I had the following discussion with outgoing GM vice chairman Bob Lutz about the Chevy Volt and pure EVs.
How do you see the difference in demand between the Voltec vehicle and the pure EV? You said the pure EV was your initial idea, and now Nissan now is racing to get the public affection for it. How do you see the split? Im worried there could be difficulty with public comprehension. For example when you were on Dave Letterman, even Dave got it wrong when he first heard of it.
Well he got it badly wrong. That’s why we got the session with him was to straighten him out. We have stopped calling it an extended range electric vehicle and we now call it an electric vehicle with range extension. We’ve kind of swapped the emphasis on that.
We did some research in various areas but predominantly on the West coast, and we conducted this research several times. We have reason to believe that Nissan conducted the same research and is now somewhat less bullish about the volume for their vehicle.
We asked people to pick from three concepts. Once is an electric vehicle of about 40 miles range but with a gasoline powered generator that would permit when necessary another 250 to 300 miles of range. Choice B is an electric vehicle with quick charging of a range of a hundred miles, and Choice C an electric vehicle with swappable batteries, with a range of 100 miles and you find a battery swapping station and you swap out.
83% of the vote went to the Volt concept.
If that’s true then the small EV market is so small then why bother? You went on the record in the past saying you could just simply take the engine out of the Volt and you have an electric car.
I will tell you that there is a high probability that we may well do some pure electrics. Maybe not necessarily for the US market but there are markets where traffic is extremely dense , it moves at extremely low speeds and the daily driving distance are very low. Im thinking of markets like India where we have announced our intention to do a pure EV off of our mini car architecture. So selective we will do pure EVs.
You haven’t committed to the US for that?
No, not yet. Its not to be excluded, we might do some of that.
It seems interesting to me that Nissan is pursuing that so aggressively and GM is not.
No No Look the whole control technology and all that stuff for the pure EV is trivial compared to the development effort that we what to put into the Volt. Trivial. Because you’re only dealing with one power sources.
So it would be quick and easy to do if you decide to?
Yes. Once you’ve got experience with the lithium ion technology, you’ve got the cooling down pat, you’ve got the charging down pat. Whether its more or less lithium ion bigger or larger batteries whether there’s a piston engine going along with it or not, its just doesn’t matter.
+20
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:01 am)I hope GM did not waste too much time on this Reserach. We could have told them that.
This is what is so great about the Volt. It’s an electric car with none of the limitations of an electric car.
I remember a congressionally funded research program that found that kids that do their homework end up doing better in school.
+5
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:21 am)The beauty of the E-REV design is its scalability. If consumer demand or battery costs change, you simply make the battery larger or smaller. Driving range is not affected. You cannot say the same about a pure BEV.
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:35 am)E-REV becomes EVER. OK, I guess that’s enough of a news flash for today.
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:35 am)OK. I will adjust my comment from several weeks ago.
For now, a pure EV is a niche market in the USA. It could very well work elsewhere.
Voltec is simply superior. I would prefer to see more electric range from it some day.
+17
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:46 am)Lutz: “83% of the vote went to the Volt concept” —the whole comparison in 9 words!
-4
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:48 am)We don’t have dense traffic areas in the US? Myopic
I wonder if price and seat# were part of the EREV vs BEV survey. Also, what is it if tradition ICE are thrown in the mix with price and seats? I bet a lot of those BEV preferences stay but the EREV loses a LOT.
I like Voltec and strongly believe it will be a huge success, done right, but that does not excuse skewed statement. GM needs to see clearly to make the right decisions so we can be paid back and continue to enjoy the benefits of a competitive domestic automotive market.
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:00 am)The results of the survey don’t surprise me!
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:00 am)Just build them. We will tell you what we want, and what we don’t.
Marketing surveys can be notoriously wrong, when the questions are skewed. And they did the research mostly on the west coast???? They may as well have done it on Mars……
When are these companies going to realize that there is a great big country that exists between the east and west coasts, with lots of real people that have money to spend?
It is too early to go off on a wild rant, so I will stop it there.
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:06 am)So, to review….
The Volt is now an EV-RE for the Everyman.
Class dismissed.
-14
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:07 am)(click to show comment)
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:08 am)With all the market research and money spent – it would seem GM is gearing up to build 100-150,000 Volts per year!
EREV is SO MUCH easier to write than EVWRE…… or EVRE…….
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
+18
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:13 am)As the old expression goes, “Rome wasn’t built in a day”.
And thus the transition from a transportation system that is 96% dependent upon petroleum, to one that uses electricity, will not happen in one great swoop. It will take time and major leaps in technology for the new (electrically driven) vehicles to become mainstream.
Given the range, cost, and life expectancy of batteries, and their inability to be rapidly refueled, the Volt offers an excellent compromise between the ICE driven car and the BEV.
The Volt is the transition vehicle that is needed to get electric drive into the mainstream, and provide the market for electric products, which drives innovation and technological advancement.
+10
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:14 am)James said:
EREV is SO MUCH easier to write than EVWRE…… or EVRE…….
A few months after they start selling them, all you’ll have to say is Volt, and people will know exactly what you mean.
+25
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:14 am)After being in the BEV camp for a very long time I’m now firmly on the EREV side. The Volt is clearly vastly superior to the Leaf or any other BEV. I have owned a BEV truck and I loved it but hated the range anxiety. You are on a leash and you never really know how far the leash extends. Eliminating that anxiety would make driving electrically pure heaven.
+8
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:17 am)—”when you were on Dave Letterman, even Dave got it wrong when he first heard of it.
Well he got it badly wrong. That’s why we got the session with him was to straighten him out”——————————————————————————————————————————————
Dave broadcast a joke on national TV saying A.Rod was doin’ Sarah Palin’s underage daughter while he himiself was doin’ his entire staff…. So no surprise Davey-boy got it wrong….
Nice try, Bob, but me thinks nobody can straighten Lettermen out at this point…
L
L
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD IT THEY WILL COME.
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:18 am)So I’m getting the feeling that any meaningful discussion of price was excluded from this interview.
+13
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:24 am)Yes, well said, +1.
I also think GM sold themselves a little short here. They compared:
A) an EREV-40
B) a BEV-100 with fast charging
C) a BEV-100 with battery swapping
The first thing to notice is that an EREV-40 exists, while the other two don’t.
The second two also require a completely new infrastructure. People always underestimate this. It took 50 years to build our infrastructure of gas stations. Rural and remote areas are particularly slow to accept change like this. The economics of the infrastructure are totally different than cars or other consumer sales.
And then we have to take a hard look at the feasibility of fast charging and battery swapping. Many people just assume new technology will make this possible, but I see fundamental issues here that technology won’t solve.
For fast charging to go mainstream, it has to compete with what we have today. In other words, it has to go for 300 miles between filling stations, and it has to fuel in 10 minutes. When you do the math on this, it comes out to over a half million watts. That’s a huge amount of power! That much power can cause an explosion. Things can get vaporized, big things like hands and arms. Now consider making that kind of connection to a wet car with rain or snow dripping all over it. No new technology can make this safe. It’s inherently dangerous.
Technology can make the battery swapping feasible, but there are major economic issues here. Remember that we’re not talking about dumb flashlight batteries here. Automobile battery packs include processors and software that manage temperature, fault tolerance, etc. There’s a lot of intellectual property here. Just figuring out how much charge is in the battery is complex, and gm-volt.com mentioned GM has an important patent on this. And then this battery pack software has to communicate with all the other sub-systems in the car.
But assuming car makers would give up their intellectual property and somehow create a standard battery pack software interface, you also have to limit the number of battery sizes and shapes to make this economically viable. The battery pack is large and heavy, so the placement and shape of the battery significantly affects the handling and crash safety. If you limit battery packs to a handful of sizes and shapes, this would severely limit new car designs.
So I believe both fast charging and battery swapping are destined to fail.
When hydrogen fuel cells first became a hot topic, I was all on board with this. Then I found out all the problems, and the fact the big oil was using hydrogen as a red herring to deter more viable solutions, and this was very upsetting. I vowed to make sure any new thing that came along was actually viable. So far, the combination of EREVs and sustainable bio-fuels are the only viable solution I’ve come up with.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:27 am)You’re planning to spend $29,999 on your next vehicle. Which would you choose:
1 – An electric-only vehicle with a range of XXXX.
2 – A vehicle with an electric-only range of XX plus an engine so you can continue driving after the batteries are depleted.
+9
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:31 am)It does in fact make driving the Volt “pure heaven” as you’ve said, Tim Hart.
Six weeks ago, when I drove it, it was “pure heaven” **in fact**.
Just that one drive has me knowing at technical depth all the incredible work
GM has done for it.
Every word Bob shares with us has meaning completely well founded.
You can trust and completely believe every single thing Bob Lutz says, which is
really exciting.
Bob gives us a “severe clear” view of the way everything will go.
This site has been by far and above
*the primary educational resource for GM*.
