GM at 100: Volt to Start the Next Century
The New York Times has published a dedicated piece on the Chevy Volt.
It is widely anticipated that GM will reveal the full production model of the Chevy Volt at the Centennial Event this coming Tuesday morning.
The article points out that if the Volt is successful it will put the company on a “whole;e new path”. As well it is noted that the public grasps the potential for the Volt to “loosen OPEC’s stranglehold.”
The article continues to raise doubt about the viability of lithium ion batteries, and remains unable to confirm which battery company will be getting the contract.
Chris Paine who wrote and directed the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car” is quoted as saying “It’s a cultural shift of huge proportions for a vast auto company to embrace the concept of a car that’s more than an internal-combustion engine.”
The journalist’s favorite battery skeptic/expert Manahem Anderman explains why GM may be including the cost of a battery replacement in the Volts price:
“Without three or four years to test battery life in both the laboratory and in the field, prudent engineering steps have to be bypassed. Lacking long-term data, G.M. might have to include the cost of a battery replacement in the Volt’s price.”
Menaham persists in his skepticism saying he doesn’t expect the Volt “to be either a commercial success or a long-term benefit (to GM).”
However countering this is a quote from former GM CEO Robert Stempel who said “The Volt has the possibility of being one of the most successful vehicles in G.M. history.”
The tension is building folks, and the included artists renditions of the production Volt look pretty good (above and below)
Source (New York Times)
Popularity: 3%
Related posts:
- Does Construction of a Battery Factory Need to Start 2 Years Before the Volt Gets Mass-Produced?
- Forget Price and Electric Range, the Volt is the Tip of the Arrow
- V2Green: A Start-up Company Making Electric Car and Grid Software
- Chevy Volt HVAC Development: ICE Will Run From the Start at Less Than 40 Below Zero
- The Chevy Volt Interior and How it Will Start
(12 votes, average: 5 out of 5) 
Loading ...
135 Responses to “GM at 100: Volt to Start the Next Century”
Leave a Reply
September 13th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I hope and pray that the Volt fulfills its potential. That sketch looks better than the leaked production photos.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:21 am
The Volt will be the Prius killer IMO. I hope A123 gets the battery contract also.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am
ist the concept volt , then the production volt and now , the artist version of the volt ….hmmmm . what’s next , the cartoon volt . GM pls. release the actual Volt now . pronto !
September 13th, 2008 at 10:29 am
I think the main part of the article is this paragraph, which is not mentioned in the summary here: (as the rest of the NYT article is basically a primer on Volt 101)
“Finally, there are questions about the cost. G.M. executives concede that they are revising the price upward. While the company initially hinted at a $30,000 starting price, executives have recently suggested that the Volt might end up in the mid- to high-$40,000 range.”
September 13th, 2008 at 10:36 am
JB, the Volt will not be a Prius killer… even if the price was competitive, the Volt doesn’t exist yet and won’t for a couple years, and even then for years at least the Volt (and others GM produces based on the series hybrid drive train) won’t be produced in meaningful volumes to make a dent in Prius sales (which may very well be a plug-in itself by the time the Volt is/if produced in meaningful volumes).
In any case, the Volt is a VERY good start! As far as I know it will still be the 1st mass produced BEV… and the price is expected to be significantly higher for 1st generation. I’m actually hoping the 1st gen Volt’s do factor in the cost of replacing the battery pack in all 1st gen Volt’s…. that means once the batteries have problem themselves to be able to go the distance, the 2nd or 3rd generation won’t factor in pack replacement, and the price will be closer to the Prius.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“Without three or four years to test battery life in both the laboratory and in the field, prudent engineering steps have to be bypassed. Lacking long-term data, G.M. might have to include the cost of a battery replacement in the Volt’s price.”
I don’t agree with this. The engineers can come pretty close to estimating the battery life, knowing the chemistry formula, even using the shorter time frame of 2 years. Granted, they can not be quite so sure now, but given they’ve been testing from June ‘08 or sooner, they will have a very good idea by June ‘10. I’m sure they already have a curve plotted which they can interpolate.
I wish I had a dollar for every negative Nell story I’ve heard about the Volt. It’s coming out in 2010, it will run great, and the battery will last for at least 30% past warranty period ! (less if you live in an extreme climate).
To be safe, they could pick the battery company with the deepest pockets, as long as it meets specs. That’s not what I’d do, as by the time the battery needs to be replaced, a new one will cost a fraction of the original price. A point some have already made on this forum.
JB. I hope it’s A123, 2
September 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am
GM should NOT include a battery replacement in the warranty. I would rather take the risk on myself than pay an extra $10k up front for a battery that I might not need. At the very least I could defer the $10k expense for a few years if I do need to replace the battery. Additional financial burden should not be placed on early adopters as they should not be penalized for their foresight and support.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am
I owned a converted all electric Fiat Strada for years in the 90’s and had to replace 1,200 pounds of lead acid batteries every 3 years. I am willing to pay more for the first VOLT absent years of testing, and pay more for the possibility that the batteries may be replaced by GM. That is acceptable to me as an insurance policy.
If our country is going to step up to the plate and address the big issues then this car in one shape or the other is going to have to be a huge part of the solution.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
the artist’s rendition looks pretty good. if the Volt actually does look something like that from the side, i think the production Volt looks pretty sweet.
i hope after the first initial 10,000 (or however many they make) GM can drop the price to the 20k’s because hopefully then, the batteries and everything will be cheaper. i just hope they can market those initial 1.0’s. Apple does it. the first ipods were like 5GB and $400 and they sold. now they’re 120GB for $250.
i dont want GM to fail!
September 13th, 2008 at 11:08 am
#4 statik
Yup. Cost is 80% of the issue. Everything else is secondary.
#7 Bryan
CA requires a 10 yr/150,000 battery warranty. Choice is unfortunately not an option.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
DonC@10 said in part:
“…CA requires a 10 yr/150,000 battery warranty. Choice is unfortunately not an option.”
Any chance we can get CA to secede from the union? (jk, kinda).
Be well,
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”
September 13th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I really like the look of the second drawing above. Nice angle to look at the car. I am looking forward to seeing pictures on Tuesday.
There are always supporters and naysayers when ever new technology comes out. Just think back to the PC, cell phone, iPod, etc. The prize can be at the end of the rainbow for companies that have a good idea and take significant risks to get the product out. My opinion is that the Volt will be a huge success for GM.
I currently own a Ford Expedition (need it for towing and hauling clients around). I drive about 15,000 miles a year and spend about $4,000 a year for gas. In my view, part of the price of the Volt is a prepayment for energy (gas equivalent). I usually spend around $30,000 for a car so if the Volt costs $40,000 …I will more than break even within 3 years of ownership. Future gas savings will be just icing on the cake. The Volt can also help with the environment, trade deficits, etc. It is a no brainer.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
#11 Tag
We’re working on it! CA actually gets fewer federal dollars per capita than almost all other states so it would be a net benefit.
