Talk:Chevrolet Volt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Batteries

"General Motors states that battery technology available as of 2007 is not sufficient to store the 16 kilowatt-hours of power required for the vehicle"

Yet the Tesla Roadster already has batteries that store 56 KWh and that is available this year.

Upon what does GM's base their claim then, that batteries aren't ready? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silas10961 (talk • contribs).

From ABC News last night, the batteries do exist but they would make the car cost "several hundred thousand dollars". The price has to come way down for existing batteries or new, cheaper technology has to be found to make this car economical. --StuffOfInterest 12:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Several hundred thousand dollars" is probably bogus (the Tesla Roadster costs $90,000 for a base model, and has a battery pack three times the necessary size for this vehicle). My guess has been it's more in the range of $10,000 to $15,000, and they probably want to have something that's significantly cheaper. They've also expressed concerns about weight (I've seen quotes of 400 pounds or less, but a Tesla-style pack would probably weigh less than 300 with that amount of energy storage). Reliability (they want 10 years and 4,000 charge cycles) and safety are things they're working on. Personally, I think the technology is here now for anyone who wants to pay the price premium, but GM has gotten burned in the past for reliability and safety issues, so I'm sure they want to test this adequately. Now I just have to scrounge up sources for these things and get them in the article... —Mulad (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Related Vehicles section, there should be a clear reference and comparison to EV1 SERIES HYBRID version, not to the EV1 battery version. EV1 series hybrid is listed on EV1 page, as the cars are much more similar to eachother. So the improved range argument is moot wrt to Volt. Savuporo 12:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, in fact, the four-seat argument is also moot as the 1998 EV1 Series hybrid also had four seats. Another point is that 1998 EV1 prototype was actually a running vehicle, while Volt that has been shown to date is just an shell with four wheels, it doesnt have a drivetrain to speak of, only a small DC motor to roll it around on show floors. Savuporo 12:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regenerative Braking

Does anyone know if the Volt will include regenerative braking?

Yes: http://www.gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/ -Bluetd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

There are several images of the Volt out now, http://images.google.com/images?q=chevrolet%20volt - can none of them be used here? -Sud. 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on the license. The license must fall under Wikipedia accepted ones. We can't just use any image which happens to be on the Internet. --StuffOfInterest 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sites

Chevy Volt information site http://www.chevy-volt.net/ Any feedback? --Seyoda 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya, it's been added and removed a number of times. I'm guessing that it's being removed per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point number 10, no links to social networking sites. Though I think it's an alright site to list in external links, it won't seem to stick. --D0li0 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Good selection of videos and news. 70.0.224.183 14:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems like good enough content to me, any idea where they will be building it?--192.30.202.18 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably Wilmington. Also, this policy of removing 'social networking' links is applied very inconsistantly thoughout wikipedia. The fact is, leading automotive enthusiast websites often provide the information in advance of 'major' publications like Motor Trend, et al. --24.96.193.136 21:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a me-too site imo. Just some ripped pics and weak info and a bunch of Google adds. --Bluetd

[edit] Charge time

Whomever added in the line about charging via a "standard 15 amp outlet" seems to have pulled it out of thin air (it's not in the cited article), and crunched their numbers wrong too boot. This source gives some more numbers. Given the minor assumption that fully charged means fully charged (from 0%) and a lossless rectifier, it would take 20.5 amps to charge the battery (16 kWh / 120V / 6.5 hours). It still takes 17 amps if we go with a more realistic 80% discharge, and 97% combined efficiency for rectification and charging (98%, 99% respectively). --Belg4mit 03:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

120V*15A*6.5H=11.7KWH power from standard outlet. The car generator turns on at 30% left in the 16KWH battery. 16KWH*0.3=4.8KWH is as low as the battery can go. 16KWH-4.8KWH=11.2KWH power the battery needs for changing. 11.7KWH-11.2KWH=0.5KWH is far more than required for the small losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.73.242 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


I have another question about this. The gas motor has to be able to provide atleast 100% of the power that the electric motors require, or does GM get away with something else (actually, I was thinking the motor has to generate something like 120% to make up for heat loss and to charge the batteries just enough). Basically, if the electric motors are upgraded to larger motors that draw more amps from the batteries, does this mean that the gas motor has to be upgraded as well to be able to provide that power to them? Smartmlp

The Volt is a "No Compromise" series configuration PHEV, and by that GM means that the ICE/genset is large enough to provide enough power to the electric motor to maintain 100mph, at lower speeds there would be excess energy which would be used to charge the batteries. If anything the 3 cylinder turbo ICE is oversized, but I suppose that's what makes it a "no compromise" kind of car. --D0li0 01:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This answers my question, but at the same time raises more. If this is true, it would mean that the Volt is much more efficient than traditional ICE vehicles that require much larger engines to move car. Smartmlp
This probably has to do with the fact that it's set up in series, not parallel. An ICE used to directly move a car has to vary in RPM greatly and often run at inefficient speeds. The Volt's ICE runs in series and will always be performing at its most efficient. 72.153.184.32 (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, series hybrids tend to be LESS efficient, not more, on the ICE side. In a parallel hybrid, the ICE can put power straight into the transmission, which eliminates line losses and other inefficiencies of the electrical power system seen in a purely series architecture. Still, a series ICE has the potential to be plenty efficient, especially in a setup like the Volt's with a small ICE and a big electric motor. See this article for a rather simplified explanation of the efficiencies of the two architectures. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I crunched some numbers. A 71bhp vehicle with 20 square feet of frontal area and a sleek Cd of 0.25 could achieve a top speed of 115mph. It wouldn't get there very quickly... 0-60 time is 24 seconds, but that's where the electric drive system dominates the equations and scoots such a vehicle to 60mph with mind-blowing quickness. Of course, as I mentioned previously, there will be significant power losses due to inefficiencies between the ICE and the traction motor, but we are certainly in the right ballpark here to achieve 100mph steady-state. The bottom line is that in a series setup like this, the ICE only really needs to cover AVERAGE power, which is going to be somewhere under 20hp in this vehicle. As mentioned by an astute poster above, this ICE in the Volt is bigger than it really needs to be. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General class of hybrid

There should be mention that the Chevy Volt would be the first mainstream series HEV. The others: Prius, Insight/Civic/Accord, and all the SUVs are parallel config. In fact this is the only reason that I'm interested in the Volt. Russella 18:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

"However, there was a 1998 prototype version EV1 in series hybrid configuration, that also had four seats and the same 40 miles of all-electric range as the Volt, and featured combined range of 390 miles. In contrast to current Volt, this car was actually a running prototype."

This sounds like some kind of vague "dig" at GM a la "who killed the electric car" conspiracy crap.SecretaryNotSure 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] volt4me.com Edit Wars

I suggest we use this discussion area to resolve this dispute. Would the interested parties please present arguments for or against including volt4me.com in the external links area of the main entry? I look forward to reading what you have to say.Fbagatelleblack 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided rule 4 states that links intended to promote a website are to be avoided. --Denimmonkey 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
An excellent point. I guess the next question would be, 'Does the disputed link primarily promote a website, or does it primarily add to the information content of the page?' I'll hold back expressing my opinion until we hear from the link poster. --Fbagatelleblack 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
As the designer for volt4me.com...my intent is to make the world a better place and I am investing a considerable amount of time researching and proposing concepts which are all related to the Chevy Volt. Since there are other blogs, etc. linked on the site - it seems only fair that volt4me.com would also be linked. I will, however, leave it to the community to decide. Thank you for posting this forum to have the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccrowley (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for joining the discussion. At first review, volt4me does not appear to be a suitable reference site which contributes to an encyclopedic article on the Volt. Don't get me wrong; it looks like a worthwhile, valuable site which definitely could help make the world a better place. However, these are not the important criteria in determining whether a site should be referenced in Wikipedia. I am afraid that most Wikipedia admins would frown upon the fact that you are both the site designer and the person who keeps posting the link to the site. Generally, this is not allowed on Wikipedia.Fbagatelleblack 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have requested that a sensible Wiki admin who has helped me in the past weigh in on this matter. Fbagatelleblack 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
With only ~450 registered users (displayed in small print at the top of volt4me.com), it seems like it is not really a significantly popular site yet. Your goal of introducing a link to it seems to be to attract more users to it--wikipedia should not be used for advertising; linked sites should be notable already. I'm also a little suspicious of a third-party site's need to collect email address, name, and postal addresses just to be able to sign a petition. Any official pre-ordering list would undoubtedly need to be names and addresses collected directly by GM. -- Bovineone 05:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the discussion on this topic. If you think of Wikipedia as a pure reference site...then I would have to agree that it does not qualify as I am not interested so much in the basics of the Volt. If, however, Wikipedia is an information site then I believe it more than meets the standards. I have written many articles on the future and how it will look after the Chevy Volt arrives in an effort to spur innovation now. It is much more than a pre-order site. Regarding the comment about about GM's list .... that would be a good idea if they actually had one which they don't and they never will because they don't get involved in the sale - they leave it up to the dealers. For me, this car is more than about saving a few dollars at the pump - it is an opportunity to change how we do everything. A complete redesign. Lets think of this as starting out again instead of ending up with what we have. That is what Volt4me is all about and if it isn't right for Wikipedia I would appreciate any feedback that would help make it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccrowley (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This edit is now in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule, WP:3RR. While you are welcome to continue to make your case on this discussion page, please stop reposting the link on the main page. Thanks. Fbagatelleblack 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok...so now what needs to be done to make it a suitable reference? Do I need to write a book on the topic? An article? Publish some original research? I have fallen in love with this car and the concept. Tell me what is appropriate and it shall be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccrowley (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I realize this is sort of a dead discussion, but to answer your question... Creating content in order to create a reference is not the way things work on Wikipedia. When the site grows and becomes a wealth of information, and the community here agrees that the site is worth a reference, it certainly will be added. And BTW: I too am in love with the concept of serial hybrids and the Chevy Volt. I wish more people would be made aware of the car, or at least, the concept. A link exchanges, or perhaps, a link directory would probably be the best place to spread the word of your site. Good luck! 68.79.122.3 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Vehicle Controversy Section

The comments/position attributed to Chris Paine do not seem to accurately reflect his position on PHEVs. However, I am trying to get his response before I start to edit. In any case, this new section needs to be tightened up a referenced my more precisely. More to follow.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent these edits to Chris Paine, and he confirmed that they do not accurately reflect his position, so I deleted those comments attributed to him. He sent me some ideas, which I will try to work into the entry ASAP.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The section currently refers to "critics" but only mentions one by name: Chevy's direct competition, Tesla. It also fails to mention the biggest problem with BEVs: the inability to make a long road trip. It doesn't seem very balanced to me. 72.153.184.32 (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Volt is a BEV? It is not. It is an E-REV which can make long trips. -Bluetd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluetd (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

with fbagatelleblack on this. Also, tesla doesnt deserve a mention in this article because not only is this article about the chevy volt, but tesla is also a company that isnt noteworthy enough to include in a discussion considering they havent even produced 1 single car. LightSpeed3 (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT TRUE! Tesla "delivered" roadster #1 to Elon Musk on 2/1/2008. But, yeah. Rumor has it there are still problems with the transmission. I think Tesla is a highly noteworthy company, but such notes do not belong in an article about the Chevy Volt. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tesla

I have noticed some users (example: LightSpeed3) removing all refs to Tesla on this Volt page. Why? The Tesla is what made GM decide to bring the Volt to market (Lutz has said this over and over in interviews [1] ). The Tesla is very important to the Volt's history. -Bluetd

