GM has indicated for some time that it plans to make future generation lithium-ion battery packs for the Volt less expensive to reduce the overal price of the car.
In early interviews executives explained that GM would remove costly redundant systems to improve the pack’s cost. Drops in lithium ion wholesale cell prices would also contribute to cost reduction.
Nick Reilly who is GM’s chief of Opel unveiled to Edmunds.com some radical new methods GM plans to employ.
He explained that the first generation Voltec packs have been designed in a hard-to-remove T-shape particularly for crash safety protection. Realizing this was excessive, by the third generation GM will use a lighter more easily swappable shape.
Furthermore, he added, the future packs would be designed to last “significantly less” than the 10 years the current packs are intended to operate. GM has determined replacing packs after 10 years won’t likely be attractive to consumers, considering how old the rest of the car would be.
By reducing the batteries operational life expectancy the packs would be significantly less expensive as their health (thermal) maintenance systems could be simplified. Since they would also be shaped for easy removal, when they reached the end of their vehicular lifetime they could simply be replaced at a time the rest of the car remained desirable.
Reilly also said GM will offer consumers different optional pack sizes providing varying ranges. This way buyers on the lowest budget could opt for the smallest lowest range battery which would cost the least. Batteries with larger ranges don’t seem likely.
“We don’t need more range, there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles,” Joe LoGrasso, a GM battery engineer told Autocar. “The cost of the batteries is crucial though. We have to have a value proposition for the customer, if not they will not buy it.”
Reilly also noted Opel will offer nultiple Voltec vehicles including those positioned both above the Ampera like the Flextreme GT/E and those below it.
A line of pure electric cars will arrive as well.
Source (Inside Line)
+16
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:09 am)Two next-gen posts in a row! Well done, Lyle!
I really like the idea of offering flexible ranges and different price points. Outstanding!
I am wary about plans to reducing the life expectancy of the battery. When I buy a car, I usually drive it for 10 years before replacing it.
Finally, reading the words “swapable” and “battery” in the same sentence makes me wonder if GM is positioning itself, as a contingency, to participate in Project Better Place if, somehow, PBP succeeds in the markeplace.
+6
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:10 am)Hmmm, sounding more like the Nissan Leaf model. I’m not liking it.
+11
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:10 am)Hmmm…. Never had a car for 10 years, but I don’t think I’d be happy having to replace the battery at sometime, even at 4 – 5 years when I’ve finally paid it off.
+12
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:18 am)Great article. I have some questions.
Don’t understand one comment says “there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles” right after stating “will offer consumers different optional pack sizes providing varying ranges”.
So that means they’ll offer 20 or 30 mile ranges but not 60? 60 seems to have great value as millions of people drive that far every day, and even people who average 40 miles most days would enjoy the buffer to avoid gas on all days.
Also as we learn more about GEN 2 and GEN 3, any ideas on when GEN 2 and GEN 3 hit the market.
Nice to see that in the future battery packs will be replacable, so that if you have a car for 3-4 years you can upgrade the battery and keep the car.
If I buy a VOLT in 2012, by 2015 my model will be obsolete and not have much trade-in value I’m guessing. So I’ll be stuck for 10 years with GEN 1. Maybe that alone is a reason they don’t want to go beyond 40 miles AER at least for now (certainly reason #1 is to keep the cost down, but I don’t understand why they don’t have a 60 and 80 mile option on the drawing board to wipe out the competitio of BEVs).
+13
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:21 am)Alright, so “swappable” and “battery” are not in the same sentence, but y’all get the point.
More thoughts on reducing battery life: Huge Red Flag. GM is just now starting to recover its reputation for quality after many years in the wilderness. I HATE to see them already thinking of how to reduce the value of the product. Jeez!
It’s a huge PR faux pas to have said this even before the first car is on the market. I know some posters here are gonna rip GM a new one this.
+7
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:25 am)What happened to Gen II? (lol). I thought that there was some sort of regulation (Calif?) that mandated a 10 year life on the battery.
I don’t think I’ll be alone wondering about a 60 AER Voltec as an option, but on balance, it certainly sounds like GM has given significant consideration to how the Voltec line may mature. Any suggestion along those lines at least implies that our Volts won’t be a “once and done” project of niche vehicles.
Exciting times!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
/one line “after-thought” about an all electric?
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+5
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:29 am)After reading #4 TomW, maybe the idea of a battery that is more easily replaced is to position future Voltec cars for a battery-lease option.
But I still hate to read the words “significantly less” in relation to battery life, though.
+6
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:31 am)Look at how much battery prices have come down so far, and considering that about all we’ve done to this point is talk about electric cars, I could imagine a World where changing your electric car battery might become the equavalent of replacing your flashlight batteries. Something I think might help too is making the packs so that indiviual cells could be replaced easily. Almost every bad battery pack (cell phone, power tool) I’ve taken apart, only had one or two cells that were bad.
+5
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:32 am)I understand the concern of the previous posts, but if I could get a 20 AER 3rd generation Volt for the same price as a Ford Fusion, wouldn’t that start picking up customers form those other brands that can only offer 10 miles AER with their plug-in option?
As to replacing the battery, if I knew that it would last me 5 years and would cost less to replace than I am saving on gasoline/E85/insert power source here, I would put aside a few dollars a month to have it available when/if I decide to replace the battery. If that 20 mile pack with reduced thermal management costs under $1000, it would be on par with other major service items required as you car gets past the 5 year mark. Instead of dropping money on transmission maintenance for 5 years, keep that in a bank account — you’ve probably got enough to replace the battery pack.
Assuming that we do back to a normal economy, the vast majority of people who buy new cars will keep them for about 5 years on average. For those of us who keep them longer, we have a known maintenance item at the 5 year point.
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:34 am)*IF* demand continues to be high, that three year old Volt will have plenty of resale value. The way finances are going, *I* may want to buy it from you (g). Although I’d love a 60 AER too, I don’t think that it is necessary to wipe out BEV, which will continue to drag the range anxiety anchor. JMO.
Our family tries to drive the wheels off our vehicles before we buy another previously loved one, so long lasting, “pampered” batteries do seem desirable to us.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+5
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:34 am)Since this is aimed at cost reduction, GM may still provide a 10 year/150,000 mile battery warranty, but instead of using one 16 kWh pack with liquid cooling and a usable 8 kWh, it may be more cost effective to provide a 10 kWh pack with 8 kWh usable, forego liquid cooling, and replace the battery pack at 80,000 miles.
This business model could also work for plug-in hybrids (which I see as GM’s bread and butter). These could be used not only for the Cadillac XTS, but also for trucks and SUV’s. In fact, a 5 kWh battery pack, with 4 kWh usable, may last longer than that of a Voltec pack, as you can use the ICE to help protect the pack from large energy drains.
With this concept, GM could build one basic pack in large volume (a 5 kWh pack), put one each in the plug-ins, and two each in the Voltecs, with the option of only one in a Voltec to reduce cost for the customer.
+7
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:35 am)Ten years and 40 miles, $40,000, and the Volt gets 1% of the market. Five years and 30 miles, $30,000, and the Volt III gets 5% of the market. Good marketing sense to offer the choice.
Oh, and ten years, 60 miles, $55,000? Go ahead and offer the choice. It would be a waste of money for me, but that’s just me.
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:36 am)If a 5 year battery saves you money in the long run (less cost in thermal maintenance, and probably most important they can use 70% instead of 50% of the battery which also means less weight to carry around and paying for less battery), I think its a good deal.
If your options are
- 10 year battery 16kwh/8 usable for $7,000 at purchase
- 5 year battery 12kwh/8 usable for $4,000 at purchase (half the weight/size)
Just think of it as you are prepaying for 5 years of fuel instead of 10 years of fuel.
I think I’d chose the 5 year battery myself. Save money, weight and space. But I’d rather have 60 miles AER.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:44 am)While I always hated the idea of swapping batteries instead of plugging them in. I do like the idea if batteries got smaller, that you could replace your own batteries every 5 years or whenever with a few simple tools. But that leads me to worry about people stealing these cars to get the battery pack, or breaking into your garage to steal your battery pack. Not sure we want these cars to have battery packs easily removed as that would make us targets for criminals.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:46 am)Another advantage for this concept, is at 80,000 miles when you (or GM) replace the battery pack, GM takes the old one in exchange and refurbishes it with new cells, still reusing all of the casing, circuit boards, and other hardware.
This could also serve to reduce cost.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:47 am)Good point, so GM would do well to think of that when they design the security of the “swappable” battery. But as to steeling the whole car, that my friend is going to be a problem no matter what.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:48 am)I watched the Volt on “NG Modern Factories” last night. What a show that was awesome and thanks to whoever posted it on this site yesterday. It was really cool seeing the GM workers put the battery pack in. Also, the chief engineer “Frank” took it for a test drive after it was built. They went into range extended mode “ICE” powered seamlessly. You could see it on Frank’s face that he was nervous when he was waiting for the ICE to turn on. Anyway that was a great show and if anyone on this site missed it I would suggest that you find out when they are going to re air the episode. Let’s get the EV’s on the roads…
+10
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:48 am)Boy, now I really want the Gen I Volt. I’ll take the ten year battery life over worrying about having to replace my battery in a few years every time. And I hope GM will rethink the notion of not offering more EV range. The whole idea is to replace gas with electricity. The more range the more you accomplish that goal. My guess is that battery technology will improve more than GM is anticipating so that increased range won’t be as expensive as they now think.
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:51 am)adding 20 miles AER means adding 4 wkh usable which could be done just by making the battery last 5 years instead of 10 years at no additional cost of purchase. Just means you have to replace your battery in 5 years instead of 10. If you drove 60 miles a day it WOULD make sense.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:52 am)I always thought that the Volt battery was over-engineered and too complex. I also think that there is a huge (more than the 60AER crowd) market for 20AER. Especially trucks.
The AER should be an option just as engine size is now. (like 5, 20, 40 AER options)
As far as longevity. People are used to replacing their lead-acid battery every 3-5 years. It shouldn’t be a huge stretch to understand that this battery has the same limitations. With 10 year longevity, you are paying for all 10 years up front. With 5 year longevity, you get a brand-new fresh newer-technology battery in the middle of the lifecycle. It’s all a matter of how you look at it (and how it is marketed as a result.)
You wouldn’t need to carry around the second-life battery as minimum SOC range. The usable charge/discharge range could be opened up significantly. This could halve the battery size and weight immediately with the same technology.
Another consideration is the ’78% of drivers go 40 miles OR LESS’ per day. I believe that this bell curve falls off rapidly to the 20AER or less end of the scale. Heck, my wife’s AER requirement is only 5 miles per day. Why do I need 8 times the capacity to just sit there? This makes the battery $1000 for AER-5 instead of $8000 for AER-40. A much better value in my case.
+11
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:52 am)I can sum up the whole article in 2 words: Planned Obsolescence.
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:54 am)So the plan is not to sell the car and lease the battery, no its to sell you a car with half the battery life, then sell the other half in 5 years or so. Does planned obsolesce ring a bell?
+8
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:54 am)Good morning, all.
From the article:
“We don’t need more range, there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles,” Joe LoGrasso, a GM battery engineer told Autocar. “The cost of the batteries is crucial though. We have to have a value proposition for the customer, if not they will not buy it.
Disappointing to say the least. We need to get off of petroleum. A higher battery range is necessary for this. I guess GM isn’t interested in leading the way. But I think the pure BEV makers will push the envelope, especially when they get a reality check in Range Anxiety.
Side note: The Chevy Volt was on NPR this morning.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:56 am)Doesn’t this assume that the Fusion isn’t going to make gains between now and Gen 3 of the Volt?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:57 am)I don’t have access to that channel, but maybe at some point there will be a youtube link?
+6
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:58 am)I trade cars about every three years, but I still don’t like the idea of the next buyer having to buy a new battery in 5 years. Some will try to stretch it out for more than five years, and what will that do to the Volt’s image?
Unless the Volt get’s great gas mileage in the ICE mode this is a bad idea. When I say great gas mileage, I mean at least what the Prius gets.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:00 am)Huh? You don’t think that the Volt is leading the way AND pushing the envelope? I respectfully, but seriously, disagree.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+8
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:03 am)Opel’s market is primarily European and I think these views are heavily influenced by the fact
1) that trains are popular and widely used for longer distances, 2) that petrol is ~3x or so more costly than in the US, and 3) that commuting distances are generally shorter than here. IMHO, Europeans are quite satisfied with their customs as well as their constraints.*
Another important factor is that as the battery size is reduced in EREVs or PHEVs, their cost advantage over pure EVs widens —since the battery cost remains a large fraction of the pure EV’s cost while it shrinks for the EREVs or PHEVs as battery size is reduced. Yet a 20mile AER is very satisfactory to large numbers of Europeans (and Americans), because the on-board gas engine still eliminates the “sudden death” scenario of a dead battery while offering perhaps a 3 or 4:1 reduction in fuel consumption (and pollution).
*Quaint as it may seem, I’ve actually spent time with financially-secure friends in France who live in a comfortable home on the 2nd floor of a building that also houses their successful plumbing supplies store on the ground floor. They go downstairs to work, and literally walk only about a block or two to the butcher shop, bakery, etc for daily groceries and other needs. The family Citroen is used primarily for short trips to nearby towns or to the train station to visit friends/family or to shop in Paris.
+5
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:05 am)Not to put too fine a point on it, we now know why GM is not investing in more Gen 1 battery production facilities. We also know GM is betting that when the half battery wears out, the replacement battery will have more hold more energy at less cost. Seems like a plan to me.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:09 am)My problem is I don’t have cable or satellite right now, so I hope it goes to online streaming sometime.
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:09 am)I disagree. It’s the owner’s range PER CHARGE that is important. 60AER is way over what 90% of people need when you have a gas engine on board.
The whole idea is not to be a BEV. You don’t want to carry around a bunch of capacity you don’t need on average. When you happen to need it, the gas engine kicks in and gets you home.
It is more efficient to usually have a 20% SOC battery when you recharge instead of an 80% charge left. More gasoline will be displaced by electricity when more people are plugging in. To make this happen quicker, AER needs to be less not more making the car more affordable for more people.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:11 am)Guy, I don’t think so entirely.
I don’t trust GM NOT to think that way, but look at it the other way.
it will be a lot easier to buy a used car, repower it with a new pack, and drive it five years. Today if you buy a car that is 5 years old, it’s got 100k on it easy, and a mountain of maintenance costs ahead of it.
I think the whole vehicle holds resale value better, BECAUSE the pack was supposed to be replaced anyway. A second buyer is not tied into the original half-used pack, with high replacement costs.
And GM can sell me another pack. Five plus Five is still still ten, and it’s almost likely that the second five will cost you less than the original five anyway. At worst, it costs you the same.
Final note – product livecycle is better because the materials can be recycled. People who get attached to a car may never need to buy a new one – just keep replacing packs. Easier to avoid product deterioriation as it nears end of useful life.
I’m less happy with the short range option, but it makes total sense. While a 40 mile commute is common, we live in a America…have it your way. If you only drive 20 miles a day, why buy a 40 mile pack?
I was not going to buy Gen I Volt anyway…I was Flextreme all the way
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:13 am)From my perspective, it seems like a good idea to shorten the battery life when the price for LPO4s is projected to drop dramatically over time. If you purchase a 10-year battery at today’s prices, then 5 years from now, you’re still effectively paying that same price you did today, when others could be paying half that amount for a new battery. If you have a 5-year battery and prices do drop as expected, then you too can take advantage of the drop in costs. I also think the resulting drop in the cost of the vehicle, coupled with the probability of increasing the capacity of the car to carrying 5 people (no hump), would increase sales.
LJGTVWOTR!
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:13 am)Could you be a little more specific as to where you saw “NG Modern Factories” ?
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:13 am)Sadly, GM seems to be making a compelling argument to buy the first generation plug-in Prius, for all the reasons enunciated, battery too big and costly and hard to replace. Maybe they need to rethink this plan.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:23 am)Actually it’s “Ultimate Factories,” and it was on cable/satellite yesterday on the National Geographic channel. See yesterday’s post for more information.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/ultimate-factories/4905/Overview
There are a number of different episodes, including Camero, Lamborghini, Harley Davidson, John Deere, etc.
+10
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:23 am)This post makes me want that first-gen Volt that much more, if it’s pack has all this redundancy that future gens won’t have. Better resale value or a longer lasting vehicle hopefully.
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:31 am)One of the problems with being an early adopter is that there will soon be a new generation of product that does much more for much less money than you paid. First generation hand-held cell phones were $3,600. Just a few years later cell phones were less than $100 to phone subscribers.
No one really knows what EREV will do and cost after the first five years of innovation but its reasonable to expect the advances will be very impressive.
Also remember, their lithium batteries usefulness won’t drop off a cliff after their projected lifespan, they just begin to perform less effectively. So after 5 years you might wind up selling your Volt with the 5 year battery designed for 40 miles to someone who is only needs it to give them 20 miles per charge. Or maybe 20 miles was OK with you in the first place, so the battery’s loss of effectiveness was no big deal anyway. And of course the price of electricty, gasoline and replacement batteries 5 years from now will be a very large factor.
