Potential BOLT customers being suctioned up by Tesla !

[SageBrush]

if the model 3 wasn't coming are you telling me you wouldn't of considered a bolt?

I would never buy a GM, but if the Bolt was e.g. made by Toyota I would look on the car favorably but in the end find it did not meet my needs. My problem is that much less expensive EVs exist for commuter duties, and it cannot serve as a long distance car because it lacks the charger infrastructure. I can imagine the Bolt working extremely well in Europe, where a long distance public transport system exits.

While I distrust those who insist that the science is settled (it's never settled, that what science is!)

That aphorism of science has been misused. It is true that science is never 100% settled, but we do have confidence levels. The science is currently highly confident regarding AGW, and the downsides of replacing fossil fuels ? Well, let's see: less pollution; more domestic economy; more distributed wealth; a more resilient grid; far less money to OPEC and countries using petro-dollars to export terrorism; no oil resource wars; and far less military adventurism.

Even if AGW did not exist, it is insane from economic and national security viewpoints to prefer fossil fuels. Now add on very high certainty of extensive, world-wide climate damage from AGW and this debate is honestly ridiculous.

 

[McRat]

I would never buy a GM, but if the Bolt was e.g. made by Toyota I would look on the car favorably but in the end find it did not meet my needs. My problem is that much less expensive EVs exist for commuter duties, and it cannot serve as a long distance car because it lacks the charger infrastructure. I can imagine the Bolt working extremely well in Europe, where a long distance public transport system exits.

That aphorism of science has been misused. It is true that science is never 100% settled, but we do have confidence levels. The science is currently highly confident regarding AGW, and the downsides of replacing fossil fuels ? Well, let's see: less pollution; more domestic economy; more distributed wealth; a more resilient grid; far less money to OPEC and countries using petro-dollars to export terrorism; no oil resource wars; and far less military adventurism.

Even if AGW did not exist, it is insane from economic and national security viewpoints to prefer fossil fuels. Now add on very high certainty of extensive, world-wide climate damage from AGW and this debate is honestly ridiculous.

Are you sure you don't actually just enjoy getting passed by schoolbuses anytime there is a stoplight?

The Prius generates massive amounts of Eco-Smug, but is also very handy as a sleeping aid. Ditto for the Leaf.

A Prius is car for people who don't like cars and want folk to see that. The Leaf is proof you are never in a hurry.

 

[alseTrick]

And if the model 3 wasn't coming are you telling me you wouldn't of considered a bolt?

I currently drive an aging ice vehicle. I had been looking at new cars (midsize sedans, non-luxury, all ice) prior to hearing about the 3 last March. If the 3 didn't exist, I 100% would not purchase a Bolt. I do accept the science of "climate change", "global warming" or whatever people want to call it, and that it's man-made, fwiw.

Heck, I'm more likely to be called a denier (which is disgusting use of language imo) than an eco-weenie (which is pretty rude in itself). While I distrust those who insist that the science is settled (it's never settled, that what science is!)

So you distrust the vast majority of research and scientists out there that believe in it? (I'm legitimately asking if that is what you're intending to say.)

Do you also distrust the people who "deny" it? I'm just trying to figure out if your distrust swings both ways, or...(Idk)...

As an aside, why is "denier" a disgusting use of language?

I've not come into this conversation from the beginning, so I may have missed a few things.

 

[LectrikPower]

Are you sure you don't actually just enjoy getting passed by schoolbuses anytime there is a stoplight?

The Prius generates massive amounts of Eco-Smug, but is also very handy as a sleeping aid. Ditto for the Leaf.

A Prius is car for people who don't like cars and want folk to see that. The Leaf is proof you are never in a hurry.

The leaf is plenty fast, even highway acceleration beats many gas cars. The only real problem is the small battery. Around town as a errand runner it is not a problem and you would win many stoplight dragraces

 

[kzod]

I currently drive an aging ice vehicle. I had been looking at new cars (midsize sedans, non-luxury, all ice) prior to hearing about the 3 last March. If the 3 didn't exist, I 100% would not purchase a Bolt. I do accept the science of "climate change", "global warming" or whatever people want to call it, and that it's man-made, fwiw.



So you distrust the vast majority of research and scientists out there that believe in it? (I'm legitimately asking if that is what you're intending to say.)

Do you also distrust the people who "deny" it? I'm just trying to figure out if your distrust swings both ways, or...(Idk)...

As an aside, why is "denier" a disgusting use of language?

I've not come into this conversation from the beginning, so I may have missed a few things.

