I recently had the chance to tour GM’s newly opened 33,000 square foot advanced battery lab in Warren Michigan. The first video is here. This is where the Volt’s batteries are being lab tested. Other hybrid systems are being tested here as are cells from outside suppliers.
In this video we see a presentation by Dr. Ramona Ying, a GM battery lab staff researcher who has worked there since the EV-1 days.
She is showing off the cell testing side of GM’s new battery lab in Warren Michigan. Among other things displayed are two Volt LG prismatic cells in a thermal chamber.
She noted GM gets solicitations to test new cells all the time often in the wrong shape for automotive use.
GM uses a 4-phase process to evaluate cells. To date GM has evaluated 155 chemistries from 105 suppliers on paper and more than 60 actual cells from 20 suppliers. Ying acknowledges GM also tests supercapacitors.
She says that by testing 24 hours 7 days a week GM can simulate 10 years of testing in 2 years, and that the overall goal of the lab is to reduce costs for battery cars and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Video:
+5
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:07 am)I like the fact that they are testing so many cells from different vendors. It is also great that they can test 24/7 and get 10 years of cycles in 2 years. SuperCaps too. They should have a great database started.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:32 am)Nice and informative. I am anxious to see the clip (hopefully forthcoming) from Bill Wallace specific to the Chevy Volt pack.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:38 am)I concur. Imagine the wealth of knowledge about EVs that they are compiling through this process, and how it will position them to move forward in the years to come.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:39 am)I am interested in understanding the ICE mode power.
When the ICE/Gen are operating, does all of the power go to the Electric Motor (EM) or can the EM be running and the battery be charged at the same time?
When the ICE/GEN are operating, I am assuming that the battery can be “dipped into” for reserve power for accelleration at rates beyond the ICE/GEN limits. Is this true?
Are there limitations on the power that can be added to or taken from the battery? Are there limits on the charging rate?
All of these things lead me to wonder why the engine is so big. My driving experience is that average power required by an engine is not too large. For city driving, average power required may only be 10 or 15 horse power. For instance, you may need 75 horsepower taking off and then around 5 as you drift towards a light and around 1 at the light to keep systems up. The time averaged value could be pretty low.
Similary, on the highway you may only need 40-50 HP to cruise along. This would fluctuate up and down as you go up and down hills but a time averaged value would be far less than the peaks.
If we assume that the average power is relatively small, what would stop the VOLT from having a smaller engine that only produced what is needed on average? Is there some limitation with the battery absorbing the excess and filling in the power gaps. Is this process too inefficient.
I bring this up with the suspision that an E-REV could be run effectively with a lighter (Think motorcycle engine) ICE and Generator. Lighter cars are more efficient.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:44 am)The thoroughness with which GM is going about this process continues to impress me.
It also makes me wonder about the ER-EV car Fisker is bringing to market, and the Tesla, of course. Will their battey packs hold up as well?
I can’t imagine that Tesla has put its pack through a 10-year simulation. It will be interesting to see how they’re holding up 5 years from now.
It’s one thing to build a vehicle that performs great when it’s rolled out of the factory. Quite another when it’s got five or six years of daily driving on the odometer.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:49 am)Part of the reason why the engine is “so big” (1.4L — big?!?) is that it is an existing engine that GM could use without the expense of devloping a new engine — remember, they ARE in the poor house.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (6:57 am)I agree. Its just that some of the discussions prior to this made it sound like the engine had to run hard. I have always thought the engine could be smaller and these “high RPM” discussions make me scratch my head.
On another note, I don’t care if my volt runs its engine at a stop light if that is the most efficient thing to do over the long run.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:02 am)Great Lyle.
Thank you, I concur with all the positive comments made above. I think such informations should increase our confidence and the overall public confidence in the EV, E-REVs, etc. produced by the new GM
JC NPNS
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:12 am)Yes, efficiency is what we’re after.
Seems to me Farah recently talked about having the engine shut off when the car stops, much like many other cars are starting to do.
As for the question about where the ICE sends its power, I know we’ve had threads about this in the past, but I can’t find it right now.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:14 am)A larger engine may be more economical, both in purchasing cost and in fuel usage.
The Volt has been designed to run at 100 mph all day long, that drives the size of the genset. Aerodynamics are far more critical to long electric range than weight, weight is more of an issue for torque limited ICE engines and their fancy transmissions.
The answer to your first 3 question are: YES
The incremental increases in efficiency that you are thinking about are planned for future generations of the Volt.. at this moment the important thing is 40 miles of gas free driving, this trumps all other requirements.. the next important thing is reducing the cost to GM, not necessarily to the customer.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:24 am)There is a lot of data on the commodity cells that Tesla uses, perhaps they did not need to do their own accelerated aging tests. The large pack that Tesla uses is also stressed very lightly (due to its large capacity) in everyday short range driving.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:25 am)I agree Nuclear and FME. It’s great to see that they even have all of those varieties of chemistries to test in their lab. Wow…Choices are nice. Hoping that they can glean some great innovations from all of the information they are compiling.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:29 am)Nuclearboy,
Are you a superhero? I can see you now with your cape, the atomic icon on your chest, your dark shaded sunglasses, all glowing in the dark.
All kidding aside, I view the ICE/battery combo like a pickup truck with a plow. The hydraulic unit is essentially an electric starter motor driving a pump. Some models can draw a couple of hundred amps, more than the alternator can supply.
So when you lift the plow, the lights might dim and power is coming from both the alternator and the battery. Once the plow is lifted, the alternator recharges the battery.
So the ICE on the Volt provides “average” power to keep the battery pack at about 30% SOC. For fast accelerations or high speed climbs, the battery/ICE will provide up to 111 kW to drive the motor. As the high power demand wanes and you return to normal cruise, the power output of the ICE will adjust to meet the demand and replenish the battery to ~30%. At times, if the battery has more than 30%, the ICE may actually shut off.
With a 53 kW motor/generator, the ICE can only provide about half of the Volt’s max power. However, all of this power may be needed for long hill climbs at 70 mph. I suspect the ICE will not operate at full power very frequently, as more moderate power settings are likely suitable for most driving circumstances and are probably more efficient.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:33 am)What testing/responsibility do the battery mfg’s do/have? Are they just relying on GM to do all the work?
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:44 am)When you make a $30,000 vehicle, add $10,000 of batteries then charge people $110,000 for it you don’t worry very much about battery replacement issues.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:50 am)I think GM is doing the testing so they can own the best chemistry formula and electronic control of that chemistry as well as any special packaging required for automotive applications. I think the battery companys could do the testing at the cell level but lack the experience in automobile applications to know how to package and protect the cells in such a harsh inviroment. If we drop our lap top we are quite concerned as to weather it survived. This battery will be shaken and bumped constantly.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:52 am)I think it is probable that the manufactures do quite a lot of the same testing, so GM’s effort “validates” the expected performance as claimed by the cell maker. For example, LG indicated its cells would lose about 25% of their initial capacity over the 10 year, 150,000 mile life of the battery. But GM sure needs to verify that expectation.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:53 am)I really agree FME III
Down through the last 35 years I’ve been working on GM vehicles, and have, since 1985, also been educating techs (with E-books) about GM vehicles,
GM has always been thorough with all its processes.
You always could count on GM being the industry standard for everything auto technical education.
The first 3 Vehicles I require Advanced L-1 Systems techs to have in the bays (live repair orders with customers waiting sometimes), are GM vehicles.
GM has always been thorough in supporting their products with complete displays of the hundreds of datastreams needed by techs to examine everything.
