StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:41 AM) It an American car company warranty. It's sneaky. I guarantee it. And I know my comparison was flawed...it's why, from the start -- since you seem to dense to accept this -- that I said I did not know and was curious. Again. I did not know and I was curious how it worked. Get that yet? If not, I can repeat it again. Do you now admit that it was a pretty s*** guess based on limited knowledge of the technology employed and that you have no valid reason to continue to expect the batteries to need non-warrantable replacement a full five years before the warranty period is up?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:39 AM) The alternator is what prevents car batteries from draining as fast as say a laptop or cell phone battery. I was merely showing that I understand the basic difference in why car batteries would last longer in that sense of the word. The actual charging cycle, which is what you are talking about, is completely different from what I was even talking about. The Volt doesn't recharge the battery via an alternator*. The alternator isn't the main difference between the Volt's (or my Makita power tools') battery charging technology and your standard laptop battery. You're showing that you don't understand why standard PB-acid car batteries are different from laptop Li-ion batteries which are different from advanced Li-Ion batteries that monitor battery properties such as temperature to maximize life and minimize charge time. Alternators have absolutely nothing to do with this and I'm still not sure why you brought them up. For standard charging from a wall. I'm sure the on-board gasoline generator has an alternator, but it still has smart charging technology controlling the charing and not just some metal brushes on an alternator.

I posted a rather simple answer to your postulation that the batteries will be dead in 3 years--your comparison was flawed. You're also the one who claimed GM's warranty was "sneaky" and "almost useless" based off of a bad comparison. I'm unsure of why you jumped on GM based on limited knowledge of how the Volt and its battery system operates.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) Dumb question. What's the charging mechanism when you plug it into a wall?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:31 AM) Not for nothing, but this is what I actually said. I have no idea either, I was just curious...since I work in the tech field and I know rechargeable (even the BEST rechargeables) have VERY finite recharge numbers...and if you're recharging your car everyday, I don't see those lasting more than 3 years without needing full replacements. Not to mention, the amount of power they can store dwindles on every charge. I NEVER said what I was saying was fact...as I went out of my way (see underlined) to outright say I did not know, and I was merely basing it on my experience over time with modern battery technology, including the battery in my Jeep right now. I even went as far as to say I was curious about the question I had posed. Sorry, I dropped the probably in the last previous reply. My point is that your speculation that the batteries would be effectively dead in 3 years is pretty baseless since it's not comparing similar technology. Comparing it to standard alternator charging of lead-acid batteries in a car? Consumer electronics batteries with different chemistry and dumb charging? That doesn't make sense.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:27 AM) Of course it's a little more than that, but the alternator is what keeps the batteries charged differently than a computer or cell phone battery. Thank you for playing. Like I said, even my power tool batteries have chips in them now for this. Software monitoring of internal battery parameters to control charging rates is what charges the batteries differently and more effectively, not just "LOL it's on an alternator!!!". Does it run it through an alternator when you plug it into the wall?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) I never said they'd be effectively dead in three years. You said they'd need full replacement in 3 years. Why would you need to replace something if it isn't effectively dead/useless/no longer functional?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:24 AM) Yes, it was my original claim. And I understand they have more complex charging techniques...it's called a f***ing alternator. Hmm, nope. Think you might want to educate yourself a little more on more advanced battery charging systems. It's a little bit more than an alternator with a voltage regulator tech circa early 20th century.

You said they'd probably be effectively dead in three years. That would make their 8 year warranty a bad faith claim. It would be a huge black eye and suicide for at least this niche market. You're basing your comparison off of consumer electronics batteries with dumb charging systems.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) ..and if you're recharging your car everyday, I don't see those lasting more than 3 years without needing full replacements. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) They wouldn't be "dead", they'd simply last for a shorter period of time. Example: Your laptop used to last 7 hours, now it lasts 2 after 3 years of use, that's not a defect, that simply a shortfall of our current battery technology, which, believe me, they're working on. That wasn't your original claim. The charging systems for these batteries are much more sophisticated than your standard laptop or cell phone, which significantly helps battery longevity. Hell, my Makita power tools have similar charging techniques--the charger actively cools the battery and monitors battery levels such as heat to charge the batteries quickly while also prolonging life. They're rated for 2500 charge cycles, and those are just $100 batteries.

