Hasta La Gadget!

Electric car manufacturer Fisker has hit back at Consumer Reports criticisms, which described the Karma as “plagued with flaws,” and simultaneously announced a new round of private equity funding. The firm – now more than $100m better off, thanks to investment from unnamed benefactors – was quick to cite the list of accolades and successes the Karma has achieved so far, taking issue with all but a couple of Consumer Reports’ problems with the slinky sedan.

“As the Karma is a concept car come to life, packaging and visibility will of course not be that of a minivan” Fisker points out, going on to highlight that “the 66 MPGe recorded during [Consumer Reports’] testing – the highest of nearly any production car — is a great endorsement for Fisker as pioneers of this new luxury segment.” It also mentions its owner feedback section, which has a number of positive reviews.

In fact, there are only really two areas where Fisker concedes it needs to raise its game. “Plans are in place to improve sound quality, which is a new challenge for all silent-running EVs,” the company says, “while software improvements are being made to touch-screen controls to improve responsiveness and functionality.”

Despite mixed results in the market, including several Karma cars bursting into flames, Fisker continues to pull in investment. The company said that it plans to use the extra financing to continue developing the Atlantic sedan, a mid-sized version of the Karma that should be more affordable.

It will also begin a global marketing campaign, particularly focusing on the Middle East and China. So far, since its December 2011 launch, almost 1,500 Karma cars have been delivered to customers, Fisker says.

Fisker retorts to Consumer Reports amid new $100m equity round is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Tesla has admitted it has fallen short of production goals for the Model S, blaming new equipment and supplier delays for pumping out fewer than expected electric sedans. The company – which announced ambitious solar-powered charging station plans this week – says it has so far produced 255 of the Model S, of which 132 have been delivered to buyers, and leaving Tesla 4-5 weeks behind schedule. At fault, Tesla says in a shareholder filing [pdf link], is the complexity of the new equipment involved on the Model S production line.

“The Model S is an all new vehicle which we are producing with new employees using new equipment. As our main focus is on quality, we have methodically increased our Model S production at a rate slower than we had earlier anticipated” Tesla says. “To produce a vehicle that meets our quality standards requires us to carefully analyze each step of our production ramp, improve the efficiency of our manufacturing processes and continue to train our employees.”

Responsibility isn’t solely Tesla’s, however. The company is also holding its suppliers to high standards, and that has caused some hiccups with components, it claims. “Certain suppliers have experienced delays in meeting our demand” Tesla says, “and we continue to focus on supplier capabilities and constraints.”

Model S shipments to customers had previously been estimated to reach 5,000 cars by the end of 2012, with Tesla setting a production goal of 20,000 for 2013. While the company still believes that 2013 target is workable, it now suggests it will deliver at most 3,225 cars before the year is through.

Overall, though, Tesla has cut its financial outlook, from the previous $560m-600m to $400m-$440m. R&D spending is expected to diminish by 20-percent in Q3 versus Q2, and Tesla saw a significant number of cancelations from those on its reservations list. That’s predicted to become less of an issue as the delay between placing an order and receiving a car decreases in line with production climbing, however.

[via GigaOm]

Tesla slashes forecast over Model S production hiccups is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

BMW is experimenting with infrared heating systems for future cars, warming occupants in a more fuel-efficient and precise manner, and thus potentially extending the range of hybrids and EVs. The system, outlined during a BMW “innovation day,” bypasses traditional warm-air vents in favor of infrared heating surfaces that warm passengers directly. There’d be no more sitting shivering until the car warmed up in the depths of winter, either, with BMW claiming that the system can have you toasty in just 60 seconds.

Traditional heating systems warm air, which is then blown into the cabin. BMW’s new approach would be silent, with no fans required, and also use less power. Even if a car was still fitted with the existing style of HVAC system – a probability, since IR can’t be used to cool the environment, and thus air-con would still be required – BMW suggests that the infrared tech could be an added extra, similar to heated seats, and allow passengers to more directly control their own comfort.

That too would have power advantages, with the car able to turn off heating to those parts of the vehicle unoccupied by passengers. So, the front seats could be heated if it’s just two of you in the car, the back left cold, or alternatively the front passenger seat left cool while the driver and the kids in the back are kept comfortable.

For electric and hybrid vehicles, where minimizing electricity use is of particular importance since it has a direct impact on range, BMW’s new system could be a significant boon. The company also suggests a heat pump could be implemented, using waste heat from the rest of the car. In fact, BMW claims, a heat pump-equipped EV could halve the electricity required for in-cabin heating, while overall range could be improved by up to 30-percent – even with the outside temperature at freezing point.

When, exactly, we might see infrared heating in cars turn up is unclear, though it’s worth noting that BMW already offers some models with its “innovation” tech; the 7 series, for instance, uses the company’s predictive driving system, using GPS maps to decide what gear the driver might require based on the upcoming road.

