Will the Chevy Bolt EV be a 'game changer'?

[GetOffYourGas]

EV's actually lose LESS in cold weather - because they don't have to warm up to get good mileage.

True, but batteries hold less energy when cold. Gas tanks still hold as much gas. (Yes, I know winter blend has less energy than summer blend, but the difference is orders of magnitude smaller than the battery effect).

In my experience, my Leaf has lost far MORE range (as a percent) than any ICE car I have ever owned.

 

[oilerlord]

ICE vehicles can lose a lot of range, too. I have records for ~8 years of my last ICE car, and my best tanks were 600+ miles (not too shabby on a 11.9 gallon tank) and the worst in the winter was ~400 miles - and that was when I was trying to do well.

ALL cars have a large drop in cold weather. EV's actually lose LESS in cold weather - because they don't have to warm up to get good mileage.

Not sure I follow. I keep very detailed records for FE. The data for my ICE car over the past three years shows a seasonal drop in EV between 10-15%. I wouldn't exactly use your words to describe that as a "large" drop. While it's true that all cars drop FE in winter, it really isn't comparable, or even close to what I'm (and others) are experiencing with their EV's. Also, as far as range is concerned, If my ICE car gets 600 miles on a tank in summer, but "only" 510 in winter - the drop in FE is merely academic, and not a concern is it would be going from 238 miles to 119 with the Bolt.

I've been researching airtronic heaters for my B250e, like the ones that are used in semis. A few people have installed them with good results. They can even be hooked up to a GSM relay, and turned on via text message. I like that.

 

[JimmYK]

Excellent perspective however night charging at home will beat the cost n time to fill up ...for convenience anyways

It seems that this discussion of fueling has two sides, which rarely get discussed in the same breath.

One the one hand, the holdouts are shouting that they will not - no, cannot switch to EV until QC is as fast as filling a tank with gasoline.

On the other hand, the enthusiasts are countering that most fueling is done at home, and is far more convenient, today, than gasoline.

The truth is, DCQC is absolutely necessary for EVs to go mainstream. But, IMHO, they don't need to match gasoline for fueling times to have a net increase in convenience. Tesla is already there today - the daily home refueling + supercharging network gives most owners more convenience than a weekly trip to the gas station + 10 minute fueling stops when traveling. The thing is, nobody seems to realize this except current owners. So how do you convince others to try it for themselves?

IMO, ~250kW is where we need to get for passenger vehicles. At this rate, in 15 minutes the chargers can nominally push 250kW * 0.25h = 62.5kWh into a battery (assuming the battery can handle it). That would take an EV an extra 200+ miles. I think I could convince a lot more people to try an EV if the story is a 15 minute stop every 200 miles. Compare that to the Bolt - a 30 minute stop every 90 miles (per GM's marketing). That's a harder pill to swallow for the uninitiated. For me? That's perfectly fine. With a single 30 minute stop, I can travel 238 + 90 = 328 miles? Perfect! That's basically the farthest I ever drive anyway.

There's another solution, EVs today are very much overpowered. The Tesla is the fastest sedan in the world, my contention is that it doesn't have to be. Slowing down the EV means increasing distance and reducing batteries which means lighter cars and faster charges. Does the Bolt have to get to 60 mph in under 7 seconds? Of course not, 10 or 12 seconds will still make it equal to gas cars but with all the benefits I cited above.

How many DCQC's will we need when EVs go 4 or 5 hundred miles on a charge? So maybe the answer is to reduce the power of EVs.

Very interesting argument.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

Batteries have to operate in a range of temperature, and they warm it so that it does not lose capacity in the cold.

Internal combustion engines have to warm up to proper operating temperature, and the time needed to do this in the cold means they burn a lot more fuel.

I have 8 years of records of every single tankful for my 2005 Scion xAand here is a graph of them, starting at the 120th tank:

There are 7 peaks and 7 troughs - the peaks are the summers, and the troughs are the winters.

