[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Yep, and of it came to that they would have 12 cars lined up - think about it.

Originally Posted by kevint

It'd be a mess--I don't watch NASCAR, though. I hear the next-gen FE cars are working on rapid charging so maybe they can cut down the number of backups by charging cars as they come in.

That and the idea that for such specific and platform-controlled applications, battery swapping would be the most likely approach. Pit crews will love it. So 12 battery packs lined up instead of 12 cars.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

Impala would be nice for the new performance sedan. However, why not Chevy develop a newer name for this vehicle. We've used the old name plates to death, and in the process the cars became anonymous and tiring (impala). Why doesn't Chevy either develop a new name or recall an old name from the past that hasn't been seen in awhile (Delray or others).

People will call the new car whatever the mfr. names it; I think we can do better than the last sedan's name, "SS". While it was a nice car it certainly wasn't an original creation.

I can give you the “MBA” response to this. The cost to launch a new brand is ridiculously more expensive than increasing awareness of an existing brand, so unless a brand is damaged beyond repair (Aztek), it is typically more cost effective to revive or in some cases reposition an existing and known brand name (Charger) than start all over with a new one. We’re talking magnitudes of ten. This is essential to the Ford strategy behind making Mustang, Bronco, and F150 umbrella brands. It’s easier to get traction with “F150 Lightning” than just “Lightning”. Same with “Mustang Mach E” instead of just “Mach E”. Mustang Mach E communicates that it is supposed to be sporty, not that it will look and feel like a Mustang coupe. They are expanding the use of known and well respected brands. GM overused this in the 80s and 90s when they slapped Cutlass on damn near anything with rubber tires.

There was a lot of lobbying in the Planning community at GM to call the performance sedan “Chevelle”. We lost.

[FarmerFran]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

That and the idea that for such specific and platform-controlled applications, battery swapping would be the most likely approach. Pit crews will love it. So 12 battery packs lined up instead of 12 cars.

Wasn't there already a company working on this some years ago in CA swapping batteries out of Nissan Leaf?

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Wasn't there already a company working on this some years ago in CA swapping batteries out of Nissan Leaf?

There were a few companies looking at this. Probably the best known is Better Place, out of Israel. They were working with either Renault or PSA, I forget which, to do this. They are now bankrupt. Tesla also worked on this for a hot minute. When the federal government dropped funding of research and the application of credits for this, Tesla dropped the concept.

From what I’ve studied in this area, having an efficient battery swapping approach would require multiple automakers agreeing on a certain level of common connect points as well as battery size and location. Ain’t happening. Each automaker has way to many engineering and design element inputs that they have to manage to be handcuffed by “battery must connect in this location in that manner to facilitate swapping”. But, in NASCAR, where all the cars are fairly close in design in terms of chassis and suspension, you can do this and it’s probably the best approach.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

That and the idea that for such specific and platform-controlled applications, battery swapping would be the most likely approach. Pit crews will love it. So 12 battery packs lined up instead of 12 cars.

Originally Posted by FarmerFran

Wasn't there already a company working on this some years ago in CA swapping batteries out of Nissan Leaf?

I'd be interested to see how similar and different the mounting options (and techniques to change) would be between passenger vehicles and race cars.

The easiest way to implement would probably be through a sister-series/support race (while everyone is already there to gauge/generate interest). It'd be too difficult to outright break the decades of momentum the 358 ci V8s have had.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by kevint

I'd be interested to see how similar and different the mounting options (and techniques to change) would be between passenger vehicles and race cars.

The easiest way to implement would probably be through a sister-series/support race (while everyone is already there). It'd be too difficult to outright break the decades of momentum the 358 ci V8s have had.

It’s less a consideration of difference between passenger cars and race cars and more a consideration of how much difference there is from one passenger car to the next passenger car compared to how much difference between one race car to the next race car.

Chevrolet will be different from Tesla will be different from Mercedes will be different from Honda. Those differences will be in how the pack is installed in the vehicle, what the battery chemistries are, how the battery cooling systems are integrated, etc. Even whether the battery pack is assembled as modules, pouches, or cells. None of those companies will accept settling on a standard that they themselves don’t have a heavy hand in defining and they all have different approaches today.

NASCAR can mandate that battery packs will be installed in a specific location using specific standards. Just as they currently control chassis specifications, engine displacement and boosting specifications, fuel tank size and location, etc. That sets up well for making battery swapping a pit crew operation, just like wheel swaps are a pit crew operation.

[kevint]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

There were a few companies looking at this. Probably the best known is Better Place, out of Israel. They were working with either Renault or PSA, I forget which, to do this. They are now bankrupt. Tesla also worked on this for a hot minute. When the federal government dropped funding of research and the application of credits for this, Tesla dropped the concept.

From what I’ve studied in this area, having an efficient battery swapping approach would require multiple automakers agreeing on a certain level of common connect points as well as battery size and location. Ain’t happening. Each automaker has way to many engineering and design element inputs that they have to manage to be handcuffed by “battery must connect in this location in that manner to facilitate swapping”. But, in NASCAR, where all the cars are fairly close in design in terms of chassis and suspension, you can do this and it’s probably the best approach.

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

It’s less a consideration of difference between passenger cars and race cars and more a consideration of how much difference there is from one passenger car to the next passenger car compared to how much difference between one race car to the next race car.

Chevrolet will be different from Tesla will be different from Mercedes will be different from Honda. Those differences will be in how the pack is installed in the vehicle, what the battery chemistries are, how the battery cooling systems are integrated, etc. Even whether the battery pack is assembled as modules, pouches, or cells. None of those companies will accept settling on a standard that they themselves don’t have a heavy hand in defining and they all have different approaches today.

