Would you consider a Bolt?

[techmaven]

How is that going to help promote EV adoption when the primary resistance to many people buying EVs is lack of rapid charging stations for long distance travel?

That's not true. EV adoption is actually not one thing. There are three distinct segments. The PHEVs typically don't use DCFC at all, since their battery packs are too small. They are designed to sip juice overnight or at work and use gasoline as a crutch in all other circumstances. Short range BEVs need a tremendous amount of local infrastructure to support them beyond a basic commuter role. Long range BEVs typically don't need infrastructure in town except where one stays overnight. They need DCFC infrastructure to enable jumps between cities, spaced typically at least 2 hours apart. What is common between all three is destination charging, therefore the primary resistance to BEVs is the availability of destination charging, either at home or at work.

The vast majority of BEVs on the market are not long distance BEVs. They are essentially commuter vehicles.

The standards for long distance BEV market or for full ICE replacement is a bit of a mess right now. The CHAdeMO and CCS standards as they stand right now are not adequate standards to support the only long distance BEVs on the market today - Tesla's. They are also inadequate for the next generation non-Tesla's... the Audi Q6 e-tron, whatever Porsche is going to ship. There is a certain physics reality of what aerodynamics and battery capacity balance is needed and the charge rate to support that to really be a long distance BEV. Therefore, investing in DCFC right now is putting in infrastructure that isn't really designed for long distance BEVs, but crutches for short range BEVs and making a mess of it.

Therefore, you are spending money today, the right place to invest is in destination charging. Even though there are 70 million detached homes in the U.S. representing about 60% of housing, there's the 40% that don't have detached homes. The answer for them isn't DCFC. The costs, including equipment, installation, electricity production, and grid infrastructure are too high for a large amount of people to use DCFC as their primary means to obtain energy for their vehicles. Instead, they have to be able to find destination charging, ideally at night in most places and at work, especially where solar installations are high like CA.

 

[Jeff N]

One of the other points JohnSnowNW mentioned was that the CCS stations are largely "singular". This also is a big differentiator, and one that many folks get mixed up with (recognizing that total number of charging sites is different than the total number of charging stalls).

A site with one CCS charging stall is much less useful than a site with 6. Particularly given the relatively low power capability of the installed chargers, which means longer wait times. It also is problematic with cars of limited range, as they may have no alternative but to wait if they don't have the remaining charge left to drive some distance to the next available charger.

I don't disagree with any of that. As I've said before, Tesla's supercharging is clearly superior to CCS today for interstate long-distance road trips.

My point has been that occasional unfrenzied road trips in a Bolt EV are perfectly realistic if some higher power ~200A CCS stations are available along the highway route. I think this will happen in the relatively BEV-dense west and east coastal areas in the US over the next 2-3 years. Even today's often 24 kW stations are deployed widely enough to make road trips possible, if less convenient, as soon as Bolts are delivered in those areas. During the lifecycle of those early Bolts, higher power CCS stations should be widely deployed in many highway areas outside those coastal regions that would enable the Bolt EV to charge at its maximum capability.

I'm pushing back on the notion that the Bolt itself is inherently incapable or is drastically less capable than a base trim Model 3 of doing occasional road trips.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

I'm pushing back on the notion that the Bolt itself is inherently incapable or is drastically less capable than a base trim Model 3 of doing occasional road trips.

Unfortunately, the proof is in the pudding. You will be more limited with an attempted long-distance drive when using the CCS network. There are several reasons:

1. Stations are not necessarily conveniently located
2. Stations are not currently reliable
3. Not all stations supply the same amount of power
4. Not all stations use the same payment method
5. There are fewer CCS stations

Just because something is technically feasible, doesn't mean it's convenient, or always possible. I think the average Joe would be more comfortable taking trips in a base Model 3 knowing that the SC/Destination network is available, and that an adapter allows them to use at least some of the CCS/Chademo stations, over someone who has to rely on a hodgepodge of CCS stations.

So, while the Bolt isn't inherently incapable of making long distance trips, the places where it would be convenient, or even practical, are fewer compared to the SC network. That's just the reality of the current CCS network.

EDIT:

As an aside, I think an interesting challenge would be to have two Model S owners, preferably S60, take a drive down the West Coast where the CCS/Chademo is most concentrated. One owner would charge exclusively on the SC network, while the other would use Chademo. It wouldn't be the most accurate, since it would be Chademo, but close enough to highlight the differences between the current state of each network.

