Bolt EV gripes

[GetOffYourGas]

EVs, like any car, involve trade-offs. This discussion seems to have devolved into an argument over which design decisions should have been made for the Bolt. All in all, the Bolt is a great package. Could it be faster? Probably. More efficient? Sure. And I hope that GM takes the Bolt platform and creates these options and more with it.

Has anybody noticed that the majority of affordable EV offerings are tall hatchbacks? Bolt, Leaf, Fit EV, Soul EV, eGolf, Mercedes, ... How about simply offering more body styles? Maybe a mid-sized SUV like the Equinox. Or a more traditional family sedan like the Malibu. I, for one, would love a 2-door sports coupe version, like the fictional "Jolt" http://www.chevyjoltev.com/, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Yes true EVs are a tradeoff currently...but as technology develops that tradeoff will become an advantage.

My point merely was that currently the performance Achilles heel of EVs is a single transmission. It is a strength as well as a weakness...depending what speed range you are speaking of. Clearly "some" people here have absolutely no clue of basic physics and just like to ramble for the same of rambling and being hostile because they'd rather thump chests than have a debate...probably because they know they are wrong. But that's another thread and frankly it doesn't matter.

I think as the tradeoffs lessen, you will begin to see more EVs in more sedan styles, etc....I think they are lumping practicality right now with functionality and the aesthetics has taken a back seat for the most part.

The tradeoff will always be a tradeoff. Like you said, both single-speed and multi-speed transmissions have their strengths and weaknesses. The Bolt isn't trying to be a high-performance car. It is trying to appeal to the widest possible audience. For now, I am ok with the single-speed gearbox. Maybe GM will make a Bolt SS with a multi-speed transmission. Maybe even tweak out a little more power from that motor at the same time.

 

[michael]

Just so everyone knows....Michael and Michael1 are not the same person!!

 

[devbolt]

I agree 100%. Everything you say there is correct and highlights the advantages EVs have over regular cars given everything else being equal.

However my point is that if you want to really use the electric motor's potential over a wider range of speeds, gearing is necessary not only for performance but also for efficiency. The flexibility of electric motors is astonishing. For example, my Spark EV's gearing is equivalent to driving around a regular car in 4th gear all the time. It's no wonder the mid-range performance of this car is so good and holds its own against cars with 70, 80, 90 HP more. But the single gear also is the Achilles heel of EVs after a certain speed range where their power delivery falls off rapidly and isn't effective any more.

From what I've read, horsepower remains more or less constant throughout an electric motor's RPM range. It's the torque that drops off as RPMs go up. However, the efficiency of the electric motor is what increases or stays the same as RPMs increase. Drop the RPMs too much and the car is woefully inefficient. Sure, you get extra torque, but what sort of extra performance are you trying to wring out of the car? 45-65 passing times that are sub 2-seconds? Again, point of diminishing returns in terms of performance gains. How often will you really need that extra power that isn't currently available? Is it worth the extra cost and complexity when you've got an electric motor that already can operate fairly efficiently over a wider RPM range than a comparable ICE?

Well power is power but how it's delivered (i.e. gearing) is critical. There's is a reason why ICE vehicles with less HP than a Model S P100D out-accelerate it after 100 MPH...it's gearing. Compare that to a Rimac Concept One that actually has two gear ratios...allowing that think to continue to haul like crazy through top speed. Basic physics at work.

The argument about complexity is a different one. I was purely focusing on the aspect of gearing and how EVs pull far past their weight in performance given similar or less HP than comparable vehicles. It's quite idiotic and brainless to compare a 150HP EV to a 400 HP ICE vehicle. What goes through that person's brain to compare those two?

Using a car company that has only produced 8 vehicles to illustrate your point about gearing is a little disingenuous. It's awesome that Rimac Concept One can still rapidly accelerate past 100 MPH. It'll make a great EV race car, but it's totally impractical for an everyday car. Nearly $1 million to go a little faster a little faster. Talk about compensating...

Hell, the Model S, any version, much less the P100D to me is an impractical everyday car. Beautiful technological achievement. Just too expensive to buy and doesn't fit my lifestyle. But I get why it's attractive to a certain segment of the population that aren't EV enthusiasts.

For the record, the Bolt EV is 200 HP. And has 266 pounds of torque. Which will be more than enough for most people's everyday use. I dunno about you, but I don't find myself needing to rapidly accelerate beyond 100 MPH. Most of the time traffic is so bad I can't get past 50 or 60 MPH. When I do have to accelerate under those circumstances, the Bolt will still have more power to accelerate than most cars out there.

