from the can-you-plug-me-in,-i'm-a-little-low dept.
Shad Balch, Manager of New Product and Public Policy Communications at GM, has told the nice folks at Autoblog that:
"It's very safe to assume that this car is going to be here sooner rather than later," Balch said. "We've also committed that it's going to be a 50-state vehicle at launch. That's to show our commitment to the technology. Our hope is that it becomes a high-volume-selling car, and that it's not just for the coasts, it's not just for a certain income level, but it is a long-range EV that anybody can get themselves into. ... [This is] a good alternative to the luxury long-range EVs that are available now. It's something that people can see themselves actually affording to get into. That's the message from this car."
If true, this is great. The Bolt is predicted to have about 200 miles of driving range and cost about $30,000 after incentives (so probably around $37,500 if we only take into account the federal tax credit, but maybe more if they're including some amount for the most common state incentives).
The Bolt is set to be released in 2017, but the article does not address how Chevy will get around the bottleneck in battery production other EV makers are facing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday November 09 2015, @06:20PM
> something that people can see themselves actually affording to get into
While the average car price is climbing towards the $30k mark, did they look at the average price of the cars in that size/trim category, and applied the "chevy" discount? I'm pretty sure they're about $5k to $10k over (unsurprisingly, since it's a new EV), which is not negligible when the median US salary isn't exactly skyrocketing right now...
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday November 09 2015, @07:15PM
Aren’t the lower-end Teslas approaching this price after incentives anyway? I'd wager there's a pretty large difference in reliability, performance, comfort, and just about everything else as well. Perhaps I'm underestimating the price of the Teslas, or over-estimating the incentives.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SanityCheck on Monday November 09 2015, @07:35PM
Well the price-point Tesla is aiming at will be base model. And their add-ons are notoriously pricey. You could get Model 3, and add onto it all the features and come up with something 2 times as expensive. So time will tell. At least Tesla is leading the market by the balls. GM knows they are behind the times, and if they fuck this up the company will die this decade. Especially wil the likes of Google, Apple, and who knows what else getting into the biz.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday November 09 2015, @08:02PM
> if they fuck this up the company will die this decade.
Being over-dramatic just a bit?
Considering the mix of cars and trucks, longevity of cars, incremental cost and infrastructure issues of EVs, not even counting lobbying, GM will survive at least another 15 years even if they don't produce any single EV after tomorrow.
If they had less baggage, you could say they'd get bought by one of the tech giants, but the car tech is available with less liability elsewhere. Worst-case, GM goes bankrupt in a decade or two, and has to abandon vanilla cars to focus where EVs are still going to be handicapped.
But that's likely not going to happen if they have half of a management brain left somewhere in the building.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday November 09 2015, @09:05PM
Worst-case, GM goes bankrupt in a decade or two
Too much campaign donations from mgmt and the unions. It isn't happening. Taxpayers will have to bail them out over and over.
A lot of people don't get that without socialist centrally controlled economy, GM was already dead during the last recession. GM is only still in business today because the USA is basically "commie, but without all the good parts".
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday November 09 2015, @09:19PM
> ... and has to abandon vanilla cars ...
They did get bankrupt, which is how they ran away from some of their structural issues.
They'd probably have to go bankrupt again to "safely" ditch their assets related to small car manufacturing.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday November 09 2015, @11:00PM
I admit I might be over dramatic. What I meant is that they will not be relevant to the (passenger) car market. They might do OK in the pickup market for a while, same for Trucks. Of course it takes a while for a dinosaur to implode, and the writing will be on the wall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @08:10PM
Well the price-point Tesla is aiming at will be base model. And their add-ons are notoriously pricey. You could get Model 3, and add onto it all the features and come up with something 2 times as expensive. So time will tell. At least Tesla is leading the market by the balls. GM knows they are behind the times, and if they fuck this up the company will die this decade. Especially wil the likes of Google, Apple, and who knows what else getting into the biz.
For something like a Model S nobody is getting one for under $100k. It's a niche brand and a luxury brand, both are notorious for nickle-and-diming their customers. I'm reminded of years back when I was building a Mini Cooper S online, by the time you get all the nice accessories you're easily looking at over $30k for that little car.
One of the things that Tesla really did right though was making it a status symbol from the start, Tesla makes the only electric that most people would want to be seen driving around in. The Leaf on the other hand is utterly unremarkable looking and others like the BMW i3 are almost as fugly as a Nissan Juke.
(Score: 4, Informative) by slinches on Monday November 09 2015, @08:23PM
This is the problem with EVs right now, the up front price premium will pay for a lot of gasoline (even after the $7500 subsidy). The next generation of electric vehicles may be able to pay back that difference in reduced net operating costs over their life, but it'll still take ~100k miles to do so and that result doesn't even take into account opportunity cost. Maybe in a few more years battery costs will drop and/or gas prices will increase to the point where EVs make sense, but they aren't quite there yet.
Until then, I plan to buy an Elio [eliomotors.com], which will cost less than 1/2 of any electric car on the market right now, can be driven at freeway speeds safely (top speed >100mph) and gets excellent gas mileage (~60-70 mpg combined, 84mpg hwy target) and the range is better than most gas cars (8 gal tank, 480-672 miles). Plus it technically qualifies as a motorcycle, so you can drive it in the HOV lane. Basically, it's what a Smart car should have been if it was designed for the US market.
P.S. I'm not affiliated with Elio Motors in any way. I just like the concept and want to promote it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday November 09 2015, @09:00PM
This is the problem with EVs right now, the up front price premium will pay for a lot of gasoline ...
.... blah blah accounting stuff blah blah. Thats the real problem EVs have right now.
Its forbidden to want one because its cool or because it'll piss off the anti-ev astroturfers all over the internet or for no dang reason at all (perhaps my wife likes the dash mounted flower holder, who knows).
Only EVs and hybrids "need" to be economically justified. Sports cars, minivans, giant trucks, SUVs, commuter cars, none of those "need" an economic justification.
I'll just come right out and say it. My wife ended up with a Prius because I have an EE background and the powertrain is too cool not to buy. If it cost ten times as much as a non-hybrid I'd care just as much as your average pickup truck driver cares about the environment and I'd get it anyway. Its just too cool. Also it looks nicer than many other cars, has pretty good low speed acceleration/torque because of the electric motor, and carries a hell of a lot of stuff, more than we need to carry anyway. Its actually a little large and uncomfortable to park, lacking the need to compensate, I'm used to smaller cars.
Its quite possible EVs will never be successful until the marketing changes from "well sure you'd rather buy absolutely anything else, but you can save the planet with this PoS on four wheels". "Sure its nerdy, and nerds suck and we hates them, but thats OK because you're only buying it because you're a bean counting hippie". What those morons call marketing is back handed compliments at best or pure WTF at worst. Like non-EV companies are planting agents to F up EV sales. Not sure they could sabotage the marketplace better if they intentionally tried.
Maybe they are intentionally trying, knowing they don't have the mfgr capacity and despite anti-advertising the things sell themselves so well that the demand outstrips the supply. If they didn't sabotage their own product the wait lists would just be longer...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Monday November 09 2015, @10:02PM
True, the transportation market (autos and motorcycles included) is not a bastion of rational decision making. Even though "cool factor", image and how people feel about vehicle in general are major contributors to buying decisions, EVs are at a disadvantage due to the price premium they carry. Most vehicle purchasers have a budget with a hard upper limit and you can buy a lot more of the "cool" or "fast" or "luxury" they're looking for in a gas powered vehicle within that same budget. That's why EVs are being marketed to those looking for the "eco" mindset. Those are the customers who will be willing to overlook the drawbacks in other aspects to have their vehicle match their "identity" at this point. That may start to change in the next couple of iterations and I expect that the marketing will adapt and emphasize more of the traditional market differentiators.
Of course those of us who try to make rational decisions will continue to be ignored for the most part, as we aren't a very profitable demographic. That's one of the things I that I really like about the Elio, the sales pitch is pure logic. Buy an Elio to commute in and it'll save you money over just driving your current car. Plus on top of that, you'll be keeping the miles off of your nice big SUV, sports car or luxury sedan so that it lasts longer and maintains value.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday November 09 2015, @10:55PM
I think this is the right calculation, if you cannot be assured to hit charging stations, and maybe not able to have multiple vehicles. For example, probably 100 miles/day covers most people, but having a vehicle that can go 400 miles on a tank? Priceless.
And I live somewhere with above average numbers of charging stations! But if I drive to the other end of the state, you run out of espresso shops...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @07:04AM
> but having a vehicle that can go 400 miles on a tank? Priceless.
Rent one for the 4-5 times a year that a normal person needs to drive 400 miles on a tank. Everytime I drive cross-country I rent a car anyway, most of them are rented without any mileage limitations.
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 10 2015, @09:52AM
What changed such that you do now need to compensate?
> My wife ...
Got it, no need to answer the above. Midlife crisis in full swing, clearly.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @07:02AM
> This is the problem with EVs right now, the up front price premium will pay for a lot of gasoline
Do not underestimate the value of near zero maintenance. Never having to drop it off at the shop to be worked on or even worry about stuff breaking. No oil changes, no belt changes, no spark plug changes, no filters, no transmission fluid, etc. It is pretty much just tires and brakepads. If you are a lazy fucker like most westerners that is a major perk. Its gonna suck to be a mechanic in 20 years though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @06:25PM
I wonder if they fixed the problems with the power steering transistors overheating.
Edit: Nope, was confusing it with the Cobalt [gminsidenews.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @06:35PM
I won't be buying any GM, Ford, or Dodge product. They're all crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:09PM
Marketing has made a huge blunder with this car.
They really, really, really need to come up with a new name.
The "Volt" is their sort-of-hybrid and the "Bolt" is the all electric. They could not have picked two names more easy to confuse in meaning, speech and writing - not only do B and V sound almost the same they are right next to each other on the keyboard. I doubt anyone is going to accidentally buy the wrong car, but what will happen is that the confusion will add friction to the sales process - people asking for info on one car and getting info on the wrong car, possibly even test driving the wrong car, etc.
The very least they could do is add three letters and call it the "voltage."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:13PM
The very least they could do is add three letters and call it the "voltage."
Wouldn't that be "boltage?"
Looks like you proved your point about how easy it is to mix them up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:21PM
There are the:
Volt
Bolt
Which of these do you think is the electric one?
If you said 'Bolt'*, you'd be right!
*no one is going to say that
(Score: 3, Funny) by snick on Monday November 09 2015, @07:34PM
... I'm thinking that the Bolt somehow runs on cloth?
(Score: 3, Funny) by quacking duck on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:42AM
And then they add an "Usain Mode"...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @06:58AM
Lol.
Yet another example of nominative determinism [wikipedia.org] in the wild.
LIke Anthony Weiner and Diana Nyad.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Monday November 09 2015, @08:44PM
Kodak did the same dumbass thing years ago. They developed a camera that you could load without fiddling with the film itself, just a drop-in cartridge, and named it Instamatic. Later on, they decided to make an instant-developing camera competing with Polaroid, and that name would have been perfect for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:54PM
Not to mention that in Japanese there is no distinction between the B and V sounds, so they'll both become "Boruto" :)
Probably something similar will happen with Chinese and maybe a few other Asian languages.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday November 09 2015, @10:29PM
Not to mention that "bolt" is the more mechanical term (and it makes me think of Frankenstein's monster), while "volt" is the more electrical.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @10:46PM
lightning bolt
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:00AM
lightning bolt
sleep
death [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday November 09 2015, @07:14PM
it's the ugliest $40K car there is. did they hire a blind man for the job?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Wierd0n3 on Monday November 09 2015, @07:31PM
I dunno, i like that it's a passenger vehicle first. It's not so much ugly, as plain.
