Taking a logical stab at this electrical issue...
03-15-2019, 04:26 PM
#21
Melting Slicks
Every system schematic I've seen of a car with a 48v system, there are two batteries (or more), but the 12v side is always called out as "separate". The only thing in common I've seen is a DC/DC inverter since there is only one alternator.
03-15-2019, 05:21 PM
#22
Tech Contributor
Member Since: Oct 1999
Location: Charlotte, NC (formerly Endicott, NY)
Posts: 40,089
Received 8,928 Likes
on
5,333 Posts
This all supposes the problem seen at the gas station had anything to do with the electrical system issues described in the Hagerty article. The Hagerty article didn't mention power systems at all it talked about a new network architecture the C8 along with several other models are supposed to use. Battery and network issues can both be electrical in nature but require different solutions and different skill sets to resolve.
Quote from Hagerty: "First, all GM products are shifting to a new electrical architecture—the means by which 100 or more computer modules per vehicle communicate on what’s called a CAN (computer area network) bus. Engineers are having difficulty working the bugs out of the new Global B party line serving Corvette and several other new models."
From what I can see in that statement they are having both electrical and software interface issues. The hardware has to work as the design documents say it should and the software has to use the hardware as the design documents state. In initial lab tests everything may work fine but install the system in a vehicle with lots of modules and operating in a real world non constrained data environment and things may get jammed up when rare and unexpected operating scenarios happen. When you get those kinds of clashes sometimes you need to change both the hardware and the software. The larger the scope of the operating environment and the more real world unconstrained data that flows into the system during testing the more likely a new design will have issues. I used to be involved with main frame testing where a new computer system designed to a specific architecture was in development using software known to work that was known to work on other hardware designed to that architecture. It took years of random testing across multiple test stations of randomly exercising the hardware using every possible sequence of software instructions. Instruction 1 followed by Instruction 2 followed by Instruction 3 all worked but when the permissible sequence of Instruction 2 followed by Instruction 1 followed by Instruction 3 was tried the hardware failed. Take an architecture with lots of Instructions and combinations of those instructions and let thousands of programmers around the world use them in programs to solve real world problems and it takes a lot of random testing to ensure the system is ready for prime time. Still after years of testing we would get calls from the field on the first day of deliveries the system didn't work using Customer so and so's application that ran on our old system. Just think about what happens if you add the confusion of a new operating system into the design/development mix. Of course general purpose computer systems see almost an infinite operating environment so GM's engineers have a comparatively simple task due to a more well defined operating environment but the number of variables although less than infinity is still huge.
The problem at the gas station may have been nothing but a dead battery issue or a problem like I used to have on my C6 where I would pull into a gas station to refill and the car would be dead when I hit the start button, no solenoid click, no crank, nothing. If I waited 15 minutes then everything would be fine. It took the dealer a long time to figure out the problem since it only happened once in a while and I can't remember which part was replaced to fix the issue.
Bill
Quote from Hagerty: "First, all GM products are shifting to a new electrical architecture—the means by which 100 or more computer modules per vehicle communicate on what’s called a CAN (computer area network) bus. Engineers are having difficulty working the bugs out of the new Global B party line serving Corvette and several other new models."
From what I can see in that statement they are having both electrical and software interface issues. The hardware has to work as the design documents say it should and the software has to use the hardware as the design documents state. In initial lab tests everything may work fine but install the system in a vehicle with lots of modules and operating in a real world non constrained data environment and things may get jammed up when rare and unexpected operating scenarios happen. When you get those kinds of clashes sometimes you need to change both the hardware and the software. The larger the scope of the operating environment and the more real world unconstrained data that flows into the system during testing the more likely a new design will have issues. I used to be involved with main frame testing where a new computer system designed to a specific architecture was in development using software known to work that was known to work on other hardware designed to that architecture. It took years of random testing across multiple test stations of randomly exercising the hardware using every possible sequence of software instructions. Instruction 1 followed by Instruction 2 followed by Instruction 3 all worked but when the permissible sequence of Instruction 2 followed by Instruction 1 followed by Instruction 3 was tried the hardware failed. Take an architecture with lots of Instructions and combinations of those instructions and let thousands of programmers around the world use them in programs to solve real world problems and it takes a lot of random testing to ensure the system is ready for prime time. Still after years of testing we would get calls from the field on the first day of deliveries the system didn't work using Customer so and so's application that ran on our old system. Just think about what happens if you add the confusion of a new operating system into the design/development mix. Of course general purpose computer systems see almost an infinite operating environment so GM's engineers have a comparatively simple task due to a more well defined operating environment but the number of variables although less than infinity is still huge.
