Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

[jeffhre]

Of sure, but they should not act like they've won the prize for doing this. It seems its all about who can get this damn affordable EV out first, when in reality they have not much to do with it except for scalability....

Though it doesn't say much for their attempts to handicap Tesla, but there is:

Design, spec, coordination, production engineering, financing, testing, homologation, FMVSS/50 state certification, crash testing, drive component engineering/tuning, production tooling, stamping and pressing, supplier selection/certification, assembly, delivery, warranty and documentation, international supply line and just in time manufacturing coordination, seats doors windows hardware chassis connections belts hoses electronics/12 volt systems and the millions of other decisions that make the GM-did-nothing folks seem incredibly uniformed.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Design, spec, coordination, production engineering, financing, testing, homologation, FMVSS/50 state certification, crash testing, drive component engineering/tuning, production tooling, stamping and pressing, supplier selection/certification, assembly, delivery, warranty and documentation, international supply line and just in time manufacturing coordination, seats doors windows hardware chassis connections belts hoses electronics/12 volt systems and the millions of other decisions that make the GM-did-nothing folks seem incredibly uniformed.

That happens for every single car out there, including compliance cars, so I don't think it means a whole lot. And probably why people don't see the car part as a big deal; it's the affordable EV range enabled by the $145/kWh battery cells that is the big deal. By that I mean that if you ignore the electric part, the car isn't that compelling for its price class (which is not the case for the Model S and hopefully the Model 3 repeats the same philosophy as the S). What matters in the end is the volume when it comes out (not the "first").

 

[RobStark]

Though it doesn't say much for their attempts to handicap Tesla, but there is:

Design, spec, coordination, production engineering, financing, testing, homologation, FMVSS/50 state certification, crash testing, drive component engineering/tuning, production tooling, stamping and pressing, supplier selection/certification, assembly, delivery, warranty and documentation, international supply line and just in time manufacturing coordination, seats doors windows hardware chassis connections belts hoses electronics/12 volt systems and the millions of other decisions that make the GM-did-nothing folks seem incredibly uniformed.

That is a glider.

Nothing BEV specific. No gain in BEV know how.

Claiming otherwise is incredibly uninformed.

 

[Breezy]

Actually, much of that is indeed BEV specific, because the Bolt is a BEV.

The more obvious BEV-specific knowledge includes design of the traction motor and other drivetrain components, and crash testing because of the skateboard configuration and its integration into the structure.

 

[McRat]

Interesting. I guess I'll have to check this out when the bolt's available.

I really need to see this also. It's almost sci-fi. Cameras around the perimeter "stitch" a continuous panoramic view of the car's surroundings then put a car rendering the center.

Go to almost he end of the page and look:

2017 Bolt EV: All-Electric Vehicle | Chevrolet

It's not something I "need" but seems to be a very cool feature. The rearview can actually catch cross traffic apparently when backing out of a driveway.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a glider.

Nothing BEV specific. No gain in BEV know how.

Claiming otherwise is incredibly uninformed.

You should tear down a Volt battery to see what GM is up to. Extremely high end engineering. I bought one from a junkyard to "steal" the cells for other projects, and was amazed. And that was 5 years ago.

No wonder there are few if any reports of significant battery capacity loss after 6 years. The pouches in particular are VERY good, not just the entire BMS array, cooling, support, armor, and weight.

Love or hate GM, they have some sharp folk in the EV program.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You should tear down a Volt battery to see what GM is up to. Extremely high end engineering. I bought one from a junkyard to "steal" the cells for other projects, and was amazed. And that was 5 years ago.

No wonder there are few if any reports of significant battery capacity loss after 6 years. The pouches in particular are VERY good, not just the entire BMS array, cooling, support, armor, and weight.

Love or hate GM, they have some sharp folk in the EV program.

Yes, the Volt is almost completely GM in-house design and manufacturing. However, for the Bolt, all the EV components are LG manufactured, and only the motor was specified as GM designed. I think that was his point. However, there will be knowledge transfer even in that case (just as Daimler/Toyota's deals with Tesla).

I think GM made that decision in order to claim "first". If the Envia deal panned out, GM would likely have a far more hands-on approach to the EV components. With the Bolt it was likely necessary in order for LG Chem to give reasonable battery prices, otherwise GM would have to wait for prices to fall. Samsung SDI won't have a competitive cell out until 2019, so LG Chem has a monopoly right now (it's not just a coincidence that every non-Tesla 200 mile EV being announced is planning to use LG Chem cells).

