Forums

GM's Bolt not using the supercharger network

GM's Bolt not using the supercharger network

As some of you know, in 2014 Tesla released patents relating to the supercharger network with a note of good faith. This was to promote others in participating in building a common infrastructure.

https://transportevolved.com/2015/02/19/tesla-free-patents-who-can-use-i...

GM is just being too proud to jump on board, they don't like to admit Tesla did it first.
Now the Bolt is at a disadvantage where compatibility would have been easy.

And queue GM makking their own charging network:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/11/gm-signs-on-for-48-vehicle-charging-...

Pardon me while I roll my eyes. GM sidelined their EV program and now wants to jump back in after someone else made a superior product. They are followers, not leaders. And this competing standard for chargers will fail, both because it is inferior product and because GM's management is not looking to the future.
They should know their place as followers and be helping build out the supercharger network, not competing.

jordanrichard | 2016年11月10日

+1

Octagondd | 2016年11月10日

It will be years before a CB will be able to cross the country from East to West or West to East. If someone has a long distance vehicle, than CB is a good commute or grocery vehicle.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月10日

@dave.m.mcdonogh " And this competing standard for chargers will fail, both because it is inferior product and because GM's management is not looking to the future."

Well it's being built out by US and Canadian governments to the non-Tesla standards. Good news for Tesla owner, they can use the EV Highway Chargers.

Of course the US portion will be put on hold for four years by the GOP as they crank up the coal plants and kill off the EV highway etc. In that regard, Trump and GOP are good for Tesla which will be able to offer customers a better network. But that's bad for EV's overall and US in general.

Frank99 | 2016年11月10日

I agree with Eagles.

The Supercharger is a superior solution in just about every way to the competing standards. Except for adoption. And adoption means that, eventually, the horrible CCS monstrosity will be the charger that's universally available in the US, and the equally humongous CHAdeMO in Japan, with other countries being choosing one or the other in a crazy-quilt of imiplementations. We'll reinvent the 120/240V, 50/60 hz, and a million different outlets wars of a century ago.

Tesla made one fundamental mistake. They assumed that other car manufacturers would be interested in HOW their customers charged their cars, and would be willing to help invest in a usable charging infrastructure. The other manufacturers, however, have shown that they really don't give much of a damn how their customers charge, it's no more their problem than where their customers buy gas, and they're certainly not willing to commit any money to building out any charging infrastructure so they're not willing to pay for the right to put a Supercharger connector on their cars.

melinda.v | 2016年11月10日

@EaglesPDX - see I knew at some point you would make a Ptld-ish statement I could agree with as a fellow Portlander

dave.m.mcdonough | 2016年11月11日

We obviously can't rely on the government for this. And why they would help GM when Tesla already has a substantial network built is beyond me. Tesla is a US company too.

SamO | 2016年11月11日

GM is headed to bankruptcy. Again.

Who will you sue when a friend or family member is killed due to GM's fraud?

Previous owners will never get justice because GM discharged their legal obligations to compensate victims.

Plus the Dolt has no fast charging or Network and will NEVER HAVE THE ABILITY TO FAST CHARGE.

People can speculate but those are just the facts.

Deal with it derpledore.

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月11日

@Frank99

Tesla did not / does not care how other non-Tesla customers charge. Tesla built the SC network to charge Teslas, really as an integral part of the Tesla vehicle ownership, almost as a part of the car.

Then opened the door for the others, if they want to join. I haven't seen any indication that Tesla is counting on others to develop the network, all are free to join, given they don't make it a profit center.

Many things become standard by ubiquity. So if Tesla's SC becomes one, so be it. If not, Tesla owners are still being take care of...

And to paraphrase you:
"The other manufacturers, however, have shown that they really don't give much of a damn... for their customers..."

Octagondd | 2016年11月11日

@Frank - I don't think Tesla made a mistake in assuming the other manufacturers would jump in. They had to build the SC system out of necessity. They had to ensure that long range travel was not the excuse in considering an EV. I imagine one big criticism of Roadster was, "well, I have this cool car to drive up the 1 to Santa Barbara, but I can't get to Monterey without spending the night somewhere and recharging all night." Opening the SC network to other vehicles is just the icing on the cake. It makes the other companies look horrible that they can't concede and join.

Frank99 | 2016年11月11日

Interesting - I hadn't considered that possibility. I assumed that Tesla would love to have Superchargers become "the standard", partially for the prestige, partially because they did great work and have the best solution, and partially because it would give Tesla's a lot more places to charge.

