Tesla Master Plan: GM got there first

[anticitizen13.7]

GM’s Reuss Predicts Company Will Build First Profitable EV | TheDetroitBureau.com

GM's EVP for product development admitted that GM sells the Bolt at a loss:

We know the customers would like to drive electric cars but are unwilling to pay any more for them. That’s why we’re going to be the first company to sell electric vehicles that people can afford at a profit,” Reuss said. However, he declined to say when GM’s EV operations would be profitable.

Basically, the Bolt's 37.5k MSRP is a stunt subsidized by GM's other product lines in order to barely stuff it into mainstream pricing.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I'm not sure why you guys are so contemptuous of GM's profit or lack thereof on the Bolt. GM must adhere to CAFE and ZEV credit mandates. The Bolt allows them to sell their other cars without requiring them to purchase ZEV credits. By manufacturing the Bolt, they lose less money than they otherwise would have, so it is a net positive for GM.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I'm not sure why you guys are so contemptuous of GM's profit or lack thereof on the Bolt. GM must adhere to CAFE and ZEV credit mandates. The Bolt allows them to sell their other cars without requiring them to purchase ZEV credits. By manufacturing the Bolt, they lose less money than they otherwise would have, so it is a net positive for GM.

I think more people are contemptuous of the media erroneously comparing it to the Model 3...and perhaps some vocal GM enthusiasts on this forum that have pontificated similarly.

 

[Cosmacelf]

I think more people are contemptuous of the media erroneously comparing it to the Model 3...and perhaps some vocal GM enthusiasts on this forum that have pontificated similarly.

But it is comparable to the Model 3. Similar range, similar price. Not identical, of course, and different people are going to prefer one over the other, but there is no reason not to compare them.

 

[mknox]

The only way the Bolt becomes viable as a long range EV is when (1) The battery becomes capable of DC charging in the 100kW neighborhood and (2) The charging infrastructure at these speeds supports the Bolt.

It's that simple.

My early Model S 85 has the original "A-pack" battery that is limited to 90 kW, but I don't think I've ever seen it at 80, even with SOC at 20% or less and typically see numbers beginning at around 70 and tapering to about 25 as I near 90% SOC. Nonetheless, I do frequent trips from the Toronto area to the Chicago area and don't find it inconvenient at all. By the time I've finished my lunch or whatever, the car is ready to go.

Sure the Superchargers are more ubiquitous right now, but I just wanted to point out that "slower" charging speeds are not the end of the world.

 

[Cosmacelf]

My early Model S 85 has the original "A-pack" battery that is limited to 90 kW, but I don't think I've ever seen it at 80, even with SOC at 20% or less and typically see numbers beginning at around 70 and tapering to about 25 as I near 90% SOC. Nonetheless, I do frequent trips from the Toronto area to the Chicago area and don't find it inconvenient at all. By the time I've finished my lunch or whatever, the car is ready to go.

Sure the Superchargers are more ubiquitous right now, but I just wanted to point out that "slower" charging speeds are not the end of the world.

I've also had a few trips where I only used the Chademo adapter at 45 kW and it worked fine. Frankly, the way things are going in California, the days where Tesla cars see even 75 kW charge rates are fast disappearing unless you happen to drive at 3am.

 

[bxr140]

Frankly, the way things are going in California, the days where Tesla cars see even 75 kW charge rates are fast disappearing unless you happen to drive at 3am.

Nope. Cherry picked narrative.

I drive up and down the 5 1-2 times a month, almost always Friday evenings and Sunday evenings. I'm always at gilroy, harris, buttonwillow, Bakersfield, and tejon. I can't even remember the last time I was paired, let alone the last time I didn't get a full charge rate.

 

[McRat]

The only way the Bolt becomes viable as a long range EV is when (1) The battery becomes capable of DC charging in the 100kW neighborhood .

The Bolt would charge at the same speed as the 2016 Model S 90kWh at that point. The Bolt is more than 20% more efficient. So Tesla 60/70/75/85's are now all 'unviable' for long range?

I do agree that any Tesla S/X with Supercharging is vastly superior to any other EV for long range travel today, but saying Teslas with less than 90kWh of battery are not 'viable' is comedy.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

The Bolt would charge at the same speed as the 2016 Model S 90kWh at that point. The Bolt is more than 20% more efficient.

Your efficiency assertion is deceptive because the Bolt's highway MPGe is only 110, vs. an MPGe of 107 highway for the 90 kWh Tesla. The Bolt is only substantially more efficient in lower speed city driving where its poor aero profile has much lower impact.

