AND 
Tesla CEO Critical of the Chevy Volt
PayPal founder Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla Motors. Recently he unveiled the Model S 4 door all-electric sedan shown above to much fanfare. The car exists only as a prototype but the company hopes to mass produce it if it can obtain a $350 million dollar government loan to build the assembly plant.
Tesla has already been producing the 2-seat electric Roadster and has plans to eventually build inexpensive electric cars and partner with automakers. GM vice chairman Bob Lutz has even credited the company with inspiring him to develop the Volt.
But one thing that stands out is Tesla has no plans to build an extended range electric car like the Volt.
I had the chance to ask Elon Musk why.
What is your feelings about the range-extender concept of the Chevy Volt and why have you not considered it it any of your products?
We looked closely at a range extender architecture for Model S. It ends up costing about the same in vehicle unit cost, a lot more in R&D and a lot more in servicing. Also, although performance is ok when both battery and engine are active at the same time, it turns really bad when the battery runs out and an undersized engine is carrying all the dead weight of the pack. Essentially, a REV is neither fish nor fowl and ends up being worse (in our opinion) than either a gasoline or pure electric vehicle.
An important consideration that people without a technical background don’t understand is that you can either have a high power or a high energy cell chemistry, but not both. Since the battery pack in a plug in hybrid like the Volt has to generate the same *power* as a much larger battery pack in a pure electric vehicle, it has to use a low energy cell chemistry.
That means a 40 mile REV pack is not 1/5 the size of a 200 mile pure EV pack, as simple proportionality would suggest. Another factor is that the REV pack is forced to do three to four times more cycles that a pure EV pack and is (obviously) hit with five times the current per cell during acceleration and regen braking, which forces the REV pack to be derated considerably.
The net result is that a 40 mile REV pack is roughly half the size of a 200 mile EV pack. On top of that, you have to add the engine, generator and all the interconnects between engine and battery. It ends up having about the same mass and worse packing efficiency than a pure EV, plus you still have to deal with all the environmental issues of a gasoline engine.
April 6th, 2009 at 6:09 am
That all sonds pretty true, and nobody here thought building the volt was easy, but personally I’m looking for a vehicle that can suit all of my needs. the 7 passenger versatility of the Model S sounds great, but I also want to travel 350 miles a few times during the summer to visit my parents and can’t do that without stopping in the Model S. With the Volt, I can have an EV for all my commuting needs and also have a car that will take me from Philly to up state New York without a serious delay.
From a technical standpoint, based on GM only using %50 of the battery capacity I have no reason not to believe what Elon is saying. BUT, if I have 40 miles EV from 1 mile on the odometer to 150,000 miles on the odometer I really don’t care how much extra weight i’m carrying around.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:10 am
I think Tesla is a little bias.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:13 am
I have immense respect for Elon Musk, but I have to disagree with him here.
If you translate what he said from the article, it mostly boils down to this: Tesla doesn’t have the means to develop an entirely new battery chemistry, the R&D money to support an engine development and integration, or the means to do ICE servicing.
By contrast, GM is very familiar with ICE R&D and servicing though their dealerships. And the battery chemistry that was developed specifically for GM by A123 and LG is very different than the common Lithium Cobalt Oxide cells that Tesla uses.
As for the ICE having to haul around the weight of an empty battery, we have done the Pike’s Peak scenario here at GM-volt.com to death, and the fact is that there is no road in the U.S. that will allow the battery to get empty, so the battery and ICE are always producing electrical peak power together.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Ah yes, All those technical details. Clearly it is true that a pure electric is a much more elegant and simple design. Looks great on paper. He forgot to at least mention the reason that all of this extra “stuff” is put into the volt. Range anxiety. Life would really suck when you are driving home on that that hot day and traffic jams. You are left running the AC or heater and your battery pack starts to read 20% charge left (or less) and is dropping. At that time, you are really glad to have that gas engine to secure your ride home.
I love the TESLA but this guy is just blowing smoke when he says that the range extender ICE is not a good idea.
I would suggest that each tesla come with a tow bar on the front.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Thank you Nuclearboy #4,
My thoughts exactly…..Range anxiety.
Question: Why can’t I have both battery types?
One for high power the other for high energy?
Is it weight, space, cost, or all three?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Dave G
I agree with everything Musk said technologically. But if I’m going to choose between the slick BEV with 160 mile DOE range for 57K and the 40k-more-or-less small sedan (before rebates), I’ll choose the range extended Volt.
At one point Musk said Tesla would consider a range extender and Fisker’s work shows that it wouldn’t take unlimited resources to get them prototyped. Would have to give up the front trunk though.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:34 am
Dave G: “Tesla doesn’t have the means to develop an entirely new battery chemistry,…”
That’s irrelevant… they can buy any chemistry that works to the purpose. GM doesn’t own a battery chemistry, either. LG does.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:35 am
I like the Tesla vehicles a lot, but I don’t have much faith in the company’s ability to find more than just a niche audience for their vehicles.
First, their vehicles are only available in California. The support infrastructure for these cars is so complex that they won’t even sell it to you if there’s no dealer nearby.
It’s probably with good reason. If the car runs out of juice you’re stuck for a very long time. Because of the massive amount of battery power the car needs to operate, you’re likely waiting for eight to sixteen hours (or more) just to limp home. 110 charging on the Tesla is just not a feasible means of fast refueling. This same reason is exactly why the EV1 failed: people are not going to buy a car that has the potential to leave them stranded when the battery runs low.
And then of course is the hardware. When you buy a Tesla the electricians have to come out and install a sizable charging station in the garage – another barrier to entry. As mentioned above 110 charging is just not feasible.
I really do want Tesla to succeed. But they are making every one of the mistakes GM made with the EV1 and assuming the market will go along with it this time. They’re even down on Shai Agassi’s plan for a hot swappable battery infrastructure (something that would actually make the Tesla’s practical). They were so eager to criticize Agassi that their PR people logged into my low traffic blog to bash his plan. See that discussion here:
http://www.lonseidman.com/2008/12/the-biblically-fast-electric-car-needs-a-practical-refueling-solution/
People simply won’t buy an electric car that can’t be quickly refueled. End of story. Anything else is going to be a toy for wealthy buyers who drive the vehicle short distances as a secondary vehicle.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Not sure if I agree with all of Elon’s sayings, especially because Tesla had trouble getting a multiple-speed transmission to work. He does raise some OK points, but it sounds mostly like bashing comments. Wonder what he thinks about the plug-in Prius?
5. Rashiid …
“Question: Why can’t I have both battery types?”
His explanation was wayyy oversimplified, there aren’t simply the two type of batteries. You can make a tradeoff decision between the two different attributes, google image search “Ragone Plot” and you’ll understand.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:42 am
The title says – There’s gonna be some bashing here, but I don’t see that in the article. The tech points are true. GM seems to have overcome everything except price, and they’re a bit ahead of Tesla on that issue.
Lon Seidman – Tesla has said they will have swappable batteries for the Model S, whatever that will mean pragmatically.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Motorcycles deal with range anxiety by storing 25 miles of fuel in the reserve portion of the tank. Look at the Tesla roadster or the MS. The main battery provides over 100 miles of driving. During this time you have four wheels which can generate power to be stored in a reserve battery. The total range the public will be happy with is about 400 miles. “Up to 200 miles” doesn’t cut it.
=D~
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:43 am
From the article: That means a 40 mile REV pack is not 1/5 the size of a 200 mile pure EV pack, as simple proportionality would suggest. Another factor is that the REV pack is forced to do three to four times more cycles that a pure EV pack and is (obviously) hit with five times the current per cell during acceleration and regen braking, which forces the REV pack to be derated considerably. The net result is that a 40 mile REV pack is roughly half the size of a 200 mile EV pack.
————————————————————————————–
What this means is that Tesla doesn’t have the financial resources available to develop an entirely new chemistry from scratch, so they were forced to choose between existing chemistries, and the commercially available high power chemistry didn’t work well for an range extended version for the Tesla Model S.
If I had the limitations of Tesla, I would come to the same conclusion. But to extrapolate that limited conclusion and say that range extended vehicles are not viable: That seem irresponsible to me.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Mr Musk gives us some excellent comments, especially about the trade offs between size, weight, energy and power. He may well be right that in the long term (when better proven batteries are available) that BEV will be the technology of choice, as it can be simpler.
In the short to medium term, batteries do not hold enough energy for a long day of driving. That’s true of Volt and of Tesla. So the question is how to address that. One approach is to have a specialty vehicle such as a Tesla for “regular” days and something else for “long” days. No doubt Tesla customers have multiple vehicles and use the Tesla as their short-range car.
Another approach is REV as in Volt. It does have considerably greater complexity, but it also offers longer range and immediate gas refills when needed, so for now it is much more versatile.
Right now I can have neither. If I could have both, it would be a hard choice, but I have enough range anxiety to favor Volt.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I don’t know. He seems pretty level headed to me…and not all that critical of the Volt, considering Lyle asked him the question and he is defending his product.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am
It is simple – diferent cars for different people. If a Tesla works for your driving style, and you can afford it, buy it. That also goes for the Volt.
In will be in the long term where we find out who is correct. With the warranty on the battery pack for the Volt going to be at 10 years, and the warranty on the pack for the Tesla at 5 years, it will be interesting to see which batery pack and design actually works out better for the consumers….
And Rashiid, I think the answer to your question is: All Three!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Dave G “What this means is that Tesla doesn’t have the financial resources available to develop an entirely new chemistry from scratch, so they were forced to choose between existing chemistries, and the commercially available high power chemistry didn’t work well for an range extended version for the Tesla Model S. ”
____________
Since no car company has marketed or even announced a proprietary chemistry, I don’t see how it’s even relevant to vehicles coming out about the time of the Volt or Model S. They’re using what is available from suppliers, no more no less right?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:02 am
#7 charlie h Says: That’s irrelevant… they can buy any chemistry that works to the purpose. GM doesn’t own a battery chemistry, either. LG does.
————————————————————————————–
Actually, I believe GM does own the specific chemistry for the Volt.
Here’s an analogy. Lotus manufactures the body and frame of the Tesla Roadster. Does that mean you can go to Lotus and buy Tesla parts? No. The designs of the Roadster are property of Tesla, regardless of who manufactures them.
Also, while its true that Tesla can buy other available chemistries, many of these are not economically viable for a company the size of Tesla. So this effectively limits their choice of chemistry those that are already mass produced. By contrast, a company the size of GM can pretty much guarantee hundreds of thousands of battery packs over a 5-year period, so battery makers will give GM much better pricing for custom chemistries.
In other words, Tesla has to choose an existing high volume chemistry, but for GM, any chemistry they chose will end up being high volume, and therefore competitively priced.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I think he makes some good points, here. I didn’t realize a battery pack for a pure 200-mile EV might weigh only twice that of the Volt.
However, he does tend to skip some of the other important issues:
1) Range anxiety
2) Cold weather operation
3) Cabin heat and defrost
4) Battery life
With the range extending engine, we can overcome all of these issues listed above.
Will the Tesla come with a 10 year/150,000 mile warranty on the battery pack?
I will agree with Dave G, Tesla doesn’t have the resources to do a car as completely and thoroughly as GM. Between battery life tests in environmental chambers, ICE testing, meeting emission standards, and extensive systems integration, this is a daunting task for a small company.
Lyle, you drove the Tesla. It looked like a cool day in NY on the day of the test. Did the car have cabin heat, and if so, how well did it work?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:06 am
#16 jeffhre Says: They [GM] are using what is available from suppliers, no more no less right?
————————————————————————————–
I’m pretty sure the chemistry that LG uses for Volt battery cells is specific to the Volt and is GM proprietary.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:08 am
#18 BillR Says: I didn’t realize a battery pack for a pure 200-mile EV might weigh only twice that of the Volt.
————————————————————————————–
Again, I believe this is only true for Tesla, who is effectively limited to chemistries that are already mass produced.
Specifically, Elon Musk never said anything about the relative battery pack size of the Volt, but rather was making comparisons to a 40-mile range extended version of the Model S.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:09 am
21.
Guy Incognito Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 7:09 am
From the article:
“The car exists only as a prototype but the company hopes to mass produce it if it can obtain a $350 million dollar government loan to build the assembly plant.”
Ha!! Elon Musk you’re an idiot!!
Only the Banks are getting Government (taxpayer) money right.
Theres no money for your silly pure battery electric vehicle.
If you’re looking for funding, why not ask Fisker?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide
_-=
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Dave G Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 7:08 am
#18 BillR Says: I didn’t realize a battery pack for a pure 200-mile EV might weigh only twice that of the Volt.
————————————————————————————–
Again, I believe this is only true for Tesla, who is effectively limited to chemistries that are already mass produced.
______________________
They’re limited in chemistry choices so their packs are more efficient?
The Volt pack is double the size of the 8kWh needed to maintain it’s end of life integrity. Far more full cycle charges and discharges are needed over the life of a 40 mile AER pack v. a 200 mile pack.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:15 am
#18 BillR Says: However, he does tend to skip some of the other important issues:
4) Battery life
————————————————————————————–
To be fair, Elon does talk about battery life, and this was one of his reasons that their range extended pack had to be so large.
But again, this assumes available massed produced chemistry for the range extended Model S. A custom chemistry will change this equation.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:17 am
” it turns really bad when the battery runs out and an undersized engine is carrying all the dead weight of the pack.”
_______________________________________________________
This is what we’ve seen in practical experience from AC propulsion on their VW Jetta EREV as well as their range extender trailer and why the principals now support BEV over EREV. This is why Ford said they didn’t go any further with EREV.
It is WELL past time to allow some independent verification of results (i.e. 50 mpg claim with decent performance after customer depletion) before GM’s snout gets buried any further in the government trough.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:22 am
I also have to mention this statement leading into the article is clearly setting a tone for what is to follow:
—”The car exists only as a prototype but the company hopes to mass produce it if it can obtain a $350 million dollar government loan to build the assembly plant.”
