Chevy Bolt a "Commuter Car?" Not Available Until April? Help!

[rhumbliner]

Thanks for the response, @McRat, but you skillfully dodged my 2 questions. I would still like an answer to those.

And you must have me confused with someone else, for I never referred to any kind of theory -- conspiracy or otherwise. However, I will join in and agree that the allegations put forth by @SageBrush & @stopcrazypp have plenty of evidence to back them up and are no longer considered as theories -- conspiracy or otherwise.

 

[Saghost]

A brief history of the Most Hated Electric Car Maker Ever, (or The Company That Would Not Quit):

GM's first BEV was in 1908. Not practical, but they made them, mostly for women. GM never pulled the plug on EV projects. Part of the EV tech was to become the world's first electric starter for cars in 1911. In 1913, 40% of GMC Heavy Truck sales were BEVs. This ended about in WWI. The Great Depression slowed things a bit, as did WWII, but they were still tinkering with them.

In the modern era, 1964 saw GM start to play with the Electrovairs. They had a range up to 80 miles using the batteries found in ICBM's. A bit too pricey. In 1969 came the utility cars, the 512 Urbans. It was even thought that a plutonium battery used in satellites could power one for years without recharging. In the mid 1970's the Electrovette was designed and GM thought that 10% of their car sales would be BEV's by 1980. Failed again.

In the late 1980's GM made the Sunraycer? solar electric car. It won the 1987 endurance race by ... 3 days ahead of second place. Then in 1990, using what they had learned, they displayed the Impact which was slated for production (as the EV1). They took it to Bonneville Salt Flats and went 183 mph back then. Faster than most supercars of the day. So what the hell, try, try, try, again. The EV1 was produced but the only way to make it even remotely feasible was to use lead acid. Then at great cost, the changed to NiMH. It did NOT sell out until heavily discounted on the lease rate, which was a fraction of the costs to begin with. The EV-1 was a financial disaster far bigger than the Ford Edsel, but it was not the first or last bloodbath GM took in the technology world. When the EV1 ended, the research did not. Almost immediately they started thinking outside the box. What they ended up with was the Volt. Which again lost money, and nearly drown.

You seem to believe in conspiracy theories only, and strive to find evil in others. GM is no saint, but nobody has spent the blood, sweat, and tears that GM has trying to get people to buy EVs.

Yes, I know the Starbucks Saved The Whales crowd doesn't want to hear such nonsense. It disrupts all the years of repetitive essays on why GM's true goal is to put a two Canyoneros in every driveway...

Minor caveat: GM didn't build either Sunraycer or Impact - AeroVironment did, under GM contract and with GM money.

This distinction is important when you start building the larger timeline...

GM's contract got Al Cocconi to stop working on windmills and apply himself to EV powertrains.

For Sunraycer, he created the first high power lightweight inverter AC motor drive I'm aware of - 35 kW max power, driving one rear wheel.

Impact used two improved 50kW versions, driving each front wheel separately. It was this prototype that convinced CARB that EVs might be practical and led to the original ZEV mandate.

As Impact evolved into EV1, GM ended up developing their own IGBT based controller for the 100kW single motor through their newly acquired Hughes Satellite division.

Al Cocconi and a partner started AC Propulsion, marketing an improved version of the Impact technology to the conversion market and OEMs - and built the Tzero demonstrator.

Tesla licensed this technology for the Roadster (though they ended up building their own all digital inverter in house,) and dropped it and their new battery system (trialled on Tzero under Tesla funding) into a stretched GM/Lotus co-developed Elise.

GM and Toyota sold Tesla the NUMMI plant after the bankruptcy for a fraction of the cost, too.

As others have pointed out, GM has done a bunch of bad things too, including some that are EV related. I'm not saying GM is perfect or even consistently put pro-EV, but they have done more to make real EVs possible than any company I can name besides Tesla - and you wouldn't have the Tesla of today without the GM of the 1980s/90s.

 

[McRat]

From memory. All three parties were my customers in the 90's for various projects, commercial and defense.

Hughes Aircraft (who would later be doing the EV1), AeroVironment, and General Motors collaborated on both projects.

It's one of the reasons the EV1 was crazy expensive. I did some work for Hughes on the EV1, validating their aerospace quality castings used in the EV1. I should probably try to find the files, it was about 21 years ago? That seems wrong. I remember the K-member vividly and still have the raw data somewhere.

