That's disingenuous. Comparing L2 to chademo is dumb, because every car that has chademo ALSO has L2. The argument has always been about the number of CCS stations (doesn't have to be exclusive, just needs to have the plug) along with misrepresenting the stations on Chevy's map.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Chevy Bolt - 200 mile range for $30k base price (after incentive)
- Thread starter FredTMC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bolt chevy Electric Vehicles review
That's disingenuous. Comparing L2 to chademo is dumb, because every car that has chademo ALSO has L2. The argument has always been about the number of CCS stations (doesn't have to be exclusive, just needs to have the plug) along with misrepresenting the stations on Chevy's map.
Large number of L2 isn't the issue (every electric car can use J1772), and it doesn't excuse the fact that Chevy's site includes DC Charging listings for CHAdeMO only locations, which the Bolt cannot use. They will need to filter those out before they start selling the car, or it will lead to some unhappy owners showing up and not being able to charge.
Breezy
Member
Yes, the chevyevlife.com locator isn't correctly filtering out CHAdeMO-only stations. They should fix that.
Unlikely, but it could mean the Bolt CBT option means it comes with a CHAdeMO adapter. I think there is another car company that does that...
diamond.g
Active Member
The one Tesla to J1772 adapter I keep seeing ads for doesn't work with D.C. Fast charging from what they are saying. So it would be an interesting test to see if you could get the CCS fast charging to work.
Right now there is no CHAdeMO adapter for CCS capable cars. There is some complexity because the CHAdeMO (and Supercharger) have D.C. Control while CCS in NA has a J1772 base with extra pins, and has AC network communications. There can be such an adapter but it will be complex. If I were to guess I'd guess GM will figure out how important that will be soon, and probably will sell an adapter.
Of course that depends on GM understanding how important charging flexibility will be for the Bolt when Mary Barra has repeatedly wanted out of the question. The ChargePoint deal does not solve the CHAdeMO question because ChargePoint is 100% committed to CCS.
Slightly OT, Tesla will probably have a CCS adapter available by the time Model 3 Is released because Tesla too is a member of CharIN.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Putting aside the complexity of that (Tesla uses CAN so is not the same situation as CCS using PLC and adapting to CHAdeMO), I doubt that will happen simply because of GM hubris and them trying to push CCS as the defacto standard in the future. GM actually lobbied for all future publicly funded chargers in CA to only have CCS and not have CHAdeMO (but failed). No way they will make an adapter, which would encourage extending the life of CHAdeMO as a standard and would likely mean them having to join the CHAdeMO association.
Yes, I doubt it also.
It has nothing to do with alien autopsies and everything to do with GM normally clinging to Society of Automotive Engineers when it comes to interface components.
But making an adapter that can listen to CANbus then embed it into the power lines, and reverse it for backtalk would not be impossible. Car side would have deal with any unsupported features by first listening to see if the adapter exists.
GM can't afford to make a great EV a large number of people want. As I found when researching cars, if a company sets out to make a pure EV taking full advantage of the technology, you end up with a vastly superior car. A pure EV if designed right has more cargo space, better acceleration, better energy economy, and a quieter environment than a gas car could ever have. Right now the only pure EVs available that are designed without handicaps is the Tesla Model S and X and they are very expensive. The mainstream car companies can afford to dismiss Tesla because Tesla has priced themselves out of reach of most consumers at the moment.
If a mainstream car maker actually made a pure EV that was equal in quality to Tesla, even if it was a lot smaller and simpler in creature comforts, they would be signing their death warrant. A superior EV at a reasonable price from a company that also makes ICE would cause a precipitous drop in demand for their ICE cars at a time when they can't get more than a small number of batteries.
The market today is very battery limited. Tesla will have enough batteries soon, but nobody else will for 5 years or more.
The traditional car makers are also run by fairly conservative people often with limited imagination. Their management is resistant to change that is too radical. VW was embarrassed into focusing on EV development and they are building their own Gigafactory. The rest of the industry wouldn't touch EVs with a ten mile long pole if various governments weren't forcing them into it.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
Can i add "better safety rating"? (assuming an empty-space for the Frunk)
In the case of Tesla, that is true, but the frunk isn't necessary to make a top notch EV. Though the safety rating is also enhanced by the difficulty flipping a Tesla due to its low center of gravity, which is an inherent feature of a well designed EV. Another feature of a well designed EV is most of the weight in between the wheels which helps stability in curves.
There are probably other superior features that comes out of a good EV design that neither of us thought of.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
As if they can afford to lose sales to Tesla -- NOT
The ICE manufacturers are caught in a chicken and egg dilemma: should they gamble and invest in the charging and battery supply infrastructure required for general purpose EVs and volume production leading to economies of scale, or take an "organic, slow growth" approach, meaning 3rd party infrastructure. Clearly GM et al prefer the latter but Tesla has forced things with the Gigafactory. The Bolt should be understood as a compliance car, in the sense that it is not profitable at current scale and pricing.
GM may well be right in tie-ing themselvese to the CCS standard (although their current approach of not investing a dime strikes me as idiotic,) but I don't see a way for battery production to grow slowly and successfully.
diamond.g
Active Member
The question becomes how many people would actually pay for (what would end up being) an expensive adapter? I mean how popular is Tesla's chademo adapter? Also, isn't it curious that Tesla hasn't come out with a CCS adapter yet?
I've seen rumors Tesla is developing a CCS adapter. They filed a patent for a combined J1772/CHAdaMO adapter a while back. They may be working on a universal adapter that can handle all the connectors and protocols out there. That would be handy.
