Less talking and more building, please.
Even if Tesla doesn't win the EV war, its legacy will always be getting us into it. Future generations will thank them.
Even if Tesla doesn't win the EV war, its legacy will always be getting us into it. Future generations will thank them.
I think competition is a great thing. There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla today). Likewise there would be no Volt PHEV without Tesla, no Bolt EV (My own opinion only).
My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild.
Can you elaborate on that? How did the EV1 influence Tesla?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw
https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/
For example, the EV1 had a heat-pump. Tesla only got around to that with the Model Y.
Limited adoption in EVs and PHEVs has largely been due to limited availability as there weren't any commercial adaptations for vehicles. Toyota and Nissan have been using heat-pumps for a while now though.
Ah, so it's even worse that Tesla didn't implement it earlier.
1) GM chose to put resistive heating in the Spark, Volt, and Bolt.
2) Nissan put a heat-pump in the Leaf.
2) Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps.
So perhaps the choice between a heat-pump or resistive heating goes beyond efficiency? Or maybe in terms of biggest bang for the buck, heat-pumps are low on the list.
Instead of trying to find fault in Tesla for what must surely be the biggest blunder in automotive history and will go down in the annuls of time as the defining moment where Tesla brought utter ruination upon us all, why not consider alternative theories?
Maybe there aren't any commercially available ODM heat-pumps? That would explain why GM didn't use one and why one is absent from the S and Y that are closer to traditional vehicles.
As for the Model 3, it's likely Tesla wanted to minimize space and maximize efficiency by integrating a custom thermal solution and a heat-pump just didn't make sense at the time.
Heat-pumps are more complex than resistive heating and the Model 3's revolutionary SuperBottle integrates all of the vehicles thermal management systems. Perhaps they were playing it safe, or didn't have the time/budget to do a heat-pump. Regardless, the Model Y comes with a heat-pump to feed the Octovalve, the evolution of the SuperBottle.
Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius:
https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png
https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-te...
> why not consider alternative theories?
There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.
I'm not sure what you're saying. You're disputing the overall efficiency of a Tesla based on the heat-pump performance of a car that has not yet shipped?
> There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.
No one is disputing that the EV1 had a heat-pump first or that heat-pumps are more efficient than resistive heaters.
You slighted Tesla for not having a heat-pump as if it were a serious fault. I am stating that the heating system isn't the most critical system in terms of overall vehicle efficiency.
Heat-pumps make the car more efficient. Look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7wxGl7m2sw
Look at this road test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH7V2tU3iFc
The two smallest cars in that test are the 64 kWh Kona and the Model 3 Long Range. The Kona has the smaller battery and worse aerodynamics. The Kona achieves 90% of its claimed WLTP range. The Tesla Model 3 Long Range only achieves 78% of its claimed WLTP range. The difference in those conditions is the heat pump. The Kona has one, the Model 3 doesn't.
> You slighted Tesla
Oh noes. Does Elon know? Please don't tell him.
Your "road test" video proves nothing. Not only is it not a cold weather driving test, but they test the Kia e-Niro and not the Hyundai Kona. The e-Niro and Kona share the same battery and motor but are not the same car.
The heat pump is optional equipment in the e-Niro and the "road test" video doesn't specify equipment configuration and more importantly isn't testing the climate control system.
If you really want an Apples-To-Apples comparison, why don't you find a comparison of a Canadian Kona to a US one since the US version doesn't come with a heat pump?
Heat pumps provide benefit even at 15c as I have shown you. They were at 7c.
> The e-Niro and Kona share the same battery and motor but are not the same car
Same difference. New Soul EV too.
> The heat pump is optional equipment in the e-Niro
It's standard equipment in Europe. All trim levels have it.
> If you really want an Apples-To-Apples comparison
I don't want this boring brand loyalty from you. It's tedious. Remember where this started: the GM EV1 pioneered automotive use of heat pumps. As you say, "no one is disputing that heat pumps are more efficient". Teslas are less efficient without it. Accept it instead of making excuses for it.
You're just looking for any excuse to hate on Tesla. What's the opposite of a fanboi? You're a hatergurl?
I think it’s fair to say there would be no Tesla if so many companies hadn’t colluded with the oil lobby to kill off their own electric car lines.
Wikipedia says it better than I can. The article also has a timeline of commercial production of electric vehicles starting in the 1800’s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehi...
> In the early 1990s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the government of California's "clean air agency", began a push for more fuel-efficient, lower-emissions vehicles, with the ultimate goal being a move to zero-emissions vehicles such as electric vehicles.[50][51] In response, automakers developed electric models, including the Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV pickup truck, GM EV1 and S10 EV pickup, Honda EV Plus hatchback, Nissan lithium-battery Altra EV miniwagon and Toyota RAV4 EV. The automakers were accused of pandering to the wishes of CARB in order to continue to be allowed to sell cars in the lucrative Californian market, while failing to adequately promote their electric vehicles in order to create the impression that the consumers were not interested in the cars, all the while joining oil industry lobbyists in vigorously protesting CARB's mandate.
This is only my own opinion, again.
The section titled "Select historical production vehicles" [0] is interesting.
There were EVs being produced at times before 1996, but they don't really look like anything I would want to drive in traffic. Maybe the Skodas, but nothing besides that.
When it comes to accusing corporations, I think it's fair to judge on outcomes, but also remember that the people who work at corporations have their own opinions and values.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
Modern battery electric vehicles require power electronics and lightweight, robust batteries, with good power and energy.
Take a look at the top speed of the BEVs in that historical list, then look at the form factor. There are some really good youtube videos out there of people driving them, for example Cheese Louise owned by Simone Giertz (of Truckla fame) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXzcIoq2ing
That's really only true when the car is intended to be sold in volume. Many vehicles are introduced as compliance vehicles designed to bring down overall fleet emissions levels.
