Though Audi President Johan de Nysschen famously went on record calling the Volt “a car for idiots,” apparenly the allure of the EREV was just too compelling. The German automaker has pulled a complete 180 and has just unveiled an interesting extended range electric car concept of its own that shares surprising similarites to the Volt.
Based on the compact A1 platform, the Audi A1 e-tron is a 4 seat 2-door premium class vehicle that always drives by way of its 75 kw (102 hp) peak, 45 kw (61 hp) continuous electric motor.
It contains a “T-shaped” 12 kwh lithium ion battery pack that contains enough energy for 31 miles of all electric range. After that, an on-board range extender kicks in to produce electricity for continued driving.
Audi is using a very small 254 cc single rotor Wankel engine for electricity production, running at a constant 5000 rpm for peak efficiency. They have included a tiny 3.17 gallon gas tank and the option for drivers to manually switch the generator on and off as desired. GPS is also used to determine from the route and destination whether to activate the generator which can output 15 kw of power.
Audi notes its use of the tiny engine generator and gas tank along with the required power electronics, thermal management and exhaust only weigh 154 pounds collectively. The small single RPM generator operates nearly silently and vibration free. ”The Wankel engine in the back can barely be heard when it is running,” Audi states. A brake by wire system is employed and recaptures kinetic energy when slowing.
The 2600 pound car can do 0 to 60 in 10 seconds and has a top speed of 80 mph. Total range with a full tank of gas after the battery is depleted is an additional 124 miles. Audi reports this translates to 123 mpg combining the two modes using the current draft standard for EREV fuel economy.
The car can be recharged in 3 hours at 380 Volts.
Lighter and slower than the Volt, with less electric and total driving ranges, the A1 e-tron is specifically suited to the big or “mega” city environments.
Source (Audi)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010 at 12:01 am and is filed under Competitors, E-REV. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+4
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:14 am)A bit small for NA but it might work well in Europe. Glad Audi has seen the light!
+9
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:29 am)Audi validates the EREV solution that GM invented for the VOLT. Do we know more about the Wankel genset?
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:43 am)The revolution is on the way!
Just as a note for people: 380V is available in Europe in larger homes. It is the phase to phase voltage at 220V to ground.
+26
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:54 am)Without a doubt this is the best styled small EREV (or BEV) to date, other than the Volt & the Ampera —and a far superior design to the incredibly ugly Nissan Leaf! BRAVO, AUDI!!!
-7
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:56 am)The press release was obviously written by a non engineer.
The car has a 31.07 mile range and a 3.12 gallon tank with a 330.69 lb pack and a 154.32 lb engine with a total weight of 2623.5 lbs.
Every hear of rounding to significant digits folks? Good job at removing the nonsensical digits Lyle.
+7
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:30 am)This is exciting news. They’ve taken a somewhat lower-tech approach with the manual ICE start/stop… but are using a more interesting generator technology.
I hope that translates into lower cost so more people can afford a practical electric vehicle. Such a close copy of the Volt concept shows how very much ‘on track’ GM is with their design.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:52 am)What is the efficiency of a Wankel (rotary) engine compared to a regular 4-cycle Otto ICE?
+9
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:51 am)It is always less than a conventional engine. At idle it is a lot less but at load it is closer.
In an EREV, the engine is cargo most of the time. The weight savings of the engine when it isn’t being used may outweigh the loss in efficiency.
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:59 am)“What is the efficiency of a Wankel (rotary) engine compared to a regular 4-cycle Otto ICE? ”
Well, you could start by looking at the fuel efficiency of the Mazda RX-7 and RX-8… not so good. At the same time, if it’s at a constant RPM (the rotary needs higher RPM to produce power) it might not be too bad. I can’t in good conscience compare the generator engine Audi is using the the ones used by Mazda. It could be as bad as saying every 4-cylinder gets the same mpg. There would be no way of answering this question without getting all the specs on the engine. Or I guess if I wanted to dig out the calculator I could figure the efficiency based on the range after battery only range then determine that figure given the total claimed distance and tiny fuel tank. But even that has some margin of error.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:05 am)Thank you Matthew and FRAG for clarification on Wankel engines. A few more historic details:
Felix Wankel invented the rotary engine in 1954 while working for NSU (Audi’s sister company, under the Auto Union car company). In 1964 NSU launched the model Prinz with the first Wankel engine.
Eugene
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:44 am)May be the rotary type internal combustion engine and generator was engineered by AVL Graz?
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:30 am)Neat little genset.. note that wankel durability, oil consumption and gas economy has improved a lot from the original ones. Efficiency can be quite good. Double it up in size (two rotors) and it may be a good choice for the Volt.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:47 am)Germany has a 380 volt grid?
It’s interesting that they give both a peak and the continuous rating for the electric motor. I don’t think we’ve ever been told what the continuous rating for the Volt’s motor is, as I assume the 110+ kW output can’t be sustained indefinitely.
-1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:49 am)Perfect car.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:50 am)Europe has 380 V grid (3 phase).
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:52 am)If Audi can price this car right it should be a solid winner for them. The typical 8 cylinder Audi will be selling in much lower volume as the years push forward. This gives Audi engineering time to rework the A1 e-tron with advanced battery technology. I like this plan.
=D-Volt
+6
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:44 am)Johan de Nysschen must have known nothing about this concept car. Amazing how the president of US ops is so far removed from where mother Audi is looking to take the company. Pretty sweet little commuter car. No volt but I’d take it over the leaf. Seems like a lot of “borrowing” from the volt design.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:45 am)Hi Greg,
In Western Europe we have the possibility to ask the electric distribution company to install a 380V output for high power appliances. My old kitchen cooker was plugged in a 380V plug that I’ll use (after having extended the line) in my garage for my future EV ou EREV.
Best regards,
JC NPNS
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:47 am)Hi Dave, and this car is made in Brussels (the capital of my country) in the old VW car building facility that Audi has revamped for the A1.
Regards,
JC NPNS
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:48 am)looks like a rip off of fiat 500
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:18 am)Exactly! The less one uses the range extender the more advantage a lighter genset gains.
The NVH development savings along with improved packaging etc make it a very enticing choice.
-4
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:24 am)Spell check
“vehilce”
+7
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:37 am)One small nit-pick. I don’t think “a car for idiots” should be in quotes. I don’t think that is precisely what he said. In discussing the price, Mr De Nysschen said that at that price they would soon run out of idiots.
Granted, this implies “a car for idiots” but I don’t think that is what he said.
Of course, given the price of Audi cars in the USA, all Audi drivers are idiots according the Mr. De Nysschen’s logic.
John C. Briggs
+5
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:39 am)This thing has a tiny engine/generator. I like it. It surely won’t keep up with the Volt going up pikes peak with 4 – 220 Lb adults in the car but it does make for a lighter vehicle. 99% of the time, this engine should provide enough power on average to keep the car going at an adequate speed.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:42 am)Given that the Wankel is run at a constant RPM it proably takes advantage of a highly tuned exhast and intake – in that case its’ efficency is likely higher that a standard ICE running at variable RPMs.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:48 am)Rob posted a link to an article yesterday about the Audi and it’s sister vehicle. From yesterday -
Rob: Check out this one – it is better news than Cadi. It looks like the reception of Volt by the public will determine future development of the industry. What I was saying all along – it is new technology; if people adopt it in five years nobody in industrialized world will want to buy “traditional” internal combustion cars. (no halo effect!) http://rumors.automobilemag.com/6647271/green/geneva-2010-audi-a1-e-tron-and-a8-hybrid-details-photos-revealed/index.html
Tagamet: Wow, thanks for that link. By *my* reading of the article, it really shows how far ahead the Volt is! Both Audi’s looked vastly inferior, and they were still concept cars (though described as “near production level”). I chuckled when I read the range of the smaller version, after all the hubbub yesterday about the Volt’s range (Hint: the small Audi had a 3 gallon gas tank!). Even the “better” model (larger) only ran in all-electric mode up to 40 mph – then the genset kicked in to help out. The one feature I’d “steal” for the Volt is the button that manually allowed the driver to kick in the additional ICE power at will.