 

[JupiterMoon]

Just so everyone knows....Michael and Michael1 are not the same person!!

Lucky for you

 

[JupiterMoon]

From what I've read, horsepower remains more or less constant throughout an electric motor's RPM range. It's the torque that drops off as RPMs go up. However, the efficiency of the electric motor is what increases or stays the same as RPMs increase. Drop the RPMs too much and the car is woefully inefficient. Sure, you get extra torque, but what sort of extra performance are you trying to wring out of the car? 45-65 passing times that are sub 2-seconds? Again, point of diminishing returns in terms of performance gains. How often will you really need that extra power that isn't currently available? Is it worth the extra cost and complexity when you've got an electric motor that already can operate fairly efficiently over a wider RPM range than a comparable ICE?

Well power is power but how it's delivered (i.e. gearing) is critical. There's is a reason why ICE vehicles with less HP than a Model S P100D out-accelerate it after 100 MPH...it's gearing. Compare that to a Rimac Concept One that actually has two gear ratios...allowing that think to continue to haul like crazy through top speed. Basic physics at work.

The argument about complexity is a different one. I was purely focusing on the aspect of gearing and how EVs pull far past their weight in performance given similar or less HP than comparable vehicles. It's quite idiotic and brainless to compare a 150HP EV to a 400 HP ICE vehicle. What goes through that person's brain to compare those two?

Using a car company that has only produced 8 vehicles to illustrate your point about gearing is a little disingenuous. It's awesome that Rimac Concept One can still rapidly accelerate past 100 MPH. It'll make a great EV race car, but it's totally impractical for an everyday car. Nearly $1 million to go a little faster a little faster. Talk about compensating...

Hell, the Model S, any version, much less the P100D to me is an impractical everyday car. Beautiful technological achievement. Just too expensive to buy and doesn't fit my lifestyle. But I get why it's attractive to a certain segment of the population that aren't EV enthusiasts.

For the record, the Bolt EV is 200 HP. And has 266 pounds of torque. Which will be more than enough for most people's everyday use. I dunno about you, but I don't find myself needing to rapidly accelerate beyond 100 MPH. Most of the time traffic is so bad I can't get past 50 or 60 MPH. When I do have to accelerate under those circumstances, the Bolt will still have more power to accelerate than most cars out there.

What does demonstrating basic physics principles have anything to do with how many cars a manufacturer makes? Does the physics depend on the number of cars in circulation I don't get it. Can you explain?

I'm not talking about what is and isn't impractical. I was talking strictly about gearing and performance. I'm not talking about what is and isn't enough for every day driving either. This is strictly just a mention about gearing and performance. Compare two regular everyday cars if you want...it doesn't matter. The principles stay the same.

 

[devbolt]

Well power is power but how it's delivered (i.e. gearing) is critical. There's is a reason why ICE vehicles with less HP than a Model S P100D out-accelerate it after 100 MPH...it's gearing. Compare that to a Rimac Concept One that actually has two gear ratios...allowing that think to continue to haul like crazy through top speed. Basic physics at work.

The argument about complexity is a different one. I was purely focusing on the aspect of gearing and how EVs pull far past their weight in performance given similar or less HP than comparable vehicles. It's quite idiotic and brainless to compare a 150HP EV to a 400 HP ICE vehicle. What goes through that person's brain to compare those two?

Using a car company that has only produced 8 vehicles to illustrate your point about gearing is a little disingenuous. It's awesome that Rimac Concept One can still rapidly accelerate past 100 MPH. It'll make a great EV race car, but it's totally impractical for an everyday car. Nearly $1 million to go a little faster a little faster. Talk about compensating...

Hell, the Model S, any version, much less the P100D to me is an impractical everyday car. Beautiful technological achievement. Just too expensive to buy and doesn't fit my lifestyle. But I get why it's attractive to a certain segment of the population that aren't EV enthusiasts.

For the record, the Bolt EV is 200 HP. And has 266 pounds of torque. Which will be more than enough for most people's everyday use. I dunno about you, but I don't find myself needing to rapidly accelerate beyond 100 MPH. Most of the time traffic is so bad I can't get past 50 or 60 MPH. When I do have to accelerate under those circumstances, the Bolt will still have more power to accelerate than most cars out there.

What does demonstrating basic physics principles have anything to do with how many cars a manufacturer makes? Does the physics depend on the number of cars in circulation I don't get it. Can you explain?

