There is some logic to that, but GM doesn't require Spark EV dealers to offer CCS. Nor does Nissan make LEAF dealers install CHAdeMO stations. (Though Nissan is willing to share costs if a dealer wants one, which doesn't seem to be the case with GM). There are still plenty of Tesla service centers that don't have Supercharges, btw.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
There is some logic to that, but GM doesn't require Spark EV dealers to offer CCS. Nor does Nissan make LEAF dealers install CHAdeMO stations. (Though Nissan is willing to share costs if a dealer wants one, which doesn't seem to be the case with GM). There are still plenty of Tesla service centers that don't have Supercharges, btw.
Thanks for the feedback. There are definitely specific conditions or assumptions that would enable to trip to be done faster. My goal wasn't to predict the fastest times, cannonball run style. Rather, I wanted to make reasonable assumptions given all the variables that I wouldn't model. For example, traffic and weather can either increase or decrease the times (mainly decrease). I assumed "limit + 0 mph" for urban highway speed, noting that it can be considerably faster or slower than that in reality. I also assumed "limit + 5 mph" speeds for open highways. This biases the speed up but again there's a variety of factors that would change that in reality. Considering those factors, I couldn't make the jump to "limit + 10 mph" as a baseline speed for open highways.
For similar reasons, I made 15% SoC a hard floor. I toyed with keeping a specific kWh or range available as the minimum battery limit but ended up using the percentage limit. Here again, 20% seems to leave too much on the table and 10% was too risky given the uncertainty in long-range travel. For example, an unexpected 10mph headwind would use all that 15% margin and the driver would need to decrease speed just to make the next stop.
The calculations do not include any elevation effects (yet). A varying elevation profile will change the times spent at each charging location but would have only minor effects on the total trip duration. I think the value here is comparing each car's performance and the difference between these cars will be very minor (~0.8%) for this LA to LV trip that gains a net 2000 ft.
But because I can't leave a sleeping dog lie, I did rerun the models a few other ways:
80mph and 10% SoC lower limit
The S 60 total trip time decreases by 10 minutes.
The Bolt EV total trip time decreases by 4 minutes.
The difference between these cars grows from 23 minutes to 29 minutes.
70 mph and a 15% SoC limit
The S 60 total trip time increases by 8 minutes.
The Bolt EV total trip time increases by 3 minutes.
The difference between the cars shrinks from 23 minutes to 18 minutes.
70 mph and a 10% SoC limit
The S 60 total trip time increases by 5 minutes.
The Bolt EV total trip time is unchanged.
The difference between the cars shrinks from 23 minutes to 18 minutes.
55mph and a 15% SoC limit
A 55 mph average speed would be a heavy traffic scenario in which power consumption would be significantly affected by the traffic. The model only assumes a steady speed and no drafting, but it shows the trip can be completed with only one stop for each car. Both cars complete it at the same time in just over 5 hours. Properly accounting for the psuedo-random accelerations needed in traffic would favor the lighter car. Since heavy traffic also reduces drag losses, properly accounting for drafting would favor the less aerodynamic car. A more realistic model for a heavy traffic scenario would clearly show the Bolt EV arriving sooner.
That is not a good road to experiment on. Between high wind advisories and large temperature swings with traffic that can be stop-n-go to 85+ mph, mileage is unpredictable. Sometimes the roadside is littered with overheated cars, and other times snow closes it, and even a flipped over semi-truck.
When towing the race car, I normally get 15mpg highway at 65mph. Going to Vegas can drop to 10 mpg when there is a headwind. Other times, I can get 15mpg. It depends on the wind and traffic.
SmartElectric
Active Member
I use the Tesla waze browser app to tell me about wind and road hazards. It's great! I get that you think it's different and more challenging than the conditions I drive in, but perhaps you didn't know I travel in Canadian winter with lake driven snow flurries and strong winds.
Again. Tesla tech is fantastic and I've put my trust in many times.
Again. Tesla tech is fantastic and I've put my trust in many times.
rxlawdude
Active Member
This is where I think your model falls apart. The efficiency of the Bolt at 75-80mph will drop very quickly due to its poor aerodynamics (COD=0.31) vs the MS (COD=0.24). That squaring of wind resistance will make McRat's trip to Vegas a real adventure!
Overcoming aerodynamic drag is indeed the most significant power consumer at faster speeds. I assumed a Bolt EV Cd of 0.32, a 1000' elevation, and 80degF with no humidity correction for the drag calculation. I have relatively high confidence in the drag numbers.
But let me be clear, these models are a work in progress and nowhere near accurate enough to discriminate a 2% difference. As I stated above, the modeling uncertainty is much higher than that. My biggest uncertainties are the tire rolling resistance coefficient (the baseline values and how much Crr varies with speed) and the motor efficiencies (net difference between the Tesla induction and GM permanent magnet motors).
Right now, the model shows the S 60 using 54% more energy to overcome rolling resistance than the Bolt EV. Some of that difference is obviously due to the difference in weight but what Crr values should I use for Michelin Primacy MXM4 (245/45R19) and Michelin Energy Saver (215/50R17) tires?