Damn that was a LONG time ago. Now I'm really curious what I've forgotten. I'm still under non-disclosure agreement with all 3, but I can't see them getting miffed if I just locate the date the first K-member was validated.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Minor caveat: GM didn't build either Sunraycer or Impact - AeroVironment did, under GM contract and with GM money.

This distinction is important when you start building the larger timeline...

GM's contract got Al Cocconi to stop working on windmills and apply himself to EV powertrains.

For Sunraycer, he created the first high power lightweight inverter AC motor drive I'm aware of - 35 kW max power, driving one rear wheel.

Impact used two improved 50kW versions, driving each front wheel separately. It was this prototype that convinced CARB that EVs might be practical and led to the original ZEV mandate.

As Impact evolved into EV1, GM ended up developing their own IGBT based controller for the 100kW single motor through their newly acquired Hughes Satellite division.

Al Cocconi and a partner started AC Propulsion, marketing an improved version of the Impact technology to the conversion market and OEMs - and built the Tzero demonstrator.

Tesla licensed this technology for the Roadster (though they ended up building their own all digital inverter in house,) and dropped it and their new battery system (trialled on Tzero under Tesla funding) into a stretched GM/Lotus co-developed Elise.

GM and Toyota sold Tesla the NUMMI plant after the bankruptcy for a fraction of the cost, too.

As others have pointed out, GM has done a bunch of bad things too, including some that are EV related. I'm not saying GM is perfect or even consistently put pro-EV, but they have done more to make real EVs possible than any company I can name besides Tesla - and you wouldn't have the Tesla of today without the GM of the 1980s/90s.

Tesla has a blog that talks about the same history:
Motor City

But the point of the others here is not to disregard the contribution of GM in regards to the Impact/EV-1 (there is no EV enthusiast out there that doesn't see it as a significant contribution in EV history), but rather not to brush off some of the bad things that GM had done (and continues to do). They should rightfully be criticized for that.

 

[Saghost]

Tesla has a blog that talks about the same history:
Motor City

But the point of the others here is not to disregard the contribution of GM in regards to the Impact/EV-1 (there is no EV enthusiast out there that doesn't see it as a significant contribution in EV history), but rather not to brush off some of the bad things that GM had done (and continues to do). They should rightfully be criticized for that.

I hadn't seen that post before, but it makes mention of the book I learned about most of this piece of the history from - "The car that could".

That blog post seems like it would be useful in the PMAC vs Induction thread we had running this week...

 

[McRat]

Personally, I see Toyota as the biggest threat to EV adoption. Not just their rhetoric “The reason why Toyota doesn’t introduce any major [pure electric vehicle] is because we do not believe there is a market to accept it.” - Toyota Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, but by their actions. The more money they soak up for H2 rebates (double or triple EV rebates) and hyper expensive H2 refueling centers, the less money that will be available for EV projects. That's not by accident. They know they can't sell H2 cars in significant numbers, even if you could refuel them. GM actually has far more experience with H2 development than Toyota does, and GM knows H2 can't beat EV's.

But, Toyota is the Friendly Teddy Bear Company of the car world. You must love them or be considered a heretic. Their American-sized SUV and full-sized pickups are thirstier than Domestics, but do you see anyone mentioning that? It is in fact Toyota that wants to push gas guzzlers into your driveway, and repent their sins with the 1/2 ass effort that is the PiP.

Look:

Compare Side-by-Side

Compare Side-by-Side

 

[stopcrazypp]

Personally, I see Toyota as the biggest threat to EV adoption. Not just their rhetoric “The reason why Toyota doesn’t introduce any major [pure electric vehicle] is because we do not believe there is a market to accept it.” - Toyota Chairman Takeshi Uchiyamada, but by their actions. The more money they soak up for H2 rebates (double or triple EV rebates) and hyper expensive H2 refueling centers, the less money that will be available for EV projects. That's not by accident. They know they can't sell H2 cars in significant numbers, even if you could refuel them. GM actually has far more experience with H2 development than Toyota does, and GM knows H2 can't beat EV's.