It would be similar to starting a Volt article like this:
—”Two years in, the car exists only as a mule, but the company hopes to produce a working prototype soon… and then mass produce it, if it can first obtain a $2 billion dollar government loan to fund the project, 4 billion in working capital for the next two months, and a further minimum of 22 billion dollars to be a viable concern going forward (assumed under the unlikely sales/SAAR scenario of 10.5 million autos).”
…doesn’t really sound that good
I know Tesla is using somewhat ‘inferior’ technology here and is a pretty simplistic company (and more than a little suspect financially), and are likely destined to be a mere footnote in history…but they still have the ’street cred’ of not only being first in this new wave of electric vehicles, but they are also currently in production….in the US no less.
I never really expected Tesla to amount to anything, other than a few cars for their extremely weathly ownership…so if anyone deserves a little benefit of the doubt, it’s them.
The guy basically said it how it is, the R&D on a E-Rev is expensive, he can’t afford it. Besides that, he builds/wants fast cars–that is the image, and on that metric he is right, the pure BEV is the way to go. The E-Rev hurts his business model- which is sports cars.
One could argue a pure BEV sports car, right now, offers equal to (if not better) performance for the buck as a ICE How many sub 4 second, 0-60 cars can you get for under 100K? (How many are over?) How many 7 seat, sport sedans are doing a mid 5 for $49K? (How many are over?) And as importantly, how many of those ICE sports vehicles are as hella cool? None. (ok, the McLaren F1 is cooler…but I digress)
I think the quickest adoption/best application for battery technology (today) is in the ’sports/performance’ sector. The existing price point in this segment is much higher (which covers the cost of the battery in a EV application), and the benefits of what you are buying/expecting out of this car are much clearer–speed/coolness (electricity very easily equals speed, ridiculous speed).
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Dave G “To be fair, Elon does talk about battery life, and this was one of his reasons that their range extended pack had to be so large.
But again, this assumes available massed produced chemistry for the range extended Model S. A custom chemistry will change this equation.”
_____________
GM’s LG chem pack doesn’t seem to be especially exotic. It appears to be more about cost saving than having the latest special chemistry. It has the range of an 8kWh pack with the bonus of the power of a 16kWh pack.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:24 am
I have a great deal of respect for Tesla as a company, and the products they are bringing to market. Love the looks of the Tesla S. But for me, when it comes down to writing a check out for a Volt or Tesla, it would need to be the Volt because of range anxiety. IMO, GM has the right idea for right now for most people. Still love the Teslas and wish them success, but I wouldn’t be able to justify a Tesla for my own situation. One person posted here a few weeks ago and said something to the affect of having the feeling of security for himself or any member of his family driving a Volt, there’s that “warm blanket” security of the range extender, and that’s worth every penny. That statement sums it up best for me too.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:28 am
#23 jeffhre Says: The Volt pack is double the size of the 8kWh needed to maintain end of life integrity.
————————————————————————————–
First, end-of-life for a Volt is 10 years or 150,000 miles, and you still have the full range at that point. Compare this with Tesla.
Second, the end-of-life issue only de-rates the battery by 70%. The remainder is for the operating margins, particularly in charge sustaining mode.
With these operating margins, there is no mountain pass in the U.S. that will cause any reasonable driver to run out of available battery peak power.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:30 am
#28 Schmeltz,
Yes, well said.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:35 am
#27 jeffhre Says: GM’s LG chem pack doesn’t seem to be especially exotic. It appears to be more about cost saving than having the latest special chemistry.
————————————————————————————–
Just because a chemistry has been tuned to a particular application doesn’t mean its particularly exotic or the latest technology. It just means the chemistry was optimized for durability, safety, and performance issues associated with automobile traction applications.
I don’t believe either battery chemistry Tesla is comparing has these types of optimizations.
As for cost, this is affected most by unit volume.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Dave G
Didn’t GM say they were designing the Volt battery to lose 50% or less of capacity at end of life. 70% is new to me.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Another potential problem I see for the Tesla is not related to batteries per se, but the experience factor. Although Tesla certainly has a nicely styled vehicle, how well will it last?
Many years ago I lusted for the Lotus Esprit. However, the car new cost about $20,000, which was a great deal of money in those days for a car, and beyond my means. However, several years later I noticed an ad for a used Esprit, and went to look at it.
I couldn’t believe the number of issues the car had. The interior was terrible, and some of it was related to the problem of poor seals, so when it rained the car got soaked inside. The interior moldings were coming off, the carpet was coming unglued, and many other problems too numerous to remember. Given the likely cost for parts and repair for this niche vehicle, I didn’t even bother to make an offer (I don’t think it was even in driveable condition, because I never drove it).
My point here is that GM (and other large manufacturers) have a great deal of experience even with the small mundane items like door seals. However, in the long run, this experience can make all the difference in the value of the product.
Time will tell if Tesla can make a long-lasting, quality vehicle.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Dave G.
You’ve already got 1/3 of the posts on this thread. We’ve all read the advertising info (claims) from GM on the volt already. Perhaps you could look outside of GM sources to defend your positions. How about researching, and then getting back to us with technical information on LG Chem’s new battery chemistry?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Nasaman, please confirm the technical jargon of what Elon is saying…
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Telsa = fun toys for the summer & short trips, but not a pratical 24/7 365days/year car (for me)
I’m still glad he is pushing himself and the BEV market though. Once the battery technology is ready, and if it’s in my lifetime, I’ll buy a BEV. Some people’s current driving environment make a BEV feasible now, I think its just a small percentage of the public though.
Regarding battery weight… we know the Volt battery is 400lbs. So does that mean the Tesla S battery weight 800lbs? Isn’t this readily available info? What does the Tesla Roadsters battery weigh? I saw it in Detroit, and it didnt look like it weighed even 800lbs.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:56 am
33 Bill R
Good point. My friend who’s an engineer at GM worked for 6 months with linemen and other engineers optimizing the door seal for 1 particular model of car. Its mundane, but important. Especially if its your car getting wet inside.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:58 am
#32 jeffhre Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Dave G
Didn’t GM say they were designing the Volt battery to lose 50% or less of capacity at end of life. 70% is new to me.
======
I’ve read 70% before. May have even been an article posted here by Lyle
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Dave G
Normally I would be asking if carcus1 hates this so much why stick around. But for me, I know I am not in a position to know what obscure changes at the molecular level that LG chem has chosen to make on GM’s behalf for a limited run vehicle that is still in prototype stages. Seems like a lot of unfunded R&D would be required to make the kind of tweaks you’re referring to, and this does not seem to ring true from my limited experience. Since it could only be speculation on my part, I will leave this part of the discussion up to carcus1’s suggestion.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:06 am
#25 carcus1 Says: It is WELL past time to allow some independent verification of results (i.e. 50 mpg claim with decent performance after customer depletion) …
————————————————————————————–
Many Prius owners have requested this, but this really misses the point. The Prius exists today. The Volt does not.
I’m sure GM doesn’t know exactly what the final performance and efficiency figures will be. They haven’t even built a prototype of the production vehicle yet. That won’t happen until July. Then they will test it, modify some mechanical parts, and do a whole lot of embedded software optimization. Tweaking the algorithms that control the motor, battery, ICE, and generator could have a significant impact on efficiency and range.
So don’t expect any detailed performance or efficiency data from GM until the spring or summer of 2010. Badgering people on this forum for more specific data before then is counterproductive.
All we can do until then is make assumptions based on GM’s preliminary estimates, and see what affect that would have in real life scenarios.
Bottom line: If you need a fuel efficient car right now, today, buy a Prius. It’s a great car, and its been on the market for 12 years, so its a mature technology. But if you are interested in the next generation of cars that eliminate most or all gasoline use, then look at the Volt, and try to see what kind of effect this type of car would have.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:26 am
#40 Dave G.
Is your income GM related?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:31 am
#32 jeffhre Says: Didn’t GM say they were designing the Volt battery to lose 50% or less of capacity at end of life.
————————————————————————————–
No. GM only said they would use 50% of battery capacity at beginning-of-life, and that the full 40-mile range would be available at end-of-life.
The CEO of Compact Power, Inc., the subsidiary of LG Chem that currently builds the Volt battery packs, gave us much more information:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
• First, … the ratio of end-of-life to beginning-of-life is 75%.
• Second, the AT [automobile traction] application is sized for a 70% depth of discharge … which allows space on the high end for regenerative braking and space on the low end to provide enough power for charge sustaining operation.
• Third, the AT market has more stringent requirements …
• Fourth, a vehicle pack battery pack has non-cell costs such as a monitoring system.
All four of these items together justify … approximately $1,000/available kWh … In the next 5-10 years we should be able to come down by an incremental 2-4x …
From this we can deduce:
1) The Volt’s battery de-rates to 75% of it’s capacity for end-of-life, and 70% for operating margins. 75% of 70% is right around 50%, which confirms GM’s numbers.
2) The Volt’s battery currently costs around $8000 (8kWh available x $1,000/available kWh).
3) The Volt’s battery pack will cost $2000 – $4000 in the next 5-10 years.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Lyle, i would also like to hear details on the interior of the Tesla Roadster. Did it have a heater & air conditioner? A decent radio? Were the seats leather? What was it like using the displays in real driving conditions? For 100K, my expectations are high.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:37 am
GM? It’s damage control time. Your response?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:38 am
#40 carcus1 Says: Is your income GM related?
————————————————————————————–
No. My income is not related to the automobile industry in any way, and I haven’t owned a GM vehicle since the 80s.
Is your income related to the automobile industry ?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Dave G
Second, the end-of-life issue only de-rates the battery by 70%. The remainder is for the operating margins, particularly in charge sustaining mode.
________________
Are you saying the battery will have 25 – 30% of it’s original capacity at end of life of or 70 – 75% of original capacity as I read in the statement 70% of 75% differs from each?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:43 am
However, the Volt can get me all the way to Connecticut from Pennsylvania for the holidays. A Tesla S cannot…
The Tesla’s are local drivers. And for many Americans that works great for their second car but not their primary or sole vehicle. The Volt will work for most people even if it is their only vehicle.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Rather than Prius being an ally moving toward electrification in the fight against traditional vehicles, certain Volt enthusiasts have negatively labeled the smaller battery capacity offerings.
It started with calling the plug option a “hassle“, even though that provided a substantial MPG boost.
Then the switch was made to calling that “anemic“, without providing any detail to support the claim.
There’s no attempt to be transparent. Certain people absolutely refuse to compare a Prius and a Volt with the same size battery-pack. That lack of objectivity says a lot. The insults make it worse. Some of us are really getting tired that. Unless discussions become constructive, much will be lost.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I think wether people know it or not, most everyone’s income is ‘related’ to the auto industry. You just have to do the 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon thing.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:46 am
#44 Dave G.
Nope.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:49 am
While power and energy would be difficult to balance on the cell level, there’s no fundamental reason I can think of (other than cost) for both power and energy optimized cells to be combined at the pack level. Since MIT’s announcement of super-power lithium chemistry, I’ve considered this somewhat inevitable.
We are near enough to the beginning of electrification for a great many approaches; including some not seen yet. Let Mr. Musk have his shot, even though some of his criticisms of Volt sound a bit tacky to our ears.
Whatever else you can say about the Model S, it’s not a “people’s car” at the post tax credit cost of $47,000.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:50 am
#44 Dave G.
Nope. And I don’t own a prius.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 8:54 am
I love the Tesla. I would love to own one. BUT, I am also Married and I do not want my Wife and Kids stranded somewhere because the Battery is empty. Until there are fast charge stations all over the country I am more then willing to carry the extra weight of the ICE around.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:03 am
#45 jeffhre Says: Are you saying the battery will have 25 – 30% of it’s original capacity at end of life of or 70 – 75% of original capacity as I read in the statement 70% of 75% differs from each?
————————————————————————————–
CPI is saying that the battery will have 75% of its original capacity at end of life. In other words, after 10 years or more, the Volt will only have a total capacity of 12kWh, not the original 16kWh.
Additionally, they are saying that you will need 30% of that 12kWh for operating margins (regenerative braking and charge sustaining). This leaves 70% of the 12kWh available for use.
70% of 12kWh is 8.4kWh, which is almost exactly the portion of the battery GM has said they would use at the beginning of its life.
Does this help?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
I’m a little confused. I have seen 7 passengers and Tesla Model S in the same sentence and I have seen the photos of the prototype Model S. Has anyone seen a way to put 7 passengers in that 4 door sedan?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The Volts battery chemistry belongs to LG.. nowhere have I read that GM developed this (rightly so).. but LG can tweak the components to tweak certain features. No sure if LG makes the cathodes/anodes/separator and electrolyte in-house or sources it from other companies.
GM developed and owns the battery box and associated electronics.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Can GM’s Volt Save the Company?
The planned plug-in hybrid car is at the core of the automaker’s attempt to reinvent itself. But will the car be a commercial success?
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22392/?nlid=1914&a=f
“Last week, President Obama said that GM had failed to present a convincing plan to turn around its decline, and he warned that the automaker may face bankruptcy. Part of the problem, according to a report by his administration, is that the company is not producing the right mix of vehicles to compete with other automakers. For example, the Volt, the company’s attempt to overcome Toyota’s lead in green vehicle technology, “is currently projected to be much more expensive than its gasoline-fueled peers and will likely need substantial reductions in manufacturing cost in order to become commercially viable,” the report said.”
How many companies are now working on E-REVs and what new technologies will the Automovive X-Prize offer us WITHOUT spending $Billions in taxpayer funds? Free competition = innovation at lower costs to the consumer!
http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/
How many new companies could flourish if they did NOT have to compete against a GM-Gov’t partnership with unlimited funding creating an unlevel playing field?
We all want EVs (range-extended or not) but are these bailouts and the gov’t central planning the cure or are we just feeding the disease?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Micheal 54
Jump seats!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:15 am
jeffhre@57
You’re kidding, right? I would believe a “rumble seat.”
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am
#52 KUD Says: Until there are fast charge stations all over the country I am more then willing to carry the extra weight of the ICE around.
