Talk:Henney Kilowatt

novel tech?

What was this transistor technology that made the car modern? Electric cars had been around for a while. Most significant advances are in motor technology. For example, modern cars use three-phase AC. Transistors aided in power conversion? Potatoswatter 11:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This seemed implausible to me, so I looked around, and found an owner's site that describes the "six-step" control and has a picture of the relays that accomplish that: [1]. They sure don't look like transistors to me. There are what might be diodes--probably part of the on-board charger. Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get the reference from my library. Searching Google Books, it seems the Henney has proved popular, but as little more than a tiny historical footnote with little definite information. Even before WP, several books have repeated verbatim the vague "first transistor-based" phrase. I betcha the ultimate source was marketing materials. From http://www.intrepid-travelers.com/EVinfo/factsheet.html, it doesn't look like the engineering or manufacturing is anywhere near sophisticated enough to be using transistors at all. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

conflicting source

The official Eureka site [[2]] cites 1961 as the introduction year. -- Elaich 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article needs serious fact-checking. The car is mainly interesting as an original development, but it's unclear what its development actually consisted of. There is excessive posturing to relate the car and related people to other developments.

From the information provided, it's entirely possible that 100 Renault Dauphines were built from kits sans drivetrain, replaced with some lead-acid batteries, a DC motor, and a simple electromechanical voltage regulator. Advanced for 1910 but in 1960 it would be as generic and blasé a corporate stunt as today. Potatoswatter (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ in regards to calling Henney's effort a "stunt". I wouldn't say the Kilowatt was by any means a revolutionary vehicle - but then, who else was making an attempt to build roadworthy electric cars in the 1960s? It's notable for at least that fact, even if the execution was not the greatest. Duncan1800 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to agree on the worth of the development of the Kilowatt: we all agree that it's over the threshold of notability such that it belong in wikipedia. Beyond that, our opinions about the worthiness of it don't belong in the article even if we did agree. I think the main problem is the lead--it makes grand claims about the significance that aren't really supported by either the rest of the article or by adequate sources. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. Notability is established and I don't mean to belittle it so much. It is simply that the evidence seems to me that the Kilowatt was exactly what you would expect from the "low" technology of the day, and that I'm not aware of any revolutions in lead-acid batteries or mechanical relays between 1910 and 1960. Vacuum tubes and transistors were not suitable/affordable for powering automobiles at the time. We do need to verify that transistors were used at all, and for what, however. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to write a comment despairing of ever finding out whether it really had transistors when I found an EV mailing list discussion about that pointing to this wiring diagram: [3]. There are power diodes so it could be called "solid state" but not "transistorized".Ccrrccrr (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and butchered the lead. There wasn't much left to say once the fluff was removed. I also added a sentence on the speed controls and referenced the wiring diagram I listed just above. I looked at the Sci. Am. article that was referenced in the lead as evidence that HK technology led to later EVs and hybrids and found no mention or hint at that whatsoever. So I deleted that reference and the information that was said to come from it, though I retained it later just for the fact the Wouk invented hybrids...although on second thought the article mentions much earlier hybrids so it's hardly evidence that he invented them! Will fix that too.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I got here over a decade late... The entire article reads like a collector trying to promote the curiosity-car he's got in inventory, wishing to make it relevant.

The first subtitle "Funding" is amusing: there's nothing about 'funding', instead there is a bunch of nonsense on Henney Motor Company's reputation as if they had conceived a new car - when the car was simply a Renault Dauphine with an electric powertrain. On the lead, "The car used some body parts as made for the Renault Dauphine". No, the car body was that of the Dauphine entirely, period. (and, therefore, 99% chance, suspension, brakes and complete interior as well, with a few minor adjustments)

The thing turned out so irrelevant that - as the article itself claims (!!) - from the 100 planned units only 32 have been produced and the first two of those for collection.

Significance??? Nop. None. An automotive curiosity worth an honest article? Yep! Definitely.

Thank you, Ccrrccrr and Potatoswatter for keeping it sane! Brunobgl (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

plug in?

The description as "first plug-in electric vehicle" is ridiculous. Early 1900s electrics were of course also plug-in. What else would they be? People didn't drive 20 miles and then throw away the batteries.