Nice to see them refer to the Volt as a measure of success – if the Volt does well, they’ll think about producing the Audi’s.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:48 am)I think that my ideal car could be this one but with a 60 mile AER. I understand why the range extender in the Volt is the size it is, but have always felt that a higher AER at the expense of a smaller range extender made sense. The driving factor here, of course, is the cost of the battery. Hence the design decision made by the GM Volt team. I like the way these people think!
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:51 am)“Based on the compact A1 platform, the Audi A1 e-tron is a 4 seat 2-door premium class vehilce”…
Based on that statement, I wouldn’t expect to see this as an entry level priced car.
Should we start the guessing game for pricing?
OK, I’ll start:
I think it will be priced higher than the Volt, so I’ll say $45K in the USA.
So what do you think?
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:58 am)I’m sure the Volt has many patents and if any company infringes on them, they will have to pay GM.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:01 am)With it being Audi I would have thought that it would have been a tiny diesel engine and not gasoline.
The limitations of this car don’t fit well for the typical NA family’s primary car but it looks like an excellent fit for a secondary car (i.e. “dad’s” commuter car not “mom’s” grocery getter and long trip vehicle).
So a GM Volt for mom and an Audio A1 e-tron for dad.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:03 am)Another concept car with no production date…
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:03 am)I think in a few years EVERY car manufacturer will have an extended range electric car. GM I think responded very well to the “Who killed the electric car” doc, especially the end of the doc that shows that batteries have ALREADY come a long way in the Plugin Prius that was shown.
Great news for car fuel efficiency – the electric car (with a tiny backup engine) is the best way to go! The pure petrol car is going to look like a fuel hungry f***** dinosaurs when these come out!!! I’m curious which one is allowed to collect the X prize for having a 100mpg car on the road?
I’m sure they’re all going to be very very big hits.
I’m also still curious why nobody has used a Smart car 0.7? 60mpg litre engine as their generator… or a small diesel engine… maybe that’ll be the next announcement?
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:04 am)VOLT-LITE.
I like it.
Wonder what the price point will be.
You would think less than VOLT.
And then deduct the $7,500 in Fed credits.
But at this point, prices being similar, I would tend to trust VOLT because of all GM’s research and testing. Plus VOLT will probably get twice the gas mileage.
But a very good idea, with a definite appeal for urbanites.
And I bet the average driver in Europe travels less than 40 miles per day so it could work really well over there.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:05 am)Odd that we are getting negative news from GM and positive news from other companies lately. BTW, the Hamtramck Volt line is supposed to start up this month. I’m guessing that they are working feverishly right now to get things ready to actually build vehicles. Anybody know any details?
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:05 am)Leave it to the Germans to come up with an interesting and different design. Someone else also mentioned that the range extender should be smaller and lighter than the volt’s and I agree.
I especially like the button for the range extender. That would work for me as my first leg of my commute is a 2500′ rise and 37 miles distance. I would like the option to run the ICE on the first leg of the trip. I would get better round trip mileage then if it runs down hill on the way home as the ICE would running at full load and lower SFC part of the engine map.
I also wish GM would give us better flexibility on battery usage. Tesla does that, with 2 or three different modes that effect the max power you can draw but most notably the % amount of the pack you can use. GM to be conservative has opted with a constant 50%.
This option could easily be accomplished to GM’s satisfaction by including an Algorithm in the software that would adjust the battery pack warranty…..So with judicious use the owner could squeeze a little more out of the pack when needed.
+4
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:07 am)That’s what I call a “Smart Car”.
I hope it has a “Smart Price”.
NPNS!
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:09 am)An excellent idea to use that small Wankel at fixed RPM.
Now….double the energy density of that battery pack (for 100 km EV range) and you have a car that people will line up to buy. 50 km of EV range is just not enough for consumers (research shows).
For a first attempt though, this has a LOT OF THINGS RIGHT. I’ve said this many times here before….in the Volt, I have no need for a car with a 105 MPH top end. 80 MPH will suite me well.
2600 lbs ? ….. Great ! …. Unbelievable !
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:17 am)Audi makes some of the nicest looking cars and IMHO this is much nicer looking than the Volt. I also wish the Volt was offered as a hatchback. But even with all that I would buy the Volt just to reward a forward thinking company.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:21 am)These are all things that have been discussed and suggested on this site, including the use of Wankel.
+9
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:24 am)This implies that the gas engine is designed to charge the battery significantly, which has 2 problems:
1) more charging and discharging decreases battery life.
2) it lowers efficiency through additional electrical->chemical->electrical conversion.
By contrast, the Volt software tries to match gas engine output to the needs of the electric motor. So most of electricity produced by the ICE generator bypasses the battery and goes directly to the motor, which essentially eliminates the 2 issues above. In extended range mode, the Volt’s battery only comes into play for hard acceleration or fast uphill driving, as shown here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg
+13
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:28 am)I’ll be the happiest idiot you ever saw in my American made Chevrolet Volt. Especially if I ever get the chance to pass an Audi A-1 on the Autobahn.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:36 am)Pardon me sir!
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:37 am)I believe this vehicle is in response to the Ampera.
Opel is touting the Ampera as the only car a family will need, as it can scoot around electrically in urban situations, yet still drive 600 km from Germany to Geneva (as recently demonstrated on its drive to the Geneva Auto Show).
I think this is key, because many families in Europe cannot afford to be multi-car households. So the all-purpose single car solution will be a greater selling point in areas where it is too expensive to own both a conventional car and a BEV.
Regarding the Wankel engine, although they are compact and smooth at higher rpm, they don’t offer the efficiency of a conventional ICE. Note that the extended range for this car is 124.27 miles (and not a one-hundredth more) on 3.17 gallons of gas. This equates to approximately 39.2019 mpg in CS mode, Mr. Spock.
Another interesting note is the battery pack. It uses 96 prismatic cells, where the Volt uses 288, or exactly 3 times as many. They must have larger cells, however, as these 96 cells hold 12 kWh of energy. I don’t know how much of this energy they use, but for charging, the Volt can recharge 8 kWh in 3 hours at 240 V. The e-tron needs 3 hours at 380 V, and only has 31.07 miles of AER.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:40 am)FYI – Schematics on the e-tron are here:
http://www.4wheelsnews.com/wp-content/plugins/gallery/gallery.php/6919/1/17/
Not sure where the spare wheel is kept!
-3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:40 am)Half the article is about the Wankel. So we are not supposed to discuss that?? Are you the moderator? Are you Texas!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:53 am)I do not think this car is perfect, but it does point toward some possible improvements in the EREV concept. Assuming 70% battery utilization, it gets about 3.7 miles per kwh, and then gets about 41 MPG in CS mode. I think an overall range of 400 miles should be a design goal for EREV’s so the gas tank should be about 10 gallons in size.
On the other hand, the weight seems a little light, perhaps a little larger electric motor and gen-set might give it a zero to 60 number near 8.5.
Final observation, if they are using 70%, then they are using 8.4 or very near the same kwh utilization as the Volt, with a lighter car and only claiming 31 miles. This either means they are actually using less than 70%, or the Volt’s AER may be around 30 as well in the real world.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:06 am)As a VW TDI driver, I like this car as well as the diesel genset idea. However, as mentioned by Matthew B @ 8, the genset in an EREV is usually dead weight, and the added weight of the diesel vs. a normal gas engine, especially a Wankel, might not be enough gain to make a difference. Just a thought. Although, with the high torque of a diesel, you’d think you could probably run a diesel genset at about 1200 rpm and get some great mileage out of it…only downsides are the weight and the noise.
+5
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:07 am)I just took the “we talked about those here” comment as praise for the site as a “Brain Trust” – not that they couldn’t be discussed again…. JMO
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:31 am)Speaking of the Ampera and Geneva, there are press conference and interviews posted on the Opel Behind the scenes blog today. http://opel.posterous.com/ There is a clip from the guy who drove the Ampera to Geneva, about 1:38 minutes (hey, I left out some decimals
).
Good Morning Tag. I’m in PA, “just down the road.”
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:51 am)“we can cut the cost of manufacturing a battery by 75 percent while creating efficiency and storage-capacity improvements two or three times greater than conventional processes, most notably those involving lithium-ion.” —Scott Faris, president and CEO of Planar Energy
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/03/planar-20100301.html#more
More vaporware?
