Just signed a contract for the Opel Ampera-e, the euro Chevy Bolt sibling.
Expected delivery = summer '17.
Congrats :rockon:
none of that Tesla vaporware bs :thumbsup:
sweet! What color?
Don't know, yet. Specs and even pricing isn't confirmed, yet.
I really like the orange color on the Bolt. I think I'll get that if it's available.
metric or standard?
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSZd4_HhikKm95jVhMINm98_WE5rQbuqEeukUFR26OjiYu932gGqA)
I thought you might have meant this:
(https://cloud.yamahamotorsports.com/library/img.jpg?id=574deddf2a0ab640505f682d&w=840)
:lol:
Nice! I really like the Bolt. Nicely styled, and real electric range from a real car company.
Don't you like in the arctic? :lol: How do electric cars do in the cold?
Congratulations though. You'll be driving in electric style for years before the model 3 ever gets here.
Most people on here spend a year discussing what features they want on a car before they buy it not after.
Quote from: mzziaz on October 04, 2016, 06:49:34 AM
Don't know, yet. Specs and even pricing isn't confirmed, yet.
I really like the orange color on the Bolt. I think I'll get that if it's available.
Oh yes!
(https://photos-2.carwow.co.uk/blog/1600/Bolt-EV9.jpg)
Quote from: RomanChariot on October 04, 2016, 08:20:19 AM
Most people on here spend a year discussing what features they want on a car before they buy it not after.
It is kind of weird with this model. EV's have such great incentives here that the demand is high. So Opel opened for orders without specs and final price being ready.
If I was to wait until test drives were available, I'm afraid the wait would be maybe a year.
The dealer didn't even require a deposit, and they promised me I could walk later if I want to.
"We'll have no problems whatsoever to move that car. The problem will be getting enough of them", he said.
The range really makes it a game changer.
.
Quote from: Rockraven on October 04, 2016, 08:27:01 AM
Oh yes!
(https://photos-2.carwow.co.uk/blog/1600/Bolt-EV9.jpg)
Exactly!
Quote from: MrH on October 04, 2016, 08:18:06 AM
Don't you like in the arctic? [emoji38] How do electric cars do in the cold?
Congratulations though. You'll be driving in electric style for years before the model 3 ever gets here.
No problems. I believe the batteries gets heated to prevent them from going too cold. It isn't any colder where I live than in upstate New York, BTW.
Quote from: mzziaz on October 04, 2016, 08:39:13 AM
No problems. I believe the batteries gets heated to prevent them from going too cold. It isn't any colder where I live than in upstate New York, BTW.
Do you guys use road salt? We do, and that's my biggest concern with an EV here in Ontario.
Nice, congrats.
I actually dig the way the Bolt looks. If they offered it with AWD it probably would have been a contender when I was shopping. I would like to get an electric car at some point (I would likely lease rather than buy since the tech is still so new), but don't want to get FWD. Model 3 looks nice too, but it could realistically be 2020 before I could actually buy one.
Do drive wheels really even matter in a car like this?
Quote from: 2o6 on October 04, 2016, 09:31:33 AM
Do drive wheels really even matter in a car like this?
To me, yes. I prefer AWD in my daily driver. It is nice to not have to worry about wheelspin in the rain or bad weather in general.
In an electric car with near instant max torque I would expect AWD to be even more helpful (particular when considering FWD vs AWD).
It's not really "front engined" and the car's design is so much different than an ICE. I feel like a lot of typical driving dynamics of an FF or FR car won't come into play (as much) since the weight distribution, CG, and overall car design is so much different. Hell, this thing doesn't even have a transmission, and pretty much any sort of traction control will be totally electronic.
I mean, an AWD Bolt would be nice, but I don't think it's possible.
Congrats! I really really dig electric cars.
Quote from: 2o6 on October 04, 2016, 09:54:31 AM
It's not really "front engined" and the car's design is so much different than an ICE. I feel like a lot of typical driving dynamics of an FF or FR car won't come into play (as much) since the weight distribution, CG, and overall car design is so much different. Hell, this thing doesn't even have a transmission, and pretty much any sort of traction control will be totally electronic.
I mean, an AWD Bolt would be nice, but I don't think it's possible.
Its a preference. I am sure I could live with plenty of FWD cars and clearly the vast majority of the population either prefers FWD or is completely ambivalent about it...but I prefer it. :huh:
Doesn't Norway have fnuts incentives for electric cars? My Norwegian friend says there are Teslas everywhere in Oslo because it's just a "cheap" car for Norwegians. O_o
Quote from: Laconian on October 04, 2016, 12:17:30 PM
Doesn't Norway have fnuts incentives for electric cars? My Norwegian friend says there are Teslas everywhere in Oslo because it's just a "cheap" car for Norwegians. O_o
Yeah, pretty much. Or rather the complete lack of draconian taxes including GST, plus cheap electric power.
Quote from: Rockraven on October 04, 2016, 09:22:07 AM
Do you guys use road salt? We do, and that's my biggest concern with an EV here in Ontario.
Yes, and that is a worry, especially underused braking systems because regenerative braking.
Isn't it lame that "they named" that relatively slow car after this guy? :lol:
(http://youredm.youredm1.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/usain_bolt-1250x750.jpg?x98500)
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNJjdVzMmiE&feature=youtu.be
I'm getting a car specced exactly like this one.
Nice!
Quote from: mzziaz on April 25, 2017, 02:27:05 PM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNJjdVzMmiE&feature=youtu.be
I'm getting a car specced exactly like this one.
That looks pretty nice as well. Bright orange not available?
Sick.
Bolt is a pretty good name, but Ampera is fantastic.
Fantastic.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 25, 2017, 02:50:54 PM
That looks pretty nice as well. Bright orange not available?
That looks pretty nice as well. Bright orange not available?
[/quote]
Unfortunately, they toned down the orange color for some reason.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on April 25, 2017, 03:40:18 PM
Sick.
Bolt is a pretty good name, but Ampera is fantastic.
Bolt itself might be a good name for this kind of car, but GM went full retard naming their next electric/hybrid/green/whatever car "Bolt" after the "Volt"
I actually thought they killed the Volt and renamed it the Bolt, only found out recently they're actually two separate models while talking to a friend who works at GM. It's way too similar for two products that probably get mentioned/thought of together often. He said internally people agree marketing dropped the ball on that one.
It is even more confusing in Europe.
The Volt was renamed as the Ampera, while the Bolt was renamed the Ampera-e.
Yeah, I really don't understand why they named them so closely. I get that they're trying to keep using "electric" words, but come on... :rolleyes:
Regardless, they seem to be doing well.
Electric cars do nothing for me. I see it as another Iphone -and it's always these presumptuous, douchey, effeminate tech guys who have no business speaking on a subject of cars, to these little fucks it's another tech gadget.
Fuck them and fuck these toaster ass electric cars.
Grats on the purchase though dude, seriously. This looks like it could be a legitimately "normal" electric car.
Quote from: Char on April 26, 2017, 02:11:25 PM
Electric cars do nothing for me. I see it as another Iphone -and it's always these presumptuous, douchey, effeminate tech guys who have no business speaking on a subject of cars, to these little fucks it's another tech gadget.
Fuck them and fuck these toaster ass electric cars.
Quote from: Char on April 26, 2017, 02:12:15 PM
Grats on the purchase though dude, seriously. This looks like it could be a legitimately "normal" electric car.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder
Quote from: Char on April 26, 2017, 02:11:25 PM
Electric cars do nothing for me. I see it as another Iphone -and it's always these presumptuous, douchey, effeminate tech guys who have no business speaking on a subject of cars, to these little fucks it's another tech gadget.
Fuck them and fuck these toaster ass electric cars.
Quote from: Char on April 26, 2017, 02:12:15 PM
Grats on the purchase though dude, seriously. This looks like it could be a legitimately "normal" electric car.
Thanks.......I think :lol:
Quote from: Char on April 26, 2017, 02:11:25 PM
Electric cars do nothing for me. I see it as another Iphone -and it's always these presumptuous, douchey, effeminate tech guys who have no business speaking on a subject of cars, to these little fucks it's another tech gadget.
Fuck them and fuck these toaster ass electric cars.
y u so mad bro?
I'd love to have a Tesla. Blow the doors off most cars, and semi-autonomous driving when I want it.
Congratulations!
Looking forward to the YouTube reviews (done with standard TV-presenter earnestness levels)
I was just reading an LA Times article on the charging infrastructure: the landscape's a mess of competing incompatible standards. Everyone's going to have to agree on one and stick with it.
Yeah, just like fuel tanks and fuel pumps are basically all the same...the plugs and such are gonna need to be normalized as well. With all the different battery and charging tech it may take a while, but the "fuel" stations of the future will probably be branded like they are now. Certain ones may have this technology, but not that one. A supercenter may have all the kinds of chargers, etc.
It's not that complicated really, at least in Europe.
T
The bigger issue is that fast chargers, sans Tesla, still are a bit slow.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 26, 2017, 02:22:09 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder
:lol: :clap:
Quote from: mzziaz on April 27, 2017, 10:49:42 AM
It's not that complicated really, at least in Europe.
T
The bigger issue is that fast chargers, sans Tesla, still are a bit slow.
Yeah, much easier in Europe given its size compared to...the US, Canada, etc. Until ranges reach the 400-500 mIle mark or full ~1 hour charges are a thing, I won't be in the game.
Guys I'm bi polor in saying that I'm happy for him to purchase what he likes, but it isn't for me.
Enjoy your Iphone.
Quote from: giant_mtb on April 27, 2017, 08:14:19 AM
Yeah, just like fuel tanks and fuel pumps are basically all the same...the plugs and such are gonna need to be normalized as well. With all the different battery and charging tech it may take a while, but the "fuel" stations of the future will probably be branded like they are now. Certain ones may have this technology, but not that one. A supercenter may have all the kinds of chargers, etc.