Seriously, sometimes the best gets in the way of the good. Requiring a battery warranty is a good thing in a lot of circumstances but it does eliminate choice. I’m more than willing to gamble on the batter pack because I’m very confident in the technology. I’m more worried that the wiring stays intact.
Getting back to the states, what’s interesting is that states tending to vote Republican in presidential elections get more in federal dollars than they pay in federal taxes. States that tend to vote Democratic pay more in federal taxes than the get in federal dollars. That’s why the Blue states call the Red states “The Whining Parasites.” (Only kidding). Here’s the study by the Hoover Institute on this issue. It’s actually pretty interesting. The author says it’s ‘fact in search of an explanation.”
http://psweb.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/hweisberg/conference/Lacy-OSUConf.PDF
September 13th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hopefully battey technology will continue to improve at a fast pace and battery costs will continue to decline. So even if many Volts do need a new battery in, say, 5 years, that replacment battey will offer greater storage capacity, longer life and lower cost than the original batteries used in the Volt. GM should ensure battery replacement is as easy as possible, for a number of reasons. If EEStor starts shipping what they promise in a year or two wow….
Maybe if GM has to charge more to cover a possible battery replacement they could “bank” the extra battery cost and if in 10 years no new battery was needed they refund a majority of that cost to the buyer in 10 years? That covers GM >>and<< the owner if he still has the car after 10 years…if the owner does still have his Volt in ten years (I am still driving the same ‘99 Acura TL after 9 years) then the owner has money to replace the battery himself if he has to. It’s a Win/Win. Consider the extra amount you GM now a refundable insurance payment.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
#13 DonC
Bring up political realities — your a brave, brave man.
(In a way America is lucky to have California as they are like a mini melting pot of future realties that the broader country will face. Their state policies have a way of forcing the rest of the country to adapt to future needs before they see the value in it)
September 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
DonC re CA
I totally agree with the best being the enemy the good. In CA the Wright Brothers would have been required to pass safety crash tests (g).
Re Fed funding and Blue/Red states:
Temporal contiguity does not imply cause and effect. Most often the result is a ‘fact in search of an explanation.” Didn’t Arnold recently put State employees on minimum wage because you’re out of money?
In The Crimes, er, Times article they got the spelling wrong on “Manahem Anderman, president of Advanced Automotive Batteries” - should be Menahem.
and:
Most interesting to me is the phrase describing the Birthday revelation of the Volt as “close to final form”. Hmmmmm.
Be well,
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”
September 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
What is good for America is good for GM. The Volt is just one way to break our dependence on oil. Yes we are addicted. So I hope the Volt works. There is a need for solutions like the Volt. I hope GM is able to fulfill the need to wean ourselves off the dependence of oil. Once upon a time it was what is good for GM is good for America. We have come a long way since then. To provide a product that is needed is a sure way to profits. The Volt will be good for America, and the world.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
#15 statik
I think in a few years the majority of CA will not be Caucasian. A plurality of course but not a majority. But this is somewhat misleading because the population is really diverse so there isn’t one group that dominates. In some ways I think CA resembles your BC quite a bit.
The good thing is that it gives your daughter a great advantage in applying to engineering schools. White females are in very low supply! LOL
September 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The batter replacement should not be included in the price of the Volt. Let the Govt loan of 25 billion cover any replacements. Sell the Volt at a price that people can afford so we can stop our dependence on foreign oil. Japan helped Toyota with the Prius we need the same to get these EV’s on the road.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Blah, Blah, Blah….
Show us the real interior and exterior pictures and specs!!!!!
September 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
If you’re interested, you can join GM for its Centennial activities on GMnext.com. There’s a Global Broadcast at 8:30 a.m. EDT, live chats with GM leaders, including Bob Lutz, beginning at 10:30 a.m. and a Roundtable event with industry experts at 1:30 p.m. Visit GMnext.com for all the information.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Cartoon, picture or probably in person, it’s still a No Sale. GM had it once upon a time, but this just shows how GM cab take a good thing and Kill It. High price ugly won’t sell no matter how good the idea is.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
GM bosses are idiots, all should be fired and sent to Iraq!
September 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
cars never look good in silver. Rarely anyways. Put it in red or something, and it will fine, if not really good.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
From article:
Menaham persists in his skepticism saying he doesn’t expect the Volt “to be either a commercial success or a long-term benefit (to GM).”
However countering this is a quote from former GM CEO Robert Stempel who said “The Volt has the possibility of being one of the most successful vehicles in G.M. history.”
————
This is a meaningless counterpoint. Of course former GM CEO Robert Stempel is going to say the opposite. He is almost the farthest thing from an independent observer.
September 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I agree with #24,
Silver just doesn’t do it for me either.
I’d like mine in Clear please…
September 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
#4 statik
” “… While the company initially hinted at a $30,000 starting price, executives have recently suggested that the Volt might end up in the mid- to high-$40,000 range.” “
nice catch statik. If this is true, it’s more likely than not that I’ll not be able to afford one, even if there are good tax incentives. T’is too bad … for me at least.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
#27 psklenar
You know me…I’m all about poking the soft underbelly.
(=
September 13th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I hope the Volt doesn’t kill the Prius. We need more cars like the Prius.
I hope the Volt kills the Escalate, Yukon, Tahoe, Suburban, Expedition, Navigator, Highlander, Land Cruiser, Pilot, MDX, and all the other gas guzzlers out there that people have some how come to think of as fashionable. That’s what we need.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Prius Killer? I highly doubt it. If the Prius is $20K less (remember that we don’t know exactly how much the Volt will cost) I don’t see how the Volt can be very successful.
However, make the Volt cost $25K, I believe we can say R.I.P. to the Prius.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
#11 Tagamet
I’m with you. I’m from California and I wish the blue states could secede and form their own country. Why not? Red-staters can get what they wish for, above and beyond what the last eight years have wrought.
…I went political. I hope it wasn’t too divisive. It was just my personal musing. No offense intended. I’m sure red-staters want their way as much as blue-staters do.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
It is becoming pretty obvious from all of the clues leaking out in bits and pieces that neither of the batteries that GM has been testing are ready for the “electrification” of the auto industry. Think about all of the caveats that we already know about: 1) protecting the number of charge cycles instead of allowing performance/mountain mode, 2) a single part of a $40,000 car costing $10,000, 3) building a battery replacement into the initial cost of the car, 4) streamlining the car from the gorgeous concept to the butt-ugly production prototype so that the battery can achieve 40 miles AER, and so on. If the batteries were really as good and ready as we are being led to believe, why so many painful compromises? What are they NOT telling us?