————————————————————————————–
Fast-charging stations don’t seem to be viable with any technology available, either today or on the horizon.
To fast charge a 200-mile BEV in 10 minutes, that would take 240,000 watts of power. And that’s for a small car. To charge a BEV SUV in 10 minutes would require twice that, or 480,000 watts of power. That’s the maximum electrical power going into 22 typical houses. Making that type of electrical connection with rain or snow dripping down the car, this is not practical.
I believe Tesla has run these numbers and come to the same conclusion. So now they are talking about 7-minute battery swapping schemes.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am
The Chevy VOLT and Tesla S are clearly designed for 2 different market segments.
I would like to see a poll of daily driving distances vs. vehicle price.
I think it would find that drivers who regularly purchase cars over $45,000 to $50,000 (where I’m sure the Tesla will hit) rarely, if ever, drive over 200 miles per day. Where working-class folks who purchase a $25,000 to $30,000 car (maybe it’s the only vehicle in the family and use it daily for EVERYTHING) would easily go over the 40-mile mark and definitely want that range extender.
You say TO-MAY-TOE.
We say TO-MAH-TOE.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:24 am
#56 Tim
The cure. We need EVs (range-extended or not) ASAFP. How fast will the Automotive X-Prize result in widespread EVs?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:26 am
More nonsense regarding fast charging..
The only requirement is that the fast charge station is near a power company substation.. then you could easily charge dozens of cars at the same time at very high power levels.
Substations are those things with transformers and lots of power wires.. usually behind a barbed wire fence, that you see around neighborhoods..
Please stop worrying about rain/snow and high speed charging.. we know how to do it safely. Its all a red herring.
I thought Musk gave very cogent answers.. the other thing he saved money on is not doing any emissions testing on a genset.. the part I like it no maintenance of an ice genset.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am
I fear that battery swapping is long in the future due to cost of stocking all the different battery size, style, and configuration. Combine that with making a battery compartment in the car that would protect 200lb-600lb battery during a crash and yet be quickly accessable for a quick swap.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:31 am
ThombDbhomb (#61)
How many gov’t backed companies have EVs on the road NOW?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:32 am
First, the end of life allowance for degradation is 25%, so you install 16 kWh to provide 12 kWh at end of life. To fit inside this window, you design the SOC window to be 70% or less. This leaves 5% operating margin at end of life and much more for nearly the whole life of the battery. The Volt’s current design use of 50% is overly conservative and I believe the SOC window will be expanded before the November 2010 limited availability release.
Lets consider some of what Mr. Musk asserted. Will the Volt’s performance be “really bad” in charge sustaining mode? No. This is because the operating margin preserves ample battery capacity to immediately deliver the power needed to accelerate so the observable performance is the same whether in charge depleting or charge sustaining mode. Since the duration of “high demand” is short, the “relatively small on board engine” has ample time to recharge the battery for the infrequent “high demand” occurrences.
Next, Mr. Musk asserted that designers must choose between a high power chemistry and a high energy chemistry. The lithion ion chemistry of A123 provides very high power and pretty good energy (100-120 wh/kg). And the next generation of lithium ion batteries may double the energy level to 200-240 wh/kg. Time will tell.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I think more fundamentaly that Tesla is smarter to propose a BEV, because if they proposed a EREV, they would have to compete head-on with the Volt, which comes from a very experienced company with an extensive dealer network.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am
A typical large department store in a mall might have a 2500 kVA transformer at 277Y/480 Volts three phase. This is about 3000 amps per phase and might be supplied by 10 -12 circuits of 750 kcmil AA conductors. This is everyday stuff – no big deal.
A commercial electric fueling station for EVs with multi-paralleled 4/0 stranded copper cables could provide 600 amps at 480volts but the car would need one hell of a rectifier. So you need to supply DC current, maybe from Jackson’s big batteries to do fast charging and no reason you couldn’t if it proves to be advantageous at some time in the distant future assuming BATTERY DEVELOPMENT makes it a possibility.
This site has deteriorated significantly over the past few months with folks insisting their apprehensions of the future are factual.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:37 am
#47 john1701a Says: Certain people absolutely refuse to compare a Prius and a Volt with the same size battery-pack.
————————————————————————————–
I’m not one of them. I did this before, but maybe you’ve forgotten, so I’ll do it again here:
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt (EREV-40) …….. 37
Prius PHEV-40 …….. 100
Prius PHEV-10 …….. 182
Prius HEV …………… 228
30 MPG car ………… 380
20 MPG car ………… 570
Assumptions:
Prius: 150MPG on electric, 50MPG after that
Volt: Infinite MPG on electric, 50MPG after that.
Typical driving pattern is:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
I’m sure you’ll try to bash these assumptions, but until we have more specific data on the production vehicles from GM and Toyota, I’m going to stick with these. The point is to get a ballpark estimate of how much gasoline is saved in real life using a typical driving pattern. Using these figures, we can see that the Volt is in a whole different league.
As I’ve said before, if you disagree with these figures, you can use your own. Here’s the spreadsheet:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/GallonsPerYear.xls
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Van – appreciate your thoughtful comments.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:41 am
A 100kwh battery pack would need a 100kw charger to charge it in one hour (assuming no losses).. or a 200kw charger to do in 30 minutes or a 400kw charger to do it in 15 minutes. The power company will be happy to bring a high voltage line to your facility.. they probably will even give you a discount on the power since you are an industrial user.. if you also have several kwh of battery capacity at your disposal then you can feed the power grid and prevent brownouts.. the power company will pay YOU for that.
Then again a 100kwh pack would give you a range of 500 miles.. why do you need to charge it in 15 minutes?.. plan ahead.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am
What Elon didn’t say was the real reason they are not building an EREV : they can’t. Tesla can’t just call Lotus like they did before and order a car. Tesla Motors didn’t even know how to certify an automobile – they had to hire a gas powered jobs) way, way too expensive to own.
The problem Tesla faces is that they canot withstand any close inspection – it is that car which is “neither fish nor fowl” – it cannot perform the most elementary function of all – get the driver from here to there – with its 100 mile driving radius.
Tesla cars simply make no sense when Volts and Fiskers are on the scene (and very little sense even if they weren’t). And THAT’S what Musk is really worried about. And exactly how, Mr Musk, is Fisker managing to produce those “costly” EREV cars of theirs at a lower price than your Tesla? The Fisker makes Tesla’s roadster look sick.
He knows he has a weak product, but he’s a salesman, first and foremost.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Michael see ( http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6/ )
__________
DaveG ” Fast-charging stations don’t seem to be viable with any technology available, either today or on the horizon.”
For infrastructure, Tesla is working with a government-affiliated partner to set up battery changing stations at various locations. They will be able to change the battery in 5-8 minutes, “quicker than filling up your car with gas.” also at ( http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/26/tesla-model-s-50-000-ev-sedan-seats-seven-300-mile-range-0-6/ )
These guys seem to be all over the issues. Quite a coup if a tiny little company can spur even a demonstration facility for fast charging. BTW Hawaii has a fast charging station in use now. Although I agree the Volt shows fast charging won’t be a necessity for electrification, it is another tool against range anxiety. ( http://www.iconocast.com/00019/A3/News7.htm ) Skip down to the Island map.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am
I’d like to take simple non-scientific survey…
Assume you can choose from 2 cars identical in appearance and price.
Car #1 goes 40 – 60 miles on electric then the gas motor kicks in for range extender.
Car #2 goes ???? miles on pure electric.
What would the range of car #2 have to be such that you would make choice it as a consumer over car #1.
300 miles would be very tempting for me personally. 350 miles probable a done deal. 400 miles absolutely no question, I’m pure EV.
Just my perspective..
AlaEng
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
What Musk is saying is right. Perhaps not all the details but the general thrust is correct.
However, there are two stores here. A technical story, which he is telling, and a business story, which he is not. The former head of sales and marketing has said that when the Volt was announced Tesla looked at the technology. The business types rapidly concluded it was a slam dunk good idea and decided that the Model S should be a serial hybrid.
But the technical people pushed back. They pointed out the issues Musk has laid out above, plus — and most critically — they argued that Tesla simply didn’t have the technical expertise to produce a serial hybrid. Ultimately their arguments prevailed and, as we know, the Model S is strictly an EV.
Consequently, Musk is simply making lemonade out of lemons. Every design has its pros and cons. If you can’t produce your first choice then the second choice will have its rationale.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I could theoretically recharge my 40 mile range Volt in 10 minutes using 100amps @ 480VAC, which we have here at my work. But i dont think the battery chemistry or car circuitry allows for it (in the Volt).
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
kent beuchert 71
Is there anything in this world you find favor with besides GM? BTW it’s an 80 mile radius for the base Model S, on a good day.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
#64 Tim
I believe we are arguing about how to best achieve widespread EVs; Automotive X-Prize or GM. So far, neither have resulted in widespread EVs on the road now. GM plans on putting out about 10k Volts startting in late 2010. I ask again, how fast will the Automotive X-Prize result in widespread EVs?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:54 am
I dont think the Model S can match the volts specs. It wont last 10 years or 150k miles for sure. Those laptop battteries will be dead long before that.
Id much rather not have to worry about range than to have a fast car with 160 miles of range.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
71 kent beuchert Says:
The Fisker makes Tesla’s roadster look sick.
——————–
FYI , the kids are using “sick” as a good thing nowadays
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am
AlabamaEng
350 miles interstate hwy at 75 mph. Then I would only need to rent a car once a year.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
k-dawg
Go for it. The chemistry won’t prevent it due to the large number of cells. GM has said they won’t provide support for anything higher than 240 Volts (no amps listed by Britta Gross) with Volt electronics.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
This is almost like reading a blog between Mac users and PC users. It’s hilarious actually. You are arguing about two non existing cars that are years away from production, (if they ever get produced), and who’s technology won’t be proven until they are out in the real world being driven by the average person.
The best part is that they are both American vehicles , they both want to cut the American reliance on foreign oil and are aimed at completely different markets.
As far as battery chemistry is concerned…. Come on people they both suck. We are talking behemoths with limited range and a life cycle yet to be proved in the “Real World”.
They are however both a first step in the right direction.
GO VOLT, GO TESLA
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@73 AlabamaEng
My personal preferences are a MIN of 250miles, from day 1 to 10 years later. I want to be able to drive that distance at highway speeds with my air conditioner and radio on. I want to be able to do this in -20degree winter weather, and not have to worry about range degredation or my car not starting or damaging the batteries. Meet these criteria (and affordability) and i’m a BEV customer.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
#67 Shawn Marshall Says: A commercial electric fueling station for EVs with multi-paralleled 4/0 stranded copper cables could provide 600 amps at 480volts
————————————————————————————–
Yes, I was thinking something along these lines, but 600 amps at 480volts is only 288,000 watts, and to charge an SUV with a 200-mile electric range in 10 minutes, that would probably take 480,000 watts, so the cable might have to be bigger.
In any event, assuming fast charging battery technology becomes cheap, how will people connect these huge power cables safely in various weather conditions? I haven’t been able to figure any solution to this problem, so I have come to the conclusion that fast charging stations aren’t viable.
I’m sorry if I’ve stated this conclusion too forcefully. I’m not trying to upset people. I’m just trying to understand how this stuff would actually work in real life.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:11 am
RANGE ANXIETY!…
it shud be named Tesla model SRA, RA as Range Anxiety…even you have a 200 mile Tesla, you just can’t keep your eyes checking out how much charge do you have left….a feeling that i don’t want while i’m driving…
go Volt!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
#84 Dave G
I’ll bet a trained tecnician in a well-designed facility could connect huge power cables safely in various weather conditions.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I like Tesla, but having one also mean I have to look for another car as soon as I go over 200 miles (and we don’t know how much it will be after 5 years). As a 2nd family/cummute car ok, but as the only car the EREV is the best practical solution.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:14 am
jeffhre @ 72
Thanks. “Under the hatch,” those have got to be really small kids. Not my idea of a 7 passenger. That’s why it seemed like a joke. To me it still does. I would call that a 5 passenger.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:15 am
#75 k-dawg Says: I could theoretically recharge my 40 mile range Volt in 10 minutes using 100amps @ 480VAC, which we have here at my work. But i dont think the battery chemistry or car circuitry allows for it (in the Volt).
————————————————————————————–
Correct. The battery chemistry could probably charge in less than 1 hour, but the Volt’s internal charger limits the charging current to around 11 amps at 220v max.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:17 am
naurthandareen
What about the 300 mile version Model S?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
@9, Dave99,
>> google image search “Ragone Plot” and you’ll understand.
Thanks for the info. I didn’t know there was a term for that!
Some direct links…
Image search: http://www.google.com/images?q=ragone+plot
Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragone_chart
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:22 am
86 ThombDbhomb Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 10:13 am
#84 Dave G
I’ll bet a trained tecnician in a well-designed facility could connect huge power cables safely in various weather conditions.
———-
We use 100A+ quick plugs in our plant that are weather sealed (I dont know the standard #). If i can plug and unplug these, anyone can. Just push & twist.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:25 am
#92 k-dawg
“If i can plug and unplug these, anyone can.”
…especially considering dawgs don’t have opposable thumbs
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Michael “That’s why it seemed like a joke. To me it still does. ”
_____________
That’s why I didn’t use emoticons, it speaks for itself. Well one mans trash is another’s treasure. Probably an upgrade price required to get those installed too! If that’s what some one needs though, it probably looks perfect to them, dunno!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:41 am
#92 k-dawg Says: We use 100A+ quick plugs in our plant that are weather sealed (I don’t know the standard #). If i can plug and unplug these, anyone can. Just push & twist.
————————————————————————————–
Two points:
1) 100 amps is still a small fraction of what we’re talking about here. It will take 1000 amps at 480 volts to charge a 200-mile SUV in 10 minutes.
2) Weather sealed connectors work great when you make the connection in dry weather. But if people are making 480 volt, 1000 amp connections with rain or snow dripping down all over the car, I highly suspect there will be safety issues that a rain-tight connector wont solve.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am
#72 jeffhre Says: For infrastructure, Tesla is working with a government-affiliated partner to set up battery changing stations at various locations.
