Profile: The Man in Charge of the Chevy Volt - Frank Weber

February 25th, 2008 | Posted in: Engineering, Production

As you may now by now from my numerous interviews with him on the site, Frank Weber is the Chevy Volt’s vehicle line director. He is profiled by the Detroit Free Press.

He is described as a health-conscious musician with a penchant for tinkering and independent thinking. The German native is described analogously as the Chief Technology Officer of the Volt (if it were its own company) .

Mr. Weber was first given the job of E-Flex/Volt VLE two months after the show car was announced in January 2007, and is said to be enlisted to do “what even Toyota can’t”. He is described both as the cars VLE but also it’s chief engineer, to help expedite the timeline. He says “Many of the things we are currently doing are very fundamental technical decisions that will guide this architecture for years and almost decades,”

The article mentions the challenge not only of the batteries but of creating low power components say for radio, A/C, and windshield wipers, and the fact that these have to be built anew and have a supply base developed.

Frank reports directly to Jon Lauckner, VP of global program development and Steve McQueen VP of global powertrain.

Clearly he is challenged by the extremely tight timeline, 30% less than usual as per Volt design leader Bob Boniface, and as the article goes, he appear to be rising to that challenge .

Source (Detroit Free Press)

My interviews with Frank: 2/18 , 12/20, 12/17,

Popularity: 6% [?]

(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

38 Responses to “Profile: The Man in Charge of the Chevy Volt - Frank Weber”

nasaman Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 1:38 am

This Detroit News article explains that Frank Weber serves a dual role as 1) the Volt vehicle-line executive — GM’s title for the person responsible for the vehicle’s business success — and 2) as the Volt chief engineer. This means to me that the “buck stops with Weber” on all design and cost-related matters. It also says he has a Master’s degree in mechanical (not electrical) engineering, which I find a bit troubling because of the following….

The article also reiterates the concern we’ve heard before, that “the car needs a decent stereo system and air conditioner that won’t drain too much energy”, apparently to again highlight the schedule -threatening challenges Weber & the entire Volt design team face. As I’ve said before in another thread here, a safe & schedule-preserving approach for the many accessory electrical systems would be to use a separate 12V battery (with a simple DC-DC converter from the high-voltage battery to charge it) as the power source for everything except the traction motor/controller. This would allow them to choose from the large array of existing 12V accessories in the GM “parts bin” AND it enhances safety because the 300V (or whatever) power is then routed ONLY to the motor & controller (rather than all over the car to power accessories).

Except perhaps for the HVAC, the power losses due to ALL other existing 12V accessories is truly negligible, and their design efforts should NOT be diverted into reducing accessory power drain. The HVAC used in the fuel cell Equinox HAS to be electrically powered (the fuel cell Equinox doesn’t have an ICE), and that existing design should give the Volt team a good head start even if it can’t be used unmodified. To improve HVAC efficiency, they could simply use heat reflecting/absorbing glass for all windows, the windshield & the glass top and increase the amount of insulation used in the firewall, doors & floor.

Redesigning the myriad accessories, in addition to causing schedule concerns, would risk reliability problems compared to long-proven accessory designs. So my strong advise to GM is to consider using existing accessory designs powered from a separate 12V buss and defer accessory efficiency improvements until Volt 2.0.

[Reply]
Texas Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 1:43 am

Frank Weber seems like a perfect fit for this most important project. I think we should get together and convert a 1966 Beetle to electric using Volt components. Now that would make a great gift for his successful launch of the E-Flex platform. Go Frank!

[Reply]
NZDavid Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 1:58 am

#1 Nasaman

I agree with you. I would think the 12V bus is a no-brainer. I note that Frank did not mention the power issues. It was the reporter quoting Lutz, not always the most accurate of sources! Good insulation is absolutely the way to go.

[Reply]
Jim I Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 7:42 am

Has anyone ever really said that the accessories will NOT be 12V?

They would still want to keep the power drain for those items as low as possible, to keep the range up for the drive train battery pack, don’t you think?

If they can get their suppliers to improve the efficiency by 50% without too much effort, it would be a good thing.

I hope these kinds of questions get asked next month in NY.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am

4 Jim I

I don’t know whether GM plans to use 12V accessories (I hope so), but the fact they keep talking about reducing minor accessory power drains as a potential schedule threat certainly raises the question. By my count there are at least 25 types of electrically-powered accessories in a modern car, ranging from door locks to HVAC. What I fear is that GM’s suppliers may be (without full justification) trying to persuade them that a large number of accessories should be redesigned to reduce power requirements, whether using 12V or 300V ….and that the suppliers want both money & schedule relief to do the redesigns.

