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

[Saghost]

Actually less. Regen is lossy. I drive around a certain mountain to increase my range. Best I can figure, it saves 20% not to drive through mountains.

Still 3.6 kWh of potential energy. How much of that can end up in the battery is highly variable based on speeds and slopes.

Aside from an extreme slope that overwhelms the safe regen limit, the worst case is that it all goes through a double conversion - giving you between 60 and 90 percent back depending on the motor and where on the efficiency map it is.

In the best case, you do get 100% of it - if the slope is less than the cruise power requirement, it directly offsets battery usage.

 

[JRP3]

Yeah, clearly, the first 75 or so miles has a massive elevation drop.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Actually less. Regen is lossy. I drive around a certain mountain to increase my range. Best I can figure, it saves 20% not to drive through mountains.

However, some losses would be offset by decreased powertrain losses due to reduced power use.

 

[Saghost]

Chevrolets calculate range based on driving conditions, it is not unusual, even on level ground, to 'gain' miles while driving. This is true for gas, diesel, EREV, hybrid, and EV.

Every morning you get in the car, a 100% charge (or full tank) can read wildly different numbers. Then it slowly adjusts your range while you drive. Just because a car says 200 miles when you hit start doesn't mean that's what your range will be that day. Or 400 miles. You can normally exceed whatever the car tells you at startup.

This.

The more important aspect for this discussion I believe, is that because of this adjustment the car will show 200 miles at several different states of charge, based on past usage.

He almost certainly used more than 8 miles worth of battery in that time - but the computer adjusted the consumption expectations at the same time, which served to hide the rest of it.

 

[scaesare]

Lying to myself? What are you talking about? Lying about what? Lying that someone can drive a Bolt from Western MD to Ocean City in optimal driving conditions on a single charge with miles to spare? I never claimed Joe Schmoe driving without a care in the world could make that drive. I just *personally* wanted to find out if it could be done. Unlike other "hypermiling" attempts, I did not do some crazy crap like drive around in a circle on a private road at 24 mph hours on end, or inflate my tires 10 psi over the maximum psi rating. FWIW, I usually have my tires inflated to 42 psi cold, so my bump to 44 barely made any difference.

And while I may have been "hypermiling" (high speed hypermiling at 56 mph I guess), I still beat the unofficial record for a BEV doing the McHenry->Ocean City run, as the only other documented run was done by a S70D owner that completed the drive in 6 hours, 41 minutes (and required a charging stop).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjpnrymld7UAhVD8j4KHXh6CbEQFghDMAQ&url=http://pluginsites.org/crossing-maryland-in-record-time-with-an-electric-vehicle/&usg=AFQjCNGakWdCq9vuHgPNLBA_ohc8382m9A

I think it was the "REAL WORLD" (caps included) claim that gives pause.

It simply doesn't represent real world driving conditions for the vast majority of folks.

 

[SageBrush]

Yeah, clearly, the first 75 or so miles has a massive elevation drop.

How was the elevation map made ?

 

[McRat]

I think it was the "REAL WORLD" (caps included) claim that gives pause.

It simply doesn't represent real world driving conditions for the vast majority of folks.

No, but it does represent a segment of 'green' drivers. Starting with the Prius and Insight in the modern era (VW Beetles before), a certainly % does try to stretch their economy for either financial, green, or competitive purposes. Sometimes all three. You will read about a lot of Tesla owners on this board who state better than 4 mi / kWh in their travels. I can tell you that's not the 'vast majority' of Tesla miles.

While I do enjoy racing, I also enjoy exceeding EPA numbers significantly in urban loops of real world travels. For many, this means their daily commute. For me, it's visiting customers.
Up to 17 gallons of fuel can sometimes be replaced by 14 kWh of electricity on the same customer loop. With me, it's not money or competition, it's something to make the driving more fun in congested freeway/urban traffic. I don't impede traffic, but I use all the tricks I know of. No cruise control, stay in the right lane, dodge torn up pavement, try to never use brakes, max tire pressure, no unnecessary cargo, etc.

 

[techmaven]

How was the elevation map made ?