————————————————————————————–
Yes. As I said earlier, it appears that Tesla has given up on the fast-charging idea, and they are now pursuing a fast battery swapping scheme to address the range issue.
But note that battery swapping will have a whole host of other issues, most of which haven’t yet been discussed here. I’m not saying fast battery swapping is impossible, only that it has to be looked at in more detail.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am
It makes sense for each company to do what they’re doing, I think (minus this silly sniping from Musk).
The Model S is a lot cheaper than the Roadster, but still in a high price class. Most people spending that much on a car have the cash for a second (or third) car. So when they want to do a very long drive, they’ll just use their gasoline car.
The Volt is trying to come in at a lower price point, and for a lot of people (including many families), it may be their only car, so it’s gotta be able to do those long-range trips, even if people only do them a few times a year for holiday visits or whatever.
I don’t think either is a strictly “better” answer for everyone, and I’m glad there will be both. The more EVs (of any type) on the road, the better, as far as I’m concerned.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Why doesn’t he just figure out how to build the car at the same plant as the roadster. It would make more sense as far as money is concerned. He could also buy a closed plant for less than that as well.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I agree 100% with Mr Musk. I do not want a range extender of any kind. The added complexity, weight, cost, are just not necessary for what I want in an EV. I’m am thinking very seriously about the Model S.
I think if GM is smart, they build the Volt and a pure EV with a 150+ mile range to cover the whole market of buyers. Those who need the security blanket of a range extender and those who want a pure EV communter vehicle.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
#46 Jason The Saj Says: … the Volt can get me all the way to Connecticut from Pennsylvania for the holidays. A Tesla S cannot…
The Tesla’s are local drivers. And for many Americans that works great for their second car but not their primary or sole vehicle. The Volt will work for most people even if it is their only vehicle.
————————————————————————————–
Right. Or if your wife is using your second car, you can still get anywhere you need to go with an EREV.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:58 am
The next generation “energy storage units” needs to combine a super dense, super high ENERGY battery that will give you good range with a good high POWER battery or ultracapacitor for acceleration and so forth. It would be great if GM could have such a “hybrid energy storage unit” for Volt 1.0.
It looks like that is what GM has in mind according to this article:
http://evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?authorid=12&blogid=715&archive=1
“He also indicated that GM is also investigating the possible use of ultracapacitors in future packs, an approach used by AFS Trinity in their plug-in hybrid design. The ultracaps could provide the fast discharge/recharge used to accelerate and slow the vehicle using regenerative braking, which would enable GM to reduce the capacity of the lithium side of the battery.
Putting all these and other factors together, Posawatz confidently predicted that the next generation battery pack will be less expensive and that this is only the beginning of the process of refining and improving its Voltec drive system.”
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
#95 Dave G
You keep harping on the charging stations. BEVs future doesn’t depend on charging stations. It depends on having a vehicle with a range such that you could reach your destination on a single charge and then be able to let it charge for an hour or more. If you left your house every morning with a full tank of gas you wouldn’t have to gas up during the day. It all brings us back to the battery having to improve.
I believe BEVs are the future but I don’t believe in charging stations. As battery packs increase in density the person plugging in your car would at some point in the future have to be standing on a special platform using thick rubber gloves with a big “Danger High Voltage” sign overhead.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:03 am
ThombDbhomb (#77) Said:
“I believe we are arguing about how to best achieve widespread EVs.”
Correct and competition creates innovation, reduces cost and increases quality while gov’t sponsored (or any) monopolies do just the opposite.
The best way to achieve OUR goals of widespread EV’s is to offer them at high quality and low cost which is only available through tough competition and MANY competitors.
Tesla is a GM competitor which is now tying to just level the playing field by ALSO getting taxpayer money. Should we give ALL EV makers the SAME amount of taxpayer money so that the playing field remains level? Even those that make 2 and 3-wheel EVs? It’s only fair… (it’s just not fair to the taxpayer).
The Auto X-prize uses pure competition to accomplish BETTER things WITHOUT using taxpayer money. This competition will produce innovation that the Statists bureaucrats have never dreamed of at a cost much lower than the bureaucratic central gov’t or giant car companies could accomplish.
Bureaucracy is VERY expensive and most things designed by committees who lack true vision SUCK! This is doubly so when there is little competition taking them to task.
Good try in the liberal ploy of changing the subject though…
Please click on [Submit Comment] to play again.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am
#8 – Lon
I don’t live in California at the current time and Tesla gladly accepted my 5K deposit. With a 300 mile range, 45 minute “QuickCharge” and 5 minute battery swap, the longer road trips will be possible when charging locations are available along well traveled routes. As testing is accomplished by Tesla and GM, a wealth of information will allow more careful analysis of what model electric car to park in the garage. Each person has different needs and desires. I will be open to all options. I don’t want to be at the end of the list if BEV is best for me.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:18 am
#103 Tim
“Good try in the liberal ploy of changing the subject though…”
I started my comment (#77) by saying, “I believe we are arguing about how to best achieve widespread EVs.” That was my attempt at getting you back on subject. How am I changing the subject by getting you back on subject?
Speaking of changing the subject, how come you haven’t answered the question I posed twice (#61 and #71)? My #77 said, “GM plans on putting out about 10k Volts starting in late 2010. I ask again, how fast will the Automotive X-Prize result in widespread EVs?” As I understand your response, you claim GM can’t make a decent EV because it is getting government help. I disagree. I think GM can produce the Volt.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am
______________________________________________________
Do you want an Apple or an Orange?
GM VOLTEC = (+range, -performance, -low maintenance)
TESLA = (-range, +performance, +low maintenance)
I believe that GM VOLTEC and TESLA Motors each have their unique strengths in the mid term (next 5 to 10 years) but after that time frame battery chemistry and quick charge options will be evolved to the point that all Electric Cars will be BEV. This means that GM VOLTEC gets a running start at selling to consumers that require extended range and TESLA gets a running start at selling to consumers that are able to trade the extended range for higher performance and lower maintenance. The Electric Car Revolution is such that both GM VOLTEC and TESLA have an opportunity to sell as many cars as they can push through the line during the next five years.
I personally am purchasing one of each.
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:23 am
GM’s Voltec engineering appears to surpass anything on the field for day-to-day practical convenience. IMO, more people probably will relate to the real world driving conveniences provided by the Voltec and Fisker designs. Those who can afford the niche market 100% EVs all the better.
But for those on a budget why maintain two or more cars to achieve short and long range driving needs? With a single investment the Voltec design offers families both greatly reduced costs for their local commutes and highly fuel efficient cross country travel.
With ongoing battery research new chemistries with even greater capability most likely will become part of the Voltec powertrain.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:25 am
______________________________________________________
That was excellent blog time that Lyle got w/ Mr. Elon Musk. Just goes to show how influential Lyle’s site has become within the Electric Car Revolution underground.
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Well, I don’t know how technical Mr. Musk is, but he is certainly biased towards his company’s plans. He did not have to criticize the Volt’s power train. What he probably meant was they just didn’t have the technical skills to produce a Volt-like Model S.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:35 am
This AFS Trinity XH-150 “hybrid within a hybrid” technology sounds pretty damn good. It sounds like GM ought to be testing this technology in their new battery lab right now.
http://www.afstrinity.com/press-coverage.htm
http://powermanagementdesignline.com/212100835;jsessionid=WLRW4V1GCZP3IQSNDLQSKH0CJUNN2JVN?printableArticle=true
“When a battery in a plug in hybrid is subjected to high current demands, which occurs every time the vehicle accelerates, either from a stop light or while merging from an on-ramp onto a freeway, resistive heating occurs in the battery. This resistive heating can easily become excessive with stop and go driving. Such excessive resistive heating damages a battery, and, in some cases can destroy it. In any event this phenomenon reduces the number of miles that can be driven during the life of the battery. In our system, however, the high current demand events are handled by the ultracapacitor, allowing the battery essentially to coast. Between such high current events, the battery trickled power into the ultracap, so that when the next acceleration occurs the ultracap is ready to handle it,” Furia said.”
“Describing the prototypes, Furia said AFS Trinity’s XH150 is not only a roomy SUV but “a fully operational Extreme Hybrid that can go at least 40 miles without burning a drop of gasoline in the electric vehicle mode with a top EV speed of 87 MPH…and from zero to 60 in 11.6 seconds in all electric mode and 6.9 seconds in full hybrid mode. After 40 miles as an electric vehicle the Extreme Hybrid automatically converts to gas.”
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am
#109 N Riley Says: Well, I don’t know how technical Mr. Musk is, but he is certainly biased towards his company’s plans.
————————————————————————————–
Elon Musk is very, very technical. He is the CTO of SpaceX.
But Elon Musk is also adept at choosing facts that show his companies in the best possible light.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
#95 Dave G & #102 Jorge
If i had a blank sheet of paper, i’d love to design a charging station. It would be indoors/garage. You would not get out of your car (unless you wanted to), swipe your credit card, a robot w/vision system would locate the charging port/area and do the charging w/rods or some kind of protected high/current connector.
This would cost a lot, however the technology is easy to implement (regarding the automation that is). I dont know about providing 1000amps though or how a battery could handle that (at least until some of that MIT research makes its way to the real world). I wouldnt want to go more than 200A. This would mean at least a 1/2hour to hour charge for “long range” BEV’s.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Re: end of life battery performance
I think it is unreasonable to expect to have the same end of life (10year/150,000 mile) performance than at the beginning. The CARB warranty does not say that initial performance has to be maintained throughout the warranty period, some degradation is allowed, the warranty is there primarily to keep the car in operation throughout that lifespan….this is the key.
If anyone thinks there is not going to be a mile long rider in your GM/Volt warranty about just what the circumstances have to be to get a expensive pack warranty, then you are kidding yourself. You are not going to be able to stroll into your GM dealer in 2020 and say, hey I can only get 39 miles max range out of this…new battery please!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am
All his Tech ponts are true. Tesla is just a BEV car mfgr. Period. There’s no reason for them to engineer and ICE to their product. I would guess that if their customer can get up over $100K for a BEV, they’d be smart enough to understand how to properly use the car within it’s range of 239MPC, thus no range anxiety. I bet if they tuned the Roadster down they’d get a range much closer if not greater than 300MPC.
The Volt is for us folks who meet GM’s research criteria and don’t have over $100K to spend on a car. The Volt uses proprietary battery design as well as battery chemistry, or at least the chemistry is qualified by GM and the OEM’s can’t deviate. Tesla can package those damn little 6000+ 18650 cells in any package they want and if a new chem comes out in the “commodity” market for 18650 batteries they can just plug them in. Of course some tweaking of the BMS may be required but it’s just that simple. Ever look into the battery array? It’s huge and looks like a honeycomb.
I like the Volt, I want the Volt!
The ICEAge is over, Embrace the VoltAge.
I’ll take my Volt with No Generator, No ICE, ShAkEn not StirreD…
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am
ThombDbhomb (#105) Said”
Your Question: “How fast will the Automotive X-Prize result in widespread EVs?”
My Answer: I don’t know but I’ll bet that they will be less expensive than GM’s Volt once you factor in the $20Billion PLUS we’ve given them so far.
I know that FREE competition and a LEVEL playing field will produce better and less expensive EVs thus getting us closer to our goal of more “widespread EVs”.
You also said: “GM plans on putting out about 10k Volts starting in late 2010″
My Response: They were also “planned” on selling many EV-1s. In other words… plans change, GM is on the razor’s edge, their destiny is NOT their own and ONLY results count!
Now, you can answer MY questions:
How many gov’t backed companies have EVs on the road NOW? (3rd time is a charm)
Can GM build the Volt without MORE taxpayer funds?
If not, how does this make GMs business model sustainable because the Central Planners can decide at any time NOT to fund them due to political pressure?
Rhetorical bonus question: (thinking cap req’d)
*How many competitors (like Tesla, AFS Trinity, Aptera and many more) could the taxpayers have funded if we divided the $20 PLUS Billion into $200 Million parcels and distributed them evenly? What if we put $1 Billion into battery research and divied up the rest to new upstarts?
*(I’m not advocating doing this, but it would have produced many competitors hiring ex-GM employees, buying up GM plants and fighting for OUR consumer $Dollars with LESS monopoly and LESS Bureaucracy expense, red tape and stalling. We would have had better, less expensive EV sooner and if some of these companies failed, others would succeed so all of our EV “eggs” would NOT be in ONE GM basket-case.)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:47 am
#102 Jorge Says: You keep harping on the charging stations. BEVs future doesn’t depend on charging stations. It depends on having a vehicle with a range such that you could reach your destination on a single charge …
————————————————————————————–
I’ve driven over 860 miles with only a couple of 10-minute rest stops. This was with the air conditioning on and going 75-80 MPH. To be safe, I’d want 1000 miles of electric range. To be cost and space effective, that would be available around 2045.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:48 am
68 Dave G,
Why do you have the Prius PHEV-40 getting “only” 150 MPG? Shouldn’t it also get infinite MPG for the first 40 miles? Are you really just taking the MPG stated for the PHEV-10 and assuming it stays static even with 4 times the electric range?
Perhaps there is some speed at which the ICE kicks in, but I don’t see how your spreadsheet accounts for that. Plus it assumes that that speed wouldn’t be increased with the extra battery or that a mildly larger electric motor wouldn’t resolve it.
Please stop quoting these numbers given that they are not accurate.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:50 am
@Dave G 111
“But Elon Musk is also adept at choosing facts that show his companies in the best possible light.”
Isn’t that what they are supposed to do?
If so then he’s doing his job.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:53 am
# 17 Dave G Says:
> Actually, I believe GM does own the specific chemistry for the Volt.