The problem at the gas station may have been nothing but a dead battery issue or a problem like I used to have on my C6 where I would pull into a gas station to refill and the car would be dead when I hit the start button, no solenoid click, no crank, nothing. If I waited 15 minutes then everything would be fine. It took the dealer a long time to figure out the problem since it only happened once in a while and I can't remember which part was replaced to fix the issue.
Bill
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (03-15-2019)
03-15-2019, 06:36 PM
#23
Instructor
Member Since: May 2009
Location: Alexandria Kentucky
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
8 Posts
Quote:Originally Posted by 84 4+3 
Is that why 737s are falling out of the sky? (Kidding of course) Oregonsharkmen: All kidding aside, it might be....It appears to be a flight system software function that overrides manual controls unless it is switched off.
Automation is your friend - until it isn't. Airbus tried to protect pilots from themselves and got into a flight regime at an air show whereby the airliner's pilots did something normally not done - something that had not been anticipated by the design engineers. The oversight made it impossible to accelerate and the pilots ended up chopping down trees as a result. Boeing appears at this time to maybe have been too clever by half with a system intended to prevent the pilot from getting too slow or maybe the 737 Max is longitudinally unstable and needs some pitch augmentation.
For years a stick shaker was good enough to warn of an impending stall but maybe the 737 Max has some unique characteristics. Piper aircraft corporation had a business class airplane (the Cheyenne II) that was longitudinally unstable and they had to add a stabilization system as a result.
What's this got to do with the C8?
Well, if the problem is the CAN bus, how much gee-whiz stuff is needed in an automobile? Are 90 modules required to enable the sale of an automobile that exceeds the skill and reaction time capabilities of a significant percentage of the customer base? Is the solution a very good one but it is exceeding the available electrical power budget? If so, I can just hear the lawyers saying: "You cannot sell a product that harms, maims or kills the customer base without providing reasonable and prudent protection to them. After all, we're GM. We aren't selling McClarens, so fix the problem."
Or -- has it been discovered that 90 modules worth of Gee Whiz do not work and play well with one another in certain, previously unanticipated, regimes?
You can't anticipate all the permutations inherent in an extremely complex system ahead of time. That's why you test and test and test. And even after you do all of that testing, you still find goof-ups after you release the product to the marketplace (but hopefully nothing that costs lives or costs lots of money to fix).
And finally, there's this: Non-engineers think that engineering is a precise and exacting profession. So do new engineers. But it only takes a year or so for an engineer to discover that engineering is a compromise. You have to get the best execution of a design for the least expenditure of money.
Often however, you find it necessary to "fine tune" the design to increase the MTBF or provide a more forgiving environment from what was originally proposed. Again, you test and test and test because if the cost goes up, the bean counters are going to demand bullet proof reasons for why the cost has to be increased.
We're on the outside looking in with the C8. All we see are a few of the ramifications (like - the reveal is late); but there are dozens of stakeholders involved, each protecting their turf. Somehow, it all gets sorted out but it often is neither pretty nor rapid.
Is that why 737s are falling out of the sky? (Kidding of course) Oregonsharkmen: All kidding aside, it might be....It appears to be a flight system software function that overrides manual controls unless it is switched off.Automation is your friend - until it isn't. Airbus tried to protect pilots from themselves and got into a flight regime at an air show whereby the airliner's pilots did something normally not done - something that had not been anticipated by the design engineers. The oversight made it impossible to accelerate and the pilots ended up chopping down trees as a result. Boeing appears at this time to maybe have been too clever by half with a system intended to prevent the pilot from getting too slow or maybe the 737 Max is longitudinally unstable and needs some pitch augmentation.
For years a stick shaker was good enough to warn of an impending stall but maybe the 737 Max has some unique characteristics. Piper aircraft corporation had a business class airplane (the Cheyenne II) that was longitudinally unstable and they had to add a stabilization system as a result.
What's this got to do with the C8?
