How Did GM Create Tesla’s Dream Car First?(mobile.nytimes.com)
mobile.nytimes.com
How Did GM Create Tesla’s Dream Car First?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/technology/how-did-gm-create-teslas-dream-car-first.html
25 comments
Tesla fans (e.g over at r/teslamotors) are watching the Chevvy Bolt with interest. Persuading other manufacturers to make electric cars is, after all, consistent with Tesla's mission (accelerate the advent of sustainable transport...). I think the Bolt looks really good, and the recent range announcement is really exciting. I still can't quite believe it is happening, it seems like GM might still mess it up somehow. Will they make the Bolt in large enough numbers? Will the dealerships bury the car and fail to promote it properly? It will be really interesting to see how the launch goes.
Also: The Bolt is rumoured to have a 60kwh pack, I'd be interested to know how GM are building those at that price point.
As the article states, due to current implementation of emission laws it may make economic sense to cross-subsidize Bolts and sell them below cost because it then allows them to sell more high-priced high-emission cars.
A special deal with LG, because they are the one making the packs? I suspect LG gave them a discount because they contracted LG to take care of a bunch of other stuff in the car. A bit like a lost-leader sale. You lose a bit on one thing, but you gain it back on something else.
Like, perhaps, their rideshare adventure.
Maybe by leasing them, and recycling? Something creative anyway.
The Bolt also has no driver aids that is expected for a $35k car, not even adaptive cruise control.
The Bolt has no realistic story for long distance travel. No manufacturer other than Tesla does. I don't understand why they aren't rushing to replicate (or buy into) Tesla's Supercharger network.
The Bolt has no realistic story for long distance travel. No manufacturer other than Tesla does
That appears to be changing: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/chargepoint-bmw-and-vw-c....
That appears to be changing: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/chargepoint-bmw-and-vw-c....
As far as I know the Bolt itself cannot charge as fast as the Tesla. Bolt can at best charge 90 miles in 30 min, while current Tesla cars can charge 170 miles in 30 min.
So for long distance Tesla travel you need to break 30 min for every ~2.5 hours you drive (1/6 of the time waiting), with bolt it is more than 1/3 of the time waiting.
http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html https://www.tesla.com/supercharger
So for long distance Tesla travel you need to break 30 min for every ~2.5 hours you drive (1/6 of the time waiting), with bolt it is more than 1/3 of the time waiting.
http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html https://www.tesla.com/supercharger
Looking at plugshare, it seems to me that the holes in the dc fast charging network are not all that numerous. A handful of stations would give the Bolt and all other electric cars a similar long-range story to what Tesla is offering.
Tesla is guaranteed to lose this game eventually, with all other carmakers aligned to a real standard. Their supercharger system offers only slightly faster charging than SAE combo DC fast charge, and supercharger plug is already less common than the standard.
Tesla is guaranteed to lose this game eventually, with all other carmakers aligned to a real standard. Their supercharger system offers only slightly faster charging than SAE combo DC fast charge, and supercharger plug is already less common than the standard.
The gaps look pretty huge to me. I live around DC and have done trips to Ohio, Montreal by way of upstate New York, and south Florida, and all would require detours to accomplish with SAE Combo chargers. I'm pondering a trip to western Wisconsin this winter and that just wouldn't work at all, with nothing west of Madison. Coverage is pretty good in some places, but awful in others.
And then you also have to consider availability. Non-Tesla stations tend to be installed in ones or twos and are often not well maintained. You can't really rely on any single station, because it could very well be blocked or broken. Tesla stations are usually installed in 6s or 8s, which means they're unlikely to be blocked and have some redundancy against failures, and Tesla acts quickly to fix any problems.
Finally, the speed difference is pretty huge. SAE Combo may theoretically offer speeds similar to Superchargers, but in practice it's far worse. Chevy is advertising the ability to add 90 miles in 30 minutes. That's about half of what you get from Superchargers. It's still totally doable, but it you'd spend a lot more time charging.
And Tesla can't really lose the game. They already have an adapter for CHAdeMO stations, and an SAE combo adapter would not be hard for them to make. I'm confident we'll see such an adapter for sale in the next year or two. The worst case for Tesla is that other cars come up to parity here, and even then there's no sign of that happening any time soon.
And then you also have to consider availability. Non-Tesla stations tend to be installed in ones or twos and are often not well maintained. You can't really rely on any single station, because it could very well be blocked or broken. Tesla stations are usually installed in 6s or 8s, which means they're unlikely to be blocked and have some redundancy against failures, and Tesla acts quickly to fix any problems.
Finally, the speed difference is pretty huge. SAE Combo may theoretically offer speeds similar to Superchargers, but in practice it's far worse. Chevy is advertising the ability to add 90 miles in 30 minutes. That's about half of what you get from Superchargers. It's still totally doable, but it you'd spend a lot more time charging.
And Tesla can't really lose the game. They already have an adapter for CHAdeMO stations, and an SAE combo adapter would not be hard for them to make. I'm confident we'll see such an adapter for sale in the next year or two. The worst case for Tesla is that other cars come up to parity here, and even then there's no sign of that happening any time soon.
The Bolt would work for me, long distance. It will have SAE combo as an option which means something like stopping for 1 hour every 200 miles. Not as good as Tesla but OK-ish. YMMV.
edit: I'm in the UK where coverage is pretty good.
edit: I'm in the UK where coverage is pretty good.
Where do you live? SAE combo is just barely fast enough to be a viable solution for long-distance travel, but the availability just completely sucks in many places. You couldn't do a coast-to-coast trip in the US that way, for example.
I'm in the UK, we've got Chademo and SAE at every motorway service station. The UK is small, it kind of helps.
Yeah, the story looks to be quite different in Europe in general. SAE should be very good for long-distance travel there. Here in the US, coverage is extremely spotty, with dense coverage in some areas but zero coverage in many others, including a lot of pretty busy corridors.
Im a fan of what Tesla is doing from a distance. I cant afford any Tesla that fits my needs at the moment. Im not 100% sold on their viability long term, but glad that they are in business if at least to spur the incumbents into innovation.
That said, the Chevy Bolt is not Teslas dream car. That car is ugly, awkward and poorly conceived. It may check out on the spec sheet but there is no passion or personality in that car. Tesla is at least trying to build cars that are desirable as well as efficient, and whether or not they hit the mark, you can see that they are trying to do that.
I understand there is a demographic out there that doesn't care what their car looks like, and maybe that is what they were shooting for when they designed the bolt, but that is not a car I would ever drive. The Model 3 looks upmarket enough to satisfy aesthetics as well as practicality. The Bolt looks like what it is, a frankenstein model that had its ICE powertrain swapped with an electric one. Doing that required design compromises that just don't look good. This criticism carries over to BMW with their i series as well. The i3 is ugly and poor performing, and the i8 is impractical and expensive.
Until GM/BMW/VW/FCA/Ford/ETC start with a real electric platform designed for both efficiency and driving dynamics they will never succeed. Part of me thinks they realize that electrification will largely lead to commoditization and remove a big chunk of the profits that are derived from ICE differentiation, and they don't want that.
That said, the Chevy Bolt is not Teslas dream car. That car is ugly, awkward and poorly conceived. It may check out on the spec sheet but there is no passion or personality in that car. Tesla is at least trying to build cars that are desirable as well as efficient, and whether or not they hit the mark, you can see that they are trying to do that.
I understand there is a demographic out there that doesn't care what their car looks like, and maybe that is what they were shooting for when they designed the bolt, but that is not a car I would ever drive. The Model 3 looks upmarket enough to satisfy aesthetics as well as practicality. The Bolt looks like what it is, a frankenstein model that had its ICE powertrain swapped with an electric one. Doing that required design compromises that just don't look good. This criticism carries over to BMW with their i series as well. The i3 is ugly and poor performing, and the i8 is impractical and expensive.
Until GM/BMW/VW/FCA/Ford/ETC start with a real electric platform designed for both efficiency and driving dynamics they will never succeed. Part of me thinks they realize that electrification will largely lead to commoditization and remove a big chunk of the profits that are derived from ICE differentiation, and they don't want that.
This being the top post is bad news at many levels. As a Volt owner, I am more than satisfied by that car, and passionately recommend it to people. The BoltEV is perhaps unsexy, but its dimensions are practical and the reviews are overall good.
