Slashdot Mirror
Aiming To Beat Tesla's "3", Chevy Tests and Teases a Cheaper 200-Mile Electric Car
PC Magazine is one of many to note Chevrolet's upcoming effort to beat Tesla's Model 3 to market with a car that is "affordable" (a lot more affordable than the Model S) but which tops the 200-mile range that right now only Tesla beats in a widely available pure electric car. The Model 3 is expected to feature many of the features of the currently Tesla S variants, but in a smaller package and with a much lower price tag. The linked article features GM-supplied video of Chevy's all-elecric bolt, about which it says The car maker doesn't reveal much beyond what we already know: 200-plus-mile range and a starting price tag of $30,000. The video shows various Chevy engineers putting the camouflage-wrapped Bolt EV through its paces—climbing hills, accelerating, and coming to a stop, as well as enduring extreme heat and charging.
Like most low end Chevy vehicles it'll probably be a complete shame and do the meaning of the word 'electric', that Tesla has worked so hard to craft prestige into, a disservice. 200 miles isn't enough. People will walk away from electric like they walked away from Atari going 'huh, video games are dumb'.
2.5). ???
which tops the 200-mile range
Sounds to me like Chevy is picking a range that they can beat, rather than competing with the Tesla. I have a friend with one and it's range is a little better than 280 miles on a full charge. And believe me, on a long trip that difference is critical. He's done several trips (and I've been on one with him) where a 200 mile range just wouldn't have cut it. But if you can't match the Tesla's range, I guess the next best thing is to pick a lower number and call the Tesla's range "over" that so that you can claim to be over that new lower number too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Tesla Model 3 will not be in the same league as Bolt. Bolt is competing with Leaf. If still in doubt, knowing that Model 3 is said to be in the same class as BMW 3, ask yourself in what way Bolt can compete with BMW?
We need something that is much cheaper than the Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, Smart EV or Chevrolet Bolt.
The first company which can make a 10000$ electric car (and that is road-legal in all countries) will dominate the market.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
not using safesearch
There's no way it can compete with Tesla M3 on equal ground.
Sure they can, they have about 100x the manufacturing capability of Tesla. They have dealers and showrooms and distribution already set up all over the planet. If the market takes off they are MUCH better positioned to get cars made and distributed and sold and supported than a company with basically no distribution network and no dealers.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-transaction-price-3-kbb-kelley-blue-book/26690191/
"The estimated average transaction price of a new car or truck sold in the U.S. in April was $33,560"
Stop bitching about "expensive" electric cars. These new models from Chevy and Tesla are pretty much the same price as the old fashioned gasoline burning, fume belching models.
Most people want a car that looks fun and interesting
Yeah whatever, I have a dented fender on purpose. People see it and they just give me the right of way. I'll take that over a shiny "fun" car any day.
It does seem like Tesla Motors is the only company that believes an electric car should look like a "normal full-size car," rather than some dinky ugly econo-box. I guess this is the result of the company not having any ulterior motives or competing product lines, so they're actually motivated to do the best job they possibly can.
not only that, but we have bolts in the wild, we still dont know what the tesla M3 will look like
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It does seem like Tesla Motors is the only company that believes an electric car should look like a "normal full-size car,"
They don't have any other models to fall back on, so they are forced to "conservatively" design a car that is visually "acceptable" to just about everyone.
The big automakers have much more freedom to experiment with different designs. And you know what? You are not the arbiter of fashion in the automotive world. It's the consumers that decide what is "good looking". Some cars look ugly and yet they sell well. De gustibus non est disputandem. The sales figures will tell you what "looks good".
Don't you have a fucking spellchecker?
I prefer a spellchecker that can keep it in its pants
That thing got beat with the nasty end of the ugly stick. I predict they won't sell many just because it's soooo damn ugly, no matter what the underpinnings might be or what kind of range it gets.
You DO understand that the Bolt is just a Chevrolet Spark with an electric drivetrain? Look at the pictures.
