Prior to Tesla offering its IPO we learned that Toyota would enter a partnership agreement with the California-based electric automaker to jointly develop electric cars.
With the successfully IPO, Toyota took a $50 million stake in Tesla and has begun to press forward with collaboration.
Both companies have announced the planned fruit of their labor.
The famous Toyota RAV4 EV which was built from 1997 to 2003 and sold in limited quantities in California shall be revived.
The new electric RAV4 small SUV already exits in prototype form powered by Tesla’s Panasonic battery pack and drivetrain. It is currently undergoing tests.
Tesla will deliver a fleet of RAV4 EVs by the end if this year, and if all goes well, the vehicle will go into mass production in 2012.
Some of the original RAV4EVs are still in operation, adored by the California owners.
This is quite a striking PR move on the part of Toyota, rekindling the spirit and passion the original RAV4 electric car embodied. Some have argued GM might have done the same with an EV-2. Its certainly not too late for that.
Calling Doug Korthoff…
Source (Tesla)
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:04 am)Sure seems like others a scrambling to respond to the approaching Volt launch.
+20
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:05 am)I had a feeling something was in the works between Toyota and Tesla. This is awesome news! An SUV BEV with 200 mile range would be a huge turning point in the electrification of the auto industry. The rumor mill is that the price will start in the $40,000 range.
Okay, pressure is on GM! Personally I would prefer an Equinox with the Voltec power train for a comparable price. There is no doubt that there is a huge market for EREV SUV!!!!
+20
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:07 am)Absolutely unbelievable. I did not see this coming. Frankly it’s a good move for Toyota who’s selling of their Rav4s instead of crushing them set the tone for their green halo for the last decade as they continue to drive the roads of Southern California. This is a great move to get Tesla involved because they are going to be able to take advantage of everything Tesla has learned the hard way over the last 7 years or so, for a measly $50 million, which is a drop in the bucket compared to their annual R&D budget. So by 2012, we will have a plug in Prius, and an all electric Rav4 from Toyota. We should see the Tesla S, the Ford Focus EV, the BMW Active E, probably something that Honda is keeping close to the vest, and of course at least one EV from Nissan, and at least the Volt, and maybe something else from GM.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:14 am)This isn’t too surprising, considering how many after-market companies out there are that take a pre-existing vehicle, slap a big battery and electric motor in it, and call it a day. It seems that Tesla is turning into one of those.
Hopefully, they’ll do a better job than other companies have done at electric car conversions according to various tepid reviews I’ve seen.
But I can’t help but to wonder if this is a news release to bolster their stock price?
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:15 am)Such big news, and yet so little. Will the new Ravs be sold only in CA? What kind of numbers are Toyota and Tesla thinking about? If available outside California, will there be a gradual phase-in like Volt and LEAF?
It seems incredible to me that they will continue to rely on laptop batteries in an appreciable run of mass-produced vehicles.
The Rav4 was a modification of an existing model; presumably the new one will be also. The EV1 was a hand-built specialty car. Given the two-seat limitations of the EV1, and the possibilities of Li/Ion technology, I can’t really see GM reviving it in any form (other than Volt).
The closest they might come to the electric Rav4 would be to start with the basic frame and body of some existing GM vehicle, and stuff it with LG batteries and a motor. I disagree that the Volt, as it stands, would be a good starting point for a pure BEV. Too much had to be done on the drawing board to accommodate both a generator and battery pack.
As I’ve suggested before, a vehicle line could be designed from scratch to be either an EREV or an EV … but not quickly, and not with today’s batteries.
+5
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:16 am)This is really really really great news. With Toyota now jumping into EVs, the category is being validated big time. Perhaps this will cause GM to sharpen their pencils about production numbers.
Plus a lot of people on this board have voiced a desire for a CUV. Well here it is. More choices are a good thing.
Honda? Honda? Where are you Honda?
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:19 am)This is really good news and a smart move on both sides.
The RAV4-EV has a following and is in the news every now and then.
But I agree with Jackson. I would love to know more.
The two can make huge improvements over the first version and I would love to know what
those will be. Obviously they have been working on it if it is going to be out by the end of this year.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:19 am)I knew something was in the works but never expected anything with that quick of a turnaround. 2012! Exciting news – I still want my volt.
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:22 am)I agree with you 100% on this. The packaging needed for an EREV and a BEV is quite different. One of the great things about EVs is that the batteries and motors, if packaged correctly, free up considerable interior space as compared to an ICE and its drivetrain. This was clear when sitting in the Leaf — it has a small envelope but there was a lot of space inside.
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:26 am)I have to tell you guys that the Rav4 legend is strictly a local phenomenon. I never heard of the car until I came to this site. This is likely because I have never lived in California.
If Toyota has non-California ambitions for the new version, they will face the same challenges as LEAF and Volt in launching nationwide. Now, people at large have heard of Tesla, and they’ve definitely heard of Toyota … so maybe that will be enough.
+7
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:30 am)Lest we forget … what caused the demise of the RAV4E and EV1 ?
An oil company that bought the NiMH battery patent (from GM) and then insisted that “you never have to plug it in” !
“Insisted” is actually an understatement, Chevron forced Toyota to close the large format NiMH plant they had started building in 1999.
Thank goodness for Li-ion technology … let’s hope this never happens again.
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:31 am)And GM could have been well on the way with a competing Converj. Hindsight is always 20-20. This is great news. My Volt will come soon and the wife’s next car could be a new Conver OOPs I mean Toyota RAV4EV.
Take Care,
TED
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:32 am)Prices and performance being similar, I believe that GM would sell more Voltech Equinox than they will VOLTS. The SUV configuration is far more useful than a sedan.
But those are big ifs. Especially the performance part.
That wind resistance thing was major focus in VOLT design a few years back.
It will be interesting to see if EV RAVs can get that 200 mile range mentioned above.
I hope that all this rush to get electric cars on the road in the next year or so doesnt mean that they don’t perform well. May be bad for electrics in general.
I have extremely high confidence that VOLTs will perform as advertised, but these rush jobs,
well, not so sure.
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:33 am)I respectfully disagree…a little.
The Toyota RAV4 was/is nationwide, just not the EV version.
So RAV4 has an easily recognizable name, while Leaf and Volt do not.
I don’t see much of an uphill battle here with anything but the EV part, which all three will have
to deal with in some way or another.
+5
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:34 am)I AGREE! I’ve wanted to see GM design a Voltec CUV/SUV (or at least a plug-in 2 mode w/ an 8KWh battery like the planned plug-in VUE) for more than 2 1/2 yrs. In fact, I wouldn’t buy a BEV CUV/SUV, although I certainly applaud Toyota/Tesla for ‘resurrecting’ the RAV-4EV!
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:37 am)I guess Toyota forgot to put you on their mailing list of what’s hot… LOL
Do you live off the grid?
-1
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:39 am)What a consternation two missing letters have made! How about this:
Fixed it for ya.
+5
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:39 am)Does GM have a small CUV anymore?
I remember the GEO Tracker was around back then.
But I think it is gone now.
If GM can make a similar size one that is a 4×4, I’m in.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:39 am)If they plan on making this thing cost $40,000 then forget it. Its bad marketing too because they are taking an existing lower end vehicle and doubling the price.Even though we who like electric vehicles will look beyond the model, the general public won’t. Its like taking a Geo Tracker and slapping an additional 20k on the price. Frankly, I’m rather unimpressed. Also- all those in Cali who have been paying upwards of $75k for a used Rav4-EVs suddenly just lost their investment.
Sorry, but I think this is a sign of Toyota for once being somewhat lazy.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:42 am)IMO bevs should be designed from the ground up. Some manufacturers have concepts that demonstrate the benefits of lighter and sleeker designs and the need for different configuration for the different components than ice vehicles. To get the most benefit from pure bevs, new designs need to happen.
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:42 am)….and they’ve heard of RAV4.
I understood you the first time, my friend.
I would bet more people could tell you what a RAV4 is than the Leaf and Volt combined.
They just need to be taught that the RAV4EV is electric.
Where the Leaf and Volt will have to be fully described.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:48 am)Electric vehicles will be city vehicles and therefore wind resistance shouldn’t be an issue. It is only an issue with the Volt because GM is trying to fit the Volt into a niche in which (IMO) electric cars don’t really belong (and as will be witnessed in how ICE cars will be significantly less expensive and get better fuel efficiency than the Volt on the highway).
I also wouldn’t judge the speed of other EV’s based on GM and the Volt. People tend to look at only the advantages of EREV. One of the MAJOR drawbacks is the complexity. A full electric is completely trivial in comparison and it should be much faster to develop. Therefore Ford/Toyota etc. should be able to put out relatively high quality product very quickly.
Also, GM has been talking up the Volt very publicly since a point in time years before most manufacturers would even mention their product. This gives the impression that GM was working on these items long before other manufacturers, but I think that is a little misleading. For example, by the time Nissan was publicly discussing the Leaf that already had a design that was more efficient moving forwards than backwards.
Even if GM started earnestly on the Volt in 2007, that is a full decade after the first electric Rav4.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:52 am)But they still have the draw back of full electric: Short range, long charge times.
In building a high quality product, I believe these things need to be solved.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:54 am)WELCOME ABOARD Rav4-EV. The more the merrier!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
-1
Jul 16th, 2010 (10:58 am)“$40,000″, “taking an existing lower end vehicle and doubling the price”.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. I don’t think what GM has done is lazy.