Here is the graph for my 2015 Leaf - this is nowhere near every charge, but it is a sampling, with many of the first 3-4 months and far fewer later on:

 

[Aidan]

It seems that this discussion of fueling has two sides, which rarely get discussed in the same breath.

One the one hand, the holdouts are shouting that they will not - no, cannot switch to EV until QC is as fast as filling a tank with gasoline.

On the other hand, the enthusiasts are countering that most fueling is done at home, and is far more convenient, today, than gasoline.

The truth is, DCQC is absolutely necessary for EVs to go mainstream. But, IMHO, they don't need to match gasoline for fueling times to have a net increase in convenience. Tesla is already there today - the daily home refueling + supercharging network gives most owners more convenience than a weekly trip to the gas station + 10 minute fueling stops when traveling. The thing is, nobody seems to realize this except current owners. So how do you convince others to try it for themselves?

IMO, ~250kW is where we need to get for passenger vehicles. At this rate, in 15 minutes the chargers can nominally push 250kW * 0.25h = 62.5kWh into a battery (assuming the battery can handle it). That would take an EV an extra 200+ miles. I think I could convince a lot more people to try an EV if the story is a 15 minute stop every 200 miles. Compare that to the Bolt - a 30 minute stop every 90 miles (per GM's marketing). That's a harder pill to swallow for the uninitiated. For me? That's perfectly fine. With a single 30 minute stop, I can travel 238 + 90 = 328 miles? Perfect! That's basically the farthest I ever drive anyway.

There's another solution, EVs today are very much overpowered. The Tesla is the fastest sedan in the world, my contention is that it doesn't have to be. Slowing down the EV means increasing distance and reducing batteries which means lighter cars and faster charges. Does the Bolt have to get to 60 mph in under 7 seconds? Of course not, 10 or 12 seconds will still make it equal to gas cars but with all the benefits I cited above.

How many DCQC's will we need when EVs go 4 or 5 hundred miles on a charge? So maybe the answer is to reduce the power of EVs.

Very interesting argument.

EV's are over powered.....now that is making me think....yes you ar right in so many ways. Gasoline engines have a ton of different 'categories". Not all gas powered vehicles have great tongue n get up n go....maybe a way EV's will go in the future as some don't care about the pick up n go power

 

[jimmyjon]

Imo some information has come out that does not make it a game changer

What information?

It's true the Chevy Bolt offers long range with a low sticker price. But for many people that's where it ends. Fast charging is an option and an added cost some safety features are not available unless you are getting a premium package ,some standard options that are important to people like electric seats are not available and there are areas geographically that have already committed to not selling Chevy Bolt. I guess it depends on what is important to each individual to determine if the Chevy Bolt is a game changer. For some people a low price tag and a high mileage range are not the only priority. We would be remiss if we didn't recognize the fact that other manufactures would also be conceptually producing vehicles with low cost high mileage as well due to government regulations. Chevy just did it first

 

[DucRider]

It's true the Chevy Bolt offers long range with a low sticker price. But for many people that's where it ends. Fast charging is an option and an added cost some safety features are not available unless you are getting a premium package ,some standard options that are important to people like electric seats are not available and there are areas geographically that have already committed to not selling Chevy Bolt. I guess it depends on what is important to each individual to determine if the Chevy Bolt is a game changer. For some people a low price tag and a high mileage range are not the only priority. We would be remiss if we didn't recognize the fact that other manufactures would also be conceptually producing vehicles with low cost high mileage as well due to government regulations. Chevy just did it first

Haven't heard this before.
What "areas" are you referring to that made a collective decision about selling the Bolt? AFAIK, each dealer will decide whether or not to invest the ~$45K required to sell the Bolt.

And much of the other things you refer to are individual preferences - no car will ever be all things to all people. Not having electric seats prevents it from being a game changer? Or having to buy a more expensive package to get the options you want? There isn't a manufacturer out there that doesn't do this (the average Model 3 will likely be $10K above the $35K base price).

