Vectrix Enters Into Asset Purchase Agreement

I do not believe anyone actually intends to ever build another Vectrix. All I expect is that someone will try to capitalize on the "good" name and to make some money out of leasing or selling patent rights.

Someone will be allowed to sell junk with a Vectrix logo on it, and maybe the revenue from that will be higher than the cost of buying Vectrix' Corpse.

Maybe they will sell spare parts. They are after all exorbitantly expensive and there is a bit of a monopoly.

But I do not think they will produce any more spare parts.

This I agree with completely.

I agree. I expect the purchasers won't look to restart production of VX-1s. If I really had the $7M required I wouldn't be thinking I could build VX-1s (or spare parts). However, I might see the value in leveraging the IP (both technological and brand name). Also, depending on the number of remaining VX-1s and spare parts might make selling remaining stock somewhat practical.

Interesting times - but I still don't see a terribly bright future for the VX-1 and the Polish and American factories. :-(

Reading all these credos for Lithium battery technology, again and again, I have to agree that they would not be able to sell many vehicles with NiMH technology.

But I do believe this is based more in consumer prejudices, than in limitations of the NiMH battery chemistry.

Until there are vehicles that have gone further with Lithium than with NiMH, the fact remains that the newer batteries might be worse.

The design principles needed for NiMH longevity are well known, and they were not followed in the VX-1 battery!

Practically no BMS; "17p3s serial air cooling" instead of strictly parallel cooling (or air recirculation); very poor thermal insulation against radiant heat, with part of the pack well protected whilst the rest cooks; regular over-charging and regular over-discharging. No wonder they failed!

If you just drop a Lithium pack in there and hope that the complex BMS will be able to keep the cells happy for many long years you might get some surprises!

How many components on each BMS board? What is the failure rate of these components? Some experience extreme humidity, some heat, some freezing temps in the garage in winter (or even riding), some rough roads, and some all of the above.

Statistically speaking, it will be very likely that the life expectancy of a Lithium pack is limited by the BMS.

Either the BMS is built to be redundant and failsafe, making even more parts necessary; or it is built in such a way that the cells get damaged when the BMS fails.

What you will end up with is either relatively frequent breakdowns due to BMS malfunction or safety shutoff (because the BMS cannot verify that everything is going well); or, much less frequently, catastrophic battery failure due to BMS malfunction which went on undetected! It's going to be an expensive problem either way.

If a Lithium BMS needs to constantly compensate for a strong temperature gradient through a battery pack, it will have to work much harder, get hotter, and fail earlier.

The way to cheaply improve the VX-1 battery pack would be installation of controllable flaps which close the intake air plenums, or partially close them, so that the amount of recirculating air can be controlled. This would cause temperature equalization of the pack much faster than just sucking fresh air through.

Combine that with controllable speed impellers, to reduce the current draw, and you have a Vectrix that can be parked in full sun with out a temperature gradient developing in the battery.

A simple heat shield between cover and battery housing cover is also necessary.

Then the stock battery might perform quite well.

Oh, and above all, they need honest advertising so that people do not buy the vehicle if it is not suitable for their needs! But because people always want more range than they need, they believe they need to lie about it to sell any.

Reading all these credos for Lithium battery technology, again and again, I have to agree that they would not be able to sell many vehicles with NiMH technology.

But I do believe this is based more in consumer prejudices, than in limitations of the NiMH battery chemistry.

Until there are vehicles that have gone further with Lithium than with NiMH, the fact remains that the newer batteries might be worse.

True - Lithium may be worse. But I highly doubt it. Toyota, GM & Ford presented to the Detroit SAE (society of automotive engineers) last month. And they all either said, or agreed with the others, that NiMH is great for hybrid where there are hundreds of thousands of shallow cycles. However, they all said that they believe that the Lithium chemsitries (or better) are required for BEV's where there are fewer but deeper cycles. I don't know of any major car manufacturer who is contemplating NiMH for a BEV. I'm not sure on PHEV - what is Toyoya planning for the plug-in Prius?

You're absolutely right about the need for a high quality BMS solution with Lithium - it may even be more necessary than with NiMH.

