Later this year and early next year the first mass-produced electric cars will reach the retail market. Nissan will be releasing its 100 mile range pure battery electric vehicle (BEV) and GM will be releasing its extended range electric car (EREV) Chevrolet Volt.
GM has long expressed its strategy with the Volt is to eliminate range anxiety, and many hear among us agree it is a very good solution.
It still remains unknown which architecture will be more popular among the general population of consumers when they finally have a chance to buy them.
I had the chance to ask Mark Reuss who is GM’s new President of North America what his opinion is on this. I asked whether he believes BEVs or EREVs will turn out to be more popular.
“Long term demand (for) BEV could be higher as EREV initially leads the way with battery technology like the lithium ion pack in the Volt…first gen,” stated Reuss.
The initial EREV technology as he sees it “then feeds BEV-like vehicles.”
“While EREV will be wildly popular at first with Volt,” says Reuss. “As the technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars to carry smaller packs, that may be the higher volume play over a longer time.”
Since Reuss is newly in charge of GM North America sales and marketing, his opinions are likely to play a significant role in the company’s strategy going forward.
It appears he believes the Volt is a stepping stone to a market of pure EVs, and that the process of developing the technology for Volt will help lower the costs and broaden the acceptance for EVs in the future.
+24
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:26 am)Good Morning. Either way BEV or EREV, let’s get them on the road. This is an exciting time and it will be wonderful when I can choose between a BEV or EREV at my local dealership.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:34 am)Well done, Lyle! I noted your question was one of the first ones Mark Reuss took up in yesterday’s blog (he never got around to mine, which asked whether GM subjects new designs like the Volt to critical design reviews of systems & subsystems —like brake susbsystems)!
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:34 am)“Long-term demand” is an imprecise term. 10 years? 100 years? But I don’t think that many readers of this blog would disagree that ER-EVs will eventually be supplanted by pure BEVs. Even members of the Volt development team have said as much.
Move along, folks. Nothing new here…
But I found this tidbit on GreenTech Media, about a new mystery player promising radical improvements in BEVs.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/mystery-electric-car-maker-wants-to-take-over-toyotas-nummi-plant/
Whoever it is must be the long-lost kin of EESTOR and ZipCar.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:38 am)It’s good to hear that from the top. I just hope they follow the recent trend of quick to market and sell the hell out of it, instead of trying to protect or milk it or whatever.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:43 am)Whatever is cheapest will sell the best.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:50 am)Yes, this confirms that Mark Reuss believes that EVs are the way of the future. So glad to hear that. Although he didn’t say it, there is no way one believes that BEVs will out sell E-REVs without also outselling ICEs.
There have been several articles about the future cost of batteries. I believe all are way to conservative. The point is most take the incremental improvement mostly driven by volume production as a gradual lowering of price. The facts are that there are many research break-throughs being announced and several of them look very encouraging. 4 to 8 times energy/weight is a reasonable expectation in 5 years. And significantly lower cost / weight.
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:50 am)Being truthful or not and coming from a GM representative,this is not a smart thing to to say. It will undercut the sales of the Volt. It’ll be years and years before batteries will be good enough for that to happen and that’s not including the lack of the infrastructure.
+12
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:52 am)Good morning everyone.
From the article:
It appears he believes the Volt is a stepping stone to a market of pure EVs, and that the process of developing the technology for Volt will help lower the costs and broaden the acceptance for EVs in the future.
I agree it is a stepping stone. But it will be a while before BEV supplant E-REVs. Why?
The range limitation needs to be addressed.
The quick charge limitations need to be addressed.
In short, this whole Range Anxiety issue really needs to be addressed.
FME III at #2 is correct. “Long Term” is very imprecise. I would guess and say 50 years.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:56 am)The statements from Aurica Motors do not make sense. Their claim to fame is greatly increased efficiency of the drive train. Since this is already about 85% to 95% for most progressive companies like GM and Tesla, there is not much improvement possible. Also the picture shows a very conventional looking servo motor.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:09 am)Yeah, thanks for the link, but that site doesn’t pass the sniff test (for me).
Re today’s thread – MAYBE the talk about infrastructure GM’s been doing portends a short life for out beloved Volt, but that just doesn’t make much business sense. All that development work and R&D for a short-term vehicle(?) – I don’t think so. Throw away the huge advantage of EREV? Naw. Seems more likely, as has been mentioned, that that descriptive phrase “short-term” would allow a lot of wiggle room.
I just can’t see it (IMHO), but then again, I don’t WANT to see it….
Be well and be smart,
Tagamet
LJGTVWOTR!!
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:10 am)Until a car can charge >80% in under 5 minutes (and beware that would take 1000s of volts and an immense current!!!) anyone who wants to ever drive a long way will always want to have a backup fuel supply… that’s why EREV / plugin hybrids will ALWAYS be better. As I’ve said before, a 0.9 litre “smart car” engine or small diesel seems more approriate for charge maintaining than a 1.6 litre engine. Also, I was curious, in charge sustaining mode does the petrol engine charge the battery, or, does it just run a generator powering the electric motor directly?… Id have thought the 2nd mode would be better at preserving the battery.
+23
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:13 am)Isn’t anyone here sick and tired of GM executives of late downplaying the Volt? I mean, yes, I’m excited and hopefully anticipating the best , BUT — Here is yet another high ranking GM guy NOT…I repeat….NOT touting the Volt, but basically, in so many words, telling us the Volt is not the future direction they are heading. Remember all the positive talk about the ICE in Volt being replaced by a clean diesel or hydrogen fuel cell? Remember some of the recently let go officials selling the Volt as “the way forward”?
Many of us on GM-Volt.com are not here to brown nose GM or blow wind up their skirts to attempt to pursuade them to follow through with this amazing technology. Let’s be realistic here. WE WANT A VOLT AND WE WANT VOLTEC offshoots – AND WE WANT THEM IN NUMBERS LARGE ENOUGH TO BE MORE THEN SHOWROOM CANDY.
EREVS have so much more promise than BEVs, and can be equipped with small three cylinder or clean diesel generators, fuel cells and even wind turbines — BEV’s are just plain limited. They have a niche but they are limited until we have a large recharging infrastructure.
Recharging stations in workable numbers and swappable batteries, BETTER PLACE style are options, but WAYYY far off into the horizon. So why all the talk from upstairs about BEVs as small cars – taking precedence???!
Please stand behind me and be heard. GM please do not weasel out of the EXTENDED RANGE revolution.
RECHARGE! James
+5
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:14 am)I disagree. Here’s why, as I said in yesterday’s blog…
“Yes, the Volt could be offered in a BEV version. But remember that it would have to have AT LEAST a bona fide 100 mile range, so the under-hood space now occupied by the ICE/ generator would need to be replaced by 60 miles worth of additonal battery packs. If we use the Volt’s $7200 battery cost (from yesterday’s topic), the total battery cost would scale up to 100/40 x $7200 = $18,000, or an additional $10,800. I can’t imagine the Volt’s 1.4 L engine & generator costing this much. So until battery costs drop dramatically it seems to me an EREV Volt can remain very competitive cost-wise with BEVs, as well as be free of any range anxiety woes. A Volt BEV version won’t happen anytime soon (if ever).
PS: My only concern regarding the Volt being competitive with a BEV then becomes predatory pricing by the imports. Mitsubishi has already said it will drop its original price for an i Miev from $47,000 to $22,000!!!*
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:16 am)I agree, it’s best to low amp charge. I don’t plan on rushing to install a 240V outlet in my garage. 120V is just fine. Think about it. Most recharge will occur on top of a partially charged battery. A few hours and you’re good.
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:18 am)GM invented the term EREV and the phrase ‘range anxiety’ as it applies to electric vehicles. Now they’re going to have to fight their own marketing when pure EV is more viable.
EV owners quickly adapt to their vehicle’s differences from current vehicles, namely the need to refuel daily instead of weekly. Other than that, I see no difference in my daily commute.
A commuter car is a specialty vehicle just the same as a pickup/SUV to haul your weekend toys. Your weekend toys are also specialty (sports car, motorcycle, boat, RV, vintage Chevy, top-fuel rail, etc.). At some point, it becomes better economically to have a commuter car rather than drive the SUV to work.
It’s just another tool in the box to me. I prefer a pure EV (given that it meets the requirements of that particular tool) because it is much simpler than a hybrid. The problem right now is the cost and power density of batteries. Therefore, Volt makes more sense than pure EV at this time.
+7
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:19 am)I think we all realized that EREV is a feeder technology (or bridge) to full BEV. So this isn’t surprising. In the short term, though, (probably 0-15 years) EREV is far more useful.
-18
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:20 am)(click to show comment)
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:23 am)Am I the only one that gets the feeling the constant brain drain and now the top level PR of GM is to sack the Volt in a very similar way the GM sacked the EV1?
These guys at GM, if they wanted to sell volts would only open there mouth with praise, it now seem just like the EV1, all the press is to talk about limiations .. not a way to sell cars, EV or not
The Volt team has lost literally all the top talent and the VP that could keep the project from being killed. Everyone from the CEO down that supported the Volt is gone and while the Volt is to far along to outright cancel, they sure can play the EV1 game and then have the “data” they need to kill it off after a year of “low” demand or “costs” that don’t allow for a profitable car.
I’m becoming convinced the new team at GM have no clue what to do with this
+5
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:26 am)Is this GM-Volt.com or Nissan-Leaf.com?
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:31 am)Yep, James, I share your concerns.
I did reread the article – only to raise more questions. If this guy is *ALSO* new, (seemingly like everyone these days) does he come with a bias? At the very least he can’t come with the “investment” in EREV that the *real* Volt team owned. OTOH, he *is* upper management….
This spin is just too far out there. It may well be a “throw away” comment. I can think of a dozen reasons which run counter to this comment, but they are all based on info from the original team.
One thing is for sure, we’ll find out fairly soon (not soon enough) but fairly soon. – more interpretable terms (sigh). This thread is just a great way to take the steam out of the folks here – and I just can’t come up with a sane motive to do that. Maybe *that’s* the problem. There may not be one.
Be well and be skeptical,
Tagamet
/coffee, need coffee
LJGTVWOTR!!
+19
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:35 am)john,
Go take a fast ride in a Prius.
Tagamet
+5
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:38 am)Speculation is useless let’s stick to facts.
Here’s a fact.
NPNS!
“No Plug, No Sale!”
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:44 am)I’m sure crushing battery costs and range anxiety are not issues consumers are concerned with…
BEV’s are definiately the way to go.
+8
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:47 am)The initial EREV technology as he sees it “then feeds BEV-like vehicles.”
From the article: “While EREV will be wildly popular at first with Volt…first gen,” says Reuss. “As the technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars
to carry smaller packs, that may be the higher volume play over a longer time.”
I soundly disagree with Loboc. This is a head of MARKETING! He sounds like he’s already given the “…first gen” Volt the R.I.P. rather than a guy psyched and charged up ( excuse the pun ) to sell Volts. I don’t think I’m reading between lines too much here. I don’t think he’s talking about 10-15 years at all. More like 0-3 years.
If you want to go ahead and see an electric car as a “commuter” – a machine that gets you to work or the market, but not to grandma’s house — fine. Many will have a tiny battery-powered BEV for just that – and sure, the ICE truck, the ICE family sedan, SUV or minivan. THAT seems to be the marketing strategy as we stand today – BUY the little bitty BEV to get to work, BUT ALSO, you’re gonna need GM’s ICE products well into the next two decades.
Me? I see EREV as the hope to have an electric car that does it all. And it will. If they built them. I personally do not want to remain a three car family just to meet all our needs. GM can make EREV trucks and family machines if they wanted to. Period.
It’s a business. And I feel their strategy stinks to high heaven. BEVs on the horizon ( iMiev, Toyota IQ, BEV Smart…) are cute little cars not suited for the distances many of us demand. I have sat here for years contemplating an electric – but can’t justify the cost since I draw a circle around my house and know how limited my trips would be.
RECHARGE! James
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:58 am)Mark, I have a feeling that charge sustaining mode does not charge the battery, and that it won’t cycle off once the battery is nearly recharged. I WANT it to ‘tho. An article mentioned that the ICE will have different power settings, based on load (wish I knew where i read that)
I SO want to take long trips that are 40% ice and 60% battery. Let the ICE run at its best efficiency, and feed extra power to battery.
#11
5 minute fast charging may cause a catastrophic failure with current battery technology.