I'm not talking about what is and isn't impractical. I was talking strictly about gearing and performance. I'm not talking about what is and isn't enough for every day driving either. This is strictly just a mention about gearing and performance. Compare two regular everyday cars if you want...it doesn't matter. The principles stay the same.

Sure, multi-gearing can improve performance. Or you can just use a more efficient motor design and reduction gear to get the performance/efficiency that you want/need.

The implication of your original post is that EV manufacturers will soon use multi-gear boxes to improve efficiency. The fact that a high-end car manufacturer has been able to implement a mutli-gear box in an EV to achieve better performance is worth noting, but has little practical value. The reality is that EV manufacturers don't really need to use a multi-gear box to improve performance/efficiency as the incremental increase, if there really is one, is not worth the cost/effort to do so. Otherwise manufacturers like Tesla would've done it years ago.

 

[JupiterMoon]

Using a car company that has only produced 8 vehicles to illustrate your point about gearing is a little disingenuous. It's awesome that Rimac Concept One can still rapidly accelerate past 100 MPH. It'll make a great EV race car, but it's totally impractical for an everyday car. Nearly $1 million to go a little faster a little faster. Talk about compensating...

Hell, the Model S, any version, much less the P100D to me is an impractical everyday car. Beautiful technological achievement. Just too expensive to buy and doesn't fit my lifestyle. But I get why it's attractive to a certain segment of the population that aren't EV enthusiasts.

For the record, the Bolt EV is 200 HP. And has 266 pounds of torque. Which will be more than enough for most people's everyday use. I dunno about you, but I don't find myself needing to rapidly accelerate beyond 100 MPH. Most of the time traffic is so bad I can't get past 50 or 60 MPH. When I do have to accelerate under those circumstances, the Bolt will still have more power to accelerate than most cars out there.

What does demonstrating basic physics principles have anything to do with how many cars a manufacturer makes? Does the physics depend on the number of cars in circulation I don't get it. Can you explain?

I'm not talking about what is and isn't impractical. I was talking strictly about gearing and performance. I'm not talking about what is and isn't enough for every day driving either. This is strictly just a mention about gearing and performance. Compare two regular everyday cars if you want...it doesn't matter. The principles stay the same.

Sure, multi-gearing can improve performance. Or you can just use a more efficient motor design and reduction gear to get the performance/efficiency that you want/need.

The implication of your original post is that EV manufacturers will soon use multi-gear boxes to improve efficiency. The fact that a high-end car manufacturer has been able to implement a mutli-gear box in an EV to achieve better performance is worth noting, but has little practical value. The reality is that EV manufacturers don't really need to use a multi-gear box to improve performance/efficiency as the incremental increase, if there really is one, is not worth the cost/effort to do so. Otherwise manufacturers like Tesla would've done it years ago.

No not really. I think the only reason why it hasn't been done yet is because EVs haven't been considered "performance" oriented vehicles. That's going to change as automakers get a thirst for developing performance EVs just like they have performance ICE vehicles.

Things will get cheaper and more will be done as time goes by. Efficiency drops off quickly at high speeds for electric vehicles and power consumption skyrockets. I'm sure most drivers in the future aren't going to be particularly happy having to stay under 65 MPH to improve range because of gearing.

 

[devbolt]

What does demonstrating basic physics principles have anything to do with how many cars a manufacturer makes? Does the physics depend on the number of cars in circulation I don't get it. Can you explain?

I'm not talking about what is and isn't impractical. I was talking strictly about gearing and performance. I'm not talking about what is and isn't enough for every day driving either. This is strictly just a mention about gearing and performance. Compare two regular everyday cars if you want...it doesn't matter. The principles stay the same.

Sure, multi-gearing can improve performance. Or you can just use a more efficient motor design and reduction gear to get the performance/efficiency that you want/need.

The implication of your original post is that EV manufacturers will soon use multi-gear boxes to improve efficiency. The fact that a high-end car manufacturer has been able to implement a mutli-gear box in an EV to achieve better performance is worth noting, but has little practical value. The reality is that EV manufacturers don't really need to use a multi-gear box to improve performance/efficiency as the incremental increase, if there really is one, is not worth the cost/effort to do so. Otherwise manufacturers like Tesla would've done it years ago.

No not really. I think the only reason why it hasn't been done yet is because EVs haven't been considered "performance" oriented vehicles. That's going to change as automakers get a thirst for developing performance EVs just like they have performance ICE vehicles.