Other OEM’s hide most of these datastreams very much of the time, so that lesser-trained techs are more easily directed to the more likely datastream items (within the Genisys). Other test equipment may just “blast a random half ofeverything in front of you”, not software-wise/appropriately holding anything back by design, then that tech is far more likely to select the wrong information, come to a wrong conclusion, and install the wrong part, so that customer pays for the wrong money for something they likely did not need in a specific servicing priority.)
But new thorough learning can never take place on the vehicles which “sequester” or “hide” lots of datastreams, because you can never prove what the problems “are not” or have available “disproveability” in relationship with “problem proveability”.
GM really helps us all the very best by far, and has always been this thorough. The video above proves what has always been the case.
Have a productive day, everyone.
Off to work!.
Dan.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (7:56 am)I too am becoming less skeptical about GMs long term plan for electrification of their vehicle fleet.
Great article and video, Lyle.
I hope GM has learned that siding with the oil companies over the real needs of the American people has brought them nothing but ruin.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
=D~~NO PLUG=NO SALE!
Electric cars + Nuclear Power 40% + Geothermal/Hydro 10% + Solar and Wind 50% + (Coal/Gas/Fossil Fuels 0%) = American Energy Independence and Environment Protection
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:01 am)Obviously, GM sees the Volt as one of the Platinum eggs in it’s ever shrinking basket. I hope that the major shareholder has a green bent to them (as I’m guessing the Govt has). I’m NO fan of govt ownership, just playing the hand we (GM) currently has.
Be well,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:02 am)Excellent video, Lyle! And Dr. Ling’s remarks nicely complement those from Bill Wallace in your Battery Lab Part I on 6/22. (I guess we now have both the ‘ying & yang’ of GM’s impressive battery research & testing
(sorry, couldn’t resist! 
)
Seriously, thanks for giving us as much as you do Lyle on battery work at GM —of course, the battery isn’t everything! ….it’s the ONLY thing!
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:06 am)I’m still mystified that Tesla blurts the # of cells in their battery so often that I’ve memorized it (6,831), while GM will only say vague things like “between 200 & 300 cells”. What’s so sensitive about the exact number?
(PS: Sorry I misspelled your name in the above post, Dr. Ying —I never did spell well.)
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:08 am)Lyle keep these type of videos coming…
Let’s hope that GM can focus on the “good enough” electrical energy storage device and still meet performance/reliability requirements (and improving for next generation). While some people may disagree, the Volt should not be compared to a space shuttle in several ways. Low volume production and over budget projects might be acceptable attributes for NASA…not a major “for profit” auto company.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:10 am)I also have given the ICE during range extending mode a bit of thought. One thing we have heard in several post is the ICE running in one of several sweet spots depending on need. I wonder if the system will be changing this pick of sweet spot as you drive to maintain the 30% soc or will the ICE be shut off some of the time during range extending because it has charged the battery enough to allow another 2-3 miles all electric. I just can’t believe there is a sweet spot for any and all conditions.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:18 am)Nuclearboy, you have asked a question that has always piqued my curiosity, i.e. how much electricity will the ICE send to the electric motor and how much will go to the battery pack in normal operation. The family zero 1.4L has been de-tuned for the Volt from 100 hp to 74-75 hp to optimize efficiency, but even at 75 hp, the average load needed to power the Volt will probably be less than 25 hp in town, and with the aerodynamic design of the Volt, it may be less than 40 hp at 70 mph, as the engineers on this site have calculated in the past. GM has repeatedly stated that the ICE will be set to run at several preset rpm levels, and unless you are doing the endlessly debated Pikes Peak drive your ICE will seldom go all the way up to 74 hp/6000 rpm, as BillR notes in this thread. But what it will do, I hope, is operate one or two preset rpm levels faster than the electric motor requires. So if your car needs 50 hp to accelerate up to 45 mph, the Volt will generate 60 hp, 50 hp to the EM, and 10 to the battery pack. If you are gliding to a stop light, the car needs 3-4 hp to power the AC, the power steering and the stereo, but instead of operating at idle, the engine will slow steadily down to 15 hp or around 1600 rpm, which will be so quiet that it won’t seem like the car is going to rabbit through the light, and 10+ hp will be charging the battery, (at 13+ kW?). It won’t recharge the battery beyond 33%, but when it does reach 33%, the ICE will shut down for 3 or 4 minutes and the battery pack will deplete to 30%, whereupon the ICE will start up and repeat the procedure.
Does anyone remember what the guesstimates were for cruising horsepower required? If memory serves, 65 mph was pretty moderate, but 70 mph and up the power required climbed pretty severely. But if the Volt can do 36 miles at 65 mph I won’t be complaining.
Another point you raise that is interesting is what will the Gen II Volt have in the way of an ICE? Family Zero has a whole range of Turbo I-4’s coming in the next few years. How about a FlexFuel Turbo 1.0L I-4, delivered about the time cellulosic ethanol may become a reality…
Wishful thinking, but it is possible.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:19 am)….One more mystery. What’s so sensitive about the nominal voltage of the Volt’s battery???
(Quote)
-15
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:21 am)(click to show comment)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:24 am)I would doubt that GM is ready to commit to and exact number till they are certain that their supplier has delivered the best size, shape, and energy density possible prior to the cut off date for no more changes allowed for this production run of Volts. Combine this with the strong desire by GM to deliver 40 miles BEV. If they now state 270 cells and later reduce that number to say 240 cells then the ney sayers will be harping about the Volt being cheapened.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:25 am)GM is prudent, they want to make sure the cell manufacturers are telling the truth.. very wise of them!
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:49 am)I’ve never quite understood the discussion of ’several’ sweet spots. I assume the engine has ONE sweet spot (maximum efficiency). A bit simplified but: if the power output at that speed is equal to or greater than the average requirement, then since you have the battery to buffer the output, I would think that one speed is all you need.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:54 am)Go science!
I’m all for testing. But, I’d like to know what the tests show. People say that battery technology was not sufficiently developed during the EV-1 days. Is it now? Give me some assurance that electrification of the automobile has a high probability of occurring.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (8:57 am)Wasn’t that Part I?
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:08 am)The answer to the first three questions would all be a “Yes”. The answer to the question about the size of the engine is that it’s so large because, as someone mentioned, it’s an existing engine. While a major advance in future versions of the Volt would be a smaller purpose built engine, waiting for the development of such an engine would significantly delay the launch of the Volt. The 1.4L was the best off the shelf solution.
Keep in mind that the genset puts out a maximum of 53 kW. The traction motor is 110 kW. It takes about 30 kW from the genset to power the Volt at 65 mph on a slight uphill, about 25 kW on average on the highway, and about 8 kW on average for city driving.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:11 am)Perhaps the battery would be too stressed under such aggressive load balancing. Trade offs are probably necessary to ensure the battery will last the life of the car.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:13 am)Am I the only one waiting for the rumble of another ‘test track’ car to come around to load more guests as she was talking? (I confess Ramona didn’t really hold my interest all that much, I know she isn’t working in PR, but…)
http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/02/4c/64/test-track-ride.jpg
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:17 am)One thing about GM being such a large company is that not everyone understands what the secrets are and ends up disclosing things that others are keeping under wraps. For example, I’m still waiting to hear more about Lutz’s top secret transmission …. (he’ll be missed for this stuff!).
Anyway, a presenter last November said there were 288 cells. She may also have given the voltage, I can’t remember. Her presentation has been linked to before on this Board. I can’t find it but perhaps someone (statik?) can provide the cite to her presentation for you.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:28 am)Here is the presentation I mentioned.
http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf
Nothing on the voltage but she does give the number of cells as being 288. Also of interest is that she says the cells account for 70% of the cost of the battery pack. Since LG has said the cells in the pack cost about $8,000, we can deduce that the complete pack costs about $11,500.
