Slashdot Mirror
GM Criticized Over Chevy Volt's Hybrid Similarities
Attila Dimedici writes "This article says the Chevy Volt is not what GM claimed it was: an Extended Range Electric Vehicle. The Volt is simply a plug-in hybrid. Instead of a vehicle that is only driven with the electric drive train that uses a gasoline engine to charge the batteries, the Volt actually uses the gasoline engine to drive the front wheels at speeds above 70 miles per hour or when the batteries run down. Additionally, the Volt gets nowhere near the 230 mpg that GM was claiming for it. If this is all true, why did GM misrepresent the car? The facts as stated in the article make the Volt a pretty decent competitor to the Prius and other hybrids already on the market."
A post at the Car Connection blog takes the opposing view, saying that accusations of GM "lying" are overhyped, since the capability to power the wheels with gasoline is reserved for situations where electricity isn't a viable option. The author says GM didn't mention this ability before now due to concerns over patents and competition from other companies.
Seriously, A TRUE serial hybrid using multiple engine/generators DOES make sense for something like the hummer or even a semi. BUT, for small cars? Nope. Far better that these are pure electrics, and if you need a 'range extended', then simply buy a gas car. Here in the states, most families own 2 cars. It makes sense for most homes to buy an electric. But the idea of a car carrying both gas/electric makes zero sense. BTW, for those that think that trucks/hummer/semis do not make sense, well, let me point out that many trucks are used for job sites. As such, the engine/generator/battery is GREAT for providing electricity. Likewise, for a semi, the bulk of the time, the semi is cruising. As such, a simple engine/generator/motor can provide the power to move it. What is interesting is that an electric motor has far more torque than does an engine. This avoids the expensive and complex transmissions that semi's have. As such, it is perfect for getting heavy loads moving.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Its a car that primarily electric driven and uses the gas engine when the batteries/motor can't cut it. Is it really that important what it's called? It's a car designed to be 'green' and that's what it's being sold as. The only thing that GM should be criticized for is the over estimation of the range you can expect. What we call is it pretty moot.
So, if the batteries are dead, the car runs like a regular gasoline-powered vehicle. And people are upset by this? Isn't that a great feature? I'd be kind of pissed if I drove a Volt, were stranded in the desert because the batteries died, and when I complained, "jeez, why can't you just make it so if the batteries are dead, the gas engine runs the car?" "Naw, then it wouldn't be an 'electric vehicle!'"
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
From the car connection blog:
Okay, I think that's a fair point, but in my view it does make a difference. It means the Volt has to have a transmission, which means extra weight and maintenance issues, and all the complexity of an ICE-based drivetrain. It means the Volt's ICE may have to run over a range of RPMs rather than solely running at an optimal RPM.
So while I'm in tentative agreement that this isn't necessarily a lie, and that the Volt can still look appealing versus other hybrid options, it still makes a difference and reduces some of the advantages the Volt had.
The enemies of Democracy are
But it makes ZERO sense to have a 'range extended' car esp. in what is now a parallel system. Basically, GM is shipping a car based on profits to themselves, not based on what is good for customers.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
...did they benefit from because of this misrepresentation.
There can be absolutely zero doubt that they knew they were being deceitful, although the purpose may have been relatively innocuous; however, when you add this to the other deceitful tactics they've already employed and have been debunked (230mpg anyone?) a pattern of behavior seems to emerge that would require seriously mitigating circumstances which aren't readily apparent.
Loading...
There still must be some detail missing from this picture.
They added the extra complexity of a power combining mechanism for extra efficiency and then only use at 70MPH and beyond.
That is outside EPA testing parameters, which means this extra complexity won't add anything to the all important for marketing EPA numbers.
So just how bad would the efficiency have to be through the ICE/Generator/Motor to add extra complexity to be used over 70MPH.
Something really doesn't add up.
I have a 15 mile commute (each way), and rarely am able to reach speeds of 70mph on my way to work -- 35 - 45 is more typical.
The Volt would give me an all-electric commute, yet I can still drive it 200 miles to Tahoe on the weekends.
The all-electric Leaf will give me around 70 miles of range, so no long weekend trips.
The plug-in Prius (official version, not aftermarket conversions) would give me around 15 miles of all electric range.