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:57 am)I hope they build it. The more choices for electrification the better. I like the lighter weight with the smaller generator. A Volkswagon version would be nice for us common folk.
Looks like my push for charging stations at my wife’s work may happen. It’s good for us to plant those seeds for all the plug ins coming.
-2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:57 am)Interesing. Audi does make one hell of a good vehicle.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (9:58 am)Small is beautiful, and KISS. 80 mph is adequate. Range could be improved a bit. DaveG’s, # 40, comments notwithstanding, Isn’t this just the “simple ev with genset trailer” concept, minus the external trailer, always a great idea for the green commuter? thanks
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:08 am)Herm…
Actually to equal the Volt’s genset you would require 3.5333333 rotors!
(53kw/15kw=3.5333333 rotors)
I’m teasing a bit but you bring up a good point about the scalability of the Wankel design, just add another rotor for more power.
The efficiency of the this particular engine is an unknown of course, but the track record for the Wankel is frankly not very good.
The RX-7 was a great car to drive but it was pretty thirsty.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:09 am)I wonder which mode they will run the engine in? They could either produce only one power output and cycle the engine on and off or they could turn the power down some to match demand when on the highway.
Cycling the engine would be a detriment to battery life since it would be cycling the battery whenever in range extend mode. It also may not be the most efficient because of charging losses.
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:10 am)George,
Relax. My intent was not to shut you down. I was just pointing out these ideas have been discussed here for some time. Like Tagamet alluded, I was patting the commenters here on the back. It’s nice to see someone implementing these ideas but they are unigue to German thinking IMO.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:16 am)This is going to be a really expensive small commuter.
Audi is always too expensive, this one will be even more so.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:18 am)It seems George woke up on the wrong side of the bed…
I hate it when that happens!
Have a better day George!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:19 am)No permission to edit??? Anywho, “It’s nice to see someone implementing these ideas but they are unigue to German thinking IMO” should be:
It’s nice to see someone implementing these ideas but they aren’t unique to German thinking IMO.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:20 am)OT: Hey Michael! Welcome to the Great Commonwealth of PA! I’ll be “in-and-out” today, so drop me an email when you know your schedule and we’ll see if we can match them up!
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:33 am)The use of the wankel rotary would seem to be the ideal application for supplying motion to a generator. Mazda uses it in the RX models as a alternative to a piston engine. The torque curve and power band of the rotary with a fixed rpm, package size & weight is right on.
Give the Audi guys credit.
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:34 am)That range is way to small for an American car. 39 MPG in extended mode for an EREV 2600
pound car is just plain crappy. But then, Wankel engines have never been known for fuel economy. Strange (stupid?) choice for a range extender. Their changes to the basic Volt architecture don’t seem to make any sense. And whoever heard of a 3 gallon gas tank? I predict
that that will change.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:39 am)So far, all I can find on the company is either by the company itself, or “vested interests” – like the State of Florida that wants a factory built there. Personally, I’d want to hear a lot more from disinterested parties. Anyone else know more?
Be well,
Tagamet
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:44 am)I always feel blessed when I wake up *IN* a bed! (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:47 am)Those numbers would be from the European drive cycle, right? The identical Prius gets about 10% better MPG in the UK than it does in the US so I’m assuming the range in NA would be about 10% less than what would be the claim in Europe and that the MPG would be around 32 rather than 39.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:49 am)Now this is the way to go! Tiny little generator, not big huge engine.
Check out nextbigfuture.com article about Planer Energy’s solid state batteries.
Too bad it’s made by vw after my daughters 1999 jetta the entire neighborhood has sworn off vw forever.
-5
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:52 am)Will the e-tron be less than the Volt?
1. Less weight (1300 lbs lighter)
2. Less expensive
3. Less complicated
4. Less maintenance
5. Less NVH
6. Less emmissions
7. Less fuel consumption
8. Less electron consumption
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:58 am)Interesting news and I am curious to see how it will play out. GM has an advantage here. I suspect that in the last couple of years during the development of the Volt program GM has secured Intellectual Property rights (patents) on their technology. If I had to guess, the patents probably focus on the interaction between the electric motor/gas engine which is were GM has developed a lot of expertise.
Audi and others to follow may very well walk right into a patent minefield.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:16 am)You know what they say about the Wankel…its not the size its how you use it
Audi does make some nice looking cars nowadays. I like how they are keeping things simple with this concept but it would need to also be priced that way, something I’m not so sure about with Audi.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:19 am)I am glad to see this. Small engine at a constant speed. I still think this is the way to go.
Take Care
Arch
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:20 am)I realize this car is only an exercise in “viewgraph engineering” at this point, but did anyone else notice that the 45 kw (61 hp) electric motor is being fed by a 15 kw (20 hp) generator in CS mode? My ’64 Beetle only had 40 hp (on a good day), but 20 sounds pretty minimal. It seems like you might end up parking for a rest while the generator recharges the batteries a bit. The good news is that a Wankel is very small and light for its power, hopefully all of the seal problems have been worked out. As an aside, I have a couple of the OS model airplane wankels and have flown one of them, very unique and small for their power output (and thirsty).
As I mentioned in a past post, perhaps a generator like this is intended as more of an “emergency backup” to get you home, rather than something you’d use all the time, as with the Volt. Getting home at 30 mph still beats walking.
As far as GM inventing the serial hybrid concept, Ferdinand Porsche might have something to say about that if he were still alive. The Germans even fielded a gas generator + electric motor tank (Ferdinand/Elefant), although it’s not clear whether or not it used a battery as a buffer between the two. I’m sure GM has some patents on the more “high tech” aspects of the design though.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:25 am)Love the stylin’ hatchback — finally a puppy friendly vehicle! But a 3 gallon gas tank? 124 mile range = going to the gas station all the time. Put an 8 gallon gas tank in there and it looks like a winner to me. Also, not sure about trying to retrofit a traditional ICE with a different propulsion system — seems klugy. EREV is such a departure that it seems like the only way to do it right is to design it from the ground up.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:34 am)How can a 15-kW generator produce enough electricity to run a 45-kW motor?
What am I missing?
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:45 am)The battery can provide additional power. That’s one of the beauties of the EREV.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:46 am)Traditionally, Wankel engines have three drawbacks:
*Not fuel efficient
*Not flexible (need high RPM to produce proper power)
*Very vibration prone
and one enormous benefit:
*high power density by mass
In other words, there’s one reason why this engine is being used: it weighs a lot less.
The Chevy Volt designers decided to size their ICE very large in order to make the car more powerful and to baby the battery pack. That may or may not have been a good idea. This concept is a bet by Audi that the battery pack can take a constant RPM input without damage and that weight trumps performance when it comes to the ICE.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:46 am)Good morning Tagamet. I thought that the sport mode pushbutton did exactly this for passing.
Audi’s A1 vindicates the Volt. They definitely have designed an EREV for European cities.
Happy trails to you ’til we met again.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:54 am)http://www.articleant.com/gen/13571-audi-a1-e-tron—–electric-driving-in-the-city.html
Take Care
Arch
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (11:56 am)The thing I love is the beauty of the EREV design becoming attractive to the same folks that were making fun of it just a few months ago. All great ideas are usually ridiculed by the “experts” for a while and then they jump on the bandwagon without missing a beat.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:02 pm)The sport mode button simply increases the maximum amount of power available to the motor. The power would ordinarily come from the battery pack. It doesn’t kick on the ICE directly. It would only do this by say, depleting the battery sooner than usual. But this would not be at the direction of the driver.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:04 pm)I like it too. Mostly because of the Wankel and small genset. Light weight EVs will definitely find a home in the U.S. with the vast boomer population consisting of two person homes. While Volt fills the family car category well, a small, essentially two person vehicle will find legs with boomers.
It’s a little odd to go with a 3.1 gallon fuel tank. If the genset can run on pure E85, or better a water/alcohol blend (some can run at 50/50) there is little environmental reason for a tiny fuel tank. People should not be discouraged from running in charge sustain mode if the efficiencies are okay and the fuel is non-fossil. Better to run on a clean renewable fuel than gasoline; better to run pure EV than ER-EV.