But, Toyota is the Friendly Teddy Bear Company of the car world. You must love them or be considered a heretic. Their American-sized SUV and full-sized pickups are thirstier than Domestics, but do you see anyone mentioning that? It is in fact Toyota that wants to push gas guzzlers into your driveway, and repent their sins with the 1/2 ass effort that is the PiP.

Look:

Compare Side-by-Side

Compare Side-by-Side

This was pretty much GM when Rick Wagoner and Larry Burns was running the show (except GM didn't even have a Prius equivalent).

People are heavily critical of Toyota's hydrogen strategy also:
Toyota 'Mirai' Fuel Cell Sedan

The difference is Toyota isn't actively trying to trip up other EVs via lobbying as GM is.

 

[SageBrush]

The difference is Toyota isn't actively trying to trip up other EVs via lobbying as GM is.

Right, or litigate incessantly against CARB, or weasel out of the Obama CAFE agreement.

So while I have nothing against the Bolt except the price and lack of a charging infrastructure, the sooner GM dies the happier I will be.

 

[McRat]

Right, or litigate incessantly against CARB, or weasel out of the Obama CAFE agreement.

So while I have nothing against the Bolt except the price and lack of a charging infrastructure, the sooner GM dies the happier I will be.

We can agree there, just switch the company to Toyota, and I'm good.

GM didn't get $46 million from CARB for building infrastructure. IIRC, that's Toyota's H2 handiwork. Apparently all it cost them was a Mirai given to the CARB boss? She's cheap.

CARB is a freakin' RICO case waiting to be filed. Mail order PhD's making up data to dictate policy? Heck, they didn't even fire him or throw out the data.

Pretty soon, you'll have to take your EV in for smog checks. Yes, they are indeed that stupid. When nobody else in Sacramento can stand you, they send you to CARB.

 

[tonybelding]

Not wanting to get into the whole history of GM here. . .

I've got to say, though, that it sometimes seems they don't get enough credit for the V-for-Volt. It's an engineering triumph that GM have somehow managed to make boring. In the same way that other BEV makers live in Tesla's shadow, other PHEVs exist in the shadow of the Chevy Volt. No other company makes one that competes on even terms with it. Even the newest Prius PHEV, which is now being heaped with praise for not being a complete joke (like the earlier version was) only has about half the electric range.

At the beginning of this thread, the question was asked about driving from Nebraska to Colorado. If you need this capability, but still want to run on grid electricity as much as possible, the Volt seems like the obvious answer. It was made for you.

It puzzles me that GM have never been able to articulate this. It seems like an obvious marketing hook: "The Volt can run on electricity or gasoline, whichever is more readily available, whichever is more convenient for you!"

 

[msksus1]

Ok, lets assume for argument's sake that the new bolt and the model 3 are equal vehicles in terms of range and price. Would the model 3 be better suited for the fly-over states and states lacking superchargers? So back to the OP initial inquiry, both can be considered commuter cars in certain circumstances. The same can be said in the midwest now with any level of S or X.

 

[BluestarE3]

Ok, lets assume for argument's sake that the new bolt and the model 3 are equal vehicles in terms of range and price. Would the model 3 be better suited for the fly-over states and states lacking superchargers? So back to the OP initial inquiry, both can be considered commuter cars in certain circumstances. The same can be said in the midwest now with any level of S or X.

If you plan to keep either car for more than, say, a couple of years, keep in mind that Tesla is committed to expanding its Supercharger network and will have increasingly better coverage in your so-called "fly-over" states. GM, by contrast, has no intention of investing in a fast charging network of their own, so you're at the mercy of third-parties to hopefully rollout a comprehensive, nationwide network of fast chargers some time in the future. So, it may be a long time before the Bolt EV can shed the "commuter car" mantle as defined in your scenario... perhaps not within the timeframe in which you plan to keep the car.

 

[Jeff N]

So, it may be a long time before the Bolt EV can shed the "commuter car" mantle as defined in your scenario... perhaps not within the timeframe in which you plan to keep the car.

That seems unlikely. VW is about to unleash a flood of infrastructure money of which a good part is likely to be for DC charging across the US highway network which VW needs so their future 200+ mile BEVs can compete with Tesla and GM.

Volkswagen Dieselgate Settlement Includes $2 Billion Investment Towards Electric Cars

 

[BluestarE3]

That seems unlikely. VW is about to unleash a flood of infrastructure money of which a good part is likely to be for DC charging across the US highway network which VW needs so their future 200+ mile BEVs can compete with Tesla and GM.