September 13th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
ThombDbhomb #31
I don’t want to live in a red or blue state. Perhaps purple is right down the middle. But I’m all for secession. This country is going to hell in a hand basket, and the idiots in Washington are making it go faster.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
RE the political stuff…
If the folks in washington stuck to the US Constitution and respected the 10th amendment, all these things we’re divided on would be STATE issues rather than federal decisions anyway…
just my 0.02
GMACPFVFFS
(Give Me a Crate Powertrain From the Volt For a Fiero Swap)
September 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
ThombDbhomb@31 said in part:
“…No offense intended. I’m sure red-staters want their way as much as blue-staters do.”
Naw. Unlike Blue-staters, we Red Staters are far too altruistic (that’s why we pay the freight for the Blue-stater’s needs (real or perceived). (Hey, you made it political - hee, hee)
Rashiid@33 said:
“I don’t want to live in a red or blue state. Perhaps purple is right down the middle. But I’m all for secession. This country is going to hell in a hand basket, and the idiots in Washington are making it go faster.”
Maybe your state could be red and blue stripes…
Be well,
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”
September 13th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
#32 hermant Says: “It is becoming pretty obvious from all of the clues leaking out in bits and pieces that neither of the batteries that GM has been testing are ready for the “electrification” of the auto industry. Think about all of the caveats that we already know about: 1) protecting the number of charge cycles instead of allowing performance/mountain mode, 2) a single part of a $40,000 car costing $10,000, 3) building a battery replacement into the initial cost of the car, 4) streamlining the car from the gorgeous concept to the butt-ugly production prototype so that the battery can achieve 40 miles AER, and so on. If the batteries were really as good and ready as we are being led to believe, why so many painful compromises? ”
————————————————————————————–
I think you’re finding clues where there are none:
1) Mountain mode isn’t necessary. Normal mode covers mountains just fine.
2) GM is being conservative with the price, hoping for higher tax credits.
3) Building a battery replacement into the price, again for higher tax credits.
4) Streamlining the car had to happen, battery or not.
As for mountain mode, this is a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. We’ve done the math, and it’s a non-issue. Why don’t you believe the numbers?
You know, I’ve seen this soooo many times before. People are worried about one particular part of a project, something new that people haven’t heard of, and they obsess over it. In the end, that part usually works great, and something else has problems. Note that GM hasn’t done many all-electric HVAC systems…
September 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
#33 Rashiid Amul,
And purple is my favorite color…
September 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Once we get confirmation on price, including any tax incentives, then all of us can make an informed decision. I have fallen for this car. I want one bad. The thought of not having to fill the tank very much and sending dollars over seas appeals to me on every level-especially, a patriotic one. I can’t help but to do the math though. If this car is around the high 30’s range or above, then a 5 seat Honda Insight at around 20k makes much more sense on the economic side. If GM were to actually use this list (which I seriously doubt any of us will get any special treatment other than maybe Lyle) I am 648 in line. But I can’t help but worry about the cost, and how much extra I may be out by being an early adopter to this new technology. I am rambling, but I am sure others feel the same.
Hawk
September 13th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Can’t wait.
I like the artist sketches better than the production Volt.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
All of you apologist saying that it doesn’t matter what the car looks like really need to remember the Edsel, the Gremlin, the Pacer. Ugly models don’t last and in the case of the last two, fuel economy isn’t enough.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Tag,
Your “Any chance we can get CA to secede from the union? (jk, kinda). Be well, Tag” comment is far from funny. It exposes your partisan viewpoint and abject shortsightedness. It shows that you prefer to be comfortable around people who think and act just like you do rather than accept that people in other parts of the country (and the world for that matter) have a different point of view.
The law that you cite is in place to protect the consumer. The funny thing is that it also forces the companies to protect themselves. By being forced to come up with a better battery we all win. Consumers get a great product and the companies protect themselves from lawsuits and a long term dismal quality control reputation.
For your information, California is an economic titan and if it WERE a separate country it would be one of the top 10 in terms of GDP. We are a Union and if you don’t like it then perhaps YOU should find a new home.
Now, if you don’t mind…I have to go protect your freedom to be an ass.
Jason C (AKA Harrier1970)
September 13th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
The whole issue of battery testing is somewhat moot. I guarantee you that none of the late 90’s entrants into CARB’s mandate (EV-1, RAV-4 EV etc) had 10 years of AUTO battery testing on NiMH. Some of the RAV-4 EVs still on the road have more than 150K miles on them.
September 13th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
#29 Dave G
Well said!
September 13th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Jason C (AKA Harrier1970)
Thanks for your service !
Be well,
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”
September 13th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Rashiid Amul #25
“Of course former GM CEO Robert Stempel is going to say the opposite. He is almost the farthest thing from an independent observer.”
*** *** ***
That is true my friend, but what is not commonly known is so is
Dr Menahem Anderman.
http://www.totalbatteryconsulting.com/
September 13th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I think the top, overhead, picture looks distorted, but the bottom, rear, picture looks great, iconic like a 57 Chevy poster.
Another icon is the Corvair, a “game changer” and all that, however the blue state crowd bought the idea it was “unsafe at any speed.”
September 13th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
40 BradPittman
As for what the Volt looks like … If GM or any other company could come out with an vehicle that would do 1000 miles on a charge and looked like a Prius would you refuse to buy it ?. Stop all this crap about what it looks like. If what it looks like is more important to you than becoming independent of Arab oil, then don’t buy it.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The rear view is strikingly different in the sketch as compared to the earlier picture. Normally pictures are more accurate than sketches, Either we are seeing a different model of the Volt or there is considerable artistic license in the sketches.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
What about a capacitor, isnt there new tech that could replace a battery?
September 13th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The Volt could be a Prius killer if they were priced the same. Unfortunately the Prius is half the cost of the Volt. The Volt will not be the success they are hoping for unless the price becomes competitive.
What’s with the drawing… were the leaked photos a hoax? I really hope the production photos that were leaked are not real because otherwise the Volt will be a tremendous disappointment.
September 13th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Even though the Volt will cost more than a Prius, it has the potential of doubling and tripling the fuel economy - and its resale value will remain high. As for the high purchase cost, the higher monthly payments will be offset by the lower fuel costs - and this will be the sales clincher the Volt will have over any other car, including the Prius.
In summary, the Volt’s low operational cost and high resale value will convince a lot of people that even at 40K$ it will be a fantastic investment.
Yes, the Volt is going to be a big success.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Mike #49 Google “EESTOR” for info on the ultra cap.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Volt a huge success?
Let’s see:
Overhyped styling ==> Just another lame econobox styling
Promise of less than $30,000 ==> $40,000
Available only in limited numbers
Added to all the above, GM’s tradition of producing duds.
