Web Site
Developers

Open Hardware and PHEVs

Reasons for a Bit of Skepticism

Though I have my doubts, PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles) may be on the same track towards open hardware we are seeing in some computer components and devices. Be warned, however, the effort is grounded in marketing and survival instincts that just might not suffice to become a success. Although use of open source is established for use in PHEV, the same cannot be said of the hardware components. The reader must recognize what is quoted below is mainly a self interested party pushing a marketing scheme. I would hope it works, however, I have good reasons for skepticism. Moreover, it was the individual, engineering types that created and posted the how-to instructions and schematics. Here we are describing what may be the fulminations of a automobile start up with a mixed history of success and failure.

If we were to look at the computer model for open hardware it is a recent process and even there with a mixed record. Now we have Sun pushing its cpu design to all comers as a way of gaining larger acceptance and creditiblity when others follow its lead. Here the imputus is similar, however, the claims of being far advanced in battery design and performance are to be seen as an assertion that has not been validated. Therefore, have a critical eye even when you would too gladly like to believe what may be no more than hype.

Now the Assertions [1.]

If, indeed, they held the hardware knowledge implied, their case is exceptionally strong that open hardware standards, using and buying of common componets would lead several manufactures of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehilcles to success. I buy the arguments, now I would like to see proof the components exist to the level implied.

These arguments support PHEV that are based on sharing hardware. Here is the essence: getting components at lower pricing by placing large orders, also having specialized dealers network for sales: open to all. Now here are the real quotes:

   But we're also going to offer the same components 
   that we're going to be using for our vehicles to anybody 
   who wants to be in the business, and if they use our 
   components, then we're going to let them sell components, 
   then we're going to let them sell through our dealer network. 
   So the dealers will get a lot of product, and the people who 
   want to get in the industry will have an opportunity to buy 
   components at the lowest price without having to start off 
   with big volumes, and they'll have a place for them to sell
   of money [their product] without them having to spend the  
   huge amount that's necessary to set up and run a 
   distribution network. 

Seems an expedient method to lower your own costs while allow startup companies access on a level field that still can enhance their company's reputation by the seeming magnimenity of their actions. Nonetheless, being the first among many of similar size is a plus in their column. Now getting to the bigger players:

   ... other unfortunately true fact is
   you cannot move forward on a new technology if you are heavily
   invested in an old technology. So although all of them have much
   better resources and far greater brains than anything I would ever
   amass, their disadvantage is that they're heavily invested in engines
   and transmissions, and they've got to get rid of that investment
   before they go heavily into this new technology. So I think they'll
   dibble[?] with their feet, their toes in the water, they'll build
   vehicles, ... 

From my perspective those words set the stage correctly. The incumbant, major manufactures are addicted to easy profits pushing external extravagance at the expense of real engineering advancement. Like nearly all humans, they are more comfortable with the known evil to the unknown good or evil change might bring them.

Perhaps the best example of this mindset and its propensity to recidivism is GM's Vice Chairman Robert Lutz. He slips side ways from the biggest champion of radical change at the beometh corporation where he sees the move to plug-in electric powered vehicles as his greatest acheivement. Then to admitting he is really a climate change skeptic [2.], but still a believer and pusher of electric drive. Then he seemed to rapidly transition to preferring straight hybrids [3.] over PHEV. Nonetheless, in weeks he regressed to a believer in corn ethanol E-85, that brings him full circle to the cheapest easy fix that is only a faux solution [4.].

So those words place the big players in proper context. These latter words set them on the proper path of co-operation:

   So 1.) I welcome them coming in -- we don't have an industry without
   them -- and 2.) I wish them not only luck, but if we have anything
   they can use, we're open to give it to everybody, because we believe
   competition in this particular game will bring the prices of
   everything down... and that's my goal. 

Nice words, but more important what will be the reality?

Now for some Perspective

Malcolm Bricklen's words are sensible and worthy upon their face. Nonetheless, his previous experience within the auto industry is mixed. His was an out right success bringing Subaru to North America, whereas the Yugo was a painful disaster for nearly all concerned. Despite the later I accept his assertion that one can learn from one's errors. Indeed, on this site the words are, ... more is learned by mistaken actions than easy successes.