I fail to see the controversy - most people can have an all-electric commute with the Volt. It was already known that the ICE engine would kick in to supplement the battery, the fact that it supplements via mechanical connection in addition to charging seems immaterial.
"Owns a controlling stake" is synonymous with "owns" in the context of publicly traded companies, just as "buying 51% or more of the voting stock of the company" is synonymous with "buying the company".
The enemies of Democracy are
Why dont they have the ICE drive the generator which then drives the electric motor which drives the wheels? And do that at all speeds in all cases where the battery is out of juice?
If the electric motor can handle highway speeds when the battery is full, there is no reason it cant handle highway speeds being driven by the generator set.
If there are no mechanical linkages between the ICE and wheels, it becomes possible to swap the ICE (or ICE and generator) for something different. Such as a fuel cell. Or a different and better ICE.
Also, the ICE would be able to be run without a transmission and be tuned to always run (when its running) at exactly the right speed to most efficiently run the generator.
Correct. And more importantly, it was accurate enough in the context of a joke. Reading the replies in the thread, including everyone taking "$400 hammers" as a serious claim, demonstrates that people on /. are losing their sense of humor. And their common sense to boot. This place used to be fun, back when the internet was hard to use.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Alternatively, you should never be driving the car at more than 70 mph as it is illegal to do so.
Oh yeah? Here in Arizona the interstates are 75mph. In parts of Texas it's 80mph.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I can see their problem from an engineer's perspective. Management and sales are demanding an MPG number on a car that can run all electric, all gasoline, or any combination of the two depending on owner's choice and circumstances. What can you do? Give 'em an honest worst case and best case, and tell 'em neither will likely happen in the real world. I wonder which number marketing will jump on....
The government does all that. But it costs money to maintain the dies and machines they go with in the event the production needs to be restarted. Congress almost always cuts the funding to maintain the production capability 10 years or so after production stops. About 15 years or so after production stops, congress cuts the funds for the replacement equipment. Thus requiring very expensive limited run productions to keep the old fleet in service.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
You know, I've got two Prius' and the only fuel I've ever put in them is gasoline. I don't call those hybrids. I call them gasoline powered automobiles. Good MPG, good handling, etc. but just gasoline cars with a good energy savaging system. Kind like really good turbo chargers.
Because people clearly buy hybrid cars for track use.
And that of course is just the posted limits which I've found is often not what the actual limits on a given road usually are. Here in AR the limit is 70MPH on the freeway but the cops don't care to bother unless you hit above 80-85MPH depending on road conditions. Talking to cops most said they consider "safe driving speed" more than caring about actually posted limits and on the long flat freeways don't care if you drive 85MPH as long as you aren't being stupid like playing with your cell.
As for TFA they probably lied because hybrids suck compared to small ICE vehicles, at least ATM. when you figure in the most substantial use of resources is in the manufacture of a vehicle, and a good well built ICE can last 20 years if well maintained VS...what do those batteries last now? 5 years under perfect conditions? Unless your last vehicle was a Hummer I just don't see a hybrid breaking even for most folks. Hell my Ranger gets a whole 14MPG (according to the government. I've found it gets more like 22-26 depending on conditions and whether my foot is feeling leaded that day) but since it is low maintenance, paid for, and I only average one 100 mile trip a month with the rest being under 30, I actually don't have to spend that much for gas as long as I keep my foot off it. with our hot summers I doubt the batteries on one of those hybrids would last more than 3 years around here, making any gas I could have saved irrelevant.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Ya know..... if you did just a little bit of research..... you'd know that US Priuses are now ten years old. I've not heard of rampant failures at the 5 or 3 year mark. Have you?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
At the beginning I guess: Evidence, the links you provided have plenty, thank you for saving me answering this part.
The fact is that public transport at least, consumes more energy per mile than cars.
