[FLEAA] FW: 10th Annual Ft. Pierce EV Rally next Saturday
Hello Everyone, Here's a repost of Charles Whalen's message. I'd like to know who is planning to attend. I will be there with my eBox. R. Andrew Roddy Public Relations Director Florida Electric Auto Association -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Whalen Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:58 PM To: Florida EAA Subject: [FLEAA] 10th Annual Ft. Pierce EV Rally next Saturday Hi all, Audry Martin, Steve Clunn's business manager at Grassroots EV in Ft. Pierce, asked me to post a reminder about next Saturday's 10th Annual Ft. Pierce EV Rally: Saturday April 26 -- 10th Annual Ft. Pierce EV Rally Advance Auto Parts 4158 Okeechobee Road Ft. Pierce, FL 11am - 4pm Many EVs on exhibit, Ride 'N Drive If you have any questions, you can contact Steve Clunn or Audry Martin at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: 772-971-0533 Best regards, Charles Whalen Florida EAA ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org
Re: [FLEAA] BROWARD COUNTY NEW CHAMBER MEMBER DISCOUNT LIPTON
Hi Greg and all, Thanks for sharing your views on this important subject. You make excellent points. I have to say, however, that there is absolutely no difference between your views and my views on this subject. All that is needed here is a little clarification and elaboration, so let me try to explain the situation. Many of our FLEAA members, myself included, engage in for-profit commercial activities in the EV business. There is nothing wrong, inappropriate, nor inconsistent with this and at the same time being a member of the non-profit FLEAA and participating in the FLEAA's non-profit activities to educate the public about EVs and promoting their adoption *in general* (please note the emphasis on the term in general, as opposed to using the FLEAA to promote one's own individual EV business interests specifically). The important thing here is that one just has to make a distinction between the two and at least try to make an honest effort to keep the two roles separate, as much as possible, to know which of the two hats you're wearing at which time and not to wear both hats at the same time, and specifically to try to avoid blatantly and shamelessly using the FLEAA to promote one's own EV business interests. It is really just a matter of maintaining a professional code of conduct and a modicum of ethics, of being honest, and of making full disclosures about one's business interests when one discusses in FLEAA forums or meetings certain products, services, or EVs in which one has a financial interest. As long as you or any other member observe such simple rules of professional ethics, etiquette, and really just plain common sense, you and all of us will be fine and not jeopardize the FLEAA's non-profit status and run afoul of the law and IRS regulations in that regard. Maybe it would help to be more specific in the way of an example, so let me just take myself, although I might not be the best example for explaining this distinction. I am investor in Vectrix (www.vectrix.com), a for-profit, commercial company that manufactures and sells an electric motorcycle through dealers around the country, including Foreign Affairs Auto in West Palm Beach, which is Vectrix's South Florida dealer, and Jonathan Ortiz of Foreign Affairs Auto is also a FLEAA member. Foreign Affairs Auto in West Palm Beach also sells other EVs, including the ZENN NEV and ZAP LSEVs. All of these are commercial, for-profit activities, and yet there is nothing inconsistent or inappropriate with Jonathan Ortiz and myself being FLEAA members, as long as we don't try to use the non-profit FLEAA to make commercial solicitations and blatantly promote these EVs. There's probably a little bit of gray area and lattitude here, maybe a bit of a fine line, between providing information to people on the one hand and frequent, blatant, hard-sell promotion and advertising pitches on the other hand. Again, I think it's just a matter of common sense and discretion. I try to refrain from coming on the FLEAA list and constantly talk about the Vectrix electric motorcycle and use up a lot of bandwidth on that, and although I have ridden it to many of our meetings, I don't need to get up and pitch it, etc. It's there; people can see it; I don't need to say anything; and most importantly, I have made plenty of disclosures to the group that I am an investor in the company. I also try to be honest and open about discussing any shortcomings of the product. You spoke of contributing to people's commercial EV businesses and how it takes money to make business work, etc. Here again, this is something that I have done and continue to do. I have contributed a small amount of my time, effort, some travel, and a little bit of money to one of our FLEAA members' EV conversion business, Steve Clunn of Grassroots EV (www.grassrootsev.com), in Ft. Pierce, in order to support Steve's small business and help it grow. I do not have any financial interest in Steve's business, no ownership interest, no shares, no profit or revenue sharing, and no written or unwritten/verbal/gentlemen's agreements or understandings with Steve of any such interest or revenue sharing for me in the future. I have contributed to a commercial, for-profit business of one of our members simply to help it grow and succeed but without any expectation of anything in return for myself. If I do a kitcar EV project with Steve at some point in the future, as I would like to do and have discussed with Steve and others in the FLEAA, my understanding and agreement with Steve is that I will do so by paying him his full, standard commercial rates for his time and labor, without getting any break due to my past contributions to his business. My contributions to Steve's business were also mentioned in a recent article about his business in the Palm Beach Post. When people ask me for a referral to commercial conversion businesses or services here in Florida, at the present time I am referring
Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents
Hi Joseph, Your understanding is not quite correct. GoldPeak has an unrestricted, permissive Ovonics license from 1991 that allows it to sell large-format NiMH batteries (10Ah) into the US market, which was grandfathered upon Chevron's purchase of the patents around the turn of the century. European battery manufacturers Saft and Varta both *had* (past-tense) grandfathered Ovonics licenses that allowed them to sell large-format NiMH (10Ah) batteries in Europe only, but both companies voided the terms and conditions of their licenses upon their acquisitions by an American battery manufacturer, Johnson Controls of Milwaukee (in both cases), such that neither of them can produce large-format NiMH batteries any longer, even for the European market. (Note that that pdf you referenced is dated July 2005, which predates Saft's acquisition by Johnson Controls. Try buying new 100Ah NiMH batteries from Saft now and see what answer you get. Hint: I already know the answer to that question, from several entities that have tried.) There are two companies, Electro Energy and Nilar, that have both developed large-format bipolar NiMH batteries, but neither one of them is in commercial production. Both companies are in clear violation of the Chevron patent licensing rights, as the patents relate to the electrochemistry at the cell level (which remains the same), not the modular construction. But Chevron will not bother spending all the money and dedicating all the legal resources that it takes to bring a patent infringement lawsuit (like they did and won against Toyota and Panasonic, to the tune of $30 million) against either one of these companies unless either one of them scores a large-volume commercial OEM contract, ... which neither of them has done and neither is expected to do, for exactly that reason. There is a guy in San Diego operating out of his garage who is doing Prius plug-in hybrid conversions using Nilar's NiMH batteries. As long as this remains a backyard operation of very small volume, only several cars a year, this guy will remain under the radar and Chevron won't waste their time with him and with Nilar. But if it ever reaches large-volume OEM commercial volumes, Chevron will sue for patent infringement and will win. Chevron's top executives have said so, exactly that, in private conversations. Chevron's NiMH patents expire on December 31, 2014. Best regards, Charles Whalen Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:38:06 -0400 From: Joseph T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents To: listserv@floridaeaa.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 As I understand, Chevron's patent control over large-format NiMH batteries means that no other company but them can produce such batteries. However, why does Saft sell high-capacity (100 Ah+) NiMH batteries? http://www.saftbatteries.com/130-Catalogue/PDF/NHE_en.pdf The pdf is dated July 2005. I've heard about new NiMH batteries that avoid patent troubles, such as bi-polar NiMH batteries. http://www.electroenergyinc.com/products/technicalpapers/BipolarNickel.pdf How long have these been around? ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org
Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents
Thanks for the grat info. So where can we get NiMH batteries for a conversion? Is there anything? I tried today all day w/saft and left messages before reading your email. They do have the battery on the site though. Thanks Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:51:27 To:Florida EAA ListServ@Floridaeaa.org Subject: Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents Hi Joseph, Your understanding is not quite correct. GoldPeak has an unrestricted, permissive Ovonics license from 1991 that allows it to sell large-format NiMH batteries (10Ah) into the US market, which was grandfathered upon Chevron's purchase of the patents around the turn of the century. European battery manufacturers Saft and Varta both *had* (past-tense) grandfathered Ovonics licenses that allowed them to sell large-format NiMH (10Ah) batteries in Europe only, but both companies voided the terms and conditions of their licenses upon their acquisitions by an American battery manufacturer, Johnson Controls of Milwaukee (in both cases), such that neither of them can produce large-format NiMH batteries any longer, even for the European market. (Note that that pdf you referenced is dated July 2005, which predates Saft's acquisition by Johnson Controls. Try buying new 100Ah NiMH batteries from Saft now and see what answer you get. Hint: I already know the answer to that question, from several entities that have tried.) There are two companies, Electro Energy and Nilar, that have both developed large-format bipolar NiMH batteries, but neither one of them is in commercial production. Both companies are in clear violation of the Chevron patent licensing rights, as the patents relate to the electrochemistry at the cell level (which remains the same), not the modular construction. But Chevron will not bother spending all the money and dedicating all the legal resources that it takes to bring a patent infringement lawsuit (like they did and won against Toyota and Panasonic, to the tune of $30 million) against either one of these companies unless either one of them scores a large-volume commercial OEM contract, ... which neither of them has done and neither is expected to do, for exactly that reason. There is a guy in San Diego operating out of his garage who is doing Prius plug-in hybrid conversions using Nilar's NiMH batteries. As long as this remains a backyard operation of very small volume, only several cars a year, this guy will remain under the radar and Chevron won't waste their time with him and with Nilar. But if it ever reaches large-volume OEM commercial volumes, Chevron will sue for patent infringement and will win. Chevron's top executives have said so, exactly that, in private conversations. Chevron's NiMH patents expire on December 31, 2014. Best regards, Charles Whalen Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:38:06 -0400 From: Joseph T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents To: listserv@floridaeaa.