This car will be a complete and utter failure. Not because it is electric, or a GM product, or "only" a 200 mile range, but because it is a hatchback. The only body style that sells worse in the US than a hatchback is the wagon.
Which is sad because I like hatchbacks the best. This would actually get me in a GM dealership to test drive one.
I can't wait to check out the Bolt. I wouldn't buy one immediately, as I just bought my FoST, but I loved my Leaf when I had it. When we had our new house built, I specifically had a 220V outlet installed in the garage in anticipation of getting an EV. However, with my commute now being 110 miles round trip, no affordable EV could currently serve my needs. If the Bolt can, I'm very interested. Plus being a hatch makes it all that more appealing. I'd want to know more about the battery and electric motor warranty as well as anticipated replacement cost. Most Leafs were leased for all the reasons which are well known. A lease wouldn't work for me, given how much I drive. But if the battery can last a very long time before needing replacement, a car like the Bolt might make sense to purchase. Well, truthfully I'd probably buy a lightly used one, as I'll bet these things take the same depreciation hit that Leafs/iMievs do.
And if GM thinks brilliant copy like this is going to get people to buy a car, maybe we know why they got bailed out...
"The available 240-volt charging unit is the fastest way to recharge your battery at home and offers more power than a 120-volt outlet."
240 > 120 HOLY TESLA COIL BATMAN!!!! Marketing done by Kindergarten number line!!!!!!!
"By learning your every move, Bolt EV helps keep efficiency at its peak." In a society pre-occupied with big brother, probably not the best statement to make.
So bad copy on Marketing - Check, Wrong body style for mass sales - Check, can we have some pictures of it on fire or eating baby seals to finish off the chance of this thing being a sales success?
COME ON GM!!! This looks like a winner stop trying to get in your own way!
How many of the ignorant masses probably don't quite realize that 240 > 120? For the non-car person that might be something that has to be clarified, especially for those who are just flat afraid of EVs.
As for the "learning every move" part, doesn't bother me at all. I read that just like modern ICE cars that have transmissions that alter their shifting based on your personal driving habits. Pretty much every car on the market has enough "big brother" stuff in it to send the tin foil hat crowd scurrying for Canada, but it's just not talked about.
captdownshift wrote: I believe the bolt is roughly the size of the current Honda fit. Charge time, realistically I want 200 miles in 15 minutes. Within 3-4 years 200v charging stations will provide this capability, when this occurs it will be the nail in the coffin of the internal combustion engine in light duty vehicles.
Uh, that would be really hard to do that.
Lets say that this car is really efficient and gets 100mpg- which is pretty reasonable since it's an electric car. So for a 200 mile range, it's roughly 2 gal of gas.
Which is 230,000 BTUs or 242,650,000 J.
We know one J is 1W of energy delivered in one second. And one Watt is 1A*1V.
To deliver 242,650,000 J in 15 min that's 270,000 W of delivery. And if that's delivered at 240V, the current would be 1,120 A.
The last time I saw that kind of current and voltage, we were melting dirt with that electricity.
Which is why electric cars need a lot of time to fuel (and always will), and why I think that we will require some kind of automated charging system (due to human nature to forget).
In reply to alfadriver:
Tesla's Superchargers already give you up to 170 miles of range with a 30 minute charge time. Getting 200 miles of range in less time doesn't seem that far off. Battery swaps could possibly be used too to get the time spent "refueling/recharging" to a minimum.
I agree with your idea about automated charging. Seems like the automated charging could probably be done pretty easily with something like an optional inductive charging mat to park over at night. If normal charging times were something like 4 hours, then the less efficient inductive mat might take longer, but that's not a problem if it's parked overnight for 8 hours or more.
Klayfish wrote: How many of the ignorant masses probably don't quite realize that 240 > 120? For the non-car person that might be something that has to be clarified, especially for those who are just flat afraid of EVs. As for the "learning every move" part, doesn't bother me at all. I read that just like modern ICE cars that have transmissions that alter their shifting based on your personal driving habits. Pretty much every car on the market has enough "big brother" stuff in it to send the tin foil hat crowd scurrying for Canada, but it's just not talked about.