(Quote)
-1
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:30 am)http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Stanek%20PHEV_Nov08%20-%20final90.pdf
EDIT: Doh, got me by ‘that’ much, hehe.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:37 am)Thats a +1 for you.
No way LG (or anyone else) is giving GM a 10 year/150,000 mile open, uncontrolled warranty on their pack for a 3rd party application.
GM is doing that work becuase they have to. They don’t want to get their a** handed to them 5-6 year’s down the road.
Thanks to the gov’t rebate we know have a full second pack is fully priced into the MSRP…so I guess it is not totally about losing their shirts on a battery replacement in the later years, it is about retaining the customer’s money (de facto US governments money) over the 10 year/150 term.
…now after they sell 200K in the US (or they have to lower the price internationally), that is another story
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (9:52 am)Man, you really packed um in that test car. If you get a EREV you better get one with the sunroof option so you can stick some kids up top to fit them all in.
(Quote)
+7
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:12 am)Give the woman a break. Public speaking is not the first thing that I would look for when hiring a battery researcher. I’d rather hear her read from her notes than listen to a trained PR guy.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:20 am)Strictly speaking, you cannot test ten years worth of wear in 2 years.
It simply doesn’t work that way. Your are instead HOPING that those
elements that will affect battery performance can be so simulated, but that’s always a guess, not a fact. Paint manufacturers do the same thing with accelerated weathering conditions, but, strictly speaking, they cannot really simulate 10 years weathering in 2 years.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:25 am)That lab looks and sounds exactly like Engineering, as I’ve come to know it!
I used to work for a large public university’s aerospace engineering department, and this is exactly the kind of thing we were training the students to do. The devil is in the details and there is no substitute for experience, which is what these folks are doing… Having been an exhibit on dozens similar tours, the folks in this videodefinitely come across as the real McCoy.
Of course, they cleaned up the lab a bit before the show, so that no suits would be harmed in the making of this production.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:27 am)US presidents simulate 10 years of aging in only four years
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:31 am)I’m with you. I respect the researchers/scientists, even if they aren’t the slickest public speakers around.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:37 am)Off Topic: Every once in awhile I’ve exchanged posts with folks about military vehicles. Without inviting any political debate here, one of the problems of the Iraq war was/is that Humvees are vulnerable to improvised mines. The solutions have been: (a) retro-fitting scrap metal and use of sand bags by service members at their own initiative, with varying rates of effectiveness; (b) retro-fitting of Humvees by action of the service branches; and (c) DOD purchase of mine-resistant vehicles.
One question that I can’t answer is how many vehicles now in use by service members in Iraq and Afganistan are still unprotected or inadequately protected. However, the following link announces the award of a new $1 billion contract to Oshgosh Trucking Corp. for the purchase of additional mine-resistant vehicles. So apparently there is still a significant unmet need. The article indicates that the vehicles are expected to be deployed to Afganistan, where, as many of you will know, the Taliban has been adapting tactics from the Iraqi resistance.
The added benefit (from my selfish perspective, at least) is that this contract will provide a significant economic boost to a region of Wisconsin that has been hit hard by lay-offs over the past several years. Protecting the troops. Jobs at home. I think we can all agree on this one. Happy 4th of July!
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090701/GPG0101/90701037/1978
(Quote)
+5
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:37 am)I just received the 8/2009 issue of Car and Driver in the mail yesterday. There is an article on the Volt / Dodge circuit EV / Fisker Karma and the Mini E. It is a good read but I have learned more from this sight then anything I have read.
A few highlights from the Volt portion ….
-Price $40,000 – $7500 tax credit = $32,500
-They say that after 10 years and 150K miles the battery pack will still hold 12 kWh of the 16 kWh capacity. GM is talking to utility companies about using the used packs to store wind and solar energy. They are also looking into home use for energy storage with the used packs.
-motor is a 149hp electric motor but when the engine kicks in it can not supply enough energy to produce the 149hp but closer to 100 hp at 6000 rpm. They also say that the generator does not put any electricity into the battery but instead 100% of the generator is used to run the motor bypassing the battery. I guess that makes sense to prolong the battery life.
-C&D also state that the battery is estimated to cost close to $16,000. (seems a bit high to me)
-They did not drive the Volt under generator power but did say they chirped the tires and the 0-60 in 8.5 sec. seems reasonable as did the 1/4 mile in 16.8 sec. ….. top speed is limited to 100MPH.
Dodge EV …
-600 pound 35 kWh battery pack = 150 miles and 0-60 in 4.7 sec. with a 268 HP electric motor
-no generator and is to be built at the Lotus plant and then shipped to the US for the electrics to be installed.
-$85,000
-seats 2
-Dodge also has an electric mini van and jeep under development
Fisker Karma …
-402 HP electric motor = 50 miles
-2.0 liter engine, 260 hp GM Ecotec engine runs the generator.
-0-60 in 5.8 sec. 125 MPH top speed
-$87,900
-seats 4 or 5
-expects to sell 15000 a year and has 30 dealerships signed up already.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:40 am)The Prius engine seems to have several sweet spots. I’d say about 4 (including WOT, but not including “OFF”), but I need to delve into the issue more deeply to really know.
So, in the Prius, if you’re climbing a really steep hill at 70mph, the computer will put the engine at WOT and charge the battery with the excess power. When you get to the other side, you can go down the hill (also at 70mph), running on just the electric motor (to overcome the drag and friction). It’s a 2nd-generation Prius, so the electric motor isn’t very big. Also, the hill has to be pretty steep to cause this behavior.
I see no reason that the Volt running in generator-mode wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) exhibit similar behavior, though with drastically different balance (due to differently sized major-components). Of course, I haven’t run any simulations or driven a prototype, so I’m just speculating here.
(Quote)
-1
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:44 am)Obama has simulated 10 years of spending in 5 months. Anything is possible. Yes we can.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (10:54 am)______________________________________________________
Not Related
__________
Goodbye to Fuel Tax.
Hello Miles Tax.
….it’s coming folks…..the Government will be monitoring a GPS device installed in your car that allows them to track your miles driven in order to charge you a monthly Miles Tax.
Although a Miles Tax is a pragmatic Use Road Tax as the result of the Electric Car Revolution, how do you feel about the Government keeping track of everywhere you drive? I doubt the Government will pass up on the opportunity to put into a Governmental central database your movement coordinates.
Looks like the Chevy Volt is helping fuel (no pun intended) the change:
““The Chevrolet Volt won’t pay a penny of fuel tax,” Rahn said of the electric car that will make its debut next year.”
Source:
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/1299981.html
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:00 am)Hey, I didn’t beat her up, and didn’t intend for it to come across that way if it did. My apologies if it seemed that way.
I just said she didn’t really hold my interest…thats just the way it is. (I even gave her a fair disclaimor that she didn’t work for PR)
/shrug
//hugs to Ramona
(Quote)
-2
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:01 am)Hehe, that ain’t me. I ride alone, the family has to catch the next one.
(Quote)
-8
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:04 am)Good to see GM finally in the battery game. Up until this point they were a complete industry joke. They are still way way behind Panasonic / Toyota battery alliance that is cranking out more than 900,000 batteries this year alone for use in their hybrids. Once again GM, It’s about damn time
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:04 am)I’m assuming you meant to say “Bush”. Wasn’t he the guy who, after turning the largest surpluses in history into the largest deficits, had his VP explain that “deficits don’t matter”. Yes he did. LOL
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:10 am)I agree with all of the above. Nice comment Luke, at 10:25 am.
I can only hope that this all works out somehow. For all of our sakes.
LJGTVWOTR!! NPNS!
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:16 am)Monthly sales numbers are starting to drop, first out of the gate (as always) is Ford:
(the new forum format should be good for keeping these together)
-10.7%,
That seems fairly healthy at first blush (relatively speaking), although they are now coming up against really bad, year over year numbers, so that is a mitigating factor. In June 2008, they were down 28%.