Endless thanks also go to Lyle as well.
+16
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:32 am)I am still amazed that Letterman thought the Volt would only travel 40 miles.
I heard Michael Medved say something similar on his radio show.
These are very smart guys with above-average access to information.
Most people I talk to dont know about the Volt and why its different.
To me that means that GM has some serious education to do with Volt.
But with its limited production schedule, how much advertising is too much advertising?
Getting some of those first Volts into the hands of influential people and opinion leaders may be the best idea. Buzz about a new product can be far more influential than advertising.
And then, if all goes well technically, GM should be ready to make these game-changing cars by the hundreds of thousands, ASAP.
GO VOLT!
+21
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:34 am)You no whats nice–When you think about a Volt vs a Prius!! The best MPG you can get with a Prius (50) is the worst you would get with a Volt.The volt should eclipse everything elso out there.
+5
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:36 am)gm-volt.com has many different Volt price estimates from different GM sources at different times, ranging from $25K to $35K after the tax credit.
With this in mind, I suggest we find out the actual price before we start discussing it. We should know in the next couple of months…
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:37 am)Not much of a surprise; now if they can increase the production during the first year. I Know they’re not going to do 60k Volts, but more than 6k would be nice.
join thE REVolution
join thE VERlution?
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:45 am)It kind of puts into perspective MOST of the information we receive from “talking heads” doesn’t it?
GM’s biggest asset in education, and it’s best advertisement will be actually having Volt’s on the road.
It’s amazing the societal momentum something “new” gets once they become visible. Just think of the amazed masses when they see a Volt at the gas pump! — ” Hey, dont’cha have to plug that thing in?!” will be heard throughout the land.
GM really needs to get it’s dealerships and their sales staffs educated. Just do a little phone survey research of your own in your locale. I’ve had some eye-opening talks with local Chevy dealers, even one owner who admitted he was “clueless” on the Volt. He actually said to me: “educate me” !!!!!!
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:48 am)It’d be nice for GM to sell enough of them that it would become common knowledge how they work, and what their attributes are.
+5
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:52 am)I think MPG will soon become an outdated concept. The Volt’s primary fuel source is electricity. Perhaps “Gallons Per Year” (GPY) is a better yardstick.
I agree. The Volt currently has no competition. By competition I mean a car that :
• runs on gasoline or electricity
• has at least 30 miles all-electric range
• is made by a major car maker
• is real, not a concept or prototype
And I see this lack of competition as a bad thing. Competition validates a market. Car buyers are more comfortable if they have a choice. Competition spurs innovation and lowers cost. My hope is that some other car maker is working on a production EREV.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:00 am)You’re absolutely right that price is the most important thing right now, DaveG.
I don’t think we ought to go too much longer without knowing the most basic price. The difference for us early adopters could easily be that the base price could function for our delivery price because the first units off the assembly line could possibly be made without any of the more upwardly-packaged options. (Actually a convenience also for systems monitoring where only the main systems see factory automated monitoring through the OnStar.)
That initial offering at base cost “turn key” (+tax & fees) would help us a lot, because the factory can later add the options packages after initial base cost announcement, in three to six months later within the production lines in the new model year. Pardon me for saying so, but I think this is a very good idea for many other reasons as well. Reward the early adopters, and have “wiggle room” to cover costs better in the near future, not the distant future.
It’s an important financial planning and logistics factor for us in which every week of that six months is critical for this major purchase, if indeed the news will be that October will be the first sales month. We need to know the price next month at an initial “dual options customer-choice”, which can leave us lots of needed cost flexibility for October through December and/or onward to March 2011, and, for both the factory and the Chevy Store internal financial considerations at the same time, after those first 3 to 6 months beyond October. GM Executive suggestions for MSRP per early-adopter sale might also go a very long way for the Chevy Store’s promotional benefits where proven.
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:06 am)You mean these don’t count as Volt competition? They are out there now.
http://evmaine.org/html/ev_trailers.html
+8
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:18 am)Letterman was funny and cutting edge when I was in college.
Sadly, that was a long, long time ago.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:28 am)I think our brains are wired identically.. I think your dead on and despite GM saying they have no plans to extend the range, I have a gut feeling in 3-5 yrs the range gets extended as technology allows.
Just for fun Rashiid, would you buy a Volt with 80 miles of EV and 250 ICE or a pure Electric with 200 miles of range? Assuming the they are identical in all other aspects (Cost, appearence, etc.)
Personally I’d still go with the Volt because I need the car to be more then around town transportation. But thats just me…
GO Volt
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:28 am)83% will go for the Volt if the price is right and they need the range. I like the Volt idea, it will sell well and there is a big market for it. Is that market 83% of the eco minded buyers? Highly debatable. Right now I would go with a Nissan Leaf lease for my wife whose daily drive averages 30 km. But that car is not available in Canada yet.
The Volt is a plug in hybrid, whatever the fancy name they use for it. A hybrid is a lot more complex than a BEV. If that complexity translates into a big price difference, well then GM’s research is useless. Kind of like the car design by the focus group – we all know the beauty of the Pontiacs of 10 years ago
To me, the more the better. The Volt will succeed, and so will the Leaf. There is a huge market out there for both in the US and elsewhere.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:48 am)Nothing to add. +10
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:56 am)These discussions always miss the big picture because everyone looks at what is available now (which is nothing).
Of course for the same cost an EREV-40 is better than a BEV-100. You don’t need market research to determine that. But there is more demand than supply for several years so it DOESN’T MATTER.
In 5 years when early adapters and niche markets have been exploited what will the options be then and how much will they cost.
I am hoping model years 2015 and beyond have many flavors
EREV-20
EREV-40
EREV-60
BEV-100
BEV-200
In 5 years quick charge stations could start to appear that would make a BEV able to recharge in half an hour while the driver grabs a bite to eat or a cup of coffee. Certainly this is not as convenient as an EREV but for a once or twice a year situation might make a BEV-100 perfectly acceptable (especially for drivers who regularly drive 60-80 miles a day but rarely drive more than 80 per day, these drivers will save much more money being able to do their YEARLY AER of 20,000 miles+)
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:04 am)I think Lutz knows there’s still people that want a BEV but right now GM needs to focus on the Volt as its prefered by most West coasters at least and they can watch how the Leaf does, if it’s a hit they can just take the engine out of the Volt and start competing in probably a matter of months.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:04 am)Well, I kind of agree with him, assuming he means self-contained dense areas with a small radius suitable for a BEV. Our really dense traffic areas (SF, NYC, LA, Boston, etc.) aren’t usually self-contained in a small radius. Rather, they consist of a central “dense” area that outer fringe traffic funnels into from far away. And the people that DO live in the inner radius tend to take mass transit, and aren’t about to tolerate gridlock and expensive parking just for the joy of electric driving.
-42
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:04 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:07 am)For quick charge stations, they are not needed in the same places. We wouldn’t need neighborhood gas stations because for those people would charge at home.
Quick charge stations need to be on highway rest areas where folks are making long trips.
Slower charge stations need to be in workplace and apartment building parking lots.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:07 am)That headline for this blog is a “NO BRAINER” Anyone that has driven any car and has run out of gas let alone with an electric that had a discharged battery would agree…. in both cases it is range anxiety.
That is why the Volt is such a “no brainer” choice for an electric car no matter what the driving distance. This car is so versatile it can fit almost any driving situation.
Will the future SUV version be able to pull a trailer?
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:09 am)How often have you seen a Prius at the gas station? They are VERY prevalent here yet I have only run into one at the gas station once so far.
The Volt will be even more rare. Yes, it’ll be seen, but not very often.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:13 am)Hahaha. I assume you are trying to be funny. +1 if you are.
+7
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:42 am)What will really be interesting, when we find out, is who drives the most EV miles per year, a Volt owner or a Leaf owner.
-May the best car win-
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:44 am)I think you’re right. Volt will become the name of a type of vehicle, something like Kleenex is to facial tissue. They’ll be saying, “look, Ford (or Honda, or whomever) is coming out with a ‘Volt.’”
And then of course, “May the best car win!”
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:48 am)===================================
Sorry Dan, but I disagree:
I think the first units off the line should be top of the line models with ALL the bells and whistles.
Otherwise, you are going to get comments like:
This is the best they could do?
An electric car and it doesn’t even have electric windows?
It looks pretty cheaply made.
Etc, etc, etc.
We already know it is going to be expensive, so make them have the “WOW” factor.
JMHO
But I do agree with you that it is time to announce the base price and for all the options and trim levels they are going to have available. By this time, they have to have all the pricing worked out, so why keep it a secret?????
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:51 am)Many families have a “second car” used by one spouse to go back and forth to work and run errands, but the main vehicle is a SUV or minivan to going on family outings. So the Leaf would seem to be an excellent “second car.” Unfortunately for me, I make a weekly drive of about 110 miles, the bulk of it at freeway speed. So unless I could charge the Leaf at the other end of my 55 mile one way excursion, it would not work for me. So I am part of that 83% now, but who knows where we will be with the “rapid charge” infrastructure in a few years.
