Joined
·
4,594 Posts
I belong to an engineering forum which hosts webinars.
jack vines
Realizing aerodynamics innovations for electric vehicles
-
Hey Guest, welcome to ChevyBolt.org. We encourage you to register to engage in conversations about your Bolt.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Joined
·
929 Posts
I'm in, where do I sign up?
The Aptera and VW 1L aero designs seem like a couple of pretty good production friendly shapes. Personally always thought seating long ways rather than side by side made more sense for commuting vehicles that do freeway speeds. 85% of your energy at those speeds is spent pushing wind. Long ways tube shaped cars are probably not very production easy designs though.
The Aptera and VW 1L aero designs seem like a couple of pretty good production friendly shapes. Personally always thought seating long ways rather than side by side made more sense for commuting vehicles that do freeway speeds. 85% of your energy at those speeds is spent pushing wind. Long ways tube shaped cars are probably not very production easy designs though.
https://www.applusidiada.com/en/innovation/the_cronuz-1340265402475
Looks just like the pre-Transformer Prius to me.
Looks just like the pre-Transformer Prius to me.
To me, more like a Tesla Model X … sometime tis best not to reinvent the wheel until it becomes square or otherwise useless.
As I have said earlier, all they had to do the Bolt to make it more aerodynamically apt was to glue back the 6" piece of its @$$ they had chopped of accidentally from the clay model
…. would have added a few dozen free cubic feet of storage as well.Yup. A Bolt station wagon would make a great replacement for minivans. Every young family we knew had one of these in the 1970's.As I have said earlier, all they had to do the Bolt to make it more aerodynamically apt was to glue back the 6" piece of its @$$ they had chopped of accidentally from the clay model
https://cartype.com/pics/10951/full/datsun_510_wagob_71_sm.jpg
The Bolt's size is perfect for me, even if it means a tad less efficiency.As I have said earlier, all they had to do the Bolt to make it more aerodynamically apt was to glue back the 6" piece of its @$$ they had chopped of accidentally from the clay model
Joined
·
5,054 Posts
The Bolt EV has a number of options to improve its efficiency, but many of them are omitted simply because of cost, complexity, design time, etc.
One big change is, if we could ever get the laws changed, the floppy side view mirrors could be replaced with cameras. That would easily result in a 3-5% improvement.
One big change is, if we could ever get the laws changed, the floppy side view mirrors could be replaced with cameras. That would easily result in a 3-5% improvement.
I like the size, too, and the cargo section is voluminous enough to hold all my work stuff, the EVSE and adapters and extension cable, the emergency gear etc … but there would be a few palpable benefits to a 6" longer, smoothly tapered butt
1. A tad more efficiency + a tad less wind noise would make a welcome difference for a long travel at higher speeds
2. The extra space to store a proper spare wheel kit, not just a vain promise of self-sealment
3. The aesthetics of a CUV that folks seem to prefer these days
Attachments
Joined
·
1,490 Posts
Stretching the Bolt to fit an 80 kwh battery and increasing the cargo space seems like a logical product line extension, in this case literally. OTOH, with GMs tax credit about to phase down, why bother with consumer products? AVs are where they can make some money and not fight in the jungle of still subsidized competitors.
I was thinking about just extending the rear end, which would be a lot simpler than stretching the wheelbase. If the current trend continues, we should be getting smaller/lighter, more efficient batteries, so the space the Bolt has for 60 kWh may accommodate 80 kWh or more w/o changes to the chassis.
Regarding the blanket tax credit for plug-ins: I think it's time to quietly retired it and replace with something that is more productive. Like grants for targeted research into battery tech, supercapacitors, fuel cells? maybe a DCFC equivalent of the 1930's interstate program?
You are off by about 30 years. It was written into law in 1956, and the first roads we think of as "interstates" with multiple lanes separated by medians, and controlled entry/exit ramps, started showing up in flyover country in the 1960's.
I find rear-view cameras to be nearly unusable. They force me to focus up close, in the plane of the screen, rather than focus on the distant image in the mirror. With bifocals, I need to tilt my head waaay back to see close objects above my normal viewing position, banging into the (poorly positioned) headrest in order to look through the bottoms of my glasses.
Anyone else that is far-sighted will have a similar problem, and there are more and more of us every day.
Hate glasses. Been doing monovision instead. One eye for near and the other for far. Doing that since my arms got too short 10 years ago. Love the rear view mirror display. Mainly because of the field of view.
Doesn't that drive your depth perception wonky?
Since this forum is so tolerant of OT: Because I fly planes, I've been ordering my bifocals with "executive" lenses. The bottom portion covers the entire lower half. The dividing line is midway up the lens so it matches the top of an aircraft instrument panel when I have my head level. Amounts to very little head movement. Fortunately this setup works well in most cars too. I also make sure they set the lower lens focal point a bit farther away than usual so instruments are clear.
I did try the "progressive" lens bifocals and almost lost my lunch!
Don't notice it at all. Until I step on a tennis court and the first ball gets hit at me. So for tennis I don't do the monovision and wear both contacts.
Okay, to be on topic. Read an article that they predicted that the electrical power to run the computers for computational fluid dynamics to simulate what's actually happening on an airplane would use more power than to actually run a wind tunnel.
some light reading:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120016316.pdf
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ed8/56ade70eedd1f45db94e9ee35d63486ea0bd.pdf
Yeah, progressives certainly take some getting used to...
Joined
·
5,054 Posts
GM could provide a much more aerodynamic alternative to the Bolt EV that would also appeal to a proven U.S. market: Malibu EV.
The Malibu EV would likely see >300 miles of EPA rated range, which would also provide GM with additional ZEV credit (beyond what the Bolt EV can provide). If they went for the gusto with an 80 kWh battery, they might actually be able to get the full 4 ZEV credits. With a starting MSRP of $39,000, I don't know that GM could go wrong with a Malibu EV.
They could do something similar with a Cruze EV, though it would be a squeeze to fit even 60 kWh (I actually think 50 kWh would be fine). It would also be a boon for the Lordstown Assembly plant, which seems to be hitting hard times with declining Cruze sales.
- With the aerodynamic adjustments that could be made for an EV, a Malibu EV's Cd could easily be dropped to .25 to .26.
- The larger footprint would also allow for a completely flat 70 to 80 kWh battery using the Bolt EV's current chemistry.
- Even the same 1 C charging on a 70 to 80 kWh battery would result in much faster charge rates measured in mi/hr.
- GM might not even need to adjust the power of the motor as 150 kW (in what would likely be a 4,000 lb vehicle) would still result in faster acceleration times than most EVs on the road.
The Malibu EV would likely see >300 miles of EPA rated range, which would also provide GM with additional ZEV credit (beyond what the Bolt EV can provide). If they went for the gusto with an 80 kWh battery, they might actually be able to get the full 4 ZEV credits. With a starting MSRP of $39,000, I don't know that GM could go wrong with a Malibu EV.
They could do something similar with a Cruze EV, though it would be a squeeze to fit even 60 kWh (I actually think 50 kWh would be fine). It would also be a boon for the Lordstown Assembly plant, which seems to be hitting hard times with declining Cruze sales.
Other than the fact that they would be losing even more money on every one? You are talking about increasing THE most expensive component in the car by 25%, with, basically, no increase in price.
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