 

[oilerlord]

It's true the Chevy Bolt offers long range with a low sticker price. But for many people that's where it ends. I guess it depends on what is important to each individual to determine if the Chevy Bolt is a game changer. For some people a low price tag and a high mileage range are not the only priority.

The "game changer" moniker still drives me nuts. Out of 100 people buying a new car in 2017, less than one will buy an EV. "Low sticker price" is relative only to those 1 in 100 people that are shopping for, and comparing prices on electric vehicles. The other 99 Chevy buyers will end up with a Sonic, Cruze, or Malibu because regardless of the environmental, and saving money on gas & maintenance arguments - those cars still cost less, have 400 miles of range, and utilize a vast network of 5-minute "fast chargers" known as gas stations.

I make the assumption that 1 in 100 car shoppers gather on forums like this one, and in that rich pool of EV enthusiasts, the game clearly has changed. I'm in that 1% too, and as keen as I am on the Bolt, I can accept that in terms of "big picture" - outside of forums like this one, the game isn't being changed at all.

 

[mark111]

That large screen TV wasn't LED, projection TVs were horrible and cost several times what an LED costs. I said there were "no electric car companies", not that there were no guys in their backyards using Lead/acid batteries in homemade electrics, and how far did your brother's car car go on a charge?
25 years ago the internet opened to the public before then it was strictly military:

http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/23/happy-internaut-day-25-years-ago-today-the-world-wide-web-opened-to-the-public/

"Samsung first debuted its line of LED TV's back in 2007. In 2009, the company sold 350,000 LED TV's in the first 10 weeks!" You didn't have one in 1996!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/209224/displays/historic-monitors-slideshow.html#slide19

"Early Desktop LCDs
Computer companies had experimented with desktop LCD monitors since the 1980s in small numbers, but those monitors tended to cost a lot and offer horrible performance in comparison with the more prevalent CRTs. That changed around 1997, when a number of vendors such as ViewSonic (left), IBM (center), and Apple (right) introduced color LCD monitors with qualities that could finally begin to compete with CRT monitors at a reasonable price. These LCDs used less desk space, consumed less electricity, and generated far less heat than CRTs, which made them attractive to early adopters."

"but those monitors tended to cost a lot and offer horrible performance", that's what you had in 1996, Oh, and your brothers golf cart battery powered homemade electric car.



And here's my electric usage for the last year, seeing as you're a cutting edge guy I'm sure you were clever enough to put in your own system and have your electric company pay you every month too. And, once more, in less than 3 years I won't ever need fossil fuel again, now tell me what the world will be like in 30 years.

In 1996 I had a pacifier, so for me, it was lifetime ago! ROLF!

In 1996, I was just starting my freshman year of High School. At that time, I was reading about the EV1. I was sure that by the time I bought my first car, it would be 100% electric, and could travel as freely as a gas car. While things didn't pan out as I had hoped, it's more of a delayed dream than a failed one. Certainly my next car will get me there, whether it's a Bolt, a Model III, or sometime not-yet-announced.

Yeah. Things are looking good.

 

[JimmYK]

Imo some information has come out that does not make it a game changer

What information?

It's true the Chevy Bolt offers long range with a low sticker price. But for many people that's where it ends. Fast charging is an option and an added cost some safety features are not available unless you are getting a premium package ,some standard options that are important to people like electric seats are not available and there are areas geographically that have already committed to not selling Chevy Bolt. I guess it depends on what is important to each individual to determine if the Chevy Bolt is a game changer. For some people a low price tag and a high mileage range are not the only priority. We would be remiss if we didn't recognize the fact that other manufactures would also be conceptually producing vehicles with low cost high mileage as well due to government regulations. Chevy just did it first

In my opinion a low price sticker is enough to change the game. If Chevy Bolt does great, other companies will have to produce similar range cars at a similar price range. That has the potential to change the market for EVs.