As reported in this article:
He says he will consider replacing his Model S with the Bolt and won't be getting a Model 3.
That's fired up the Teslarati if the comments below that article are any guide!
He didn't say he won't be getting a Model 3, he said "Tesla will have a difficult time selling me a Model 3." Also I don't know why the article said he likes the Bolt more than the 3 because nowhere in the article did they quote him as saying that. I think it would be more accurate to say he likes the Bolt more than the S, because he said he'll probably switch.
There is a lot of misquoting going on.
That's why there's 31 Flavors.....good luck Woz!
I expect that of all the people here who are buying a Model 3 because Woz drives a Tesla will now consider whether to get a Bolt instead.
A Bolt might be better for hauling his two Segways.
Ah. I'm thinking I shouldn't bother clicking that link. Yeah.
Could I securely make the 138 mile round trip to Mt. Hood with snow and traffic with 200 mile range? No. The Bolt is out. Even the T3 with its 250 range will be challenged by snow, snow tires, traffic, detours, passenger weight, cold. Even with the ride down the mountain being a battery charger, if there's an accident and/or traffic is barely moving, that advantage is lost and the need for heat and lights would make the range an issue.
Wozniak's original reason for getting the Tesla still stands. Range.
Steve was paid 3m from GM to say that. It's a marketing ploy.
So what? We should care what he says/thinks why exactly? I certainly don't.
@kjhayes07 "We should care what he says/thinks why exactly?"
Because we were touting his views and actions when he purchased his Tesla. Because he's a tech leader and influenential. It's actually good for Tesla's mission that Chevy is offering the Bolt and Wozniak is talking it up. Idea behind Tesla is converting world to EV's and Bolt helps do that.
Tesla took a minimalist approach with the interior design of the Model S. If you go back four years on the MS forum, you'll find plenty of posts complaining that the MS lacks many of the interior amenities commonly found on cars costing half as much. If they take that same approach with M3, we'll be talking about it here. Woz talks about interior "functionality". Just one dysfunctional example: The front seat cup holders on the MS are underneath a sliding arm rest. You slide the arm rest back to expose the cup holder, but then you can no longer comfortably use the arm rest. Maybe if MS had originally come with a center console, they could have put the cup holders there. Those are design considerations that are important to folks.
I have found that arm rests are typically designed to accommodate the dimensional needs of people with alligator arms.
The take away from this article for me is that with many more models and styles from which to choose, one no longer must compromise to find an electric vehicle to one's liking. This is good news. Besides, the Bolt is not a fair comparison to the Model S.
It takes a nut to want a Bolt.
@gregcropper Good one
@gregcropper "Besides, the Bolt is not a fair comparison to the Model S."
The comparison was to the T3 not the TS. With Bolt and T3 both at $35K and 200 mile range, comparison seems fair.
If Tesla is the only acceptable EV then Tesla has failed at its mission.
He will change his mind.
Save $2,500 buy a Model 3.
EaglesPDX, the Bolt is not a $35K car, it is a $37,500 car. If you want the thing to charge at a decent rate via a 240 outlet, that will cost you even more. I am confident enough to say that the Model ≡ will come with the same adapters as the S and X enabling it to charge just about anywhere, at no additional cost.
Also that purported "200 miles range" is not an EPA certified number, GM made it up. Well, in all fairness it is based on their own testing. The car is due to be available in 2 months and they still don't cite the EPA range on the Bolt website.
I saw an article today stating that the reveal on mileage is tomorrow. Not sure on time, but will be curious to see if they hit that 200, or exceed it...
@makobill - "I saw an article today stating that the reveal on mileage is tomorrow."
You really need to post the source when you're going to say something like that ...
I suspect they will certify mileage in the EU where it might hit 200 miles.
dsvick - Sorry, posted it in another thread and forgot to copy here as well. http://insideevs.com/chevrolet-bolt-electric-range-announcement-coming-t...
ahh, I thought you were talking about the M3 ....
The first Model S was delivered on June 22, 2012. At that time, Tesla was still advertising a 300 mile range. Ref: http://web.archive.org/web/20120622111319/http://www.teslamotors.com/models It takes a moment for the page to load, then scroll down.
