  What is shown will not be a product of the GM plant in Wilmington, Delaware where the Feds have provided loan monies to bring the plant online to make the Nina.

The Nina will be a hybrid,  battery-powered vehicle with a range extending IC engine.  You may already know that Fisker did not pick a US engine manufacturer to supply the back up but rather has chosen a BMW turbocharged four-cylinder engine.

I have heard that the projected price of the Nina is in the range of half that of the other Fisker auto, the Karma.   The Karma is sells for $109,000 last time I heard a price quoted.

This is the Nina “picture” that the reporters received:

cbdakota

 

 

Fisker Has A New Problem


The Securities and Exchange Commissions (SEC) issued Wells Notices to the brokers (Advanced Equities, Inc) who raised most of the private financing for taxpayer-backed Fisker Automotive in connection with a private offering in 2009.  A Wells Notices tells the recipients that charges may be brought against them. According to SEC.com,  “Receiving a Wells Notice is hardly a positive event, as it signifies that you are the subject of an investigation and that enforcement proceedings are going to be commenced against you”.

There is speculation that this action by the SEC followed the filing of a lawsuit against Fisker and Advanced Equities by investor, Daniel Wray, for their alleged failure to perform fiduciary duties and for fraud, according to a posting by the National Legal and Policy Center.   This may be why the Energy Department (DOE) is holding up further distribution of a loan set aside for Fisker.  As noted in previous postings DOE said Fisker had not met the required “milestones”.

The National Legal and Policy Center posting, written by Paul Chesser, does some editorializing that is pretty much on the mark.

“It seems every week taxpayers learn something new about the clean energy “bets” the Obama administration has demanded they finance – especially Fisker. So far, before the loan was halted, $193 million in public money poured into the maker of an EV that only rich people can afford, who also get a $7,500 tax credit (plus whatever California is handing out lately) per vehicle purchase to boot. Beyond that the taxpayer support for Fisker enhanced the stock of its political allies like Kleiner Perkins (where Gore is a senior partner), and also helped pay for connected lobbyists to get the loan, while crony lawyers got paid to work inside DOE to see the loan to completion.

And now we discover The Chicago Way may have been behind Fisker’s private fundraising, and the SEC plans to find out more. This dog has a lot of fleas.

Last week,  the President announced that he wants  to up the rebate for the purchase of a hybrid or an EV. Currently the buyer can to receive up to a $7500 tax credit.  Obama  now wants to give the buyer a $10,000 check at the time of purchase.

cbdakota

Volt and Leaf February sales


The February sales numbers for Volt and Leaf are in.   Volt numbers were 1023 which bettered January sales of 603.    Leaf numbers were 478 which trailed January sales of 679.   Y-T-D  sales for Volt are 1,626 and Leaf 1,157.  Chevy’s 4 cylinder ICE sales were up 46 percent.  The Cruze, one of the GM 4cylinder line,  put up big numbers at 18,556 units in February.   The public is obviously moving to more fuel-efficient vehicles with gasoline prices skyrocketing.   But their choice continues to be the more affordable ICEs than the all-electrics or hybrids.

cbdakota

Fisker Appoints New CEO- Can He Save This Company?


Fisker has appointed Tom LaSorda CEO replacing Henrik Fisker.  Fisker, founder and co-owner of Fisker Motors, will assume the role of executive chairman.  LaSorda’s skill is said to be manufacturing.

The first model from Fisker is the Karma.  A terrific looking automobile but beauty may only be skin deep as the vehicle interior is rated a sub-compact by the EPA.  The Karma’s range is 32 miles on the battery.  It is a hybrid so the gasoline driven generator comes on when the battery is exhausted, at which point the EPA rating becomes 20 mpg.

According to a Bloomberg posting, Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of Edmunds.com, an automotive data and pricing company had this to say about the Karma: “The odds are stacked against Fisker.  The car may be an interesting toy for people who have $100,000 to spend on such a thing, but Fisker will run out of those people quickly, and how tolerant of glitches will those people be?”  He probably was referring to the recent recall to fix the battery cooling system.

