Tuning Chevrolet's Volt, GM engineer says: "We've got the feel of a sports car"
2011 Chevrolet Volt - Click above for high-res gallery
We don't have to tell you how important the Chevrolet Volt is to General Motors. Even if the model isn't likely to turn a profit for many years, the plug-in electric car's success or failure is likely to be seen as a crucial indicator of GM's post-bankruptcy prospects in the eyes of many. This being the case, it's not surprising that automaker is practically throwing everything it's got at the project. According to Chief Engineer Andrew Farah, the Volt team is currently working on getting the sound and feel of the driving experience just right. Speaking to Automotive News, Farah said:
The engine, not being directly connected to the foot, is one of the things we continue to tune. We don't want it to be discomforting to people. There is an expectation of what happens when you put your accelerator to the floor in the way the car sounds and feels. We've got the feel. We've got the feel of a sports car. The sound part and the way the engine plays into that perception is one of the areas we have to work on.Clearly, creating a plug-in car with mass-market appeal isn't as simple as bolting an electric motor and a bunch of batteries into an existing chassis. People have come to expect certain things to happen as an automobile is driven, and GM needs to find the right compromise between zero-emissions technology and time-honored driving dynamics. Further complicating the issue is the tremendous weight of the car's T-shaped battery pack. Farah explains:
Here's the thing to remember: When you put the battery in, it actually lowers the center of gravity of the car. There are a thousand reasons why heavy is bad, but a few why it is good. And so we are getting those advantages of the good heavy, and the disadvantages we are managing.
Gallery: 2011 Chevy Volt
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Tdogg 4:44PM (7/07/2009)
So i guess everyone in California can have Corvette handling and be able to eat their smug cake too...
Reply
notYou 5:34PM (7/07/2009)
Until they brown/blackout the grid from everyone plugging in en'masse.
It was just a few years ago when Kalifornia had massive rolling brown/blackouts during "normal" usage patterns (during Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown's tenure).
I for one can't wait to see what happens when millions of people trade their local gas station as their energy source to the electric infrastructure.
Remember: electric cars are just trading the energy storage and delivery mechanism. That power still has to come from somewhere...
HotRodzNKustoms 5:14PM (7/07/2009)
mmm smug cake...
bvz 5:43PM (7/07/2009)
We make the very best smug cake here... no one else can compare :)
cdwrx 7:16PM (7/07/2009)
@NotYou,
So you're blaming then-Oakland mayor Jerry Brown's leadership for the state's brown-outs? Credibility revoked.
Enigmatic 7:30PM (7/07/2009)
Since the electrical grid is run continuously (doesn't turn off at night), I think GM is under the assumption that the vast majority of people will charge their cars at night. And I doubt Volt sales will be nearly enough to seriously effect the amount of electrical power drawn.
British_Rover 8:50PM (7/07/2009)
@notyou
Number one most of these cars will be charged on off-peak times when electric rates are cheaper and their is less strain on the grid.
Number two it is easier to control pollution at a central location like a power plant then lots of little points like cars. Where I live 75% of our power is nuclear anyway and some of the local towns are working to refurbish older dams that have been decommissioned years ago. Some of these dams powered older mills or factories forty or fifty years ago.
Number three I am pretty sure many of California's Blackouts and brownouts were the fault of Enron's market manipulation.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/enron/2002-05-07-enron-calif-memo.htm
notYou 8:56PM (7/07/2009)
cdwrx: So you're blaming then-Oakland mayor Jerry Brown's leadership for the state's brown-outs? Credibility revoked.
Whoops, you're right. I meant Governor Gray Davis. Sorry, Cali has so many political leftistNiks it's hard not to confuse them. Here's hoping for a reinstatement...
Enigmatic: "Since the electrical grid is run continuously (doesn't turn off at night), I think GM is under the assumption that the vast majority of people will charge their cars at night."
And what do you think the grid does at night, during off peak hours now? Maintenance? Refurbishing? Down-time? You're correct - it runs 24x7, and I think you'd find that all those facilities already utilize that non-peak time for other things.