The reference 1973 "New Encyclopedia" reference is messed up. The 1973 edition is titled "Complete Encyclopedia". I'm not sure which edition was intended or what it said.

The "first transistorized" and the statements about how important that is are silly. We know from the wiring diagram and photos of the circuits that there are no transistors in the power system. It may have had a transistor radio or some minor tranistorized control circuits, but that would not constitute a milestone in EV development.Ccrrccrr (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who just tried to add back in a claim that it was the first plug in hybrid needs to explain here how that claim could be valid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Or, in this case, claims that are clearly absurd.

At this point I guess we can only agree that an early citation (or two) suggest that the vehicle was the first "plug-in" electric, but I acknowledge that inclusion of the term "plug-in" requires further research. I am at the Harvard U archives now and will try to sort through the original citations of the vehicle as the first "plug-in electric" vehicle to make some sense of the original claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.15.92 (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

mass production

Mass production (also called flow production, repetitive flow production, series production, or serial production) is the production of large amounts of standardized products, including and especially on assembly lines. (see the wikipedia page on mass production). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.15.92 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

re: "Additionally, that edit claimed that the 47 Kilowatts were the first mass production auto. I don't see how 47 cars count as mass production when the 4000 Milburns (1915-1923) or the 1000 to 2000 Detroit Electrics made per year in the 1910s don't." - No offense is intended, but large numbers do not equate to "mass production". Mass production is a moniker that describes a type of manufacturing process rather than the numbers produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.15.92 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the sources are making silly claims like that, they are clearly not reliable sources, so I'm not sure we should quote them at all. But if you like we could add a section titled Hype and discuss the extraordinary claims made for this vehicle as a cultural phenomenon.Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have specific information about what production techniques were used to make the 47 Kilowatts and there is something notable about the techniques, and they were either developed after c. 1920 and so weren't available for the production of thousands of EVs in the 1910s, I'd be very interested to include that. (Mass production techniques got started in the late 1800s, and undoubtedly some of them were used in making EVs in the 1910s.) But putting that dubious content in the first sentence of the article does not make sense to me.

Also, you complain about "were common" being a weasel word, but then you replace it with "a few". How is that better? Hopefully the specific data I replaced it with is satisfactory.Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your effort Ccrrccrr. It's nice to take the diff over the last couple days, and see an improvement after all that. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the disputed claim of being the first "mass production" electric automobile. Ccrrccrr, the term "mass production" refers to the techniques used in production, not the volume. For example, Van Gogh produced thousands of paintings in his short career - but they were definately not "mass production" pieces of art. On the other hand, the "art factories" that exist today in Ningbo China employ assembly line artists to reproduce VanGogh works using mass production techniques whereby one painter ads yellow strokes in the same place on each painting and the next "artist" adds a green stroke, etc. These paintings are "mass production" works - irrespective of how many paintings are made.

In speaking of automotive history, the term mass production is generally used to identify automobiles that were built in an assembly line fashion rather than being built individually (i.e., one at a time). Since this type of manufacturing process is widely accepted to have been introduced to the automotive industry by Henry Ford in the 1920s, you would have to have some pretty convincing evidence to support the claim that the late 1800s and early 1900s electric vehicles were built using mass production techniques. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the Henney Kilowatt vehicles were produced using Mass Production technique. Thus, I concur with the earlier edit and think it appropriate to acknowledge the Henney Kilowatt as the first mass production electric vehicle.dp_roberson

If there is reliable source with information about that production methods used, I'm all for putting it in. But I think that putting in "first mass production EV" is problematic both because of the fact that it's vague, and because we don't have solid information about it. If you want to propose something more specific, like "first EV built on an assembly line," we'd then have something that we could specifically research and confirm on deny. Of course, it shouldn't go into the article until after we have the evidence.

In any case, we shouldn't have the disputed content in the lead, so I'm going to revert that. I suggest that if you want to add more information about this, it go in the section "significance". If that section becomes compelling, then we should have a discussion about putting it in the lead. I'm not attached to that title, but the way--if you think there should be a section titled "mass production" or something like that.

You might check out the history in the assembly line article before making arguments based on that history. And I was talking about early 1900s EVs, not late 1800s EVs.

I feel bad about reverting your edit without making an attempt to put more of the content you are trying to add into the Significance section, but I would feel phony doing that and might not end up doing it justice.

-- Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)