Its the only long distance practical EV for at least couple of years for all markets in US, until Model 3 and Leaf Gen 2 come out.
edit: here is the review of the car, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-f...
Its the only long distance practical EV for at least couple of years for all markets in US, until Model 3 and Leaf Gen 2 come out.
edit: here is the review of the car, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-f...
I think your second sentence is wrong or at least very misleading. The bolt is not the only long distance practical ev. The tesla model s and x are exactly that. The bolt is cheaper, and has great range (less than existing teslas), but the bolt is much less practical because it charges much more slowly and has a drastically less comprehensive and less reliable network. The tesla covers the country and has been shown to be reliable.
The bolt is a great car, but its recharging network makes it far less reliable as a long distance car. It's shorter range is part of that, but its not as important as the fast recharger network availability.
The bolt is a great car, but its recharging network makes it far less reliable as a long distance car. It's shorter range is part of that, but its not as important as the fast recharger network availability.
It was said in another post but it bears repeating - you might find that ugly, to my eyes it is indistinguishable from a good 50% of the cars on the road in the country I live in - the UK. I personally am not satisfied with an average hatchback, it seems most people are though.
I agree with you about the BMW i3. The i8 is pretty though...
I agree with you about the BMW i3. The i8 is pretty though...
> The i8 is pretty though...
It is, and it's not a car you buy for practicality.
It is, and it's not a car you buy for practicality.
There are a lot of people (mostly in NA, it seems) who reflexively call every hatch ugly. I guess. Eye of the beholder, and all. But I'll take a _better_ car over a _prettier_ car every day. And that's assuming that I even think hatches are ugly, which I don't.
As the OP and being from NA let me clarify that I am a fan of hatchbacks and even "wagons/avants" GASP! When I have the disposable income, I want an Audi S6 avant for weekend fun/repair projects. My distaste for the Bolt/Volt is my general distaste for GM styling (specifically that of Chevy) and quality issues.
The funny counterpoint to those people is that the Tesla Model S IS a 5-door hatchback! (Albeit a big one)
It IS possible to make a "better" AND a "prettier" car at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive...
It IS possible to make a "better" AND a "prettier" car at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive...
> There are a lot of people (mostly in NA, it seems) who reflexively call every hatch ugly.
Not NA, more like US. Canadians do like hatchbacks.
Not NA, more like US. Canadians do like hatchbacks.
From the looks of the Bolt, it appears that GM expects Europe to be its primary market.
The American aversion to hatches is why we don't get sexy cars like the BMW 1 series hatch.
The American aversion to hatches is why we don't get sexy cars like the BMW 1 series hatch.
However, GM took the decision not to launch in the UK. :(
I actually like how it looks. It looks like a plain regular compact hatchback. I hate how manufacturers feel the need to design all EV cars with black shiny plastic trims all over the place, weird lights and a hatch door that is ugly and non functional.
I don't feel the need for my car to scream "Look! A'm electric car! And you people are all ICEhole."
I don't feel the need for my car to scream "Look! A'm electric car! And you people are all ICEhole."
I think the current (huh, pun) Bolt looks fine, but then I drive a 1988 Mazda 323, paid $900 for it.
I just want an EV that gets me to the beach and back (120k round trip) and then to work and back the next day (6k round trip) that I can put roof racks on. And I want to buy it second for under AU$15,000.
I don't really care what it looks like, but I do find the BMW i3 weird looking. I will probably wash it twice a year.
Not everyone wants a luxury looking car, or a car with sports styling.
I just want an EV that gets me to the beach and back (120k round trip) and then to work and back the next day (6k round trip) that I can put roof racks on. And I want to buy it second for under AU$15,000.
I don't really care what it looks like, but I do find the BMW i3 weird looking. I will probably wash it twice a year.
Not everyone wants a luxury looking car, or a car with sports styling.
> That car is ugly, awkward and poorly conceived
It's a cheap family sedan. It's the car you buy because you need a second car so the other parent can get around all day. This car is targeted at people who buy Volt's, Corollas, Focus, etc...
If you want passion and personality from a chevy you are looking buying a Camaro, or a Corvette.
and it looks worlds better than the ugly as sin i3.
It's a cheap family sedan. It's the car you buy because you need a second car so the other parent can get around all day. This car is targeted at people who buy Volt's, Corollas, Focus, etc...
If you want passion and personality from a chevy you are looking buying a Camaro, or a Corvette.
and it looks worlds better than the ugly as sin i3.
To my eyes there is hardly anything uglier than the Tesla Model X, and Tesla's interiors are garbage across the board. You can't _see_ anything in the Tesla except for the gigantic TV. Maybe I'm strange, but I feel that being able to see out of the vehicle at night is still very important in these waning days of the human-driven car.
Unfortunately many EV makers are trying to ape Tesla's look and feel, so the Bolt includes a large but not enormous touchscreen display, and graphical instruments as well. But at least they are using hard knobs and buttons for the climate controls.
Unfortunately many EV makers are trying to ape Tesla's look and feel, so the Bolt includes a large but not enormous touchscreen display, and graphical instruments as well. But at least they are using hard knobs and buttons for the climate controls.
You do know that at dawn/dusk Tesla switches to a night-mode that's dark themed? Never been an issue seeing at night.
There's still a ton of light coming out of it no matter what color the panel thinks it is displaying. If it was OLED that would be one thing but it's not. I find driving in my Tesla at night to be very disturbing. I know I'm not in the majority any more since I see so many people driving down the freeway at night with a huge phablet mounted front and center on their windshield, but those people are universally crazy.
At night your car's instruments should be very gently illuminated by red or amber lights or LEDs, the way baby Jesus meant for things to be when he invented the BMW E30.
http://i.imgur.com/Yt4n7.jpg?4661
At night your car's instruments should be very gently illuminated by red or amber lights or LEDs, the way baby Jesus meant for things to be when he invented the BMW E30.
http://i.imgur.com/Yt4n7.jpg?4661
Every car maker and model has to reinvent things like the speed dial, in an ever worsening way. When the good, the intermediate and the bad designs have all been done, only truly atrocious gimmicks are left.
You can either use automatic adjustment of brightness and color scheme when it gets dark, or you can adjust it yourself. You can make it so dark you can barely see anything. It's not a problem in practice.
Author seems a bit biased against Tesla, and pro-GM. First off, no mention of the fact that Elon Musk has said that he wants competitors for Tesla. He wants the entire market for electric cars to expand (more potential customers for them, right?), and they have said that they can't do that all by themselves. This is why he has open-sourced Tesla's patents [1]. Second, the author says Tesla is reaching the limits of its potential. His evidence is that they are unlikely to meet Elon Musk's lofty production goals. If Musk gets to half of his production goals, that will be a huge success. This is how he constantly drives his company forward - by making huge promises that he knows Tesla will not meet, but will still be greeted as a giant leap forward.
It's the market's short-termism that has led to this epidemic of 'If you don't meet our arbitrarily-set profit goals designed to enrich us at the expense of almost every long-term goal, you are dead to us.' Musk is playing the long game, not Wall Street's game.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
It's the market's short-termism that has led to this epidemic of 'If you don't meet our arbitrarily-set profit goals designed to enrich us at the expense of almost every long-term goal, you are dead to us.' Musk is playing the long game, not Wall Street's game.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
I haven't seen anything biased against Tesla, GM did pull out a "wonder" a 30,000$ car with 200+ miles range (reportedly longer than the Model 3) which is fully electric.
The overall sentiment of the article isn't different than other coverage of the Bolt like from Wired for example:
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/gm-electric-car-chevy-bolt-mar... https://www.wired.com/2016/09/chevrolet-bolt-range-epa-ratin...
Effectively GM "beat" Tesla to the punch, while the Model 3 might have some additional features and luxuries over the Bolt they also won't be available for the base 30,000$ model. Without Tesla neither the Bolt nor it's predecessor the Volt would've existed but it doesn't diminish the accomplishment that GM has pulled off.
Also while it's very nice that Musk has published the Patents it's not exactly "open-sourcing" them, they were released for "in good faith use" which is actually a pretty clever strategy that can be used against competition if the need arises, don't get me wrong this is still a huge deal but this isn't a pure altruistic move on Tesla's part either.
