[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Besides, I like dealing with numbers, hard evidence, and rational decision. As such, it's not hard for me to see why Detroit doesn't want any electric cars on the roads, like when they killed off the EV-1. The electric cars have batteries, an electronics system, motors, a very simple gearbox and brakes. I know that this is quite a simplification, but part for part, an EV has less moving parts than a internal combustion car.

Let me tell you what as an electrical engineering major your explanation reeks of not making a bit of sense. In terms of complexity the electric car wins out. In fact the way the Tesla Roadster was designed they had to face the all too real concern of how to not make it explode when scenario x happens. With scenario x as being weird as getting into a severe crash. People don't want to drive cars that can explode.

Originally Posted by artdutra04

So as a company executive looking to maximized profits for their shareholders, which makes more sense: a vehicle with less parts than can break or a vehicle with more moving parts (and hence the potential for more profits)? If I was that company executive, I'd sure pick the latter to score brownie points with the investors, as is that not the job of a company executive, to maximize profits?

In that regard the Tesla Roadster would win out. Those exploding batteries also have a set lifespan that doesn't depend on use. Apple faced the same problems with the Ipods though their response was to idiotically demand that the consumer buy a new Ipod.

They aren't that stupid. Honest.

Well..... If I remember correctly the Pinto had a puncutre proof bladder that ensured gasoline would never leak out of the car in the event of an accident.