Audi Chief Responds to “Volt is a Car For Idiots” Comment
It’s an Audi-tastic day! Johan de Nysschen, President of Audi US, certainly took some major heat over the interwebs today for his inflammatory and derogatory statements that the Chevy Volt is a “car for idiots” and that electric cars are only for intellectual elites to “make a statement.” They were especially curious comments because they came at the same time that Audi launched a website touting the power of electricity.
So, knowing how these things usually go, after some serious damage control conference calls between the Audi communications folks and higher level management, de Nysschen was probably forced to respond with a much more diplomatic take on his positions — what he should have done in the first place. It’s so hard to backpedal once you’ve said something as concrete as “you’re an idiot if you buy this car.”
- » See also: Teenage-Built Diesel Hybrid Does 0-60 in 4 Seconds, Soon to Break 100 MPG
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
In his defense, de Nysschen claims he does not “specifically recall using the term ‘car for idiots.’” In PR speak, that means he did use it but he has to pull the faulty memory clause to get himself out of taking responsibility for it and at the same time avoiding an official apology. If you need clarification on this strategy, just ask Ollie North.
Anyway, I guess a half-hearted backpedal is better than nothing?
De Nysschen’s full response as posted on the Audi Facebook page:
An online report today, subsequently picked up by various other forums, left an unflattering sense of my feelings toward electric vehicles and the people who support their development. Let me clearly state that, in my opinion, electric vehicles will be part of the future transportation of society – but only if we go about it the right way. In fact, Audi is working on electric vehicles.
I do not specifically recall using the term “car for idiots” during my informal conversation with the writer. It was certainly not my intention to leave the impression that I’m opposed to electrical vehicles, and if I was unclear on either of those points then I need to eat crow.
What I do recall is the essence of my contention, namely that the feasibility of the Chevrolet Volt as a concept is questionable. And that policy decisions – and the industry’s reactions to those decisions – are leading us toward a technology that may sound tempting on the surface, but, as of now, also contains many deep and unsolved economic and technological compromises.
“Mass electrification” of the vehicles on American roads could lead to problems like a strained electric grid. Large-scale utilization of electric vehicles will require massive investment in new power stations that are much cleaner than the ones in use in the U.S. today. Otherwise, it could merely shift greenhouse gas emissions from the tailpipes of cars to the smokestacks of coal-burning utilities. That’s not just my opinion. The California Air Resource Board this past April concluded that electric vehicles presently are second only to hydrogen cars in greenhouse gas impact when measured on a well-to-wheel basis.
Returning to the Volt, my point was simply one of its economic feasibility today. The 50% or so price increase that the Volt represents over a similar gasoline car cannot be offset through the savings from reduced fuel consumption. The only way to offset the extreme premium for the Volt is through taxpayer-funded subsidies. So I question if that makes economic sense.
Does that mean the Volt and other electric vehicles are forever impractical? Of course not.
In recent broadcast interviews, discussions with journalists and meetings with policy makers I have asserted that the future of automotive transportation lies not in any one “silver bullet”, but in a range of technologies that meet different needs – all while lowering emissions and fuel consumption. That includes plug-in electric cars when technological and economic hurdles make them more practical. It includes hybrid vehicles. And it includes clean diesel along with substantially more efficient takes on today’s gasoline internal combustion engines.
Admittedly I am a passionate advocate for the role that clean diesel technology can play in easing this nation’s challenges. Cutting through misperceptions about clean diesel and other technologies can be frustrating. If you’d like to hear my thoughts on these issues, go to a video of my recent remarks at www.audiusanews.com. Meanwhile, know that we are working toward a more sustainable future.
Source: GM-Volt
Image Credit: Audi
Actually, he is right if not diplomatic - with the price tag it has.
Made some writers day though - giving a wonderful chance to twist a quote. Now he knows what ball players feel like after an interview!
I find it interesting that so many people think electric cars are “overpriced”, but have absolutely no qualms about people paying 60 or 70k for an SUV or pickup truck. The auto industry should be overjoyed at the willingness of consumers to pay MORE for electric cars, and should be embracing it. Instead, because there are so many people with an irrational fixation on gasoline, we get the CEO of a company like Audi denigrating HIS OWN PRODUCTS.
Strictly speaking it’s true that a Volt does not make economic sense from a cost/benefit perspective. It’s really more of a fashion statement, just like a lone driver commuting to work in a Hummer is just an expensive fashion statement. The Hummer driver is saying “hey, look at me, I’m thumbing my nose at all those pointy head liberals by contributing to the destruction of human civilization — take that eggheads!” and the Volt driver will be saying “hey, look at me, while I can’t do math, I would prefer that human civilization not be destroyed!”
Meanwhile, I’ll continue to ride my bike to work, saying “hey, please look at me so that you don’t hit me with your hummer!”
Dear Nick,
Your penchant to use any possible excuse to take a pot shot at Conservatives has become offensive. It reduces the value of Gas 2.0.
That you lack a need for a large and powerful vehicle does not mean that no one has this need. Many of us with this need would love to be able to also have a small very economical vehicle, but can not afford two vehicles, nor giving up what we need.
Please grow up, keep Gas 2.0 a report on economical, green, and environmentally friendly vehicles, but drop the animosity to those who have needs that do not meet your needs or physical capabilities.
ChuckL,
You must be an Ollie North fan then? The “I do not recall” episode of the Iran-Contra affair is widely known and joked about. It’s not a pot shot at conservatives per se, as much as it is an acknowledgment of the beginning of the I-do-not-recall-televised-media-circus era. Since that time there have been countless politicians that have come and gone and been plastered up on the TV screen who have used the same line. By using Ollie North as an example, I was going back to the original TV-do-not-recall-circus that I remember as a kid.
Contrary to your assumption, I have great respect for some conservative viewpoints. I also have great respect for some liberal viewpoints. If I was forced to label myself, I would call myself a centrist and a realist.
Honestly, I don’t know how you decided I was against “large and powerful vehicles” in general. I have no general amount of animosity to towards them. I believe there is obviously a need for those types of vehicles in many circumstances. Besides, I wasn’t even talking about large and powerful vehicles. We are talking about Audi diesels versus electric/plug-in cars. I think they both have much potential. I was merely commenting on the standard “I do not recall” PR move that grows so tiresome.