Chevy starts manufacturing the Bolt | Hacker News Reader

Chevy starts manufacturing the Bolt

engadget.com

41 points_156 comments

So if we put 'branding' and 'we love Elon' aside, where does this put Chevy and Tesla on the map of innovation and competition? Is Tesla still years ahead? Or has Chevy bought enough tech to have a comparable/better offering?

I would say Chevy is years ahead because not only are the Bolts they are building today going on sale before the end of the year[0], they have years of experience and billions in assets designed to help them build cars. Tesla says the model 3 goes on sale "late 2017". By then we'll have the 2018 MY Chevy Bolt, which could be just as good or better? Or cheaper?

[0] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gm-starts-producing-200-mile-2...

One difference is that the Bolt has a permanent magnet motor while the Tesla has an induction motor. A PM motor is more efficient than an induction motor since the stator doesn't have to do the work to create a magnetic field in the rotor, so theoretically you should be able to get more distance per unit of battery energy than an induction machine. On the other hand, I think induction motors are cheaper than PM motors.

From what I can tell, the Tesla is better by every metric aside from potentially not being available as soon. Cheaper, faster, better tech, nicer interior, better range, faster charging, better charging network, the list goes on. And let's not forget the huge bonus of not having to go through dealership bullshit.

This article contains a basic factual error. It mentions the BMW i3 as a long range EV. It's not long range in pure EV form, it's no longer than the Leaf. It only gets longer range when you add the REx which is a small combustion motor and turns the i3 into a hybrid like the Volt.

Right now the ONLY choices for long range EVs are the Tesla Model S and Model X.

What is the (completely arbitrary) limit for "long range EV" these days? Note that the 2017 BMW i3 now has a range of 112 miles without the range extender.

Probably the one set by Tesla which is 200 miles or more.

Personally I would set long range EV even further in all honesty, basically a "long range EV" to me would be one capable of doing 6 hours a day @ 50mph which is 300 miles (with a small emergency reserve say 10-20 miles to get to a safe location). 6 hours is about what you should get in a daily drive of 8-9 hours including rest and comfort breaks.

This gets less important as fast charging stations become more and more common, however it's still the case that a true long range EV should provide you with the ability to do a full day drive with overnight charging only.

This isn't a requirement for EV to be viable for most people, It's not even a requirement for myself I just won't count them as long range transportation unless they either have a complete coverage of charging stations or a large enough battery to allow you to drive just slightly below highway speeds for effectively a day.

Usually people are talking about 200 miles+ for "long range EV".

The 2016 Leaf has a 120+ mile range.

> The biggest limitation is cross-country travel. While Tesla has its Supercharger network to power some long trips, it's harder to guarantee that you can drive coast-to-coast in other EVs.

How is this relevant? Most Americans will do this once or twice in their whole life.

People in sales, presumably the people who drive the most and would be a prime target for this, will frequently do 300 miles or more in a day. That isn't "cross-country" travel, it's "I live in a medium-sized state" travel.

True, but that is a very narrow market, isn't it?

They are using coast to coast as an example. What they mean is 'any journey over 200 miles'

Just rent a gasoline car. I have a car with good gas milage. For trips, I always rent. If you have anything decent in range >600 miles, work out the math: generally, you pay less than expected cost of wear and tear and fuel with a rental, and you don't have it on your personal car.

I want an electric, someday. I've watched my range in the city. My average day is 15 miles. My worse days are 70 miles. A 200 mile range would be amazing.

How often do you drive on a trip lasting more than 4 hours? I'd guess about zero to four times a year?

Because realistically, unless both your starting point and destination are on the same highway and there's no traffic, 200 miles will take 4 hours without breaks.

If you can then stop somewhere with fast charging for your Bolt, after a 30 minute break (that you probably should have taken anyway), you have another 90 miles of range.

If we take an example, LA to SF is 385 miles and cursory googling says the quickest route takes around 6 hours by car. In a Bolt, you'd have to stop for charging for an additional ~90 minutes. This is only 20 minutes more than what people on the Tesla forums report needing to do the trip in their Model S P85.

Totally agree. I drive a Leaf and long distance is fine - with a bit of planning the charging happens on the breaks you would have had anyway.

There is some wisdom in renting a car to do a trip like that anyway. There's more peace of mind that if there is car trouble your trip won't have to be totally scrubbed.

I understand and accept your point, but still want to quibble: the vast majority of Americans will never do this.

I'm still waiting on the Flybo Total Electric, a 4-speed manual electric car:

http://auto.indavideo.hu/video/En_ettol_felek

Seriously though, think of all of the additional torque you could get with a quad motor Tesla and a clutch. Electric manufacturers are wimping out by saying it's enough already, and it would be hella fun.

For some niche "fun" car, sure. For a mass market vehicle, they would be nuts to increase the number of moving parts by a factor of 4 or 5.

The reason that carmakers dropped manual was not the number of moving parts or that they wore out quicker. If anything, the car wearing out faster sells more cars and service. Instead, it was because not enough customers wanted manual:

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2015/02/why-lamborghini-t...

