"The Volt" May BE SCRAPPED!- NEVER BUILT!!

[srortega]

I am just curious, what does any of this have to do with Volt not being produced?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by theunchosen

Its not that the landings are that rough at all(I didn't mean you specifically anyway ^_^), but its when the load is being applied and is greatest for a sustained period(takeoff). Obviously its one of the only times the plane climbs that far for several minutes, so also the only time the increased load is applied for several minutes.

Are you a pilot, or aeronautical engineer? I ask because quite a bit of what you've written is, in my experience at least, quite wrong. (I've held a pilot's license for about 30 years, BTW.)

First, on a normal takeoff the static loads aren't any greater than in flight (in both cases they support the plane's weight), though they are applied through different structures, and takeoff may (especially on a rough field) produce more & different vibration.

In climb, the structural loads aren't greatly increased - only a fraction of a G, unless you're talking about military/aerobatic planes) or much different than in level flight.

Landing? Well, you CAN plunk the thing down pretty hard, say in gusty crosswinds when you want to get it down & stick. And you can get quite a bit of vibration & bouncing when you land at some of the backcountry dirt strips around here. In normal conditions, however, a good pilot can land often land smoothly enough that you barely notice the touchdown.

My current plane was built in 1966. I've owned it about 15 years (in the course of which I've done quite a number of dirt strip (or handy road, dry lake, etc) landings. It gets its annual inspection, of course, and passes. No structural cracks or other problems, and no one has ever suggested that it be retired because of the number of takeoff/landing cycles. Indeed, no one has ever counted them.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by srortega

I am just curious, what does any of this have to do with Volt not being produced?

This thread has gone off topic more times than I can count, and I'm guilty for much of that. For now I must subscribe to the belief that the Volt will be put into production because I know people on the inside that are talking about GM already starting, or planing to get ready for the first stages of tooling up next year. The real question I now have is what will The Volt Cost?? If the Engineers are right and it cost $40,000 AND it's still not viable, or at $40,000 it is still being sold at a loss, then I don't see the car selling as well as GM/Chevy is betting on. I also strongly feel that selling this car at a loss will look very bad to the American and Canadian Governments, which along with The UAW now that combined, own the bulk of GM. The taxpayer may not like the idea of such a huge "bailout"/loan if they see cars are sold at a loss. (MY POV) It may seem logical to some, but I have serious doubts that the average people with little sense of business will be happy to learn their tax money was given to a company that has it's future leveraged in a car they sell for less than it cost to build. So I for one will be very interested in the actual selling price for The Volt when it finally hits production.

[cfg83]

Jammer -

I can go off-topic at the drop of a hat. Wow, look at that ... a hat! Did you see that? It just dropped for no reason at all, must be gravity or something ... I think the short-term purpose of the Volt is as a kind of loss-leader. The 1st gen Insight was a loss-leader for Honda. I have read that one reason for the Insight was to "get there first" with a hybrid (at least in the USA, the 1st gen Prius was already selling in Japan in 1997).

If the Volt can prove itself from a technology POV, then all or part of the tech can be migrated into other products. Even if it fails, it will (hopefully) help GM engineers cut their teeth in preparation for a "Volt II". From my POV, it's the external economics of the car business that make everything so scary. As many here will attest, GM should have been building a Volt-equivalent ten years ago.

I'm crossing my fingers for the Volt to succeed, but the only (new GM) car I will be seriously considering in my future is a Cruze.

CarloSW2

[Jammer]

I do not see the Volt as a loss leader, but I do see your point.

A loss leader, for example, as I learned in Business 101, is a product that is sold for less than it cost to purchase at wholesale in order to attract customers that may very well buy MORE items that the company DOES make a profit on. Some examples might be a grocery store that advertises milk or soda-pop for a lower price than it cost them to replace, but the average customer buys other food products the store DOES make a profit on, so in the end they make a bottom line in the black. Maybe the definition has changed over the years, as I learned this definition way back in the 80's.

Some people would site that my 2009 Chevy Cobalt is a loss leader, or at least a car sold at cost/maybe a small loss, in order to get Chevy customers.

I just do not see a supposed $40,000 car being a car to get customers to like Chevy, and in turn buying other Chevy cars that GM makes a profit on. I don't see that happening, in my humble opinion.

I think The Cruze will be great because it is based much on the proven Cobalt, and next The Volt is partially based on The Cruise. If I can get almost 46MPG out of my Cobalt (EPA 37), then The Cruise (EPA expected to be above 41MPG) should be able to come close or above 50MPG with hypermiling tips. At least, I hope it turns out that way. Not to mention The Cruze is supposed to cost around $15,000, give or take a couple thousands.... and that is well below the expected price of The Volt. I agree here.

Nevertheless, I see your point on The Volt. It's only the semantics of "Loss Leader" item that I differ with. No big deal though..

[jamesqf]

I agree, "loss leader" is maybe not the right word for introducing new technology. You lose money on the first X number of units, but hope they catch on, then you can use economies of scale to bring down the costs. Think about IBM and the first PCs: even though they were pretty pricy (about $3K in mid-'80s dollars), it took IBM quite a while to recoup their initial investment. And nowadays you can buy a far more powerful PC for few hundred, and the global market's worth hundreds of billions...

[cfg83]

jamesqf and Jammer -

Yup, that's why I said :

... I think the short-term purpose of the Volt is as a kind of loss-leader ...

But both of your points are well-taken.

CarloSW2

[Jammer]

Agreed.

Now, if Chevy was to sale a Volt at/near cost and then sell $10,000 worth of options (at a large profit) then I feel it would be a classic loss leader product.

[tjts1]

The purpose of the Volt was to get a government bail out for GM. It has already served its purpose.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Jammer

...sell Volt at/near cost and then sell $10,000 worth of options (at a large profit)

...what? you weren't aware that the steering wheel, seats (instead of crates), radio (instead of wireless), mirrors (instead of polished metal plates), tires (instead of doughnuts), glass (instead of plastic) windows are ALL options?

...oh, and the second key is only $1 for the key, but $5,000 to program it to work with the other one (wink,wink).