To be honest, I accept the general consensus on global warming, but I am distrustful of their agenda's. All of their goals seem to center on bigger governments and slimy cap and trade systems that won't make a dent in potential warming but will create a new breed of millionaires who will be running the system. These guys think everything would be better with more government programs and spending. They have their heads so far up their own rear ends that they don't know which way is up. You want to decrease use of fossil fuels forget all the crap, and increase the price of gas. Remember back in the old days (5+ years ago?) when gas was expected to top $5/gallon? Compact sales surged. One of the most boring cars to have ever been built became a status symbol (Prius) and trucks started sitting on dealer lots. You don't need incentives, or a new layer of government programs just tax gas, which is easy since it's already done.

 

[SageBrush]

To be honest, I accept the general consensus on global warming, but I am distrustful of their agenda's.

Peer reviewed science does not have an "agenda"
It is simply the best understanding we have to date.

 

[alseTrick]

To be honest, I accept the general consensus on global warming, but I am distrustful of their agenda's. All of their goals seem to center on bigger governments and slimy cap and trade systems that won't make a dent in potential warming but will create a new breed of millionaires who will be running the system. These guys think everything would be better with more government programs and spending. They have their heads so far up their own rear ends that they don't know which way is up. You want to decrease use of fossil fuels forget all the crap, and increase the price of gas. Remember back in the old days (5+ years ago?) when gas was expected to top $5/gallon? Compact sales surged. One of the most boring cars to have ever been built became a status symbol (Prius) and trucks started sitting on dealer lots. You don't need incentives, or a new layer of government programs just tax gas, which is easy since it's already done.

I'm not sure who "they" are (scientists and researchers?). Do you also distrust the agenda of Big Business (or other anti climate change persons) when it comes to their stance on climate change?

A carbon tax is something Elon is a proponent of, and he suggests decreasing other taxes to keep overall taxes revenue neutral. Fortunately it seems an idea like that has made some headway in DC, though I'm not sure if it'd actually get through the legislature yet.

 

[22522]

Peer reviewed science is not without flaws. 40~50% of experiments cannot be repeated. These are more controlled experiments than what people seem to talk about here.

How do we fix the flaws: List the accepting reviewers on all published papers?

I do not know. The process could be improved. A lot of the problem papers are in medical science...

 

[ohmman]

Peer reviewed science is not without flaws. 40~50% of experiments cannot be repeated. These are more controlled experiments than what people seem to talk about here.

How do we fix the flaws: List the accepting reviewers on all published papers?

I do not know. The process could be improved. A lot of the problem papers are in medical science...

This is very true. Also true is that it has less flaws than relying on intuition and guesswork.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I would never buy a GM, but if the Bolt was e.g. made by Toyota I would look on the car favorably but in the end find it did not meet my needs. My problem is that much less expensive EVs exist for commuter duties, and it cannot serve as a long distance car because it lacks the charger infrastructure. I can imagine the Bolt working extremely well in Europe, where a long distance public transport system exits.

The key problem with the cheaper, short-range BEVs is that they are more likely to be an expensive commuter and errand runner.

The arrival of the Bolt means that (barring a significant change in circumstances) I know even if Tesla can't deliver a Model 3 in my price range, I know that my next car purchase can be a BEV that we can use for our regular weekend trips.

 

[McRat]

Peer reviewed science does not have an "agenda"
It is simply the best understanding we have to date.

If all the scientist derive their income and stability from the same organization, there is always a pressure to comply, regardless of topic.

Like when the population explosion studies were being done. Peer reviewed reports indicted we are all already dead. We died about 1980 IIRC.

 

[M0DEL³]

Honestly, just the fact that the Bolt is serviced by dealers and that it is not a viable car outside of a local driving area (not much greater viability than Leafs, Sparks, etc.) is reason enough for the car not being a smashing success...

I agree that the Bolt is facing an uphill battle, but disagree with your analysis. The fact that GM has an established network of local service centers is, in my opinion, one of the stronger advantages that the Chevy Bolt may have going for it. Of course we do not yet know how effectively that network will get Bolt certified, but it's logical to assume that it will.

I have over 40 GM certified service centers within a 180 mile radius of me, and zero Tesla Service centers. Given the scheduling difficulties that Tesla Service centers currently have while handling just the S&X fleets, one can imagine the problems if the Model 3 release has any significant technical hick-ups.

Service isn't likely to be a marketing problem for the Bolt.

 

[Saghost]

Service isn't likely to be a marketing problem for the Bolt.

I know this isn't what you meant or the direction the post you were responding to was going, but I tend to think service is going to be a marketing problem for the Bolt to GM's real customer: the dealerships.

Specifically, the Bolt has basically no scheduled maintenance for the first 100k miles. No scheduled maintenance means no service money coming in except for (probably rare) warranty repairs - and for less ethical dealers, no cars coming in to find unnecessary repairs to do on as well.

