[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by keep_hope_alive

The work used to turn the alternator (or generator) will always be more than the output energy provided by the alternator. Input = Output + Losses. Output < Input, always.

EV motors can become generators and recharge during coasting/braking. That's what regenerative braking is. It's how the new Toyota RAV4 Prime gets such good fuel economy - it balances motor contribution and regen.

And just for the record, we are not changing the output of the alternator, we are multiplying it and converting it from AC to DC.

That is outside of that closed system, so I believe it still follows the laws of physics so to speak.

The alternator doesn't need to power the motor, the battery does, the motor powers the alternator and drive shaft for lack of a better phrase. The alternator's low AC output is then converted to DC and with multiplied voltage and amperage, which is then fed back into the battery to offset the draw of the motor to the point the charge rate is the same or higher than the load rate.

That is also why I asked if people knew how much HP these motors produce, and how much relative draw is an alternator really going to have on a 400+ hp motor output? Do you know if it would be more or less draw compared to a regular 400+ hp Combustion engine? Or is the mechanical conversion easier in that it is more efficient than an electric motor would be?

In theory that is.

[ChevyRules]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

2LT = $47,500
RS = ? $64,000?

RS is $51,995.

SS is $65,000.

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by ChevyRules

RS is $51,995.

SS is $65,000.

I guessed it to be relative to the Ford Lightning $30,000 increase for 100 mile range increase. I took 1/2 of that to equal the 320 mile range and guessed based on 1/2 the price of that extended battery.

And you actually said its more expensive than that.

Not bad for a guess I think.

Either way I would never spend that money on an EV SUV personally. not with a 3-4 recharge time.

I'm sure some of that cost is probably cosmetic as well on the SS.

[mariojas]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

And just for the record, we are not changing the output of the alternator, we are multiplying it and converting it from AC to DC.

That is outside of that closed system, so I believe it still follows the laws of physics so to speak.

The alternator doesn't need to power the motor, the battery does, the motor powers the alternator and drive shaft for lack of a better phrase. The alternator's low AC output is then converted to DC and with multiplied voltage and amperage, which is then fed back into the battery to offset the draw of the motor to the point the charge rate is the same or higher than the load rate.

That is also why I asked if people knew how much HP these motors produce, and how much relative draw is an alternator really going to have on a 400+ hp motor output? Do you know if it would be more or less draw compared to a regular 400+ hp Combustion engine? Or is the mechanical conversion easier in that it is more efficient than an electric motor would be?

In theory that is.

You understand that each HP produced by motor comes from battery? There isn't any residual power in motor which could be used to charge battery.

Easy math here - let's just assume you take a motor, which will only spin the alternator (could be even motor from Tesla, powerful enough to make car fly 0-60 in 2s, doesn't matter). There will be current draw - let's say 5A at whatever voltage (F = BIl, current makes it move, not voltage, but you cannot put infinite current thru it, so we up the voltage), motor at that current flowing thru him can only output X amount of mechanical power, this X amount of mechanical power is already using around 95% of that 5A current due to losses in resistance in wiring by heat (noticed motors gets warm? that's wasted energy in heat). so now we spin the motor and have losses on the input. Just to spin. Now you connect alternator to this. You added new mechanical losses, i.e. bearings, inertia. This alternator now got your X amount of mechanical power from the motor but... minus mechanical loses, so now, let's say, mechanical loses is also 5%, so you take 5A multiply by 95% efficiency of converting electrical power to mechanical power, multiply by 95% of mechanical transfer efficiency and you are already down quite a bit. Now you start to produce electrical power again - another losses in this based on efficiency - which is somewhere in 60 - 75% (look here https://nacfe.org/technology/high-ef...-alternator-2/).
So to recap. You take 5A and due to losses in transmission and conversion you will probably end up generating 5A * 95% * 95% * 75% = 3.38A. Now you can see that you would take much more to run alternator, than you would get out of it? And guess what. You didn't move the car an inch! You need more power than alternator will "take" to get going.

Stop talking about voltage, open systems etc... Just focus on power transfer. Voltage is your water pressure, but you need current - a water flow to get something going. you can have 100psi in you pipe but if there is no flow to follow it you will just spit somebody in the eye instead of doing anything meaningful.

Voltage multiplier works, but at relatively low power (can't get much current from it) and it's very inefficient. It's used mostly in something like electrical fence or spark plug...

Can you believe engineers? Or they are full of it?

[samurai]

I don't think we will see another Camaro generation, not even as a Sedan/Crossover/EV.