And then realize that the identical-looking gasoline powered Spark is actually selling well:
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2015/05/01/chevy-spark-ev-price-cut-appears-to-have-worked-as-april-sales-surge/
so much for "no matter what the underpinnings might be"
They have dealers and showrooms and distribution already set up all over the planet. If the market takes off they are MUCH better positioned to get cars made and distributed and sold and supported than a company with basically no distribution network and no dealers.
Well, maybe. On the other hand, given how much people hate car dealerships, I'm not sure having a big network of dealerships (and forcing anyone who wants to buy your product to haggle with them) is necessarily such a big advantage anymore.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In Bob Lutz's book, Car Guys vs. Bean Counters, he discussed the inception of the Chevy Volt, how it progressed through design concepts, was unveiled to the world in 2007 to widespread acclaim over its look (but with very mixed responses to its then-new lithium-ion battery design, something Toyota called "dangerous"), and then when the production version was rolled out was called ugly and dismissed by many. The problem is that what looks great in design can fail miserably when it gets into the wind tunnel. (Lutz says that when they started wind tunnel testing, the results were so bad that they wondered if they put it in backward.)
It's relatively easy to make a car that gets good numbers out of a wind tunnel, but the Pontiac Aztek was able to do that and it's widely regarded as one of the ugliest cars ever made. It's difficult to make a car look really good and still keep the cost down, especially when you're trying to integrate it into existing production lines. GM may be better off making a competitor to the Model S in its Cadillac line, but by making an inexpensive but potentially not as attractive car, it can sell more and lower its fleet mileage, giving it breathing room with less efficient cars like the Camaro and Corvette and its truck lines.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
That's the concept car, not the test car. Concept cars almost never make it to production looking like they did at the initial roll-out. Even with the camouflage, it's obvious that the body has undergone some major design changes including a lower angle from the front of the hood to the peak of the roof. The grill is also different, and the windows have a slightly different shape.
GM doesn't put the money into these things to fail. Designing a new car costs tens of millions of dollars. GM is still behind the curve on efficiency, too, so it needs the credits against its fleet mileage. That doesn't remove the possibility of just bad design (the Pontiac Aztek made it through to production), but I expect that they want this to succeed badly, if only to get a start on competing against the Model 3. If they can get something acceptable out first, the first redesign will probably hit right after the Model 3 hits the market with its own teething problems, and there will be stronger competition for the electric cars that average people can afford.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
It does seem like Tesla Motors is the only company that believes an electric car should look like a "normal full-size car,"
They don't have any other models to fall back on, so they are forced to "conservatively" design a car that is visually "acceptable" to just about everyone.
The big automakers have much more freedom to experiment with different designs>
The big automakers aren't "experimenting". Making an electric power-plant that fits their performance and mileage needs to compete is difficult so they're using the easiest target to get there -- a chassis that's the lightest and chintziest possible while still meeting safety requirements.
Look at the body style of that car, and compare to a Toyota Prius -- not a huge difference in vehicle body style.
Look at that car and compare to econoboxes of old (Ford Feista) -- still a hatchback box. Just has before.
Where's the "experimenting" in copying old designs for electric and high-efficiency vehicles?
That's the concept car, not the test car. Concept cars almost never make it to production looking like they did at the initial roll-out.
You're right. If sports car concepts are any indication, it will be even less attractive in the production version.
Teslas won't get "fun and interesting" until they get cheap enough in a few years to start getting in the hands of the tuners.
Personally, I'm going to lower mine all around, give it some pneumatics and hang some big exhaust pipes off the back. Then, I'm going to get a recording of a 1969 Plymouth Super Bee and pipe it though the exhaust tips. I can't wait to see the faces of people at the stop lights.
You are welcome on my lawn.
There's one other - VW. The eGolf looks basically exactly like a normal golf (with the exception of the front grill being filled in to aid aerodynamics).
And yes, this is exactly the reason that I just leased a new eGolf, and not any of the other electric options.
I like what Musk is doing. But this just smacks of something akin to Apple's reality distortion field. The article is ostensibly about the Chevy Bolt EV. But it spends half the text talking about the Tesla Model 3 without actually saying anything new about it.