One thing for sure. This is going to be a LOT of fun to watch!
GO VOLT!
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:32 am)I just checked —the next showing is on the National Geographic channel at 4-5PM Eastern, Thur, April 1, no foolin’
. Set your DVRs …it’s a GREAT program that’s well worth an hour of your time …and worth replaying again!
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:36 am)For me, here you go:
Likes:
1. Varying Battery size choices makes a whole lot of sense. Volts with 20, 40, 50 AER seem to make the most sense to me. A 20 AER would likely be the volume player of the group. The choices are a very smart play for GM.
2. Cost efficiencies are also very welcome although I get scared when durability gets trimmed as they are saying it will be.
3. Line of All-Electric cars is welcome and expected. I know GM is hanging their hats on EREV’s, (and rightfully so), but they would also be foolish if they didn’t offer at least one All-electric model for the crowd that has an application for it.
Dis-likes:
1. GM seems real hesitant to go much beyond that 40 mile range threshold, and that is bewildering to me. I just can’t wrap my head around what the damage would be in having a good, solid 50 mile AER or even 60 mile AER to make this car more far reaching for the crowd who is willing to pay for it?
2. Batteries with shorter life spans is unsettling to me. I see their reasoning but I need to stew on that one for awhile.
3. This isn’t a big deal to me, but I am a bit put-off that Gen 1 and 2 batteries sound to be difficult to remove and Gen 3 is working on a more swappable configuration. IMO, Gen 1 and 2 should’ve been easily removable to begin with. That’s nitpicky, I know.
Bottom line:
I am pleased with the overall direction they seem to be going. I don’t 100% agree with everything, but I’m comfortable with their general idea.
Another great article Lyle. You’re the man!
-2
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:39 am)I don’t know why people are so eager to pay a high premium ($10k-$15k) for a 16kwh battery.
_____________________________________________________________________________
GM is now seeing the light.
You don’t need a large, expensive battery that lasts 10-15 years, when most people will dump the car after 5 years.
Even after 5 years, the battery should still be viable.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:39 am)I’ll bet right now that GM has come up with all kinds of serviceability options for the new generations!!
(A transmission jack underneath to remove segmented or whole packs possibly, might make Voltec highly competitive to replace a pack or a partial pack, and/or even to have a defective or excessively worn section within the pack replaced with a comparable-condition cell or maybe even a new cell if the chemistry permits.)
This is really creative on GM’s part, to give the owner these options after the 100,000 mile warranty is up. Really impressive customer-friendly things are what GM does for us.
I’d also bet that in about 5 years, you will be able to get a replacement pack for less than a thousand bucks! Aftermarket GM-approved-quality suppliers are ready to pounce on that opportunity!
Very impressive and very exciting things are coming for us all!
/uh-oh, late for work. have a great day everyone!!!)
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:42 am)I am stunned.
I really have to take issue with the ““We don’t need more range…..” comment in the story.
I would think that any evolutionary improvements to Voltec would be to always guarantee a 40+ AER from a full charge under worst case scenarios….
How I would test it….
1. Use Full Heat/AC on the 40 mile test loop.
2. The “40+ AER Test Trip Route” should have a hilly section.
3. Car temp starts out COLD, just above the 32 degree ICE kick in point.
4. Car is fully loaded with passengers/gear weight.
If it’s 33 degrees and the snow is coming down, I want to get back and forth to work in comfort without that ICE ever lighting up. My commute is right around 40 miles.
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:43 am)Would the drop in size of battery mean an extra seat in the back?
from 10+ years to up to 5 years life expectancy is a concern. if in 5 years a replacement was only $1,000 as opposed to a $4,000 price tag today, this would be fine – though this is still an unknown. will they still be making the replacement batteries by the time the 2nd swap is required?
the above said, what if in 5 years you have a replacement battery now last 20+ years simply because technology has improved?
I hate to say it, but there is a psychological thing at play here which may simply conquer the logic of it all – if only due to the unknown elements to this topic.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:50 am)LJGTVWOTR!
+5
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:50 am)This is optimization at its best.
Maximum utilization of battery usage on a daily basis.
The first two generations are to establish the battery capabilities. Now they are building on their experience to obtain maximum value for the Volt.
Remember the optimum utility space for the Volt is between the ICE and the BEV competing somewhat with the Hybrids. This new added flexibility will be a Hybrid killer. For many users the 40 miles per daily charge (the simple overnight charging) can be 30 miles and even 20 miles to achieve the same effect.
This is just another leg in the Volt’s flexibility.
I am surprised at some of the negative comments here. This is exactly what I hoped they can do to make the Volt even more compatible
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:56 am)I like the concept of having battery multiple battery modules to deliver different range options. Having four module slots within a pack would be brilliant. 1 module = 10 miles; 2 modules = 20 miles; etc. It makes swapping a bad module out easier – and I’d love to see a “home pack option” in the future for smart grid-tied storage/battery backup solutions.
If a module only has 70% of it’s storage capacity, that’s fine for a home. When a battery module doesn’t offer enough capacity to be feasibly used in a vehicle (or if a new, lighter module with more capacity is released), you simply move the “old module” into your home and install the “new module” in the vehicle. Nothing wasted. I call it brilliant.
Brian
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:01 am)If batteries become easier to swap then it makes sense to lease the battery seperately from the car. I know the idea of having something totally your own is appealing, but this isn’t like any ordinary car. A regular car can last practically forever if you maintain it well.
I admit to not knowing much about the battery technology but it seems it would make sense to allow GM to buy back older packs to recycle or refurbish them somehow. Wouldn’t that make both economic and environmental sense?
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:08 am)Finally, details of the heat transfer design of the Volt pack. The cells are not immersed in liquid as some have suggested. The cooling scheme is similar to Tesla in that the coolant travels thru tubes within the pack. The Volt’s tubes travel along the bottom and edge of the cells.—Not exactly the best method for maximizing heat transfer but probably good enough.
My guess is that the separators between the individual cells are made of metal so they provide a heat transfer path from the individual cells to the cooling tubes.
There appears to be approximately 8-10 cells in each module. The cooling tubes appear to be integral with the modules but no details as to the method of connecting tubes from module to module. Perhaps this is an error as it is just an artistic rendition.
Since the cross piece of the pack (under the rear seat) is a different color perhaps this is the part of the pack they would eliminate. Improvements in battery tech. by Gen3 would probably be just about right to eliminate the cross piece and still maintain the (now suggested) maximum range of 40miles AER.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:08 am)___________________________________________________________________
From Lyle’s Article:
“…Reilly also said GM will offer consumers different optional pack sizes providing varying ranges…”
—————————-
The larger an organization grows, the more that the KISS Principle is marginalized. This is arguably the single most contributing dynamic that allows a small startup company to go against a large established organization.
GM has a long history of over complicating the options matrix for their cars to the point where GM clearly crosses the point of diminishing returns.
KISS applied to the Chevy VOLT EREV or (future) Chevy VOLT BEV would result in: 1) More cars sold, 2) cars that maintain better residual value, & 3) higher net profits.
Other than color choices, the consumer choice for the Chevy Volt EREV should be Basic Series or Luxury Series; no added “options” matrix.
_________________________________________________________________
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:10 am)Well, after yesterday’s post on “new improved year 2″ I’m glad that I’ll have a year 1 copy. Now I’m starting to wonder if it should not be put in a box and saved as a relic. But I just can’t afford that.
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:23 am)Have not read 2/3 of the comments yet, but…
1) Having choices is good.
2) I suspect that the Gen1 battery may have more like a 20 year life, or more if individual cells can be replaced.
3) Probably using more than the 30-80% range is possible, especially when you consider that there are 288 cells that might be able to be individually switched in and out dynamically by the computer. In fact, it seems sensible to me to have more than one kind of cell, some that are optimized for use with regen braking (ultracapacitors (probably not from EEStor)). I’m guessing that cells used for regen get cycled much more often and therefore will wear out much quicker, which would be OK if individual cells can be swapped out.
Looks like there is room for research and tweaking even for hobbyists (us?).
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:24 am)BTW, is it my imagination or is this site’s response time dramatically better than in the past?
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:27 am)I live in an area that gets it’s gasoline from the big pipeline running from Louisiana to the northeast. After hurricane Katrina shut down the refineries that supply this pipeline, we had no gas for a week or two. The only gas available was what got trucked in from neighboring areas who could only spare a little bit of regular unleaded. Many stations covered their price signs and sold only convenience store items. Thank goodness it only lasted for a week or two. The ability to move storage back and forth between home storage and car sounds like a winner to me.
+7
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:28 am)10 year life to me is VERY appealing. My current minivan is 10 years old and it only has 150,000 miles on it, plenty more life in it.
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:28 am)WAY off topic.
For DonC who tried to say income tax has no effect on cost. (a few threads back)
From Marketwatch
“On Thursday, Deere /quotes/comstock/13*!de/quotes/nls/de (DE 61.01, +0.81, +1.35%) said taxing the subsidy meant to help lower costs for companies that offer retiree drug coverage will result in a one-time charge of $150 million. Earlier, Caterpillar /quotes/comstock/13*!cat/quotes/nls/cat (CAT 62.98, +0.84, +1.35%) said the same tax will raise its costs by $100 million.
“Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2011, Caterpillar is required to recognize the full accounting impact in its financial statements in the period in which the Act is signed,” Caterpillar reported in a government filing.”
The key statement here for DonC “Caterpillar said the same tax will raise its costs by $100 million”
Sorry to all others for posting this off topic but I could not help myself.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:33 am)BTW, this is probably not relevant to the range of the battery, but maybe it is. I’ve heard that engineers with Volts to take home for the weekend “have been getting about 400 MPG”. I presume that is because of plugging in between runs, but who knows for sure.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:43 am)I have a ’97 LR Discovery, a ’98 Malibu and our ‘new’ car is an ’02 Subaru Impreza.
Only the Subaru was purchased new.
I have to agree with the drive them into the ground comments because that’s what I do!
I’ll be buying the pampered battery… likely used!
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:44 am)That was the original plan, based solely on expected improved battery performance; when one adds the expectation of replacing a battery, this becomes even more doable.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:46 am)I’m glad to see GM is giving the public more options. As for myself, what I’d really like to see is a 20 mile per charge small pickup EREV or crossover EREV. I guess I’ll just have to keep driving my 2007 Impala until that happens (maybe by 2020?).
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:51 am)The common denominator here seems to be what the Volt will offer. All electric drive and the abiltiy to balance between power storage and generation. When you can adjust the amounts of each as needed, it should be even better.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:52 am)Maybe GM would consider ‘splitting the difference;’ offer 25 & 50 AER (by adding a second, otherwise identical module for the larger figure). EDIT: or, for that matter, up to three identical 15 AER modules for 3 choices, the largest being 45 AER.
GM seems to be leaning towards less AER at lower cost. I think they are wrong, at least about the numbers of sales; I think they might be surprised by how many opt for the larger pack.
Do we get a “yahoo” out of Cap’n Jack?
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:56 am)I didn’t read all the above posts closely, but my thought on this is to wonder if third parties will be able to build replacement Volt batteries. The main sticky point is that if there’s any software communications involved (safe to assume there will be), then it’s illegal to “crack” any encryption used, even if it’s very simple (XOR the bits, add 5 to each number, etc).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca
So even if you easily reverse engineer all the connections and protocols, you still would get sued for selling a replacement battery, at least in the US. GM could license the protocols, but why would they? Selling replacement batteries could be a cash cow like ink jet cartridges are for HP (Hewlett Packard) and friends.
If third-party batteries were available, then after the original had crapped out, people could perhaps make their own tradeoff decisions, such as a 100-mile battery which only lasts 2 years.
Oh and it looks like Natgeo sells DVDs of their shows. I know that is not an acceptable option for some of you, but I personally don’t have cable TV and use the money I therefore save to purchase DVDs instead. Most of it is that I hate commercials!!! I also like being able to watch a show when I feel like it, and not be tied to any schedule.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:01 am)Sorry, this was the portion of your comment which I intended to answer with:
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:02 am)60 – 80 Mile range would work well for me….
In Central Alberta Canada there are so many extremes… temperatures go from -40 C to + 28 C over the course of a normal year… This means that the ICE will running part of the time almost every day on an average trip of approximately 40 + miles…
Still there will be extreme fuel cost savings with the Volt..
FYI… I have to track my vehicle expenses for income tax purposes (I use the car for work)
2007 Malibu Maxx with some fuel saving mods… Jan 1 – August 20… fuel costs $ 1750.00 Canadian for “normal” driving for me.
2010 Fusion Hybrid cost $ 33,500 Canadian.. August 21 – December 31 … fuel cost $ 735.00
Canadian for “normal” driving for me..
You can see the savings coming into your pocket with a greener technology..
I am hoping the Volt of 2013/2014 (that’s when they might be available here) will do as well..
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:05 am)To someone who’s regular daily commute/usage is between, say, 3-25 miles … & If a 25 or 30 mile pack can shave $2K-5K off the price of a 40 mile pack car , I’d jump on that …
The difference would be almost meaningless to the person who’s going to charge up & almost always be driving on Batt power anyway…
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:06 am)They’re hogging all the fun I tell ya! Let us have some fun too!
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:08 am)Absolutely! That’s what we do with automotive lead-acid batteries now.
Another thought about this information release. I’ll bet they put this out to us so they could get a “free” “poll” about the choices. A lot cheaper than hiring a professional pollster.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:15 am)Does this mean that the batteries will be better able to survive in warm climates (or would a thermal health system benefit pack health less effectively than thought when it’s hot outside)?
Robust thermal management will be more important for fast charging. The LEAF fully intends to offer a connector for an external charger, but has at best primitive thermal management. Meanwhile, Volt, with thermal management appropriate for fast charging will not offer such connectivity; and that management will be taken down a technical notch as being “over-engineered.”
I cannot help but think that this will turn out to be something of an historical irony.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:22 am)I have very little doubt that a Year One Volt will become a huge collectors item (obviously for the rich). When it is successful, it becomes the point in history when the electrification of transportation became accessible. If the unthinkable happens…., well, an Edsel still brings big bucks.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:23 am)Is GM anticipating a Prius strategy with incrementally larger battery packs that would eat up the Volt market from the less expensive side? Maybe that’s what’s happening but it seems odd they’d talk about such a thing at this juncture. Could it be they just feel the Volt is overdesigned to get a significant market share?
If the last few years on this site have taught us nothing else, it has taught us that the Volt design is very involved, very sophisticated. It’s difficult to believe GM could put all that the Volt is on the market and compete with much simpler concepts like the Prius or the Leaf. Anyhow, it doesn’t seem to bode well for the present Volt concept.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:24 am)I saw the program on National Geographic last night, it was very informative. No wonder it costs so much to build a new vehicle. Every step seems to cost tens of millions.
As for the new battery options, that’s fine. Personally I’d like to see more range not less. As your typical American I almost always see more as being better! But I’m not worried, someone will pickup the balls that GM drops.
I kept my last truck 11 years. Probably will keep the new one for the same length of time. There is nothing better than no car payments!
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:24 am)In the Great White North (and those coldest portions of the US), the Volt will be the only viable EV due to the on-board source of heat that the range-extender represents. It seems like higher than 40 miles AER would sell better there, where the competing BEV100 would be a seasonal player at best.
Also, I think that by this time, it ought to be more likely to achieve the stated AER of whatever range-level in real driving.
I further hope that the AER choices do not follow the traditional GM tendency of being offered only with increasingly luxurious “packages,” such as L, LT and LTZ. Variable range options =/= desired luxury or trim options; it’s more nearly an attempt to match actual driving needs than the impression the driver wishes to make while driving.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:24 am)A 5 year warranty would probably cut in half the cost of the battery.. reduced range would cut it further.. what would lower the cost drastically is if GM spent the money in developing and manufacturing their own cells. At least make the Volt T Pack chemistry flexible so that it can take advantage of new chemistries that come on the market.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:26 am)Are you suggesting 15, 30, 45 AER as the 3 choices ZT? If so, I like the way you think. I am on the same boat with 20/40/60. I disagree with GM’s leaning towards keeping the 40 mile range as the top. Figuring by Gen. 3, batteries could/should be less than current prices, isn’t it plausible to think by that time a 60 mile battery would cost what a 40 mile battery cost in 2010? For those who could afford it, the 60 mile option would be more far reaching.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:26 am)A little OT, but as luck would have it, I’m going to be in the NY area the week of the media preview. Does anybody know of a way I could get in to the show on one or both those days? I would just love to talk to and congratulate the people who are bringing this wonderful technology to market. No test drive expected or required!
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:28 am)I don’t like the idea, but I understand it.
If you figure that by the time the third generation rolls around (2018-2020), a Volt 16kWh battery pack would be reduced by weight from 160kg to 75kg, volume reduced by 25-30%, while maintaing the current targets for power delivery and cycle life. At a target price of $250/kWh its $4,000.