Volkswagen Dieselgate Settlement Includes $2 Billion Investment Towards Electric Cars

Yes, but...

“Invest $2.0 billion over 10 years in zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure, access and awareness initiatives.”

• To be spent over a 10 year period, so how long will fly-over residents have to wait before they get coverage, even if they start building the infrastructure right now?
• How much of the investment in building the ZEV infrastructure will be for BEV charging rather than for much more expensive hydrogen refueling stations?
• What percentage of this settlement will be for "access and awareness initiatives" rather than for the infrastructure itself?
• And what exactly are "access and awareness initiatives"? Public relations, advertising (e.g., demonstrating the use of these chargers exclusively with VW EVs in the frame) or...?

Yes, some good will come out of this, but I'm not quite as sanguine about how much the consumer will directly benefit from what, at first blush, appears to be a huge investment in the nation's charging infrastructure.

 

[Ulmo]

Today in Nebraska, the same thing applies to Teslas.

Completely right. But, this got me to thinking: what about the half year, one year, 1.5 year, and 2 year timeframe (long distance travel in each across Nebraska):

.5 year: Bolt, probably not, Tesla, maybe a little.
1 year: Bolt, probably a little, Tesla, probably a lot.
1.5 year: Bolt, maybe getting to start getting there, Tesla, probably almost there already.
2 year: Bolt getting there, Tesla already been there.

My estimate of variances in the above is mostly toward Tesla going faster and Bolt going slower.

I'm basing this 100% on current status reports on TMC regarding both. There is a big buildout now in progress to fill in the I-80 gap by Tesla. (For whatever reason, Tesla skipped the biggest cross-continental route in its home country until now. Perhaps this was to fool The Sage & corn (ethanol) lobby into thinking Tesla wasn't getting anything done ("out of sight, out of mind").)

 

[msksus1]

Completely right. But, this got me to thinking: what about the half year, one year, 1.5 year, and 2 year timeframe (long distance travel in each across Nebraska):

.5 year: Bolt, probably not, Tesla, maybe a little.
1 year: Bolt, probably a little, Tesla, probably a lot.
1.5 year: Bolt, maybe getting to start getting there, Tesla, probably almost there already.
2 year: Bolt getting there, Tesla already been there.

My estimate of variances in the above is mostly toward Tesla going faster and Bolt going slower.

I'm basing this 100% on current status reports on TMC regarding both. There is a big buildout now in progress to fill in the I-80 gap by Tesla. (For whatever reason, Tesla skipped the biggest cross-continental route in its home country until now. Perhaps this was to fool The Sage & corn (ethanol) lobby into thinking Tesla wasn't getting anything done ("out of sight, out of mind").)

absolutely agree. I have had that belief since 2012 when my MS showed up. Patiently waiting.

 

[electracity]

Completely right. But, this got me to thinking: what about the half year, one year, 1.5 year, and 2 year timeframe (long distance travel in each across Nebraska):

.5 year: Bolt, probably not, Tesla, maybe a little.
1 year: Bolt, probably a little, Tesla, probably a lot.
1.5 year: Bolt, maybe getting to start getting there, Tesla, probably almost there already.
2 year: Bolt getting there, Tesla already been there.

My estimate of variances in the above is mostly toward Tesla going faster and Bolt going slower.

I'm basing this 100% on current status reports on TMC regarding both. There is a big buildout now in progress to fill in the I-80 gap by Tesla. (For whatever reason, Tesla skipped the biggest cross-continental route in its home country until now. Perhaps this was to fool The Sage & corn (ethanol) lobby into thinking Tesla wasn't getting anything done ("out of sight, out of mind").)

Having a couple of superchargers along I80 in Iowa and Nebraska doesn't make EV viable for many residents of these states.

 

[Jeff N]

to be spent over a 10 year period, so how long will fly-over residents have to wait before they get coverage, even if they start building the infrastructure right now?

How much of the investment in building the ZEV infrastructure will be for BEV charging rather than for much more expensive hydrogen refueling stations?

I suspect it will be similar to Tesla's buildout in that certain routes will be focused on first and then other highways will be added later. The feds have already started a consensus-building effort with the states to decide on a prioritized route plan.