Yeah, sounds like a huge success. I’d bet Toyota and Honda are shitting bricks.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I wonder if GM will now repaint the Volt they planned to reveal at their Centennial event in a more interesting colour like orange. It seems to be the right colour for an electric car.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
The very low operational cost of the Volt still does not justify the initial cost of the car compared to other alternatives. And cheap hybrids such as the Insight will kill the Volt when it comes to cost and consumer acceptance.
But I never considered resale value. Used 5+ year old Toyota RAV-4 EVs approaching the end of their battery life are selling for almost $50,000 on eBay, but I think that’s only because they are a rare vehicle. Once the Volt is produced in the tens of thousands, rarity won’t be propping up the resale value.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Rockyroad 47
Really? Do you think that most americans will buy an ugly car for 40K? I agree that we need to acheive energy independence but it won’t happen with this car. No car will do that. The whole fleet needs to be changed. I will buy an electric car. Just not this one. You Chevy fanboys need to get a life and stop harping on those of us who hate what happened to the design. GM screwed it up. End of story.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
RB #48
I assume you’re referring to the pic with Frank Webber in it. It looks a lot like that pic to me, just w/o Mr. Webber blocking the view.
While I’m sure there will always be people pining fir the concept, I think eye level shots w/o the executive team blocking the view will be much better received.
Returning to another issue from this past week. The timing of the photo leak certainly was fishy, but would you have picked poor angles featuring Tony Pasawitz featured instead of your prize?
These kinds of pricing discussions in the press mean didly. The president if the company said point blank recently that the price would be under $40K, if my memomry serves. That is the only price discussion that has any merit. This article could be sourcing Lutz’ old “off the cuff” comments about the cost to build the Volt for all we know.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Grizzly #45.
Ya, you got me there, my friend.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
People that complain about living in Red or Blue states, should try Cuba for a year (or Russia)…
September 13th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
The battery is the tough part. Without actual testing experience there is no telling how long it will last. A123 seems quite confident about three years. What experience I’ve had with their batteries has been good. Let GM price in a replacement for the folks in CA and anyone else that wants to pay an extra 10K for the car and let the rest buy it with a three year warranty on the battery and let us get our own replacement if we need it. I am confident it will be less expensive and the money that pays for it will be worth less.
I appreciate what Ralph Nader has done for this country. Practially every watch dog agency in this country was brought into being by awareness of problems brought to our attention through his efforts. I really believe if there was a citizen of the century award, he should get it. That said I drove two Corvairs, both body styles. It was a handful at speed in corners (it would swap ends in a heartbeat), but really fun to drive.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
#45 Gary - repaint the Volt . . . in a more interesting colour like orange. It seems to be the right colour for an electric car.
Well sort of. It should be a metallic orange so that it looks copper colored!
September 13th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
#57 koz, referring to #48, says “While I’m sure there will always be people pining fir the concept, I think eye level shots w/o the executive team blocking the view will be much better received.”
Please note that my #48 referred only to the sketch and photo of the production car, and what seemed to me to be a substantial difference from the rear. The concept was in neither the sketch, the photo, nor my comment, and I don’t think I was “pining for” anything.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
The referenced NYT article contains this sentence “Plugging into a standard household socket for six or so hours to charge the batteries, and topping off the 12-gallon gas tank, will provide 400 miles of driving range, G.M. says.”
Doing the arithmetic, one has 400 miles minus 40 electric leaves 360. The ICE mpg then is 360 miles/ 12 gallons equals 30 mpg.
The result of 30 mpg for the Volt with its ICE is well below the 50 to 60 estimated earlier, here. The Duke Lacrosse case demonstrated that the NYT often is wrong on the facts, though NYT writers like to sprinkle them in for effect. Perhaps the NYT simply is wrong. But I wonder because of the end of the sentence “GM says”.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
#31
A house divided cannot stand. One of the biggest problems our nations is facing. If it wasnt the rich white guys it would be the rich black or whomever. Some are good and some are bad. Not just the Blacks need help,(OBama’s statement to help the “Black fathers”.
One good thing among our great diversity, the VOLT is bringing some common ground among the blue and red states.
If the volt is much over 30K I could not afford the car even as bad as I NEED one.
GO-VOLT
September 13th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
RB #63
The originally planned 12 gallon gas tank has been scrapped for a smaller one 7-8 gallons which brings us to roughly 50 mpg. There was even a blog topic on this site regarding the smaller tank.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
#65 Grizzly
Yes, I remember the topic, I remember the large number of posts regarding range, and I agree the tank size was said to have changed. Nonetheless, 12 gallons is the size the NYT article says the Volt has, and GM is cited as the source (though vaguely). Again, maybe the NYT writer just has it wrong.
September 13th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
The resale value will depend both on reliability and uniqueness. High resale value can’t be taken for granted.
“Success” needs to be defined in the context of Volt - is it selling 10K cars in the first year or may be 100K cars in the first three. That shouldn’t be too difficult - even at $30K+.
Will they sell more volts than Prius in 2012 ? I don’t think so …
————–
#51
In summary, the Volt’s low operational cost and high resale value will convince a lot of people that even at 40K$ it will be a fantastic investment.
Yes, the Volt is going to be a big success.
—————–
September 13th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
RB
The plan was changed to less than 12 gallons in the tank months ago where have you been? LJGTVWOTR!
Take CAre,
TED
September 13th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
#35 Tagamet
In response to my #31 you said, “Hey, you made it political - hee, hee.” Yet, in #11 you said, “Any chance we can get CA to secede from the union?” Using blue-state science, #11 (your comment) comes before #31 (my comment). You made it political/divisive, not me. Comments like, “Any chance we can get CA to secede from the union?” are divisive.
BTW, what freight are red-staters paying for blue-stater’s needs? Back up your jingoism with facts or STFU.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I’m betting refurbished Volts will be available after 7-10 years keeping them on the road for a long time.
LSMFT!
September 13th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
63 RB
So, what’s your point. You aren’t demanding/expecting accuracy from the press are you?
September 13th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
#68 Ted asks me “where have you been? ” in relation to the size of the Volt’s gas tank.
——————————————–
Where I have been is reading the NYT article that is the subject of this post. It is online now and will be a part of the print edition either today (Saturday) or tomorrow (Sunday).
Please read it yourself by following Lyle’s link, if you have not done so already.
One sentence in the NYT article says “Plugging into a standard household socket for six or so hours to charge the batteries, and topping off the 12-gallon gas tank, will provide 400 miles of driving range, G.M. says.”
