2017 Chevy Bolt EV Cd 0.312

[rmay635703]

Sadly GM always fails on aero, they don't have the will, they want something that they consider domestic or pretty, they could have bested the Prius in the Gen II volt on gas but refuse to make the aero changes and engine heat recapture changes to make it happen.

Originally Posted by 3-Wheeler

Neil,

Just wait, and I'll bet that a forum dedicated to the Bolt will come up with a way to disable the regen while coasting. MIMA in my Insight does the same thing. I can control if/when either assist or regen.

Jim.

I can't throw the bolt into neutral like the volt? (which also doesn't allow freewheeling unless your foot is precision engineered)

[NeilBlanchard]

I put our Leaf into neutral - but that is not nearly as good.

GM got the aero on the EV1 right. I agree though, that I wish they would have more backbone and lead with the best engineering they can manage.

[sendler]

The Bolt will beat the Leaf and the eGolf on efficiency even with it's current design considerations. As the eSpark already does.

[freebeard]

The Bolt will compete with a car that is very similar in price and range, but which comes with a pre-existing nation-(world-?)wide network Supercharging network. That is free.

GM? *crickets*

[NeilBlanchard]

Agreed - GM is making a serious mistake not supporting a QC network.

Maybe they hope to sell enough Bolt EV's to make it attractive for a third party to do this? Or, maybe they will work with Nissan (and BMW and VW) to get Tesla to add CCS and CHAdeMO stations at Superchargers?

[sendler]

So it seems the Bolt will have a multi speed transmission.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Bolt
.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by sendler

So it seems the Bolt will have a multi speed transmission.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Bolt
.

That is odd indeed, first I have heard of it and appears to be a terrible idea.

I am hoping that all that refers to is the standard Chevy dual planetary that allows for nearly infinite electric gear ratios and not an actual transmission which would be a horrible idea.

Also I think the QC network is likely premature and also not needed. Don't get me wrong, its nice,
but the reality is that Teslas QC network is likely under a variety of assumptions, cloak and dagger.

Many seem to think that teslas QC network will stay free forever and have no limitations, there have already been complaints from tesla to customers if they are a "heavy user" as the convenience network is only for occasional trip use.

I have a very strong feeling that once and if Tesla makes a mass production variant and it is on time, on budget and sold for the amount they claim and it sells in the volume they want, we may see policy change for future cars.

The level of investment to make a real QC network for more than a couple cars is monstrous and unlikely until it somehow becomes profitable.

I think GM is likely right on the profitable part of a QC network and they don't support it for good reason.

Ah well, nothing like economics.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

That is odd indeed, first I have heard of it and appears to be a terrible idea.

I am hoping that all that refers to is the standard Chevy dual planetary that allows for nearly infinite electric gear ratios and not an actual transmission which would be a horrible idea.

Why is added efficiency a terrible idea?

[freebeard]

Jack Rikard in the most recent EVTV opines that the cost isn't all that great, and Elon Musk has said that other manufacturers are welcome to his party. So if GM buys in to the preexisting alternative, then Tesla eats their lunch and the network can stay free to Tesla customers.

The Powerwall home product can be ganged together and palletized to make a Supercharger-in-a-box. So Solar City and the Gigafactory come into play, while GM is still thinking in terms of powertrains. So who pays Tesla, GM or the Bolt owner?

'I love it when a plan comes together.'

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Why is reduced efficiency a terrible idea?

An electric AC motor as it stands in the volt is over 91% efficient across its operational range, an automatic transmission is usually somewhere between 75%-90% efficient, I guess I don't see how that can be correct, even if the motor were to become 100% efficient, I still would loose due to the auto behind it.

Unless it is a manumatic?

From what I remember the dual planetary was for "improved" efficiency, but it too has parasitic losses compared to direct drive.