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:56 am)#21 You nailed it, fella. Too bad I can only give you +1!
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:01 am)It is possible to rethink this notion that we absolutely need ’300 miles and 10 minute fill-up’.
- over-the-air charging
- under the road charging
- spray-on photo-voltaics
- high amp connectors under the car (drive-on charging)
- trains for long distance travel (not necessarily with tracks)
- ultra-caps
For 99% of my travel, 300 miles is 6 times more than I need. Give me a BEV-100 with a $240/month lease and it will replace a 16mpg vehicle 99% of the time. The $240 is what I spend now per month on fuel alone. It’s a wash cost-wise and I replace 1000+ gallons of gas and oil used yearly with clean USA power. (My power is wind-generated.)
I am not a fan of government programs, but, we could build out the infrastructure for 80% of the population using government-owned BEV-100s for commuting. With cordless charging, no extra dangers or hassle are introduced. This is do-able now with existing technology folks.
-2
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:08 am)Not setting a price target is the problem.
The reverse approach has been taken, setting performance criteria with no regard to price.
Note which one the computer/electronics industry has embraced. They offer capacity based upon what people are willing to spend, rather than forcing them to open their wallet more. This has worked extremely well for decades.
Please provide an example where that reverse has been seen mainstream success.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:18 am)Nice to see some poling results confirm what alot of us have been feeling/saying.
Now we just have to get GM execs to decide to build enough Volt’s so 83% can buy them, otherwise all the poling in the world won’t matter.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:30 am)#26
If the Volt takes off the way we hope/believe it will, I’m sure that there will be plenty of competition soon enough. I’m OK with GM skimming off some profits the first couple of years as a reward for their innovation. When BYD arrives with a super cheap plug in hybrid, as part of their strategy to penetrate the US market, all bets will be off.
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:33 am)#28
Very cool! +1
+12
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:41 am)LOL. Does that mean if I put my house on a backup generator that my television becomes a diesel just because the generator MIGHT kick on?
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:50 am)#4
I agree but, in a 10-15 million unit a year market, a niche can still be big enough to make some money. If there’s a niche, why not try to fill it? At 60K units a year, the Volt is a niche player, come to that. I suppose that GM is waiting to see how the LEAF does, just as many others are waiting to see how the Volt does. But the racers always say, “If you snooze, you lose”.
If they are going to develop a BEV Spark for India, why not bring a few over and see if anybody bites? I could do my commute in a 100 mile range BEV easily. Actually, the idea is more appealing day by day. As so many have said, why not one Volt and one BEV Spark in the garage? No Nissans for Noel, LOL.
It is going to take more than the Volt alone to turn GM around. They are going to need every appealing high tech vehicle they can develop.
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:53 am)God help us if we ever implement embedded pavement charging. As it is, America can barely afford to re-coat its roads with asphalt and keep its bridges from collapsing. The last thing we need is a more complex and expensive roadway system. Let’s hope for the other options. Or better yet, just get a car with a range extender and work towards advances in cellulosic ethanol as a liquid fuel.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:55 am)#51
LOL indeed! I’ve gotten to where, when I show up at 8 AM PDT, I don’t even click on the ones who are “off the island” any more. They are always so irritating, and I trust you guys’ judgment, so I just give ‘em another click to keep ‘em there and go on.
Thanks to all for saving me the aggravation. +1
+5
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:57 am)#53
Amen +1 You’re on a roll today.
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:02 am)There is nothing surprising in the results of the survey that Bob Lutz mentions. It is common sense; few will accept to drive a pure electric vehicle where the range is limited and rather uncertain.
This is why the Volt makes a lot more sense than any other pure EV design. it is much more complex to design and obviously costs more but in the end it is the right approach.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:24 am)So EV RE be it. The survey militates range. That VOLT comes out still leaves questions unanswered. (Though Bob perhaps did not touched on the complete survey.) The reason for this is simple. Hardly do participants understand the trade-off between battery life, range and economy.
That’s the point. Getting 500 mile range means longer battery life and ameliorates charge duty. Moreover, GM leads the way with VOLT for transition from ICE to EV XR (XR meaning whatever extends range be it ICE or fuel cell.) Such range as a whole lot of people are lobbying for (for example IEEE Spectrum magazine) manifestly facilitates charge-station access.
These series of interviews are super neat. This being Bob’s last week – a well done.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:32 am)NASA-Eng #30
Interesting question. Let me answer it this way.
I like to travel by road. No Pure EV for me until range is at least 400 highway miles and
charging takes a few minutes vs. several hours.
The Volt is for me because I know I can beat a TESLA across country
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:38 am)Early adopters like us may not need it, but in order to go mainstream in a big way, BEVs will have to compete with gas powered cars, and these typically go 300 miles on a 10 minute fill-up. So you would have to come up with something equally convenient for long trips.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean here. I know inductive charging works, but you have to be really close (less than 1/4 inch) to make it efficient. The EV1 used an inductive charging paddle.
The infrastructure changes required for this are really prohibitive.
Photo-voltaics of any type don’t really work on the car itself. There’s not enough square footage on the car, and solar panels have to be aimed 30 degrees up toward the southern horizon to be effective. Bottom line: Photo-voltaics are for building roofs, not car roofs.
This is even more dangerous than a plug-in fast charger.
We have trains and busses today, but not many people use them. The problem is that people want to have wheels at their destination. If you could drive your car onto the train, that might work, but then you would need these trains to go to all sorts of remote areas before people would feel comfortable giving up their liquid fuel range extender.
For the purpose of this discussion, I’ve already assumed the perfect electric storage device. The point is that there are other problems beyond this.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:47 am)I think the only thing that will slow down mass adoption of the Volt in the early years will be the price. Hopefully, the Volt will be priced at around $27,000 or so in 2011 (after federal rebates). LG Chem and GM have got to figure out how to get the cost of the batteries cut in half (or more) like I’ve been hearing is possible. That’s the key to everything.
Once the batteries are 50% cheaper (or more) then GM ought to make a bigger version of the Volt. About the size of Camrys, Accords, and Malibus. If GM could pull that off, then they could be selling millions of Voltec powertrain cars.
After that … build a Voltec sports car to compete against Tesla and the Fisker Karma? A small to mid size Voltec SUV? The possibilities are endless once the Voltec powertrain gets real world accolades from reviewers and customers feel good about it.
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:00 pm)For a pure BEV solution to go mainstream, you would need quick charging stations everywhere, including urban, suburban, rural, and remote areas. Since people will charge at home, the number of charging stations in urban/suburban areas would be less than the current number of gas stations, but you would still need them.
In any case, my main point is that charging a BEV-300 in 10 minutes is not safe. No new technology can change this. It’s inherently dangerous.
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:07 pm)#10
+1. ” Nuff said.”
Ya know, this would work for me. A car with a 120- 150 mile range, with a 26kwh battery. A LEAF for two with better range. Should be more affordable than LEAF. Time to resurrect the EV1, build it here. Or something more apter(ish). thanks
Re electric car for India. Hasn’t it been determined that India doesn’t have a grid to speak of? No infrastructure for electric car.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:23 pm)OT
To my knowledge I’ve never seen a Volt in motion under it’s own power, without 4 people sitting in it. Has there been any speculation about why this is. Is it to prevent anyone from saying the car does OK with just a driver, but wait until you fill it with passengers? Just curious. If it is done by design, I think it’s a good strategy.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:23 pm)Someday the battery and storage capacities will increase that a range extender will not be necessary. The Volt is the “bridge” technology that is necessary today.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:27 pm)OT This is 2,000AD not 100BC.
Another pithy saying: Those who think they can and those who think they cant are both right.
If there was money in it, we could all be driving EVs in a couple of years. If someone could prove that Electric is better/cheaper/… than ICE. Its all about the cash.
If there was a LOT of money in it, and/or Gas was unavailable — 6 months, but it would not be pretty. Can you say government intervention?
Unfortunately, it isn’t better yet. Gosh, there just isn’t anything out there — yea, Telsa roadsters..
So lets just take our measly 11,000 VOLTs and be happy.
2.6% is better than 0.0%. (641/2 mustangs to 1st yr volts)
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:28 pm)In all the discussions here of driving habits there is one very large group that we overlook and that is the retired population.
1- They drive perhaps a maximum of two hours per day, no longer prepared to drive through the night or on unknown roads.
2- They are often overcharged for repairs, so would prefer a car which requires less maintenance.
3- They often have horrors of breaking down therefore want a reliable car
4- They often have sufficient income and so can afford a quality vehicle tailored to their needs.
5- For shorter journeys they prefer the car. How many elderly people ride the subway or carry their shopping bags on the bus from Walmart.
6- On the other hand for longer journeys the prefer the plane or train.