There are a few standards out there for AC plugs: CHAdeMO, SAE J1772, and a European standard. The European and American automakers have settled on a new standard, similar to SAE J1772, that adds a couple more pins on the connector for DC charging, and the Japanese have done something similar for CHAdeMO. We're pretty close to everybody using the same plug.
Except Tesla. They didn't like any of the other standards—not sexy enough—so they made their own plug.
Quote from: 93JC on May 09, 2017, 12:29:14 PM
Except Tesla. They didn't like any of the other standards—not sexy enough—so they made their own plug.
Taking a page right out of the Apple playbook.
Yup.
(((yuppie lust intensifies)))
(http://www.sae.org/dlymagazineimages/web/516/11484_14979.jpg)
Look at how clunky that SAE CCS plug is, with its weird shape and... are those holes on the wall receptacle for screws? You mean you're gonna see exposed screw heads? Ugh, the whole plug is probably screwed together; yuck.
Now, look at the Tesla connector:
(http://www.irishevowners.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/DSC00735.jpg)
Ooh. So svelte, so sexy. Who cares if it's incompatible with everything else when it looks that good? Look at how it's all smooth molded plastic with an aluminum flourish rather than that cheap, bulky plasticky SAE connector. And look at how it's got an indent in the bottom of the head of the plug, so the car can use a current-sensing latch with a solenoid that'll lock it in place while it's charging rather than something simple like that passé push-button latch on the SAE plug. And that's not even getting into the size of the cord; look at how big the SAE cord is! The Tesla one is much smaller, because the Tesla engineers were smart enough to use two smaller stranded conductor wires for each pole rather than one conductor per pole (which everyone else does because doubling up on conductors is a crap practice that I'm pretty sure is flat-out illegal to do with building wiring).
I don't know enough about electricity to know if you're being sardonic or not
I don't think I could have been more sardonic if I tried.
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2017, 12:31:18 PM
Taking a page right out of the Apple playbook.
Plug (and cable) design is a function of voltage, current and # of required conductors, and each vehicle/manufacturer has its own such requirements depending on motor, batteries and drive electronics. There can only be a "standardized" plug if all EVs operate on about the same voltage, current and # of conductors (and at present they do not), which is a terrible idea to force onto EV automakers.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 09, 2017, 02:52:15 PM
Plug (and cable) design is a function of voltage, current and # of required conductors, and each vehicle/manufacturer has its own such requirements depending on motor, batteries and drive electronics. There can only be a "standardized" plug if all EVs operate on about the same voltage, current and # of conductors (and at present they do not), which is a terrible idea to force onto EV automakers.
The plug required to charge the vehicle's battery pack could absolutely be common despite different manufacturer's using different battery or drive motor voltages. It would require some additional hardware (a power supply, namely) be installed in the vehicles to convert the "standard" power source to what the vehicle actually needs, but it's not exactly a staggering technical challenge.
Or the "gas stations" could have a few of the connector standards with correct voltage, like they have different fuel grades?
Smartphones all have different size batteries but there are only a couple different plugs.
Oh yeah, they have builtin (software) managing of the charging.
Cars could easily do the same.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on May 09, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
Smartphones all have different size batteries but there are only a couple different plugs.
Oh yeah, they have builtin (software) managing of the charging.
Cars could easily do the same.
Different sized batteries, but I'm almost positive they all run the same battery voltage. That said, phones have built in power conditioning, as do essentially all electronic devices.
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
The plug required to charge the vehicle's battery pack could absolutely be common despite different manufacturer's using different battery or drive motor voltages. It would require some additional hardware (a power supply, namely) be installed in the vehicles to convert the "standard" power source to what the vehicle actually needs, but it's not exactly a staggering technical challenge.
Could be but why? Power supply/electronics vs. just a connector? I know what 100% of automakers are going to choose 100% of the time. EVs are enough of a money loser for automaker and consumer alike...
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2017, 07:08:14 PM
Different sized batteries, but I'm almost positive they all run the same battery voltage. That said, phones have built in power conditioning, as do essentially all electronic devices.
Yes, most phones charge from 5V. But the chargers vary (1-2Amps) and the battery sizes vary.
Same with cars- the voltage coming from the wall is standardized. The cars themselves can regulate how they take the charge- it's ridiculously stupid there isn't one standard easy charging cord.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 09, 2017, 07:23:45 PM
Could be but why? Power supply/electronics vs. just a connector? I know what 100% of automakers are going to choose 100% of the time. EVs are enough of a money loser for automaker and consumer alike...
There's already considerable power conditioning in a Tesla Model S, seeing as the motors are AC and a battery can only provide DC power. Not to mention that the onboard electronics, motor controllers, etc don't run on the same voltage as the battery pack and all have built in power conditioning to step the ~400VDC battery voltage down to 12, 5, 3.3, and/or whatever other voltage the processors, FPGAs, CPLDs, and other chips need to work.
Every Tesla car also ships with a portable charging unit, a cable with an inline AC/DC converter and adapter plugs to allow it to plug into either 2-phase 120V/60Hz AC or 3-phase 208/60Hz AC, both of which are "standard" power types in any commercial or residential structure with electric service. The power brick that is built into this portable charging unit isn't much bigger than the proprietary Tesla connector itself, so packaging something like it into the car would not be difficult at all. Not a huge leap between providing a power supply in a pouch to allow an owner to connect to a standard power source and just building that functionality into the car. Particularly once an EV charging "standard" WRT DC voltage and current is established to support uniform recharging infrastructure.
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
There's already considerable power conditioning in a Tesla Model S, seeing as the motors are AC and a battery can only provide DC power. Not to mention that the onboard electronics, motor controllers, etc don't run on the same voltage as the battery pack and all have built in power conditioning to step the ~400VDC battery voltage down to 12, 5, 3.3, and/or whatever other voltage the processors, FPGAs, CPLDs, and other chips need to work.
Every Tesla car also ships with a portable charging unit, a cable with an inline AC/DC converter and adapter plugs to allow it to plug into either 2-phase 120V/60Hz AC or 3-phase 208/60Hz AC, both of which are "standard" power types in any commercial or residential structure with electric service. The power brick that is built into this portable charging unit isn't much bigger than the proprietary Tesla connector itself, so packaging something like it into the car would not be difficult at all. Not a huge leap between providing a power supply in a pouch to allow an owner to connect to a standard power source and just building that functionality into the car. Particularly once an EV charging "standard" WRT DC voltage and current is established to support uniform recharging infrastructure.
If it's that simple why don't EV makers do that?
The answer is current. Tesla for example moves huge current for its supercharging which at present is a competitive advantage.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 09, 2017, 09:00:15 PM
If it's that simple why don't EV makers do that?
The answer is current. Tesla for example moves huge current for its supercharging which at present is a competitive advantage.
There is no singular "standard" for EV charging, so the EV makers are using whatever they want. Sort of like the early days of automobiles when there was no standardized control layout and you had everybody just doing what they thought made sense. If an industry group, like the SAE, got together and said "OK everybody, the standard charging station will provide 100kW @ 480VDC and use connector type __", every EV maker would then have a bogey and know what power supply they'd need to equip so that their battery pack could utilize that power source, just as they all know what they need to plug into a standard 110/208VAC source today. No one has settled on that DC charging standard yet. You've got JDM automakers favoring CHAdeMO, most US and European automakers favoring SAE J1772, and Tesla off doing their own thing.
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
Every Tesla car also ships with a portable charging unit, a cable with an inline AC/DC converter and adapter plugs to allow it to plug into either 2-phase 120V/60Hz AC or 3-phase 208/60Hz AC, both of which are "standard" power types in any commercial or residential structure with electric service. The power brick that is built into this portable charging unit isn't much bigger than the proprietary Tesla connector itself, so packaging something like it into the car would not be difficult at all. Not a huge leap between providing a power supply in a pouch to allow an owner to connect to a standard power source and just building that functionality into the car. Particularly once an EV charging "standard" WRT DC voltage and current is established to support uniform recharging infrastructure.
The "power brick" is really just a glorified relay and ground fault interruptor. The "charger"—the AC-to-DC rectifier and the controller—is in the car. You could cut the proprietary Tesla plug off the end and put a J1772 on it instead, and it'll work just fine with a Chevy Bolt. The Bolt will tell the connector how much power it can take.
Quote from: MX793 on May 09, 2017, 09:17:51 PM
There is no singular "standard" for EV charging, so the EV makers are using whatever they want. Sort of like the early days of automobiles when there was no standardized control layout and you had everybody just doing what they thought made sense. If an industry group, like the SAE, got together and said "OK everybody, the standard charging station will provide 100kW @ 480VDC and use connector type __", every EV maker would then have a bogey and know what power supply they'd need to equip so that their battery pack could utilize that power source, just as they all know what they need to plug into a standard 110/208VAC source today. No one has settled on that DC charging standard yet. You've got JDM automakers favoring CHAdeMO, most US and European automakers favoring SAE J1772, and Tesla off doing their own thing.
My point is what they want is specific to what they are doing. Volts ain't just volts, current just ain't current, and batteries just ain't batteries.
The Tesla supercharger outputs DC power at up to 400V and 250A. At that power level connectors, conductors and safety design become very specific to the use of AC vs. DC. Now wash/rinse repeat for different voltage/current/service for what may be varying vehicles types in the future - commuters vs. highway cruisers vs. pickups vs. delivery vehicles, etc.
A common connector and thus charging standard would not only hamstring EV makers, it would be a source of inefficiency, which would be a problem for the grid if EVs ever get an appreciable market share. At this stage it's just not practical to subordinate the core value proposition of an EV to a catch-all standard. At best I predict that there will be a multitude of standards for the various voltage, current and service desires of EVs.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 09, 2017, 10:50:41 PM
My point is what they want is specific to what they are doing. Volts ain't just volts, current just ain't current, and batteries just ain't batteries.