Where did that range figure come from? Their own testing or did Tesla make it up? So what's the big deal about GM "The car is due to be available in 2 months and they still don't cite the EPA range on the Bolt website." Tesla didn't cite the lesser EPA range either, even after deliveries began. To be fair, the EPA testing of the Model S wasn't competed prior to first deliveries. Was that Tesla's fault? Was that the EPA's fault? I don't know, but I'm confident GM will release the EPA range of the Bolt when the testing is complete. It may come before or after first deliveries.
Tesla also didn't change the range on the Model S when they gave it a face lift, even though tests showed it got better range. The 90D probably should be 300.
stevenmaifert, when Tesla advertised 300 miles, that was based on the then EPA method of calculating fuel economy and in EV cases, range. The EPA shortly there after changed their formula which effected not only Tesla, but every other car sold.
@EaglesPDX. Woz owns (or owned) a Model S. He's never driven a Model 3. That's why I said it's not a fair comparison.
As to your remark about acceptable EVs that are not Tesla, of course I agree with you. It's a funny situation for Tesla to be in. Even if they lose (seemingly by selling fewer cars), they win by having accelerated the advent of electric cars. That's something I think we can all agree is a good thing. The sad part is that everything I know about the Bolt leads me to believe that it is simply another compliance car. The only way I could believe otherwise is if they offered fast charging.
@jordanricharge "Also that purported "200 miles range" is not an EPA certified number,>
"EPA Estimated range 238 per charge".
I think it's actually the T3 range that is not "EPA certified". Technically no ranges are "EPA Certified". The car mfgs. do the tests, certify them and send them to EPA. The T3's basic 215 with the software switch to 250 is only 12 miles more.
Bolt charges at 25 miles an hour vs. the TS's basic 29 miles an hour so I don't see the charging issue as being significant.
Bolt seems a nice respectable EV. Wozniak said he just wants a simple EV and Bolt fits the bill. Apple Car Play, WiFi, looks like a fun EV.
@greg what do you know about the bolt that makes you think it is not a serious car? I know it will have the longest range of any car under $60k. I also know that it doesn't look like a clown car like the i3. We know that Chevy is actively advertising it, which is more than can be said for most other EVs. All that makes me think they are making an honest effort.
Also, I don't think a lack of fast charging will matter to most people. I mean, come on, how often do you drive more than 250 miles in a day? Most people will just charge overnight and the 200+ miles of range will be plenty for the daily commute + errands. And I know people will say "what about when you want to take a road trip?". Well in that case you drive your other car or you rent a car.
238 was a pleasant surprise. Not ruling this out as a bridge vehicle to the Model 3 - IF we can get one in the Midwest sometime next year. Highly doubtful, but one can hope...
Who cares what anyone else thinks? I'm not a sheep - I currently drive an i3 FFS! Not a pretty car, maybe "interesting" is what you'd call it. But it looks nice on the bits I look at inside, drives nice and out accelerates most cars with an ICE up to about 250hp. Woz who?
50kW "high speed" is the biggest drawback and the lack of a national charging network. This will be a great in town/mid range car for a few more years.
GM's ability to ramp distribution or production given their lack of batteries would be typical GM.
cough gag spit-where's the charge infrastructure????? NONE! No thanks.
Where's the HUD? None. No Thanks.
dd.micsol - Where's the HUD on 90% of vehicles on the road? Its fine if the car isn't for you, but your criteria puts you in very limited choices. The Model 3 has no announced HUD either....
jamilworm, where is Chevy actively advertising the Bolt? Perhaps in CA but here on the east coast, even the dealers don't about this car for the masses, that is due to be on the street in 2 months. If Chevy were really making an "honest effort" to get the Bolt out to everyone, then why only sell it in CA at first? Why flat out refuse to support the car via a proper charging network. 238 miles, then what? Pull off the highway, travel 10 miles to a "local" dealer who may or may not let you charge up, IF they are open. Sucks to be traveling, needing a charge at 8 pm and the dealer has gone home....
An honest effort would be to build a mid/full size EV that covers both commuting and travel duties, with a proper convenient charging network. Perhaps taking Elon up on his offer to use the superchargers.
jordanrichard - I don't care about the range figure Tesla was advertising or how they derived it. My point was that they were advertising a range that wasn't "government certified" which appears to be your heartburn with what GM is advertising for the Bolt. Tesla is/was no different than GM in that regard. That all changed this morning as I'm sure you are aware of my now.