For example my mother from the age of 60 to about 85 years of age mostly used her car. To the local town (5 miles), to the surrounding towns (10 to 40 miles) and the longest journey was to visit her son (70 miles) where she stayed overnight. She used the train or plane for longer journeys.
For such persons the maximum range needed could be defined as the there and back distance to the local airport.
A group with similar characteristics is that of independent women.
I personally need a car for yearly journeys of 600 and 800 miles but there are groups for whom a EREV is not necessary.
Come on VOLT!
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:52 pm)I guess doing a little out-of-box thinking gets you a negative score here.
Apr 28th, 2010 (12:53 pm)Ya think? +1 The critical question would be how much more will you pay.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:00 pm)Thanks, Rashiid! This well-conceived ‘one-liner’ says lots …& is well worth repeating!
-1
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:07 pm)Lutz called that “stop gap” technology.
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:17 pm)Dave G—Agree with your premise except for two things.
1. Based on logic and many things are not done on logic these days.
2. The Congress of the United States has “Spoken” about the fact that auto companies have to meet or excede “MPG” targets. Get the Federal Government to use a little logic and we will be home free.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:22 pm)I are one of these. However, I placed a $500 deposit on a Volt with no good idea of MSRP or possible delivery date to New Mexico (that *is* in the United States BTW).
Time to start thinking about colors. The last I heard the choices were Black, Silver Ice Metallic, Cyber Gray Metallic, Crystal Red Metallic, a premium White Diamond Tri-Coat, and Viridian Joule.
-9
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:23 pm)GM keeps saying battery technology is not there yet. They said it with the first gen EV1 (lead acid) and even the second gen EV1 (Ovonics nickel-metal hydride). Battery technology improves yet they keep making excuses for not going full EV. All the while competition comes out with an EV at what will most likely be a lower price than the Volt.
There’s a bright busines case for you. Keep puttong off till it’s too late in the game. GM Catch up!
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:38 pm)GM doesn’t need to catch up; America’s infrastructure does. And until there is a large network of public charging stations the LEAF is a premature approach. GM designed to reality, whereas Nissan designed to wishful thinking. Which of those two approaches equates to superior engineering?
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:47 pm)#52
Noel, you make a good point. If they are making it for a different country, why not bring it here to sell also? My guess would be safety rules. They can probably get better range in India because the cars can be much lighter and have less safety controls. But if people here want to buy them, all the power to them. I just don’t think it will be in high numbers. It is going to be very interesting to see what the Leaf does for actual sales, especially when the 100 range is debunked.
-7
Apr 28th, 2010 (1:52 pm)Lutz: GM Research Reveals 83% Would Prefer Volt over 100 Mile EV
… conducted among gm-volt.com visitors
Seriously, GM “forgot” to mentioned in the research that Option A is twice as expensive as Option B.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:01 pm)I agree fully, Jim. However, I also continue to give Nissan the benefit of any doubt I might have that they’re already secretly hard at work designing a drive train similar to Voltec (they might even have already licensed the use of part or all of Voltec from GM). I know several Japanese space systems engineers well enough to believe that their automotive engineers are also very practically-minded. So I believe they haven’t overlooked the fact that only 1/6th (17%) of the people in the survey Lutz mentions above would choose “pure” EVs over Voltec.*
*On the other hand, Carlos Ghosen might have simply DICTATED the “pure” EV architecture —in which case I would conclude that Ghosen is a simply reckless & irresponsible billionaire
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:02 pm)The railroads have a far simpler system for conveying power to trains. Simpler because they have accurate control of position, and the rails form on of the two conductors.
While it is technically feasible and demonstrated every day, it has not been able to compete economically. Even this simpler system has been unable to compete with diesel fueled locomotives. Until I see widespread electrification of freight rail, I won’t buy that electrification of roadways is foreseeable in the near future.
-19
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:04 pm)(click to show comment)
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:06 pm)Not only did they have a 120 mile EV, they also had a couple extended range prototypes.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:11 pm)Because it’s SO COOL TO RIDE IN!!!
If you saw one, would you rather:
Watch
-or-
Ride?
I think everyone here would take the ride.
+18
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:14 pm)Thanks,,
I need to go tell my buddies with sailboats that have a small outboard for getting home on windless afternoons that they in fact do not have sail boats afterall. They are running power boats like everyone else. Thanks for the clarification.
+5
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:17 pm)Just a guy who hasn’t done his research before opening mouth.
Ask him if the Prius or Insight can drive for days-weeks-even months without using a drop of gas.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:26 pm)PS.
A basic unit ought to have power windows, power mirrors for safety, a single CD, and freezing AC if you want it that cold.
Have all the other options for everyone else, so they can really go for it!!
Keep one really simple for my chances of affordability to be better. (Light green/silver).
(/… gotta get back to work.)
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:40 pm)Matthew, I often agree with you and think of you as one of the best posters on here. But today – today I’ll have to contend with ya.
As Prius owners, we hit the gas station far more than I’d like. It’s the main reason I’m so into the Volt. We love our Prius but it’s technology is definately a stepping stone to Volt, as with it’s NIMH pack, the whole weight vs. economy struggle is quite tiring. You can get good mileage, there is no doubt, but it’s work, man….it’s work. You fill the tires past their indicated PSI. You coast, you speed up on hills to coast yourself over the next hill, you use techniques like not using A/C or the radio, or turning the heater wayyyy down. To counter the battery weight + wimpy gas engine problem, one thing I did was ditch the spare tire and it’s jack and hardware and replace it with some tire slime – which my wimpy wife can actually handle ( I can’t see her changing a tire, EVER – she’d call AAA! ) to save the weight..One technique I use, common to Prius owners is to fill the gas tank halfway. Prius owners notice a big 3 – 5mpg difference just driving around with less gas tank weight back there!
One intresting fact non Prius owners may not know – Although the listed tank capacity is 11.9 gallons, it is a flexible rubber bladder that actually limits the amount of gas one can add depending on outside temp.! Most days in Winter in moderate Seattle, I can only jam 9 gallons in. People in cold climates often can’t shove in over 6 gallons! My wife has complained how often she has to fill up-being that we bought a hybrid. That said, everyone still gets over 400 miles per tank so nobody really complains about it. It is, however, a hot topic on Prius and hybrid mileage websites. Check this short blurb out ( with Prius owners comments ) for some very interesting facts.
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2008-prius-fuel-tank-capacity.html
So you see, Matthew, no knock on you – but perhaps it’s just chance you don’t see those millions of Prii at your pump – actually we visit there quite alot.
I agree with you that Volts should not be a real common sight at the gas station, unless the owner is stopping in to buy a gut-bomb burrito or a pack of cigs ( ugh ). But they will be there – and that was what I was referring to – When they are seen there, people will be shocked! It will be a great opportunity for Volt owners to “edumicate” the public! Volt owners will be ambassadors of Voltec – and it’s precisely why I endorse GM giving us all here at GM-Volt.com first dibs!
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:40 pm)============================
And exactly what vehicles does Toyota have ready for manufacture in any quantity that can run on electricity only for the average daily needs of almost 80% of the people in the USA????
Let not forget that what we are complaining about is the quantity of vehicles that GM plans to manufacture this year and next year, not if they will be manufacturing them at all……..
If you feel the Prius is the better vehicle, I am happy for you. But I am sure there are people out there that still think a B&W 19″ TV is a better solution than my 65″ HD TV!
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:47 pm)OT – but informational….. I use the same techniques as I listed above for the Prius, in my ICE 6 cyl. Toyota truck, and I’ve picked up large gains in fuel economy. Prius owners obsess on mpg. as you can see if you scan around the web. Funny thing is, that little mileage computer on your dash is CONSTANTLY challenging you, and it gets inside your brain. Soon after buying the hybrid, you find yourself changing the way you’ve always driven. Then you get into your ICE vehicle and find yourself using the same techniques there to gain mpgs.! It’s why I’ve always said hybrid drivers today who switch to Volt will see the most AER miles by far. We’ve already been in mileage mode for years.
RECHARGE! James
IF YOU BUILD THEM THEY WILL COME.
*** P.S. – One reason, as a current Prius owner (and advocate-I love my outdated technology, but best we have for now-Prius) I am not considered a “troll” and am accepted here on GM-Volt.com as a legit poster….is that I am going to buy a Volt AS SOON AS IT IS AVAILABLE TO ME. Why? Because I realize the Volt tech is superior in getting us off foreign oil and cleaning up our air quality. – JM
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (2:57 pm)You are not a troll. Trolls usually are jerks with nothing worth reading.
You are the opposite of that. You are one of us.
-4
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:01 pm)We’ll you are right. I would say 120 would’ve been real world range.
“Cars with the lead-acid pack had a range of 80 to 100 miles, while the NiMH cars could travel between 100 and 140 miles between charges. For the second-generation EV1,”
That is of course per Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:05 pm)Hooray! Someone is listening!!
Boo.