The Tesla supercharger outputs DC power at up to 400V and 250A. At that power level connectors, conductors and safety design become very specific to the use of AC vs. DC. Now wash/rinse repeat for different voltage/current/service for what may be varying vehicles types in the future - commuters vs. highway cruisers vs. pickups vs. delivery vehicles, etc.
A common connector and thus charging standard would not only hamstring EV makers, it would be a source of inefficiency, which would be a problem for the grid if EVs ever get an appreciable market share. At this stage it's just not practical to subordinate the core value proposition of an EV to a catch-all standard. At best I predict that there will be a multitude of standards for the various voltage, current and service desires of EVs.
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. This ain't rocket surgery, black magic, or advanced electrical circuit design, it's basic power distribution design. The fact that the current is high doesn't make it next-level or change the physics of the problem. The math, design, and safety concerns for designing an electrical system to carry 250A are exactly the same as designing one that carries 20A as far as selecting conductor and contact size, number of conductors/contacts, etc. This "problem" is literally something that a first or second year electrical engineering student can solve. Most automakers already try to follow an industry standard, like J1772, despite using different battery sizes and voltages. And if the specs for Tesla's Supercharger became the accepted world standard, they would all have little trouble making their cars compatible with that. "Standard" also doesn't mean it's fixed in stone for ever and ever. They could select a "standard" power source, maybe two, and connector type and then in the future, as time and technology march on, append it, as has happened with fuel grades and qualities over the years.
Superchargers run at 480VDC, BTW. And Euro market Tesla's don't use Tesla's proprietary connector. They use a standard, IEC 62196 type 2 connector (a standard connector for Euro public EV charging stations) and are still capable of handling supercharger levels of current, so that completely blows the notion that Tesla had to design a proprietary connector because supercharging was so magical and cutting edge that no existing connector would do.
Quote from: MX793 on May 10, 2017, 05:08:41 AM
You're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. This ain't rocket surgery, black magic, or advanced electrical circuit design, it's basic power distribution design. The fact that the current is high doesn't make it next-level or change the physics of the problem. The math, design, and safety concerns for designing an electrical system to carry 250A are exactly the same as designing one that carries 20A as far as selecting conductor and contact size, number of conductors/contacts, etc. This "problem" is literally something that a first or second year electrical engineering student can solve. Most automakers already try to follow an industry standard, like J1772, despite using different battery sizes and voltages. And if the specs for Tesla's Supercharger became the accepted world standard, they would all have little trouble making their cars compatible with that. "Standard" also doesn't mean it's fixed in stone for ever and ever. They could select a "standard" power source, maybe two, and connector type and then in the future, as time and technology march on, append it, as has happened with fuel grades and qualities over the years.
Superchargers run at 480VDC, BTW. And Euro market Tesla's don't use Tesla's proprietary connector. They use a standard, IEC 62196 type 2 connector (a standard connector for Euro public EV charging stations) and are still capable of handling supercharger levels of current, so that completely blows the notion that Tesla had to design a proprietary connector because supercharging was so magical and cutting edge that no existing connector would do.
This is not correct. The safety design of a 250A circuit is much different than that of a 20A circuit (as it is for AC vs. DC), particularly concerning arc flash and short circuit capacity, which puts the problem deep into the NFPA, IEEE and NEC codes and likely corresponding PE licensure (esp. for a utility or professional concern) either of which puts the task well outside the ability of an undergrad EE student.
Much the rest of the world has different power than the US. For example, in a lot of Europe, residential power for lower current circuits is 220-230VAC single phase L to N and 380-400 VAC three phase for higher current circuits at 50 Hz. This is much different than the US's corresponding residential service of 120VAC L to N and 240VAC L1 to L2 at 60 Hz. This difference means different connectors, cables and circuit design.
Tesla isn't playing around with connectors "just because." They have technical reasons why they're doing what they're doing. All of what it is I don't know, but I know as much as power and charging circuit design is way more than an undergrad EE challenge, and forcing a one-size-fits-all standard onto the process will either add cost to the vehicles and decrease charge efficiency or force EV makers into comprising their designs.
My bet is it won't happen, and if there are to be standards, there will be many of them.
I'll bet you on that. Industry standards reduce supplier costs, so the major manufacturers are gonna do the best they can to find a standard.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 10, 2017, 10:11:15 AM
I'll bet you on that. Industry standards reduce supplier costs, so the major manufacturers are gonna do the best they can to find a standard.
+1
Even if there is one standard for NA and one for Yurrup and another for Japan.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 09:40:17 AM
This is not correct. The safety design of a 250A circuit is much different than that of a 20A circuit (as it is for AC vs. DC), particularly concerning arc flash and short circuit capacity, which puts the problem deep into the NFPA, IEEE and NEC codes and likely corresponding PE licensure (esp. for a utility or professional concern) either of which puts the task well outside the ability of an undergrad EE student.
Much the rest of the world has different power than the US. For example, in a lot of Europe, residential power for lower current circuits is 220-230VAC single phase L to N and 380-400 VAC three phase for higher current circuits at 50 Hz. This is much different than the US's corresponding residential service of 120VAC L to N and 240VAC L1 to L2 at 60 Hz. This difference means different connectors, cables and circuit design.
Tesla isn't playing around with connectors "just because." They have technical reasons why they're doing what they're doing. All of what it is I don't know, but I know as much as power and charging circuit design is way more than an undergrad EE challenge, and forcing a one-size-fits-all standard onto the process will either add cost to the vehicles and decrease charge efficiency or force EV makers into comprising their designs.
My bet is it won't happen, and if there are to be standards, there will be many of them.
I work with high voltage, high power system design, AC and DC. The considerations for spec'ing cables and connectors don't change just because the current goes up. 20A at 100V DC is just as deadly as 250A at 480V. Unless you also think that a .308 caliber weapon need not be handled with as much care as a .50BMG because the .50 Cal is significantly more powerful. Once you cross the hazardous voltage/current threshold, the safety concerns are the same.
Arc flash and shorting can still happen at lower voltages and currents, which is why IEEE, NEC, etc all provide guidance on what dielectric strengths you need for different voltage levels, along with required conductor gauges, with deratings, needed to support different currents, both AC and DC, so you don't burn up wires. It's why you don't use 22AWG wire to carry 15A. All the same factors are considered. What you need to spec (wire gauges, insulation ratings, connector pin spacing, etc) changes, but that doesn't change the fundamentals behind it. It's not like having 250A suddenly puts you into the realm of quantum physics, or is analogous to the transition from incompressible to compressible flow problems in fluid dynamics. This is all very fundamental stuff. It's all a matter of scaling.
I again point out that Teslas in Europe use a standard connector instead of the Tesla proprietary one and magically can also handle the mythical power output of a Supercharger station. Ergo, there was no technical justification for the proprietary connector design.
Quote from: MX793 on May 10, 2017, 10:16:20 AM
I work with high voltage, high power system design, AC and DC. The considerations for spec'ing cables and connectors don't change just because the current goes up. 20A at 100V DC is just as deadly as 250A at 480V. Unless you also think that a .308 caliber weapon need not be handled with as much care as a .50BMG because the .50 Cal is significantly more powerful. Once you cross the hazardous voltage/current threshold, the safety concerns are the same.
Arc flash and shorting can still happen at lower voltages and currents, which is why IEEE, NEC, etc all provide guidance on what dielectric strengths you need for different voltage levels, along with required conductor gauges, with deratings, needed to support different currents, both AC and DC, so you don't burn up wires. It's why you don't use 22AWG wire to carry 15A. All the same factors are considered. What you need to spec (wire gauges, insulation ratings, connector pin spacing, etc) changes, but that doesn't change the fundamentals behind it. It's not like having 250A suddenly puts you into the realm of quantum physics, or is analogous to the transition from incompressible to compressible flow problems in fluid dynamics. This is all very fundamental stuff. It's all a matter of scaling.
I again point out that Teslas in Europe use a standard connector instead of the Tesla proprietary one and magically can also handle the mythical power output of a Supercharger station. Ergo, there was no technical justification for the proprietary connector design.
Well, we're in luck, I work with this stuff all the time as well, and can say that that is not correct either. 250A at 480V DC is vastly more dangerous/deadly than 20A at 100V DC, and it's more than just "scaling". When things go bad (grounding, short circuit) the level of badness is a function of the square of current as the circuit is required to absorb the heat energy of the excess current flow in order to prevent arc flash or explosion, and a 250A service needs to absorb ~16,000% more heat energy than a 20A service. This is what drives circuit and panel design (though the calculations and specs are specific to the element; breaker, cabling, etc.) and it also drives safety procedures (PPE, grounding, etc.)).
Well, as I've said, we'll never truly know why Tesla made the decision to different and proprietary connectors for AC vs. DC in the US, but they didn't do it willy-nilly. I'm guessing it came down to, like most things, cost. Designing a safe multi-use connector/cable looks like work and often times half of the cable/connector simply goes unused. It's a more efficient design to have AC-only and DC-only cables and connectors, and it starts to matter, when there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles and charging stations.
TL;DR - I don't like Tesla the company but it's really hard to argue with any of the technical decisions they've made - connectors or otherwise.
NERD FIGHT!
Quote from: GoCougs on May 09, 2017, 10:50:41 PM
My point is what they want is specific to what they are doing. Volts ain't just volts, current just ain't current, and batteries just ain't batteries.
The Tesla supercharger outputs DC power at up to 400V and 250A. At that power level connectors, conductors and safety design become very specific to the use of AC vs. DC.
For the record Tesla's plug is used for 120 VAC to 400 VDC. So is the SAE J1772 "combo" coupler. And CHAdeMO. And the European one, which is basically the same thing as J1772 save for differences in the shape and pin layout.
