A123 VP Ric Fulop on Chevy Volt Battery Pack Delivery

17 Responses to “A123 VP Ric Fulop on Chevy Volt Battery Pack Delivery”

1. 
   
   

   Jean-Charles Jacquemin Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 10:10 am

   As usual we appreciate your pro activity Lyle, this answer clarifies our questionning.

   We have just to await “early 2008″ and keep anchored to gm-volt.com.

   Thanks again.  
   
   (Quote)

2. 
   
   

   Brian M Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pm

   not really much new information here, but thanks to Mr. Fulop for talking to Lyle.  
   
   (Quote)

3. 
   
   

   Matt986 Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

   So it seems like he’s saying “they’ll deliver when they get it right.” Which really is not a bad thing.

   I’d love to hear that their first pack gets to GM and is fully tested and found to meet or exceed expectations!  
   
   (Quote)

4. 
   
   

   Dave B Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 4:38 pm

   Good update…funny how things are never ahead of schedule, isn’t it?  
   
   (Quote)

5. 
   
   

   Talks Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

   I found a spec doc for LG Chem/CPI batteries prepared in 2006.

   Link:

   http://www.offhighwayengineeringmagazine.sae.org/automag/techbriefs/10-2006/1-114-10-16.pdf

   They have a Calender life of 15 years but cycle life is only 1000 for EV i.e. VOLT. So if you daily charge the battery and drain it, it will be dead in three years. For a battery to last 10 years, it should atleast have cycle life of 3500. No sure what magic LG Chem has done to increase the Cycle life between 2006 and 2007. May be it delivers more cycle life as VOLT uses only 50% of the capacity.

   A123 has better cycle life of around 7000 and a calendar life of 10 years. It looks like A123 is the best bet. May be GM is just using LG Chem as a bait to put price pressure on A123 and Continental, just a speculation.  
   
   (Quote)

6. 
   
   

   AES Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pm

   Talks-

   I looked through the document you found. The data table that lists 1000 cycle life for CPI batteries looks like it’s intended to be a very GENERAL outline for lithium vs. nickel, rather than CPI-specific. For example, they list energy density for lithium at 200Wh/kg – something that is only achieved by cobalt-based cells.

   So I think that article did a real mix and match job with the facts, so we shouldn’t take it seriously.

   We also don’t know exactly they meant by “1000 cycles” – that could be the point where capacity starts to degrade, rather than the point where the cells are useless for their intended application.  
   
   (Quote)

7. 
   
   

   LyleL Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

   More pricing pressure for A123?

   “Korea-based LG Chem has won an order to exclusively supply lithium-ion polymer batteries to Korea-based Hyundai Motor and its affiliate Kia Motors. ”

   http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/lg-chem-to-supp.html  
   
   (Quote)

8. 
   
   

   talksabcd Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 8:15 pm

   Is there anything wrong with LG Chem ? why are they hiding cycle life for EV.
   Its not even mentioned in their website nor anywhere in the articles. But they are publicly
   declaring the cycle life for HEV which is around 400000 cycles but not for EV.

   So I am just skeptical about LG Chem. Even in the interview with CPI taken by lyle, they have not
   answered the question on cycle life but clearly mentioned that calendar life will be 15 years.
   Are they trying to avoid the facts that are not up to the mark ?  
   
   (Quote)

9. 
   
   

   talksabcd Says:
   December 16th, 2007 at 8:19 pm

   Search for ‘Compact’ after opening the above doc

   http://www.uscar.org
   /commands/files_download.php?files_id=120  
   
   (Quote)

10. 
    
    

    LyleL Says:
    December 16th, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    “The following is a guess post by Dr. Lyle Dennis of GM-Volt.com, a text book example of a blogger turning a passion into a money making venture.”

    http://www.johnchow.com/gm-voltcom-making-money-by-blogging-about-your-passion/  
    
    (Quote)

11. 
    
    

    Jim I Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 12:14 am

    Isn’t anyone else concerned with this part of the posting?

    “…their plan is to provide packs that are as close as possible to the production intent design.”

    That sounds to me like the A123 pack is not up to spec. Or am I mis-reading this?  
    
    (Quote)

12. 
    
    

    AES Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Jim-

    From the way I read it, that could mean a lot of things. It could mean anything as serious as low capacity, or it could be something totally mundane like being 2mm wider than originally intended.

    Regardless, the primary goal of the pack is capacity, and iron phosphate’s theoretical capacity is actually superior to manganese spinel. So if LG Chem can do it, so can Conti/A123.  
    
    (Quote)

13. 
    
    

    bill Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 1:56 am

    Could someone point me in the direction of details on the electric motor? I’m surprised this isn’t discussed more. Even on your typical car engine specs are always a hot topic.  
    
    (Quote)

14. 
    
    

    bill Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 1:59 am

    Lyle, please dig up more details on the drivetrain. Is this car going to have a transmission to keep the electric motor at peak efficiency? How does it connect to power the wheels. I’m most interested in things like this. Thanks.  
    
    (Quote)

15. 
    
    

    beanieville Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 2:15 am

    Awesome car! I think i’ll get two.

    http://www.beanieville.blogspot.com  
    
    (Quote)

16. 
    
    

    AES Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 2:17 am

    Bill-

    As far as I know, a lot of GM’s drive train innovations post-EV1 have come about as a part of the fuel cell vehicle program. They’ve stuck with AC induction motors, and have actually avoided gearboxes altogether (except for the differential gears) so as to avoid friction losses.

    You can find a picture and details of the fuel cell equinox’s electric motor here:

    http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/vehiclereviews/ig/Chevy-Equinox-Fuel-Cell-SUV/Equinox-FCEV-drive-motor.htm

    “Power output of the electric motor is a continuous 73 kW (98 horsepower) and 94kW peak (126 horsepower). This arrangement has no gearbox for multiplying motor torque. As the fuel cell pours on the amps, the motor lays on the torque.”

    “The AC electric drive motor sits low at the back and bottom of the fuel cell stack. The axle half-shafts connect directly to the motor output shaft and wheels through constant velocity joints. This arrangement affords minimal frictional power losses.”  
    
    (Quote)

17. 
    
    

    Jake Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 3:04 am

    Jim #11 – I don’t think that sentence really means anything bad. I feel like these first prototype battery packs are by their very nature not quite to spec, at least in terms of integration with the rest of the vehicle. The cells may be good, but maybe at this point they are not required to send GM “production-ready” batteries. We’ve still got a ways to go before GM needs a finished product on their production lines. But maybe A123/Continental just want to make the pack as “finished” as possible. I don’t know, food for thought I guess.

    I would LOVE more information on the motor. Big, brushless, powerful, efficient…pretty cool stuff. The only parts in the motor that could wear out are the bearings. I somewhat doubt there will be a multiple-speed gearbox. If they just gear the motor right, I would imagine that it will do fine on its own. I think this type of motor tends to have a pretty beastly power band.  
    
    (Quote)

Leave a Reply