Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)

[Jeff N]

Yes car survives occupents die

Although not in this accident....

 

[bro1999]

Yeah, I'll prioritize reducing forces on my kids, than the cosmetic state of the vehicle...

I will refrain from posting an obvious detailed response that would bring up an incident reported in the news recently, but you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Chickenlittle]

Although not in this accident....

Was referring to idea that bolt with firm upfront structure would do better than tesla

 

[wdolson]

The thread turned to crash rating discussions and how the S and X (and 3) are better designed to absorb crashes than the Bolt, since the Bolt's front end is packed tight. So I figured it was relevant, as you have a GM product suffer minimal damage relative to the Tesla that was obliterated. *shrug*

The Denali is essentially a truck. It's built on a truck chassis and the front end is pretty much the same as a 1/2 ton GMC/Chevy truck. The frame probably absorbed a fair bit of the impact and if the frame is bent, the insurance company will probably total it.

If the accident had been between a Model X and a large mini-van or other SUV/CUV built on a car platform, the front end damage would have likely been more severe.

In any case, circling back to the original point, I do think Teslas will be more survivable in a crash than a Bolt. A lot can and has been done to make smaller vehicles safer in accidents, but there are a lot of accidents where having a larger vehicle is just plain safer.

 

[wdolson]

Was referring to idea that bolt with firm upfront structure would do better than tesla

But Tesla has both. There is the frunk area which is empty space and will crush easily, but between the frunk and the firewall is the equivalent of all that gear visible in the Bolt, it's just covered up. All that gear will absorb the impact once the frunk has been crushed. The firewall in the Tesla, like most cars today, is also angled to drive the impact under the passenger compartment to further protect the occupants.

I haven't seen the Model X under the cover, but the Model S under the cover has a big steel cross piece across the top that also absorbs impacts and directs the force downward rather than over and through the windshield. I would bet the Model X is built the same way in there.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The thread turned to crash rating discussions and how the S and X (and 3) are better designed to absorb crashes than the Bolt, since the Bolt's front end is packed tight. So I figured it was relevant, as you have a GM product suffer minimal damage relative to the Tesla that was obliterated. *shrug*

Doesn't have much relevance given the different types of vehicles in involved (a Yukon Denali has a completely different crash structure from a Bolt) and the non-symmetrical crash. This isn't a head-on or offset head-on crash where you get a rough idea of the relative performance of the vehicles in the same crash. The best examples of this issue are the rear end crashes I have seen recently. When the Model S crashed into a car in the front, the rear bumper of the car in front was barely damaged, but the S was damaged a lot. However, when the scenario was flipped the other car's front was heavily damaged, but the S's rare bumper was barely.

Also, others pointed out that the visual deformation in the crumple zone has little to do with how well the crash was absorbed. Injuries to the passengers are a better indication.

 

[ZsoZso]

Also, others pointed out that the visual deformation in the crumple zone has little to do with how well the crash was absorbed. Injuries to the passengers are a better indication.

Exactly! So let' see what the Doctor who drove the X said about the injuries:
‘I want my family back in a Tesla’ says father after surviving severe crash in a Model X

Orthopaedic surgeon Jonathan Braman has spent a lot of time working on patients injured in violent car accidents.
...
He was particularly surprised by the efficient deployment of the airbags in the Model X. He says it covered the entire passenger compartment including the full panoramic windshield, which runs all the way over the driver and front passenger. Braman says that his only injury is actually from the impact of the airbag on his hand. He had it x-rayed at the hospital and while it is bruised, nothing is broken. Fortunately, same goes for everyone else in the car, including his father who was sitting in the front passenger seat – only inches from the impact point.

Branman says that despite the severity of the impact, the Model X barely moved since the truck just ripped through the “frunk” of the Model X.

Additionally, Braman believes that if he was in any other car, the vehicle would have likely rolled over from the impact. The Yukon stands higher than the Model X and weighs about the same – roughly 5,450 pounds.
...
“Thank you Tesla Team for our lives and our safety,” he wrote

 

[hiroshiy]

CCS currently deployed should be compared against Tesla's destination charging network. They're not suitable to support long distance driving by charge rate, number of plugs, and the dispersal of locations.

Destination Charging | Tesla

Until the CCS standard is officially revised and revised products are being installed, it isn't a SAE L3 charging network. Once that happens, then the CCS network can be counted versus Superchargers, if they are deploying full 350A EVSE's.

Setting aside the number if units in one location and reliability, I think CCS should be compared as L3 charging network. In fact if the CCS has 50kW that's relatively adequate for long distance travel. It charges 140 miles of range in one hour.

0-140 miles 47.5-187.5 miles
CCS 50kW 60 minutes 60+ minutes
Tesla SC. 30 minutes 39 minutes

 

[techmaven]

Setting aside the number if units in one location and reliability, I think CCS should be compared as L3 charging network. In fact if the CCS has 50kW that's relatively adequate for long distance travel. It charges 140 miles of range in one hour.

