IL Corrects Volt Story: Batteries Will NOT Charge When Driving; GM Website Differs

[MOGI]

I take this all to mean that the ICE and the battery are seperate power sources for the electric motor. The ICE has no role in charging the battery, but rather powering the electric motor directly when the battery charge is depleted.

[johnriley]

Originally Posted by TheGeneral

A Diesel Electric locomotive would be similiar right? Just no batteries.

From the sound of them, locos don't run their engines at a constant pace.

[Chaz_23]

So just like the interior, we won't know until they release this thing how it is going to work.
Sounds like by "plug-in" they mean "plug-in only" if you want your battery charged. It doesn't sound good, but like some of you say, it seems efficient.
By time it comes out, who knows, it may turn out to be neither a hybrid nor a plug-in, but...vaporware!

[johnriley]

Originally Posted by A Bum In A Bus

Edmunds is wrong, though this is not the first time for them, they are wrong...the small gasoline engine charges the battery pack, while the batteries power the vehicle. Since the battery will never completely recharge while driving, you can plug it in at night for a full charge and 40 mile capability. Should the battery completely discharge for whatever reason, the engine will keep you from being stranded. The engine was never intended to power the car for everyday driving. Sorry Edmunds relick your cow. Lutz was very clear on this when they introduced the Volt.

Everything I have seen talks about hundreds of miles of range. Nothing I have seen implies that this range is just to avoid being stranded.

OTOH the implication is that when the small ICE / generator are powering the car, the performance is "comparable" to a conventional drivetrain ( Chrysler just made this claim too) and I don't see how this can be.

Chrysler release:

The Range-extended Electric Vehicle combines the electric-drive components of the Electric Vehicle with a small gasoline engine and integrated electric generator to produce additional energy to power the electric-drive system when needed. This provides the positive attributes of an Electric Vehicle with the driving range equivalent to today's gasoline-powered vehicles – with no compromises in performance.

[04bonnie]

Originally Posted by WishIhadatruck

Other than washing your dishes, what specifically do you want it to do so you WOULD be impressed?

Two things: Either this car should be NO MORE than $25K, OR it should be a larger vehicle that can seat 7 or 8 if it's in the $30K range, THAT would make me impressed. People have rumored that this car is to be $35 to $40K, not sure if that's a for sure, but that's what I'm going with. OR even, if this was a wagon vehicle, so at least there would be some practicality in it. It's just a 5 person car, and not sure about the interior room, no one has seen it up close, so I won't assume it's small, maybe it's roomy, but still....not impressed with a car costing that much, even if it saves on gas (or allows no gas, if you stay under 40 miles...whatever), I just can not get excited over this. I'm sure it's great technology, and it looks good to me, but I think it's getting way too much hype. I would rather see GM pump up the advertising of it's current models, and get people excited over those, instead of a vehicle that's not available yet.

[Mrbowtie]

not a big deal. most people travel no more than 30 minutes to work, that 40 mile range is closer to 45 or 60 minute commute, in any metropolitan area.

As long as employers will allow their workforce to plug in their car during their 8 or 9 hour work day

[zete]

Originally Posted by A Bum In A Bus

Edmunds is wrong, though this is not the first time for them, they are wrong...the small gasoline engine charges the battery pack, while the batteries power the vehicle. Since the battery will never completely recharge while driving, you can plug it in at night for a full charge and 40 mile capability. Should the battery completely discharge for whatever reason, the engine will keep you from being stranded. The engine was never intended to power the car for everyday driving. Sorry Edmunds relick your cow. Lutz was very clear on this when they introduced the Volt.

This is what I've understood.

In essence, the generator puts charge into the battery which continues to power the motors at the wheels. There is no direct connection from the gas generator to the electrical motors.

The generator is sized to provide enough extra juice to allow the electrical motors to pull additional power out of the batteries while keeping the batteries above 30%. It can't actually refill the battery. I guess it could if the Volt was sitting still and the generator was on, but it's obvious the generator cuts off at idle, which makes sense.

Originally Posted by eaton53

Only an utter fool would actually want the engine to charge the batteries.
All you want is just enough to keep things moving along until you can plug in again.

I doubt you'd have to be a fool. If the generator was larger it would recharge the batteries. But it's obvious GM is sizing the generator to do a very specific and highly efficient thing. I'm sure they examined a slew of scenarios and realized that this keeping it topped up at 30% while on generator is the best option.

Ultimately, this just shows that GM has to make sure people comprehend how this new technology works. When folks say this is as big as the first IC cars more than 100 years ago they're not kidding. This is like selling those new-fangled horseless carriages, it's confusing and doesn't work like old bessie!