Let's face it - if you owned a Restaurant along a major highway and thought adding an EV charger would help business, what would you do? You'd probably look at the current competing solutions, throw up your hands and decide you'll look again in 5 years when things settle down. Installing one of the three competing solutions means that you have to pay the full price of an install, but only get one-third the benefit. This economic reality slows the buildout of chargers, which reduces the demand for EV's. And that doesn't help "accelerate the adoption of sustainable technologies".

jordanrichard | 2016年11月11日

The U.S. government IS NOT building a charging network, The government is only providing/offering government back loans to private companies.

Octagondd | 2016年11月11日

Let me re-phrase. The SC network is not solely there to make other companies look bad. Tesla does genuinely want them to join and help the build out and become the standard since at the SC's inception, Chademo was the only real game in town and it was limited at that time. The side benefit is that the other companies look bad when they refuse to concede.

dyefrog | 2016年11月11日

Frank;
"Installing one of the three competing solutions means that you have to pay the full price of an install, but only get one-third the benefit."
Don't forget, I think Tesla donates the destination charger and even subsidizes the install. Whether intentional or not, I think Tesla is going to come out of this whole charging infrastructure smelling like a rose. Not only do they have the most all encompassing fast charging network, it's proprietary, On top of that, you can still charge the Tesla at any of the other level 2 and chargers that all the other manufacturers will have access to. If our fears of Trump scaling back or eliminating the incentives for the nationwide fast charging network materialize, then Tesla sill have a well stacked deck of "Trump" cards. Think of the negotiating power that gives them when all the other manufacturers were counting on the gov't to provide the infrastructure that never comes about.
Octogandd:
"The side benefit is that the other companies look bad when they refuse to concede."
Boy do they ever. It's amazing to me that the ego of the higher ups at GM, Ford, etc. refuse to acknowledge that Elon was on to something at the risk of sabotaging their own products success and acceptance.

dyefrog | 2016年11月11日

level 2 & 3 chargers

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月11日

@Frank99 "Let's face it - if you owned a Restaurant along a major highway and thought adding an EV charger would help business, what would you do?"

Put in the most effective charger that could be used by the most people. As the US-Canada-Mexico EV highway standards are looking to do.

topher | 2016年11月11日

Incentives are legislation, not executive orders.

Thank you kindly.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@topher "Incentives are legislation, not executive orders."

And both incentives and executive orders for the EV highway are going away as of January 20. Canada and the US West Coast will likely defy the GOP attempts to kill the EV highway so there is hope that Canada and US West Coast states will build out the DC fast charging highway system.

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月13日
EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@Tiebreaker "Yeah - GM already asked ..."

Thats lowering the MPG ratings not specific to the EV Highway. You might want to follow this thread vs. regarding the effects of a untethered GOP attack on science in general and EV's in particular here.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/will-evs-survive-all-republican-go...

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月13日

But GM already asked, right?

KP in NPT | 2016年11月13日

But the "EV Highway" will be unnecessary if automakers aren't compelled to manufacture EVs.

hoppie2 | 2016年11月13日

GM's Volt and Bolt aren't capable of using any super chargers. Their battery packs can only receive 50amps max I believe. GM isn't really interested in making any electric cars as far as I can tell.
I was looking at leasing one for a couple years until my model 3 arrived. The dealers tell me they don't stock them and couldn't get them if they wanted to.
GM, Ford and Chrysler are all going to regret they didn't take the electric revolution more seriously. They are all going to hurt bad.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@hoppie2 "GM's Volt and Bolt aren't capable of using any super chargers."

No EV's except Tesla use the Tesla Super Chargers.

The EV Highway initiative, soon to be stopped by the GOP, is based on the universal standard for DC fast charging.

The Bolt charges 90 miles in 30 minutes.

With MX, CA, OR, WA and CN all being pro-EV vs. the GOP anti-EV, there's a good chance the EV highway on the West coast will go ahead. Same with the EV's with the CA, OR, WA being ZEV states along with Canada having similar science based pro-EV policies, car mfg.s can't ignore big US market West Coast, Canada, Europe, Asia.

Even if the GOP kills US national policy, progressive states will provide a bulwark.

topher | 2016年11月13日

"But the "EV Highway" will be unnecessary if automakers aren't compelled to manufacture EVs."

We don't need legislation to only BUY EVs. "Don't make an EV, don't make a sale" should be pretty persuasive.

Thank you kindly.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@topher "We don't need legislation to only BUY EVs."

We do. Tesla wouldn't exist without Federal loans and Federal Tax Credits and State and Federal emissions standards and zero emissions requirements. Same for all the EV's hybrids and plug ins.