I suspect Tesla cars in Europe use the European plug because there are EU product regulations that mandate the use of it, whereas the SAE standard is a voluntary thing that isn't in the FMVSS (yet).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 12:31:32 PM
Well, as I've said, we'll never truly know why Tesla made the decision to different and proprietary connectors for AC vs. DC in the US, but they didn't do it willy-nilly. I'm guessing it came down to, like most things, cost. Designing a safe multi-use connector/cable looks like work and often times half of the cable/connector simply goes unused. It's a more efficient design to have AC-only and DC-only cables and connectors, and it starts to matter, when there are hundreds of thousands of vehicles and charging stations.
Yes, I'm sure it was more cost effective to develop from scratch and manufacture a proprietary connector, along with getting any UL or other certification/qualification required to sell it to the public, than it is to select an established, commoditized, standardized connector that meets your design needs. I guess that's why the likes of GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Honda, and BMW, champions of penny-pinching, all developed their own, proprietary connector designs for their plug-in vehicles which sell in similar, if not greater volumes to what Tesla sells. Oh wait...
So, reading all this, & doing a bit of background searching..... I think the charging experience ought to be a HUGE factor when people are considering the relative merits of EVs. Right now, as far as I can see, Tesla's superchargers are head & shoulders above the rest: quicker, easier & more reliable.
But the best tech does not necessarily win.
Quote from: MX793 on May 10, 2017, 04:19:26 PM
Yes, I'm sure it was more cost effective to develop from scratch and manufacture a proprietary connector, along with getting any UL or other certification/qualification required to sell it to the public, than it is to select an established, commoditized, standardized connector that meets your design needs. I guess that's why the likes of GM, Toyota, Nissan, Ford, Honda, and BMW, champions of penny-pinching, all developed their own, proprietary connector designs for their plug-in vehicles which sell in similar, if not greater volumes to what Tesla sells. Oh wait...
Well, the premise is yours - Tesla did something just willy-nilly for the heck of it - and I can't see how that it can be validated.
Quote from: 93JC on May 10, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
For the record Tesla's plug is used for 120 VAC to 400 VDC. So is the SAE J1772 "combo" coupler. And CHAdeMO. And the European one, which is basically the same thing as J1772 save for differences in the shape and pin layout.
I suspect Tesla cars in Europe use the European plug because there are EU product regulations that mandate the use of it, whereas the SAE standard is a voluntary thing that isn't in the FMVSS (yet).
None of those can do supercharging however (200+ amps).
The "hi" amperage hybrid Type 2 DC plug needed for supercharging is a different animal, and uses different conductors for DC (last one):
(http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/3.png)
Quote from: Morris Minor on May 10, 2017, 04:37:11 PM
So, reading all this, & doing a bit of background searching..... I think the charging experience ought to be a HUGE factor when people are considering the relative merits of EVs. Right now, as far as I can see, Tesla's superchargers are head & shoulders above the rest: quicker, easier & more reliable.
But the best tech does not necessarily win.
Absolutely. Having plugged and unplugged thousands of industrial cables over the span of my career, just that simple act matters. Tesla's reasoning could have come down to simply "user experience." The 10-pin "DC-High" coupler above is huge, as are the other combo couplers. Tesla's US supercharger coupler (far right below) is small in comparison. One thing for sure, Tesla has scores if not a couple of hundred engineers working on nothing but charging. Free any sort of mandate or constraint they went with a custom couplers/cables, and they didn't do so willy-nilly.
(https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ev-plugs.png?w=1000)
Quote from: 93JC on May 10, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
For the record Tesla's plug is used for 120 VAC to 400 VDC. So is the SAE J1772 "combo" coupler.
You know, the one with the DC pins.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 05:31:31 PM
None of those can do supercharging however (200+ amps).
The "hi" amperage hybrid Type 2 DC plug needed for supercharging is a different animal, and uses different conductors for DC
500 V x 200 A = 100 kW
400 V x 250 A = ... 100 kW...
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/238/242/d21.gif)
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 05:43:29 PM
Absolutely. Having plugged and unplugged thousands of industrial cables over the span of my career, just that simple act matters. Tesla's reasoning could have come down to simply "user experience." The 10-pin "DC-High" coupler above is huge, as are the other combo couplers. Tesla's US supercharger coupler (far right below) is small in comparison. One thing for sure, Tesla has scores if not a couple of hundred engineers working on nothing but charging. Free any sort of mandate or constraint they went with a custom couplers/cables, and they didn't do so willy-nilly.
(https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ev-plugs.png?w=1000)
Euro Tesla's use the 7-pin Mennekes style connector (middle-right, without optional pins) and can be charged from a Euro Tesla Supercharging station at 120kW on DC power (same power rating as the US Superchargers). This connector is not appreciably larger than the Tesla proprietary unit.
Quote from: MX793 on May 10, 2017, 06:44:39 PM
Euro Tesla's use the 7-pin Mennekes style connector (middle-right, without optional pins) and can be charged from a Euro Tesla Supercharging station at 120kW on DC power (same power rating as the US Superchargers). This connector is not appreciably larger than the Tesla proprietary unit.
Per the diagram above it's only good for 500V and 140A DC (70 kW), so not suitable for superchargers.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 07:03:45 PM
Per the diagram above it's only good for 500V and 140A DC (70 kW), so not suitable for superchargers.
Tesla uses a slightly modified version of the Type 2 in Europe which is still fully compatible with the standard connector while supporting the higher power of the SuperCharger.
Quote from: 93JC on May 10, 2017, 06:40:28 PM
You know, the one with the DC pins.
500 V x 200 A = 100 kW
400 V x 250 A = ... 100 kW...
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/238/242/d21.gif)
The Wiki entry says that is only a proposal, and not yet implemented.
Even if it were, it's still a much larger connector, and easy to see why Tesla would pass on it if they could.
Quote from: MX793 on May 10, 2017, 08:52:04 PM
Tesla uses a slightly modified version of the Type 2 in Europe which is still fully compatible with the standard connector while supporting the higher power of the SuperCharger.
It's still only good for 70 kW per the above.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 09:20:57 PM
The Wiki entry says that is only a proposal, and not yet implemented.
It's real.
Chevy Bolt:
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chevrolet-Bolt-charger-640x427.jpeg)
Hyundai Ioniq:
(http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/data/xengallery/31/31919-312bd12b082d68e04617059e6b551995.jpg)
QuoteEven if it were, it's still a much larger connector, and easy to see why Tesla would pass on it if they could.
Right, that's what I said in the first place. Tesla didn't think it was sexy enough for them so they said "fuck it, we'll make our own".
Quote from: 93JC on May 10, 2017, 10:16:50 PM
It's real.
Chevy Bolt:
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chevrolet-Bolt-charger-640x427.jpeg)
That extra orange piece of plastic seems superfluous.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 10, 2017, 09:39:43 PM
It's still only good for 70 kW per the above.
So are you saying that Tesla has a network of 120kW supercharger stations in Europe, which they went to court to defend their claim as the most powerful rapid charge stations at 120kW, that cannot be used by anyone there?
Quote from: 93JC on May 10, 2017, 10:16:50 PM
It's real.
Chevy Bolt:
(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Chevrolet-Bolt-charger-640x427.jpeg)
Hyundai Ioniq:
(http://www.cleanmpg.com/community/data/xengallery/31/31919-312bd12b082d68e04617059e6b551995.jpg)
Right, that's what I said in the first place. Tesla didn't think it was sexy enough for them so they said "fuck it, we'll make our own".
The Bolt doesn't supercharge (200A) however.
Because it's impossible for a supercharging standard to be shared among manufacturers
Exactly, and what I've been saying all along.
There is smarts (or, specifics, to Tesla batteries) in Tesla's supercharging process - it's tapping DC directly into the batteries, and it is specific to battery design. Tesla is enjoying ginormous competitive advantage because of it, particularly that they can innovate fast (up the supercharging kW) by not being hamstrung by others.
Charging standards are a bad idea, or in the very least, forcing them onto EV makers is. Let EV makers decide what they want to do. If Tesla wants proprietary connectors and processes, by all means. Just remember, if Tesla was humstrung by a standard there would likely be no supercharging (and supercharging has been the linchpin to Tesla's existence).
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 12, 2017, 09:08:20 AM
Because it's impossible for a supercharging standard to be shared among manufacturers
Why?
They make these amazing devices called DC to DC converters. If you have a known DC power input (or range of inputs), they can convert that to a single output. If the industry decided that 480VDC, 200A would be a recognized fast charge standard, every automakers would be able to spec a DC-DC converter that would allow them to fast charge using that input without having to change batteries or more core parts of the car. Just as every EV today has an onboard AC/DC converter that allows them to accept AC power at a range of standard voltages and currents (both US and international).
/sarcasm, guys
Quote from: MX793 on May 12, 2017, 10:47:54 AM
Why?
They make these amazing devices called DC to DC converters. If you have a known DC power input (or range of inputs), they can convert that to a single output. If the industry decided that 480VDC, 200A would be a recognized fast charge standard, every automakers would be able to spec a DC-DC converter that would allow them to fast charge using that input without having to change batteries or more core parts of the car. Just as every EV today has an onboard AC/DC converter that allows them to accept AC power at a range of standard voltages and currents (both US and international).
The hitch is on-board 100+ kW conversion is virtually impossible because of size and weight - at least a few hundreds of pounds and the size of a fridge. Simply Google the interior of a Tesla supercharger cabinet or commercially available DC power supply of 100+ kW.