As for money, we're talking about TWO BILLION DOLLARS. Yes, it is spread over 10 years but even just the first 2.5 year lump is $500 million which is more than Tesla has spent installing the US Supercharger network.

Now $200 million of that will go to California under the VW settlement formula and CARB will undoubtedly waste a large fraction of it on building out the existing CA plan to add an additional 50 H2 stations beyond the 50 that are already funded. However, the state already had DMV fee-based funding for those stations and the total cost of the addition 50 stations is around $70-80 million. That still leaves *at least* $120 million remaining for CA alone during the first 2.5 year period and CA has already funded 41 new 50 kW DC highway locations using its DMV funding which will be built over the next couple of years. CA should have plenty of DC charging money.

The $300 million for the rest of the US during the first 2.5 years will be overseen by the EPA rather than CARB and EPA is far less fuel cell foolish.

What percentage of this settlement will be for "access and awareness initiatives" rather than for the infrastructure itself?

Probably is small fraction. It makes sense to allow for some public education and promotion funds but I can't see it eating away a sizable portion of the funding.

I'm confident the government will find ways to divert some of these funds away from EV infrastructure but the scale of the settlement should still allow for a serious and timely national DC charging buildout.The VW group of auto brands have not been leading H2 advocates and they have plans to seriously compete in the 200+ mile range BEV market. As the settlement is presently structured, VW will be planning the budget and managing the spending of its money with oversight from EPA/CARB.

 

[Ulmo]

Having a couple of superchargers along I80 in Iowa and Nebraska doesn't make EV viable for many residents of these states.

I understand that, but from the Tesla plans various TMC posting sleuths have found, they will have a fairly complete first pass at I-80 within the nearer part of the next two years that allows people to at least take the main East-West route (that newfangled Interstate 80 thing). I know it skips the Lincoln Highway (aka US-30) and such. Here's my thinking:

That I-80 coverage leaves a lot of gaps in North-South routes, parallel East-West routes, and various diagonal routes, but at least it makes the possibility of owning a more expensive car like a Model X/S reasonable, if you accept that 15/16ths of your driving can be done with them, and occasionally you have to use an ICE rental or existing one sitting in your driveway.

With the planned explosion of Model 3 buyers to start coming in 2018, we could imagine Tesla getting around to turning on SuperChargers in the various North-South and parallel East-West routes in those areas fairly quickly. In a way, the Model 3 buyers of 2018 in Nebraska can get a bit of the "California frontier" feeling many 2014 Model S buyers experienced, and get a bit of the "wild west" feeling they might have thought they would miss out on, and yet, have a pretty comfy lifestyle driving their EV throughout the vast majority of their trip types.

Edit: From my maps below, it seems pretty evident that Nebraska is, how shall I say, more of a "slow to be serviced" area. You should definitely be aware of the commuter-strong flavor of EV ownership in that state for the near future, but get comfortable with the idea that you can take it on at least some longer trips within a year, if it's a Tesla, at least.

SuperCharge.Info: (Blue dots = Permit, Cones = Under Construction, Red = Live):

In the Lincoln, NE Supercharger thread, I mentioned Tesla's paperwork shows they might be putting Superchargers in these towns in Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming [inserted below this quote -Ulmo]... At the Avon, CO, Tesla event in August, a Tesla employee said they planned on having I-80 in Nebraska completed later this year.

Green dots = MorrisonHiker research:

Tesla "Planned 2016" (probably less current than MorrisonHiker above, but both in process and subject to revision; placed here for easy comparison):

PlugShare High Power Stations including Tesla SuperCharger, CHAdeMO DCFC (note that some of these may have restrictions), and Tesla HPWC (Model S/X) (ditto restrictions) (hmm, hole in Nebraska):

Tesla.Com Destination Chargers (notice the hole in Nebraska, consistent with my "hiding from the Sage" comment earlier, or possibly hiding from the frackers; wild west, indeed):

 

[Ulmo]

Service Centers in Nebraska: Notice the lack of them nationwide, and how that when the Model 3 comes out, this will have to be remedied; the Service Center in Omaha is almost sure to have to happen by then, but if not, I guess I should eat more hay (unlikely); more than anything, I think this shows how when you view Tesla and GM with the "right now" attitude, you are not getting the full picture (just see the green dots in my images from MorrisonHiker in the above post):