Reading all these credos for Lithium battery technology, again and again, I have to agree that they would not be able to sell many vehicles with NiMH technology.
But I do believe this is based more in consumer prejudices, than in limitations of the NiMH battery chemistry.
Until there are vehicles that have gone further with Lithium than with NiMH, the fact remains that the newer batteries might be worse.
The design principles needed for NiMH longevity are well known, and they were not followed in the VX-1 battery!
The way to cheaply improve the VX-1 battery pack would be installation of controllable flaps which close the intake air plenums, or partially close them, so that the amount of recirculating air can be controlled. This would cause temperature equalization of the pack much faster than just sucking fresh air through.

Oh, and above all, they need honest advertising so that people do not buy the vehicle if it is not suitable for their needs! But because people always want more range than they need, they believe they need to lie about it to sell any.

Fascinating insight as always, MIK, but that's why I wrote 'superior battery system'. I was hoping to create just such a discussion. The real key to marketing any EV, is the quality of the battery system. However, when you consider the vast investment over nearly 100 year in developing and improving the fuel delivery systems in ICE's, it's not too inconceivable that EV electric storage and delivery systems will not develop even more rapidly.

After all, it's in the nature of humans to turn science fiction into science fact, astonishingly quickly.

Will NV attempt to restart manufacture and revive the Vectrix marque? I think we should give NV the benefit of the doubt. My doubts as to the feasibility of such a revival, may prove overly pessimistic! There are examples of successful revivals, true they are rare, but they exist. Harley-Davidson is one such example!
I for one, don't doubt the integrity of the venture capitalists bid. Vectrix was so appallingly mismanaged, these is every reason to believe, it may have survived under superior management.

Interestingly, since the Chapter 11 announcement, we seem to have lost the rabid element, and bankruptcy deniers! Looking back over the posts, the majority of those fanatical supporters seemed to briefly appear and disappear, almost as if part of an orchestrated campaign.

I remark on this curious phenomenon, because it would appear to be a common trait with all "green technology' forums. Why, or for what possible reason I can't guess, except that it would appear to be a sort of tribal desire to belong to a 'cause' or 'side'. I guess the old Fan Club's, have just evolved!

I believe the VX1,has market potential. With the improved engineering, quality control and better battery support, it could still find a world market. I don't believe NV can survive as a stand alone manufacturer. In my opinion, New Vectrix should form a liaison with a conventional maker, like BMW,Honda, HD etc, or maybe utilise factory capacity to produce other niche EV's, like Smith and Ford, then profitability and with it market capital/consumer confidence should return.

Oh dear Mik, I am afraid that salesmen will always exaggerate and tell customers what they want to hear!! Although, in defence of salesmen, customers can also often hear what they want to hear, and attribute it incorrectly to the salesmen.

On your question of Australian warranties. I wrote to Vectrix's Lawyers to ask the same question, and got told no information was available. We enquired about the seeming advantage for UK customers, and if these services were connected to executive performance packages. We received a reply which although fascinating, understandably, I am afraid I can not divulge for legal reasons!

We wrote to the Bidders, who replied (quite correctly, off the record) that they were not yet in a position to say, but believed that 'all owners should be treated equally within the capacity of the fund. Australian customers should not be disadvantaged, but everything is still before the courts and the logistics are yet to be determined'. I see nothing sinister in such a statement, after all there is no declared successful bidder as yet!

I would imagine that any sincere New Vectrix bidder, would try to provide some assistance to all Vectrix dealers and distributors, as they will need the goodwill of such people to market the revival. Having a lot of bad will, from irate previous customers wouldn't be great for the image!!

But I suppose it's wait and see, not long now as public, well creditor, information will be released soon.

I believe the VX1,has market potential. With the improved engineering, quality control and better battery support, it could still find a world market. I don't believe NV can survive as a stand alone manufacturer. In my opinion, New Vectrix should form a liaison with a conventional maker, like BMW,Honda, HD etc, or maybe utilise factory capacity to produce other niche EV's, like Smith and Ford, then profitability and with it market capital/consumer confidence should return.

Marco, as you point out a very sensible approach would be a liason with or purchase by an established maker. Given the haste with which the car maunfacturers are scrambling to bring out hybrids and full electric vehicles it is suprising that the motorcycle manufacturers are seemingly not pursuing electric vehicles, or are they? Are you aware of any moves by bike manufacturers?