STill looking for Volt specifics, but here's a Toshiba Li-ion battery that has 6000 charge cycles to 82% capacity. Charging every night, that's over 16 years. http://www.toshiba.com/ind/data/tag_files/...ochure_5383.pdf

The point is that even consumable items can come with limited warranties regarding expected lifetime. I really don't think GM is dumb enough to think they can produce a bunch of cars that will have dead $10k batteries in less than three years and get away with claiming "well its not covered by the warranty!" without massive PR and probably legal problems. Maybe the technology going into $10k battery packs and the systems they use to run them aren't comparable to $100 phone or laptop batteries.

If you're correct, that these batteries have no realistic chance of lasting past 3 years, GM is going to be in for a world of PR hurt in 2013. It would make their 8 year/100k mile warranty claims bad-faith claims at least in the eyes of the public if not legally. These are not comparable to a laptop or cellphone battery because of the costs involved and what the warranty implies. Most people expect batteries to lose charge capacity over time. People spending $32k on a car with a 8 year/100k warranty on the batteries wouldn't have the expectation that their batteries won't work in less than half the warranty years. Think of tire warranties. Yeah, they're expected to wear down. But if your 60k tires wear out in 10k from normal use, they'll replace them.

Sounds unrelated?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) Warranties cover the batteries from breaking...not maintaining charge...so they can warranty them for 900 years...but after 2 years, if they can't hold a charge, they aren't going to replace them for free... That's a sneaky, and almost useless warranty. Proof of this? Their warranty plan just says "warrantable repairs" but doesn't list this out. If this ends up being true and GM essentially f***s over all Volt customers, it would be very harmful to their brand and any future in that market. Doesn't seem likely imo. Brakes are consumable items designed to wear down. That's the physical mechanism of how they stop your car. That is a poor comparison.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:28 AM) Right, my only point is that I don't think the infrastructure is there yet to push demand much higher. Though I'd also add that investing in a 40k car is a little different than a cell phone (even the most expensive ones back in the day). You're asking people to invest that much money in a piece of technology that transports them over several miles. I wouldn't buy one without knowing that there are enough places in and around the city to recharge if I get stuck. Well, that's precisely why Chevy went the route they did with the Volt. You can always use the gasoline engine. Anyway, more and more places are adding charging stations, so it'll just be easier and easier. Like any early adopters to technology, you face hurdles that people don't the road won't. And you're right to point out that the costs are significantly different here.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) Yea, but battery's aren't cheap! I have no idea either, I was just curious...since I work in the tech field and I know rechargeable (even the BEST rechargeable) have VERY finite numbers...and if you're recharging your car everyday, I don't see those lasting more than 3 years without needing full replacements. They intentionally programmed the car to use only a limited range of the battery. It's something like 14 kW-h, but you only use 10.4 kW-h. That's done to prolong the life. They've warrantied them for 8 years/100k, so I'm pretty sure GM anticipates them lasting more than 3 years. Lithium battery recycling programs started a couple of years ago. It is a potential concern though. Could be, but more and more lithium sources are being explored now because there's market demand. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/11/...11?pageNumber=2 People were worried about peak oil in the early 20th century.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) Better question for these other guys. I have no idea. I assume you could just replace them like you would an engine part? The batteries on the Volt are warrantied for 8 years/100k miles. They are replaceable, but not cheap. The Tesla battery pack is over $10k I think. Again, looking at technology lifecycles, the costs will continue to come down. Blue-Ray players were $800 a few years ago.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:10 AM) I assumed the Volt was like the other electric cars that required a station, not just a typical outlet. You can charge any of them (Leaf, Volt, Tesla) with a standard 110V/15A outlet. That infrastructure is being built and will expand as the user base expands. We didn't have nation-wide networks of cell phone towers before people started buying cell phones. We didn't have gas stations every 1/2 mile before people started buying cars. The infrastructure and the user base will grow in a symbiotic manner. That's the natural technology life cycle. We're in the Early Adopter phase. The EV1 and the Tesla would have been "innovators" phase.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 09:04 AM) With current electricity rates, you're effectively paying somewhere in the range of $.50 to $1.00 a gallon, depending on how you drive. Could be less if you owned your own solar panels or wind generator as well. The Leaf's eco-mode would probably cut that even farther. Would love to be in that position one day.