Welcome to the automobile future Audi!
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:07 pm)Audi uses the genset FEV proposed back in 2009 and it looks like this…
It uses the Wankel Rotary Engine from woelfle-engineering and was developed for Kart racing. I have read some karting forums that have tuned it to 70+ HP. Here’s the engine….
Home Page: http://www.woelfle-engineering.com/
The Generator is a UQM PowerPhase75
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:11 pm)I think Koz mention this so that you could go back and read the articles.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:12 pm)You are not missing anything.
This pretty little Audi will NOT be highway trip capable.
It would certainly be better and safer than a BEV but not as functional as a Volt.
As pointed out above it would get home on it’s genset if the battery runs down but obviously with dramatically reduced performance.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:12 pm)Likely an idea not getting past legal or risk management vetting for OEM’s. May also look a lot bait and switch under most state codes. Much better to engineer solid results as predictably as possible than switching around the applicable warranty paragraphs on the fly.
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:15 pm)It just seems to me, based on the stated specs, that this car is already obsoleted by the Volt. The only possible ace up its sleeve would be price and I doubt they will sell it for less than 40k.
-1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:16 pm)Anyone else having probs posting?
Test……
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:16 pm)#5
Speaking as an engineer for a moment, I’ll give you a +1 for that. Not enough to get you “back on the island”, but it’s the best I can do.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:18 pm)Can you plug in at work? That would give you a huge milage increase.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:18 pm)Two reasons Audi chose the Wankel engine:
1) They manufacture it.
2) It is a light engine which in part allowed them to keep the weight around 2600 lbs.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+3
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:19 pm)Yup, what you said. All they did was put the genset trailer under the hood. The genset is just for emergency IMHO. That’s indicative of the 3 gallon tank.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:20 pm)I can’t see how charging at work during the day is going to be a good idea as all the electric cos. are trying to take load off the grid during the day. They pay to be able to turn off your AC during the day and push any use during the day to the evening. EV’s are best charged at nite so they use the unused grid power and make them more efficient at that time of day.
Roy
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:26 pm)…though it does fit well with Audi’s position on smaller and lighter. If it’s a city car going 50 km daily, losing the 10 gallon tank that just adds weight without being used for 95% of the time, fits well with the philosophy of a lightweight efficient city hauler / commuter. How many European city dwellers would Audi predict would really need to go more than 250 km a day? How many would stay under 50 km and never use gas or E85? I would think they would be a big chunk of the market, and no car will be designed for every need.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:31 pm)This is typical for an EREV (a.k.a series hybrid).
Remember that average power requirements are much less than peak power. For example, the smaller lighter Audi can probably go 65 MPH on level ground with only 15kW. If you need to accelerate, then the reserve battery power can supply the 45kW motor for a short period of time. As you slow back down, you’re using less than 15kW, so the ICE genset can recharge the battery back to the reserve point.
Note that the Volt has a 53kW (75hp) gas engine paired with a 110kW (150hp) electric motor.
Of course, if you constantly drive like a maniac, accelerating and braking hard all the time, then eventually you may run out of battery reserve, and your peak power will decrease until the battery can be recharged.
More details here:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenu6hr/ebay_pictures/Volt_Electrical_Block_Diagram.jpg
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:31 pm)Huh? Not trying to pick a fight here, but Wankels are well known for their smoothness. Even the little single-rotor model one I have is far smoother than the equivalent piston motor.
From the Edmunds RX-8 review:
“comfortable ride, smooth rotary engine, ”
“along with the uncannily smooth power delivery and jet-enginelike sound”
“If you like a smooth engine (in feel, sound and power delivery), there’s none smoother.”
Wankels have their issues, but I don’t think vibration is one of them.
With only 20 hp on tap I suspect the recommended technique for this vehicle would be to pull over and let the battery recharge a bit, assuming it was “empty” (i.e. at its lowest-permitted level).
Even if this vehicle becomes reality I doubt we’ll ever see it here in the US anyway…
Mar 3rd, 2010 (12:57 pm)lol…. gave you a +1
The only disadvantages I can think of…
The Seals for the rotor.
Emissions.
and a big MAYBE, efficiency.
Here’s another Wankel Genset….
Home Page: http://rotaryengines.ca/main/genset.htm
And here’s the XR50 Kart engine in action. Tuned to 50HP for the track…..
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/207768/aixro_xr50_50hp_rotary_karting_engine_test/
50HP * .7456 (1HP) = 37.28KW of power
That’s more than enough to maintain 50-60MPH.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:00 pm)Audi A1 ER EV is an adaptation where VOLT is designed specifically as an ER EV. What a dramatic difference in engineering priorities. A number of posters note a 45 kw motor driven from a 15 kw genny. Audi needs to explain this. However, Audi ER ICE features manual turn-on op. A feature a lot of us have strongly lobbied for. This Wankel is really really small. (Rotary’s specs are not easily measured at any size) But nonetheless range is scalable to VOLT. Its 3 gal. tank good for 124 miles giving a range of 155 miles. If it carried an 9 gal tank arguably 372 ER miles + 31 BEV miles for a hypothetically 400 miles range. Meaning VOLT Leadership must pay attention. There’s also a troublesome point. Wankel’s are designed to burn oil. Audi will have to tell us about that as well.
-15
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:09 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:11 pm)I think with a car this light it may not require too much energy. I see the genset as more of an emergency thing to be used. Kind of like a “limp home” if you will.
I only say that because with a 3gallon tank, it’s not expected to go very far. It is just an urban city commuter.
But whats to stop you from bringing a 5 gallon tank onboard or in the trunk?
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:11 pm)15 KW is plenty of power to push this car down a level highway at 65 MPH.
+5
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:21 pm)#41
Amen! Me too. +1
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:21 pm)Wouldn’t it be nice to have a Telsa sedan with this range extender???
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:28 pm)Dude, their both EREV Hybrids. One can say the same thing about the Volt. How can the volts genset that delivers 75KW drive the ~111KW motor?
They will both pull energy from both sources, the batt pack AND the genset, blended, like a Margarita.
I have a better idea, why not ask the engineers at Mazda on the rotary design. They’ve had rotary on the roads for quite some time and pass the CA smog tests. I am pretty sure Audi will not be building the rotary engines. I think the issues with the older legacy 12a engines are the ones you are referring to, but you are right, they do burn oil “by design” but they also pass the CA smog so something is done right somewhere. My nephew has 2 RX-7′s
That said, I bet the genset MPG will be ~34mpg. Just a SWAG though but if you take 124/3.1, you get 40MPG. But yeah right, since when do you ever get the theoretical.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:29 pm)#54
Right. GM had rights to the Wankel back in the ’60s. They even built a mid-engined, Wankel powered, Corvette prototype, the Aerovette if memory serves, which was totally cool but still born like so many other “concepts”. They finally gave up on the Wankel because of the tip seal problems, poor fuel economy, and related emissions problems, again if memory serves. There are reasons why the Wankel never caught on, despite its initial promise.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:32 pm)#64
LOL. +1 Actually, I always feel blessed when I wake up at all.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:43 pm)#99
Yeah, or on the trailer, LOL. I dunno about you, but I’m not driving around with a stinking can of flammable gas in the back of my hatchback.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:44 pm)I wonder if the Wankel is a red-herring or a way differentiate from the crowd of show vehicles. A tiny turbo diesel extender would make a formidable contender to the current Otto Volt. It could be a good marketing point if you can advertise great fuel economy in extended range mode, even if most people won’t use the car like that.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:46 pm)Ever price one out? A rotary engine that is.
The one I mention above cost friggin $4,500.00.
Sheeesh. Talk about “who killed the rotary engine”…. lol
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:48 pm)Audi?: ………10-88
Johan de Nysschen?…….”Stupid is as stupid does.” – Forrest Gump
LJGTVWOTR!! NMST!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:53 pm)DonC, I knew that it doesn’t kick in the ICE. My comment is that the Volt already has a means of increasing power to pass by activating the sport mode. The Volt manages that problem far better than kicking on the ICE to pass. The battery pack was designed with this feature in mind.