Well, if the problem is the CAN bus, how much gee-whiz stuff is needed in an automobile? Are 90 modules required to enable the sale of an automobile that exceeds the skill and reaction time capabilities of a significant percentage of the customer base? Is the solution a very good one but it is exceeding the available electrical power budget? If so, I can just hear the lawyers saying: "You cannot sell a product that harms, maims or kills the customer base without providing reasonable and prudent protection to them. After all, we're GM. We aren't selling McClarens, so fix the problem."
Or -- has it been discovered that 90 modules worth of Gee Whiz do not work and play well with one another in certain, previously unanticipated, regimes?
You can't anticipate all the permutations inherent in an extremely complex system ahead of time. That's why you test and test and test. And even after you do all of that testing, you still find goof-ups after you release the product to the marketplace (but hopefully nothing that costs lives or costs lots of money to fix).
And finally, there's this: Non-engineers think that engineering is a precise and exacting profession. So do new engineers. But it only takes a year or so for an engineer to discover that engineering is a compromise. You have to get the best execution of a design for the least expenditure of money.
Often however, you find it necessary to "fine tune" the design to increase the MTBF or provide a more forgiving environment from what was originally proposed. Again, you test and test and test because if the cost goes up, the bean counters are going to demand bullet proof reasons for why the cost has to be increased.
We're on the outside looking in with the C8. All we see are a few of the ramifications (like - the reveal is late); but there are dozens of stakeholders involved, each protecting their turf. Somehow, it all gets sorted out but it often is neither pretty nor rapid.
Last edited by C4-90-41001; 03-15-2019 at 06:47 PM.
03-15-2019, 08:20 PM
#24
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
shoot this down if its wrong, but what im getting at is..
is it possible that the 48V system drains its battery at a faster pace than expected. Then, without the 48V system at top performance, the computers in the car go haywire as they already do with the c6 and c7 vettes when the batteries are low, not dead, but low, it can be check engine light city.
So once you say, okay, so what is the point? The point is, just because they get the jumper cables hooked up to the 12V system, the car still wont start and/or stay running because the 48V system is STILL LOW and causing the car to throw fits.
So while a jump box or jumper cables FIX the normal 12V cars and make their computers happy upon hookup.... unfortunately the 48V system does NOT become charged when 12V is hooked up.
So, while i may have made it overly simple in my first posts, or overlooked a step, I'm still NOT convinced that the 48V system draining the 48V battery below ideal levels, is NOT the culprit, that would then prevent a car from starting. So while a 48V jump box might seem like a joke...
keep in mind, it might be right on target, and necessary, to get one of these cars to start, when they are completely dead...
otherwise, understand, it would mean you are all implying that NONE of the 48V systems are NECESSARY for the car to be started... and be happy about it...
And I find that VERY hard to believe.
If the whole point of this new bus can network stuff is communication and encryption and security, im going to go out on a limb and say "vehicle ignition and vehicle theft" fall into those 48V categories.
So digest that for a bit, and then come back to the reality that IF THE COMBUSTION ENGINE IS NOT RUNNING spinning the alternator, both the 12V and 48V systems would be getting depleted during those moments... which brings us back to my original post, IF the car had a full EV mode in the city, then there would be unforeseen problems, especially if a user is low on fuel, and does things with their electrical EV mode that they know they "shouldn't do", but oh well, im out of gas, so ill roll the dice anyway.
I just find it ironic/coincidental that this always happens AT GAS STATIONS, and specifically AT GAS PUMPS.
If I'M a GM engineer, I'm going to try to find a place where i can stay hidden from the public, not a high traffic gas station, taking up a gas pump so everyone is honking at me, IF I KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE CAR...
THUS, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM BEFORE THE GAS PUMP... it leads me to believe, they pulled in the gas station TO THE GAS PUMP... FOR A REASON called OUT-OF-GASOLINE
, and then when they go to RESTART the car, they realize... the batteries are now too low for that to occur.... because its 48V BRAIN IS ANGRY AND GLITCHY
THE CAR DROVE IN THERE. You guys are ignoring the reality, that IF the GM engineer knew there was a problem BEFORE the gas station, they would MOST LIKELY just drive the car back to a hideout somewhere instead of make an a$$ out of themselves and the new C8... UNLESS THEY ARE OUT OF GAS AND CAN'T MAKE IT TO THE HIDEOUT BECAUSE THEY LACK GASOLINE.... or because they never anticipated a problem in the first place... they were only there to seek gasoline.
so when they are pulling in to get gas... it IS to get gas, nothing else. Follow me yet?