It needn’t be more dangerous in a professional environment. No one would have high amperage, quick charging at home. Contacts under the car just make your “giant, arm-thick cable” argument go away.
Only from Dave G, if your direction out of the box isn’t towards bio-fuels. I think bio-fuels are a good thing to work for, but it remains to be seen which will be widely available first; fast-charge or large-scale bio-anything (here’s a hint; don’t hold your breath waiting for either one). Dave, if you post that Coskata link again, you may hear screams. Lets hear about someone else getting on board.
Which will arrive first, quick recharging infrastructure or 300 mile BEVs? If you have quick-charge stations will anyone really need to make (or buy) a BEV 300?
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:08 pm)Were there gas stations before gas burning cars or were there gas burning cars before gas stations? Was it wishfull thinking then?
So why would it be premature to have EV’s before public charging infrastructure?
Which of those approaches historically embedded itself into the US transportation industry?
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:16 pm)“We have reason to believe that Nissan conducted the same research and is now somewhat less bullish about the volume for their vehicle.”
Ouch. The LEAF is falling.
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:17 pm)And many think this EREV is a great new idea.
-12
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:25 pm)(click to show comment)
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:26 pm)There were gas-powered automobiles long before there were gas stations, because gasoline was already available as a cleaning agent. People could get it through hardware dealers and pharmacies (Carl Benz’s prototype was once refueled by a druggist carrying a glass bottle out to the curb), and real enthusiasts could order a fair amount delivered by rail. I doubt very much that many people were making the kind of journeys by car that we’re all used to making today; without the equivalent in planning than a BEV owner would have to make in order to attempt one.
So yes, you can have an EV today provided you can make use of it within X miles range of an electrical outlet. Perhaps Jim in PA should have said “until there is a large network of public charging stations the LEAF is a premature approach” for all but niche applications.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:26 pm)How can you say what “new technology” will do or not do, when it is by definition “new” (and therefore unknown at this time)?! Perhaps you are just spreading FUD.
Besides, connecting a quick charger to the car is a trivial matter that doesn’t require new technology. Bus bars under the car will do the trick reliably and safely. Delivering large amounts of electrical energy quickly and making batteries that can receive it will be more challenging though.
-12
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:27 pm)(click to show comment)
-18
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:30 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:34 pm)That’s a “basic” unit?! Sounds like a luxury model. My definition of “basic” is manual doors, windows, and mirrors without air conditioning.
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:39 pm)Just because we don’t know the price doesn’t mean that GM hasn’t set the target. Besides, the transistor was developed without regard for the price, and we know what a miserable failure that has been in the mainstream.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:40 pm)We all have our favorite ideas. We don’t need to flat-out deny the possibility of one which seems to threaten ours.
Fast charging does have challenges to overcome, and it has safety issues. Handling a liquid explosive in metal-tipped hoses has safety issues, but some level of accommodation has been reached where benefits outweigh a relatively manageable lack of safety. I think some form of Fast charging can achieve the same.
I also think that fast charging may take some time getting started in an environment where something like the Volt exists. We can’t really afford the government program it would take to fight the market and make this infrastructure available before EV volumes can support it. It will also take some time for bio-fuels to displace petroleum for the amount of extended-range driving which will still be done by a nationwide fleet of EREVs, EV-ERs (or whatever they come to be called).
The likeliest scenario to my thinking as that fast-charge appears in urban areas first, as bio-fuel slowly begins to displace transportation fuel further out into the ‘boonies.’ In other words, the two things will duke it out in the marketplace, so let’s not duke it out here.
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:43 pm)We are fairly well educated here. It just shows that the general public still has a lot to learn.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:44 pm)Think of something like driving into an automatic car wash; use rails to guide the car into place. Include the features under the car to position it exactly.
Once the car is in place, crank on the power. No car, no power. If anything happens, it is down under the car where the chances of injuring anyone is greatly reduced.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:44 pm)We are fairly well educated here. It just shows that the general public still has a lot to learn.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:46 pm)Fixed that for ya.
You got that right, twinkle toes.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:46 pm)It all comes down to how much that extra 200 miles of batteries costs you, and how prevalent the stations are. If 100 miles ER becomes the norm, the stations will have to be fairly close together.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:53 pm)And many think the LEAF is a great new idea.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (3:57 pm)That, and timing, may set an equilibrium for a de-facto future standard. I’d expect fast-charging to appear in urban areas first, since this is where the BEVs are likely to be congregated. Demand and competition may put the stations closer together than they need to be, just as gas stations are today.
EV-ERs may become able to take advantage of fast charge too, while in an urban center (and this would benefit the city where air quality is concerned).
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:07 pm)Great point. +1. It’s like asking someone if they’d like it faster or cheaper. Would you rather pay $1.50 a gallon for gas or $2.50 a gallon for gas? Gee, 83% prefer it cheaper? Gee, 97% prefer it cheaper. (You wonder who the 3% are? LOL). Here it’s: Do you want to run the risk of running out of battery or not? Gee, 83% would prefer not to.
The big question of course is how much of a premium they’d pay. You have to think GM asked this as well. My guess would be $3500. I’d pay $5000 more for a Volt but that’s because I think it’s a better car in many ways.
Obviously Leaf pricing will affect this when both companies start real production.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:10 pm)You probably know this, but Jay Leno owns one of these (Baker Electric) and actually drives it.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:11 pm)Repeating this endlessly (with or without bolded text) doesn’t make it so. Hybrids like the Prius use mechanical power from the engine, together with the output of a small electric motor, to move the car. The Prius needs it’s engine to turn in barely tolerable performance. The Volt is moved solely by a large electric motor. It’s engine only turns a generator, and isn’t needed for the first 40 miles of every day’s travel.
There is no comparing the Volt even with the upcoming Prius with a power cord; the Plug-in Prius will still need it’s engine everywhere it goes, just not quite as much for the first few miles (and how bad will that performance become? It will still use the same tiny electric motor).
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:14 pm)Unfortunately, one too common theme is for trolls to make statements out of ignorance or simply based on an opinion and then state them as fact.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:18 pm)The Prius’s EV mode is pathetic by comparison. The Prius can’t out accelerate a golf cart without firing up the ICE.
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:20 pm)+1
I intend to make it the first 80 miles or more before burning gas.
-2
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:32 pm)There’s a very big difference between the gen-2 aftermarket and what’s now being tested for upcoming gen-3 factory.
-2
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:41 pm)Vague references using only “small” and “larger” are great examples of greenwashing.
60 kW is the actual size of the motor.
That’s not small in terms of power. Google it.
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:41 pm)#98
You and CaptJackSparrow, LOL. Me too, pretty much. Not my wife, however. We need power windows and AC to keep peace in the family. All the rest of the goodies, not so much. She even did without her beloved leather seats in the bottom feeder Cobalt we just bought. What a woman!
Does anyone know what has become of the good Captain, BTW? I haven’t “seen” him here for a few days.
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:50 pm)And the Volt motor is 111 kW. I wonder which is larger?
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (4:56 pm)Well, maybe I’m dumb, but I not only agree with GM, I think that they are pushing the limits. I saw a beautiful Ford hybrid Escape prototype plugin over this past weekend that got 30 miles AER. The Ford rep (he is a battery R&D guy) claimed that the batteries “are just too expensive to bring this to market.” Your own examples just simply prove the point. One could argue that the Volt is still ahead of its time because the batteries are too expensive to make a profit. I’m willing to support GM (with a little help from Uncle Sam) by paying a whole lot more than I would for a conventional car. I happen to think that I am part of the solution by doing so — helping to make the Volt cheaper for future generations.
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:01 pm)Split drive is complex and not well suited at all to running in EV mode over a range of drive cycles. It does very well at what is was designed to do, namely, be an electric assist.
-2
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:05 pm)FYI, Prius 2010 has 60kW (80hp) electric motor. Not exactly tiny, enough to drive 62mph according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius. Why don’t you read it instead of spreading out FUD?
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:11 pm)Well Gooooolllllyyyyy. The trolls are really laughable today.
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:13 pm)80 HP, sounds REALLY tiny to me.
/must hold baaack.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:26 pm)Wrong – unless you haven’t put the Euro-Japanese switch “back-in”. I put the EV switch back in my ’04 and I get the first 0.5-1.0 gas free in the morning and when I exit highways. And in EV mode I can move pretty quickly.
But, your point is well taken – the Volt is the better car when compared to my mere one mile.
I can’t wait for the Volt – far better than anything on the road and I’ve done the math – according to my current driving records I should average in a typical month ~950 miles per gallon versus my Prius of 55mpg. Come on Chevy – please have a car for me in October!!!!!
And let me know how much I’ll be spending soon for the car.
Oh, and as your ad is showing on this webpage – can I get a 0% loan for 60 months when I buy the Volt? – you can even have my Pontiac Grand Am with that deal! (we’re keeping the Prius as a ‘work-truck’ – I love that as well – my “truck” can get 55mpg fully loaded with 12-2x4x96 boards – what does your truck get?)