This is certainly a trend we will be seeing. The percent drops are going to be a lot lower, but they are now compounding on prior terrible performances.
As FYI, GM’s numbers have also been ‘improving’ as the get further into last year’s collapse. This month they are up against, the largest drop to date (-18.5%)
A few months history to show the trend:
January 2008 + 2.1%
May 2008 – 11.5%
June 2008 – 18.5%
Aug 2008 – 20%
Nov 2008 -45%
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:17 am)Don, You must have not noticed what my user name is. If you had you will know that I am no fan of B. Hussein Obama. I just hope my great, great grand kids have a real good job to pay for this mess. Cap and trade …. what a crock.
FYI- I was not a huge fan of a lot of Bush policies either.
(Quote)
-16
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:18 am)(click to show comment)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:18 am)Excellent, DonC.
So the battery cost for the Volt is 709$/kWh.
Using figures for the Tesla given by its Chairman ($23000 for the pack) this boils down to 434$/kWh.
The simpler and standard chemistry used in the Tesla has the advantage of much lower price, which will give it an edge on its new Model S, and even more so because the statement by Tesla was made quite some time ago and I expect the battery cost to be lower now.
At last we’re getting a hint on the actual battery costs.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:23 am)I have a friend that runs an auto shipping business and uses a F250 that has been converted to run on WVO (waste vegetable oil). He burns about 15 miles worth of Diesel a day and 500+ in WVO that he gets for free or plays less then $.50 a gallon with no tax. He has been doing this for 2 years and has been waiting on the shoe to drop and cut into his profits. When that happens guess what will happen? His prices will go up. Just another inflation tool.
(Quote)
-25
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:26 am)(click to show comment)
-3
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:33 am)Didn’t Obama set a record for the biggest deficit in US history? And he did that in his first 100 days in office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:35 am)Towards the end of the video the camera pans over to the right to see several battery packs on tables. The business end is pointing towards us and you can make out the connector array on the end of the pack. Is that the first time we’ve seen that? I specifically googled for Volt battery pack images a couple days ago looking for a view of this and didn’t find a single image that showed it, so I thought they might have been trying to keep it secret. Anyone got better images of that side?
(Quote)
-16
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:40 am)(click to show comment)
+13
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:44 am)Romona doesn’t look like a female dog to me. A little civility would be appreciated.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:48 am)“I would think that one speed is all you need.”
I agree on the surface, but there might exist many conditions where if you are always going at the “Sweet Spot”, you end up excessively charging the battery, which would reduce the number of 40 miles AER trips you get.
Also, if the Volt shouldn’t arrive home with much more than 30% battery charge. Else, you haven’t really replaced gas with electric. Even running at the “Sweet Spot”, its more effective to use a CC power plant to make electricity.
(Quote)
-24
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:49 am)(click to show comment)
+5
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:52 am)Aw, man! All I did was make a non-political statement about stress tests to simulate aging. I didn’t mean to invite jerky political opinions.
(Quote)
-4
Jul 1st, 2009 (11:55 am)Yes, I invented the battery.
What GM is doing to my invention is outrageous. They are on the wrong track completely. However, I am still waiting for my royalty check.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:12 pm)Tesla is also not aiming for 100% range at 10 years/150,000 miles.
In fact, they are aiming at 70%! range at 5 years/50,000 miles.
(Quote)
-3
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:13 pm)See what can of worms you opened? It’s all your fault Thomb.
(Quote)
-19
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:15 pm)(click to show comment)
-18
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:19 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:19 pm)Something to note is that Tesla uses the very common Lithium Cobalt chemistry for the Roadster and I believe will use the same cells for the Model S. Tesla claims thier “Energy Storage System” for the Roadster could lose as much as 30% capacity in 5 years/50,000 miles. This is obviosuly not acceptable for the Volt, and thus the higher cost to get a higher quality battery cell chemistry.
Maybe in the aftermarket for replacement of “Volt Like” autos, there will be range of battery qualities…
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:25 pm)Off Topic – sort of
Hybridcars has a story saying the GAO thinks Plug-in Hybrids might not be comparable to ICE only vehicles when the life cycle costs are evaluated. But the point seemed to be that we cannot determine the life cycle costs because gas may go up a little or a lot, electricity might go up a little or a lot (and in light of the cap and trade possibility, a whole lot) and we cannot be certain we will not have to replace the battery within the life cycle.
The GAO also touts a figure of $1000 per kWh for the current cost of batteries even though GM is on the record for saying the batteries cost “hundreds less” than $1000 per kWh.
On the other hand, it seems obvious to me that Plug-in Hybrids are cost effective right now, and we are only quibbling over the size of the battery, less than 5 kWh is too small, and more than 20 kWh is too large. The Volt seems to hit the sweet spot once they up the usage window from 8 to 10.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:26 pm)Nice video, Lyle. Great that you were able to tour the facility. It is good that GM is including you in groups like this. Thanks.
(Quote)
-7
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:27 pm)Obama is the EVIL one. The worst President since Jimmy Carter. BTW, Jimmy Carter was by far the worst President in my lifetime which goes back to WWII. Carters big flaw was he would say one thing in Public and do the opposite in private, after doing this to numerous leaders word got out and he was no longer trusted by anyone, a completely useless president even though he was technically one of the “smartest” of all time (nuclear engineer by training). IMO, Obama is heading down the same path a Carter.
(Quote)
+7
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:29 pm)I disagree. Battery technology from the EV1 days is almost useless today. GM did bring forward their research on regenerative braking and lower power assesories. Battery chemistry, however, has changed and continues to change.
The technology from EV1 days is essentially a non-starter in todays world. These batteries were too heavy and did not have the longevity needed for a high volume production.
Keeping an active battery lab like this only makes sense if you think you are going to make and sell electric vehicles. Several years ago, electric vehicles were simply not practical. Now, they just might be.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:32 pm)Well… if the fuel taxes actually go to road repair, I would say right now he is not contributing for his fair usage of the roads. Over the long term, if many people don’t contribute, the taxes on the rest will need to go up… so people end off the same pretty much.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:47 pm)Isn’t Fisker using a GM ICE in their car? It is possible GM is testing batteries for the Fisker. Anything is possible. Just look at past history.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:58 pm)Does anybody know the rate that the ICE can charge the battery, in kw?
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (12:58 pm)Don’t call yourself a worm
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:04 pm)Hear hear! And Oshkosh makes some bad-azz vehicles to boot. Their airport fire equipment is something impressive to see in operations… same goes for their heavy construction hardware.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot, they make Pierce fire trucks too!
EDIT2: Oshkosh brands linky: http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/brands/
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:11 pm)What the…??!? Who’s gonna pay $85k for the Circuit when you can have a Tesla for a pittance more? Or a Volt for half the price? Or a Karma for… you get my point!
Whoa. That’s stunning news to me. I was expecting it to be more “Volt-like” in pricing. Bleah.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:17 pm)FME III:
I agree too. A good and insightful comment, IMHO. Thanks.
‘
BTW, is it my imagination, or is the level of civility deteriorating here? When I start to see words like “moron” and “stupid”, I have to wonder if I fell over into some nutso political blog. What a shame.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:21 pm)Hmmmm – took the words right out of my mouth.
(Quote)
+10
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:23 pm)That is a very asstoot observation.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:24 pm)Here we go, circling the drain again. Could we please not have a replay of yesterday? I mean, it’s really discouraging.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:26 pm)How about if we bring them home, where nobody wants to blow them up, and save the billion(s)? Too bad we all don’t seem able to agree on that.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:27 pm)“No Name” (R Rocketfuel , Alfred) strikes again!
