On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 11:53:22 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee > <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: > >> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, 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.What car? I don't know of any EVs that don't have regenerative braking. However, you can use regenerative braking if the car is 100% charged. If he charges to 100% at the top of the hill he won't get any benefit from regenerative braking from going down the hill immediately. Otherwise the issue is one of how much regeneration can recapture the power of descending a steep hill. I've never found a hill my model X can't handle the full regeneration from. 100 kW is an awful lot of power. -- Rick C. + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Bolt battery problem
Started by ●July 23, 2021
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 11:53:22 AM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee > <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: > >> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, 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.Oh yeah, you are wrong. -- Rick C. -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote:> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 8:53:22 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee > > <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: > > >> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, 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.If you don't actually know the correct answer, you should not answer the question. The range is calculated over an EPA designed course run on a dynamometer. Wind may not be factored in (as someone mentioned, it evens out on a round trip) and just like with any vehicle, heat and cooling are not considered. But the course considers aspects of stop and go, slope and variable speeds. The numbers end up pretty close to what you see in the real world. -- Rick C. -+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On 2021-07-24, ke...@kjwdesigns.com <keith@kjwdesigns.com> wrote:> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 11:47:14 UTC-7, John Doe wrote: > ... >> > 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... > > "Hotel Loads" is the common terminology for the electrical loads required to keep the > driver and passengers comfortable, informed, and entertained. eg. heating, cooling, lighting, infotainment. > ... >> > >> > Most of the heavy truck manufacturers have announced electric power >> > versions of their vehicles. >> In other words... It's not even in use yet. > > They've been in trials for a couple of years and they have customers lined up. > Whether they meet expectations is yet to be seen. A lot of the incentive is financial as electric trucks > promise to be more economical with lower fuel costs and reduced maintenance. > >> > 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... > > Tesla is the only manufacturer using small format cells. When Tesla started it seems they purchased existing hardware where possible, ie motors and transmissions from A/C Propulsion and standard 18650 lithium cells. > > Since then they have been adding their own technology with larger cylindrical cells using 2170 and most recently 4680 sizes.DYM 46800 ? -- Jasen.
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:> Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> Cursitor Doom wrote: >> > Ed Lee wrote:>> >> GM advices not to charge more than 90%, and discharge less than 70 >> >> miles. So, effective range of 60 miles? Not much more than my 50 >> >> miles Leaf. At least, Leaf batteries don't catch on fire. Leaf >> >> batteries are inefficient but over-engineered. >> >> >> >> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/gm-issues-second-recall-of-chevy-bolt-evs-after-vehicles-catch-fire.html >> > >> > Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just >> > isn't there yet.>> The other day I saw a poster touting the idea of inflatable sails on >> container ships. Since the wind doesn't always blow it would obviously >> make more sense to use oarsmen. And a guy banging a drum. > > The sails are a supplement to reduce the cost of transport, not a > solitary means.What are you using for transport in Puerto Rico? Updates on how things are going would be fun...
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:> ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote: >> John Doe wrote: >>> ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote: >>>> John Doe wrote:>>>>> 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... >>> >>> There must be some reason... >> >> Tesla is the only manufacturer using small format cells. When Tesla >> started it seems they purchased existing hardware where possible, ie >> motors and transmissions from A/C Propulsion and standard 18650 lithium >> cells. >> >> Since then they have been adding their own technology with larger >> cylindrical cells using 2170 and most recently 4680 sizes. > > DYM 46800 ?4680 They are using the battery diameter and height with no trailing zero. A tiny bit of research... (Tesla 4680) Language is whatever we want it to be.
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 5:09:31 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Tom Del Rosso wrote: > >> Cursitor Doom wrote: > >> > Ed Lee wrote: > > >> >> GM advices not to charge more than 90%, and discharge less than 70 > >> >> miles. So, effective range of 60 miles? Not much more than my 50 > >> >> miles Leaf. At least, Leaf batteries don't catch on fire. Leaf > >> >> batteries are inefficient but over-engineered. > >> >> > >> >> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/gm-issues-second-recall-of-chevy-bolt-evs-after-vehicles-catch-fire.html > >> > > >> > Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just > >> > isn't there yet. > > >> The other day I saw a poster touting the idea of inflatable sails on > >> container ships. Since the wind doesn't always blow it would obviously > >> make more sense to use oarsmen. And a guy banging a drum. > > > > The sails are a supplement to reduce the cost of transport, not a > > solitary means. > What are you using for transport in Puerto Rico? Updates on how things are > going would be fun...Electric Amphibious Assault Vehicle?
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
Ed Lee <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:> On Sunday, July 25, 2021 at 5:09:31 AM UTC-7, John Doe wrote: >> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> >> Cursitor Doom wrote: >> >> > Ed Lee wrote: >> >> >> >> GM advices not to charge more than 90%, and discharge less than 70 >> >> >> miles. So, effective range of 60 miles? Not much more than my 50 >> >> >> miles Leaf. At least, Leaf batteries don't catch on fire. Leaf >> >> >> batteries are inefficient but over-engineered. >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/gm-issues-second-recall-of-chevy-bolt-evs-after-vehicles-catch-fire.html>> >> > >> >> > Anyone'd do better just buying a golf buggy. The technology just >> >> > isn't there yet. >> >> >> The other day I saw a poster touting the idea of inflatable sails on >> >> container ships. Since the wind doesn't always blow it would obviously >> >> make more sense to use oarsmen. And a guy banging a drum. >> > >> > The sails are a supplement to reduce the cost of transport, not a >> > solitary means. >> What are you using for transport in Puerto Rico? Updates on how things are >> going would be fun... > > Electric Amphibious Assault Vehicle?Electric donkey
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On 2021-07-25 05:34, Rick C wrote:> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-4, Ed Lee wrote: >> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 8:53:22 AM UTC-7, Cursitor Doom >> wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee >>> <edward....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 5:45:45 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: >>>>> On 7/23/2021 4:34 PM, 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. > > If you don't actually know the correct answer, you should not answer > the question. > > The range is calculated over an EPA designed course run on a > dynamometer. Wind may not be factored in (as someone mentioned, it > evens out on a round trip) [...]Actually, it doesn't. It goes as the third power of air speed, highly non-linear. Wind from behind helps a little, yes, but head wind hinders a lot more. It does *not* simply cancel. Jeroen Belleman
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 10:53:36 UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote: ...> > Actually, it doesn't. It goes as the third power of air speed, > highly non-linear. Wind from behind helps a little, yes, but head > wind hinders a lot more. It does *not* simply cancel. >Agreed - I was simplifying. For moderate speeds, the wind resistance is something like 50% of the total road load so the power consumption goes up at something less than the third power of effective wind speed. The next dominant factor is tire rolling resistance for which the energy consumed is fairly independent of road speed (and wind speed of course). kw