BMW boosting electric vehicle range with targeted heat-rays is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Nissan and General Electric have conceded a problem with the Leaf EV, though drivers are left waiting in the middle for a fix. After Nissan Leaf owners were informed that GE Wattstation chargers could in fact damage the car during a recharge, General Electric has issued a statement blaming Nissan’s tech for the flaw, rather than its own systems.

According to GE, rather than the quality of the electricity supply coming through the Wattstation systems, it’s actually how the Leaf handles that power that’s the problem. Although the company tacitly admits that the juice can fluctuate, apparently it’s the Leaf’s software that needs to be tweaked, not its own supplies:

“Nissan and GE have completed their investigation into the instances of Nissan LEAFs experiencing on-board charging (OBC) issues when using certain EV chargers. Nissan has traced the root cause of the issue to the LEAFs OBC software that can allow damage to occur to its OBC components while using certain chargers and in certain instances, such as when a brief under voltage or blackout condition occurs” General Electric

The solution, GE claims, is a software update that will allow the Leaf’s systems to better handle the potentially wonky power supply. Until then, however, the advice is to avoid recharging at times when it’s possible that the Wattstations could be unsteady:

“Nissan is working to address this issue as quickly as possible, and in the meantime is advising customers to avoid charging during times when brownouts or momentary power dips may be likely, such as during electrical storms or high power usage on the grid” General Electric

Recharging via a regular 120V outlet is still supported and apparently unaffected by the OBC issue, though the recharging process itself will take longer than through a higher-power Wattstation.

[via Yahoo]

GE points finger at wonky Nissan Leaf software for Wattstation woes is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

“This was a mistake.” It’s not something we’re used to hearing from Apple, but the company’s abrupt turnaround on EPEAT green certification hasn’t exactly been textbook. The decision, first to opt out of having its Mac, iPad and other ranges rated, and then – in the face of consumer outcry – to push them back onto the scoreboard has been portrayed as a headstrong firm learning some humility, but it’s not enough. Apple‘s green 180 isn’t a chance to crow that a big company was forced to change its mind, it’s a hugely wasted opportunity to change how the environmental impact of our tech addiction is discussed.

I’ve not doubt that Apple made its original decision to withdraw its products from EPEAT certification for reasons that were as self-serving as they were moral. That could well have been, as has been speculated, that the environmental agency wasn’t looking as approvingly on the display-gluing involved in recent iPad and MacBook Pro construction as customers were, and Apple faced less-than-glowing grades on recycling potential. That a company – even one that plays so much on its “think different” ethos – should be primarily concerned with how well external agencies rank their products in comparison to rivals doesn’t exactly surprise me.

What comes as a disappointment is that, for many, Apple’s backtracking will be a close to the discussion. The period at the end of the earth-friendly debate; life goes back to normal, Apple’s computers, tablets and phones are “Green And Good” once more. No need to worry your pretty head about what “green” actually means.

Quick, without looking at the organization’s site, what exactly does EPEAT certification mean? What, exactly, does it test? Do you get a cover-all certificate or a scoring grade? Can one EPEAT-approved product be fundamentally better than another? If you can answer any of those questions – and, in all honesty, I had to go look up the answers myself – then I’d wager you’re in the minority of people.

“We pay lip-service to “environmentally friendly” but most of us don’t know what it means”

We pay lip-service to “environmentally friendly” but most of us don’t care enough to actually understand what that means. Apple, like probably most companies, knows that. I’ve a suspicion – though Apple is unlikely to either confirm or deny it – that the decision to opt-out of EPEAT ratings was because the current standard of certification wouldn’t portray Macs and other Apple hardware in the most positive of lights. A PR move, then, and one reversed when the extent of the fall-out from that decision became apparent.

I’ll say it again, I don’t really blame them for that. Apple always slots a brief section on eco-credentials into each hardware keynote, usually to talk about how there’s no arsenic involved and such, but how many people would even notice if that part was missing? How many listen and think “hang on, why isn’t Lenovo, and Dell, and HP, and Acer, and ASUS, and Sony, and all the other PC manufacturers telling me the green-cred of their products when they launch?” We hardly hold companies to account for their environmental responsibilities; is it any surprise when they take a more pragmatic approach to them themselves?

The missed opportunity is ours – and Apple’s, and EPEAT’s, and the government’s – to ask what, exactly, is being tested here and why it’s important. It’s a missed chance for education into something with more long-term importance than DDR2 versus DDR3 RAM or which Intel processor to go for. Apple could have led the conversation on the eco-impact of our hunger for technology, but it backed off and gave us what the majority was asking for, and no more. In the end, though, we’ve only got ourselves to blame for that.

Apple’s Green Turnaround Makes Me Blue is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.