Note it says “12-gallon gas tank” and at the end, “G.M. says”. Please. I am not making this up.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
RB #66
I’m guessing that the NYT writer did speak to GM but then probably forgot to get details and went to the official Chevy-volt website which in the specs still lists the fuel tank @ 12 gallons.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
#73 Grizzly on the likely source of the gas tank size in the NYT article
———————–
What you are saying sounds plausible to me. Assuming 12-gallon is wrong, I hope the official Chevy-volt website is corrected soon on this and any other points where needed. One wonders about the 400 mile part as well.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
#71 NZDavid asks if I am “demanding/expecting accuracy from the press ”
—————————————————————
I am hardly in the position to demand anything from the press and especially the NYT, which considers itself above the level of ordinary mortals such as me
As the NYT does have a wide circulation and by many people is considered authoritative, it is a good idea to know what is written in the NYT, as a statement printed in the NYT is considered to be correct by many people. That influence is possibly part of why Lyle focused this post on their article, and for sure it is why GM no doubt worked hard to cooperate with the NYT, in the hope of a favorable article related to the 100th anniversay celebration.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Link to said article in the New York Times ??????
Geesus! I have to tell you everything? !
September 13th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
#76 asks “Link to said article in the New York Times ??????”
Just in case anyone actually does not know, here is how to get the NYT article.
Scroll back up to Lyle’s post above. Near the end it says Source(New York Times). Click on the words New York Times and the underlying link will take you directly to the article.
It is a good article, on the whole.
The discussion here has been about a few sentences within it.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
DonC
My joking comment about secession has nothing to DO with politics. I didn’t say “That Red State, or that Blue State, or even that Communist State. I was referring to their regulations, not their politics. I won’t take the blame for your sensitivities.
So now you can STFU and we can move on to the next thread.
Eat dirt and die,
Tag
September 13th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I have been watching this site for Volt news for about six months now. I have seen some very good research with links.
Does anyone have a good understanding of what type of maintainance /schedule the VOLT would have?
Thanks,
GO-Volt
September 13th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I really don’t care unless the price gets intense. I do not have a problem with factoring in battery costs. I can’t see into the future. Neither can GM, so I think it is a good idea to factor it in as a contingency cost. Hypothetical situation: 4 years into Volt ownership, there is a problen that is covered under warranty then they fix it under warranty. 7 years into Volt ownership, the battery dies. They will know that the average battery life is approximately 7 years. I pull into a Chevy dealership and they pull up my file and install a new 7 year (or by that time 12 year) battery. I didn’t design the car nor will I build it, so I have absolutely NO idea how difficult it will be to replace it. How heavy is it? How will it fit in-from the bottom of the car, the inside, or what? As far as the Prius-killer quote? Were it not for the Prius or other endeavors like it and the high price of gas, there might not be a Volt to begin with. All things begin with an idea, but that idea has to come from inspiration. I’m thankful for the Prius as GM has a benchmark to beat. Soon after, there will be other automakers trying to beat the Volt and Prius. This will inevitably spur battery research and give reason and incentive to improve our utility grid.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
For Volt-Nation, the week just ended has been a stormy and difficult one. Maybe the upcoming week will be the other side, with some nice pictures and interesting new information emerging, so that we all can get back on a more positive track. I hope so.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
DonC,
I apologize. It was ThombDbhomb I meant to insult.
Be well,
Tag
September 13th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Nvrmind, you got it, hehe.
/wave
September 13th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Off Topic, but, sort of, pushing the case for plug ins over Hev’s:
Could be a interesting couple of weeks coming up.
According to EIA data, gasoline inventories the week that Hurricane Gustav hit were the lowest that they had been since 2000, amounting to 187.9 million barrels, or about 21 days supply. Quite a bit of this inventory is needed just to keep the pipelines filled. EIA does not publish information as to how far inventories need to drop before we start seeing outages, but it is clear that we have now reached the point where shortages are developing.
Source: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4526
NO Plug, NO sale.
LJGTVWOTR
September 13th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
81, RB,
I agree completely. I think this past week had the most posted comments ever. Some very strong feelings have emerged from many of us, myself included. Even the mild mannered ThombDbhomb is very upset today.
Hopefully the new week brings new positive feelings for all of us.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
#78 Tagamet
Sounds like you’ve got some sensitivities of your own to deal with. Maybe you need a shrink.
You meant to insult me? You insult my intelligence when you try to say you weren’t being political. Regulations have nothing to do with politics? Nice try. You would be more repectable if you could admit you were wrong. In #13 DonC thought you were political. In #16 you mentioned “Blue/Red states.” #41 Jason C (aka Harrier1970) took offense to your “nonpolitical” statement.
Now add substance. I repeat, what freight are red-staters paying for blue-stater’s needs? Back up your jingoism with facts or STFU.
September 13th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
ThombDbhomb
You can repeat all you want. You’re the one that started dropping expletives and if you thought that I’d let that go, you are obviously mistaken.
There’s nothing I could possibly say that will change your mind or your manners.
Tagamet
NO Plug, NO sale.
LJGTVWOTR
September 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Tag
Ooooh expletives! Bad me! Never mind that you denigrate a whole state of people with some lame “fact” that you can’t support. You can hate “California,” but I can’t use an expletive?
“There’s nothing I could possibly say that will change your mind or your manners.”
You could change my mind with facts and substance. You could back up your claim - what freight are red-staters paying for blue-stater’s needs?
Manners? is it mannerly to make fun of my state?
September 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Terry K #70
“I’m betting refurbished Volts will be available after 7-10 years keeping them on the road for a long time.”
*** *** ***
I think you are very right. They’ll be refurbished with far superior batts than they came with and will be a bargain compared to newer EVs with the latest.
Has anyone ever stopped to think about the after market modification industry EVs like the Volt will spawn? It’s staggering to think what types of mods from power electronics to firmware to RE add-ons will be made by 3rd party companies affording everything from superior performance to superior AER and everything in between. If you thought there are a lot of mods available for ICE vehicles, you haven’t seen anything yet.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
#85 Rashiid Amul
Thanks for your efforts at defusing things. Even though we have differed, you have always been reasonable. Here’s to positivity!
September 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
#45 Grizzly,
#58 Rashiid,
You both seem to be in agreement that Dr. Anderman is “the furthest thing from an independant observer” because . . .what ? I presume the picture of Anderman in Toyota City.
Did you look past the picture, turn the page, and read the posted client list?
