BMW started the MINI E electric car field test program from scratch in Spring of 2008 as a tool for their Project i plan to develop vehilces for sustainable mega cities of the future..
The trial has been ongoing since the first car was delivered in May of this year. Richard Steinberg of BMW group presented the company’s current progress and learnings from the program. You can view the whole sideshow here.
It was noted that 1800 applications were received and from that group 250 cars were placed in Southern California, and 200 in New York and New Jersey.
Steinberg noted that although public infrastructure is needed to limit range anxiety, this program focused only on consumer home charging infrastructure. He said this program “placed us in
the infrastructure business.”
It was found that the wallbox installation process was more tedious and time consuming than expected leading to customer frustrations, and that post-installation servicing is a murky area as to who performs it and who pays for it. In the future he reported BMW will focus more on public infrastructure development and pay attention to vehicle to grid and load leveling solutions.
He reported that the purpose of the field trial was to evaluate BEVs in real world conditions and to determine the effect of temperature, weather, and driving behavior on range, reliability and charging status. Also what consumers perceptions of living with an EV was assessed.
It was noted that the MINI E driver community was “borderline evangelical” though there was an “extremely critical vocal minority.” Also noted was that many feedback opportunities evolved including a facebook group and over 30 driver blogs.
In conclusion, the following key leanings have been determined:
1) EV drivers are passionate and look forward to next generation vehicles
2) There is significant need to adopt a common charging port architecture (J1772) and to encourage and develop public charging infrastructure
3) Range anxiety remains a hurdle to be cleared. Options to do so, they say include either developing PHEVs (like the Volt) or expanding public charging infrastructure
+14
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:47 am)Another conclusion that might be drawn is that early Volt owners are likely to be similar to the Mini group — to be passionate, informed, borderline evangelical, and (unfortunately) likely to include an “extremely critical vocal minority.”
To offset the latter, early Volt sales should go to posters in the gm-volt blog, who despite their critical moments have remained amazingly positive over the long term.
Seriously, these are the people who have shown the commitment to ride through the early ups and downs with steadiness.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:50 am)Based on Kyle’s experience of hitting a big pothole and disabling the power electronics (that’s all I know because the video in the separate article fails to open), BMW should also have learned to work on durability issues. Even one report of electronic failure (i.e. being stranded) is bad press.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:54 am)Yes, durability is critical. (By the way, Lyle not Kyle.)
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:04 am)It was noted that the MINI E driver community was “borderline evangelical” though there was an “extremely critical vocal minority.”
That pretty much covers this site. lol.
LJGTVWOTR
Has Plug? Have Sale HPHS
(Quote)
+5
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:17 am)Some product developers have vision (or at least hindsight from the EV1) and others have to learn the hard way (no hindsight from the EV1).
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:38 am)The in-house charge station, is it a DC output? I would have thought that the Mini would have this converter built into the car so any AC power could be used.
Lyle hit a pothole and did more than jar loose a connector, they replaced the whole motor controller. What about the reliability of in-wheel motors/electronics?
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:44 am)WHy cant they incorporate a very small engine generator,propane perhaps like those in an RV to activate when the driver knows he will exceed the 100 Mile range. Shouldn’t be too hard to squeeze 200 Miles of range that way. THat would be cheaper and simpler than a boatload more batteries in the car
(Quote)
+7
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:45 am)A BEV manufacturer states that range anxiety is a problem? Who knew. The Leaf and Mini-E are more evidence that you can find the evangelical minority and please them with a BEV, but it will take an ER-EV to please the masses. Unfortunately, it may take 3 or 4 years to get the price of an ER-EV down to the high twenties, after tax credit. Right about the time the credit runs out…
The producer of the first successful electrically charged car for the masses, I mean 150,000+ per year, will have to find a way to build a cheaper car, without relying on any credits. That pretty much rules out a BEV with any kind of range, which means in the near term 2012-2018 time frame, ER-EVs are the only real possibility for most of us, because more than 20 kWh of battery is just going to be too expensive.
(Quote)
+11
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:06 am)I am confident that these same results will be repeated by all other BEV makers. The shortage of charging stations, limited range, and home charging problems will eventually go away over time. (e.g. 10-15 yrs. time).
This is just another twinkling example of how GM is doing it right. The Volt will be a car that helps and facilitates the transition process to BEV. But today, we just don’t have the support systems in place.
If done right, the Volt will be living, breathing proof of what is possible and will begin to create the demand for charging stations, both home and away, for it’s ever growing population. Once this demand is present and significant, anybody wanting to make money will fill the need with low cost units and products.
The “puttingawayhissoapbox” P.E.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:12 am)Its pretty clear that BEVs are the future and that EREVs are a stopgap measure. Some people are going to be ready to go all out and go directly to a BEV while others will need the security of the EREV, to ease into it. EREVs are kind of like training wheels for the EV world.
Personally, living in a large metro, and as my second vehicle, I just the simpicity of a BEV.
Obviously there is market for both types of cars, and any smart car maker should offer both types in their lineup.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:29 am)Amen to that! (and to NZDavid’s comment too)! Seriously, many – if not the majority – of the folks here would be a wonderful population to be running the wheels off some production models. I also think that any positive bias would be offset by our shared desire to have the Volt DONE RIGHT.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:31 am)We have to realize that gasoline is not going away anytime soon.
In my experience, once something becomes a widely accepted standard for many years, it’s almost impossible to get people to change to something else. This is not just for cars, but for everything else in life as well.
I this situation, successful products are those that offer a transition from the current standard to a new standard. For example, around 10 years ago, computer CD recorders went mainstream, but it took many years after that before computer makers stopped including a floppy drive as standard equiptment.
This is all really basic marketing stuff. I’m surprised car companies are just now figuring out that EREVs are the way to go.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:32 am)Thus, the Volt. Except gasoline stations are easier to find than propane filling stations.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:38 am)I agree, the market will offer AER 15, 30 and 45 PHEVs, as well as 60, 90 and 120 BEVs. If fast charge infrastructure and battery design can be achieved, then BEVs with an AER of 250 miles would seem to hit the sweet spot, provided of course you could recharge in the time needed to take a potty break and walk the dog.
I am still waiting for a plan to install fast charging infrastructure at interstate rest stops.
(Quote)
+10
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:40 am)I disagree.
I believe the next 30-50 years will be dominated by EREVs and biofuels.