Tesla supercharging uses 400 VDC and not 480 VDC, and there is a very good reason why: it's easy (cheap) to get 400VDC from 480VAC 3 phase. One leg from 480 = 480/sqrt(3) = 277, and the peak of the 277 sine wave is 277*sqrt(2) = 393 V, which is clipped by way of diodes, to get ~400 VDC. Thus, left to their own devices, any automaker interested in supercharging would also highly likely use 400 VDC (at least in the US).
But again, voltage is not voltage and current is not current. There is a lot of smarts needed in charging batteries, and that resides in the supercharger station, and it expects to see Tesla batteries, just like you'd not be able to yard out the AC charge system of a Bolt and install it in a Leaf.
So again, we Catch-22 ourselves back to supercharging "standard." Standard connectors? Standard voltages? Standard currents? Standard battery chemistries? Standard battery designs? Standard charging comm protocols? Sure, that can all be done, but as demonstrated, it's not easy and would thusly hamstring EV makers (esp. slowing the pace of innovation). Tesla could not have rolled out supercharging like it did if it had to coordinate with Nissan, Chevy and Toyota
TL;DR - standards are a bad idea, or, at least forcing EV makers to adhere to them is, and there are very good technical (and business) reasons as to why Tesla (and other EV makers) are doing what they are doing, and it's never to be difficult or cutesy or w/e.
I don't think anyone has said that Tesla should be forced to use a standard, just that an industry standard is likely to form once the vehicles become commonplace.
Standard connectors and voltages are probably enough. Contrary to Cougsian science voltage is voltage and current is current. If Tesla wants to run some proprietary thing on its own, cool. But different battery protocols would be like every manufacturer only being able to run its own proprietary gasoline. Completely unecessary and of no benefit to anybody.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 12, 2017, 01:11:23 PM
I don't think anyone has said that Tesla should be forced to use a standard, just that an industry standard is likely to form once the vehicles become commonplace.
MX793's post claimed that a supercharging standard could be had by way of on-board 100 kW+ converters. That will never happen with today's technology - too big and heavy, plus 400 VDC is easy to be had, by anyone, as shown, and just in general, there is no easy or certain path to an industry supercharging standard (well, other than Tesla licensing its battery and charging tech).
I assume that electric cars will be commoditized to a large degree. I don't see why each manufacturer would have their own motors when they're the same basic thing, just with different torque ratings.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2017, 01:34:21 PM
Standard connectors and voltages are probably enough. Contrary to Cougsian science voltage is voltage and current is current. If Tesla wants to run some proprietary thing on its own, cool. But different battery protocols would be like every manufacturer only being able to run its own proprietary gasoline. Completely unecessary and of no benefit to anybody.
+1
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 12, 2017, 02:08:23 PM
I assume that electric cars will be commoditized to a large degree. I don't see why each manufacturer would have their own motors when they're the same basic thing, just with different torque ratings.
Standardizing on motors is even more unlikely than standardizing on a supercharging protocol.
There is huge variation in electric motors in general - AC vs. DC, brush vs. brushless, permanent magnet vs. field wound, synchronous vs. asynchronous, voltage level, phase count, pole count and switching frequency, to name just a few.
There is already notable motor variation in the EV market. The Leaf and Bolt both use an AC synchronous motor and the Models S/X use an AC induction motor (and the motor types are neither compatible nor equivalent, especially when it comes to powering them).
Yeah, I think we're still in the Precambrian explosion of EVs. There is a lot more freedom and flexibility for electric component selection and placement vs. ICEs.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 12, 2017, 01:34:21 PM
Standard connectors and voltages are probably enough. Contrary to Cougsian science voltage is voltage and current is current. If Tesla wants to run some proprietary thing on its own, cool. But different battery protocols would be like every manufacturer only being able to run its own proprietary gasoline. Completely unecessary and of no benefit to anybody.
Today, each EV already has its own "battery protocol." For EVs that plug into AC to charge (= NOT fast charging), the user is only insulated from it - the "battery protocol" is buried inside the car, downstream of the AC input plug after it is converted to DC. However, in order to supercharge, high current DC needs to feed directly to the batteries, thusly moving the "battery protocol" to the external charging station. It's completely necessary and a benefit to everybody (= specific design for specific purpose + quicker pace of innovation).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 03:35:02 PM
Standardizing on motors is even more unlikely than standardizing on a supercharging protocol.
There is huge variation in electric motors in general - AC vs. DC, brush vs. brushless, permanent magnet vs. field wound, synchronous vs. asynchronous, voltage level, phase count, pole count and switching frequency, to name just a few.
There is already notable motor variation in the EV market. The Leaf and Bolt both use an AC synchronous motor and the Models S/X use an AC induction motor (and the motor types are neither compatible nor equivalent, especially when it comes to powering them).
But does the end user care?
I guess I just associate EVs as more similar to consumer electronics, where AFAIK most if not all parts are shared, just in a slightly different configuration. So companies might use different types of motors right now, but eventually they'll find which is best and all use that. I suppose there are still trade-offs in range and power, but advanced battery tech may make that irrelevant for the average user.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 03:51:45 PM
Today, each EV already has its own "battery protocol." For EVs that plug into AC to charge (= NOT fast charging), the user is only insulated from it - the "battery protocol" is buried inside the car, downstream of the AC input plug after it is converted to DC. However, in order to supercharge, high current DC needs to feed directly to the batteries, thusly moving the "battery protocol" to the external charging station. It's completely necessary and a benefit to everybody (= specific design for specific purpose + quicker pace of innovation).
Imagine if every car needed its own fuel pump nozzle. What a nightmare! In order for EVs to become the main mode of transportation, some sort of standard is needed. Otherwise every recharging stop will need twenty different charging stations.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 12:57:28 PM
The hitch is on-board 100+ kW conversion is virtually impossible because of size and weight - at least a few hundreds of pounds and the size of a fridge. Simply Google the interior of a Tesla supercharger cabinet or commercially available DC power supply of 100+ kW.
DC-DC converters can get pretty compact.
https://www.tame-power.com/en/dc-dc-power-converter/dcdc-converter-60kw-300-400v (https://www.tame-power.com/en/dc-dc-power-converter/dcdc-converter-60kw-300-400v)
^^^This one is 60kW and can step 500-700VDC down to 300-400VDC (or vice versa, it's bi-directional). It weighs less than 50 lbs and takes up less than a cubic foot. Yeah, it needs liquid cooling pumped through it, but so does Tesla's battery during charging. Two of these in parallel could provide >100 kW of 400VDC, stepped down from some higher voltage DC source.
Quote from: Laconian on May 12, 2017, 03:43:26 PM
Yeah, I think we're still in the Precambrian explosion of EVs. There is a lot more freedom and flexibility for electric component selection and placement vs. ICEs.
For quite some time I've been of the mind that what are commonly referred to as "frameless" motors in industry will make their way to EVs. Basically, the motor is mounted in the wheel, and the axle is the center of the rotor. Imagine the packaging and efficiency gains.
(https://cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/protean-1.jpg)
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 04:06:40 PM
For quite some time I've been of the mind that what are commonly referred to as "frameless" motors in industry will make their way to EVs. Basically, the motor is mounted in the wheel, and the axle is the center of the rotor. Imagine the packaging and efficiency gains.
(https://cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/protean-1.jpg)
totally sweet!
I invented hybrid cars in 1982. I was in second grade, bored in class and drew a car which used electric motors to go and generator to stop. Showed it to my dad (elementary school teacher and lover of all things computer geeky), he said I would need energy to go to start with. I wasn't thinking of plugin at the time, so I told him I'd put in a gas motor to get going at the start. He said that unfortunately electric generators weren't efficient enough, maybe someday......
For reals that is a true story. Wish I had the picture.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 04:06:40 PM
For quite some time I've been of the mind that what are commonly referred to as "frameless" motors in industry will make their way to EVs. Basically, the motor is mounted in the wheel, and the axle is the center of the rotor. Imagine the packaging and efficiency gains.
(https://cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/protean-1.jpg)
Unsprung weight may be a challenge.
How is that different than a hub motor?
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 12, 2017, 04:18:00 PM
Unsprung weight may be a challenge.
Good point, though it looks like it could take the place of brakes?
Quote from: Laconian on May 12, 2017, 04:19:01 PM
How is that different than a hub motor?
Good point, though it looks like it could take the place of brakes?
True, but placing the assembly inboard could resolve the problem without too much difficulty.
Quote from: MX793 on May 12, 2017, 04:03:08 PM
DC-DC converters can get pretty compact.
https://www.tame-power.com/en/dc-dc-power-converter/dcdc-converter-60kw-300-400v (https://www.tame-power.com/en/dc-dc-power-converter/dcdc-converter-60kw-300-400v)
^^^This one is 60kW and can step 500-700VDC down to 300-400VDC (or vice versa, it's bi-directional). It weighs less than 50 lbs and takes up less than a cubic foot. Yeah, it needs liquid cooling pumped through it, but so does Tesla's battery during charging. Two of these in parallol could provide >100 kW of 400VDC, stepped down from some higher voltage DC source.
Actually, that is only the core component of a converter - it has to be integrated to be usable. That is the thing buried inside a fridge-size cabinet.
A good portion of what you pay for with "converters" is cooling. Even small such devices' size/weight are dominated by fins and/or fans and/or heat sinks. Here, that unit is liquid cooled, and cooling 120 kW would rival the cooling system of at least a motor bike. This is why a 120 kW power supply like Tesla's own supercharger is about the size of a fridge - whether they have liquid cooling, fan/AC cooling or just a bunch of mass and/or surface area to dissipate waste heat.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 12, 2017, 03:58:17 PM
But does the end user care?