Actually if you read that table again, you will see that cars are the worst on the list, with the exception of light rail. I could not find the light rail figures in the data linked (no I didn't read all of it so if someone could point me to the relevant table I would appreciate it) so I can only presume the examples cited are among the worst run and designed public transport systems in the world. Apart from this the car is the worst, followed by buses.
the incredibly cheap costs of highway construction
What evidence do you have to back up this? Highways are massively expensive especially in city centres. Highways cost around $1 million per lane mile in the most simple circumstances and as commuter tansit around a large already built up city they are astronomical, not to mention the upkeep and repair costs of highway are much higher than rail. some figures if you have as much trouble accessing that link as I am at the moment you can view screenshots of it here
In addition these figures are for mass transit in the USA, an unashamed car culture. As your own link notes:
Don't Europe and Asia do better? Much better. This Australian Study cites figures saying that Western Europeans use only 76% of U.S. BTUs/pm in their private transport, and only 38% in their transit -- 2.5 times more efficient. Rich Asians do even better at transit -- they are almost 4 times as efficient in terms of energy/passenger-mile.
So it is possible to do it 4 times better than those figure that the car is already at the second to last place on.
Finally
Finally, repeat after me, there is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is no energy shortage. There is an energy collection, storage, and distribution problem.
Well I hate to break it to you, but collection, storage and distribution problems result in there being less energy available for use than we want and need, this is the definition of a shortage
Its not deceitful, you just have to have a sliver of a brain, and use it. Generally when someone makes an outlandish claim to me, my first reaction is "well, that is clearly not possible following the rules of how the world works that I know, so either this person is lying to me, or they are applying a different set of rules" Then I proceed to figure out which they are doing.
In this case, there IS NOT AN HONEST STRAIGHT FORWARD WAY for GM to represent the mileage of this car, because the GOVERNMENT has not provided a way to do so... Sure that leaves the door open for applying whatever standard GM chooses, but it doesn't excuse people from using their brains to at least attempt to understand things. Hence my claim that people are being idiotic. If you just blindly believe someone when they say "Oh I have this 25k RPM Hard Drive" then yes, you are an idiot.
``If you use a commonly used metric to describe an attribute of your car and that commonly used metric doesn't mean anything close to what you're using it for, you're being deceitful.''
Problem is, they couldn't have. The EPA had not established a standard test cycle for the kind of car that the Volt is. So as far as using the commonly used metric the way it's commonly used (i.e. reporting performance on the EPA test cycles), it could not have been done. This has been known pretty much from the beginning. Now, they could have done any number of things. They could have tested their car on one of the already established EPA test cycles. They could have claimed "MPG? For most city driving, you won't be using any gasoline at all!" They could have cooked up some kind of equivalence formula. Or they could have waited for the EPA to come up with a test cycle for their kind of car, and gone with that.
According to many sources on the web, the 230 miles per gallon figure was based on preliminary/draft specifications for a new EPA city test cycle developed specifically for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, with final ratings to be determined by testing after the EPA test cycles for PHEVs would be determined. Does that strike you as GM being deceitful?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
You can't compare a hypothetically full car with the average-filled train. It would be just as silly as comparing a hypothetically full train -- using a complete guess of 400 passengers gives almost 900mi/gal, several times more efficient than anything else on the list.
The article already includes a 1.57-passengers car (35mi/gal), and an average train of 22 passengers (48mi/gal).
My personal favorite is Senator Coburn, who pays a staffer to ferret out "waste" in the millions of dollar range and blather about it on the internet, while Coburn himself is in the Senate working tirelessly to extend the trillions of dollars of tax cuts for billionaires, which is responsible for about a third of our deficit.
It's worth noting that government bureaucracies move no slower (and often faster) than private industry bureaucracies.
This is adequately demonstrated by GM's glacial pace of operations; the most significant innovations at GM in the last 80 years were driven by government mandates (seatbelts, fuel efficiency, pollution control, etc.) GM is literally slower than the intentionally deliberate processes of a democratic republic!
Organizations that have no bureaucracy - that run tight - can be very fast by comparison. But despite political rhetoric to the contrary, being a "government" bureaucracy does not automagically make something inefficient.
Any sort of bureaucracy (or large consensus-process effort) slows things down. That's why the military doesn't stop to vote on stuff on the battlefield - even the Finns save that kind of process for base camp. Dictatorship is fast and risky, checks and balances are slower and (most of the time) safer.
In a capitalist economy, investors decide which kind of leadership an enterprise needs at any given time, until a company grows too large to be led by anyone or anything but its own inertia. I think GM hit that wall decades ago.