Read Lyle’s report on his test drive of the Volt. He said ” Sport mode delivered noticeably more intense acceleration”.
http://gm-volt.com/2009/12/01/gm-volt-chevy-volt-test-drive-in-extended-range-mode/
I found it refreshing to go back and re-read this article.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:54 pm)People do it all the time. Ever see those Jeeps with a big red “Jerry can” strapped to the back of them? And their exposed!
http://www.shrockworks.com/files/products/d_782.jpg
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:54 pm)I don’t know about a turbo, but, a diesel would have greater torque for it’s displacement. The problem with a diesel is weight. Add a turbo and plumbing and it’d be a bunch more than a rotory.
Remember, this is a show vehicle. It took GM from Jan 2007 (and a little before to prepare it) to November 2010 to get from here to done. If Audi has this in production by 2013, I’d be very surprised.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (1:55 pm)#107
If you remember, Mazda used to put them in grocery getter sedans back in the beginning, but they finally gave up. My neighbor used to have an RX2. What a fun pocket rocket, but it went through the tip seals about every 20K miles, LOL. He finally dumped it, although it broke his heart.
Who knows, maybe they’ve got them developed up to where they would work for this application. After all, the Germans have been fiddling with them for 40+ years. Kryptonite or Unobtanium tip seals, LMAO. Maybe I’m just showing my anti Audi bias, which I’m only too proud to admit. But they’ve got a lot to live down.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:00 pm)#110
Yeah, I know. We used to go to the races with 20 gallons of 108 octane race gas in the back of our Suburban. It stinks and it’s dangerous. Even I can get a little bit smarter as the years go by, at least in some areas.
See also the quote from Forrest Gump at #108
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:06 pm)Great idea this car. This is a BEV with benefits. This is a car developed on short notice and Audi probably does not have GM-s extensive knowledge of battery management or the time to develop it.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:15 pm)I for one will be using the range extender on a regular basis.
The issue with diesel’s in an EREV is the physical weight of the engines.
Because a Diesel runs with very high compression ratio’s it must be stronger and therefore heavier. The greater the weight the less the AER, it’s really pretty basic. In my case I’d be OK with the weight penalty of the diesel because I would be using the extender more than most I’d bet (with the notable exception of Rashid Amul who commutes roughly from Florida to New York…)
There is also a very real reluctance in the US to ‘embrace’ diesel engines.
Weight is the enemy of efficiency So a compromise had to be reached, I think the small gas engine is a good choice at this point.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:16 pm)As mentioned above, it’s not fair to compare the price of a low-production-run Wankel with a piston engine made by the hundreds of thousands. In mass production I doubt a Wankel would cost any more than a piston engine of similar power. The model Wankel I have 2 of is very expensive, but again mostly due to the low numbers being produced.
I was a kid in the early ’70s and remember the Wankel Mazda pickups, Johnson snowmobiles, motorcycles (Suzuki Water Buffalo), etc. Seems like the seals and fuel thirst were the main issues. A co-worker more recently had two final-version RX-7s and got really good at replacing the seals. Unfortunately he let his 16 year-old son drive the 2nd one…
In any case this is just a show car, so the real engineering and trade studies probably haven’t even been done yet. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:28 pm)#91 RDOCA I can’t see how charging at work during the day is going to be a good idea as all the electric cos. are trying to take load off the grid during the day.
They pay to be able to turn off your AC during the day and push any use during the day to the evening. EV’s are best charged at nite so they use the unused
grid power and make them more efficient at that time of day.
Roy
Roy, you bring up some valid points. Here in Tucson, I understand around 75 charging stations are being planned in the next few months. This effort is being coordinated with the appropriate agencies and companies to make this transition a success.
Ideally, It is best to charge off peak and usually at night. However, everyone’s needs are different. For example, some people work at night, some people have longer commutes than others, some people will have bevs which will need charging stations more then erev’s. Additionally, in Phoenix and Tucson, people with bevs in particular can benefit on very hot days by plugging in and conditioning their battery and vehicle 15 minutes or so and not decrease their range. I don’t have details on the charging stations yet but I am hopeing that they will have some smart technology in them and hopefully some of them will be supplemented with solar panels to enable them to be integrated in and off the grid without causeing problems. There will be many charging stations that can be accessed 24/7. If electric vehicles are the next step, then having charging stations available to the public is going to be a part of that future.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:28 pm)This is an interesting engineering solution to a (probably temporary), problem. The EREVs approach is clearly superior to the pure BEV, with today’s battery technology. But the true EREV, like the Volt suffer, from a relatively marginal, but real price and cost problem.
Audi engineers answer this by building a ‘not-quite EREV’. It substitutes a tiny, lighter, gen-set incapable of maintaining charge, in a tiny, lighter, ‘A-segment’ car. So it is not a ‘Charge Sustaining ‘ mode of operation.
What it is instead is a is a “Slower Charge Depleting’ mode of operation. This allows a smaller cheaper battery. But that battery will suffer a beating due to the occasional deep discharge. OTOH, the EU does not have an assinine CARB bureaucracy ruling, that regquires a PHEV battery to be warranteed longer than a BEV battery. And longer than any drivetrain component in a conventional drivetrain.
After the plug-in mileage is drawn down, the gen-set is engaged much alike a CS Volts engine is. but it is insufficient to replenish or maintain battery charge. It merely slows that depletion, until the car must grind to a stop in 150Km. Hopefully that range is sufficient for most days of use. And it does allow the optimization that comes from electric miles first, that substancially augments fossil mileage, in an EREV architecture.
It has a smaller battery than a BEV or an EREV, making it cheaper, and lighter. And it has an alternative to the BEVs needing a tow truck, when it runs out of juice. It has a built-in recharger, that can operate by the side of the road to rebuild charge, without need of a tow truck. This provides and partially relieves ‘Range Anxiety”.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:29 pm)THIS JUST IN: LUTZ TO RETIRE MAY 1.
So yesterday GM announces the Converj is dead, and today Bob Lutz’s retirement is announced. I recall another poster on this site predicted something like this yesterday.
On the plus side, I would think the Volt has enough momentum to continue forward regardless.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:41 pm)I don’t think it’s vaporware. They have a new solid electrolyte which is as (ion) conductive as liquid electrolytes – this makes manufacturing so much easier and the battery lighter. Here’s the text from a UCF press release:
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:49 pm)If there are no show-stoppers in Planar Energy’s results, this is going to be a huge boost to the Voltec platform. GM will simply be out ahead of just about everyone else in a technology that is certain to overtake the ICE paradigm.
It will also have a positive effect on the Volt’s gas mileage with the range extender on as well as enabling GM to think of shrinking the battery pack and perhaps even getting room for one more person in the back seat (in later models).
Finally, remember the “doom and gloom” report that stated that battery advances are too far out in the future for the Voltec platform to make sense? It looks like they underestimated the power of human ingenuity!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:49 pm)I feel blessed when I wake up and I’m not in a bed that adjusts head and foot electrically or comes out of a wall in a drawer (hospital or morgue).
Mar 3rd, 2010 (2:55 pm)the aptera runs on 5 kw at highway speeds. So 3 times the power, 15, seems adequate to power this audi carrying three times the weight.. Gut feeling. OT. loved the audi TT design a few years ago,
this one, not so much
Believe(g),
thanks
NPNS
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:18 pm)==============================
Captain: You used the word “indicative”!!!!
Obviously no beer consumed yet today……………..
HAHAHAHAHAH!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:19 pm)On a different topic…
Breaking: Bob Lutz to retire … again
Eugene
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:35 pm)I had a 1980 Mazda RX-7, and it was a fun little car to drive. The Wankel was smooth, and above 4000 rpm, it was like a turbo kicked in, it just loved those higher rip’ms!
The engine was small, had 2 rotors, and produced 105 hp. The low end torque was terrible, and about the best I could do on the highway at 65 mph was 26 mpg. To deal with all the bad rap regarding engine seals, Mazda provided a long term guarantee on the engine (can’t remember the details). To resolve the issues, they went from carbon seals to metallic seals, and used oil injection to protect them. The car used about 1 quart of oil every 1000 miles, but was designed to do so. I went 130k miles before I sold the car, and never had an engine problem.