There’s a lot of misinformation about ethanol:
Ethanol Myth #1: It takes around 1 gallon of oil to produce 1 gallon of Ethanol.
Reality: This is only for Corn Ethanol. Other sources of Ethanol use little or no fossil fuels.
Ethanol Myth #2: Ethanol will never be cost effective without subsidies.
Reality: Raw Ethanol can be produced for around $1/gallon without subsidies. After adding costs for refining, distribution, and markup, Ethanol can be profitable at around $2.50 / gallon. This corresponds to oil prices at around $65/barrel.
Ethanol Myth #3: Ethanol will affect our food supply.
Reality: Again, only true for Corn Ethanol. Energy crops can grow in areas that are not viable for raising food crops. Ethanol can also be made from Crop Residue, Municipal Waste, and Forest/Mill biomass.
http://www.coskata.com/EthanolFeedstockPotential.asp
Ethanol Myth #4: Energy Crops can’t be viable long-term without fertilizer.
Reality: After Ethanol is extracted from energy crops, there is a lot of leftover biomass. This leftover substance is perfect for soil remediation.
Ethanol Myth #5: Gas stations aren’t selling E85 now, so why would they in the future?
Reality: Today, only a very small percentage of cars on the road can run on E85, so most gas station owners can’t afford to dedicate a pump to E85. A federal mandate that all new cars are FlexFuel would change that in a hurry.
Ethanol Myth #6: We can never make enough Ethanol to completely replace gasoline, so Ethanol is not viable.
Reality: The first part may be true. We may never be able to make enough Ethanol to completely replace gasoline. But why would that make Ethanol not viable? If we can replace 35% of our gasoline with Ethanol, and 80% of our gasoline with EREVs, that adds up to 115%, more than enough to completely replace gasoline.
Ethanol Myth #7: Cellulosic ethanol is not ready. More research needed.
Reality: Dollar-a-gallon ethanol plant in U.S. operation next year.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9928810-54.html
The only major impediment for scaling up the current methods is volatile gas prices. If gas goes below $2/gallon and stays there for a few months, then any investment in large scale ethanol production would go bankrupt. A gasoline floor tax of $2.50/gallon would solve this easily.
Bottom line: The combination of EREVs and Ethanol can give us a zero emission solution using our current infrastructure of 110v home outlets and liquid fuel filling stations. What’s not to like?
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:43 am)Who KNOWS what battery tech will spawn in the next few years. It’d be great if they got cheaper, smaller, and had an infrastructure, but for now we already HAVE the Volt (well, we *almost* have the Volt).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:46 am)I agree that we’re largely missing the boat re ethanol, but at least we’re ON the Volt boat.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
(Quote)
+3
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:55 am)This is everyone’s dream, but when you run the numbers it turns into a nightmare.
For example, to charge a 250 AER SUV in 10 minutes, that would require around 500,000 watts. The connectors that power companies use for this are 12 inches in diameter. The cables are huge.
In other words, this requires a ridiculous amount of power. That much power can vaporize things. And don’t forget that cars drive outside, so there will be times you have to make this connection with rain or snow dripping down the car.
(Quote)
+10
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:56 am)I’ve turned 7500 miles on my Mini-E #183 in about 5 months. My experiance to date has been flawless with no issues. I live in North San Diego County,
I think both BEV and EREV are ready for prime time now.
80 miles per charge for freeway drivng at 70mph is the freeway range for me.
My driving is mixed 50% city and 50% highway and I am getting between 95 and 105 per charge.
Longest trip on a charge was a back country tour, twisty roads 40 to 50 mph and I did 124 miles on a charge.
I sold my other car (2006 G35) 1 month into the program. in the roughly 5 months I have had the Mini-E it has been unable to make exactly 1 trip. That was a 300 mile trip to Paso Robles where we took the wifes car.
The Mini-E is the best car I have driven in over 32 years of driving. I guess that makes me “borderline evangelical”
The Mini-E or any current BEV is not for everyone, lets get that clear. A single car family with long commutes, a carpenter that needs a sheetrock or lumber rack, Soccer mom with several kids, ect. The Mini-E like all BEV’s, EREV’s, PHEV’s and ICE cars will work for a percentage of the population based on their lifestyle and circumstance and that is just fine. It’s America we have choices!
The Mini-E is just a normal car for me, doing everything I asked of the other cars I have owned or leased for 32 year of driving, it’s just doing it better with more fun and independence.
The best part of the Mini-E? It drives on 100% sunshine
My ideal “garage of cars” in the next year or two would be a Mini-E BEV and a GM Equinox SUV EREV with a voltec drive train
In a decade or two, both cars would be BEV’s driving on solar power with ranges of 200 miles.
Cheers!
Peder
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:11 pm)Good idea, but a complete review of their comments should be done.. they should be ranked on negativity and enthusiasm.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:11 pm)Looking at the PDF/presentation’s quote “Project i is focused on meeting the sustainability needs of Mega Cities around the world”… it seems that the issue of people in the big city being scared to venture a hour away from home by car is going to greatly exacerberated by pure battery vehicles.
I live about an hour away from Vancouver, BC, Canada, and many people there think that an hour’s drive from Chilliwack is like a death sentence. I once visited Vancouver to visit a friend for a birthday party and when other guests found out where I came from, they thought that I was insane for coming from so FAR, FAR AWAY for a birthday party, while they forget that many of their commutes stuck in Vancouver traffic can be nearly as long. I’ve even spoken to Vancouverites who don’t even know where Chilliwack is, even though it’s only a hour away. I’ve also heard similar tales from co-workers who have met people in Vancouver who have been asked if they are staying in Vancouver for the weekend. AN HOUR IS NOT THAT LONG PEOPLE… Your typical so-called “Reality Show” is just as long, AND it’s debatable whether you get anything useful out of that hour.
I also can’t help but to wonder if the availability of high tech products suitable only for people in large cities will lead to the death of smaller cities over the next hundred years or so. Sort of like how 100 years ago, if the railroad didn’t go through your town, it did not prosper. Or 50 years later, if a community didn’t have an interstate highway/freeway come through, the community languished. The call of the Siren’s song about the glamourous city and its fancy lifestyles has made farming seem like a dead end proposition.