Morning,

Let' s try to stay with the post on topic Guys, stay with the facts!
The bankruptcy petition has to be approved, if this does not happen and if there is no other APA from another party, which could be signed
of by the Court, then the whole case can drop under Chapter 7 and that would mean, NOVectrix, NOWarranties, with other words end of
the subject Vectrix as a Company!
When this is the case, than all assets will come under the auction hammer ( Chapter 7 ) and whoever puts the highest bid in for various assets can do afterwards what he likes with his assets!

Marco, as you point out a very sensible approach would be a liason with or purchase by an established maker. Given the haste with which the car maunfacturers are scrambling to bring out hybrids and full electric vehicles it is suprising that the motorcycle manufacturers are seemingly not pursuing electric vehicles, or are they? Are you aware of any moves by bike manufacturers?

Surprisingly, no! I know that H-D displayed considerable interest in the IP some time ago, but like BMW found Mike Boyle and his management style not compatible. I think that the Koreans would probably be interested as unlike China, they are far more Western oriented in marketing and engineering. But my guess is potential suitors will wait to see how, and by whom , the New Vectrix performs before committing to any JV.

Let' s try to stay with the post on topic Guys, stay with the facts!
The bankruptcy petition has to be approved, if this does not happen and if there is no other APA from another party, which could be signed
of by the Court, then the whole case can drop under Chapter 7 and that would mean, NOVectrix, NOWarranties, with other words end of
the subject Vectrix as a Company!
When this is the case, than all assets will come under the auction hammer ( Chapter 7 ) and whoever puts the highest bid in for various assets can do afterwards what he likes with his assets!

Jim has made a very good point! Once the E-Max bid was withdrawn (it was clearly inadequate), Vectrix CEO mike Boyle fought very hard to push Vectrix into Chapter Seven. Chapter Seven would have suited a Chinese bidder more than assuming European manufacturing and warranty liabilities. In fact it was for this purpose that the shareholders were prevented from calling an EGM to spill the Board. The Chapter 11 move only succeeded as a compromise to threats of the bankruptcy proceeding being interrupted by a series of injunctive actions from various parties.

But Jim, I am cautiously optimistic about the bidder behind NV. They are very experienced Venture Capitalists and should gain the support of the Court, since the bid they have advanced, if not bettered, would appear to be adequate. As I say, the Judge is really only concerned with the best return for creditors, and warranties consideration fall into the creditor class of considerations.

Now unless you have any information as to why a Judge would believe an asset auction would raise more money than NV's offer, or if you know of any reason to doubt NV's financial ability, it's logical to assume that NV will be the new owner, isn't it?

But your point is still valid, even if NV succeeds, once the terms are fulfilled NV can operate, sell or do what ever it sees fit with the assets.

...
You're absolutely right about the need for a high quality BMS solution with Lithium - it may even be more necessary than with NiMH.

It is definitely much more necessary than with NiMH!

Lithium batteries will be destroyed within a few (or even just one) charge-discharge cycle without a BMS!

...
Once the E-Max bid was withdrawn (it was clearly inadequate), Vectrix CEO mike Boyle fought very hard to push Vectrix into Chapter Seven. Chapter Seven would have suited a Chinese bidder more than assuming European manufacturing and warranty liabilities. In fact it was for this purpose that the shareholders were prevented from calling an EGM to spill the Board. The Chapter 11 move only succeeded as a compromise to threats of the bankruptcy proceeding being interrupted by a series of injunctive actions from various parties.
...

On that sort of a note, what does this mean:

The Company's report and accounts for the year ended September 30, 2008 will not be published before September 30, 2009. On that date, trading on AIM in the Company's securities will have been suspended from trading for six months, and as a consequence of AIM Rule 41 those securities' admission to AIM will be cancelled with effect from October 1, 2009.

Sounds like the publishing of reports was delayed on purpose for some reason.

What was the likely motive for that move, I wonder?

Sounds like the publishing of reports was delayed on purpose for some reason.
What was the likely motive for that move, I wonder?

You, me and a long queue, also wonder !

Speculation that the accounts (reporting returns), simply couldn't be certified, is without concrete proof, and without concrete evidence, is just that, speculation! However, from initial creditor information, including the explanation provided to AIMS by the companies auditors and CFO, it would appear that Vectrix was unable to provide certified accounts acceptable to the AIMS regulators.