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:43 pm)Or 140kW in sport mode
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:46 pm)HAAAA!,
Hey Bob G.
I know you don’t live in Texas. (Nor New Mexico, or Arizona). Likely way up there where in the Far North where the air is cool year round.
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:52 pm)Gee, I thought it could go 62.345 MPG. As compared to 104 MPH? What a deal! Seriously, the point would be that split drive isn’t designed to drive in EV mode over a range of drive cycles. The serial hybrid design is perfectly and elegantly designed to do this.
FWIW it’s not really the motor which is the only issue here. Motors can output several times their continuously rated output for short periods. The limiting factor for short bursts would be the battery.
Apr 28th, 2010 (5:58 pm)The Prius system is based on one of several hybrid designs that TRW invented in the early ’70s. The patent Toyota chose is the simplest of the designs. With the simple power split design, one of the two motor / generators is dead weight in EV mode. Additionally, the top speed in EV mode is limited due to the way the power split planetary works.
TRW also invented several slightly more complex versions that do not have this limitation. The simplest adds two clutches and the limitations are gone – other than the extra weight of the clutches. I assume that Toyota decided not to include this originally due to cost. I suspect the EV mode just may include these extra elements and the EV mode won’t be quite so pathetic.
-4
Apr 28th, 2010 (6:05 pm)According to who? For that matter, what “drive cycles” specifically?
Since Prius has the electric motor placed on the outside rather than intergrated within, it’s clearly not the same as some others. The generalization doesn’t apply. Remember, there’s Two-Mode, Ford’s system, and the upcoming one from Hyundai… all of which offer EV, but each uses a different method.
Put another way, the 60 kW motor can continue to propel the vehicle as long as the electricity supply lasts.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:00 pm)Box? What box?
My point is that most of us here think out of the box.
And I’ve gotten my share of negatives.
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:06 pm)Now think of doing that with a nice coating of snow and road salt stuck to the bottom of the car. Ka-boom!
In order to fast charge a BEV-300 in 10 minutes, you need a half megawatt connection. That’s not a spark, it’s an explosion, and not a small one. Probably blow the whole front end off the car.
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:17 pm)#118
God love you. +1
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:19 pm)For the record, I gave a positive. Loboc came up with alternatives instead of emotional arguments.
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:21 pm)#129
Haven’t we all, LOL. Most times, I consider it a compliment. +1, BTW.
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:24 pm)#130
Yeah, I think we need to make sure we know how to walk before we try to run. Just give me a Volt I can plug into the wall and that’ll do me for several years, thank you very much. +1
Apr 28th, 2010 (7:46 pm)I disagree. Some EREVs use a near series design with a power split device that connects the gas engine to the wheels. An example is the Mercedes-Benz BlueZERO E-CELL PLUS:
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/autos/mercedes-benz/concept-vehicles/mercedes-benz-bluezero-e-cell-plus-second-look/
Unfortunately, there are no production plans for this car.
Only if you drive less than 62 miles per hour and don’t accelerate.
If Toyota made a plug-in Prius with a 110 kW electric motor and at least 30 miles of electric range, then I would be seriously interested. At that point, electricity would be the primary fuel source.
But with a battery that large, it wouldn’t really be a Prius any more. In other words, they would have to re-design the chassis to accommodate a battery that large and still maintain good handling and crash safety. So that would be a new car.
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:15 pm)Thinking “out of the box” often gets negatives, but only from the closed minded who are threatened by it somehow. (Something about the only constant in the universe is change.
How could that possibly be true? LOL).
Just skip past the top half of the thread (say, the first 75 or so), and you can often get to the more popular technical content that doesn’t have inflated positive numbers. (80 percent of the populace isn’t as technical, which is why those posts don’t get the higher
numbers it seems.) Technical writers are the “worst”, you know, for “thinking out of the box”. But this is the most popular technical site there is as far as I am concerned.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:18 pm)US06 for starters.
And the Volt’s 110 kw motor will propel it at speeds up to an electronically controlled 104 MPH as long as the electricity supply lasts. The fact that the EV mode on the Prius is useless for freeway driving is one of many reasons why the Volt’s technology is a whole lot better than the Prius’. As one of the test drivers of the Volt said, the Volt made his Prius feel like a toy.
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:25 pm)Only 60 kw of motor power could possibly be damn dangerous in some situations at freeway speeds. ( What if you need to pass a long truck uphill that is throwing lots of mud at the windshield, and, the power isn’t there if the vehicle is fully occupied with people and loaded up for the trip home for the holidays?)
Trust has become a serious issue nowadays with the current problems as well.
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:28 pm)I couldn’t find any real information on how the engine was connected to the wheels other than that it could recharge the battery. In any event, the Mercedes is much like the Volt and not very much like the Prius. It runs in EV mode for a given range — no engine required — and then uses a range extender. The issue with Prius is that it’s designed to frequently use the engine. Basically on the one side you have an ICE with a battery assist and on the other you have an EV with a range extender. Very different design concepts.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:34 pm)And the Volt’s torque will give me great ability to run down any neighborhood child running across the street! Only kidding. Only kidding. FWIW where I am 80 MPH is more or less flowing with traffic. Going 60 MPH would not be a good idea, for you or other people on the road.
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:38 pm)Put a motor-driven brush at the entrance of the tunnel — problem solved (to stretch the car-wash analogy even farther).
Again, if quick charge becomes available, it’s unlikely that a 300 mile BEV will ever be offered for sale. If it is, few will buy it. A BEV300 with quick charge is a lot like an EREV300 with a range-extender: who needs it?
By the way, if the connection is established before current flows, is there any spark at all?
But what the hey; it’s not biofuel, is it?
-6
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:39 pm)83% of the people posting on this site will not buy a Volt.
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:43 pm)Then, you dissected him mercilessly with a separate post.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:45 pm)If you can say this with such authority, not knowing what the actual future holds, then you are
Just Plain Exceptional!
~or are you~
Just Plain Erroneous?
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:52 pm)why don’t we go ahead and be nice and turn over a new leaf?
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:53 pm)Excellent point, and here are some numbers to back it up. I’ve been keeping a log for a number of months, of miles driven per day. If I did have a Leaf I figure I’d “leaf” it home any time I expected to drive more than 75 miles. My log says I did that 15 times. My Volt would have been charged up and ready to go those days.
Advantage Volt, 40*15 = 600 miles
On the other hand, there were 12 days that I drove between 41 and 75 miles. Those days the Volt would presumably have used some gas, while the Leaf was all electric. My total distance on those days was 631 miles.
Advantage Leaf, 631-(12*40) = 131 miles
And the Volt wins by 469 miles. Not even a close race.
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:54 pm)Do you speak from personal experience?
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (8:54 pm)leaf, or LEAF?
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:01 pm)your choice.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:05 pm)Okay, if you’re in the LEAF, I’ll find 4 strong friends and turn you over.
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:09 pm)i’m buyin Volt. someone else is buyin a leaf. who is buyin a Leaf?
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:11 pm)… and would you care to provide the 0 – 62 mph time for this spine-flattening acceleration?
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:13 pm)Hey, you said it was my choice …
leaf:
a green thing that hangs on a tree and does photosynthesis
LEAF:
a Nissan EV whose name is an acronym for “Leading, Environmentally friendly, Affordable, Family car” (I guess it helps if you decide to skip some of the words, lol).
-6
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:14 pm)Wow! That’s an amazingly desperate attempt at FUD.
It’s a hybrid. There’s a 134 horsepower available whenever you need it. Most of the time you don’t. So, the engine will remain off.
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:16 pm)For u, not me. who is buyin the leaf?
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:21 pm)Except if it remains on at wide open throttle when you don’t want it at wide open throttle.
So how long is it going to take to fix those 8 point 6 million recalled sticking accelerator fixes in that massive recall? Let’s see, 8,600,000 divided by how many service facilities….,
Oh, you go figure. It’s not worth my time. I wouldn’t want to spread any FUD of 134 horsepower with stuck accelerators.
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:23 pm)Turn it around, FUD master. You’ll need the engine if you want more than 60 kw of power to avoid being flattened by a car or truck with decent acceleration coming up behind you.
If you don’t want that much horsepower, you’ll enjoy leisurely double-digit 0 – 60 times.
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:25 pm)More Maximum Bob.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20100426/VIDEO/304239946
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:27 pm)***ATTENTION: CLOSED CIRCUIT FOR LYLE***
Bug report
(offered solely as a programming aid to you, our beloved Volt-WEB master)
Software allows a punctuation mark (specifically, a single-quote [']) to be entered as first character for “Name.”
Clicking the “quote” link for an item posted with such name will not populate the reply field.
***MOVE ALONG, FOLKS; NOTHING TO SEE HERE***
-4
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:33 pm)And you know they will use the “same” motor how?????
/thought so!
+2
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:42 pm)I resemble that remark!
