DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
arnis said:
and how did you come to this conclusion?
Chevrolet Bolt & Bolt EUV
- Thread starter JeffN
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
and how did you come to this conclusion?
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
DaveinOlyWA said:
A reference to this perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G8JGsEjPA&feature=youtu.be
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
Several Bolters have come to the conclusion that the "usable" charge is 60 kwh based on charging/usage stats.
GetOffYourGas
Well-known member
GRA said:
No, Guy. I'm talking about your interest in an EV. At least I assume you are interested, since you are very active on this forum. All of your lifestyle choices are to be commended. I *try* to a degree, but nothing like you have done, and I applaud you for it.
No, I was talking about EVs. That they meet your transportation *requirements* is a given. That they meet them as well as your ICEV does and do so at a lower cost (purchase and fuel/maintenance) is where the rest of your argument breaks down. You want an EV for cheaper transportation, and that's all. You don't want to sacrifice anything in the process Not that there's anything wrong with that - plenty of people feel that way. And when the EVs get to that point, we will see a huge spike in adoption.
As for seeing having children as an "undue" stress on the environment, let's just say that we don't see eye-to-eye there. I'm glad that your parents didn't feel that way, too.
arnis
Well-known member
GetOffYourGas said:
Correct. There is a sticker on the pack. It's 57kWh.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
got a time stamp for that?arnis said:
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Interestingly, at about 17:00 in the video he states that this is a "second-design battery" for the Bolt. I wonder if the "first-design battery" might have had a different capacity.DaveinOlyWA said:
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
RegGuheert said:
:shock: Oh wouldn't that by typical GM when 2018 owners start comparing notes with 2017 owners to find out their capacities are not the same!
edatoakrun
Well-known member
The "Rated energy" (label seen at 27 minutes into the video) is likely the rated available capacity in kWh, not total battery pack capacity.arnis said:
I believe all the other Korean manufactured packs have been rated this way.
In the Bolts EPA certification for 2017 MY, following the full-discharge range tests:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=38567&flag=1
The indicated approximately 85% cycling efficiency (~57 kWh available/-67 kWh accepted) actually sounds like it could be too low, and suggests the Bolt used in the EPA tests could have had slightly above that 57 kWh rated capacity, and likely had somewhere in the mid 60's in total kWh capacity.
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Data based on GM’s EPA filings:
Bolt EV
LG-Chem cells
3.7 volts nominal
288 total cells
96 series * 3 parallel
171.4ah per EPA filing
60kWh = 288 cells * (171.4 published AmpHour * 3.7 volt nominal per cell)
400 volt maximum (plus or minus 5 volts)
57-58kWh usable when new at room temperature
Bolt EV
LG-Chem cells
3.7 volts nominal
288 total cells
96 series * 3 parallel
171.4ah per EPA filing
60kWh = 288 cells * (171.4 published AmpHour * 3.7 volt nominal per cell)
400 volt maximum (plus or minus 5 volts)
57-58kWh usable when new at room temperature
TonyWilliams
Well-known member
Folks get confused when their consumer device tells them 67KWh was pumped into the battery from empty.
That includes losses in charging, typically about 87% in the Bolt EV at 6-7kW charge rate.
If you multiply 87% times 67KWh, you get the available energy.
That includes losses in charging, typically about 87% in the Bolt EV at 6-7kW charge rate.
If you multiply 87% times 67KWh, you get the available energy.
GRA
Well-known member
Mostly OT post follows.
They did limit themselves to me, though, although for other reasons. But it's not children per se that I'm worried about, it's the number of human beings, as we are the major source of environmental stress.
Around 1804 the world's population first reached 1 billion; 2b in 1927 (123 years); 3b in 1960 (33 years, and close enough to my birth year to serve as a base case); 4b in 1974 (14 years), 5b in 1987 (13 years); 6b in 1999 (12 years); 7b in 10/2011 or 3/2012 (13 years), and as of last Dec. was estimated to be 7.6b, or an 153.33+% increase in my lifetime. The rate of growth is finally slowing, but even so most projections for 2050 (which I have a reasonable chance of living to see) are in the 9 to 10.6b range before the population (hopefully) stabilizes and then starts decreasing.
In my own case, most of one side of my family are Catholic, so my decision not to have kids only partially compensates for their fecundity.
Of course I'm interested.GetOffYourGas said:
They don't have to meet them at a lower cost, just a comparable one, if they are to replace ICEs for the general public (and me). Personally, I'd be perfectly happy to give up car ownership entirely, and the day that I have access to a long range ZEV from a mobility service will be the day I seriously start considering doing just that. Thankfully the millennials are less enamored of car ownership than preceding generations, and assuming that trend continues, then EVs combined with AVs will radically reduce the size of the fleet, if not the number of vehicles built or miles traveled.GetOffYourGas said:
No, I want an EV for ZEV transportation at comparable cost, although lower would be great. But if ZEVs don't provide comparable capability at a comparable(or lower) price, then absent government mandates or a major spike in the price of oil the general public simply won't switch. Here's about the capability we need, but at a price most people can afford:GetOffYourGas said:
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...a-new-100d-and-how-it-differed-from-my-old-85
If they had I wouldn't be around to care, and you wouldn't care either, but thanks for the thoughtGetOffYourGas said:
They did limit themselves to me, though, although for other reasons. But it's not children per se that I'm worried about, it's the number of human beings, as we are the major source of environmental stress. Around 1804 the world's population first reached 1 billion; 2b in 1927 (123 years); 3b in 1960 (33 years, and close enough to my birth year to serve as a base case); 4b in 1974 (14 years), 5b in 1987 (13 years); 6b in 1999 (12 years); 7b in 10/2011 or 3/2012 (13 years), and as of last Dec. was estimated to be 7.6b, or an 153.33+% increase in my lifetime. The rate of growth is finally slowing, but even so most projections for 2050 (which I have a reasonable chance of living to see) are in the 9 to 10.6b range before the population (hopefully) stabilizes and then starts decreasing.