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:31 pm)Yeah man!
(Quote)
+8
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:32 pm)Yep, you are certainly right. They have been proven to last two to three years when kept inside air conditioned buildings and airplanes, carried in padded cases and protected from shocks, and kept plugged in to a charger most of the time. Oh, and they do work well when they aren’t burning. Not so well when on fire. Yeah, my check is on its way to Tesla to reserve mine right now. Good enough for me. I was planning on keeping my car on the dining room table anyway.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:33 pm)There’s that whole “blowing up” thing, too.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:33 pm)I thought the same thing. $85k for the dodge or the Karma for a couple grand more with better looks and no range anxiety.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:35 pm)“No Name”: it does no good to pretend to be holding a conversation between two of your many screen names. Unless perhaps you suffer from multiple personalities.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:46 pm)GM has not been and is not yet in the cell and chemistry business. They are in the car business. Their lab has been evaluating OTHER COMPANY’s cells. They are not responsible for the fact that the laws of physics do not change fast enough for you. Computers have changed quickly because they could gain from things being made smaller. The actual semiconductor physics hasn’t changed at all. If you want to stuff yourself into a very small car run by very small batteries and go very short distances, you can demand rapid progress. But you will have to lose a lot of weight to get it done. Those of us who will continue to live in a macroscopic world and have macroscopic brains will have to have the patience needed to see real progress, not just shrinkmanship.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:48 pm)Somewhere in one of these podcasts, the GM engineers explain how they do 10 year testing in 2 years. It’s by testing at high temperature.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/04/07/the-april-2008-chevy-volt-update-a-visit-to-the-battery-systems/
Since they know that batteries decay faster at higher temps, they run tests for 2 years at these high temps (in the test chambers), and extrapolate back to expected conditions.
Interesting interview.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:51 pm)Guaranteed. Electric vehicles travel about 5 times as far on a given amount of energy as ICE vehicles do. Since the Volt mules and IVers prove by demonstration that they can be built, and we know that prices of batteries will be dropping while the price of oil will rise, the result is obvious.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:52 pm)That’s an interesting question. What you’re talking about would be the difference in what the genset was producing in average power and the instantaneous power required by the car. That would of course vary — probably greatly — and I don’t remember GM providing even a guesstimate as to what that might be on average.
The genset can generate 53 kW so that would be the theoretical maximum but that would fry the cells. Other than making sure the number wasn’t so large it would hurt the cells, I’d guess GM would try to minimize the time during which this occurred — by dropping the RPMs — rather than worrying about the number itself.
But that’s complete conjecture.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:53 pm)I understand why GM is doing the testing. My question is testing by the manfacturer. I have yet to read an article about LG’s tests results on the Volt cell, only articles on production capacity.
Sidenote: What will GM do with the mounds of data they have accrued from all of these different battery technologies? Seems like a valuable asset.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:53 pm)What is the voltage of an individual LG cell? I believe that I’ve heard pretty consistently that the pack voltage is 300 VDC. This suggests that 288 cells would be arranged in a series-parallel network to achieve this end voltage.
Most Lithium cells I’m familiar with have potentials in the neighborhood of 3 VDC, but I haven’t heard the figure given specifically for these.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (1:58 pm)Looks like you “bad boys” from the Great White North will have to petition GM to supply the first 10,000 Volts to Canada instead of California or Florida.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aKecgoGFIH7Y
Or perhaps this has been part of your sinister plan all along, Dr. Statik!
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:05 pm)IIRC, in Part I of the battery lab video, it was mentioned that the voltage for a single cell was a little over 3.5 volts.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:05 pm)Why bother joining the cut-throat battery business? Let them all fight it out, then just take the best tech.
GM doesn’t make their own tires, wheels, seats, um.. well almost everything except the sheet metal, etc. They are more of a car designer/assembler than a “manufacturer”. That’s what suppliers are for.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:08 pm)Don’t forget to factor in how much these companies have downsized since a year ago too. The real # will be the net/bottom line for the month. Were enough cars sold to break even for that particular month?
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:11 pm)You are so bright. Let us see your new cell chemistry. Or are you the one selling those mail order degrees?
(Quote)
+5
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:12 pm)The only way to know with certainty that something is going to last ten years is to wait ten years. However, you can devise tests which allow you to make some pretty well-educated guesses.
These folks seem to be pretty well-educated
.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:14 pm)Sorry, about the delay, I was out celebrated ‘Canada Day’
Looks like Fritz Henderson is now officially the same CEO as the last CEO when he was testifying in court the other day about the progress and sale of assets to the ‘new GM’ It actualy makes me a little sad…I liked him.
———
From YESTERDAY:
“…Henderson wasn’t phased by his lengthy stay on the stand, answering questions quickly and directly for the most part, making eye contact with the attorneys.
When asked about the current condition of GM, Henderson testified that the automaker’s June sales were “slightly better than expected” excluding fleet sales, which he partly attributed to the company’s progress toward an exit from Chapter 11.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=54&articleid=20090701_54_E2_GnrlMt61891&rss_lnk=5
—————-
Well, guess what? Not so much, eh Fritz? GM was off a whopping 33.4 percent (on the back of last Junes 18.5% drop) and worse than last month, which was a easier comparison.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:15 pm)Thanks, I remember that there was a “Part I” but I think I was too busy to watch at the time.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:17 pm)You probably should keep quiet about still being here. The money you might get from royalties would never cover your lawyer fees for all the lawsuits from PETA over what you and that Galvani fellow did to all of those frogs. It is probably best to just let that past remain past. The world has changed a bit since your day.
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:20 pm)I don’t believe wars are going away anytime soon. In the meantime, let’s equip our soldiers with the best stuff available.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:21 pm)Details on GMs -33.6 percent drop off:
“176,571 Total Deliveries Were Down 33.6 Percent Compared With A Year Ago”
http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=55358
————–
This is also my favorite time of the month when we get to read super-optimistitc marketing maven Mark LaNeve, who never has anything bad to say, and always gives us rays of sunshine:
“We’re pleased with our retail performance for the month, and it shows consumers’ strong attraction to our products…”
“The reinvention of GM remains on track and we have compelling new offers in July, including 0 percent financing for up to 72 months…”
“Our outstanding products continue to compete strongly in the market,” LaNeve said.
(Again, Mark continues his record of not mention even one bad, poor performing thing at GM…he is so far out there, it is awesome to read)
———-
They also release Q2 actual production numbers…394,000 vehicles, over 3 months, down 53% from last year. June’s production was only 88,000, down 74%.
So they are saying everything is great…but only produced 390k for 3 months, and 88,000 in June (of which almost 10,000 of them were pre-sold/alotted Camaros)
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:22 pm)+1 for inventing an amusing homonym.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:25 pm)Other news:
Chrysler -42%
Sold 66,324 units, droppping them a FULL market percentage point in share this month…ouch.
http://uk.biz.yahoo.com/01072009/323/brief-chrysler-group-reports-june-2009-u-s-sales.html
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:28 pm)You need to take in consideration of the BMS electronics and comm port used to communicate with the car’s computer. Not “Just” the cells. Price the batt pack then compare.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:31 pm)Well “shrinksmanship” isn’t all bad, LOL. I read an article several years ago where the author calculated the savings in fuel if every car occupant in the country lost a certain amount of weight. 10 ponds person equated to several million gallons a year, if memory serves. This could be potentially even more effective in an EV world, JMHO.
There is a big article on the MSNBC news page today about the epidemic of obesity in the US, and its disastrous health impacts.
Talk about a win-win, hehehe.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:31 pm)Anyone can easily tell by looking at the deteriorating condition of our State roads that all State fuel taxes are going into the State’s “general fund” and is being used (redistributed) for social(ist) programs instead of road maintenance.