Oh, you were talking about Toyota and the Rav4!
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:04 am)I’d have to differ with you on this part. Without very *significant* pampering of the battery, a BEV is going to be in a world of hurt at this point in battery development. JMO.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:10 am)There seems to be a large difference in development time between a pure electric and hybrid electric, with the pure electric coming out faster because of less complexity. So expect more pure electrics from the automakers who are behind in electrification. You can get those out in about only 2 years, it seems, versus 3 or more for the hybrid electrics.
+6
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:11 am)I’ve been following EV’s long before GM announced the Volt and it was the Rav4-EV out of all the EV’s that were built when CA’s ZEV mandate still had teeth, that I would have most liked to have. It was the most practical, plenty of range, and well built.
Do note however that Toyota like GM did not want to sell them after ZEV mandate lost it’s teeth, and I don’t believe they let them all be sold.
However lol about the gm fan boy (1st post) who thinks everyone is rushing/scrambling to respond to GM’s Volt. It may be GM scrambling to get a pure BEV to compete against the LEAF, Rav4-EV, etc. However I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… different strokes for different folks, there are some who will want hybrids like the Volt (serial) or Prius (parallel), and some best suited to non-hybrids like the Rav4-EV (BEV) or even just lighter more efficient ICE powered vehicles (gasoline and diesel) getting 50+ mpg and priced for the masses. All help us reduce our use of oil (or which there is no real distinction between imported or domestic, it’s a global pool).
+4
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:13 am)This announcement is proof positive that competition is a good thing.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Voltec-powered MPV5, or whatever it’s called that GM unveiled at the Beijing auto show. It’s functionally similar to an SUV and will be GM’s answer to an electric RAV-4, with the added advantage of no range limitation.
Yes, Toyota, bring that EV RAV over here, so that GM will be persuaded to bring the MPV5 here, too.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:14 am)Honda has always been a company of their convictions (they still don`t offer a V8). That they were arguable the farthest ahead and had perhaps the easiest route to a dedicated EV* and still choose not to pursue it is telling. But it seems forces such as CARB, EV tax credits, etc. are lining up that will force them into this market, aparently against their better judgement.
*The Honda FCX is an FCEV with li-ion batteries and has been in limitted production since 2008. Remove the fuel cell and add a larger battery and they should be good to go.
+7
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:14 am)This is excellent news! So many people swear by the RAV4-EV and some even say they run just as well as when they bought them, no significant degradation of the battery pack.
Now, the RAV4-EV will get a major battery pack upgrade. Very nice! I’m guessing they will have a sale from just about every current RAV4-EV owner. Nice move Toyota.
+9
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:16 am)Led by Joey Racano, Operation Sunburst endeavours to tell the story of EV-PV (plug-in cars and solar rooftop power) whenever oil spills, oil debris, oil-fired cars, or other relevant topics come up. It’s been a great success, so far, raising the level of awareness and pre-answering a lot of the less intelligent critiques of Electric cars (“where do we get the energy”, “do they explode”, etc.).
All Electric car advocates should join this campaign. If EVs are for sale, the money saved NOT buying gas pays for the rooftop solar system to power the EV.
Getting rid of oil eliminates the THREE GORGONS OF POLLUTION:
1. land — refinery, oil drilling, auto, seepage pollution
2. water — urban runoff, oil spills and gusher, refinery decants
3. air — refinery and auto emissions
Not to mention an end to oil diplomacy, oil wars, oil foreign aid, killing peasants in oil countries, health effects of oil pollution, and the retraining of oil and coal workers to produce and install clean electric-based cars and solar power.
It’s a win-win for everyone but Big Oil: and Chevron won’t give up its power and wealth lightly.
We’re now going to THANK Toyota for pre-2003 production of the existing Nickel RAV4-EV, and ENCOURAGE Toyota to continue making plug-in cars. Today’s announcement that Toyota-Tesla will resume production of the RAV-EV in 2012 is very good news, if not unexpected.
1. WEB-BASED SPREADING THE WORD! Wherever you see a story that relates to oil, respond with the 10 talking points.
2. PICKETING CHEVRON and other Big Oil components.
3. INFORMATIONAL PICKETING OF TOYOTA DEALERS, to call attention to the existing RAV-EV and ask for MORE RAV-EV.
END OIL NOW WITH RAV-EV AND SOLAR PV
————————-
Here’s the script, on http://ev1.org/sunburst.htm
feel free to modify:
Plug-in Electric cars (“EV”) and rooftop solar energy (“PV”) is the only sustainable way to power individual autos.
Running an EV 1000 miles per month takes only 250 kilo-Watt-hours (kWh) of electric, about $25 worth; about what two old refrigerators cost and about a third of the average home usage.
It would take only a tenth of the average home roof — 6 square yards — to make 250 kWh per month, enough electric energy to run a plug-in car 1000 miles per month. The unused rooftops of America, over 10,000 square miles, can supply more energy than we need.
Because solar power and plug-in cars would cut oil profits, Big Oil has diverted attention from this proven alternative to oil and coal.
No matter how many nuke or coal plants we build, it won’t replace one drop of oil unless there are plug-in cars to use the electric.
America’s largest open-pit coal mine is a witches cauldron of toxic waste and caustic destruction; but if the ground were left alone, and covered with solar panels, we’d get more electric energy from the same space (28,000 acres) than from burning the coal.
Instead of coal mines and oil rigs, the same workers could be manufacturing and installing solar panels and building Electric plug-in cars and reforming the batteries after 100K miles.
Buying $700,000,000 per day of overseas oil from people who dislike us gives them our money and leaves only air and ground pollution, asthma and smog.
Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) is the only proven Electric car battery; after 100K or 200K miles NiMH can be remelted down into new batteries without new mining.
But other batteries can be made to work, we need to get into production instead of endless research. We need to start making and improving plug-in cars right now, using the batteries we know work well.
Lowering cost and continual product improvement of EVs (Electric Vehicles) and solar panels is the only healing salve for our oil and coal toxicity.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:19 am)Could this be true? Could the Leaf really get to 60 MPH in 6 seconds?
The car’s normally peppy performance (0-60 miles per hour in less than 6 seconds; top speed: 90 miles per hour) becomes rather sluggish, though still tolerable. I suspect most drivers will choose Eco mode most of the time.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/driving-the-nissan-leaf-electric-car-reveals-range-variability/
Keep in mind that those who have driven both the Volt and the Leaf say the Volt gets the nod on the acceleration department. Wouldn’t that be something? I’m thinking it’s a typo though.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:24 am)Before you demand a voltec Equinox you should know that it would need a considerably bigger battery for greater power demand. This is the same reason why there is 0nly one EREV model, probably the converj was scraped/delayed for the same reason, not enough power for a car like that. It is easier to build a powerful BEV because it needs a big battery that can deliver the required power.
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:24 am)Another thought: Given Toyota’s record of excellence in engineering, I’m surprised that it is willing to put up with Tesla’s crazy battery pack. I’ve always considered it to be Tesla’s achilles’ heel. Keep in mind, Tesla roadsters have not been on the road long enough to have a good read on the pack’s longevity. And I am quite certain that Tesla has done nowhere near the amount of testing on its pack that GM has done with the Volt’s.
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:27 am)I may be wrong, but I don’t see a lot of these being manufactured yet.
A pure EV is a niche market for a few people who will want them.
The range is too short and the charge time too long.
I said this a few months back:
“I will gladly race for pinks and race a production Tesla across country in my production Volt.”
A Tesla would look nice in my garage.
+11
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:28 am)Uh-oh. That one is really tempting my wife. But I do have a plan: if I go to Detroit and slip one of the decision makers a $20, maybe he will put the VOLT MPV5 back on the fast track for Americans instead of just the Chinese.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:29 am)Of course ideally EV`s wouldn`t have any limitations, but luckily for a large portion of the population what you have listed aren`t limitations at all and therefore don`t need to be `solved`.
To sweeten the pot a little, EVs don`t have the drawbacks of EREVs: added complexity, added maintenance, added cost.
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:41 am)I have to differ with you on your differing.
I said that EVs were trivial compared to EREVs, and I don’t think you actually wrote anything that contradicted that point. Or do you think that was the largest challenge with the Volt?
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:44 am)You may be confusing “people” with “families”. Most families have more than one car, and they’re usually different. I doubt the range limitation is a big deal for the vast majority of families that live in SF homes. They’d have at least two cars so if the need arises you’d just use a different car.
I know you have a long commute but could your wife use an EV with a 100 mile range?
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:45 am)I agree with you but have this one exception: I don’t believe a “large portion of the population” see these limitations and non-limitations. I think this population is very small, however I admit I am going on pure speculation and can’t prove a thing at this point.
Time and Sales will prove it either way but will do so sometime in the future.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:45 am)#20
True that. +1
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:47 am)#37
Let me know when you’re going and I’ll send you another $20 to give them from me.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:48 am)I asked her that question with the 40 MPC number.
She said no to 40 but I do believe 100 MPC would be enough.
She is a stay-at-home mom, and usually just drives to the next town over from us a couple of times a week.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:48 am)The stress on a battery pack in a BEV is considerably less than the stress on a pack in a PHEV like the Volt. Many more discharge cycles on the PHEV, and the greater number of cells in the BEV means that for a given distance the depth of discharge in each cell is less.