Gee, and Hyundai and Kia are launching their hybrids with battery packs of exactly same chemistry in four month. Of course GM’s not going to own LG’s trade secret. It is the very volume of supplying two automakers(GM and Hyundai/Kia) with same chemistry type from same line that enabled LG to lower cost below GM’s initial estimate.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Like most techies, Elon is looking at it the wrong way. If his batteries were rapid recharge AND if there was a fully built out rapid recharge infrastructure, then he would have a point. Since neither of those things exist, his products don’t meet the needs of most drivers.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
# 73 AlabamaEng
Personally, I would want at least a 300 mile range before I’d even consider a pure BEV. And it would have to be 300 miles under real world driving conditions–with air conditioning, on a hilly road, etc.
I would also need the option to charge some place other than home. Can I charge overnight if I’m staying in a hotel?
That’s part of the reason the EREV is such a great idea. As EREVs become common, I’m sure the infrastructure will develop. Which will, in turn, make the eventual adoption of pure BEVs much easier.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
#115 Tim
I am here to discuss EVs, especially the Volt. I don’t want to get dragged into your raving about communism, socialism, “the free market will save us” or whatever the fear mongers are blurting these days. We need to make energy advancements fast. I think GM is a better bet than Automotive X-Prize for quickly making EVs widespread. I’d rather our government spent $20 billion to do that than to find Iraq’s WMDs/liberate Iraq.
JBFAalaska: please remind Tim about externalized costs that our government must bear to keep us in oil. Do you think those externalized costs exceed $20 billion?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I know, why doesn’t Tesla introduce a range-extender mini-trailer for those long trips! That way, you only pull the extra weight of the “Tesla Trailer ® ” when you have to. A good opportunity for 3rd party companies as well.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Tesla must be worried to take pot shots like that.
For those who care, Purdue University made an advancement about engineering a quick refill design for hydrogen fuel cells.
http://boilerstation.jconline.com/article/20090405/NEWS0501/904050364/1122/boiler
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
@coffeetime 123
“A good opportunity for 3rd party companies as well.”
That’s a perfect thought. If you build the BEV’s, a new market will emerge for range extending small trailers. The TZero had one. Google it. There’s also another one for the Rav4-EV: http://www.evnut.com/rav_longranger.htm.
I’ve looked into building one but the parts are friggin expensive or I have the wrong contacts…..lol. All you need is a small engine geared down for low RPM and high torque and a PMG or for some an AC induction Generator. A 80HP tuned to 65HP at max efficiency WILL be able to produce 65HP * .7453KW = 48.44KW.
Wow, look. New jobs…..
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
All this battery EV talk is all garbage. Fuel Cells and EEStore will dominate the market. Zenn will be getting a storage unit in a few months and this will change the game completely to the point of GM being unarguably not viable. They will be locked into contract with LG and will not have the time, means and money to redesign the volt for this. I believe Zenn and Honda (FCX Clarity) will be the first to incorporate this. Zenn first then Honda. Fuell Cell is real and EEStore will flip the game.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
ThombDbhomb (#122) said:
“I think GM is a better (bottomless taxpayer pit) bet than Automotive X-Prize (because competition sucks) for quickly making EVs widespread.”
I’ll do the math for you: $20 Billion divided by $35K/volt = 571,428 FREE Volts… Where is my FREE Volt? Show me the cars!
Then you said: “I’d rather our government spent $20 billion to do that than to find Iraq’s WMDs/liberate Iraq.”
I’d rather pay off our debt than do unconstitutional “nation building” or “corporate welfare” so that we can make sure our currency is sound and that there is real and free competition so we get the best EVs at the lowest net cost possible so they can be “widespread” which is YOUR (and my) stated goal.
This post is about Tesla’s CEO being Critical of the Chevy Volt. He HAS to be critical because he’s asking the taxpayer to help level the playing field so he can sell his new Model S 4 door all-electric sedan at a price point competitive with the Volt.
It’s a SALES job, period. He’s selling us on his EV and Congress on giving him OUR money!
YOU, sir need start throwing facts instead of childish insults. When you run out of gas, you start blowing hot air.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Tim
The X-billion loan to GM was not to just build the Volt. However, i wouldn’t mind the US gov buying Volts (or Voltec cars) directly as a means of support.
Regardring even playing field, doesn’t Telsa gets the same $7500 tax credit for their cars?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
#73 AlabamaEng –> 300 miles for me, too.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Dave G Says:
In any event, assuming fast charging battery technology becomes cheap, how will people connect these huge power cables safely in various weather conditions? I haven’t been able to figure any solution to this problem, so I have come to the conclusion that fast charging stations aren’t viable.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Have you thought about induction charging where one half is in the car
( pick up coils ) and the other half is buried in the charging spot concrete or asphalt .
It could easily be done in a rest stop , a service center , or at home , without any wires showing to trip over and hurt yourself . Parking lots , supermarkets , restaurants , many commercial places could benefit from induction charging sites .
There wouldn’t be any problem in the rain or snow , just drive over it and your car would be charged if you pushed the “charge” button on the dash through the induction coil(s) located on the underside of the car .
A monitor light would indicate “charging” on the dash and with the smart charging technology you would get a bill from the power company sent to your home no matter where you lived or what state you were visiting from .
The plug-in cord could be used for other times when induction charging wasn’t available .
This same technology could be used on interstate highways as well so driving across America without any gasoline consumption could be a common thing in a couple of years . Energy independence using a makes work initiative from Obama with all these unemployed people available now who want to do something to make money to pay their bills and feel whole again . Engineers know how to do it in trains , the technology is proven , it just has to be developed for cars and implemented .
Personally I would sooner have this at home than have to plug it in every time I come home . I would sooner just park the car , go into the house and the timer turns on the power and charges the car when the off peak rates are available and the car needs it . Just send me the bill or deduct it from my prepaid annual transportation account .
We are in for some big exciting changes in the transportation industry .
It goes without saying that this would work for Pure Electric vehicles as well .
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
ThombDbhomb (#122) said:
“…please remind Tim about externalized costs that our government must bear to keep us in oil. Do you think those externalized costs exceed $20 billion?”
Since YOU brought up the subject and I agree with you, let’s keep up the logic…
If we, the taxpayer weren’t forced to bear those “externalized costs” then oil would have been well over $10/gal years ago and we would have been using EVs years ago instead of enriching the oil companies who spent $Millions to buy politicians who were then more than happy to “centrally plan” our oil addiction with a military presence occupying the middle east and interfering with THEIR sovereignty for over 50 years. (and we wonder why they hate us.)
Here’s a little lesson on unintended consequences or “blow back”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
FACTS man, facts!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
#117 GXT says “Why do you have the Prius PHEV-40 getting “only” 150 MPG?”
Do you think, given the current split drive, that a Prius PHEV40 is possible? A PHEV10 or PHEV20 makes sense when you’re talking about a serial hybrid but not so much with a system like the Prius’. With the Prius you can’t guarantee that the gas engine won’t kick in within the first mile. Depends on how you’re driving.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
You can’t even compare Tesla to Volt, they aren’t even in the same league. The Tesla is a luxury performance car along the lines of a BMW 6, the Volt is an average 4 door sedan like a Dodge Stratus.
I’d change Cdavis’s chart to:
TESLA = (+range, +performance, +low maintenance, + luxury, – cost)
GM VOLTEC = (-range, -performance, -low maintenance, + cost)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
k-dawg (#128) said:
“Regardring even playing field, doesn’t Telsa gets the same $7500 tax credit for their cars?”
Yep, Tesla and Volt buyers both get the tax credit on each car.
BUT GM also $20+ Billion in direct taxpayer “loans” that Tesla does NOT get. How exactly is THIS level?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Since we’re talking about Volt competion:
Chrysler to use A123 cells in its electric vehicles
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/04/06/chrysler-to-use-a123-cells-in-its-electric-vehicles/
(sorry if I posted twice, the first time didn’t work for some odd reason)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
#125 CaptJack,
” A 80HP tuned to 65HP at max efficiency WILL be able to produce 65HP * .7453KW = 48.44KW.”
_____________________________________________________
Sounds like a good idea, until you get in to generator efficiency losses (5% to 20%, maybe more?). Note how the listed source is vague when it comes to performance or mileage. If you can find the mentioned “white papers” on this RAV4 generator wagon I would really like to read them.
What I found on the tzero trailer was that it had trouble with highway speeds and sustained hill climbing and mpg was not great.
You’d think if this option was viable a lot of ev homebuilders would have jumped on it. I can find almost no examples on the internet.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I hear a CEO who believes his rationale may outweigh the economic laws of supply and demand. I’m certain he is wrong, and this may leave his products over-priced and in a niche market unlike his competitors.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
#115 Tim
I think that autoprize is a great idea, but I’m not sure how it’s going to actually produce an EV. I mean, you need a car company to actually do that? Right? Maybe I’m missing something?
By the way, I agree with you that competition in the market place is very important. Unfortunately, without government intervention, competition usually degenerates into either monopolies or cartels.
And I assure you that without GM and Chrysler, the US auto market will become a lot less competitive, and none of the existing major players would have any incentive to build EVs. And Toyota’s plan for a plug-in lithium ion version of the Prius would evaporate. Tesla might eventually grow into a major player, but that will take a lot longer than the Volt.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Shawn Marshall (#67):
“So you need to supply DC current, maybe from Jackson’s big batteries to do fast charging and no reason you couldn’t if it proves to be advantageous at some time in the distant future assuming BATTERY DEVELOPMENT makes it a possibility.”
SOMEONE’S LISTENING!!!!
(excuse me, there’s something in my eye)
I do think giant utility-scale batteries cheap enough for quick charging will be something for a more distant future. You have to develop big batteries to even out intermittent alternative energy sources such as wind energy anyway, but it will be some time after that before they drop enough in price to do general grid-leveling or quick charging. Fortunately, grid-leveling and quick charging aren’t actually needed at this early stage (though they may emerge as a technological solution for “The EV Problem” when it begins to emerge in 20 – 30 years).
“Jackson’s Big Batteries.” Hmm. Could I copyright that?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Take this thought a bit farther and buses and tractor trailer units could be charged along with cars on the fly as they drove down the highway and we could do away with gasoline and diesel fuel completely .
This system is already in use in the ALRT subway transportation system in Vancouver BC Canada and the Shanghai rapid MEG Lift train from downtown Shanghai to the airport in China with great success .
This is what Project Better Place should be considering instead of replacing batteries .
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Once again,
Where in the world is the F3DM test drive? It’s been on sale for 3 1/2 months!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
@Keith
We’ve bounced around the magnetic resonance idea here a few times. I dont think enough energy can be transmitted. There’s also huge losses in efficiency. Only thing I could see working for power on the fly would be a bumper-car style pole, or a line of sight high power laser. Dont even bother blowing holes in these ideas.. i know they are not feasible.
Now if you want to talk about mag-lift.. I like these guys. They are doing some really cool stuff. Not just with transportion of people, but moving stuff around in general.
http://www.magnemotion.com
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Dave G
You simply amaze me. You are all over this topic. You own it, man. Way to go. You show a depth of knowledge that far surpasses mine. I am enjoying just sitting back and watching the action. Thanks!!!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
#109 N. Riley said:
“He did not have to criticize the Volt’s power train. What he probably meant was they just didn’t have the technical skills to produce a Volt-like Model S.”
An EREV like the Volt is more costly and complex to develope than a pure BEV like the Model S—no question. I don’t know if it is so much a lack of technical skills as it is perhaps more an issue of Musk’s little company not having the time or resources to tackle an animal of that size. It was probably wise for them to stick with their already proven “cred” of pure BEV expertise. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes. I think there will be a market for the Model S, and there will also be a market for the Volt as well–just that the Volt will appeal to more people and more situations at this time.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I just wish the volt design could have been as sleek and smooth as the Tesla S. The Volt just looks complicated and tacky now. I wish they had time to restyle it.
I think GM should have gone the route of Nissan with an urban EV and continued to develop hybrid technology to compete with Toyota for the longer range vehicles. In five years perhaps the EV batteries would allow that urban vehicle to go 300 miles on a charge. At that point they could design a Volt size sedan.
Here is a question I wish Lyle would answer:
What is the highway fuel mielage of a Volt that is driving on depleted batteries and a continuously operating engine to supply the charge? If it is no better than the Prius then a plug in Hybrid is just as good as the Volt. GM has wasted a lot of research and time on EREV and should have gone only urban EV and Hybrid Sedan.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
LauraM (#139) said:
“Unfortunately, without government intervention, competition usually degenerates into either monopolies or cartels.”
Agreed and well said! And since we’re talking about the Volt’s competition…
Gov’t SHOULD keep monopolies from forming for the good of the “general welfare” but they often create monopolies because only large corporations can afford all the costly regulation from central planning.
In fact, big Corp loves big Gov’t because all that central planning bureaucratic red tape kills their “little guy” mom & pop competitors. That’s why they spend so much time and money talking down regulation in the media while lobbing for it in the legislature. Less competition = higher costs, lower quality and more profits!
Also, please keep in mind that the biggest monopoly of them all is gov’t which usually degenerates into an oligarchy if not checked by “We, the people” and that’s why we have the 1st Amendment (the right to bitch about it) and the 2nd Amendment (right to defend our freedoms FROM gov’t/oligarchy usurpation).
How many political dynasties now control Congress?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
Plutocracy can easily collapse into a kleptocracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy
Maybe that’s why they spend so much to get into Congress?
Open, transparent and free competition is good and we need MORE, not less and we need a check and balance to keep ANY monopoly from forming. Our founders gave us that. All we have to do is read the documents and speak out against the evils of monopoly… ANY monopoly!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@carcus1 140
“Where in the world is the F3DM test drive? It’s been available for 3 1/2 months!”
Man, I think they are only selling to “Municipalities” there. I think it’s a “Throw Lyle on the Plane” tour to go test drive the F3DM.
135
“What I found on the tzero trailer was that it had trouble with highway speeds and sustained hill climbing and mpg was not great.”
It’s the same extender. I cant seem to find any more details on it either other than that AC Propulsion stoppped making them. Looks like a doable concept even for a garage manufacturer like me. But like I said, the PMG is expensive to the tune of $3 grand. The ICE is cheap and you can use many different types diesel, CNG, Regular Gas or Liquid Propane. I would opt for a diesel.