There is a recent article on GMAuthority that the Lansing Plant will be producing the standalone 2025 electric Corvette model and addtionally a Corvette branded Crossover.

To me it seems like the rumored 4 door EV-Camaro will not become a thing anymore because the Corvette Crossover will fill the spot. Even from a marketing standpoint is makes no sense to push for a Camaro branded car. The Camaro is dying, it's not selling well so the name won't attract anyone, it will not work like the Mustang Mach-E. The Corvette brand is on a high note in comparison, the hype for the C8 is surreal, so expanding on that makes sense.

You can easily guess that the CT4 and CT5 would reach their end of life cycle in 2025/26 too. So their replacement could obviously be based on the Corvette crossover build in the same plant.


The only way we will see the 4 door EV Camaro would be if there will be nextgen CT4/CT5 Sedan. Then it's easy to build a Camaro on their platform too. But I doubt the Lansin plant could produce it next to the Corvette and Cadillac lineup.

[FlukeSS]

I guess now would be a good time to take this discussion into a PM.

[Number 3]

As I’ve said in the past, my hope is GM comes out with a sedan with a coupe off of that body style. Think of the ATS. A very stylish coupe with a slammed roof to lay the windshield back a bit (and take away head room.

Chevy will likely need a sedan in the show room to replace the Malibu (or Impala) at some point. So if the architecture, chassis, IP are common the cost for a coupe would be workable.

Issue is would that coupe be ok to bear the name Camaro? Maybe better suited to call it Chevelle.

But that’s my hope.

[cthulhucaller]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

Are my questions/ideas still a troll because a lot of scientific principals seems to support it.

Honestly I'm not trying to troll, I'm just theory crafting if nothing else, but I guess some people don't enjoy doing that as much as I do.

You aren't theory crafting. You are either trolling, or really bad at basic science.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and going with trolling.

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by cthulhucaller

You aren't theory crafting. You are either trolling, or really bad at basic science.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and going with trolling.

Pot calling the kettle black?

[cthulhucaller]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

Pot calling the kettle black?

I don't have the time or the crayons to help you.

[Slippy]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

And just for the record, we are not changing the output of the alternator, we are multiplying it and converting it from AC to DC.

That is outside of that closed system, so I believe it still follows the laws of physics so to speak.

The alternator doesn't need to power the motor, the battery does, the motor powers the alternator and drive shaft for lack of a better phrase. The alternator's low AC output is then converted to DC and with multiplied voltage and amperage, which is then fed back into the battery to offset the draw of the motor to the point the charge rate is the same or higher than the load rate.

That is also why I asked if people knew how much HP these motors produce, and how much relative draw is an alternator really going to have on a 400+ hp motor output? Do you know if it would be more or less draw compared to a regular 400+ hp Combustion engine? Or is the mechanical conversion easier in that it is more efficient than an electric motor would be?

In theory that is.

Combustion engines have pulleys and belts that power the alternator - what is the equivalent in an EV and where would the alternator be on an EV?

Combustion engines have alternators to convert fuel into electricity. What is the purpose of an EV taking electricity to power an alternator to then return the electricity to the battery?

[Osbornsm]

Originally Posted by cthulhucaller

I don't have the time or the crayons to help you.

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by cthulhucaller

I don't have the time or the crayons to help you.

Either you are intentionally stupid, or you really are. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and going with the latter.

[keep_hope_alive]

Originally Posted by FlukeSS

And just for the record, we are not changing the output of the alternator, we are multiplying it and converting it from AC to DC.

That is outside of that closed system, so I believe it still follows the laws of physics so to speak.

The alternator doesn't need to power the motor, the battery does, the motor powers the alternator and drive shaft for lack of a better phrase. The alternator's low AC output is then converted to DC and with multiplied voltage and amperage, which is then fed back into the battery to offset the draw of the motor to the point the charge rate is the same or higher than the load rate.

That is also why I asked if people knew how much HP these motors produce, and how much relative draw is an alternator really going to have on a 400+ hp motor output? Do you know if it would be more or less draw compared to a regular 400+ hp Combustion engine? Or is the mechanical conversion easier in that it is more efficient than an electric motor would be?

In theory that is.

The work used to turn the alternator (or generator) will always be more than the output energy provided by the alternator. Input = Output + Losses. Output < Input, always. This is all you need to understand. Just work in terms of power or energy.

The rate of battery discharge will increase in order to do more work (i.e. operate the alternator). The energy returned by the alternator will be less than the the discharge energy to operate the alternator - resulting in a net loss and only DECREASING range, never improving it.