Failure to produce sufficiently accurate records, can occur for a number of explanations. One relatively innocent explanation is that the Vectrix group complex corporate structure made filing comprehensive and complete returns,very difficult in the context of a rapidly collapsing company, with refinancing attempts still unresolved, and ongoing litigation(s) still undecided. These factors would make it very difficult for any CFO to post accurate returns, at least, without making a mockery of the CEO's misleadingly optimistic announcements.

It does explain why the CEO, fought so fiercely against holding an EGM! The prospect of a hostile EGM, with awkward shareholder questions, may have resulted in a motion to replace certain directors, thereby changing the companies financial direction. This would have greatly upset arrangements favourable to certain individuals among the board and executive! (but may have saved Vectrix from Chapter 11). New Directors might have rallied favourable shareholder financial support, but this would be disastrous to the interests of those hoping to sell Vectrix to interests like the Hong Kong based E-max group. Chinese potential buyers for Vectrix were primarily interested in acquiring a ready made sales and service base in the UK. This could be cheaply adapted for the selling and distribution of Vectrix branded, Chinese produced, products in the UK and Western Europe. Naturally,those Vectrix personnel who assisted the takeover would be promised rewards!
If true, it's not hard to understand why an essentially US corporation, should choose not to continue the US parent group, or US based employees. Vectrix even dispensed with necessary, (but possibly inconvenient), financial personnel! Curiously, the CEO elected to spend the last of the companies dwindling funds, on financing the UK sales/service operation, long after any illusion of recovery was just a hopeless charade, believed by only the very gullible.

But, MIK, this is all just speculation and surmise! I have no evidence to establish any degree of accuracy for any of the above! Until the relevant information is supplied to the creditors investigation speculation will continue. The creditor invstigation process runs parallel to Chapter 11, and can investigate renumeration contracts, contractual arrangements, payments and solvency issues etc...

I suspect litigation raised by these issues will continue long after the termination of Chapter 11!! Hopefully, by then NV will have successfully resurrected the Euro-made VX1.

As conspiracy theories go, the above has at least the virtue of being vaguely credible! (and entertainingly controversial) It does explain otherwise inexplicable facts! But as I say, it is no more than that, just speculation!!

Sounds like the publishing of reports was delayed on purpose for some reason.
What was the likely motive for that move, I wonder?

You, me and a long queue, also wonder !

...
...

As conspiracy theories go, the above has at least the virtue of being vaguely credible! (and entertainingly controversial) It does explain otherwise inexplicable facts! But as I say, it is no more than that, just speculation!!

Thank you, most interesting!

Is it likely that the chapter 11 proceedings and whatever else goes on will give a definite answer in the future?

...
You're absolutely right about the need for a high quality BMS solution with Lithium - it may even be more necessary than with NiMH.

It is definitely much more necessary than with NiMH!

Lithium batteries will be destroyed within a few (or even just one) charge-discharge cycle without a BMS!

And what data do you have to back that rather hyperbolic claim with? Which lithium chemistry? What operating conditions? C'mon, that sort of statement is not really very useful without any sort of context. I could just as easily make the same claim about NiMH - I bet I could kill NiMH cells without a BMS in real short order. What does that prove? Nothing useful - aside from the need of a BMS.

Anyway, as you point out a well implemented BMS is still necessary with NiMH - so I'm not really sure I follow the gist of your point?

You also choose to ignore any commentary that the major players in the industry are going towards Lithium chemistries for PHEV's & BEV's.

LiPo batteries are very good nowadays.

We, that fly RC Helicopters, push them to 20C continuous on discharge and charge them at 1C and they still last at least 200 cycles. We discharge them to aprox. 20% SOC. And these are about 2 years old and the technology has advanced so much in last 2 years (LiFe).

Charge them to up to 90% and discharge them to no less than 20% (preferably even less), keep them as close as possible to 25'C, balance them at all times and they will last for many cycles.

...
You're absolutely right about the need for a high quality BMS solution with Lithium - it may even be more necessary than with NiMH.

It is definitely much more necessary than with NiMH!

Lithium batteries will be destroyed within a few (or even just one) charge-discharge cycle without a BMS!