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 As I understand, Chevron's patent control over large-format NiMH batteries means that no other company but them can produce such batteries. However, why does Saft sell high-capacity (100 Ah+) NiMH batteries? http://www.saftbatteries.com/130-Catalogue/PDF/NHE_en.pdf The pdf is dated July 2005. I've heard about new NiMH batteries that avoid patent troubles, such as bi-polar NiMH batteries. http://www.electroenergyinc.com/products/technicalpapers/BipolarNickel.pdf How long have these been around? ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org
Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents
The only place we can get them is from GoldPeak. I know and speak with GoldPeak's Chairman and have had an intensive series of meetings with GoldPeak's Chief Battery Engineer (of 30 years). I have also signed an NDA with them, which I believe they would require of anyone before they would give you much information about their batteries, as they don't publish any detailed specs or information about their batteries on their website. What you asking is something that I have been working on for a year now and am continuing to pursue. It takes a lot of work and deal-making, bringing people together and trying to sell large commercial interests on the advantages of NiMH batteries, which some are largely ignorant of and have no experience with, unlike myself. This all takes time. We would have to piggyback on larger commercial volumes of much bigger players than ourselves. That's the only way we will ever be able to get these batteries. It may be possible by early next year; that's probably at least how long it will take this one particularly large commercial deal to come together. But deep down, my own personal feeling -- knowing the parties involved and some of the other battery options they're pursuing, and having brokered this tentative deal myself -- is that I suspect there's probably only about a 20% chance that this will happen. So I have already started to think about some other ways to try to generate some volume through other channels, and even though it would likely be much smaller volume, it might be just enough to do a deal with GoldPeak, given what I know of their 18-year history with these batteries and what sorts of volumes they've previously done. Getting back to the previous discussion in another, separate thread about for-profit vs. not-for-profit status and motivations, I have already decided that whichever way we can generate sufficient volume with GoldPeak for us to get their batteries, either the former or the latter way I discussed above, I would make such batteries available at one price -- the same price that I would be getting, without any markup or commission for myself -- to anyone who wants them and who, more importantly, has a track record of demonstrated technical capability and experience to be able to competently integrate these batteries into a conversion. (It won't help either GoldPeak or the stellar reputation of NiMH batteries if someone ends up killing or degrading GoldPeak's batteries due to their own lack of experience and competence. GoldPeak has been quite clear about this in my conversations with them.) I'm not going to go into any more specifics about this in a public forum like this, but if you want to meet with me in person, I'd be happy to discuss more details on this up to the limits of what my NDA covers. I will be at the Fort Pierce EV Rally this Saturday, April 26. Yes, Saft does have the battery on their website. Good luck getting it. Many others have tried, including much larger commercial players. But hey, keep trying. I'd be interested to learn whatever you find out. Best regards, Charles Whalen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FLEAA Mailing List listserv@floridaeaa.org Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:48 PM Subject: Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents Thanks for the grat info. So where can we get NiMH batteries for a conversion? Is there anything? I tried today all day w/saft and left messages before reading your email. They do have the battery on the site though. Thanks Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:51:27 To:Florida EAA ListServ@Floridaeaa.org Subject: Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents Hi Joseph, Your understanding is not quite correct. GoldPeak has an unrestricted, permissive Ovonics license from 1991 that allows it to sell large-format NiMH batteries (10Ah) into the US market, which was grandfathered upon Chevron's purchase of the patents around the turn of the century. European battery manufacturers Saft and Varta both *had* (past-tense) grandfathered Ovonics licenses that allowed them to sell large-format NiMH (10Ah) batteries in Europe only, but both companies voided the terms and conditions of their licenses upon their acquisitions by an American battery manufacturer, Johnson Controls of Milwaukee (in both cases), such that neither of them can produce large-format NiMH batteries any longer, even for the European market. (Note that that pdf you referenced is dated July 2005, which predates Saft's acquisition by Johnson Controls. Try buying new 100Ah NiMH batteries from Saft now and see what answer you get. Hint: I already know the answer to that question, from several entities that have tried.) There are two companies, Electro Energy and Nilar, that have both developed large-format bipolar NiMH batteries, but neither one of them is in commercial production. Both companies are in