The overall sentiment of the article isn't different than other coverage of the Bolt like from Wired for example:
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/gm-electric-car-chevy-bolt-mar... https://www.wired.com/2016/09/chevrolet-bolt-range-epa-ratin...
Effectively GM "beat" Tesla to the punch, while the Model 3 might have some additional features and luxuries over the Bolt they also won't be available for the base 30,000$ model. Without Tesla neither the Bolt nor it's predecessor the Volt would've existed but it doesn't diminish the accomplishment that GM has pulled off.
Also while it's very nice that Musk has published the Patents it's not exactly "open-sourcing" them, they were released for "in good faith use" which is actually a pretty clever strategy that can be used against competition if the need arises, don't get me wrong this is still a huge deal but this isn't a pure altruistic move on Tesla's part either.
I dunno, when the article said "Tesla fanboys" that seems like a good indicator that the author is a bit biased against Tesla.
No, it's a good indicator that there are "Tesla Fanboys" out there, and they exist and some of them like any other fanboy are pretty fanatical and not all the time logical.
That makes no sense. Declaring that there are "Tesla fanboys" is not proof of their existence. Sure, I'll grant you they do exist, but they exist for a lot of different companies/products and are usually a much tinier base of people than the speaker believes, and almost certainly when someone accuses someone else of being a "fanboy" they're wrong and are just using that to try and discredit the other speaker instead of addressing their points.
In this particular case, the author didn't even cite any behavior that indicates being a fanboy, they're just claiming that anyone who points out that Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy. All of these are legitimate things to say about Tesla and do not require some sort of blind devotion to Tesla in order to point out.
In this particular case, the author didn't even cite any behavior that indicates being a fanboy, they're just claiming that anyone who points out that Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy. All of these are legitimate things to say about Tesla and do not require some sort of blind devotion to Tesla in order to point out.
I've seen them on HN on more than one occasion.
I once dared to make the comment that one day a Tesla battery pack would catch fire or explode and out of the woods they came with their pitchforks and downvotes explaining in length like why it can never happen and how safe are 18650's and the Tesla power bank, and the car, and how smooth Elon Musk's skin is.
About 3 weeks later just that thing happened, a Tesla caught fire due to the power pack malfunctioning, since then there were 2-3 more similar cases.
There are Tesla and more Elon Musk in general fanboys out there.
And I don't really understand why you are taking offense, no one made those claims here, no one even argued that there are no advantages to the Tesla. However those advantages come at a cost, a Model 3 won't be a 30,000 car, it would be close to it after the rebate, you will have to pay extra for luxuries, as well as potentially access to the supercharger network.
And I'm not sure about the rest of your arguments, profitability is in question here, it's doubtful that the Model 3 will be as profitable, infact it won't be by design, the question would then be how many Model S/X's Tesla can sale because that would be the limiting factor in it's ability actually ship Model 3's as those partially fund it.
As for the brand strength, the brand is considerably more limited than what you think, sure on HN and in a few other circles it has a huge presence but if you think that in the middle of nowhere America, or the rest of the world Tesla has a brand presence you are going to be disappointed, most people do not know what Tesla is. If you ask the average person to name car companies Tesla is about as likely to be named as Alpina, heck i would be that more people are aware of Aplina world wide than Tesla.
I once dared to make the comment that one day a Tesla battery pack would catch fire or explode and out of the woods they came with their pitchforks and downvotes explaining in length like why it can never happen and how safe are 18650's and the Tesla power bank, and the car, and how smooth Elon Musk's skin is.
About 3 weeks later just that thing happened, a Tesla caught fire due to the power pack malfunctioning, since then there were 2-3 more similar cases.
There are Tesla and more Elon Musk in general fanboys out there.
And I don't really understand why you are taking offense, no one made those claims here, no one even argued that there are no advantages to the Tesla. However those advantages come at a cost, a Model 3 won't be a 30,000 car, it would be close to it after the rebate, you will have to pay extra for luxuries, as well as potentially access to the supercharger network.
And I'm not sure about the rest of your arguments, profitability is in question here, it's doubtful that the Model 3 will be as profitable, infact it won't be by design, the question would then be how many Model S/X's Tesla can sale because that would be the limiting factor in it's ability actually ship Model 3's as those partially fund it.
As for the brand strength, the brand is considerably more limited than what you think, sure on HN and in a few other circles it has a huge presence but if you think that in the middle of nowhere America, or the rest of the world Tesla has a brand presence you are going to be disappointed, most people do not know what Tesla is. If you ask the average person to name car companies Tesla is about as likely to be named as Alpina, heck i would be that more people are aware of Aplina world wide than Tesla.
> […] and how smooth Elon Musk's skin is.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you say something like this. If someone's behavior really is remarkable, then there should be no need to exaggerate. If you exaggerate, it suggests that maybe your complaint isn't legitimate.
> it's doubtful that the Model 3 will be as profitable, infact it won't be by design
Why do you say that? People seem to be in agreement that GM can sell their car at a loss because they make up for it in the ability to sell other gas-guzzling cars. Tesla can't sell their cars at a loss because they don't have any way to make it up. The people who claim Tesla is losing money on their cars are doing so by including R&D costs as part of the cost of the car, which is nonsense. If Tesla sells 10k more cars, they didn't just lose a bunch of money, they made money on each car. Sure, if Tesla doesn't sell enough to recoup their R&D then they've taken a loss overall, but the idea is that they should sell enough cars to make a profit, which they can then plow back into R&D to make even better cars. And they can take a loss in the short term if it leads to profitability later, what they can't do is take a loss on each unit sold.
In fact, if I search for "tesla model 3 profitability" on DDG, the very first result is a Fox Business article from March saying that a goal of the Model 3 is to be profitable, something the other cars haven't been (I assume here that it means after taking R&D into account, as opposed to being a loss on each unit sold) - http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/03/31/tesla-counts-o....
> If you ask the average person to name car companies
If you ask the average consumer that cares about electric vehicles, they probably do know about Tesla. The average person doesn't really care much about that, beyond maybe thinking that a hybrid car is a good idea (or even thinking it's a bad idea because those usually compromise on power).
Edit: Corrected "Business Insider" to "Fox Business". Not sure why I mixed those two up.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you say something like this. If someone's behavior really is remarkable, then there should be no need to exaggerate. If you exaggerate, it suggests that maybe your complaint isn't legitimate.
> it's doubtful that the Model 3 will be as profitable, infact it won't be by design
Why do you say that? People seem to be in agreement that GM can sell their car at a loss because they make up for it in the ability to sell other gas-guzzling cars. Tesla can't sell their cars at a loss because they don't have any way to make it up. The people who claim Tesla is losing money on their cars are doing so by including R&D costs as part of the cost of the car, which is nonsense. If Tesla sells 10k more cars, they didn't just lose a bunch of money, they made money on each car. Sure, if Tesla doesn't sell enough to recoup their R&D then they've taken a loss overall, but the idea is that they should sell enough cars to make a profit, which they can then plow back into R&D to make even better cars. And they can take a loss in the short term if it leads to profitability later, what they can't do is take a loss on each unit sold.
In fact, if I search for "tesla model 3 profitability" on DDG, the very first result is a Fox Business article from March saying that a goal of the Model 3 is to be profitable, something the other cars haven't been (I assume here that it means after taking R&D into account, as opposed to being a loss on each unit sold) - http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/03/31/tesla-counts-o....
> If you ask the average person to name car companies
If you ask the average consumer that cares about electric vehicles, they probably do know about Tesla. The average person doesn't really care much about that, beyond maybe thinking that a hybrid car is a good idea (or even thinking it's a bad idea because those usually compromise on power).
Edit: Corrected "Business Insider" to "Fox Business". Not sure why I mixed those two up.
>It's really hard to take you seriously when you say something like this. If someone's behavior really is remarkable, then there should be no need to exaggerate. If you exaggerate, it suggests that maybe your complaint isn't legitimate.
It's also hard to take them seriously, and you to some extent since you decided to take offense about an issue that no one in this thread even raised, usually the first sign of "irrationality" is taking offense when not only it wasn't directed at you, but also wasn't even given to anyone.
>Why do you say that?...