0-140 miles 47.5-187.5 miles
CCS 50kW 60 minutes 60+ minutes
Tesla SC. 30 minutes 39 minutes

I disagree due to the cadence. A Model S is barely acceptable at 2-3 hours of driving, 30-40 minutes of charging. It's not that you can't drive long distances, but no 50 kW charge network is really designed to handle driving 750-1000 miles a day. And as a result, those charging networks are not built out to handle long distance travel. Start calculating the station spacing necessary... it really doesn't make sense. There is a minimal threshold to be considered a long distance travel network, and 90 kW is about that absolute minimum. Most of the driving public would not agree with that level... even at the current 105-120 kW, we're at the borderline with much of the public.

 

[WarpedOne]

and 90 kW is about that absolute minimum.

Interesting ... 90kW is the lower limit of L3 DC charging.

 

[McRat]

I disagree due to the cadence. A Model S is barely acceptable at 2-3 hours of driving, 30-40 minutes of charging. It's not that you can't drive long distances, but no 50 kW charge network is really designed to handle driving 750-1000 miles a day. And as a result, those charging networks are not built out to handle long distance travel. Start calculating the station spacing necessary... it really doesn't make sense. There is a minimal threshold to be considered a long distance travel network, and 90 kW is about that absolute minimum. Most of the driving public would not agree with that level... even at the current 105-120 kW, we're at the borderline with much of the public.

To get brutally honest, for interstate travel in the <$100k range, something with night vision, tracking headlights, bird's-eye view, lanekeep+ACC (Autopilot), power front and rear seats (heated and cooled with massage), built in WiFi, Carplay, Android Auto, and capable of going anywhere in North America using AWD and all wheel steering, seems like a superior choice to any EV sold today.

I think they are $83k, and have excellent reviews. The range extender EV model has not been released yet though, just the high efficiency gas models.

For a sub $40k EV, the Bolt will have the longest range this year, nearly double the next contender. It's not a luxury grand touring machine, but then again, neither are any EVs yet.

 

[Jeff N]

Interesting ... 90kW is the lower limit of L3 DC charging.

That's a draft document. The final specification supports up to 500V and 100 kW but it hardly matters because I doubt any CCS cars charge at over 450V today.

Also, most CCS chargers today are based on hardware originally designed for CHAdeMO and so they are limited to that standard's 125A even though CCS allows up to 200A.

Nobody has bothered to sell or install 200A CCS stations until now because there were no cars available that could really take advantage of faster rates.

That is changing now that the Bolt EV is about to become available and other cars with at least as much batter capacity are scheduled to come out within the next couple of years. GM hasn't released the final charging rate specs for the Bolt yet but I expect that it will be able to draw more than 125A.

 

[diamond.g]

That's a draft document. The final specification supports up to 500V and 100 kW but it hardly matters because I doubt any CCS cars charge at over 450V today.

Also, most CCS chargers today are based on hardware originally designed for CHAdeMO and so they are limited to that standard's 125A even though CCS allows up to 200A.

Nobody has bothered to sell or install 200A CCS stations until now because there were no cars available that could really take advantage of faster rates.

That is changing now that the Bolt EV is about to become available and other cars with at least as much batter capacity are scheduled to come out within the next couple of years. GM hasn't released the final charging rate specs for the Bolt yet but I expect that it will be able to draw more than 125A.

Wonder why no one is counting Tesla when they say the bolded part.

 

[Saghost]

Wonder why no one is counting Tesla when they say the bolded part.

Until a CCS adapter comes out, it remains true for us as well. There have been rumors, but no timeline I'm aware of.

 

[stopcrazypp]

To get brutally honest, for interstate travel in the <$100k range, something with night vision, tracking headlights, bird's-eye view, lanekeep+ACC (Autopilot), power front and rear seats (heated and cooled with massage), built in WiFi, Carplay, Android Auto, and capable of going anywhere in North America using AWD and all wheel steering, seems like a superior choice to any EV sold today.

I think they are $83k, and have excellent reviews. The range extender EV model has not been released yet though, just the high efficiency gas models.

For a sub $40k EV, the Bolt will have the longest range this year, nearly double the next contender. It's not a luxury grand touring machine, but then again, neither are any EVs yet.

I think he is talking about looking beyond the EV enthusiast market (which would support about 30k annual volume per vehicle). The Leaf is more than 5 years old, and it's about time to move beyond that level of volume to the next level of mass acceptance.

While EV fans find something like 50kW acceptable for long distance travel (and some have done this, for example on the West Coast Electric highway), once you reach out of that market, it is really considered quite slow and even 90kW is borderline. And it's not like going beyond is not possible: Tesla is doing so and also there are CHAdeMO / CCS chargers available that can do 120kW per connector (even if they don't install such a charger, they should install conduit to support it).
Opens 120 kW EV charger to the public | Arctic Roads

 

[McRat]

... handle driving 750-1000 miles a day. ....