Based on my rough assessment of the power needs of conventional accessories (if the audio system selected uses modestly-powerful class D amplifiers AND the car uses excellent thermal insulation plus heat-rejecting glass throughout) almost everything else can be safely ignored for the Volt 1.0. This would allow the Volt team to focus on the few power guzzlers that REALLY matter, such as the Volt’s HVAC system and perhaps its traction battery heating/cooling.

You can be sure I’ll ask these questions next month in NYC!

[Reply]
Jeff J Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 9:48 am

Texas , I couldn’t agree more.
JIm , I sure haven’t read any technical date on the configuration of power to the a/c and other systems . I did find it interesting that 2010 keep coming up to have the line finished , which make total sense if the Volt reaches of show room 2011. Chev. must be a lot further along than their letting on, A123 systems would have to be finish and be able to ship right now. I know GM will not show its hand until the very end .

[Reply]
Grizzly Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 9:56 am

Nasaman, that’s a very good point. I’m not an EE but if like most cars the electrical system does work on 12V why wouldn’t it be fairly efficient being driven by 250V+ through a buck converter? I’m also wondering whether or not they’re worrying too much about accessory drain. Then again, they’re the ones close to this project.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am

This line of thought is ridiculous!!

Did the first cars cruise at 70-mph, have electric windows and air conditioning? Did the first planes use jet engines or have radar? Did the first boats use sail, or steam, or diesel, or nuclear? Did the first computers fit in the palm of your hand? Did we wait until the Cotton Gin was invented BEFORE we started using cotton? Did we NOT wage war because we lacked GPS guided bombs? NO!

YOU WORK WITH WHAT YOU HAVE AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE WAY!

ONE step at a time. FIRST give us the E-REVs and THEN optimize their components and extend their electric range in future generations.

If we wait on perfecting components, we will be waiting FOREVER!

(these men are NOT idiots or fools)

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 10:13 am

7 Grizzly

You asked, “….if like most cars the electrical system does work on 12V why wouldn’t it be fairly efficient being driven by 250V+ through a buck converter?” Yes it would, but I’d include a separate 12V battery to absorb load transients and kept charged by the DC-DC (buck) converter from the main battery.

[Reply]
Brian M Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am

nasaman #1:

Hey, not all of us mechanical engineers are complete dummies!

[Reply]
Jim I Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 10:27 am

nasaman:

If the suppliers ask for money to more power efficient designs, that is justified, but then GM should just come back with “It has to be done by X date, or no deal, and you will have to be able to guarantee X thousand parts for the first production run.” That is not unreasonable.

And you talk about major power drain as being the HVAC, and I agree with that, but how about simple things like the rear window defogger? I know that when I turn that on, it puts one heck of a drain on the electrical system. And without an ICE running all the time, there will be no vacuum systems to assist any of the sub systems, so those all now have to be electric as well, adding drain.

So I can see why the Volt design team has a lot to contend with, and why they are worried about every amp used.

As long as it does not delay the introduction, I think they should go for it, but prepare for the worst with a backup plan. Isn’t that how they would do it at NASA?

[Reply]
Ray Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:06 am

Problems with the Volt… Aren’t the “mules” hitting the streets shortly? If so… the test “pilots” should be driving the heck out of them… punishing it at every turn….abuse 10 times worse than the average motorist can accomplish in 10 years of driving… in a very short time span…. You will see the flaws….errors….or areas of the car that have to be looked at and addressed…Give one to me… I could probably give their technicians more headaches than they can handle but most of the “bugs” would be discovered in very short order…. I run a service company and the abuse of rushing short trips, long trips, stop and go all day long does not take long to see how a vehicle will stand up… Send me a Mule…….

[Reply]
Estero Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am

I agree with nasaman #1 as it relates to powering accessories from a separate 12V battery (with a simple DC-DC converter from the high-voltage battery to charge it). While this would address the immediate functional issues, wouldn’t the power drain on the main battery be the same? If so, wouldn’t that have a negative effect the anticipated 40 mile range?

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am

10 Jim I

You’re right that the rear defogger is a heavy drain, but like many other items, it’s typically a very short duty cycle (and can be shut off automatically by a timed switch after ~15 min); it’s generally only needed for the 1st 15 min or so in the morning out of a 24hr day. But the HVAC and the main battery heating/cooling can be very long duty cycles as well as heavy drains, it seems to me. Here’s my quick summary of typical accessories power drain levels….