The Volt and Bolt were both compliance vehicles and when the Bolt exceeded expectations in terms of popularity, GM's response was to eliminate the Volt platform entirely as it was redundant to the purpose of the vehicles.
Also, GM argues that PHEVs were a no longer necessary transition technology for past years and the present is now full BEVs.
The plant wouldn't have been closed if the Volt, which was a compliance car, were necessary. To my original point, the Bolt's popularity removed the need for the Volt as a compliance vehicle and thus made the plant closure feasible.
> Also, GM argues
That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
(The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback intended to push the Hamtramck sedan plant away from being entirely sedans. A huge mistake with the Gen 2 was sedan-ifying it to cut costs at that plant rather than moving it to another plant or following the original Gen 1 plan to move Hamtramck to mixing in more "light cross-overs".)
> That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
Who said anything about GM Marketing? I'm talking about GM Shareholder reports. It's an arm of marketing, sure, but with the activist parasites chumming the GM Shareholder waters, their Shareholder reports have been quite honest.
The success of the Bolt removed any argument for keeping the Volt around.
"GM executives wanted an EV that could generate serious volume. The design should be expressive and distinct without veering into “science project” territory, Norris said."
https://www.autonews.com/article/20160807/OEM03/160809904/gm...
Additionally, if it was only a compliance vehicle it would be sold only in the US. But it was first sold in Korea
"The Bolt is making its commercial debut in Korea, albeit only 400 units initially are being distributed to winners of a lottery draw held among the few thousand applicants who had completed orders. Bolt sales have just begun in the U.S."
https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/bolt-s-lead-designer-de...
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, the "olt" in their name and the Chevy badge are the only things they shared in common between the two vehicles. The Volt was designed in Michigan where as the Bolt was designed in Korea.
The Volt is a radically different platform with a completely different drive train, different battery chemistry and BMS, and different cooling solution.
> Bolt was intended to be mass volume, not a compliance vehicle.
Being a mass volume vehicle doesn't preclude it from also being a compliance car. In fact former vice chairman of Global Product Development at GM said it was a compliance car AND Steve Majoros, marketing director for Chevrolet cars, officially acknowledged it's role as a compliance car.
> We can confidently say Bolt EV is not a exclusively “compliance play.”
- https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103482_bob-lutz-called...
The term "not a exclusively" is official acknowledgement that it serves the role of a compliance car.
By your logic, ANY electric vehicle GM produced would have been a compliance car...because...any electric vehicle would also have met that requirement.
Spark EV was manufacture for compliance. Bolt...no.
Tesla was only possible because Lithium Ion battery technology came along and supplanted NiMH. They also weren't motivated by government regulation so much as the desire of the founders to make it work.
In 5 years I would be willing to bet GM goes the way of every other company who killed newer technology in order to extend the market for their incumbent products.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_au...
I was only trying to talk about the marketplace, perhaps I should have used more generic terms.
As for the regulatory stuff, it is fair to judge a corporation by outcomes, just remember the employees have their own opinions and viewpoint.
As for what happens in 5 years, we'll see. If gas stays super cheap (it won't) and regulations are removed (they won't be) and EVs stop being more fun than ICE (they won't), then maybe GM will go back to ICE only.
Feel free to be skeptical, but I think a lot of people at GM are excited about EVs.
All of the above is my own opinion only.
--- Below is a statement from my company:
"As General Motors continues to drive toward an all-electric future, we’re also ensuring that the charging infrastructure can keep up. To that end, we recently announced a collaboration with EVgo, ChargePoint and Greenlots to establish the largest collective EV-charging network in the United States with access to more than 31,000 charging ports."
https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/gm-technology-pave...
To this day GM continues to announce electric products which they delay or cancel before they come to market (ie: Cadillac Lyriq) and it seems the only reason they have the Bolt at all is to avoid having to buy regulatory credits from Tesla. They also seem to miss the point of why Tesla is successful. Most of the people that buy Tesla's don't do so because they care about the environment. They do it because it is a really great car, that just happens to be electric.
For GM and Ford, building the vehicle is the easy part. At this point, they all know how to build an electric vehicle.
They definitely need to do a lot more talking. They need to normalize the idea. They need the buyers to believe that it's better. These are commercial vehicles, they need to have a lower cost of operation. And buyers have to believe it. So keep talking (and also build them).
We don't need more talk, we need better prices. Sub 30k crossovers/hatchbacks is what consumers are buying in droves. These markets aren't exactly flush with EVs or even hybrids.
If you want the average person to be buying an EV, the price needs to come down.
It should also be mentioned that loan terms for new vehicles are insane right now which is partially why the average price of new cars is so high - GM is offering 84 month, 0% loans on its trucks - today!
Often in the UK you'll see 10 or more Tesla rapid chargers with 200+kw charging rates at key locations, then for everyone else there are perhaps just two 50kw chargers which are either ice'd or broken or both.
Until people see rapid chargers they can actually use in most supermarket and shopping mall's car parks etc it is going to be a hard-sell. We're getting there slowly with things like Ionity, but it is still a rarity to see decent rapid chargers in convenient & plentiful locations.
Of course, for commercial operators this wont be a concern. but for the average joe who doesn't have off-street parking at home then they need a reliable place to refuel.
They know how to do it.
Just not an EV that's profitable that consumers actually want, or can compete with other EV's at similar price point. Tesla Model 3 being best selling car by revenue means consumers are already sold on the idea.
Do a quick search for 'van upfitter' and see. That's the market they are aiming for. What Tesla offers is completely orthogonal. Given the way that Tesla treats 3rd party repair shops, it's hard to believe that they could possibly make a serious offering in this space.
There is no EV war. There are only car companies selling cars.