I'd venture that the SC user would have a considerably easier trip...but would be an interesting experiment.

 

[Chopr147]

I vote HELL NO! Charging and driving would not be too big a problem for me. Long trips I would take my wifes car. I love the idea of getting an EV but it has to be a decent performing car. Which is why I reserved the Model 3

 

[Jeff N]

So, while the Bolt isn't inherently incapable of making long distance trips, the places where it would be convenient, or even practical, are fewer compared to the SC network. That's just the reality of the current CCS network.

Sure, I've never disagreed with that. The lack of convenience is not primarily a technical attribute of the Bolt EV or ~200A CCS (versus a base Model 3 or S60) and ~350A sustained (with 400A+ initially) in CCS 2.0 will match Tesla Supercharger speeds on bigger battery cars for future CCS vehicles beyond the 2017 Bolt.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

The lack of convenience is not primarily a technical attribute of the Bolt EV or ~200A CCS (versus a base Model 3 or S60) and ~350A sustained (with 400A+ initially) in CCS 2.0 will match Tesla Supercharger speeds on bigger battery cars for future CCS vehicles beyond the 2017 Bolt.

It is if you're asking people to plunk money down on a Bolt "today." The 24kW CCS stations aren't going to uprate the power to 50kW, just because you roll in with a Bolt.

 

[musicious]

Jeff, what is it about the Bolt that makes you so insistent to keep arguing on here and elsewhere (have seen your posts outside of TMC too) that the Bolt is just as good a car as the model 3 with no supercharging, no autopilot, no over the air updates, less performance, less aerodynamics, ugly looks, cramped back seat, no frunk and less safety for about the same price?

I get that you love the hatchback and think there is more headroom in a Bolt, and more dealers to service it (though you could argue most dealers will also add 10k+ to the price outside of CARB states if they even sell them there), but if you honestly think any important feature comes remotely close to a comparison you are delusional... If you aren't a GM Exec you sure fooled me.

 

[SageBrush]

If you [Jeff] aren't a GM Exec you sure fooled me

I've read his posts and had quite a few discussions over the years. He is a well-intentioned, informed, smart and environmentally sensitive engineer who just happens to also be a GM apologist.

Cannot have everything ;-)

 

[musicious]

I've read his posts and had quite a few discussions over the years. He is a well-intentioned, informed, smart and environmentally sensitive engineer who just happens to also be a GM apologist.

Cannot have everything ;-)

Lol I just found it peculiar that he can't seem to find any faults with the Bolt, he tries to talk it up so much and downplay the Tesla advantages

 

[Breezy]

I'm not seeing it. The auto manufacturers outright have said they're not interested in building infrastructure. Outside of a couple of states there's no government interest in building them. The charging station companies don't seem to care, they overcharge for what they do have, don't maintain them, and are going bankrupt.

It's already happening. There are over 700 CCS charging sites in North America today and growing at 150% per year. Only about 15% of them are 24 kW.

The Supercharger network is great today for many people in many places, but not for everyone everywhere. For me it's a minor consideration, less important than the fact that my nearest Tesla service centre is over 2 hours away while I have a good GM dealer minutes from my house.

The Bolt won't sell as well as the Model 3. But it's a good choice for a lot of people.

 

[SageBrush]

It's already happening. There are over 700 CCS charging sites in North America today and growing at 150% per year. Only about 15% of them are 24 kW.

Here is a map of the Southeastern US courtesy of plugshare that is supposed to filter to only DC CCS charge stations. Notice the legend at the bottom -- about 50 km/centimeter.

 

[techmaven]

It's already happening. There are over 700 CCS charging sites in North America today and growing at 150% per year. Only about 15% of them are 24 kW.

The Supercharger network is great today for many people in many places, but not for everyone everywhere. For me it's a minor consideration, less important than the fact that my nearest Tesla service centre is over 2 hours away while I have a good GM dealer minutes from my house.

Seriously, you are on a forum where the owners drive 100% electric. We know what it means to drive 100% electric. We know that the nascent CCS network is not a network to be relied upon for driving 100% electric. Not only that, it isn't just a matter of throwing money at it... they have to actually establish the new CCS standard, so nearly all of the existing CCS investment until the new standard is ratified and the new equipment is available is a waste of money.

