John Waters
On September 30th, we posted about a new PHEV consortium founded by the Rocky Mountain Institute and led by former EV-1 engineer and EnerDel VP John Waters.
We had reported some comments Mr. Waters had made regarding the inefficiency of design of the Volt. Our readers picked up on this and presented a heated counter-response.
Through the power of social media, Mr. Waters and the RMI’s head of transportation practice, Michael Brylawski, have responded right here on GM-Volt.com.
Read the original post here: (LINK)
Note that their responses are comments #34 and #35.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 17th, 2007 at 9:01 am and is filed under Engineering, Public Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Oct 17th, 2007 (10:44 am)A couple quick points, since a few of their comments were obviously a response to some of mine-
1) Waters and RMI seem eager to distance itself from the aforementioned “carbon fiber process”. While I think we’re both fundamentally in agreement of the benefits of lightweighting in general and supportive of the associated technologies (aluminum, lexan, etc), RMI is indelibly associated in the public eye with their HyperCar concept, and with the associated carbon fiber technology that one way or another spun off to become FiberForge. So while RMI may be open to many solutions, any general comment by RMI on lightweighting is invariably associated with carbon fiber. Is that a PR liability on their part? Possibly, and that’s why having interview comments taken out of context is somewhat dangerous. So kudos on their part for stepping up to the plate and responding.
2) RE: energy efficiency of 200Wh/mile, that’s the implied goal of GM. I’m not sure which EV1 pack Mr.Waters was involved with (lead acid or NiMH), but all the data I have seen published indicates that with a curb weight of over 3000 pounds, that’s something that was perfectly achievable for that car, albeit dependent on driving habits. Perhaps as time progresses, we’ll see stickers advertise miles/kWh as a substitute for miles/gallon, and with an EPA-prescribed method of determining that. As for making a direct comparison for the Tesla’s relatively poor efficiency of ~3.77mpk (pessimistically assuming a 53kWh pack and 200 mile range), the Tesla has its own rather severe weight penalty with its ESS device (1000+ pounds, maybe even more), so I’m not sure that’s a perfectly valid comparison.
3) re:aluminum, I think GM is eager to get the Volt on the road as soon as possible, which is why they are using an existing platform made of affordable material. However, like you, I’m all for aluminum. Audi makes extensive use of it in the new, lighter Audi TT – but then again, that’s a $34,000 car for the base model. So cost may be a significant factor as well.
Oct 17th, 2007 (11:27 am)Also, the Volt is a couple of years from production. Maybe they’ll be able to find ways to lightweight the vehicle by then. Maybe make contracts with the current incarnation of GE Plastics (I don’t know what they’re called now since they’ve been sold.) And maybe they’ll also find that they’ll need less battery and save some money on that too. We’ll see it when it gets here.
Oct 17th, 2007 (11:29 am)It would be very interesting to see an economical comparison showing how much the light-weight aluminum would cost and through this efficiency gain, how much resultant battery capacity you can then afford to drop. Does the aluminum pay for itself right away? Or do you still need to rely on operating savings to break even and if so, what is the timeframe to break even?
We know nothing until the numbers are crunched.
Oct 17th, 2007 (12:11 pm)Well I think that wow states the question very clearly. You have to be quick here, as he took the words right out of my mouth!
As a road racer the first thing that gets imprinted on your brain is that weight is the enemy. “Lightweighting” is the most effective, and cost effective, thing that you can do to go faster. It trumps more horsepower, bigger brakes, chassis modifications, everything.
We have taken 40 pounds out of our driver (me) this year. What a difference!
The first thing I look at when I read a road test of a new car is the curb weight. It is the #1 issue for me.
If the object of the exercise is to save fuel, then lightweighting has to be a top priority. Maybe a lightweight version could be an option. Look how many Porsche “Club Sports” they sold. Take out the AC, power windows, sound insulation, and everything else you can and then raise the price! Instant collectors’ item. Talk about brilliant marketing!