Oops, starting to get off topic… back to electic cars: If people in the big cities can’t venture out to outlying areas because their “city-centric” electric vehicles can’t venture that far out, small communities will go the way of the dodo bird,
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:15 pm)Tag, I couldn’t agree more on the Who Knows part. I think that we may have gotten the existing types of LiIon fairly close to their future power to weight levels, and the improvement on that front will be incremental. The real game-changing improvements from this point out will either be lowered prices per kWh, or finding other types of batteries, or flywheels, that can supply the power in a more economical manner.
The batteries are there for viable ER-EV’s, and almost there for viable BEV’s for the masses. 2010+ will be an interesting decade.
DaveG’s comments strengthen my thoughts that the ER-EV bridge to BEV’s for the masses may last more than 5 or 6 years. Gasoline is a pretty amazing substance, packing an incredible amount of BTU’s into a gallon, and ethanol/butanol would stand on the shoulders of a pretty giant achievement, i.e. making private transportation a working mans option.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:33 pm)BMW deserves credit for how they’re approaching electric power for automobiles. Their cautious, level-headed pursuit of discovery as to what the positives and negatives of a BEV are is in stark contrast to Nissan’s high profile rah-rah-sisboom-bah campaign with the LEAF.
This all must be amusing to GM who has already BTDT with their EV1. One of the most valuable lessons from that experience was…. in order to get a real sense of the prospects of market success for new concepts, you’ve got to entirely discount all the noise coming from evangelical supporters of that concept. From within the organization as well as those on the outside.
Nissan’s Main St. Parade effort in promoting the LEAF is in danger of putting them in a position of the LEAF becoming their Edsel, a car that was greatly ballyhooed by Ford prior to its introduction. Maybe Nissan is jonesing for receiving big sums of U.S. taxpayer money. Whatever it is, I think all the nonsensical promises they are making on behalf of the LEAF is not good promotion for electric powered vehicles in general. It is irresponsible to promise things you can’t deliver – and the danger is that public perception will conclude that electric vehicles in general – not just the LEAF – are simply false promises. That on a daily basis, they are high maintenance. The momentum towards the post-ICE age in motorcars could falter.
It is very important that the Volt distance itself from the operational faults present-day BEV’s have. BEV’s are just not satisfactory for the mass market yet. The Volt is….. so hammer away, GM….. get it on the road and let’s get rolling!
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:37 pm)This experience in real time regarding the MINI-E tests is really impressive, and, is a great model for how a large firm can utilize dedicated and objective individuals in order to seriously learn about product, product acceptance, and unintended and unexpected situations not knowable in highly-structured laboratories.
Going EREV for plug-ins is really the only way to go for quite a large number of years, for the vast majority of the motoring public.
It’s just really impressive that BMW did this open study.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:42 pm)Thanks for the real world driving experience notes.
I agree that BEVs will be great for a portion of the population very soon (if not now as in your case).
(Quote)
-3
Nov 15th, 2009 (12:47 pm)Wireless power transfer would change everything.. no longer would you worry about range or the size of your battery, no longer would we worry about diesel supplies for our long distance trucks. You would not even worry about what plug to put on the car.
I think a genuine role of the government is to decide on a standard and implement it on the right lane of the nation’s highways.. perhaps a DARPA competition to get the best solution so the manufacturers can standardize. We have the technology to do it today.
How much money are we spending on foreign oil?
(Quote)
-7
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:02 pm)I’d like a BEV and an EREV given what it appears mey happen in the near future. Many have made the same remark over the last few years. Like some others, I’d really prefer an BEV with an available BATT/Genset appliance that couples tightly for longer trips.
A 4/0 copper welding cable or two (thumb size) and connector(s) of similar size could charge a BEV in 15 minutes or less at 480v. if the battery could take it. Higher voltages can safely be used simply by automatically de-energizing the circuits until all connections have been safely made.
This site has really gone down hill. It seems there are a few die-hard EREV only freaks who have a hummer for the new GM version of the truth.
It seems as time goes on and on that GM and Volt have a really tough hill to climb. Some conscientious people will not buy a car from government motors. 60 Billion to rob bond holders and support the UAW is not really all that attractive to many taxpayers. Though a fan of Volt technology, I could never buy one until the public debt is repaid and the firm is privatized.
If the Volt is any good as a money making product, others will get in the game. No simplistic declarations are needed.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:05 pm)Excellent example of what the EREV means for the transition from internal combustion to BEV / FCV’s.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:07 pm)Let’s not forget that the Volt will be the defacto standard testbed for many new technologies offered by countless incumbent and start-up OEM’s, which will further accelorate our transition from ICE to BEV / FCV.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:26 pm)For home charging, you will usually just need to “top off” your BEV after the 40 miles that most of us drive in a day. This can be accomplished via a smaller connector and a slower recharge.
But at a fast charge station, I agree that mating and un-mating a huge connector each time will not be a practical solution. Rather, driving onto bus bars that make contact under the car would be much faster and safer.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:37 pm)i really can’t picture myself driving a BEV, i really feel secured if i’m going to drive an EREV…even if BEV charging infrastructure are all over the country… i just have the need to have a generator just in case…i’m a happy camper maybe thats why…
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:38 pm)It’s time for supporters to start backing their claims.
What will you do to show that a BEV or a next-gen plug-in FULL hybrid isn’t a better financial choice? Explain why EREV differences are worth it.
Knowing that automakers are stuck with patent barriers, it tends to make sense that the market will be filled with a variety of technologies.
The old-school approach of each offering a tweak of essentially the same design is quickly dying. Those days of simplicity are over.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 15th, 2009 (1:39 pm)There are many ways to achieve independence from fossil fuels. Technologies like solar, wind, and water electric power generation, as well as celulosic ethanol and BEVs give us great returns for minimum investment.
However, technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and wireless power transfer via coils in the highway will also work in theory, but they are far more expensive and wasteful. Hydrogen has to be made from electricity, so it’s more efficient to just use the electricity directly via a battery. Wireless power transfer wastes a large portion of the power via the inefficient air gap, and the cost to install and maintain it in our highways would be prohibitive.
With limited resources, we should implement those options that give us the best bang for the buck.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (2:10 pm)All good posts by everyone so far.
I can’t help feeling that BMW is learning the same lessons GM got with the EV1. This helps me understand why GM has and IS doing the Volt the way they are.
I don’t want two cars just so I can live the way I’m accustom to. I want one that does it all. The Volt does that.