GM has too many cars, but many of the cars they have are good and sellling well. Having many models is a winning strategy for BMW, which builds the many models out of pieces of other models; and it's going to be an even better strategy for them going forwards if they adopt the i3's construction methods for more of their low-production vehicles. Using their particular method of using carbon fiber is less expensive than typical processes (it saves less weight too, but still saves most of it) but eliminates most of the tooling costs. For limited production runs (like the i3) eliminating the tooling needed to stamp sheet metal panels saves hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Right now, Chevy has the Cruze, Sonic, Spark, Impala, and Malibu cars at a time when car sales are declining and crossover sales continue to rise. That is probably too many cars for a struggling (if venerable) marque to sustain while also marketing the Bolt and the Volt (ugh.)
With that said, the Bolt and the Volt are two of the most interesting cars on or near the road at the moment — not from an enthusiast standpoint, but from a sales standpoint. "Everybody" is interested in high-mileage EVs for low money, and the Volt is the hybrid of the hour. But Chevy's model strategy still seems a little confused.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Given the EV1s apparently cost over $100k each, everyone who leased one for a fraction of its value sure should have loved it.
This looks like just another sucky electric car that costs more than a Civic and all the fuel the Civic will ever burn.
I rented a gasoline powered Chevy Spark a year ago. It's one of the worst cars I've ever driven. The seats felt damned uncomfortable (even though there was plenty of room for me), the dashboard was a clusterfuck to put it mildly and I knew when I was going 65 on the freeway because I knew damned sure I didn't want to go any faster in the thing. It just felt unstable. It was worse than the car I had in college, and it was an under-powered piece of crap from the early 1980s. I hear the Spark EV is a lot better. Then again my last three cars were a '91 Ford Probe, '06 Toyota Prius, and currently a Tesla model S. The only car that I've driven that was worse was the one I learned to drive on, a 1970 Toyota Corona with shitty brakes that barely worked.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
so much for "no matter what the underpinnings might be"
Chevrolet Spark: MSRP $13k to $17k, according to Chevrolet's web site.
Chevrolet Bolt: MSRP $37,500 minus $7,500 of taxpayer subsidies, according to these articles.
That extra $13k-17k buys a lot of gas.
The Bolt looks like a car that is made to compete against the Mitsubishi i-MiEV. This is a great commute vehicle for an urban setting where you spend most of your time sitting at 0 RPM at lights or in traffic. But for something that might attract Tesla owners? That is like asking Corvette owners to buy a Sentra SE-R, or a Type R Civic.
Here is my dumb question: What is wrong with the Chevy Volt that the Bolt even needs to exist in the first place?
The current Volt is a completely electric car. Plug it in at night, and all that. However, having the gasoline engine means no range anxiety, so while the Leaf and the Tesla owner are back at home switching cars, the Volt is on the highway for a long trip. This is definitely a decent compromise between having an EV for commutes, and a second IC based vehicle for long trips.
This is basically what the Volt should have been.
Even though the Volt degraded into a disappointing electromotive hybrid with engine assistance while still being far in advance of the Toyota HSG, it took least one billion dollars of research before GM went bankrupt. Hopefully, GM can recoup some of those lost dollars with the Bolt and give us the electric vehicle we were promised with the Volt, but this time, it will have no petroleum engine.
Kriston
However, having the gasoline engine means no range anxiety, so while the Leaf and the Tesla owner are back at home switching cars, the Volt is on the highway for a long trip.
The gasoline engine adds a lot of weight, complexity, and cost. If eliminating it can take a Volt's ~30 miles of range up to 100 miles without increasing the cost by substituting a bigger battery instead of the engine, while you still can't take it on a highway trip, that's 3 times the range for pure electric(IE avoiding the cost of gasoline) for running around town.
Besides, the vast majority of EV buyers are multiple car homes - they're not taking the volt on a road trip, they're taking something even more 'suitable' from the prospects of comfort, cargo capacity, etc... In my area it'd probably be a crew-cab F250.
I don't read AC A human right
You do know that you can get it with variable height and air suspension right from the factory, right?
It was on the news here - After an accident Tesla disabled their cars from running so low on the highway to improve resistance against ground debris. Cost some energy efficiency. After they distributed shields, that was re-enabled.