Because even Elon Musk said so, they are banking on the Model S and X to push the Model 3. Overall the profitability of the Model 3 is still questionable, they are using very expensive materials and platform even for the base model, they are betting on state based rebates to keep it close to 30K (which is risky since those rebates can disappear) and their overall profit margins would be relying on the people that buy the premium modules and upgrades for the model 3, as well as of course buying the very expensive Model S and X's especially the higher end models of those like the P100D.
That's where the money is some Core i3/5s are effectively Xeons (or the otherway around depending on how you want to look at it) but Intel sells them for as low as under 100$ while their Xeon counterparts go for 3-5 times the price, what Tesla is doing is effectively binning and selling very minor upgrades at very high relative costs (e.g. using Intel again akin to the 6700 vs 6700K same CPU 50$ difference (300 vs 350$) for an unlocked multiplier which is effectively a microcode patch) which may or may not work for cars.
>If you ask the average consumer that cares about electric vehicles, they probably do know about Tesla.
This is an utterly irrelevant question to ask if you want to make a change in the world, even Elon Musk made this same argument, the point of the cars like the Bolt isn't to sell them to people who want to buy an electric car specifically but to anyone who wants to buy a car in general.
This is why range and price point are so important, if you are able to bring an electric car to a range equivalent to a gas car (without refueling) under the 30,000 price point you have yourself the ability to push for real change in the automotive industry and more important a real environmental change both locally and globally.
The whole idea is to make the fact that a car is electric so irrelevant that it would be akin to asking if a car has power steering in this day and age. So pretty much when we get to the point of: >The average person doesn't really care much about that Is when we "win".
It's also hard to take them seriously, and you to some extent since you decided to take offense about an issue that no one in this thread even raised, usually the first sign of "irrationality" is taking offense when not only it wasn't directed at you, but also wasn't even given to anyone.
>Why do you say that?...
Because even Elon Musk said so, they are banking on the Model S and X to push the Model 3. Overall the profitability of the Model 3 is still questionable, they are using very expensive materials and platform even for the base model, they are betting on state based rebates to keep it close to 30K (which is risky since those rebates can disappear) and their overall profit margins would be relying on the people that buy the premium modules and upgrades for the model 3, as well as of course buying the very expensive Model S and X's especially the higher end models of those like the P100D.
That's where the money is some Core i3/5s are effectively Xeons (or the otherway around depending on how you want to look at it) but Intel sells them for as low as under 100$ while their Xeon counterparts go for 3-5 times the price, what Tesla is doing is effectively binning and selling very minor upgrades at very high relative costs (e.g. using Intel again akin to the 6700 vs 6700K same CPU 50$ difference (300 vs 350$) for an unlocked multiplier which is effectively a microcode patch) which may or may not work for cars.
>If you ask the average consumer that cares about electric vehicles, they probably do know about Tesla.
This is an utterly irrelevant question to ask if you want to make a change in the world, even Elon Musk made this same argument, the point of the cars like the Bolt isn't to sell them to people who want to buy an electric car specifically but to anyone who wants to buy a car in general.
This is why range and price point are so important, if you are able to bring an electric car to a range equivalent to a gas car (without refueling) under the 30,000 price point you have yourself the ability to push for real change in the automotive industry and more important a real environmental change both locally and globally.
The whole idea is to make the fact that a car is electric so irrelevant that it would be akin to asking if a car has power steering in this day and age. So pretty much when we get to the point of: >The average person doesn't really care much about that Is when we "win".
You're being awfully defensive about this. Yes, I don't like seeing people throw the "fanboy" word around. It's always meant as an insult, and nearly always used with the intention of dismissing someone's argument without actually countering the points made (usually because they can't). I don't get why you keep trying to accuse me of taking offense at something not directed at me, as if that's even relevant to the discussion. Did I even ever say I was offended? I don't think so.
> Because even Elon Musk said so
Citation please? I'm not seeing this anywhere. In fact, an article from just 1 week ago talks about how Tesla might achieve GAAP profitability in Q3 - https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-tsla-could-achieve-gaap...
> and their overall profit margins would be relying on the people that buy the premium modules and upgrades for the model 3
Isn't that true for all cars? If the optional features didn't improve profit margins, dealerships wouldn't be pushing them.
> This is an utterly irrelevant question to ask if you want to make a change in the world, even Elon Musk made this same argument, the point of the cars like the Bolt isn't to sell them to people who want to buy an electric car specifically but to anyone who wants to buy a car in general.
One of Elon Musk's goals was to push other car manufacturers into making electric vehicles. The fact that a widely-recognized brand like GM is coming out with the Bolt is exactly what Elon Musk wanted to happen.
> Because even Elon Musk said so
Citation please? I'm not seeing this anywhere. In fact, an article from just 1 week ago talks about how Tesla might achieve GAAP profitability in Q3 - https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-tsla-could-achieve-gaap...
> and their overall profit margins would be relying on the people that buy the premium modules and upgrades for the model 3
Isn't that true for all cars? If the optional features didn't improve profit margins, dealerships wouldn't be pushing them.
> This is an utterly irrelevant question to ask if you want to make a change in the world, even Elon Musk made this same argument, the point of the cars like the Bolt isn't to sell them to people who want to buy an electric car specifically but to anyone who wants to buy a car in general.
One of Elon Musk's goals was to push other car manufacturers into making electric vehicles. The fact that a widely-recognized brand like GM is coming out with the Bolt is exactly what Elon Musk wanted to happen.
>You're being awfully defensive about this.
I'm not being defensive at all =) And you were offended, and defensive, you somehow brought an entire argument about why "doing X isn't fanboyism" when no one talked about it, the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Ironically this entire argument is a litmus test for their existence.
>Citation please? I'm not seeing this anywhere.
Every talk he made about the Model 3, including his plans, eventually the Model 3 may become profitable, but if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat.
>In fact, an article from just 1 week ago talks about how Tesla might achieve GAAP profitability in Q3 - https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-tsla-could-achieve-gaap....
Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
The Model 3 won't lose money, but they expect the profits to come from the add-ons, and the larger profit margins to come from the more expensive Model S and X's this is in Musk's bloody "Plan".
>One of Elon Musk's goals was to push other car manufacturers into making electric vehicles. The fact that a widely-recognized brand like GM is coming out with the Bolt is exactly what Elon Musk wanted to happen.
Which is exactly what I said. The Future of Electric cars isn't Tesla, it might pave the road there, or help push some companies along, but it would be out paced by the giants once the EV scene kicks into full gear, that is OK.
I would still rather own a Tesla because I find it the cooler however living in London considering one costs about as my yearly pre-tax wage (The P90D) and the fact I won't be able to park it anywhere kinda make it impossible.
If Tesla is really lucky it would have the same impact that Apple had on mobile phones, maybe it would come to a point where everyone thinks about Tesla when they think about a "cool car", but still the majority of the world would be driving something else, EV but something else.
I'm not being defensive at all =) And you were offended, and defensive, you somehow brought an entire argument about why "doing X isn't fanboyism" when no one talked about it, the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Ironically this entire argument is a litmus test for their existence.
>Citation please? I'm not seeing this anywhere.
Every talk he made about the Model 3, including his plans, eventually the Model 3 may become profitable, but if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat.
>In fact, an article from just 1 week ago talks about how Tesla might achieve GAAP profitability in Q3 - https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-tsla-could-achieve-gaap....
Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
The Model 3 won't lose money, but they expect the profits to come from the add-ons, and the larger profit margins to come from the more expensive Model S and X's this is in Musk's bloody "Plan".
>One of Elon Musk's goals was to push other car manufacturers into making electric vehicles. The fact that a widely-recognized brand like GM is coming out with the Bolt is exactly what Elon Musk wanted to happen.
Which is exactly what I said. The Future of Electric cars isn't Tesla, it might pave the road there, or help push some companies along, but it would be out paced by the giants once the EV scene kicks into full gear, that is OK.
I would still rather own a Tesla because I find it the cooler however living in London considering one costs about as my yearly pre-tax wage (The P90D) and the fact I won't be able to park it anywhere kinda make it impossible.
If Tesla is really lucky it would have the same impact that Apple had on mobile phones, maybe it would come to a point where everyone thinks about Tesla when they think about a "cool car", but still the majority of the world would be driving something else, EV but something else.
No matter how many times you claim I'm offended, that doesn't actually mean I was offended. Why do you keep making that claim?