I guess I just associate EVs as more similar to consumer electronics, where AFAIK most if not all parts are shared, just in a slightly different configuration. So companies might use different types of motors right now, but eventually they'll find which is best and all use that. I suppose there are still trade-offs in range and power, but advanced battery tech may make that irrelevant for the average user.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 12, 2017, 04:00:08 PM
Imagine if every car needed its own fuel pump nozzle. What a nightmare! In order for EVs to become the main mode of transportation, some sort of standard is needed. Otherwise every recharging stop will need twenty different charging stations.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 12, 2017, 04:00:08 PM
Imagine if every car needed its own fuel pump nozzle. What a nightmare! In order for EVs to become the main mode of transportation, some sort of standard is needed. Otherwise every recharging stop will need twenty different charging stations.
IMO it's a big mistake to use consumer electronics or ICEs as analogies - the tech just doesn't equate.
Quote from: Laconian on May 12, 2017, 04:19:01 PM
How is that different than a hub motor?
Good point, though it looks like it could take the place of brakes?
Same as a hub motor.
By the time such motors are implemented the next evolution of MagneRide, active electromechanical suspenion, will be here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KPYIaks1UY
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 05:00:08 PM
Actually, that is only the core component of a converter - it has to be integrated to be usable. That is the thing buried inside a fridge-size cabinet.
A good portion of what you pay for with "converters" is cooling. Even small such devices' size/weight are dominated by fins and/or fans and/or heat sinks. Here, that unit is liquid cooled, and cooling 120 kW would rival the cooling system of at least a motor bike. This is why a large DC-to-DC converter (or transformer or power supply) like Tesla's own supercharger is about the size of a fridge - whether they have liquid cooling, fan/AC cooling or just a bunch of mass and/or surface area to dissipate waste heat.
Um, no. That is a fully functioning, stand-alone, self-contained 60 kW DC-DC converter along with necessary control circuitry to hook it up to a CANBus. It's designed to be installed and used in electric vehicles. You can stack a bunch of them in parallol in a rack/cabinet if you want more power than 60kW, but that one item will handle a 60kW DC-DC conversion all by itself. Two of them will get you 120kW. A fridge sized cabinet of those hooked in parallol would handle damn near a megawatt. As to cooling, that unit requires ~5 L/min. Two of them would be 10L (~2.5 gal)/min, which is the flow rate of a very small motorcycle engine (like <150cc). A 600cc sportbike at cruising RPM will pump around 35-40 L/min.
Tesla's supercharger is a 12-pack of the same 10kW AC-DC converters that they use in their cars for AC charging stacked in a cabinet and paralloled to generate 120+kW. Those units are also liquid-cooled.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that DC-DC converters must be the same size as AC-DC converters.
Quote from: MX793 on May 12, 2017, 05:51:49 PM
Um, no. That is a fully functioning, stand-alone, self-contained 60 kW DC-DC converter along with necessary control circuitry to hook it up to a CANBus. It's designed to be installed and used in electric vehicles. You can stack a bunch of them in parallol in a rack/cabinet if you want more power than 60kW, but that one item will handle a 60kW DC-DC conversion all by itself. Two of them will get you 120kW. A fridge sized cabinet of those hooked in parallol would handle damn near a megawatt. As to cooling, that unit requires ~5 L/min. Two of them would be 10L (~2.5 gal)/min, which is the flow rate of a very small motorcycle engine (like <150cc). A 600cc sportbike at cruising RPM will pump around 35-40 L/min.
Tesla's supercharger is a 12-pack of the same 10kW AC-DC converters that they use in their cars for AC charging stacked in a cabinet and paralloled to generate 120+kW. Those units are also liquid-cooled.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that DC-DC converters must be the same size as AC-DC converters.
That is not standalone unit - it requires liquid cooling. Add in the cooling (heat exchanger, pump and plumbing) for two of them and you most certainly have a fridge size cabinet, or very close to it.
Those are used for things like boats and industrial equipment, and are at least $10,000 each, not including the cooling system. ANY sort of switching device at the kW rating - AC drive, transformer, power supply, etc. will be very expensive, prohibitively so for a retail passenger vehicle.
IMO you've chased this one way too far. A passenger EV will never have an on board 100 kW+ DC-to-DC converter on it. As demonstrated, vastly too big, heavy and expensive.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 09:55:36 PM
That is not standalone unit - it requires liquid cooling. Add in the cooling (heat exchanger, pump and plumbing) for two of them and you most certainly have a fridge size cabinet, or very close to it.
Those are used for things like boats and industrial equipment, and are at least $10,000 each, not including the cooling system. ANY sort of switching device at the kW rating - AC drive, transformer, power supply, etc. will be very expensive, prohibitively so for a retail passenger vehicle.
As I mentioned, the onboard, 10kW AC/DC unit that Tesla already uses, as well as the battery, already has liquid cooling. The heat exchanger, pump, plumbing, etc is already there. You also seem to overlook the fact that Tesla's drive motors, each running at 100s of kWs, are AC motors. So somewhere in that car there's some DC/AC inversion handling power levels on the order of hundreds of kWs (~300kW per motor). Additionally, since the car can also use regenerative braking, at up to ~60kW from what I can find, there's a substantial AC/DC conversion happening onboard between the motor and battery. If 100 kW sized power conversion using switching devices requires a refrigerator sized rack of components, why isn't every Tesla saddled by some refrigerator sized tumor to house all of this power conversion gear (between upwards of ~600kW worth of DC/AC inversion plus existing onboard AC/DC conversion HW)? A less expensive BMW i3 or Chevy Bolt require much of the same kit (both have 100+ kW AC motors). So why aren't these vehicles prohibitively expensive and lugging around huge power racks with massive cooling systems to support it all?
QuoteIMO you've chased this one way too far. A passenger EV will never have an on board 100 kW+ DC-to-DC converter on it. As demonstrated, vastly too big, heavy and expensive.
You haven't demonstrate anything other than statements very much contradictory to reality.
Are you forgetting cougs doesn't believe self-driving cars will ever happen???...
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 09:55:36 PM
IMO you've chased this one way too far. A passenger EV will never have an on board 100 kW+ DC-to-DC converter on it. As demonstrated, vastly too big, heavy and expensive.
"No computer will ever need more than 640KB of RAM"
I think you underestimate minaturization and future tech in general.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 13, 2017, 08:45:42 AM
"No computer will ever need more than 640KB of RAM"
I think you underestimate minaturization and future tech in general.
A moderate portion of what I do for a career, and have been doing so for ~20+ years, is electric motors and the things that power them - inverters, power supplies, AC drives, servo drives, etc. So when I say a thing about the subject, it comes from there, not from Google.
The fundamental limitation is the transistor, and necessarily, the power transistor (heat). Not until the power transistor is replaced will there be "miniaturization" in this area (barring band aid solutions like liquid cooling or the like). A 120 kW power device - power supply, inverter, AC motor drive - is big, heavy and expensive. There is no argument to this. Adding such additional functionality to a retail EV is prohibitive and it will never happen (that is, along as power conversion is done by the transistor).
Quote from: MX793 on May 13, 2017, 06:20:01 AM
As I mentioned, the onboard, 10kW AC/DC unit that Tesla already uses, as well as the battery, already has liquid cooling. The heat exchanger, pump, plumbing, etc is already there. You also seem to overlook the fact that Tesla's drive motors, each running at 100s of kWs, are AC motors. So somewhere in that car there's some DC/AC inversion handling power levels on the order of hundreds of kWs (~300kW per motor). Additionally, since the car can also use regenerative braking, at up to ~60kW from what I can find, there's a substantial AC/DC conversion happening onboard between the motor and battery. If 100 kW sized power conversion using switching devices requires a refrigerator sized rack of components, why isn't every Tesla saddled by some refrigerator sized tumor to house all of this power conversion gear (between upwards of ~600kW worth of DC/AC inversion plus existing onboard AC/DC conversion HW)? A less expensive BMW i3 or Chevy Bolt require much of the same kit (both have 100+ kW AC motors). So why aren't these vehicles prohibitively expensive and lugging around huge power racks with massive cooling systems to support it all?
You haven't demonstrate anything other than statements very much contradictory to reality.
That is actually a good question, and luckily, the answer is an easy one.
First, Google the size of an industrial 300 hp AC induction motor and industrial 300 hp AC drive. Now compare those to the Model S 300 hp AC induction motor and 300 hp AC drive...
See the difference? The industrial motor weighs at least 2,000 lbs whereas the Model S motor appears to weigh 100-150 lbs. The industrial drive is about half the size of a fridge (which in turn has to be put into an electrical enclosure with fuses, breakers, etc., that will be larger than a fridge) and the Model S AC drive appears to be about the size of a small microwave.
So what's the answer then? No, Tesla didn't invent anything new. The answer is duty cycle. Most industrial equipment is designed to operate at 100% duty cycle whereas EVs operate at very low duty cycle. As I'm sure we all know by know, at full gas the Tesla S goes into reduced power mode in just a matter of minutes - it can't do a full lap of the N-Ring even at full gas. Why? Because the motor, AC drive and batteries start to overheat.
Why this talk about duty cycle? Because charging is high duty cycle, maybe even 100%. This is why the Tesla supercharging station is, wait for it, about the size of fridge, which is about what you'll see when you Google the size of a 120 kW power supply or AC drive fully integrated.
What I demonstrate is 20+ years of industry experience with these types of components.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2017, 10:36:21 AM
A moderate portion of what I do for a career, and have been doing so for ~20+ years, is electric motors and the things that power them - inverters, power supplies, AC drives, servo drives, etc. So when I say a thing about the subject, it comes from there, not from Google.
Your experience has been mostly in factory equipment (automated manufacturing and robots), no? There's no real a need to miniaturize stationary power systems for factories and buildings. Nobody cares if you need a space the size of a small shed to house transformers and converters in a 300,000 sq ft factory space. That all of the power gear you've ever worked with is massive doesn't mean it has to be that large.