Well my 8 year old and 11 year old both gave it a "well duh"
alfadriver wrote:captdownshift wrote: I believe the bolt is roughly the size of the current Honda fit. Charge time, realistically I want 200 miles in 15 minutes. Within 3-4 years 200v charging stations will provide this capability, when this occurs it will be the nail in the coffin of the internal combustion engine in light duty vehicles.Uh, that would be really hard to do that. Lets say that this car is really efficient and gets 100mpg- which is pretty reasonable since it's an electric car. So for a 200 mile range, it's roughly 2 gal of gas. Which is 230,000 BTUs or 242,650,000 J. We know one J is 1W of energy delivered in one second. And one Watt is 1A*1V. To deliver 242,650,000 J in 15 min that's 270,000 W of delivery. And if that's delivered at 240V, the current would be 1,120 A. The last time I saw that kind of current and voltage, we were melting dirt with that electricity. Which is why electric cars need a lot of time to fuel (and always will), and why I think that we will require some kind of automated charging system (due to human nature to forget).
There are cars already out there using 400V+ quick chargers. Tesla's proprietary quick chargers are 480V.
There will be diminishing returns on how fast an electric car can charge up, but I think that when charge speed plateaus they'll already be plenty fast enough to satisfy anyone's range anxiety. EVs (should) always leave home in the morning with a "full tank," if ICE cars did the same, how often would you need to go to a gas station?
An automated charging system like Tesla's "snake" thing might help to keep people from running low due to forgetfulness, but that seems like overkill. Maybe a Bitching Betty that reminds you to plug your car in if it detects that you're parked at home/with a low charge would do the trick? That could be done in software alone on a modern car. My phone reminds me to unplug the charger to save energy already.
At this point I don't think I'll ever own a new car with an ICE. I don't think I'll have new car money before EVs just make more sense.
Flight Service wrote:Klayfish wrote: How many of the ignorant masses probably don't quite realize that 240 > 120? For the non-car person that might be something that has to be clarified, especially for those who are just flat afraid of EVs. As for the "learning every move" part, doesn't bother me at all. I read that just like modern ICE cars that have transmissions that alter their shifting based on your personal driving habits. Pretty much every car on the market has enough "big brother" stuff in it to send the tin foil hat crowd scurrying for Canada, but it's just not talked about.Well my 8 year old and 11 year old both gave it a "well duh"
I think because EVs are still relatively new tech, they simply want to be as transparent and clear about everything as they can. They're not trying to insult anyone's intelligence, they're trying to remove any concerns potential "laymen" buyers might have. It's the same reason Tesla has been so open about their tech.
STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Tesla's Superchargers already give you up to 170 miles of range with a 30 minute charge time. Getting 200 miles of range in less time doesn't seem that far off. Battery swaps could possibly be used too to get the time spent "refueling/recharging" to a minimum.
Nope, battery swapping a terrible idea. As battery tech improves - and as I learn more about electric cars - it seems like a worse and worse idea. Just in terms of structural/design issues, swapping a battery in an EV is almost like swapping an ICE. You could make a car that can quick-change engines, but imagine what an awkward ugly beast that car would be? Same problem.
What I think could make sense some day are "electric jerry cans." Energy density is the only reason they don't make sense right now. Imagine a jerry can-sized box that plugs into a socket in your trunk to extend range. The only issue is that they won't cool as well as the car's main battery packs, but that's a relatively minor problem that would be easy to work around.
The only place I think battery swapping might be used is on purpose-built race cars.