Welp….
Lunch time, Sushi and Saki Bombs……
Disclaimer:
I accept no responsibility for my actions after lunch…
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
#116 DaveG said:
I’ve driven over 860 miles with only a couple of 10-minute rest stops. This was with the air conditioning on and going 75-80 MPH. To be safe, I’d want 1000 miles of electric range. To be cost and space effective, that would be available around 2045.
========================
========================
How come that kind of math never fits onto your graph?
——
#68 Dave G said:
With a typical driving pattern, assuming you only charge overnight:
Vehicle ……………… Gallons per year
Volt (EREV-40) …….. 37
Assumptions: Volt: Infinite MPG on electric, 50MPG after that.
Typical driving pattern is:
• 30 days at 8 miles per day
• 50 days at 16 miles per day
• 240 days at 30 miles per day
• 30 days at 60 miles per day
• 3 days at 450 miles per day
—-
Let me tell you the result of what you just said you do…in relation to your ‘chart’…and why your chart is wrong.
The average driver does have ‘their air conditioning on and goes 75-80 MPH’ on the highway, not just on long trips, but whenever they drive on the highway. And they won’t be getting anywhere near the 40 miles GM said they achieved in the city, with no A/C (which btw, you never allowed for after that statement came to light)…you will be getting about 25 miles range tops on the highway @ 80MPG with the A/C on.
You don’t allow for anything but flawless perfect on the 40 miles range, or the most optimistic of ‘typical driving patterns’ that achieves 50MPG when you argue your point.
Under just your one scenario you did this: Achieved maybe 25 miles electric…and then got MAYBE (big maybe) 35 mpg afterwards, dragging a extra 600 pounds of EV components down the road for another 835 miles.
You blew 24 gallons in just this one trip…and thats why your ‘average driver’ using 37 gallons a year on the Volt is completely ridiculous. You allow for no diminished returns of any kind, on any metric (range or MPG) and 100% optimal driving scenarios.
No one is driving your 11,400 miles a year in the Volt and using 37 gallons…nobody. Not now…not ever. (BTW, the EPA standard is 12,000)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
#127 Tim
Here is a fact: Private parties have been free to make EVs for quite a while now. They haven’t done it. If private parties need a $10M Automotive X-Prize as a reward, they are not focusing on larger profits from the sale of their “better” car. Your “free market” theory hasn’t played our so far, even with the promise/reward of billions in revenue.
Pragmatically, it seems evident to me that GM is our best bet to get EVs in widespread use. Lament all you want about the lack of “free market” competition. The real world is more complex.
Realistically, the US’s major auto manufacturer has something that looks very promising in the works. The potential success of Voltec technology seems worth the investment to me. If Voltec technology succeeds, the US stands to benefit more than $20Billion. Voltec technology will drive improvements in electrical infrastructure, including generation and storage. It will increase energy efficiency. It will reduce carbon emissions. It will reduce noise. It will spark the competiton you cherish.
You talk about facts, yet you deal in an academic, theoretical world. Get real. Given the current situation and a desire for advancement, you would rely on Automotive X-Prize?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
#144 Stan
What is the highway fuel mielage of a Volt that is driving on depleted batteries and a continuously operating engine to supply the charge? If it is no better than the Prius then a plug in Hybrid is just as good as the Volt. GM has wasted a lot of research and time on EREV and should have gone only urban EV and Hybrid Sedan.
————-
I’d like to know the answer to this as well as most of the readers on this site. If Lyle knew, he’d tell us. Dont expect to hear this number until the integration vehicles have been tested rigorously.. if even then.
You comment on the Volt not being better; it is if you drive less than 40miles or less per day, which 80% of drivers do. Thats gas-free driving for 80% of the US.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
#143 Schmeltz
“I think there will be a market for the Model S, and there will also be a market for the Volt as well–just that the Volt will appeal to more people and more situations at this time.”
—————————–
I must say I agree with your statement. Both have a place, and hopefully, a future.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
#145 Tim
Are you saying that Tesla can’t compete because the government and GM are keeping them down?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
#146 CaptJackSparrow
“I accept no responsibility for my actions after lunch…”
———————–
How is that different from your prior to lunch position? I thought you never accepted responsibility at any time. Better watch out, the beer fog is clearing.
Edited: Just in case you didn’t understand me, but I am just kidding you. Pulling your chain, sort of.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
#144 Stan Says: What is the highway fuel mielage of a Volt that is driving on depleted batteries and a continuously operating engine to supply the charge?
————————————————————————————–
First, they have to build a production prototype of the Volt. Then they have to tweak the mechanical design as necessary. Then they have to optimize the embedded software that controls the electric motor, battery pack, gas engine, and generator. They will probably finish that up around the summer of 2010. Then, and only then, will GM have final performance and efficiency numbers.
Right now, we only have preliminary estimates of 50 MPG, and 40 miles of all-electric range.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
#147 statik says “Let me tell you the result of what you just said you do…in relation to your ‘chart’…and why your chart is wrong.”
it’s hard to say whether his calculations about the Volt are right or wrong because at this point everything is speculation. Your point about driving styles is well taken but keep in mind that a lot of the energy needed to go 75-80 mph are drive train losses and the Volt may have a much more efficient drive train than something like the Tesla Roadster. In fact I’d bet on that one. There is a reason why Tesla desperately wanted GM to help them with the transmission.
Personally I could see going 12,000 miles and never using any gas. Seems like a fun game actually, though it would probably result in doing or not doing some things differently.
Likewise, keep in mind that there is no possible way I would get the mileage the chart assumes for the Prius. Way way too many freeway miles. With the Prius the more freeway miles the lower your mpg.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
For all you BEV people, check out whats going on at Ford/Magna/Smith Electric Vehicles
Ford stock up 21% today.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,512423,00.html
(yes, i know its from foxnews)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
#84 Dave G.,
“… how will people connect these huge power cables safely in various weather conditions? I haven’t been able to figure any solution to this problem, so I have come to the conclusion that fast charging stations aren’t viable.”
_____________________________________________________
Maybe if you read some, you’ll discover somebody else figured it out long ago.
http://www.ryerson.ca/~mctavish/Education/AER715/AER715_Topic_2_Power.pdf
pps. 96, 97
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
April 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
#147 statik Says: How come that kind of math never fits onto your graph?
————————————————————————————–
I don’t consider myself a typical driver.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
#155 k-dawg
Absolutely nothing wrong with Fox News. I watch all of them, but I trust what Fox says a little more than I do the others. And I don’t really trust any of them very much. Same for politicians.
Ford may do OK with that as a local delivery van. It will be a good test bed for them at any rate.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
#156 carcus1 Says: Maybe if you read some, you’ll discover somebody else figured it out long ago.
http://www.ryerson.ca/~mctavish/Education/AER715/AER715_Topic_2_Power.pdf
pps. 96, 97
————————————————————————————–
Do these connections carry 480,000 watts of power? That’s what you’ll need to charge a 200 mile SUV in 10 minutes.
Are these connections being made by soccer-moms? If highly trained technicians are required to fill up your car, it will significantly change the economics of filling stations.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
ThombDbhomb (#150) said:
“You talk about facts, yet you deal in an academic, theoretical world. Get real. Given the current situation and a desire for advancement, you would rely on Automotive X-Prize?”
My answer: Of course not and in your own words… get real!
A product (any product) MUST make marketplace sense of profit for the investor/manufacturer because it fills a need for the buyer/owner. It this is only due to gov’t intervention, then it is ultimately doomed to failure once the political winds change and taxpayer subsidies end.
If you REALLY want EVs like I do, then work to end our occupation of the Middle-East and stop ALL subsidies of ALL corporations. Oil will quickly shoot up to $6.00 plus/gal., the auto market field will level and EVs would make sense for investors, corporations and buyers. EV manufacturers would jump out of the woodwork, not just to get a piece of the pork pot pie, but to get into the free marketplace with fantastic new EVs that people WANT to buy at a price point they could afford. This is the ONLY sustainable business model!
You also said: “Pragmatically, it seems evident to me that GM is our best bet to get EVs in widespread use.”
If a company with $Billions in debt that can’t survive without taxpayer money is our best bet, then it’s time to sober up and find another dealer. If GM were allowed to reorganize under bankruptcy, there would be a LOT of other tables to gamble at.
You also said: “Realistically, the US’s major auto manufacturer has something that looks very promising in the works.”
Yes, there are other US auto manufacturers without all the baggage that GM is carrying around and many more will join the game once the US Gov’t steps out of their way. Investors FEAR political winds of “change”. Sometimes it’s just best to start all over. Voltec will survive, and I don’t care which symbol is on the hood. Hopefully “Voltec” E-REVs will come from MANY different manufacturers all fighting each other for MY sound $Dollar.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Nice looking car, stupid way of thinking.
I would never buy a non-REV ever.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
jeffhre
300 miles, i travel about 40 miles a day, so 300 mile tesla means weekly charging for me… yes, i agree 300 mile Tesla….but the price probably will shoot up to 100 k, i can’t afford that…shit!! poor me…
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
I’m ok with all electric. Just make the range 1000 miles minimum before the need to recharge.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
#160 Dave G.
You’ve analyzed my reference and its implications (and responded to statik’s post) in less than 10 minutes. That’s amazing.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
They changed the new 2010 Prius, gave it larger motors so it can go up to 60mph (I think, could be 62mph) before the ice turns on and they also put in an “EV Mode Only” switch on the dash.. supposedly this switch prevents the ICE from coming on.
I suspect Toyota is getting ready to make a plug-in Prius.. with these two additions it would be easy to just add a larger battery pack. Voila, instant competition to the Volt.
………………………
#132 DonC Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Do you think, given the current split drive, that a Prius PHEV40 is possible?. With the Prius you can’t guarantee that the gas engine won’t kick in within the first mile.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
As far as the Model S is concerned I think it is a beautiful car. If I could afford one, I would love to own it. I would prefer the Volt over the Model S as far as distance from home travel is concerned. As far as looks and passenger carrying capacity, the Model S wins hands down. Both cars will do very well on the market. The Volt is a better bet because GM is more likely able to produce it in enough volume to make any difference, even in their terrible financial position. Tesla may be able to get the Model S in production. Maybe.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
#161 Tim
Yes, GM is getting government help to get through a tough spot. As I understand things, GM will either fail or emerge leaner and meaner. To characterize the situation as a “bottomless taxpayer pit,” as you did (in #127), seems incorrect and melodramatic.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I admire Musk, but he has just demonstrated where a narrow technical perspective fails. Of course a pure EV is the most elegant solution out there, but it just doesn’t account for “fuzzier” issues, like range anxiety. I love Tesla, but would never buy their cars even if I had the cash (and I have *far* less EV-phobia than the average person I meet). Frankly, a range extender is critical for me and I would say lack of one is a deal-breaker for the average person. I am looking forward to when pure EVs are a practical choice as my only car, but now is not the time. Voltec will wean people onto EVs, so Tesla should be happy. Or maybe they’re just bitter about Fisker
PS. Musk, what about lugging around 200 miles of extra battery capacity around every short drive?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
It depends how you drive.. if on flat ground and gently driven then the Volt may get slightly lower MPG than the new Prius.
If the highways are hilly and you are more agressive, passing other cars, weaving in an out etc.. then the Volt will get better highway mileage.
The weight of the cars could affect this..
Why is this? .. the Prius connects the engine directly to the wheels at highway speeds.. no motor, controller or genset losses come into play.
In city stop-and-go and short cold trips, the Volt will wipe the Prius quickly, even with a depleted battery.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#144 Stan Says: What is the highway fuel mielage of a Volt that is driving on depleted batteries and a continuously operating engine to supply the charge?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
#117 GXT Says: Why do you have the Prius PHEV-40 getting “only” 150 MPG? … Perhaps there is some speed at which the ICE kicks in, but I don’t see how your spreadsheet accounts for that.
————————————————————————————–
150 MPG during electric boost is generally how PHEVs are measured, because the ICE still has to turn on for acceleration, uphill, and highway driving speeds. But even with the ICE on, the electric motor is usually doing the majority of the work. So that’s why they measure them this way.
But a Prius PHEV-40 is a car in theory only. To properly fit a battery that big into the Prius would require major modifications to the chassis. I suppose they could fit in a 40-mile battery if they removed the spare tire, or perhaps cut into the rear seating and/or storage areas. But to do it properly for crash safety and weight distribution, it really should be low and centered like the Volt.
So by the time Toyota designed a new chassis to fit in a 40-mile battery, it really wouldn’t be a Prius any more. In other words, they could also replace their permanent magnet electric motor with a much more powerful induction motor of the same size, and get 40 miles of all-electric range.
Here’s what I’m trying to say: It doesn’t really matter if its series, parallel, series-parallel, or whatever – it’s the 40 miles of all-electric range that counts. If Toyota combined a 150hp electric motor with their planetary gear design and a 40 mile battery, that would compete very well with the Volt.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
k-dawg
No what I am talking about is akin to a split transformer with one part being an electric coil powered by battery (in the vehicle ) and an electric coil ( in the concrete or asphalt) powered by the utility company to transfer electricity to the on-board battery and capacitors not linear induction motors or levitation .
GM used an induction paddle with the EV1 and it had a loss of power , but not that much to be concerned about really .
What I am talking about is power transmission of electricity to keep the battery powered on long trips . It will work great , it just has to be developed .
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
ThombDbhomb (#170) said:
“To characterize the situation as a “bottomless taxpayer pit,” as you did, seems incorrect and melodramatic.”
It would seem so, but they were given $20+Billion in taxpayer money BEFORE they realized that it wouldn’t work because of the legacy baggage so they are now suggesting that bankruptcy reorganization may be “the answer”.
This is the SAME with the financial bailout. NOW THEY ALL WANT MORE!
Beware rushed “emergency” legislation!!!
Bankruptcy reorganization is a STARTING point and the fact that these central planners didn’t know that one can NOT borrow and spend their way our to debt and into prosperity does NOT fill me will “hope”.
