This family of electric motors will drive GM’s new electric vehicles

GM will have 22 new EVs on sale by 2023, and they'll all use these motors.

Read the whole story

 

[traumadog]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

Regen is all in the software controller and battery capacity to take a charge, not specifically the motor hardware.

I mean, both the Volt and Bolt up their regen level when in "low" vs. "drive", and even have a "regen-on-demand" paddle for the steering wheel.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

Except there are some of us in this world who actually do use a vehicle the size of the "standard US half-ton pickup" for actual work.

That's great. Then you're not using it just for personal transport, so you should not feel that you're a target of this criticism.

But there are also people who drive to parties in a Hummer. Or go to the shopping mall in an F150 to get milk and eggs. Or use a Silverado for their daily commute.

You're a working man, and that's great. I am a white-collar idiot, and I can't exist in this world without help from people like you. Use your heavy car for work all you want... and all you need to.

It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Shopping for groceries in an F150 is liking using a spike maul to crack nuts.

 

[traumadog]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If GM stops building gas and diesel powered light trucks entirely, all those people will go buy the F-series or the Ram instead.
If GM, Ford, and whatever corprate entity owns Ram this month all stop selling gas & diesel light trucks, those customers will go jack up Tundras and Titans instead.
If American politicians try to ban the sale of gas & diesel light trucks for non-commercial purposes, or restrict their use in urban areas, those politicans will be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and then voted out in favour of someone who says "Rahhhh FREEDOM!"

So the only good near-term option, for America, is to build & sell EVs that appeal to the people who buy the most environmentally-evil vehicles. To do that, you need trucks that are big, boxy, flashy, in-your-face, and take off like a bat outta hell when you press the pedal. Which is exactly what's happening here.

Arguably, being a "big, flashy EV" is what made Tesla so successful in the first place, even though initial production lagged cars like the Nissan Leaf.

 

[traumadog]

Except there are some of us in this world who actually do use a vehicle the size of the "standard US half-ton pickup" for actual work.

That's great. Then you're not using it just for personal transport, so you should not feel that you're a target of this criticism.

But there are also people who drive to parties in a Hummer. Or go to the shopping mall in an F150 to get milk and eggs. Or use a Silverado for their daily commute.

You're a working man, and that's great. I am a white-collar idiot, and I can't exist in this world without help from people like you. Use your heavy car for work all you want... and all you need to.

It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Shopping for groceries in an F150 is liking using a spike maul to crack nuts.

So wait, if I use my Hummer EV to get groceries on the way home from work, I'm "killing the planet"?

Or are you saying I need to own multiple cars for the things I need to do?

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If GM stops building gas and diesel powered light trucks entirely, all those people will go buy the F-series or the Ram instead.
If GM, Ford, and whatever corprate entity owns Ram this month all stop selling gas & diesel light trucks, those customers will go jack up Tundras and Titans instead.
If American politicians try to ban the sale of gas & diesel light trucks for non-commercial purposes, or restrict their use in urban areas, those politicans will be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and then voted out in favour of someone who says "Rahhhh FREEDOM!"

So the only good near-term option, for America, is to build & sell EVs that appeal to the people who buy the most environmentally-evil vehicles. To do that, you need trucks that are big, boxy, flashy, in-your-face, and take off like a bat outta hell when you press the pedal. Which is exactly what's happening here.

Arguably, being a "big, flashy EV" is what made Tesla so successful in the first place, even though initial production lagged cars like the Nissan Leaf.

I don't think the model S was flashy when I first saw one.

It was more like....."Holy crap.... how did that car move that fast & make no noise....." & then I had a chance to see one & look inside & I know that would be my dream car someday........

I agree the model X is flashy etc, but the rest of the cars barring the X & Roadster are practical cars that don't look like weird like the leaf or prius & that is why people are buying them

 

[Tonkaman]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If GM stops building gas and diesel powered light trucks entirely, all those people will go buy the F-series or the Ram instead.
If GM, Ford, and whatever corprate entity owns Ram this month all stop selling gas & diesel light trucks, those customers will go jack up Tundras and Titans instead.
If American politicians try to ban the sale of gas & diesel light trucks for non-commercial purposes, or restrict their use in urban areas, those politicans will be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and then voted out in favour of someone who says "Rahhhh FREEDOM!"

So the only good near-term option, for America, is to build & sell EVs that appeal to the people who buy the most environmentally-evil vehicles. To do that, you need trucks that are big, boxy, flashy, in-your-face, and take off like a bat outta hell when you press the pedal. Which is exactly what's happening here.

Arguably, being a "big, flashy EV" is what made Tesla so successful in the first place, even though initial production lagged cars like the Nissan Leaf.

Yeah, but Tesla just took over the dying sedan market that most manufacturers had started abandoning in favor of more profitable and popular CUVs. It was a niche to start with. Production numbers are still miniscule compared to other OEMs.

For example, the Chevy Bolt outsold the Model S its first year in production and hatchbacks are REALLY niche in the US.

 

[traumadog]

Also, Mr. Splatman, one of your earlier points was not exactly inviting an open and honest debate:

"It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars."

You are right.

It was not a personal attack on any poster here though. I am not sure why my hostility to GM and their disregard for the planet translates into an apparent acceptance of constant ad hominems.

It also flies in the face of the major studies on the subject produced in the past few years. Here are a couple of examples:
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/ ... -heres-why

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ly-on-coal

The TLR conclusion is that comparable vehicles (meaning comparable vehicle class) are cleaner, even when running on coal, than their ICE bretheren.

I am not disagreeing with anything in those links, nor disputing anything in them. And in a vacuum an electric Hummer might be theoretically better than an ICE Hummer (I think calculations would be needed before we know that for sure). But the point is: even an electrical Hummer is bad. So no Hummer at all would be better. Releasing an electric Hummer just perpetuates the notion that such products/cars are completely OK to buy and use.

I understand the business rationale. It's a decision made to advance GMs bottom line. That doesn't mean we can't criticize that decision. No company exists in a vacuum. They have a responsibility to the survival of the planet same as the rest of us.

If GM stops building gas and diesel powered light trucks entirely, all those people will go buy the F-series or the Ram instead.
If GM, Ford, and whatever corprate entity owns Ram this month all stop selling gas & diesel light trucks, those customers will go jack up Tundras and Titans instead.
If American politicians try to ban the sale of gas & diesel light trucks for non-commercial purposes, or restrict their use in urban areas, those politicans will be tarred, feathered, drawn, quartered, and then voted out in favour of someone who says "Rahhhh FREEDOM!"

So the only good near-term option, for America, is to build & sell EVs that appeal to the people who buy the most environmentally-evil vehicles. To do that, you need trucks that are big, boxy, flashy, in-your-face, and take off like a bat outta hell when you press the pedal. Which is exactly what's happening here.

Arguably, being a "big, flashy EV" is what made Tesla so successful in the first place, even though initial production lagged cars like the Nissan Leaf.

I don't think the model S was flashy when I first saw one.

It was more like....."Holy crap.... how did that car move that fast & make no noise....." & then I had a chance to see one & look inside & I know that would be my dream car someday........

I agree the model X is flashy etc, but the rest of the cars barring the X & Roadster are practical cars that don't look like weird like the leaf or prius & that is why people are buying them

Compared to the "it's a glorified golf cart" mentality of what people thought of EV's at the time, I'd argue that "holy crap how did that car go so fast and so quiet" is relatively flashy, especially compared to a contemporary Leaf...

 

[SplatMan_DK]

What planet are you living on? Pretty damn generous 8 year/100,000 mile warranties are standard on EV's. That's what Tesla offers on the 3 and Y (the S and X get unlimited mileage warranties). It's what Chevy has on the Bolt battery, too. Same with Porsche and the Taycan. Same with VW and the ID3. Same with Nissan and the Leaf. Same with Audi and eTron. Same with Jaguar and the iPace. Kia stretches it to 10 year/100,000 miles on their EV's. By most any measure, manufacturers are offering better warranty coverage for batteries than they are for ICE drivetrains.

Would you believe me if I answered "Planet Earth, Sector 001, Alpha Quadrant"? ;-)

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

Tesla's warranty caps at 70% of original capacity. Audi and VW does the same. Kia puts the cap at 65%.

If you bought a Kia that had a 300 mile range, and after 4 years it only had 196 miles, would you consider that "good"? Because you would not be eligible for a replacement battery under the terms of the warranty, even if you were "missing" 104 miles of range.

For a Tesla Model 3 standard range with 250 miles, that means that even if you're down to 176 miles in actual range (loosing 74 miles) you're still not entitled to a replacement.

Finally, note that 100.000 miles is quite far from the total lifecycle of the vehicle. Estimates puts BEVs at around 300.000 miles excluding the battery. So that's two battery replacements during the cars entire lifespan.

Battery warranty is a mess in my opinion. They boost the number of years, because that's what customers focus on. They just ask "how many years". Nobody asks "with what range remaining" and the sales-guy isn't volunteering it.

 

[SplatMan_DK]

So wait, if I use my Hummer EV to get groceries on the way home from work, I'm "killing the planet"?

Or are you saying I need to own multiple cars for the things I need to do?

I am not sure if you're trolling or not. I would have through the whole "on my way home from work" would be the giveaway.

Having said that, I am not sure what kind of work "needs" a Hummer. Or a Silverado. Are you hauling small boats for a living or something?

 

[woodturner]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

We already gave up our supersize fries, don’t ask us to downsize any further!

I’m curious how well GM might support the crate market. It would be nice to have some (near) drop in replacements for older vehicles. Yes, I’m the type of person who would happily drive around an EV 70’s Cutlass.

Definitely. ‘67 cougar for me. Or a ‘57 Tbird.

 

[spindizzy]

Imagine getting a paper tiger of a company to give $2billion in stock and up to $700 million to pay for your R&D and production of a product you were going to do anyway. Well done GM.

Except of course that stock isn't worth close to $2 billion any more and they haven't received any of that $700 million.

'But', I hear you say 'the can sue Nikola for that money' - good luck finding it even after spending a fortune on the case.

That makes it look less a great move - don't count your chickens etc...

 

[woodturner]

As you might expect, the main focus for this third generation of electric motors has been efficiency.

So they're building a new Hummer? Really?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Making big, heavy and inefficient vehicles "electrical" does almost nothing for the environment.

We need a change in car culture, where the total pollution/CO2 footprint-per-mile matters. We do not need to convert a whole pile of polluting ICE vehicles to polluting EVs.

I'd much rather the emissions of an electric hummer than those of a gas powered Honda

Interesting point. Currently EVs are expensive, batteries weight a ton, cost a fortune etc. Converting popular reasonably sized econoboxes from ICE to EV is going to be a hard sell as they benefit from a literal century of price optimisations.

So ... we need to start with an existing big heavy car that sells to buyers who are pretty price insensitive, and don’t really care about performance or car weight or car price, and don’t really use it for carrying heavy loads or driving long distances ... What car comes to mind ... ?

I feel terrible and slightly ridiculous for saying this but if Hummer buyers are willing to shell out for early market EV engines and batteries, then by covering the dev costs for the rest of us that could be major help for saving the planet. Business cases have to start somewhere.

The environmental break-even point for the lifetime footprint of such an EV is beyond bonkers. It might well end up polluting even more than simply driving an existing ICE hummer until it dies.

It's a d*ck move by GM that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that they just don't give a damn because dollars.

Can you point me to where an analysis of the lifetime break-even for the Hummer is? I have zero interest in owning one, but if it persuaded someone with no desire for a BEV to buy one on its style, etc, than I see it as a win.

You have to change hearts and minds and this may be a small step on the journey To BEVs as the default choice.

 

[ohkp]

Five different motors? Why? Couldn't the geniuses in GM engineering figure out how to build one motor and use add on modules for the various drive positions? It makes about as much sense as building three different airplanes for the same basic purpose instead of just one.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

I don't expect individual Americans to make the choice. I expect policymakers to actually fucking do something about the problem.

Really? In a country where one of the only two political parties is in the process of being captured by an insane conspiracy theory that boils down to the protocols of the elders of Zion , you think we have policymakers capable of solving problems?

The Elder Scrolls : SkyDim

 

[SplatMan_DK]

Can you point me to where an analysis of the lifetime break-even for the Hummer is? I have zero interest in owning one, but if it persuaded someone with no desire for a BEV to buy one on its style, etc, than I see it as a win.

You have to change hearts and minds and this may be a small step on the journey To BEVs as the default choice.

No, we don't have anything from GM yet. But as soon as we do, we can start crunching numbers. We're also going to compare it to an ICE Golf and see at what point the balance tips.

 

[Eurynom0s]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

I don't expect individual Americans to make the choice. I expect policymakers to actually fucking do something about the problem.

Really? In a country where one of the only two political parties is in the process of being captured by an insane conspiracy theory that boils down to the protocols of the elders of Zion, you think we have policymakers capable of solving problems?

Increased licensing requirements could happen at the state level, which certainly seems a bit more attainable in the near term than trying to fix it in one fell swoop at the federal level.

 

[real mikeb_60]

I imagine it's going to take quite the battery to move a 3.000 kg car around, and it's going to need more than one of those for the 298.000 km. lifecycle estimate.

I doubt it would need more than one battery. Tesla has the longest history with large-scale batteries on the road, and they're showing less than 10% degradation after 160,000 miles (~260,000 km). It's looking like EV batteries will outlast the average ICE drivetrain. Not to mention EV batteries can then be recycled or converted for use in stationary power storage.

I hope you're right. But for some reason, the manufacturers are not very confident. They don't give good warranties on batteries

What planet are you living on? Pretty damn generous 8 year/100,000 mile warranties are standard on EV's. That's what Tesla offers on the 3 and Y (the S and X get unlimited mileage warranties). It's what Chevy has on the Bolt battery, too. Same with Porsche and the Taycan. Same with VW and the ID3. Same with Nissan and the Leaf. Same with Audi and eTron. Same with Jaguar and the iPace. Kia stretches it to 10 year/100,000 miles on their EV's. By most any measure, manufacturers are offering better warranty coverage for batteries than they are for ICE drivetrains.

Hybrids and BEVs in the US are required to have a 8 years/100K mile battery warranty, under emission regulations that have been in place for more than a decade. The battery is considered part of the emission control system, certain other parts of which have at least a 6/60K warranty. Some automakers, when faced with the prospect of having to replace batteries that didn't last that long (with reasonable degradation), have tried all sorts of tricks (including disabling the entire electrical side of the hybrid system) to get customers to wait until the warranty expired; lawsuits and regulatory attention resulted in a few cases, such as the Gen 2 Honda Insight. Nissan Leaf got a (well-deserved) bad rap for similar finagles.

There was a short period when California had "Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission Vehicles" which, among other things, required key emission parts (including the battery for a hybrid with that classification) to last 10 years or 150K miles whichever occurred first. IIRC the Gen 2 Prius was certified under that provision for a short time. Very few Gen 2 Prius batteries had to be replaced under warranty. Consumer Reports at one point recruited somebody in Ohio with a Gen2 Prius that was 3-4 years old with over 200K miles to drive it to NY and let them test it and compare to their data for a new one - there was some degradation that they measured as slightly slower acceleration to 60 and slightly worse gas mileage, though the differences were small and the fuel economy difference was uncertain because the car didn't have OE tires (had some that provided better traction and higher rolling resistance). FWIW, my kid has our old 2007 Prius (originally my mom's) and it still runs fine at about 150K miles. Granted, those are small NiMH batteries not large Li-Ion (shouldn't lithium batteries last longer?), but in a hybrid used in a hot part of California (so the a/c drains the battery quickly) they're deeply cycled nearly every time the car is used.

 

[Tonkaman]

Five different motors? Why? Couldn't the geniuses in GM engineering figure out how to build one motor and use add on modules for the various drive positions? It makes about as much sense as building three different airplanes for the same basic purpose instead of just one.

Tesla has at least 5 different motors. A single "motor to rule them all" will never be good as one designed for the specific application.

 

[Tonkaman]

Can you point me to where an analysis of the lifetime break-even for the Hummer is? I have zero interest in owning one, but if it persuaded someone with no desire for a BEV to buy one on its style, etc, than I see it as a win.

You have to change hearts and minds and this may be a small step on the journey To BEVs as the default choice.

No, we don't have anything from GM yet. But as soon as we do, we can start crunching numbers. We're also going to compare it to an ICE Golf and see at what point the balance tips.

And you'll ignore those numbers just like you've ignored all of the other numbers posted on this thread.

Whatever they end up being, they'll likely be roughly equivalent to a Prius but way more fun to drive.

 

[freeskier93]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

It really depends on the car. A Porsche Taycan can regenerate up to 265kW, so you have to brake really quite hard for the friction brakes to engage. With the Polestar 2, anything above 0.3G braking engages the friction brakes. In a Tesla, the brake pedal does not cause any regen at all, afaik.

Pretty sure the 0.3G number for the Polestar 2 is the threshold at which brake lights are turned on, regardless of braking type. From the reviews I've seen the Polestar 2 requires pretty aggressive braking before friction brakes are used, and you can tell from the power meter in the dash when friction brakes are being used.

 

[real mikeb_60]

Imagine getting a paper tiger of a company to give $2billion in stock and up to $700 million to pay for your R&D and production of a product you were going to do anyway. Well done GM.

Except of course that stock isn't worth close to $2 billion any more and they haven't received any of that $700 million.

'But', I hear you say 'the can sue Nikola for that money' - good luck finding it even after spending a fortune on the case.

That makes it look less a great move - don't count your chickens etc...

Forget the money. It's pocket change for GM anyway. And I'd expect GM to be diligent about collecting cash on delivery for the vehicles assembled. Couldn't they also sue Nikola for delivery of the alleged IP that GM would gain access to? And if it's not there ... fraud? Anyway, the GM v Nikola story has been beaten to a pulp in other Ars stories, such as https://meincmagazine.com/cars/2020/09/wh ... legations/.

 

[1Zach1]

I imagine it's going to take quite the battery to move a 3.000 kg car around, and it's going to need more than one of those for the 298.000 km. lifecycle estimate.

I doubt it would need more than one battery. Tesla has the longest history with large-scale batteries on the road, and they're showing less than 10% degradation after 160,000 miles (~260,000 km). It's looking like EV batteries will outlast the average ICE drivetrain. Not to mention EV batteries can then be recycled or converted for use in stationary power storage.

It's also hard to get real information or experience from customers, because the manufacturers force NDA agreements on customers who need battery replacements. Tesla is one of the extra-bad apples in that regard. If a battery in a Tesla fails while under warranty, they will still often refuse to replace it unless the customer signs an NDA. If it fails outside of warranty, they will quote a completely ridiculous high price for an original battery, unless the customer signs an NDA.

As a result, it's hard to get a lot of actual facts. All we get is information released by the manufacturers themselves, and they are suspect (because they have a direct interest in the matter).

Is there a cite for this? A quick search seems to show people talking about battery replacement without any harassment from OEMs, even on their own manufactures forums.

I also don’t know where else anyone would get data on battery replacements except the manufactures. A poll of all owners would be near impossible and would come with its own bias issues that you couldn’t hold anyone accountable for.

What planet are you living on? Pretty damn generous 8 year/100,000 mile warranties are standard on EV's. That's what Tesla offers on the 3 and Y (the S and X get unlimited mileage warranties). It's what Chevy has on the Bolt battery, too. Same with Porsche and the Taycan. Same with VW and the ID3. Same with Nissan and the Leaf. Same with Audi and eTron. Same with Jaguar and the iPace. Kia stretches it to 10 year/100,000 miles on their EV's. By most any measure, manufacturers are offering better warranty coverage for batteries than they are for ICE drivetrains.

Would you believe me if I answered "Planet Earth, Sector 001, Alpha Quadrant"? ;-)

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

Tesla's warranty caps at 70% of original capacity. Audi and VW does the same. Kia puts the cap at 65%.

If you bought a Kia that had a 300 mile range, and after 4 years it only had 196 miles, would you consider that "good"? Because you would not be eligible for a replacement battery under the terms of the warranty, even if you were "missing" 104 miles of range.

For a Tesla Model 3 standard range with 250 miles, that means that even if you're down to 176 miles in actual range (loosing 74 miles) you're still not entitled to a replacement.

Finally, note that 100.000 miles is quite far from the total lifecycle of the vehicle. Estimates puts BEVs at around 300.000 miles excluding the battery. So that's two battery replacements during the cars entire lifespan.

Battery warranty is a mess in my opinion. They boost the number of years, because that's what customers focus on. They just ask "how many years". Nobody asks "with what range remaining" and the sales-guy isn't volunteering it.

Im no lawyer but this seems like a misrepresentation of the capacity requirements for battery warranties. Those percentages are for the life of the warranty, so dropping that much capacity in 4 years would far exceed the requirements for a warranty claim.

 

[Meldreth]

Imagine getting a paper tiger of a company to give $2billion in stock and up to $700 million to pay for your R&D and production of a product you were going to do anyway. Well done GM.

Except of course that stock isn't worth close to $2 billion any more and they haven't received any of that $700 million.

'But', I hear you say 'the can sue Nikola for that money' - good luck finding it even after spending a fortune on the case.

That makes it look less a great move - don't count your chickens etc...

The stock has been staying pretty steady. But if you search for Nikola on the Wall Street Journal, you're going to get a list of newly initiated class action suits. Milton has been buying shares, but I don't think that can account for the volume of stock changing hands.
I think the smart are selling to the stupid, and then it's going to tank.

 

[Sudoma bin Usri]

Is it too much to ask for an EV SSR in Banana Yellow?

Yes. Please don’t encourage them, that thing is ugly. Do you want an EV Aztec too?

Do you want an EV Aztec too?

Yeah, actually, I kinda do.

Count me in for an Aztek EV!

Yeah!

Gah. You guys are nuts.

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

It really depends on the car. A Porsche Taycan can regenerate up to 265kW, so you have to brake really quite hard for the friction brakes to engage. With the Polestar 2, anything above 0.3G braking engages the friction brakes. In a Tesla, the brake pedal does not cause any regen at all, afaik.

Pretty sure the 0.3G number for the Polestar 2 is the threshold at which brake lights are turned on, regardless of braking type. From the reviews I've seen the Polestar 2 requires pretty aggressive braking before friction brakes are used, and you can tell from the power meter in the dash when friction brakes are being used.

I've driven a Polestar 2 and wrote about how you can tell when the car switches from regen to friction brakes from the power meter. Maybe the threshold is 0.5G for the switchover, I'll see if I can get an exact answer from them since I obviously can't remember the exact figure.

I'm pretty sure that 0.3G is actually the deceleration point at which you have to have rear brake lights illuminate in the US for any EV.

 

[real mikeb_60]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

It really depends on the car. A Porsche Taycan can regenerate up to 265kW, so you have to brake really quite hard for the friction brakes to engage. With the Polestar 2, anything above 0.3G braking engages the friction brakes. In a Tesla, the brake pedal does not cause any regen at all, afaik.

Pretty sure the 0.3G number for the Polestar 2 is the threshold at which brake lights are turned on, regardless of braking type. From the reviews I've seen the Polestar 2 requires pretty aggressive braking before friction brakes are used, and you can tell from the power meter in the dash when friction brakes are being used.

I think the regen thing is pretty much standard on EVs and hybrids. My Bolt can regen fairly strongly down to zero mph, and even hold the stop on level ground without the friction brakes. It supposedly activates the brake lights at some point (I don't trust it so I lightly touch the pedal to light them - belt & suspenders), and the highest reported regen I've seen on the Bolt peaks at about 75 kw. Prius also uses regen for light-moderate braking if there's space in the battery (engine braking after that) down to 5 mph or so at which point friction brakes cut in. And of course if the battery is full and can't take any more any EV or hybrid uses friction brakes, but that' rare unless you're going down a hill just after a full charge (use hilltop mode for charging...).

 

[Dr Gitlin]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

It really depends on the car. A Porsche Taycan can regenerate up to 265kW, so you have to brake really quite hard for the friction brakes to engage. With the Polestar 2, anything above 0.3G braking engages the friction brakes. In a Tesla, the brake pedal does not cause any regen at all, afaik.

Pretty sure the 0.3G number for the Polestar 2 is the threshold at which brake lights are turned on, regardless of braking type. From the reviews I've seen the Polestar 2 requires pretty aggressive braking before friction brakes are used, and you can tell from the power meter in the dash when friction brakes are being used.

I think the regen thing is pretty much standard on EVs and hybrids. My Bolt can regen fairly strongly down to zero mph, and even hold the stop on level ground without the friction brakes. It supposedly activates the brake lights at some point (I don't trust it so I lightly touch the pedal to light them - belt & suspenders), and the highest reported regen I've seen on the Bolt peaks at about 75 kw. Prius also uses regen for light-moderate braking if there's space in the battery (engine braking after that) down to 5 mph or so at which point friction brakes cut in. And of course if the battery is full and can't take any more any EV or hybrid uses friction brakes, but that' rare unless you're going down a hill just after a full charge (use hilltop mode for charging...).

It's not completely standard; some cars will come to a complete stop, others won't.

As has already been posted, the limit for energy regeneration is what the batteries can accept from the motor. If you can't fast-charge at a higher rate than 60kW (for example), you're not going to be able to regen at a higher rate than that.

 

[real mikeb_60]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

It really depends on the car. A Porsche Taycan can regenerate up to 265kW, so you have to brake really quite hard for the friction brakes to engage. With the Polestar 2, anything above 0.3G braking engages the friction brakes. In a Tesla, the brake pedal does not cause any regen at all, afaik.

Pretty sure the 0.3G number for the Polestar 2 is the threshold at which brake lights are turned on, regardless of braking type. From the reviews I've seen the Polestar 2 requires pretty aggressive braking before friction brakes are used, and you can tell from the power meter in the dash when friction brakes are being used.

I think the regen thing is pretty much standard on EVs and hybrids. My Bolt can regen fairly strongly down to zero mph, and even hold the stop on level ground without the friction brakes. It supposedly activates the brake lights at some point (I don't trust it so I lightly touch the pedal to light them - belt & suspenders), and the highest reported regen I've seen on the Bolt peaks at about 75 kw. Prius also uses regen for light-moderate braking if there's space in the battery (engine braking after that) down to 5 mph or so at which point friction brakes cut in. And of course if the battery is full and can't take any more any EV or hybrid uses friction brakes, but that' rare unless you're going down a hill just after a full charge (use hilltop mode for charging...).

Except it's not standard. Some cars will come to a complete stop, others won't. As has already been posted, the limit is what the batteries can accept from the motor. If you can't fast-charge at a higher rate than 60kW (for example), you're not going to be able to regen at a higher rate than that.

I was surprised to see regen rates above 60 kw, since the max fast-charge rate is 50. But regen isn't continuous like charging so perhaps it allows higher peaks for short periods? And maximum-effort acceleration reports peaks close to 90 kw (draining the battery) so again, for short bursts, the power transfer capacity seems to be there.

 

[Tonkaman]

Is it too much to ask for an EV SSR in Banana Yellow?

Yes. Please don’t encourage them, that thing is ugly. Do you want an EV Aztec too?

Do you want an EV Aztec too?

Yeah, actually, I kinda do.

Count me in for an Aztek EV!

Yeah!

Gah. You guys are nuts.

It may be ugly, but it had some innovative outdoor related features. Features that I laughed at when the Jeep Gladiator ripped them off wholesale. Like the center console that was removable and doubled as an ice cooler.

 

[Red Pill Green]

Any word on planned production numbers though?

And is that 23 pure BEVs? I thought that number included PHEVs

 

[Stuart Frasier]

Question: Are electric motors getting better at regnenerative braking? What I mean is, I've noticed at least on my ford Hybrid, if I brake more than a long, slow, gentle brake, I lose a lot of power - the regen braking requires it to be very gradual, low-torque braking.

Now, on a full EV as opposed to a hybrid, you're using a higher-torque motor. It produces more acceleration, and I would think, conversely, can produce more torque also while braking (and converting that extra energy into electricity).

Although it's also, I suppose possible that the limit is the batteries? That you can't charge them at as high a peak power as would be generated by the motor during more aggressive braking, or it might set them on fire or make them burst or something?

It really depends on the car. A Porsche Taycan can regenerate up to 265kW, so you have to brake really quite hard for the friction brakes to engage. With the Polestar 2, anything above 0.3G braking engages the friction brakes. In a Tesla, the brake pedal does not cause any regen at all, afaik.

Pretty sure the 0.3G number for the Polestar 2 is the threshold at which brake lights are turned on, regardless of braking type. From the reviews I've seen the Polestar 2 requires pretty aggressive braking before friction brakes are used, and you can tell from the power meter in the dash when friction brakes are being used.

I think the regen thing is pretty much standard on EVs and hybrids. My Bolt can regen fairly strongly down to zero mph, and even hold the stop on level ground without the friction brakes. It supposedly activates the brake lights at some point (I don't trust it so I lightly touch the pedal to light them - belt & suspenders), and the highest reported regen I've seen on the Bolt peaks at about 75 kw. Prius also uses regen for light-moderate braking if there's space in the battery (engine braking after that) down to 5 mph or so at which point friction brakes cut in. And of course if the battery is full and can't take any more any EV or hybrid uses friction brakes, but that' rare unless you're going down a hill just after a full charge (use hilltop mode for charging...).

Except it's not standard. Some cars will come to a complete stop, others won't. As has already been posted, the limit is what the batteries can accept from the motor. If you can't fast-charge at a higher rate than 60kW (for example), you're not going to be able to regen at a higher rate than that.

I was surprised to see regen rates above 60 kw, since the max fast-charge rate is 50. But regen isn't continuous like charging so perhaps it allows higher peaks for short periods? And maximum-effort acceleration reports peaks close to 90 kw (draining the battery) so again, for short bursts, the power transfer capacity seems to be there.

The Bolt can draw 150kW from the battery at peak power, so I'd imagine peak regen should be in the same range.

 

[Jeepster1]

Except there are some of us in this world who actually do use a vehicle the size of the "standard US half-ton pickup" for actual work.

That's great. Then you're not using it just for personal transport, so you should not feel that you're a target of this criticism.

But there are also people who drive to parties in a Hummer. Or go to the shopping mall in an F150 to get milk and eggs. Or use a Silverado for their daily commute.

You're a working man, and that's great. I am a white-collar idiot, and I can't exist in this world without help from people like you. Use your heavy car for work all you want... and all you need to.

It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Shopping for groceries in an F150 is liking using a spike maul to crack nuts.

The people I personally know that drive larger vehicles (like a Tahoe, for example) also have larger than average families (3+ children). Also, the US is an enormous country with a lot of open land. Out in the countryside (and even within cities) it’s not uncommon for people to have substantial amount of land around their homes. A 4x4 truck there comes in very handy. The people that may use an F150 to go to the grocery store typically use it also for “truck uses”, it’s just not all the time. For example, one of my white-collar coworkers commutes in an F150, but he also goes dear hunting, he tows a boat to different lakes where he goes on vacations with his family, he uses it for home projects, wood for his fireplace etc. That’s typical use for non-commercial owners.

 

[TetsFR]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

There has been a time, e.g. Ford T, when american did not produce/drive massively oversized vehicles. Even america has history going back before the 60's, this oversized vehicle thing is quite a recent pattern no? I am hopefull we can not reduce US citizen philosophy of life to "bigger is better".

 

[Jeepster1]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

There has been a time, e.g. Ford T, when american did not produce/drive massively oversized vehicles. Even america has history going back before the 60's, this oversized vehicle thing is quite a recent pattern no? I am hopefull we can not reduce US citizen philosophy of life to "bigger is better".

US has a lot of space. Roads are very wide (even roads in the middle of nowhere). Parking in 99+% of places is plentiful and free. Most people have multiple garage spaces plus more room on their driveways. Even most apartment buildings have enough parking spaces for their residents and guests. And gas is very cheap. There’s no compelling reason to be confined in a small car. Big cars tend to be very comfortable, especially for long drives. They don’t call them “living rooms on wheels” for nothing.

 

[Stuart Frasier]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

There has been a time, e.g. Ford T, when american did not produce/drive massively oversized vehicles. Even america has history going back before the 60's, this oversized vehicle thing is quite a recent pattern no? I am hopefull we can not reduce US citizen philosophy of life to "bigger is better".

US has a lot of space. Roads are very wide (even roads in the middle of nowhere). Parking in 99+% of places is plentiful and free. Most people have multiple garage spaces plus more room on their driveways. Even most apartment buildings have enough parking spaces for their residents and guests. And gas is very cheap. There’s no compelling reason to be confined in a small car. Big cars tend to be very comfortable, especially for long drives. They don’t call them “living rooms on wheels” for nothing.

Also, Americans are really fat.

 

[Superman Pants]

As you might expect, the main focus for this third generation of electric motors has been efficiency.

So they're building a new Hummer? Really?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Making big, heavy and inefficient vehicles "electrical" does almost nothing for the environment.

We need a change in car culture, where the total pollution/CO2 footprint-per-mile matters. We do not need to convert a whole pile of polluting ICE vehicles to polluting EVs.

Just love it when someone believes they can dictate what others must do or not do based on their personal criteria.

 

[Jeepster1]

You might as well ask Americans to stop being American if you're going to demand they stop driving massively oversized vehicles.

There has been a time, e.g. Ford T, when american did not produce/drive massively oversized vehicles. Even america has history going back before the 60's, this oversized vehicle thing is quite a recent pattern no? I am hopefull we can not reduce US citizen philosophy of life to "bigger is better".

US has a lot of space. Roads are very wide (even roads in the middle of nowhere). Parking in 99+% of places is plentiful and free. Most people have multiple garage spaces plus more room on their driveways. Even most apartment buildings have enough parking spaces for their residents and guests. And gas is very cheap. There’s no compelling reason to be confined in a small car. Big cars tend to be very comfortable, especially for long drives. They don’t call them “living rooms on wheels” for nothing.

Also, Americans are really fat.

Only slightly more than Canadians and Australians... wait, they prefer larger vehicles, too! I think you are onto something

 

[wevan]

So when will these be available for purchase for retrofitting? I've got a need to electrify my Aztek.

 

[Psychophant]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

Not he didn't say "burn more kwH" If you have more motor available to draw current, you need more batteries to supply that KW demand, which has nothing to do with range or efficiency. Which is why tesla's next roadster will have such a huge range, to supply that huge current draw for a good amount of time. I think the next step would be capacitors for short acceleration surges instead of unnecessary battery capacity.

 

[traumadog]

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc. The key benefit of a Bolt, besides being electric with adequate (barely) range and (reasonably) performance, is that it provides a good amount of usable space inside of a small exterior package. Yes, I know, that doesn't sell in the US which is undoubtedly why the Bigger Bolt is coming and will almost certainly replace the current model entirely. Bets that the bigger one won't have any more seating room than the current one? If they improve the comfort of the front seats, though, it'll be worthwhile (can I retrofit them?).

Why would a second motor in the Bolt "burn more kW"?

It's not like there's a huge range difference between the single and dual motor Teslas...

Not he didn't say "burn more kwH" If you have more motor available to draw current, you need more batteries to supply that KW demand, which has nothing to do with range or efficiency. Which is why tesla's next roadster will have such a huge range, to supply that huge current draw for a good amount of time. I think the next step would be capacitors for short acceleration surges instead of unnecessary battery capacity.

Uh...what?

Interesting. So with a basic front-drive unit (how does it differ from the Bolt unit?) and an "assist" unit, the new Bigger Bolt can be AWD. Being able to burn more kw in two motors, of course, requires a bigger battery, which requires a bigger vehicle, etc etc.

And I never said "burn more kWh" either. Point is, battery output current wise (e.g peak discharge amperage) has NOTHING to do with its overall capacity (e.g. kWh).

Heck, this site explicitly sang the praises of an EV conversion that uses a Tesla motor and a Chevy Volt's battery pack. All 16 kWh of it.

A Volt battery pack costs less while still delivering enough peak power, and as it was originally developed to fit into an existing chassis, its smaller size also benefits garage tinkerers fitting it into project cars.