I was there and saw/sat in the car on Wednesday. It was the same yellow car that was in Paris. My impressions:
- The trunk was shorter then estimated based on pictures and reviews. But it did somehow make up for it in the hight.
- The false bottom in the trunk did not seems to be solid enough for heavy luggage. Would probably just put it away somewhere until I needed a flat trunk with the back seats down.
- The front seats was narrow, but that did not bother me, but others have commented that they felt the hard plastic on the side of the seats. It felt solid and comfortable except it seems to totally lack lumbar support! I have a bad back/lumbar, and that will not allow me to sit many minutes in this seats as it was in this car! A sales representative hinted that this was a preproduction car, and that this might be changed in the production cars, but other sales representatives said that we could not except any changes to the seat. If I should get a Ampera-e with this seats I would have to modify it - or replace it - to be able to use it.
- The back seats felt better then the front seat, but I my head hit in roof. Not bothersome, just sufficient to be irritating. But here the roofing over the doors was so low (or the seats placed to high) that it was bothersome to get in and out of the backseat (with my not to good back/lumbar).
- Plastic! Hard Plastic! A lot of hard Plastic! I'm not the type that insist that the car has to be "premium", and I'm used to cars with a lot of hard plastic and that does not bothers me a bit (or at least not to much). But in this car it was just to overwhelming. It may just be the colors of the interior, but it was the first ting I noticed when I got into the front seat.
- The gearshifter had just as dumb placement as the cupholders in Model S....
I was originally thinking of getting the base model but ended up with the fancier trim because I wanted some of the tech and safety features.
EV-lutioin
Active Member
brucet999
Active Member
Why would that be a problem? I pass other vehicles easily in my S without ever going much over 85 on interstate. On a two-lane mountain roads, speed limits will be 65 or less.
3Victoria
Active Member
I don't think he drives much on mountain roads. Passing at 90 mph is a good way to get the scenic route to the bottom of the mountain.
You line up about 2 seconds back, wait for your opening, hit your signal, accelerate briskly, then pass over the line, signal back in, and bleed off speed. If somebody is already going 65mph on a mountain road, you really don't need to pass them. Unnecessarily childish risk. You want to drive 175mph? There are lots of legal place to do it.
Last edited:
brucet999
Active Member
Have you taken into account the difference in front l area? Is Model S low COD x larger frontal area greater or lesser than Bolt's higher COD x what might be a lesser frontal area?
brucet999
Active Member
I didn't mean to say that the passed car would be going 65, just that speed limits are 10 mph lower on such roads.
And where did your 175mph comment come from?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I drive a two lane mountain road a lot in my Tesla. It's the Number 3 highway, also called the "Crow's Nest" from Hope to Princeton, BC. It's not nearly as nice at the 4 lane divided Coquihalla highway that also leaves Hope (both of which you see on TV show Highway Thru Hell). The problem with many drivers is they take the hills and turns really slow, but then when it comes to a nice flat stretch, good for passing, or it's a two-lane passing lane, they speed up to the speed limit, often before you have any opportunity to pass them. It drives me nuts but I have no choice but to pass them exceeding the speed limit, because I know when that stretch (or passing lane) ends, they will be back to doing a snail's pace and the next passing opportunity won't be for miles and they will likely pull the same stunt again. This is not uncommon. I go to my cabin most weekends (itching to leave soon) and it happens often -- both with a dotted yellow line, and in passing lanes. It's often for the designated passing lanes that you need to go over the speed limit because everyone speeds up for them. I haven't ended up at the bottom of the mountain yet (knock wood) and I consider myself a very safe driver, even passing on mountain roads over the speed limit. So to say someone doesn't drive mountain roads very often if they need to pass in excess of highway speeds on mountain roads, sound to me like someone who doesn't drive much on mountain roads.
Last edited:
This is where passing acceleration comes into play, not speed. You prepare with a gap, nail it, make your move quick, get back in, and if he wants to speed up for the straights, then he is out of luck. The next set of corners that come up will put him a mile back.
If you cannot pass using 90mph on a mountain road, you should not be passing. That's road rage, not driving.
The premise was that a car that climbs up to 90 mph in a short distance is no good for passing, and to that I call bull. I never have to use 90 to pass on public roads no matter how fast my car is.
Last edited:
I didn't mean to say that the passed car would be going 65, just that speed limits are 10 mph lower on such roads.
And where did your 175mph comment come from?
Sometimes you need to pass on the track. Speeds past 90 mph really aren't critical for street use. Only on closed circuits does acceleration at high speeds create a safer method of driving.
That sounds like the same rock hard materials used in the original Volt. Haven't been in the new one, but the original was dreadful.
You must have unusually short legs and a long torso. I'm 5.8 feet with a ratio of shorter legs and longer torso and I had no problem at all -- not even close. People well over 6 feet have said the Bolt EV fits them in front and rear seats better than the LEAF which also has unusually good headroom.
Similar threads