You are talking 30KWH here guys. Plan to run 10 welders? EEEPpp!
Go eat, streach your legs, see the sights — that giant ball of twine sure looks cool!
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:00 am)I believe, they are looking at major reduction in weight to improve efficiency. Also, they will likely pickup on efficiency through the four motors contained in the wheels. Worth watching!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+7
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:06 am)I think most of us realize that new technology may take years to reach mainstream.
Just because the Wright Brothers discovered powered flight, didn’t mean the next year everyone was flying their families cross country for vacation. It takes time for the technology to mature and be accepted.
Long term, the BEV seems to have a bright future. But this is predicated on the following improvements:
1) It needs a 200+ mile real world range
2) The batteries must last for the life of the vehicle ($10k battery replacement at 60k miles is NFG)
3) It must recharge in 15 minutes or less
4) Infrastructure for fast charging must be built (And less than 200 miles between stations)
5) It must be affordable
Now, how long is long range? That is anybody’s guess, but I think Rashiid may not be too far off at 50 years.
-13
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:07 am)(click to show comment)
+6
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:07 am)FROM THE ARTICLE:”“Long term demand (for) BEV could be higher as EREV initially leads the way with battery technology like the lithium ion pack in the Volt…first gen,” stated Reuss.” “The initial EREV technology as he sees it “then feeds BEV-like vehicles.””
“While EREV will be wildly popular at first with Volt,” says Reuss. “As the technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars to carry smaller packs, that may be the higher volume play over a longer time.”” ————————————————————————————————————————-
This is the MARKETING director of General Motors. His vagueness and inuendo are DEAFENING. He sounds like he has given the Volt the R.I.P.,”…first gen” rather than be excitedly preparing to promote it to the world! I’ve checked myself here, and I am not being pessimistic or overly reading between the lines. Re-read his interview and just listen to what he is telling you.
Unlike some, I do not want a tiny electric “commuter car” ( Toyota IQ, Electric SMART, iMiev ) that supplants my more versatile ICE truck and family sedan. I want my Volt and Voltec truck to REPLACE those outdated machines. It seems GM’s new strategy for the near future ( I do not believe 10-15 years is what Mr. Reuss was implying ) is for Americans to keep on driving ICE powered GM trucks and cars, and have that extra little BEV parked outside just for that morning commute. COME ON GM – I AM PISSED OFF!
Look. I’m ticked. I’m hacked. Seriously, I got up on the right side of bed this morning but I am MAD AS HELL.
Lyle. I sense ALOT of my sentiments on here today and I sincerely wish you would convey this to the executives at the General of whom you have surprising access.
RECHARGE! James
+18
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:11 am)Dear GM,
SHUT THIS GUY UP!!!
Thankyou.
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:17 am)The Volt is designed to use both generator/motor and battery power at certain times such as excellerating during passing of another vehicle. It does on occasion charge the battery but most of the power that the generator/motor produces goes to the traction motor. There are several sweet spots that the generator/motor works at. If it produces more electricity than needed it goes into the battery. CS mode occurs when the battery goes below 30% SOC, the generator/motor kicks in. There will be times when the battery goes below 30% SOC but energy recovered by regenerative braking will also assist in charging the battery up ever 30%. When that happens the range extending generator/motor will turn off and only the battery will power the vehicle (such times are short in duration, compared to recharging by plugging in, because the battery isn’t given a full charge. Hope this helps you understand a little more how the Voltec drive train works.
As for the 40% vs 60%, you would be talking about going 100 miles; possibly 40 miles AER depending on how you drive and the terrain over which you are traveling; and 60 miles using gasoline.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:19 am)I probably should clarify that my glee was over the fact that a top GM exec had stated that Volt would in fact go on sale later this year. I’m so afraid GM is going to pull a Hy-Wire on us. In 2002 they said the Hy-Wire would be ready for production in 2008, later “edited” to 2010, and we see where that went. If the same thing happens to Volt, we got nothing.
+5
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:20 am)Until I can have the equivilent of an electric Suburban that I can zip into the local make-me-fat-mart and take a leak, get a slurpy and a bag of jerky while it recharges in 5 minutes I want some form of high energy density burnable fuel on board. That ain’t going to happen in the next 5 years unless someone is sitting on one heck of quantom leap. In the meantime EREV will dominate and as battery tech goes then certainly there will be a market for pure electric secondary vehicles (commuter only, 2nd car, delivery vehicles etc.) and EREV itself will grow into larger vehicles. But pure electric making gasoline burning vehicles museum pieces is a long, long way off. At least 20+ years even under the most optimistic scenerio’s.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:24 am)FME III – I agree with you. I don’t know what “Long-term” reference he is using, but I think it will be more then 10 years personally. I don’t see the average person wanting to buy a car that limits where you can go if there is a viable car for close to the same price that has unlimited range. I’m not going to buy a Leaf at $25k with a range of (100 miles, 150 miles or even 250 miles) if I can get a Volt at $30k with unlimited range. (I’m kind of projecting cost a few years down the road as production ramps up and batteries get cheaper) I know alot of people say they would do it for a pure commuter car, but in my opinion not that many people can have such a car. Most of us need the car to cover a wider range of transportation needs. I’m not knocking the pure commuter car people on this site, just saying I don’t think the general public can do that.
One other factor is as the BEV goes from 100 to 200 to 300 mile range, the Volt will in turn go from 40 to 80 to 100 mile range generally speaking. At that point I’d still buy a Volt if it could do ALL of my in town driving on Electric, but still take vacations and extended trips with the EREV. The Volt becomes a GREAT car for companies that want to buy it as a Fleet car for their field sales reps, or even rental car companies assuming GM can get the cost down to be competitive with regular cars. I just think it’s market is ALOT bigger then a BEV. GM can at some point attempt to sell cars to Hertz, Avis, etc. the Leaf cannot. I know I know I know they can’t do it today because of cost, but that market is achievable for GM and not for the Leaf.
I’m with you FME III
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:24 am)I have seriously considered an electric car ( BEV ) for years. I was searching the web for a RAV 4 EV or an electric Ford Ranger – or even a Phoenix electric four door truck. They all seemed doable EXCEPT for one nagging, rather HUGE thing.
RANGE LIMITATION. How could I dish out that kind of money , and count on a vehicle where I had to draw a 20 mile circle around my home – and stay within it. This is AMERICA – we have long distances and a history of freedom – freedom to “Feel Free Move About The Country” as Southwest Airline’s ads cleverly convey.
Marketing BEVs is saying electric will never be more than a tiny subcategory in our fleet.
RECHARGE! James
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:27 am)Even with recent comments from GM agreeing that BEVs will be a huge market and GM wants part of that, people keep referring to it as EREV vs BEV.
Initially they will appeal to different market segments, until long in the future when BEVs won’t need extended range fuels, but that could be 100 years.
I have no doubt that 300 mile batteries will be available in 5 to 10 years max, but for long trips charging that much juice is just not as convenient as pumping 20 gallons of gas in 3 minutes.
But certainly by the time production ramps up in 3 or so years batteries will be cheaper and newer breakthroughs will be on the horizon.
Still there are going to be different niches for different cards.
EREV 40
BEV 100
Seems to be the initial options and until we have EREV 60, BEV 150, BEV 200, BEV 300, different mixes will work for different familes.
It all depends on peoples individual driving. In 2 car families where someone has a 60 mile daily commute, the BEV 100 will make more sense, but that families second car might me an ICE or an EREV depending on the driving needs of that person.
Bottom line is we’ve spent 3 years in the development phase, we need 3 years in the initial production phase. In 2013 we’ll be reading articles like ‘The death of the internal combustion engine’.
GM to their credit see’s the future, they just need to make sure they get the lion share of the market, which is what Nissan is trying to do.
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:30 am)Fact: BEV’s and EREV’s have plugs. Which will GM support?
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+7
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:37 am)I just don’t get it…..
GM has designed a truly amazing transportation device, and they seem to think it is a mistake just months before it is set to be released!!!
Unless they know something about a new electric storage method that will eliminate the need for a backup ICE, I think that Mr. Reuss better stop thinking like it is 1980 all over again, where 700 HP is what people want with an MPG of 15, and that electric cars are just toys for the “Greenies”.
GM can lead the way to this technology and own this market, but they better get their act together, or it will be just like the bad decision to ignore the parallel hybrid and letting the Prius stomp all over them!
And why does it have to be either E-REV or BEV? Can’t GM have both available, so we can buy what we need????? For many, a BEV with a range of 100 miles is perfect. For many others, an E-REV as the primary vehicle is the right choice. Is that so hard to understand???
Get it together, GM!!!!
And remember, just like Nelson @ #22 above, for me it is NPNS!!!!!!!!!!! But a BEV with a 100 mile range will not get me to open up my wallet.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:41 am)Please build the Cruze with Voltec but make the ICE Gen optional.
EREV = With it
BEV = Without it
One of these execs mentioned here (somewhere on an old post) that was a possibility.
“We The People” will decide what’s best for us.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:44 am)Wow, whenever my shrinks start talking to me like that, I know my, uh, “issues” have started flaring up again…
But seriously, the exec’s statement is really no big deal. Yes, at some point in the undetermined future, battery performance and price will have advanced far enough that BEVs will be the preferred solution for more than half of the market. The need for EREVs will remain for the foreseeable future, for people who need the option of jumping in their car and driving half-way across the country at any given moment.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:47 am)One other thought:
Why a thread like this, just a day or two before the winners of the “Volt Test Drive” contest are announced?????
It is depressing……
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:47 am)I think Mark is spot on. E-Rev technology deals with three issues, current energy density of the electrical energy storage device is too low, therefore both physical size and weight make a “100 kwh gas tank” problematic. Secondly, the cost per kwh seems too high, so again the “100 kwh electrical energy gas tank” would cost north of $50,000. Thirdly and lastly, the rapid recharge infrastructure does not exist, where level three chargers (3 phase 480 able to charge at a 70 kw rate) would provide a refueling source over breakfast, lunch or dinner if one takes their time.
Until those three issues have been dealt with, GO Volt.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:49 am)As a Mini-E driver I get what he is saying.
Right now the BEV/100 mile combo (highly skeptical of the Leaf getting more than 65miles per charge) works for many, it certainly does for us. Lets say it works for 30% of the driving public. The barriers are battery cost and range, according to Deutsche Bank battery cost are coming down really fast, .
As the price comes down and the range goes up the percentage will go to 50%. This pattern will continue to a day in the future where it works for 80% . To me that would be a market priced car 20k to 30k and a real world range of 150 miles. That’s a 50% cut in price and a 50% increase in range.
My guess is that happens in 5 years.
So Hybrid and EREV are stop gaps and ultimately declining markets and the BEV will be a growing market.
Some peg this transition at 30-40 years, I think the speed is going to much faster with many more and quicker advances in technology.
Peder
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:50 am)I have been an advocate for high speed rail for a long, long, long time. (stay with me, there’s a good point to this). Have you ever doodled a drawing on a piece of paper with a flat-car carrying five or six cars at a time? A cross-country car ferry to take you and five other cars a few hundred miles, then you get to the stop, and drive off?
One BEV is not great for a cross-country trip – perhaps – unless I can join up with four others for a few hours.
How many EREVS would it take to power such a car, for 3 hours, at 150 miles per hour?
Remember folks, this is Detroit. These cars are going to get faster over time…when I no longer HAVE to worry about fuel cost, I WANT to drive 100 miles an hour.
But that’s not safe, yet.
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:51 am)Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:54 am)Even in 30 years it will make sense for a family to have 1 BEV and 1 EREV. No matter how good batteries get.
But EREVs need to come with many configurations. You need to have your AER on an EREV be equal to your most common daily drive, whether that is EREV 40, EREV 60, EREV 80 etc. But what will make the EREV invaluable to have along with your BEV 150, BEV 300 or whatever is the fact that if your power is out for DAYS which often happens with big storms etc, or you need to drive 1000 miles as fast as you can or whatever, you have a car that can do it.
Having more than one power source for your car has a great value. I haven’t changed my mind, in that I think in 5 years 2 car families will want one of each.
It is the one car families that need to choose what fits their needs the best.
In the meantime we have 260,000,000 cars in this country and 000,000,000 retail EREV/BEVs available, so we still have 3 years to watch the early production phase and see what improvements come about while production capacity is being ramped up.