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:51 am)I don’t know about you all, but I’m feeling optimistic and a little giddy about the recent news: turning the corner on the BP spill, groundbreaking on the battery plant in Michigan and now the revival of the RAV4-EV. I feel some Mojo building, the effects of which will be seen in a huge way more and more over the next 12-18 months
Jul 16th, 2010 (11:57 am)Not yet, because it’s early, of course. The Leaf is one, as Nissan was arguably behind the Volt at one point. Now there’s the RAV4-EV. The list goes on. Every major manufacturer will want to have some skin in the game. Fastest way there is pure electric in an existing product. They can simultaneously be working on the more complex solutions, like hybrid electric.
Being a business guy, to me one of the most interesting angles here is managements’ choices, given the limited budgets and time available. Times of big change, like now, often produce a reshuffling of the competitive deck.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:01 pm)We know (as per GM) that near 80% of the population can get by on 40 miles of range per day. Therefore an EV with 100 miles of range will satisfy more than 80% of daily commuter’s needs.
So that leaves the “occasional long highway trip” where an EV would be insufficient. But according to the US Dept of Transport there were 1.9 vehicles per household in the US in 2001:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hiq/bar2.htm
Therefore I suspect that the portion of the population that have a second vehicle that could be used for these longer trips is very high.
As such there is a very large portion of the population for which the EV limitations you listed are not limitations.
Now if all else were equal I could see people buying the EREV over the EV just because it COULD be the single vehicle even though it doesn’t NEED to be the single vehicle. However all else is not equal as the EREV has some very serious competitive disadvantages that I think will make the EV more attractive. Namely, the EV will be a true zero emissions vehicle, it will have longer EV range, it will be less expensive to purchase, it will require less maintenance/repair, and therefore it will be less expensive to operate.
Given these EREV disadvantages and the general lack of need for the extra features of EREV (as per the stats above), it seems clear to me that the EV will appeal to a much wider portion of the population than the EREV. That isn’t to say that there won’t be some that will need/prefer the EREV, however the traditional wisdom that the EREV has wider appeal seems incorrect.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:02 pm)This is what I’m referring to and I think this is the market that BMW is aiming for with the MegaCity. I didn’t think my wife would be able to live with a 100 mile range but after tracking her miles for a few weeks she concluded it wouldn’t be a problem at all. The only possible issue — and she didn’t think it would come up — might be if she had to visit customer(s) located some distance from her office, but she said she’d just have one of the salespeople drive her. The big attraction for her is that an EREV or BEV would allow her to use the HOV on-ramps. (Her commute is short but the wait at the ramp, not the freeway, is long). I’m thinking that I won’t get to drive the Volt for very long. Ba ha ha ha ha!
One interesting aspect of the range pointed out by the Mini-E study is that most people who drive ICE vehicles don’t have a firm idea of how far things are or how many miles they actually drive — when you’re driving an ICE vehicle this is just not that important to know. It turns out that people overestimate the number of miles they need to drive. In the Mini-E study people thought range would be a much bigger issue than it turned out to be in practice.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:14 pm)In the auto biz, there’s often a huge difference between want and need. The vast majority of people who own a big 4WD vehicle, rarely, if ever, really need one, but they want one. And who really needs a V-8? Or expensive wheels? Or a 150-mph top-end? Or even a car at all, for that matter, for a lot of people.
What I’m getting at is that many people will want the range extender whether they need it or not. The want is very consistent w/ past purchasing behavior.
-5
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:26 pm)I live in a family with 3 cars and 3 drivers. It would be very inconvenient to keep switching cars all the time and it simply won’t happen with most families. Life comes at you fast and you need to be ready. A car that spends at least 1/3 of each day sitting still and refueling that can only provide you with about 2 hours or less of highway driving time is not going to cut it. We are not going to play the game, who looses their freedom today with the BEV.
I know, I know. It is fine for most people most of the time. That does not matter. A scooter is good enough for most people much of the time. But people like to drive what they might need not what they usually need.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:27 pm)COMPETITION IS GROWING …. and the race is ON.
The major players-
NEW Electric RAV4 …….. Will it become extended range sometime???
Ford Escape Hybrid
Prius
Leaf
Mini
BMW Megacity
Host of others
OH! and the VOLT “Already a range extender Electric.”
As some noted there is more validity in the electric car world.
Looks like battery companies will do well.
IMO Chevy VOLT will be the standard to beat.
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:27 pm)Exactly! You beat me to it Timaaayyy
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:28 pm)As a coincidence,
I followed a Rav4 EV up route 29 to ellicott city yesterday. It had the EV markings all over it.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:32 pm)I believe you are correct that most people that have a V8 or 4WD or expensive wheels don’t really need them. But I think the more important point is that the VAST majority of people DON’T have those items.
I am sure you are correct that some will take the range extended even though they don’t need it. But the larger majority won’t get it at all because there is (in the majority of cases) an unjustifiable cost associated with it (just as with a V8).
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:41 pm)For those of us in loser-land as far as the Volt, this news from Toyota is great news.
I love it.
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:41 pm)You have some good points. Cars need to be ready when someone needs to make a trip. A basic electric can be on a charge with planning but the ERBEV Volt is the better option.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:45 pm)Your family must be crazy, what with the three of you getting up all hours of the night to simultaneously drive to different far-off locations.
I understand what you are saying, but I think you are being a bit selective in how you measure your loss of freedom. If your ‘freedom’ cannot tolerate the loss of a couple of minutes every other week to plan ahead, I would suggest that you might not want to put in the hundreds or thousands of hours of work that it will take to pay for the price premium of the Volt over an efficient ICE.
+6
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:54 pm)No doubt having a virtually unlimited range is a factor. But it’s only one of several factors. BEVs have other advantages over an EREV from a consumer standpoint. One big advantage is space — all the unusable space taken up by the engine and so forth can be transformed into useful interior space. Another advantage is performance — the mass from the ICE and its accompanying parts will make the car less peppy. And of course there is the big factor — cost. A BEV is far simpler and has less components so it may cost less to manufacture and less to maintain.
At some point we’ll see how this plays out with the Leaf and the Volt and we’ll know. My instinct is that the Volt has to stay within $5000 of the Leaf.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:58 pm)I see a significant percentage of people driving vehicles in the gap between need and want. IMO 50%? PLENTY of room for the Volt to fit into that gap. Especially at the low volumes GM has mentioned.
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (12:59 pm)Where I am families have between 2-5 vehicles and they switch all the time. It doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal, which isn’t to say it wouldn’t be for some. It’s just not what I see.
-3
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:00 pm)Only Ford (Escape hybrid, and coming Focus EV) and Volt on your list are American-based concerns. Sorry, I can’t include Tesyota until I hear more about parts sourcing, intellectual property ownership and who gets the Lion’s share of the sales revenue.
I have to think that the majority of BEVs coming from outside the US reflect the driving philosophies of smaller countries; a pure BEV’s role here is necessarily more limited: we drive more, and farther. Less expensive gas than in Europe and Asia won’t help BEV sales, either.
I would like to see an American startup succeed, but don’t honestly expect to.
Sorry, just ramblings; your list does reflect a positive direction in vehicle electrification.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:00 pm)Thread-jack: Hey Rashiid, got a post for you in the other thread about Gorham in case you didn’t see.
join thE REVolution
-1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:01 pm)GM did manufacture several Equinox with fuel cell generators and electric drive. Changing the fuel cell to use ethanol would give us three benefits:
1. Another EREV like the Volt
2. An SUV that can outperform the RAV
3. A new EREV that can use home brewed ethanol (moonshine?)
Since we can produce our own electricity (wind and solar power), we can also brew our own fuel.
Now that I though of using ethanol, has anyone asked if the Volt genset can run E-85?
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:02 pm)Nuclear… Just for the heck of it, it might be an interesting exercise for your family to keep track of mileage for each trip for, say, a month. I’d be willing to bet there would never be a case where all three people drive more than the “BEV” range in a given day.
The Volt is still a great solution to any anxiety though, due to either real or perceived range limitations.
join thE REVolution
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:03 pm)Toyota engages Tesla’s engineering. For a wholly redesigned RAV-EV which is a major product! Tesla (TSLA) rejuvenates to $20+.
Conspicuously neither company mentions where RAV-EV is to be built. Its hard to believe but Toyota may not build RAV -EV at NUMMI – that’s the jackpot question. So far not one job has been created by this combo sitting on just enormous DOE grants and zero-base loans.
Finally the gusher’s stopped. BP said it would see that whatever oil is collected from this well would be donated 100% to victims. At $70/bbl, it’ll take 100’s of millions bbls. Maybe we do want to see this well produce – of course if and only if its fully secured.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:08 pm)No surprise, there; it was CA-only. A few have trickled out of CA after the leases expired and they were sold used. It might even be relatively unsuitable for cold weather.
Still, the vehicle did generate a lot of interest and loyalty. If you hunt around for the Rav4-EV owner’s gallery page, it looks like about half of the owners picture “fuel” their Rav4-EVs with sunshine.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:08 pm)Just means I’m less busy than you today!
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:09 pm)Generation 1 – NO
Generation 2 – Yes (as we have been told) But we were originally told Gen 1 would have it a while back, then they backed out on that statement.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:13 pm)I didn’t see it. Thanks for the heads-up.
