The absurdity of Donald Trump

[xoxoxoBruce]

But isn't "the right kind of shit" pretty subjective?

[henry quirk]

In context: 'right' ain't all that subjective.

[Happy Monkey]

I can't speak at all to how well they implemented it, but the idea itself makes sense. If you don't run out of battery, the gas motor never turns on, and it is an electric car. For regular use, you never use gas.

If you do run out of battery, you can do two things - run the motor to generate power, use the power to charge the battery, and then run off of the battery, or run the motor to generate electric power and run the motor with that power, leaving the battery drained until you can plug it in. The latter seems more efficient.

BTW, gasoline uses less energy than recharging from fossil fuels burned in some distant generation station.

I doubt that, or it would be more efficient to run your house off of a generator than the grid.

[Happy Monkey]

Like I said, I make no claims on the actual performance of the Volt in particular.


I was just surprised by the claim that it didn't charge the battery with the gas motor, because it was counter-intuitive, but then the explanation made sense, and it is probably the correct behavior for a vehicle intended to primarily be a plug-in electric car.

Other factors (ie changing loads, constant maintenance, less reliability, etc) make home generation impractical.

The biggest factor making home generation impractical is economies of scale, which a plug-in car can take full advantage of.

Then suddenly those business school graduates will make electric only work? Well, that will probably be the technology in 30 years. But currently it still does not work - except in vehicles that never travel any distances.

That is the intended market for the Volt; the gas engine is for the rare cases when it goes past the battery range.

What is the worst (most destructive) thing to do to a battery? Run it all the way down. Then batteries must be replaced often. American hybrids (from companies who let engineers design) will get about 100,00 miles from a battery. Why? Batteries are not deeply discharged. One never wants to arrive with the battery empty.

The second quote has quotes around 'empty'; it doesn't actually go to zero. The first quote says it sustains the charge of the battery, presumably at the level GM felt was the proper minimum for the battery type they were using.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I was just surprised by the claim that it didn't charge the battery with the gas motor, because it was counter-intuitive, but then the explanation made sense, and it is probably the correct behavior for a vehicle intended to primarily be a plug-in electric car.

That was not the original design. Volt originally was suppose to have no engine - only batteries. But it did not do what was required - too late. So a motor was added afterwards - a kludge. Without the tiny but complex box that would make it a hybrid.

I noted that both before AND so many years ago. It was a kludge because GM engineers no longer design products. Engine was not in the original design.

Volt was so badly designed that when taken to a interview with PBS reporters, it was rolled out of the tractor trailer and would not move.

Biggest factor in home generation is changing loads. Economies of scale is a very popular myth promoted inaccurately by economists. Previous attempts to use an otherwise more efficient solution discovered other problems.

Example: over ten years ago, an airport operator was moving his entire facility off the grid. But that meant he could not have electric clocks, TVs that power on using a remote controller, etc. Because these thing draw power constantly (ie vampire consumers). Meaning generation must provide massive power to only power tiny watt appliances.

Just one of many reasons why single home power generation does not work.

Fiat tried doing same some 20 years ago (using Fiat engines). They discovered same problems. Electricity from fuel was most efficient when loads were constant. But loads vary massively in homes - subverting those efficiencies.

Hybrids do not have that problem.

Volt was suppose to be all electric. But its design ended up being so bad that a gasoline engine was added. Since that design had already taken too many years, then no time existed to properly implement a gas engine into a hybrid.

Apparently that author did not know many things. He did not know the engine could not charge its battery. He believed GM lies. And he did not understand that electric only cars still do not achieve the necessary 'less energy' requirement. And have numerous other compromises.

So Elon Musk is spending so much to still fix those problems.

A battery company A123 was not so successful - was not doing the necessary innovations. So they went bankrupt in 2012.

Too many problems still remain to be solved. Hybrids have not yet achieved their superiority. And are the future. All electric cars need maybe another 20 years of development.

Meanwhile, The Don is attacking GM repeatedly today. He will not admit why he has caused GM's necessary 15% employee layoff. He protected the anti-America steel manufacturers by doing what always destroys trade and jobs - tariffs. So GM's costs increased by $1 billion annually. Directly traceable to a president with micro intelligence and an excessive ego. Who then blames all other for disasters that he creates.

Volt is an early victim. Questions remain if a Chevy Spark may be the next victim.

[Happy Monkey]

Comparison

If the owner of a Volt makes lots of long trips, their cost can approach $1.60 per 25 miles, which is more than that of a Prius, at $1.29.

If they never run down the battery, their cost is $1.01.

Which approach is better depends on expected usage.

The first x miles of the trip will be at $1.01/25 mi, and $1.60 after that. It starts cheaper, but there's a point at which it gets more expensive than the Prius.

(Assumptions from the page: gas is $2.69/gal, electricity $0.13/kWh. Local rates will affect the crossover point as well.)