Where I have a problem is believing that his company is so far ahead of the competition in development of superior power delivery and storage, i.e.batteries. If that assertion were really true why have none of the other myriad of startups not gotten together to order a sufficient volume of components to begin production? When I was reading and taking notes in the late Summer of 2007, I had the impression that some production was slated to being this year, 2008. Nonetheless, I have heard of no such plans in the offing. Perhaps I missed the item, but by now CalCars would have noticed for me. Other small runs are promised for this year, e.g. Aptera and Telsa [5.]. If these are Bricklen partners they have kept it a secret from all outside observers.

Bricklen's company site, Visionary Vehicles, appears more impressive than I remember it from my first visit. Nonetheless, the mockup of their vehicle still reminds me of a painted clay model still distant from production. I hope my jaundiced take is more physical disability than too an acute eye for missing structure under pinnings. Whatever the case, I wish them success or someone follows the same route more rapidly.

Open Hardware Business Model

We already know that the PHEV converters are well along on the free/open source side on computer code and electric schematics. On the computer side FLOSS is well established even as profitable businesses. Free, open designs for hardware and now hand sets are at the early stages where the designs and the advances are shared. In 2005 McNealy announced the opening of Sun's UltraSPARC describing as similar to the model used to distribute Linux. While the OpenSPARC program appears robust at Sun, I do not detect it being a cresting wave of a new way of doing business [6.]. The cause may be that the X86 type cpu design is both dominant and appears likely to remain the low priced option into the supposedly foreseeable future. This is the route of the insurgent, niche products, at this time, like Linux case, the future might appear very different.

In many respect the OpenMoko, portable cell phone hand set, is the more interesting example. It offers more than components, schematics or designs. The subversive appoach is to freely offering its CAD files that allows any entity with computer aided manufacturing resources to produce their own version. Moreover, the new model can have modifications and enhancements absent in the distributed files. While it is certainly possible the first iterations that gain attention flop or are permanently stalled by the incumbent telecoms, eventually and perhaps beginning in obscure regions of the planet one of these devices will endanger the business model now in force.

Assessment of Open Hardware Model for Vehicles

Bricklen's ideas are well based, if and only if he has the technology he implies. However, even if he holds the assests he claims, the biggest of the encumbent manufactures would still resist entering the market with someone elses for the reasons cited above. Moreover, established firms have a tendency to distrust external expertise even when offered without encumberances. Some of this is based upon egoism, some on raw fear. Nonetheless, some companies that might be near death's door might be more open to grasp the opportunity. Therefore, if Bricklen and partners have the technology a Ford Motor Co. as a virtual partner should suffice to make the components order economical attractive to begin assembly of several lines of PHEV.

What bothers me, is with each passing month the opportunity to jump start a move away from an excess of petroleum usage. One has to wonder too, how real is the supposed technological advancement if no entities can be enticed to join. Sadly this inaction makes my inherent skepticism seem well warranted.

Corrections, suggested extensions or comments: TxtEdMacs. If your mailto system fails use: TxtEdMacs [- At -] BST- SoftwareDevs (dot) com.

    © B/ST Software Developers, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Return to Home or E & E Page

____________________________________________________________________

  1. Nearly all the quotes come from the CalCars news letter
     of Aug. 22, 2007 that was from an interview with Malcolm Bricklen
     in EVWorld.  Return

  2. Look at the bottom of the page where
     Lutz says, 'he thinks global warming is a "crock of s -- ,"', but
     he remains committed to the program.  Return

  3. It is my impression that was one of his stances, however,
     I have been unable to find a link with that explicit statement.
     I believe I got that impression when there was a discussion about
     the two mode hybrid that was developed with the old Meceddes Benz
     Chyrsler group.  Return

  4. Ethanol from kernel corn is a nonstarter due to its
     meager savings in overall carbon dioxide emissions once its energy
     content, energy additions required in fertilers, harvesting and
     processing are added.  However, it is too large a topic to docu-
     ment here.  Return

  5. The $100K Telsa roadster is an all electric, but it too
     could have put exceptional batteries to good use. The Aptera also 
     begins as an all electric with a hybrid model expected in the
     future.  In both cases, high energy capacity batteries would be
     desireable.   Return

  6. Here a few links to Sun's efforts:
     Early Announcement T1
     Main Site (circa 2007)
     Details on the T2
     Return