The same is happening with the Federal fuel tax and highway system. What about all that “stimulus” money for “shovel ready” infrastructure projects?
Oh well, that went to special interests… (suckers)
milage tax is about tracking and control just like a national ID card.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:32 pm)You’re wrong. The cells have, in fact, been tested in laptops… but on a completely different charge/discharge cycle, and without all the wires associated with six and a half thousand cells interconnecting them.
The basic technology doesn’t change, but the loads, the charging cycle, the temperature conditions– these all change. And if Tesla isn’t testing all this, they’ll never survive outside of California.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:33 pm)June Car Sales Numbers: Ford -10%; GM -33%, Chrysler -48%, Toyota -30%, Honda -30%, Nissan -23%. (Sorry, Statik, I just noticed that you covered some of this above.)
Link to article. Interesting info. at the bottom about promotions. Rosy projections about Ford expanding production later this year.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ford-posts-lower-sales-increases-market-share?pagenumber=2
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:33 pm)That’s like saying HP has a bunch of idiot engineers because they didn’t design their own x86 and IA64 microcode or make their own CPU’s.
Getta clue hommie!
In your train of thought, you’re an idiot because you didn’t build or design your car.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:34 pm)Nuclearboy,
Looking back at the EV1’s chassis vs the Volt’s chassis you can see the similarity between the two. The Volt design is certainly based on the EV1. It is amazing just our similar the two look with all the sheet metal removed. Yes, battery and quite a few other advances make the two much different, but you can tell that the Volt is the child of the EV1.
Edited: I should clarify my statement. When speaking of the EV1, I was speaking of the one under “development” that had an ICE to power the wheels just like today’s volt. It never made it out of the factory, but it was tested, I do believe.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:34 pm)I suspect that as you look at the various iterations of the Volt battery pack, you’ll find some with around 200 cells… and some with around 300 cells.
They may not know the exact production count yet, although they should have that information “soon”.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:37 pm)Toyota also put up a really bad number: -32%
SAN FRANCISCO — Toyota Motor Corp. on Wednesday reported its U.S. sales fell 32% to 131,654 cars and trucks in June. Sales of cars declined 36% last month to 84,212 while light truck sales slumped 23% to 47,442.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/transportation/toyota-june-sales—units/
Always of interest, (and thankfully ending all the, “look at the Prius numbers this month…Americans don’t love the Prius anymore posts”), the 2010 Prius started to hit dealerships this month, and not surprisingly the Prius sales did a about face into positive numbers…up 6% (from over -40% last month) with around 13,000 units sold (12,998 vs 11,765 in 2008).
Now, with Toyota reporting full worksheet of orders, and capacity maxed out through the end of the year, this will be up 30-50% every month this year going forward.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:39 pm)Yeah, and an extremely ass-toot observation too !!
+1 for sure!
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:40 pm)How does Detroit look v. Tokyo, if you look at sales by company today v. 3 years ago? What does this tell us about future production levels. Also, my perception is that Detroit was running a never-ending cycle of incentives that pulled demand forward into early this decade. Does this partially explain the current down-turn, and what does this tell us about future sales?
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:43 pm)I think that this is a great discussion thread, and probably some of the same discussions that the engineering team had (or are still having).
In short, we may never know the answers to all of these questions. Much of the content here would probably be considered the intellectual property of GM and would not be available to anyone who is not liscencing the technology for their own automobile production line.
The heart of the questions is, will the VOLTEC technology work as configured. I think the answer to that is an unquestionable yes.
Another question that is raised is — can the VOLTEC system be improved over time with purpose built engines and better battery technology. I think we have a big yes once again.
By the way, I would rather have CNG provided from american wells over Ethanol in my next generation Volt. After that, I’m holding out for Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:43 pm)What, not “dawgski” any more? Have you returned from the Motherland Comrade?
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:43 pm)There is no doubt some law firm would be happy to do a class action lawsuit on the part of some poor unhappy owner because his pack did not get to the mileage GM promised. I would consider it a terrible thing if GM did not test these batteries like they are doing. I suspect they will test them much further than the 10 year/150,000 mile warranty claim.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:44 pm)Here are the bulk of the numbers
BMW -20.3
Chrysler -41.9
Daimler – 26.4
Ford -10.7
GM -33.4
Honda -29.5
Hyundai +17.6 <————
Nissan -23.1
Porsche -66.0
Subaru +3.4 <————–
Suzuki -78.0
Toyota -31.9
VW -18
(Still a few out there not reported)
And that talk about the SAAR getting back over 10 million? Not even close. Looks like about 9.6 if my math is right.
Disclaimor: I believe Subaru didn’t adjust for selling days, so it is either +3.4 or -.7, but still really good. /Nice to have one really hot seller. I also had difficulty splitting the Hyundai number, so I’m not sure if that will hold up in the long run. At home they were +5, and 17% overall, so I just put that number up. (It looks like it may have been 9% in NA…I dunno, I don’t care that much to work on it)
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:44 pm)Yeah, I was trying to avoid getting too political about this information. It’s tough to do with this topic.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:46 pm)I would be surprised if LG Chem were to publish their test results. I am sure they are testing the packs, just not as much as GM is doing. Theirs may be more towards “fit and finish” quality control testing vs long life in extreme environments. GM and LG Chem probably have agreements on what each are required to do.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:49 pm)I have heard this “siding with the oil companies” theme for most of my adult life. I have yet to find any concrete evidence of them siding with anyone but their own self interest. The auto companies advance their products based on technology changes, not based on some collusion with an oil company. Do you have any proof of collusion? If so, I am sure all of us would like to see it.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:50 pm)These numbers are really confusing. Looking at the report on the AP wire even makes it worse. These are month to month compared to last year, right? So, as you say, these numbers compound onto whatever the equivalent drop was 2007 to 2008, right?
AP says nothing about that, so it is really hard to put these numbers into a meaningful frame of reference. For example, what is the total drop now from 2007, the last more or less decent year. 50%? Higher?
On the other hand, the AP story reports that the “seasonally adjusted” rate of industry sales equated to 10 million/year for the first time this year. So that sounds encouraging, right? But how can it be, in the face of the monthly results?
Very confusing. Intentionally so?
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:52 pm)To answer both of you last questions. Simply, competition. That is the only thing I can figure. They don’t want to give anyone in the U.S. or around the world any information that might come back later to haunt them. I can’t say I blame them.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:59 pm)______________________________________________________
The 10 Year GM Battery ….that’s a long life in Battery Years:
GM is correct in doing simulated battery wear testing because it does help verify battery tolerances. On the other hand, simulated wear testing is not a substitute for real-world wear testing over 10 years. The simulated wear is a best effort to predict real world wear. Ten years is a VERY long time to simulate wear with regards to a battery…it is very different than simulating traditional mechanical wear of a part….less predictive…
Ten years is a long time to except any battery chemistry to last, If GM pulls it off w/ the Li-Ion chemistry that will indeed be impressive.
Several automakers including Toyota have questioned GM’s approach of attempting to utilize the Li-Ion battery chemistry to last 10+ years. GM’s critics claim that Li-Ion inherently degrades quickly even in ideal conditions (that Li-Ion will degrade with time even if sitting on a shelf at ideal temperature & trickle charged to maintain an ideal SOC).
Solid state batteries (such as ultracaps) are better suited to last 10+ years but unfortunately ultracaps do not pack the necessary density/performance/cost ratios required for a primary EV battery…not withstanding the Fantastic Cheese utlracap claim.
