Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:> John Doe wrote: >> Ed Lee wrote: >> > Cursitor Doom wrote: >> >> Ed Lee wrote: >> >> > Don Y wrote: >> >> >> Ed Lee wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi >> >> >> >> effective range. >> >> >> >> > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi >> >> >> > effective range. >> >> >> >> Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that? >> >> > >> >> >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic. >> >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these >> >> range figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I >> >> know someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that >> >> his advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill >> >> between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic. >> > >> > Yes, no wind, no slope, no heat, no A/C, no stopping, no speeding >> > (<40mph), etc. With ideal solution, perhaps 4 mil/kWHr. That's why i >> > use 3 mi/kWHr for more realistic estimate.>> Yes, hills are efficiency killers.>> > Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range.>> Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is. >> >> Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But >> Elon > >> Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. >> >> Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them >> must > >> work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is >> supposed to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on >> battery power, probably not practical. >> >> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a >> cordless tool. > > Until we get some special metals from our alien friends, we are stuck > with around 4V cells. Leaf has 192 cells in 48 modules. Bolt has > (estimated) 192 cells in 96 modules. Tesla has 5000 to 7000 cells in 4 > to 6 modules.Difficult to believe "module" has any meaning since one has 192/96 and the other has 6000/6.> The reason for smaller cells is when one fails or leaks, there is less > damage.Not when it's packed in with a jillion other cells. Any professional discussion about using (a jillion) small batteries to reduce fire risk? I find nothing relevant when searching for (large lithium-ion battery).> > Problem is that the battery packs are difficult to service. >
Bolt battery problem
Started by ●July 23, 2021
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 10:22:32 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:> Ed Lee <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > John Doe wrote: > >> Ed Lee wrote: > >> > Cursitor Doom wrote: > >> >> Ed Lee wrote: > >> >> > Don Y wrote: > >> >> >> Ed Lee wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> Correction: Bolt: 50%(90%-40%) of 60KwHr = 39KWhr or 100mi > >> >> >> >> effective range. > >> > >> >> >> > Try again: Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 60 KwHr = 30KwHr or 100mi > >> >> >> > effective range. > >> > >> >> >> Was the original "advertised" range 100/55 times that? > >> >> > > >> >> >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic. > >> > >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these > >> >> range figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I > >> >> know someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that > >> >> his advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill > >> >> between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic. > >> > > >> > Yes, no wind, no slope, no heat, no A/C, no stopping, no speeding > >> > (<40mph), etc. With ideal solution, perhaps 4 mil/kWHr. That's why i > >> > use 3 mi/kWHr for more realistic estimate. > > >> Yes, hills are efficiency killers. > > >> > Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range. > > >> Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is. > >> > >> Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But > >> Elon > > > >> Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. > >> > >> Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them > >> must > > > >> work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is > >> supposed to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on > >> battery power, probably not practical. > >> > >> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a > >> cordless tool. > > > > Until we get some special metals from our alien friends, we are stuck > > with around 4V cells. Leaf has 192 cells in 48 modules. Bolt has > > (estimated) 192 cells in 96 modules. Tesla has 5000 to 7000 cells in 4 > > to 6 modules. > Difficult to believe "module" has any meaning since one has 192/96 and the > other has 6000/6.Repair shop only replace modules. For the Leaf, if one cell fails, 50% of power is lost. For Tesla, perhaps 1% to 2%.> > The reason for smaller cells is when one fails or leaks, there is less > > damage. > Not when it's packed in with a jillion other cells. > > Any professional discussion about using (a jillion) small batteries to > reduce fire risk? I find nothing relevant when searching for (large > lithium-ion battery).It's the electrolyte leaking and catching fire. The theory is that smaller cell leaks less, at least at the beginning. But once it starts burning, nothing matter. The strong housing catches some fluid and protect from some ignition. The Leaf housing is around 300 pounds and need a hoist to open-up the 100 pound cover. The Bolt cover is perhaps 20 to 30 pounds, one guy can lift it up. Tesla cover is like tin-foil. One can just peel it off.