Melodramatic? maybe
Incorrect? NOPE. It’s already down the drain…
We should start a “GM Announcement Bankruptcy Reorganization pool. I’ll start by choosing June 1 for my day.
Any takers?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
While I can discuss technical details all day (I’m an engineer) Tesla vs Volt really comes down to a few things:
Price: Volt maybe $35K out of pocket, Model S maybe $52K out of pocket, almost 50% more than Volt.
Volume: Volt will have many more copies.
Personal requirements: If you are a 1 car family with a requirement for 200+ miles maybe once a month, model S is not for you (without battery upgrade). If you need the extra trunk space (and I think 7 seats is a repeated misprint) and can afford it and can fit within the range limits, then model S is for you. If you can afford, like the look, hate maintenance, and want a second car, model S is for you.
I could fit within Tesla’s range requirements, I rarely drive more than 100 miles round trip. If I was paying $20K or $25K for an EV only with 100+ range, I’d be prepared to rent a gasser for longer trips. But if I’m paying $50K plus, I just want it to be trouble free without any anxiety, and the base model S won’t get me from my house to the far end of Long Island (I live in middle of Long Island). I only drive off Long Island a couple of times a year.
Now if even I who hardly ever leaves Long Island would suffer range anxiety with Model S, then I guess most would if it was their only car.
To be fair to Musk, his original inspiration was seeing Priuses next to far more expensive cars in driveways — obviously a second car. That’s where I see Tesla’s potential — second family vehicle.
It’s all an engineering trade off, and engineering is sensitive to costs. The ICE is cheaper than at least doubling the battery size. That is the key thing that Musk did not talk about.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
We use Hubbell connectors for our high-current connections in the plant. I did a quick check to see what else Hubbell has. Here’s a 900A connector. There’s lots out there.. i’m still digging.
http://www.hubbellpowersystems.com/powertest/catalog_sections/PDF_cable/c4.pdf
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
He is exactly correct, from his point of view. E-REV batteries do take a beating. An E-REV is more complex to design, build, and maintain. EVs are simpler systems, and are a more elegant and efficient designs. All of which is fine when you are designing a boutique car and only planning on producing a handful for your home market.
HOWEVER… in order for any vehicle to be mainstream mass marketable (in the millions of units worldwide, something only the majors can pull off), EVs still fail miserably regarding one critical aspect, which is the ability to quickly refuel. It is the one linchpin that is holding back the possibility of completely supplanting the ICE under all possible conditions. Anyone who has ever commuted long distances, or ever planned a cross country road trip (or even a trip across Ontario) knows very quickly that, even ranges of 600-800 kms would still tie you to a radius around recharging station, where you will be required to stop for hours at a time. This is the one trump card that the ICE still holds over the battery EV, and GM realizes this, because they understand MASS market in a way that Tesla can only dream of. Anything designed for the mass market has to be a compromise, and the Volt is the best available compromise that is capable of providing ICE free driving for four people and cargo, as far a distance as reasonably possible, on a daily basis as a sole vehicle, reliably, with no major failures for at least a decade, under all foreseeable climatic conditions, and also offer a refuelable extended range capability when needed, at a price that many people will be willing and able to afford. The Tesla, by comparison, is a bespoke sports car for high net worth people who can afford to add another toy to their stable, and use it when it’s convenient, and can afford to fix anything that goes wrong. Both valid products, but for different markets, with different requirements. The mass market is decidedly the more complex of the two, and a market that Tesla would not likely have the financial or engineering resources to compete in. I don’t really hold much respect for the opinions of someone who does not understand mass manufacturing on the scale that GM, or any other major manufacturer, does.
While I agree that the majority of most people’s commuting could be done by a current EV technology, there are many applications for which refueling on the fly is a very real requirement. An EV in the current state will not likely become the average person’s sole vehicle for this reason. In addition, without the ability to refuel quickly, the ICE will continue to dominate in some markets. Truckers need to refuel on the fly, taxis need to refuel on the fly, people take long trips need to refuel on the fly. It’s not the norm, but it is a reality that people have gotten used to having available, and common enough to be a sticking point. In order to make the ICE a mere footnote in the history of personal transportation, the ability to refuel is a must. The ability to quick charge is even ultimately more critical than range, considering that modern batteries can provide for distances around 250 miles under favorable conditions. We’ve hit the point where current battery technology provides enough range to provide for almost all commuting and errand getting needs, and also enough that recharging on longer trips wouldn’t be so frequent to be burdensome, provided is could be done quickly.
The E-REV is a necessary inefficiency until such time when we can recharge a battery pack in less than 5 mins. This is a tall task, and will only be accomplished with future advances in battery and/or/ ultracapacitor technology, and development and construction of the quick-charging infrastructure to match. I’m curious what happened to the induction chargers the EV-1 had… but I digress. The beauty is that, even when we can quick charge on the fly when needed, we will still be able to overnight charge at home, which is a convenience that the ICE cannot offer (except perhaps to those running on homebrew biodiesel or SVO/WVO).
Quick swapping is a non starter. One of the great advantages of EVs is the increased range of options regarding packaging configurations with a battery pack and motor, as opposed to gas tank and engine. Standardizing such a large and integral component of the vehicles design would basically take this option away to a large degree, much to the disbenefit of the final design and ultimately the consumer.
These are issues that Tesla doesn’t currently need to concern themselves with, but GM does. Tesla’s cars will not likely be sole cars for their owners, they will produce few enough that they will consistently sell out to those people for whom the EV solution works well. By the time Tesla grows to the point of being able to mass manufacture at the scale the majors do (if ever), battery technology may have advanced enough such that the range extender is no longer necessary. GM on the other hand, is designing an EV for the masses, today, and that requires a method of refueling on the fly. GM’s solution, and the only real viable option today, is the range extender.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Have you guys seen this
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/04/chevrolet-volt-first-drive.html
Check the Date …
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Some of you are saying 1000 miles is a good range for a BEV, and frankly, Tesla’s 300 miles probably isn’t with the A/C on, the audio blasting, with a lead foot on the freeway.
Consider that an EREV with wheels on the ground will be a wonderful opportunity for research into new battery technology. Extensive real-world experience may lead to much faster engineering for traction batteries. For one thing, imagine the difference between getting a new battery concept up to 300 miles on the first iteration verses 40-ish for an EREV.
I’d have to say that I’d be tempted by a real-world 300 miles in a BEV, but I won’t see that for years unless something leads to much faster engineering for traction batteries. Which brings us back to EREV …
There’s that whole volume-production lowering final costs thing to consider, too.
I would want some kind of range-extender/augmenter even at that; but it wouldn’t have to be as robust a genset as proposed for Volt if there was a lower chance of needing it with the increased electric range.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Kud (#179)
Read it carefully. It was an April Fools joke!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
When he markets a car for under $40k, with a 150,000 mile battery warranty, he will be a player in the market for affodable family transportation.
Right now, he is in the toy business.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Tim (#0179 )
That’s why I said read the Date
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
You are talking about placing an inductive charger strip just under the pavement.. so that cars, busses and trucks would recharge their batteries as they drove.
It would work well, since you just need a bit of power to keep the car going.. not nessesarily to fully recharge the battery.
The strip section could power up just before you drove over it, and your bank account would be deducted for the electricity charge (and I’m sure also road usage taxes).
You would only place these charge-o-matic strips on major highways since the car would rely on its battery once off the highway.
There is a second way to do it, put conductive rails on the road, and there would be auto-tracking contact wipers under your car that would automatically make contact and transfer electricity to your car.. again in sections and your bank account gets charged. Regular cars and pedestrians would just ride over the rails with no problems since they are not powered-up.. the rails do not have to stick above the surface of the road.
It would require major infrastructure changes.. I dont think it will be required because I think batteries will get a lot cheaper and better very soon..same way I think fast charging will never be needed or popular.
But if battery tech never gets better than present then…
BEV with small and cheap 40 mile range batteries would be truly inexpensive if such a system was implemented.. it would save a tremendous amount of money on each car.
…………………………………..
#172 Keith Says: April 6th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
k-dawg
No what I am talking about is akin to a split transformer with one part being an electric magnet powered by battery (in the vehicle ) and an electric magnet ( in the concrete or asphalt) powered by the utility company to transfer electricity to the onboard battery and capacitors not linear induction motors or levitation .
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
#173 Tim
After your bankruptcy reorganization scenario occurs, do the taxpayers still keep GM alive? No. So, your “bottomless taxpayer pit” statement is incorrect, despite your assertions. You cannot claim you were correct just because some money was already spent. A bottomless taxpayer pit infers an ad infinitum situation.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Many people say that EREVs are just a temporary step to a world of 100% electric vehicles, but after looking at all the issues, this doesn’t seem to make sense, for many reasons:
• Liquid fuels have the highest energy density, by far.
• We have a huge infrastructure of liquid fuel filling stations that took 50 years to build.
• Charging a 200-mile BEV SUV in 10 minutes will require 480,000 watts of charging power. Try making that connection with rain or snow dripping down your car. Kaboom!
• Fast-charging stations require batteries for storage and are not cheap to build. A new infrastructure of fast charging stations would cost trillions of dollars.
• Using cellulosic gasification, ethanol can replace up to 35% of our gasoline consumption, without any affect on our food supply
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Together with EREVs, that’s more than enough to completely replace gasoline.
• Using cellulosic gasification, ethanol can be made for as little as $1 per gallon
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
I believe the internal combustion engine will be a mainstream solution for the next 50 years.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
#177 KUD
Yeah, a real good April Fool’s Day spoof. Probably will be similar to their real test of the Volt next year. I don’t look for our friends at Consumer Reports to give the Volt any glowing words of praise. They really don’t like American autos. They are like Mr. Musk – just a little biased in their opinions.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Keith
Ok i found a link on EV1 paddle charger
http://www.hawkins.info/LPI.html
It looks like it operates basically lika an isolation transformer to me.
Those losses are actually very low. The problem I see with this now is the range. I think you would have to be within a fraction of an inch for efficient power transmission.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
By making the statement that only 520 cars were booked in a set of weeks, Tesla is, basically, saying they are dead. With the current debt ratio, overhead and competitors they need to be booking 800 customers per day to even have a bare chance of surviving. The CEO of Tesla is detailed elsewhere online as doing over 40 things that are almost clinically insane, every investors has said they will never put money in Tesla again. The US DOE has already said that they have a failed financial model. They are gone. Bright and Fisker will crush them.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Right now, given a choice between an ICE car, a PHEV and a BEV, most people would choose an ICE because it is so much cheaper to buy. If gas prices triple, and battery prices fall by half, the PHEV is the best buy, but the BEV is still too expensive if you want a car with a good range.
But this is a window. If battery prices fall by half again, the BEV is as cheap as the PHEV, saves a little on gas, and saves a lot on maintenance. If that ever happens, the BEV would start to supplant the PHEV.
Range anxiety would still be an issue for some people, but I think it is overblown on this site for two reasons:
1. Many families have two cars. Lots of people someday may have one BEV and one PHEV or ICE. We often have both spouses going different places in different cars, but not both on 200 mile journeys.
2. I can plan my trips. I admit I often go farther in a day than I originally planned, but I always know where I am going to sleep tonite. I don’t start out in the morning thinking I will be home today, and turn it into an overnight trip.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
#178 (me):
“I’d have to say that I’d be tempted by a real-world 300 miles in a BEV, but I won’t see that for years”
Sorry, should have been followed by:
at a price I could afford to consider.
=======
Herm (#182):
Induction efficiency drops rapidly as distances between the coils increase. I find it hard to believe that an open-air gap on-the-fly induction coupler for electric vehicles could ever be made practical.
Physical contact strips or rails are another matter, and I’ve posted something very like your description on this site, though not recently.
Plan A: Batteries get better.
=======
All those who dismiss quick charging on the basis of the connectors:
If you take the idea of parking over an under-pavement coupler, and remove induction as the method, you could have a system which can detect the presence of a car, open guards in the space, and raise solid bars or pipes to engage sockets on the bottom of the car (separated from one another by the length of the battery pack) before powering up.
At first, this would be under a roof or awning of some type. In fact, if I were just starting out in that business, I would try to find an old Minit Lube or similar establishment and put the “Jackson’s Big Batteries” ™ down in the pits.
I agree that quick charging is not necessary for the adoption of electric vehicles. It’s something that’s likely to emerge sometime after EVs hit some kind of numerical ‘critical mass’ as a convenience service, or as a draw for a public destination; and only when charging technology becomes economic.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
#184 Dave G
I believe you are correct in all your points. We are a long way from total electrification of the automobile. May never get there, in fact. There will always be new technology that will breath new life into the ICE concept. My grandchildren (8 & 4) will grow up driving both kinds.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Here’s a 200A watertight connector
http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/Press/PDFS/H5273.pdf
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
It’s good to have both types of vehicles for those that only need 200 miles a day and those who need 200+ miles a day.
VOLT = 40 electric + infinite with gas (Oil Baron & Service Dept.’s happy)
Model S = 200 electric, no backup (Oil Baron & Service Dept.’s sad )
However, both are in the same price range – that’s really the problem for achieving MASS acceptance. Can’t wait for the VOLT Gen 2 & Model T for 2014/2015 under $30K.
GO EV !!!!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
ThombDbhomb (#185)
“After your bankruptcy reorganization scenario occurs, do the taxpayers still keep GM alive? No.” But MANY new competitors rise up to fill the void in the marketplace because the market HATES a vacuum! These new companies with new ideas and free market capital swoop in and buy up the assets of the bloated body of the now dead GM. They hire all the employees and compete with each other for our consumer dollar. This competition forces product innovation and competitive pricing. They MUST listen to their customers in order to survive. Competitive is what made America great!
And:
Fine, the pit is NOT bottomless (nothing really is), hence the melodrama. But it IS a black and depressing pit nonetheless and it was a horrible waste of taxpayer money which could have been better spent AFTER bankruptcy reorganization (if at all). This goes for the financial sector too!
When one is spending other people’s tax money, it’s a LOT easier to leap before you look!