In my own case, most of one side of my family are Catholic, so my decision not to have kids only partially compensates for their fecundity.
There is capacity reserved to protect the pack, so 60kwh sounds about right.
GRA
Well-known member
Edmunds has had a Bolt Premier in their long-term test fleet for about a year now, and all in all they're quite impressed with it as an urban car (which is what it was designed for, after all). They haven't taken it on any long trips, but they've twice gotten over 300 miles (322 and 334) on a charge, both times in L.A. freeway commute traffic (15-50 mph) while using 'L' mode: https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/bolt-ev/2017/long-term-road-test/
arnis
Well-known member
JejuSoul said:
1) EV's usually don't have precise way to measure energy taken from the battery. +/-5% error is reasonable.
2) It's possible that regen isn't counted. If you reset "used energy" counter to zero, regen downhill
and don't see negative numbers, it means energy recuperated from regen can be used "again".
-
The 57kWh sticker comes from a version 2 battery pack. In the video he mentions that version 2 has different coollant connectors, but maybe there are other differences too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G8JGsEjPA
The version 1 packs are no longer sold. Version 2 costs $12,740.00 see - GM Parts - Electric Propulsion System/Battery for 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV
There was discussion of a battery recall / replacement on early production Bolt EVs. Perhaps the second version of the battery pack is the fix for this? see UPDATE: Early Chevrolet Bolt Owners Being Notified By GM For Potential Battery Failure
The 57kWh sticker comes from a version 2 battery pack. In the video he mentions that version 2 has different coollant connectors, but maybe there are other differences too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G8JGsEjPA
The version 1 packs are no longer sold. Version 2 costs $12,740.00 see - GM Parts - Electric Propulsion System/Battery for 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV
There was discussion of a battery recall / replacement on early production Bolt EVs. Perhaps the second version of the battery pack is the fix for this? see UPDATE: Early Chevrolet Bolt Owners Being Notified By GM For Potential Battery Failure
GRA
Well-known member
At 57kWh, that would work out to $223/kWh. Assuming that's actually usable kWh capacity it would be less.
-
Two interesting videos showing the disassembly of the B olt EV battery pack by Professor John D. Kelly at Weber State University (WSU).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G8JGsEjPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssU2mjiNi_Q
This is the sticker seen on the B olt EV battery from the first YouTube video above
In the second YouTube video above we see that the B olt's pack is made up of eight 5.94 kWh modules and two 4.75 kWh modules for a total capacity of 57.02 kWh. Presumably that means eight modules with ten cells and two modules with eight. Each of the 96 cells would have a capacity of 594Wh. We don't know if that number is total capacity or the usable capacity or even perhaps a nominal rating.
There has also been discussion on this at the T esla site
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
Previously on this thread - Comparing the Soul EV battery with the Ioniq EV I had noted -
1/ The 2017 B olt battery pack is 60 kWh and weighs 435kg -> Gravimetric Energy Density = 138 Wh/kg
2/ The I oniq EV battery pack is 31 kWh and weighs 271.8kg -> Gravimetric Energy Density = 114 Wh/kg
I have now realised why GM for the B olt has chosen a more energy dense battery cell than Hyundai. (or GM for the V olt)
From a comment by Jeff N on the T esla Forum
Two interesting videos showing the disassembly of the B olt EV battery pack by Professor John D. Kelly at Weber State University (WSU).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3G8JGsEjPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssU2mjiNi_Q
This is the sticker seen on the B olt EV battery from the first YouTube video above
In the second YouTube video above we see that the B olt's pack is made up of eight 5.94 kWh modules and two 4.75 kWh modules for a total capacity of 57.02 kWh. Presumably that means eight modules with ten cells and two modules with eight. Each of the 96 cells would have a capacity of 594Wh. We don't know if that number is total capacity or the usable capacity or even perhaps a nominal rating.
There has also been discussion on this at the T esla site
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
Previously on this thread - Comparing the Soul EV battery with the Ioniq EV I had noted -
1/ The 2017 B olt battery pack is 60 kWh and weighs 435kg -> Gravimetric Energy Density = 138 Wh/kg
2/ The I oniq EV battery pack is 31 kWh and weighs 271.8kg -> Gravimetric Energy Density = 114 Wh/kg
I have now realised why GM for the B olt has chosen a more energy dense battery cell than Hyundai. (or GM for the V olt)
From a comment by Jeff N on the T esla Forum
The cell chemistry in the B olt means the fast charging will be slower and taper earlier. But it has higher energy density = a bigger battery in the same space.Jeff N said:
