-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Importance of Superchargers in GM vs. Tesla
- Thread starter snort
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Yep, but someone else bailed GM out and someone else other than manufacturers is paying $200 million for a H2 network in California, so it's not surprising GM has its hand out.
CuriousG
Active Member
According to this article:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...what-elon-musk-said+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Don't know why the original article isn't loading but I'm using the cached article. It costs a lot more than your estimated $100k (2.7x more) for a DCFC. Maybe it's cheaper for CHAdeMO or CCS or you're only assuming a single charger to service 2 cars simultaneously. Most Superchargers locations service more than 2 cars simultaneously.
Even if we ignore those numbers, your statement that it would take GM months to install 1000 DCFC is ludicrous. Given that it takes many months to survey and do all proper permits, I don't see that happening. You make it sound as: Should GM decide to build out their own DCFC network, they can just drop it anywhere. Tesla has been building out it's Supercharger network frantically the last few years and according to their website they have 608 locations and 3562 chargers. That's almost 6 chargers per location. And I assume that's globally rather than just domestically.
Last edited:
Let me try this again: GM's gross is 50 times what Tesla's is and their profit alone is about double Tesla's entire gross. Tesla hasn't made a profit yet. If GM decided to kill Tesla, they could do it without breathing hard. So far, it doesn't look like that's in their plans, but the risk is there and shutting your eyes to it is a good way to get blindsided.
Examples of shutting your eyes include nonsensical statements like "Tesla trumps GM big time", and not understanding that "shelf space" issues such as market cannibalism are driven entirely by relative market share, while absolute numbers of vehicles are close to irrelevant.
As a hypothetical example: say Tesla sells 250,000 EVs in 2020, and GM sells 3,000,000. Chargers for the 250K are going to be hard to find in the noise, even though there are a lot more of them than today, and it would be a tremendous success had nobody else sold millions of cars. If something like this happens, Tesla's current investors will be inclined to back away, and Tesla would need either to revert to being a niche player like Ferrari or Lotus, be bought by a big player (which is often the same thing), or go out of business. All of these options result in no more superchargers and possibly the present ones being cut off.
A 200 mile range car creates much more incentive for DCFC than does a 100 mile car. To outwards appearances, GM seems to be looking at the Bolt as a competitor to the Leaf, but I can't believe they're that shortsighted. On the scale we're talking about, Tesla hasn't got much money and they need to put a lot of what they do have into the gigafactory if they hope to succeed. They can't afford to build out the supercharger network as fast as GM could.
Moreover, because CCS is a multivendor standard, alliances with other manufacturers, including tacit alliances, including with those that aren't nominally in the car business, are very plausible. If GM, VW, Ford, BMW and others all do it together, we could go from very few CCSes in America, to lots and lots of them, in very few months. Enough money buys political capital--without even spending much of the money--and enough political capital can brush away barriers like permitting delays in a matter of hours. To go from identifying the place to put it, to cars using it, in two or three weeks, is not hyperbole. Tesla themselves demonstrated this with Mountain View.
My original comment was that I thought Tesla was making a strategic error by forcing potential adopters of the Supercharger network to front load the cost. Though it's convenient for customers and may be cheaper over the long term, it adds $2000 or so to the purchase price of the car, which makes it harder to compete with a similar car that does high speed charging pay-as-you-go. The supercharger is a superior design and I worry that the big thing holding it back from more universal acceptance is Musk's insistence on this pricing scheme.
-Snortybartfast
Examples of shutting your eyes include nonsensical statements like "Tesla trumps GM big time", and not understanding that "shelf space" issues such as market cannibalism are driven entirely by relative market share, while absolute numbers of vehicles are close to irrelevant.
As a hypothetical example: say Tesla sells 250,000 EVs in 2020, and GM sells 3,000,000. Chargers for the 250K are going to be hard to find in the noise, even though there are a lot more of them than today, and it would be a tremendous success had nobody else sold millions of cars. If something like this happens, Tesla's current investors will be inclined to back away, and Tesla would need either to revert to being a niche player like Ferrari or Lotus, be bought by a big player (which is often the same thing), or go out of business. All of these options result in no more superchargers and possibly the present ones being cut off.
A 200 mile range car creates much more incentive for DCFC than does a 100 mile car. To outwards appearances, GM seems to be looking at the Bolt as a competitor to the Leaf, but I can't believe they're that shortsighted. On the scale we're talking about, Tesla hasn't got much money and they need to put a lot of what they do have into the gigafactory if they hope to succeed. They can't afford to build out the supercharger network as fast as GM could.