I responded to you in that thread.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:14 pm)They have the Equinox and a warehouse full of yet to be deployed Volt test packs. Heck that’s more than Toyota and Tesla had a few months ago, in two separate and completely different thinking companies.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:16 pm)Well that’s a clever move. BP had to know that there would be more PR fallout from the well than would ever be offset by production. It may also forestall a government seizure of the industry; or BP’s Gulf assets, specifically.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:18 pm)Not one job? That’s the hugest news ever!!!! How did I, miss that? The dang things just built themselves. Well maybe not news that big, they’re only prototypes – for now.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:20 pm)There can’t be much in the way of unit volume coming from this… Tesla’s a boutique manufacturer with no mass production capability.
For either Toyota or GM, doing a purpose-built EV would produce a better car. However, Toyota can probably skate by with an acceptable vehicle because they’re starting with a car that has a lower curb weight than the GM competition. The Rav4 is noticeably lighter than the GM compeititon. Weight was one of the problems that affected the Saturn Vue PHEV and probably contributed to its eventual demise. Batteries are heavy… choosing a platform with low curb weight and high GVW allows you to stuff in more batteries before you run into problems with vehicle capacity.
-1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:24 pm)Agreed to a degree. Even when gas was approaching $4/gal, I still drove ‘my’ truck vs driving my ‘wife’s’ car that got double the mileage. You always forget stuff, like sunglasses, when switching cars all the time. Plus, changing settings like mirrors, steering wheel, pedal distance, seating is a royal pain on anything but the most expensive luxury vehicles with automated multiple-driver settings. It’s like switching which chair you sit in in the living room.
That said. I believe that there will come a time when people will specialize more in their car choices. And have multiple specialty cars in their stable. Kind of like shoes. We already have 3 cars and 2 drivers. I have no problem buying a specialty commuter car and leaving the 16mpg vehicle for weekends. I realize this is the exact opposite of the swiss-army-knife Volt approach.
I think that Sherry Boschert was probably correct. GM will have a pure BEV very soon after initial launch of the Volt EREV. They will need an answer to Nissan, Ford, and now Toyota.
Ed Begley Jr. has both a Prius and a Rav4EV.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:30 pm)-the EV will be a true zero emissions vehicle
So what? As an argument for making it more popular, that doesn’t wash. No one, meaning the general population, cares. They want, first of all, to know what it does for them. Volt will provide a goodly green image, AND it won’t strand them on a dark roadside.
-it will be less expensive to purchase (EV)
Yes, some. But you’re getting a lot less car, ie, one that will strand you in a dark roadside if you aren’t really careful.
-it will require less maintenance/repair, and therefore it will be less expensive to operate
Again, some. People are used to the maintenance on their car, currently. I don’t see it being a large issue for Volt.
The large range liability of the EV pretty much guarantees it to be “niche” for some time to come. If the Volt ends up even more “niche”, that’s pretty “niche.”
-1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:37 pm)Yup. Let me sum it up for you:
The range is too short and the charge time too long.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:37 pm)ClarksonCote,
I fully agree. this would be rare.
I am just pointing out that many are not going to deal with this. We have work parking stickers on our cars, I have my gym sticker in the (i.e. my cars) window, we have personal items in the car, I have XM, my daughter has her crazy stereo, I keep my one phone in my car connected to bluetooth, I keep my work materials in my car, etc. etc.
Call me a lazy SOB, but, I am not playing musical cars with my wife and daughter and I think many others will feel the same way.
This goes to the statistic of multi-car families. They may have multi-cars but in reality they have one car per driver or less than that.
It all goes to what is important and how much you want to sacrifice. I am suggesting that many will not put zero oil usage above other more practical concerns.
The Volt solves this range problem which is why it is such a great car. I only hope that they can lower the cost and increase production levels sooner than later.
I also applaud those who will go with the BEV. I am just trying to be real and throw out some thoughts when generalizations are made about what “people” the general population will do.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:42 pm)Loboc,
A BEV sounds good for you.
If I had an Extra car around, a BEV would be great for me too. I have been toying with the idea of a scooter as the extra car as I cannot justify the extra car right now. I would look a little goofy at my size and age on a scooter, however, and my wife reminds me that I am nuts.
I think many multi-car homes actually don’t mean “extra” cars as they are actually multi-driver homes.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:46 pm)Time just did a story on the Volt and said the car will be $32,500 after the $7,500 rebate. I wonder if they know for sure it will be 40K before or just guessing:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2003892_2003887_2003899,00.html
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:46 pm)Yep, that’s exactly that I think. The bad side to that, is if there is *still* an issue with the battery – even pampered ones – then simple air cooled packs are really going to struggle. As always, JMO. We’ll know for sure pretty soon!
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:48 pm)This is a good observation and points out that GM has many EV designs in the mill to bring to market and disputes what many are now saying about GM, especially GXT who acts like he never heard of the EV1. Toyota dropped the RAV-4 electric for the Prius. It now sees that the Prius will not compete with the EREV and BEV coming to market. Toyota is doing the same very thing that GM and Nissan have done; capitalized on its past EV experience.
Back in 1980’s, with the prospect of China becoming a huge competitive manufacturer of goods and products in all areas, U.S. companies have considered joint ventures with Japanese companies. A study predicts that the U.S. and Japan combined will be among the top five countries behind China as manufacturing leaders in the coming decades. The population of Japan and U.S.A. are small, even when combined, when compared to China. Tesla is being smart by joining Toyota. Their combined engineering expertize will allow them is survived the pending surge in the electric vehicle market. China, no matter what happens, will be in the mix; it can not fail with its huge population and its balance of payment advantage over the United States. Once American citizens recognize this fact and realize that they need to support “American Made” produce, the outlook for the U.S. economy will turn brighter. If not we are doomed to become a third rate nation. The GM Volt is one example of the United States of America’s ability to create quality products but must be supported by its people.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:48 pm)It’s more of an Americanized-Japanese, in that they do more hibachi-style dinner plates and what not. It’s kind of “the” restaurant in Gorham though in terms of how long it’s been there, and being a favorite of the locals. Give it a try sometime. I recommend the Kushi Katu (with “bulldog” vegetable tonkatsu sauce) with Greenpepper Spare Ribs and Chicken Fried Rice.
join thE REVolution
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:49 pm)If that turns out to be true, they will NEVER fill their orders. Well, maybe someday (lol) but it’ll be years.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:51 pm)I read somewhere that part of the problem is that the well is not secure. It has problems with it’s pipe placement and the cement holding it together is improperly formed/placed. This is why they can’t just clamp it off. It might (likely) blow a hole in the ocean floor that can’t be fixed ever.
Jul 16th, 2010 (1:53 pm)And a bazillion bikes (g).
I agree about the Bossert theory though. With all the support systems for the battery largely i place GM will be ahead there too (I hope)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:04 pm)WAHOOO!
BEST EV NEWS for today! If Toyota can build this RAV EV with Tesla battery tech @ 150-200 mile range, they’re going to sell big time. Oh, 2012 is going to be a EV wonderful year!
GO EV!!!
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:07 pm)This is going to give GM to have a run for money. Toyota PR seems very innovative ( even in making nice stories ).
I know this EV is not going to be affordable for almost all but it will give a good green image and American sentiment for Toyota. But for sure this will help in maturing the electronic components and software a lot.
Once this is on road Toyota will have – prius, plug-in prius and EV which will again position them as leaders of green technology.
GM again seems going in multiple directions :
BAS, BAS+, 2 Mode, 4 mode , Voltec and then they will start on EV development as next step.
and on products only 2 mode is in production ( which sells in low numbers , Voltec is in development ).
I think GM has to have more focus on bringing technologies to products.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:10 pm)More competition is usually a good thing for customers, however I hope GM doesn’t loose too much market share with their projected production numbers inicially planned. P. S. However, long term winners don’t have to be the first out of the gate or in the greatest number. Exciting times!
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:12 pm)This is why the well is not closed off permanently — just yet. They are currently testing to be sure that there is no such danger in closing it off. (It’s probably too soon to uncross your fingers). Future production will not be accessed from that point, either; but from two (properly drilled) “relief” wells (which should also lower the pressure of the underlying oil-reservoir).
Hmm. I hope that the BP offer to donate the oil proceeds to victims includes those wells, or it is a pretty meaningless gesture.
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:17 pm)That $40K figure has been etched in stone at most media outlets for over 2 years, regardless of any GM announcement. Yeah, they’re guessing, and authoritatively so. A lot of those guys are going to get caught flat-footed.
“Time Lies … and you are there!”
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:27 pm)I don’t know where you live, but if it isn’t on the West Coast, you’ll probably have a shot at a Volt long before a Tesyota Rav becomes available in your area.
How long ago was the Toyo-Tesla effort announced? I don’t recall exactly myself, but it doesn’t seem like much time; barely enough to throw together a couple of prototypes? What kind of testing (other than the batteries in the Roadsters) has been done? Do these prototypes reflect the production-intent version, or is there more work yet to be done?
Depending on expected volumes, it will take some time to put any manufacturing operation together. Real large-scale mass production takes more time than if numbers will be similar to the original Rav4-EV. If they’re talking small-scale modification numbers, you may never see one outside of California.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:44 pm)You can always get an electric car if you are looking for low volume production. They have been around for years. There are EV clubs out there where people are converting all kinds of cars to electric.
Here is a $5K electric car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbDo4ugXm8g&feature=related
This guys car, posted here before, is pretty cool. See Video of racing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAYrsEOxqYc&feature=player_embedded#!