I am aware of the 238 for the Bolt and I think that is great news. This will garner attention and make people stand up and realize that a cheaper EV can essentially be used in place of their commuter car.
However, what Tesla was " advertising " was the proper EPA number, for that time. It is not Tesla's fault nor was it Chevy, Ford, etc fault that the EPA changed it's formula. This change also effected the MPG on all ICE cars. Tesla never published/stated "in house" numbers.
Looking to the future, Elon stated at the time of the Model ≡ reveal that their plan is for the car to get at least 215 certified EPA miles.
jordanrichard - I consider this first wave of a larger evolution in Big Auto. Tesla didn't create their charge network overnight. They didn't have vehicles that would drive 300 miles on a single charge immediately. GM has put out a first pure EV effort that meets most local needs. Is it a road tripper? Nope. Was the Tesla Roadster? Nope. Is the Model S a complete road tripper even today? Nope. (Try that across Texas or the Southeast part of the US still - especially away from the Interstate structure)
An honest effort requiring a build out on a charge network is an awful high bar. I would LOVE a partnership with Tesla on Supercharger compatibility - but in the world of 'business', that's highly unlikely on both Tesla's and GM's part. Eventually it will come together, but we are years from that point.
I frankly am stunned at the number 238 by GM in their first mass produced EV. That's amazing. The fact that it has adequate room for 4 passengers comfortably, uses tested and reliable tech from the Volt, and that they targeted the 'average consumer' is powerful stuff. Mr Musk should be proud!
makobill, granted the Tesla network as it stands today, still has some holes in it, but at least they are building it. GM flat out said they aren't even going to try.
They in a typical GM fashion talk up a great game, but then...... They patted themselves on the back for coming out with the first 200 mile EV that the masses could afford, EV they won't let anyone outside of CA, buy one......
I don't know where in the U.S. the Bolt will be assembled, but I know it's not in CA. So they will be driving these Bolts right past local dealers to get them to CA. If this was indeed an "honest effort" to get a 200 mile EV to the people, then why aren't they making them available to everyone.
When a company does something purely to meet a regulation, it is not a sincere effort. You don't praise your kids for doing their chores, to earn their allowance.
Yes, I know Chevy said the Bolt will be available everywhere, but when?
When Tesla announced the Model 3, they didn't give an EPA range but stated a number and said it would be at least that amount. That number was higher than GM's estimate. The question is what you will get with a Model 3 with $2500 worth of options, which would match the price of the Bolt.
GM lists a base model and a premium one, and does not say the premium one will have more range. GM is stating a maximum range. Tesla stated a minimum range.
If Woz was paid for the quotes, what that says to me is that Chevy has fully come to realize that Tesla is a market disrupter, like Apple was, and are attempting to snag the Apple-types with a Woz quote to bring people their direction. Like the BMW ad, this is old school marketing that will not work. Complete failure on their part.
stevenmaifert: At one time the range for the 85 kWh version of the Model S was expected to be 320 miles. that was downgraded to 300 miles. Each of those was previously noted as being a given range at a constant speed of 55 MPH. That was considered OK, as the old two-cycle EPA range test could have borne a similar result. However, the Model S had to be tested with the new five-cycle EPA range test and that brought a 265 mile range instead. Please note that multiple times the Model S with 85 kWh or 90 kWh battery pack have been tested at extreme low speeds (under 45 MPH and down to around 20 MPH) and found to be capable of over 400 miles and as much as 500+ miles in the real world. If Tesla Motors had chosen to limit acceleration to something like 12 seconds 0-to-60 MPH, and top speed to around 60 MPH, the Model S would be a far less impressive car, but certainly would have blown away a 300 mile range, even in the 5-cycle EPA range test. Given the cost of the Model S, it was likely a good idea to make it a very capable vehicle of the sports sedan ilk rather than having a performance profile to rival an 1989 Hyundai Excel.
stevenmaifert: The website for the BOLT says, "An all-electric vehicle offering an EPA- estimated 238 miles of range per full charge for an affordable price is how we define it." That's nice. The EPA's website still doesn't list the car though. Maybe it takes a while to transmit the data to them? I'll check again next week.
makobill: Quite a few here have made trips through the areas you mention, and one in particular did those routes in a Model S 60. More than two years ago. What exactly do you mean by 'complete road tripper' anyway? Is it only valid if the routes can be completely solely using Tesla Superchargers?