Moreover, because CCS is a multivendor standard, alliances with other manufacturers, including tacit alliances, including with those that aren't nominally in the car business, are very plausible. If GM, VW, Ford, BMW and others all do it together, we could go from very few CCSes in America, to lots and lots of them, in very few months. Enough money buys political capital--without even spending much of the money--and enough political capital can brush away barriers like permitting delays in a matter of hours. To go from identifying the place to put it, to cars using it, in two or three weeks, is not hyperbole. Tesla themselves demonstrated this with Mountain View.
My original comment was that I thought Tesla was making a strategic error by forcing potential adopters of the Supercharger network to front load the cost. Though it's convenient for customers and may be cheaper over the long term, it adds $2000 or so to the purchase price of the car, which makes it harder to compete with a similar car that does high speed charging pay-as-you-go. The supercharger is a superior design and I worry that the big thing holding it back from more universal acceptance is Musk's insistence on this pricing scheme.
-Snortybartfast
GM has far more resources than Tesla, certainly. They even have some significant in house expertise that's applicable (though Tesla has quite a bit of that themselves, and GM is subcontracting large aspects of it out, mostly to LG Chem.) But I'm not buying "could kill without breathing hard."
Unless you're talking about sabotage or lawsuits or hostile takeovers, the only way one company can kill another is by making it unprofitable - and if they aren't in the supply chain of the company they're after, pretty much the only way I know of is to sell a better product for less money.
I can only think of one case where a company really tried that - Jack Tramiel at Commodore tried to kill Texas Instruments in the early 80s (in the 70s TI had been supplying ICs for electronic calculators to Commodore, then began selling calculators themselves with the same chips for about what they charged Commodore for the ICs, and Jack wanted revenge from what I've read.) Commodore started selling the 64s and 128s at a loss.
It worked, too - after trying to compete for a while, TI left the home computer market. Commodore did, too - and the rest of the industry suffered for a couple years. Is that what you're saying GM might do?
I have trouble believing that GM's shareholders will stand for massive losses year after year by GM in an effort to kill Tesla. Even if they did, Elon would probably just smile - GM would have accomplished his goal for him, since Tesla is trying to move the industry to EVs, not to be the EV industry themselves.
Hmm. 3 million GM EVs. Presumably serious 200 mile type EVs to compete with Tesla, yes? So that's at least 60 kWh of battery in each one, right? So GM needs at least 180 GWh of battery cell manufacturing for your hypothetical example. Where are they going to find that?
Their buddies at LG Chem are expanding - they've got 3 GWh of capacity planned in Michigan, and are contemplating something similar in Europe and may have up to 6 times that capacity in Korea and China combined - which means they might be able to deliver ~24 GWh.
LG Chem quietly surges in battery race
LG Chem To Build A Battery Plant In Europe
BYD is doing some aggressive expansion, too - they think they can build 10 GWh by the end of last year, and are opening a new plant in Brazil to give them a total of 34 GWh by 2020.
A Chinese ‘Gigafactory’? BYD Says It Could Have Battery Production Capacity Roughly Equal To Tesla Motors In 2020
But of course, BYD has their own commitments and plans (cars in China, buses all over the world.)
The point I think a few of us have been trying to make for a while is the GM *can't* build 3 million EVs in 2020 that are at the Bolt/Model 3 level. They could certainly turn out the car shells. They can probably make arrangements for all the powertrains. But the entire industry doesn't begin to have the capacity to make enough batteries, and GM can't change that fast enough - no amount of capital can bring that much battery production capacity on line that quickly.
That being the case, GM also can't plow Tesla under by economies of scale. The examples you're offering just aren't physically possible - in 2020. If GM is willing to commit the capital investment today, they probably could do the 3 million EVs in 2025 or 2030 - but Tesla might be selling close to that many then, too.
And again, Tesla would love to have someone come match them head to head - it would mean the industry is moving in the direction they want, however inconvenient it might be for Tesla at that moment.
Walter
Tesla is not yet making a profit and their strategy depends on them being allowed to not make a profit for some time to come. They are dependent upon the good will of their investors to continue, and if they go from market leader to well behind, some of them will bail. There is no need for GM to sabotage or anything similarly unethical. If Tesla makes too many missteps, they'll die on their own.
I think the X was a misstep. You may feel differently, but I think they spent too much developing a car that both had a lot of new engineering yet is not different enough than the S, and delayed progress on the 3 and the gigafactory to do it. I think forcing other carmakers to front load the cost of supercharging in order to use it was a misstep and has led to the others going with CCS instead of adopting the superior supercharger scheme. they're really pushing the frontier here. how many more can they stand to make? GM only needs help them misstep a little bit. And GM can afford to do a really big headfake, which is what I think is going on with not emphasizing the long range possibilities of the Bolt.