GameboyRMH wrote:alfadriver wrote:There are cars already out there using 400V+ quick chargers. Tesla's proprietary quick chargers are 480V. There will be diminishing returns on how fast an electric car can charge up, but I think that when charge speed plateaus they'll already be plenty fast enough to satisfy anyone's range anxiety. EVs (should) always leave home in the morning with a "full tank," if ICE cars did the same, how often would you need to go to a gas station? An automated charging system like Tesla's "snake" thing might help to keep people from running low due to forgetfulness, but that seems like overkill. Maybe a Bitching Betty that reminds you to plug your car in if it detects that you're parked at home/with a low charge would do the trick? That could be done in software alone on a modern car. My phone reminds me to unplug the charger to save energy already. At this point I don't think I'll ever own a new car with an ICE. I don't think I'll have new car money before EVs just make more sense.captdownshift wrote: I believe the bolt is roughly the size of the current Honda fit. Charge time, realistically I want 200 miles in 15 minutes. Within 3-4 years 200v charging stations will provide this capability, when this occurs it will be the nail in the coffin of the internal combustion engine in light duty vehicles.Uh, that would be really hard to do that. Lets say that this car is really efficient and gets 100mpg- which is pretty reasonable since it's an electric car. So for a 200 mile range, it's roughly 2 gal of gas. Which is 230,000 BTUs or 242,650,000 J. We know one J is 1W of energy delivered in one second. And one Watt is 1A*1V. To deliver 242,650,000 J in 15 min that's 270,000 W of delivery. And if that's delivered at 240V, the current would be 1,120 A. The last time I saw that kind of current and voltage, we were melting dirt with that electricity. Which is why electric cars need a lot of time to fuel (and always will), and why I think that we will require some kind of automated charging system (due to human nature to forget).
Well, doubling the voltage does reduce the amount of current needed by half- which helps, and doubling the time to charge also halves the current needed- so my 1000A is now a more "reasonable" 250A. But even 480V @ 250A isn't that easy. That's industrial power kind of delivery, or 6 large homes with 200A connections running at 100% of capacity.
Again, the big difference between an empty gas tank in the morning and an empty battery is a half hour of waiting. I can fill my car in 2 min with 10 gal of gas. 2 gal of energy take 1/2 hour. Which makes human nature more finicky for EV's.
I respect that you are only getting an EV. But there are physics that limit what can be delivered.
Seems like people expect the same kind of power improvement as computers have had, historically. But there's a difference when you are moving a mass from point A to B at speed C with drag D and running a computer.
alfadriver wrote:captdownshift wrote: I believe the bolt is roughly the size of the current Honda fit. Charge time, realistically I want 200 miles in 15 minutes. Within 3-4 years 200v charging stations will provide this capability, when this occurs it will be the nail in the coffin of the internal combustion engine in light duty vehicles.Uh, that would be really hard to do that. Lets say that this car is really efficient and gets 100mpg- which is pretty reasonable since it's an electric car. So for a 200 mile range, it's roughly 2 gal of gas. Which is 230,000 BTUs or 242,650,000 J. We know one J is 1W of energy delivered in one second. And one Watt is 1A*1V. To deliver 242,650,000 J in 15 min that's 270,000 W of delivery. And if that's delivered at 240V, the current would be 1,120 A. The last time I saw that kind of current and voltage, we were melting dirt with that electricity. Which is why electric cars need a lot of time to fuel (and always will), and why I think that we will require some kind of automated charging system (due to human nature to forget).
Well until we have sci-fi levels for battery power (think about the power in the handle of a lightsaber!), the batteries need to be swappable. And even to do that they need to probably shrink to something the size and weight of 20lb LP tank.
The other part of your math is assumed. Assumed that the push for electric cars is weak enough not to increase the voltage to charging stations. It would be a big shift to get higher voltages to your house.
I'm not sure what the voltage is out on the other side of the transformer at your house is but, lets assume it's 2400 volts. Now your 112 amps. Which is way more reasonable, but still that's a ton of potential there and would be still quite dangerous. (For those not in the know google 'arch flash')
GameboyRMH wrote:STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Tesla's Superchargers already give you up to 170 miles of range with a 30 minute charge time. Getting 200 miles of range in less time doesn't seem that far off. Battery swaps could possibly be used too to get the time spent "refueling/recharging" to a minimum.Nope, battery swapping a terrible idea. As battery tech improves - and as I learn more about electric cars - it seems like a worse and worse idea. Just in terms of structural/design issues, swapping a battery in an EV is almost like swapping an ICE. You could make a car that can quick-change engines, but imagine what an awkward ugly beast that car would be? Same problem. What I think could make sense some day are "electric jerry cans." Energy density is the only reason they don't make sense right now. Imagine a jerry can-sized box that plugs into a socket in your trunk to extend range. The only issue is that they won't cool as well as the car's main battery packs, but that's a relatively minor problem that would be easy to work around. The only place I think battery swapping might be used is on purpose-built race cars.