That map is from @bro1999 blog entry.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Lying to myself? What are you talking about? Lying about what? Lying that someone can drive a Bolt from Western MD to Ocean City in optimal driving conditions on a single charge with miles to spare? I never claimed Joe Schmoe driving without a care in the world could make that drive. I just *personally* wanted to find out if it could be done. Unlike other "hypermiling" attempts, I did not do some crazy crap like drive around in a circle on a private road at 24 mph hours on end, or inflate my tires 10 psi over the maximum psi rating. FWIW, I usually have my tires inflated to 42 psi cold, so my bump to 44 barely made any difference.

And while I may have been "hypermiling" (high speed hypermiling at 56 mph I guess), I still beat the unofficial record for a BEV doing the McHenry->Ocean City run, as the only other documented run was done by a S70D owner that completed the drive in 6 hours, 41 minutes (and required a charging stop).

You wrote that you did it "without going to hypermiling extremes." The measures you took were _well_ outside the norm. The fact that you even had to inflate your tires should tell you as much. If 44 PSI were normal there'd be no reason to have your regular (already high) tire pressure lower.

I do some hypermiling that sacrifices time and/or comfort, I _accept_ that it's not normal driving and I don't try to tell anyone otherwise.

I didn't even say that it was deliberate. It might have been self-deception of the same kind that made you think that the Bolt would be able to charge at 80kW. But either way, please stop it. It's hurts your credibility and diminishes the trustworthiness of any of the data you provide.

 

[Jeff N]

Whatever that Bolt time was, the car following did even better since it caught up, repeatedly.

And then the Bolt sped far ahead again...

The trailing car caught up repeatedly because the Bolt had to slow for sharp track turns while the car behind was still accelerating flat out on straight road.

By the way, a lap time of 2 minutes is 67 mph. Honda Fit EV times within striking distance of Tesla Roadster times sure makes me wonder about that race.

Sure, the lap is "slow" because of all the twisty turns that require driving skill.

The Fit EV is actually very sporty compared to other ~80 mile EVs. It uses an unusual Lithium-ion battery from Toshiba called the SCiB which uses a Lithium titanate anode instead of graphite. That allows higher charge and discharge power rates and a longer cycle life but in return for lower energy density. The motor is 92 kW or 123 HP while the car is a relatively modest 3,250 pounds.

One Fit EV got 156.445 (just under the Bolt's time this year) in the 2015 REFUEL but oddly was listed in the "Production GT" class along with Tesla's and reportedly had previously turned in suspiciously good times on the Pikes Peak run. As someone else noted, that could imply that it was somehow tuned or modified.

 

[SageBrush]

I think it was the "REAL WORLD" (caps included) claim that gives pause.

It simply doesn't represent real world driving conditions for the vast majority of folks.

It does for a Bolt.

The driver spent about 16 hours to charge and drive ~ 500 miles

 

[scaesare]

No, but it does represent a segment of 'green' drivers. Starting with the Prius and Insight in the modern era (VW Beetles before), a certainly % does try to stretch their economy for either financial, green, or competitive purposes. Sometimes all three. You will read about a lot of Tesla owners on this board who state better than 4 mi / kWh in their travels. I can tell you that's not the 'vast majority' of Tesla miles.

And I'd argue those are not "real world" either. Any arbitrarily small subset of behavior likely exists somewhere. But if it's atypical, and not what one expects to experience in the vast majority of typical situations, then it doesn't match the typical connotation of "real world" in most people's minds.

I've educated my children that if they want to support themselves in the "real world", they have to be prepared to work hard and acquire skills for a good job despite the fact the Kardashians are out there and lottery winners exist.

Furthermore, what's the cut-off? If going 10 MPH under the limit to maximize range is "real world", is that also true for 15MPH? How about 20? Is it "real world" to start at the top of a mountain, turn the car off, and coast in neutral for the first 8 miles?

As long as there's an actual destination (and not driving in a circle, as bro1999 has alluded to several times), does it matter if the average highway speed is 11mph?

So, let's admit what the exercise was: an experiment with arbitrary limits imposed to maximizes one aspect of performance (range), at the expense of other aspects: speed, time, and listening to horns honking at you constantly. I understand you aren't making the "real world" claims in this case... but the OP seems to be sticking to it.

 

[TEG]

By the way, a lap time of 2 minutes is 67 mph. Honda Fit EV times within striking distance of Tesla Roadster times sure makes me wonder about that race.