September 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Carcus #91
Yes, I’ve read the entire list. Remember that when you’re a consultant, you can’t afford to have an opinion on anything until you check with your largest client.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
RB #62
Sorry for the confusion. Only my first paragraph was a direct response to your comments. I should have broken my comment in two. Those pining for the concept are the hundreds of posters on the previous threads this week. BTW, I think if you put the rear quarter photo next to the sketch you’ll see a close resemblance. The sketch is just pulled back a bit to show the whole car and nobody is blocking the view. The biggest difference I can see is the lip of the rear hatch (at least I hope it’s a hatch) lid is more curved from side to side in the photo.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
#2
I mean no offense but I don’t think the Prius is going anywhere. I think there’s room enough for both the Volt & Prius (and hopefully many more) at the EV table.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
#92 Grizzly,
Anderman’s full quote from the times is as follows:
————————
“Without three or four years to test battery life in both the laboratory and in the field, prudent engineering steps have to be bypassed,” he said. “Lacking long-term data, G.M. might have to include the cost of a battery replacement in the Volt’s price.” Mr. Anderman added: “Rushing to deliver 60,000 electric vehicles per year poses a phenomenal risk. The business case for a vehicle with a $10,000 battery is problematic. I predict G.M. will end up building only a few thousand of them.” He said he did not expect the Volt “to be either a commercial success or a long-term benefit” to G.M.’s image.
——————-
I think . . . . . .. this is a valid criticism/fear.
I wonder . . . . . if GM doesn’t think the same way,
I fear . . . . . . . . that very few of us will actually get our hands on a volt in the next 10 years
I’d feel better about GM’s situation if they had something that didn’t leap frog, but was able to compete with the prius/insight (low $20k’s, 45mpg) head to head — along with the “moon shot” volt. Potential investors/stock buyers would probably feel better too.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Carcus #95
Li-ion isn’t exactly new. Inferior chemistries have been used in laptops for almost a decade. WRT A123’s chemistry it’s already being used in DeWalt power tools, and I haven’t heard of any catastrophic failures. True, the ramp up in size to a 16KW/h pack is a concern and unlike the power tools you have things like heating and cooling and weld points etc, but these are engineering challenges not concerns about the life of A123 chemistry.
So you release 10K cars the first year and see how it goes. My line of thinking is as I mentioned earlier the problems will likely be related to shock and vibration and heating/cooling issues. Only road testing on that scale will enable GM (or anyone) to push the envelope of what’s possible. We don’t have another 3-4 years to wait, every time we fill our tanks we’re sending our money to people who want to kill us.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:01 am
The chief battery guy for the Times makes me laugh. What a very negative prediction.
His predictions are right up there with scientific predictions of old:
-about 1490, the earth is flat and if boats sail to far out, they’ll sail over the edge.
-about the same time, the earth is the center of the universe
-about 1850, close the US patent office, there’s nothing new to invent.
-about 1950, man will never make it to the moon in this century
I could go on but I won’t bore you. I think we’ve come along ways as a society and have learned not to bet against determined scientific efforts.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Grizzly #96,
I agree with everything in this post, and take a different turn at “we don’t have 3-4 years to wait”.
Sounds like we both agree that the number 1 priority is getting off of foreign oil.
But to me, the best short term solution would involve large GM production numbers of prius comparable hybrids at prices the public can afford.
We should be able to do that now. Borrow from the asian playbook and reverse engineer something quick! Meanwhile, press on with the volt, sell some, but don’t hang yourself out in large production numbers before the product/batteries are proven.
Nimh and parallel hybrids are well proven, yet there’s not one U.S. made parallel hybrid that can compete with the Prius . . . . why is that?
Is there one even on the drawing boards?
I (taxpayer) don’t want to have to subsidize the u.s. automotive industry through this transition. If u.s. manufacturers were selling the prius they could support themselves.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Ed M
-There’s a market for about 40 computers, IBM 1940’s
-The hybrid Prius is a waste of time and money that will never sell in any real numbers, GM circa 2005
#98 Carcus
If GM starts (new hybrds) now with existing platforms, they will hit the market at about the same time or a little later than the Volt. LJGTVWOTR
September 14th, 2008 at 1:44 am
If GM were in the defcon 5 emergency mode they should be in, they’d be pumping out a prius in 6 mos.
But that would involve real risks, real rewards, real capitalism, and real management.
Keep it real.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:49 am
This is a GM game. We have all been sucked into it. This is not a car that will help all of us but a car that will make GM rich! They could care less about us unless we buy the car. Sorry I do not like the game that is being played with the car I developed 30 years ago.
Take Care
Arch
September 14th, 2008 at 1:58 am
s
September 14th, 2008 at 2:32 am
xp-883?
September 14th, 2008 at 3:15 am
It is true that 123 is a well proven battery and very tough, yet they have not been on the market for 10 years.. in any case I have a stinking suspicion that LG won the contract, and that is an unproven chemistry. GM may have gotten a better price and LG is a large manufacturer… and they did deliver the first packs to GM.
GM could force LG to warrant the batteries for 10y/150k, but it is very hard to enforce such a warranty on a chinese company. GM is being fiscally prudent in including the battery replacement in the cost. The first several thousand Volts will be bought by rich Hollywood types anyways, so the cost does not matter.
Best case scenario is no battery problems (but you know people will tinker with it, with potential disastrous results) and GM does not replace many batteries.. in that case they get to keep that extra money they charged as profit.. and what is good for GM is good for America. Competition (and it has been announced already) will force the price down eventually.
Are we exchanging a dependence for foreign oil to a dependency for foreign batteries?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Grizzly Says:
September 14th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Carcus #95
Li-ion isn’t exactly new. Inferior chemistries have been used in laptops for almost a decade. WRT A123’s chemistry it’s already being used in DeWalt power tools, and I haven’t heard of any catastrophic failures. True, the ramp up in size to a 16KW/h pack is a concern and unlike the power tools you have things like heating and cooling and weld points etc, but these are engineering challenges not concerns about the life of A123 chemistry.
September 14th, 2008 at 3:37 am
I think GM should source batteries from both companies for the Volt.. compete them against each other.. and you also have a backup in case of technology failures.
The Army used to do the same thing when they purchased laser guided Copperhead shells (artillery fired) in the ’80s.. they split the contract by 60/40 and awarded it to two competitors, every year they would submit a credible bid and the lowest one would get the 60% portion of the contract, the higher one got 40%.. So competition was fierce, keeping cost low and at the same time the Army had two manufacturers that could crank up production in wartime as needed. The companies did not like it of course
September 14th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Oops!.. LG is Korean, not Chinese.. never mind
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/lg-chem-to-supp.html
September 14th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Things are pretty slow around here…..
Is Lyle on vacation, or is he just laying low until Tuesday morning???
September 14th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Jim I@107 said:
“Things are pretty slow around here…..
Is Lyle on vacation, or is he just laying low until Tuesday morning???”
Maybe he and the family are headed to GM headquarters. Could be wrong.
Be well,
Tag
“LJGTVWOTR!!”
September 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
The printed article in the NYT gives a caption to the sketches above that says they are artist’s renderings based on the leaked photos. The printed ones are not in color.