The gigafactory costs $5B and can make 50GWh of batteries a year in its first draft. 180GWh is 3.6 of them. Probably less. GM makes $5.4B in income per year on $150B of revenue. Now that Tesla has proven that it works, GM could easily borrow the $18B it takes to make that much factory. They probably don't need to spend that much--Tesla's obsession with solar and other green factors costs them a lot, and GM already has a bunch of factories that have been shut down--they could save a lot of money by re-purposing a few. Tesla's Fremont factory was one of them.
Anyway, as a Tesla investor, I hope I'm wrong. And I hope someone inside Tesla is thinking these same thoughts.
--Snortybartfast
I'd like to suggest that the price per location is increasing because the number of chargers per location is (demonstrably) increasing.
roguenode
Member
I currently drive a Leaf. It's been a step down in looks and luxury compared to past cars, but has me unwilling to get an ICE vehicle again. I'm looking for 3 main things in my next BEV:
1) Better range
2) Fast charging network allowing travel beyond the car's range
3) Improved battery tech to reduce range degradation.
Both the Bolt and the ≡ will satisfy 1 & 3 over the Leaf. The supercharger network checks off #2. The CCS network is sufficient in my metro area (although generally not needed with 200mi range), but fails to allow travel beyond it. If the Bolt had SC access as an available option (pay up front), it would still be on my list. If GM stated they have a plan to improve the CCS network it might also still be on my list.
1) Better range
2) Fast charging network allowing travel beyond the car's range
3) Improved battery tech to reduce range degradation.
Both the Bolt and the ≡ will satisfy 1 & 3 over the Leaf. The supercharger network checks off #2. The CCS network is sufficient in my metro area (although generally not needed with 200mi range), but fails to allow travel beyond it. If the Bolt had SC access as an available option (pay up front), it would still be on my list. If GM stated they have a plan to improve the CCS network it might also still be on my list.
dhrivnak
Active Member
I agree Tesla has a huge head start with their supercharging network. But GM had a huge head start in service availability. Tesla just raised the price from $100 to $1000 for those of us over 180 miles from a service center and there are millions of us who live that far from a center. Yet I have four Chevy service centers within 25 miles. While Tesla service is very good I have also had very good experiences from Chevy. To me service will be Tesla's Achilles heel.
X Fan
Active Member
GM’s cash cows (Ford & Chrysler too) remain in gas fired SUV’s.
IMO Volts/Bolts are PR moves playing to Government priorities and are loss leaders so they can improve their average mileage to meet standards.
As a lumbering, short-sighted bureaucratic company, I just don’t see them properly investing in this space and they look at the vehicle as a city centered/short distance solution.
IMO Volts/Bolts are PR moves playing to Government priorities and are loss leaders so they can improve their average mileage to meet standards.
As a lumbering, short-sighted bureaucratic company, I just don’t see them properly investing in this space and they look at the vehicle as a city centered/short distance solution.
jvonbokel
John VonBokel
I've been loosely following the state-by-state battles, but to me it seems the only one GM has officially weighed in on was Michigan. Perhaps I've missed more, though.
However, off the record, at least one GM employee has admitted that they are secretly rooting for Tesla to succeed in their fight with the dealers, because GM (and other manufacturers) aren't happy with ceding control of sales to independent dealers. Of course, my only source is a reddit comment, which isn't worth much, but it seems quite plausible to me, and would explain why they've been fairly limited in their outward support of the dealers' battle.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Unfortunately, no, GM hasn't limited their involvement to one state. They've been the only manufacturer to testify in a number of states against Tesla direct sales - and it's all GM dealerships lined up at the mic. They've helped write some of the bills that limit Tesla.
The current fight in VA, where the dealership lobby is suing Tesla over a *confidential agreement*? I obtained that agreement earlier this month (not as portrayed by the lobby). But the interesting thing is that the group that filed for it before me under VA's Open Records law was GM. And they used it in Indiana, shopping it to legislators as *proof* of how other states were handling it. They testified in Maryland. Their heavy hand was present in Utah. .. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
I agree that other manufacturers are quietly hoping Tesla wins regarding the right to sell directly to consumers in these states. If you go to their websites, you can configure/price/everything except place the order to buy. They're ready. It will be sweet justice indeed if the fight to limit Tesla turns and bites NADA in their a**. They have been the ones who twisted the laws to suit them & I have a personal need to see them regret that.
The primary reason that there is no large interstate-based CCS or CHAdeMO charging infrastructure is because there are no 150+ mile CCS or CHAdeMO cars on the road to use them. This will all change soon.
I almost never drive cross-country so I'm personally more concerned about interstate charging within 1,000 miles of my home in the San Francisco Bay Area. With lots of EV sales in California (and Oregon and Washington state) I'm pretty confident that interstate CCS charging will be built-out soon in Nevada, Idaho, Arizona and Utah. I also expect to see a lot more motel overnight J1772 charging installed in those areas in the next 3 years.