The ZEV states and Canada provide a 21st century fortress in a country headed back to the 19th century with a "Burn More Coal" GOP government.

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月13日

...with GM's support...

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@Tiebreaker "...with GM's support..."

GM will certainly continue with the Volt and Bolt selling into the near 100M market of CA,OR,WA,CN that supports EV's. GM sells into Europe and Asia and US will likely go back to the 21st century in four years, maybe make enough gains in two years to at least stop the regression on EV,s and global warming.

dave.m.mcdonough | 2016年11月13日

At this point, that's all crap. Tesla is building out the supercharger network, with or without the help of the government.
They are the leader with an already established network and the largest EV fleet, both now and in the foreseeable future.

And he's doing the same for solar roofing.

Trump might be a climate change denier but it won't slow us down.

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月13日

@Eagles, if you didn't notice yet, let me repeat the link:

https://electrek.co/2016/11/11/automakers-ask-trump-not-to-make-them-pro...

With GM asking to NOT produce EVs, the Bolt's commercial lifespan may match that of EV1. GM and the stalwarts are NOT interested in selling EVs.

akgolf | 2016年11月13日

@Tiebreaker

Which is why they made an ugly Dorky looking box with limited charging capabilities. They don't want to sell these and will stop if the government says they can.

Frank99 | 2016年11月13日

E sed:
"The Bolt charges 90 miles in 30 minutes."

And a Tesla can charge 170 in 30 minutes. Any way you spin it, you're gonna spend twice as long charging a Bolt as a Tesla. That one hour long stop every 3 hours is gonna be a two hour long stop with the Bolt. A leisurely lunch turned into a leisurely lunch and an hour of "Can we leave yet?".

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@Tiebreaker "With GM asking to NOT produce EVs, the Bolt's commercial lifespan may match that of EV1"

CA, OR, WA and CN provide a 100M North American market requiring the EV, on top of Europe, Asia plus the US's return to the 19th century is likely going to be short lived...politically and for sure scientifically and factually.

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月13日

Eagles - market size doesn't matter if there is NO product.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@Tiebreaker "market size doesn't matter if there is NO product."

That 100M North American (CA, OR, WA, CN) market requires them to have the EV product, or more specifically zero emissions products.

How far will the GOP go though. They might attack those states (as they tried to do before) requiring them to go with weaker Federal standards which the GOP plans to weaken even more.

The GOP might go after Tesla directly and outlaw Tesla's direct sales technique.

akgolf | 2016年11月13日

@Eagles - "The GOP might go after Tesla directly and outlaw Tesla's direct sales technique."

Bet you and GM would be giddy with that news.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

Well I voted against Trump and the anti-EV'er. You?

Tiebreaker | 2016年11月13日

Eagles, let me clarify it for you:

Market size doesn't matter ***to GM*** if there is NO ***GM*** product.

It was about Bolt's lifespan.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@Tiebreaker "It was about Bolt's lifespan."

In that regard, more likely that GM will be around to support the product vs. Tesla. Tesla is doing well but is still small enough that it could get derailed. With Trump and GOP coming after EV's as first order of business, that makes a smaller company like Tesla more vulnerable. Federal government going after Tesla's direct distribution for example

As far GM moving forward with the Bolt, Europe (where the Bolt is the Opel Ampera-E) and Asia provide huge markets for EV's and GM has to be able to compete in them which gets back to GM's point that the Bolt is not there compliance car (like Honda's FIT EV) but is GM's first pure EV building on their Volt experience.

In North America, the EV fortress of CA, OR, WA and CN will provide a solid market even if Trump and GOP succeed in attacking EV's in other states.

KP in NPT | 2016年11月13日

500K reservations around the world, building as many cars as they possibly can and growing, and they're vulnerable. That's hilarious.

Tesla will be fine. And they will use the courts (as much as that will be worth with the new Supreme Court) to fight. I don't see the govt "coming after EVs." They may, however, allow your GM to stop making EVs, but CA has publicly stated they will not back down .

Tesla stands on its own now because it makes a better car. The tax credit is running out soon and since their cars are priced to sell without it, they don't need government help to make a sale. Other OEMs, however, might have a harder time. And meanwhile Tesla will continue to get ahead in lowering their costs through economies of scale. German automakers are at least acting like they might be taking them seriously. Where will that leave American OEMs that are busy trying to get out of making EVs today? Doesn't sound good.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@mp1156 "500K reservations around the world"

Tesla says 373,000 but overall Tesla is still a small company. You saw this when Tesla decided to buy Solar City and many analysts pointed out the risks this involved for Tesla which is itself not making a profit to bring in Solar City which is losing money and has $3.25B in debt.