A lot of us in our seventies drive way more than two hours a day – on occasion. At Christmas I drove 350 miles from the SF Bay Area down to LA in one day, and back in one day after spending a day there. I’ve also made two one-day round trips to Sacramento, about 275 miles, in the past six months. But I’ll admit I don’t do it nearly as often as I used to. (By the way, I counted that 700 mile LA drive as one “trip” in my report a bit earlier, because I wouldn’t have been able to recharge down there, at least not conveniently.)
Ask me again ten years from now and I may well find that a 100 mile range BEV suits me fine. But I’m not glued to my rocking chair just yet. I want a Volt!
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:42 pm)um … ’cause that’s what they spent all that money to line up for previous models, and have on hand? ‘Cause that’s about what their legacy electronics module can handle without modification? Ditto the power-split device?
Are you telling me that the 2010 Prius has a 111+ kw motor?
/thought so.
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:45 pm)As usual you dont have a clue what you are talking about
(this is a common affliction usually associated with getting your entire EV education via Google or Wikipedia)
The Prius motor is 60kW PEAK (maximum) power
The Volt’s traction motor ratingis 110kW CONTINUOUS (Peak power is significantly higher)
In fact the Volt motor is nearly 3x the peak power of the Prius motor
Greenwash? You must brush your teeth with it!
WopOnTour
-6
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:45 pm)And you’ll be the jackass that keeps our dependency on oil. Yup you’ll be the “Jacko”.
-8
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:50 pm)And the volts old internal combustion engine and generator has a massive cascade of electrical loss just to convert gas energy to mechanical. Inefficient piece of crapola.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:51 pm)Pick, Pick, Pick. (g)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:53 pm)Hopefully, we’ve both gone back to read some more, Dave G.
I disagree with your assertion that full replacement of what we have now is a prerequisite for fast charging to go mainstream. It is often noted that those most likely to benefit from an urban car (BEV) have no convenient place to plug one in. If BEVs become common enough in urban areas, someone will address this issue with standard-rate charging at destinations, and later, fast-charging. Will fast charging replace gasoline for traveling between cities? No. As I said in my #107:
I think there will be a good future for fast-charging and bio-fuels. Frankly what I hear you saying (thread after thread) is that fast-charging is an enemy of bio-fuels, so lets think up every worst-case scenario we can of why fast-charging can never work. Frankly, I’m tired of it. You’ve been here long enough to know better.
Perhaps I should have added this to my #107 comment:
-15
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:54 pm)(click to show comment)
+6
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:54 pm)-4
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:54 pm)The 60 kW electric motor supports 100 km/h driving.
What part of that is incorrect?
+4
Apr 28th, 2010 (9:56 pm)
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:03 pm)Hey, doc! Yer workin’ my side of the street!!!
(thanks)
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:03 pm)Maybe not 300, but how about at least a true 150? (i.e. 150 AER at 70 MPH) I think a lot of people would want to be able to drive for nearly two hours before they even started looking for a juice station.
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:07 pm)With enough gears, you can make a washing machine motor pull a tank, but bring a lunch while you wait for 60 KW to eventually wind a Prius up to any speed above 40 mph or so.
For those at home: 100 kph = 62.1371192 mph
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:13 pm)As I said in my #107, the timing of fast-charging and the cost of batteries will
The message that the government needs to hear is: let the market work. I know, not much chance of that these days …
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:22 pm)Uh huh. You’re the man Tag!
PDNFTT
-3
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:25 pm)That fact is as useful as knowing Volt can travel at 104 MPH. Red herring.
Again, the point is to sell a large quantity of high-efficiency vehicles at a mainstream price.
Want numbers? How about 400,000 worldwide annually for $30,000 each.
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:28 pm)I’ll accept that as your admission of defeat.
Good-night, Prius John …
-6
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:37 pm)Typical dumb dumb american. Want much power though use only a few times. If you want good range you drive efficient. You are stupid american. That is why you have stupid low mpg on american cars. China will take over car market.
+3
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:38 pm)Correction: The 2010 Gen3Prius (and the yet to be released plug-in version) motors actually have a 58.5kW “peak” power rating (not 60kW) while the Gen2 Prius was rated at 50kW and the Gen 1 a 33kW peak/maximum power. Publishing “peak” numbers has been a common ploy of most of the Japanese car companies, which makes it difficult to compare apples to apples.
(and commonly miscommunicated and propogated by people that dont even realize there’s a difference like those “kooks” at UCS- I’ve reported their error numerous times but they prefer to ignore)
For instance our resident Prius lovin’ trolls have already conveniently rounded up and say the Gen 3 Prius has the same sized 60kW traction motor as a GM 2 mode hybrid . Oh Please
Based on this erroneous data both would appear have ~80hp. However GM & Remy (and most other electric motor companies NOT pedaling misinformation) rate their PM and induction motors based on “continuous” power NOT peak or maximum power.
Thus the Remy HVH250 motors used in the GM 2-modes have a rated peak power of 87kW or 117hp.
The Volt’s motor specifications are also rated based on the continuous power rating
WopOntour
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:43 pm)I thought I solved that for you last week (Apr 22)
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:48 pm)Thanks Loboc. A fun watch.
-13
Apr 28th, 2010 (10:54 pm)(click to show comment)
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:18 pm)OK, we can disagree agreeably.
To be clear, what I’m saying is this: In order for pure BEVs to go mainstream in a big way (i.e. majority market share), they must do what a gas engine car can do today. This is in response to comments on this forum suggesting that I won’t be able to buy anything but a pure BEV in 10 years or so.
I agree with everything you say here, with the caveot that by “fast-charging” we’re talkaing about charging a BEV-100 in something like 30-45 minutes. Anything beyond that starts getting dangerous.
And I would add that everything you say above goes for EREVs as well, except that EREVs can travel between cities.
+1
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:37 pm)Lyle mentions this in an article on the Mercedes. Use the gm-volt.com search feature, and you should find it.
Exactly, which is why I call the Mercedes an EREV.
So my point is that a car with a power split device can be an EREV, if it’s primary source of fuel is electricity. It’s the size of the electric motor and battery that matters. The presence or absence of a power split device is somewhat irrelevant.
Apr 28th, 2010 (11:54 pm)LOL, +1.
Apr 29th, 2010 (12:01 am)What ever you call it, the Volt’s primary fuel source is electricity, and it has none of the limitations of a pure BEV.
Apr 29th, 2010 (12:32 am)Can’t escape or distract from purpose that easily.
Again, the point is to sell a large quantity of high-efficiency vehicles at a mainstream price.
-9
Apr 29th, 2010 (12:33 am)And we all know how much great success these Remy motors were on the 2 mode shitty hybrid. All that power an no sales. You’re a bigger idiot than you’re friend Jacko.
Remy HVH250 has blah blah average power…
Remy HVH250 has blah bla peak power…
Remy HVH250 has NO SELLING POWER!!!!
Yes you are the “Idiot” of the night! You and your boyfriend Jacko.
-10
Apr 29th, 2010 (12:48 am)(click to show comment)
+4
Apr 29th, 2010 (1:31 am)I hope I can explain why I’m certain that is quite a bit of an exaggeration.
First off, there are working demonstrations of that type of connection with quite a bit higher power level, and the events you are talking about are not happening. This example is third rail power used for electric multiple unit trains. The voltage ranges from 750V up through 1500V for most systems and a few that operate as high as 3kV. The power levels range up to 10′s of MW. Many operate out in the weather. No salt, but they do have carbon and copper dust on systems where they still are running DC traction motors. You may see news reports of electrical explosions on subways, but those aren’t the third rail; instead they are the in the substations where they step the 10′s of kV down to the third rail voltage. There aren’t reports of subway trains “blowing up.”
My first job out of college was working for a company that rebuilt and repaired antiquated electrical equipment. In most cases, it would be better in the long run for the operators of the equipment to replace it with modern equipment; but usually this was vital to the owner so it was quicker for us to rehabilitate the equipment and get them going again. We did a lot of work on control and power systems that were built anywhere from the 1890′s through 1950′s. It ranged from small, delicate work on up to multi-MW equipment. Often the equipment we got was quite damaged, whether from fire, flooding (flooded in sewage just sucked), self immolation on through exploding. I became quite familiar with voltage and current levels and the kind of damage they could do. 208/240V usually got really hot and burned. Destructive shorting was rare. 480V sometimes would explode but not usually spectacularly. With 480V, the failure was usually an arcing fault. 480V would arc through air, but the current usually doesn’t grow to phenomenally high levels. It would arc for a while, and then when enough copper vaporized to raise the current enough to trip a breaker it would be over. As it was doing that, it would make a phenomenal amount of radiant heat that was quite damaging. What made the spectacular explosions was equipment operated at “medium” voltage (1kV through 15kV). The high voltage would drive the currents up to high values that would put MW’s of power into an arc and blow things apart.