Its funny that some of the same people that wonder how Tesla is going to cope with Model 3 demand on the Supercharger network don't find a problem with the CCS network. Somehow they are seduced by the number of locations in and around a city. That's nearly completely immaterial to a long distance BEV driver. You can take all of those within a single city and count them as part of the destination charging network. They are essentially the same to us as the HPWC Destination Charging network:

So 700 locations and growing is nearly meaningless because they are growing as destination charging. They aren't fast enough to support long distance BEVs so they aren't installed to support long distance BEVs for the most part. Not only that, you have to have nearly 4-10x the number to support provide the same support as Superchargers. So Superchargers can be installed at 120-140 miles apart. 50 kW CCS has to be installed at 50-60 miles apart, along each highway. So to be comparable to the more than 1,500 Supercharger plugs in the United States today, the CCS network has to be at least 6,000 plugs and spaced out the right way. The 700 locations today are not spaced out the right way. What's worse, some of the choke points along highways actually have more of the 24 kW than the 50 kW variants. Because people don't use the CCS network to drive long distances.

So then add 30,000 Bolts to the mix. I think the CCS network in 2017 gets pummeled far worse than adding 200,000 Model 3's in 2017 on the Supercharger network. Imagine trying to explain to people, no, you don't want to use that CCS charger... no, not that one either, it'll be terribly slow. No, that that other one too, you can never get a free plug.

 

[Jeff N]

Jeff, what is it about the Bolt that makes you so insistent to keep arguing on here and elsewhere (have seen your posts outside of TMC too) that the Bolt is just as good a car as the model 3 with no supercharging, no autopilot, no over the air updates, less performance, less aerodynamics, ugly looks, cramped back seat, no frunk and less safety for about the same price?

Where did I say "the Bolt is just as good a car as the model 3"?

In any case, you are assuming some facts not yet in evidence.

The Model 3 is more appropriately compared to the 2018 Bolt EV. GM has not yet announced the equipment specs for the 2018 model year. While I do not expect powertrain upgrades for 2018, it is entirely possible that the Bolt will get the same "SuperCruise" autopilot capability that is scheduled for the 2018 CT6.

The 2017 Bolt likely does not have the same initial charge current rate of the Model 3 but for typical road trip charging it may very well add almost the same number of miles of range when driven at a modestly slower highway speed (when necessary) and require an extra 15-20 minutes when charging on CCS 200A equipment. These CCS stations would follow the exist CCS specification and could be installed today. They generally haven't been installed in the past because there were no cars on the road which could take advantage of their higher charging rate capability.

We do not know that there will be no "over the air" updates for the Bolt. So far, GM's over the air updates have been limited to the OnStar unit itself in existing cars like the Volt. They have the hardware in place to do remote updates of other components and could decide to enable it whenever they choose to do so.

The performance is likely lower in the Bolt than in the base trim of the Model 3 but it's possible that the difference will be within one second from 0-60 mph. All we know today is that the Bolt will be less than 7.0 seconds and the Model 3 will be less than 6.0 seconds. Less than 7.0 is plenty fast for most drivers.

Less aerodynamics is inherent in the length and dimensions of the utilitarian body shape they chose. It's a trade off between usability and cargo flexibility versus a sleeker sports sedan look with better highway aero. The Bolt and Model 3 have some somewhat similar specs but they are clearly not aimed at the exact same market and that's good. We need a variety of vehicle types on the market with ~200 miles of range to complement the ones with ~100 miles of range.

Looks are subjective. I dislike the snout of the Model 3 reveal cars but suspect that will be fixed in the final version. I also dislike the large oval grill on the Bolt which matches some other 2017 GM cars and looks like it was borrowed from the Toyota Camry and Prius C. Otherwise, I think the Bolt looks okay. The Model 3 interior dash is presently a mystery that will be further disclosed later on. I like some aspects of the Model S dash and dislike others. Oh well.

Cramped back seat? What do you base that on? As I previously mentioned, the known backseat specs tend to imply that two rear passengers will be at least as comfortable in the Bolt as the Model 3 and three rear passengers are likely to have about the same discomfort.

The Bolt trades off the lack of a frunk for a shorter overall vehicle length which makes it easier to park in urban areas. The Volt has much better than average crash safety and rollover scores. We haven't seen crash tests for the Bolt EV or Model 3 yet. Based on the history of the Model S and Volt, I expect that the Model 3 and Bolt will both have much better than average scores.