So Tesla's risk level over next 10 years is much higher that GM's which is making over $10B in profits. US government switching from pro-EV and pro-Tesla to anti-EV and anti-Tesla adds to the risk.

GM has to have EV's no matter what the US government does because the other world governments are demanding it and other mfgs and responding to that demand. Bolt is a a good US entry in the 200 mile full EV competition. GM will be well placed in Europe with the Euro version, the Ampera-E.

KP in NPT | 2016年11月13日

Tesla has made no formal announcement since 373K, but based on their Q3 earnings and stated deposit amount, it's closer to 500K now.
https://electrek.co/2016/10/27/tesla-model-3-700-million-customer-deposits/

I still contend they will be fine - even if the government allows GM and other american carmakers to severely reduce their EV offerings. They will just keep gaining their lead.

akgolf | 2016年11月13日

Can someone explain to me why a GM rep is on a Tesla site and promoting an inferior product by trying to spread misinformation about Tesla products?

Do you think they're afraid of a litttle competition?

Bighorn | 2016年11月13日

GM seems terrified of the Trump presidency for one:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/news/companies/gm-layoffs/

KP in NPT | 2016年11月13日

Layoff workers, move jobs to Mexico, sell more gas guzzlers, and ask the government to roll back MPG regulations. Lovely.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@mp1156" I still contend they will be fine - even if the government allows GM and other american carmakers to severely reduce their EV offerings"

I agree but saying that there's a risk GMI won't be around to support the Bolt is ridiculous. The risks of a smaller company which is losing money, has just taken on another $3B in debt and a money losing operation. Again, I think they will do OK but saying GM is high risk and Tesla is low is simply not supported by the facts.

akgolf | 2016年11月13日

Which of these companies needed to be bailed out again?

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月13日

@jsimpsonalaska "Which of these companies needed to be bailed out again?"

Both had to be bailed out by US government. This was in the midst of the Great Recession, caused by the GOP government so fair the government bails out its victims. Currently GM is hugely profitable. Tesla is not, has taken on more debt Solar City which is also losing money. To claim GM is riskier long or short term than Tesla demonstrably wrong. You will find no financial analyst to agree with you.

But all that has nothing to do with EV's nor this topic of Bolt using the DC fast charging network planned for Canada to Mexico and Tesla with it's own SuperCharger network.

SamO | 2016年11月14日

GM is a failure. Bailed out. Deadbeat. Never lived up to its obligations. Left owners holding the bag with recalls and lawsuits.

Compare to Tesla which has NEVER had a bailout. Took a single loan, which they paid back in advance.

Tesla IS PROFITABLE. Another lie by the local GM Rep.

Sad that the words and actions of a liar on this forum guarantee that the failures of GM have to be rehashed over and over and over agsin.

Oh welll.

EaglesPDX | 2016年11月14日

@SamO "Compare to Tesla which has NEVER had a bailout."

It did and that's OK. That's what good government does to keep the US industrial base strong. Both the GM and Tesla loans. Proportional to the companies size and work force, they were essential to keep US car industry and jobs.http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesla_is_worse_t...

"In 2009, as the financial crisis raged and General Motors and Chrysler plunged toward bankruptcy, Tesla Motors faced a seemingly impossible task: raising half a billion dollars to build an electric-car factory. Tesla had just staggered through a year of layoffs, canceled orders, and record losses. Then suddenly, salvation. The U.S. Department of Energy offered to lend the company $465 million at rock-bottom interest rates."

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/05/tesla_is_worse_t...

"Tesla has reported only one profitable quarter since it went public in 2010, when it made $11.2 million in the first three months of 2013. It lost $575 million in the first half of this year."

Again not a problem for a company like Tesla that is a huge manufacturing start up with a solid order base.

Just some factual history to correct the off topic.

Now back to the "sleek" "well thought out" Chevy Bolt as an excellent 200+ mile range EV.

SamO | 2016年11月14日

And nothing I wrote was falsified by a single thing you write for a penny per word:

1. GM is a brand new failed company since their bankruptcy. Tesla . . . Never bankrupt.

2. GM bailed out with billions of taxpayer dollars . . . Tesla got a loan which they paid back.

3. Tesla is delivering a self driving super car with 350 miles of range, Supercharging and 0-60 in 3 seconds for the same price as the Bolt which Consumer Reports called "Compared to a Tesla it doesn't look good at all. GM just gave up. But at least it has a good personality…"

Pages