The current issue for Fisker is the DOE $529 million in loans granted to Fisker in June 2009.   The first part, $169 million was for engineering of the Karma and the second part of$360 million for the development of the NINA, a mid-sized hybrid to built in the old GM plant in Wilmington, DE.  Fisker, according to Bloomberg, has used $193 million of the loans.  But Fisker stopped work at the old GM plant when the DOE blocked further access to the loan saying that Fisker had not met the required milestones.

The battery supplier for Fisker is A123.   It has had to lay off workers due to the Fisker delays.  A123 is also an investor in Fisker.  A share of A123 stock closed on the 28 Feb at $1.91.  The 52-week range is $1.51 to $9.60.  Earnings per share are   $-1.88.

A posting late last year by Discovery asked: IS FISKER A ‘GREEN CAR’ SOLYNDRA SCANDAl? The author, John Voelker, GreenCarReports.com said:   “We’d like to see three specific questions answered.

— Since Fisker backers have contributed to Democratic party causes, is there any hard evidence of improper influence over the DoE loan process by the White House?

— How did Fisker come to select a closed assembly plant located in Vice President Joe Biden’s home state, since Delaware is no longer an obvious place to build cars?

— What steps does the DoE take to monitor compliance with the loan terms–and why won’t it release the revised terms of the Fisker loans?”

Good questions.

cbdakota

When Tesla Batteries “Brick”–They Can Not Be Fixed


You buy a Tesla Roadster.  Depending on your upgrades, somewhere in the vicinity of $100,000 +.   Great acceleration, 0 to 60 in 3 to 4 seconds.  Looks great.  You are cool and everyone knows it.  You decide to jet off to Tahiti for a month.  When you return you go to the garage, ready to drive down Rodeo Drive to let everyone know you are back— let the good times roll.   But your car won’t start.  You check the battery charge level and it is at Zero.  Ooops, you did not plug it in after you last drove it.  Ok so you put the charger on.  It won’t take a charge.  You call the Tesla dealership and ask them to take it to their shop and fix it.  Oddly they come with a flatbed lift truck and some rolling jacks.  When you ask why they just don’t tow it to the dealership they tell you that because you have a brick, the wheels wont turn.  What is a “brick” you ask? They say that your battery is dead, dead, dead and won’t ever work again.  You ask what a replacement battery costs and they say $40,000.  You say “well, I have only had the car for about 4 months and put on less than 5,000 miles so I guess it is covered by warrantee”.  They say “no, not covered by warrantee cause you let it run down to zero charge, so we are not responsible”

Fiction?   Nope, it has happened to some Tesla owners.   The author, Michael DeGusta of the post “It’s a Brick”, whose Roadster was pronounced a Brick, learned from a Regional Tesla Service Manager that he was personally aware of at least 5 cases of Roadsters being Bricked due to battery depletion. DeGusta says the following about bricking:

A Tesla Roadster that is simply parked without being plugged in will eventually become a “brick”. The parasitic load from the car’s always-on subsystems continually drains the battery and if the battery’s charge is ever totally depleted, it is essentially destroyed. Complete discharge can happen even when the car is plugged in if it isn’t receiving sufficient current to charge, which can be caused by something as simple as using an extension cord. After battery death, the car is completely inoperable.

The amount of time it takes an unplugged Tesla to die varies. Tesla’s Roadster Owners Manual [Full Zipped PDF] states that the battery should take approximately 11 weeks of inactivity to completely discharge [Page 5-2, Column 3: PDF]. However, that is from a full 100% charge. If the car has been driven first, say to be parked at an airport for a long trip, that time can be substantially reduced. If the car is driven to nearly its maximum range and then left unplugged, it could potentially “brick” in about one week. [1] Many other scenarios are possible: for example, the car becomes unplugged by accident, or is unwittingly plugged into an extension cord that is defective or too long.

DeGusta conclusions about the problem with the battery are as follows:

The Bottom Line

Tesla Motors is a public company that’s valued at over $3.5 billion and has received $465 million in US government loans, all on the back of the promise that it can deliver a real world, all-electric car to the mainstream market. Yet today, in my opinion, Tesla seems to be knowingly selling cars that can turn into bricks without any financial protection for the customer.