A local guy here has a little electric car built in Canada. The seats are hand fabricated out of aluminum, and look almost like beach chairs. Power seats? Forget it. I can deal with that.
Oct 17th, 2007 (12:46 pm)A lot of this silly criticism is based on the obsolete belief that we must save as much energy as possible. Nonsense! The world receives so much solar energy that the idea that energy will be in short supply is totally bizarre. The world will
need and get more energy every year. As long as it is carbon free, there is nothing, repeat nothing, to be gained by conservation and efficiency except saving a few pennies here and there, energy savings that are quickly eaten up by the increasing energy demands (2% per year for at least the next 20 years for the non-expansionary U.S.). Electric propulsion is so much cheaper and more efficient (with practical batteries) that the idea that we need to make lightweight electric cars I find hopelessly wrongheaded and a relic from the bad old days of the Carter administration, which had the bizarre idea that energy sources are finite. The completely nonsensical idea that the EV-1 failed because of weight is laughable – 100% of its failure was due to poor battery technology and a public unwilling to suffer the massive expenses and inconveniences of that ill-advised vehicle. The mystery isn’t
about who killed the EV-1; the mystery is why GM ever built the crappy thing in the first place, knowing there weren’t any practical batteries available.
It’s clear that economically viable solar thermal technology can easily provide 1000 times the electricity we now consume and nuclear and geothermal and DISPATCHABLE wave and others are there when the sun doesn’t shine brightly enough (or at all), or to lower the average kilowatthour costs.
Oct 17th, 2007 (1:54 pm)Kent you’re missing the point.
We’re not nit-picking the pennies to be saved during usage, we’re talking about the possible $100′s to $1000′s to be saved by needing a smaller battery pack for the same range.
Oct 17th, 2007 (2:57 pm)My dad used to work with the great Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, guru of the famed Lockheed “Skunk Works”. They were responsible for the U-2, the SR-71, and many similar famous aircraft back in the day.
My dad said that Kelly had a sign on his office wall which read:
“Simplicate And Add Lightness”
I firmly believe that we cannot go wrong by striving to live up to this great bit of wisdom.
Oct 17th, 2007 (3:39 pm)How about a battery-pack built for a 30-mile range instead of 40. I realize that 40 is considered the coming standard for RxEVs, but 30 will work fine too. Z of zero (the average) for commutes is 29 miles. A move to increase expand electric infrastructure to parking lots around the country could enable that to be doubled. That will still provide significant replacement of petroleum usage, and it will be significantly less expensive for us as consumers. If we can use ethanol for our range extenders, that will still be very good for our enegy economy. It will also decrease the weight of our cars. Increased weight savings could mean that we can get the 40 miles easier in the second-gen Volt. Less than 30 miles would not be that good. And it’s just a thought anyway.
Oct 17th, 2007 (5:19 pm)It seems like RMI and this thread is all about saving energy. In other words, “just say no” to using more energy. Well, that didn’t work in the 80′s with Nancy Reagan, and it won’t work now.
What we need is alternatitive energy, not minimal energy. If a Volt uses a little more energy than it absolutely has to, but in the process saves billions of barrels of oil, then it works! In the end, if people end up driving PHEV-40 SUVs, then we are still way ahead of the game.
Oct 17th, 2007 (7:29 pm)They weren’t living on a $30,000 (retail price) budget.
If they can get the battery pack down to $300/kWh in 3 years, how imperative does it become to shave a few hundred pounds?
We’re not importing electricity, after all.
>“Simplicate And Add Lightness”
Oct 18th, 2007 (3:06 pm)One asterisk, Stephen B. I believe (someone correct me if I am mistaken) that the 40 mile range is the MAXIMUM (not the average) electric range expected for the volt. Didn’t someone post that the 40 mile range comes from driving 30mph without stopping? I think the real average range will be closer to 25 miles. It’s still great! But don’t be disappointed is all I’m saying…