NASCAR can mandate that battery packs will be installed in a specific location using specific standards. Just as they currently control chassis specifications, engine displacement and boosting specifications, fuel tank size and location, etc. That sets up well for making battery swapping a pit crew operation, just like wheel swaps are a pit crew operation.

re passenger cars: I agree. I was writing my original comments while you posted yours, and didn't see it.

[genxer]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeROC

It really makes zero sense. No Karen is buying a Mach E bc it has a Mustang nameplate. They just want an EV version of a Honda CR-V. I think Ford could sell more if they called it the CR-EV.

Spot on. It means they're laying the foundation for sun-setting the authentic Mustang. And caving to Puritan emporers with no clothes.

Ford and GM are chosing not to stretch the muscle car parts bin to grow or sustain it. The analogy for expanding a model is what Subaru did 20 years ago, with basically WRX Foresters added to Imprezas, from a company with one parts bin. They then proceeded to make the mistake of catering to old Karens.

With what was recently available - (Really you'd go with a Camaro & SS combo, if you can swing it)? The proper supplement to one's Mustang is a a WRX.

R.I.P. Norm Peterson.

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

Spot on. It means they're laying the foundation for sun-setting the authentic Mustang. And caving to Puritan emporers with no clothes.

Ford and GM are chosing not to stretch the muscle car parts bin to grow or sustain it. The analogy for expanding a model is what Subaru did 20 years ago, with basically WRX Foresters added to Imprezas, from a company with one parts bin. They then proceeded to make the mistake of catering to old Karens.

With what was recently available - (Really you'd go with a Camaro & SS combo, if you can swing it)? The proper supplement to one's Mustang is a a WRX.

R.I.P. Norm Peterson.

Wait? What?!?

[genxer]

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=607431

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by genxer

https://www.camaro6.com/forums/showthread.php?t=607431

So sad to hear this. Thanks for tipping me off. One of my favorite “discussion partners” since my first day here as well as Mustang6.

[lbls1]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I can give you the “MBA” response to this. The cost to launch a new brand is ridiculously more expensive than increasing awareness of an existing brand, so unless a brand is damaged beyond repair (Aztek), it is typically more cost effective to revive or in some cases reposition an existing and known brand name (Charger) than start all over with a new one. We’re talking magnitudes of ten. This is essential to the Ford strategy behind making Mustang, Bronco, and F150 umbrella brands. It’s easier to get traction with “F150 Lightning” than just “Lightning”. Same with “Mustang Mach E” instead of just “Mach E”. Mustang Mach E communicates that it is supposed to be sporty, not that it will look and feel like a Mustang coupe. They are expanding the use of known and well respected brands. GM overused this in the 80s and 90s when they slapped Cutlass on damn near anything with rubber tires.

There was a lot of lobbying in the Planning community at GM to call the performance sedan “Chevelle”. We lost.

Ok aside from the cost; I can see that a new, clean sheet product would cost considerably more to launch. Why doesn't GM see the long range aspect of a new nameplate. Many of the revived nameplates we've seen have had a relatively short life. If that shortened life of a product didn't prove to be profitable, then GM may have lost out on some of its investment. Choosing a new product and a new name that catches on in the market will only mean profit and good things for GM. I'm sure the resurrected "Impala" made some money for Chevy, but in the end it left the market as a tired and obscured product.

Chevy needs to have at least a couple of products that sparks imagination to its customers, and not just nostalgia. Nostalgia is nice, but at the same time the market has changed, and products will need to reflect this. Well at least that's what I think.............

[Martinjlm]

Originally Posted by lbls1

Ok aside from the cost; I can see that a new, clean sheet product would cost considerably more to launch. Why doesn't GM see the long range aspect of a new nameplate. Many of the revived nameplates we've seen have had a relatively short life. If that shortened life of a product didn't prove to be profitable, then GM may have lost out on some of its investment. Choosing a new product and a new name that catches on in the market will only mean profit and good things for GM. I'm sure the resurrected "Impala" made some money for Chevy, but in the end it left the market as a tired and obscured product.

Chevy needs to have at least a couple of products that sparks imagination to its customers, and not just nostalgia. Nostalgia is nice, but at the same time the market has changed, and products will need to reflect this. Well at least that's what I think.............

Two scenarios…Chevy and Cadillac.

Once upon a time Cadillac had names. DeVille, Eldorado, Fleetwood. No guessing about what they were. Then one day Cadillac says “ we’re gonna do like some European lux brands and go with just letters. And they’ll be by vehicle size. ATS, CTS, DTS, STS, SRX.”

Lots of money spent launching those names. Then, ”wait…the REAL lux brands use alpha-numeric. Like S550 and A5. So let’s go CT4, CT5, CT6.” More money spent educating the public on what they are.

“Ok, now let’s toss an arbitrary number on the butt that we’ll have to explain to people (relative, but not real measure of torque…huh?). “So we have XT5 400T. And when we launch the electrics, let’s go back to names. Made up names like Lyriq and Celestiq.” I won’t even go down the path of explaining how V-Sport became V-Series while V-Series became V-Series Blackwing with the Blackwing engine…oh…wait…that’s NOT the Blackwing engine?

Chevy says “we’re gonna call the medium sized one Blazer and the little one Trailblazer. Some people are gonna kvetch that they’re not like the old Blazer and Trailblazer. They’ll get over it”.

I think everyone can quickly figure out what a Blazer RS is. I think most people will be really confused about what a CT5 V-Series or 350T is. And I bet more money was spent on defining CT5 V-Series (non-Blackwing) versus a CT5 350T.

Easier to use the old name that people have an idea what it is, even if you redefine it, because people will quickly get it.

[shaffe]

You just reminded me of how much I despise Cadillac's naming scheme