Intermittent/low Power: door locks, elec windows, rear hatch unlock, dvr/pass mirror adjust, ABS/traction/stability cntrl, Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirror, accessory outputs/cigar lighter, various solenoid actuators/controls

Very Low Power: OnStar, dash/interior lighting (LED), anti-theft alarm system, heated cup holders (2)

Low Power: Front/Rear Wipers (only when needed), heated drvr/pass mirrors, displays (LCD, electroluminescent), Cruise Cntrl

Moderate Power: Seat Heaters, Rear defogger, electric brakes, power steering, Headlights (LED), daylight running lights (DRL), XM/HD/AM/FMRadio/audio/navigation system (use class D power amplifiers), HVAC (when in fan-only mode),

High Power: HVAC (A/C or Heating mode), traction battery heating/cooling (assumes excellent insulation)

I agree that, as you say, if it doesn’t delay the introduction, GM should go for it, but be prepared for the worst with a backup plan. And yes, that’s how we would do it at NASA.

Please understand that I’d just hate to see accessory suppliers twist GM’s arm into delaying the 2010 introduction for less than sufficient reasons. I think we agree on that.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:34 am

12 Estero

You’re right that all electrical accessories will have a negative effect on the anticipated 40 mile range. But when you consider that the 16KWh Lithium Ion main battery will have roughly 20X the energy capacity of a 12V accessory battery, and that even the (LED) headlights or audio system should use only a small fraction of the power needed by the HVAC, it’s clear that the focus needs to be on A/C & heating.

Even a 1HP A/C compressor (which should freeze your butt off even in Death Valley) will use only about 0.8-0.9KWh. And it should be possible to reduce this by ~2:1 by use of heavy thermal insulation & heat reflecting glass throughout the Volt. This would then reduce the EV range by only roughly 0.4KWH/8KWh x 40mi = 2 miles, even if the A/C is operating on a 100% duty cycle. (Heating will probably use a little less power even in sub-zero outside temperatures.) And compared to HVAC & main battery thermal control, all other loads are so much smaller as to be almost negligible.

[Reply]
Jim I Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am

nasaman:

I agree with everything you have said, and agree completely with your power consumption ratings.

As long as it does not create a delay, if they can lower the power requirements, especially on the moderate and high power draw items, then go for it. But they HAVE to be ready with production quantities for the initial production run.

“Failure Is Not An Option!”

[Reply]
Mark Bartosik Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am

If GM are having to rework various accessories, this makes me think that EV1 and Fuel cell Equinox were never taken really seriously as ever being potential mass production units, otherwise these issues would have been fixed then. Who actually believed these were much more than ‘green wash’?

On the flip side, it could be because these items are mostly supplied by third parties, and with EV1 and Equinox they didn’t want to put third parties to the pain of design changes — arh yes — because these were never going to be mass produced.

This reminds me of a pupil telling the teacher that he has done all his reading homework, and then falling short when it comes to the test, because the pupil was rather economical with the truth.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I just stumbled on a Bob Lutz interview transcript that’s vintage Lutz. Example: Why E-85? Lutz: ““Fifteen per cent (gasoline) seems to be the point at which people won’t drink it.” So for those who “lust for more Lutz”, click here for a chuckle…..

http://www6.autonet.ca/News/story.cfm?story=/News/2008/01/17/4778194.html

[Reply]
butters Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Am I the only one that sees this “accessory power” issue as a made-for-media diversionary narrative intended to “feed the beast” and occupy enthusiast communities like this one? Someone in the marketing department said, “Please, come up with something to make the Volt project seem like it’s not all about the battery, something new!”.

It’s somewhat unusual for an automaker to run a development project with so much transparency, so GM faces the unique challenge of controlling the message through the process. The media’s coverage of the Volt project over the next 3 years will shape the Volt brand to a large extent, and GM wants to capture that “overcoming diverse engineering challenges” narrative.

When the Volt hits the market, GM wants to pitch it as the realization of an improbable journey, the triumph of bold technology leadership over the conventional wisdom that a full-power electric powertrain is not ready for a mass-market vehicle. The accessory power issue is one of the many “serious engineering challenges” that the Volt engineers will “overcome” as the project moves through development. There will be more challenges introduced for media consumption as time goes on.