Meanwhile, those who want to argue that im OBVIOUSLY WRONG... must believe the engineers, who they think are very intelligent... "hey tadge, yeah, car had a problem, pulled into the gas station so everyone could take pictures and see.... yep... yep, Im blocking a gas pump as we speak... yep, i thought it was a stupid idea too..... yep, lots of camera phones...... yep.. I want to lose my job too.... yep, just giving you an update, thanks boss, see you back at the headquarters, im going to grab an uber and just leave this piece of $hit here... alright, talk soon!"
We haven't had a breakdown at wendys, we havent had a breakdown where they pull into a rest stop or a walmart parking lot where there is space, we havent even had a breakdown on the side of the road yet!!!... it occurs AT GAS PUMPS!!!.. not in front of the gas station to get a candy bar... AT THE GAS PUMP!!!.
(you should all apply for jobs as federal detectives, you guys are good at finding patterns I can tell)
You guys are ignoring that the car being out of gas before hand was part of the recipe to causing it to NOT start at the next try.
Are you following?
So the solution is they would have to have the 48V alternator ATTACHED to the EV's shaft AND the Combustion engine's belts. Otherwise when the combustion engine is off, 48V system is about to be angry soon...
and IF the car is out of gasoline while driving in EV mode, then the combustion engine cant be started EVEN IF THE CAR TRIES TO START THE ICE, IF IT THINKS THE 48V system is getting too low... because the ICE does not run without gasoline.
So the engineers could have written a program to turn on the ICE when the 48V battery gets too low, but the car cant turn on the ICE.
And what do engineers do?, they try to get their creations to fail now instead of later, so while driving in EV mode, the car orders the ICE to start back up, but it wont if you run it out of gas first. So if you are GM, you have to figure out WHERE in the 48V system is too low of voltage, and to make the car PULL OVER AND DIE, and it has to happen BEFORE the EV batteries are dead... so instead it has to happen before the 48V system is too low and would will be angry next start up.... so they are having to find that point (or i just explained to them what they should be doing to prevent this from happening, and cause the car to "run out of gas" as a normal car would, before the 48V system gets ran too low.)
And the GREAT news here is, the c8 does not have as bad of problems as we think... it just needs, a 48V jump box to be bought and kept in the car, if the user plans to run the car out of gas or run on EV more than they should, or the preventative program i just explained above which monitors the 48V system and shuts the car down before IT gets too low.
So this means the car could still release in short time, and Tadge will just have to explain to the public... "don't be an idiot, keep your ICE on, or you pay for tow trucks, because we arent, or you will put us out of business"
And last but not least... why cant they just drive back out on the EV motors? Because they ran those batteries down too on the way in, and even if they did not run them down, the car still wont come back alive to let the car drive on EV power, otherwise the engineers would have pulled the car around, out of the way, to the side of the building, instead of wait for a tow truck.
Now... with all that said... who wants to bet... that a 48V jump box IS NOT ACTUALLY THE SOLUTION?
is it possible that the 48V system drains its battery at a faster pace than expected. Then, without the 48V system at top performance, the computers in the car go haywire as they already do with the c6 and c7 vettes when the batteries are low, not dead, but low, it can be check engine light city.
So once you say, okay, so what is the point? The point is, just because they get the jumper cables hooked up to the 12V system, the car still wont start and/or stay running because the 48V system is STILL LOW and causing the car to throw fits.
So while a jump box or jumper cables FIX the normal 12V cars and make their computers happy upon hookup.... unfortunately the 48V system does NOT become charged when 12V is hooked up.
So, while i may have made it overly simple in my first posts, or overlooked a step, I'm still NOT convinced that the 48V system draining the 48V battery below ideal levels, is NOT the culprit, that would then prevent a car from starting. So while a 48V jump box might seem like a joke...
keep in mind, it might be right on target, and necessary, to get one of these cars to start, when they are completely dead...
otherwise, understand, it would mean you are all implying that NONE of the 48V systems are NECESSARY for the car to be started... and be happy about it...
And I find that VERY hard to believe.
If the whole point of this new bus can network stuff is communication and encryption and security, im going to go out on a limb and say "vehicle ignition and vehicle theft" fall into those 48V categories.