QuoteThe fundamental limitation is the transistor, and necessarily, the power transistor (heat). Not until the power transistor is replaced will there be "miniaturization" in this area (barring band aid solutions like liquid cooling or the like). A 120 kW power device - power supply, inverter, AC motor drive - is big, heavy and expensive. There is no argument to this. Adding such additional functionality to a retail EV is prohibitive and it will never happen (that is, along as power conversion is done by the transistor).
Except EV's already have this capability on board.
The Bolt has a 150 kW output AC motor and a battery. Somewhere between the two, there is an inverter capable of turning > 150kW of DC power into 150 kW of AC power. The i3 has a 125 kW AC motor being driven by a battery. Somewhere it has an inverter capable turning >125kW of DC to AC. The Tesla has upwards of 580 kW of AC motor, so somewhere in that car is the hardware to invert >580 kW of DC to 580 kW of AC power. According to you, all of these, and especially the Tesla, should have an outhouse-sized shed of power management gear onboard to make that possible. And yet they don't. Two of them are even affordable for the average American household.
As noted, running that much power, either in charging or discharging a battery, comes along with a lot of heat. Not just in the converters, but the battery pack too. Dumping high power DC power into a battery is going to get that battery hot. The Bolt and the Tesla, at the least, have liquid cooled batteries. Tesla runs coolant through its battery while charging, as well as through the onboard 11kW AC/DC supply when being charged on AC. It will even run the air conditioning during charging to further cool the battery and onboard supply (if AC charging) if just liquid-to-air cooling from the radiator and electric fans alone isn't cutting it.
It would really not be that difficult to package a pair of DC-DC supplies like the one I posted in any of the current crop of EVs to permit 100+ kW rapid charging from a known DC source. Their combined weight would be no more than 100 lbs and their combined volume only 1.5 cu ft. The liquid cooling is already there since the batteries on pretty much all of these vehicles need it (and in Tesla's case, the onboard AC/DC charging supply needs it too). If need be, the vehicle's AirCon could be used to refrigerate the coolant (which Tesla also does during charging).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 13, 2017, 11:15:54 AM
So what's the answer then? No, Tesla didn't invent anything new. The answer is duty cycle. Most industrial equipment is designed to operate at 100% duty cycle whereas EVs operate at very low duty cycle. As I'm sure we all know by know, at full gas the Tesla S goes into reduced power mode in just a matter of minutes - it can't do a full lap of the N-Ring even at full gas. Why? Because the motor, AC drive and batteries start to overheat.
You're right, the Tesla will throttle back after several minutes of sustained hard operation. But even at reduced power mode, the car will still put out 100kW+ (C&D said power was cut to 50% when their's went into low power mode at Lightning Lap), which according to you needs a shithouse sized package of gear to achieve.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 12, 2017, 03:51:45 PM
Today, each EV already has its own "battery protocol." For EVs that plug into AC to charge (= NOT fast charging), the user is only insulated from it - the "battery protocol" is buried inside the car, downstream of the AC input plug after it is converted to DC. However, in order to supercharge, high current DC needs to feed directly to the batteries, thusly moving the "battery protocol" to the external charging station. It's completely necessary and a benefit to everybody (= specific design for specific purpose + quicker pace of innovation).
Again, the industry can align on a supercharging standard. There's no benefit to everyone having their own proprietary protocol if widespread EV penetration is a goal. Volts are volts and amps are amps.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 13, 2017, 02:31:35 PM
Again, the industry can align on a supercharging standard. There's no benefit to everyone having their own proprietary protocol if widespread EV penetration is a goal. Volts are volts and amps are amps.
Why should "widespread EV penetration" be a goal? Isn't Tesla only interested in the Model S/X? GM only interested in the Bolt? Etc.? Etc.? I say most definitely, or at least that is what Tesla is demonstrating, and a quick Google search shows no material industry complaining about the lack of a universal supercharging protocol.
There can definitely benefit but as I've demonstrated in at least 10 posts it is both esoteric and theoretical. Since volts ain't volts and amps ain't amps, if Tesla had to wait for Chevy and Nissan to align on supercharging it would have taken forever, and (again) the fast roll out of supercharging is the current linchpin of Tesla's continued existence.
It is economically implausible to have on-board supercharging, and EV makers aligning on battery type/size/design would slow the pace innovation. One thing for sure, Tesla doesn't appear to making any moves in licensing its tech any time soon.
LOL No one said on-board supercharging. But there will eventually be a standardized plug which most EVs can use. Those who don't get on board with whatever the standard ends up being will get left behind.
Analysts tear down a Bolt - estimates that GM loses $7400 on every car sold.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/05/19/electric-vehicles-cost-conventional-cars-2018/
Interesting find but it's a bit sparse on the details.
Certainly the electronics will come down in price with scale as they always do but the battery packs won't.
The Bolt is a game changer for EVs but it still very limited by battery tech. To make headway in the market (w/out government force) cheaper and quicker charging battery tech is required.
The car has finally arrived at the dealer. Picking it up tomorrow.
Quote from: mzziaz on July 19, 2017, 10:44:53 AM
The car has finally arrived at the dealer. Picking it up tomorrow.
:dance:
Very nice, take some pics.
Quote from: mzziaz on July 19, 2017, 10:44:53 AM
The car has finally arrived at the dealer. Picking it up tomorrow.
:cheers: :clap:
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/JL0mR8hO7qx6zRTj2)
A broken image link. Wow. Anticlimax.
Well, that didn't work. Picked up the car and went on a whim 480km to Sweden on a trip with the family.
First impressions:
+
Great powertrain
Excellent range
Handsome exterior and a very nice color (tintcoat red metallic)
Some nice tech features, like Android Auto
Perfect size, small on the outside, roomy inside
-
Some low rent interior materials.
Interior fit and finish could be better.
The seats are a bit hard.
More impressions later
Quote from: Laconian on July 20, 2017, 04:11:27 PM
A broken image link. Wow. Anticlimax.
Not possible to hotlink via shared Google Photos pic?
Quote from: mzziaz on July 20, 2017, 04:13:58 PM
Not possible to hotlink via shared Google Photos pic?
You need to click Share, then "Link". Otherwise it's private to you.
Quote from: Laconian on July 20, 2017, 04:19:30 PM
You need to click Share, then "Link". Otherwise it's private to you.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder157/500x/44642157/so-doge-wow-such-convenience-much-impress-so-wow.jpg)
Quote from: Laconian on July 20, 2017, 04:19:30 PM
You need to click Share, then "Link". Otherwise it's private to you.
Did that. Will try again tomorrow
Ah, you tried embedding the webpage as an image link. You gotta right click the image and choose "Copy image address".
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FQC_Fs1n4Td9XurVLaMgQ06fJBo704ubhvxpb_1Kf21YGnN5bwNFHgto_rs84aNkpFHGO_1hBw3Jwu9t8a1SLY-Z0nkEcgvsAvim9Wolln-ImHFJRh0fRV1RhqnjrqYp8yRMfzZTWL9dwqSJC9nXsDr6T_e5UFHdKgdY6M3Uf5GzV4uoq0ziUTwrl8hGDOCefu0Ty_JI1DhhDMhj2Guqsr82CQViqsM9shRcvvqIBevwjz6sDdFtTPh23wh9m3ANoIPJDo0ORoeA1L1MfKd6n4uAZKmlYaLNIR6qwQeDB1y3GbimGhXmYiLNBbTzcXF180ybAiIXRF9O8-FIBaPL0nMbnioQIuUlWeQrJ7y0zGErB3TnHUf7NRKpnyop6ewPqOktDEmbsq_WN9kJZWAjCWCfbNbdz9RVl8A4fg5ON-ZcS6Jpu3tQ8sH7qSiwptm_9CQsrdEVydgL2rs72tPXLySA40UO9WqIM8H1x8hE6bwAU87tTlaWyXw94BwVluVy3QpgbUpvDkDXgxu3HnSOI6EV_UmAkjjwiaj78YXBWKAI8deVuPEVMAgk3B74uFRXeTQmD67SQzSTVLK3O2yqFryj_wxAt6X51ZchV83ujnVJCGWCs6BDR4gWjrDh5yBjM9JNb5M8Dfm3uJ0FW9nmlzRRnRfnsvEuXIf4gJVGNKFcZQ=w3132-h2349-no)
Quote from: mzziaz on July 20, 2017, 04:03:36 PM
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/JL0mR8hO7qx6zRTj2)
Quote from: mzziaz on July 20, 2017, 04:12:44 PM
Well, that didn't work. Picked up the car and went on a whim 480km to Sweden on a trip with the family.
First impressions:
+
Great powertrain
Excellent range
Handsome exterior and a very nice color (tintcoat red metallic)
Some nice tech features, like Android Auto
Perfect size, small on the outside, roomy inside
-
Some low rent interior materials.
Interior fit and finish could be better.
The seats are a bit hard.
More impressions later
Looks nice. Glad you like it. Did the range and fuel efficiency live up to expectations?
That is a nice looking car. I know hatchbacks aren't popular over here (US) but I dig em. :lol:
Pretty much every review I have seen on the Bolt has been positive. Even Tesla fanboys that have tested it seemed to like it (albeit not as much as their Tesla). I'd love to test drive one at some point, but doubt I'd buy it simply because it is FWD (as cliché as that is on a car forum).
Very nice!!
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 20, 2017, 06:21:09 PM
Looks nice. Glad you like it. Did the range and fuel efficiency live up to expectations?
Yes, the range/efficiency is great, so far, as expected. It will be interesting to see how much winter conditions will reduce the range though.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on July 21, 2017, 05:56:37 AM
That is a nice looking car. I know hatchbacks aren't popular over here (US) but I dig em. :lol:
Pretty much every review I have seen on the Bolt has been positive. Even Tesla fanboys that have tested it seemed to like it (albeit not as much as their Tesla). I'd love to test drive one at some point, but doubt I'd buy it simply because it is FWD (as cliché as that is on a car forum).