> the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla. That was my original point. The author didn't say "There exist Tesla 'fanboys'", instead the author very strongly implied that anyone trying to defend Tesla is a fanboy (and thus should be dismissed). You'll notice that after making that list of arguments in favor of Tesla, the author then proceeded to address none of them. After all, why should he, when anyone who makes those arguments is obviously a "fanboy"?
And no, I'm not offended. Why would I be? I'm not a Tesla "fanboy". What I am is annoyed. This kind of behavior is a pet peeve of mine (as are most attempts to dismiss an argument by evading it instead of addressing the points), and I bring it up because most people don't, or even leap to defend this behavior by claiming "but there are fanboys!", even though that argument relies on a logical fallacy (the existence of fanboys that defend the company does not mean that anyone who defends the company is a fanboy).
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
Again, give me a citation. I've searched and found the exact opposite of what you're saying, and linked it. You need to give me an authoritative link, just claiming this repeatedly is meaningless.
> Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable", please don't put words in my mouth. And secondly, you apparently either don't understand the article or don't understand my argument. Tesla's going to have a dip because of capital expenditures. These aren't per-unit costs. I said Tesla cannot sell cars at a per-unit loss (which is what I've seen a lot of people claiming over the past year), because they don't have any other way to make it up. But GM can sell the Bolt at a per-unit cost (whether they actually are is irrelevant, I'm not sure we'll know that unless GM tells us) because selling the Bolt allows them to sell more profitable gas-guzzling cars and still meet fuel-economy standards, which is something the article itself even admitted.
> if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat
Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
> the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla. That was my original point. The author didn't say "There exist Tesla 'fanboys'", instead the author very strongly implied that anyone trying to defend Tesla is a fanboy (and thus should be dismissed). You'll notice that after making that list of arguments in favor of Tesla, the author then proceeded to address none of them. After all, why should he, when anyone who makes those arguments is obviously a "fanboy"?
And no, I'm not offended. Why would I be? I'm not a Tesla "fanboy". What I am is annoyed. This kind of behavior is a pet peeve of mine (as are most attempts to dismiss an argument by evading it instead of addressing the points), and I bring it up because most people don't, or even leap to defend this behavior by claiming "but there are fanboys!", even though that argument relies on a logical fallacy (the existence of fanboys that defend the company does not mean that anyone who defends the company is a fanboy).
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
Again, give me a citation. I've searched and found the exact opposite of what you're saying, and linked it. You need to give me an authoritative link, just claiming this repeatedly is meaningless.
> Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable", please don't put words in my mouth. And secondly, you apparently either don't understand the article or don't understand my argument. Tesla's going to have a dip because of capital expenditures. These aren't per-unit costs. I said Tesla cannot sell cars at a per-unit loss (which is what I've seen a lot of people claiming over the past year), because they don't have any other way to make it up. But GM can sell the Bolt at a per-unit cost (whether they actually are is irrelevant, I'm not sure we'll know that unless GM tells us) because selling the Bolt allows them to sell more profitable gas-guzzling cars and still meet fuel-economy standards, which is something the article itself even admitted.
> if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat
Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
>No matter how many times you claim I'm offended, that doesn't actually mean I was offended. Why do you keep making that claim?
Because you've kicked off something that wasn't even discussed.
>Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla.
No one was implying anything, no one was saying anything negative or positive about Tesla.
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
I'm pretty sure you can use Google and hear him talk when he says that the Model 3 couldn't happen without the Model S ;) Like the launch event where he said that the people who buy the Model S effectively are paying the way forwards for the Model 3.
I'm also pretty sure when you know that Model 3 owners have to pay for everything including access to the Supercharger network it's not the same as the Model S.
>Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable"
>Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
You claimed it would be more profitable than the traditional car companies at scale.
"Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy"
Because you've kicked off something that wasn't even discussed.
>Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla.
No one was implying anything, no one was saying anything negative or positive about Tesla.
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
I'm pretty sure you can use Google and hear him talk when he says that the Model 3 couldn't happen without the Model S ;) Like the launch event where he said that the people who buy the Model S effectively are paying the way forwards for the Model 3.
I'm also pretty sure when you know that Model 3 owners have to pay for everything including access to the Supercharger network it's not the same as the Model S.
>Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable"
>Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
You claimed it would be more profitable than the traditional car companies at scale.
"Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy"
For proof see a great many HN threads about Tesla.
Or /r/technology, which I removed from my subscriptions because it was becoming all tesla all the time.
Or /r/technology, which I removed from my subscriptions because it was becoming all tesla all the time.
[deleted]
Bob Lutz (GM Vice Chairman Global Product Development - Retired) credits Tesla with the existence of the Volt Plugin Hybrid. I don't know if he's made the same comments about the Bolt EV, but I think he would if asked.
Personally, I think competition is great. Now that the Bolt EV is entering the market and the EPA range has been announced, you can be dang sure the Tesla Model 3 will beat it.
Disclaimer, I work for GM, but not on this program. Any opinions are solely my own.
Personally, I think competition is great. Now that the Bolt EV is entering the market and the EPA range has been announced, you can be dang sure the Tesla Model 3 will beat it.
Disclaimer, I work for GM, but not on this program. Any opinions are solely my own.
Totally agree. The article was de-railed by the time it used Musk's personality as part of some tweet-fishing closing one-liner. If this is really about evolving competitive landscape, Musk as a cult of personality is really far from the point.
More constructive is pointing to 2013, where Tesla's public regard for competition was from a position of superiority. http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-response-to-bmw-i3-...
More constructive is pointing to 2013, where Tesla's public regard for competition was from a position of superiority. http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-response-to-bmw-i3-...
This article insinuates GM is beating Tesla to the punch on the "everyman" electric car as though it's some big surprise that an auto manufacturing giant is able to produce something at scale much quicker than a scrappy upstart. The bigger story is that it took this scrappy upstart and its "[c]ocky billionaire" CEO for this lumbering behemoth to inch their rudder 1 degree away from cranking out SUVs.
> as though it's some big surprise that an auto manufacturing giant is able to produce something at scale much quicker than a scrappy upstart
I'm not sure I'd call Tesla a "scrappy upstart". They're a publicly traded company with a market cap of $28B, versus GM's $47B. They employ 14,000 people. That's a lot less than GM, but it's also not an insignificant amount. At what point does one stop being a scrappy upstart, and start being a mature company?
I'm not sure I'd call Tesla a "scrappy upstart". They're a publicly traded company with a market cap of $28B, versus GM's $47B. They employ 14,000 people. That's a lot less than GM, but it's also not an insignificant amount. At what point does one stop being a scrappy upstart, and start being a mature company?
Tesla is truely both an upstart and a startup. They are barely 10 years old and its only in the last 3 years that they've produced more than 10,000 cars a year. Their huge market cap reflects their huge plans, not their current state.
"Barely 10" - the company was founded over 13 years ago, and Musk had been talking about it for a few years prior.
It may not seem like much of a difference, but when you're trying to spin as a new arrival...
Similar to the DPR / Silk Road case, where Ross's attorneys tried to paint him as "just a young kid making some silly mistakes". "Youthful indiscretion".
Ross was about to turn thirty.
Not the "same" thing, but how many teenagers do you know who wouldn't be offended by being called "barely 10"?
It may not seem like much of a difference, but when you're trying to spin as a new arrival...
Similar to the DPR / Silk Road case, where Ross's attorneys tried to paint him as "just a young kid making some silly mistakes". "Youthful indiscretion".
Ross was about to turn thirty.
Not the "same" thing, but how many teenagers do you know who wouldn't be offended by being called "barely 10"?
A startup is a company that looks like it's rapidly going out of business. If you look at the financial press, they accuse Tesla of this situation quite frequently.
I remember the bolt announcements happening during some massive criticism of Detroit automakers for asking for bailouts, and them needing some justification for congressional intervention to keep them alive. It's obviously more complex than that, but I would give more credit to the threat of dying than (what was at the time) a niche electric sportscar manufacturer run by a guy with extremely divided attention.
I believe the announced the Volt (the plug in gas battery car) during that time of bailouts, I never heard of the b-Bolt until much later.
What scale? Tesla has hundreds of thousands of pre-orders. How many of these will GM sell? It’s not like there’s a wait-list for Volts.
The Ford Escape sells 600,000 units a year in America. That's one SUV from one manufacturer. That's more than the entire minivan segment.