@makobill - nice contribution. I find it disappointing that there's some slightly arrogant and somewhat sanctimonious contributors to this forum that seem to enjoy bollocking every EV out there apart from Tesla, sledging other car-makers' EV efforts as insincere, pathetic and almost beneath contempt, and some seem to get pleasure out of seeing other EVs fail, or wanting them to fail.
I seriously don't understand that perspective. I think we should celebrate every effort to make BEVs, even if some seem a bit misguided or convenient for compliance or whatever. I don't care about that - all I care about is the world getting weaned off ICE, and Tesla will not be able to do that by themselves.
I would be delighted if GM sold all 30k Bolts in CA before Tesla ship their first Model 3, because if that happened not only would the penny drop for GM, it would really give the EV industry another huge kick-along which would benefit everyone.
I absolutely agree - EM should be very proud at what GM has done, because it is in large part a response to what Telsa has done and was hoping to achieve.
bj: Hmmm... My, that sure sounds like the sort of things people like to accuse me of for some reason... Was that targeted at me, or not? I do have a ready response if it was, as I'm sure you know.
bj, no one is casting stones at the vehicles themselves. Ok, it is general accepted that the Bolt and i3 are fugly. Anyways, these other EVs are find for what they are, commuter cars and I don't think you will find one person on here to say otherwise. If these other companies were serious about EVs, they would have built larger size EVs. Clearly there is a market for a larger more expensive EV. So the criticism you are reading is about the stark contrast of what these other companies saying and what they are doing. They are doing the bare minimum to get good press.
So GM gets great press for this miraculous 238 miles, and had the press witness / write about it. Read further into the details and you find out it was under very strict conditions, including very little highway driving, per the article in The Verge. They probably also had the AC and radio off and made sure the people in the car had empty stomachs.
@ jamilworm I'm excited about the Bolt, and I hope it succeeds. However I still feel that the Bolt is a compliance car for the following reasons.
1) If GM cared about their customers, the charger would be built into the vehicle. Someone who purchases this vehicle will necessarily have to install a charging station in their garage. A Tesla, of course, can be charged anywhere.
2) GM has already committed to not providing any kind of charging infrastructure. If they really wanted to compete with Tesla, they could install DC fast chargers at all of their dealerships, which would have the added benefit of showing GM's commitment to their ridiculous dealer network. They would overnight be able to boast a much larger charger network than Tesla.
3) GM still sells ICE cars. They're committed to them. They can't stay in business without them.
4) GM doesn't even build the thing. LG will manufacture the batteries, the powertrain, and all the internal electronics including the "infotainment" system. GM will only manufacture about 15% of the car. This does not signal to me that GM is committed to this vehicle. It really ought to be called the LG Bolt. I wouldn't be surprised if the next time GM goes bankrupt that they're not bought out by LG or some other Korean company. I find it amusing how proud GM is of their vehicle that LG is making for them.
5) While GM has promised that it would go on sale in 2016, they haven't said where it can be purchased. Smart money says that it will only be available in California and the other compliance states for the first year before the Model ≡ is available.
6) If this isn't a compliance vehicle, then where is GM going to get their batteries if not from LG?
I would lease one....for the right price. I would not buy one, but definitely I would buy a Tesla.
@jordan I don't think it is generally accepted that the Bolt is fugly. I think it is generally accepted that it looks like a Honda Fit, and as far as I know the Fit doesn't have a reputation for being fugly.
makbill made a very good point, that it takes time to reach the stage where Tesla is. You can't expect GM to jump in with a full product line and charging network. It's easy to say "well Telsa has this and that and an SUV and fast charging and...", but how long has telsa been in the EV business?
When Tesla built the roadster were they idiotic bastards building a compliance car, because it didn't have supercharging or a large size? In all honesty, GM's first EV is a much more practical car than Tesla's. I know, Tesla had a different goal in mind and I understand the master plan. But my point is that this is a great start for GM and you are probably expecting too much from other manufacturers just entering the market.