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
...> >EPA estimate of 247 mi, which would be very optimistic. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but i was given to understand that these > range figures assume zero wind conditions and totally flat roads. I > know someone who jumped on the bandwagon early and discovered that his > advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill > between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic.Hills make very little difference. Although it takes more energy to climb a hill than go on the flat that energy is recovered on the return trip. I live about 500 feet above Silicon Valley and In both of my electric cars the two effects would balance out for the complete trip back to the starting point. Even going over the local 1800 foot mountain to Santa Cruz has very little affect over the entire trip. Similarly, if the wind keeps in the same direction it doesn't; affect things much, it hurts in one direction but you get it back in the other. kw
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 09:08:48 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote: ...> > advertised range was *drastically* cut by having a 900 foot hill > > between his home and his workplace. And I *mean* drastic. > Yes, no wind, no slope, no heat, no A/C, no stopping, no speeding (<40mph), etc. With ideal solution, perhaps 4 mil/kWHr. That's why i use 3 mi/kWHr for more realistic estimate.The people I know with Chevy Bolts average about 4.2mi/kWh, some get better. The EPA rating of 28kWh/100 miles is 3.5mi/kWh but that includes the charging losses of about 10-15%. I have driven many EVs and found the Nissan Leaf to be one of the most inefficient at bait less than 4mi/kWh.> Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range.The article stated charge to no more than 90% and not below 70miles range. Using the 238 mile EPA range (2017 model) that would be charging to a range of 214 miles. That would leave 144 miles until 70 miles remaining, not 95mi kw
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 09:51:31 UTC-7, Ed Lee wrote: ...> > > > Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a cordless > > tool. > Until we get some special metals from our alien friends, we are stuck with around 4V cells. Leaf has 192 cells in 48 modules. Bolt has (estimated) 192 cells in 96 modules. Tesla has 5000 to 7000 cells in 4 to 6 modules. The reason for smaller cells is when one fails or leaks, there is less damage. >The reason for the small cells (originally 18650) is that they're already in high mass production and so the cost curve had already been driven down a large amount although Tesla is driving the cost down further. ... kw
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 09:28:36 UTC-7, John Doe wrote: ...> Yes, hills are efficiency killers. > > Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range. > Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is. >Actually the opposite is true. The larger the vehicle the smaller the percentage of the energy that is required for the fixed loads such as electronics, hotel loads, lights etc.> Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But Elon > Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. > > Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them must > work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is supposed > to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on battery power, > probably not practical.Most of the heavy truck manufacturers have announced electric power versions of their vehicles. Tesla and Mercedes are shortly going into production with theirs.> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a cordless > tool.The small cylindrical cells are cheaper per kWh because they were already in mass production. kw
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
"ke...@kjwdesigns.com" <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:> Ed Lee wrote: >> John Doe wrote:>>> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a >>> cordless tool.>> Until we get some special metals from our alien friends, we are stuck >> with around 4V cells. Leaf has 192 cells in 48 modules. Bolt has >> (estimated) 192 cells in 96 modules. Tesla has 5000 to 7000 cells in 4 >> to 6 modules. The reason for smaller cells is when one fails or leaks, >> there is less damage.> The reason for the small cells (originally 18650) is that they're > already in high mass production and so the cost curve had already been > driven down a large amount although Tesla is driving the cost down > further.That might be more plausible than the "fire risk" theory, but I still don't get it. Manufacturing can be changed in order to do things right. Normally products are made bigger instead of producing a gazillion tiny products. Sealed lead acid batteries for example. Would be neat to see some PROFESSIONAL discussion on the issue. Until then, assume it's a necessity for some unknown reason.