Of course, I don’t mean to take anything away from the engineers working hard on the Volt. I’m just trying to lift the covers off of what I believe is a new marketing strategy for GM. Engaging the target audience in the process, making them feel as if they are a part of the team–this is a progressive tactic that has proven successful at breaking down the cynicism and breaking through the clutter that has come to plague traditional advertising, especially when trying to reach younger, upscale consumers.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Who Killed The Electric Street Car?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFhsrbtQObI&NR=1

In 1947 the federal government charged GM along with Firestone, Phillips Petroleum and Standard Oil Company with Criminal Conspiracy to replace the efficient electric streetcars with GM diesel busses on Firestone Tires fueled by Phillips in the East and Standard in the West. They were found GUILTY!

In L.A. alone, it will cost well over $150 Billion and 20 years JUST to rebuild PART of the electric rail system that GM helped to destroy.

I’m not quite sure that I trust this company.

[Reply]
Dave B Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Butters @ 18,

I don’t think any company goes looking for any possible bad press. Of course, I’ve heard of under promising and over performing…who knows.

I do not believe GM is the party provoking all the talk–it’s forums like this one generating the press. I’m sure GM wouldn’t mind if we just let them be to design the Volt without the sharp criticism. Naturally they don’t mind the free advertising, so maybe it’s a wash.

I keep going back to the EV1 and other BEVs on the road today. The power management problem is clearly not that big of an issue, as these kinks have been worked out.

[Reply]
Grizzly Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Tim #19

This is the reason that we have the SEC. What GM did has been done many times in history by many companies and is the reason that even though a free market system is basically a good thing Gov’t must step in from time to time to break up anti trust and the like.

It might also surprise you that senior Mgmt. and the board of directors at GM have changed hands many times since that occurrence.

[Reply]
MetrologyFirst Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

18: butters

I agree. Careful review of what we actually know about the Volt development is ……….. not much. Just a few pictures, for the most part. GM is letting us talk about what we want to talk about, feeding us a few morsels occasionally to make us happy. If we take off in a goofy direction with the material, they may actually be amused with the diversion! Bob L is leading the band!

Too much at stake for GM to be “transparent”. WAY too much.

I think any perceived bad press is a figment of our “imagination” and the need for the press to write words.

I fully expect GM to pleasantly surprise us in a few years.

[Reply]
pete k Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I can confirm nasaman’s calculations from a 2 year analysis of every recharge and discharge cycle of my own Citroen Berlingo EV: The range provided by my 26 kWh pack can be dented by a maximum of 1.5 miles through use of all my ancilliary services, but I AM able to vary the range between 45 and 60 miles depending on my driving style and or speed.

My EV (just like the EV1, and probably every other EV that came and went along with CARB’s ZEV mandate) runs all of the usual services plus (for the Berlingo) electrical brake servo and power steering from a normal 45 ah 12v battery fed in turn from the far larger traction battery via the dc-dc converter.

Just as with most ICE drivers, most Volt owners (except dedicated EVers) will sacrifice more range to insufficient tyre (UK spelling) psi than they ever will through services fed by their 12v dc systems.

Given that the sweetener for the Volt’s crap (sorry but it is) plug-in range is the 100 year old (sorry - revolutionary) concept of a petrol range extender, who gives a monkey’s about a bespoke supplier for wipers that draw 5 watts fewer than standard parts from the shelf?

Let them make the car as efficient as they can, but all of this is of purely academic interest in the scheme of what does or does not affect the feasibilty of even a pure EV (we should be so lucky) let alone an extended range one.

In short…. YAWN!

btw In my dream future Doug Korthof is VP to Ralph Nader.

[Reply]
Grizzly Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

M..T..F..T #23

Yes indeed. You’ve touched upon a very important point. GM is theoretically “transparent” for a couple of reasons.

1. To gauge public perception on various things.

2. To make sure that Wagoner-Lutz and Co. see through what must be done and not be halted at some point by a squeamish board of directors who could still kill the Volt for any ridiculous reason. If you doubt this, look at the STUPID ads that have aired for the Volt. GM is still acting as though they don’t have a product and must sell though incentive and jingle. WAKE UP, you now have a product (many actually) it’s time to start reflecting it.

That said, 40K is still too much, and if the initial release is only 10K copies, work to make sure you bring it down after that.

[Reply]
mien green Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Aah nasaman, you’re just snake bit about that power draw issue ever since the Apollo 13 thing, aren’t you?

This thread can almost be consigned to “belaboring the obvious”, with an eye toward instructing GM as to their Volt business. I believe Weber’s primary value to this project is as a project manager with a strong acumen to technical issues. I’m sure his support team includes electrical engineers conversant in short term practical solutions.