[Hybrid_Student]

Unfortunately, this article is not revealing anything new at all, unless you have been confused and thought you could get where you wanted to go AND magically charge your battery by the end of your trip. But what is the purpose of having a full battery at the end of your trip? The purpose is to draw from the grid!

I can see how people who do not understand energy conversion might think this is something new, and maybe they think they are trying to get cheated. I will attempt to explain that GM is actually doing this the reasonable way.

What happens when your battery has no more useful charge? At this point you've driven your 40 miles at slow speeds from your garage, after fully charging the battery, but you want to keep going. So your onboard generator produces electrical energy (as opposed to just mechanical energy) which is delivered to the motor. My guess is the battery probably does absorb and dissipate a very small amount of transient energy, but the more it stays out of the way, the more efficient the whole system is. At the societal level, fuel is converted into useful energy more efficiently through electrical power plants than small combustion engines. (although some diesels are close to some plants) Thus, you WANT to have a depleted battery so you can "fill up" with slightly cleaner energy.

Quick analogy:
Paying Your Bills = Driving Your Car, and
Withdrawing From Your Bank = Refueling Your Car

You can go to an ATM, take out a lot of cash, and spend it on anything (everyone takes cash), and even pay your bills with it. But you end up paying for ATM fees and stamps and things like that. Or you can do electronic bill pay for your bills. You direct your money through different channels so that you get the most out of it.

Similarly, you can fuel your car with a lot of gas, and spend it on battery energy, and of course, driving energy. But you need a bigger, powerful engine to do both of those things, like you would need a big wallet if you did everything in cash. You end up losing energy through inefficient conversions. Use electricity to do the majority of your battery charging, and you pay less energy "ATM fees and stamps."

[stevecmh]

Originally Posted by drew630

So basically the gas motor is like one big alternator that provides power to the electric motors but doesn't charge the batteries? Sorry, I am really confused on how this system is suppose to work.

i think everyone is ..GM better clarify

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by 04bonnie

Two things: Either this car should be NO MORE than $25K, OR it should be a larger vehicle that can seat 7 or 8 if it's in the $30K range, THAT would make me impressed. People have rumored that this car is to be $35 to $40K, not sure if that's a for sure, but that's what I'm going with. OR even, if this was a wagon vehicle, so at least there would be some practicality in it. It's just a 5 person car, and not sure about the interior room, no one has seen it up close, so I won't assume it's small, maybe it's roomy, but still....not impressed with a car costing that much, even if it saves on gas (or allows no gas, if you stay under 40 miles...whatever), I just can not get excited over this. I'm sure it's great technology, and it looks good to me, but I think it's getting way too much hype. I would rather see GM pump up the advertising of it's current models, and get people excited over those, instead of a vehicle that's not available yet.

I guess the real potential of freeing the country of dependency on foreign oil just isn't enough of a good reason for some people.... Obviously, the Volt is not for everyone or every usage model - but to allow 78% of us to use ZERO gas (save the occasional longer trip) is pretty amazing and really beats spending 3.3 Trillion dollars on a war in the Middle East. Keep buying oil from that region and you keep funding terror and repression....

[edsuski]

Originally Posted by stormwatcher

Well, how much sense does it make using a 30% efficient ICE to drive the generator? How efficient is that?

What type of mileage can be expected when powered by the ICE as many trips could well be over 40 miles?

That is EXACTLY the point. 78% of us will not have to run the ICE. For slightly longer trips - the ICE is available so that the Volt will never strand a user. Converting chemical energy into mechanical energy and then into electrical energy to drive the motor using a 25% - 30% efficient ICE is bad enough and should be minimized. Converting chemica energy into mechanical energy and then into chemical energy to charge a battery only to convert it once again into electrical energy to drive the electric motor is not the most efficient way to use the system.

Does that make sense?

Bottom line - if you drive hundreds of miles each day - the Volt may not be for you. If you drive less than 40 - you will buy zero gas. If you drive a little over 40 (say 100) then you will get a blend of the first 40 with zero gas and the next 60 at about 50 MPG. This will average out to about 80 miles per gallon of gasoline plus about $0.80 for the electricity.

[04bonnie]

Originally Posted by edsuski

I guess the real potential of freeing the country of dependency on foreign oil just isn't enough of a good reason for some people.... Obviously, the Volt is not for everyone or every usage model - but to allow 78% of us to use ZERO gas (save the occasional longer trip) is pretty amazing and really beats spending 3.3 Trillion dollars on a war in the Middle East. Keep buying oil from that region and you keep funding terror and repression....