Jul 16th, 2010 (2:59 pm)The $40000 price tag seems about right for the first year, new technology, prevent gouging and $15000 over variable costs.
But for the second year? Could explain why GM expects only to sell 30000.
See entertaining video from Robert Llewellin discussing price politics:
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/31869805
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:05 pm)Where does it say the new Rav4 EV will have a 150-200 mile range? If it does it must be pretty expensive due to the size of the battery.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:18 pm)It’s probably closer to a 150 mile pack. That’s the base pack scheduled for the Model ‘S’. Either way, it’s more than a 100 mile pack.
Besides, the article on ABG states current Rav-4 drivers get over 100 anyway with the old pack. I think “Tom H” here sez he gets well over the 100 mile range in his Mini and states many other Mine-E drivers get well over 100, 148 I think he sez????
Tom H, can you confirm?
Lyle is prolly just a lead foot.
/man, miss posting here, too much work on my hands……sheeeesh.
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:18 pm)Yes and so should EREV’s in the long run. From the ground up, starting with the platform.
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:21 pm)I wonder if they will do anything to improve the Aerodynamics of the Rav-4?….lol
IMHO, it don’t look too aero if ya ask me.
The more EV the merrier!
I think 2012 is kind of late in the game though.
but that’s jus me.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:29 pm)The money from the sale of the collected oil is being donated to a gulf coast environmental organization. None of this money is being used to offset any damage claims against BP. Those costs are comming directly from BP and the new $20Bln damages fund.
I don’t remember the name of the organization and I couldn’t find it in a quick net search. The collected oil won’t get $70 a barrel. It is mixed with some sea water so it will sell for a bit less. BP has to pay a fine of several thousand dollars per every single barrel of oil spilled into the gulf. That money goes into the government’s general fund and it is also not used for cleanup or damages. If BP makes good on its cleanup and damages payments, the government could make money on the whole thing.
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:39 pm)Does anyone know if the Volt is going to have a 12VDC battery, or if they’re just going to have a DC-DC converter for all their electronics?
I can’t remember; the latter seems the most logical, but to-date most EV automakers seem to keep a lead acid battery installed (as I recall).
join thE REVolution
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:39 pm)Still waiting for another EREV to compete with the Volt.
Early adopters will embrace pure-BEVs, but the mainstream public won’t.
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:47 pm)We should make money on it. We should be making gobs of money on all the licensing, leases, inspection fees and per-barrel taxation.
They are drilling in US waters and therefore tapping US-owned resources.
I have no idea why we let a foreign oil company on this property in the first place. This has got to be a huge security risk. Only 40 miles from US soil. Sheesh.
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:49 pm)According to GM’s own blog, yes, there is a 12v battery and 12v systems. The 12v is charged using an inverter from the Li-ion traction pack. I have no idea if it’s lead-acid or not.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:54 pm)From the article…
“The new electric RAV4 small SUV already exits in prototype form powered by Tesla’s Panasonic battery pack and drivetrain.”
Maaaan, that’s gonna be one quick azz little SUV.
You think they’ll tune it down for range or keep performance?
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (3:59 pm)From ABG article just in case anyone questioned the batt pack (Air/liquid cooled)…
“The new RAV4s will use Tesla’s liquid cooled lithium ion battery configuration that contains thousands of commodity laptop cells.”
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/16/breaking-tesla-and-toyota-to-develop-rav4-ev-hope-to-launch-in/
/still don’t like the gajillion cells stuff………
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:13 pm)Thanks Loboc. I wonder if they’re concerned with a DC-DC converter failure preventing the electronics from working? Seems less likely than an inverter failure though.
join thE REVolution
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:22 pm)What’s wrong with complexity? Most successful products are complex.
And contrary to popular opinion, complexity usually doesn’t have a big impact on cost or reliability. Both of these things are driven by production volume. High volume products are generally cheaper and more reliable, regardless of their complexity.
In addition, with current battery costs, an EREV-40 will cost less to build than an equivelent BEV-100. For example, if Nissan came out with an EREV-40 Leaf, it would cost less than the current BEV-100 Leaf. And if GM came out with a BEV-100 Volt, it would cost more than the current EREV-40 Volt, all things being equal (e.g. same battery cooling system, same battery margins, same trim options, same power elecrtic motor, etc.).
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:22 pm)I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand it’s great to see something like this come together. On the other hand, I have grave misgivings about Tesla’s battery pack. It is onerously expensive with a short battery life that is limited by wall clock time, not by use. And that wall clock time is very short as the internal nodes basically start corroding as soon as the cell is manufactured. You have about 3 years until the operation is seriously degraded, perhaps 5 at tops. And with the replacement in the roadster costing over $20k, it’s not a cheap part to replace.
Compare that to the Nimh packs in the original RAV4-EV which are still running great and I’m not sure Telsa’s been headed in the right direction.
I hope Toyota switches cell chemistry to something more like what the Volt uses or what some of the other cell makers (like A123) provide.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:22 pm)Every announcement of a car made in the USA, powered by US power is a win. I’m glad Elon Musk is going to make it after all. He is in every sense, the spiritual father of the Chevy Volt. Had he not tried, the Volt would not be in production today.
God Bless America. May our great country stop funding terrorism through an oil addiction.
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:28 pm)http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/18/there-will-be-no-customer-access-to-high-voltage-on-the-chevy-volt-but-it-can-jump-start-another-car/
“For Volt the answer is a bit more conventional. Yes, we have a 12v battery. It is not a typical automotive “flooded” lead, but a sealed “acid starved” type…. and it is capable of providing enough power to jump start another vehicle.”
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:28 pm)Personally I would prefer an Equinox with the Voltec power train or a plug-in with at least 20 mile electric range. There is no doubt that there is a huge market for crossovers with 20 plus miles of electric range!!!!
Unfortunately, if GM doesn’t get a product like this in production in 2012, it looks like I will be buying a Toyota/Tesla or a Ford Escape plug in.
+3
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:34 pm)That remains to be seen.
I live in an older neighborhood with many retired people (like half the population). They all have cars that need a lot of maintenance from just sitting. They are getting shot and robbed going to gas stations. They have enough wealth to buy a new car every 3 years. They might be old, but, new-car-smell works on everybody.
I am thinking that a nice, safe filling station in their own garage would be a very important selling point. Not to mention, close to zero maintenance.
This is the perfect community for 50% market penetration by fully electric vehicles. If an entrepreneur went through here and leased cars to them (I’ll take care of everything for ya. All ya gotta do is plug it in when you’re not using it.) they’d have a very lucrative business. While they’re at it, they can lease some solar panels. These people have big houses on huge lots.
This is also where I think people are missing the point of V2G. Retirees drive their cars maybe a half hour a day, if that much. The rest of the time (23-1/2 hours) it’s just sitting there plugged in. Let them make money on electricity. Buy during off-peak and sell on-peak.
My wife is one of them. I gotta drive her car every couple weeks just to keep everything working properly. I put in some gas, get it washed and change the oil every 6 months. Other than that, it sits in the garage 99% of the time. The tires dry-rot before they wear out.
She needs a BEV-100 with a higher seat position (she can’t get in and out of a low-to-the-ground vehicle). It doesn’t have to go over 60mph. But, it’s gotta accelerate quick enough to merge. She thinks LEAF is ugly, Volt is too complex and both are too little.
Sell me a luxury BEV-100 (like the size of an Impala) and I won’t have to buy another car for her ever. Maybe an all-electric Converj CUV would do the trick.
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:41 pm)I agree. But to stay on topic, here’s a photo of the current RAV4, which I would venture a new RAV4-EV would look a bit more like than the original funky (but cute) RAV4-EV pictured at the top of this thread.
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:45 pm)I believe 12 volts powers the headlights, radio, windows, seats, instruments, steering, water pumps, etc. To do all that without a 12v battery would require some huge caps in a DC-DC converter. A small lead-acid battery is probably cheaper and more stable than big caps.
In other words, the 360 VDC to 12 VDC converter probably has a ton of ripple on it’s output, and a 12v battery may smooth that out better than huge caps, but I’m guessing here.
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:49 pm)Really?
So, if I could make a BEV more complex, then it will be more reliable….hmmmm.
The complexity needs to improve the machine it is added to, otherwise it is in no way more reliable.
Adding a ICE, radiator, hoses, muffler, catalytic converter, fuel manangement system, generator, linkages, complex software algorithms, and all the other baggage that an ICE brings to the party, is somehow making your car more reliable. Come on, even you cannot say that with a straight face.
Now, the argument of range and other common complaints are not part of this discussion. We are talking PURE reliability.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:50 pm)In the Roadster the liquid is cooled by an air/liquid heat exchanger.
Jul 16th, 2010 (4:57 pm)So how do they charge this 12 V battery? In a traditional ICE you always have the motor spinning, so the altenator will charge the battery. But, with a EREV/BEV, you may be sitting still in traffic for a long time, and now at night time, you could drain your battery.
My guess is that the BEV/EREV uses a small inverter, that will keep the battery charged, but would not be sufficient to provide cranking amps. Also for the Volt, maybe if the 12V is losing capacity, the ICE kicks in and they use a more traditional alternator to charge it. The alternator could be linked to the drive, so that when the vehicle is moving it is charging, so you would not be draining your battery in normal moving mode.