Just like the Model 3 will do some things better than the Bolt, the Bolt EV may do a few things better than the Model 3. It appears it may have better single pedal driving, for example, and bring the car to a complete stop and hold it there without forward creep even on a modest incline using a variation of Hill Assist behavior. It will have more cargo space flexibility in the cabin. It will be easier to park in San Francisco and other congested urban parking areas. It will not require an adapter to charge at most public AC charging stations. It may have better seating for tall passengers.

As is apparent from my posts, I think the Bolt EV may be a good choice for some people both next year and perhaps in future years. Personally, I intend to get a Bolt at the end of this year to replace my 2011 Volt with 128,000 miles on the odometer for my ~100 mile roundtrip commute. This will allow me to skip workplace charging and drive entirely on 100% renewable energy unless I'm on a road trip. The Volt goes to a family relative.

My family's other car is a 2003 Prius which I expect to replace in 3-4 years with a ~300 mile range Model 3 with 2nd generation Autopilot hardware. So, my plan is to have a cargo-flexible Bolt EV with excellent regional driving and usable west coast road-tripping ability very soon together with a future Model 3 with excellent drivability and good US/Canada road-tripping ability with almost all miles driven on ultra low carbon energy. I think it's a good plan.

 

[Vitold]

Where did I say "the Bolt is just as good a car as the model 3"?

In any case, you are assuming some facts not yet in evidence.

The Model 3 is more appropriately compared to the 2018 Bolt EV. GM has not yet announced the equipment specs for the 2018 model year. While I do not expect powertrain upgrades for 2018, it is entirely possible that the Bolt will get the same "SuperCruise" autopilot capability that is scheduled for the 2018 CT6.

The 2017 Bolt likely does not have the same initial charge current rate of the Model 3 but for typical road trip charging it may very well add almost the same number of miles of range when driven at a modestly slower highway speed (when necessary) and require an extra 15-20 minutes when charging on CCS 200A equipment. These CCS stations would follow the exist CCS specification and could be installed today. They generally haven't been installed in the past because there were no cars on the road which could take advantage of their higher charging rate capability.

We do not know that there will be no "over the air" updates for the Bolt. So far, GM's over the air updates have been limited to the OnStar unit itself in existing cars like the Volt. They have the hardware in place to do remote updates of other components and could decide to enable it whenever they choose to do so.

The performance is likely lower in the Bolt than in the base trim of the Model 3 but it's possible that the difference will be within one second from 0-60 mph. All we know today is that the Bolt will be less than 7.0 seconds and the Model 3 will be less than 6.0 seconds. Less than 7.0 is plenty fast for most drivers.

Less aerodynamics is inherent in the length and dimensions of the utilitarian body shape they chose. It's a trade off between usability and cargo flexibility versus a sleeker sports sedan look with better highway aero. The Bolt and Model 3 have some somewhat similar specs but they are clearly not aimed at the exact same market and that's good. We need a variety of vehicle types on the market with ~200 miles of range to complement the ones with ~100 miles of range.

Looks are subjective. I dislike the snout of the Model 3 reveal cars but suspect that will be fixed in the final version. I also dislike the large oval grill on the Bolt which matches some other 2017 GM cars and looks like it was borrowed from the Toyota Camry and Prius C. Otherwise, I think the Bolt looks okay. The Model 3 interior dash is presently a mystery that will be further disclosed later on. I like some aspects of the Model S dash and dislike others. Oh well.

Cramped back seat? What do you base that on? As I previously mentioned, the known backseat specs tend to imply that two rear passengers will be at least as comfortable in the Bolt as the Model 3 and three rear passengers are likely to have about the same discomfort.

The Bolt trades off the lack of a frunk for a shorter overall vehicle length which makes it easier to park in urban areas. The Volt has much better than average crash safety and rollover scores. We haven't seen crash tests for the Bolt EV or Model 3 yet. Based on the history of the Model S and Volt, I expect that the Model 3 and Bolt will both have much better than average scores.

Just like the Model 3 will do some things better than the Bolt, the Bolt EV may do a few things better than the Model 3. It appears it may have better single pedal driving, for example, and bring the car to a complete stop and hold it there without forward creep even on a modest incline using a variation of Hill Assist behavior. It will have more cargo space flexibility in the cabin. It will be easier to park in San Francisco and other congested urban parking areas. It will not require an adapter to charge at most public AC charging stations. It may have better seating for tall passengers.