I'm all for that, however: What about the 80% of people that can't afford to drive anything but a beater, worth way under the price of a new Cobalt? Because of the terrible economy, I would assume that only 5% of the population (at least in my area) buy brand new cars. We are fortunate enough to be able to because of good credit, but that doesn't mean everyone can. (a huge amount of the population have credit card debt, and barely live paycheck to paycheck) Even if this car takes off, there are so many older gas hogs on the roads, it will hardly make a dent. Even if the price were to be $25K, like I said earlier, that still won't help the people that can't afford a new car anyway. I'm not knocking the technology, or what it will potentially do, but I don't ever see a day where we are not dependent on oil. There would have to be "free" cars given to the poor people that can't afford, or have NO credit to even try to afford a newer then 10 year old vehicle. I wish there were a day when NO beaters were on the roads, but doesn't seem like it will happen. People drive their cars into the ground, and then some...and new cars are just not important to some people. What I would really like to see (will never happen) is a vehicle that doesn't wear out. Something that would cost $30K, and last 30 years, with NO maintence. That's in a dream world, I know, but still, cars wear out, and purchasing a car of this size for around $40K (if that's the price) will just wear out like every other car out there, and become a beater. This will take at least 20 to 30 years for all the gas only cars out there to eventually be off the roads, but still not 100%. What about the classic car hobbiests, myself included? If we get rid of gasoline all together, how will it ever work.

[WishIhadatruck]

Originally Posted by 04bonnie

Two things: Either this car should be NO MORE than $25K, OR it should be a larger vehicle that can seat 7 or 8 if it's in the $30K range, THAT would make me impressed. People have rumored that this car is to be $35 to $40K, not sure if that's a for sure, but that's what I'm going with. OR even, if this was a wagon vehicle, so at least there would be some practicality in it. It's just a 5 person car, and not sure about the interior room, no one has seen it up close, so I won't assume it's small, maybe it's roomy, but still....not impressed with a car costing that much, even if it saves on gas (or allows no gas, if you stay under 40 miles...whatever), I just can not get excited over this. I'm sure it's great technology, and it looks good to me, but I think it's getting way too much hype. I would rather see GM pump up the advertising of it's current models, and get people excited over those, instead of a vehicle that's not available yet.

So basically you won't be impressed unless it can be delivered at nearly a $0 price premium over a regular car. Prepare to be unimpressed. Lots of people are going to be willing to pay a premium for this unique (at first) technology either because they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or they just like to drive the latest in technology. Hopefully the price will come down fairly quickly and it will be more affordable not too many years after launch. There will certainly be competition within a couple of years of it launching and that will help. Oh, and it is only a 4 seater so it really isn't even as good as a regular car for hauling people. I think it is a great car and very important but the lack of a 5th seat will keep me from buying one. I'm holding out for an E-Flex Orlando/Zafira type vehicle.

[fan]

The battery could be built not as 'one piece', but at least two parralel batteries. After depleting one, the system could switch to the other and prepare the depleted one only for recharging(not recharging and providing power simultaneously). The other one (the full one)could provide the necessary power.

It may be possible to have the gas engine providing power for the electric motors and also recharging the battery.

To maximize fuel economy, the engine would start runing at optimum rpm when the first battery would be depleted. From this point on, the setup would work like a parallel hybrid. When there's need for more power, the battery would make up for the not-enough power supplied by the engine running at constant rpm.

- At normal speeds:
The surpluss power from the engine would recharge the depleted battery.

-Under stress:
The battery would supply the elctric motors with aditional power.

The scenario could work with 'one' battery but there would be more stress on it. Anyway the battery is likely built from many modules. It would be easy to setup 'two' parralel batteries

[mechgmguy]

There are some simple efficiency points here that alot of people seem to be missing!

If the gas engine does not charge the battery, but only powers the electric motors through a generator, then why does it not power the wheels directly? That would be an inefficient system, using mechanical power to generate electricity to turn that electricity back into mechanical power! and since the point of the volt is to be an extremely efficient system, this would be a waste.

This isnt to say that the engine never powers the motors directly (as at this point only GM could tell us that) but rather that it will charge the batteries in at least some circumstances!

However, it is not to say that the engine will run the battery to a full charge either. Lets consider this case:
- extended city driving beyond 40 miles: if the car knows where the ultimate destination is (example 60 total miles) then once the 40 miles are up, it will run the engine long enough to make the car travel an extra 20 miles (not necessarily the rest of the trip)
That was what Lutz was referring to...