Do the math. It's not just energy density of batteries. It's about delivering the energy, electrically, to move the car. Power = currentXvoltage = energyXtime. Moving a 3000lb car 30 miles at 55mph takes a pretty big amount of energy.
Replacing the battery isn't anything like replacing an ICE motor. It's like filling up the fuel tank.
Flight Service wrote:Klayfish wrote: How many of the ignorant masses probably don't quite realize that 240 > 120? For the non-car person that might be something that has to be clarified, especially for those who are just flat afraid of EVs. As for the "learning every move" part, doesn't bother me at all. I read that just like modern ICE cars that have transmissions that alter their shifting based on your personal driving habits. Pretty much every car on the market has enough "big brother" stuff in it to send the tin foil hat crowd scurrying for Canada, but it's just not talked about.Well my 8 year old and 11 year old both gave it a "well duh"
I'm right there with you. I've got an 11 year old and a pair of 8 year olds. They'd say the same thing. But then again, remember that show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" 
In reply to RossD:
I didn't assume anything- it was stated that 240V charging will be done in 15 min. I was illustrating that that kind of power, electrically, is really hard to deliver at 240V.
Not that it's much easier at 480V, or even 2400V.
Seems to me that this is another illustration that those of you who are EV enthusiests- there's a BIG opportunity for a very lucrative career for you.
alfadriver wrote: Do the math. It's not just energy density of batteries. It's about delivering the energy, electrically, to move the car. Power = currentXvoltage = energyXtime. Moving a 3000lb car 30 miles at 55mph takes a pretty big amount of energy. Replacing the battery isn't anything like replacing an ICE motor. It's like filling up the fuel tank.
And that math doesn't look so bad. Even if EVs can never charge faster than a present-day model, combined with larger batteries and a "full tank" in the morning, that won't be a problem.
Replacing batteries is like filling up a fuel tank in a very abstract way - adding stored energy to the vehicle - but physically it's very much like swapping an ICE. There aren't as many connections (and generally no fluid lines) but they're even more integrated into the car's chassis, and for similar reasons. Building an EV with a quick-swappable battery would be very much like building an ICE car with a quick-swappable engine.
Something that's often missed in discussing charge times is that you don't often need 100% charge. Let's say I go to work and get home with 20% charge. I want to go back out and do some grocery shopping, but worry about the low state of charge. I can plug in, and 15 minutes later I've gotten up to 40-50%. Usually that's plenty for a full day of errands.
This also assumes you can't charge at work or your destination, which seems to be becoming less of an issue even in Detroit.
If we're talking about viability of using an EV for a real road trip, I don't think we'll get there until batteries can go ~ 400 miles.
In reply to alfadriver:
Captdownshift was the one that brought up 15 min as what he defined as reasonable amount of time to wait for a full charge. The current generation of chargers are only using the voltages that are readily available.
I agree that getting some voltage above 240v or even 480v into a residential setting would be a huge turning point. Similar to the Rural Electrification Act even though there is higher voltage being distributed to the pole now.
My point was that when the science gets to the point, we will probably see higher voltages being brought into residential or at least 'filling stations' as a direct result of the consumer/industry. Probably not in 10 years even, as it would be a stop gap, in my mind at least.
In addition to the above, I think its very real that as EVs grow, the number of public parking spaces with EV charging is going to grow exponentially. Even at a relatively low charging rate, if you can charge pretty much 100% of the time your car is parked...
bastomatic wrote: Something that's often missed in discussing charge times is that you don't often need 100% charge. Let's say I go to work and get home with 20% charge. I want to go back out and do some grocery shopping, but worry about the low state of charge. I can plug in, and 15 minutes later I've gotten up to 40-50%. Usually that's plenty for a full day of errands. This also assumes you can't charge at work or your destination, which seems to be becoming less of an issue even in Detroit. If we're talking about viability of using an EV for a real road trip, I don't think we'll get there until batteries can go ~ 400 miles.
This. Many of you guys have a far better understanding of the technology than I do, but when I had my Leaf I read over and over on the forums that it wasn't good to charge your battery to 100% and leave it there. I would set my charge timer to have the battery at 100% no more than 15-20 minutes before I left in the morning. But when I came home from work, I often had to turn around quickly to go back out. I would plug it in while getting changed, etc...and when I came back out it gave me enough charge to go run my errands with zero anxiety.
In reply to RossD:
And that's who I was replying to... pointing out the physics of charging like that.
basto- even with EV parking spots, those require some human intervention. Which means human error. And why I contend for EV's to be a realistic option for more than a certain amount, auto charging systems will be needed.
My commute to work is 35 min. A 15min delay just to charge enough to get here is significant.
People speed and weave in and out of traffic to work just to save 3-5 min.
Just a few times where you are forced to be late, and a technology will be hated.
RossD wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Captdownshift was the one that brought up 15 min as what he defined as reasonable amount of time to wait for a full charge. The current generation of chargers are only using the voltages that are readily available. I agree that getting some voltage above 240v or even 480v into a residential setting would be a huge turning point. Similar to the Rural Electrification Act even though there is higher voltage being distributed to the pole now. My point was that when the science gets to the point, we will probably see higher voltages being brought into residential or at least 'filling stations' as a direct result of the consumer/industry. Probably not in 10 years even, as it would be a stop gap, in my mind at least.
Honestly, I do not see that happening. What I see happening is the current (sorry) trend now.. more efficient batteries and chargers.
GameboyRMH wrote:STM317 wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Tesla's Superchargers already give you up to 170 miles of range with a 30 minute charge time. Getting 200 miles of range in less time doesn't seem that far off. Battery swaps could possibly be used too to get the time spent "refueling/recharging" to a minimum.Just in terms of structural/design issues, swapping a battery in an EV is almost like swapping an ICE. You could make a car that can quick-change engines, but imagine what an awkward ugly beast that car would be? Same problem.
I think it's a lot more like swapping fuel tanks than swapping ICEs. Tesla had the tech in place 2 years ago. It took less than 2 minutes from the time they drove the car in, to the time it drove away, and the driver didn't have to get out of the vehicle.
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlaQuKk9bFg
It's not a packaging issue or design issue. It makes sense vs charging times to me, but nobody was really interested since you had to make an appointment, and pay for it while the Superchargers are free.
Flight Service wrote: This car will be a complete and utter failure. Not because it is electric, or a GM product, or "only" a 200 mile range, but because it is a hatchback. The only body style that sells worse in the US than a hatchback is the wagon. Which is sad because I like hatchbacks the best. This would actually get me in a GM dealership to test drive one.
This has been my thought from the start as well. I'm surprised how well recieved I've seen this in the press so far.
yes on paper it's first to the line with the range/price/attainability... but it looks like a Fit/Aveo/etc. It just looks... dorky?
I hope for it's success, and I admire the tech, it'd even almost be a good fit for me, but I can't see mass market America WANTING to drive it.
If Tesla gives me something styled more in line with a 3-series as they're claiming with 200+ mile range and ~$35K price tag, put me in line for that instead. But GM is first, so they win in that regard, I guess.
With battery swapping you can also pick up a worn-out old battery, and you'll need to have a different swap station for each battery shape/location (or a single one, or a highly versatile and dextrous swap machine which is $$$$$$$), and different chargers for each battery tech (or a single one, which would be the worst possible thing that could happen to EVs).
The Tesla S is a high-end car that was designed with battery swapping in mind, which required compromises. And I think the California ZEV credits Tesla got from installing battery swapping stations (and proprietary quick-chargers) was a big part of their overall value. They don't make much sense otherwise.
Sci-fi batteries are not far off, the types that you'll be able to buy in a decade will make today's batteries look like crap. Even so, the batteries available on today's high-end EVs are plenty good enough IMO. Battery tech is advancing at a speed closer to Moore's law than the geological pace we're accustomed to with ICE tech. Look at today's RC toys, those would've seemed like Star Trek fantasies in the 90s. Could you imagine cars getting that much better that quickly? That's what's going to happen now.
You'll need to log in to post.