GM was right to “ween” us off of the ICE slowly. The EREV is a great transition to the EV while batteries catch up. Once that happens, the EREV platform will not go away it’ll be used for SUV’s, large trucks, and large buses. I just can’t see a public EV bus with a 500 kW battery anytime soon! But a EREV bus, definitely!
GM has found the next step/platform for the next 40 years.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (2:26 pm)Today’s allcarselectric.com features a mini E meet in Santa Monica (Cal.) which is directly related to today’s Mini E “what BMW has learned”. Not mentioned here is that the Mini E 100 mile rated range is suspect. Most drivers in Cal. report Mini E 80 miles to charge nominal with many getting less than 65 miles to charge.
There seems to be a comfort point of total-load (air, electronics) EV range, at least for California, around the 120-150 mile point. Which itself may well be Tesla’s success. I understand VOLT-1 is committed to 40 mile EV, but given the infrastructure difficulties underscored in this article, emphasis must be given to VOLT ER and a generous fuel tank to alleviate both infrastructure and EV limits.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (2:30 pm)Frank Weber tried to explain this with his graph comparing the cost of adding increasing range to a BEV and an EREV. The lines for both stay the same until the EREV range is reached, at which point the EREV cost line goes sideways, indicating no increase in cost, whereas the BEV line continues its more or less linear trend upwards.
This may not necessarily be better but given people’s irrational aversion to upfront costs it will definitely be more popular. And more popular is better, at least to me.
(Quote)
+9
Nov 15th, 2009 (2:59 pm)From my real world experiance,
Charging A BEV or an EREV at home at 220 volt 32 amps like I do takes less than 4 hours at max if I am completely drained, usually its just an hour or so and is automatically set to begin at midnight at super off peak rates. This is no different than running an air conditioner for a house or turning on the ovens to cook dinner (both at 220 volt 32 amps) except that I use the juice during non peak hours when there is extra energy being wasted on the grid.
Imagine being able to buy gasoline at midnight for half or a third the cost during the day. This is exactly the case with a BEV
We can handle 100s of millions of air conditioners and ovens at 220 volt 32 amps, (even double ovens + microwaves) all going on at the same time for dinner in the case of the ovens, or when the heat rises for the AC. I don’t think having a similar amount of plug ins of all varieties charging in the middle of the night (because its cheaper) is going to cause problems. You may plug in at 5pm when you arrive home, but won’t begin charging until midnight in order to buy the energy at half the cost.
Topping off the Mini-E is rarly done, mostly on weekends if I have a long drive in the morning and the afternoon.
As far as solar, today for most of the country you can install a 2kwh solar system for less than $8k net cost. Why is this important? Because, again for most, a 2kw solar system will generate over 3000kwh of energy a year. This is enough to drive a BEV or EREV 10,000 to 12,000 miles a year.
If you were to charge at night and wanted to have an equation where the cost was a net zero, you would only need a 1.2kw system (less than $5k) to generate 1600KWHs at peak to pay for the 3000kwhs used at off peak.
For a net usage approach, this equates to around 50 cents a gallon of gas fixed for the next 25+ years (what will gas cost in 25 years?) or another way to look at it is , for the same cost of the 500 gallons of gas you buy at $3.00 a gallon to drive an ICE car 12,000 miles, in 5 years you would have paid for your personal energy system to drive your BEV (I’m sure several of them over the decades) for the rest of your life.
If its the net zero cost approach its around 30cents a gallon and its 3-4 years equivilent of gas and your set for the rest of your life.
Up until 5 months ago I had been buying gas for 32 years. Now I drive on sunshine. Unless we begin to charge for sunshine or tax it, I’m pretty sure it will remain at its current price of zero.
BEV’s and EREVs will be a very large catalyst for solar energy systems across the country.
This in combination will free us from the chains of oil.
Energy independence for the person = an energy independent country and wealth generation for our citizens.
There is more at stake here than just our cars.
Cheers Peder
(Quote)
-1
Nov 15th, 2009 (3:06 pm)While EREV seems to have obvious advantages, the above observation leads to this suggestion. If you need a BEV with 100+ range, then how about TWO batteries, one of which can be removed for day to day 40 mile range? Once upon a time removable seats seemed impossible.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (3:25 pm)Seems borderline heretical to observe the following, but here goes.
Another form of EREV is the form that Lyle already has —- an BEV (the mini), plus his ICE car. Then when the BEV battery runs low, he uses the ICE. It’s the same thing, just not all in the same vehicle. The beauty of Lyle’s present system is that the BEV is backed up for all faults, not just failure to charge. Similarly, his ICE is backed up for all faults.
In a way the Volt EREV is a partial step — pay more and get the battery backed up. What Lyle has done now is to pay more yet and get the whole vehicle backed up. So doing requires a little more capital, but not too much. How much is a LEAF plus a Cobalt, compared to a Volt?
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (3:37 pm)It’s not so clearly one way or the other. When one reads the story about the MiniE meeting (today’s article on allcarselectric.com), the owner’s comments are overwhelmingly postive. As they say, people adapt.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (3:56 pm)Of course they are positive, they are the ‘evangelical’ supporters of EV’s who personally sought the opportunity to be guinea pigs for BMW with the Mini E. They were not randomly selected among the mass population and forced to give up their normal mode of transportation – had that occurred, we’d be hearing a more accurate take on the market potential for the car. Which I would predict would be far less favorable than the opinions shared among this group.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (4:32 pm)I believe it was $25 billion each month in July and August of this year.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (5:17 pm)John1701a,
“It’s time for supporters…..”
That time will come in about one year.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Let any other OEM who will place whatever sort of EV they wish into the market be their own proof as well. The proof of what they’ve got will come soon enough.
You’ll immediately see that when the Volt EREV displays its’ exceptional redundancies, proven refinements, and just plain practicality, you will not be asking for further proof.
Volt will be there when BEV gets there in a year.
This is a journey. It is a ******process****** of **technical enlightenment** which this site very tirelessly provides the general public.
Throughout it all, the very disagreements made available for everyone to see are not at all meant to be a contentious contest of any sort between the posters themselves, it seems to me. (Although directness sometimes deserves expression).
It is the opening up of the sincere considerations of all, down through the generous time-line that this next year provides us for these questions, that MUST ABSOLUTELY be relentlessly made available to all for the benefit of not only the general public, but, also of all those very highly placed auto execs, managers, and technicians, whom do the very best they know how every day. (Excuse the run-on sentence).