Be that as it may, this article should deal with only subject matter DIRECTLY related to Volt. While the Tesla may have an indirect relation to the subject matter, discussion of the Tesla, or quotes from Tesla employees should only be included when they directly and specifically address the Volt. I side with those who say your recent verbiage should not be included. Also, the remaining text of the Controversy" section needs to be cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic. This matter is turning into an edit war, and I will not hesitate to call in the admins if it continues.Fbagatelleblack (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Fbagatelleblack, thanks for the feedback. I yield to your wisdom. *bows low* Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 01:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The good news is that there are other plenty of other places on Wikipedia to put this info Battery electric vehicle, electric vehicle, etc. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
can you stop mentioning the tesla roadster and its imaginery existence, tesla is a stupid scam company that makes idiot nerds who dont know about cars think they are all of the sudden experts on this. LightSpeed3 (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The Tesla Roadster may never end up on the market but that doesn't change the fact that it has had a tremendous impact on the automotive scene. It is the first fully street worthy BEV sports car. It has turned a lot of heads and shown many people the potential for BEVs. It has done more to improve the image of the BEV than any other car. It is the first EV to say "EVs don't have to be slow and dull". Bluetd —Preceding comment was added at 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Tesla may have many problems, but it is not a "scam company." They've spent millions of dollars developing a wonderful car, and they are working (to a debatable degree) on developing others. And all those "idiot nerds" to whom you refer will likely be the folks who save us from our current self-destructive addiction to oil. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
there is no addiction to oil. sorry but oil is the most cost effective method right now. The tesla is an elise with a powerpack and some motors instead of an engine. wow good job, look at the interior, its disgusting. LightSpeed3 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
LightSpeed3, what is the point of this tirade? It is already obvious you hate the Tesla Roadster. -Bluetd
"oil is the most cost effective method right now" Well... I bet if we set up nuclear reactors with no containment and no safety measures, we could generate power in a very cost effective manner. Similarly, if we ignore the cost of the present and future catastrophes oil renders upon our planet, it appears to be cost effective as well. But the catastrophes are real, and oil represents a financial as well as an environmental disaster in the long run. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why not add this to the page? show the real story.

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/did_gm_screw_sa.html

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archives/2006/04/the_smoking_gun.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.143.83 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The standard electric outlet

The standard outlet in the home is 120 volts at 15 amps not 20 amps. The kitchen outlets are higher with 120 volts at 20 amps. The electric drier is 240 volts at 30 amps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.73.241 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 60,000-Volts-in-First-Year Rumor

Perhaps we can discuss this. It's not really a huge issue, but for the overall cleanliness, relevance, and accuracy of the article- I'm for removing, or at least relocating, the 60,000-Volts-in-First-Year rumor to some place else other than the opening paragraph, since I feel it's not relevant.

1) Do refuted / corrected estimates really belong in this article? If so, what benefit would obsolete estimates serve the reader? If the rumor does belong on the article, is it relevant enough to belong in the intro paragraph along with the latest figure of 10,000 units? Speculation is great, especially in pre-production, since that's often all we have to go by. But keeping old figures just doesn't seem relevant to me.

2) The current "by GM staff" is an error (or assumption at best), as not even the source identifies them as staff members. They are identified as "anonymous people with knowledge of GM's plans" [1]. Is this a reputable source for information? And when this information is contradicted on the record by actual known name like Lutz and Wilkinson, does it still remain accurate and relevant enough to be mentioned? Again, back to #1.

3) There are many guesstimates floating around about production- one even said there would be 100,000 units in the first year [2]. But this too was refuted by GM's Tom Wilkinson, who said he never made that quote, and the official production numbers are still not final. That leaves the (still non-final) "10,000" by Lutz as the only recent and non-anonymous figure given by GM, and by a GM higher-up at that.

So we have "100,000" which was later found to be a misquote, "60,000" by anonymous, "10,000" estimated by Lutz, and "not final" by Wilkinson. I feel that the information from Lutz and Wilkinson is most relevant. "10,000 units, but those figures are not final".

I suggest the first paragraph should read something like...

...range is potentially increased to 640 miles (1,030 km) on the highway. GM estimates that initial annual production will be 10,000 units [3], but those figures are not yet final [4].

...then if we are to include the old figures and other information that has changed over the past few months, I suggest a new section be created, such as "From Concept to Production". I expect there will be many changes from the concept period to the production period with regard to information we have received (design, specifications, cost, battery supplier, production, availability, etc...). Perhaps it would be best to move the old information someplace else, in order to preserve the speculation on original planning, while still keeping current data in the most relevant places.

Any input on this? Kubel (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


The whole article is full of fanboy speculation, so I suppose if it were cut back to what has been reported by WP:RS (not blogs etc) as well then your proposal would make sense. I think it is a shame to lose the record of the ridiculous claims that were made over the last couple of years. So I suggest cutting out everything that does not have a good ref. Greg Locock (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, too much speculation. The whole article needs to be rewritten (or at least thoroughly trimmed) so that we have more data that is verifiable and less that is wild speculation (and in many cases, just hopes and wishes). I too see more of a 'historical' value in the ridiculous claims, since it shows the path that the Volt has taken through its conceptual/speculative years, but I'm not sure where it should be in the article now that the Volt is leaving concept status and entering production status. Kubel (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)