I don't read AC A human right
The same thing happened with the Volt when the look everyone loved turned out to perform poorly in the wind tunnel. They've since cleaned up the look a little, but it still doesn't look nearly as cool as the concept car did.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
You need to grow up. A car is to transport you from A to B. If you do a lot of driving then things like power, interior comfort and equipment become important. But exterior looks? You can't even see it when you're driving. You only see it for the few seconds when you're walking towards it to get in.
If you're buying for the looks, you're buying it to show off, because you have an inferiority complex. And a small dick.
Here's my opinion on a 200 mile range:
For me, if I can get 200 miles per tank out of a conventional car, that is no problem whatsoever. I'd like it to be more, but 200 is honestly fine for me. I don't speak for everyone else but my suspicions is that for most people, they could live with having to refill their car with gasoline every 200 miles.
200 miles for an electric vehicle, specifically an electric-only vehicle... well it's just not the same. It sounds the same but it really isn't. When you have a conventional car, you can rest assured that no matter what direction you are going, you're probably never too far from a service station. That's just the infrastructure we have after generations of using gasoline-powered cars. Fair enough. There are exceptions, like expanses of sparsely-populated areas etc. but you're very rarely in a situation where you have to consciously think about the path you take, whether to alter it because you might run out, plan out a contingency if you can't find a service station, amongst other things. Hell, you could almost completely avoid the problem just by bringing a full jerry can along.
But with an electric vehicle, your options even today are still far more limited and your situation far more dire if you end up running out of juice. I live in Japan and I've started to see many electric recharge stations popping up, usually near large parking structures and/or newly constructed shopping malls in high-density urban areas. This is great to see but they're still not as common as a regular service station. Even more so once you head out of the cities.
So 200 mile range in an EV is still not comparable to 200 mile range in a conventional car. I'd probably need an EV to have 300 to 350 mile range before I considered it on an even keel with a conventional car in terms of 'empty tank anguish'. That said, I love that we are taking steps forward to pull away from conventional gasoline-powered cars. It requires patience, early adopters, investment and bridging steps (eg hybrid vehicles, government or manufacturer-sponsored incentive programs). Many Japanese cities provide reduced registration costs, sometimes free inspections (mandated by law for all cars every two years), partial reimbursement of inner-city parking fees, etc. I'm on my second hybrid vehicle and can't wait until the all-electrics become super-practical. Until then, I applaud attempts to market these advancements, even if they might be only baby-steps.
People that believe in Apple's reality distortion field are the kind of people that fall for perpetual motion machines.
If Apple didn't actually deliver devices that people love, they wouldn't be able to continue to be the most popular brand of smartphones whilst charging a significant premium.
The so called RDF Is a simply a trustworthy brand. A brand is a promise of quality, and even though they aren't perfect, they do deliver better quality than any other manufacturer. They deliver on their promise. They beat all other companies in customer satisfaction surveys year in year out.
It's more similar to the Sonic, but it's not exactly the same. I'd withhold judgment until I could test drive one, or had at least read independent reviews.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
There was less curation in the market back then, and by 1983, retail shelves were full of poorly balanced games. In addition, some distributors were doing sleazy business deals where they'd offer a money-back guarantee for returned games but then go bankrupt in order not to have to honor the contract. These led up to the North American video game recession of 1983-1984, which is why consoles to this day have lockout chips.
and I knew when I was going 65 on the freeway because I knew damned sure I didn't want to go any faster in the thing.
rotfl that was my experience, too......going up the on-ramp, accelerator floored, and not going any faster.......
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's 2015 and Americans are still dealing with the backlash over the terrible diesels that GM released in the 70s.
I laugh to myself every time someone tries to tell me how 'awesome' their 30 MPG is. I've been driving at 45-50MPG since I bought my first car 20 years ago.
Sadly we don't even get the best diesels Europe has to offer because there just isn't a big enough market.
What dealer would enthusiastically sell a car they don't need to service?
(Why do you think the Volt doesn't sell better?)