Execs et.al. benefit greatly from commentary placed here, as a benchmark of technical sophistication of the general public. This understanding reduces for them the risks-of-disclosure for the benefit of increasingly-relevant live-chats and interviews from the highly placed pros at GM.
To me, this site is an extremely beneficial service made available to all auto execs and others mentioned above. It is one of the main reasons I say what I do, in exactly the ways I say things, to remind them of what pains the motoring public must endure sometimes, as a result of certain ways auto execs et. al, are sometimes forced to make certain decisions.
I wish the very best for them to all remain affixed to all the commentary of this site. Everyone’s comments somehow reflect something important to the poster, and, such concerns become somehow important to the rest of us.
And, hopefully, commentary made here is important to the auto execs and their respective other OEM companies as well.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (5:35 pm)I agree, but at the same time I don’t know of any owners’ group that is randomly selected. You like the car to become part of the group. But nothing has happened so negative they they changed from positive to negative on the Mini E, at least as reflected in their comments.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (5:39 pm)The need has nothing to do with engineering.
People will be asking for information with respect to $$$.
Necessities of business must be addressed.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (5:54 pm)I seriously doubt it.
Yes, I also assume a good design would connect with the energy off, check for shorts, and then turn on the power.
But how much power are we talking about? When you run the numbers, in order to charge an SUV BEV-250 in 10 minutes, you would need 500,000 watts.
500,000 watts… Does anyone know what this number means? This is a ridiculous amount of power. Would this warm up the connection? Heat can shift things around slightly. Lots of rain and snow dripping all over the car…
Have you ever seen what a 500,000 watt short can do? It’s an explosion, and not a small one. Things get vaporized.
Are you willing to bet your life on this? I’m not. I won’t be caught dead within 100 feet of something like that.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (5:57 pm)Usually, I comment on each bloger’s statement. I,ll make a general statement covering a number of topics here this time.
Some believe it will be a while before BEV’s get market share. I believe that there is a market for the BEV and another market for the EREV.
The statistics say there are somewhere between 60% to 80% of the driving population that drive under 40 miles a day. For those people, BEVs will easily meet their transportation needs. Among this segment will be people who want further range and they will go for EREVs. Never the less there will be a significant number of people who will create the market for BEVs because they are simple in design and therefore will cost less than EREVs.
The advent of the BEV market will be a lot sooner than many here think. There will be a number of people who will only own one car. A greater number of people will own more than one car depending on how large a family they have. My sister and her husband had three children living as adults at home and they had five cars. They would often share vehicles rather than shuffle them around to get out of the driveway. A number of factors will determine how many cars a family owns. Driving distances to work of each person; type of job they have; availability of alternate transportation; etc. They will be among the BEV owners.
Businessmen and companies owning a fleet of vehilce may vary well choose the EREV and depending upon how far from home/company they need to travel. I did a check of distances between major cities, and it indicated that a lot of cities are about 250 miles apart.(note this was a limited check of Texas, Tennessee, and Louisiana so it may not be completely accurate). Say that the 250 miles is what we are considering here for this discussion. A BEV with range of 250 miles would not be sufficient to travel between cities then because a range buffer is needed to insure care free travel. I figure that AER of 300 miles would be adequate for all electric travel, one way. At your destination you can recharge over night.
Until some new battery or some super-capacitor is invented, BEVs would not be the choice of those longer distance travelers and the EREV would be the vehicle of choice.
I have said it since the first time I bloged here that as technology makes advances in battery technology, the range of the Volt would increase to the point where the range extender will no longer be needed. Newer technologies such as the fuel cell may end up being used as the range extender and/or eventually or immediately replace the battery as the source of electricity. The evolution of the Volt is to become a BEV. GM, IMHO, has the technology locked up for the foreseeable future.
In summary, BEVs will see market share far sooner than 20 or 10 years. We may even see them take a good portion of sales in 2012. And if any traumatic world event occurs along the way, the BEV may be the only choice that makes sense to own.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (6:04 pm)Important thing is to have one gas/erev car in the family and the rest electrics. Use the BEV for every day travel – and the fossil fuel supported one for longer trips.
In a country where people easily juggle a dozen credit cards – this should be simple enough.
http://evnow.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/curing-range-anxiety/
(Quote)
-2
Nov 15th, 2009 (6:30 pm)DaveG,
I think their is a little more to this than marketing. Marketing is valuable at bringing customers to the market, but they usually cannot sell an inferior product.
Now, please don’t flame me on the “inferior product”, but from a consumer point of view, your trying to sell something that is more expensive, and does the same thing as what I have now. Add to that, the fact that for an EREV, your adding more complexity and opportunities for needing to repair.
Early adoption is needed, but this is not a marketing issue, until they have a product that can beat the competition. Today they do not.
FWIW: I understand the issue with energy independence, and the “real” cost of oil. But, do not expect that this will convince the masses. The early adopters can help to bring down the price, and hopefully, the BEV and EREV’s can eventually make financial sense for the masses.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (6:36 pm)I disagree, I think just the opposite is true. The future is ER-EV and BEV vehicles are a stopgap measure or at least a limited specialty market. Nobody, NOBODY, has come close to making a battery that can be recharged in 5 minutes (the time it takes to fill a BIG gas tank), or a battery that can power a real car, or truck for 350 miles on a single charge. Until the magic bullet battery is developed, electric vehicles will be a specialty product for urban dwellers who seldom if ever venture beyond the borders of their city.
Please don’t bore me with the “I can rent a car for my longer trips” speech. I have rented cars for long trips and its a total pain in the ass. Paperwork, credit checks, blocking 1000 dollars plus from your credit line, filling up the car before taking it back, cleaning it before returning it, not to mention the expense. I rented a minivan for 9 days and it was over $800.00 dollars along with all the hassles mentioned above.
Oh by the way, if you and your wife (or husband, or friend or whatever), decide to go on a road trip in a rental car, make sure all parties who are going to be driving the vehicle are on the rental agreement. If not and the police stop you, your rental car is very likely going to be taken from you on the spot. I have towed at least 20 rental cars in the last year after a routine traffic stop because the person on the rental agreement was not in the car.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 15th, 2009 (7:36 pm)I don’t see BEVs as anything but rarities on the road until their range exceeds 300 miles; recharging capability becomes widespread and is done in less than 15 minutes; or gasoline costs exceed $7.50 per gallon.