If they choose to alter their chemistry targets, they can sacrifice cycle life and kWh/kg for more W/kg for smaller packs – 9.5kWh/32 mile packs that last 5 years that weigh 50kg and deliver 100kW peak, 55kW average. Assuming $250/kWh the price is $2,375. So the cost difference is significant, especially over today’s prices (~$8,000).
A lot of this depends too on how quickly recharging infrastructure is built out. If everyone who buys one can recharge at work, it should cut down on the size of the pack needed – your range is effectively doubled from 25-30 miles to 50-60 miles. Cycle life comes into play as well – to me this is one of the biggest unknowns over the next 10 years. We know kWh/kg and W/kg will improve, but how does cycle life change or improve (or not) over the next 10 years – that will determine how long batteries last.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:31 am)Not quite sure I follow you. Maybe you are used to Ni** batteries. Lithium batteries do not heat up when charged, even fast charged. There would likely be some heat output from the charging circuitry, but not the batteries themselves. I charge hobby lipos at a 4-5C rate all the time (but only new cells designed for this), they do not get warm at all.
In fact it’s claimed that lithium charging is endothermic — actually absorbing heat. Google it if you don’t believe me.
Even if the Volt were charging its cells at a wimpy 1C rate, that would provide a charge time of about 40 minutes. The main bottleneck is that you are charging 288 cells (or whatever) using one connector and one power source. I don’t know what the solution for this is, but the cells themselves are not to blame for the 3- to 8-hour charge time. Actually, the LiMn cells I have (same chemistry as the Volt’s) charge at a 2C rate, so going 30% to 80% charge would take well under 30 minutes.
Going to a high-voltage connector lowers the current, but arguably increases the safety issues. More connectors would be technically desirable, but the users would hate it. No easy solution here.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:40 am)Oh and it looks like Natgeo sells DVDs of their shows. I know that is not an acceptable option for some of you, but I personally don’t have cable TV and use the money I therefore save to purchase DVDs instead. Most of it is that I hate commercials!!! I also like being able to watch a show when I feel like it, and not be tied to any schedule.
Thanks RogerE333 I’ll look into that.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:43 am)I’m always glad when I hear that I’m not *totally* alone (lol). Although it was on my Bucket List to buy a new car (Volt), I may end up with a “used” NEW Volt. Well, it’s a new *platform*, so it’s KINDA like a new car…
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:48 am)Are you talking about the Auto Show? They have a media day.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:50 am)OT a new article about oil availability (maybe past peak oil): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324225511.htm
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:50 am)I think a lot of people would be happy with 10 miles all elec. I know I would, I either drive about 10 miles each way to work and could charge at work or I drive over 180+ miles so a 10 miles all elect would be almost as good at a much lower price.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:54 am)I think having various AER options is crucial to mass acceptance. 40 mile AER is optimized for people that drive 30-40 miles most days. What about people that drive at least 50 miles a day and many days drive 60 miles or more.
When you go hiking and camping in the mountains for 2 days, would you want to bring food for 1, 2 or 3 days? My choice would be 2 days. If there were 2 of you on this hiking trip, would you carry a tent big enough for 1, 2 or 3 people. I’d bring a 2 person tent.
To me this is just common sense. If I have to pay for a battery and carry it every where I go, I want to pick the optimum battery for me, and rely on the EREV for when my battery isn’t enough.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:55 am)But I think you need media credentials to get in on those days.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:59 am)Yes, that is what I was suggesting, and I’d actually prefer your idea; it just doesn’t sound like we’re going to get 20-40-60. Yes, future costs will make a 60 mile battery cost less than 40 today, but GM seems determined to keep costs down rather than provide for more powerful options; which seems a pity. My thinking is that if the available ranges are based on uniform modules, it will also lower costs while offering greater variety (and will give consumers much more input on how the future of automobile electrification proceeds). You can’t really call it variety unless you provide for the opportunity of more range. I do think GM would be in for a surprise (and it wouldn’t actually cost them a lot to do it this way even if they weren’t).
Here’s another thought: These things aren’t flashlight batteries. Because of load-balancing and other managed pack-functions, it ought to be possible to have modules of different ages in a single car. Let’s say that in year five, your initial 45 AER has degraded to something over 30 (say, 35). If you’re short of cash, wouldn’t you replace one of these three packs, if you could? Adding 15 miles to 35 would be 50 miles (but this would degrade quickly as the remaining 2 original modules continue to age). I think this kind of maintenance would be pretty plausible behavior for the person who keeps a car for more than 5 years; pay as you go, just as you need to.
-1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:01 am)No, my friend. Not with Battery Range and when GM is going for lower range, not higher range.
+5
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:04 am)I suggested making battery size optional years ago. What took GM so long to figure out this no-brainer. The customers should size the battery according to their driving requirements. Period.
As a retiree, virtually all of my round trips are less than 20 miles, and most of the day the car sits in the garage, available for recharging and handling two trips a day. Nor do I have much in the way of time restrictions, so I can usually wait for a recharge before my next outing. But GM should allow for battery expansion for those folks whose driving requirements change, also.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:08 am)I may have to google, as this seems implausible. I know that my cellphone, camera and laptop batteries generate some heat when charging.
If, as you say, the Lithium/Ion cells are endothermic while charging, wouldn’t a robust thermal control system be needed to prevent a dense pack of cells from getting too cold during rapid-charge?
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:08 am)The planned 3rd generation Volt is probably the 2016 model. Korea, China, Ford, and Phoenix will have 2nd generation electric drive trucks in the showrooms by 2016.
If produced, will the 20 mile Volt still be a contender for buyer consideration? There is a good chance that Nissan will electrify their Rouge by 2016. And BYD, currently very profitable, will be making larger electric vehicles by 2016.
The time to take charge is now. The year 2016 and beyond will present a different automotive landscape. The buyer will have 6 or 8 electric vehicles to test drive. These will range from $20k to $120k in price. What will GM have in it’s showrooms? And how many showrooms will GM have?
=D-Volt
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:09 am)Something bothered me about the article. “GM has determined replacing packs after 10 years won’t likely be attractive to consumers, considering how old the rest of the car would be.”
So if I dislike the thought of replacing the battery at 10 years into the life of the car, do you think that it will be MORE desireable to replace it at 6 years or 5 years? Sounds nuts to me. There must be something missing. Like if they can reduce the cost of the battery from $10,000 to $5,000 but that shortens the life to 6 years, maybe THAT’s why we would be more amenable to it. Also, if it cuts the weight by 100 pounds then you get more performance from the same battery. Etc., etc.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:10 am)So, you guys were laughing at Nissan’s approach, and now it seems that GM came ($1 billion late) to the same conclusion: no need to over pamper the battery pack. By the way, the same thing happent at Tesla, they used to constantly (24/7) condition the battery (those that read Martin’s blog know…).
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:12 am)I knew this was coming. I said it in the past. They’ll find out the batt pack was over the top and realize the cycle count is going to be way less than expected AND they will most likely dip closer to 80%DOD on the pack so they can reduce weight and volume used. Like I said before, many DIY’rs have had their commodity LiFePO4 packs for years and they are taken to a typical 75%DOD with ranges in the 75-80MPC.
Now, I wonder if they will go back to testing other cell mfgrs like A123 and see if the smaller packs will work for them at a higher DOD. Currently the Volt will only allow 50% DOD and a little deeper when need and most likely logic has been placed to not allow more than 65% but with a smaller pack going deeper, you can shed more weight and volume.
Light is good.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:13 am)OT: remarks about last night’s show on making the IV Volts. It seemed awesome to me, but I missed the first few minutes. I tried recording the rebroadcast but programming the VCR was not successful.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:15 am)Conversely, what about software mods to Gen1 to allow greater DOD, etc.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:15 am)I don’t know what to say here. I am confused is this is just Opel’s plans for future EREVs or this will be the entire GM EREV future (I don’t know if they’ll be so interconnected as they are for gen 1). That part isn’t really clear. The other thing we don’t yet understand is how much money we’re talking about saving by making the battery more easily replaceable/removing redundancy/thermal management. They’re not even clear if they’ll still offer 40 miles worth of range in the 3rd gen. They do clearly say not 60 (although again, is that just Opel saying that?)
The other question is if the government decides to extend tax incentives because they’re working so well. Remember it’s based on getting a maximum $7,500 for 16kWh. My guess is GM would continue to make 16kWh batteries as long as the government was paying for it but they’d probably ditch the thermal management and possibly open up the usable window as batteries get better (which wouldn’t affect the life unless people actually used more than half of the capacity on a regular basis anyway).
The bottom line is that there is a huge market for 5-20 mile per day drivers (I would guess at least 50% of the population) but the question is whether it’s worth it for these people to buy all of the extra system required by an EREV, the electric traction motor, generator, gas engine, (including all of the maintenance costs and hidden warranty costs thereof) plus electricity costs (small as they would be) and go through the “hassle” (for some people) of plugging in, etc. when their commute costs $1/ day anyway and they can pick up a Cruze.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:17 am)Not true. Tesla’s battery is actively monitored and conditioned 24/7 as needed (for both hot and cold conditions). Whether circulating only, cooling through radiator with fans, or kicking in the A/C or heater, driven or not, the battery is kept conditioned at all times. FAR CRY from air cooling. Your statement of “no need to pamper” is at odds with GM’s recognition that they’re appreciably reducing the battery life.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:17 am)“We don’t need more range, there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles,” Joe LoGrasso, a GM battery engineer told Autocar. “
Excuse me, Joe. You are wrong on that point. I expect that by 2013-2014 that the Chevy VOLT will increase its AER to 100 miles or more, just like I expect the gas-powered Cruze’s MPG to go from 39-40 up to 45-48.
Yes, you need to get the costs down, but don’t think for a second that “40 AER is the best you can do”. If that is what you think, then you are missing the point as to WHAT the VOLT really is.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:19 am)I concur. Seems rather Bass Ackwards to me. Wasn’t the goal to get off of OPEC Juice via going electric? Going less in electric range just defeats the effort, don’t you agree?
This is a little disappointing IMHO.
/gonna go gettacupof coffee. too broke for Kahlua…
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:22 am)The battery is a simple value proposition, so I like their thinking. The vast majority of people drive 40 miles or less. So let’s say you want a 60 mile range for those days that you drive more? How often would that be? Once per week? That means you would only use that range for 20% of your workweek. To increase from 40-60 miles is a 50% increase in a very expensive part. If you have trouble justifying the cost of battery (in economic sense) that you use almost fully every day, how can you justify a 50% increase in cost for something you use 20% of the time?
That’s why going to a smaller range makes sense. Unless you nearly use the entire battery pack every day, you are losing money by having that extra range. So if you only drive 30 miles most days? You only want a 30 mile pack to get the most electric driving for your money. If you only drive 20 miles per day? You can pay half the cost of the 40 mile pack, while having to purchase very little additional gasoline over the lifespan of the car…
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:24 am)Considering their many announcement to not go higher and todays statement of going lower than 40AER I think that idea is too good to implement. It’ll have to be a “third party hack”. Not that I would do such a thing…..lol, I’m an angel.
/puts hands together and smile
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:27 am)As I read Dr. Dennis’ post my first response was “OMG, it sounds like GM has been paying attention to many of the suggestions made here over the years.” Whether I agree or disagree with same, it’s pretty cool to see that they share many of our (your) ideas.
Clearly, it’s good that they are considering future options in creative ways. Are the ideas they are kicking around set in concrete? I doubt it. All of this technology is changing and morphing so fast that I doubt if anyone knows what these configurations will end up looking like a few years down the line.
Anyway, great work GM-Volt.com bloggers. Maybe we’re in the game more than we realize
#68
I think there’s someting to it! +1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:31 am)And I would say that it makes great sense to be able to buy a car with 20 AER AND an add-on module for 10 or 20 more miles that can be slid in and out easily (and charged when it is out of the car).
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:33 am)#82
Thanks for the excellent, thought provoking, link. A very clear eyed and practical world view, IMHO. +1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:33 am)And this site will have a purpose AFTER the Volt reaches the public.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:34 am)Just what I had in mind!
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:36 am)I think leaning towards a lesser range is a mistake. It may work for some people, but not for others. I think there would be a reasonable demand for a longer range battery pack. After all this car was designed to move us in the direction of reducing us from foreign oil dependency. The price of the batteries is going to go down as time goes on.
From an engineering view, the battery should be reasonably easy to change out. There is going to be faulty packs that will need to be replaced during warranty period, not to mention if you want to replace the battery for whatever reason down the road.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:36 am)I completely agree. I think they will lose their edge with this kind of thinking.
It is unfortunate.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:37 am)If I understand what is being said, it will be a major operation to replace the battery in Gen I, probably only to be attempted in the event of failure under warranty (or someday, by “rebuilders”); the philosophy appears to have been 1 battery for 1 Volt under ideal conditions.
This is a far cry from access which allows for planned and ongoing pack replacement.
Bottom-line, you could use more of Gen 1′s pack in a fewer number of years, but replacing it at that point is likely to be much more expensive than it will be for the later model.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:39 am)I suspect that the amount of heat involved is pretty small, I’ve never noticed the batteries getting *cold* while charging, either. However it is considered bad to charge lipos in the cold, but I suppose that if you have “shore power” available for charging the battery, then use can also use it for some heat. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the Volt warms the battery a bit before starting a charge, in cold conditions. So yes, a robust thermal control system is good!
The heat you are feeling is probably from the charging circuitry, or perhaps the protective circuitry for the battery. Hobby lipos are “bare”, IMO they should perhaps at least have a fuse for a bit of safety.
I will charge a Volt-like LiMn battery from 30% to 80% using a 2C rate this weekend to see how long it takes, and report back. In theory it should take 15 minutes, in reality probably a bit more time. They often lower the current rate at the end to avoid an overshoot near “full”. The important point to make here is that the Volt’s battery cells aren’t the reason for charging taking 3-8 hours.
Also, FWIW, “fast charging” for lipos can mean one of two things –
1) stopping at the end of the CC (constant currrent) phase, i.e. at about 80% full. This is obviously what they do for the Volt. Going from 80 to 100% takes a lot of time since the current goes lower and lower as you near full.
2) using a higher current. For many years a 1C rate was standard, now 5C and higher are becoming common.
Combine 1) and 2) and you get a truly fast charge! I can charge my lipo flight batteries these days quicker than I can peak charge my NiCd-battery transmitter. Progress is good.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:40 am)This is why I love coming here. Lots of people with lots of good ideas. You have a neat thought on module batteries there ZT. I wonder if GM is listening?
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:50 am)#93
Amen brother. Preach on! +1
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:52 am)The optimum batt pack would be one that has a deeper than 50% DOD down to 80% DOD that would reduce the batt pack weight and volume. Commodity cells like the TS LiFeYPO4 cells can take 3000 cycles at 80%DOD. That’s 8.21917 years time IF you drained it to 80% DOD EVERYDAY. Most will never do that. GM I think took it way more cautious that the rest, Nissan, Mitsu etc. You’re right though in saying why carry around more than you need. If GM sized the pack and trusted in the batt tech earlyier and had been researching batt tech after the EV-1 days they would’ve known by now. Unfortunately that is not the case.
I personally wanted a Gen 1 because of the over provisioned batt pack but, I got screwed by the economy and took a demotion instead of a layoff. The Volts just a pipe dream for me now.
/keepin my head though
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:53 am)Yes, but I know that it’s at least *possible* to talk your way in. At VoltNation I arrived hours early and since it was media day anyway, I went downstairs and tried to register as Press. The fellow asked for my press credentials, er, no credentials. “Could I just talk to the supervisor?” (said *extremely* friendly) – Sure. Talked to the Super for a bit and he waived me through, under the “No big deal” clause, so I got a “Press Colored” Bracelet. Long story short – it doesn’t hurt to try and they probably won’t arrest you. (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
/Link to Nat Geo trailer: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/ultimate-factories/4905/Overview#tab-Videos/
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
07881_00
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:57 am)I was under general anesthesia yesterday, and it shows.
If 3 packs give you 35 miles, removing one of these leaves you 23 1/3 miles. Adding a 15 mile pack in it’s place gives you a little more than 38 miles total, only a five-mile improvement. But next year, that might be down to 35 miles again, because the two remaining packs might have dropped to 10 miles each; replacing one of these would increase AER to 40 miles. You would replace the third module the next year.
This scenario will be easier to pay for than replacing all 3 modules at once, and if allowed, I think this ‘rolling replacement’ will be followed more often. It’s also a reason to offer a larger overall range from three modules, IMHO. What’s the huge difference between offering for up to three 15 AER modules to get 15-30-45 AER and offering up to three 17 AER modules for 17-34-51 AER (as battery performance improves)?
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:57 am)#108
Don’t get me wrong, I agree as well. And with CorvetteGuy above. Of course, he just sells cars every day, so what would he know about what the public wants, LOL? More AER is good, IMHO.
I’m just saying that I’m glad that GM folks seem to be listening, and aggressively weighing the best options.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:59 am)#133
I never doubted it for a second! “The darkest hour is just before the dawn.” +1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:59 am)I’m just not that good of a talker, so I’m not very optimistic about being able to talk my way in, but as you say, no harm in trying.
Thanks for the tips.
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:02 pm)I built my son’s electric scooter with these cells: http://www.all-battery.com/32v15ahlifepo4lithiumironphosphaterechargeablebattery.aspx
I have never noticed them feel hot. Even my fat azz got on the scooter. I think the cells they are talkinbout are the cylindrical cells. Those have very limited surface space to dissipate heat and may feel warmer. You’re LiPo pack might be the “Pouch” style which has a larger surface area to dissipate heat therefore not feel as warm. I drained the 15AH pack hard and measured with an amp clamp and I got it to drain to 2C (30A) for about 20 seconds. It never felt any warmer than ambient temp.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:13 pm)Don’t feel bad bro. I’d get thrown out….lol
“Hey you! get your azz outta that car! There’s barricades for a reason!!!”
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:17 pm)This is great information, and I appreciate your offer of research; so please don’t misunderstand my next comment:
The Nissan Leaf has two charging ports; one is the same J1772 port as the Volt’s; offering charging rates as high as 220VAC, 40A, to an internal, on-board charger. Given the larger pack, a provision has also been made for a second port which allows for connecting the native voltage of the pack to an external charger. They claim that a full charge can be done in around 20 minutes using this second port.
While there is no standard (such as J1772) for this direct connection, Nissan has said that if necessary they will swap out their proprietary port for a standardized version.
I have speculated that extra heat at these much more intense charging rates might be an important factor for safety than would otherwise be the case using the on-board charger and J1772 connector. Since GM did provided an extremely robust temperature control system, but seems determined not to provide direct access to the pack(s) for fast charging, this seemed ironic to me.
If excess temperature is not an overwhelming issue for 18 – 30 minute charging from an external charger, adopting a fast-charge connection standard seems much simpler to do.
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:18 pm)Why worry about replacing the battery? So the mix of all-electric to charge-sustain mode changes a little bit. What’s the big deal? It’s far more important for more people to afford and use the electric car in the first place.
At least your Volt will ALWAYS be drivable (and therefor sellable) as opposed to a Pure EV with a spent battery.
Worst case for Pure EV is it’s brick. (without lots of $$$ for a new battery)
Worst case for Voltec is it gets GREAT gas mileage
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:25 pm)I have 2 transmitters and have switched both to LiPo bats. Do it you’ll love it!
-10
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:26 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:30 pm)This whole concept is predicated on the assumption that battery costs will remain high.
If battery costs come down significantly, shorted lifespan and replacabilty won’t matter as much.
GM may be jumping the gun here…
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:33 pm)IMHO, I think if GM does anything for any next gen volt, they should drop the capacity of the batt pack to give at least 40AER up to 70% DOD. this will reduce weight and slightly increase AER. Just find the right balance of weight to 40AER need at 70% DOD. Get this done and weight and cost will go down AND the CS mode MPG will bump up as well.
But at least offer batt packs that can give you more than 40AER. Cmon….
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:38 pm)Here’s a question. If you order your Volt initially with the base AER, and decide to upgrade later, will GM allow it? After all, a dealership would far rather see you trade vehicles than add an option later.
Here’s the reason for the question: Let’s say the Gen III was already out, and I bought one last year with two 20 AER modules. Until recently, I worked about 20 miles away. If my next job is is 30 miles away, and there is a 3-module system supporting 20-40-60 miles, it would very much benefit me to then purchase the third module (it would be a far better deal than trading-in for me, right after a long layoff). On the other hand, if my new job is 10 miles away, will I be able to sell one of the modules for it’s pro-rated value (perhaps to provide longer range for a new 60-mile commuter)?
Even if GM plans only to offer two range options, this is something they should probably start thinking about.
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:39 pm)Question for you battery experts. Some battery chemistries will allow for up to an 80% discharge cycle. Other than a life consideration, what is sacrificed? There must be a trade-off.
-3
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:45 pm)This is Voltec 3 system and not voltec 2 system. The Voltec 2 system will have a greater range then the Voltec 1 system. The Voltec 3 is pure electric, most-likely they will have options for greater range for Voltec 3.
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:49 pm)ok, since Martin’s blog has been deleted I can give you the next best example:
http://bx.businessweek.com/electric-car/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onelectriccars.com%2Fteslas-refrigerator-sized-cooling-problem%2F491%2F
quote from the article which quotes Martin’s post:
what I was saying is that there is no need to ridicule something if you don’t understand it because you don’t have all the info. Now GM realized that it doesn’t make economic sense to over-pamper the battery pack, a better approach is to make the swap of the individual modules/cells as easy as possible.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:52 pm)I think this sudden blizzard of BEVs may be giving them a case of shaky knees.
The good news is at least two-fold: There will be a future for Voltec beyond the initial 3 years’ planned output; which has seemed a debatable point in recent weeks.
If GM remains flexible enough, and allow that flexibility to include greater as well as lesser ranges, they should be able to continue adapting quite well in a few years; once the Big Bad BEV proves out of breath, and their knees stop shaking.
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:55 pm)Also Do people read , gm said in the aricle above that they will offer people different battery size’s for different ranges.
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:58 pm)Capacity.
Take a batt pack of 4 cells for example. Each are 3.2VDC nominal and all rated at 3000 Cycles at 80% DOD and 10AH, 5000 cycles at 70% DOD. There are other aspects but they don’t pertain to your question.
Going up to or beyond the 80%DOD shortens cycle life and increases usable capacity.
Now compare the typical specs given by a mfgr. They usually give specs for 80% DOD and 70% DOD. Those percentages are the “Usable” capacity of the pack/cell. So if you have a 10AH batt pack, your usable capacity is 10AH * .8 (80% DOD) = 8AH usable. That’s probably the best you will get capacity wise due to BMS electronics. Now take the same 10AH battery and apply it to the equation for the 70% DOD, 10AH * .7 (70% DOD) = 7AH.
So usable capacity is inversely proportional to Cycle count. i.e. the higher capacity you want to use, the less cycles you have.
The one negative aspect of going down to 80% DOD is the possibility of your BMS not reacting fast enough to reduce or stop the drain of the pack beyond 80%. At 70% it’s ok to slightly dip more, but going beyond 80% is…….maybe detrimental to one of the many cells in your batt pack.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (12:59 pm)Lifting a 200 pound battery and connecting high current cable plus cooling won’t be ‘easy’.
All this talk about spare batteries, trailers, etc. just aren’t mainstream. Yeah a few crazies like us might do it, but, gramma Jones.. not so much.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:02 pm)vanoc: no need to over pamper the battery pack. By the way, the same thing happent at Tesla, they used to constantly (24/7) condition the battery (those that read Martin’s blog know…).
Not true. Tesla’s battery is actively monitored and conditioned 24/7 as needed (for both hot and cold conditions). Whether circulating only, cooling through radiator with fans, or kicking in the A/C or heater, driven or not, the battery is kept conditioned at all times. FAR CRY from air cooling. Your statement of “no need to pamper” is at odds with GM’s recognition that they’re appreciably reducing the battery life.
__________________________________________
I believe this was in reference to the constant circulation of coolant, noted by Martin Eberhard in his Tesla Founders blog, in the first three Founders Series Roadsters which Tesla said would be reworked at that time.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:06 pm)I strongly disagree with anything that adversely impacts quality. Here the guise is a battery life ‘downgrade’. Particularly a less-than-10 year battery life. Its bad enough to pay with tax and tags $45,000+ for an ICE powered car and three years later – no matter how nice condition – the GM dealer offers $7,000 or something in trade. With a less-than-10 year life battery, the car becomes a throw away. What’s green about that?
On the subject of the 2010-2011 VOLT (Gen 1) battery installation. I watched a fascinating Science channel feature last night. The making of the VOLT. An entire hour! Just super well done. Emphasis on step by step – how VOLT’s battery is installed. The trick is to be able to have complete and unobstructed access to the undercarriage. Just from watching the film, I could extract a VOLT battery in less than 20 minutes.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:08 pm)This is very funny. I read the article yesterday and wondered if the lobbyists would succeed in misleading anyone. Let’s be clear what the issue is. In prior years the government paid Caterpillar a subsidy which covered the amount Caterpillar was paying to extend to its retired workers lower deductibles on brand name pharmaceuticals. Now Caterpillar has to include the subsidy payment as income. Non-operating income but still income. Technically what is happening is that both gross revenue and expenses are going up. Cost are unaffected. Now I understand that the lobbyists who wrote the press release used the term “costs” — but lobbyists are paid to put out good stories not accurate ones. (Note the financial related part of the press release refers to “charges”).
What the lobbyists did, and what you’re doing, is to hopelessly confuse “Net Revenue” with “Net Income” and “Costs” with “Expenses”. Try keeping this in mind. Net Revenue = Gross Revenue – Returns – Negative Income. This is usually simplified as Net Revenue = Gross Revenue – Costs. Starting with Net Revenue you can then calculate Net Income. Net Income = Net Revenue – Expenses. Net Revenue is not the same as Net Income, and Costs are not the same as Expenses. These are separate concepts. Note that taxes are an expense, NEVER a cost. Look it up in any introductory accounting book. Moreover, taxes have historically been considered something of a lesser expense, which is why EBIDA is a much more popular measure than EBITDA.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:08 pm)20 AER = 40 AER if you top off at work during non-peak hours. Have work put in minimal solar for double happiness. Greater overall energy and fuel savings at substantially lower vehice cost, weight and interior room taken. It’s still 100% electric drive, 100% of the time for the superior torque performance and luxury smoothness.
You see how easy this all is to figure out once you have actual years long personal experience owning and using a well proven modern electric vehicle every day?
http://energycenter.org/index.php/incentive-programs/clean-vehicle-rebate-project/cvrp-eligible-vehicles
You all know which one I prefer until the Volt gets on the road.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:14 pm)Absolutely with you on this one. I cannot understand why they would make the battery last shorter. The replacement you might need after 10 or so years, I would understand. Not the original part.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:18 pm)I’m not going to “tear GM a new one” as an early poster put it, but I am raising my eyebrows at how much “thinking out loud” GM is doing about it’s future plans.
When GM turned the auto market sideways with it’s small block V-8 eons ago, I don’t think it spent 3 years tipping it’s hand as to what it was planning. So as a marketing minded type, I only wonder how much of this posturing is to keep it’s competitor’s guessing as to where it plans to run with the whole Voltec hand they have at the table.
To take that analogy further, what if GM introduced the small block V-8, then began downplaying all over the press because the engine just cost too much to manufacture? What if, back then in the fifties, they started touting four bangers and straight sixes as their future direction?
All that said, the positive side is that GM is realizing ( I think ) that they may have a popular platform here, and is being very creative in planning less expensive offshoots to fill markets now filled by Cruze, Malibu, and small SUVs, and soon, the Spark.
It only makes sense that less expensive models become available in all categories and price ranges. Prius is still the main target, I believe – for the Volt, and since the 12.5 mile AER of it’s plug-in has surfaced, the Volt doesn’t have much competition for the foreseeable future. Just watch what happens as the other players at this table begin to show up with competitive platforms to Voltec, and let’s just see if GM is still talking smaller, lower and less capability. Competition has a way of raising all ships.
RECHARGE! James
BUILD THEM AND THEY WILL COME.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:21 pm)All Car’s now have a battery life of five year’s so your going to throw them away?
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:21 pm)20 mile range would be perfect for me.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:25 pm)Good design requires that all parts wear out at the same time. Otherwise you’re spending too much on parts which won’t contribute to the overall success of the system. Nature is very good at doing this, which is why without good dental care your teeth are likely to fall out long you hit 65 — evolution expects you to die before you’re 40. The perfectly designed system would have all parts reach the end of their useful life on the same day at the same hour at the same minute. Impossible to do but that would be the round circle because you wouldn’t have spent any more than necessary on any one part.
Spending more up front to have a battery that will deliver 40 miles of EV driving after ten years violates this principle. It’s a waste of money because at ten years most of the Volt’s parts will be nearing end of life — so it won’t be driven that much — but the battery will still be raring to go. Looking out to fifteen years, the car will be ready for the scrap heap but the battery will have a lot of life left. The better design would be to have the battery be ready for the scrap heap when the rest of the car is.
Personally I’d be happy with a more robust battery because I drive cars longer than most and I’m not hard on them (doubtless these are related facts). I could be driving a Volt even after 15 years. But generally speaking GM’s design strategy of making the battery pack less robust and less expensive is a good one and makes a lot of sense.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:27 pm)James, Voltec 3 will have optional batteries for greater range.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:28 pm)+1 I agree completely!
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:29 pm)Actually, National Geographic – Ultimate Factories, but otherwise your comment stands. I just mention it in case someone wasn’t following yesterday and wants to look for it. It was stated earlier in this post that it will be broadcast again on April 1, and that one can buy DVDs from NationalGeographic.com.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:33 pm)If they are going to drop batt pack capacity to 20AER, I would want them to use the FULL 70% DOD of a 5714.28571KWH batt pack.
I would prefer them omit the ICE Genset and sell the higher range EV using the FULL 70% DOD of the 16KWH pack. Again, less weight should = higher EV range.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:35 pm)Martin’s blog MAY HAVE prompted a review of the temperature monitoring and a tweaking of the cooling cycles (he was talking about simple coolant circulation too much of the time, but the changes did not change the fan cycles or AC cycles) – it is all still there and working as I described. To compare simple coolant circulation (the least of 3 cooling modes) to air cooling is really apples-to-oranges.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:43 pm)I too have been impacted by job and economy. Thats why I have to make the car pay for itself.
I believe that it will by approacing 20,000 miles AER a year, mostly charged with overnight cheap electricity, and factoring in higher gas prices over life of car.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:43 pm)jeffhre,
you’re a lot more PC than I am – thanks!
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:50 pm)This bit of information just has bad vibes in it for me – it just screems “short sighted” business plan gain.
I would have hoped that by Gen 3, the batteries would have improved lifetime characteristics so that you wouldn’t need near as much redundant capacity as you needed with Gen 1 and GM could reduce capacity while also reducing battery costs as responsible avenues to get the cost down on the technology.
Saying you want to have the major component (essentially engine/transmission from a cost standpoint) of the drive system have a projected lifetime of ~5 years sounds very scary from a buying standpoint (most cars people buy today don’t need to do anything beyond oil changes through 100,000 miles or more – and you’re telling me I’ll need (what essentially amounts to) engine/transmission cost replacement at 5 years? Or the car will have little resale value at that point. Yeah, alot of people (besides the electric heads) are going to jump right on that.
This sounds a bit like a finance MBA brainstorming session solution to get the costs down to get a quicker ROI on this technology and after hearing about the different people who’ve left the Volt project at the top of the program over the last year or so – seems to reinforce the image that the finance people are now asserting more control over it with their money saving ideas/decisions that have worked so well for GM over the last 35 years. Maybe GM is realizing they don’t want to transition to cars that just don’t need maintenance?
I wouldn’t buy a regular Hybrid with a projected battery pack lifetime of 5 years and I sure won’t buy an EV/EREV with a projected battery pack lifetime of 5 years (unless GM wants to throw in a 10 year/100,000 mile warranty and it assume replacement cost at 5 years) – and I wanted an EV1 back when those were made. If this was an idea sponsored by Exxon, it would make total sense – in fact if GM went to Exxon, I bet they would pay GM to do this. Make this technology sound more scary to the general public.
I would hazard to guess most of the general public would not consider a car that needs something similar to engine/transmission replacement cost at 5 years.
Looks like Gen 2 is going to be the sweet spot for me – all the fixes and updates that couldn’t get into the Gen 1 and a car that won’t be worthless at 5 years (I generally keep mine 8-10 years).
GM be very careful, while the Volt can do so much for GM, it is a two edged PR blade you are swinging around here and this doesn’t sound good. JMHO of course.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:53 pm)I too would like to see a 20 mile AER offering.
Sure, it would only be a Prius PHEV “competitor” and not a Prius PHEV “killer” however, it gets GM in the game with a value priced option.
On the other hand, I can see the $7500 tax credit being cut in half, making the 20 mile AER option a more difficult choice to accept.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:53 pm)It seems GM could simply install some battery life software that monitors # cycles and DOD for each cycle. Then give the user a gauge that tells him what % of his battery pack life he has used up. Then adjust the warranty appropriately.This would give the user the ability to get more AER in the rare situation he needs it and GM would still be covered.
Thanks for the input Capt jack.
+6
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:58 pm)There is another whole dimension in all of this that we’re all missing, perhaps.
The need to make a battery pack last for 10 years puts great constraints on how the Volt Gen I can make use of it’s Charge Sustain Mode. You want to limit cycles as much as possible to baby that pack out to the full warranty limit, so the output of your on-board generator (“engine”) must follow customer usage as much as possible. Of course, it cannot match it completely, so the pack does do some buffering: it supplements the generator’s output at times, and is recharged from the generator at other times (probably never more than a percent or so of overall capacity).