Who's going to build charging infrastructure before there's any market for the use? It's not like a whole bunch of gas stations were built before people started manufacturing cars. The Volt battery uses 10.4 kW-h. I don't have my Com Ed bill in front of me, but I want to say it's something like $0.09/kW-h, or about $0.94/day to charge the Volt. You don't need a charging station (really it's just 240V service, I think). You can charge on 110V, but it'll take 10 hours or so. 220V will charge much faster, and 480V even faster than that. Think of it like people who buy 1st-gen Apple products or who paid $800 to get Blue-ray when it first came out--early adopters of technology are willing to pay a premium to be first.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 4, 2011 -> 07:46 AM) Interesting that so many luxury cars have such short paypack periods, I wasn't expecting that. Also, there ARE still tax credits for alt vehicles, because the Volt and Leaf are eligible. I am not sure if traditional hybrids are still eligible, they used to work on a concept of number of vehicles manufactured per model. For non plug-in cars, the tax credits expired on December 31st. Most had run out by then due to numbers sold, anyway.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 3, 2011 -> 05:57 PM) I guess then his problem is that hes an attorney with a bias. And I stand by my argument. Greenwald, for being an attorney, leaves out every single important piece of information. 1) Why is Manning being held under solitary confinement? 2) What is the normal procedure for dealing with a person accused of espionage? Greenwald's article is all over the place. Part of it he compares Manning to Ellsberg, pointing to the difference in treatment. He does not even mention that Ellsberg was not in the military and therefore could not be tried under the UCMJ. So to clarify, he may be an attorney, but he wrote a brutal article that absolutely makes no sense and my only conclusion is that he is trying to apply his Civil background to UCMJ. What does he want the Obama administration to do? Go easy on espionage? At minimum it would behoove the US to at least try and make an example of Manning so that they dont have more documents leaked. First, it's pointed out explicitly in the article that Manning is under different circumstances because he's subject to the UCMJ. The Ellsberg comparison is made to show the cognitive dissonance in people that laud Ellsberg but lambaste Manning. As for the bolded, that's a damn good question. It's one that there isn't a good answer to, aside from "punishment" or "to try to get him to plea-bargin against Assange/Wikileaks" From a December article: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...0/12/14/manning

Greenwald is a lawyer and has a background of litigation constitutional law and civil rights. I don't think your comment really addresses anything Greenwald was saying (or has said) about this case, to be quite honest. And your dismissals of him as a non-attorney smack of logical fallacy, even if it was true. He isn't making an argument that Manning didn't (allegedly) violate the UCMJ; he's making an argument against what these charges imply based at least partially on an article, linked by Greenwald, written by a law professor. IF Manning was the leaker, he very clearly violated the UCMJ and should face charges. I wouldn't argue that and neither would Greenwald. What is being argued against is Manning's treatment (23/7 solitary confinement for 10 months), the aggression with which he's being prosecuted (both legally and in the media) and what their methods of prosecution really mean.

Ok, the Obama DoJ has aggressively gone after whistle blowers and people who leak documents. And they've been pretty terrible about it. Is that better? eg: Article 104 -- which, like all provisions of the UCMJ, applies only to members of the military -- is incredibly broad. Under 104(B) -- almost certainly the provision to be applied -- a person is guilty if he "gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly" (emphasis added), and, if convicted, "shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct." The charge sheet filed by the Army is quite vague and neither indicates what specifically Manning did to violate this provision nor the identity of the "enemy" to whom he is alleged to have given intelligence. There are, as international law professor Kevin Jon Heller notes, only two possibilities, and both are disturbing in their own way. In light of the implicit allegation that Manning transmitted this material to WikiLeaks, it is quite possible that WikiLeaks is the "enemy" referenced by Article 104, i.e., that the U.S. military now openly decrees (as opposed to secretly declaring) that the whistle-blowing group is an "enemy" of the U.S. More likely, the Army will contend that by transmitting classified documents to WikiLeaks for intended publication, Manning "indirectly" furnished those documents to Al Qaeda and the Taliban by enabling those groups to learn their contents. That would mean that it is a capital offense not only to furnish intelligence specifically and intentionally to actual enemies -- the way that, say, Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were convicted of passing intelligence to the Soviet Union -- but also to act as a whistle-blower by leaking classified information to a newspaper with the intent that it be published to the world. Logically, if one can "aid the enemy" even by leaking to WikiLeaks, then one can also be guilty of this crime by leaking to The New York Times. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html And more generally: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr.../whistleblowers