Hmmm…I never considered this before. Anyone got a better answer? I am probably missing something obvious, but it avoids me at the moment.
+7
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:09 pm)Not for long. Battery and charging tech are improving very rapidly. The idea of a 300 – 400 mile battery is not that far off, and neither is the charging capability to support it.
The Tesla Roadster has a 53 kWh pack that will give about 240 miles at a steady 55 mph. To do 350 miles at 55 mph, it would need about a 75 kWh pack. That’s already possible with Panasonic’s new 3.1 Ah cells that Tesla already has in their hands. Those are the same cell format that the Roadster already uses. Same pack, same weight, just upgrade the cells for more range. Production is already starting soon on those little darlings. That’s not even getting into some of the more advanced, but completely viable, battery tech already coming down the pipe.
The level III chargers being installed right now for the Leaf and iMiEV are spitting out 60 kWh (480 V / 125 A). There is already at least one company developing safe 240 kWh charging (480 V/500 A) to be rolled out in the near future. The technology is here. Tesla already installs 16.8 kWh (240 V/70 A) Level II chargers in people’s homes. The J-1772 will already support that level of charging as well. Nothing completely new here.
A Roadster plugged into a 240 kWh charger would go from flat to 80% in about 10 mins. As a comparison, it takes about 5 mins of pumping to fill a full size SUV from empty. A Roadster upgraded with the new cells would take 15 mins to 80%, giving 280 miles at 55 mph. You could do 75 mph with the A/C or heater on full blast and still get about 160 miles. Stopping every 1.5 – 2 hours for 10 – 15 mins to charge is no great hardship. It’s not quite on the same level as a gasoline vehicle yet, but would certainly support a road trip wherever you wanted to go with minimal fuss. Home charging at 16.8 kWh would be about 5 hours. That’s very comfortable for overnight / off-peak charging. Most of your charging still happens at home, and for the odd road trip you simply stop now and then to grab a quick charge and a snack/restroom break.
It’s not that far off to imagine just another incremental step in energy density to a 100 kWh battery that would give 480 miles at 55 mph capacity, that charges to 80% in 20 mins. After damn near 7 hours on the road I would be crying for at least a 20 min stop anyway. With a pack like that you’d get about 275 miles out of a Roadster at 75 mph with the A/C on full blast. I could stand a 20 min stop every 3- 3.5 hours. At that point, how much more do you need? Ok, if you’re a hard core obsessive interstate stormer with a total disregard for speeding tickets and and bladder of steel it might not work for you, but for the other 99.9% of the population it’s easily viable. Sure, Mr. Psycho Driving Machine would still beat me cross country in a Volt, but not by much, and it could all the sudden be a very tight race from home to the cottage or Grama’s house, which is all most people care about anyway. Oh, and I wouldn’t use a single drop of gas.
The biggest challenge at this point is getting the battery costs down and building out a sufficient charging infrastructure. Battery costs are falling, and will continue come down with time and volume, that’s a given at this point. We aren’t talking about theoretical pie in the sky batteries. We don’t need super amazing Li-air batteries just to get EVs to be viable competition to petroleum. We just need to crank out what we have to get them to be cheap. Even though the Tesla is pricey, it’s real, it works, and it’s sold at a profit at a reasonable enough price point from which one could expect prices to fall into the affordable range over a few years. Lots of expensive technology that starts in 100k cars ends up in family mid size and compact cars within a few years. It’s a normal progression, and if Tesla can produce a car with the Roadster’s performance at that price, you can be sure that the big manufacturers can do it too. All Tesla proved is that enough people who could afford to buy what current technology had to offer would actually do so.
The infrastructure is not that big a deal either. Electricity is already everywhere, the basic infrastructure is already there. The charging points are relatively cheap to install, it’s the building of power plants and stringing of wire all across the flippin’ country that’s expensive. That’s all in place, has been for decades, and although upgrades will be required over time, it’s not necessary to upgrade everything all at once to support EVs. EVs will take time to penetrate the market, and the infrastructure will have lots of time to adapt. Currently available technology to buffer electricity use and take advantage of what is now off-peak production capacity, as well as distributed small scale power generation, can defer the need for any major investment in new power plants out even farther in the future. The main thing right now is just getting enough fast chargers along major corridors to get people mobile. That’s easily doable with the current grid. The technology exists now to make it work, it’s just a matter of time and a collective will to see it happen.
It’s not a today solution, and I’m still a big proponent (and hopeful purchaser) of the Volt for the near term, but EVs are becoming very, very viable very, very quickly.
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:23 pm)The advantage of Tesla’s design is energy density. The cells they use have higher energy density than other chemistries, which leads to a higher range. The size of the pack compensates for the tradeoff in power density, so it can still crank out sufficient juice for 4 sec. 0-60 runs. With proper design, the fact that there are thousands of cells is an advantage, in that if one cell fails it’s not as big a deal to the pack as a whole. That, and commodity cells are cheaper because they are already produced in volume, so you get more battery bang for your buck.
With proper thermal control and cell isolation, thermal runaway isn’t an issue.
Interesting that Tesla uses commodity cells by Panasonic, and that Toyota has been working with Panasonic on larger format cells…
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:32 pm)In this case you’re mistaken. A rigorous FMECA (Failure Mode Effects & Criticality Analysis) would prove the higher parts count in the Volt makes it more reliable than a Leaf.
The reason? Redundancy.
A typical NASA (or commercial) spacecraft contains nearly TWICE the number of individual parts needed to make it perform its mission because almost all subsystems are redundant, but the “doubly-complex” spacecraft is VASTLY more reliable than a single-string version without redundancy.
I discussed this in detail with Andrew Farah at VoltNation 2 1/2 yrs ago in NYC. The Volt architecture, carefully implemented to avoid credible single-point failures (as I believe Farah’s design team has done), will assure the car is SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable than either a conventional gasoline car OR a BEV like the RAV4-EV or Leaf.
Illustrative Examples:
1) An open-circuit in the main wiring harness from the battery to the motor controller, OR a fully discharged battery, both prevent the battery from supplying adequate power to propel the car*
2) A failed water pump, OR a broken fan belt, both cause the ICE to overheat and shut down, which prevents the generator from maintaining the battery AND from supplying power to propel the car**
*In this event the Volt’s ICE/generator provides the power required —so the Volt is NOT stranded
**In this case the battery supplies the power needed to stop safely —so the Volt is not stranded
(Obviously, in case #1 a conventional gas-powered car would have to be towed, as would a BEV in case #2)
IOW, added complexity can be employed, as in the Volt’s design, to greatly INCREASE operational reliability.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:36 pm)Correction:
In my post above, the chargers should be listed in kW, not kWh. That would be 16.8 Kw for the 240/70 Tesla home charger, 60 kW for the 480/125 Leaf and iMiEV Level III charger, and 240 kW for the awesome 480/500 Level III Fast Charger.
Duh.
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:45 pm)Also, my statement, “(Obviously, in case #1 a conventional gas-powered car would have to be towed, as would a BEV in case #2) is correct if you reverse case #2 and #1. Sorry.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:51 pm)I understand the advantages but maaaannn…..dems a heap a contact points in that there pack. I am assuming each cell is spot welded like many other packs like the Dewalt cells in the drills.
Yeah, I cracked one open jus for a look see.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:53 pm)If true — just saying “if” because you don’t how they’ve implemented the system — then hopefully the marketing folks will pick up on it. Though new technology which generally appeals to men, the actual qualities of an EV drive should be appealing to women. I’ve said the key words are “Clean, Quiet, Smooth, and …. Safe”. The safe part comes from your point that the Volt has a redundant propulsion system.
The video ad seen earlier this week picks up on the quiet. Good start. Let’s see what they can do with the other parts. With respect to safety, I’d be interested in how Loboc’s wife responded to the pitch that the Volt would be “safer” for her than any ICE vehicle or EV. You know, one of those commercials that shows the forlorn woman waiting by the side of the road on a dark and stormy night before switching to an alternative universe where she drives on because while X propulsion system broke down she has a backup!
Jul 16th, 2010 (5:55 pm)You didn’t crack open a Tesla pack? What’s up?
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:02 pm)Aint no Tesla in the trailer park man, just scooped up a Dewalt drill at a garage sale. Looked brand new to with 2 batt packs……well, one now. Gotta epoxy the other one back together.
/curiosity killed the batt pack.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:05 pm)Sorry Nasaman, I am still not buying it. We are talking cars, not spaceships. Also, we are discussing PURE reliability of the components of the car, not the issue of redundancy.
When something fails, you need to fix it. I want a car that is not in the shop, and is in my driveway. Needing to take my car in to have the ICE maintained/repaired, means that I am w/o a vehicle AND I am paying bucks to the repair guy. I am not taking my car to the moon, and while I never want to get stranded, the risk of a car breaking down and the risk of a spaceship breaking down are on two different levels. I would not want to buy a car built by NASA, even if they could guarantee me that I would never be left stranded. Now, if I am flying to Mars, then yes, NASA would be on my top list of building my transport.
REDUNDANCY DISCUSSION:
I also recall GM saying that if the battery failed, the car would not operate, regardless that it has an ICE. If the motors or power wiring fail, both the Volt and BEV are stranded.
In reality the fact that you are relying on the two different power sources, can actually make your reliability decrease for several scenarios.
One would be if the battery dies, the both the Volt and BEV car is stranded (Based on GM’s prior discussion that the car will not operate w/o the battery).