I’ve long speculated in post comments here that a new battery capable of many more cycles could allow a generator’s output to come much closer to the average energy requirement of the car. Depending on the pack much more for sudden acceleration, with the expectation that it’s charge will be replaced at lower speeds, the engine and generator set could be made much smaller, cheaper and lighter; further, it could be operated over a much narrower range of speeds, which can be inherently more efficient.
If GM has abandoned the 100K mile requirement for batteries, this provides the equivalent of more available cycles without advancing the battery’s state of the art very far. I recall that at one time GM was considering a made-for-EREV one-liter engine in a later model which would have only 3 cylinders; this combined with lower-life packs may indicate an era of much-more-efficient CS-mode operation coming in just a few more years.
This smaller-generator-with-greater-buffering may be compelling enough in itself to justify the minimum AER Volt to a great many people based on it’s CS-mode mpg alone; particularly at a lower price. This could be the Prius-killer.
Mar 26th, 2010 (1:59 pm)Agreed, with a few minor quibbles (probably typos):
“pack of 4 cells for example. Each are 3.2VDC nominal ”
Usually lipos are listed as 3.7V nominal. I was just checking for my weekend test and it looks like 3.75V is 30% full and 3.95V for 80%. Note that this is open circuit — no load. Disclaimer: these values are actually for LiCo batteries, I’m assuming LiMn are similar.
“Going up to or beyond the 80%DOD shortens cycle life and increases usable capacity.”
..probably meant “decreases usable capacity”?
I’ve seen some nice test data on %used vs. capacity over hundreds of cycles, but am too lazy to hunt it down. What’s harder to test is degradation vs. time. Hard to simulate 5 years without it taking 5 years.
I suspect part of GM’s “let’s cut back on the battery babying” thought is knowing that batteries are quickly getting better and better. It may be considered a *positive* if the Volt’s cells only last 5 years, by then super-duper-ultra cells will be out which make the 2010 originals look like crap. On the other hand, I hate going in for service visits in general.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:19 pm)It’s more efficient to take ICE/ Gen output power and run it straight thru the controller and to the electric traction motor because you bypass the energy conversion inefficiencies associated with the battery charging and discharging. Also, if you look at the Prius ICE BSFC map you will see nearly flat SFC vs load characteritic, assuming it is programmed along the peak sfc islands.
Having said that, I still can’t help but believe your argument for a smaller ICE and a higher usage band in CS Mode doesn’t have a lot of credibility.
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:19 pm)The same applies to the Gen I T-shaped battery. Think of it this way, it was designed to be more durable, perhaps, then these reported Gen III batteries. It’s capability will not drop off a cliff either. In fact, GM has reported that some of these packs are past 300,000 miles and still going.
In my opinion, I want a Gen I Volt. I may NEVER have to replace the pack for 15 years and 250,000 miles.
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:20 pm)RC cars and planes. Cell phones, Mp3 players and PSP. Flashlights and clocks.
Anyone ever heard of upgrading to a lower power and lower life battery? By 2016, 40 mile range will be the lowest power EV battery available to buy. If an EREV comes standard with a 15-20 mile battery then you may as well buy a 2 mode hybrid Buick.
=D-Volt
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:21 pm)We used to tell our daughter that (in soccer) she missed 100% of the shots she didn’t take.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:21 pm)First Volts will have the most conservative engineering. They will refine and reduce costs from there and the battery is the biggest cost. No surprises that they are already looking at cost reductions since we’ve been told this before. Good to hear some of those details, however. Glad to hear more confirmation of mutliple AER offerings but sad to hear they aren’t considering some higher AER options. This is a HUGE mistake IMO. If EREV makes sense at all, the longer the AER that matches the customer’s needs the more cost effective it gets. The are a lot of fixed costs that don’t reduce as you reduce the range but by the same token they also don’t increase as you increase the range. If it makes sense at all to drive electric, the more you can do it the better.
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:26 pm)Here’s another scenario : what if, in 10 years, they don’t make any replacement battery making the entire car obsolete ? They do exactly that with computers – at one point, you cannot fit the new technology with your old motherboard, making your old computer impossible to upgrade.
What if they do the same with the battery technology ? A nice way to make sure you are going to buy another car even if the one you have is still roadworthy.
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:28 pm)Yes, if you think about it now, they’re currently quad-costing the battery. Maybe more. For 8kWh of usable battery, they’ve doubled it to 16kWh and priced in a replacement of the entire 16kWh under warranty. Plus all the systems to make it last 10 years.
Of course, it may be the case that they actually DON’T have to replace most of those packs under warranty, then they sort of magically make retroactive profit or something? I don’t know how that gets accounted for but having a cheaper pack with a higher likelihood of replacement may or may not be all that much cheaper depending on what the actual likelihood of replacement is for the current packs.
So, to stick some numbers on it, say the current pack costs $8k and they’ve priced in a warranty replacement for another $8k, then that’s $16k.
So a LOT will depend on how long these batteries actually last in the real world.
So, say they make a 10kwh battery instead of a 16kWh battery and it costs $5k and they price in a warranty replacement at another $5k for a total cost of $10k.
So far, that looks cheaper unless you actually DON’T have to replace the original $8k pack under warranty and you do have to replace the smaller one under warranty.
Now your cost is really only $8k for the original more reliable type and $10k for the less reliable one.
Of course, if the $5k makes it through the warranty period that’s cheaper yet.
+3
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:30 pm)From the article — “We don’t need more range, there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles,” Joe LoGrasso, a GM battery engineer told Autocar.
Sorry Joe, but I have to respectfully disagree. The reasons for going from 40 to 80 miles and beyond are too numerous to mention here in this limited space. If this is the best you have to offer towards the Volt and EREV technology, perhaps you might want to consider a different line of work.
-1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:31 pm)Makes the S look better and better doesn’t it.
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:34 pm)Yes. you are right, and the idea is that they also started with a very high level of protection for the battery which, later, they found to be unnecessary.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:34 pm)I kept my last car 15 years. The more the pack last, the better. There is indeed nothing better than no car payments. Maintenance is cheap if you do it right.
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:35 pm)Keep in mind that you are only making up the difference between what the generator provides and what is required; any associated losses for a percentage of required power may well be less than the efficiency loss of throttling a normal car engine over it’s full range of speeds (to make an engine capable of operation at all the required rpms a normal car requires it must lose some efficiency when running at any one speed. Narrowing the rpms required can allow the engine to be tuned more efficiently). You might also recover some of the energy lost at acceleration from regeneration, requiring less of the engine.
This may be what you’re saying, but I know little of these SFC vs load peak islands of which you speak.
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:37 pm)The best looking S will be the one you can actually see cruising down the highway.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:44 pm)#164
Nope.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:47 pm)There is no compelling reason why battery quality cannot continue to improve during the time it takes to go through your original cells. And as Dan Petit pointed out near the top of the thread, there will be other suppliers eagerly waiting with aftermarket replacements for these standard battery modules. It may be that when it’s time to pay the piper, it will be for just one module at a time, with a longer lifespan and greater AER than the original part.
I seem to recall a similar argument being used here when discussing a competitor’s BEV proposal.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:49 pm)#166
Me too.
Isn’t the 100K mile/10year battery warranty a CARB requirement? I recall that we have been over this issue many times. Some think it’s dumb, and some like it, but there it is. So I wonder how they plan to get around that?
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:55 pm)I’ll probably get some minuses on this post, but honesty forces me to admit I was a bit disappointed. Yes, it was interesting to see how a car is put together, but what we were seeing was clearly the very manual process for constructing early prototypes. I had the impression the film was shot last year by someone inside GM, with a National Geographic voice-over.
I’m still itching to get my hands on my own Volt, but as I turned off the TV last night I felt as though I had just sat through an hour-long infomercial.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (2:59 pm)#154
They already had the 3 cyl 1L engine. It is alive and well and offered in several cars in Europe. They finally decided to go with the 1.4 instead. My sense of it is that they could save money by producing it in the same plant as the Cruze engines. Too bad, IMHO.
Amen to that. +1
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:01 pm)A BSFC map for the Prius ICE
-1
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:05 pm)Rats, had a nice reply all done, waited a while, and somehow lost it. Here goes again…
I agree, probably the best way to get a short charge time is to have a proprietary “native” charge port. The tradeoff would be that more wiring would be required, and depending on the voltages and currents involved and how the cells are hooked up (serial/parallel), this could be a lot of fairly fat wiring. This also moves the charger off the car, which is good and bad. The good news is that it would be easier to replace, the bad news is that it’s now sitting at home. Seems like you’d most want fast charging when away from home.
As I said before though, a 20 minute charge is perhaps a fairly wimpy 2C rate. This will not heat up the battery, these aren’t your father’s NiCd/NiMH cells. Even if someone charges a lipo “stupidly” — say charging a 1C-rated battery at 10C — there will not be any heat right up to the moment of themal runaway, i.e. when the battery self destructs (and bursts into flames if a LiCo — lithium cobalt).
People seem to have “fast battery charging=heat” burned into their brain, but it is simply not true for lipo. Any heat is from the charging circuitry, but not the battery itself. Lipos heat up from high current rates (not an issue with the Volt unless maybe drag racing), or when near empty (also not an issue with the Volt since it only goes to 30%).
+6
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:05 pm)A new heavy material has been discovered!!!
The Nuclear Physics Department at the University of Undisclosia has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 – 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each re-organization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration.
This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.”
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:06 pm)AND in the worst possible situation – three am, in a snow storm, on a back road, on the way to the Dr’s with two young children and your pregnant wife, whose water just broke….
Just sayin (g)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:14 pm)That’s a shame! I really enjoyed it, I think that everything you said is true, but I’ve watched it twice already. Didn’t you even like the part where Andy was sweating whether the range extender would kick on? Given my strange sense of humor, I was picturing him looking at the camera and yelling CUT!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:29 pm)Ooops.
I forgot to metio that I was quoting LiFePO4 chem. My bad.
I guess I should’ve said, the deeper your discharge the LESS your cycle count. Again, for LiFePO4 cells. This is evident in the specs for typically used TS cells by DIY’rs. Here’s the specs for a 100AH cell: http://www.thunder-sky.com/pdf/201031293151.pdf
Notice the deeper you go on discharge, the less your cycle count.
Lipo’s have higher nominal voltage and higher C rate but typically less cycle counts. Each chem makeup have their give and takes. LiFePO4/LiFeYPO4 cells seem to be a good fit for commodity shtufffff. So just in case I post again on specs, i’m usually using specs for LiFePO4/LiFeYPO4.
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:33 pm)Ooops, I of course meant “from high-current discharge rates”, the recommended discharge rate for a lipo is typically around 10X its recommended charge rate.
>>I forgot to metio that I was quoting LiFePO4 chem. My bad.
Oh yeah, you had mentioned that along the line somewhere but I quickly forgot… Actually the A123 version of LiFe have a higher discharge C than most lipos. I have some noname non-A123 LiFes that are mostly useful as paperweights.
Yes all this battery stuff is rather confusing, but still very relevant to the Volt. Probably why I am interested in a Volt! My bathroom counter is covered with batteries!
Mar 26th, 2010 (3:41 pm)_________________________________________________________________
Volt = same as VUE 2-mode?
GM Voltec Team & National Geographic’s gets a +1 for the Ultimate Factories TV show featuring the Volt. I gained a better appreciation for the considerable effort and attention to quality control detail that GM is investing into the design and manufacturing of the Volt.
During the segment of the show showing the power-train assembly, I thought I saw the following motor/transmission unit being attached to the IC:
http://www.worldautosteel.org/images/X09PT_AT011.jpg
Is the Volt using the same 2-Mode transmission/electric-motor unit as was planned for the Saturn Vue?
http://www.worldautosteel.org/Applications/Vehicles/Saturn-Vue-Two-Mode%20.aspx
____________________________________________________________
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:13 pm)NOT TRUE! We’re dealing with the same batteries that are (in)famous for the “Dell Meltdowns” where a very high level of protection is required. You’re only addressing the bottom segment of the lowest of 3 levels of battery conditioning.
Yes, originally the coolant scheme was to circulate full-time – that’s the blog you’re referring to. Now it circulates periodically and when called for by the sensors (ambient temperature, residual heat from driving, etc.). You’re ignoring the “very high level of protection” that has not changed – active cooling, with fans and radiator the same as a conventional car; and BEYOND THAT, active use of the passenger air conditioning to cool the battery system.
An analogy to what you’re saying is, “since you don’t need to run your house’s heating and cooling system when it’s between 68 and 72 degrees proves that you don’t need it”. That’s all that the blog addressed – implement less than fulltime circulation when the conditions are suitable (and circulation and conditioning is always on when driving).
BTW, the last software upgrade went in the reverse direction of what you’re talking about – the fans and air conditioning kick in MORE when parked or charging than in the prior release.
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:25 pm)I currently have the same Acura CL I bought in June of 2001. To tell me it would be worthless next year would be bad news. It runs great, has great pickup and mileage. The only drawback is its nicks in the paint, door dings and some wear on the interior.
I think resale value is important, so even if someone were to resell their car after year 3, it’s depreciation is huge if the battery has a limited life.
So, my concern is, these new replaceable batteries vs. the longer lasting batteries what is the difference in say an 11 year time?
Do 3 replaceable batteries cost much more than one 10 year batt?
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:25 pm)If, statistically speaking, meaning using averages of the entire population, going from 40 AER to 80 AER means only going from, say, displacing 87 % displaced gas-fueled miles to, say, 91 % displaced gas-fueled miles– but at a HUGE increase in purchase price, and a significant decrease in efficiency due to lugging around battery poundage — then what Joe said is right on the money…
We’re dancing on the boundary lines between economics and technology. It was Li-ion that brought us to this dance and some more technology improvement that will finish the music.
We need to be patient and wait for it to happen. If we can only displace 90% of gas-fueled miles now, that’s a great thing. The rest will come eventually.
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:29 pm)No, I don’t think battery packs will become standard. There’s too much complexity and software involved. Battery packs will probably be specific to the particular vehicle, or perhaps a few vehicles will share the same pack.
Car makers want to maintain control over the software inside the battery pack, so I don’t see how aftermarket suppliers will compete here.
-1
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:36 pm)Oh jeez. Make the battery crappy to reduce cost? News flash to GM: You can’t compete with the cheap guys (i.e. Koreans). The bottom of the price range is not a place you can survive. Concentrate on making high quality products in the mid-price range. If I have to spend $3,000 to replace my battery after 5 years, then you just lost a customer. It reminds me of the “disposable” head gasket I just replaced on my Grand Am, but much more expensive.
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:38 pm)I know why Tesla choose those batteries (at that time nobody made large format prismatic automotive grade batteries) but sooner rather than later they should look for a supplier if they want to be competitive. I’m sure the model S will come with different type of batteries
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:44 pm)Yes, and as I mentioned before, the DMCA laws could be used to prevent “cloners”, as with inkjet cartridges. You can bet there are also lots of patents in there, as well.
On the *other* hand, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to rebuild the battery, replacing the old LiMn cells with new ones of the same size. Sort of like refilling a cartridge. I suppose GM could then “chip” the packs, counting the number of cycles or something.
Quite a few parallels between car battery packs and inkjet cartridges! I sure hope GM doesn’t see the replacement packs as a future cash cow. Even if they don’t, I have to wonder if the dealerships will. You can bet the dealerships will find a way to make money on the inevitable software upgrades.
On the other topic, it’s been said over and over that only the electric motor ever directly drives the wheels, so I don’t see why they would use a “2-mode” tranny, if 2-mode means what I think it means. But drivetrains are outside my knowledge base so I’ll leave it at that. I’m looking forward to the full scoop on the Volt drivetrain hardware, when it finally arrives. I suspect that it will be surprisingly simple.
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:49 pm)Then you’d lose that bet – they’re using Panasonic 18650′s.
(you may want to look in the Forum at “Tesla offers the best energy density for the price and the packaging” (Daimler)”, link:
http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4428
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:52 pm)It doesn’t really increase the cycles. Those would be set by the chemistry. Say a battery technology was good for 1000 charge/discharge cycles. Using 8 kWh out of 12 kWh is .667C. Using 8 kWh out of 16 kWh is .5C. The first battery would last for 1500 days and the second for 2000 days. The only way to get more cycles would be to use a different chemistry. Substituting A123 batteries for the LG Chem batteries would so that.
Being willing to live with a shorter battery life does, however, allow you to use fewer cells in the pack.
I suspect being able to use a smaller engine has much more to do with the difference between generators and car engines than it does with the battery buffering.
Mar 26th, 2010 (4:52 pm)#176
Can I call “OT” on this one, LOL? Actually, I have just been reading “Angler” the story of the Cheney Vice-Presidency. You comment sounds eerily like that book.