Yet ANOTHER reason why central planning with other people’s tax money sucks! It’s just too easy (and seductive) to be irresponsible and so is not giving congress time to read a bill is before the scheduled vote and voting for a bill you have not even read is… irresponsible!
Those who voted for these bailouts MUST be replaced with more responsible representatives who look before they leap. Action NOT reaction but ONLY within the framework of the Constitution which is our supreme law!
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
#191 k-dawg Says: Here’s a 200A watertight connector
http://www.hubbell-wiring.com/Press/PDFS/H5273.pdf
————————————————————————————–
Thanks for the link. At 600 volts and 200 amps, thats 120,000 watts of power, and you see the connectors are getting pretty big.
Now imagine 4 times that amount of power, 480,000 watts. That’s what it takes to charge a 200-mile SUV in 10 minutes. We’re talking huge cables and connectors here.
And there’s still the issue of making the initial connection with snow and ice sliding down your car – not something most yacht owners have to worry about.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
#194 Dave G
I agree. Quick charging stations are going to be difficult to design, build and support. They are going to be extremely dangerous in the wrong type of environment. The one most of us operate in most of the time. I sure would not want to have my wife trying to quick charge her BEV on a rainy day in the Walmart parking lot. Not unless I have time to increase her life insurance coverage a few months earlier.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I would just like to say…for the record, I like threads that involve a competing product.
Nothing like a couple hundred points of everyone jocking for position on the EV they firmly think is the best (and that no one is going to change their mind on) to keep a day lively.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
#184 (Dave G):
And an ICE needn’t be limited to the now-dominant crank and eccentric reciprocating engine, moving forward (I just can’t seem to resist these puns). Once, a car’s powerplant had to provide usable power at every speed and load; but with serial hybrid technology taking over the wheels, the engine becomes merely a power source: opening up many types which otherwise couldn’t be considered.
#192 (Anthony B C):
“Can’t wait for the VOLT Gen 2 & Model T for 2014/2015 under $30K.”
I’m sure it was only a typo, but I think you’ve stumbled upon Tesla’s rationale for the name of this sedan: “S” comes after “T,” and they see the Model S as a latter-day “Model T:” First of it’s kind, and of many more to come (perhaps obvious to others, but wasn’t to me before now).
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
#196 Statik
If we are anything, we are stubborn. Once we make up our little bitty minds, it hard to change them. Kinda like Toyota and batteries.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Elon is as smart as they come.
Do not underestimate this man, a true pioneer. (and the secret inspiration for the Volt).
Without Mr. Musk I doubt the Volt project would have ever been approved.
The Volt owes its creation to this great legendary man.
The Government better give him his money !! (the best investment they could ever make).
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
#197 Jackson
We all should agree on what most of us have believed for a long time. GM’s CHEVROLET VOLT IS A GAME CHANGER. One day, we will all know that.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Using cellulosic gasification, ethanol can be made for as little as $1 per gallon
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
I believe the internal combustion engine will be a mainstream solution for the next 50 years.
———————————————————————————
Dave, I agree that if I could buy carbon neutral fuel for $1 per gallon, I would stick with an ICE. Why pay $40,000 for a $16,000 car with a $24,000 electrical system.
However, I am still skeptical about $1/gal ethanol, solar cells as cheap as paint, capacitor powered cars, fusion power, water powered cars, air powered cars, rehabilitation of criminals and time travel.
I once again followed your link, and it says they are building a pilot plant to produce 2 barrels of alcohol per day. I do not consider this a proof point that $1/gal cellulosic ethanol is possible.
General media coverage indicates that there is no known scalable process for producing ethanol from cellulose, but many researchers are “optimisitic”.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Aw man, didn’t we cover this on the fly charge on the freeway thingy already? That’s a big he|| no. The loss of induction from transmission coil to induction coil is a logrithmic increment directly proportional to the air space between them. It’s not a viable solution. You’ll lose more energy trying to increase induction by turning up the juice on the tranitting coil. Plus, the cost of copper to stretch the mile or so is wht we like to call “Cost Prohibitive”. Charge by on the fly induction on the road = No.
Charge by direct contact is a big no also. 220VAC sparking along the freeway……I don’t think so.
Fast charging is going to be an after thought/effect of the wide spread use of BEV/EREV. You woun’t need it with the Volt so what’s the point of argumenting this? Teasla’s cars will but this isn’t a Tesla sight is it?
I just want my Volt NOW so I can hack the battery to release it’s extra SOC!!!!! 60 Mile AER…….yeeeeehawwww!!!
Ohhh……did I just say that?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
#201 Tom H
Jury is still out, but development continues. Maybe one day all those things you named will come about. I notice you left out “rehabilitation of politicians”. I don’t think there is any chance of that ever coming about. (But you did mention criminals.)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Dave G
I sent a link on a 900A. Didnt look too big. Lots of options. I’m not too concerned about a connector, or the plugging part. Its more if the batteries/car can hadle that. And if the grid could handle 10 people charging at the same time in one spot.
for a 200mi range battery it would take 10minutes to charge at 500Amps. (from my calculations)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
#194 Dave G said:
At 600 volts and 200 amps, thats 120,000 watts of power, and you see the connectors are getting pretty big.
Now imagine 4 times that amount of power, 480,000 watts. That’s what it takes to charge a 200-mile SUV in 10 minutes. We’re talking huge cables and connectors here.
And there’s still the issue of making the initial connection with snow and ice sliding down your car – not something most yacht owners have to worry about.
——————–
#195 n riley said:
I agree. Quick charging stations are going to be difficult to design, build and support. They are going to extremely dangerous in the wrong type of environment. The one most of us operate in most of the time. I sure would not want to have my wife trying to quick charge her BEV on a rainy day in the Walmart parking lot. Not unless I have time to increase her life insurance coverage a few months earlier.
======================
I’m with you guys. I think we can agree quick charging is ‘teh suq’ (for a lot of reasons) compared to the advantages, very impractical…at least probably for our lifetimes.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@statik 196
“jocking for position on the EV they firmly think is the best”
“Best”?, man, I’m jockying for one that comes out first affordable with at least 40 AER. Just sell me the Volt Without the ICE and Generator, I just need a commuter car back/forth to work while I still have it…..lol
And I WILL get to the proteced 45% SOC!
P
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
#197 Jackson said:
I’m sure it was only a typo, but I think you’ve stumbled upon Tesla’s rationale for the name of this sedan: “S” comes after “T,” and they see the Model S as a latter-day “Model T:”
———————–
…hrm
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
202 CaptJack
I just want my Volt NOW so I can hack the battery to release it’s extra SOC!!!!! 60 Mile AER…….yeeeeehawwww!!!
Ohhh……did I just say that?
============
Good job! You know they read this. Now you just delayed the Volt launch another 3 months so they can develop better “hack-proof” code.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
#193 Tim
Under your scenario, if GM and Chrysler go down, how long does it take for the void in the marketplace to fill up? Will there be pain in the interim? If so, how much? Do US companies fill the void?
Maybe we bought some time to figure out the softest landing on our “touch and go.”
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Musk actually makes a lot of sense.
Someone mentioned that he was biased… well that’s understandable, noting that he wants HIS company to make all the money, lol. He did mention it was in his companies opinion as well… so he sounds genuine.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Now yawll know the battery pack is only 40AH right? So what’s the big dealio on the fast charge when the most you will EVER be able to push into the pack is 400VDC @ 40A? That is 1C during charge.
Why is that? Because Lithuim cells don’t really like being charged at the full 1C. Most lengthen their Cycle count by charging only at .5C (for the Volt it would be 20A) and the really expensive ones are 1C but recomended is .3C (for the Volt it would be 12A).
So if the bat pack can’t EVER take 40A WTF’s the big deal?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
#184 Dave G.
“• Charging a 200-mile BEV SUV in 10 minutes will require 480,000 watts of charging power. Try making that connection with rain or snow dripping down your car. Kaboom!”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
My God man! How hard is your head?
This statement is somewhere between way overblown to just flat wrong:
1. 480,000 watts:
Your 480,000 watts is assuming a 114 kwh battery. (10% to 80% = 70% of 114000 = 79,800 x 6 (10 minutes or 1/6th of an hour) = 478,800 or about 480,000 watts. Nobody is talking about 114kwh batteries in EV’s (except for you, when you suddenly switch over to SUV EV’s when talking about quick charge stations).
2. Kaboom!
There are plenty of ways to plug in high power cables safely. I gave you a good reference which you obviously barely read, or didn’t understand. I’m sure there are many other ways to skin this cat. Just because you can’t think of an answer off the top of your head, it doesn’t mean there is no answer available. (duh!)
P.S. From your favorite chart, you’d save more gas driving a 100 mile range BEV and renting a prius for your 3 day vacation (only 27 gallons of gas a year vs. your 37 gallons in the volt). You’d just have to man up a little bit and face the range anxiety monster dead in the eye. Here’s a little mantra to help you when you’re feeling scared: 60 mile trip, 100 mile range, . . . I CAN DO THIS! 60 mile trip, 100 mile range, I CAN DO THIS! . … .. . .
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
#2087 k-dawg
No such thing as “hack-proof code”. At least not in my experience around computers for nearly 40 years. Capt Jack will probably pour his after dinner drink on the thing and it will start chirping out code faster than he can write it down on the dinner napkin. LOL.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
#206 CaptJackSparrow said:
@statik 196: “jocking for position on the EV they firmly think is the best”
“Best”?, man, I’m jockying for one that comes out first affordable with at least 40 AER. Just sell me the Volt Without the ICE and Generator, I just need a commuter car back/forth to work while I still have it…..lol
And I WILL get to the proteced 45% SOC!
P
================================
Well…not everyone I guess.
We all have a sweet spot for our favorite though. For myself, of the cars that look to be ‘real,’ I would take the iMiev. Although, the Ford 2011 BEV could easily supplant it when I am confident it will be built.
However, in the long run…some of us will take any flipping EV built by a major auto, favorite…or least favorite. Volt, iMiev, plug-in Prius, Ford BEV, Chrysler ENVI, Smart ed, Mini-e, Honda whatever, Nissan Cube…who cares.
/anybody?
(Where the heck is Hyundai’s EV concept already? lol)
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
N. Riley (#200):
“We all should agree on what most of us have believed for a long time. GM’s CHEVROLET VOLT IS A GAME CHANGER. One day, we will all know that.”
Perhaps even john1701a!!
=======
CaptJackSparrow (#202):
“The loss of induction from transmission coil to induction coil is a logrithmic increment directly proportional to the air space between them. It’s not a viable solution.”
I believe I said that, Captain.
“Charge by direct contact is a big no also. 220VAC sparking along the freeway……I don’t think so.”
220VAC would be out. I don’t think either of us were advocating a series of constantly-hot, wired-to-the-grid conductors. The conductive strips would have to electrically detect that an electric auto was present, and connected before delivering a controlled pulse to something like a capacitor or high-power lithium cell (for a more controlled delivery to the motor and battery). With contact already established, there would be no arcing.
And you must control your human emotionalism, it will be your undoing.
If Lutz can channel the Vulcans, why not yours truly?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Are we talking about fast-charging to 100%?
What if we medium-charged to 75%? Could we do that?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
#210 Zach
I don’t question that Musk is genuine. I would feel the same way as he does, if I were in his shoes. He has a lot of time and money tied up in a BEV car company. He wants to take it to the next level (the model S) and he now sees the Volt technology of putting that investment into danger. Sure, I understand where he is coming from. The Volt is not any real danger for Tesla at this stage. Maybe not for another 20 years. They both will be able to co-exist very well in our current market environment. IMO.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
@Dave G 194
Hey dude, just an fyi, 480000W / 400VDC = 1200Amps, not 200Amps
There is NO WAY you can fast charge the Volt’s bat pack faster than 40A. You will fry the sh|t out of the cells and I’m pretty sure the BMS will have “Throttling” electronics to stop you from doing that.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I think we are debating quick charging future cells that will be able to accept that kind of energy, not the current lithium cells used in the Volt.
I think the fact that challenges facing the development of a safe, effective quick charging infrasructure highlights one of the reasons why gasoline, as a liquid fuel, gained so much traction so quickly over the past century. If quick charging is such a challenge, then we may well see the hydrogen fuel cell dominate as the future range extender, simply because of the fact that you can refuel one in much the same way as you fuel a conventional vehicle today. Hydrogen is not out of the game quite yet, and it’s because the real world is always more complex than the simplest, most elegant design can usually accomidate. The devil is in the details, and the details of quick charging are still quite challenging.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The BEV trailer seems like a possibility. Say you own a BEV with a 200 mile range, using a 50 kWh SOC window with an initial capacity of 65 kWh. And lets say you want to travel and rack up 600 to 800 miles a day. You go down to U-haul, and rent a range extender. They have cheap ones with an on board generator and fuel tank, or an expensive one with 200 kWh of battery capacity.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
According to a 2006 EPA study the average household has 2.1 cars. EVs are perfect second cars. EVs don’t need a 400 mile or infinite range, that is what the second car could be for. Almost every buyer if a $30k+ car is from a multiple car household. It makes perfect sense to have a non range extended car.
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
All I know at this time about quick charging is that after reading all of these comments today, I need some quick charging myself. I am too tired to go on. I have enjoyed the comments. A lot of good opinions were stated here today. But, you know what they say about opinions, don’t you?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Say you had a 100-Mile BEV (don’t actually say it). You could go about 100 miles on it, partially charge it, then go another 50 miles or so. I undertand that it takes a lot less time to partially charge it, as opposed to fully charging it. Does that relieve some of your anxiety?
(Quote)
April 6th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
kgurnsey (#219):
“I think we are debating quick charging future cells that will be able to accept that kind of energy, not the current lithium cells used in the Volt.”
Yes.
“I think the fact that challenges facing the development of a safe, effective quick charging infrasructure highlights one of the reasons why gasoline, as a liquid fuel, gained so much traction so quickly over the past century. If quick charging is such a challenge, then we may well see the hydrogen fuel cell dominate as the future range extender, simply because of the fact that y