Fast forward a decade and two jobs and I found myself working on power converters up to 700kVA at 480V 3PH. One thing I learned about is just how effective fast acting current limiting fuses are at reducing damage. For “normal” loads like motors, transformers and lighting, time delay fuses or circuit breakers must be used. This is because of the inrush at power on / start up. Transformers draw up to 30 times rated current for 1/2 cycle at energization. Motors draw up to 6 times rated current until they are nearly up to full speed. Incandescent lighting draws more current because of the lower cold resistance of the filament. Because of this inrush, the fuses have dual elements. One is a fast acting fuse that won’t trip until 30 times rated current, and the second is a long time delay element for the rated current. When powering power converters like power supplies and motor drives, there is no inrush; they all have input contactors that do not energize until the DC bank caps are fully charged. To better protect power converters, the class T fuse was introduced. The class T fuse is a very fast acting fuse that can open much faster – the opening time under high fault currents can be under 1ms. Normal fuses were more than a magnitude slower. Not only was the time shorter, but because the fuse opened so fast, the current couldn’t rise anywhere near as fast.
In my time at that job, I saw 3 “busts” where the unit failed in person and saw the aftermath of about 6 more. The busts where loud & bright. I’d say there were about equivalent of someone sneaking up behind you and shooting a 12 GA shotgun into the ground 3 feet away with a bright flash thrown in. In one case a technician had the front door open and he had singed hair and a bad “sunburn.” Even though the building feed was 4000A 480V and the units had 800A fuses feeding them, the arcing never broke through the outside case. IIRC, the case was 14 gauge sheet steel. Only once did the outside of the case show some burnt paint where a wire arced on the inside.
My point in all of this is that if the charging current is fed from a power converter where the current during a short would be even more limited, the kind of damage you talk about is beyond what would be expected.
Even then, it would be really hard to think that it would be any more dangerous that handling a liquid that has so much concentrated energy that only 10 gallons of it can push a car 300 miles.
Apr 29th, 2010 (3:23 am)Matthew, you are not going to convince Dave G.. this must be some sort of phobia he has. Regarding snow or salty water.. you can easily detect current leakage (before or during the charging) due to these contaminants.
In any case, the only people that will EVER need to charge a 300 mile battery in under 10 minutes are commercial, long distance electric trucks.. and they can afford robotics and such to plug the cable in.
+2
Apr 29th, 2010 (3:28 am)I thought the point was to stop using oil?.. there are many econoboxes on the market that are very efficient.
+2
Apr 29th, 2010 (3:42 am)I dont think so, I believe the public will accept the limitations of a BEV according to their particular usage, some may be confortable with 50 miles of range, some with 400 miles.. for BEVs to achieve dominant market share they must first achieve a significant lower total cost of ownership, and buying cost not much higher than a comparable ICE car.
Apr 29th, 2010 (4:01 am)The Prius is designed to be ICE centric, after all it has a tiny battery.. but Toyota can change this the moment they so desire, probably when the cost of batteries drops some more. Dont dis the Prius.
Apr 29th, 2010 (4:19 am)Why does this site spend more time showcasing articles that try to convince readers why a 100 mile range EV is inferior to a 40 mile range EV with gas backup? Is there no news-worthy info on the VOLT today? Nope! Quick, post 100 mile EV bad news story. Geez!
Why has this site changed from gm-volt to 100mile EV haters over the last month?
Seems that someone has an agenda in mind.. Let the public decide!!! NO more gas !!!!
GO EV !!!
Apr 29th, 2010 (5:12 am)Yeah, like where to buy cigarettes and beer, once you’re not stopping at the local Tank and Tummy very often.
Apr 29th, 2010 (5:59 am)NOT a banner day for civility here at *our* site
Tagamet
AFK today again.
+1
Apr 29th, 2010 (8:14 am)What GM should have asked in the same survey is : if people have to wait 2 years or more for a Volt and have no wait for a Leaf would they seriously consider buying a Leaf. Keep in mind some may be concerned about federal & state rebates being exhausted by the time they can buy one or having them rescinded in a new fiscally conservative climate. This would have helped them in their marketing and plans to ramp up production. Those who buy a Leaf, will not likley be in the market for another car for many years, depending on how the resale value and demand for that car goes. A Leaf sold may be a Volt lost. Not everyone can afford to buy two new cars back to back.
Apr 29th, 2010 (10:17 am)Your forgetting the REGEN motor! So the Volt has 2 motors. Any idea how many KW it is?
+1
Apr 29th, 2010 (10:42 am)Commercial, long distance trucks will be the last adopters of battery technology. The power level is high and sustained for a long period of time, one of the hardest applications for battery technology because it is the most dependent on high energy density.
I would expect local delivery trucks to go electric first. As someone linked on a previous blog entry here, yard tractors for moving trailers around ship yards are already being built. Local delivery has REALLY bad fuel mileage. It is not uncommon for delivery trucks to get 2-4 MPG. But the total energy used is lower than long haul because the speed is so much lower. Even hybrid technology here would make a big difference – and this is already happening.
The biggest reason I question the viability of BEV long haul is because they would have to compete with trains. What is the reason for forcing the BEV? Economics from high fuel price? Carbon emission limits? For either reason, just putting the freight on a diesel powered train reduces fuel use and hence carbon emissions five fold. If both are going electric, electric trains have been technically feasible for 80 years now. At current fuel price, the payback isn’t quite enough to get the railroads to go electric, but either carbon regulation or $6 a gallon diesel does. The costs of making the trains electric is also far less than trying to convert the existing fleet of trucks over to BEV. On top of that, the 5 to 1 energy ratio STILL applies. It will take 1/5 the electricity to move the freight by train vs. moving it by truck ignoring the extra battery losses.
Apr 29th, 2010 (10:48 am)It doesn’t make sense to me have one dedicate to regen.
My conjecture is that one is optimized for low speed and the other for high, and sport uses both together. This would mean sport is non-optimal and hence less efficient.
I look forward to more details on this coming out.
I also in the back of my mind hold out the possibility that there are selection clutches that allow direct energy transfer at freeway speeds.
Apr 29th, 2010 (10:52 am)Thanks Matthew B. High current electric does not behave like gasoline — no explosions, no front end of car getting blown off — nothing COOL like hydrogen or gasoline. Just loud POPs and sizzling noises. The breaker would trigger pretty fast if there was a short. Electricity is safer but not as much fun as gas or hydrogen. Just stay out of its way — because YOU are a high resistance conductor and will explode when your water is flash-boiled. But even you exploding will not blow off anything — a rather pathetic explosion — more of a rupture maybe.
Looks we have some trolls to experiment on.
Apr 29th, 2010 (1:32 pm)Just to nitpick a tiny bit….
Bigger circuit breakers are really slow. Just by their size, they take several power line cycles to open up. In that amount of time, the current can rise quite high, only limited by the resistance and inductance of the feed.
Fast blow fuses are much faster. They are called “current limiting” because they blow so fast that the current can’t rise to it’s peak that it obtains with a slower fuse or a circuit breaker. Peak current takes around 1/2 cycle to develop, or about 1/120th of a second. Fast fuses can blow and clear as fast as 1/1000th of a second.
This would only matter if AC line was fed to the car directly where the fuse is the fast interrupting device. If the AC line was converted to DC and sent over to the car as DC, the interruption can be even faster via turning off the DC source electronically.
Apr 29th, 2010 (2:20 pm)Bob and GM,
Don’t forget to emphasize your ICE is a FLEX-FUEL generator. That will make the growing number of E85 users a whole lot happier. It is a selling advantage to have a genset that can run on regular gasoline or E85 if it’s available.
We love the Volt and the team that has put it together. Thank you for a brilliant effort so far. Now let’s go out and sell a whole mess of ‘em! And please invite Bob to the grand wing ding launch for Lord’s sake. He’s been a trooper throughout this thing.
Apr 29th, 2010 (10:35 pm)Yes, you can detect leakage before ramping up the power, and I’m assuming that. But how do you detect a short in a 500,000 watt connection during charging before it explodes? In other words, if there’s snow or water in the connector, it may not short the contacts until the connector warms up at full power.
I’ve asked this question in one form or another many times on this forum, and the only answer I’ve gotten is that the magic wand of new technology will solve it. Forgive my skepticism.
Apr 29th, 2010 (10:39 pm)GM Says First Year Chevy Volts Will Not be E85 Capable, Calls for More E85 Stations
http://gm-volt.com/2010/02/17/gm-says-first-year-chevy-volts-will-not-be-e85-capable-calls-for-more-e85-stations/
Apr 29th, 2010 (11:25 pm)That’s my point. One person’s necessity is another’s luxury. One size does not fit all.
Apr 29th, 2010 (11:26 pm)Well said!
Apr 30th, 2010 (10:07 am)The difference between NEED and WANT is not subjective.
WANT is something you still could accomplish the task with even if you didn’t have it.
NEED is an essential, impossible to execute to completion without.