I personally can't understand why people spend money on a Lincoln or those awful Jeeps now. (to be fair, i thought the older styles were cool, now jeeps look like a 6 eyed monster face.)
now, you want ugly, scroll down to the bottom of the article, and see what BMW is trying to sell.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday November 09 2015, @07:48PM
I think the BMW looks better to me but that might be because of the two-tone paint job and the fancier bumper/grille design. The Chevy isn't that bad but the bumper/grille is a bit meh. Perhaps if they two-toned it or added some more curves to the front, it would look nicer.
Like everything else, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Though, my greatest concern will be its safety rating.
(Score: 2) by skater on Monday November 09 2015, @08:31PM
now jeeps look like a 6 eyed monster face
You know, one was behind me the other evening and I was noticing the 6-eyed nature of it. I thought the law was you could only have four forward-facing white lights... am I wrong here?
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday November 10 2015, @12:23AM
I thought the law was you could only have four forward-facing white lights
yes which is why they are required to be covered when on the road.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @07:31PM
Style varies greatly from person to person. There are plenty of cars I think are ugly, yet people drive them. This design isn't nearly as bad as some others, and the orange paintjob is probably adding to the jarring effect. Personally I like the hatchback body style, more compact yet more usable room.
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Monday November 09 2015, @08:08PM
I heard an interesting idea from someone once, obviously flawed but made me think, that car makers intentionally make hybrids/EV look "unique" for the purpose of virtue signaling. It's entirely possible to make a hybrid look just like a normal car, but those models don't sell as much as the outwardly "green" looking ones. People want to show off that they're being environmentally conscious; harder to do if your hybrid Honda/Toyota looks just like every other one except for a tiny hybrid badge on the back.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @10:56PM
I heard an interesting idea from someone once, obviously flawed but made me think, that car makers intentionally make hybrids/EV look "unique" for the purpose of virtue signaling. It's entirely possible to make a hybrid look just like a normal car, but those models don't sell as much as the outwardly "green" looking ones. People want to show off that they're being environmentally conscious; harder to do if your hybrid Honda/Toyota looks just like every other one except for a tiny hybrid badge on the back.
Except for Tesla, a big reason why the Model S is so much more successful than other EVs is because it looks like a sports sedan in the class of a Mercedes or Jaguar and is quite powerful as well. The people buying them are the type who would be driving around this those cars instead, which also makes them the types who could afford something as high-performing as the Model S to begin with. It's a big part of why I see over a dozen different ones a week during my commutes but judging from vanity plates I'm seeing the same BMW i3 over and over again.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday November 09 2015, @10:56PM
Ugly?!? Beauty is subjective. More, why does that matter in the slightest? On the scale of importance, cleaning up the environment and saving the world from Climate Change is by far the most important consideration. After that, surely an efficient ride that doesn't sacrifice comfort is more important. Safety and usability are pretty important too. I can't think of anything less important than mere cosmetics.
Only things I care about with the paint color are practical considerations. I prefer a white car in a hot climate, and a black car in a cold climate. I dislike red because I have heard it is a higher maintenance color, fades and degrades faster in sunlight. Also, insurance companies may charge higher premiums on red cars, in the belief that drivers who prefer bright red are more reckless and accident prone. If I'm shooting for the lowest possible premium, then I'd go for a boring brown color. Other than that, I wouldn't care if the only colors it came in were fire truck lime yellow and lavender, if I thought it was the best ride, I'd get one.