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Tesla was a pioneer in the field of "electric cards that are not grocery getters", so it's reasonable that every other company is compared to them. BTW, the article doesn't mention whether the new GM vehicle can use Tesla's network of "superchargers". And if they can, will the pricing scheme be the same for GM owners (compared to Tesla owners). Musk built an infrastructure advantage for Tesla, which traditional carmakers will struggle to beat.
GM had a much sought after electric car and declined to allow customers to keep the car or get access to new ones. In other words GM has shown a dedication to stopping electric cars. This is likely an attempt to ruin Tesla rather than any real commitment to advancing electric vehicles. So go buy a Chevy electric and learn that if you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.
Granted, it's been many years since i was an avid reader of PC Format and the likes, but it seems kind of weird for a computer magazine to write about a car. Is this common these days to have "PC" equal "techie things"?
But the IC engine tech and transmission technologies are essentially tapped out. They have been refined for so long, there is not much of cost savings you could squeeze there. Same is true for electric motors, they are 100 years old, but they are new for automobile traction application. Some small savings and fine tuning can be expected. And electric motors are inherently cheaper and more versatile than IC engine+transmission. The battery technology has just started and it is still in the exponential cost reduction phase. So electric cars are going to get much cheaper in the future.
The IC engine based car market has some inertia working for it. Lots of drivers, whose usage profile does not warrant 300 mile range and 10 minute fill up are still buying IC engine cars due to inertial, marketing, range anxiety etc. 90% of the cars put in less than 100 miles a day for 360 days out a year. They would be better of renting gasoline cars for the few days they do need it. But their traditional thinking and risk aversion if subsidizing and amortizing the IC engine market fixed costs.
This is not a pretty place to be from market share stand point for the IC engines. Market could just collapse rapidly. Remember the collapse of steam locomotives market to diesel electric in mere 10 years. Recall the collapse of public transit trolley and street car systems.
As people start taking up electric cars, the fixed costs of IC engine market will be borne by lesser and lesser number of people. Traction battery market would benefit by swelling ranks of new users.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That sounds like my dad's old Datsun 210. Smallest engine, automatic transmission. On entrance ramps, you just floored it and prayed.
The so called RDF Is a simply a trustworthy brand. A brand is a promise of quality, and even though they aren't perfect, they do deliver better quality than any other manufacturer. They deliver on their promise. They beat all other companies in customer satisfaction surveys year in year out.
In our contemporary world where any sort of "promise of quality" is seen as quaint and most companies see their established brand names as something to be cashed in for executive bonuses, people are trained to not give any weight at all to brands. See the AC response for a great example of that.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
How do you like it so far? Any caveats or quibbles?
Past experience with both gas & diesel Golfs has been satisfying.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
"you have an inferiority complex. And a small dick."
The Department of Redundancy Department would like to have a word.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I own a Volt and love my Volt, but you are right. The ICE makes the car much more complicated that it would be if it were a BEV.
But 100 miles is still not enough.
I have a 78 mile round trip commute (live in a rural area) and am able to charge at work in a shop, but sometimes the welding plug I used is being used or the bay is taken up by a tractor or truck being worked on.
When I was shopping to replace my 10 year old Sonata, I loved the idea of an electric car, but the current gen of affordable EVs with their 80 miles of real world range just weren't nearly enough.
200 miles would definitely be doable for me though.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
caught fire three weeks later in the test center parking lot
There was and is no "battery fire issue".
Internal combustion engine cars catch on fire at a much higher rate than EVs do.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
The saddest part of the Volt was how heavily hyped it was. Even as a solid and not bad looking car, there was no way it could do anythig but disappoint after years and years of press releases, demoing mules, and teasing.
The Bolt appears to be following the same path.
I have been following these two cars for years since they have been announced. I have seen nothing on the features offered on either car, outside of the price and range promises. The pictures of the bolt look nice (maybe) but until I can sit in one, I will withhold my judgement. They have not released any info on the model 3 so I can judge nothing.
My bets are: If we are talking tesla, it will be $30k but if you want any feature that makes a tesla a tesla, you will have to spend another $15k to make it right. If you are talking chevy, it will be pretty good, but another $2k for leather and heated seats and a sat nav. That is the difference between companies. Tesla is not going to give you self driving, or the IPAD style interior unless you pay for it. Chevy will give you most of it.