I may need to call “OT” on myself, but here’s an interesting bit of related news. Some of you may have noted the current pushing and shoving between the Los Angeles City Council, the Mayor, and the Department of Water and Power about “green power” related rate increases. The CFO of the DWP was interviewed on NPR this AM. He announced that, IN ADDITION TO the rate increases currently at issue, they were going to be asking for further rate increases of 3%/year for the next 4 years, for a grand total of 37%! THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT. I am not making this up. Maybe we need to go back and take another look at our BEV/PHEV math, LOL.,
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:03 pm)Oh yeah….
Off Topic!!!
/forgetful me….
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:15 pm)and lightens the car and may increase range.
lighter is goodder.
I have always wondered why they didn’t go for a 750CC motorcycle type engine. I know many 750cc motorcycles can deliver well above 80HP. This one has plenty of umph: http://www.bikez.com/motorcycles/suzuki_gsx-r_750_2001.php (ok, it’s old but that’s the only one I could find that gave a HP rating, sup wit dat?)
Or even a 600cc: http://www.totalmotorcycle.com/photos/2001models/2001models-Suzuki-GSX-R600.htm
Granted it’s way more than 80hp and high RPM but tune/gear it down and you have a much lighter genset and will be running it well below it’s max capabilities.
/just a crazy ass thought.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:17 pm)I think they mean less cells not less quality. In any event, at the point of sale I’m not sure too many people get worked up about what happens in year eight. A year is most people’s time frame. Two years at best.
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:19 pm)I don’t see why Volt fans see the need to “wipe out” the BEVs. Even GM is going to offer a BEV option. It’s all about options, not everyone wants a EREV. It doesn’t make sense for someone who supports plug-ins to be against BEVs.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:21 pm)So, if you have to buy $3,000 of gas over five years, you refuse to use a gas vehicke?
5 years of $3 gas for five years at 25 mpg and 15,000 miles a year = $9,000.
Feeling any cognitive dissonance yet?
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:23 pm)I agree with both you and Rashiid Amul! My issue with Joe LoGrosso’s statement is “there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles”. I disagree! Hopefully, Joe has little influence with GM as it relates to pushing the AER envelope.
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:26 pm)I recall one battery mfgr came out with the same cell at higher capacity of 2.8AH and up to 3.0AH for a 18650. Correct me if i’m wrong but Tesla uses 2.4AH right? Or was it 2.2AH? Sh|t, can’t remember now. It was was many months ago.
Man, I wonder what kind of range you’d get if you used those? Prolly the full/real world 300MPC? 150MPC with my wife driving though.
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:35 pm)I think it is good for customers to have different options. A lighter Chevy Volt also means a better driving experience. Maybe they can bring the new generations very soon by only changing the battery packs and the systems for the battery packs. Hopefully LG can also improve the usability of the battery towards 100 percent.
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:39 pm)From the article — “We don’t need more range, there’s no point in going from 40 to 80 miles,” Joe LoGrasso, a GM battery engineer told Autocar. “
It was attitudes like this within the battery industry that stagnated development of car batteries for decades. Thankfully we still have those bright young men and women willing to take the risks necessary to bring new technologies to market when the “experts” can only say it is “mission impossible”. I hope they are all successful beyond their wildest dreams!
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:42 pm)I’m sorry but this looks like GM’s new management has determined to drive them off a cliff. “Swappable” batteries is a marketing gimmick promoted by the BP guy with no real value outside making a business for the BP guy and cohorts. I don’t want LESS AER!! The whole point is to improve battery chemistry so we can drive further on a single charge!! Are these new people totally out of touch???
This announce has me very worried. It smacks of the eco-enviros who are really a collection of religious frugalists in sheep’s clothing. The whole purpose of ER-EVs is to encourage all electric driving. The cost of battery technology is already plummeting and now in 3rd Gen, these guys want to inhibit the AER to… 10, 20, miles??? Bad marketing move. Bad idea. This announce will immediately depress GM’s position as an innovator.
Fairly typical too. As soon as a real visionary like Lutz steps down, these little mice start nibbling at the vision. Good luck GM.
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:47 pm)I have been trying to keep track as I am interested in the S.
Panasonic 2.9ahr- already in production
Panasonic 3.1ahr just started production
S will use 3.1ahr panasonics
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:50 pm)Agree totally. Wish I could give you a +10 or even more! One might think from Joe LoGrosso’s statement that BP, Exxon or other big oil company had bought GM.
Mar 26th, 2010 (5:59 pm)Do you or Roger have the specs on the Volt cell?? I was wanting to put together a comparison.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:23 pm)Hey Tom W,
I think it has to do with causing ****some**** usage of the gasoline before it goes stale.
Also, there has to be ***some*** operations of the engine/generator for those systems to be lubed and also from dust accumulation on the genset stator.
I remember one day when I was working on the 5 KW Onan Genset for my old 1980 Winnebago 14 years ago, and, I was putting in new circuit breakers at the same time I was replacing the brushes for the armature. While there was a 20 amp breaker and a 30 amp breaker on the generator, and, while the stator coils were identical for both load circuits, I had accidentally put the new replacement 30 amp where the 20 amp one was, and, at the same time, placed the 20 amp breaker where the old 30 amp one once was.
While there was absolutely no technical problem in this particular situation, what did happen when that particular 30 amp circuit was more fully loaded up, is that there was a pronounced smell of dust burning off the stator that went away immediately. I opened up the breaker box again to inspect it, when, after tracing the circuits also, I realized also that the generator was incorrectly wired to send the 30 amps to the 17 amp roof air, and the 20 amps incorrectly sent to the rest of the house (which needed a 28 amp peak).
That “error” of mine, corrected the original factory wiring actual error of the 20 amp breaker being overloaded with the 28 peak-amps of house appliances, and that new installation of the 30 amp breaker never tripped prematurely again in it’s correct position after all as it once often did running the house appliances. The roof air conditioner never tripped with the 20 amp circuit breaker which it originally was intended to have.
Lesson here is that there needs to be some runtime on the genset to prevent higher maintenance costs. Also, even if you buy a Volt Gen2/3 with only 20 AER (possibly likely something like 10kw, not just 8kw), then, it seems from the story above, that you may simply upgrade at any time later with an “add a pack”.
As well, from the story above, if you have too much AER during the life of the car, you may decide to sell one of the two or three modules to another Volt owner who needs more.
This is a very smart move for these next generations that will utilize solid state batteries.
I’m really thankful that I was able to get to drive the Volt two weeks ago, because it not only has me sort of really contented that I know GM is really and truly on the right track for all this technology, but, if I need to wait another 10 months or so due to the “purgatory” of the Southwest (and solid state batteries), I’m really content also to have that patience.
Per what “swappable” might mean? Modules weighing in at about 60 pounds each, owner friendly, and, who needs PBP?
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:23 pm)Let’s give high-school science/math a shot (d*mn, it’s been a long time). I seem to recall the Tesla/Panasonic deal is for 3.1 Ah cells. I never heard the cell capacity in the roadster, but here’s what we do know:
the Tesla’s pack is 53 Kwh and contains 6831 cells which are 3.7 volts each. To determine the Ah for each cell:
[53000] / [6831 * 3.7V ] = 2.1 Ah
That would say that if the new Panasonic 3.1′s replaced the 2.1′s, the Roadster would have a range of:
244 miles * 3.1/2.1 = 360 miles
Are these calculations correct?
-1
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:24 pm)Being able to use smaller engine hinges on:
-higher engine power density (e.g. Wankel)
-lower vehicle weight (reduced battery + reduced engine = double wammy)
-lower steep hill performance expectation
The 50KW is really for hills with 3500lbs. 25KW would be fine for flatlands.
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:33 pm)I don’t think anyone has the specs. Their tight lip about it. Here’s what we know.
According to the pic there are 288 cells. In a video on the “other” Volt site shows some guy holding one of them and he say’s the nominal voltage on that cell he was holding is 3.5VDC. Now the size of the pouch pack he was showing looks to me like a 15AH – 20AH.
Knowing there is at least 4 connections on the T-Pack, 2 for charge and 2 for drain, one could derive there are 2 sub packs in parallel to one another. 288/2=144 cells per sub pack. If you calculate 3.5VDC * 144 cells you get = 504VDC? Wait, that’s not right!!! They said it’s around 336-350VDC!
So it looks more like 288/3=96 cells per sub pack because 3.5VDC * 96 = 336VDC.
But there’s also the upper limit to think about. Each cell typically has .25VDC more voltage (or more) when fully charged. So now the math looks like this: 3.75VDC * 96 = 360VDC. This sounds more like it. Why do I think 96 is correct? Because it’s a multiple of 4. The basis of a 12.8VDC pack.
We’ve now established that there are 3 subpacks in there. 96 cells in each. Now we know it has the capacity of 16KWH TOTAL. 16KWH / 3 =5333.3333KWH per sub pack. Knowing this you can derive the actual AH of the cells by this: 5333.3333 / 360VDC = 14.814014AH.
So, by only having the number of cells, the capacity and the voltage for each cell we have the following specs…
Volts: 360 at full charge
Capacity: 16KWH
Sub pack count: Hypothetical 3
Cells per sub pack: 96
Volts per cell: 3.75 fully charged (may be more for LiMn)
Capacity per Cell: ~15AH
Anyone please correct me if i’m wrong/off or whatever.
/I guess if you looked at the T-Pack you’d be able to guess there are 3 subpacks because of how it’s partitioned out…..lol…..duh.
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:38 pm)Makes perfect sense to me.
The beauty of a Volt
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:38 pm)That’s good enough for Govt work!!!
I think at that range one could get 300 real world miles easily. with the exception of a few.
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:45 pm)I certainly would not argue. I like your logic.
Peace
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:55 pm)I think I have battery envy, I want the big one! 42 mile commute and anything else is even further away.
The beauty of 16KWH
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (6:59 pm)People will spend an extra $2,000 to buy a Toyota so they can avoid $2,000 worth of repairs over several years. The actual numbers don’t have to make sense. If GM has a battery that forces people to lay out significant cash in a few years, it will create a perception of reliability and quality problems. How many people say they’ll keep buying Toyotas or Hondas because they never need to replace parts? I do not feel ANY cognitive dissonance on this; I feel like GM is not placing themselves into the emotional head of a car owner. This is a losing strategy.
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:20 pm)I don’t think extra optional AER it’s at all comparable marketing wise as is, for example, an unexpected repair expense.
If you want more AER to fight paying money to the gas pump, that is a very appealing optional deal, and, you know exactly what you are getting for the investment. Basic math can tell anyone that. Especially when you already know how much you need to drive a year.
Selectable AER is a great option that many will want.
Some might even want to go to that 50 or 60 AER when they know that on some days each week they will certainly need to use the genset to go another 15 to 20 more miles still (80 a day), using up that gas.
The neat thing to consider, is that if you have 16 kw already, perhaps by only adding 3 more (optionally-completely-depletable) kw might get you close to that 55 or 60 mile AER that you might want if you are able to “add a pack” yourself.
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:28 pm)Agreed. Truly high-speed charging only makes sense with professional equipment in a public recharging station. Such equipment should be able to adjust electrically to the requirements of many models of car, since it needn’t be cheap enough to be purchased by the car owner. The only thing required is a standardized connector. We all have the same kind of filler pipe, but we don’t each own our own gas-pumps, by comparison
The Volt uses Lipo? What is A123?
+4
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:29 pm)#163
I don’t want to sound like a spin doctor for Joe LoGrasso, but I think that he is just echoing stated GM policy here. I remember distinctly, many months ago, that someone way above his pay grade, whether Bob Lutz, Frank Weber, or someone else, flatly stated the 40 miles AER was the settled number, and that any improvements in battery technology would be applied to lowering the cost of the car.
The determination was made that 40 miles would cover most of the trips people make. Evidently, they determined that this was the optimum point in the tradeoff between AER, cost, and interior room.
At the present state of the art, the only way to increase the AER would be to add more battery. Clearly, there is nowhere to put it. The amount of complaining seen here over the months about the 4 seat configuration of the Volt would fill volumes. If smaller, more energy dense, batteries would give the same AER, maybe the 5th seat could materialize.
For all of the people wishing for more AER, of which I count myself as one, I hasten to add, at least as many have suggested less AER and a lower price. So that half of the group can be happy that GM has heard them. Maybe their marketing folks agree.
So let’s give poor old Joe a break. Far from nibbling away at the vision of Bob Lutz, my sense of it is that he is just loyally trying to implement same. JMHO
LJGTVWOTR!! NMST!
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:32 pm)#205
What with it being Friday PM and all, I’ll drink to that! +1
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:34 pm)#194
That would be me, LOL. +1
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:49 pm)Thanks for the input. I will review the numbers a little later. If I gleen some good comparison data I will post in the forum.
Mar 26th, 2010 (7:50 pm)I’ve heard that some morons have “charm” which changes their “flavors”.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:14 pm)Anytime, pal!
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:16 pm)Li-Fe or Li-FePo4.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:16 pm)Better?
The modules will be standard among Voltec offerings post 2013, and possibly for GM BEVs dating from the same era.
Does that help?
You can go to an auto parts store and buy lead-acid batteries which are all basically the same except for their physical size and electrical ratings. I don’t think it’s a stretch that one supplier will find a business model for addressing the more advanced but basically similar thing in 6 or 7 different flavors, though as a matter of fact, I wasn’t trying to address the entire EV universe, as you assumed. Here’s Dan’s original statement:
… so we’re not talking about just anybody with a soldering iron.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:19 pm)DonC,
not sure I agree with the spin you put on that one.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:28 pm)Off topic: Had promised a user review of the Goodyear Fuel Max tire.
Had 15′s installed on my small truck this week. My small truck is about the same weight as the Volt. Drove 50 miles around town. With a trip to Los Angeles and back. Total of 300 miles.
Installation with nitrogen fill and alignment cost $569. A set of 17′s (Volt size) with nitrogen and alignment are about $620.
The tire looks very good with a very deep tread pattern. Feature rain grooves and are internet reviewed to be good in the snow. Across the board ratings from internet users are 8-8.5 .
I replaced Cooper Touring tires and found the Fuel Max to be slightly quieter. The Fuel Max absorbs bumps and potholes better than the Cooper. The single downside is that the Fuel Max tends to swim slightly at 70-80 mph. This may be the deep tread catching freeway irregularities. Internet ratings list fuel savings as minus 1% to plus 3% from what drivers were formally using. All in all I rate the Fuel Max as very good and expect it to be a good match to the Volt.
=D-Volt
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:34 pm)Don, Don, DON!!!
What part of “the equivalent of more available cycles” don’t you understand?! I know that “It doesn’t really increase the cycles,” that’s the whole D@MN$D POINT of lowering the expected lifetime of the packs! IF THEY COULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CYCLES ECONOMICALLY THEY WOULDN’T BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!
If you can’t have more cycles, lowering the expected life of the pack might spare more cycles for generator buffering in CS-mode. It’s the degree of allowable buffering that widens the choices of engine sizing and tuning. Please try to pay attention.
-1
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:35 pm)It never fails to amaze me what some people will grace a -1 to on this site. On my post #140 I think I made a valid point about GM’s current habit of leaking future plans out into the netisphere even before platform one is done in the oven.
I countered my point with optimism re: How obvious it is that the Voltec is an expensive proposition right now and in a business sense, it makes a whole lot of sense to spread plug-in electric tech throughout it’s line, eventually replacing Malibus, Cruzes, SUVs and Sparks with EREV or EV equivelants price point for price point.
How does that deserve a negative rating? I feel sometimes it’s the GM brown nosers amongst us who feel any word that isn’t some flag-waving, GM fan boy piece is somehow a negative comment. On top of this I have read down the thread and haven’t found one individual who presented a case countering my analogy of the small block V-8 being a game changer for GM in the fifties, and how they DID NOT, obviously start to backpedal back then and say they were reducing the size, capability and price from that of it’s newest innovative product.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:40 pm)Long ago, in Volt terms, there was speculation that GM could or would use super-caps for this. CaptJackSparrow has often said super-caps would be great for capturing regen. Could take a lot of the operating stresses out of the battery longevity calculations?
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:40 pm)Gm stated in the article it would offer different battery types for people that wanted longer range, did you read the same article as I did?
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:44 pm)The Goodyear Fuel Max tires have gotten mixed ratings on several tire tests I have read, one being Consumer Reports. There are other low rolling resistance tires on the market that seem to have made fewer compromises to other areas of tire performance to gain mpg. There are even other tires in it’s category that have lower rolling resistance. That said, Goodyear is an American company and if the tires are made in America – and if GM got a great deal on the tires – I’d say it’s a good choice for the Volt as it’s first set of tires.
One other note – isn’t it just about universally acknowledged that filling tires with nitrogen doesn’t gain anything in mileage or performance and is a tire shops #1 scam of making some extra bucks?
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:50 pm)OK, given how far afield this is, I know I shouldn’t ask, *but*, HUH???
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:54 pm)… in a perfect world, with all the attendant problems of Supercaps solved, there is no doubt that they would benefit EREV, BEV, PHEV and Hybrid. A sufficient Supercap bank could lead to a “Volt Lite” which would essentially operate in a super-efficient kind of CS-mode full-time; with spectacular HSD-beating mpg.