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:55 am)Like someone said, BEV still has a lot of issues to resolve. If they can get me:
- 100 REAL electric range in Canadian weather (prob. need around 200 stated range since heater is awfully important here in winter)
- if it can be fully recharged over say 8 hours (I don’t care for quick charge; to me anything that wears down the battery excessively doesn’t fly. And NO, I don’t want no project Better Place ____either. I don’t think that will do wonders for the car over long period with mechanical wear & tear and I want to own the battery, thanks, not get suckered away from having true energy independence, esp. if I can set my home up so that I can live off-grid or produce enough power to sell.)
- if the battery is guaranteed to last at least 10 years
- if it is made by a NA automaker
- if the price is less than $24K for the base model
Then yeah, I can see myself replacing the family car with a BEV. I’ll rent a EREV for longer trips. People who think AVERAGE Joes like me can maintain 2 cars are just being unrealistic. Who the heck can afford 2 cars these days? I don’t think I’d want it even if I can afford it; who wants a car-sized deadweight takng up room in their garage/car port or having to pay for extra parking stall?
In any case, I’m guessing this exec is talking say 15 years in the future when the battery tech is reliable & cheap so that it can meet most or all of the descriptions above. Even as a city car, unless it meets the above requirements, I don’t thnk a lot of the people will take it as their main car. Singles or couples might like it but for people with 2 kids who try to save time/energy, etc. by combining several short trips into one long one (grocery run, drive to park/mall, library, etc.) all while carrying 4 or 5 people & other heavy loads in cold winter or hot summer, with the heater/air conditioner on…it just doesn’t add up.
I don’t think BEVs like the LEAF will do anything big in terms of getting people to change fundamentally from gas to electiric drive. If anything, they will reaffirm EREV (& other plug-ins)as the immediate next steps that we should take until batteries are perfected.
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:55 am)This makes sense. GM is already on record as believing that hydrogen is the long term solution for vehicles needing longer ranges, so obviously a BEV would be the long term solution for vehicles needing a shorter range.
So till the hydrogen infrastructure shows up I guess it’s EREV?
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:03 am)I really don’t know why so many of you are getting upset. GM stated a while back that this scenario would happen. I think erev and 2 mode hybrid systems will be around for at least 15 years. I don’t have a problem with GM getting into the bev market as well, so maybe I can buy from them instead of from an out of country manufacturer. There is room and need in the market for both bev. And erev, so why not encourage GM to compete in both. In the global picture there are many people who are wanting an ev. That can go 80 miles. GM said the average commuter drives 40 miles, so why shouldn’t they get a piece of the all electric pie as well. These are two different products for different purposes, yet some of you still want to play the game of this method is better then that method. They are both great improvements to current ice vehicles!
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:10 am)To understand the Reuss comments, it may help to consider the source. Mr Reuss is the Whitacre echo, in that whatever Mr Whitacre says, Mr Reuss says lounly a short while later. Mr Reuss also is gm’s anti-Lutz. That is, once promoted he has systematically un-promoted Lutz’s people and down-graded Lutz’s projects. Converj? Did we ever approve Converj? Volt? really just a short-term solution. It’s all the same pattern.
So maybe we should not give Mr. Reuss’s views importance as technology statements. The good part is that once we have choices, the market will decide. Petrol carries so much energy with such small weight and volume that using some for back-up is going to be very attractive for a long long time, maybe forever.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:11 am)LOL why would anyone buy a Toy today? Death wish?
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:21 am)I too am dismayed and confused at the mixed signals coming out of top GM people this month, since around the time of the latest personnel purge. A cloud of doubt seems to have appeared over everybody’s head….. totally opposite Nissan’s overly positive Ghosn. Isn’t there anyone left at GM to take charge and demand there be a consistent and positive focus with the Volt? No more shaky and debatable long term predictions allowed — sales & marketing: keep your attention on making Gen 1 Volt the most successful car it can be. All bridges beyond will be crossed only if and when we get there, and it’s your job to eliminate the ‘if’.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:28 am)______________________________________________________________
GM’s Mark Reuss said:
“…While EREV will be wildly popular at first with Volt,” says Reuss. “As the technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars to carry smaller packs, that may be the higher volume play over a longer time…”
—————
I respectfully disagree with the negative comments posted today that Reuss’s comments somehow are negative on the Volt. I found it refreshing to hear straight talk from a GM exec about the role of the Voltec technology in its today EREV configuration. Reuss is 100% correct that the Voltec platform is a gateway platform to future mass adoption of BEVs. I also agree w/ Reuss that the EREV Volt will be “wildly popular”.
Reuss in no way implied in his comments that GM will be excluded from selling BEVs in the future as when battery technology allows BEVs to be more practical for the average consumer. As Bob Lutz pointed out, the Voltec Platform is engineered to give GM a straight shot to BEV when the time is right (Voltec EREV – IC + more battery = Voltec BEV).
I give GM’s Mark Reuss +1
___________________________________________________________
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:30 am)Jim… If somebody is making 700 hp and STILL getting 15 mpg that is absolutely the most efficient engine on this planet…
Just sayin’…
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:44 am)So you’re saying that it’d be more accurate to “hear” this comment as coming from Mr. Whiticare. Doesn’t he have something significant to say as to which GM “choices” are *available* on the road? I suspect that your post was intended to provide some comfort/reassurance, but if you are correct, it’d almost take a statement from Mr. Whiticare to provide any actual reassurance? Who knows, maybe that will be tomorrow’s thread.
Full Disclosure: Due to computer problems all day yesterday, I didn’t get to read yesterday’s posts until 3 a.m. today. Maybe I shoulda stood in bed.
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:49 am)Well said. +1.
Be well,
Tagamet
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:54 am)Well said, John! For early adoptors, it’s all about price and delivery. I think that if BEV’s sell big time, Now’s the time to start a vehicle towing company. Service trucks can carry high voltage electric generators to give those BEV’s a quick boost.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:59 am)Mark Reuss;
I WILL NOT buy a BEV. The reasons for this are well documented but the overall reason is safety, I will NOT put my wife into a dangerous position where a frozen BEV cannot get her home. We get winter here, our friends in the south get serious summer down there, a dead car can very well mean a dead person.
I would buy an EREV. So would a lot of people.
The Volt… maybe you have heard of it, is an EREV.
It seems you need to be educated about what you have in your own company.
It’s VERY disappointing you have no idea that you have the very first practical electric car in the world in your hands and you dismiss it!
(A 2 seat $100+k tesla is NOT practical.)
Toyota is on the ropes and this guy is saying well we have this temporary fix we can kinda sorta release.
You SHOULD be getting a Volt to the WOZ and get him to drive it around. He’s a good man, I hate to see him in danger with all those Prii around.
WHAT THE @#$@%#^#^%# ARE YOU THINKING????
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:00 am)What happened to all the talk about Gen II, III, various voltec siblings, etc? I haven’t heard anyone today say that the Volt will do anything to *hinder* BEV development. Of *course* Voltec EREV – IC + more battery = Voltec BEV. Uncontested. But wouldn’t it be nice to hear the chief of MARKETING say something positive about the other planks in that bridge to BEV’s?
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:02 am)One could support that theory, especially after they canceled the Converj and the PHEV Buick. Or at the very least they are only doing it to appease CARB’s PZEV and ZEV demands.
It doesn’t matter too much, however, as Nissan is going full tilt boogey into EVs, Ford is right around the corner and probably closer than we think to a PHEV Escape (they just keep their cards closer to the vest than Nissan and GM), and there is bound to be other companies that make EREVs, Hyundai, Audi, Volvo, Mercedes all seem pretty serious about it, or who knows. Even if you don’t fancy any of those brands, just the fact that it’s going to happen whether GM likes it or not will force them to stay competitive with another Volt iteration.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:03 am)So, is this new Volt ambivalence the result of the Volt leadership purge, or is the purge a result of the ambivalence?
Has the GM leadership looked at Ghosn’s Leaf and started shaking like a … well, a leaf?
“It appears he believes the Volt is a stepping stone to a market of pure EVs, and that the process of developing the technology for Volt will help lower the costs and broaden the acceptance for EVs in the future.”
This is why you keep a vigorous, continuously adapting Voltec program to stay constantly ahead of the follow-on BEVs. You cannot turn back, GM; you’d best press forward aggressively. You have a great opportunity here. Sitting still will only allow another lead to fade away in a future world changing around you.
Go ahead with your plug-in two-mode, but know that it will have a lot of PHEV company from other manufacturers. Go ahead with a BEV if you want to (IMO it’s far too early for anything but a 100-mile “me too” model). But do not allow yourselves to back down on EREV. If the Volt vision is gone, go try and get some of it back. EREV is the key to it all.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:04 am)“But I found this tidbit on GreenTech Media, about a new mystery player promising radical improvements in BEVs.”
I looked at the post, and it appears that “Aurica’s” “secret’ is an electric motor at every wheel. I’ve long thought this to be the ideal EV model- but no plan (so far) has demonstrated the ability to produce such a car in the sub luxury (<$80,000 price range). The advantages are obvious in the superior control and potential performance of such a car. By dropping the need for any transmission, ICE, and other associted parts Auricle claims the weight loss eqautes to 50% longer range for any battery. That does not seem unreasonable, but can they really build it at a price less than only the richest can afford? We shall see.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:23 am)As a finance/business person, Mr Whitacre does not seem to care much about cars one way or the other. Beneath him, there may have been a little rivalry between Reuss and Lutz (smile, who knows really?), but now the younger, stronger Prince has ascended, and he is consolidating his position, as Machiavelli advised. Reuss is certainly a rising, powerful executive in the gm hierarchy, so it is good that Lyle posts his comments.
If Volt is successful in the marketplace and makes money for gm, they will all be happy, and we will too.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:24 am)If battery development happens as anticipated, BEVs will very likely become quite popular. EREVs will still have a role.
Why foster an emotional attachment to EREV vs. BEV? It’s not rational.
It’s all about the batteries, has been and will be. Time will tell, don’t get your drawers in a twist. It matters little what anyone THINKS. What will happen is not known.
Peace be with you.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:25 am)and if he said,
“The EREV is the BE-ALL and END-ALL ultimate design for the automobile”,
the comments from this Board would be crucifying him as an idiot with his head in the sand.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:27 am)The issue with in-wheel motors is the weight (mass) of the motor itself, to have a car handle well (safely) is to keep the unsprung weight as low as possible. A heavy motor in each wheel could create a poor handling vehicle.
This is why an independent rear suspension rides so much smoother that a live axle suspension. There is a lot less weight bouncing around with the wheels.
IF one could make motors light enough the idea has real merit, the problem is that powerful electric motors are heavy things.
Now, if you were to take an existing rear independent rear suspension you could use one motor on the differential input to drive both wheels or you ‘could’ replace the differential assembly all together and use two motors inboard driving the wheels through the same half shafts that the gas cars would use. (using existing parts keeps costs down)
GM… PLEASE feel free to use this plan to build my AWD Volt! (add a brush bar and we have a Voltback?)
My 2 and 3/4 cents…
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:28 am)Just so long as Volt stays on track, it will all work out ok.
(May be raining here, but it is still a nice day)
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:30 am)You have a good point, but since the Volt is first out of the chute you would think that ANY sort of “marketing” person worth 10% of their pay would be pumping the product they actually HAVE.
I ALREADY miss Bob and he isn’t even gone yet…
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:31 am)The downside being that the 4 electric motor system will absorb an intense jarring at the wheels. And that a wheel failure, such as a flat tire, will be a complicated repair.
There are many benefits to going with the Voltec system. Hard to figure why any GM executive would drag a wind anchor behind one of the finest vehicles ever produced.
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:33 am)#15
Actually, I think that the phrase “range anxiety” was invented here.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:36 am)Missed you yesterday my friend!
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:37 am)Agreed, provided GM itself understands this. Unfortunately, we might find that the effect within GM itself is far from clear-cut: If 2-mode PHEV sales will dip because of a size-increase in Voltec, how motivated will GM be to delay the new Voltec? If Voltec proves out a new battery, and GM has already fielded a BEV with a less-capable one, what internal corporate angst will that provoke? The situation could be compared to inter-service rivalries in the US Armed Forces. Ask some in the Army who the Enemy is, and they might respond, “The Navy!” The decision in any kind of internal conflict between the GM EVs is likely to be set mainly by upper-management politics, based on who roots for what profit center. GM should be prepared to compete in the marketplace; but there is cause for concern when GM starts competing within itself. The best results might have come from picking one EV architecture and sticking to it; but now, we’ll likely never know.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:38 am)There are a lot different kinds of idiots.