As is apparent from my posts, I think the Bolt EV may be a good choice for some people both next year and perhaps in future years. Personally, I intend to get a Bolt at the end of this year to replace my 2011 Volt with 128,000 miles on the odometer for my ~100 mile roundtrip commute. This will allow me to skip workplace charging and drive entirely on 100% renewable energy unless I'm on a road trip. The Volt goes to a family relative.

My family's other car is a 2003 Prius which I expect to replace in 3-4 years with a ~300 mile range Model 3 with 2nd generation Autopilot hardware. So, my plan is to have a cargo-flexible Bolt EV with excellent regional driving and usable west coast road-tripping ability very soon together with a future Model 3 with excellent drivability and good US/Canada road-tripping ability with almost all miles driven on ultra low carbon energy. I think it's a good plan.

Bolt is smaller than Honda HRV:

Considering Motor Trend's info, Model 3 should be much roomier where it counts (ie. not internal volume but shoulder/leg room)

 

[SageBrush]

Years ago I thought about the issues and economics surrounding charging networks and ended up very skeptical about the entire enterprise. Time has proven me right if the network is CCS. Tesla proved me wrong because Musk is a lot smarter than I am and:

1. The Tesla owners were willing to subsidize the network
2. The Tesla network planned ahead to optimize paths, distances, and car abilities.
3. Battery prices have come down enough to allow a mainstream, 200 mile range EV

 

[Breezy]

Seriously, you are on a forum where the owners drive 100% electric. We know what it means to drive 100% electric. We know that the nascent CCS network is not a network to be relied upon for driving 100% electric.

For me, in my situation, the Supercharger network is not a major consideration, and it's not because I'm uninformed.

Superchargers are not located on routes where I travel, and there are no plans to add them. The availability of Superchargers in Wyoming or Oklahoma is not a major factor in my purchasing decision.

 

[S'toon]

It's already happening. There are over 700 CCS charging sites in North America today and growing at 150% per year. Only about 15% of them are 24 kW.

The Supercharger network is great today for many people in many places, but not for everyone everywhere. For me it's a minor consideration, less important than the fact that my nearest Tesla service centre is over 2 hours away while I have a good GM dealer minutes from my house.

The Bolt won't sell as well as the Model 3. But it's a good choice for a lot of people.

I live in Saskatchewan. The nearest CCS station is even further away from me than the nearest Supercharger. At least Tesla has made some noises towards expanding the Supercharger network. Not one whisper from the CCS crowd.

 

[electracity]

Years ago I thought about the issues and economics surrounding charging networks and ended up very skeptical about the entire enterprise. Time has proven me right if the network is CCS. Tesla proved me wrong because Musk is a lot smarter than I am and:

1. The Tesla owners were willing to subsidize the network
2. The Tesla network planned ahead to optimize paths, distances, and car abilities.
3. Battery prices have come down enough to allow a mainstream, 200 mile range EV

`

I don't think that "willingness" is the correct term. Tesla was able to stay in business while building out the network. Saying that owners paid for the network is semantics. In fact, having the network as a purchase option didn't work.

I do think Tesla monetizes the network with the model 3: The super secret master plan.

 

[Jeff N]

they have to actually establish the new CCS standard, so nearly all of the existing CCS investment until the new standard is ratified and the new equipment is available is a waste of money.

The CCS standard is already established. The future CCS 2.0 Standard being developed and proposed by the CharIn coalition is meant to be fully compatible and use the same physical plug and socket design.

So Superchargers can be installed at 120-140 miles apart. 50 kW CCS has to be installed at 50-60 miles apart, along each highway.

CCS needs to be installed every 50-60 miles apart if the goal is to enable road trips on ~100 mile range cars. That's nice, I suppose, but less urban interstate routes are likely to first see charging stations installed 100-120 miles apart that support ~200 mile range cars like the Bolt EV.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

That's nice, I suppose, but less urban interstate routes are likely to first see charging stations installed 100-120 miles apart that support ~200 mile range cars like the Bolt EV.

There is a requirement for this to occur, of course. There have to be ~200 mile CCS capable BEVs on the road, because GM and others don't appear to have an interest in installing them before there are.

This is a serious chicken and egg problem, that seems to be overlooked in your assessments.

My personal opinion is that the Bolt isn't the BEV that's going to bring this about, because I don't believe it has wide appeal. Obviously this is an opinion, but some people seem to think the Bolt is a hit...despite having serious disadvantages, both performance and cost, to current BEVs and PHEVs...as well as a future model with 400k reservations.