SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Straw-man
Pointing out that the Bolt is an inferior choice to a Model 3 is not pushing people to buy ICE.
Did you think that the M3 is an ICE car ?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bolt EV EPA range = 238 miles combined!
- Thread starter bro1999
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Electric Vehicles
Pointing out that the Bolt is an inferior choice to a Model 3 is not pushing people to buy ICE.
Did you think that the M3 is an ICE car ?
Telling people an EV that charges in 20 minutes and can go 200 miles is wonderful and one that charges in 4 hours and goes 200 miles isn't going to sell EVs to ICE owners.
Sort of like... breaking a finger is great because breaking a leg is a lot worse.
Those who drive EVs know that you DON'T recharge much except while you're sleeping. But from reading some of the folk in this thread, you'd think exactly the opposite. That remote location charging is something you do daily and is normal.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
Of course "we" know that. However, people making the decision to purchase a Bolt over ICE are going to need all the incentive they can get. Tesla has done a bang-up job with that. Chevy has not, and I think that's what most people here are taking issue with.
That's weird, because 99% of my "refueling" it takes me less than 30 seconds of marginal time, since it does so overnight when I'm sleeping. For trips, it has always overlapped meal breaks. If I've spend more than an hour or two extra charging total over the last 3 years vs. time I would spend stopped in an ICE, I'd be very surprised.
This is the change people need to understand.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Only if long distance driving is your daily routine.
Has it not been clear that the Bolt limitation is related to long distance driving ?
The Supercharger network is fantastic for EV adoption. If it was not then Tesla wasted it's money and I honestly do not think you share that opinion. So your admonition to ignore it strikes me more as a posture to hide Bolt disadvantages.
Sorry, not going to play that game.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm getting deja vu, so I'm going to link my previous response to the same argument. Comparing charging quick charging speeds and the charging network is a useful comparison that EV buyers will make and can be a dealbreaker in comparing EVs.
Tesla Model 3 vs Chevy Bolt
I didn't think of this before, but your argument is similar to those that argue EVs are pointless unless then can go more than 300 miles on a charge. By your logic, we should give up comparing the range between EVs given they don't match an ICE anyways.
Do you take into account many of the theoretically 50 kW units being throttled?
For example, Quebec's Electric Circuit boasts 55 stations rated for 50 kW, but 45 of them are throttled to 41 kW in order to reduce electricity demand charges.
Also, many common models are modular and can be ordered as 25, 37.5, or 50 kW max on the hardware end, with software throttling still possible. So, seeing a model rated for up to 50 kW doesn't mean end-users can necessarily get close to that.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Now I cannot remember where I was reading about L2 Vs L2DC charging, but the author thought that the 50 kW charging would be 50% faster than 24 kW L2, or about 36 kW throughput average to get up to an 80% charge. I don't know if that was car related.
Does CCS also split power between two cars charging from the same terminal in the way we see with Superchargers ?
Confused with your post. Would you mind explaining? What was inaccurate with my statement?
Wind resistance effectively goes up with the square of speed. That's why I said exponential rise.
Total energy use includes energy required to overcome wind resistance + rolling resistance/mechanical losses (which with a 1 speed reduction gear roughly go up linearly with speed.)
The higher the speed, the more the wind resistance factor dominates, due to that exponent. At low speeds, aero has almost no effect. At higher speeds, it is the dominant factor. What am I missing?
Because.... the charge rate began aggressively ramping down after he went past 80% just like it does at a Tesla Supercharger station.
Charging from 23 to 80% took 15 minutes and added about 10.2 kWh so the average rate was about 41 kW.
The battery in that BMW i3 was only 22 kWh so charging at 2C like that is fairly aggressive. A Kia Soul EV with a 27 kWh battery (I think) is capable of charging at a peak of about 69 kW if hooked up to an experimental CHAdeMO station that can go beyond the normal 125A CHAdeMO limit.
CCS itself can already support up to 200A before the coordinated pending 350A update happening any month now for both CHAdeMO and CCS.
New local metro stations may continue to have 50 kW or less but many of the new highway-oriented CHAdeMO/CCS stations that will be installed in the next few years will be 200A or higher to support the newly available CHAdeMO and CCS cars with 50+ kWh battery packs.
A vehicle like the Bolt EV with its bigger battery will be able to charge at a 40-45 kW rate at a 125A station until it reaches 80% and even beyond. At a 200A station it will likely be able to charge at 65-75 kW (350V x 200A is 70 kW).
GM hasn't necessarily disclosed the maximum charge rate for the production version of the car yet. The battery cells are probably capable of taking in 90 kW or more just like a Tesla S60.
Breezy
Member
If the PlugShare station description says 50 kW, that's what I assume. Any station, Superchargers included, might be throttled for any number of reasons.