Things will get cheaper and more will be done as time goes by. Efficiency drops off quickly at high speeds for electric vehicles and power consumption skyrockets. I'm sure most drivers in the future aren't going to be particularly happy having to stay under 65 MPH to improve range because of gearing.

So the Tesla isn't a performance sports sedan? The 0-60 times of less than 3 seconds for the P100D doesn't qualify as a performance car? You must have a really different definition of performance car than I do.

When you get up to high speeds (70 or more), it doesn't matter how efficient your motor, electric or ICE, is, or how good the gearbox is. At that point you are fighting air-resistance, and no amount of magic gearing can overcome that. Employing a multi-speed gear-box will actually reduce efficiency in an EV at sub-70 MPH speeds because of transmission losses. Power consumption doesn't necessarily skyrocket as speeds go up since an electric motor seems to have a fairly flat power curve and actually performs best at near max RPM.

Tesla did try a multi-gear transmission for the Roadster. It kept shredding the gear-box.

One suggestion to implement multiple gears for EVs is to use two differently geared electric motors and tie them together using a planetary gearset that in turn drives the wheels. Kind of a CVT, but without the cones and bands and associated transmission losses.

I'm not saying that multi-gear transmissions won't make their way into EVs, I just think they'll be relegated to the super car and racing car niches which are well beyond the means of most people, and thus a very limited market.

 

[JupiterMoon]

Sure, multi-gearing can improve performance. Or you can just use a more efficient motor design and reduction gear to get the performance/efficiency that you want/need.

The implication of your original post is that EV manufacturers will soon use multi-gear boxes to improve efficiency. The fact that a high-end car manufacturer has been able to implement a mutli-gear box in an EV to achieve better performance is worth noting, but has little practical value. The reality is that EV manufacturers don't really need to use a multi-gear box to improve performance/efficiency as the incremental increase, if there really is one, is not worth the cost/effort to do so. Otherwise manufacturers like Tesla would've done it years ago.

No not really. I think the only reason why it hasn't been done yet is because EVs haven't been considered "performance" oriented vehicles. That's going to change as automakers get a thirst for developing performance EVs just like they have performance ICE vehicles.

Things will get cheaper and more will be done as time goes by. Efficiency drops off quickly at high speeds for electric vehicles and power consumption skyrockets. I'm sure most drivers in the future aren't going to be particularly happy having to stay under 65 MPH to improve range because of gearing.

So the Tesla isn't a performance sports sedan? The 0-60 times of less than 3 seconds for the P100D doesn't qualify as a performance car? You must have a really different definition of performance car than I do.

When you get up to high speeds (70 or more), it doesn't matter how efficient your motor, electric or ICE, is, or how good the gearbox is. At that point you are fighting air-resistance, and no amount of magic gearing can overcome that. Employing a multi-speed gear-box will actually reduce efficiency in an EV at sub-70 MPH speeds because of transmission losses. Power consumption doesn't necessarily skyrocket as speeds go up since an electric motor seems to have a fairly flat power curve and actually performs best at near max RPM.

Tesla did try a multi-gear transmission for the Roadster. It kept shredding the gear-box.

One suggestion to implement multiple gears for EVs is to use two differently geared electric motors and tie them together using a planetary gearset that in turn drives the wheels. Kind of a CVT, but without the cones and bands and associated transmission losses.

I'm not saying that multi-gear transmissions won't make their way into EVs, I just think they'll be relegated to the super car and racing car niches which are well beyond the means of most people, and thus a very limited market.

Yes the Tesla is a sports sedan and fine one too..but even with all that performance and record setting 0-60 times, it still gets out-accelerated at higher speeds due to gearing and not lack of power.

Gearing makes all the difference even in higher speeds. You need power to maintain and accelerate at higher speeds...if you don't have the gearing to deliver that power properly, you may not as well have it. Power consumption does skyrocket due to drag, etc so the power required goes up considerably.

I disagree about gearing being relegated to super cars, etc. My Spark EV, as humble of a car that it is, could accelerate even better after 70 MPH if it had a second gear. The gearing simply doesn't allow the car to stretch its legs and it falls on its face because of the rapid drop off in torque.

Technology isn't standing still. Things will develop and improve as time goes on and it'll be for the better. Longer range, better performance, higher efficiency. All good things that are worth adding to EV performance IMO.

 

[michael]

EVs generally have three ranges of operation

1. At low speed, they are limited to constant torque, intentionally by the controller. Power is proportional to speed and increases linearly with speed.