Actually it does have a bit of torque steer. Probably hard to avoid with such massive torque from start, but it was noticeable at 80-90 km/t, too
Quote from: mzziaz on July 21, 2017, 08:57:44 AM
Actually it does have a bit of torque steer. Probably hard to avoid with such massive torque from start, but it was noticeable at 80-90 km/t, too
:rockon:
So how is it after a month? I was able to test drive it for slightly longer period at the Drive EV event at work, did it back to back with some other EVs, the Bolt is still my favorite. The dealer is offering $4000 off MSRP, I get a $1500 additional discount and another $3000 for GM loyalty or something like that.. really considering it..
Looks really good. I'd love one of these as a third car in our fleet.
Well, I haven't gotten to drive it that much since my wife is DD'ing it (she loves it).
Bottom line is that the positive first impression still stands.
Drivetrain is still awesome
Charging turns out to be a breeze. We just put it on charge when the car is parked in the garage. Next morning the tank is full. Quick charging will almost never happen.
Running costs are reduced by about 75%, compared to a diesel.
But what I find coolest about the car, is that the packaging is so great. Even though the footprint of the car is B-segment small, the inside room is more like a roomy C-segment. It is small and zippy in town, while it drives like a larger car on the freeway (maybe because of the weight from the batteries). This is perhaps what I like best about the car.
Negatives are still cheap interior materials and some fitment issues. (Driver side panel gap between door and dash is pretty atrocious, almost MG bad). The seats have gotten a fair bit of flak as well, but although firm they don't bother me (wifey haven't complained, either). Also, the auto lights/screen dimming takes their sweet time to come on/off when driving through a tunnel.
Sound insulation is rather mediocre. In low to medium speeds it is dead quiet, but at highway speeds there is a fair bit of road noise.
All in all, we are very happy with the purchase so far. We might keep this car for a long time.
My brother just bought a Bolt. Can't wait to try it.
Quote from: Laconian on August 28, 2017, 02:28:22 PM
My brother just bought a Bolt. Can't wait to try it.
The one in Utah? I'll beat you to it!
He lives in WA now, so... :lol:
Challenge still accepted.
Cool! I hope he will enjoy it as much as we do atm.
How about you, NomisR? Gonna trade the Volt for one?
I've decided on it, sorta waiting a bit to see what the 2018 model adds, hopefully Homelink. If not, at least a good end of year discount..
So I was looking at a Bolt the other day. What are they actually selling for these days? On one hand, I see everyone talking about huge inventories and tons of money off. I look on TrueCar and it's only $1000 off MSRP.
Also, the Volt has adaptive cruise control but the Bolt doesn't? Something about the braking system can't accommodate it on the bolt?
No, it doesn't have ACC for some reason. I heard an engineer say it was because they didn't want to to "blended brakes", but with all the regen going on, it would seem like a pretty simple add on.
A happy customer:
I do agree to most of his points
https://medium.com/@ethanstock/after-10k-miles-the-electric-chevy-bolt-is-the-best-car-ive-ever-owned-you-should-buy-one-c61493b47164
Quote from: mzziaz on September 18, 2017, 05:35:51 AM
A happy customer:
I do agree to most of his points
https://medium.com/@ethanstock/after-10k-miles-the-electric-chevy-bolt-is-the-best-car-ive-ever-owned-you-should-buy-one-c61493b47164
I can see how it would be a good choice if you can stomach an electric car--or if one even suits your lifestyle. I think one of the biggest issues with electric cars other than being a stopgap feel good technology, is that the places where they might most benefit are places where people can't own them--cities.
Also, what is the downside to a plug-in hybrid over a fully electric car? Why not have a gasoline back up engine?
Quote from: Raza on September 18, 2017, 08:34:32 AM
Also, what is the downside to a plug-in hybrid over a fully electric car? Why not have a gasoline back up engine?
only the extra weight/ maintenance.
The all electric range of a plug in hybrid is much less than that of a pure EV car. Prius prime plug in hybrid has an all electric range of 31 miles before gas engine kicks in.
Quote from: Raza on September 18, 2017, 08:34:32 AM
Also, what is the downside to a plug-in hybrid over a fully electric car? Why not have a gasoline back up engine?
On the i3 the ICE screws up the 50:50 weight balance.
Gonna see my bro's Bolt today. :excited:
Quote from: Laconian on September 23, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
Gonna see my bro's Bolt today. :excited:
Lick your finger and stick it into the.... :lol:
Dude. He's my brother.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 23, 2017, 11:32:51 AM
Lick your finger and stick it into the.... :lol:
I've touched a cigarette lighter with my thumb. Do not recommend.
Ooh, looking forward to your report.
Quote from: Laconian on September 23, 2017, 11:47:29 AM
Dude. He's my brother.
MEANT THE CAR charging port, ya weirdo. :lol:
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on September 24, 2017, 02:26:08 PM
MEANT THE CAR charging port, ya weirdo. :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well?
Kevin's dead, he licked his fingers and stuck them in the charging port.
Quote from: 93JC on September 25, 2017, 04:27:04 PM
Kevin's dead, he licked his fingers and stuck them in the charging port.
:lol:
Quote from: Galaxy on September 19, 2017, 06:16:08 AM
On the i3 the ICE screws up the 50:50 weight balance.
Does that really matter on the i3?
I like it! The car's really nice for what it is. It's definitely one of the futuristic, high-dollar economy cars that's really plasticky and upholstered with god knows what polymers, but hey.. it's nice looking plastic. The interior is ginormous and the totally flat floor in the back is a surprising novelty. You could fit five adults in the car pretty easily. Car moves quietly and pulls quite hard when floored. It's not Ludicrous but the relentless gravitational PULL you feel is really unlike an ICE which has surges and stairsteps from the gearing and nonlinear powerbands. Dash LCD is high resolution and extremely easy to read even in bright sunlight. Center MMI is legible and responsive. Handling is fine, steering is a little numb but better than the Prius.
Overall the car feels nicely baked. It's a really useful EV for a shockingly reasonable price (just over $30k after all incentives.)
My only beef is with the seat cushions. They're really narrowly bolstered. My waist is 32", so if I have a problem with it, what will other, fatter Americans think?
Yeah, the seats have gotten a bit flak. I don't mind them, though.
Norskie beanpole butt!
Hey, it's a long time since I had a 32 inch waist.
Waifu is happy too, though, and she is slim.
Funny how different you describe the acceleration, btw. Clearly, you are not coming from a 120hp diesel.
Quote from: mzziaz on September 26, 2017, 01:33:44 PM
Funny how different you describe the acceleration, btw. Clearly, you are not coming from a 120hp diesel.
:lol:
Quote from: Galaxy on September 19, 2017, 06:16:08 AM
On the i3 the ICE screws up the 50:50 weight balance.
The i3 is a fucking goofy look POS that isn't for people who care about driving, or looking smart.
Quote from: Char on September 28, 2017, 07:04:04 PM
The i3 is a fucking goofy look POS that isn't for people who care about driving, or looking smart.
Idk the i3 is really sharp to drive
Quote from: 2o6 on September 28, 2017, 07:34:37 PM
Idk the i3 is really sharp to drive
And it oooks like a turd. I pass on the functionless overpriced economy car. It screens power and moron.
Quote from: Char on September 28, 2017, 09:35:49 PM
And it oooks like a turd. I pass on the functionless overpriced economy car. It screens power and moron.
Translation = never driven one
Quote from: 2o6 on September 29, 2017, 01:04:50 AM
Translation = never driven one
Translation -
It looks dumb, and it's expensive for what it is. I'll pass.
Put the car in for service on friday. It has driven 40.000 kms this last year with no issues.
Nothing found on the service either, but they somehow managed to mess up the software update on the infotainment system, and need to keep it. Getting a phone call today or tuesday. I hope they haven't bricked the whole system.
Got an Opel Grandland X as a loaner, which is a pretty underwhelming vehicle (based on the Peugeot 3008).
Quote from: mzziaz on October 01, 2018, 01:15:17 AM
Got an Opel Grandland X as a loaner, which is a pretty underwhelming vehicle (based on the Peugeot 3008).
Awful name too. Makes me think it's a Chinese car, like the Jiangling Landwind X7.
Quote from: mzziaz on October 01, 2018, 01:15:17 AM
Put the car in for service on friday. It has driven 40.000 kms this last year with no issues.
Nothing found on the service either, but they somehow managed to mess up the software update on the infotainment system, and need to keep it. Getting a phone call today or tuesday. I hope they haven't bricked the whole system.
Got an Opel Grandland X as a loaner, which is a pretty underwhelming vehicle (based on the Peugeot 3008).
That's a lot of driving for a single year. Speaks well of the Bolt. Unfortunately we only get it in the basic interior trim that I can't get past.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on October 01, 2018, 08:09:22 AM
That's a lot of driving for a single year. Speaks well of the Bolt. Unfortunately we only get it in the basic interior trim that I can't get past.
They're all basic inside.
Quote from: 93JC on October 01, 2018, 07:25:36 AM
Awful name too. Makes me think it's a Chinese car, like the Jiangling Landwind X7.
I got it wrong. It was the Crossland X, actually. Equally shitty name, though.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on October 01, 2018, 08:09:22 AM
That's a lot of driving for a single year. Speaks well of the Bolt. Unfortunately we only get it in the basic interior trim that I can't get past.
Yeah. the plastic is pretty low rent.
Quote from: mzziaz on October 01, 2018, 11:00:58 AM
I got it wrong. It was the Crossland X, actually. Equally shitty name, though.
Grandland X, Crossland X: it's all Chinese to me. :lol:
Quote from: 93JC on October 01, 2018, 11:29:33 AM
Grandland X, Crossland X: it's all Chinese to me. :lol:
Yeah. Poor Opel.