An alternative approach that deserves consideration is to utilize less exotic battery chemistries that deliver the necessary density/performance/cost ratios required but with a shorter life cycle (~5 years). Dramatic advances in less exotic battery chemistries such as lead acid may make that possible. An example is the Fire Fly Battery: http://www.fireflyenergy.com
In other words, perhaps treat the EV battery more as a perishable component of the car similar to how a standard crank battery is treated. There is not an expectation for the crank battery to have a useful life of 10 years. Think of what the cost differential of a 5yr vs 10yr crank battery would be….4X or more? Does it make sense to pay 4X the cost to get twice the life?
Also a consideration is that lower cost batteries that are replaced more often (~ 5 years) may better address the possibility that battery technology (including quick charge options) will significantly advance every 5 years. A computer today made 10 years ago (even if operating as well as at the time of initial purchase) would today be of little value (or a liability) because of relative obsolescence; batteries might share a similar obsolescence dynamic.
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (2:59 pm)Or they could just use a different mechanism for the tax. Like the odometer-reading in the car, which is already covered some fraud-protection laws.
IIRC, Oregon has been looking into this kind of thing, but some of the proposed solutions have been a tad 1984-ish (with 2009 technology).
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:04 pm)$11,428.57
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:07 pm)Aw man, I was first told 400VDC then 336VDC….
Which is it for the batt pack?
(Quote)
+4
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:11 pm)Ahhh yes. The old “Auto Companies are in bed with the Oil Companies” conspiracy theory. If this is true, then why would Big Oil let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt? It would be to Big Oil’s advantage to keep them alive and well. No one can ever reconcile that little detail. But it does makes for good fiction.
(Quote)
-2
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:14 pm)I do believe this is a government designed vehicle for inter-state highway use. You can tell because there is no steering wheel.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:14 pm)Versus 3 years ago? Here are the ‘players’ numbers for May 2009 compared to over 2006 numbers.
GM 20.5 vs 24.3
Ford 16.8 vs 16.4
Chrysler 8.5 vs 12.9
Total 45.8% vs 53.9% (-15%)
Toyota 16.5 vs 15.4
Honda 10.8 vs 9.1
Nissan 7.3 vs 6.2
Hyundai 4.0 vs. 2.8
Total 38.6 vs 33.5 (+15%)
——————————–
Haven’t got all the numbers in on how Detroit auto did (relatively speaking) for June, it looks like the overall landscape is going to be down somewhere around 26-28% when it is all said and done.
Obviously, Ford is the best of just about everyone (and by a good margin…other than Hyundai, who is giving away cars right now ($9K, 0% financing and a gas guarantee? yikes)
Ford at -10.7% certainly pickes up market share here this month, while Chrysler dropped a pantload, and GM gave some ground. I think overal they are mostly unchanged this month, maybe the domestics gave away a fractional number. The big 4 importers were probably marginally up overall.
The domestic share just has to continue to fall. You see it this month with Chrysler. They aren’t building cars, they are closing dealerships.
As for GM they are really piling cash on the hoods again, now they have this 0% 72 month sale going as well. I think that is a mistake…they don’t need to raise cash right now, and they have to reset their image of being America’s discounter of cars.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:16 pm)And, no, Statik. You didn’t beat up on her. We just have some pretty sensitive people on this site. They take things a little too seriously sometimes. We all know you have a heart of gold. That’s where you are getting your down payment money, right?
(Quote)
-2
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:19 pm)That is all it takes sometimes. Just make simple statement. You will notice that I am not commenting on the political side of this at all. I want to stay out of it. But I feel your “pain”.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:20 pm)When was the last time you bought a $30,000 car that beat Porsche 911’s on the track, blew away Ferrari’s from 0 to 60 mph, had an aluminum frame and carbon fiber body panels, was twice as efficient as a Prius when driven moderately and used no gas while getting it’s power from a lithium ion battery pack.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:24 pm)k-dawg said:
Don’t forget to factor in how much these companies have downsized since a year ago too. The real # will be the net/bottom line for the month. Were enough cars sold to break even for that particular month?
——–
This is a good point, and unfortunately there is absolutely zero way to peg what exactly the bottom line is this month. There is so much going on, so many one-time items, so many random cash transactions…who knows.
This quarter (just ended) is a total wash, and real transparency will be next to nothing for the next couple months (at least).
Much like in the past, I put no faith in anything that comes out of their mouths, much less their ’statements.’ The game here now (as it was before) is told through cash…how much they have, how much they need, and how fast it is leaving their bank account.
As long as the gov’t is topping them up, giving them breaks, doling out massive DoE loans, etc…it will be hard to get a handle on it. I’d say a couple months after they get the 10-odd billion from the DoE, and all the rest of the ‘inflows’ are accounted for, we will get a real good ‘feel’ for it.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:24 pm)Plus, what car is going to be running 24/7? When you add up all the hours it comes to 17,472 hours of test. If you drive constantly for 2500 hours at 60 mph you get 150,000 miles. So, they are actually testing for nearly 8 times that.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:28 pm)I’m not a expert at building cars, but if I was in the position of buying a hundred million or more of something for vehicles that have my warranty on them, I would test them regardless of how thorough the battery company’s original tests are.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:30 pm)Noel Park
You and I must be able to agree on that. Let’s bring the troops home. I would rather fight them here in the states. Shorter supply routes. Less cost to re-supply. Urban blighted areas would be some of the battle grounds so they would get rebuilt quicker than they do now. Heck, the advantage must out weigh the disadvantages 10 to 1.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:34 pm)N. Riley agree completely. Having to pay for class action attorneys, your attorneys and the warranty costs to bring each and every car in and repair or replace faulty cells, instead of getting the benefits of a new “green halo” drive train is not worth skipping some steps to save some time or money.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:34 pm)MarkinWI
The military needs to replace vehicles because they wear out, they get blown up and the war in Afghanistan requires a different type of vehicle. Plus we are turning a lot of vehicles over to the Iraqis and the Afghans. Whether these are “gifts” or not, I don’t know. The afghans don’t have any money to purchase much with. The Iraqis have a tremendous job ahead just rebuilding what was destroyed plus what needed to be built or rebuilt before the war (which is a lot). I saw a documentary on the Afghan war’s need for a different military vehicle. It was interesting and I could see where the requirement was quite different. Terrain is completely different.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:35 pm)Off topic (sort of):
Check out this month’s issue of Design New’s cover story.
http://www.designnews.com/article/277418-Drag_Racing_Goes_Electric.php
Fun article
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:36 pm)I missed yesterday. But, it seems like Evil Conservative and I had a little mutual, good-natured ribbing. I’m done, and I’m not mad.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:43 pm)Yeah, started flying back on Monday, but didnt arrive home till 2:30AM Tuesday. Yesterday was rough at work. I’m all Russia’d out. Its good to drink Diet Mt. Dew and eat Combos & Doritos again.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:46 pm)Yeah, we knew this was coming. Look to see a minimum scale with different levels your mileage will fall into. That way they get you to pay a minimum even if your car sits in the garage most of the month. Really cool and really evil at the same time. I am sure I could name a few people who are going to love this idea. Not going to matter to me. I will give up driving completely by that time.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:48 pm)I see you’ve never worked as an engineer.
You seem to be advocating a disease that can permeate world-class engineering establishments called “not invented here syndrome”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here_syndrome
This kind of thing has led to a lot of interoperability problems in the computer industry. For instance, in the late 1990s every high-end workstation manufacturer made their own keyboards with nearly identical key layouts — but different plugs and electrical protocols. This led to $100+ keyboards when you could go down to your local computer shop and pick up a PS/2 keyboard for $35. Fortunately, we’ve moved on, and everyone uses USB now.