And that's the point, it's about to be turned on it's ear.
ufgrat 9:05PM (7/07/2009)
@notYou: "Remember: electric cars are just trading the energy storage and delivery mechanism. That power still has to come from somewhere..."
The same applies to fossil fuels and hydrogen. In fact, the same applies to all "work" done from a physics standpoint.
The only difference is that the energy investment in fossil fuels happened over millennia, and the energy cost was paid by the geothermal processes of the planet.
Or, in the short form: "You can't get something for nothing".
Chris O 12:46AM (7/08/2009)
@notYou:
If you're worried about the impact of millions of people plugging in their EVs, then you have failed to conside some pretty important things. First, have you thought about how long it will take EV/PHEVs to hit a million units? Second, we won't get to that number before the incadescent light bulb will have been completely banned (2014). If we make the assumption that the average power consumption of replacement flourescent bulbs will be about 1/2 to 2/3s that of their incadescent predesessors, then that's a lot of load returned to available capacity. There's also the seasonal, secondary effect of waste heat contributing to more AC usage - minor, but significant when talking about a system on the scale of our national electricity usage.
In short, the grid will be in much better shape EVEN IF scads of people start driving plug-in EVs.
notYou 7:41AM (7/08/2009)
ufgrat: "The only difference is that the energy investment in fossil fuels happened over millennia, and the energy cost was paid by the geothermal processes of the planet. Or, in the short form: "You can't get something for nothing"."
But that's just it - fossil fuels _are_ essentially something for nothing for us because time+nature was the source - we didn't have to do _any_ work to generate it. Sure, it took millions of years, but from our perspective, it's like free energy in gigantic underground reservoirs (conveniently ignoring recovery costs, which would be almost irrelevant if not for legislative meddling).
Everything else: hydrogen, solar, nuclear - we have to build the devices to transform the source into usable energy. All of that makes it a less attractive net (indeed, ethanol detractors consider it almost a net washout). In those cases, you not only don't get something for nothing - you've got to pay quite a lot up front.
Vetmstr 4:44PM (7/07/2009)
GOOOOOO GM!!!!!
Reply
AUTOMANIAC 4:47PM (7/07/2009)
"Here's the thing to remember: When you put the battery in, it actually lowers the center of gravity of the car. There are a thousand reasons why heavy is bad, but a few why it is good." i hope you mean that lowers the center of g because the batteries are mounted on the floor, and if it is so, what "heavy" is going to do for g center height?
Reply
AUTOMANIAC 5:55PM (7/07/2009)
OOOkaaaaaay i'll explain myself better....you can't lower a car on the project by putting in some weight lol, it isn't made that way no no, you have to tune the suspensions in relation to the car weight among other parameters. but putting the batteries (very heavy) on the floor of the car, will move the center of gravity towards the ground even if the car height is untouched. so...... what is this good heavy? there isn't never good hevy except for aerodynamic lift.
AUTOMANIAC 6:00PM (7/07/2009)
*there is never good heavy
sirzacolot 7:04PM (7/07/2009)
If you lower the center of gravity of the car, then it has less tendency to roll during hard cornering. This reason (along with the obvious aerodynamic ones) is why you only see low-slung sportscars rather than huge honking SUVs.
AUTOMANIAC 7:49PM (7/07/2009)
yes, but with added weight also the centrifuge force and the tendency to roll is augmented greatly, loosing completely the benefits form the lower g center. hevy no good.
AUTOMANIAC 7:54PM (7/07/2009)
yes but with added weight the centrifugue force and the tendency to roll is augmented, loosing completely the benefits received from a slighty lower g center and augmented friction force. heavy still no good, sorry.
AUTOMANIAC 7:57PM (7/07/2009)
sorry double post
andre lavoie 12:30AM (7/08/2009)
actually, there is no "centrifuge force". what you mean is the centripetal force (in this case the friction between pavement and tire rubber) that pushes toward the center of the radius of the corner and keeps the car from skidding off at a tangent to the curve.