And what data do you have to back that rather hyperbolic claim with? Which lithium chemistry? What operating conditions? C'mon, that sort of statement is not really very useful without any sort of context. I could just as easily make the same claim about NiMH - I bet I could kill NiMH cells without a BMS in real short order. What does that prove? Nothing useful - aside from the need of a BMS.

Anyway, as you point out a well implemented BMS is still necessary with NiMH - so I'm not really sure I follow the gist of your point?

You also choose to ignore any commentary that the major players in the industry are going towards Lithium chemistries for PHEV's & BEV's.

You should know better, John!

As far as I know, any Lithium chemistry battery will be severely damaged by just one deep discharge.

Correct?

The weak NiMH cells in my Vectux pack have been reverse charged repeatedly, for at least several minutes each time, each day. And the worst one still had over 50% capacity after months of this abuse, and has continued to function well for several thousand km since I limited the discharge to what the weak cell can provide.

Try that with any Lithium battery!

...
You're absolutely right about the need for a high quality BMS solution with Lithium - it may even be more necessary than with NiMH.

It is definitely much more necessary than with NiMH!

Lithium batteries will be destroyed within a few (or even just one) charge-discharge cycle without a BMS!

And what data do you have to back that rather hyperbolic claim with? Which lithium chemistry? What operating conditions? C'mon, that sort of statement is not really very useful without any sort of context. I could just as easily make the same claim about NiMH - I bet I could kill NiMH cells without a BMS in real short order. What does that prove? Nothing useful - aside from the need of a BMS.

Anyway, as you point out a well implemented BMS is still necessary with NiMH - so I'm not really sure I follow the gist of your point?

You also choose to ignore any commentary that the major players in the industry are going towards Lithium chemistries for PHEV's & BEV's.

You should know better, John!

As far as I know, any Lithium chemistry battery will be severely damaged by just one deep discharge.

Correct?

The weak NiMH cells in my Vectux pack have been reverse charged repeatedly, for at least several minutes each time, each day. And the worst one still had over 50% capacity after months of this abuse, and has continued to function well for several thousand km since I limited the discharge to what the weak cell can provide.

Try that with any Lithium battery!

You're splitting hairs - they both need a good BMS. For goodness sake I'm only agreeing with that.

And you STILL choose to ignore the main part of my post in response to your original statement where you state (in bold no less) that NiMH are just getting a bad public perception. What do you make of the fact that the major manufacturers don't see NiMH as suitable for PHEVs & BEVs?

True - Lithium may be worse.

I've tested a 4kwh Teycars Cantabrico with Life 60v 60Amph and BMS with display. Performance of the engine is absolutely poor, but I managed to travel over 120 km at 70-80 km/h. Yes, 3.6Kwh gave me 120km! Thanks to the BMS I could use almost all useful energy stored inside the battery... I'm just wondering how many effective Kwh do we obtain from our Ni-MH battery with all these security margins and cell unbalancements.. Sure it's less than the 70% I've been told... Anyway, now I'm sure Life BMS is the V's future.

Sounds like the publishing of reports was delayed on purpose for some reason.
What was the likely motive for that move, I wonder?

You, me and a long queue, also wonder !

...
...

As conspiracy theories go, the above has at least the virtue of being vaguely credible! (and entertainingly controversial) It does explain otherwise inexplicable facts! But as I say, it is no more than that, just speculation!!

Thank you, most interesting!

Is it likely that the chapter 11 proceedings and whatever else goes on will give a definite answer in the future?

Yes, and no! Since in all likelihood most of these proceedings will be civil, it is possible that the parties will ultimately settle, and the settlements will be subject to confidentiality clauses. Only, if the regulators bring proceedings, does the public have access. The bankruptcy itself is a fairly public process.

From a journalists point of view, the most interesting aspect of the Vectrix demise, is the unusually long campaign of disinformation prior to the collapse. Much of this was probably not organised by Vectrix, as by ex-employees, and 'fans' who spread false information and fantasies. Motivated largely to make themselves self important, or in the vain hope that dreams would somehow magically materialise into reality.

I can't prove, but strongly suspect, this phenomenon was cynically exploited by Members of the Board, to create the impression that the Vectrix brand name was worth far more, particularly in the UK and Europe, than was the case.