Something I read about the rotary engines is they have poor gas mileage and high emissions due to their combustion characteristics. The issue is called “surface-to-volume” ratio. A piston engine, at top dead center, has a certain volume, and is exposed to the metal surfaces (piston, head, cylinder walls, etc.). As the flame is initiated by the spark plug, some of the reactants (gas/air mixture) touch the “cold” metallic surfaces and “quench”, or don’t ignite as they fall below the ignition temperature. This leads to the formation of carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC).
For the Wankel engine, this surface-to-volume ratio is extemely high. Therefore, even more of the fuel charge is unburned. My RX-7 had a large cannister at the exhaust that mixed exhaust gas and fresh air from an air injection pump to complete the combustion (outside the engine) and reduce emissions. Every now and then, my RX-7 would give off a big BANG, and backfire.
So like every design, there are compromises. The Wankel is small, lightweight, and smooth at high rpms. Its drawbacks are lower efficiency and high emissions. Catalytic converters can be designed to reduce the emissions, but you’re stuck with the lower efficiency.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:35 pm)I pictured the VOLT Coupe to look a lot like this Audi, if it were to ever be made as a coupe. But I doubt that would happen… That is what the Voltec Cruze is for!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:46 pm)The Volt is safe. It’s too far along, and has too much media attention for them to cancel the program.
As far as Lutz, I’m just glad that he didn’t retire during the bankruptcy proceedings. That would been have a pr and logistical nightmare that GM didn’t need. Now? I don’t think it matters as much.
I do think that GM’s product line has improved dramatically in the past year or so. And considering that’s what he’s supposedly in charge of, I have to give him credit for that. I just hope that that the improvements continue. Because, at the end of the day, it’s all about product.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (3:50 pm)I had one of these as well. The mechanic said I needed a new air injection pump to fix the backfire. I didn’t want to spring for the $250 part, so I learned to let off the accelerator very gently when shifting. Most of the time I could keep it from backfiring that way.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:01 pm)There’s some serious confusion about the new Audi. Lyle’s headline on the story calls it an “Extended Range” electric car. It is not. A new name will have to be coined for it. I suggest “Emergency Extended Range”.
Dave G (93) says the Audi can “probably” go 65 MPH on level ground with only 15 kW. My research indicates this wrong. He adds that if you need to accelerate, then the reserve battery power can supply the 45 kW motor for a short period of time.
If the “short period” is defined as long enough to pass someone, it may be possible to further discharge a discharged battery (if you don’t mind damaging it) enough to accomplish this. But the period surely won’t be long enough to get you home in time for dinner. (For breakfast–maybe.)
My statement is based on the more complete discussion in the link Tagamet (26) offers. The link says “Once you’ve depleted the battery…the…engine…kicks on and generates 15 kW of power running at a constant 5,000 rpm…” The key word is “depleted”. If the battery is depleted, how can you get an additional 30 kW out of it to drive home at a normal speed, as you can with the Volt? You may be able to squeeze out an occasional burst to pass someone, but that’s about all.
Since, after the initial 31 miles on 100% battery power, the 15 kW of power from the generator is only about 1/3 of 45 kW, my guess is that the steady speed will be limited to about
20 MPH. This is not acceptable, except in an emergency. This should not be called “extended range”. We have a new category here. One that is not acceptable. The Volt is acceptable.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:10 pm)15 KW is plenty of power to drive 65 MPH on a flat freeway. 15 KW is a lot of power for steady state!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:15 pm)AHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
You’re right. Had to cut down due to demotion/salary decrease of ~$850.00/month. Used to be a Sr. Sumthin, now I’m just a Sumthin. No Kahlua for coffee either, for now. It’s either a pay cut or lay off. Guess what I voted for? For now, Volt’s my Pipe dream.
lol…
-1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:25 pm)Europa no cuenta con 380 V, cuenta con 220V. Es necesario un contrato aparte para 380 V. Lo importante además es la sección del conductor hasta la toma, es decir los amperios que llegan y esa sección en Europa suele ser pequeña.
Por otra parte, Audi no hace más que decir vaguedades y querer acaparar la atención. En este caso solo copia la tecnología de GM del Volt, incluso la forma y disposición de la batería. ¿Cuando fabricará algo de verdad?.
GM se ha anticipado con el sistema Voltec, pero ha decepcionado mucho con la muerte del Converj. Ese Cadillac hubiera sido una gran oportunidad para Cadillac en Europa.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:26 pm)I feel your pain my friend, I was layed off with no option for demotion.
But… things seem to be picking up around here so I’m hopeful.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:41 pm)As always, not trying to pick a fight here, but doesn’t this qualify as a hatchback? Or have things changed drastically since a year ago?
http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/24/new-chevy-volt-picture-gallery/
Wikipedia calls it a hatchback so that proves it (j/k).
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:42 pm)That’s assuming their definition of a depleted batt pack means there aint jack sh|t left in it. But I think everyone understands that “depleted” means to keep a certain SOC rate for the batt pack and that “Depleted” does not mean an absolute 0 SOC. Just as the Volts “Depleted” range is actually closer to a real 50% SOC, i’m pretty sure their depleted is probably between 30%-40%, if their really confident it could be 20%.
The power curve of the wankel @ 5000rpm they are probably using looks like it is close to the intersect of HP and Torque at maybe 28HP (20.8KW)…..
http://www.renntechkarting.com/products_xr50es.html
So I’m guessing their calculating in loss and it is more like 15KW out?
Also, the 15KW from the genset is more than enough to sustain its speed, remember, this car is not ~3900lbs like the Volt. The rest will probably get dumped into the batt pack. But then again, they don’t say at what SOC point the genset stops.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:43 pm)I’m glad they’re already thinking about alternate generator motors. To my mind, EREV is going to really take off once it starts getting generators optimized for the application. Why? Because I believe the ultimate success of the EREV will be in how quickly it can achieve large volume sales. Basically, there’s not going to be a new class of sales to people who wouldn’t buy a car, otherwise. The sales will have to come out of some other current car segment. The more car segments you can cover the more sales and volume you will get. So, with a lighter, more efficient and cheaper generator and fewer batteries it could be a direct replacement for the conventional hybrid. Right now, EREV is arguably too expensive to do that and may not achieve mileage in charge sustaining mode superior to that of the conventional hybrids. So, the question is, could you beat all the current hybrids on mileage and cost with full electric drive, small battery and optimized generator? That would certainly help to quickly drive volume for all the basic EREV parts.
I suspect you could beat them. But I think it will require more optimized generators than just using a conventional ICE with an alternator strapped to it. The fact that it really only has to operate at one speed is a huge deal. That may ultimately even allow things like free piston linear alternators to be controlled and work.
And don’t get me wrong. I’m not complaining about the Volt’s traditional ICE. It was a good idea to use something stock to get the ball rolling. But to really optimize EREV and really drive volume sales, it’s going to have to get more specialized than that. The rotary is a clever idea. Hopefully, it will inspire the engineers working on EREV designs to really dig into the engine bins and come up with designs that have been around but were not optimal for traditional engine use, but could be optimal for EREV use.
Personally, I still like the 2 stroke diesel used in locomotives. There’s a reason diesel electric locomotives use those. They’re fantastically simple, reliable, clean and efficient. They’re not applicable to car use because they can only run at a few hundred RPM. You’d have to have a zillion gears… or an electric drive.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:46 pm)Bro, no habla Chinese.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:49 pm)Hi Bill,
I think you have a misrepresentation of European families, in my street alone (I live in a small village of the Namur Province second to the poorest Province of Belgium, that means the average household in my street earns about 3/4 of the average income of the median European household).
When I do a little statistical study of my close neighbors (500m in both directions of the street and exclude “families” with only one adult), I come around 2.3 car per family with children and 2.1 cars for families which are couples without children (In fact three houses with couples without children have each tree cars for two people and one has four cars !!!).
In Belgium in general we have more than 5 millions of personal cars (5,086,756 on 12/31/2008) for 3,9 millions of households, and the situations i similar in numerous EU countries.
Best regards, I hope that helps.