Until there’s a fundamental change in Tesla’s technology, it would seem the only other option for Tesla is to help its customers insure against this problem. As consumers become aware that a Tesla is possibly just a long trip, a bad extension cord, or an accidental unplugging away from disaster, how many will choose to gamble $40,000 on that not happening? Would you?

cbdakota

EV January Sales—Volt and Leaf Sales go South


GM is blaming the drop in Volt sales from 1529 units in December 2011 to 603 in January 2012 on a bad publicity regarding the battery fires that occurred when crash testing the vehicles.  Probably is a factor.   But the realization that the weak performance of the batteries during winter conditions may also have had a negative effect.  More so on the Leaf than the Volt as the Leaf has no IC engine to take over when the battery runs out of juice.  Leaf sales in December were 954 dropping to 676 in January.

cbdakota

Battery Charge Anxiety Worse Than Gas Gauge Anxiety-Leaf Stops 4X For Charging!!


My dear wife and I have travelled many miles by car. She is content having me do the driving.  However, I am, in her mind, careless about going by any gasoline station without filling up the tank. That is a bit of hyperbole but running out of gasoline is high on her list of things to never do.  Imagine if you will, how she would feel if we owned a Nissan Leaf and used it to drive from Knoxville Tennessee to Antioch, Tennessee, a distance of 182miles (293km).  The Nashville Tennessean reported on such a trip taken by Stephen Smith, Executive Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, along with his wife and son.  The trip took place on a cool day, about 35F (2C), primarily on Interstate 40.  Fast (30minutes) electric vehicle chargers have been installed at the Cracker Barrel Restaurant chain and they planned to use them as needed.  The 182-mile trip took 6 hours to complete.  It included 4 stops for recharging.

Quoting from the newspaper story:

Only problem was, the Leaf’s charge dropped more rapidly than promised. In what has to be a public relations disaster for Nissan, Smith’s EV was unable to travel no farther than 55 miles on any leg of the trip – and for the most part, much less. The company, and its government backers, proclaimed [5] the Leaf was “built to go 100 miles on a charge” (large print), with a footnoted disclaimer (small print) that it travels shorter distances (like, 70 miles) if the air conditioning or the heater is used. Turns out even that was an exaggeration.   A trip that should take – according to map Web sites – less than three hours, ended up lasting six hours for the Smiths because of all the stops they had to make. The approximate intervals where they paused for recharging were as follows:

  • Knoxville to Harriman: 45 miles
  • Harriman to Crossville: 31 miles
  • Crossville to Cookeville: 31 miles
  • Cookeville to Lebanon: 50 miles

Lebanon to destination in Antioch, just south of Nashville: 22 miles

“It was a little nerve wracking,” Stephen Smith told the Nashville-based newspaper. “I’m finding the range is not 100 percent accurate.”

A further quote from the article:

The Smiths’ experience echoed that of a Consumer Reports reviewer [2] and Los Angeles columnist Rob Eshman [3], who called his Leaf his “2011 Nissan Solyndra.” Eshman, editor-in-chief of The Jewish Journal, experienced the same gauge inaccuracies and range anxiety that came from traversing hills and mountains and the use of his air conditioning in hot, smoggy L.A. 

“My life now revolves around a near-constant calculation of how far I can drive before I’ll have to walk,” Eshman wrote. “The Nissan Leaf, I can report, is perfect if you don’t have enough anxiety in your life.”

Bonus geography question—- How many State of Tennessee towns are named ANTIOCH?    See below.