2. In middle speeds, torque is not intentionally limited but fall with increasing speed. Power is constant.

3. At high speeds, torque falls quickly with increasing speed, and power also falls off as speed increases.

A two speed gearbox would address the high speed fall off issue, but at the cost of increased complexity and possibly with an undesirable sensation of a gear change. Volt addresses this almost "cost free" since it already includes two motors. At high speeds, the rotational speeds of the two motors add, effectively becoming a two-speed gearbox. By smoothly modulating (electrically) the transition region, any feeling of gear change is avoided.

There is an alternate approach to solving this problem...use a larger electric motor, large enough to provide whatever amount of power is desired at high speeds. At low and medium speeds, intentionally (via controller circuit) limit the torque.

Unlike an ICE, where using a larger engine hurts economy, using a larger electric motor generally increases efficiency, since motor heating (due to IR losses) is less in a large motor. Tesla's D version effectively do this, using two motors rather than a larger one, and get the same or better MPGe.

I believe in effect this is what automakers do. Supply a large enough motor for satisfactory performance at highway speed, limit torque at lower speed, and avoid the need for a gearbox.

 

[Schnort]

Has anybody noticed that the majority of affordable EV offerings are tall hatchbacks? Bolt, Leaf, Fit EV, Soul EV, eGolf, Mercedes, ... How about simply offering more body styles? Maybe a mid-sized SUV like the Equinox. Or a more traditional family sedan like the Malibu. I, for one, would love a 2-door sports coupe version, like the fictional "Jolt" http://www.chevyjoltev.com/, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I think the overlap of EV centric people and wagon/hatchback drivers is pretty strong.

Also, I think the hatchback allows for a car with more "trunk" space, since the floor is taken up by batteries.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Has anybody noticed that the majority of affordable EV offerings are tall hatchbacks? Bolt, Leaf, Fit EV, Soul EV, eGolf, Mercedes, ... How about simply offering more body styles? Maybe a mid-sized SUV like the Equinox. Or a more traditional family sedan like the Malibu. I, for one, would love a 2-door sports coupe version, like the fictional "Jolt" http://www.chevyjoltev.com/, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I think the overlap of EV centric people and wagon/hatchback drivers is pretty strong.

Also, I think the hatchback allows for a car with more "trunk" space, since the floor is taken up by batteries.

Basked on what? I'm not debating the utility of a hatchback, but anyone else I know who drives an EV was not previously in the market for a hatchback. We bought them be sure we wanted an EV and that's all that is available.

 

[HotPotato]

I tried explaining to a tech nerd friend why the Volt's system is superior to a gearless/1-speed approach and his sardonic response was "ooh, modern: gears!" UGH.

FWIW, Tesla tried to put a two-speed transmission in the Roadster, but couldn't make it work and eventually gave up.

So I think 1-speed EVs are just where we are for now.

 

[JupiterMoon]

Has anybody noticed that the majority of affordable EV offerings are tall hatchbacks? Bolt, Leaf, Fit EV, Soul EV, eGolf, Mercedes, ... How about simply offering more body styles? Maybe a mid-sized SUV like the Equinox. Or a more traditional family sedan like the Malibu. I, for one, would love a 2-door sports coupe version, like the fictional "Jolt" http://www.chevyjoltev.com/, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I think the overlap of EV centric people and wagon/hatchback drivers is pretty strong.

Also, I think the hatchback allows for a car with more "trunk" space, since the floor is taken up by batteries.

Basked on what? I'm not debating the utility of a hatchback, but anyone else I know who drives an EV was not previously in the market for a hatchback. We bought them be sure we wanted an EV and that's all that is available.

I think there is a stigma in the auto industry that "hatchback" equates to "affordable" and "sedan" equates to "luxury" or a higher class vehicle. I personally do not subscribe to this view but clearly in this country hatchbacks are not viewed as upper class vehicles no matter what utility traits they may have.

 

[Fulmine]

Has anyone tried to use a CD player by plugging into the "aux" port in front of the shifter? The manual suggests you can.

 

[elpwr]

Has anyone tried to use a CD player by plugging into the "aux" port in front of the shifter? The manual suggests you can.

Yep. And it works fine.

 

[Fulmine]

Thanks. I will go buy one now.

 

[Fulmine]

I bought a single CD player, battery operated, and plugged it in the aux. port, and much to my surprise, it played on my Bolt's speakers without any fussing necessary. I was elated, as nothing is especially easy about the Bolt, other than one pedal driving.