Unfortunately, Super Capacitor problems include size, cost, and improbably high voltages; all of which could be solved — some day.
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:56 pm)R.E.: Post #227 – I’d like to relate a story to whomever grinned and posted another -1. I had a new neighbor who shocked me when I tried to introduce myself as he was walking up the street. I said “Hi, my name’s James, welcome to the neighborhood!”. He replied, “F — U!”.
I nearly dropped my weedeater on my foot – as I looked back at this seemingly harmless Asian fellow, and bit my tongue before I shouted back ” WELL F.U. TOO YOU *&^%%!” … As I paused he stepped forward to shake my hand and said ” Fu, my name is Fu! ” LOL!!!
So to whom it may concern, F.U.!!!!
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME
Mar 26th, 2010 (8:59 pm)Don’t let single negatives worry you. There are trolls here who vote against anyone capable of too much sense. It’s when you get several that you should go back and re-read.
By the way, I think someone gave you a negative on this particular post for whining about negative votes (or perhaps, they thought it humorous to “grace a -1″ on a post about gracing a -1).
Keep in the fray
ZT
EDIT: Just saw your post above mine — lol
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:08 pm)Let’s try looking at it from a different angle. How far would you get in a Volt without the Range Extender? If you want the longevity to remain the same, we’re talking about 40 miles. It’s the Range Extender that leads the way and pushes the envelope
I’m in the group that would love an AER 60 Volt, but I don’t see that offering *options* for smaller, lighter, and/or less expensive batteries is necessarily a step backwards. In fact, to the extent that more people can afford Volts, (who wouldn’t want a BEV of 40 due to range anxiety), it saves more oil by getting more butts in the Volts’ seats. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:10 pm)… and as much as I love subatomic humor …
In an eerie kind of synchronicity, a new heavy element has been discovered; element 112 (with an atomic weight of 278), and officially named “Copernicium” after Nicolaus Copernicus. It is hoped that copernicium is a stepping stone toward the predicted “island of stability,” a region of the periodic table where researchers expect to find superheavy elements that last longer than a few seconds and might be exploited for purposes still unknown.
http://www.iupac.org/web/nt/2010-02-20_112_Copernicium
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:19 pm)To try to offer another viewpoint to the discussion of today’s topic, I recently bit the bullet and bought a brand new little toy, and quite a practical little electric transportation device.
I debated back-and-forth whether to buy my little American made scooter http://www.goped.com/ with the standard issue sealed lead acid batteries, or pinch myself a few times and dish out the huge escalation in price for the lithium ion pack. I ended up buying the lead acids, knowing I not only sacrificed range, and that, unlike lithiums, they slow down as they discharge where lithiums pretty much retain top performance until they die. With the money I saved I could buy new lead acids each year for about 90$ and not have to fudge to the wife how much I spent and then feel guilty about it. The scooter is immensly fun and of good quality, but it does remind me daily that it’s batteries are a major drawback.
The smidgeon of buyer’s remorse for lead acids lead me back to their website to buy a battery upgrade, but the prices of the horrendously expensive lithiums just hasn’t gone down in 2 years. In that time I’ve noticed they’ve tried to cut that enormous buy-in price down by introducing a more crude, light economy model without suspension but still very useful for commuters to the bus or train.
In the same way, for the exact same reasons, GM is contemplating all sorts of game plans as how to reduce costs and get EREVS and EVs to the masses who can afford them.
RECHARGE! JAMES
P.S. – Check out Go-ped’s website, the videos on their cover page will strike a chord with most of us here.
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:43 pm)When I first read today’s post, I’ll admit to some disappointment. The more I’ve thought about it (obviously), the more favorable I’ve become. If you offer enough range choice, more people will be pleased, equating to greater sales numbers. If this business model also extends to greater than 40 miles of All Electric Range it will please more people, still.
There is an inherent flexibility which can quickly go in many different directions. If more people pick the base AER Volt, nothing has to be re-tooled; just put in one less battery module. A 40-mile range might take the two already expected, and even the 60-mile people GM doubts are out there will have a shot with the installation of a third.
There is even the possibility of substituting more expensive batteries capable of a longer overall lifetime, if the research and market allow.
Voltec has created a market for the rapid expansion of battery capability and economical availability; and I feel that the more options left open, the better things will be for automotive electrification overall.
g’night all …
+2
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:44 pm)From what I’ve read about the new element, they hope to use it in Gen IV batteries. They’ll be really really small, but still very very heavy (g). The Gen IV Volt will still have an AER of 40, but seat 16 people.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:47 pm)It is a form of lipo cells, made by the A123 company and used in the Dewalt 36V power tools.. incredibly rugged and long lived.. they survive 1000s of cycles at 100% DoD. A competitor to LG for the Volt contract. Very high power density compared to the LG cells but lower energy density.. suitable for high performance short range packs. Think Corvette Voltec.
http://www.a123systems.com/a123/products
Mar 26th, 2010 (9:56 pm)The advantages of Goodyear Fuel Max are: American made. Good overall performance. Deep tread design. And moderate price.
As far as nitrogen use for inflating. I trust my tire service center. Have purchased there at least 8 times. The operator is a race driver. He says there are a two pluses to nitrogen filling. One being that it better maintains pressure. Second that it’s more compatible with tire compounds. I normally don’t fill with nitrogen and actually declined it this time (at $5 per wheel). The installer surprised me and used it anyway.
Here is an internet piece on the use of nitrogen.
Who Else Is Using Nitrogen?
* NASCAR – NASCAR teams use nitrogen because it allows them to more accurately predict tire pressure fluctuation. Nitrogen fluctuates with temperature change, but it does so less than when water vapor is present. In addition, higher nitrogen levels eliminate the explosive properties of oxygen (oxygen loses its explosive properties at around 9% or less) NASCAR uses bottled nitrogen for portability.
* Commercial Airlines – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires nitrogen in all commercial aircraft tires to eliminate the potential for water vapor (inherent in normal compressed air) from freezing at high altitudes. In addition, aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing use nitrogen membranes in their On-Board Inert Gas Generation Systems (OBIGGS) to “top” fuel tanks with nitrogen – an inert gas that does not support combustion.
* U.S. Government – NASA and the U.S. military use nitrogen for many of the same reasons it used in commercial aircraft.
* Food Processors and Packagers – Oxygen hastens both the chemical breakdown and microbial spoilage of many foods. Think meat, potato chips, cookies, etc. To help preserve foods longer, processors and packagers often use modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and controlled atmosphere packaging (CAP) that replaces some or all of the oxygen in the air inside the
package with nitrogen.
http://www.getnitrogen.org/why/index.php
=D-Volt
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:02 pm)The first Gen Prius still has value.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:29 pm)Entire post wisely thought out and well stated, my friend! +1 to you.
Mar 26th, 2010 (10:41 pm)Actually the Go-ped comparison is better than I thought, as they also offer three battery pack sizes – 16V, 24V or 32V – the 32V goes 30 miles or so, but jolts the wallet too.
If I had it to do over again, I would have bought the 16V entry-level lithium scooter – and dealt with it’s smaller # of recharge cycles and range – but better and lighter than the lead acids.
It’s probably gonna be a slightly bumpy road at first – waiting for more lithium processing to come online and better battery technology. Toshiba SCiB anybody?
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
+1
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:16 pm)My point was that lowering the expected life of the pack lowers the number of cells you need which lowers the cost of the pack. Not sure what role buffering plays. Seems like a minor factor.
FWIW the A123 cells supposedly can handle 5000 cycles, so it’s not like battery technology needs to develop much to support more cycles. The Volt could probably have used a 12 kWh A123 pack. My guess is that GM didn’t want to bet on A123 because it was more of a start-up. Its battery technology was clearly superior on a number of fronts.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:24 pm)Sorry but I can only give you -1/2 for that! LOL
We’re just punning around on a very elemental level. (Sorry couldn’t help myself). You know, quarks, charm, flavors, spin, etc. etc. — the stuff that makes up all those morons and peons.
Mar 26th, 2010 (11:59 pm)Here is a short Youtube version of the making of the Volt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Iemv55RCk
Mar 27th, 2010 (12:03 am)Absolutely correct.
The Nitrogen fill is worth it because the tire STAYS at the correct pressure (more or less) so is much more efficient and in this way improves efficiency.
Unless you check your tires often, and most people don’t… Nitrogen filled tires are the way to go.
Mar 27th, 2010 (2:36 am)It’s all very simple really. There are six types of quarks in the universe, known as flavors: up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom.
I know, you may find it difficult to believe this, but there are actually some adults, called “physicists”, who devote their entire lives to making up silly stories about these things.
Mar 27th, 2010 (2:41 am)Getting replaced with ultra capacitors ?? Seems GM got a smell that eestor/some other is on the way
What happens to the software/other systems which is already developed for Voltec gen1 ?
Mar 27th, 2010 (6:20 am)Hi James,
I think the tech content of your posts are accurate and perfectly OK.
One of the things I’ve gained from visiting here, (and am thankful for the
exceptional tolerance here to my years-ago internet “klutziness”), was my
chance to learn how to
introduce and “frame”
what significant things about technologies that I
wanted to share here.
“Framing” a set of ideas or things to share, for me, usually means often
that I have to first glance over the story topic in the morning before work (esp. if
the morning is going to be hectic and rushed), thinking about what I can
share during the day, and composing it all to be a smoother flow of beneficial facts
in the late afternoon or evening.
This is the same thing that I do to teach shop service writers how to simply communicate
what the vehicle might need to a non-technical owner.
I think that you are right regarding something one could call “optionability”.
(GM had lots and lots of engine and tranny options in the 60′s, for example).
One thing marketers have to look at when trying to get a product to market is,
“Who’s got funding, and what do they want to spend it on?”
While we here may want Volts to be on the road in one form, you are right that there
may be well-funded others who want Volt on the road in another form.
On the way home yesterday, I got a call to stop by a shop where a diagnosis was needed.
My rule is that there are to be no modifications to any system. I was told that there were
“no mods” on this Subaru with a turbocharging fault code. (Right!! lol).
A Subaru had a turbocharging system put in and had a wastegate code fault (non-OEM).
(The guy apparently had spent $2500 bucks on that, but didn’t have $80 for a diagnosis for it). (Surprise, surprise, surprise!! LOL).
The point being, if you have optionalization in a design, you immediately reach more market.
How about all these “insanely loud” stereo systems (that damage the inner ear), that take 95 amps DC at 1000 watts that cost $2000 bucks at a custom sound place?
If these people want a Volt, why not have the optionability in the original factory design to let them charge a fourth or fifth section of modularized section of battery (dedicated to their sound system), charged overnight to run their sound system instead of complaining (and wondering why) their AER is only 20 miles out of the 40 (as they also get “juiced up” as “Flash Gordon Leadfoot”.)
The well-funded new drivers can learn about Volt too, from their option-energy-demands inwards toward Ohms Law and understandings of energy consumption, and, if they want to use lots of electricity for sound, let it be grid energy I’d say. (By the time they get old, hearing aids will be free, or, courtesy of the customized sound place they did business with. (LOL)).
(Did I mention I don’t like mods? Maybe I ought to change my position on that!! (LOL)).
Mar 27th, 2010 (7:17 am)Google fight!
Chevy Volt vs Bob Lutz
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Chevy+Volt&word2=Bob+Lutz
=D-Volt
-4
Mar 27th, 2010 (7:21 am)Well, if they want to keep their competitive edge, they damn well better offer more then 40 miles of EV range by gen III cause many other companies will be selling cars with 100+ ranges by then. Who would slum with a measly 40 when more is available.
The goal is to aim higher, not fall back on old GM mistakes by just settling for what they “think” consumers want. Remember where that got you last time – bankruptcy.
+1
Mar 27th, 2010 (7:24 am)I feel like a 3rd grader caught in a collage course.
I can’t help to be educated, but I feel like hurling a spitball.
Peace
The Beauty of a Volt…
+1
Mar 27th, 2010 (7:39 am)And here I thought that they were talking about a Lucky Charms cereal box.
This site would lose a *lot* if the PC police try to wring out all the humor. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 27th, 2010 (7:58 am)If it wasn’t for humor and lightness, the site would be pretty dull. (I never did like the flavor of Lucky Charms, yuk!!). But the most simplest of elementary physics is the only way to unify a diagnostic approach for high tech auto servicing nowadays, so, physicists are people I really appreciate a lot.)
Mar 27th, 2010 (8:02 am)Couldn’t vote! What color is the Volt, and what color is Bob’s tie? If either is pink, Bob gets my vote (g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Mar 27th, 2010 (8:06 am)Uncontested, but I respect *me* and I joke about myself all the time (lol).
PS New post is up.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
-1
Mar 27th, 2010 (9:57 am)WHO YOU talkin to Joe?? You’re right though. Falling back on old habits of chinzing and mincing with impotent AER will get em a whole lot of nuttin!
Mar 27th, 2010 (10:24 am)Are you new to the Voltec design or just new here?
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:14 am)#243
Thank you sir for your kind words. Deeply appreciated.
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:18 am)#251
Sounds like the story of my life, LOL.
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:20 am)#254
LOL – literally! +1
+1
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:30 am)You have correspondents who announce they average only ten miles a day and see no reason to waste money buying a bigger battery then using extra energy to drag it around. There are others who say the perfect battery for them would permit 60 rather than 40 miles daily of pure electric driving.
I think they are wasting our time. Government statistics show that 80% of drivers drive less than 40 miles daily. Of course this implies that there are some who drive more and some who drive less. So we don’t need to be reminded of this.
But 40 miles is the “sweet spot” for more than one reason. First, its universal use would enable the nation’s entire use of offshore oil for car driving to be eliminated. This would enable us to eliminate the maybe half-a-trillion dollars we spend annually for oil from foreign countries. This would solve our balance of payments annual deficit which will eventually destroy the US dollar. Also eliminating dependence on foreign sources would reduce the untold billions we spend on our armed forces which largely protect our supply of oil, helping pay for health care and social security.
The second reason (no more than) 40 miles is a “sweet spot” is that recharging for driving 40 miles can be done overnight from an ordinary 120-volt convenience outlet such as is found in most private garages. The elimination of the need for special 240-volt wiring makes the whole auto electrification program more economical and practical.
An additional consideration for not increasing the 40-mile electric range is that it does not address one of the most attractive features of cars as transportation–their extraordinary flexibility. Once you own a car, you can use it to save a couple of blocks walk to buy a container of milk, to drive drive a couple of miles for weekly shopping, to commute daily to work, or to visit someone hundreds of miles away. This last use applies to it as an emergency vehicle also. What if, some evening after midnight, you get an anguished call that your daughter, at the other end of the state, has been in a serious accident? If you own a Volt, with its auxiliary ICE-driven generator, you are on your way. If you own an all-electric car with a range of even 60 or more miles, you are stuck. Unless I owned a second car with a gasoline engine, I would never buy an all-electric car, not even with a 100-mile range.
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:50 am)I disagree. The ultimately only need to provide power at a standard voltage. Cooling, equalization, monitoring, and associated control are unique to the chemistry but ultimately independent of the car’s functions. All that is needed is a standard communication protocol and standard cooling connections. The latter already exists. Weight is the biggest issue for the cars design relative to configurable and swapable batteries. The will and should exist in the pack. The car control would read the battery bios and know its capability. The battery would track SOC, temp control, etc. The car would pull/push the power. The battery would request heated/cooled liquid for temp control for certain BTU requirement. Of course, air cooled batteries would simplify things tremendously.
-2
Mar 27th, 2010 (12:39 pm)It is amazing that some posters, like Corvette Guy here, still think, so wrongly.
They simply don’t understand the consequences of the VOLT’s, electric miles first strategy, after years of explanation. Having the FIRST 40 Miles EVERY day, be electric, changes everything! And results in little gasoline usage for the average driver.
Doubling the AER probably doesn’t alter the annual gas milege calculation by as much as 1 gallon per year!
The typical average driver who travels to 12,000 miles per year drives, 32.87 miles per day, or 1,000 miles per month. But his electric driving range is 40 miles per day or 1,200 miles per month.
He need use NO gasoline, Zero, Nada, Ephuus, Nothing, not one drop; except for conditioning his battery and charger, the engine & generator and his heat and A/C needs. His annual consumption to do that might be a single gallon per month, or 12 gallons a year. Any gasoline burned on a long trip happens to both cars except for a marginal few miles of electric gasoline.
Doubling the AER to 80 miles, changes his annual gasoline usage by not a drop! He will still use his 12 gallons to condition his battery, serve his HVAC wants, and keep his charger functional.
So he pays how many thousands for not a whit of difference?
(Toting around the extra weight of the larger battery may actually hurt his mileage.)
OTOH, there is a need for a battery large enough to buffer power needs and make the whole Series EV drive idea feasible. There is a dramatic consequence of having a battery as small as 20 miles AER. In addition to having much less spritely accelleration, and drivng characteristics, there may be places the Volt simply can’t go. Like climbing Pikes Peak or driving up out of Death Valley. GM would have to redesign the engine generator to a larger one, which is self-defeating.