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
Bullshit... -- "ke...@kjwdesigns.com" <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5e46:: with SMTP id i6mr9039863qtx.326.1627150753065; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT) > X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2991:: with SMTP id r17mr10853557qkp.208.1627150752954; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:19:12 -0700 (PDT) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 11:19:12 -0700 (PDT) > In-Reply-To: <sdhf3d$8vl$2@dont-email.me> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:646:9400:5330:a9c2:df99:b805:dc75; posting-account=PVfQOwoAAAB7kRhNYCwddJrDyiT94AaP > NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:646:9400:5330:a9c2:df99:b805:dc75 > References: <f6200387-e646-43c2-99ae-480e88a42af5n@googlegroups.com> <kv7mfg941g01al6fqa0ro5hdgt2ubqbr8m@4ax.com> <5f746d71-4d5c-4bf6-839c-02da885771bbn@googlegroups.com> <qtimfgh5pd0078b5t37fi3cenj6ob55e4n@4ax.com> <53548e2c-5fe3-4953-ad35-d4561d04eb5an@googlegroups.com> <6ceee9cd-8ba2-4f43-841c-438b4af639c9n@googlegroups.com> <sdfnrk$smb$2@dont-email.me> <e0e0b455-49a7-4ac1-bff6-83d172bb9d35n@googlegroups.com> <smdofgl8hbutl9a39d3vgcqsd3s14s8ckb@4ax.com> <10ba905b-2056-4968-ad71-f8e1c7e7d15cn@googlegroups.com> <sdhf3d$8vl$2@dont-email.me> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <4bc5e7a1-8442-452f-8dcc-95457ec4e4a2n@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Bolt battery problem > From: "ke...@kjwdesigns.com" <keith@kjwdesigns.com> > Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:19:13 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Lines: 29 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:637988 > > On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 09:28:36 UTC-7, John Doe wrote: > ... >> Yes, hills are efficiency killers. >> > Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range. >> Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is. >> > > Actually the opposite is true. > > The larger the vehicle the smaller the percentage of the energy that is required for the fixed > loads such as electronics, hotel loads, lights etc. > >> Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But Elon >> Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. >> >> Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them must >> work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is supposed >> to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on battery power, >> probably not practical. > > Most of the heavy truck manufacturers have announced electric power versions of their vehicles. > > Tesla and Mercedes are shortly going into production with theirs. > >> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a cordless >> tool. > > The small cylindrical cells are cheaper per kWh because they were already in mass production. > > kw > >
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 11:32:54 UTC-7, John Doe wrote:> Bullshit...Which part? kw ...> > Most of the heavy truck manufacturers have announced electric power versions of their vehicles. > > > > Tesla and Mercedes are shortly going into production with theirs. > > > >> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a cordless > >> tool. > > > > The small cylindrical cells are cheaper per kWh because they were already in mass production. > > > > kw > > > >
Reply by ●July 24, 20212021-07-24
"ke...@kjwdesigns.com" <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:> John Doe wrote:>> Yes, hills are efficiency killers.>> > Bolt: 55% (90%-35%) of 57kWHr = 32kWHr or 95mi effective range.>> Maybe... The larger the vehicle, the less viable electric power is.> Actually the opposite is true.Bullshit. The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...> The larger the vehicle the smaller the percentage of the energy that is > required for the fixed loads such as electronics, hotel loads, lights > etc.Hotel loads? What does that have to do with a car or BIKES... Today's handheld power tools are almost all cordless. The difference between small and large cordless electric devices is HUGE.>> Batteries work great for well-designed bikes, even motorcycles. But >> Elon Musk doesn't use battery powered rockets. >> >> Maybe the problem is needing a jillion batteries. Every one of them >> must work properly to avoid the risk of catastrophic failure. There is >> supposed to be some (European) semi tractor-trailer that runs on >> battery power, probably not practical. > > Most of the heavy truck manufacturers have announced electric power > versions of their vehicles.In other words... It's not even in use yet.> Tesla and Mercedes are shortly going into production with theirs.Anything is possible, but even "going into production" is not proof of viability. Might want to look at the original post...>> Seems weird to use the same small battery for a car as is used in a >> cordless tool. > > The small cylindrical cells are cheaper per kWh because they were > already in mass production.Sure buddy. Manufacturing processes cannot be changed even when there are grand scale projects to be done, the most obvious example being the Australian power grid battery. Still using power tool batteries. There must be some reason...