[FLEAA] Fw: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site
GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site - Original Message - From: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:56 PM Subject: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site BREAKING: First Lithium-ion Prototype Chevy Volt Running Posted: 24 Apr 2008 08:34 AM CDT The Detroit News today reported an interview with GM vice-chairman Bob Lutz. Lutz verified for the first time publicly that a Chevy Volt prototype with an actual full-sized lithium ion battery is... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] Is GM Really Building the Volt So it Can Sell More Gas Guzzlers? Posted: 23 Apr 2008 08:37 PM CDT An editorial appeared today in the Wall Street Journal entitled A Volt Out of the Red. It was written in reaction to the transportation department’s proposal yesterday that cars be... [[ This is a content summary only. Visit my website for full links, other content, and more! ]] You are subscribed to email updates from GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site in a feed reader. If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 ___ Florida EAA mailing list listserv@floridaeaa.org http://www.floridaeaa.org
Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents
Hi Joseph, Having been around the EV community and industry for quite some time, I have a pretty good idea who that person is. There is principally one person, quite well-known in fact, in the EV community who takes exactly that line, and in exactly the same way that you expressed it. That person and the vehemence and personal vindictiveness with which he takes that position has been responsible for some of the ugliest, nastiest personal insults and flames I have ever seen on any issue on the various EV lists. Having been witness to it and the ugliness of it, I have no intention of provoking that sort of response directed at me, nor do I have the time for this. Therefore, I would respectfully request that you please do not cross-post my comments to other lists. We have an open list here. Anyone who wants to is free to join this list, and this list is not censored or moderated. However, we will not tolerate that kind of personal abusiveness on this list, and anyone who engages in it will be removed from the list. I myself don't have time right now to monitor other lists, much less participate in discussions on other lists; I can barely keep up with this FLEAA list as it is. Therefore, I do not want my comments posted to a list where I cannot monitor what is said about me, especially when I am likely to be personally attacked in an abusive manner, given the very ugly past history on this particular issue by the person in question to whom you are referring. Toyota executives who ran the RAV4-EV program confirm that the Chevron NiMH patent infringement lawsuit against them, resulting in a $30 million judgment that they and Panasonic had to pay to Chevron, is the very reason that they were forced to stop producing the RAV4-EV and that they would have continued to do so were it not for the loss of that lawsuit which required them to stop making the batteries for the car. On the other hand, if you look at my last few posts on this subject -- specifically those related to GoldPeak and how I have been working on trying to make business deals to generate enough volume (i.e. *demand*) to enable us to get some of their large-format NiMH batteries -- it is entirely clear and self-evident that *demand* is obviously an integral part of the equation. In any business, there are always two sides of the market -- supply and demand. One *has* to look at and examine issues on both sides. How one wants to divide up and attempt to quantify the various causes of the current difficulty in obtaining large-format NiMH batteries between: a) Chevron's control of the patents, patent licensing rights, and their premeditated, very deliberate and clever suppression of this disruptive technology (which their top executives admit to), b) demand issues, c) price increases and volatility of nickel on world commodity markets, and d) other factors, is an academic exercise that doesn't much interest me, nor one that I have time for. These are complex business issues. Clearly it is all of the above, but I couldn't begin to try to quantify various shares of those causes. Having said that, just given the statements of Chevron's own executives as well as those of Toyota's executives, I think it is quite clear that (a) has been an important and likely even a dominant factor. In that sense, I think you and I are in agreement on that. Charles Whalen - Original Message - From: Joseph T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FLEAA Mailing List listserv@floridaeaa.org Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents Thank you Charles for all the info. On insightcentral.net (for the Honda Insight) there was a discussion about NiMH batteries and one of the members were saying that the whole NiMH patent situation is not related to the oil companies, and instead it is entirely the fault of the market. Of course, it cannot entirely be the oil companies fault, the same way it cannot entirely be the car buying public's fault; it lies somewhere in between. However, I'd say the fault falls more onto the oil companies than the car buying public... :) Is it okay if I share your info onto Insightcentral.net? Can I copy and paste it even? On 4/24/08, Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One additional, very important point I should make on this -- relating to the requirement of having the requisite track record of demonstrated technical capability and experience to be able to competently integrate these batteries into a conversion, before GoldPeak would consider allowing someone to be in on a group-buy or piggyback on a larger commercial deal -- is that if you are planning to use a Manzanita Micro charger or any of the other popular hobbyist-gear chargers, you can stop right there and just forget about using NiMH, because those hobbyist-gear chargers are not capable of competently charging NiMH. You will need a professional-gear OEM-quality charger that is both programmable,
Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents
Charles, OK, now I'm confused. If Gold Peak still has the legal right to produce large format NiMH batteries, why didn't Toyota just buy the batteries through them? Andrew -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Whalen Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:27 PM To: FLEAA Mailing List; Joseph T. Subject: Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents Hi Joseph, Having been around the EV community and industry for quite some time, I have a pretty good idea who that person is. There is principally one person, quite well-known in fact, in the EV community who takes exactly that line, and in exactly the same way that you expressed it. That person and the vehemence and personal vindictiveness with which he takes that position has been responsible for some of the ugliest, nastiest personal insults and flames I have ever seen on any issue on the various EV lists. Having been witness to it and the ugliness of it, I have no intention of provoking that sort of response directed at me, nor do I have the time for this. Therefore, I would respectfully request that you please do not cross-post my comments to other lists. We have an open list here. Anyone who wants to is free to join this list, and this list is not censored or moderated. However, we will not tolerate that kind of personal abusiveness on this list, and anyone who engages in it will be removed from the list. I myself don't have time right now to monitor other lists, much less participate in discussions on other lists; I can barely keep up with this FLEAA list as it is. Therefore, I do not want my comments posted to a list where I cannot monitor what is said about me, especially when I am likely to be personally attacked in an abusive manner, given the very ugly past history on this particular issue by the person in question to whom you are referring. Toyota executives who ran the RAV4-EV program confirm that the Chevron NiMH patent infringement lawsuit against them, resulting in a $30 million judgment that they and Panasonic had to pay to Chevron, is the very reason that they were forced to stop producing the RAV4-EV and that they would have continued to do so were it not for the loss of that lawsuit which required them to stop making the batteries for the car. On the other hand, if you look at my last few posts on this subject -- specifically those related to GoldPeak and how I have been working on trying to make business deals to generate enough volume (i.e. *demand*) to enable us to get some of their large-format NiMH batteries -- it is entirely clear and self-evident that *demand* is obviously an integral part of the equation. In any business, there are always two sides of the market -- supply and demand. One *has* to look at and examine issues on both sides. How one wants to divide up and attempt to quantify the various causes of the current difficulty in obtaining large-format NiMH batteries between: a) Chevron's control of the patents, patent licensing rights, and their premeditated, very deliberate and clever suppression of this disruptive technology (which their top executives admit to), b) demand issues, c) price increases and volatility of nickel on world commodity markets, and d) other factors, is an academic exercise that doesn't much interest me, nor one that I have time for. These are complex business issues. Clearly it is all of the above, but I couldn't begin to try to quantify various shares of those causes. Having said that, just given the statements of Chevron's own executives as well as those of Toyota's executives, I think it is quite clear that (a) has been an important and likely even a dominant factor. In that sense, I think you and I are in agreement on that. Charles Whalen - Original Message - From: Joseph T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED]; FLEAA Mailing List listserv@floridaeaa.org Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [FLEAA] NiMH Patents Thank you Charles for all the info. On insightcentral.net (for the Honda Insight) there was a discussion about NiMH batteries and one of the members were saying that the whole NiMH patent situation is not related to the oil companies, and instead it is entirely the fault of the market. Of course, it cannot entirely be the oil companies fault, the same way it cannot entirely be the car buying public's fault; it lies somewhere in between. However, I'd say the fault falls more onto the oil companies than the car buying public... :) Is it okay if I share your info onto Insightcentral.net? Can I copy and paste it even? On 4/24/08, Charles Whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One additional, very important point I should make on this -- relating to the requirement of having the requisite track record of demonstrated technical capability and experience to be able to competently integrate these batteries into a conversion, before GoldPeak would consider allowing someone to be in on a
