Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Electric Vehicles' started by FredTMC, Jan 9, 2015.
Please share a link to the story with us.
I'm sure he would not mind. I hope: Bolt EV Weekend Trip to Zion
Bolt EV breaches 300 miles already. Chevy Bolt EV drivers reporting that 300+ miles of range are achievable under perfect conditions
Makes you wonder if the base Model 3 will only have 200hp in a bid to maximize efficiency. Seems unlikely that a 250hp or 300hp motor would be able to squeeze out the same distance with all other things being equal, no?
No. A more efficient motor design with better cooling, or more heat tolerance, could allow a higher peak HP without negatively effecting range.
What is inefficient about the current motor?
Nothing that I'm aware of but there are always ways to improve it, my point was that a motor with a higher peak HP rating doesn't necessarily mean it's less efficient or would negatively impact range. Unless of course you use the extra HP all the time.
Ah. Staying off the go pedal is important in staying efficient.
I wonder what those are, and how that compares to the flow of traffic.
Having grown up in Northern California, and having driven to/from LA, I know that in those areas sticking to posted speed limits will having people blowing by you...
People will be passing you, but you wouldn't be the slowest thing on the road. Large trucks and RVs usually hold that spot. I normally drive at most 5 over and that seems to work out fine between here and Vegas. Just stay out of the fast lane.
I haven't taken LA to Las Vegas, but I know on I-5 to LA to keep up with traffic, you have to go at least 5-10 mph above the limit (some cars are way above this). The annoying thing is that there is only two lanes, so if you can't keep up, you have to go on the right lane. That lane is in horrible condition because of the trucks and even though they typically are going 10 above the truck limit, that is still only 65mph (5 below limit).
Yeah, I-5 is thee route I've taken from the Bay Area to LA most of the times I've driven it. Driving at the limit for that stretch would be painful.
As I mentioned in another post (regarding need for more than current range in EV's), it would be nice not to have to be stuck in the slow lane passed by everything else on the road. And I don't want to unfairly bash the Bolt, as all EV's will take a hit with increased speed, it's interstate speed efficiency with it's Cd has been questioned. While it's cool that the person in the article was able to make that journey, I'm not sure that it's representative of how most people will want to drive it.
Unlike more intelligent state governments, California has a 55 mph slow lane for trucks or those with trailers.
The flow of traffic in the right lanes is normally 50-65 mph.
But yes, in normal states, speed limits can be as high as 85mph and trucks and trailers can travel that speed too.
Technically if you are running the I5 during the busy hours (or when the Killer Fog is running up the body count), one semi passes another, and the 200 cars that are blocked behind them are going 50 or less because every frogger in a Bimmer is bouncing between the two lanes that aren't going anywhere, touching off a sea of brake lights.
The smaller motor in the S/X is a bit more efficient than the larger motor of the P version. For one thing they weigh less, which helps, but the angular momentum is larger for the larger motor, which contributes to efficiency. A motor with a smaller rotor would be more efficient overall. But electric motors are so efficient to begin with, the improvement would be tiny, at best it would be a few percent. The difference in range between the Model S 100D and P100D is about 6%. To get reasonable performance from the Model 3 with a smaller motor, it probably can't be much smaller than the smaller motor on the Model S/X.
> What is inefficient about the current motor? [diamond.g]
GM uses permanent magnet motors geared to turn lower rpm. Tesla uses wound rotors and uses higher rpm gearing. Once the M3 is released it might be possible to run tight comparisons with the Bolt to try to rank these variables. But based on my experience with the 'monstrous' Spark EV motor I must say that it is very efficient. So motor size is not necessarily an impediment to energy saving esp when the tall gearing is always there to reduce rotational inertia. [too many variables, so little time . . . ]
Well of course I'm not referring to truck & trailer speed limits for what a single car would need to do to keep up with the flow of traffic.
According to the CA DOT, the speed limit from Victorville where he charged to the stat line near NV is 70MPH. So I assume he was doing about that.
He charged at Victorville to 90% (214 miles range), and he says he traveled the 180 mile with significant charge left. He says he made it with significant miles left. He later mentions trying the return leg with 80% charge (~190 miles), so I'd guess he had at least 24 miles of range left over. The ~725' drop in elevation undoubtedly helped.
I expect the fact that he likely needed greater than rated charge to make the trip despite a decent drop in elevation likely indicates that at 70mph the Bolt's Cd is coming in to play. Still the not dire situation some had predicted, but I think the discussion of aero impact are likely seen here.
I can typically get rated range@70 with flat elevation and better than rated with a drop like that. I suspect the Model 3 would have an easier time as well. I'd guess that at the driving speeds most would be comfortable with on that stretch (~80), that the 90% charge may have been pushing necessary.
Overall, not bad, IMO.
> . . whether the CCS infrastructure today would allow a Bolt EV to travel to Las Vegas from SoCal. Apparently somebody has just done that. . . [McRat]
NOW would be the time for CCS operators to actually promote long distance BOLT trips by installing in Barstow/Baker to enable easy Vegas shots and then advertising such. Likewise with Phoenix mid-point CCS chargers. Then the media will be tripping all over this with free publicity.
Victorville is about 700 feet higher than Las Vegas.
Another factor is that the last 60-70 miles towards Las Vegas drops about 2,700 feet and then rolls flat with a charging opportunity at Primm about 44 miles before Vegas.
Heading towards Victorville, the last 60-70 miles gains about 1,000 feet in elevation and there are no J1772 or CCS charging opportunities yet.
A 4 stall "350 kW" CCS charging plaza is being installed in Baker by EVgo and is aiming to be operational in about 4 months.
Looking back, my phrasing may have been awkward, when I referred to the return trip, which I only did as a reference, to guesstimate how much range he may have had remaining on the initial leg, as he opted to only charge to 80% coming back, so he assumed 190 miles would be enough.
In any case, that elevation drop is indeed what I had noted:
Thanks for chiming in where I was unclear.