This won’t happen by 2012. Maybe in 10 or 15 years…..
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (7:55 pm)You can’t fault an engineer for wanting a simpler, more elegant design. But the fact is that most successful products are more complex. Mass production affects cost and reliability more than design elegance.
And in the end, the customer is always right.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:06 pm)The Volt has several advantages over this arrangement. First, you need one less car in the garage. If you have a small garage (or two people who might need to go extended distances), that’s important.
But more importantly, the two in one approach means that I don’t have to decide in advance whether I need range or not. Basically, if I have the air conditioning on all day, and I need to run a bunch of unexpected errands, it’s no big deal.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:14 pm)Yes.
And I’ll go one step further: Even after the magic bullet battery is developed, fast charging will never be safe. When you do the math, the dream of fast-charging turns into a nightmare. Lots of people turning into crispy fried chicken. Not pretty…
Let’s take a step back here. Pretend oil was still plentiful in the U.S., and there was no climate change. Here’s my point: From and engineering standpoint, gasoline is a very good fuel. Energy density is great, and it’s very easy to refuel.
So what if we could find a new fuel that has all the good qualities of gasoline, and none of the bad? What if this new fuel could replace 35% of our gasoline usage without any affect on food supply? Together with EREVs, that would be more than enough to completely replace gasoline. What if the technology to produce this fuel was ready to go right now?
http://www.coskata.com/
(Quote)
+3
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:20 pm)Yes, well said.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:23 pm)“But the fact is that most successful products are more complex.”
Hmmmmm….the wheel has done fairly well for that last couple centuries.
I am afraid that statement fly’s in the face of nearly everything I have designed. While, designing a product may require the addition of complexity, to make it better, the theory that just adding complexity will make a product better is a difficult concept for me comprehend.
Most designers know that following the KISS principle is imperative, to making something usable, supportable, sustainable, and profitable.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:34 pm)If range is an issue then the EREV is likely a better fit than a BEV.
For me, I am willing to sacrifice the anxiety, in exchange for the simplicity of a BEV.
Sure, I am sure if I owned a BEV, that I will be inconvienced with an occasional “Darn, I do not have enough charge to go to X”.
I do not live on an island, and in my situation I have alternative modes of transportation for any emergency that could arise.
But, I also need a vehicle I can afford. Today, neither the BEV or EREV fit my budget. But, I believe that the cost of a BEV will come down more dramactially than an EREV, since the EREV costs associated with the ICE are basically optimized with the past centuries of ICE development. The BEV just needs to find that secret formula for one thing, that darn BATTERY.
I want my BEV to reach near the price of a standard subcompact ICE, then I will be in the market. (Actually, I mean the TCO, which is what really concerns me most)
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:47 pm)To late to edit my last post.
“…ICE are basically optimized with the past centuries of ICE development”
Ok, centuries should have been singular…century.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:51 pm)For Lyle or anyone who may know.
Did BMW offer the owners of the MiniE test program a loaner vehicle if the car needed to spend the night (or longer) at their shop for repairs? Were there other incentives that minimized any potential inconvenience to be in the program?
While many of us are extremely eager to have a Volt I hope GM would consider a program to minimize new car owner inconvenience.
With only one car many of us could not afford to go without. Hopefully those times would be few but we all know we, the early buyers will be guinea pigs. Most of us are probably ok with that but don’t hang us out to dry…
Thanks.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:53 pm)Hey DaveG
An EE friend of mine said exactly as you have regarding proposing fast charging. It’s good that you posted it in writing here. Your comments go really far in helping people understand these dynamics.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (8:54 pm)To be clear, a good engineer will come up with the most simple and elegant design that meets the requirements. So its the customer requirements that make a design more complex, not the engineer.
I’m an engineer myself, but I’ve been around long enough to know that marketing can make or break a product, so I’ve come to appreciate it. My concern is that many on this forum are more concerned with design elegance than with what the average car buyer wants. I believe this contributes heavily to the desire for a pure BEV.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:08 pm)Relative to the lack of strong general public understanding of either BEV or EREV, wouldn’t it seem that there is a really big job ahead regarding the educating of the customer thoroughly regarding these very strong differences?
At least the measured release numbers ought to help greatly for when the general public begins to actually “see” then “begin to ask questions” then learn.
I think the time line GM is using for release numbers is making a lot more sense from the standpoint of having sufficient time also in getting the customer informed to the extent of a stronger and more valid contractual “meeting of the minds” regarding exactly what these vehicles will do for them.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:18 pm)Dealers can cause the break too.
That’s why the enthusiast shouldn’t wait until rollout begins before starting their support.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:18 pm)Dave,
Not sure how you came to the 500,000 watts in 10 minutes.
The Volt battery is 16 kWhr, and since is only uses approx. 8 kWhr, that translates to 8,000 watt-hours. So, if your assuming that your going to need enough energy to charge the 8 kWhr in 10 minutes (or, 1/6 of an hour), then you will need to basically supply 8,000 * 6 = 48,000 watts in those 10 minutes.
Explosions, or arc blasts, occur in a nearly instantaneous amount of time, and will vaporize metal. So, the real issue is the short-circuit capacity of the circuit, which is typically larger, for a larger service (but not always). The wattage it takes to charge the battery really has nothing to do with the arc blast power. But, it would typically convey that the energy source likely has a higher capacity than “normal”.
I agree, that I would be hesitant to wanting to be close to such a high capacity energy source.
PS: I also tend to duck/wince when I walk below the springs in my garage door. The springs have the follow a mechanical equivalence of a high capacity electrical service.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:27 pm)John,
I read, then re-read your post. I am not sure I understand what you saying?
What does supporting a product, have to do with dealers that cause a “break?
Just wondering….I am probably just missing your point.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:32 pm)Maybe an extra zero got caught in the calculator.
But fast charging at a rate like that is prone with all manner of insane inefficiencies and dangers if you are at 240 volts, that’s 200 amps. (What would that circuit breaker look like if there even was one.)
Or, if there was something like a 480 volt service at a “mere 100 amps”, the infrastructure to handle that much power for just a customer convenience of ten minutes just is not at all financially feasible right now (nor likely ever).
And, I just don’t buy into the PBP.
It is too component-invasive.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:38 pm)Infrastructure? Huh?