The average driver than drives 12.87 miles per day on gasoline. Assuming he obtains 50 mpg, in CS mode, he then consumes 7.72 gallons per month, plus the same extra gallon for conditioning his system and his comfort, or 8.72 gallons pe rmonth, or 104.66 gallons per year.
Instead of 12 gallons per year, he burns 105. His annual consumption octuples! It has climbed to almost half as much as a more primitive, yet more complex, Prius consumes at 240 gallons annually.
Going down to 20 miles AER, It is clearly not the way to go.
So there is a “sweet spot” in the range of 35-45 miles AER, that makes the Volt feasible and it has been designed for that range. Outside of it, there are unwanted consequences.
Mar 27th, 2010 (3:07 pm)I think they’re absolutely right that shorter AER options make more marketable sense in the near term. This strategy will get us off more petroleum than longer AER ranges because more will be sold over the next 10 years due to the state of battery costs and technologies.
Just like how hybrids have had much more impact on global fuel consumption than BEV’s for the last decade. Yes the end goal decades down the road is longer range AER, but for a good amount of time you have to look at the bridges that get you there and the car companies have to sell cars that make them money that whole time.
+2
Mar 27th, 2010 (3:38 pm)You gave some good reasons in your post, but I have a couple more: Ten years and $7500.
Based on many posts here, there seems to be a widely shared and passionate opinion that all major components of the vehicle need to be able to last for at least ten years. I’m not sure I am in that camp myself, (I’m a guy who rebuilt my old VW engines myself, several times over) but I do respect it.
As for $7500, the tax credit in the US maxes out at $7500, and you don’t get the whole amount unless you have a 16kWh battery. That makes 16kWh the magic number on battery size.
After that it’s just an engineering problem. How far can the car go with a 16kWh battery that has to last 10 years? GM’s answer: 40 miles.
Of course that’s the Gen I answer. I have faith that things are going to change a lot by Gen III, though I certainly can’t predict the future. I’m betting that GM execs can’t, either, but that they have some engineers working for them who are going to amaze them in the next couple of years.
+4
Mar 27th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Yes, and the average family size in the US is 3.14. Have you ever met a family with 1.14 kids?
Your whole argument is based on the ludicrous assumption that every person drives the average distance of all drivers, and drives that same average distance every day.
One point I will give you: It is extremely important that the first forty miles in a Volt each day are gasoline free. Even if (God forbid) the Volt in RE mode were to get only 35 MPG on a drive where the Prius got 50 MPG, and the drive was 100 miles long, the Volt still would have used less gas than the Prius.
Mar 27th, 2010 (5:12 pm)#268 & #269
Right and right again. +1 to both
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:20 pm)Take a closer look at costs. A 60 mile AER EREV for a 60 mile commuter will work a lot better financially than a 20 mile AER EREV for a 20 mile commuter.
Mar 27th, 2010 (11:38 pm)I don’t get it if they reduce there range in the future Nissan is going to beat them by the brink when it comes to range anxiety period! We must get away from the world of petroleum.
Mar 28th, 2010 (2:25 am)If you want a commuter car that is only used for commuting, don’t buy a Volt, whether 20, 40, or 60 mile AER. Buy a used economy gas car if all you care about is cost. If you also want to get rid of gas, buy a Leaf, or one of the metro cars if your commute allows it.
The Volt really makes sense only if it is going to be your primary car for all sorts of trips; shopping, commuting, weekend trips, visiting relatives. It is nearly impossible to estimate costs for that type of mixed usage, but my gut feel is that 60 mile AER would buy you very little over 40 mile AER, even if you had a commute over 40 miles round trip.
For the past five months I’ve been keeping a daily log of miles driven in my car. I know my usage is atypical since I’m retired, but I think it would be illuminating if several of us, in different circumstances, did the same thing. Getting the data is simple: just write down your odometer reading the first time you get into the car every day, or at least every day where you would have been able to plug in overnight.
With that, a couple of facts (gas and electricity price) and an assumption about Volt mileage in RE mode it will be relatively easy to put together a spreadsheet to compare driving costs with 20, 40, and 60 mile AER. I can give you formulas if you are not comfortable doing that part yourself, or you can send me data and I’ll crank the results out.
Hey, I might as well take advantage of the fact that I was a computer programmer for forty years.
Mar 28th, 2010 (7:33 am)Some good stuff late in this post. Of course in ICE discussions we could talk about so many things, cams, carburetor, crankshaft bearings, connecting rods, combustion chamber shape, chrome…
Battery
The Beauty of a Volt…
Mar 28th, 2010 (7:53 am)Wow, a computer programmer with 40 years of experience is a rare bird. I think my point was lost in translation and/or poorly presented. I wasn’t implying the 60 mile commuter would only use the Volt for those commutes. I’m saying that the value proposition is better the longer the daily commute is and matching the AER to that. If one doesn’t believe in that, then they do not believe in EREV. Because if 40 is better than 60, would 20 be better than 40 and so on. In fact, the longer the commute the more advantage EREV has over a BEV because there will be less and less spare capacity. A 100 mile BEV (@80 mile real world) like the Leaf will be 70 miles (@56 miles real world) at end of design life. The Volt is designed to maintain AER throughout its battery’s design life.
Just because I say a 60 AER Volt is a better value proposition to a person with a 60 commute than a 20 AER Volt is for a 20 mile commuter, doesn’t mean it will be cheaper than a used Yaris. It just means the differential will be more favorable for the 60 mile scenario. Keep in mind the only added cost to go from a 20 mile EREV to a 60 mile EREV should be battery cells (and perhaps higher BTU HVAC system but I doubt this). They share the rest of the EREV cost adds:
-mod chassis
-low power accessories
-low rolling resistance tires
-Traction and generator motors
-Power electronics module
-Charger
-High power cabling
-Charge cord(s)
-Control software
-Battery pack hardware less cells
Given the numbers that have thrown about (which I’m not accepting yet BTW), $40K for 40AER Volt and $12K for battery. Assume $10k for cells, $2k for pack, and a $20k premium for the Volt. A 20AER battery will still need to be about 9KWH (still need 1kwh spare for hill climbing) while a 60AER battery would be @21KWH. The cost difference would be $13,125 for 21kwh cells minus $5625 for 9KWH or $7500. The 20 AER Volt purchaser pays a $15,625 premium vs a $20k Cruze, while the 60 AER purchaser pays a $23,125 premium. That’s $781.21 per mile of AER for 20AER vs $385.42 per mile AER for 60 mile AER. As GM moves away from the 10yr warranty and only 50% main discharge window then the 60AER cost advantage grows even more.
+1
Mar 29th, 2010 (10:34 am)We aren’t talking about repairs, we’re talking about whether you prefer to purchase your fuel carrier capacity in 5 year or 10 year increments. You apparently prefer the latter. Not everyone else will have that same preference, but may be limited by availablility of options in the short and medium term.
Since you prefer an EREV with AER-40, I suggest that you buy one ASAP.
Mar 29th, 2010 (11:26 am)Wow, quite an interesting mix of posts above, I at least tried to read them all.
I did my hokey little charging test this weekend, the interesting part is that I remembered that my charger has a plug-in temperature sensor (an LM35), intended for use with Ni** batteries. The sensor lets the charger terminate the charge if you “miss the peak”, instead of wrecking the battery. I don’t know what the accuracy or resolution of the sensor is (one could Google it), but unfortunately the charger only displays the temperature in degrees C (no tenths of a degree).
So this experiment was with a 3S (11.1V nominal) 1.5 AH LiMn battery, Apogee Magnum to be specific (no longer available, unfortunately). The charger was an Accucel-8150 set to 3 amps, i.e. a 2C charge rate. The batteries are rated for this charge rate. I wrote down the voltage, current, and temperature every minute.
Starting voltage was 11.21 volts which should be 30% full, or slightly lower. At this point in the discharge curve, even 10 seconds of charging or discharging makes quite a difference in the voltage, I was aiming for 11.25 volts but got tired of fiddling. I let the battery sit for several minutes before checking the voltage, as it takes a while to settle.
The charger held the current at 3 amps (CC phase, “constant current”) for 18 minutes, during this time the battery temperature went up by 2 degrees C, so about 4 degrees F. Doubtful you could detect this difference with your fingers. Also the power supply fan was kicking out a fair amount of heat, I’m not sure it wasn’t contaminating the temperature readings. The battery really should have been in a separate compartment.
After those 18 minutes 862 mAH had been put in, so that’s a 57% charge. I suspect the Volt would stop charging at this point. However my charger continued doing an abbreviated CV (constant voltage) phase for another 6 minutes, with the voltage held at 12.6V and the current decreasing to .5 amps. When it finished charging, 980 mAH had been put in, which is 65% of the battery capacity. The final voltage after settling was 12.48V.
So the important points of this are:
* my earlier comment about the Volt’s battery being charg-able in “well under 30 minutes” was correct. Don’t blame the cells for the 3-8 hour charge time, it’s more the fault of the wiring limitations.
* the temperature went up a bit (so much for endothermic), but this may have been due to heat from the nearby power supply/charger, this was also done in a small room and the whole room probably heated up a few degrees during the experiment
* charging in 18 minutes is not really fast charging, as far as being rough on the cells or creating a lot of heat
* if you read all this, you must be either really interested or really bored!
I didn’t go over Capt Jack’s capacity analysis in detail, but 15 AH for each cell seems about right. If we knew the native voltage of the pack it would be easy to calculate. I’m sure I had this value and calculated it in the past, but I forget so easily in my old age… A co-worker claimed he had a friend-of-a-friend on the Volt program and could get me some cells, but I’m not holding my breath. Anyone up for some dumpster diving??
I’m always a bit annoyed with 3.7 V always being listed as the “nominal voltage” for lipo cells, as this value would be for a cell which is about 80% discharged. So one has to be careful when doing calculations with such voltage values. In general a full cell is 4.2 V and empty around 3.2 V, and the curve in-between is non-linear.
Speaking of voltage, A123s (and LiFe batteries in general) have a lower voltage and a very flat discharge curve. So if you replace a regular lipo pack with an A123 pack, you will need more cells. Just something to keep in mind when doing comparisons. A123s are great, but their high charge rate and high discharge rate wouldn’t help in a Volt, the Volt system isn’t even able to charge LiMns at their full rate.
Mar 29th, 2010 (12:07 pm)Oh, I probably should have mentioned above that “3S” means 3 cells in series. Lipos are pretty cool in that they can be connected in series (to increase voltage), or in parallel (in increase capacity). Safe to assume that the Volt uses a combination of series and parallel connections.
Mar 30th, 2010 (1:00 pm)GM is interested in eventually making a profit from this vehicle, not satisfying unreasonable demands from the uneducated public. This is the same problem they ran into with the EV1. People wanted a car that cost $100Ks to make, for under $20K.
You won’t remain a leader for very long if you can’t turn a profit, and they wont’ turn a profit offering a very high capacity battery to satisfy the demands of 1% of car buyers.
Mar 30th, 2010 (1:10 pm)Actually, it’s my understanding that LiIon batteries have a very LINEAR charge/discharge rate unlike NiMH batteries, which are very flat voltage zone in the center.
Charging/discharging at a VERY slow rate can actually cool some batteries, but anything more generates heat due to ohmic resistance.
Also, charging in series may not be a good measure of capacity, since each cell will vary slightly. In fact, it’s possible that an individual cell can be become fully charged before the other two…causing damage. That’s the tricky thing with LiIon is that they cannot be overcharged like NiMH, so it’s difficult to level out batteries when their in series.
Mar 30th, 2010 (4:08 pm)Well, yes and no
Certainly the Volt will be using a very linear part of the discharge curve, but overall (0% to 100%) I wouldn’t call it linear. Just one typical plot:
http://prototalk.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13&stc=1
Agreed on ohmic resistance, aka “internal resistance”, although if the heat is below what you can feel with your fingers, it’s not very much. Some posters seem to think the batteries get toasty hot during a charge and that’s just not true. If they get hot during a charge you are in big trouble.
The mismatch problem is true also, but that is helped by careful cell matching during pack manufacture, and by using (at least in the hobby world) cell balancers. I must have at least 8 or 10 different balancers now! The Accucel charger I used can even keep the cells in balance during a charge. Nearly all hobby batteries now have balancing taps, I assume the Volt pack also has a balancing capability, would be crazy if it didn’t. Of course the Volt never takes the cells near their maximum of 4.2 volts anyway, but over time a wacky cell or two could reach that, without balancing. I can’t wait to find out all the techie details on the Volt battery and drivetrain!
I also wonder if they will have a long-term storage mode which keeps the car at 50% charge while plugged in, rather than ready-to-drive at 80%. Storing at half charge is best, so they claim. If I spent $30K on a car I’m not sure I could bring myself to drive it in the salt here in the winter.
Mar 30th, 2010 (8:04 pm)Now we are seeing the real stupidity of GM and why they are broke. You are going to take a reliable product (well that has to be proven) and then turn it into a piece of junk in a shorter amount of time and you think people are going to want to buy it knowing they will have to buy a whole new set of batteries in a short time. This is far from being green. People are going to be much more willing to pay more for something that will last 10 or plus years. In true fashion GM gets the whole market wrong again. Thanks for the insight. A car I was really considering to buy is now taken off the list because GM wants to make a car with a major system that is going to be certain to fail before the life of the car ends. Now this has to be truly the most stupid thing I have ever heard. GM does not deserve to be in business and the guys running it should save the company and leave.
Mar 30th, 2010 (8:09 pm)Now we are seeing the real stupidity of GM and why they are broke. You are going to take a reliable product (well that has to be proven) and then turn it into a piece of junk in a shorter amount of time and you think people are going to want to buy it knowing they will have to buy a whole new set of batteries in a short time. This is far from being green. People are going to be much more willing to pay more for something that will last 10 or plus years. In true fashion GM gets the whole market wrong again. Thanks for the insight. A car I was really considering to buy is now taken off the list because GM wants to make a car with a major system that is going to be certain to fail before the life of the car ends. Now this has to be truly the most stupid thing I have ever heard. GM does not deserve to be in business and the guys running it should save the company and leave.
Mar 30th, 2010 (8:26 pm)The A123 LiFe lipos can be self balanced somewhat by holding them at 3.6v each (dont ever try that with any other lipo) but any car that uses lipos will definitely use built-in balancers with battery management hardwired in.
Mar 30th, 2010 (8:33 pm)Lipos are exothermic, along with nimh.. nicads are endothermic, they actually get cold when charged.. except when they reach full charge of course.
Lipos are 99% efficient while being used withing an 80% DoD, and taking into account othmic losses. They start to warm up when you try to charge them up that last 10% of their capacity (or conversely discharge them below 10% empty).
Mar 31st, 2010 (10:50 am)Not to beat a dead horse, but unless you meant “exothermic in discharge” that goes against what I’ve read out there, such as (pg 3)
http://www.micro-power.com/userfiles/file/mp_tempcharge-1250026530.pdf
note the charge/discharge graph, < 0 = endothermic.
This article also agrees with the basic stuff I've been posting –
1) the charging heat people detect with their cell phones and such is from the charging circuitry, not the battery itself
2) the battery heats up quite a bit when used to near-empty. I've seen this many times with my airplanes when I fly them a bit too long. Not an issue with the Volt though, since it supposedly never goes below 30% charge.
I'm not a thermal guy, but my gut feeling is that dealing with the heat/cold produced by the battery itself is a very minor issue compared to dealing with environmental heat/cold issues. Insulate the battery all you want, but on a 120 degree day it's eventually going to reach 120 degrees (without some type of active cooling).
Interesting PDF article! (for us geeks)
Apr 1st, 2010 (12:10 am)Jeez, Nick Reilly farts and everyone runs over to smell it. This guy has been living in China and Korea since 2002! A lithium ion battery just might be worth more than the rest of a car over there. Of course the battery should be smaller. Since we all drive like they do in China, we should all have BYD’s.
Where is Reilly coming from and what makes you think he’s deciding product development for the US market?
The Ampera is a US market vehicle with Opel tags on it. We have more cars being driven more miles than anyone. Reilly is simply taking a fresh eyes look at a vehicle that was inherited from the US. I don’t know what the stats are for the average driver in Opel’s market but if the Ampera isn’t right, Reilly should be expected to change them. Over here we make our own market demands and buy cars accordingly.
Apr 20th, 2010 (11:56 pm)What the GM battery engineer was trying to communicate is that the number of people that would get enough benefit from a 80 mile capacity battery to justify paying the added cost doesn’t make for a viable market for that vehicle. If prices for the battery come down enough that it would become viable I’m sure GM would be happy to sell such a vehicle.
On the other hand, a 20 mile battery would potentially allow the price to come down enough to greatly broaden the number of potential buyers while still getting some major mileage increases and related CO2 reduction benefits.
Smart thinking from the GM guys!