So digest that for a bit, and then come back to the reality that IF THE COMBUSTION ENGINE IS NOT RUNNING spinning the alternator, both the 12V and 48V systems would be getting depleted during those moments... which brings us back to my original post, IF the car had a full EV mode in the city, then there would be unforeseen problems, especially if a user is low on fuel, and does things with their electrical EV mode that they know they "shouldn't do", but oh well, im out of gas, so ill roll the dice anyway.
I just find it ironic/coincidental that this always happens AT GAS STATIONS, and specifically AT GAS PUMPS.
If I'M a GM engineer, I'm going to try to find a place where i can stay hidden from the public, not a high traffic gas station, taking up a gas pump so everyone is honking at me, IF I KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE CAR...
THUS, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY KNOW THERE IS A PROBLEM BEFORE THE GAS PUMP... it leads me to believe, they pulled in the gas station TO THE GAS PUMP... FOR A REASON called OUT-OF-GASOLINE
, and then when they go to RESTART the car, they realize... the batteries are now too low for that to occur.... because its 48V BRAIN IS ANGRY AND GLITCHYTHE CAR DROVE IN THERE. You guys are ignoring the reality, that IF the GM engineer knew there was a problem BEFORE the gas station, they would MOST LIKELY just drive the car back to a hideout somewhere instead of make an a$$ out of themselves and the new C8... UNLESS THEY ARE OUT OF GAS AND CAN'T MAKE IT TO THE HIDEOUT BECAUSE THEY LACK GASOLINE.... or because they never anticipated a problem in the first place... they were only there to seek gasoline.
so when they are pulling in to get gas... it IS to get gas, nothing else. Follow me yet?
Meanwhile, those who want to argue that im OBVIOUSLY WRONG... must believe the engineers, who they think are very intelligent... "hey tadge, yeah, car had a problem, pulled into the gas station so everyone could take pictures and see.... yep... yep, Im blocking a gas pump as we speak... yep, i thought it was a stupid idea too..... yep, lots of camera phones...... yep.. I want to lose my job too.... yep, just giving you an update, thanks boss, see you back at the headquarters, im going to grab an uber and just leave this piece of $hit here... alright, talk soon!"
We haven't had a breakdown at wendys, we havent had a breakdown where they pull into a rest stop or a walmart parking lot where there is space, we havent even had a breakdown on the side of the road yet!!!... it occurs AT GAS PUMPS!!!.. not in front of the gas station to get a candy bar... AT THE GAS PUMP!!!.
(you should all apply for jobs as federal detectives, you guys are good at finding patterns I can tell)
You guys are ignoring that the car being out of gas before hand was part of the recipe to causing it to NOT start at the next try.
Are you following?
So the solution is they would have to have the 48V alternator ATTACHED to the EV's shaft AND the Combustion engine's belts. Otherwise when the combustion engine is off, 48V system is about to be angry soon...
and IF the car is out of gasoline while driving in EV mode, then the combustion engine cant be started EVEN IF THE CAR TRIES TO START THE ICE, IF IT THINKS THE 48V system is getting too low... because the ICE does not run without gasoline.
So the engineers could have written a program to turn on the ICE when the 48V battery gets too low, but the car cant turn on the ICE.
And what do engineers do?, they try to get their creations to fail now instead of later, so while driving in EV mode, the car orders the ICE to start back up, but it wont if you run it out of gas first. So if you are GM, you have to figure out WHERE in the 48V system is too low of voltage, and to make the car PULL OVER AND DIE, and it has to happen BEFORE the EV batteries are dead... so instead it has to happen before the 48V system is too low and would will be angry next start up.... so they are having to find that point (or i just explained to them what they should be doing to prevent this from happening, and cause the car to "run out of gas" as a normal car would, before the 48V system gets ran too low.)
And the GREAT news here is, the c8 does not have as bad of problems as we think... it just needs, a 48V jump box to be bought and kept in the car, if the user plans to run the car out of gas or run on EV more than they should, or the preventative program i just explained above which monitors the 48V system and shuts the car down before IT gets too low.
So this means the car could still release in short time, and Tadge will just have to explain to the public... "don't be an idiot, keep your ICE on, or you pay for tow trucks, because we arent, or you will put us out of business"
And last but not least... why cant they just drive back out on the EV motors? Because they ran those batteries down too on the way in, and even if they did not run them down, the car still wont come back alive to let the car drive on EV power, otherwise the engineers would have pulled the car around, out of the way, to the side of the building, instead of wait for a tow truck.