JC NPNS
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:58 pm)Interesting, could you show your calculations it sounds fascinating.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (4:59 pm)Told ya.
Hope you guys are right.
A lot of steam can be taken out of the Volt program without canceling it. Let’s hope that we’re all right, and that demand will force GM into the more optimistic of our Volt follow-up expectations, sans Lutz.
It’s just too depressing to contemplate anything else.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:05 pm)Mira numero 18 – de Jean-Charles
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:13 pm)At first blush, this sounds like the original “ideal car” idea which brought me to the Volt site, originally: a generator providing the average energy requirement of the car, using a battery to buffer this output to driver demand.
However, Dave G. is correct:
I am still looking forward to the improved battery which will allow this dream to be real. I have my doubts that Audi’s batteries will take the strain for long (and maybe they don’t care without a 100K mile govt mandate).
However, I disagree with Dave G on this:
The energy savings of a small, light, single-speed engine which will directly power the wheels except for those times when more power is needed ought to offset a lot of electrical -> chemical (and vice versa) inefficiencies. Also, advanced batteries may have higher power densities allowing more rapid (and efficient) charging and discharging. Again, someday. I doubt very much that Audi has come even close to achieving this.
It is far more likely that this single-speed genset is motivated by only one thing; Wankel dependability issues. How much of the rotor seal and tip wear (and oil use) problems came from gunning earlier Wankel cars in traffic? It might be much easier to deal with at a fixed rpm. Audi is going primarily for the weight savings in an occasional-use backup/emergency power supply, as others have said.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:24 pm)I really doubt that a 15 kW generator is enough to power this vehicle safely when the battery runs out. You’ve got basically a 20 hp motor powering a 2500 lb vehicle which doesn’t look all that aerodynamic. Might be enough to chug around town but heaven help you if you have to accelerate out of a problem.
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:31 pm)Once engineers moved from steel tip design to ceramics in building rotary engine rotors, I believe this issue was relegated to the background. I don’t know what materials are used today though. Rotary engines produced now continue to be less efficient than a reciprocating otto cycle in the few versions that have been on the roads.
Since every mechanical engineer in the auto industry has had an impact on reciprocating engine design in ways large and small for the last 100 years it’s hard to compare ultimate states. Whether from working on big development teams down to level of water cooler conversations, the otto cycle engine has had a tremendous amount of effort at refinement. The rotary is in it’s infancy, and even at that, only a few relatively small teams have worked on it’s progress.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:34 pm)True, but we don’t know what the warranty is for the batt pack nor do we know the drain cycle count for it’s chem. Is it 3000 or 5000 cycle to 70% DOD?
If it were my commuter, it would get charge only once per day, which means at 3000 cycles it would take 8.21 years. I bet the warranty is only for 3-4 years, maybe 5 at best…..lol
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:37 pm)That’s so very true isn’t it!!!!!!!!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:37 pm)… this sounds like another idea I* brought out here; sooner or later, I said, someone is going to come out with what I called an AREV (Augmented Rrange Electric Vehicle).
I also said it would need a larger, not smaller AER, since you would expect to have some of the battery left at the time you switched on the engine; I usually imagined 60 miles. You would be all electric for 30 of those, then the engine’s output would augment what was left over, perhaps indefinitely with reasonable care. There could be no drag racing in augmented-range mode — at least not for very long!
It’s interesting to see other makers already starting to play with and strain the limits of the EREV paradigm; there is much more opportunity here than GM is exploring.
* I used to post here under the name “Jackson,” until Lyle’s spam-avoidance software got allergic to it.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:42 pm)Didn’t he do that and decide to stay for a while anyway?
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:44 pm)Less power
less range
less speed
…less appeal
Honestly, it is a nice car but you can’t directly compare it to the Volt. It is designed for a different demographic (city folk) so it can do a lot of these things like have less of an ICE or a smaller tank and battery since they assume that your driving will be mostly city miles.
I think it looks nice but as I don’t live in the city I will be driving my Volt thank you very much.
Harrier1970
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:51 pm)Yes. He did. Which was beyond irresponsible on his part, IMHO. And I’m glad he changed his mind. Now is a much better time for him to go.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:56 pm)But then he’ll be hired back as a “Consultant” like Fritz for $3,000.00/hr.
http://wot.motortrend.com/6624164/industry-news/hes-baaack-fritz-henderson-hired-as-gm-consultant-gets-3000-an-hour/index.html
Mar 3rd, 2010 (5:59 pm)So, does this mean that the Ampera will recharge at 380 volts (and how long will that take)?
It’s interesting to note from the source article that, unlike the last several EV programs to be announced, Audi agrees with GM on the importance of a thermal management system. This is more indication, perhaps, of the risks being taken by Nissan with it’s LEAF.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:06 pm)The Volt can produce more power because it has a larger battery pack and a larger engine. The Audi is power limited so it has to have a strategy for ensuring that supplemental battery power is available when the power demands are greater than what the gen-set can produce.
The “Leaf Mode” on the Volt isn’t designed to address this issue, it’s designed to increase EV range.
Seem like these are different approaches to different problems not different approaches to the same problem.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:11 pm)I’m calling dibs right now. When I turn 75 I get to walk away whenever I want. No hard feelings, I was lending a hand but I won’t own the issues. Even if the world is going to hell in a hand basket… and it’s my fault. Three waves means goodbye forever, let the youngsters have some fun.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:14 pm)OK, i’m not ashamed to show my ignorance here but where do you get 380VAC? (OK, I know it says it in the article but i’ve never seen or heard of a 380VAC outlet)
Last I heard 220/240VAC was the norm for charging using the SAE J1772-2009.
/confused now……
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:23 pm)I expect HCCI and common rail technology (or some other injection / combustion innovations) to take advantage of this in the near future.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:40 pm)See comments 15 and 18.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:50 pm)Oh wow, thanks. I had no idea.
Seems a little weird for the SAE to standardize on the “SAE J1772-2009″ when it’s a single phase 220/240VAC appliance. The folks above are saying they are 380VAC 3phase. So it means they will need to get a converter (3phase to single phase 220VAC?) for their charge converter or something.
WIKI defines the connector specs as ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772 )
AC Level 1 120 V single phase 16 A
AC Level 2 240 V single phase 80 A
So does ABG. I’d link to ABG but then i’ll get modded.
I wonder if Tesla owners will be able to use charge stations with this connector?
Mar 3rd, 2010 (6:57 pm)No thank you. If it was an A4 MAYBE but then it would only get 15-20 Miles all electric.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:01 pm)I’m pretty sure when they say “depleted”, they mean the customer depletion point (CDP). For example, the CDP for the Volt is 30% SOC. If the Audi has a similar CDP, then you would be able to source 30kW from the battery for 10 minutes or so. At 80 MPH, that would be around 12 miles of flooring it before you have to slow down.
Also, I’ll stand by my statement that the small Audi will go 65 MPH on 15kW. Average power is way less than peak. That’s what EREVs are all about.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:02 pm)The way I understand it, in the US we can charge with 120 or 240. In Europe they will be able to charge with 240 or 380.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:06 pm)Using Google’s Translation page, here is roughly what our Spanish friend said:
“Europe has 380 V, 220V features. You need a separate contract for 380 V. The important addition is the section of the driver to take, ie the amps that come in Europe and that section is usually small.
Moreover, Audi keeps saying no vagueness and want have the limelight. In this case, only one copy of GM’s Volt technology, including the shape and arrangement of the battery. When will manufacture some truth?.
GM has Voltec advance with the system, but very disappointed with the death of Converge. The Cadillac had been a great opportunity for Cadillac in Europe.”
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:11 pm)But wouldn’t that violate the max spec rating of the “SAE J1772-2009″ as indicated in the specs…….
Blah!…….fogettaboutit, nevermind, i’m sure they’ll figure something out.
lol.
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:29 pm)Thanks, that clarifies it. (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:30 pm)I agreed at first blush, but actually, it might not work too badly. Here in northern California, at least, (PG&E) there are three rates, Peak, Partial Peak, and Off Peak. Example rates are $0.30, $0.15, and $0.09 respectively. Peak rate doesn’t start until 1 PM. Partial Peak starts at 10 AM. If you get to work by 7 (so you can get that favored parking space next to the charging port) you get three hours at Off Peak and three hours at Partial Peak. If it’s a 240 port, you’re golden. Even at 120, your average rate looks pretty good unless you drained the battery pack completely. Even then, isn’t it true that the charge rate tapers off as the pack nears capacity?