The other is if the ICE dies, the car is stranded, or at least has only a very small window of power yet available to get you home. (You said stop safely, and not stranded, which is really not true). Since obviously you would be in CS if the ICE was running, your battery is depleted to the 30% range, and I believe GM is not going to let the battery run much lower, and risk damage.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:07 pm)If it drives and rides like you say it does then the dealers won’t have too many problems. It also depends on what comes with the base price car. A Mini starts in the low twenties but when you start actually adding the options you want it goes over 30,000 in a hurry.
But I’m thinking the base needs to be about $37,500 or so.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:09 pm)Considering that, back in 1998, GM had a prototype for a 4 seat EV, with a range extender, based on the EV-1, it wouldn’t be a stretch at all to call the Volt the EV-2, the EREV-1, EV-1er (extended range), EV-1sh (series hybrid), or even just the plain ol’ EV-1 (Mk II of course). Not that it’s gonna happen, obviously. With the exception of the Corvette, GM seems to have a habit of obsessively tossing away any model recognition, model related PR, or goodwill it accumulates. There are no models in the GM lineup with the level of well earned, instant, and consistent regognition that is enjoyed by the likes of the “Corollas”, “Camrys”, “Civics”, “Accords”, “Jettas”, “Altimas”, “Maximas”, and others out there. Too bad.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:12 pm)#111 Dale said:
Unfortunately, if GM doesn’t get a product like this in production in 2012, it looks like I will be buying a Toyota/Tesla or a Ford Escape plug in.
I saw nothing while looking at the Volt chassis in NY, that would preclude GM from putting a Voltec drive train in any FWD car they make, that weighs less than 3500 or so pounds, and had room for the 400 pound battery. I’m not a GM expert, but would imagine that equals quite a few vehicles. From my reckoning, a Voltec drive-train is little more than the transmission like no other, that Lutz spoke about, mounting electric accessories some where besides the engine block, and the jumbo battery.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:13 pm)I agree that this is going to be really interesting in terms of marketing the Volt. Even though I believe history will bear out the idea that the Volt’s redundant systems make it VERY reliable, initially, a great deal of effort will need to be aimed at convincing people that the VOLT is as reliable as a conventional ICE vehicle. After a century of ICE dominance, it’s “comfortable”! Change is often UNcomfortable. So I agree with all the areas you mention, I’m just commenting on the idea that the Volt’s lack of history means that it’s almost starting in a hole. BTW, I *really* like the “quiet commercial” (but I’m afraid that my wife just didn’t “get it”). Her response was along the lines that good cars are *supposed* to be quiet! Sigh, I have time yet…. *and* once she’s actually driven a Volt, everything will fall into place.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:14 pm)I had my 12V Dewalt pack die. I cracked it apart, and yes they have a string of cells all contact welded together. Amazing how they get all those cells packed in that little shell!
Anyway, my cordless drill now has two (ie: Redundant!) propulsion packs. One pack is a good NiCd pack, the other pack I gutted and then ran about 10′ of wire with aligator clips that I connect up to an old lead-acid battery OR I have a ac-dc supply that I can plug in and run the drill (The ac-dc converter is sized to small to give me full torque, but good enough for light work.
You should see me carrying around a 12V car battery with my “portable” drill. It’s kind of a hoot! My wife just shakes her head, and tells me to go buy a replacement pack, but I am probably the cheapest bastard to walk the earth. DeWalt wants like $60 for a new 12V battery pack, and I bought the drill, case, 2 batteries, and charger for $100. (PS: the batteries that DeWalt gives you with the drill suck, and the VA is small compared to the replacements you buy)
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:15 pm)JEC said:
Sorry Nasaman, I am still not buying it. We are talking cars, not spaceships.
That’s right, a car only needs to make it home or to the repair shop. A spaceship is SOL if it breaks down.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:16 pm)Yeah, my excitement was due to misreading the initial post. I read the 32.5K as PRE-tax break (lol).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:20 pm)OK, we’ll have to agree to disagree. The concept and implementation of redundancy and the FMECA that should be employed in implementing it, apply fully to both “crass commercial” equipment of all kinds as well as to space hardware. So let me know after you’ve devoted 10-15 years to actually doing and/or critiquing numerous types of redundancies in detail (and/or in formal design reviews) and we’ll discuss this further at that time.
Fortunately, Andrew Farah understood and agreed with me in our discussion about this in NYC.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:20 pm)I don’t understand this post. Help me out please. Just trying to “get it”.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:23 pm)Just saw this after I posted the confusion. I understood it after all (lol).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:24 pm)True true, but if it’s designed well and built well it should hold up. So far, from what I’ve read, they seem to be doing pretty well.
It’s kinda in the same vein as the complexity discussion going on here. Good design, engineering, and testing counts for a lot more than part count. Cars today are vastly more complex, and yet much more reliable than older, simpler, more “mechanical” cars. People have romantic memories of thier old carbed beasts from back when, but when it comes down to it, for the average non preventative maintenance obsessive petrolhead, service intervals are longer now and cars generally last longer and break down much less than they used to. You just can’t tinker with them as much in your back yard.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:29 pm)Batteries are always fun. I sometimes use my son’s pack I built for his scooter, a 24VDC pack of LiFePO4’s. We also use it to light the steel wool pads on fire. My wife does the same thing, shakes her head.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:34 pm)Tagamet said:
I don’t understand this post. Help me out please. Just trying to “get it”.
It could be unrelated, but a car usually only has to make it to somewhere where it can be repaired, where a spacecraft usually doesn’t have that luxury.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:40 pm)As much as I make fun of them, focus groups do have their uses! I’d pay attention to this. Personally I thought the video needed a voice over — something more to tell you what you were supposed to be “getting”. It’s easy to presume that the viewer is on the same page as you are. While we’re on the subject I really didn’t like the way it ended with the “Thump!!!”. Too abrupt and it killed the zen quality of it all. But at least they’re going in a good direction.
As for you wife liking the Volt, I was thinking that you had some chits built up.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:43 pm)On the other hand, however, a car needs to perform near flawlessly for a minimum of 10 years and/or 200,000 kms under widely variable and harsh environmental conditions, neglect, and abuse in order to be competitive and profitable. All that and still be produced at high speed for the lowest possible cost. A space craft, from what I understand, is hand built, goes up, comes down, and is essentially rebuilt before going up again.
It’s about good engineering, complexity be damned.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:45 pm)Sounds like you are both correct, but talking about different issues. NM is talking about the incredible *reliability* that redundant systems bring and you’re talking about the relative *importance of the consequence* of a system failure – getting stranded by the road as opposed to being stranded in space. No?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:46 pm)Hey, ABG has some opinions of the LEAF test drive…
“The flaws LeBeau found include excessive wind noise, a rather ordinary interior and an unexpected whir from the electric motor. “
Wind noise? I hear that on every car. I normally drive with the windows down anyway cuz I don’t like using the AC, it uses more gas. But seriously, has anyone bothered to measure the wind noise in a same model type ICE car? Can it be wind noise is more noticeable without the engine noise? Kind of like being able to listen to your wife better when she turns the TV off.
Ordinary interior? Sh|t man, it’s more than needed. No need for power doors, pwr locks n sh|t like that. It’s not ordinary enough for me……but that’s jus me.
Engine whir? This I have to hear for myself. I figure it’s a good tradeoff from an ICE to an electric “whir”.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:48 pm)–
What can I say? Hope springs eternal.
GM canceled us out, but we still have interest and we have money.
Eventually someone will find us. Maybe Toyota. Maybe BMW. But somebody.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:51 pm)kgurnsey said:
A space craft, from what I understand, is hand built, goes up, comes down, and is essentially rebuilt before going up again.
True, unless its a multimillion dollar communications satellite, that has to work for 15 years with out a side of the road to go to.
Jul 16th, 2010 (6:59 pm)I know my wife a WHOLE lot better than I know the Volt (we grew up together), but I’m absolutely certain that once she drives the Volt everything will be made clear. She is SUCH a good fit for the Volt’s strongest suits. My only concern (after *getting* a Volt) is that we will be sorely competing for the Volt time. Hmmm, come to think of it, I grew ip with the Volt too (g)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:05 pm)Your wife *talks* to you? Huh, go figure (g). I’m sure GM has measured wind noise in ICE vehicles because they have worked SO hard to eliminate it in the Volt. What’s the point of a quiet ride, if you can “hear it”?
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:07 pm)And I bet those satellites need to be pretty complex in order to be that reliable for that long under harsh conditions and minimal maintenance. Kinda like a car.
It’s still the quality of the engineering that gets the job done, not a lack of complexity.
Getting into a serious collision can have the same consequences to the occupants of a car as a failure on a spacecraft. Death. Safety systems on cars are complex. And redundant. Stability control, crumple zone, seatbelt, airbag. I’ll take all the above thanks. The reliability of the occupants staying alive goes up with the complexity of the safety equipment. The effect of a failure of any individual component is lessened or avoided by having multiple systems performing the same or similar functions.
If complexity in your car is of that much concern, may I suggest a scooter. The foot powered kind, a motor scooter may be too complex.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:19 pm)Naw, sounds more like “More stuff equals more things I have to pay for if they break.” coupled with a dash of “I don’t understand it so I’m going to assume it’s bad and it sucks and it’s going to drain my bank account.” Individual part failure resulting in financial loss vs. the reliability of the system as a whole resulting in increased consistency of peak performance over time.