For a more in-depth analysis of this, see:

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-market-for-manual-transmiss...

However, there are still many that prefer manual, despite things potentially wearing out more quickly. And- you don't have to design a clutch that allows the driver to wear out things more quickly. You could still allow the driver to select the level of torque but only adjust for that in a way that would not cause damage.

This is not a manual vs automatic situation. It's "multiple gear ratio transmission with a clutch, etc" vs "single fixed gear ratio". The fact that electric motors have their highest torque at extremely low RPMs, which falls over fairly linearly as power increases means that multi-speed transmissions simply aren't necessary.

Why add a bunch of unnecessary complexity? It's just more stuff to break (not to mention more up front cost).

> Why add a bunch of unnecessary complexity?

1. By adding an additional lower gear to an electric truck/4x4, it could provide even more torque at low gears to allow it to carry more load and go up steeper inclines.

2. By adding an additional higher gear to a car, it could go faster and accelerate faster at the top RPM end(s). For example, see how the acceleration drops quickly. That wouldn't happen if you were to keep switching to higher gears:

http://static4.consumerreportscdn.org/content/dam/cro/news_a...

The reason they didn't do this in the Tesla was a technical problem, but that could be remedied:

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/adding-second-gear-spe...

"The roadster originally was developed using a two speed gear box. However, they had problems getting it to handle the massive instantaneous torque that the motor could produce, so they went for a single speed."

Like I said... It's a reasonable thing to do for niche vehicles. For a mass-market vehicle it is completely unnecessary, and only adds complexity and cost.

> only adds ... cost.

Note: while I think this is probably true for electric vehicles that don't offer this option, this is inaccurate for gas vehicles. Manual transmission cars are still cheaper currently and are sold by major manufacturers. Major manufacturers will typically pass on additional cost to the consumer.

Manual transmissions are not cheaper than a single fixed ratio power-train.

The comparison is not between an automatic and a manual transmission. It is between _any_ transmission and "no" transmission.

When I was comparing cars in the last year, the manual transmission variant of a car was cheaper than the automatic variant. Why would they continue to make a car that cost more to build and charge less? I think maybe your experience and knowledge in this is specific, but you're generalizing? Otherwise, large automakers are doing non-sensical things...

This is a conversation about _electric_ cars... I don't understand why you keep comparing automatic and manual transmissions... Obviously the manual is cheaper in that comparison. That is completely irrelevant when talking about electric cars. The properties of an electric motor make a multi-speed transmission of any sort unnecessary for 'normal' use (for a _very_ wide range of 'normal').

Yes, a manual transmission is cheaper than an automatic, but both are more expensive than "no" transmission[1], which is why electric car manufacturers aren't bothering with them for mass-market vehicles.

[1] Obviously there is still gearing transmitting power to the wheels from the motor, but in the case of electric cars, it can be a single fixed-ratio set of gears, rather than multiple sets of gears and one or more clutches...

It's also regional. 90% of cars in the UK are manual. I don't know why exactly, but I guess it is mostly momentum and the fact that they are cheaper to buy and maintain.

It's also much nicer and far more consistent to drive a manual.

With an automatic, the "meaning" of the gas pedal will vary wildly depending on previous state. On a manual you can feel/see the setting, and more importantly, you can set it and thus anticipate exactly when it changes meaning.

Why would you ever need a clutch in an electric car?

I was really surprised that Chevy expects to make less than 30k Bolts in the first year. I wonder if that number is capped by anticipated demand, manufacturing ability, or trying to maximize number of vehicles sold with the tax credit.

Really they need to stop comparing expected yearly sales of any care with the promised orders for the III. Those are not comparable. GM's big issue here is that if they don't want another black eye is they need to get this to all fifty states quickly.

I do believe that creating a CUV is a far more ideal and popular platform than sedans. though if the III makes it in numbers to all markets before GM does with the Bolt I know which one will get my money

The Bolt will be available nationwide before the Model 3 is delivered to a single customer.

The main problem GM has is that Tesla has built a proprietary charging network that the Bolt doesn't have. So even with 230 miles of range you still can't just get up and do a road trip in the Bolt as easily as you will be able to in a Model 3.

If we had proprietary gas stations today, it would be just insane. This seems like something the government needs to regulate if the companies can't do it themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla opened up their network to other vehicles for a fee. Obviously that might require some retooling but according to Musk, he wants us to move away from ICE vehicles no matter what it takes or who gets us there. If this is true he has to know that a proprietary charging network is really not acceptable.

Tesla's network already has hours-long lines at popular locations. They're going to be increasing the number of Tesla vehicles on the road by an order of magnitude very soon. The window of opportunity for selling access to their charging network has already closed.

Maybe. It's not quite as simple as pumping liquid into a tank. There's all kinds of tech needed for high speed charging, both inside the car and outside. Standards will organically appear over time perhaps.

You're right. Which suggests its even more important to regulate a standard. Having a period of competing standards will delay the proliferation of electric vehicles by complicating the charging story.

