Transcript of Proceedings

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Washington, D.C.

Thursday, 14 July 1977

Negative Articles Effect on the EV Industry

Consumers Union in 1975, in its October issue, evaluated the Sebring-Vanguard Citicar and the Elcar. Both vehicles are minicars with a drive train layout similar to golf carts. The magazine found them not acceptable. I have no quarrel with the right of an opinion or how they derived it.

However, we disagree with how the material was presented in their search of industry representaion. They failed to make mention of availability of other vehicles that complied with safety aspects that the Citicar and the Elcar did not.

Specifically such vehicles as the EVA Metro, the Otis P500 van, the electric fuel propulsion vehicle or the jet industry’s van. Without this balancing coverage, EVs in general were granted unacceptable in the public eye by this magazine.

We contacted Consumers Union and offered our vehicle for test without charge for them to get another approach to the EV design problem and how we approached it. Consumers Union informed us they had no budget for a second test now, but would keep us in mind. One year later, Consumers Union did a retest of the Citicar and reached the same unacceptable rating. Again, no mention of other available electric vehicles.

The response of Consumers Union by our office — to our office was that it was a particular foul-up because of the improvements claimed by the Sebring-Vanguard and that they hadn’t thought that other vehicles produced in enough quantity were worthy of consideration. Either way, the damage has been done. The industry image of what someone would call non-industry was tainted.

However, EVA did get some serendipity out of this procedure in that in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, the Citicar was on display as the Consumer Union article hit — the first one. The newspaper article headlined, quote, “Electric Cars Condemned.” Close quote.

Public Hearing on the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle. Thursday, 14 July 1977. Transcript of Proceedings. Page 6 – 7.

Effects of a Crash

The crash worthiness of present electric cars is also well below the norm for other small cars. In a recent North Carolina accident, a Citi Car was driven at 25 miles per hour into the side of a Toyota which ran a stop sign. “Virtually every weld” in the Citi Car frame broke on impact. The driver suffered leg injuries and lacerations as the Citi Car’s front end crushed and the body plastic shattered. The Toyota, in the disadvantaged side impact position, suffered less severe damages than the Citi Car. Total damages awarded for the Citi Car plaintiff amounted to $43,000.

Public Hearing on the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle. Thursday, 14 July 1977. Transcript of Proceedings. Page 55 – 56.

Crash Testing & Compliance

In illustration is the following quote from the contractor’s report of a compliance crash test run for NHTSA with a Citicar manufactured by Sebring Vanguard. The frontal barrier crash was to have been run at 30 miles per hour, but the impact speed actually was only 21 miles per out.

Nonetheless:

– “Upon impact, the steering hub moved upwards and the steering wheel rim contacted the windshield which subsequently dislodged from its mountain and fell to ground level…”

– “The floor pan cracked and ripped apart across the width of the passenger compartment. The driver’s side was pushed upward and rearward leaving a hole at the driver’s foot position. The right front floor pan was also pushed upward.”

– “The 12-volt auxiliary battery was located forward of the right front passenger’s toe board. This battery dislodged and … acid from this battery spilled onto the passenger’s floorboard.”

– “Both hinges of the right door broke and when opened, the door became totally detached. The left door’s upper hinge was broken and the bottom hinge was cracked. When the car was moved, the left door fell off.”

– “Additionally, the vehicles framework was extensively damaged…”

Although some dealers still offer Citicars for sale, Sebring Vanguard reportedly has suspended production. But this does not help people who are already driving around in Citicars — vehicles that even in crashes well below the minimum compliance test speed set by NHTSA could be expected to perform in ways inexcusable inimical to the life and health of the occupants, as shown in the above quoted compliance test results.

In fact, it appears that NHTSA itself was a contributor to the placing of these unsafe vehicles in the hands of consumers. At Sebring Vanguard’s request, the agency in early 1974 granted the Citicar a one-year exemption, available under the amended 1966 Act to production runs of less than 2500 units per year, from two pre-crash and two crash standards.

Had the exemption from these basic safety requirements been denied, it is questionable whether the unsafe Citicar design could have been produced and sold. Notably, the exemption was described as promoting “development and field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle” — that is, risk of life and limb crashes was traded for the hope of reduced air pollution.

In late 1974, the manufacturer requested and in 1975 received a three-year additional exemption from two of the same four standards, and a three-year exemption from two other standards. Its argument this time was that failure to receive the exemption would cause it “substantial economic hardship.” Thus, at one time or another since 1974, the Citicar has been exempt from complying with federal windshield defrosting-defogging standards, lamp-reflective device standards, door lock and door retention standards, upper torso restraint standards, side door strength standards, and anti-theft standards. NHTSA’s policies, which certainly have allowed this vehicle to be much more hazardous than conventional cars, also may have helped to keep it on the market for four years.

Those policies do violence both to the people in such vehicles and to Secretary Adams’ vision of a socially responsible highway vehicle for the personal transportation of Americans. They should be replaced by policies that no only apply all relevant current standards to electric and hybrid vehicles but also:

– Fashion new ones to counteract the unique hazards that may be associated with power source or other components peculiar to such vehicles.

– Promote public understanding of the hazards inherent in such cars that may already be on the highway, through the aggressive release by NHTSA of, for instance, information such as that contained in the compliance test report that I quoted a moment ago.

Public Hearing on the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle. Thursday, 14 July 1977. Transcript of Proceedings. Page 153 – 156