The article prints two photographs of the concept Volt. The picture of the concept Volt at the bottom of the page, a separate story comparing kinds of hybrids, identifies the car as The Chevrolet Volt.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Carcus #95
“Nimh and parallel hybrids are well proven, yet there’s not one U.S. made parallel hybrid that can compete with the Prius . . . . why is that?
*** *** ***
Because US manufacturers miscalculated the viability of this technology when a gallon of gas was selling for $1.29 and it was very expensive to develop. Hopefully they’ve learned from their mistakes. The plan now is not to settle for average, but to push the envelope.
Carcus #95
“Is there one even on the drawing boards?”
*** *** ***
No, because contrary to what one might believe, full hybrids are extremely expensive and time consuming to develop, and why would GM or any other manufacturer want to play catch up with a potent developer of small cars? The plan with the Volt was to leap frog Toyota and not waste billions on what will soon be old technology. Moreover there are actually ICE vehicles that can come close to matching the Prius’ mileage, the Cruze being one of them.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I hope that the GM designers can do another revision of the production Volt we’ve seen. Make it look more like a muscular sports sedan like some BMWs and Lexus’s I’ve seen. Maybe it wouldn’t create too many problems with their manufacturing plans. Maybe the Volt we’ve seen is just the Beta 1 version and it will look a lot better by the time they do the RTM (Gold) version in November 2010+.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Grizzly #110,
Your answers look like cool aid.
No thanks.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I have extensive experience in 15 to 20-year-life batteries (used in countless earth-orbiting spacecraft in the harsh environment of space) for which: 1) accelerated life testing is routinely conducted for only ~3 years prior to launch, 2) replacement is NOT an option, and 3) failure of the battery can cause complete spacecraft failure at a cost of perhaps $200million.
We’ve found a) that the 3-yr accelerated life test results can be extrapolated to 15-20 years with high a probability of success and that b) actual battery failures have been very rare even after 15 years of operation in space.
ATTN GM: Based on the above, I am very confident that you’ll find the Volt batteries additional accelerated life testing (plus road testing) during the next 2 years will allow you to confidently project 10-15 year battery lifetimes, thus allow you to confidently abandon the idea of pricing a replacement battery in as part of the Volt’s selling price.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Grizzly #110,
…..” full hybrids are extremely expensive and time consuming to develop, and why would GM or any other manufacturer want to play catch up with a potent developer of small cars?”
————————–
So GM thinks it’s a waste of time and money to develop a full hybrid, yet we’ve got a full hybrid Tahoe? [ that doesn't sell, because it's $53,000]
Just how dumb are these people?
Here’s why they’d want to play catch up. Because they’re way freakin’ behind! Leap frog products don’t mean jack if you can’t /don’t plan to sell them in volume.
Top 10 May 2008 Sales (source: kicking tires)
Honda Civic: 53,229 (including hybrid)
Toyota Corolla: 52,826
Toyota Camry: 51,291 (including hybrid)
Honda Accord: 43,728 (including hybrid and coupe)
Ford F-Series: 42,973
Chevy Silverado: 37,020
Nissan Altima: 34,428 (including hybrid and coupe)
Ford Focus: 32,579
Chevy Cobalt: 26,702
Chevy Impala: 23,803
September 14th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
#113 nasaman
The earth-orbiting space environment differs from the terrestrial environment. There are more potholes on earth. Does your analysis consider terrestrial variables wrt battery reliability?
September 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
#113 nasaman,
How much did those [moonshot] batteries cost?
September 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Grizzly #110,
” Moreover there are actually ICE vehicles that can come close to matching the Prius’ mileage, the Cruze being one of them.”
—————————————-
More imaginary B.S. Check your facts. . . . well, I guess you can’t check your facts. Because there are none.
What’s the technology breakthrough that has comparably equipped (airbags etc.) comparably sized gasoline ICE car matching a hybrid in fuel economy?
Answer: Uh, uhhhhh, uh, cuz’ GM said so?
September 14th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
115 ThombDbhomb…….. “….There are more potholes on earth. Does your analysis consider terrestrial variables wrt battery reliability?”
————————————————————————————————————-
A typical launch (on Delta, Atlas or Titan rockets) exposes spacecraft batteries to FAR more g-forces than the shock & vibration from the deepest pot-holes in roads.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
116 Carcus….. “How much did those batteries cost?”
——————————————————————————————————————–
The research & development costs (which is all that really matters) of spacecraft batteries is MUCH LESS than GM & their suppliers are spending on the Volt’s battery R&D costs!
September 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#119 Nasaman says,
The research & development costs (which is all that really matters) of spacecraft batteries is MUCH LESS than GM & their suppliers are spending on the Volt’s battery R&D costs!
———–
Why is Volt’s battery R&D so much more money?
I would have thought that anything having to do with Space would be way more. What am I missing?
September 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
#119 Nasaman,
“The research & development costs (which is all that really matters) of spacecraft batteries is MUCH LESS than GM & their suppliers are spending on the Volt’s battery R&D costs!”
————————
Why don’t they just get the battery R&D info from NASA then? It’d sure be a lot cheaper. And, I already paid for it. If they pay for it with my $25B loan then I have to pay for it twice!
September 14th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Discussion on the 45 mpg Chevy Cruze:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/detn-chevrolet-cruze-to-get-45mpg/
September 14th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The LG battery is probably cheaper than the A123, so even though it is inferior, GM will most likely go with LG.
The A123 battery has been in DeWalt tools for 3 years now. There is ample data to figure its 5 year or even 10 year life span. If GM’s engineers cannot figure that out, then fire em, along with all the transmission, drive train, radiator, exhaust and catalytic convertor, engine, carburator, fuel system, pollution control, starting/alternator engineers, and auto service mechanics.
GM did not get into this pickle without doing silly things like picking LG.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Artist picture is much better than leaked pics!!!
Put two tone on the production like the artist pic
The batteries will hold up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Says who?
A123 (”A one twenty threes” battery geek way of saying the name.) 123 have been tested beat on and bashed for years
They have passed the test with flying colors
They work.
Check out the data at Rcgroups.com.
Check out the data at an endless-sphere.com (electic bike forum)
Also I own some for my e-bike.
The volt is a game changer. The freight train has left the station and there is no stoppping it.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
120 Rashiid Amul, 121 Carcus……….
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Long-life spacecraft batteries employ very different technology than long-life automotive batteries….. NiH2 (Nickel Hydrogen). As such, they are mass efficient (necessary to minimize launch weight) but they are apparently not practical for automotive use because their volumetric efficiency (size) is not as good as Li-Ion batteries.
In other words, long-life spacecraft batteries (which must be light weight) must employ “pressure vessels” similar to the high-pressure tanks needed for hydrogen storage in fuel cell vehicles, which would occupy too much space in a car. As such, the technology (like Fuel Cell “engines”) is apparently not yet practical or cost effective for automobiles.