Tagamet
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:39 am)I would be much more interested in BEV if I could charge my battery under 10 minutes, and could go 300 miles when fully charged. But it doesn’t look like that is going to happen any time soon at least something that is affordable.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:40 am)#20
I think that’s right. Foot in mouth disease is epidemic. Anyway, EREV, BEV it’s all good. Not to worry. Bring it on! If I could get a GM equivalent of the Leaf, I would be very interested.
LJGTVWOTR!! NMST!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:41 am)We have three cars, his, hers, kid’s. If at some future point, the purchase price of BEVs and EREVs gets close to competitive with ICE cars, we would buy two BEVs and 1 EREV.
That would give us two BEVs which can go 100 miles per day on an overnight charge, plus 1 EREV with unlimited range. Unless the EREV were alot cheaper than the BEV, why would I need two cars with unlimited range?
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:42 am)The commuter car issue is an interesting analysis.
And one that the Volt solves better than the Leaf. If we remember that most people drive less than 40 miles a day, the Volt is the best solution. You get full electric for most driving, and flexibility to go anywhere at any time, the perfect commuter car. For those of us who drive farther to work, I have a 49 mile one way drive, the Volt is still perfect, since I fully expect to be able to charge at work. With a Leaf, I still would have to charge at work, since we don’t really know the real world range and anxiety will occur daily. Where’s the advantage then?
The Volt offers no limits and piece of mind is the advantage. If you drive further than 20-25 miles to work, you simply have to plug in at work and the Volt gives you all electric. You have to plug in the Leaf once everyday also, so whats the difference with a Volt if you plug in at night AND during the day at work?
If you drive over 40 miles one way to work, with a Leaf you HAVE to plug in during the day anyway or else risk running out daily.
Why does a Leaf with an 80 or so mile electric range have any advantage over a Volt, particularly as a commuter car? I just don’t get it.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:43 am)I missed *being here* yesterday, but for today I think I’d better just go away and collect myself.
Be well,
Tagamet
/sure were some bizarre modifications discussed yesterday
No ER, No Sale
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:44 am)The cold reality of the laws of physics and chemistry works against this happening any time soon.
This is why EREV is the way for the time being, at least until Mr Fusion comes along.
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:53 am)LOL!
Some of us here are still conflicted between wanting to save the world and feeling the need to burn tires into smoking lumps!
Hence why Bob is STILL my hero!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:56 am)I agree with your half-shaft idea; keep the motors inboard and away from all the shaking. You could even do this for all four motors in an AWD EV. However, this leads to a new problem: because each motor would turn at a different speed (unless the car is moving in an absolutely straight line), you have to give each one it’s own controller, and software would have to replace the functionality of the differentials. This would not be cheap.
I think someone will come to this configuration eventually, once controller volumes increase along with conventional EV production numbers; but an electric AWD will always be more expensive than electric 2WD, for similar reasons as their ICE-driven counterparts: you need extra stuff to make 4WD happen. The advantage for electric is that the stuff isn’t mostly mechanical; and an AWD might be hard to tell from 2WD just by looking at it: it could sit as low (if desired), have fewer or no aerodynamic consequences, be similar in internal volume, etc.
I call BS on anyone purporting to bring out this sort of AWD electric today at “affordable prices.” It will happen someday.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:01 pm)#21
Kind of like the modern day equivalent of “Take a long walk on a short pier”, when I stop to think about it. LOL. +1
LJGTVWOTR!! NMST!
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:04 pm)You are definitely right there, using a ‘standard’ independent rear suspension with the motor on the diff input would be much cheaper than using two motors and the doubled up support hardware.
This rear drive assembly could/should be a modular piece that could be used on the Voltec pickup or van or CUV so the cost would spread out nicely.
As the current owner of a Subaru and a Land Rover, there is absolutely no question that I would check the AWD option box. Actually the fact that the Volt is currently 2WD only is my biggest doubt!
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:06 pm)Both? I don’t think it would hurt too much. I really do see BEVs as a small niche though.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:09 pm)Having put to bed many largish projects, I am thinking that this is the midnight jitters before launch. You always try to rethink the rethink of what you thought was the deliverable.
Volt has been three+ years in the making. Doing some rethinking prior to a launch is sometimes good. Ya just don’t do it in front of the dang customers!
And yes, a BEV-100 could replace my second vehicle or be a third easily. It’s all a personal case-by-case thing.
As far as what the future holds.. It may also be that we won’t care that we have to recharge often if there is no oil. Look at all the changes in the last two years! Change can happen very quickly in some cases.
Here’s some changes I didn’t fully expect:
230 Mpg announcement
10% unemployment
12″ snow storm in Dallas
Daughter and 2 grandkids moved into their own house
global financial crash
$4 gasoline
global warming (climate change) controversy
Lindsay Lohan suing for use of her first name (well, that one was kind of expected)
Anytime a graph goes off the chart, it’s an eye-opening experience.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:09 pm)He probably already has, along with other accidental race car drivers that were driving a Prius.
Brilliant Tag. John1701A loves to start and be argumentative.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:12 pm)(continuation from #81)
True or False: The larger an electric motor is, the more efficient it tends to be. I think the consensus here is “True.” If this is so, in-wheel or 4-motor drive has another problem. A motor intended for one wheel is either much larger than it could be for the required power, or it is less efficient than a single larger motor driving two wheels.
Look for electric AWD to be based on 2 motors first: Only two controllers needed, with differential/transaxle drives taking care of the East-West power split at front and back. The loss in efficiency for 2 motors verses 4 is more than made up for by the lack of North-South prop shafts, u-joints, an additional differential, and clearance for same.
EDIT: Missed your #83, MRB.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:12 pm)Neither GM nor the other major automakers actually believe hydrogen cars will ever be viable. I base this assertion on their actions, not thier words. The automakers are still collecting on the outyears of grants from governments in US and JApan to build hydrogen test fleets. Some of the automakers have completed their test fleets and have them on the road, a few are still building.
But not a single major automaker has announced plans to build a production hydrogen car. The reason is not infrastructure. If the laws of physics allowed a practical hydrogen car to be built, the infrastructure would happen. But the problem is that hydrogen is not a natural resource like petroleum, natural gas, radio isotopes, falling water, sunlight or wind. Hydrogen is a manufactured product, which requires more energy input at the production stage than it delivers to the axle. Making hydrogen requires energy from natural resources. It will always be cheaper to use either electricity or carbon based fuel to power your vehicle.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:12 pm)Typical scenario: I live just north of San Francisco. I need to drive to So. Cal as do a whole bunch of people do every day. What are my options if I want to own an electric car? 1) Not drive my electric car, which means I have two cars. 2) Re-charge on my way down – I guess I missed all those re-charging stations dotting the I-5. Can someone remind me again of their locations? And while you’re at it Mr. Reuss, let me know when “the future” will be different. Oh yeah, I’ll need to get back home again. I won’t be staying with friends to mooch off their electricity – it’s like borrowing “gas money”.
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:14 pm)To answer my own question:
If you drive anywhere from about 50-80 miles one way, then MAYBE the Leaf makes sense. But you would have to charge twice a day, and not go much off the planned route with unexpected detours or errands. Any less than that, a volt would work fine; you just have to charge twice a day if you want all electric.
Driving 50 miles one way in a Volt means about 20 miles a day on gas if you plug in at work. Even at $4/gal gas that’s still only about $2/day (assuming about 40mpg in extender mode). Not really much of a penalty over a Leaf, considering the flexibility you gain with the Volt. They BOTH still have to be plugged in at work during the day. Well, at least the Leaf HAS to. If you want to get home.
+15
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:17 pm)Tag.
I believe it should be
“Let a Prius TAKE YOU for a fast ride.”
Once you drive a Toyota…you can’t stop
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:31 pm)#72 Zachary Taylor GM should be prepared to compete in the marketplace; but
there is cause for concern when GM starts competing within itself. The best results might have come from picking one EV architecture and sticking to it;
but now, we’ll likely never know.
(Quote)
I don’t see making both vehicles as competeing with yourself. I also didn’t read anything that says that they would stop the erev. There is a desire for both platforms, so why limit yourself to one flavor? It’s about satisfying what global consumers want. Selling bevs also would have a positive affect by producing more components which shared by both platforms should lower component cost. IMO GM would be behind again, if they don’t offer what people want. Without a good product mix, you will probably miss out on market share.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:31 pm)I my work I can need to travel considerably more that 100 miles in a day, not every day of course but often enough that a BEV isn’t going to work for me.
So… your scenario means that you are restricting your wife’s movements and potentially putting her at risk when she’s stuck in traffic and the BEV expires before she gets home.
Kids are tough, they can handle being stranded in a snowstorm or a heatwave so what the hey, give them a BEV right?
That’s why I say EREV all round, if the trip is within range it burn’s no gas but if plans change or traffic is bad everyone gets home safe.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:35 pm)I would think that EREV would always be in greater demand than a BEV. With a BEV you always have that range anxiety. With a BEV you can’t even get from Northern California to Southern California in a single day because you’d need to stop and charge.
I’d rather they focus on EREV vehicles with longer ranges rather than BEV’s. Just imagine, in a pure electric vehicle if you wanted to take a cross country trip, it’d literally take about a week if you had to charge after every 200 miles.lol But with an EREV vehicle you could easily make it in 2 days (granted you’d be using the generator, but at least you’d make it in that timeframe).
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:37 pm)If the Volt will truly be “wildly popular” – should we, Mr. Reuss, assume there will be a generation II and if not, WHY NOT?!! I hate to mention the Prius, but have to since GM has stated it wanted to “leapfrog” the Prius – and why not make it THE target since it’s SOLD 1.6 million ( wildly popular – like VWs on the highway in the ’60s and ’70s ). How will you leapfrog it if you cancel it and go backwards with BEVs?!!
The Prius is on Generation III, soon to be Gen IV if we count the lithium plug in model out in ’12. Toyota has evolved the Hybrid Synergy technology – not dumped it, re-invented it, or simplified it.
Honda thought they could undercut Prius in price, stealing sales by cutting some corners in their “Honda Prius” aka: Insight 4dr- they removed such expensive tidbits as a quality interior and smooth 1.5 litre VTEC from the Civic Hybrid. They reduced it’s size until the backseat cannot carry adults comfortably-and added a cheaper hybrid system and rough running smaller engine. In the end, the Insight has sat on Honda lots and Prius outsells it 8 to 1. I guess Honda didn’t have- insight- after all. In Hindsight on the Insight ( lol ) Honda Executive Vice President Koichi Kondo told Bloomberg,”I think we compromised too much on size in pursuing fuel efficiency”.
Toyota has oft been quoted saying it will create an ENTIRE PRIUS BRAND – including light trucks and family wagons.
Since the Volt will be “wildly popular” perhaps we can also assume GM will manufacture up to capacity at Hamtramck, perhaps a double shift to make more and more and more of them, right Mr. Reuss? I mean – WHY NOT build ‘em like you believe in it?
RECHARGE! James
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:50 pm)When pigs fly – if they’re talking about fixed batteries. Or if they start an aggressive breeding program, maybe when batteries have a 300 mile range and can be recharged in the time it takes to buy and consume a Starbucks espresso drink. Changes will happen in the meantime: flex-fuel, clean diesel, and methane should be Alternate fuels for the ICE; battery range will increase and ICE size will decrease; ultimately fuel cells or swappable batteries may be the range extenders but don’t hold your breath on that one. In the meantime maybe GM can get some charging stations installed at all those espresso stations and fastfood joints along the interstates.
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:54 pm)No worries my friend, we are definitely on the same page here!
Of course really all we save parts wise here from a conventional AWD is the driveshaft (propshaft to our UK friends) and the differential in the front transmission case.
What is gained is improved packaging since you no longer require the tunnel down the middle of the car body. However I’m betting that there will be an overall weight penalty since an electric motor is likely going to weigh more than a driveshaft and the bits no longer in the trans case.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (12:54 pm)#89
They’re right there next to the hydrogen pumps on the “Hydrogen Highway”, LMAO.
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:02 pm)I always get a CHARGE out of articles like this.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:03 pm)LOL.