Now... with all that said... who wants to bet... that a 48V jump box IS NOT ACTUALLY THE SOLUTION?
Last edited by Mikec7z; 03-16-2019 at 01:42 AM.
The following users liked this post:
GM5778 (03-21-2019)
03-15-2019, 09:23 PM
#25
Quote:Originally Posted by 84 4+3 Is that why 737s are falling out of the sky? (Kidding of course) Oregonsharkmen: All kidding aside, it might be....It appears to be a flight system software function that overrides manual controls unless it is switched off.
Automation is your friend - until it isn't. Airbus tried to protect pilots from themselves and got into a flight regime at an air show whereby the airliner's pilots did something normally not done - something that had not been anticipated by the design engineers. The oversight made it impossible to accelerate and the pilots ended up chopping down trees as a result. Boeing appears at this time to maybe have been too clever by half with a system intended to prevent the pilot from getting too slow or maybe the 737 Max is longitudinally unstable and needs some pitch augmentation.
For years a stick shaker was good enough to warn of an impending stall but maybe the 737 Max has some unique characteristics. Piper aircraft corporation had a business class airplane (the Cheyenne II) that was longitudinally unstable and they had to add a stabilization system as a result.
Is that why 737s are falling out of the sky? (Kidding of course) Oregonsharkmen: All kidding aside, it might be....It appears to be a flight system software function that overrides manual controls unless it is switched off.Automation is your friend - until it isn't. Airbus tried to protect pilots from themselves and got into a flight regime at an air show whereby the airliner's pilots did something normally not done - something that had not been anticipated by the design engineers. The oversight made it impossible to accelerate and the pilots ended up chopping down trees as a result. Boeing appears at this time to maybe have been too clever by half with a system intended to prevent the pilot from getting too slow or maybe the 737 Max is longitudinally unstable and needs some pitch augmentation.
For years a stick shaker was good enough to warn of an impending stall but maybe the 737 Max has some unique characteristics. Piper aircraft corporation had a business class airplane (the Cheyenne II) that was longitudinally unstable and they had to add a stabilization system as a result.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 03-15-2019 at 09:26 PM.
03-15-2019, 09:41 PM
#26
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
The problem at the gas station may have been nothing but a dead battery issue or a problem like I used to have on my C6 where I would pull into a gas station to refill and the car would be dead when I hit the start button, no solenoid click, no crank, nothing. If I waited 15 minutes then everything would be fine. It took the dealer a long time to figure out the problem since it only happened once in a while and I can't remember which part was replaced to fix the issue.
Bill
03-15-2019, 10:21 PM
#27
Le Mans Master
This was my speculation, there may be some communication going on on the bus and because the 48 side is below a certain threshold, the modules aren't agreeing with eachother. Simple programming crap, not so much major failures I'd guess.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (03-15-2019)
03-15-2019, 10:33 PM
#28
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
and the reason I say this is, if a gasoline car broke down, it would not break down at the gas pump, 2 out of 2 times. It would break down other places they would park... or GM could just leave the car running while putting fuel in (wont hurt anything, wives tale at this point)
So for the car to be shut off, and then not be willing to come back on, only at gas pumps... thats why i logically back into the EV scenario of running down the batteries first prior to the stop at the gas pump.
Most likely, chevy is out driving in real world, seeing how far they can drive the car on a single tank of fuel, and they are striving for bragging rights, and that last 30 miles on EV only, is what they are chasing, even after the gas tank is empty.
See what im saying?
Last edited by Mikec7z; 03-15-2019 at 10:35 PM.
03-15-2019, 11:02 PM
#29
Le Mans Master
Right, but im going to go out on a limb and say the 2 cars that broke down, were EV assisted cars, and they were running on EV to get to the gas station...
and the reason I say this is, if a gasoline car broke down, it would not break down at the gas pump, 2 out of 2 times. It would break down other places they would park... or GM could just leave the car running while putting fuel in (wont hurt anything, wives tale at this point)
So for the car to be shut off, and then not be willing to come back on, only at gas pumps... thats why i logically back into the EV scenario of running down the batteries first prior to the stop at the gas pump.
