On 7/24/2021 11:53 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote:> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee > <edward.ming.lee@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. >If you drive the same route day in and day out the net impact of terrain on your energy usage tends to average out to 0 over time; as a simplistic case if you drive up a long hill to work every morning from your house you spend more energy on the way there than you would if the route was flat, but then in this simplified example you can mostly coast all the way back home and spend much less than you would if the route back were also flat , and even recoup some of what you spent to get up the hill with the regenerative braking.
Bolt battery problem
Started by ●July 23, 2021
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
Reply by ●July 25, 20212021-07-25
On 7/24/2021 11:27 PM, Rick C wrote:> 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. >If one drives the same route day in and day out for a long time the net impact of terrain tends to average out. But the range estimates are only estimates based on a moving average, if you spend more time going up big hills than down them for a while the range estimate will start to change to reflect that. Maybe CD or the owner he's talking about didn't realize the car can only derive the estimate from the data it has at a given time, it can't predict the fuckin' future.
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
Wrong. There are losses involved with recouping energy from going downhill. And if you don't have regenerative braking, the losses are HUGE. -- bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc3.netnews.com!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx08.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail > Subject: Re: Bolt battery problem > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > 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$2@dont-email.me> <e0e0b455-49a7-4ac1-bff6-83d172bb9d35n@googlegroups.com> <smdofgl8hbutl9a39d3vgcqsd3s14s8ckb@4ax.com> > From: bitrex <user@example.net> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <smdofgl8hbutl9a39d3vgcqsd3s14s8ckb@4ax.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 27 > Message-ID: <e2oLI.17830$W56.13026@fx08.iad> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@frugalusenet.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 01:16:58 UTC > Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 21:16:58 -0400 > X-Received-Bytes: 2689 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:638133 > > On 7/24/2021 11:53 AM, Cursitor Doom wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 18:18:56 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee >> <edward.ming.lee@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. >> > > If you drive the same route day in and day out the net impact of terrain > on your energy usage tends to average out to 0 over time; as a > simplistic case if you drive up a long hill to work every morning from > your house you spend more energy on the way there than you would if the > route was flat, but then in this simplified example you can mostly coast > all the way back home and spend much less than you would if the route > back were also flat , and even recoup some of what you spent to get up > the hill with the regenerative braking. > >
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
Regen usually loses around 10-20% of the energy being captured, and then the car loses another 10-20% or so when converting that energy back into acceleration, according to Tesla. This is fairly standard across most electric vehicles including cars, trucks, electric bicycles, electric scooters, etc. Keep in mind that this 70% does not mean that regenerative braking will give an 70% range increase. This isn�t going to bump your range from 100 miles to 170 miles. This simply means that 70% of the kinetic energy lost during the act of braking can be turned back into acceleration later. https://electrek.co/2018/04/24/regenerative-braking-how-it-works/ BS... -- bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed9.news.xs4all.nl!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx02.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail > Subject: Re: Bolt battery problem > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > 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> <98ed37b2-b3e1-4ac5-b7a4-64d5630a6d83n@googlegroups.com> > From: bitrex <user@example.net> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > In-Reply-To: <98ed37b2-b3e1-4ac5-b7a4-64d5630a6d83n@googlegroups.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > Content-Language: en-US > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Lines: 30 > Message-ID: <paoLI.19722$6U5.13774@fx02.iad> > X-Complaints-To: abuse@frugalusenet.com > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 01:25:41 UTC > Organization: frugalusenet - www.frugalusenet.com > Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 21:25:41 -0400 > X-Received-Bytes: 2806 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:638134 > > On 7/24/2021 11:27 PM, Rick C wrote: >> 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. >> > > If one drives the same route day in and day out for a long time the net > impact of terrain tends to average out. But the range estimates are only > estimates based on a moving average, if you spend more time going up big > hills than down them for a while the range estimate will start to change > to reflect that. > > Maybe CD or the owner he's talking about didn't realize the car can only > derive the estimate from the data it has at a given time, it can't > predict the fuckin' future. >
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
Rick C wrote:> On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:52:40 AM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >> Cursitor Doom wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee >>> <edward....@gmail.com> 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 >>> >>> Jeez Louise. 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.So the reason is that it's economical. And they didn't do it 100 years ago because nobody knew how to do cost/benefit analysis before the environmental movement. -- Defund the Thought Police
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 11:37:30 AM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:> Rick C wrote: > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 12:52:40 AM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > >> Cursitor Doom wrote: > >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:26:11 -0700 (PDT), Ed Lee > >>> <edward....@gmail.com> 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 > >>> > >>> Jeez Louise. 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. > So the reason is that it's economical. > > And they didn't do it 100 years ago because nobody knew how to do > cost/benefit analysis before the environmental movement.Are you asking or telling? -- Rick C. -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:> ke...@kjwdesigns.com wrote: >> 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). > > This all depends on the individual car. Many EVs are designed to > minimize the wind resistance with a much lower drag coefficient than > other vehicles so it is not as important until higher speeds.Like a car minimizing wind resistance is a novel concept...
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:> The impact of terrain on EVs is approximately zeroAnd if you believe that...
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...As ironically stated by the John Doe <always.look@message.header> troll in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>.
Reply by ●July 26, 20212021-07-26
On 7/25/21 10:53 AM, Jeroen Belleman wrote:> On 2021-07-25 05:34, Rick C wrote:...>> 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.The Blackbird has it covered. <https://www.wired.com/2012/07/wind-powered-car-upwind/>