Fiver points:
1) McRat is totally correct when pointing out GM devotion to SAE. A bit on ancient history is in order. SAE was founded with henry Ford as the first titular leader. The real force came later when Charles Kettering, founder of Delco, GM's technical head for decades. Kettering led SAE as GM went from a distant second to Ford to being a dominant #1, and led the SAE transition to air also, with WWI as a huge impetus. Kettering's close proximity to the Wright Brothers helped. The point simply is that GM has been devoted to SAE for more than 100 years. They know no other way to survive. That is why, even when they innovate, they do so in a derivative fashion. That is not bad for them; it only means they cannot be the first technologically, but can give huge scale when they finally move.
2) The SAE has settled on J1772, even to the extent of incorporating J1772 into their adaptation of the German CharIN CCS. That too, is logical, because CCS was predicated on an incorporation of Mennekes 2 (correct name: IEC 62196) the pre-DC Fast Charge equivalent of J1772 was built in. Above all the SAE/IEC engineers value backwards integration so the huge klugey charging plugs are part of CCS. It was the Germans who thought ac based network communication was easy because they already had a standard for that so network charging authorizations would need no new process. That is a really big deal because it allows CCS to accomodate any payment process anybody can dream up without new hardware design.For all the naysayers, that last point is the raison d'être for the ac complexity.
3) Superchargers and CHAdeMO communicate via CANbus so adapters are not difficult, though they are bulky. Tesla sells quite a lot of them, but they do not state numbers. People in Asia, many in NA and Europe, need CHAdeMO adapters to use DC Fast conveniently.
4) GM is so deeply committed to SAE that they have greet difficulty imagining anything else. The CANbus itself was a Bosch invention that is an ISO standard fully supported by SAE. When they try to merge the ac communication process of CCS to the CANbus process of CHAdeMO...well, that requires a bit of ingenuity that has no. preexisting SAE, ISO or IEC standard.
5) Given the previous points we see the GM dilemma. Their engineers are clever, but they work within established, predefined rules. They are none for that adapter today, but there will be soon because Tesla and the Germans all know they do need that ability. Their dilemma: CHAdeMO is a standard developed by Tokyo Electric that has become Japanese domestic standard, seen worldwide mostly for Nissan and Mitsubishi. GM is terrified of Japanese!
After all that, somebody will figure this out, probably after Tesla begins to sell one, and somebody will sell one. My bet is that "somebody" might be ChargePoint since they are the giant car company NA charging network of choice, so they'll happily abdicate to ChargePoint.
This discussion could be a long thread itself, but...
GM does NOT think it should have a role in charging EV's. Thus their complete abdication of the subject in Bolt positioning to ChargePoint, to the extent that they did not even notice the DC Fast CCS/CHAdeMO issue. They might know how Superchargers fit in, but I rather doubt it. Once ChargePoint solves the equation it will be rosy for Bolt owners.
Note: Foregoing comments based on many years dealing professionally with a number of major auto companies, including US, German, Japanese and Korean manufacturers. They may actually ahve more basis than do most internet posts, but maybe not.
Breezy
Member
I think it's more likely that the website is wrong, than GM will come out with the CHAdeMO adapter.
But it also has lower range, longer refueling time, and higher cost.
These issues will be solved in time. But for the time being let's not pretend that EVs don't have disadvantages as well.
Refueling time and cost are both interesting topics and nowhere near as simple as you make them out to be for me at least.
My actual time spent refueling has dropped dramatically, even though the car takes longer to fuel, because my time is an extra five seconds effort to plug the car in, and five more to unplug it, instead of several minutes of driving to a gas station and several more of standing outside waiting and breathing fumes.
Long trips will of course be different, but even there the time waiting for the car should be fairly small if the Superchargers match well with the lunch/dinner schedule, and those trips are an edge use case anyway.
Purchase cost has certainly been higher to date, but TCO should be competitive or lower already based on cheap fuel and minimal maintenance and (for Tesla anyway) relatively low depreciation for the class.
jgs
Active Member
I agree with all your points. What it comes down to is the EV is at a different (and better, for me and apparently most owners) point in the tradeoff spectrum. But it's futile to deny that it does take longer to charge than to pump a tank of gas, as far as that goes, Or that you can travel farther on a tank of diesel or gas (for many cars, anyway) than you can on a full battery.
Do these things matter? Not to me! They apparently do to some people. I think for most of those people, it's because they haven't come to terms with the new-and-better tradeoffs. For a few of them, they really do need something an EV currently can't offer.
Edited to add: and then there's people who don't have garages or other dedicated parking so can't take advantage of overnight charging.
Last edited:
Breezy
Member
Forum posts are not necessarily the best medium for covering all issues associated with refueling. Being a Volt owner, I agree with the advantages of home refueling, for those who can plug in at home.
But I think on average, refueling time, range and cost remain major disadvantages from the perspective of the mass market consumer. We've all encountered these objections.
The EV market is small, but growing, because the number of interested consumers is small, but growing. Focusing on increasing range, lowering refuel times and lowering cost is essential to increasing market share. I don't think parity with ICE is required, because of the other advantages cited, but it needs to be "close enough." We're not there yet.
WannabeOwner
Well-Known Member
At a gas station I had to stand-and-fill and stand-in-line-to-pay; at a supercharger I plug in then get on with something else - emails, having a Pee & Coffee, or taking a nap ...
Add to that that I leave home every time with a full tank, so I don't have the situation of being tight on time and only then discovering that I also have to make a 10 minute stop for fuel and payment because I am nearly empty, so in those cases there is even a benefit.
It's certainly different, and to non-EV'ers probably looks like a chore / inconvenience, but in my case it a change, for sure, but not a disadvantage.
Similar threads