Second, the Bolt's 50 kW DC fast charge adds a maximum of 90 miles range in 30 minutes according to GM's website. The charge taper profile has been observed by drivers to occur much sooner in the battery % than a Tesla: More details on fast-charging rate in 2017 Chevy Bolt EV electric car

The DC charging will in my estimation need to be about twice as good as it is today (matching the Tesla's 170 miles in 30 minutes) to avoid having to stop every 1 hour 15 minutes for a 30 minutes charge after initial charge is depleted. That's a huge PITA because most people don't need food and restroom breaks in time intervals that short. This is for a typical highway speed of 70 MPH.

Hence my wording: "in the neighborhood" of 100 kW. The taper curve issue makes setting a solid kW benchmark impossible. 90 kW probably close enough.

So Tesla 60/70/75/85's are now all 'unviable' for long range.

It's my observation that long distance travel does get more difficult with the 60 battery, though this is mitigated by the fast Supercharger recharge, especially on the software locked 75 batteries.

But the undeniable fact is that the 75 and 85 kW Model S both start out with much more highway range than the Bolt, and recover that range more quickly on the Supercharger network.

 

[buddyott]

I just realized that with the Bolt, GM has reached Tesla's strategic pinnacle by shipping the Bolt, and has done it a year faster than Tesla. From day one, Tesla was always focused on eventually manufacturing a long range affordable electric car. The Model 3 will be that car, but the Bolt got there first, and about a year early (still TBD).

And the Bolt is no slouch. It even has some design specs which beat the Model 3. In particular, front wheel drive which will give it better traction than the Model 3, and probably gives it better regen capability.

Since they have no intention of mass producing the car in any appreciable volume I don't see how the Bolt can be considered winning. The Model 3 will outnumber the Bolt by and order of magnitude. GM got somewhere first but it wasn't to any finish line I care about.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Yeah, people here, and even Elon, all think that GM won't build anymore than 30K Bolts a year, regardless of how much demand there it. Right now, that's still conjecture. We shall see...

 

[brucet999]

1) Rear drive is the only choice for traction during acceleration.

Can you explain that? How is FWD better for acceleration traction than RWD?

I have driven both rear and front wheel drive cars and the only difference I have observed is the annoying tendency to torque steer in FWD and better ability to accelerate out of a skid with FWD.

 

[wdolson]

I just realized that with the Bolt, GM has reached Tesla's strategic pinnacle by shipping the Bolt, and has done it a year faster than Tesla. From day one, Tesla was always focused on eventually manufacturing a long range affordable electric car. The Model 3 will be that car, but the Bolt got there first, and about a year early (still TBD).

And the Bolt is no slouch. It even has some design specs which beat the Model 3. In particular, front wheel drive which will give it better traction than the Model 3, and probably gives it better regen capability.

Tesla's goal was to bring a mass market, long range EV which was affordable and could be an effective car for both around town and long road trips. GM has beaten Tesla in part of the equation, they brought an inexpensive long range car to market before Tesla, but there are lots of rumors GM loses money on each Bolt sold, and their max production volume can't even get to the level of the Model S.

There are promises of a long range charging network coming into being, and it might happen, but driving a Bolt long distance is painful today except for a few routes which have charging.

The day the Model 3 will hit the market, an extensive charging network will already be in place. Tesla will also be making a gross profit for each Model 3 built shortly after its introduction and the Model 3 can be built in volumes approaching some of the more popular ICE cars in GM's line up.

While the Bolt gets closer to Tesla's final step of the master plan part one than any one else thus far, they still haven't hit that mark.

 

[McRat]

Your efficiency assertion is deceptive because the Bolt's highway MPGe is only 110, vs. an MPGe of 107 highway for the 90 kWh Tesla. The Bolt is only substantially more efficient in lower speed city driving where its poor aero profile has much lower impact.

Second, the Bolt's 50 kW DC fast charge adds a maximum of 90 miles range in 30 minutes according to GM's website. The charge taper profile has been observed by drivers to occur much sooner in the battery % than a Tesla: More details on fast-charging rate in 2017 Chevy Bolt EV electric car

The DC charging will in my estimation need to be about twice as good as it is today (matching the Tesla's 170 miles in 30 minutes) to avoid having to stop every 1 hour 15 minutes for a 30 minutes charge after initial charge is depleted. That's a huge PITA because most people don't need food and restroom breaks in time intervals that short. This is for a typical highway speed of 70 MPH.

Hence my wording: "in the neighborhood" of 100 kW. The taper curve issue makes setting a solid kW benchmark impossible. 90 kW probably close enough.




It's my observation that long distance travel does get more difficult with the 60 battery, though this is mitigated by the fast Supercharger recharge, especially on the software locked 75 batteries.

But the undeniable fact is that the 75 and 85 kW Model S both start out with much more highway range than the Bolt, and recover that range more quickly on the Supercharger network.

Compare Side-by-Side *

Read the highway numbers.

It is your assertion there is a Magic peak kW number, not mine. I'll always argue that Miles is how charging should be measured. It's a bizarre concept that charging be measured by Peak kW and miles in Electricity per mile, instead of Miles in 20/30/40 minutes and Miles per kWh. Who cares about electricity? I have to cover Miles.