 

 

 

 

Antioch, TN, Bedford County

Antioch, TN, Davidson County

Antioch, TN, DeKalb County

Antioch, TN, Haywood County

Antioch, TN, Henderson County

Antioch, TN, Jackson County

Antioch, TN, Knox County

Antioch, TN, Lawrence County

Antioch, TN, Loudon County

Antioch, TN, Montgomery County

Makes you wonder how that ever happened.

cbdakota

DRIVING A VOLT IN WINTER


The Chevy Volt’s driving range is reduced by cold or hot weather. The EPA estimates the Chevy Volt can travel 35 miles on a fully charged battery according to an article written by Doug Wernert, Chevrolet VoltAge Community Manager.   This will vary due to the weather conditions he adds.   If it is cold, using the car heater and front window defrost will have a “high/maximum Impact” on the Volt’s range.  And of course, in hot weather the A/C unit has “high/maximum impact” on range.  (Do you have the feeling that the range estimates are often at odds with the last news release you read?)  Does the EPA account for the weather in their estimated fully charged battery range?  If not, then it would seem that 35 miles might only be good on optimal days, says 68F or something like that (no A/C, no heat) and would result in a lower figure for the rest of the time.   A chart that accompanied Wernert’s article listed some other activities that resulted in “high/maximum impact” on the range.  These are

High speeds (70+mph)

Aggressive Accelerations

Steep incline

So, no driving in the mountains with the pedal to the metal in cold weather.

cbdakota

Rare Earth Elements Background.


If you follow the alternative energy issues (windmills, solar cells, ethanol for fuel, etc) you have very likely encountered discussions about rare earth elements. This posting is designed to provide the reader a little background.    Rare earths are used in lights, batteries, motors, lasers, and many other electronic applications.  In addition some of them are used as oil refinery catalysts, in metal alloys and glass polishing and coloring applications just to mention a few non-electronic uses.  There are 17 rare earth elements on the periodic table.  What makes these metals rare is that they are not often found in concentrations that can be profitably mined.  According to Wikipedia, one of them “Cerium” is the 25th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust,  however they are widely dispersed.  China has the best mines in the world it would seem.  China sold these elements at prices low enough to shut down most of the other mines in the world.

The magnets that can be made from several of the elements are vastly more powerful that those made from cobalt, the previous best permanent magnet making metal. Two of the rare earths commonly used are Neodymium and Samarium.  They are alloyed with other metals to form permanent magnets.  These magnets are replacing non-rare earth alloy magnets in electric motor assemblies because of their magnetic field strength.  These rare earth alloy magnets can be made smaller to reduce weight and still create high magnetic flux for electric motors.  It is said that the magnetic attraction is so powerful that if your finger is between two of these magnets you will likely experience a fractured finger.

Pure Neodymium has a low Curie temperature so it is only magnetic at low temperatures. Above the Curie point it’s parallel alignment of the magnetic field lines become disordered and it loses its magnetism.  To overcome this problem, Neodymium is alloyed with boron and iron to make a permanent magnet that can operate up to approximately 300 C.  The rare earths are also vulnerable to corrosion.  This problem is resolved by plating.

Although Samarium has a higher Curie temperature, it plays a smaller role than Neodymium because it is more expensive and creates a weaker magnetic field.  It is commonly alloyed with Cobalt.

The price and geopolitics are playing a role in the use of rare earths.  According to a November 16, 2011 NYTimes article, the prices of rare earths are dropping:

International prices for some light rare earths, like cerium and lanthanum, used in the polishing of flat-screen televisions and the refining of oil, respectively, have fallen as much as two-thirds since August and are still dropping. Prices have declined by roughly one-third since then for highly magnetic rare earths, like neodymium, needed for products like smartphones, computers and large wind turbines.

A chart of the price versus time for Neodymium is shown below:

The price for Neodymium appears to be at about $350 per kilogram.

There are some geopolitical ramifications surrounding rare earths:  Again from the Times posting:

China mines 94 percent of the rare earth metals in the world. Through 2008, it supplied almost all of the global annual demand outside of China of 50,000 to 55,000 tons. But it cut export quotas to a little more than 30,000 tons last year and again this year and imposed steep export taxes, producing a shortage in the rest of the world.

Together with a two-month Chinese embargo on shipments to Japan during a territorial dispute a year ago, the trade restrictions and shortage resulted in prices outside China reaching as much as 15 times the level within China last winter. That created a big incentive for companies that use rare earths in their products to move factories to China or find alternatives.

The US had some working rare earth working mines before the advent of the Chinese.  I have read that one in California is planning to resume production now that the prices have reached a point where working the mine is economical.

Stay tuned.

cbdakota