I almost never drive cross-country so I'm personally more concerned about interstate charging within 1,000 miles of my home in the San Francisco Bay Area. With lots of EV sales in California (and Oregon and Washington state) I'm pretty confident that interstate CCS charging will be built-out soon in Nevada, Idaho, Arizona and Utah. I also expect to see a lot more motel overnight J1772 charging installed in those areas in the next 3 years.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Interesting topic and discussion.
Th Bolt, despite the "200 mile" range, is a local-ish solution and therefore not a current Tesla competitor and GM is not particularly interested in paying for a drive-anywhere network. The `50ish kW maximum power spec tells the tale because long distance driving is not going to choose a setup that is 1:1 driving:charging.
As much as I am a Tesla fan and hope to jump on the bandwagon with a T3, I've never been particularly moved by the long range EV car and drive anywhere arguments. I'm fine with my EV being a local-ish transport solution, and ICE, trains, and planes available for my rare longer distance jaunts.
A problem for GM is that people like me prefer Tesla, despite the over-spec'd mismatch.
As for who will win the long-distance charger sweepstakes, I imagine it will be Tesla, or the new players will learn to get along with Tesla. My opinion is mostly a reflection of skepticism that a company that owns chargers can be profitable. That puts the not-Tesla companies that want to rely on someone else for the charger network in a Chicken or Egg conundrum.
Tesla is remarkably transparent in its dealings with customers and other companies. In the case of other EV manufacturers Tesla says "if you pay your fair share in adding to the SC network, you can benefit from that already setup."
Yup
Th Bolt, despite the "200 mile" range, is a local-ish solution and therefore not a current Tesla competitor and GM is not particularly interested in paying for a drive-anywhere network. The `50ish kW maximum power spec tells the tale because long distance driving is not going to choose a setup that is 1:1 driving:charging.
As much as I am a Tesla fan and hope to jump on the bandwagon with a T3, I've never been particularly moved by the long range EV car and drive anywhere arguments. I'm fine with my EV being a local-ish transport solution, and ICE, trains, and planes available for my rare longer distance jaunts.
A problem for GM is that people like me prefer Tesla, despite the over-spec'd mismatch.
As for who will win the long-distance charger sweepstakes, I imagine it will be Tesla, or the new players will learn to get along with Tesla. My opinion is mostly a reflection of skepticism that a company that owns chargers can be profitable. That puts the not-Tesla companies that want to rely on someone else for the charger network in a Chicken or Egg conundrum.
Tesla is remarkably transparent in its dealings with customers and other companies. In the case of other EV manufacturers Tesla says "if you pay your fair share in adding to the SC network, you can benefit from that already setup."
Yup
Last edited:
Umm, maybe on the autobahn in Germany -- using 50 kW while driving equates to 100+ mph. Something like 15-25 kW is more realistic so maybe 2:1. GM said 90 miles in 30 minutes of charging as the minimum vehicle capability and said the rate might improve somewhat for the final production car. So, maybe charge 150 miles in an hour and then drive 2 hours at 70 mph or thereabouts. That's certainly not as good as a 250+ mile range Tesla charging at 2x faster but it's certainly doable occasionally. For example, I could drive a Bolt from SF to LA with an overnight charge and one or two DC charging stops.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Jeff,
My 1:1 estimate (guesstimate) was based on a 30 minute charge to take on 25 kWh and then use at 3 miles/kwh. That works out to an hour of driving followed by a charge. You are right that time-wise it is 2:1 -- thanks for catching the error. I mangled the idea I wanted to convey, which is a stop to charge every hour at mid-points of the long trip.
I chose 30 minutes charging as a reasonable (?) long stop, and to keep the charge in the range of full power.
My 1:1 estimate (guesstimate) was based on a 30 minute charge to take on 25 kWh and then use at 3 miles/kwh. That works out to an hour of driving followed by a charge. You are right that time-wise it is 2:1 -- thanks for catching the error. I mangled the idea I wanted to convey, which is a stop to charge every hour at mid-points of the long trip.
I chose 30 minutes charging as a reasonable (?) long stop, and to keep the charge in the range of full power.
HookBill
Member
If GM dealers were smart, they would install several L2 and L3 chargers at their dealerships. That way when Bolt owners stop in for a charge the swarm of mosquitos (I.e salespeople) can surround them and attempt to sell them on buying an ICE. That's where they make their money anyway.
that's my estimate as well - and why current CCS and Chademo doesn't encourage long distance drive in the same way the supercharger does.
I'll bet that's also why GM doesn't want to invest in the infrastructure - they already know its obsolete and aren't ready to commit yet. They are waiting for what comes next to compete with the SC's. I also don't think the tiny fraction of higher power CCS is the answer they are looking for either.
Similar threads