Such disinformation campaigns always have one common pattern, lengthy periods of silence from senior management and directors, but frantic activity from relatively obscure and low ranking individuals. These persons are claim to possess, wink, wink, nudge "inside information", and are followed by many knowing supporters, all of whom want to tell tell you the true facts, but not just yet...etc

The best example of this technique is used to destabilise party political leadership. The front runners, swear loyalty to the leader, while the low ranking hirelings, or just those whose desire for a little self importance, and the naive, spread dissatisfaction.

Interesting process John!! I bet you believed, all you had to do was produce a good product to succeed!

As I have always said, Vectrix is a good example of a potentially ground-breaking product, destroyed by corporate politics. Vectrix forgot that the company was founded to manufacture a product and servicing customers! Instead the corporate focus diverted from principle activity of making EV's, to devoting all its energy to fund-raising, in order to to pay for an ever increasingly grandiose corporate structure and ego-driven policies. The final desire to sell to the Chinese, is not a strategic business decision based on painful product experience, but a desire to prove that the product, not the management, was at fault!! (Oh, and pick up a few bucks along the way!)

This should be the lesson of Vectrix!

You're splitting hairs - they both need a good BMS. For goodness sake I'm only agreeing with that.

And you STILL choose to ignore the main part of my post in response to your original statement where you state (in bold no less) that NiMH are just getting a bad public perception. What do you make of the fact that the major manufacturers don't see NiMH as suitable for PHEVs & BEVs?

This is anything but splitting hairs. It's battery chemistry 1-0-1!

NiMH only needs a BMS to prevent incremental damage and reduced life span. NiMH can get away with a ruimentary BMS for quite a while. Years that is! And if the BMS fails then the NiMH cells will generally deteriorate slowly. NiMH batteries are abuse tolerant.

Lithium batteries absolutely need a BMS to prevent possibly catastrophic and almost immediate failure.

A BMS for a Lithium battery needs to be much more complex and much more redundant and fail safe than a NiMH BMS.

Lithium batteries are abuse intolerant.

.
.

The announcements of prospective manufacturers are a luxury which I have little time for at the moment!

Of course they think they need to cater for the prejudiced consumers I was lamenting above!

NiMH cannot achieve the range the consumers want. But it can achieve the range that the majority of people would need. And they have a proven track record of high lifetime mileage performance.

.
There is no such track record for Lithium batteries, yet, just hopes and promises!

Some of the Lithium cells might be reliable and long lived; but the BMS that they absolutely require is an unknown quantity which can hold many surprises.

And most of the surprises will not be good, as you undoubtedly know by now...or why do you seem so edgy about these basic, generally undisputed facts?

As far as I know, any Lithium chemistry battery will be severely damaged by just one deep discharge.

I overdischarged the LiFePO4 cells on my emax a few times ( quite substantially).
they still did a few 1000km before i retired the bike (not due to battery failure, but wanting to upgrade to a bigger bike)

reversing a cell will kill it straight away, but just overdischarging it won't.

I do note that Jack Rickard run his LiFePO4 pack with a BMS that has even less features (no balancing, only pack level voltage and Ah counting) than the vectrix one, with a decent amount of success.

in my experience, LiFePO4 take far longer to go out of balance than a Ni-mh pack.
So while you may be correct that a reversed lithium cell will most certainly be killed, and the Ni-mh will survive at a fraction of its former self, the probability of a cell reversal of a Lithium pack is far lower.

Matt

Morning,

the Vectrix Auction take' s place from 27Oct to the 30Oct, see link below

http://www.secondmarket.com/363-sale-calendar/2009/10

Thanks Jim. Ain't the internet amazing? That calendar you link to represents a shopping list for bankrupt companies!

Anyone heard any rumblings that New Vectrix won't succeed? They seem odds on favorite right now.

Could this be useful for Vectrix?

President signs bill expanding ATVM program to three wheelers

The ATVM program now applies to high efficiency two- and three-wheelers that carry at least two people and get 75 mpg or more.

Any news about the bid for Vectrix? (the official bid was in the last days of october).
Regards

It's starting today (Monday 2nd) according to this:
http://www.secondmarket.com/363-sale-calendar/2009/11

So the next three days are crucial – bids due in by today, the actual auction tomorrrow, and the sale hearing on Wednesday.
I'm not an expert on these procedures, but maybe by the end of this week we'll know what the future is for Vectrix?