Silicon Graphics (now SGI) is probably the poster child for this. And the world passed them by, and they’ve been bankrupt twice, despite having brilliantly designed and beautifully implemented technology. Their Altix system is a perfect example of what happened when they decided to move on — they used Intel processors and in-house glue-logic. They focused on what they do best, and used parts that were what other people do best. The machines are just as beautiful under the hood, but a lot faster and much more useful. There are lots of other examples, but it seems to be getting a little bit better over time.
I caution you against calling engineers “dumb” for using external technology. It’s often better performing and cheaper use someone else’s already-refined component, then it is to try to replicate a whole research-and-development operation in house, just to prove that you’re “smart”. It’s almost always smart to use existing solutions for solved problems, so that you can focus on the things that make your design special.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:49 pm)Yeah, what is happening is the year over year percentages have to get better, because they are coming up against worse and worse last years numbers.
In GM’s case:
January 2008 + 2.1%
May 2008 – 11.5%
June 2008 – 18.5%
Aug 2008 – 20%
Nov 2008 -45%
So a +10% in january, is nothing at all like a +10% in november.
By the time we hit the fall, if GM is putting up numbers that are say +2%, thats sounds really good (especially considering the numbers we have seen the last 12 months or so), but it is actually terrible, because that means they are clipping at a terrible, unsustainable pace.
As for that AP story…many of them were ‘put in the can’ last night. Ford always releases early, and drops the biggest hints. So when their better than expected rumors started to circulate, everyone started to do the math, and forecasted too optimistically right across the board, and came up with a rebounding SAAR, well over 10 million.
Like this story from Edmunds: http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/06/25/467191.html
In reality, the SAAR is still firmly in the 9 million range, and everyone is just changing the fine print in their stories today…but sticking with the optimistic tone to save face.
Here is the current AP story, you’ll notice no mention of the SAAR, and they are sticking with the same silver lining bias, even though the facts no longer back them up. (They do however, mention that sales are down considerably year over year, and worse than last month):
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-auto-sales-declines-show-apf-3898877852.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=
The guy, who said things were getting better and predicted the 10 million SAAR yesterday at Edmunds, now says this, “It is unlikely things will get any worse,” said Jesse Toprak, executive director of industry analysis for the auto Web site Edmunds.com.
/journalistic integrity FTL…if your wrong, just say it (everybody makes mistakes)
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:49 pm)99 years of building cars and one year of ruin! Life, as are engineering, economics and manufacturing, is full of trade-offs.
Those trade-offs seemed to work out ok for most GM people for most of their careers. Of course there are the prominent exceptions like Roger Smith being on the wrong end of Michael Moore’s viewfinder and Wags hitting the buzz saw of carpacolypse 2008-2009.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:50 pm)Maybe they should be comparing against another base year besides 2008. Say a year where sales were still respectful. That would show this year’s sales figures in a truer light. Would it not?
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:51 pm)So, that is why my back has been hurting a lot lately. Damn it, I’ve been raped!
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:52 pm)Thanks for the backup Neal, I really wasn’t trying to offend.
Sidenote: I have 3 crisp ‘Benjamins’ all ready to plunk down whenever GM is ready.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:52 pm)“+1 for inventing an amusing homonym.”
————————-
One from me also.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:54 pm)They even farm out some of the sheet metal work, don’t they. Small parts only.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:55 pm)It’s all good Thomb.
Ps-I was out yesterday too.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (3:58 pm)I believe we saw a report on the number of patents issued to GM for battery cell and battery pack designs. It seems that the majority of patents covering the compete backpack is held by GM. GM has very serious chemical engineers that are working along side LG Chem and other companies in coming up with battery chemistry and cell designs. GM is a very technologically knowledgeable company. They just don’t know how to deal with unions, make bad PR decisions and a host of other things. But they are not like you stated.
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:05 pm)Statik, Now can you tell me how many blue cars were sold this last May compared to May 1976?
Just curious as you seem to have all the numbers.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:11 pm)I’ve involved with these kinds of tours. This kind of speech isn’t supposed to be inspiring, or entertaining — though it never hurts, if you can pull that off.
The speech has only one mission: to convince the suits that you’re seriously into this business, and capable of doing more. The easiest way to accomplish this is to give them just a little bit more detail than they’re comfortable with. Then, if you’re lucky, they’ll leave with that impression — and their specialist will stick around to talk shop for a little while.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:17 pm)Please join us in the present, we’d all like to welcome you to the year 2009.
Even the NiMH battery in the 1999 version of the EV-1 and in the RAV-4 EV up till 2003 was perfectly capable of 120+ miles range on all electric drive.
Granted, those weren’t huge vehicles but I’d say a Hummer H3 is a sizeable vehicle. Raser Technologies converted one to a hybrid with a serial hybrid drive the same as the Volt and using Lithium Ion. http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/project-review-100-mpg-phev
and http://www.rasertech.com/download/14/
Or how about a full-sized Dodge Ram crew cab pickup that can also be used as a backup power generator. It can power your entire house and 6 of your neighbors. http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/rasers-extended-range-electric-fleet-truck
(Quote)
+3
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:17 pm)Looking at the Tesla folks writings on development history for their Roadster, no battery manufacturer would talk to them at first, due to their initial small scale. In fact they couldn’t even sustain an extended telephone conversation with most battery wholesale shops when they started out.
With Daimler’s backing, the model S coming up and a continuing need for the 6831 cells in every roadster sold, I would imagine they could get LG chem to take their phone calls now, if for nothing else, than to at least get pricing info for prismatic cells.
All in stark contrast to GM’s calls to battery manufacturers leaving the manufacturers dangling from a rope until GM people decided who would build a new prismatic cell factory.
One reason GM may not give much battery info is they have the ability to change cells, mix and match cells, change suppliers, change cell chemistries or change other variables because they have the testing capability and an expanding database to support those decisions, and the scale to call the shots with any supplier.
Announcing specifications and changing them constantly would not look good. And the one thing we are sure of here is the tech is changing fast, which will lead to changes in the battery packs whether they are announced or not.
(Quote)
+1
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:19 pm)One more thing they said about the Volt.
Version 1.2 (or second generation) will have a button to hit if you are closed to your destination (1 mile or less) to keep the generator from starting up. This would let you from time to time run the battery down below the 30% mark.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:22 pm)I agree. GM carried forth much from the EV1. They have many “lessons learned.” Clearly they know how to build an EV.
I was responding to Arnold above who seemed to insinuate that GM should have been developing a battery lab all along. I was pointing out that GM had no business doing this until electric cars were more likely to be produced and that since batteries are in rapid development, the old data from EV1 days are not too useful.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:27 pm)This is part of what I was getting at. I am wondering why the engine cannot generally run at one maximum efficiency point too. Of course we don’t want to charge the batteries with the ICE. If the charge starts to go up beyond some predetermined point, the ICE could shut off for a while.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:27 pm)It has been so long since I have had a “Benjamin” I had to google it to be sure you were talking about a 100 dollar bill. Not that is how bad I am off lately.
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:30 pm)Even going the full ten (non-simulated) years won’t give you the rich results of ten years of mass production volume. Surprises will pop up at scale, rendering your your small scale tests to a nearly anecdotal level of information. That is why the Synergy Drive was the gold standard of performance for parallels and unless others get going fast, Voltec will be far ahead and building on the REEV / EREV experience.
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:34 pm)Wow, just by looking? You are good!
(Quote)
+2
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:39 pm)I’m willing to bet when the results in November show a 2% rise that the pundits will say, “See I told you so, we’re out of the woods and the bad times are over.
Never mind that it’s equal to a 44% drop from 2007!
(Quote)
Jul 1st, 2009 (4:44 pm)“How about if we bring them home, where nobody wants to blow them up…”
No offense, but I wish it was that easy. Unless we stop the fanatics who want to kill our soldiers, they will be able to fulfill their vows to come here and kill us at home. Like