[tw]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Comparison

Those numbers are highly inflated. GM cars are routinely designed to get a highest EPA number at the expense of reality. EPA says the engine gets 42 MPG. Most owners are getting 35. Road and Track could not exceed 39 MPG.

Meanwhile, EPA highway mileage numbers are achieved or exceeded in competition products. For example, my Honda Accord, rated 28 MPG on the highway, routinely does over 30 MPG in all driving - local or highway. Lowest I ever got was 28 in much local driving short distances in winter.

GM's 42 MPG for Volt is clearly suspect. It was always a bad design since it was originally designed to only be an EV - no gasoline motor. It took almost 10 years to design and still does not do what superior cars do - a true hybrid.

As a kludge, numbers that GM promotes are always suspect. It is and should be a early victim of The Don's campaign to harm America business with tariffs, trade wars, subverting trade deals, and other job destroying actions.

Just talked to a Chevy salesman. They sold no Volts. They are not even permitted to sell Bolts. And the Chevy Spark is another disaster. They often do not have any in stock since it does not sell.

Meanwhile, I believe Ford sells a true hybrid that can also be charged from AC for short distances. Then a cold gasoline engine need not run when it is least efficient and causing most wear.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

Those numbers are highly inflated. GM cars are routinely designed to get a highest EPA number at the expense of reality. EPA says the engine gets 42 MPG. Most owners are getting 35. Road and Track could not exceed 39 MPG.

Meanwhile, EPA highway mileage numbers are achieved or exceeded in competition products. For example, my Honda Accord, rated 28 MPG on the highway, routinely does over 30 MPG in all driving - local or highway. Lowest I ever got was 28 in much local driving short distances in winter.

Eh, they're all based on best-case scenarios. My Prius doesn't get 52 unless I hit a major traffic jam on the Beltway (suspect definition of "best-case scenario"). On average, it's below 45. YMMV (ha ha!)

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw missed his calling, he could have been the next Dr Seuss. With his talent for taking a fact or two and weaving a story that works his fantasies and prejudices into the scenario. The scary part is he believes it.

[Griff]

On the bright side, Trumpy had a no good very bad day yesterday.

[tw]

Volt as designed was so bad that they had to remove batteries and add a motor. There is no replacement for that Kludge. Trump actually did good for America. His tariffs killed crap called a Volt.

As usual, GM's mythical 42 MPG from its motor is only a pathetic 35 MPG. My Civics routinely did 40 MPG. A Lexus hybrid just up from Virginia - he was routinely doing in the mid to high 40s MPG. That is a larger car.

Many Chevy dealers are not permitted to sell the Bolt. Bolt is the $50,000 attempt to compete with Tesla. Obviously it is also not selling.

Chevy Spark, that should have been a hybrid, was designed using last generations technology. No hybrid version (as best I can tell) is even in the planning stage. Another trophy for the GM showcase.

No fact yet justified the Volt. It was crap. Any advantage it has is even found in hybrids from Ford. Volt is another GM trophy alongside the EV1.

A Volt battery only gets 40 miles? Golf carts designed to be licensed are almost as good.

The automotive press has also been just as critical. So the naive also call them demented.

[Undertoad]

They will sell you a Bolt for like $38K, with a range of 238 miles per charge.

This is actually ahead of Tesla Model 3. Currently you can buy a Model 3 for $45K, with a "mid range" battery pack and a range of 260 miles. They are hoping to find the efficiencies to bring that down to $38K for a "standard" battery pack with a range of 220 miles, in the next six months, and they have a whole set of reservations for that car at that price.

I read the Car and Driver review for the Bolt and they love it

I would not buy one... I would get the Tesla.

Because Autopilot.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They will sell you a Bolt for like $38K, with a range of 238 miles per charge.

Due to massive overhead, GM cannot make a profit if they do not sell 50,000 annually. The Corvette has always been a problem due to so few sales.

I was surprised to learn that Bolt can only be sold by a few dealers. At 20,000, it does not and cannot make a profit. Volts sales were also as pathetic.

Because their cars are designed by engineers, for example, Mazda made a profit on the Miyata in its first year at 17,000. Due to the 'economy of scale' myth, GM can never make a profit on sales that tiny. Meaning the Volt and Bolt remain unprofitable.

Ironically the Chevy Cruz. that sells just under 200,000 annually, is also being canceled as unprofitable. Another trophy for The Donald showcase.

[Undertoad]

Tesla dealerships are prohibited by law in Michigan, Texas, Connecticut, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. They are allowed five dealerships in all of New York State.

That's another reason why I would buy one if I could. Because fuck that.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But they're not dealerships are they? They're Tesla showrooms and service centers owned and operated by Tesla? If this becomes legal how long before Toyota and Ford start doing this to enhance their bottom line?