Just require a Hot Tub hookup in the garage. Unlike a dryer hookup a hot tub would have a GFI… Just have the dealer put the cord in the trunk.
Are the people that sell hot tubs in the infrastructure business?
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:42 pm)Math errors happen. Just wanted to clarify.
Regarding what a 200 amp/240V circuit breaker looks like, you likely have a 200 amp service, if you home is newer than late 1990’s. So, just take a look at the one in your homes service panel.
I understand the safety concerns of dealing with high energy sources, but it is not insurmountable, related to developing a safe method to charge a car quickly.
Solutions to problems, are what engineers are good at. That’s why we have the Volt.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:42 pm)No, not at all.
I once looked at hot tubs, and the sellers will tell you that you must contract with a licensed electrician.
(Back to square one.)
(Quote)
-1
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:47 pm)It will be a gradual creep of the things you mention, by the time they arrive you wont find a new ICE car for sale in the USA.
300 mile batteries will means that very few 15 minute chargers will be needed.. and most of them on the highways.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:55 pm)Depends where you live. You would need to check with your local building inspector, and determine if you allowed to pull your own permit to install electrical.
I have added a second service panel and wired my “workshop” with a permit. I know some locations do not allow electrical work by unlicensed electricians. But, if you are willing to spend some time, read up on the electrical code, their is no reason not to do the work yourself. The inspector will be very picky, which they should be when they come to inspect your work.
If your not comfortable doing the job, or your local codes prevent you, then your back to hiring a licensed electrician (get your checkbook out!)
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (9:58 pm)Study hybrid history. We really struggled with the problems dealers contributed to. It was enthusiasts who were franticly applying bandaids. Prevention is strongly recommended.
I’ve been suggesting proactive education efforts… but that type of support from enthusiasts has failed to materialize.
It’s an uphill battle. Excellent results from engineers is far from enough.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:00 pm)Got it.
Thanks! I was just missing your point. Thanks for the clarification.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:17 pm)Those have 5 to 15 HP engines. Performance really would be like a lawnmower once the battery was discharged.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:21 pm)AMEN +1
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:26 pm)off topic, has anyone seen the pre-order on ebay for the chevy volt? some dealer is taking deposits already.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:50 pm)Yes, I put in a bid, then called the dealer. I think it is legit. Lyle warned me that it sounds kind of borderline. He is checking on it. Stay tuned. I certainly hope that it is OK.
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (10:53 pm)Also off topic, remember that Monday morning we find out the finalists in the color naming contest. I wonder what two other folks will join me on the list
(Quote)
Nov 15th, 2009 (11:40 pm)An infrastructure of fast charging stations would have to support a lot bigger battery than than the Volt. Specifically, I mentioned fast charging an SUV BEV-250 in 10 minutes. That would be the worst case for an electric fast-charge filling station, so that’s what the cables and connectors would be designed for.
So take your figure, and multiply by 6 to get up around 250 AER, then roughly double that to account for the inefficiency of an SUV compared to a compact car like the Volt.
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (12:07 am)Several posters have suggested that it is not feasible to build a “fast recharge” infrastructure. It has been suggested something larger than a 480 Volt 200 amp service would be required. But “if you run the numbers” it would take about 70 kwh of energy at 3.6 miles per kwh to go 252 miles. So how long would it take to replenish 70 kwh with a 480 Volt 3 phase 200 amp outlet? Less than 30 minutes, so a person could stop for a 30 minute lunch and go about 500 miles in a day.
In the 1950’s we had these drive-in places where you parked under a flat roof to provide shade and ate in your car. This would provide adequate weather protection to make up the charging connection and then energize it.
Behold the future!
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (12:29 am)BMW did not promise anything and asked that drivers have another car available. However in practice, everyone I know who has their Mini-E in for service both schedeled and unscheduled has been given a free loaner vehicle.
Cheers
Peder
(Quote)
+3
Nov 16th, 2009 (1:11 am)Does the Prius have an extremely vocal critical minority? Not that i know of, but probably.
The “oh yeah” moment comes when you realize…so does everything else in the world thats big and affects people like products or businesses.
IMHO it’ll be fine.
I read an article of an automotive tester who made it his goal to get the worst possible mileage out of a 2010 Prius. The worst he got, which included him flooring it off every light, slamming on the brakes, AC on full blast, radio loud all windows all the way down, all while repeatedly opening and closing the sunroof and adjusting the power seat. He got 28 MPG.
So the people who have issues with the Prius having crappy mileage are the incredible few who beat the living crap out of it and are probably somewhat unreasonable. The rest of the world and the rest of the Prius owners don’t care what they think.
As will be the story with the Volt IMHO. Magazines and regular people will try to get the lowest AER possible just to show. Who cares? The Volt owners will still shrug and say “it works for me”
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (2:06 am)Right RV, and we should develop blogs on the Volt nation community to share our experience …and hopefully like it seems it has been the case with gm-volt.com, induce a proper reaction by the conceptors and managers of the Volt (and its derivatives) programs.
Regards,
JC NPNS
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (2:28 am)Well to get an agreement between all parties,
My personal conclusion is that if the Volt had a swappable battery and Gm cooperates correctly with Better place (like Renault and Nissan are doing), to problem is solved.
My big current problem is twofold :
1. The Volt is my preference, but will I buy one with a battery that – I’m sure – will be obsolete practically the day I’ll get the car (this remembers me if the big frustration with our early personal computers) ?
I’ll not have this problem with a Renault ZOE or Fluence ZE, their swappable battery will be exchanged for a technologically more advanced one when needed.
2. The ZOE ZE is my other preference but it has no range-extender, even with its swappable battery, this is a problem because I do not know if by the end of 2012 the public infrastructure will allow me to go from Brussels to Barcelona (1,300 kms) or Vienna (1,000 kms) and return without problem (This what I do now with my little Opel Corsa or the Astra Station wagon from time to time ).
So the standards should converge, not only on “a common charging port architecture (J1772)” but also every agent should “encourage and develop public charging infrastructure”.
Regards, and thanks to Lyle for this post.
JC NPNS
(Quote)
+1
Nov 16th, 2009 (5:14 am)The battery in the Volt is swappable although not designed to be snapped in and out each week. Loaded from the underside and designed to last over 10 years at a minimum of 80% usable capacity.
Battery technology will drive forward. This will give the owner of the Volt the option to replace with a stock 40 mile battery. Or upgrade to a stronger battery. In 2019-2022 the original 40 mile Volt replacement battery should be priced low.
I personally feel much better spending $4000 on a battery than on 50 gallon drums full of oil.
=D~
(Quote)
+2
Nov 16th, 2009 (5:57 am)I agree. But it may be a looooooooong stopgap measure.
We need to build a quick charge infrastructure and give batteries much more range. These will take time.
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (7:50 am)I think also that GM, when they warn about infrastructure and “the grid” upgrades that are needed they are being very subtle and cagey, because fast charging for 250 mile BEV’s WOULD strain the electric distribution infrastructure, but Volt style vehicles will be pretty gentle to the grid. Also, here in Michigan the legislature is getting set to rule against allowing the building of new generating capacity. Go figure.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 16th, 2009 (8:07 am)I don’t think that the Volt battery ought to be described as “swappable”, because there are immediate consequences and risks likely. Introducing air into the pack cooling/warming system, weakening of all electrical and sensor connections, etc. Besides, for proprietary safety, all software likely would become erased. Then, you will have a non-covered situation regarding the warranty.
There are people every day who “go into business” who have no business putting up a sign. They damage peoples cars with the very best if intentions.
This is the main set of fallacies with the notion of battery swapping. It’s just not going to be a reliable thing to do.
Replacement of the pack for an adjustment of some sort within the warranty term once or even twice would not generally be with higher risk to the integrity of the cooling/warming system, the main power cable connection ends, and the sensor pigtail connectors, etc.
But PBP, if they are suggesting three or more “swaps”, (God only knows what you would be getting, and, where your very highly proprietary Volt battery pack would be going), you begin to get the idea of the possibility that the Volt owner could easily become ripped off. GM could also get ripped off proprietarily, all because PBP has already garnered an undeserved enthusiasm here and elsewhere.
We are not changing out “D” cells in a flash light!!! PBP would have you believe otherwise.
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (8:31 am)Color naming contest finalist announced!
Winners are:
Viridian Joule, submitted by David Thomas of Sanford, Fla.
environMINT, submitted by Matthew Valbuena of Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.
EV-ergreen, submitted by Devin McQuarrie of San Jose, Calif.
While I’m sure that it is just a misunderstanding that my name is not listed, these names are pretty good! Time to vote. BTW, do you suppose GM is purposely saving money on travel expenses by picking only California entrants?
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (8:42 am)Sorry, just noticed the Florida entrant. My bad.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 16th, 2009 (8:53 am)I have to agree with post #1 RB in that if GM wants a solid customer base they should make the Volt available to the people who have been steadfastly enthusiastic and supportive since 2007, that being the GM-volt.com bloggers, contributors and enthusiasts. It is we who will help sell this car to others. Word of mouth is more powerful than all the money spent on advertising.
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (9:47 am)The BEV is going to turn out to be one of those simple, elegant ideas whose actual implementation is impractically complex. The solution to widespread adoption of BEVs is infrastructure, infrastructure infrastructure.
Nor does that infrastructure have to consist of fast-charge “stations.” Imagine being able to charge a car at more normal rates wherever you park, when the vehicle is stopped for extended periods anyway. I think we visualize the fast charge station as a direct replacement for the paradigm of the gasoline filling station … a paradigm whose day may be about to pass.
EREVs are a more complex idea, but much simpler to implement; and I think this truth will dawn on most BEV makers eventually.
The real question is this: will the ‘charge where you park’ infrastructure be installed to top up EREVs sooner, or later? If the EREV and PHEV market takes off, it will happen sometime. When this infrastructure begins to get widespread, you may then see BEVs become a practical option for many drivers … but not before. Even at that, you won’t see many of them on the Interstate between cities. Liquid fuel may become “occasional use,” but it’s not going away anytime soon — though you may one day have to drive to the nearest Interstate to buy some, on a semi-monthly basis
The EREV is not a half-measure, it will persist for a very great many years barring some major and unforseen development.
There’s already a new thread, so who cares what I think?
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (1:45 pm)Have you guys heard about the experimental fluid electrolyte exchange battery they’re developing in Germany? It’s only on a small scale right now…but the principle is, a pump would exchange the electrolytic fluid in the battery in about the same time it would take to fill a conventional gas tank, and you’d have a full charge in just a few minutes.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10394416-48.html?tag=mncol
Pretty cool if it could be scaled up to full-size cars.
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (1:47 pm)Which seems more likely to happen (in the near term) develop an EREV or ‘expanding the public charging infrastructure’? Hint: this is not difficult.
EREV really is a great idea. Batteries will get better/cheaper (the new and improved Volt – 80 miles of electric range—I know they said they won’t do this, but they will. Until at some point it will be all-electric. Nothing to get excited about. GM is in a great place I think.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 16th, 2009 (3:46 pm)yeah…good in theory until some situation arises where your ER part is 52.6 miles from you back at home in the garage, which you figured you didn’t need as the car was charging all night, but you didn’t check the gauge before leaving, and a breaker had tripped leaving only 53 miles in your 120 mile AER BEV…
(Quote)
Nov 16th, 2009 (7:22 pm)Why on earth this guy thinks that range problems will be solved by public recharge facilities remains a mystery.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:11 am)Number of battery cycles may be is more important than electric range. 40 miles AER would be enaugh with unlimites number of cycles and $4000 battery pack price with capacitor.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:30 am)Solution to 10 min charging, Charge them in parallel — multiple plugs.
You want to charge sub-packs anyways. 10 plugs should do nicely.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:47 am)The industry is still working on a “automotive” battery. Any statements against the feasability of swappable vs fast charging vs (yours) should be
delayed. Unless you like being proven wrong.
I do not think anyone knows at this point. Lets try everything, Winner Take All. I do not want to run into incompatibly issues like with my inkjet.
As long as there is 1 WINNER like gasoline! (oh, does diesel count as gas?) ok, 2 closely related winners for simplicity.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (4:56 pm)I like the idea from a technical perspective – always having a spare battery at home charged up and ready to go – but I’d be concerned with the cost of the extra battery and the packaging hardware to make it easily swappable. With today’s technology, I still think the ICE / Generator and supporting hardware is cheaper and more convenient (i.e., gas stations everywhere).
However, as battery costs come down and charging stations spring up, EREV will have served its purpose as a bridge technology.
(Quote)