But 100 miles is still not enough.
Not enough for you. Keep statistical curves in mind - there are too many little caveats like yours to explain each possibility in a post and still keep it short enough to avoid truncation.
Longer ranged is good, but longer range costs more money. When they did the math, 60 miles is enough for something like 70% of the population. 100 miles might reach 75%. 200 miles 80%. IE they increase by less population per mile added, at least beyond about 60 miles.
So, at least until batteries drop by half a couple times, hybrids are still your best bet, my road warrior friend.
Or until you can convince your work to add another high energy plug somewhere else.
I don't read AC A human right
Things I've observed in the short term:
For the most part it feels just like any other golf.
When you're driving around with not many people around you, it's eerily quiet.
On the front of quietness - people don't notice you. Expect people to step out in front of you in supermarket car parks.
Range really suffers going up a hill - on the plus side, you get it all back as you go back down the hill.
Range seems to be roughly as advertised (if not a little more).
Charging seems to be substantially slower than advertised, but that's okay, it has basically a whole day to charge at the weekend.
Averages, while nice, have no bearing on reality. The average day is likely a word day. People are going to want to use the vehicle for longer distances and needing to own an additional vehicle (and pay the appropriate fees) negates the value of the EV in the first place. No, you can make up a variety of situations in your head and they do not matter one bit. We are talking about people here, they are doing to do what is best for them and will care little about externalities. If you average it out, I probably drive about 20 miles per day. Unfortunately, that means that when I go to town I would *barely* get there and back on a 200 mile battery if I did not use the radio, AC, heat, or things like that. If I used those then I may well not make it back. I am one of many. People want to travel further than 40 miles. Five times that number is a good starting point but hardly an end point. Your lack of initiative is not the market.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It is a hybrid but I understand they plan to make an all EV out of it as well so, well, have you seen the BMW i8? They do have a current EV offering that is a bit stylish but, alas, it too is a box. I believe it was an i3. I do not recall as I did not review it for long as it is does not suit my needs. The i8 is certainly stylish and is a handsome offering.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
My wife and I test drove one recently when we had to get her a new car. Aside from a visibility problem for her over her left shoulder, she loved it and we would have bought it. We had it for about a half-hour, and she put it through some good paces, testing acceleration, braking, and essentially slaloming through a mall parking lot. When we got back to the dealer, we realized that the car wasn't even in performance mode. Had that visibility issue not seriously bothered her, we would have bought the car right there instead of getting the Prius-V (which is certainly more practical but a lot less fun).
I'd love to get one, but I work from home and drive *maybe* once a week, so there's no sense in dropping $35K on a new car that will get a few hundred miles put on it each year.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Have you not seen the i8?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
A 200 mile range means that the car will be usable for long road trips, making it possible for an EV to be your only car. With one charging stop you can go 400 miles, which is about as much as most people would care to drive in a day.
I don't understand the 200 mile fixation designer has. Most (75% I think)cars only drive 40 miles per day.
Even if that's true, the point is that people don't want to have to recharge their car every evening. Once a week is acceptable.
It's similar to why cars don't have one gallon gas tanks.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Image.
That thing got beat with the nasty end of the ugly stick. I predict they won't sell many just because it's soooo damn ugly, no matter what the underpinnings might be or what kind of range it gets.
You don't make a car that ugly by accident. You make it that ugly because you WANT it to fail.
It just looks like any number of other small hatchbacks to me.
Most people don't drive classic Ferraris.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
The Volt doesn't sell better because it costs $40k and it's ugly as heck. For the same money I could buy a much nicer car. It's cool technology in an ugly and overpriced package.
Stick that tech in a Camaro body and people might pay for it. In a body that makes a Malibu look sexy, what's the point?
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
Are you referring to the early 1980s video game crash? After Atari made TONS AND TONS AND TONS of money? .. and there were tons of really junky cartridges being put out.
Aside from leaving out all electricity costs and depreciation of the battery, that is.