 

[igotzzoom]

Yes, it's true GM outsourced most of the manufacturing of the Bolt's drivetrain an in-cabin electronics to LG. However, my understanding is that LG built the pack and motor to GM's specifications. I think inferring GM simply wrote LG a fat check and said, "get to it" is slightly disingenuous. My guess is that through discussions with LG (whom they had a pre-existing relationship with the Volt) they concluded LG had the scale and expertise to engineer and manufacture the components faster than GM could do in-house. Pure strategic leverage. Can't blame them for it.

 

[stopcrazypp]

However, my understanding is that LG built the pack and motor to GM's specifications.

In the press release, the only component called out as GM designed was the motor, not the pack:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-partnership-between-gm-and-lg-300162895.html

I think inferring GM simply wrote LG a fat check and said, "get to it" is slightly disingenuous. My guess is that through discussions with LG (whom they had a pre-existing relationship with the Volt) they concluded LG had the scale and expertise to engineer and manufacture the components faster than GM could do in-house. Pure strategic leverage. Can't blame them for it.

The "write a check" scenario does not make sense even for compliance cars with fully third party designed EV drivetrains. There is always going to be vehicle integration work that needs to be done, so there needs to be collaboration. As I put it in previous posts, the relation is similar to Daimler/Toyota with Tesla or Ford with Magna on the Focus (Azure is actually not a good example as the Transit Connect Electric had final assembly and were branded as Azure, not Ford vehicles).

 

[igotzzoom]

In the press release, the only component called out as GM designed was the motor, not the pack:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-partnership-between-gm-and-lg-300162895.html

If GM gave LG specs in terms of size, dimensions, weight, KwH, discharge cycles, etc., then it was "built to GM specs." The point I'm getting at is that partnerships and strategic alliances happen all the time. The premise that if a company outsources development of certain components to a third party makes their efforts invalid, is outdated thinking. Sure, there's still the larger discussion of captive expertise, and its future value, which in-house development can certainly foster.

The auto business is cutthroat, and I believe in the next 10 years, EVs are going to be the major battleground. I know the Tesla true believers don't like to hear it or admit it, but the Bolt is a very significant development. Is it the end-all, be-all of EVs? No. But it's a big step.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If GM gave LG specs in terms of size, dimensions, weight, KwH, discharge cycles, etc., then it was "built to GM specs." The point I'm getting at is that partnerships and strategic alliances happen all the time. The premise that if a company outsources development of certain components to a third party makes their efforts invalid, is outdated thinking. Sure, there's still the larger discussion of captive expertise, and its future value, which in-house development can certainly foster.

"Built to GM specs" (general specs as you point out) is completely different however from designing the components themselves. It doesn't make their efforts invalid, but I think you have to admit that the significance is lower than with a hands on approach. I think that is the point being made.

 

[wdolson]

I suspect the deal for the $145/KWh battery was that LG have a large role in developing the drive train. LG may be looking at this as a strategic move, they build the guts of the Bolt for GM at a discount maybe loosing a bit per car, but they learn a tremendous amount about building cars from GM in the process. In a few years they can introduce their own EV cars that compete directly with Tesla.

They may be looking at what happened in the mobile phone and photography business when the technology changed. Many of the biggest names in cell phones today weren't making phones at all or were very minor players before the iPhone and the big players in cell phones in 2008 are either out of the phone business or are minor players today. In photography Kodak controlled the North American market with Fuji and Agfa being the only foreign rivals of any size. Then digital photography came along and the companies that have dominated dedicated digital cameras since have been companies that made cameras and electronics companies.

I think LG Chem is looking at how those markets changed and they may be thinking about making a bid to do the same thing as a battery company into a complete car company. But they need to learn how to build cars first.

 

[JRP3]

No wonder there are few if any reports of significant battery capacity loss after 6 years.

There shouldn't be, it's a pack for a hybrid, and since it will be cycled heavily they limited the SOC to a narrower range than an actual EV. Shallow cycled lithium lasts much longer than deep cycled lithium.

 

[McRat]

There shouldn't be, it's a pack for a hybrid, and since it will be cycled heavily they limited the SOC to a narrower range than an actual EV. Shallow cycled lithium lasts much longer than deep cycled lithium.

The Volt doesn't really fit in the conventional cubbyholes of powertrain definitions.

The average Volt drives more EV miles per year than the average Leaf. Is it more EV than an EV?

It is not unusual to go thousands of miles in a Volt and never have the gas engine fire up.

My daughter's is at >14,000 miles with ~800 miles put on the gas engine.

It acts more like the shortest range EV than it does a hybrid in operation. Hybrids typically have low power electric motors, unable to hit max acceleration on electricity alone.

What is the largest Tesla pack usable kWh? 78?

The early Volt might only use 10kWh of it's pack, but drains it at 110kW WOT. A 78kWh Tesla pack would have to drain at 1150HP (858kW) to match the discharge rate.

And the regen is 60kW. So it's not a lightly stressed battery.

 

[JRP3]

The Volt doesn't really fit in the conventional cubbyholes of powertrain definitions.

Actually it does, it's a series/parallel hybrid, by design.

The average Volt drives more EV miles per year than the average Leaf. Is it more EV than an EV?

It is not unusual to go thousands of miles in a Volt and never have the gas engine fire up.

My daughter's is at >14,000 miles with ~800 miles put on the gas engine.

It acts more like the shortest range EV than it does a hybrid in operation. Hybrids typically have low power electric motors, unable to hit max acceleration on electricity alone.

What is the largest Tesla pack usable kWh? 78?

The early Volt might only use 10kWh of it's pack, but drains it at 110kW WOT. A 78kWh Tesla pack would have to drain at 1150HP (858kW) to match the discharge rate.

And the regen is 60kW. So it's not a lightly stressed battery.

All of that is of course irrelevant. Hybrid packs are designed for shallow SOC ranges and high C rates. Exactly as you describe.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The Volt doesn't really fit in the conventional cubbyholes of powertrain definitions.

According to SAE's technical definition, the Volt is a hybrid.

After many years of avoiding the term, GM calls it a hybrid too:
"The next-generation 2016 Chevrolet Volt hybrid-electric car..."
http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html

The early Volt might only use 10kWh of it's pack, but drains it at 110kW WOT. A 78kWh Tesla pack would have to drain at 1150HP (858kW) to match the discharge rate.

And the regen is 60kW. So it's not a lightly stressed battery.

C-rate math does not work like that. You take the rated capacity of the pack and divide max power by that. Limiting the SOC window in software does not change the C-rate. So 110kW/16kWh = 6.875C. For the 85kWh pack: 450kW(Ludicrous)/85kWh = 5.3C.

As JRP3 puts, hybrid packs are going to be designed for higher C-rates anyways. The Bolt pack will be lower C-rate since it is energy optimized: 2.67C from 160kW quoted peak discharge for 60kWh pack (calculated previously).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ive)/page148?p=1317245&viewfull=1#post1317245

 

[McRat]

According to SAE's technical definition, the Volt is a hybrid.

After many years of avoiding the term, GM calls it a hybrid too:
"The next-generation 2016 Chevrolet Volt hybrid-electric car..."
http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html


C-rate math does not work like that. You take the rated capacity of the pack and divide max power by that. Limiting the SOC window in software does not change the C-rate. So 110kW/16kWh = 6.875C. For the 85kWh pack: 450kW(Ludicrous)/85kWh = 5.3C.

As JRP3 puts, hybrid packs are going to be designed for higher C-rates anyways. The Bolt pack will be lower C-rate since it is energy optimized: 2.67C from 160kW quoted peak discharge for 60kWh pack (calculated previously).
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...ive)/page148?p=1317245&viewfull=1#post1317245

The way a Volt is operated for a typical family:

The ICE engine is only rarely used. Simply because the typical driver doesn't drive that far. Unlike other "hybrids", the gas engine is not needed for operation. Full acceleration and top speed (101mph limited) are achieved without the ICE.
My daughter's Volt went over 3,000 miles without the ICE activating at any time.

Batteries of all kinds get better life at lower C levels. Batteries of all kinds need room at both the top and bottom for maximum life, Li is more sensitive in this regard.

Saying the Volt pack enjoys such a long life before capacity decay because the battery is highly stressed, and goes through more charging cycles is not correct. Saying it enjoys long life because it's small, is not correct either. Your cellphone will educate you on that so will your power tools and R/C aircraft.

Yes, I know about SOC and how C is rated; it's measured vs the whole pack size. But thinking SOC window size should be based purely on percentage is not right either. Headroom needed to allow regen when fully charged, and tail room necessary to avoid damaging the pack when parked long times aren't necessarily percentages. If a pack loses 500wH per month parked, you need X kWh on the bottom. If it needs 2kWh up top to allow for regen on a full charge (Li life is harmed by storing at peak voltage), you need X kWh on top. Yes, there are chemistry variations, but most the room needed is for functional reasons, not chemical differences.

The Bolt's low C discharge rate (based on prelim reports) is not necessarily indicative of the useful C discharge rate on the battery pack. Even on the meager 161HP (120kW actual, 110kW advertised) of the 2016 Volt, the FWD design is an issue. It cannot apply full power at lower speeds as the OEM tires spin briefly from a stop on dry pavement even with Traction Control turned on. Turn it off, and it roasts the front tires.

Prediction? The Bolt pack design will be fitted in a RWD chassis in the future, and the HP will be ramped up a lot. Corvette recently trademarked the name e-Ray for some strange reason.

 

[JRP3]

The way a Volt is operated for a typical family:

The ICE engine is only rarely used. Simply because the typical driver doesn't drive that far. Unlike other "hybrids", the gas engine is not needed for operation. Full acceleration and top speed (101mph limited) are achieved without the ICE.
My daughter's Volt went over 3,000 miles without the ICE activating at any time.

Still completely irrelevant. Sometimes I've used a wrench as a hammer. It's still a wrench, no matter if I never use it as such.

Batteries of all kinds get better life at lower C levels. Batteries of all kinds need room at both the top and bottom for maximum life, Li is more sensitive in this regard.

Saying the Volt pack enjoys such a long life before capacity decay because the battery is highly stressed, and goes through more charging cycles is not correct.

Saying it enjoys long life because it's small, is not correct either.

Good thing we aren't saying either of those things. It's pretty simple, we are saying that the Volt pack is cycled through a narrow range of SOC, and it's a chemistry and construction designed for a higher C rate. Even within the same chemistry you can build a cell for higher output, at the sacrifice of specific energy, exactly what was done with the Volt pack.

Your cellphone will educate you on that so will your power tools and R/C aircraft.

Wrong analogy. Those are all examples of batteries that get deeply cycled through a larger SOC range. Also different chemistries.

Yes, I know about SOC and how C is rated; it's measured vs the whole pack size. But thinking SOC window size should be based purely on percentage is not right either.

Yes it is.

Headroom needed to allow regen when fully charged, and tail room necessary to avoid damaging the pack when parked long times aren't necessarily percentages.

That's all included in the working SOC range of a pack.

Yes, there are chemistry variations, but most the room needed is for functional reasons, not chemical differences.

The functional reason is the small hybrid pack is going to be cycled more often so they allow less of the SOC to be used.

 

[scottf200]

The way a Volt is operated for a typical family:

The ICE engine is only rarely used. Simply because the typical driver doesn't drive that far. Unlike other "hybrids", the gas engine is not needed for operation. Full acceleration and top speed (101mph limited) are achieved without the ICE.
My daughter's Volt went over 3,000 miles without the ICE activating at any time.

I'm afraid they don't appreciate how powerful and unique this is. They think your daughters 3000 aren't "real" or "pure" electric miles ... lol. It's silly but they don't [want to] get it.

Anyway this is a Bolt thread so a ways off topic. Hopefully this puts real pressure on Tesla for Model 3 because without they just do whatever they want and whenever they want. They are having serious transition pains and we are only just starting the X. Next month they will have had my X deposit for 3 years. Our 2016 Gen II completely redesigned Volt was 1 week later than I expected.

 

[McRat]

I'm afraid they don't appreciate how powerful and unique this is. They think your daughters 3000 aren't "real" or "pure" electric miles ... lol. It's silly but they don't [want to] get it.

Anyway this is a Bolt thread so a ways off topic. Hopefully this puts real pressure on Tesla for Model 3 because without they just do whatever they want and whenever they want. They are having serious transition pains and we are only just starting the X. Next month they will have had my X deposit for 3 years. Our 2016 Gen II completely redesigned Volt was 1 week later than I expected.

The reason I think the Volt battery engineering is "on topic" for a Bolt discussion, is that GM is unlikely to throw away what they learned from the Volt battery. All we can do today is guess at what a Bolt will deliver when available for retail sale.

- - - Updated - - -

...
The functional reason is the small hybrid pack is going to be cycled more often so they allow less of the SOC to be used.

Sure on a pure percent, the Volt pack is less SOC, but it isn't a pure percent. 14.0/18.4 (2016) = 76% no doubt, but what if you subtract the fixed component of the head and tail room? No different than "pure" EVs.

 

[JRP3]

I'm afraid they don't appreciate how powerful and unique this is. They think your daughters 3000 aren't "real" or "pure" electric miles ... lol. It's silly but they don't [want to] get it.

Sorry but I'm not going to let that stand unanswered, since the only thing "silly" is your statement. How many electric only miles are driven by any individual has nothing at all to do with how the vehicle was designed. It would be equally silly to call the Volt an ICE if someone never plugged it in and only drove it using gasoline, which of course some people have done. The Volt is a hybrid by design and construction, no matter how it's used. It has nothing to do with purity or any other nonsense, only proper terminology. As pointed out above even GM is backing away from their "EV" marketing nonsense now that they have an actual EV about to enter volume production.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure on a pure percent, the Volt pack is less SOC, but it isn't a pure percent. 14.0/18.4 (2016) = 76% no doubt, but what if you subtract the fixed component of the head and tail room? No different than "pure" EVs.

Not sure what you're talking about. There is a smaller amount of the entire potential capacity that is allowed to be accessed, a smaller percentage than is allowed with a larger pack used in EV's. I'm quite sure the Bolt will use a larger percentage of the pack capacity than the Volt.