I haven't come across anyone claiming that they were being limited to a nominal 25 or 37.5 kW. Maybe someone else has.
Typically, no. I suppose it would be technically possible, but I've never seen such an installation.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Can you tell just from inspection, or would it take two cars charging at the same time to see the split ?
Actually, do CCS islands have more than one cord per station ?
Existing CCS stations often also have a CHAdeMO plug but typically only one car can charge at a time. There is no inherent reason preventing CHAdeMO or CCS stations from playing the same dynamic splitting behavior that Tesla Superchargers do.
Some AC J1772 stations do a similar thing today. There is a dual plug model from ChargePoint that can be configured to use a single 40A circuit and split it if both plugs are used.
When there are multi-stall high power CCS/CHAdeMO locations installed in the next few years you will likely start to see charger units with multiple plugs that service more than one stall at a time.
Yes, I'm being redundant because the EV refueling argument is based on misinformation on how automobiles are used for travel. You mainly charge your EV at home/work unless you're retired or too poor to afford plane tickets. There are people in the US who do not even own cars and they work and play just fine. So apparently the ability to go to North Dakota from New York each week by car is not as important as some folk think.
Elon Musk was well aware of the refueling issue. An EV that needs refueling for range extension is not competitive in that area with other automotive propulsion technologies. Musk went as far as designing the Tesla to accept a quick change battery pack, and putting in a global grid of super high output DCFCs,
The battery swap thing was not economically feasible. The SC grid still has gaps in it that require you to use slower refueling. Unpopular destinations aren't going to get DCFC for a very long time, and nobody is selling EV jerry cans yet.
Today, a BEV controls your schedule when used for long distance travel. When and where you eat and sleep are tied into charging infrastructure, and this simply is not true for gasoline or diesel. With ICE, you eat where YOU want and when YOU want, it's not your car's choice. It's the reason H2 will never catch on, and CNG/Propane are still limited to fleet use for the most part. There is certainly one thing gasoline is good at, and that is packing a lot of energy into very little mass, and that mass is liquid. It's the perfect freakin' energy source when it comes to remote refueling. Gasoline averages about 5 miles per pound. Li batteries? 5 miles per 15 lbs?
So if gasoline is so damn great, why is electricity better? Just to Save Teh Whales and Get Pot Legalized? No, EV tech is not tie-dyed t-shirts, sandals, and fancy bongs. It's a better engineering solution to automotive propulsion than internal combustion and I do not mean emissions control.
Electromotive propulsion allows for a car that NEVER stops for refueling during driving. Or you can refuel. You have a choice. You do not get a choice with ICE unless you have a butler or chauffeur. Our kids Volts are do not get refueled while in operation more than once a month. I think the 2013 gets refueled remotely every 2000 miles on the average, and the 2016 is probably higher. And these are VERY fast refuels since they are normally about 6 gallons.
Digital control of electromotive powertrains is simpler and more robust that trying to control an ICE engine and transmission. Things like stability control, traction control, 4 wheel steering, AWD, energy recovery, hill hold, cruise control, etc, are easy when you're electric.
Moving a heavy object is easier to do when you use electric motors. Cruise ships, trains, big earthmoving equipment, and even passenger cars are easier to propel when you use an electric motor. No idling, no clutch, no fluid torque converter, no gear changing, constant torque. But the instant throttle response at all times and speeds is really what make an EV a better way to drive than the other options.
But thinking that DCFC refueling Ozona, Texas is a critical must-have feature for a BEV is wrong. If that becomes the battle cry of the EV enthusiast, we are indeed doomed to extinction.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
That depends on if you want to sell the vehicle to Joe public or not. People make buying decisions based on perception. If they deem it critical, then it becomes critical.
I can't use the Bolt as a primary vehicle in the Mid-West. Not having chargers to allow me to make annual long distance trips means that the Volt is a better choice right now. Which seems to be what GM wants buyers to see anyway.
There are cheaper EVs out there if you requirements relegate the Bolt to an urban commuter.
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Why did you buy a Volt rather than a LEAF ? I'm guessing one of the reasons was to cover the occasional drive past LEAF range.
You want the Truth???? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! Kidding, I'm not Jack.
Wife voted down a BEV for the kids. She is afraid they will get stranded somewhere. The first Volt worked out so good, that when the last kid of the litter was ready, we bought another one for him.
The Volts were a compromise that worked out excellent. After abusing the Volts myself (I even bought AutoX tires for them and thrashed them) I can say they are a damn good little car. For urban driving? Nothing finer IMO.
But you're right, poor range was also an issue. In 2013, cheap BEVs could not go to the beach and back, or Disneyland, or San Diego, or Los Angeles. The Bolt will make it, especially since today there are CCS's in existence.
What does Wifey want? She is waiting for the CT6 PHEV.
Similar threads
- Article