* I doubt an engineering team left 19% electrical efficiency on the table. I doubt a special smaller front electric motor is 19% more efficient. Why the 19% variation exists is something that can only be theorized.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Compare Side-by-Side *

Read the highway numbers

Invalid, because you are comparing LAST year's Model S (which I can't buy new, only used) to this year's Bolt.

Compare Side-by-Side

75 kWh RWD gets 100 MPGe highway. 90 kWh AWD gets 107 MPGe.

It is your assertion there is a Magic peak kW number, not mine. I'll always argue that Miles is how charging should be measured. It's a bizarre concept that charging be measured by Peak kW and miles in Electricity per mile, instead of Miles in 20/30/40 minutes and Miles per kWh. Who cares about electricity? I have to cover Miles.

Which changes nothing about my conclusion.

Stopping for 30 minutes after every 75 minutes of highway travel (after initial charge depletion) sucks. Most people don't need to take a piss or eat every hr and 15.

2.5 hrs of travel per stop is reasonable.

The Bolt's DC charging capability won't make the grade for most people unless it's about TWICE as good as it is now.

 

[Jtrader]

And the SC network is indeed way better than the CCS network, but that gap will close rapidly in a couple of years. It already is close to par in California.

So which is it? "GM got there first... or the CCS network gap will close rapidly in a couple of years"?

 

[McRat]

Invalid, because you are comparing LAST year's Model S (which I can't buy new, only used) to this year's Bolt.

Compare Side-by-Side

75 kWh RWD gets 100 MPGe highway. 90 kWh AWD gets 107 MPGe.

Which changes nothing about my conclusion.

Stopping for 30 minutes after every 75 minutes of highway travel (after initial charge depletion) sucks. Most people don't need to take a piss or eat every hr and 15.

2.5 hrs of travel per stop is reasonable.

The Bolt's DC charging capability won't make the grade for most people unless it's about TWICE as good as it is now.

So you believe the engineers at Tesla screwed the pooch so badly that they accidentally discovered 19% in a game where 1-2% gets you an award and promotion and the company makes millions?

I don't.

What the truth is, I cannot say, but I do not believe they are incompetent. The 19% did not fly out of a monkey's arse. We might never know where it came from. Hyundai and some others simply made up numbers. But does the EPA even own a AWD dyno (rare) to do their random tests? I have only seen a conventional chassis dyno at the EPA lab.

 

[McRat]

...
Stopping for 30 minutes after every 75 minutes of highway travel (after initial charge depletion) sucks. Most people don't need to take a piss or eat every hr and 15.

2.5 hrs of travel per stop is reasonable.

The Bolt's DC charging capability won't make the grade for most people unless it's about TWICE as good as it is now.

Actually MOST (your words) people don't use a car as an airplane. So MOST don't actually remote refuel EVs. MOST EVs in the US only go about 60-80 miles in real life.

So you are saying there is a different MOST. A MOST which are the folk afraid of flying or trains, or aren't towing, heavily laden, or have more people than an EV can hold.

For this MOST, there is even a decent segment that their MOST is only 500 miles or less round trip. Drive, sleep/charge, drive back. Like Vegas trips for Southern Californians, or New York trips for Bostonians, etc, etc.

The MOST you are referring to is well-heeled retired/semi-retired folk, which a significant Tesla demographic. Most cars over $100k are owned by this demographic. But I'm not sure that is where new generation of $20-30k EVs should be focused at.

It seems that if you owned a car company you would be willing to retard EV adoption to service a small segment of EV owners. I don't see that as a good thing.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

What the truth is, I cannot say

The Model S EPA numbers are at best tangential to the issue of whether the Bolt is suitable for long-distance highway travel.

The fact is that nothing you've said contradicts the fact that the Bolt has to stop for approximately 30 minutes after about an hour and 15 of highway driving.

And nothing you can say will change that, until GM upgrades the charging specs.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Actually MOST (your words) people don't use a car as an airplane. So MOST don't actually remote refuel EVs. MOST EVs in the US only go about 60-80 miles in real life.

And a lot of people don't want to have to rent a car for the edge cases where they drive 400-500 mile trips.

For this MOST, there is even a decent segment that their MOST is only 500 miles or less round trip. Drive, sleep/charge, drive back. Like Vegas trips for Southern Californians, or New York trips for Bostonians, etc, etc.

400-500 mile trips are reasonably common in my observation. People going to visit relatives in areas where air travel doesn't save time because of distance from airport, for example. A lot of people will simply drive if the drive takes about a day, rather than fly.

It seems that if you owned a car company you would be willing to retard EV adoption to service a small segment of EV owners. I don't see that as a good thing.

You're way off the rails now. This has never been about me. It's always been about the capability of the product.