[Reply]
pdt Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Just to interject accessory power, I saw a very extensive study on air conditioners in current vehicles and they use between 2-5kW of power. I imagine heaters will use similar amounts of power. I doubt the other accessories will compete with those in terms of power consumption, but those would cut into range.

[Reply]
MetrologyFirst Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Pete K #24 !!

He made a very important observation; one I have seen as well with my plain ol’ Grand Am GT. Diving habits, tire pressure, speed, all are much more important to range, or in my case, fuel economy than about anything else. The Volt will be no exception, that’s why I have lobbied for a switch to “econimize” acceleration, etc. or at least a gauge to monitor the rate of draw from the batteries.

All these other concerns about a few 10’s or 100’s of watts here and there are moot if you go around tramping on it all the time. The driver will have a lot more to do with range than most of these things.

[Reply]
PaulR Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Tim #20, you make an interesting point that GM can never be trusted based on their actions in 1947.

On a related note, only a few years earlier the Japanese navy launched a surprise attack against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor. The attack lasted about 90 minutes during which 2,386 people were killed. The cost was even higher than that rail system GM helped destroy.

So along with GM, I’m not quite sure I trust Nissan, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, or Subaru.

And please don’t even get me started about those German cars!

[Reply]
Jim F. Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

It looks to me like GM has a handle on accessory power according to Lutz in the following link:

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/news/2008/01/lutz_volt_qa

Lutz: We’ve got all the instrumentation worked out, the software engineers are getting all the control algorithms worked out, we’ve worked out heating and cooling. You’ve got to develop electric air-conditioning, which we’ve done. All of the systems that work off the engine, you’ve got to do something else. We’ve had to develop low-energy wipers, low-energy in-car entertainment. We’re having to invent a lot of stuff.

[Reply]
Grizzly Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

It’s been about a month or more. I’m curious about the performance of those A123\Conti packs. Maybe they’re not performing, maybe that’s why we’ve haven’t heard anything.

The big question for A123 is production above all else. Personally I think they should look to Mexico, as China for many reasons is just too iffy at this point. GM has enough in the way of idle facilities south of the border to make this work.

Just MHO.

[Reply]
Dave Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

To: #1 (and a shout out to #9)
A good ME would be able to understand the advantages and disadvantages of those tradeoffs. I am an ME. As such, I have had to take a few EE courses. While I couldn’t design the electrical systems of the various projects that I’ve managed, I’ve certainly understood the project goals and I understood the electromechanical constraints that the EEs I directed (and listened to, and respected) were under.

[Reply]
Tagamet Says:
February 25th, 2008 at 11:21 pm

FIRST Let’s get the Volt’s wheels on the road!

[Reply]
Jake Says:
February 26th, 2008 at 12:25 am

#31 Grizzly -

Don’t you worry about those A123 packs, I bet they are performing just fine! I’m with you though, I want to hear more about them.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
February 26th, 2008 at 1:02 am

10 Brian M & 32 Dave….

I certainly did NOT intend to be disrespectful of ME’s or of the mechanical engineering discipline. Some of the best & smartest people I’ve ever known were ME’s (in fact, my Orthopedic Surgeon who did back surgery on me years ago had been an ME prior to going back to Med school –see, I told you ME’s are smart!)

My real concern in my post #1 was that Frank Weber is spread so thin as Chief Engineer AND Vehicle Line Executive that EE’s and/or supplier’s, knowing this & knowing that his background was ME, might try to “con” him into signing off on needless cost & schedule concessions to reduce the power drain of accessories such as power door locks or the anti-theft alarm system –which makes little sense if such unnecessary redesigns could threaten the Volt schedule (or even the reliability of the accessory).

[Reply]
Jim I Says:
February 26th, 2008 at 7:54 am

I don’t think that you are giving Mr. Weber enough credit. If he does not know the specific answer to a technical question that may be out of his field, I am sure he has put in place a team, where he could get the information he needs.

Upper management has given him a delivery date to meet, and unless there is a major problem in the drivetrain, he knows enough not to let the power drain of the electric door locks hold back that production deadline.

Successful projects are what move these guys up the ladder. And unless he has a death wish, they all want to move up! After all, he will have on his resume, Chief Engineer and VLE of the Chevy Volt!

[Reply]
noel park Says:
February 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm

36 Jim I:

I agree. Well put.

[Reply]
Tagamet Says:
February 26th, 2008 at 3:05 pm

A true Wunderkind!

[Reply]

Profile: The Man in Charge of the Chevy Volt - Frank Weber

38 Responses to “Profile: The Man in Charge of the Chevy Volt - Frank Weber”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts