Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
21 - 40 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
This constant demand for punishing a lithium battery with massive 2c -3c charging speeds. Sure it can be done, GM could allow 150kw charging speeds and then deal with the much faster degradation that it ALWAYS entails. The Bolt battery coolant design just isn’t capable of providing the consistent, even, cooling across the 288 cells that’s required to cram 150kw into a 66kwh battery. It was designed to be adequate for moderately fast charging and keep degradation in check. Get used to it.
Not in the Bolt, the battery wasn't designed for that high of a charge rate. 70kW is the maximum rate even for short periods. That value should actually decrease over the life of the battery but I don't think GM went that far in their programming. You could push it harder if you managed to keep it cool, but you're going to risk accumulating dentrites pretty rapidly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Back in 2016, it was OK because the charging infrastructure couldn't do any more than 50 kW.
If I could plug-in and get 50kw from 10% SOC to 50% SOC every time, I'd be content with the Bolt, even for long road trips! What doesn't work for me is plugging-in below 40% SOC, pack temp 61F, and getting 32kw, because "brrr. 61F is too darned cold!" and the Bolt doesn't bother to heat the pack to optimum temp.
Looking at the thread on pack temp / SOC / charge rate
...you can see that if Chevy heated the pack to 35C, a 2020 Bolt would charge at its maximum rate of 150amps from 10% to almost 50%. That's acceptable (that would be 51kw @10% rising to 54kw at 50%, before the ramp-down). That's basically what the VW id.4 does: every time you turn it on, it heats the pack to "peak DCFC KW" temp. of 25C.

Would 35C harm the bolt's pack?... I don't know. If it does, then it could be made a temporary setting in infotainment (e.g. resets after 24 hours). Does that waste a bit of energy? Definitely. But on a car trip, I'm more concerned with fast charging. Around town, I'm unconcerned about either range or DCFC speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Once Ultium becomes available for 2023 model year, I would think GM would adapt the Bolt or replace it with a different model. Ultium battery is significantly cheaper than the Bolt packs. Probably a few thousanf dollars difference to GM per car.
I agree with P7wang. However, I think with all the stalling we have seen from GM throughout this harangue, and now their, "Lack of confidence in LG Chem" all points to them continuing to stall and the possibility of upgrading all Bolts with their in house Ultium technology. A, "Super Bolt" with 800V batteries, 350 mile range and 20 minute charge would make all of us ecstatic and go long way towards making GM a hero instead of an inept problem solver. Yes, there would be a wait but as others have posted, replacing ALL battery modules is going to take a very long time anyway. So, "the wait time" is a push, but the potential technology benefit and PR benefits would be enormous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
I agree with P7wang. However, I think with all the stalling we have seen from GM throughout this harangue, and now their, "Lack of confidence in LG Chem" all points to them continuing to stall and the possibility of upgrading all Bolts with their in house Ultium technology. A, "Super Bolt" with 800V batteries, 350 mile range and 20 minute charge would make all of us ecstatic and go long way towards making GM a hero instead of an inept problem solver. Yes, there would be a wait but as others have posted, replacing ALL battery modules is going to take a very long time anyway. So, "the wait time" is a push, but the potential technology benefit and PR benefits would be enormous.
No one is going to spend the time, money, and energy to re-engineer an old (relatively) tech car that is only 2-3 years away from end of life, for Ultium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
There's a lot of great info on this thread, I'd just add that don't judge the Bolt too harshly here. When you see advertised charging DCFC those are always peak speeds. Some people look at things like the ID.4 and Mach-E and are like, "omg wtf this thing charges 40 billion times faster" and it's just not true.

It's hard to explain but don't look at spec sheets when trying to figure DCFC speeds. Look at real world times spent at charging stations on things like abetterouteplanner. On that front you'll find the Bolt is obviously the slowest but really, it's only like 2x slower than the fastest charging cars out there, not as bad as it seems on paper.

I have a Bolt and a Kona EV. The Kona EV theoretically can charge 50% faster, that definitely does not translate to 50% less time at charging stations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
There's a lot of great info on this thread, I'd just add that don't judge the Bolt too harshly here. When you see advertised charging DCFC those are always peak speeds. Some people look at things like the ID.4 and Mach-E and are like, "omg wtf this thing charges 40 billion times faster" and it's just not true.

It's hard to explain but don't look at spec sheets when trying to figure DCFC speeds. Look at real world times spent at charging stations on things like abetterouteplanner. On that front you'll find the Bolt is obviously the slowest but really, it's only like 2x slower than the fastest charging cars out there, not as bad as it seems on paper.
It's pretty bad.

The 2020+ Bolts takes 68 minutes to go from 5-80%. The VW ID.4 takes ~35 minutes for the same. But the ID.4 is far from the fastest charging of the new vehicles. The Ioniq 5 does 5-80% in 20 minutes.

I have a Bolt and a Kona EV. The Kona EV theoretically can charge 50% faster, that definitely does not translate to 50% less time at charging stations.
The Kona EV theoretically supports 75kW charging. The Bolt 55kW. That's 36% faster. The Kona EV takes roughly 52 minutes vs. 68. That's around 30% faster. So no, theoretical speedup does pretty much match the actual speedup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
It's pretty bad.

The 2020+ Bolts takes 68 minutes to go from 5-80%. The VW ID.4 takes ~35 minutes for the same. But the ID.4 is far from the fastest charging of the new vehicles. The Ioniq 5 does 5-80% in 20 minutes.
The Ioniq 5 doesn't exist and my reservation for one hasn't even gotten followed up for an order yet and I reserved right away so I'm going to put that example aside for now ;)

As for your other points, I'm just saying having driven miles in several EVs and used ABRP across them it doesn't equate to a whirlwind of difference.

The problem is charge curves. The reality is that this has more to do with battery capacity than it does with charger current bandwidth. Simplifying it a bit, you can only charge a certain capacity at a certain speed before you start to degrade the battery. It's true for every lithium ion device, even your phones.

Those are numbers you've quoted at me, not real world times. The reality of it is if you plug your ID.4 in at 40% and the Bolt at 40% the difference is much smaller because man, that ID.4 is going to throttle way down under 50 kWh at times, trust me. Also what happens after 80% does matter too, and that kind of sucks for everyone (or again, you're nuking your long term battery life, there are tradeoffs)

I'm not trying to say the peak speed doesn't matter I'm just trying to say that there is a tradeoff between capacity:speed:lithium ion life that you can't just willy nilly add more current and get uniformly better real world charging times.

The Bolt limiting to 22kWh that early I'd have to imagine is GM being conservative, but I've seen people complain about the Mach-E dropping to literal 11kWh at 80% so every manufacturer is taking its approach it feels it needs to for warranties, customer expectations, etc.

It's just not what it seems on paper, not in the real world, not even close.

The Kona EV theoretically supports 75kW charging. The Bolt 55kW. That's 36% faster. The Kona EV takes roughly 52 minutes vs. 68. That's around 30% faster. So no, theoretical speedup does pretty much match the actual speedup.
I can't wait to put more miles on the Bolt to find out but I'm not expecting much difference in actual time spent. If I do a 500 mile road trip I'm guessing the Bolt costs me like 10-20 minutes total, like absolute tops. That whole 22 kWh thing after 50% though is kind of a dissapointing curve discovery though. It looks like maybe though it maintains a bit higher after 80% than a lot of other competitors, I'll have to do a side by side comparison with the Kona over time and see.
 

·
Super Moderator
2020 Chevrolet Bolt
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
...That whole 22 kWh thing after 50% though is kind of a dissapointing curve discovery though. It looks like maybe though it maintains a bit higher after 80% than a lot of other competitors, I'll have to do a side by side comparison with the Kona over time and see.
So even though I was the one asking about State of Charge, 22 kW (not 22 kWh) at 55% doesn't sound right. One of our members posted some charging curve data (from his observations) at:

It suggests the charging power at 55% SOC should be more like 35-ish kW.

Edit: Was your HVAC running?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
So even though I was the one asking about State of Charge, 22 kW (not 22 kWh) at 55% doesn't sound right. One of our members posted some charging curve data (from his observations) at:

It suggests the charging power at 55% SOC should be more like 35-ish kW.

Edit: Was your HVAC running?
First off, I'll always abbreviate things wrong, it took me till I was like 30 to get ' and " right for feet and inches ;)

The car was off, but this was a single DCFC session, really not worth basing any data on. I need more time with it, I was just running with what you said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
The Ioniq 5 doesn't exist and my reservation for one hasn't even gotten followed up for an order yet and I reserved right away so I'm going to put that example aside for now ;)
They definitely exist. Not in the US, but that’s a separate problem.

Those are numbers you've quoted at me, not real world times.
No, those are real-world times from videos etc. Not hard to find for yourself. For example, the ID.4: How Fast Does The Volkswagen ID.4 Charge? Our DC Fast Charge Test Finds Out . Or the Ioniq 5: IONITY Test Proves Hyundai Ioniq 5's Superb Charging Capabilities
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
At the end of the day, I only paid $21K for a new car. There is that part.
;)

In 2016 terms the Bolt EV actively cooled and actively heated battery was a step ahead of the Nissan Leaf, which is more like the kind of car with which the Bolt EV was supposed to compete.

Thinking of it in those terms, most of us would say that we can see how it is a few steps ahead.

And as others have discussed, in 2016 terms, 50 kW was really plenty fast.

Even the 2022 redesigned Bolts are slower with CCS/SAE charging because to get them faster would involve a redesign of the cooling system.

Most of us are going to charge at home over longer periods of time, and most of us are buying the Bolt EV in order to use it for daily driving that will always be well below the car's EPA mileage range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
The Soviet implementation of economic life was a goddamn nightmare, no doubt about it, but in hindsight it's hard to fault them on their end results, things that the West could never do because of its market-leading need for its successful products.

Look at the AK-47 or the Soyuz rocket, automobiles are really the only place the USSR hasn't produced a worldwide staple that long outlasted its mother country.

Think about it, we could have bargain basement industrial items that never break and all we have to do is give up our right to eat and live.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
There's a lot of great info on this thread, I'd just add that don't judge the Bolt too harshly here. When you see advertised charging DCFC those are always peak speeds. Some people look at things like the ID.4 and Mach-E and are like, "omg wtf this thing charges 40 billion times faster" and it's just not true.

It's hard to explain but don't look at spec sheets when trying to figure DCFC speeds. Look at real world times spent at charging stations on things like abetterouteplanner. On that front you'll find the Bolt is obviously the slowest but really, it's only like 2x slower than the fastest charging cars out there, not as bad as it seems on paper.

I have a Bolt and a Kona EV. The Kona EV theoretically can charge 50% faster, that definitely does not translate to 50% less time at charging stations.
I now own a 2017 Bolt and a Mach E (CA Route 1, the longest range model). The real numbers are way better than 2 to 1 in terms of miles per minute or time to add 100 miles.

I will provide a typical charge for you, I have done this with the Bolt and the Mach E.

Start the charge at 30% SoC and then charge to 80% SoC. The Bolt will take 45 minutes to do that and based on my typical highway range that is 105 miles on my 2017. On the Mach E I can do that same charge in 25 minutes and add 160 miles of range. Bolt charges at about 2.4 miles per minute for that case, Mach E at 6.4 miles per minute.

The Mach E peak rate is 160KW and even at 80% it is 80KW before it drops. Yes, the Bolt will get better if you go from 0 to 50%, then you are about 3 miles per minute, still low and that means arriving at a charger with no margin.

Look at it a different way, charging time to get to the next charger, with identical starting margin. If the next charger is 100 miles away, typical average for EA, then you need 100 miles of range added. Bolt takes 45 minutes. Mach E can do that in 16 minutes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
I now own a 2017 Bolt and a Mach E (CA Route 1, the longest range model). The real numbers are way better than 2 to 1 in terms of miles per minute or time to add 100 miles.

I will provide a typical charge for you, I have done this with the Bolt and the Mach E.

Start the charge at 30% SoC and then charge to 80% SoC. The Bolt will take 45 minutes to do that and based on my typical highway range that is 105 miles on my 2017. On the Mach E I can do that same charge in 25 minutes and add 160 miles of range. Bolt charges at about 2.4 miles per minute for that case, Mach E at 6.4 miles per minute.

The Mach E peak rate is 160KW and even at 80% it is 80KW before it drops. Yes, the Bolt will get better if you go from 0 to 50%, then you are about 3 miles per minute, still low and that means arriving at a charger with no margin.

Look at it a different way, charging time to get to the next charger, with identical starting margin. If the next charger is 100 miles away, typical average for EA, then you need 100 miles of range added. Bolt takes 45 minutes. Mach E can do that in 16 minutes.
My experience is that the amount of times that you actually experience the difference between 25 minutes and 45 minutes is negligible. You really gotta be long hauling some major road trip because the reality of the situation is the charges ABRP or even you find yourself penciling out are more like the difference between 25 and 35 minutes because they try and don't always need to charge to 80%, and we're talking about the slowest charging car on the market vs. the fastest (not named Taycan).