Most likely, chevy is out driving in real world, seeing how far they can drive the car on a single tank of fuel, and they are striving for bragging rights, and that last 30 miles on EV only, is what they are chasing, even after the gas tank is empty.
See what im saying?
and the reason I say this is, if a gasoline car broke down, it would not break down at the gas pump, 2 out of 2 times. It would break down other places they would park... or GM could just leave the car running while putting fuel in (wont hurt anything, wives tale at this point)
So for the car to be shut off, and then not be willing to come back on, only at gas pumps... thats why i logically back into the EV scenario of running down the batteries first prior to the stop at the gas pump.
Most likely, chevy is out driving in real world, seeing how far they can drive the car on a single tank of fuel, and they are striving for bragging rights, and that last 30 miles on EV only, is what they are chasing, even after the gas tank is empty.
See what im saying?
I leave the 67 running while fueling... the attendant doesn't like it but if it goes it goes lol. Back in the day it was a problem due to the inherent venting method used on the cars.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (03-15-2019)
03-15-2019, 11:10 PM
#30
Melting Slicks
I suspect the electrical issue is simply related to the new Global B CAN system as has been widely reported as the issue. Beyond that there is way too much Corvette Forum speculation. Hell, it could just be that the wiring harness was designed for round taillights, and we’ve see how that won’t work.
Last I checked, well the only one I ever saw really, the 48v system ran the accessories and there was a separate 12v system just for starting and a couple other small loads... it would be stupid to say the least that one would use the hybrid battery to also start the engine and anyone with half a brain cell would see that while doing a lay out. The problem they are having right now is in my expert opinion (if it is even real) a module communication issue related to the can bus. Just my speculation though.
03-15-2019, 11:15 PM
#31
Melting Slicks
I'd simply think that a broken down C8 at a gas station attracts far more attention and offers a better way to take pics than one on a random country road in Milford that few drive down. If it is near Milford anyhow, I'd honestly be surprised if it were fueling up at a gas station instead of the proving grounds, which likely has its own fueling station
Last edited by jefnvk; 03-15-2019 at 11:17 PM.
03-15-2019, 11:25 PM
#32
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
yes they do.
Why do you think cars are shutting off when you come to a stop?
Its to make the govt/epa happy. If it was not graded, then they would not do it.
If i can get my car to travel 30 miles while ICE being off, i promise, GM has enough pull in the USA govt that if it is NOT graded that way today, it WILL be graded that way tomorrow. Fine the imports and reward the domestic, is not a difficult request for GM to make. This all cruxes on GM being ahead of the imports of course so that the fines are in our favor.
We cheat and stack the deck in our favor, anytime we can, make no mistake.
Theres a reason we fined VW billions, and we did nothing to our own manufacturers who were also cheating, but it was swept under the rug and forgotten. Global economics and taking money from the other team, is also at play.
Why do you think cars are shutting off when you come to a stop?
Its to make the govt/epa happy. If it was not graded, then they would not do it.
If i can get my car to travel 30 miles while ICE being off, i promise, GM has enough pull in the USA govt that if it is NOT graded that way today, it WILL be graded that way tomorrow. Fine the imports and reward the domestic, is not a difficult request for GM to make. This all cruxes on GM being ahead of the imports of course so that the fines are in our favor.
We cheat and stack the deck in our favor, anytime we can, make no mistake.
Theres a reason we fined VW billions, and we did nothing to our own manufacturers who were also cheating, but it was swept under the rug and forgotten. Global economics and taking money from the other team, is also at play.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 03-16-2019 at 01:13 AM.
03-15-2019, 11:29 PM
#33
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
as far as your comment about C8 breaking down other places, and the gas pump not being the key to the puzzle, i disagree. They would be photographed on the side of the road, or whatever lot they stop in to grab lunch where they get stuck.
In fact, you wouldnt be able to get one to a gas pump... odds of you accomplishing that would be less than 1%, if it is a problem that can strike anytime.
The car being out of gas moments prior, was part of the puzzle. But im done arguing with you, and time will tell who is correct.
In fact, you wouldnt be able to get one to a gas pump... odds of you accomplishing that would be less than 1%, if it is a problem that can strike anytime.
The car being out of gas moments prior, was part of the puzzle. But im done arguing with you, and time will tell who is correct.