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:33 pm)Small point, but isn’t CDP “Charge Depletion Point”? Someone mentioned a while back about not wanting to deplete customers.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:39 pm)I guess I’m “easy”, but I’d let you go at age 70, but that’s just me (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****No More “Stay Tuned”!
+2
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:41 pm)#150
Less U.S. content. Thanks. +1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:42 pm)Actually, I would feel miraculously blessed if I really did wake up in one of those beds that comes out of a wall in a drawer!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:44 pm)#166
I agree. +1 And even at peak, it’s better than burning gas, IMHO. Don’t worry about the utilities, they’ll figure it out.
+1
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:46 pm)IMHO, less CAR than the Volt.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
/headed to the next thread.
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!
Mar 3rd, 2010 (7:50 pm)
Mar 3rd, 2010 (8:18 pm)On the e-tron’s power.
Everybody seems to be assuming the customer depletion point and subsequent “battery buffer zone” will be managed the same way as the volt (i.e. a very small window from say 30 to 32%), but we’ve got info from the Audi sight that would lead me to believe otherwise:
“The electronics also consider navigation data such as the destination and route profile to automatically activate the range extender as needed. The driver can also turn the range extender on and off as necessary with the push of a button”
http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=373C20736F951FC21BC3986C8ABA9C7A?id=1694
Theses are features that we discussed way back when on GM-volt.com.
The e-tron apparently let’s you flip the “pike’s peak switch” along with automated “look forward” nav capabilities. This indicates to me that audi is using a much higher (or adjustable) battery buffer zone in order to insure reserve battery power was available in CS mode when the situation required (i.e. extended hill climbs, or multiple passes at highway speeds).
Mar 3rd, 2010 (10:37 pm)Jean-Charles Jacquemin:
Hi Bill,I think you have a misrepresentation of European families, in my street alone (I live in a small village of the Namur Province second to the poorest Province of Belgium…
Hello Jean-Charles,
I rode my bike through your province in 1986. I stayed in Namur and toured your castle between the forks of the river… I remember lots of hills, ups and downs, and a very rainy June ….
I rode my bike from Brussels to Luxembourg city. Then up the Rhine to Basel.
Mar 4th, 2010 (12:27 am)Just be sure to let them know ahead of time by a year or two. So that it’s not yet another unexpected change that they have to adjust to while the world’s falling apart.
-1
Mar 4th, 2010 (2:07 am)This is also a car for idiots. Too little too late. Same combustion engine. A car with less than 100 miles on electric is not going to help that much.
teslamotors.com is way ahead.
Mar 4th, 2010 (2:31 am)That is only true if you assume the battery is managed like the Volt. If the range extender is used to fully charge the battery on road trips then the averaging effect of the large battery will provide plenty of performance. Cruising on the flat the car uses probably 1/2 the output of the generator letting the battery charge. Whenever you coast the full output is available to charge. When you brake the full generator output combines with the regen. With a full battery the car could climb the steepest hill at full electric power… and at some point you have to come back down so it will charge fast then.
Note the article about the Volt climbing Pike’s Peak. The GM engineers commented that the car did far better than they expected because the road had curves. Every time they coasted into a curve, the engine caught up a lot.
The biggest road trip problem in the e-tron would be the gas tank size.
Mar 4th, 2010 (2:42 am)I think what most people missed out on… someone down the line added the imperial units, converting a rough metric number into a “exact” imperial unit.
12L became 3.12 gal
50km became 30.17 miles
and so on
+1
Mar 4th, 2010 (3:07 am)If you have 220 VAC, then add 220 VAC with a 120 degree phase shift you get 380V.
From a three phase source you can get 220V single phase by connecting to one hot line and the neutral; 380V single phase by connecting from hot to hot or 380V three phase by connecting to all three hot wires. In a house in Europe, only two of the three hot wires go to any one house.
You get the same thing in the US with 120V / 208V (used in many commercial buildings) and 277V / 480V (used in large buildings or industry). In many urban areas in the US, houses are fed by two of the three hot legs on a 120/208 system. “240″ appliances only get 208V with a noticeable reduction in heating output.
Mar 4th, 2010 (7:21 am)Just a thought – but how prone to lawsuits is an engine that’s not as powerful as the driver was experiencing 5 minutes ago. Sir, I pulled out to overtake and there was no power there, 15 HP is a mistake. The engine needs to match the power of the electric motor. I can imagine Toyota like lawsuits otherwise…
Mar 4th, 2010 (7:45 am)I also call BS on your low top speed 15 HP figure. The Prius can do about 33mph on it’s tiny motor. I would imagine this car could do 60mph. Remember air resistance increasses with the square of the speed, so 20mph = very very low wind resistance. What I think is you won’t be able to overtake a car and jump from 40mph to 60mph… unless you’re going to push the battery beyond it’s “turn off range”… and then the battery is not going to be happy “assisting” while you try and maintain speed up a long ascent. Even in the flat UK, you get motorways that climb 200metres over 4 miles on 7% gradients where lorries get stuck in the slow lane doing 50mph… this car will be in that lane.
Mar 4th, 2010 (10:09 am)OK, another engineer here and I know it’s an off-topic waste of time but….
If something says, “50km”, that means anywhere from 49.5 to 50.5 km, so +/- 0.31 miles. You can’t magically then turn that into an accuracy of 0.01 miles. If they meant 50.0 or 50.00 km then they should have said that. Unit conversions make things a bit trickier, but the basic idea is that you can’t have more significant digits coming out of a calculation than you had going in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_digits
I hate math as much as anyone, but it drove me crazy recently reading a (translated from German) book about missiles where the ranges and weights suddenly became fantastically accurate due to the conversions. So “had a range of 100km” became “had a range of 62.1371 miles”. Argh!
OK I will shut up now, people can’t even get its/it’s figured out, and that’s 100 times simpler.
+1
Mar 4th, 2010 (11:03 am)PS – not ripping on you above, Matthew B, you obviously get it.
Kind of upsets me to see your, “…Every hear of rounding to significant digits folks? Good job at removing the nonsensical digits Lyle.” post has a -6 on it. Oh well, that’ why I try to not look at those numbers (which are usually covered up by the +/- symbols in my IE7 anyway).
Yeah, everybody hates engineers and our obsessions with accuracy, resolution, numeric overflow, etc, but when a bridge collapses or a car has unintended acceleration then it suddenly matters.
Er, what was this thread about again? Oh yeah, Wankels
+1
Mar 4th, 2010 (12:03 pm)That’s a Jeep thing. You would’nt understand it. I sure as h%#L don’t.
Mar 4th, 2010 (12:54 pm)The G1/2/3 Prius is capable of 42 MPH and the newest is able to do 60 MPH in electric mode.
This will improve your argument even further: the limitation isn’t because of a lack of power, it is due to revolution limits on the motor used in the power split device.
The force from wind resistance increases with the square of speed. But since power is force times speed, then that makes the increase in power go up with the cube of speed.
Rolling resistance is a constant force. That makes the power to overcome rolling resistance a linear relationship with speed.
When you have the power being a sum of one factor that goes up with the cube and the other goes up linearly, you end up with one dominating at low speed and the other dominating at high speed. In most cars the crossover where they are roughly equal is around 40 MPH. Below 40 MPH you can pretty much call the power – speed relationship linear, and it quickly becomes a cube relationship over 40 MPH.
As I commented above, your theory is based on Audi managing the battery like the Volt. If Audi allows you to fully charge the battery back up with the range extender in anticipation of an upcoming mountain pass, then the performance could be far better.
Mar 5th, 2010 (1:29 am)I do wish we get that electric cooper like car? Looks sweet! Just hope we see a lot of good electric cars in the future everybody agree? Just hope we do I hate the smell of exhaust pipes of a pure gas car period!
Mar 10th, 2010 (9:21 am)[...] Audi Unveils A1 e-tron Extended Range Electric Car [...]