I realized this when I was out a lot with my Kona EV and observed the newly arrived ID.4s and Mach-Es, not only was I at the stops for roughly the same time but I saw the same people at the same stations on my routes. It only has a 75KW charger!

Then consider that some of these stops on your road trip you're eating and not sitting at the wheel looking at the gauge going "cmon wtf!"

I do not doubt, and in fact have observed these higher peaked charging cars charge faster, I'm just saying that in reality it's not as night and day a difference as it appears and over the course of a 500 mile road trip only equates to 10-20 minutes more time spent. I need more time on the Bolt to confirm this is true but I'm expecting the real world difference between a 50KW charger and a 75 KW peak charger to be minimal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,007 Posts
automobiles are really the only place the USSR hasn't produced a worldwide staple that long outlasted its mother country.
Anything with electronics. 20 years ago I worked for a start-up company making a DNA analysis machine. It was started by a pair of Russian scientists (one of them married to a French financier). They needed to make the machine in the U.S. because electronics technology was 20+ years behind in Russia. Yet their material science was superior in Russia. I got called into the office and questioned about why I was using expensive aluminum for a bearing housing instead of something cheaper, like Titanium. Apparently aluminum was much more expensive in Russia but titanium was fairly cheap.

Side story: The Russian woman came into my office one day asking if I had any scotch. I was rather confused and thought that she was accusing me of having a bottle of alcohol in my desk. Turns out they just use the term "scotch" in place of scotch tape.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Anything with electronics. 20 years ago I worked for a start-up company making a DNA analysis machine. It was started by a pair of Russian scientists (one of them married to a French financier). They needed to make the machine in the U.S. because electronics technology was 20+ years behind in Russia. Yet their material science was superior in Russia. I got called into the office and questioned about why I was using expensive aluminum for a bearing housing instead of something cheaper, like Titanium. Apparently aluminum was much more expensive in Russia but titanium was fairly cheap.

Side story: The Russian woman came into my office one day asking if I had any scotch. I was rather confused and thought that she was accusing me of having a bottle of alcohol in my desk. Turns out they just use the term "scotch" in place of scotch tape.
Of course that's true, I'm just saying they don't get nearly enough credit on the low end side. Good engineers doing good work to bring things to the masses.

As for that other stuff, what's that famous quote? "NASA spent millions of dollars inventing the ball point pen so they can write in space, the Russians brought a pencil." It's not a 100% accurate quote but it brings the point across.

We can both sit here and list off a crap ton of stuff the Russians have and continue to do to this day that are subpar and ghetto (like the electronics they needed to source from the US in your scenario), the point is we often miss the beauty in simplicity that the Soviet successes actually had. I'd have thought us as Bolt drivers vs. Tesla drivers would at least have some sympathy for a cheap tool that does the job reliably and effectively, every time.

My other favorite, "aw, you communists are so cute we should have tried that government" moment in history is their version of the Concord. It was like the plane that didn't want to happen that they willed into existence just to show the west they could then it immediately stopped flying because there was no way every Soviet citizen could use it so it was incompatible with their system. Meanwhile in the west we have no problems keeping impractical planes in the air to placate the mega rich in rides we'll never get to be on and it only ever stopped because it was unsafe lol.

Anyways, communism has brought more misery into the world than any other currently existing form of government and gives every form of government including Nazi Germany a run for its money on that measure. I'm far from a card carrying commie. I just appreciate a good screw driver that doesn't need batteries like you appreciate good enough metal at the right price ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,007 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
I love anecdotes like this... because they are commonly accepted as fact but are actually untrue, in an interesting way:
Fact or Fiction?: NASA Spent Millions to Develop a Pen that Would Write in Space, whereas the Soviet Cosmonauts Used a Pencil
Such a microcosm of the whole thing, even down to the Russians stealing our ideas. We run around having anxiety attacks over engineering everything and the Russians just take our crap, simplify it (out of need in a lot of cases) and charge forth.

It always gets to a nonsensical point in the end, like the Space Shuttle was a boondoggle pretty much across the board, yet, in the grandest example of what we're talking about, the USSR copied the boondoggle pretty much copy + paste lifted.

Sky Vehicle Aircraft Spaceplane Airplane


Funny thing is that flat out copied shuttle was attached to one of the best Russian rockets ever built. A laughing stock attached to an actual accomplishment.

World space shuttle Spaceplane City Facade
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Top