I know one crazy guy who complained that vortex generators were ugly. I pointed out that no one cares about the looks of a truck trailer. They're totally unremarkable rectangular gray boxes. How could anyone care whether vortex generators were slapped on them? He maintained that they were ugly, he didn't like them, and that was that.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Tuesday November 10 2015, @12:20AM
Ugly?!? Beauty is subjective. More, why does that matter in the slightest?
because fewer people will buy it. yes, the environment is important but it wouldn't be a problem if everyone actually cared. idealism only goes so far in a materialistic society.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday November 09 2015, @07:19PM
I suspect Chevy has the battery chain pretty well in hand by now, since GM owns all or substantially of one of the big battery manufacturers. They can also buy from Tesla, because Musk's new battery plant is slated to have excess capacity. Probably the Chinese venture planning car manufacture in California will have battery plants too.
But I wonder if Chevy will still be losing money on every sale ?
Some analysts say Tesla still is, but they don't have detailed knowledge.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday November 09 2015, @08:47PM
I won't pay $40K for 200 miles range, but I will pay $20K for 100 mile range. Since most of the cost is buried in the battery this sounds achievable. I'm not interested in spending $20K to do something I don't need to do, in fact, something I actively don't want to do, which is sit on my butt for 200 miles.
There is a lot of marketing fuzziness going on. Do they mean 200 mile range and the battery dies from excessive depth of discharge after 100 cycles? That'll be a pretty expensive 20K mile battery. Or do they mean 200 miles is a shallow enough depth of discharge that I could realistically get 200K miles out of it? My point is my commute never exceeds 40 miles but if a 50 mile battery would be dead in 100 days then I'd much rather buy a 100 mile battery that'll live 1000 days.
Don't forget the fixation on nothing changing that many anti-ev astroturfers insist on. I suspect lots of marketing money will go into making the power connector look like a gas pump, and a little aerosol dispenser that sprays toluene on you when you connect the charger so it smells like a car.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 09 2015, @10:49PM
I won't pay $2K for 10 mile range, but if I could get a 3 mile range for $600, that might be something to take the kids to school in. Bonus if it's legal to drive on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, we're just pedaling instead.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @11:53PM
You may be interested in an "electric bicycle". They are scooter style, have a 48V Lead-acid battery. In the US they are limited to 750W, in Canada 500W (I can out-power the Canadian version up a hill).
I don't consider them bicycles because it (at least the model I tried) is impossible to pedal at more than a crawl. The pedals are simply there for classification reasons. Not being able to pedal causes some range anxiety.
(Score: 2) by WillR on Tuesday November 10 2015, @02:14PM
If you're willing to do a little tinkering, ordering a Chinese conversion kit (e-bikes and adding electric assist to conventional bikes are huge businesses over there) and putting it on a cheap craigslist bike is probably a better choice.
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday November 10 2015, @04:32PM
After doing all kinds of research, I'm convinced the absolute best, easiest add-on kit is the Ridekick http://ridekick.com/ [ridekick.com]
Everything else becomes so expensive or complicated, you might as well buy an actual e-bike. I'm also not sponsored or an owner (yet), but I have spent an absurd number of hours researching this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @05:15PM
Looks like ridekick would not work well in snow.
One day while cleaning my rusting chain, I said: "should invent a bike with an pure electric drive-train".
It is like 10 years away (I have figured out it is not completely impossible).
(Score: 2) by Daiv on Tuesday November 10 2015, @07:31PM
I don't work well in snow, so I never even considered "must work well in snow" to be a requirement of any bike I've ever bought.
Thanks for bringing it up for me to think about.
Nope, still never going to be a condition I'll consider. Of course, you brought up one condition that affects nearly none of the potential users so sorry about your niche requirement. Good luck with your revelation and journey to bring it to reality.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @11:51PM
> Do they mean 200 mile range and the battery dies from excessive depth of discharge after 100 cycles?
No.
> do they mean 200 miles is a shallow enough depth of discharge that I could realistically get 200K miles out of it?
Yes.
> I suspect lots of marketing money will go into making the power connector look like a gas pump, and a little aerosol dispenser that sprays toluene on you when you connect the charger so it smells like a car.
Yeah, you have a firm grasp on reality.