03-16-2019, 12:24 AM
#34
Melting Slicks
No, they don't. Testing is done in a strictly controlled environment, to very precise tests on a roller bench. It is not done by just driving around in public trying to run out of gas to get the best numbers. Manufacturers report the results of those tests to teh EPA, then the EPA spot checks them at its will. A description of the procedure: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
Last edited by jefnvk; 03-16-2019 at 12:24 AM.
03-16-2019, 12:45 AM
#35
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
so help me understand what your points are...
1. do you think there is zero reward for a manufacturer whos cars shut off at red stoplights for 2 min at a time?
2. do you think that prior to the manufacturer sending the report to the EPA and/or the epa doing their own Independent tests, that the manufacturer has to test the car first, in general, and make sure it does not "break down" during the necessary test that the manufacturer has in mind?
Because my answers to the 2 questions above are "no, there is reward" and "yes, manufacturers test their cars to make sure they dont break down in preparation for their MPG tests", so if you can agree they are both answered in this fashion also, then im not sure where I lost you in my above posts.
1. do you think there is zero reward for a manufacturer whos cars shut off at red stoplights for 2 min at a time?
2. do you think that prior to the manufacturer sending the report to the EPA and/or the epa doing their own Independent tests, that the manufacturer has to test the car first, in general, and make sure it does not "break down" during the necessary test that the manufacturer has in mind?
Because my answers to the 2 questions above are "no, there is reward" and "yes, manufacturers test their cars to make sure they dont break down in preparation for their MPG tests", so if you can agree they are both answered in this fashion also, then im not sure where I lost you in my above posts.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 03-16-2019 at 12:48 AM.
03-16-2019, 12:54 AM
#36
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
in addition, is there not a statistic on cars that say how far they can travel on a tank of fuel/single charge? And do they not brag about this statistic constantly? If GM could have the FARTHEST range sportscar on the planet on a single fill-up/charge, don't you think that is an important title to have?
Last edited by Mikec7z; 03-16-2019 at 12:56 AM.
03-16-2019, 02:09 AM
#37
Le Mans Master
Keep in mind that the C8's travel in groups and with support vehicles most of the times. The engineers testing these cars could connect 4 battery boxes (jumper boxes) to get 48V very easily. They could jump start a car if that was the problem.
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (03-16-2019)
03-16-2019, 02:12 AM
#38
Melting Slicks
Thread Starter
the ones that died at gas stations were alone to the best of my observations.
And IF they were trying to break distance records on a single tank of fuel and EV charge, then it would not make sense to travel in a pack... it would be a solo mission as the other cars would be dropping off and not able to keep up as they run out of gas.
I know this seems wrong, but the people driving the 2 gas station car breakdown cars did not strike me as the kind of engineers that can solve jumping the car by hooking up a series of batteries
my gut says they are more the survey kind of specialist... they drive around and document and observe things about the car, and document things like gas mileage or trying different scenarios to test known weaknesses glitches, to see if those weaknesses have been solved.
When the cars drive in groups, i believe they are comparing one car to the other, and they have different configurations behind the scenes, engines, tunes, transmissions, anything they want to test. Then they go back and look at the data between the different cars, and determine which options they like best for production.
But now i see your point, in groups, you are saying they could be jumping them, and only when they are solo, do we get to see the dead battery problems.
And IF they were trying to break distance records on a single tank of fuel and EV charge, then it would not make sense to travel in a pack... it would be a solo mission as the other cars would be dropping off and not able to keep up as they run out of gas.
I know this seems wrong, but the people driving the 2 gas station car breakdown cars did not strike me as the kind of engineers that can solve jumping the car by hooking up a series of batteries
my gut says they are more the survey kind of specialist... they drive around and document and observe things about the car, and document things like gas mileage or trying different scenarios to test known weaknesses glitches, to see if those weaknesses have been solved.
When the cars drive in groups, i believe they are comparing one car to the other, and they have different configurations behind the scenes, engines, tunes, transmissions, anything they want to test. Then they go back and look at the data between the different cars, and determine which options they like best for production.
But now i see your point, in groups, you are saying they could be jumping them, and only when they are solo, do we get to see the dead battery problems.
Last edited by Mikec7z; 03-21-2019 at 03:23 AM.
03-16-2019, 04:45 AM
#39
Le Mans Master
Speaking of phones, will our current electronics, phones, radar detectors, ipods, work in these cars?
The following users liked this post:
Mikec7z (03-16-2019)