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:05 pm)It’s all a personal decision. I can’t foresee a case where my wife’s 5-mile commute would ever take all of the 100-mile range. That’s a 20x buffer. Her current car could run out of gas also if she goes 20x more than normal. (No, she doesn’t ever buy gas! I fill it up about once a month.)
That said, she won’t be caught driving a Ford or a ‘foreign’ car either. And, she thinks Leaf is ugly, so, no sale there.
I might be a good candidate for a conversion. She also never uses the trunk.
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:05 pm)I was suggesting that “long term” might be a lot of years.
I don’t, however, necessarily think that hydrogen will fail because it will always use more energy than it can store. It depends on where the energy comes from. If you can use solar and water then what’s the problem? Nocerra claims that he can produce sufficient hydrogen to store 32 kWh from a small solar array and a bottle of water. The only remaining issue, and obviously it’s a big one, is finding an effective catalyst for the hydrogen which is a lot less costly than platinum.
The fact is that anything that stores energy — be it gasoline or bio-fuel or batteries for that matter — need more energy inputs than they can store. It’s just the nature of the game.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:08 pm)I think he’s talking about the very long term. 20-30 years from now, BEV technology may have matured to the point where an EREV is unnecessary. Personally, I think that’s more likely than the hydrogen fuel cells ever working out. But GM talks about them a lot too.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:28 pm)Unfortunately those hydrogen pumps are also right next to the E85 pumps in CA.
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:30 pm)There are definitely environmental variables that change requirements.
My wife on her work commute covers about 3x the distance yours does, the difference being that in the winter a BEV would very likely be a block of ice by the end of the day so she would be in tough to get home safely. An EREV would start the engine and drive home without a worry. She definitely does use the back of her car for all kinds of stuff. (Subaru wagon)
There is no such thing a a public charging station anywhere near here and I have not heard of any company ‘pushing’ electric cars here nor have I heard of any company allowing/supporting electric car charging.
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:32 pm)It may sound frustrting until we look at the fact that the Volt really is not the future but right now. Being built for sale this year, unlike the concepts and vaporware that’s being photoshopped around the world ( See Geneva Auto show). Considering the long lead times of the industry, IMO spending part of your day looking toward gen II and beyond is just plain smart for someone in the executive suite.
The Volt is now in the hands of production and marketing folks. The technology will be on the road this year and looking at extending that technology into more opportunities, reducing costs is the right way to go.
Intel isn’t going to sit in a press conference and demand reporters sit and listen to rants about how great last years production technologies were, now that auto OEM’s are embracing technology more than ever, why would we expect GM to do that, or for Lyle to ask them to. I’d like to see as many Volts on the road as possible, but I also can’t wait to see what is in store for gen II.
Yep!!!
Are you suggesting they lie to customers?
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:38 pm)There’s the little problem of compressing the H to 5000 to 10000 PSI, to store it in the vehicle – and then keeping it there between trips. *Miles* to go before we can do both efficiently.
Just a thought.
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:38 pm)I think Rashiid has said it best. The future of BEV’s is dependent upon the elimination of Range Anxiety issues, which will take many years.
We might see something come along to replace the ICE before seeing the EREV technology being replaced by BEV technology.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:40 pm)When I hear GM execs speak since January, I hear a succinctly different tone. I don’t think it’s pre-release jitters, and it’s not only Mr. Reuss.
The Volt is a very expensive program. It drives numbers people crazy to think of the initial losses for the first few years to get it profitable. These batteries are costly. The only way to overcome the costs is to sell a whole lot of Voltecs.
We have to overcome all the bad memories of the GM, Phillips Petroleum, Firestone Tires scandal of the 1930′s and ’40s. We have to “un-remember” the EV-1 and the lingering doubts GM will not forego all those greasey oily replacement part profits until they have to, either dragged from them by big government, or the pure lack of crude oil left on the planet forcing their greedy claws from the oiley sword. It’s alot for many to overcome. Kind of a feeling that GM owes us – especially since we now bought part of the company with zero stock dividends.
I don’t read this interview as a decades-long overview of the far future. Call me jaded and bitter, but once bitten, twice shy, and fool me once, shame on me….. But I see it as this huge corporation sliding backwards into it’s old ways of selling ICE, polluting, inefficient products to unwitting Americans as long as they can.
Want a CRUZE anyone?
Not me.
RECHARGE! James
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:45 pm)Seems like that comment struck a resonant chord.
Back to my nap – I think I’ve already earned an honored spot for my picture on a few GM dart boards. There goes my essay hopes (sigh).
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
-11
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:48 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:55 pm)Truly words meant to go viral! LOL +1
-13
Mar 11th, 2010 (1:56 pm)(click to show comment)
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:03 pm)Power of Youth
Go join John on that fast ride in a Prius.
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:05 pm)Mrr, that is exactly what fisker is doing. IMO that will be the standard because of cost/benefit as opposed to wheel hub motors. It is actually an adaptation from the military hummer axle design. It allows for independent wheel control while still protecting the drive train
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:06 pm)Wow…there are alot of negative takes on Reuss’s comments today. I read the article and then re-read it. I just don’t see what all the fuss is about. I didn’t see anything conclusive or new really. Am I missing something here? He didn’t say the Volt is once and done. He didn’t announce an All-electric Volt. He didn’t say EREV’s are inferior to BEV’s. He said,
“As the technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars to carry smaller packs, that may be the higher volume play over a longer time.”
It MAY be the higher volume….
Just sounds like a guess made on his behalf, not a wholesale teardown of the EREV philosophy. Maybe take his comments with a grain of salt…business plans can change on a dime depending on the way the wind is blowing in the market. A gas price shock could turn the whole industry on its head overnight and a $35000 Volt would be the run-away bargain of the century. Anything can happen.
Now if he called the Volt “a car for idiots”, then we may have to put a hurtin’ on him. LOL!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:09 pm)I forget where but I recently saw another prediction of “peak oil” for 2014. Should gas price significantly increase and or availability decrease, the transition to hybrids, Erevs and Bevs will be more rapid than otherwise. How is that for a safe assessment.
-8
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:12 pm)Uh dude, GM will NEVER EVER make money on the Volt !
Repeat NEVER ! Please get this thru your thick skull. GM bean counter have said same many times.
The math will never add up. BILLION$ to develop and maximum 3rd year sales of 60,000 do not equal PROFIT. The Volt would have to sell in the millions to become profitable and that just will not happen EVER. The lifespan of the Volt will not allow it to ever happen. I predict within five years of the Volt’s release newer battery technology will make the car practically obsolete and sales will tumble if GM decided to keep making them for some odd reason. Actually the more popular the Volt is will make its lifespan even shorter due to the intense competition it would create and other makers innovation would soon come to fruition to thwart any short-term gains the Volt might have seen.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:12 pm)From the article “As the technology flows down to BEV in what will be smaller cars to carry smaller packs …”
BEV’s may need to be smaller cars to carry smaller packs, but hopefully EREV’s will not move in that direction. The public is likely to demand EREV family cars.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:19 pm)What is it with the stop gap; if you are sitting all alone in a market of untold size, is that what makes you a stop gap? Was the first mini computer a stop gap because the micro computer would be created later? Is breakfast a stop gap until I have acess to a proper brunch!!!!
It seems we have a confusion of terms here. If the battery technology improves, rip out the Volt ICE/genset and give it to someone who experiences frequent power outages. Would you care to try the same option in a Prius?
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:24 pm)By that logic a 2010 model year car is a bridge to a 2011 model year car. I suppose there will be no new classics produced, just a bunch of old rusting bridges.
+4
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:28 pm)I was just reading the Prius story involving Steve Wozniak.
Toyota appears to have some real software issues.
Their reaction…..
-12
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:31 pm)(click to show comment)
-9
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:33 pm)If BEV’s will be so important to GM, why the !@#$ did they sell the NiMeH battery technology to Cheveron? (Hello!? remember the EV1?)
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:34 pm)He retires end of the month.
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:38 pm)Fast charging has appeared in this thread often enough for me to repeat this:
Before any EV can be conveniently charged from a source greater than 220V ~50 amps (in the US), a means must be provided for accessing the native voltage of the car’s battery pack. This is because all of the EVs we’re hearing about rely on in-car chargers that the drivers can plug in themselves. Where the Volt is concerned, GM has taken great pains to make sure that the native pack voltage remains inaccessible, probably Nissan has too (I don’t blame them at all, this limits flash-fried tinkerers and attendant lawsuits).
To charge at greater rates requires a charger too expensive and heavy to carry (and besides, you would have to plug that charger in at commercially available voltages and currents).
Yes, better batteries to accept higher charging currents need to be created and certified for safety; however, none of it will happen without one simple step which could be tackled now: A agreed-on standard for connecting an external charger.
The existing standard the Volt uses (I forget the alphanumeric soup) would continue to be supported for residential, user plugs. The needed standard should be one for professional, commercial connections.
Since the charger is external to the car, it can be much more flexible, powerful and expensive than an onboard unit. The electronics to identify pack size and adjust voltage would be resident within the charger: all that’s really needed is a safe, mechanical way to attach to the pack.
Putting the contacts on the bottom of the car seems like an obvious move for safety. If there were a pair of small doors on the bottom of the car, separated by a couple of feet, a charger could attach from below, open the doors, and pass one solid conductor bar through each door (the separation makes it less likely to get arcing). A great deal of current could be delivered to the pack in this way. It’s not hard to imagine the through-the-floor robot which could accomplish this. Communication with the car’s computer would allow connection testing before the main current switches on, eliminating sparks (and would also warn of pack overheating).
This is not a paradigm-matching, direct replacement for a gas pump; I imagine a setup resembling the drive through bay in a quick-lube shop, or the tunnel for an automated gas-station car wash (the obvious issue here is the weather, though exhaustive testing may prove the system robust enough to use out in the open).
The charger installation specifics can be worked out many different ways, but none of it starts without that connection standard. The cars have to be capable of hooking up to external chargers before we start seeing stations. Fortunately, installing a couple of simple ports on the bottom isn’t likely to add a lot of cost per unit.
The kicker for the Leaf fans is that it will likely be impossible to safely fast-charge without an active thermal management system. It’s not just a matter of accepting charge quickly, a pack must also be capable of dumping the resulting heat safely. When fast-charging finally comes, and newer, longer range EVs appear, I expect to see a lot of early Leafs just standing around, unused; except for the short-haul, city-only driving niche that they will occupy initially.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:38 pm)Yes, all kinds of problems using hydrogen for transportation. Stationary uses would seem more likely.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:42 pm)Power of Youth eh? You know what they say about youth: All energy; no technique.
Doesn’t it seem obvious that for BEV’s to be the end game of automobiles it will require a sizeable and dependable range, PLUS a re-charging infrastructure? Is that what you and Mr. Reuss foresee in the “Long Term”?
It doesn’t sound completely unrealistic, but fast, safe recharging will have to be accomplished.
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:43 pm)Of course BEV ! When will have to chosse betwen a 40 mile range and a 300 miles range BEV what you will chose never mind that the price for battery packs already is going down ….
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:47 pm)If you take the comment in isolation, you are absolutely correct. It’s when you add it to other disquieting developments and an overall change in tone over the past few weeks that it becomes cause for at least some worry.
Since the original Voltiacs have left GM, there has been precious little said about ongoing, Gen II + development, and the only confirmed Volt spinoff we know of, Converj, has been canceled outright. What have we heard about? GM is about to fund a huge emphasis on plug-in 2-mode. Where is the fan site / buyer buzz for that?
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:47 pm)Indiana to positionitself as EV capitol.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35799431/ns/business-autos
-12
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:51 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (2:56 pm)BTW, when was the last time anyone saw a Tesla outside of the state that you see on the license plate? Personally, I can count them on one unicorn horn.
-10
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:04 pm)(click to show comment)
-6
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:05 pm)Lutz is responsible for that. Ask him.
Hybrids all suffered a lot as a result.
Volt will now too. Welcome to the club.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:16 pm)Since we’re talking longer terms and greater EV numbers, it’s interesting how consistently we seem to cite “just plugging in at work” as a factor in future BEV and EREV reckoning. The existing power grid will allow a lot of electric cars to hit the roads … if they are predominantly charged off-peak, at night. If, in 10 years, there are close to a million charging EVs in the middle of the day, this can quickly become a problem for, or at least a worry of, the electric utilities.
If there are a million EVs in the 2020 – 2025 timeframe, I’d expect to see daytime charging officially discouraged, if not banned outright.
The likliest technological solution for all EVs will be an increase in range (Volt included). This is another scenario supporting my notion that GM will eventually be forced to boost Voltec AER. As with the Gen I range, the Volt in 10+ years needn’t be boosted to BEV levels to remain compelling. If a BEV100 maker decides that a 50% increase in pack capacity is needed, he must add enough battery for 50 miles. By this same formula, an EREV60 would need only 20 more miles. The BEV/EREV value/cost formula will have been re-booted for another 10 years.
-7
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:18 pm)Is that where Larry Bird hails from ? Indiana State me thinks.
You know who i’m talking about, tall pasty white dude who can’t jump, prolly the greatest basketball player of all-time.
I loved watching Bird play. Say, how come he ain’t the Governor of Indiana yet ?
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:23 pm)So, that makes you Power of EXTREMELY RICH Youth, huh? We’ll make a note of it.
+7
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:24 pm)Wow, you can tell the future. Very nice.
NICHE, NICHE, NICHE, NICHE, NICHE, NICHE, NICHE, NICHE,NICHE, NICHE, NICHE, NICHE
and NICHE.
Have a nice day.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:31 pm)Is that why gas stations today are 300 miles apart?
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:31 pm)Power of Yute, you may be right, but let’s talk turkey. Please, fill in the blanks:
Vehicle Cost under 30k ____ yes _____ no
Number of recharging stations – So I can recharge during and after I drive from San Fran to L.A. (assuming that range is already available with AC on, etc.) ______
Number of minutes or hours to recharge OR at a battery swap location, number of years until available ______
In other words define “Long Term” (when the above will be available) ______
Right now there is no BEV that I am aware of that can do one simple thing, which is allow me to drive to L.A. or Portland. However, starting this December the Volt can.
-6
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:32 pm)U-Haul may make the Volt obsolete. Secret program underway to develop a high-density compact battery pack mounted on tiny trailers that hitch to any car and have built-in A/C (via high effeciency inverter) and DC (switchable 12-48-400-600 Vdc) connectors to hook up to any EV or Hybrid and can yeild from 300 to 900 mile ranges depending on trailer size you rent. Yeah Baby it coming…time to Hitch’n'Go… This supplemental energy pack can go anywhere 4 wheels go and can be swapped anytime at thousands of geopoints across the country for free during your rental period.
-6
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:44 pm)I know of one that I see constantly on the freeways in New York and Connecticut. He uses it primarily to pick up and drop off his many mistresses. Owned by a guy who’s name rhymes with yours.
Hint: He has his own late night talk show
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:45 pm)Yeah, that and the Boston String Ensemble playing “Beautiful Dreamer”
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:48 pm)I said States, not counties like the one’s you mention. Good banter dude!
-2
Mar 11th, 2010 (3:50 pm)I know that car !
That particular Tesla is powered by Viagra.
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:01 pm)Range Disgust vs Range Anxiety: I don’t feel anxiety about a car that can only travel 100 miles.
I feel something stronger. If I have a fight with the Mrs and need a 15hr roadtrip to ‘Vegas…
I noticed I have a comfort level with my current car — my ’99 cavalier was in the shop for 2 weeks, and I felt weird driving the wife’s car. It just didn’t feel right. The idea of switching between cars — no.
thanks LRGVProVolt, Sorry, I was wrong… found an article: Electronic controls in the 2011 Chevrolet Volt will fire up the gas engine once the battery pack runs down to 30-percent power, then keep cycling the engine to maintain power within a specified band. Whew ‘tho!
http://www.reedmantollchevy.com/2011-chevy-volt.htm
My plans are to take long trips as efficiently as possible — If I can travel 1000mi/day with some recharging while I eat and sleep — get 600 miles electric, I would be very* happy.
I want my volt’s ICE running at max efficiency — should be plenty for cruising + some extra for batt.
+ regen breaking.
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:03 pm)Range Disgust vs Range Anxiety: I don’t feel anxiety about a car that can only travel 100 miles.
I feel something stronger. If I have a fight with the Mrs and need a 15hr roadtrip to ‘Vegas…
I noticed I have a comfort level with my current car — my cavalier was in the shop for 2 weeks, and I felt weird driving the wife’s car. It just didn’t feel right. The idea of switching between cars — no.
thanks LRGVProVolt, Sorry, I was wrong… found an article: Electronic controls in the 2011 Chevrolet Volt will fire up the gas engine once the battery pack runs down to 30-percent power, then keep cycling the engine to maintain power within a specified band. Whew ‘tho!
My plans are to take long trips as efficiently as possible — If I can travel 1000mi/day with some recharging while I eat and sleep — get 600 miles electric, I would be very* happy.
I want my volt’s ICE running at max efficiency — should be plenty for cruising + some extra for batt.
+ regen breaking.
-1
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:07 pm)No Fear, Toyota Prius has REGEN BRAKING !
If all else fails you can just “reboot” that Prius
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Not until I get my gas station and unicorn farm franchises up and running anyway. But it is a promising idea,,,
http://gammasquad.uproxx.com/2010/03/new-fuel-injection-system
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:10 pm)but would regen braking cause the battery to overload and explode in the fury of a small sun going supernova?!?!? lets see em put a positive spin on THAT!!
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:16 pm)Will Uhaul also sell replacement warranty void if removed stickers, to get battery access?
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:27 pm)I guess it depends on definition.
If you mean ER-EV as inthe Volt configuration, then yes.
If you mean electric powered, with gasoline assist to enhance all electric performance, then no, not by a long shot as the Prius would qualify.
Insofar as volt like configurations. Honda has 100 hydrogen test cars using the Voltec idea, as does Chevy,for a total of about 300 vehicles. (more than Tesla’s total production to date.
Also many city buses are using a form of ER-EV, as are locomotives.
Don’t believe all the kool aid you see, the world needs both..trust me renting a trailer for more EV range will not be a popular idea..GM laready examined it in the 90′s for the EV-1 and was about as popular as the idea of shitting wicker furniture…
and if it is a secret, how do youknow? your mind reading machine penetrate the foil hat the engineer wears? or do you work there…
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:28 pm)Show me a BEV with a trailer hitch, and I’ll show you a voided warranty. The owners manual of my tiny Honda Fit flatly states that installing a trailer hitch will void the warranty — and it’s powered by a gas engine. Most BEVs will be smaller than that.
Even so, who knows? You may have just obsoleted “Project Better Place;” but what you describe won’t happen overnight.
I know you’re probably skipping the really long entries, especially the ones with big words; but you might take a glance through my #126. Connecting to the native pack voltage of an EV isn’t trivial (and sounds like more grounds for voiding a warranty, if you live through the attempt). If you merely supply power to the car’s on board charger through it’s 110V or 220V plug, you won’t be able to put power in as rapidly as driving takes power out.
Nice try though, that’s the closest you’ve come to a thought today.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:50 pm)Frankly, I’m shocked you would say such a thing!
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:50 pm)Yoot…
The battery is also an interim technology.
In a couple years it’ll be Mr. Fusion and then… who knows.
The EREV is the best answer right now.
Mar 11th, 2010 (4:58 pm)Well sure!
When I’m on a road trip of 450 miles I really love the 12 hour rest stop at 300… err no, not really.
Mar 11th, 2010 (5:01 pm)LOL! U-haul!!!
Just remember to check the tires and wheel bearings and the electronics before you plug it into your rather expensive battery pack, because THEY will not!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (5:02 pm)I ahve to say, the idea that the Volt technology is leading the way for batttery only EVS is pretty bizarre – and mostly because it’s pretty brainless. The only new technology coming out of the Volt is the marriage of the two drivetrains. ANYBODY can build a battery only EV – they were doing that before WWI. That’s because it’s so simple, which is why it will be, as soon as battery technology allows, the preffered architecture. I predict that it will also open up the field to scores of new players, and greatly reduce the advantage current automakers have in keeping anyone from jumping in – the very high cost of entry into the field. We can easily see this happening with shoestring operations like Tesla making a splash. The incrdibly complicated and costly gas powered cars of today will be replaced by cars with no where near the price tag (for non-battery parts) or profit margins. This will be a boon for everyone’s standard of living.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (5:28 pm)Shameless plug.
Be well,
Tagamet
/GM-Volt.com: Home of the best fed troll on the InterWeb.
No ER, No Sale
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (5:54 pm)I always keep my plug covered!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (5:59 pm)You want depressing?
Could it be that GM believes most Volt Gen I takers are on this site? Are they afraid of those among us who want to wait for a Gen II? (This includes myself BTW, but this has more to do with my personal situation than any thoughts that a future rev will be superior). They could be afraid that if too many people wait for later, too few Gen I’s will be sold to justify a Gen II. I think they are wrong, but this could still turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy if they let Nissan run away with all the advertising without challenge.
What if they’re hinting that there will be no Gen II, expressly to put more pressure on first adopters to take home what could be a rare and valuable Gen I (Even though it makes those of us in it for the long haul extremely nervous)?
And of course, what if there secretly is no Gen II planned, post-Lutz? They’ve purged the early champions of Voltec, but it’s too late to dump the whole project: they’re committed for 3 years. How are they going to sell a dead-end program to the very ones (us) who saw it’s value as a promising beginning? I’ll leave that one up to the imagination; but there have been some hints.
Don’t try to out-depress a depressed person.
However, even if the worst is true, Sales Talks. Even if Gen II development plans are on the back-burner now, 3 years of sellout demand may change some minds. And, if GM won’t promote the heck out of the Volt, it falls back to us to do what we can; to buy Gen I Volts if we can, and organize grass-roots support when and where we can (this will be a lot easier once members of this board get actual Volts to drive around and show people).
I know that GM people have read what we write here. To any who may be reading today’s thread (and getting a bit freaked out by it): It would be relatively easy to dispel much of this commentary with some straight-forward and simple statements; very little lately has been encouraging to us since the departure of Denise Gray. Bob Lutz is set to follow, soon; Converj has been canceled (but in favor of a 2-mode system which will cost funds to deploy, for which there is little demonstrated demand, and which is a natural competitor to Voltec). Now, we get ambiguous statements like today’s. Do we think that EREV will lead to BEVs? Sure, but how soon? We also think that EREV will remain compelling even as follow-on BEVs appear. We believe that for Voltec to continue being actively developed is likely more important than any one EREV model. Playing the Volt down makes as little sense as Ghosn’s bravado in hyping the LEAF up.
Perhaps you could throw us a crumb: is there an ongoing commitment to Voltec at GM today?
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:15 pm)I think we all can see a future when a BEV can be recharged in a few minutes at stations all over the country. The way to get from here to there however is not clear. I believe that the only practical way to approach that goal is the EREV represented by the VOLT. Once the technolology of Electric propulsion is an accepted future, the other developments will be enabled.
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:21 pm)Can somebody please wake me up.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:24 pm)PBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPB!!!!!!!!
How’s that?
No need to thank me.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:25 pm)#104
True that, LOL. +1
As Billy Crystal so famusly said, “Don’t get me sthaaaated!”
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:26 pm)No, no you are missing something. Apart from optimizing on ICE sweet spots, using the genset to charge the battery and the battery to run the traction motor will always use *more* gasoline than using the genset to run the traction motor. It has to, because the energy transfer into and back out of the battery can never be 100% efficient. Any dream of using less gasoline by charging the battery from the genset during a long trip (by which I assume you mean more than 100 miles) is, in effect, a perpetual motion machine.
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:29 pm)#110
I didn’t even bother to write one, LOL.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:31 pm)#116
I agree. +1
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:33 pm)The Volt is designed to minimize, as much as possible, any situation which results in gasoline energy recharging the pack. The engine only starts when the the battery is depleted. Once this happens, the engine is throttled to match driver demand as closely as possible, for this very reason. Generator power can never match that load perfectly, so some discharging and recharging does take place. However, this never amounts to as much as 1% of total pack capacity. Your pack remains mostly depleted until you plug it in again to recharge, after 50 miles, 100 miles or 300 miles. Gas is expensive, electricity is cheap. That is why the Volt exists.
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:34 pm)Yes, now is a scary moment. One becomes afraid of things slip-sliding away with the next night’s announcement. But I remain hopeful that the Volt has had so many commitments from gm people that it really will get out the door later on this year. Lyle is steadfast, and so are we.
If Volt does get built it will be very well received, and that response will change the future for the better.
Where have I heard the line “Volt will change the world someday”?