If GM can leverage one of their platforms for most of the Bolt it can dramatically lower the cost. What they do with the Bolt can bleed back over to the rest of the platform.
If GM can leverage one of their platforms for most of the Bolt it can dramatically lower the cost. What they do with the Bolt can bleed back over to the rest of the platform.
If I'm going to buy an electric car, I don't want to buy a hatchback or something weird looking.
Compare this: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/brookecrothers/files/2016/01/...
to this: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/images/model-3/gal...
In my opinion that's why Tesla has big fans. It's not because people are rallying around the "little guy", it's because we want a car that looks nice and actually has technology from this decade in it.
Edit: I don't mean to knock on the hatchback in particular. I can't articulate it, but this car just communicates the typical EV look. As opposed to something more serious imo.
Compare this: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/brookecrothers/files/2016/01/...
to this: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/images/model-3/gal...
In my opinion that's why Tesla has big fans. It's not because people are rallying around the "little guy", it's because we want a car that looks nice and actually has technology from this decade in it.
Edit: I don't mean to knock on the hatchback in particular. I can't articulate it, but this car just communicates the typical EV look. As opposed to something more serious imo.
I know my taste is unusual (after all, I like manuals) but I like the Bolt. I like hatchbacks - I can't stand sedans. If I can put an office chair in my hatchback, and it doesn't fit in a sedan, I want the sedan.
The Model 3 is, all-around, very unusual to be a car that appears exotic, but costs much less. Of course, it's being "paid for by purchases of the Model S and Model X," which means... at some scale (i.e. 500k+) Tesla is clearly losing money on the exotic sheet metal.
On the other hand, GM is building a car they can sell, and it won't be a bad business model.
Of course, since the masses love sedans, the 3 will easily outsell the Bolt anyway... but all of this will be a turbulent footnote to a different future where electric cars are commonplace. Neither of these cars will be the most popular electric cars on the road 10 years from now.
The Model 3 is, all-around, very unusual to be a car that appears exotic, but costs much less. Of course, it's being "paid for by purchases of the Model S and Model X," which means... at some scale (i.e. 500k+) Tesla is clearly losing money on the exotic sheet metal.
On the other hand, GM is building a car they can sell, and it won't be a bad business model.
Of course, since the masses love sedans, the 3 will easily outsell the Bolt anyway... but all of this will be a turbulent footnote to a different future where electric cars are commonplace. Neither of these cars will be the most popular electric cars on the road 10 years from now.
> If I can put an office chair in my hatchback, and it doesn't fit in a sedan, I want the sedan.
s/I want the sedan/I want the hatchback/ ? Or do you just hate office chairs? ;)
s/I want the sedan/I want the hatchback/ ? Or do you just hate office chairs? ;)
The Bolt looks exactly like about half of the cars on the road here (Netherlands, but it's about the same anywhere else in Europe), that alone should be a pretty good indicator of its potential. I'm not so sure things would be different in the US, maybe they need to make a saloon at some point but other than that most cars I've seen on the road in the US are hideous as well...
As an aside, I personally think the Model 3 is absolutely hideous to look at. The Model S is very good-looking on the outside but not more so than most non-EV saloons in the higher segment. I don't think 'good looks' are going to save Tesla.
As an aside, I personally think the Model 3 is absolutely hideous to look at. The Model S is very good-looking on the outside but not more so than most non-EV saloons in the higher segment. I don't think 'good looks' are going to save Tesla.
In my opinion, if you want to win over people who think ev's are a joke, the car at least needs to look good. It can't be another wonky toy that a large company threw out there for PR points. The car looks like something they're taking seriously.
Plus, Tesla's usually have a lot of technology packed in them as well. So it's not just good looks that are going to save them.
Plus, Tesla's usually have a lot of technology packed in them as well. So it's not just good looks that are going to save them.
>> It can't be another wonky toy that a large company threw out there for PR points. The car looks like something they're taking seriously.
I agree, but my point was that the Bolt actually does look like something people take seriously, as demonstrated by the fact that the roads here are crowded by cars that look exactly the same. I'm 100% convinced that if you took a Bolt for a drive here, almost no-one would even notice it. It may surprise car enthousiasts, but that's a very powerful property of car design in the mid-range segment.
I never understood why hatchbacks are so unpopular in the US, maybe that's the reason you think it looks like a 'wonky toy'?
I agree, but my point was that the Bolt actually does look like something people take seriously, as demonstrated by the fact that the roads here are crowded by cars that look exactly the same. I'm 100% convinced that if you took a Bolt for a drive here, almost no-one would even notice it. It may surprise car enthousiasts, but that's a very powerful property of car design in the mid-range segment.
I never understood why hatchbacks are so unpopular in the US, maybe that's the reason you think it looks like a 'wonky toy'?
The US doesn't buy wagons or hatchbacks unless you call it a CUV. Then they go nuts for them. The Bolt is just plane ugly though. So is the i3. The Model 3 has some sex appeal to it.
Apples ought to be compared with apples: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/brookecrothers/files/2016/01/...
That car looks terrible also. I'm biased because I ordered a Model 3, but the Chevy Bolt looks like it was purposely made ugly to steer people towards combustion engine vehicles. They would have done better to make the Chevy Malibu body electric or hybrid.
The pressure has been reduced somewhat since the bailouts, but the car industry does enforce a perceptible hierarchy to keep lower-end models from poaching sales from high-margin vehicles/brands. It's frustrating to see the practice extended to EV vs. combustion though.
Malibu (Opel Insignia) is a significantly larger car (it's about 4.8 m long, Bolt is 4.2 m, and Malibu/Insignia has the same curb weight of about 1600 kg even though it is a gasoline engine version that has no battery (which in Bolt weighs 440 kg).
Sure, Malibu/Insignia looks different but it also takes more space.
Sure, Malibu/Insignia looks different but it also takes more space.
True, was just going by what's in the article. I updated with that image for future onlookers.
I actually prefer the design of the Bolt; it's really practical.
It also has a ton of great tech in it. Does this look like it's from the appropriate decade? http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Chevrolet-vo...
It also has a ton of great tech in it. Does this look like it's from the appropriate decade? http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Chevrolet-vo...
What's wrong with a hatchback? I'd love for every single sedan to be converted into hatchbacks so I don't have to screw around with tiny trunks anymore. If nothing else, give it a 2-3" lift and it becomes a crossover, which is wildly popular in the USA.
I don't know about this model, but on another Tesla the trunk is pretty huge.
Usually when I think of something that I want to load stuff into, I go with at least a mid-size SUV. Those you can lay the seats down and put stuff in it. It also will have places for roof racks and potentially a little hitch if you need a trailer.
Also I don't mean to insult anyone's taste in hatchbacks. Just compare this hatchback to any other hatchback. Even by those standards it doesn't look as good imo.
Usually when I think of something that I want to load stuff into, I go with at least a mid-size SUV. Those you can lay the seats down and put stuff in it. It also will have places for roof racks and potentially a little hitch if you need a trailer.
Also I don't mean to insult anyone's taste in hatchbacks. Just compare this hatchback to any other hatchback. Even by those standards it doesn't look as good imo.
Cargo space in a small car is the reason the first generation Scion xB is one of my favorite cars of all time. In a car the size of a Honda Fit, with the back seats down there is more cargo room than a Chevrolet Suburban, and since the roof is completely flat you can mount a massive, 22 cubic foot cargo box on top. The only issue was a weak engine, which a supercharger kit easily fixes. Too bad Toyota axed it and replaced it with a larger (and yet less roomy) car.
SUV's suck for loading stuff. Their high floor and emphasis on style over capacity means they store much less stuff than similarly sized vehicles. Hatches, wagons and vans can generally haul a lot more stuff than a comparably sized SUV.
Agreed. Hatchbacks (and wagons, although they are harder to make sporty/fun) give you cargo room rivaling smaller SUVs in a lighter platform. It's common for the back seats to fold flat which is helpful for odd-shaped or bulky items.
While larger SUVs, crossovers or even sedans might have more total cargo volume, they may be narrow in a certain dimension (why I hate trunks vs. 5th doors) or just are much deeper. Usually you don't use all that space, and you end up carting around all that extra vehicle weight. If you need that spaces less than a few times a year, you're better off renting a large vehicle for those jobs or trips.
I also like how the wheels tend to the corners on hatches, it gives them great driving dynamics and still leaves a lot of room for legs and shoulders for 4 adults.
While larger SUVs, crossovers or even sedans might have more total cargo volume, they may be narrow in a certain dimension (why I hate trunks vs. 5th doors) or just are much deeper. Usually you don't use all that space, and you end up carting around all that extra vehicle weight. If you need that spaces less than a few times a year, you're better off renting a large vehicle for those jobs or trips.
I also like how the wheels tend to the corners on hatches, it gives them great driving dynamics and still leaves a lot of room for legs and shoulders for 4 adults.
Why compare the picture of a chassis in an assembly line to an advertisement picture of another? Of course the first one looks unfinished, because it is unfinished.
Hatchbacks are practical. If I just want a car that looks as nice as Tesla, I can get a Ford Mondeo.
Hatchbacks are practical. If I just want a car that looks as nice as Tesla, I can get a Ford Mondeo.
That's what I could find of the car from the article, I updated with a better picture from another commentor.
Even the Model 3 is too big for many European Cities, the Model S is a complete giant.
The Bolt can even be considered a tad too big, but at least you'll be able to park it in London or Paris.
The Bolt can even be considered a tad too big, but at least you'll be able to park it in London or Paris.
Despite the use of bad photos to compare the two, I do agree with the sentiment of this post. The Tesla 3 is significantly better looking than any of the possible alternatives in my opinion. The Bolt is just weird looking to me. Sure a hatch back may be more practical for some, but all I need is a car to get me to and from work.
These two vehicles would not be compared if they were ICE vehicles. Just not the same class. Model 3 is aiming towards the luxury market and the Bolt is the mid level economy car that looks hilarious.
The BMW i3 is more of a Bolt competitor than the Model 3.
The BMW i3 is more of a Bolt competitor than the Model 3.
How does it compare to the most popular cars in Europe?
VW Golf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/VW...
Ford Fiesta https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Fo...
VW Polo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/VW...
Renault Clio https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/20...
Opel / Vauxhall Corsa https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Op...
Peugeot 208 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Pe...
Nissan Qashqai https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Ni...
Opel / Vauxhall Astra https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/20...
Ford Focus https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Fo...
Skoda Octavia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Sk...
Fiat Panda https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/20...
Peugeot 308 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/20...
Renault Captur https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/20...
Audi A3 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/20...
VW Passat https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/20...
Toyota Yaris https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/20...
Fiat 500 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/%2...
Peugeot 2008 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Pe...
Opel / Vauxhall Mokka https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Op...
Skoda Fabia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/De...
Dacia Lodgy https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Lo...
Or in Japan.
Toyota Aqua (Prius C) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/20...
Honda Fit (Jazz) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/20...
Nissan Note https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ni...
It looks like it fits between those cars.
VW Golf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/VW...
Ford Fiesta https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Fo...
VW Polo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/VW...
Renault Clio https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/20...
Opel / Vauxhall Corsa https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Op...
Peugeot 208 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Pe...
Nissan Qashqai https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Ni...
Opel / Vauxhall Astra https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/20...
Ford Focus https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Fo...
Skoda Octavia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Sk...
Fiat Panda https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/20...
Peugeot 308 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/20...
Renault Captur https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/20...
Audi A3 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/20...
VW Passat https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/20...
Toyota Yaris https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/20...
Fiat 500 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/%2...
Peugeot 2008 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Pe...
Opel / Vauxhall Mokka https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Op...
Skoda Fabia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/De...
Dacia Lodgy https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Lo...
Or in Japan.
Toyota Aqua (Prius C) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/20...
Honda Fit (Jazz) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/20...
Nissan Note https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ni...
It looks like it fits between those cars.
Bolt looks like most cars in India.
you can actually buy only one of those cars!
Everyone should watch the documentary:
who killed the electric car
People loved the EV1. It had its limitation due to the battery tech at the time. If they had kept up the program up we would probably have a $35000/200Mile electric car by now.
People loved the EV1. It had its limitation due to the battery tech at the time. If they had kept up the program up we would probably have a $35000/200Mile electric car by now.
A great follow up documentary is Revenge of the Electric Car from the same documentarian. He was invited to witness the launches of the Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, and Tesla Model S.
Could that GM afford to keep the program running? It went out of business 8 years ago.
I also wonder how much impact selling money losing electric vehicles would really have had on battery research (vastly better batteries are the big difference between 2002 and now...).
I also wonder how much impact selling money losing electric vehicles would really have had on battery research (vastly better batteries are the big difference between 2002 and now...).
The documentary mentioned above implies that the car was killed, not because it was uneconomical, because the law that insentivised them to make the car wasn't worked out properly and the car companies found killing the law insidiously, and the car, a better option than complying with it.
The company truly was enthusiastic about the electric car, but then the law played unfavourable and they had to kill it.
The company truly was enthusiastic about the electric car, but then the law played unfavourable and they had to kill it.
Yeah, but it was massively uneconomical. They were leasing it for less than $500 a month and producing it at a cost higher than $50,000. Of course people thought that was great.
My grandpa had one of those, and I thought it was the so cool. For a general commuter car, it worked perfectly for him.
I'm really rooting for Tesla here. "Tech start-ups", like Tesla, are disrupting lots of companies that have been doing seemingly nothing for consumers because they haven't needed to or, when they did, things it were half-assed.
Tesla is much an example of how Tech People can make things better. What makes me worried is they're not taking the high road. They're pumping out cars and not following the smart approaches. They're making mistakes that have already been made (thats not innovation or iterating fast...). They may screw up the narrative.
I'd still rather use my ok Honda Civic while I wait for a Model 3 in the future than get the Bolt.
Tesla is much an example of how Tech People can make things better. What makes me worried is they're not taking the high road. They're pumping out cars and not following the smart approaches. They're making mistakes that have already been made (thats not innovation or iterating fast...). They may screw up the narrative.
I'd still rather use my ok Honda Civic while I wait for a Model 3 in the future than get the Bolt.
[deleted]
Tesla is a "tech startup" that cannot even include support for Android Auto or CarPlay.
Yea I also have my issues with Tesla. I'm rooting for them, but I'm hoping they fix the obvious problems they have too.
The author docks Tesla for being unable to meet demand for its Model 3 and notes that GM will easily meet demand for its Bolt. No mention of what that demand is likely to be.
I don't have pre-order stats, but if Bolt sales are anything like Volt sales, which recently crossed 100,000 after years on the market, meeting demand shouldn't be that challenging.
http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail...
I don't have pre-order stats, but if Bolt sales are anything like Volt sales, which recently crossed 100,000 after years on the market, meeting demand shouldn't be that challenging.
http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail...
There are no preorder stats for the Bolt because GM doesn't do preorders. Bolt sales start this year when they arrive in dealerships. It's quite possible that Bolt sales (actual cars in actual dealerships) can (will?) eat into Tesla Model 3 preorders, especially because they may be "car keys in hand" well before the Model 3 wait list catches up to many potential buyers.
Also, comparing Volt sales to Bolt sales is a bit like comparing Model S sales to Model 3 sales; different target markets and different price points entirely. At this point I don't think anyone has a good idea (except for projections that may or may not be accurate) what the Bolt demand will be until the Bolts start showing up in dealerships soon.
Also, comparing Volt sales to Bolt sales is a bit like comparing Model S sales to Model 3 sales; different target markets and different price points entirely. At this point I don't think anyone has a good idea (except for projections that may or may not be accurate) what the Bolt demand will be until the Bolts start showing up in dealerships soon.
By the time the Tesla 3 is generally available these Bolts will be available, used, with unsexy GM depreciation. I look forward to picking one up then.
If you're curious what unsexy GM depreciation is, check out used Volt prices. Here's what I found in 20 seconds of searching: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/675207037/overview...
If you're curious what unsexy GM depreciation is, check out used Volt prices. Here's what I found in 20 seconds of searching: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/675207037/overview...
Isn't GM the same company that knew about a faulty(possible fatal implications) ignition system and let it be because it wasn't cost effective to fix it publicly?
I grew wary of GM the moment I read that news and watched Jon Stewart butcher them on Daily Show.
I'd buy a Tesla definitely for their effort to improve safety more than the "coolness/tech" factor. If only I had so much money.
... flies away from HN to do the daily job ...
... flies away from HN to do the daily job ...
The New York Times has a longstanding anti-Tesla bias.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/tesla-motors-mode...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/business/a-fatality-forces...
Personally, I think we need as many Electric Vehicles as possible, so my kids' kids will be able to swim in the coral reefs and climb glaciated peaks. I don't care much for the hit pieces - I want BOTH Tesla AND GM to succeed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/tesla-motors-mode...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/business/a-fatality-forces...
Personally, I think we need as many Electric Vehicles as possible, so my kids' kids will be able to swim in the coral reefs and climb glaciated peaks. I don't care much for the hit pieces - I want BOTH Tesla AND GM to succeed.
I'd argue that these comparisons, while obvious to make, are missing an absolutely critical piece of Tesla's long-term plan: autonomous driving capability. This article and others are merely drawing comparisons based on price and range.
GM has fielded electric cars off and on for 20 years now (going back to the EV1). The field is maturing quickly, but the Bolt and other cars like it are really just electric versions of existing ICE platforms. In the case of the Bolt, it's the same platform as the Buick Encore and Chevy Spark in the US. There are very few platform-specific updates that serve to differentiate the Bolt from its siblings. That's not a criticism in and of itself, but it serves as an illustration of how GM's approach differs dramatically from Tesla's.
What Tesla is doing by creating entirely new platforms is ensuring that they are engineered not just to be electric vehicles but - more importantly - to be autonomous vehicles. This article is overlooking just how important that functionality will be in Tesla's vision for the Model 3 (and all of their other future offering). Musk has made no secret of this. So, no, the Bolt is not Musk's White Whale.
GM has fielded electric cars off and on for 20 years now (going back to the EV1). The field is maturing quickly, but the Bolt and other cars like it are really just electric versions of existing ICE platforms. In the case of the Bolt, it's the same platform as the Buick Encore and Chevy Spark in the US. There are very few platform-specific updates that serve to differentiate the Bolt from its siblings. That's not a criticism in and of itself, but it serves as an illustration of how GM's approach differs dramatically from Tesla's.
What Tesla is doing by creating entirely new platforms is ensuring that they are engineered not just to be electric vehicles but - more importantly - to be autonomous vehicles. This article is overlooking just how important that functionality will be in Tesla's vision for the Model 3 (and all of their other future offering). Musk has made no secret of this. So, no, the Bolt is not Musk's White Whale.
Without supercharging infrastructure, this vehicle will be bound to relatively short distances and then a long charge time.
I'm glad there's a bit of competition, though.
I'm glad there's a bit of competition, though.
I think there's going to be an SAE combo option for the Bolt, which will mean about 90 miles range recharged in 30mins. Not as good as the Tesla supercharger, but not terrible.
edit: coverage is good in europe but not so good in the US from what people are saying elsewhere in this post
edit: coverage is good in europe but not so good in the US from what people are saying elsewhere in this post
The US is behind on charging infrastructure, largely because gas is so ::cough:: subsidized ::cough:: cheap.
Superchargers are, more or less, the only game in town. There's apps that tell you where other types of charges are though, like ChargePoint stations.
Superchargers are, more or less, the only game in town. There's apps that tell you where other types of charges are though, like ChargePoint stations.
Is there any reason GM can't just make the bolt compatible with Tesla's super chargers? Seems like a win for both parties.
They would lose so much face. And they would have to pay Tesla, which they dont want to do. Even assuming that Tesla would do a deal with them, which they may not.
Tesla have stated that they are open to other manufacturers using the Superchargers, so I think they'd at least entertain it. Who knows what the price negotiations would be like, though.
Musk doesn't seem like the type to shy away from the unknown, so commence the price negotiations!
I don't see how this is getting "his wish, in the worst way".
Wasn't one of their stated goals "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport?" (https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)
It sounds like that goal is finally starting to become successful. We should all be grateful at the economic pressure Tesla applied to change the market. I hope that our next milestone is to see more EV sold than Combustion vehicles.
Wasn't one of their stated goals "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport?" (https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)
It sounds like that goal is finally starting to become successful. We should all be grateful at the economic pressure Tesla applied to change the market. I hope that our next milestone is to see more EV sold than Combustion vehicles.
It's really not surprising that established manufacturers can create worthwhile products if they choose to, it is just that they typically won't bother to try.
Exactly. What this article misses is that part of Tesla's stated goal is to force the hands of established manufacturers into doing precisely this. As much as the author wants to paint this as a win for GM and an upset for Tesla, the Bolt is a win for both.
I think the automakers, and the business reports, are missing the point of the Tesla (again). They think it's about simply making a car that has a better {thing} than Tesla, whether that is range or the size of the touchscreen or even the number of cars they can pump out. It's not. There is a reason that Tesla had 400,000 pre orders for the Model 3 and it's not because it has a cool key.
Tesla is bringing all of the pieces together in a way that no current automobile manufacturer will. Could an existing car company (Toyota, Chevy, Porsche, etc.) beat the Tesla at the EV game? Maybe. But I think its far more likely that we are witnessing a paradigm shift and the existing companies are like the carriage makers in the early 1900's trying to compete with the Model T. How many vehicles to you see on the road built by the Frey Carriage Company?
Quit grumbling about the Bolt's exterior form factor. GM is starting with something mainstream. As the article mentions, the Bolt is being built on the same Gamma platform line as gas cars. There are about a dozen cars built on the Gamma platform, and they're selling well. GM can put different sheet metal on top of electric drive if they see a market.
The real achievement is range. GM finally got good range at a low price point. That's what's needed to make electric cars go mainstream.
(YC-type business opportunity: get public charging points to report their status (available, in-use, broken) and transmit that to cars and phones. There are maps of charge points, but not enough status info.)
Tesla no longer deserves a market cap half that of GM.
The real achievement is range. GM finally got good range at a low price point. That's what's needed to make electric cars go mainstream.
(YC-type business opportunity: get public charging points to report their status (available, in-use, broken) and transmit that to cars and phones. There are maps of charge points, but not enough status info.)
Tesla no longer deserves a market cap half that of GM.
GM Chevy Bolt or Opel/Vauxhall Ampera-e should help with the electric car adoption in the US and Europe which I look forward to.
While TM3 may be worth waiting, Tesla is going to be slow meeting the domestic demand, not to start going internationally. Affordable, high mileage electric cars is what we need to speed up the transition from ICE powered cars to electric ones. Apart from Nissan Leaf, BMW i3 or Volkswagen e-Golf are not really helping much this segment (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQelhFzK3Po, translated "The electric car fairy tale"), so it's awesome to see an affordable, high mileage electric car.
I think it is great that the Bolt exists. We need as many as possible electric car offerings. And I do think that Elon Musk also welcomes more electric cars from other manufacturers. The article is a bit negative about Tesla though. It is obvious that a car manufacturing giant like GM could bring a car quicker to production than a small company like Tesla. It also seems, that GM is just responsible for the bodywork and suspension, anything electric seems to be of LG make. There are also rumors, that the production is limited to 20-50k cars per year. So much less than Tesla is already building, and an order of magnitude less than planned for the Model 3.
Seems to be a pretty obvious piece of advertising. As I recently commented elsewhere, I really want there to be non-Tesla options at this price point, but GM:
-Probably won't have anywhere as good of warranty service
-Probably has a much less nice interior
-Probably has much worse control and media electronics for the driver
-Probably isn't nearly as fast
-Lacks access to the Tesla superchargers
-Doesn't have advanced features like Autopilot
-Won't receive anywhere near the same level of ongoing software support and updates
For only potentially $5k less, I'll pass. GM has in no way made a competitive alternative to the new Tesla.
-Probably won't have anywhere as good of warranty service
-Probably has a much less nice interior
-Probably has much worse control and media electronics for the driver
-Probably isn't nearly as fast
-Lacks access to the Tesla superchargers
-Doesn't have advanced features like Autopilot
-Won't receive anywhere near the same level of ongoing software support and updates
For only potentially $5k less, I'll pass. GM has in no way made a competitive alternative to the new Tesla.
Don't forget safety!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Without reading the article, I'm gonna go with "100+ years of experience designing and building cars".
you mean this car? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5dpQaakHwI