 

[McRat]

I know this isn't what you meant or the direction the post you were responding to was going, but I tend to think service is going to be a marketing problem for the Bolt to GM's real customer: the dealerships.

Specifically, the Bolt has basically no scheduled maintenance for the first 100k miles. No scheduled maintenance means no service money coming in except for (probably rare) warranty repairs - and for less ethical dealers, no cars coming in to find unnecessary repairs to do on as well.

Were you bit by a dealer as a child? Just curious. I suppose you don't go to restaurants and grow your food in your backyard and cook it yourself. There are bad cooks, bad waitresses, bad restaurant managers, bad farmers, bad truck drivers, bad dishwashers, etc,

Name a business that does not have both good and bad. Better yet, name one related to the transportation industry.

Please say Tesla Motors. I dare you.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I know this isn't what you meant or the direction the post you were responding to was going, but I tend to think service is going to be a marketing problem for the Bolt to GM's real customer: the dealerships.

Specifically, the Bolt has basically no scheduled maintenance for the first 100k miles. No scheduled maintenance means no service money coming in except for (probably rare) warranty repairs - and for less ethical dealers, no cars coming in to find unnecessary repairs to do on as well.

I think that the dealers-as-customers thing is a bit overplayed. GM has high density*, so they don't need a high proportion of dealerships to be selling it The Internet has changed how people buy their cars. You really just need somewhere to take your car for warranty work and a long-range BEV will have a high probability of a supporting dealer within range.

* For example, I have 2 GM dealerships within 20 miles and within 20 miles, another 3 about 50 miles away plus another one or two within 100 miles.

 

[M0DEL³]

... the Bolt has basically no scheduled maintenance for the first 100k miles. No scheduled maintenance means no service money coming in except for (probably rare) warranty repairs - and for less ethical dealers, no cars coming in to find unnecessary repairs to do on as well.

I consider <A> (An abundance of service centers) plus <B> (no scheduled maintenance for first 100K) to be a marketing plus not a "marketing problem".

As for the relative loss of revenue to the service centers, to the extent this is a concern, it would not be the concern of the customer. Most customers prefer products that are reliable with less maintenance expense. Quite honestly, once the EV transition is complete, one might guess that once possible consequence might be that at some point in the future GM realizes they no longer need so many SC's and are able to start closing some of them reducing their overhead costs. We can only hope.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

What I greatly dislike about the car industry right now is the only viable purely electric car is the Tesla.

The Bolt as I understand it is still a compliance car with limited production runs each year. Is this not true?

In order for me to classify that a particular car is an honest player in the market it can't be expensive. and it can't be production run limited at numbers lower than around 250K a year.

 

[McRat]

What I greatly dislike about the car industry right now is the only viable purely electric car is the Tesla.

The Bolt as I understand it is still a compliance car with limited production runs each year. Is this not true?

In order for me to classify that a particular car is an honest player in the market it can't be expensive. and it can't be production run limited at numbers lower than around 250K a year.

Can you tell me where to buy Compliance Electricity for my EVs?

I understand that Compliance Electricity is just gasoline that has been run through a filter into an EVSE.

We have 50,000 miles on electricity between my two kids and myself, but sadly none of those miles were using Compliance Brand Electricity.

Who am I kidding? We drive EVs because they are more fun to drive in urban areas than ICE cars. Screw the Compliance Monkeys. Let them swing from branches flinging poo at EVs, they are poor shots.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

Can you tell me where to buy Compliance Electricity for my EVs?

I understand that Compliance Electricity is just gasoline that has been run through a filter into an EVSE.

We have 50,000 miles on electricity between my two kids and myself, but sadly none of those miles were using Compliance Brand Electricity.

Who am I kidding? We drive EVs because they are more fun to drive in urban areas than ICE cars. Screw the Compliance Monkeys. Let them swing from branches flinging poo at EVs, they are poor shots.

What in the world does that have to do with what I said?

From accounts from people who have driven the bolt say it's a fun car to drive. A lot more fun to drive then an equivalent ICE car from GM.

But, if it's production run limited to be a compliance car then the vast majority won't even get a chance to really try it. It also won't be pushed/marketed as much as gas-guzzler.

Is The Chevrolet Bolt EV Really A Compliance Car To Help GM Continue To Sell Gas-Guzzlers?

 

[McRat]

What in the world does that have to do with what I said?

From accounts from people who have driven the bolt say it's a fun car to drive. A lot more fun to drive then an equivalent ICE car from GM.

But, if it's production run limited to be a compliance car then the vast majority won't even get a chance to really try it.

Everything.

You are saying only the EVs you want to buy are 'really' EVs. All the other EV options are not. They are evil compliance cars that don't really run on electricity to move people.

The greatest enemy to EV adoption is the EV Fashion Cops. Screw CO2, screw adoption, it's fashion or die.