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:43 pm)I don’t think for a second that battery powered cars will ever work like that.
Batteries like many other technologies are interim.
What will they be replaced with?
Hard to say, I’m still pulling for Mr. Fusion!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:55 pm)Somebody pass out the Prozac. I really don’t see the down side of this article. I believe Mr. Lutz even mentioned how it will be easy to just leave out some parts to build an all electric vehicle. With the addition of evs to GM’s line-up, there should be savings in more components used for both platforms. I’m sorry but the Volt is not the Holy Grail of electrification. There are a lot of people on this planet who don’t need a long range vehicle and some who can’t afford a Volt either. For some people the Volt will be a perfect match! It doesn’t help the movement to electrification when people try to put evs down just because they can’t use one. There will be a lot of evs sold in the next few years and it would be a shame if GM doesn’t try for some of those customers. The goal is reducing our use of oil ? remember
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (6:58 pm)Actually, it looked to me like there were two “secrets”:
1) Reincarnate the failed ZAP-X with its wheel-hub motors. Others have commented on the unsprung weight problems in that approach.
2) Adopt the magical EEstor ultracapacitors so they have something small enough to do battery swaps with.
Need I say more?
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:05 pm)I think people have an issue with BEV and EREV when thinking about the Future.
A EREV only needs an ICE engine the size of most motorcycle engines. You know, the complete transportation devices sold for less than 7k?
Long term, the costs of turning any “BEV” into an EREV will likely be less than 5k. Especially if you take 1/3-1/2 the battery of the BEV away. A 50 ER EREV might be cheaper than a BEV-200… even in the far future with lower battery costs.
So the real question is…
what would you pay to transform your 100 mile EV into an unlimited Car? Is it 1 dollar a day? 2 dollars a day? Even if you never ever concieve the travel more than 100 miles in a day ever, what is the insurance of being able to do that worth to you?
For me, its worth at least 3 dollars a day. I pay more for automobile insurance, and I hope to get into a lot less accidents than needing to use more than 100 miles in a day.
It would be interesting to see data on Cell Phone purchases.
Some people get by with Pay as you Go. This would be similar to BEV drivers.
Some people have to have unlimited plans which go to waste alot. This would be the EREV drivers.
That might shed some light on where customers are likely to spend… “right” sizing or “insurance” sizing
Personally, I think EREV will be shown to be one of the cheapest ways to add long-range capacity to electric car ownership.
Simply the cost of insurancing and basic maintainence on an ICE car (let alone depreciation) makes the concept of owning 1 extra car terrifying.
Maybe something like Zip Car will come down enough in price that a flexible membership will be less than the ER in the EREV
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:06 pm)If you have magical EEstor ultracapacitors, you don’t need to swap them, Itching4it; because as a matter of fact they would just “work like that” for rapid recharging, MRR.
Too bad the Unicorn is now extinct, and there are no more horns available to make the magic EEStor dust from.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:13 pm)I don’t know why itching4it wants it, but I want to the genset to recharge the battery so later down the road I can have full performance again. What is this a carrot and stick to make us more fuel efficient? I’ll just be happy with my turbo Saabs if that’s the case.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:14 pm)GM making a BEV? No objection.
GM making a plug-in 2-mode? No objection.
GM getting funds for rolling out BEV and PHEV from cutbacks in the Voltec program? No way.
In the long run neither of those other two programs will be sustainable without the EREV to drive battery development and produce an instant market for that and other components they’ll need. “Eventually” is a long, long time. You don’t get the tree if you pull up the sapling.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:19 pm)No, Bruce; you don’t get it. What you want is a diesel electric locomotive with tires. Stick with your Saab, or save your pennies and get one of those AWD electric supercars; if they ever come out. It shouldn’t cost more than half a million.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:22 pm)I thought that Bruce meant that you’d given him a nightmare. I settled for a headache.
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:22 pm)Actually, you do now have an option. Drive your Tesla down I-5 to Harris Ranch and stop there for a very leisurely meal while they provide a free recharge for you. The meal is not free, though. And so far as I know that’s about your only option to date other than a motel room and a long extension cord.
(No, GM, I’m not buying a BEV any time soon. I may keep my Volt until they pry the steering wheel out of my ninety-year-old gnarled hands.)
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:25 pm)#152
Sorry, but I can’t stand it any more. PDNFTT!
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:26 pm)“Emergency Room”?
Is the headache that bad?
ZT
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:30 pm)#155
Yeah, it gave me quite a jolt as well. +1 to both.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:32 pm)#156
EEstor!! Have a little faith. They will put Mr. Fusion on the trailer. Just be patient a little while longer (LOL).
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:36 pm)Zack!
I just think that Bruce hasn’t gotten the emails about why it’s a good thing to arrive home with space to store electrons AND the one that said the CS performance is not a step down from the initial 40 miles.
Your vitriol is squirting all over the place.
Be well and Be kind,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:38 pm)I think, if I were you I would fly, I think an airline passenger gets around 100 mpg equivalent.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:52 pm)Tag,
All that R&D and development work done on the Volt will be useful in developing E-RE-Trucks similar to what Raser Technologies did with the Hummer. Battery technology is moving forward at a rapid pace and BEV’s will take up a large part of the market for electric vehicles in the near future, not 20-30 years.
And, LauraM, don’t single out hydrogen fuel cells as not happening either. We are in the middle of a scientific revolution. IMHO, on all the forgoing statements and the development of net energy from a fusion device before 2030, every pathway to independence from foreign oil is very likely. What is happening now is the beginning of a highly transformational economy which will come about rapidly as the demand for petroleum increases drastically within the next two decades.
Life as we know it in the U.S. could change dramatically: having to travel long distances to get from your neighborhood to a mall or grocery store could, for example, be replaced by smaller neighborhood stores, so that people will not have to travel those great distances. No more giants like WalMart that destroy smaller neighborhood businesses. More co-ops, that support each other and insure employment for the people in the city or area it serves. This is all a hypothetical image of what could happen as petroleum reserves dwindle. If science doesn’t provide us with an answer to the energy dilemma, the U.S. society will undergo drastic changes.
In any case, the BEV will inevitably be the dominant EV on the road. Depending on what scientific break thorough occurs, and how soon, will decide whether the Voltec drive train will be short or long lived.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:54 pm)#178 Zachary Taylor GM making a BEV? No objection.
GM making a plug-in 2-mode? No objection.
GM getting funds for rolling out BEV and PHEV from cutbacks in the Voltec program? No way.
In the long run neither of those other two programs will be sustainable without the EREV to drive battery development and produce an instant market for
that and other components they’ll need. “Eventually” is a long, long time. You don’t get the tree if you pull up the sapling.
I did not read anything in that article that said GM was going to cut funds from the Volt program to build bevs. Why would they want to do that when the Volt is a winner? Building bevs promotes battery and component development just as much as erev does, with the exception of some kind of generater of electricity to the drive system. If electrification is the future, then surely GM can build both erev and bev.
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:54 pm)HeHe, I had to laugh! Did that last weekend myself. during the road trip from Toad Hall we actually had a convoy of Prius’s in the left lane. 70+mph with 50+mpg. Lane discipline was observed, had to pull over to let the 90mph Prius by. When we stayed at Toad Hall we did tour with some more interesting vehicles. Such as a Miata with Ferrari stickers and a 4WD Jag. So we still cool. I must admit that the Prius bouncing around in the left lane is fugly. However the left lane Prius were not marred by any bumper stickers.
Cheers All
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:58 pm)Got a link? I think it is about 60mpg for a fully loaded airbus A380. Could be wrong as I worked it out myself.
Thanx
Mar 11th, 2010 (7:59 pm)#171
Exactly. No problem. +1
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:00 pm)Vitrol squirting? You are definitely on a roll today!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:03 pm)Hi Muddy,
I would be happy with a Volt “Back Roads” edition. Just give it a couple more inches of ground clearance, mud flaps and the amazingly fast all-season floormats.
Also if the seats folded flat the “BR” edition could take on another meaning.
Many Cheers
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:07 pm)Was I that unclear in what I said? Two people seem to think I want the genset to fully recharge the battery. That’s what lousloot wanted, and what I was trying to say was a very bad idea. As for Bruce, sure, I want full power capability after the battery is depleted, and yes, that means the genset might need to do some charging at times. I believe the GM engineers have it right. Keep the ICE running at optimal speeds, or even shutting off part of the time. Keep the battery near the 30% level, or whatever their testing shows is optimum for long battery life.
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:14 pm)I’ll go on a limb and throw my hat in with the dissenters.
There’s three reasons I think EREV will be more successful than BEV for a very long time (possibly at least long enough until they’re BOTH supplanted by something else 
)
1) EREV is cheaper, now and into the future. With fewer expensive batteries, EREV has the lead here and now. If the cost of the liquid fueled engine can be brought down at a rate similar to the cost reduction in batteries (and I think it can – there’s entirely too much “engine” in that generator) EREV will continue to maintain a healthy price advantage.
2) Charging large amounts of batteries quickly is a tricky proposition. It may well be the weakness that remains in BEV long after battery costs have come down. I’m not at all convinced rapid charging or battery swaps will be commercially viable… or consumer palatable.
3) Massive public liquid fueling infrastructure exists, now. There’s huge momentum in this. Were we to start moving away from oil tomorrow (sadly unlikely), this infrastructure will probably still be used to support the existing fleet of cars with some other gas compatible compound, possibly moving to less gas compatible liquids. There is a huge amount of research into alternative liquid fuels going on right now. Many of these products may very well be coming to the market, soon.
Ultimately, it might not even matter if BEV would have been the preferred technical solution. Or even the better one. If it comes far enough out into the future, it will have to be so much better that it can justify the cost of abandoning and replacing an entire infrastructure and that doesn’t happen readily.
Heck, look at AC power. High voltage DC was always a more efficient means of carrying power than high voltage AC. But the transformer made converting AC voltage much cheaper and therefore the whole AC solution much cheaper and more effective than a DC solution (plus rotational generators could produce AC directly as well, DC would have to have been converted from those sources). But now we have highly efficient silicon rectifiers that probably could make an overall DC solution a more effective solution than AC (and here’s the kicker) if we were going to start from scratch building something today. But we aren’t. And we won’t. I sort of see BEVs fighting that same fight over charging vs. some liquid fuel made from waste products someday far out into the future. Sure, it might be a better solution but by that time everyone will be happy enough with the EREV solution and there won’t be enough motivation (read ROI
) to switch everything then.
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:15 pm)Back to today’s thread, I think all those out of state plates could not be BEV’s. Besides after a couple of “Whatever” threads Lyle hands us a bit of really good news. Besides I think Mark Reuss is right, there are a lot more golf carts than EREV’s. I really would not be upset with one of each.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:19 pm)Let’s give the guy a break, he said LONG-TERM. With a median age of 9 years for cars on the road, we’re looking at 20 years for two generations of turnover (unlike members of this Board, many people wait until there’s a reason to get rid of their old car). WHY ARE WE ASSUMING THAT BEVs HAVE A 100 MILE RANGE AND EREVs A 40 MILE AER? (considering that the only BEV available today has a 244 mile range, this seems strange).
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:22 pm)Yes, and that is assuming one person in the car. I figured some time ago that a Prius was more efficient than a plane when the Prius has a passenger.
Then there’s the fact that I hate flying. Haven’t been on a plane for years. Don’t plan to be on in the future if I can avoid it, except the trip to New York at the end of this month so I can drive a Volt. Any news on that??
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:27 pm)Let’s be optimistic for a moment and suppose that Moore’s Law magically kicks in for batteries. What would this mean?
Assuming a doubling of performance and a halving of cost every 18 months (with “performance” defined as battery capacity and charge time) and starting with a baseline of a 250 mile range battery costing $30,000 with a charge time of 4 hours, we get the following:
1 cycle: 500 mile range, $15,000 cost, 2 hour charge time
2 cycles: 1,000 mile range, $7,500 cost, 1 hour charge time
3 cycles: 2,000 mile range, $3,750 cost, 30 minutes charge time
4 cycles: 4,000 mile range, $2,000 cost, 15 minutes charge time
SOOooo, there you have it – in 6 years, you can drive back AND FORTH across the country on a 15 minute charge with a $2,000 battery. This is a clear winner.
IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE MOORE’S LAW APPLIES, just plug in whatever factor you believe is appropriate.
+3
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:31 pm)And Top Gear got about 50 miles on their test track. Your actual mileage may vary greatly.