Regarding R&D cost, the basic R&D on NiH2 batteries has been shared by many different NASA programs (and numerous commercial space programs), whereas it would appear GM and their suppliers are absorbing much of the automotive Li-Ion R&D costs themselves.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I getting the feeling the volt is an attempt to get some free government subsidies /loan money/ bailout cash what ever you want to call it
The continual delays, the miracle batteries that dont have 1/2 the life expectantcy that they had a month ago, a production car shown today but told you wont see one at a dealer for 3 yrs. price varied 100%, body style completly changed, electic range all over the place??
How about this: Build a few thousand cars, lease them out at $300/month (basically a standard price to lease a car) on a month by month term..if leasee doesnt like it he returns it ans someone else can lease it on a monthly term.. What better way to get real maketing info and real world reliability.
September 14th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Nasaman #125,
Looks like a little company called Clyde Space thinks you’re behind the times by hanging on to NiH2 instead of moving on to Li-ion. And in error about mass efficiency of NiH2 vs. Li-ion.
“As a result of several years of life testing, the recently developed Lithium ion (Li-ion) rechargeable battery has become the popular choice amongst mission designers. Li-ion battery technology offers spacecraft engineers a number of advantages over other battery technologies, including an energy density nearly double that of NiH2 at 120Wh/kg+. Testing has shown Li-ion to have cycling properties as good as NiCd and NiH2 for both low and high DoD applications.”
But NiH2 has been the technology with the most working knowledge so people tend to go with what they know.
“The advantages of this technology [NiH2} are the fact that it not only has many years of life test data, it has also been successfully used on many missions over the last 10-20 years.”
http://www.clyde-space.com/resources/powerschool/power_storage/secondary_batteries
Maybe you should call these guys and see if they know something you don’t.;)
September 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I showed the pictures to some people at work of the silver leaked Volt and most where kind of indifferent, but once i mentioned that it was a plug in electric car that used a gas motor as a back up plan and that if they drove less than 40 miles a day they would not use a drop of gas, they where sold. The car may not be the most attractive sedan on the road but for most people the fact that they might rarely ever have to visit a gas station is enough to sell them. The savings at the pump alone make the car worth it.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Nasaman #125,
I take it batteries are not your specialty?
“The main advantage is the weight reduction of the battery system due to higher energy-to-weight ratio:The energy-to-weight ratio of Li-Ion is higher than 110 Wh/kg about twice the maximum achieved with NiH2.At battery level, the weight reduction is at least more than 40 %. More than 300 kg could be saved for a 20 kW payload satellite.”
http://telecom.esa.int/telecom/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=1480
September 15th, 2008 at 1:07 am
These new sketches of the Volt are no doubt my favorite. I don’t so much like the other looks that I’ve seen. They’re too bold and “high-class” looking. It’s just not my style.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:39 am
127 & 129 Carcus…….. (Regarding Li-Ion vs NiH2 for space applications)
————————————————————————————————————————–
Thanks for updating me with the work at the European Space Agency (ESA) & in Scotland at Clyde Space, neither of which I was aware of! You’re right, I’m no longer specializing in space -craft batteries (having retired). I now work as a consultant in my own firm (Space Science Services, “S-cubed”) in the areas of spacecraft forensics, risk analysis, expert witnessing, mission management/planning, failure analysis, etc –i.e., ALL spacecraft systems & subsystems.
My frame of reference for NiH2 was the CPV (common pressure vessel) NiH2 battery concept developed by Comsat Laboratories, which retains all of the advantages of NiH2 but dramatically reduces battery mass and volume by using a single “tank” to house several cells rather a single cell. Comsat Labs was acquired by Lockheed Martin a few years ago, and I assume the CPV NiH2 battery was not pursued or at least not fully developed at LM —do you happen to know?
The most important point, however, is that accelerated spacecraft battery life tests lasting as little as 3-4 years (with NiCd, NiMh & NiH2 chemistries, at least) have been found to accurately predict actual battery lifetimes of 15-20 years ….and that I would expect careful accelerated life testing of Li-Ion batteries* should do the same, such that the 2 additional years remaining for accelerated battery life testing should give GM very good insight into actual service life, cell failures, etc, hopefully enough so that it will be unnecessary to price a replacement battery into a Volt’s selling price.
*Clearly, ESA (et al) will not be able to accumulate 20 years of Li-Ion Life Test data before launching 15-20 yr spacecraft using Li-Ion batteries
September 15th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Nasaman #131,
Sounds like interesting work. Sort of like and independent NTSB for spacecraft?
Looks like the first Lithiums went high (is that the term for Geosynchronous?) in March of ‘04.
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2004/mar/1025503.htm
I hope you are right that there’s been (soon will be) enough testing on the GM suppliers batteries to be assured of exceeding the warranty period. We’d all like to see mass production and reduced price soon thereafter. Guess we’ll all just have to wait and see how it works out.
I have no idea what Lockheed Martin’s status is/was with NiH2. Most of their buzz lately has come from involvement with Eestor and the supercaps.
P.S. Batteries aren’t my specialty either. But I soon hope to get my Masters in “googling”.
(plus, I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night)
September 15th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Nasaman, there is 3 years of field data available on A123 packs used in DeWalt tools. Would you assume that obtaining a 10 year projection based on this data is entirely possible?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
#49 wrote “What about a capacitor, isnt there new tech that could replace a battery?”
yes there is something called an ultracapicitor (can’t help but think of the Flex Capicitor from Back to the Future)
Zenn Motor Company (Canada “ah”), a electic car maker, will be using this technology developed by EEstor, whom is based in Texas. The specs are fantastic…
http://www.zenncars.com/html/investor/EEStor/index.html
As you can see the Ceramic EESU’s claims are superior to lithium-ion batteries. There is a very clear and clean graph on Zenn’s website. go to http://www.zenncars.com/ then click “Learn” “Company” “EEstor” scroll down to graph.
The good thing is that EEstor has had 3rd party to verify thier claims.
http://media.cleantech.com/3173/eestor-gets-scientific-backing-its-advanced-batteries
Makes me wonder “why hasn’t GM looked in this direction yet?”
September 17th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Interesting that the projected plans for an electric car do not include a SOLAR based battery maintenance option. From silicon to dyes to smart skins for a roof. Even a DC jack would be nice (should I want to park the car under teh shade of a ‘contraption” huh? (TMI) After all, the car will spend his day in the parking lot of the workplace. Not talking about getting a full charge, just getting another mile out of the batt before the engine kicks on. I just hope that enough of the engineering is trckled out, to allow the few of us that like to play, improve on greatness. How would I send in such a message to the “E-Flex Systems and Chevy Volt General Motors Corp.”? jrt