I'm one of those folk who has driven 1000 miles in a day, many times. As of 8/29/16, those routes are not covered by any DC fast charging of any kind. A typical 1000 mile trip takes two drivers, and lasts 20 hours. Yes, that is only 50mph average. But eating, restrooms, construction, slower speed limits, nighttime deer strikes, congestion, etc, all chew into your schedule.

There are not a lot of gas cars that will handle those trips when the drivers are not masochists.

Tip of the day - A 1000 mile trip is cheaper by airliner unless your time is worthless. If it's for entertainment, you really want an RV with a restroom, kitchen, fridge, and comfy bed.

 

[Zoomit]

And as a result, those charging networks are not built out to handle long distance travel. Start calculating the station spacing necessary... it really doesn't make sense. There is a minimal threshold to be considered a long distance travel network, and 90 kW is about that absolute minimum. Most of the driving public would not agree with that level... even at the current 105-120 kW, we're at the borderline with much of the public.

That's a draft document. The final specification supports up to 500V and 100 kW but it hardly matters because I doubt any CCS cars charge at over 450V today.

Also, most CCS chargers today are based on hardware originally designed for CHAdeMO and so they are limited to that standard's 125A even though CCS allows up to 200A.

Nobody has bothered to sell or install 200A CCS stations until now because there were no cars available that could really take advantage of faster rates.

That is changing now that the Bolt EV is about to become available and other cars with at least as much batter capacity are scheduled to come out within the next couple of years. GM hasn't released the final charging rate specs for the Bolt yet but I expect that it will be able to draw more than 125A.

Even IF the Bolt EV can handle 200A, which would be great but I'd give it less than 50% odds, that's only 80kW at 400V. It still doesn't meet techmaven's threshold of 90kW.

Hence, even if 80kW CCS plugs were as pervasive as the current Supercharger network, which is nowhere close to happening, the Bolt EV would be a slow long-distance traveling machine.

 

[Saghost]

Even IF the Bolt EV can handle 200A, which would be great but I'd give it less than 50% odds, that's only 80kW at 400V. It still doesn't meet techmaven's threshold of 90kW.

Hence, even if 80kW CCS plugs were as pervasive as the current Supercharger network, which is nowhere close to happening, the Bolt EV would be a slow long-distance traveling machine.

Lots of ifs there.

However, remember all the discussion about the limitations of "A" packs that could only charge at 90 kW instead of the 110kW of "B" packs? Tesla put together an official statement about how A owners shouldn't be too concerned because the difference was only 4 minutes per stop at most...

Charge-off 90kW vs. 120kW

If GM can sustain 80 kW higher in the SoC range, the Bolt might actually be faster than a similar range Tesla for charges that extend up to near full capacity. If not, it'll likely be only a few minutes per stop slower than early Teslas.

Of course, that assumes that the Bolt can do 80 kW CCS, *and* that groups of 80 kW CCS stations are located to support the trips - neither of which is the case yet.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Lots of ifs there.

However, remember all the discussion about the limitations of "A" packs that could only charge at 90 kW instead of the 110kW of "B" packs? Tesla put together an official statement about how A owners shouldn't be too concerned because the difference was only 4 minutes per stop at most...

Charge-off 90kW vs. 120kW

If GM can sustain 80 kW higher in the SoC range, the Bolt might actually be faster than a similar range Tesla for charges that extend up to near full capacity. If not, it'll likely be only a few minutes per stop slower than early Teslas.

Of course, that assumes that the Bolt can do 80 kW CCS, *and* that groups of 80 kW CCS stations are located to support the trips - neither of which is the case yet.

The 5 minutes is only true if you consider only the 20-90%. It is 6.5 minutes for 10-90% (26 miles to 223 miles rated). The range gap however is roughly 15 miles for most of the session (esp if you end near the middle). If you have a longer stop anyways (like more than 30 minutes) it won't be too bad, but if you are only doing a 20 minute stop then it'll feel significantly longer.

Of course 80kW and 50kW will be further slower. 80kW is still significantly better than 50kW (and won't really significantly increase costs), so GM would be really dumb to cripple the car like that.

 

[Saghost]

The 5 minutes is only true if you consider only the 20-90%. It is 6.5 minutes for 10-90% or about 26 miles to 223 miles rated. The range gap however is roughly 15 miles for most of the session (esp if you end near the middle). Of course 80kW and 50kW will be further slower. 80kW is still significantly better than 50kW (and won't really significantly increase costs), so GM would be really dumb to cripple the car like that.

And Tesla seems to have done something in either the newest firmware or more recent batteries to carry higher power levels further into the session. I wasn't saying the Bolt on release will be as good a road trip car as a modern Tesla is.

My point was just that if the multiple preconditions Zoomit offered came true, the Bolt wouldn't be much worse than an early S60 was for a road trip - credible if not great.

I haven't seen an evidence of 80 kW CCS chargers anywhere, let alone in a rid where you'd want to travel, but I guess it could happen.