Not to mention that even Tesla claims their pack will only last 3-5 years (whether you use it or not due to oxidization of the cells) and it’ll cost you $25k for a new one. That’s pretty expensive maintenance. Tesla made a choice to use the highest energy density chemistry they could find and that choice costs them dearly in cell life.
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:44 pm)Most certainly agree. The only great threats from my humble opinion is if subsidies by States and the Federal government die off. Where I am in Colorado, another $6,000 will be available for the Volt atop the $7500 federal. This is not a policital statement; this is a statement on the current economics of EREVs or BEVs. When Obama goes, and here in my State, when Ritter goes, I hope the big picture of what EREVs are doing for the country as a whole doesn’t get lost by their replacements.
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:47 pm)Zachary,
I got to agree with you. Well said!
The E-REV precursor (Volt, E-REV) is necessary for battery development as you say. Since the electric vehicle in the 20th Century is so disruptive, a transition is required to go form the ICE of the 2000 – 2010 to the BEV of the future. Without Voltec and similar drive trains, i.e. E-REV, there would be a need for extremely rapid change-over which most likely would not be a workable venture. The E-REV slows down the transition, allows companies to change their product in order to stay in business. That is why it is important for the movement to an electric economy to have begun so soon. If we waited until petroleum reserves dwinded, down close to nothing, the transition would have to be a lot faster. Like the sapling growing into the tree, businesses need time to adapt and grow into new product lines, maintain their labor force while they make the change over. This is far better than laying off the entire work force because they don’t have employees trained in the new technology, and then starting up a new company. GM, for example, needs time to train the dealership repair shops to handle all the new electronics. They will hire a lot of qualified people to insure that they can adequately manage their new tasks, while other current employees can be retrained to handle it also. Not much has been said about how GM is approaching this particular problem. Perhaps Lyle could address this issue in the near term.
But I digress! Back on comment! Investors wouldn’t provide the capitol for battery development if the demand wasn’t foreseeable. The Volt and E-REV provide that necessary demand. This spurs the advancement of technology that will create the next chapter of the electric vehicle, which, as I see it, is the BEV.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (8:59 pm)Well, it was very clever. And appropriate.
I doubt anyone at GM is holding a grudge against anyone here. Or at least they better not be. We represent the consuming public that’s interested in one of their products. They better care what we have to say. If they don’t like their feedback, they need to acknowledge it, and fix things. Not hide their collective heads in the sand. And hold grudges against people who say things they don’t like.
But even if they were going to blackball anyone, I doubt it would be you. At least, IMHO. And I, for one, think you’d make a great test driver.
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:00 pm)If Moore’s Law applies to everything, why did 53 Cadillacs get 25 mpg, and new ones with all the technology get about the same?
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:07 pm)HA! You misspelled it (g). OT teachable moment in History. When making “home made” alcohol (yes, in a still), purity is tested by collecting some of the juice in a spoon and lighting it. Timing the burn tests proof, BUT (the teachable part) if it burns with a blue “beard” around the flame. it contains “pop skull” – vitriol – which gives one a heck of a headache (*if* one wakes up the next day).
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
+2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:12 pm)Volt superstore in Colorado! Weekend charter flights available. Fly in with all your GM-Volt friends and drive home in a high speed convoy. Let Corvette Guy handle the details! Email and drive! GM card points gladly accepted.
Made my day, Cheers
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:18 pm)Peak oil was 2005 or 2008 – depending on what exactly you are counting. Ofcourse we can only confirm this after a few years. Think about this – 2008 was the year when oil hit the highest price ever – and yet top 10 OPEC countries could not produce more oil in 2008 compared to 2005. Infact they exported less in 2008 compared to 2005. If that is not a sign of peaking, what is ?
-2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:39 pm)Wow, really? This guy has got some brains!
GO EV !!!
-2
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:48 pm)+1. I know this is gm-volt … but facts shouldn’t be ignored.
I’d say in worldwide sales, BEV will always be more than EREV. Afterall dozens of companies are producing BEVs – some in committed large volumes. Just one or two are producing EREV – in smallish volumes.
Looks to me that EREV will remain the costlier option that will only sell in US. Europe & Asia will be almost completely BEV.
Mar 11th, 2010 (9:53 pm)It seems that making Volts more performance capable, by allowing the battery and engine power to work together when battery power is available, would make them more palatable for people like me. What I mean is, while a person is driving normally, don’t shut off the generator, let it charge the battery back to full charge, if he drives long enough, so when he feels like wasting a little fuel to go fast, he can. This could be a “need for speed” icon that would be selected when the horns were on his head. Tier 2 might be only allow this when the battery had grid power, and Tier 3 would be the way it apparently is now, the most energy efficient scheme. This would generate more sales to performance minded people and get more Volts on the road. Especially if this were a selectable mode and not a more expensive Volt SS edition. My two cents worth.
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:00 pm)Well aren’t you a Sweetie (whispers Thanks, mom).
I have no idea how the drivers will be chosen or who’ll do the choosing for the drive. I assume it’d be someone in the advertising/marketing department at GM? (huge shrug). Just thought that the submissions might be used for ads or something. If I got a point per post, I’d be halfway there (lol). Then again, most of the regulars post a lot. Maybe +1 per smile and +2 for a laugh? -1 for name calling, -2 for slander (g). If I were GM, I’d give a Prius owner +10 for posting here (good info – either way). No, I don’t have a Prius (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:10 pm)“The top ten entries will be chosen from all essay submissions and videos submitted by March 12th. The overall best submission will also have their travel expenses up to $500 paid thanks to GM-Volt.com site sponsor NetLook.com. Entries will be judged on their creativity, passion, quality and entertainment value. Other factors such as GM-Volt.com site participation may be considered.”
May I underline the word “MAY”? I would think you would be given careful consideration. I am not as nearly as eloquent as many of the posters here. However I just went to You Tube and typed “Why I want a Chevy Volt” into the search box. Still the only one? My only concern is my entry email was bounced from VoltQA@chevy.com? Not that I sent it there. So fully expect to….
See You In New York!
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:10 pm)I just took 100 mpg off the top of my head. You calculated pretty well. Somewhere down this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft, it says Airbus claims 4.8L/100km per passenger, which I think comes out to ~51.6 mpg, for the Airbus 380.
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:11 pm)So sorry for squirting that nasty vitriol all over you, Bruce.
In fact, the Gen I Volt does have a “sport mode,” but it only allows more power to reach the electric motor. Drive harder if you want to, and go less of a distance all electric. It’s up to you.
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:16 pm)No one knows what the future will look like. Or what technologies will work. But I think hydrogen’s a lot further away and has a lot more technical issues than batteries.
Unfortunately, we have a huge existing infrastructure built around supporting suburbia. I love city life. If it wasn’t so ridiculously expensive here, I wouldn’t leave. There are lots of advantages to living among lots of people. I’m hardly alone in preferring this lifestyle. And it is much more energy efficient. But changing our suburbs into a more urban model would be very expensive, and difficult to say the least.
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:17 pm)Dang! I thought I popped that zit.
Ya’ll have fun in NY!
+1
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:50 pm)… and as a final note for our pleasant evening, I’ve noticed 2 things consistently on this thread that have helped somewhat to sour my mood:
1) A persistent ad for the LEAF at the bottom of the comments,
2) That sort of bemused WTF expression on Mark Reuss’s face in that picture at the top.
Dang. Should’ve gone to H(.Y.)ters with the Cap’n.
‘night all
(That means you can come out now, Tag
).
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:54 pm)Cool, thank you. I had made some generous assumptions. Besides must aircraft do not travel full. I know some folks that do not own a car, but fly a lot. Fly to Europe once a year or own a car? Cost, distance and fuel usage about the same. To each their own.
Cheers
Mar 11th, 2010 (10:59 pm)From your lips, to God’s ear!
Yeah, when I tried to wrap my head around the rules, I kept coming away with the same sense:
“There are no right or wrong answers, but everything you say counts”. There’s no way I could ferret out what they might be looking for (if I could, I’d have tried to tailor my submission). Failing that, I just went with the lowest stress submission I could – humor, with a little (and I mean very little) creative writing mixed in. I hope that your video got to where it needed to be.
It’s a neat opportunity, but I won’t curl up into a fetal position and weep if I don’t make it. Probably just weep (g).
Be well,
Tagamet
No ER, No Sale
Mar 11th, 2010 (11:50 pm)(Peeks out) Nite, Prez.
I saw the same ad (lol).
Think I’ll turn in as well.
Be well all,
Tagamet
/tomorrow’s a new day.
Mar 12th, 2010 (2:57 am)You are a never ending source of information and inspiration. I actually had no idea about the etymology of “vitriolic”. I always assumed it came from Latin.
Mar 12th, 2010 (3:02 am)You’re a shoo-in. If you’re not we’ll start a write in campaign!
FWIW I rather thought the part about considering participation on this board was a loophole made for you and a couple of others. So get your bags packed. (Wouldn’t it be great if you and Jackson got to meet up in NY?)
Mar 12th, 2010 (3:58 am)I can’t read anything particularly disappointing in what Mr Reuss is quoted as saying in today’s lead post.
He confirmed the plan for a Holden Volt when he was the boss at GM Holden.
In Feb 2009:
“We think Volt has the potential to change the game in Australian motoring,” GM Holden Chairman and Managing Director Mark Reuss said. “Since we announced our plans to introduce Volt to Australia, we have been overwhelmed by public interest in the car and the technology that makes it work.”
The task for the Holden team at Fishermans Bend will be to turn that overwhelming interest into strong Volt sales in the local market and set the standard against which competing electric vehicles will be judged.
This needs to happen pronto, before the competition steals the limelight.
91 unleaded is around the equivalent of about $5 a gallon (both US) in Australia, although it varies depending on state, region, taxes, discounts, exchange rate, and the impact of worldwide variables. Liquid fuel imports are about 40% of consumption and rising as local crude oil production declines from maturing fields.
Mar 12th, 2010 (5:46 am)Another spirited endorsement of the Volt. Let’s face it. The first 8000 are already sold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSGKYKzfdg
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 12th, 2010 (12:09 pm)Nothing groundbreaking here. I think most realize that as the range of BEV’s increase the need for EREV’s will diminish. We all have the desire to stop buying and burning oil, we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t share that common ideal. Many believe the EREV is necessary today because of the limited range of current EV’s once the range begins to approach that of a typical ICE, and people get more and more comfortable with EV’s the EREV concept won’t be necessary for most people. I see ten years max before this technology in completely unnecessary.
+1
Mar 12th, 2010 (1:18 pm)Note to GM: I haven’t bought a GM brand in over 30 years – GM arrogance turned me off. The Volt is the first GM car I’m interested in purchasing. If you wimp out and hobble the Volt through indifference or infighting I’ll just move on to one of your competitors. Instead of being forward looking and exciting you’ll simply be the GM of old – outmoded, irrelevant. On the other hand, a vibrant Volt program would be inspirational, like the early space program.
+1
Mar 12th, 2010 (1:18 pm)BEV – I want to believe, but I have some fundamental doubts. The most fundamental doubt is energy “density”. One gallon of gasoline can provide enough energy to equal the Volt’s battery, which weighs 440 lbs vs the gasoline which weighs only 6.2 lb/gallon.
As a chemical engineer familiar with the Law of Conservation of Energy, and chemical reactions I cannot see how electrochemistry can supplant gasoline because of the above fact.
BUT, if BEV range can be extended to say 250 miles, and recharging times reduced to the time it now takes to fill up ones car, then this could be a winning solution.
OR, if batteries were designed for fast replacement with a new one within the time it takes to fill up todays car with gasoline, this could be another solution, as long as the range was there.
Mar 12th, 2010 (5:18 pm)Do you sit in your car on the flatbed like occasionally people do on a ferry, or do you get up and walk around?
Mar 12th, 2010 (11:41 pm)A GM exec said that? Did I step into an alternate universe? I like this universe more.
Mar 13th, 2010 (5:28 am)The title of this topic should not use the word WILL when the GM Exec is quoted as saying COULD and MAY.
E-Rev is superior to BEV and always will be because the batteries WILL fail given enough time. Drivers will prefer a backup source of power until there are electric power conductors in the roadbed to charge the battery while driving long distances.
Mar 14th, 2010 (11:06 pm)An EV is an ER-EV if you just make a genset trailer available. Dunno why the EV makes don’t do that