Despite the supercar looks, and the off-the-charts fun-to-drive factor, the Roadster was not designed to be a track car.
The air cooled motor tends to overheat if pushed hard lap after lap.
The Fit has a liquid cooled motor that stands up to track abuse better than the Roadster motor.

The Roadster also has somewhat narrow tires designed for efficiency and range not just performance...

Running with track tries and upgraded brakes can make a difference. I am not sure which cars had mods of that sort.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Despite the supercar looks, and the off-the-charts fun-to-drive factor, the Roadster was not designed to be a track car.
The air cooled motor tends to overheat if pushed hard lap after lap.
The Fit has a liquid cooled motor that stands up to track abuse better than the Roadster motor.

The Roadster also has somewhat narrow tires designed for efficiency and range not just performance...

Running with track tries and upgraded brakes can make a difference. I am not sure which cars had mods of that sort.

Maybe the track traffic has to do with it too. From the Bolt video, the cars are close enough that this might affect times a bit.

 

[Canuck]

Plenty of fast charging. I just chose not to use it. CCS only.

I would also choose not to. That's because if you pick one of the "plenty" then arrive at it, and it's occupied or out of service (as many are) you then have to choose another one and keep your fingers crossed -- and save enough range in case the next one is full too. It's already difficult enough having my wife accept supercharging as part of our travels. I can't imagine taking her to those "plenty" of fast chargers on plugshare. I also can't see the general public accepting that for long distant travel since good luck on a long weekend in the summer which is when I like to travel -- it's not fun when you just want to vacation. I've done it since I've owned my car before one Supercharger was opened in Canada and there's no comparison. I don't need the hassle and stress when I can own a Tesla.

Being able to pull up to a bank of maintained superchargers is in a league of its own. I can hop in my Tesla right now and drive down to California/Florida/Texas, etc. without concern about where to fast charge. Or I could own a Bolt and bring up Plugshare. No thanks. I'd rather drive an ICE to those places than be worried about the "plenty" of fast chargers on Plugshare -- which is saying a lot since I hate driving an ICE.

Get off your arse GM and get in the game by building banks of fast chargers -- it's the future!

 

[bro1999]

You wrote that you did it "without going to hypermiling extremes." The measures you took were _well_ outside the norm. The fact that you even had to inflate your tires should tell you as much. If 44 PSI were normal there'd be no reason to have your regular (already high) tire pressure lower.

I do some hypermiling that sacrifices time and/or comfort, I _accept_ that it's not normal driving and I don't try to tell anyone otherwise.

I didn't even say that it was deliberate. It might have been self-deception of the same kind that made you think that the Bolt would be able to charge at 80kW. But either way, please stop it. It's hurts your credibility and diminishes the trustworthiness of any of the data you provide.

If inflating my tires 2 psi and traveling at 5-10 mph below the speed limits for half of the drive are considered "hypermiling extremes", I'm curious what you think of the 560 mile Tesla guys that drove around in circles for 24 hours at 24 mph. Is that "Ludicrous hypermiling"? "Maximum Plaid hypermiling"?

Consider that on a USUAL weekend day in the summer, there is a TON of traffic on the route to Ocean City in the late morning/early afternoon.
If I had made the same drive, except I traveled the speed limit for the entire first half of the drive, then spent the whole 2nd half of the drive in stop and go traffic and still made it on a single charge, would you discount that as "real world"?

Stop putting words in my mouth. All I've claimed is that my drive was closer to "real world" than driving in circles at low speeds.

How about I call my drive "313 miles in a Bolt on a single charge at or near the speed limit on REAL MD ROADS (not driving around at super slow speeds on private roads)". Would that make you happier?

 

[bro1999]

I would also choose not to. That's because if you pick one of the "plenty" then arrive at it, and it's occupied or out of service (as many are) you then have to choose another one and keep your fingers crossed -- and save enough range in case the next one is full too. It's already difficult enough having my wife accept supercharging as part of our travels. I can't imagine taking her to those "plenty" of fast chargers on plugshare. I also can't see the general public accepting that for long distant travel since good luck on a long weekend in the summer which is when I like to travel -- it's not fun when you just want to vacation. I've done it since I've owned my car before one Supercharger was opened in Canada and there's no comparison. I don't need the hassle and stress when I can own a Tesla.