Of course, objectively, cars are much less prone to part failure nowadays anyways, due to tighter tolernaces and more advanced (and complex) manufacturing techniques, materials and alloys, engineering, and, of course, more complex on board monitoring of key performance parameters. Thus, the argument generally fails on both levels.
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:29 pm)Well, you didn’t get to read the write-up that Nasaman gave the team at VoltNation I. Given that and what I know of his experience, I think I’ll go with the benefits of redundancy – ESPECIALLY with a new technology *and* GM’s need to knock it outta the park – the first time. They can’t afford to screw this up, so I’ll go with a belt and suspenders.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:32 pm)Besides, my point was not that spacecraft are less complex than cars. It was that cars are also complex in their own way, and like spacecraft, also benefit greatly from that complexity.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:37 pm)#127 – Well countered JEC +1. Redundancy IS important, but not at the cost of being un-affordable! As well as you said, tired of paying the repair guy every year, maybe every 10 years for new brushes for the old electric motor!
This announcement just proves that BEVs are going to be populating the roadways faster than most people want to believe! For those who need more than EV ranges, then there’s always the CRUZE! Bring on the EV Focus FORD! I might even jump to the new RAV EV since it’s probably a more multi-purpose vehicle than just for carrying people..
GO EV!!!
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:39 pm)Just to clarify my earlier posts, I’m not trying to belittle automotive engineering, I’m sure packing all the motors and generators in a transmission that looks smaller than any automatic or manual transmission I’ve ever seen, was an accomplishment similar to building the Apollo spacecraft. I’m only saying that now that it is built, it appears to me that it would work in a number of different cars, albeit with lower AER, etc. Many people have said that a 20 mile AER would do nicely. I could see a Voltec Malibu possibly doing that.
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:40 pm)Trying to predict the future again?
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:40 pm)Wow, I really didn’t get that from what you wrote.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:43 pm)insight?
Insight 
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:43 pm)I agree completely, the added complexity of redundant systems is a very welcome thing in my book. Especially for a vehicle like the Volt. If I have the chance to buy one myself, I hope it’s redundant up the wazoo!
I’m pretty sure that NM and I are on the same side, though I would humbly defer to his (obviously extensive) knowledge and experience when it comes to spacecraft.
Thanks for pointing out the spelling error, I do try but I don’t’ always catch ‘em all.
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:49 pm)#144 CJS
I normally drive with the windows down anyway cuz I don’t like using the AC
Hey you live where the humidity probably rarely reaches 2 digits.
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:51 pm)Well every time I try to predict the *past* I get it wrong. (g)
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:52 pm)Yeah, I can understand that.
It didn’t work as well on screen as it did in my head. My bad.
I was replying to the idea that cars don’t need to be complex because they won’t turn into a flaming ball of death if something goes wrong. It seemed to be an accepted assumption that spacecraft are complex, I was simply trying to show that cars need to be complex too, in order to perform their expected function. I threw in a bit of sarcasm for colour, which may have derailed the point a bit.
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:55 pm)Switch to Firefox! It has an automatic spell checker built right in – which is the only way I noticed YOUR error (lol) I didn’t find it, Firefox did.
Glad we’re all on the same page.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:57 pm)First, allow me to define some terms:
• Inverter – Converts DC to AC
• DC-DC Converter – Converts DC to DC (two different voltages)
Batteries are always DC. The main 16kWh battery pack runs at 360 volts. Most car accessories run at 12 volts. So the idea is to convert 360 volts DC to 12 volts DC. This requires a DC-DC converter. In other words, as long as there’s sufficient power in the main 360 volt traction battery, the 12v accessory battery will stay charged though that.
Second, GM told us the 12 volt battery is capable of jump-starting another car here:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/18/there-will-be-no-customer-access-to-high-voltage-on-the-chevy-volt-but-it-can-jump-start-another-car/
“For Volt the answer is a bit more conventional. Yes, we have a 12v battery. It is not a typical automotive “flooded” lead, but a sealed “acid starved” type…. and it is capable of providing enough power to jump start another vehicle.”
Jul 16th, 2010 (7:59 pm)HI,
I really like your scenario. The idea of charging in 10 min or less with a charging station on almost every corner, like gas stations would indeed bring the EV to the masses… assuming a decent price and variety of vehicles.
My question is how long do you think it will be until this will be workable? We heard a great prediction about battery power and costs coming down quickly.
As you noted the VOLT is the better option for most including you and me.
Again do you have an educated prediction of when your scenario will be working …. more accurate than “not long?” :+]
-2
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:03 pm)If the added complexity dramatically increases production volume – yes.
In other words, high volume production is what drives reliability. Complexity has little to do with reliability.
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:07 pm)Well that explains it. You didn’t get the “All sarcasm must be clearly labeled as such” memo. I have enough problems comprehending half the issues that are *concrete*. You went left-handed on me (which SHOULD have helped since *I’m* left-handed)(g).
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:11 pm)Redundancy is good. Redundancy is good. :+} :+}
I always like backup plans, especially for things that “don’t fail”
We know brakes now use dual master cylinders, there are two headlights, seat belts AND airbags… so any features that “back up” the newer technologies is very good..
Even the range extender ICE is a redundancy plan most of use here absolutely endorse! :+]
This gives me just one more reason to buy a Chevy VOLT!!
WORKS for ME!
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:12 pm)I’m afraid “not soon” fits just as well.
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:14 pm)AMEN! +++1
Be well and believe,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The VOLTS ‘ Wheels On The Road!!****NPNS
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:20 pm)This is an astonishingly brilliant move. Something GM was incapable of doing. With this move the world’s largest most powerful automotive company is saying WE ARE BACK WITH A VENGEANCE in the EV game. I applaud those Elon Musk and Akio Toyoda for this mind-blowing decision. This marks the turning point in EV adoption worldwide as the currently EV leader Telsa joins forces with the world’s largest manufacturer to push EV to the masses. Too bad GM couldn’t and wouldn’t do this with their EV-1. This shit will come back to haunt GM for decades.
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:21 pm)Complexity can be managed so when assembled it is very easy.
I think back to old radio and TV circuitry, early computers with the piles of tubes wires capacitors, hundreds of solder joints. ( YUP!!!! I played with them)
Now that complexity is managed with integrated circuits, circuit boards etc and very high reliability.
The term “plug and play” can make managing many parts very easy assembling and fixing a car. They do a lot of it know and I think complexity will be a minor issue in the future.
Just plug the computer into the car and it will tell one where the problem is now.
( I remember R2D2 was able to locate Princess LIA that way :+} )
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:23 pm)If that is the “BEST you CAN do” then I will just have to live with a generation or two of VOLTS. :+}}
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:26 pm)Sure, 5-10 years if the will for change is sufficiently present.
I should clarify though. When I said very, very soon, I mean two things. First, that the technology will be available in mass producible form. That is, the technology will be available to make a viable EV and infrastructure should a manufacturer decide to implement it in such a way that through mass production costs will come in line with expectation. This is demonstrable given the examples I used. When the Panasonic 3.1 Ah cells hit the market and the 240 kW chargers, which have been announced as production intent products, hit the market the tools will be in place. This could happen within the year.
Second, very, very soon is also relative. Relative to how fast things move in the automotive world, and relative to how far away many people seem to think the technology is. It won’t be next week, not even within the year, but certainly not 15 or more years. There is no need to wait for the miracle battery. Sure, when it arrives EVs will benefit, but it’s not required. Today’s leading edge technology is enough. We are on the cusp of possible technologically. However, production cycles for cars are 5-7 years. We see what’s coming out now. Volt, Leaf, iMiEV, Roadster, etc… I think that within the next product cycle, the auto manufacturers, along with the infrastructure movers and shakers, will have the tools they need to build a viable EV proposition. Tesla has again shown that this is possible, at a relatively low volume level, if/when the Model S hits the road. We already know that it’s expected to achieve a 300 mile range with the new cells, which is entirely doable given we know for fact through real customer experiences that the Roadster can achieve the rated 245 miles per charge on average. The energy use profile of the Roadster is very well understood by now. This isn’t pie in the sky stuff, it’s applying an incremental advance in technology to a proven drivetrain. Yes, the Model S is still pricey, but not as much as the Roadster, showing the advantage of incrementally increased volume, and should a big time manufacturer get involved, truly mass volume will drive costs down even further.
As to how long it will take the people in charge to actually make it happen, that involves human will and politics, and money, and all sorts of other factors, and that I cannot predict.
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:28 pm)ACTUALLY……. I believe the VOLT is the next generation for GM. They learned from EV-1 and made great improvements.
To me… Toyota/Tesla is playing catch up. They will have great cars/SUVs but will be limited in distance until they come up with a range extension option or have great high density, quick charge, long range power packs already in their production very soon.
Otherwise the VOLT has more versatility at this point. :+}
+2
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:28 pm)Congrats to Tesla and Toyota. This partnership can indeed yield some very nice EV products. I look forward to more innovative technology coming from these industry leaders. Well Done.
Tesla +1
Toyota +1
GM -1
Volt -1
+1
Jul 16th, 2010 (8:37 pm)Thanks for the updates. 5 to 10 years is great. I have been waiting for serious electric cars almost 50 years. The 5 to 10 year time frame may put me at the outer range of my driving experience… BUT