But on the other hand regulating will hold back innovation

The standard's already set. BMW, Volkswagen, GM, Daimler, Ford, Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Maserati, Renault, Audi, Volvo, Porsche and Hyundai are already onboard with the Combined Charging System. It's governed by several international standards, and a standards committee that includes all those companies. Several cars from those makers already have the port (including the Bolt), and hundreds of CCS chargers have already been built in the US. This discussion is moot.

But what if you have a bigger capacity battery (like a Tesla) and hence need to charge even faster than CCS allows (like superchargers do)?

Edit: also, all those car companies combined sell fewer electric cars than Tesla. Why do they get to set the standard?

> need to charge even faster than CCS allows (like superchargers do)?

CCS can charge just as fast, and faster, than Superchargers. That's not a limited by the shape of a plug or a communication protocol. CCS has been demonstrated at hundreds of kW already.

> also, all those car companies combined sell fewer electric cars than Tesla. Why do they get to set the standard?

So far this year, ~120K plug-in cars have been sold in the US, and Tesla only sold ~35K of them.

> the world's second biggest seller of evs is Nissan, who use Chademo. Why choose CCS over Chademo?

Because it's the better standard. It's just a J1772 plug, with two pins added. That means the car needs just one charging port no matter what you're plugging into it. CHAdeMO is a separate, very large connector for DC that has to be alongside the J1772 plug for AC.

Given Renault recently joined the CCS group, and the Renault-Nissan CEO recently said Renault's EV tech would be coming to Nissan, CHAdeMO is likely going away in the US. Nissan was the last holdout once Hyundai switched over.

P.S. Tesla joined CharIn, the group that sets the CCS standards, in March. They see where things are going too.

http://www.charinev.org/members/our-members/

Tesla has offered all electrical car companies access to the supercharger network - I am not aware of any who accepted the offer. Only now there seems to be an European standard for DC high power charging, but there are few charging stations (and except the Tesla cars) no cars which can deliver/take more than 50kW.

Combined Charging System, aka SAE Combo?

Not only are there more CCS stations in the US than Supercharger locations already, but CCS isn't just European. Every manufacturer of EVs in NA at least is already on board, save Tesla and Nissan. Renault just joined the consortium, so Nissan is likely to follow.

BMW, Volkswagen, GM, Daimler, Ford, Fiat, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Maserati, Renault, Audi, Volvo, Porsche and Hyundai are all on board with CCS for charging, and demonstrations have already been done of charging rates exceeding Tesla's Superchargers.

As for Tesla's "offer" to share: that would have amounted to a Tesla tax on every EV sold. There was little chance their competitors would take them up on that. And now that the ratio of cars to chargers is about to explode while they already see lines at popular travel times, the window of opportunity to sell access to their charging network has closed.

In Europe there's a decent number of CCS chargers around that would make the bolt reasonably feasible for long range. (But yeah still not as good as Tesla)

GM is sitting on $25.7 billion in cash, I can't imagine why they haven't built out a nation-wide charging network yet. Seems foolish to be that far behind on a fundamental piece of infrastructure while you're moving into selling mainstream EVs. Here's hoping they aggressively catch up.

For the same reason there isn't a network of GM gas stations. They're not in that business, and companies that are have done the job already. There are more CCS fast charger stations than there are Tesla Supercharger stations, and the Bolt isn't even on the road yet.

As far as catching up (while already ahead): https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/03/obama...

It makes no sense that each manufacturer would have their own charging network.

The article mentions Lyft drivers getting their hands on the Bolt first. How does that make sense? Is a range of 200 miles really sufficient for the needs of a Lyft driver? Wouldn't it mean no more than 3-4 hours of driving per day? [wild guesstimate]

You think a taxi averages 50-66mph over 3-4 hours?

For a 12-hour shift, I'd typically travel 200 miles. A good day would be 250+. About 1/2 of those miles were with the meter on.

Every so often I'd get a good fare going in the wrong direction - passenger was going east at the end of my day, and I'd have to backtrack empty to return the cab on the west side of the valley to the next driver. It was 94 miles to get back to the Valley from Globe...

Interesting, thanks for the numbers

Depends where it's going, I guess? Other factors like A/C take as much power in stop-and-go as when driving. As I said, rough estimate. I would assume a typical taxi would drive more than 200 miles per working day; isn't this a reasonable assumption?

> I would assume a typical taxi would drive more than 200 miles per working day;

Depends on how much time you spend on the freeway. For me, a typical 12-hour shift covered about 200 miles. Some days I didn't work the full 12 hours; other days I 'got lucky' and had to cover a lot of ground.

One of my better fares was a guy who'd pissed off his girlfriend by (probably) getting obnoxiously drunk at the Lakers/Suns game... It was 89 miles to get him home, then I had to drive 94 miles to get the cab back to the day driver:

https://goo.gl/maps/4xFsvJtHzLK2

That story was at the close of this kuro5hin.org (RIP) diary:

http://www.taxiwars.org/2012/04/22-degrees-of-intoxication.h...

You dont have to assume when you have google, yeah it seems to be a bit below 200 miles per 12h shift..

Have they released detailed pricing yet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com