Being able to pull up to a bank of maintained superchargers is in a league of its own. I can hop in my Tesla right now and drive down to California/Florida/Texas, etc. without concern about where to fast charge. Or I could own a Bolt and bring up Plugshare. No thanks. I'd rather drive an ICE to those places than be worried about the "plenty" of fast chargers on Plugshare -- which is saying a lot since I hate driving an ICE.

In the probably dozen times I've stopped by a CCS fast charging station, I've never found it in use by another person, and it has always worked. Maybe I'm just extremely lucky?

Anyways, GM doesn't really need to do anything as far as fast charging infrastructure expansion, because VW is footing the bill for dieselgate!

 

[TEG]

Maybe the track traffic has to do with it too. From the Bolt video, the cars are close enough that this might affect times a bit.

For the time trial, they are supposed to space the cars far enough apart that you don't get caught up behind someone slower. But that doesn't always work out, particularly if a car in front of you has a malfunction or driver error. And sometimes the track officials just screw up and start cars too close together.

 

[McRat]

I would also choose not to. That's because if you pick one of the "plenty" then arrive at it, and it's occupied or out of service (as many are) you then have to choose another one and keep your fingers crossed -- and save enough range in case the next one is full too. It's already difficult enough having my wife accept supercharging as part of our travels. I can't imagine taking her to those "plenty" of fast chargers on plugshare. I also can't see the general public accepting that for long distant travel since good luck on a long weekend in the summer which is when I like to travel -- it's not fun when you just want to vacation. I've done it since I've owned my car before one Supercharger was opened in Canada and there's no comparison. I don't need the hassle and stress when I can own a Tesla.

Exactly how much stress do you think we experience in luxury ICE land yachts? 4 individual zone HVAC, 34 speaker surround sound (yeah, even the head restraints have stereo), 4 reclining heated/cooled 5-mode massage seats, privacy shades, individual F/R sunroofs, twin HDTV large screen 4G rear infotainment w/wireless headphones & remote, super smooth magnetic suspension, quiet, and over 5 hours at an average speed of 80 mph regardless of terrain. It doesn't suck, trust me. And it wasn't that expensive. Heck it gets 27mpg at 80mph. Yes, of course it's four wheel drive and four wheel steering and has a spare tire.

Being able to pull up to a bank of maintained superchargers is in a league of its own. I can hop in my Tesla right now and drive down to California/Florida/Texas, etc. without concern about where to fast charge. Or I could own a Bolt and bring up Plugshare. No thanks. I'd rather drive an ICE to those places than be worried about the "plenty" of fast chargers on Plugshare -- which is saying a lot since I hate driving an ICE.

Get off your arse GM and get in the game by building banks of fast chargers -- it's the future!

Or just buy the GM transcontinental EV version instead? You know, the one that goes where BEVs cannot?

Just because some folk cannot acknowledge the advanced features of other technologies does not eliminate that technology. "I can't eat with chopsticks, so we cannot have Chinese tonight!" > "Uh, do you want to borrow a fork?" > "How could you taste Chinese food if you used a fork!!???" Sheesh.

GM thought long and hard about EV propulsion (way before Elon was driving a car), and were the first to set up remote charging stations, 1000 Magnacharger inductive chargers.

So roughly when Tesla released the first Roadster (L2 regional range only), GM decided that EREV would be more effective than remote charging. And even today, the GM EREV system is highly functional if your goal is EV passenger miles.

SOTP estimate:

Voltstats (telemetry based data) says 3,112 Volts went 70.5 million EV miles. There are ~125,000 Volts on the road. So about 3 billion EV miles on US Volts. Assuming nation 26mpg average, that's 115,000,000 gallons of gasoline.

Somebody check my math, but that sure is a lot of pure EV miles for any brand EV.

In any case, there are more non-transcontinental EVs in use today than ones used for transcontinental purposes by an order of magnitude. Use a fork, or learn about chopsticks.

 

[JRP3]

If inflating my tires 2 psi and traveling at 5-10 mph below the speed limits for half of the drive are considered "hypermiling extremes", I'm curious what you think of the 560 mile Tesla guys that drove around in circles for 24 hours at 24 mph. Is that "Ludicrous hypermiling"? "Maximum Plaid hypermiling"?

Sure. No one suggested that was a real world scenario or anything close to it.