Chevy to Produce the $30K Tesla-Fighting Bolt EV

[Ducman69]

Also just to add that the Tesla has never been a particularly nice car. Its always been a quite mediocre Ford Taurus type of platform, just with an ungodly expensive drivetrain.

If the Tesla had a turbocharged V6 for example, it wouldn't be an expensive car.

Take a Rav 4 for example... not a particularly impressive vehicle right? It goes for $22K for a gas version. But what if there was no gas version, and you only knew about the Tesla powered one which goes for $50K? That's AFTER the government is paying for a huge portion of the car (IOW the buyer's neighbors).

You might be fooled into thinking the Rav 4 is not just a little economy SUV, and instead is a upscale vehicle, not realizing its just a cheap chassis with a really expensive drivetrain.

We see the same thing with a Ford Focus. The gas version is cheap, sure, but the electric conversion costs a fortune. Its still a cheap car underneath.

 

[DejaWiz]

I think what he means is that ANY car company can deck out a shitbox with all the bells and whistles, charge a premium for it, and pass it off as a good vehicle. GM just happens to be the master at it.

 

[tybert7]

People were smarter back then. They realized that oil and gas are plentiful and cheap and are easier on the environment. Have you ever looked at what would happen to our electrical grid if everyone ran electric cars? We have no where near the power capacity to handle that. We would need thousands more coal power plants to power all your "green" cars.

docmal, if you take nothing else from this reply, internalize this. What was cheaper/better 100 years ago =/= what is cheaper/better today by definition. It could be, but you have to analyze things as they are with updated information.

That's what it means to think with a more liberal view vs a conservative view, where you are more resistant to new information because of some presumption that nothing really changes.


Even if it's true that we don't have enough electric capacity to power an entire fleet of electric cars, we won't need to. They are coming online slowly, allowing more than enough time to ramp up more capacity as needed. This not not an argument against electric cars, it's just an empty point that has zero substantive weight behind it.

 

[tybert7]

This is when you find out who is good at dimensional analysis and who buys into the campaign that EV's are 0 emissions. Solar and wind still cannot pay their own way which leaves generation by hydro, nuclear, or fossil fuels as practical. Even if we did have adequate solar and wind, our grid still needs an estimated trillion dollars in upgrades to handle it.

Oil derivative fueled vehicles became popular because of economic reasons.

I don't think solar/wind can replace our electricity needs now, but they ARE coming down in price, and there ARE plenty of companies working on both grid level and home storage.


As for the costs to upgrade the grid, do what they are doing in Santa Monica with fiber deployment. Everytime they have to dig up the street for repairs, they lay new fiber. The marginal cost to add that fiber after already digging up the street is minute, and over time you have more and more capacity built out by piggybacking on the routine maintenance you have to perform anyway.


And as for the cost of fuels vs electricity to propel transportation, it is ALREADY cheaper to travel via an electric car vs a fossil fuel car as far as the electricity costs go. Even accounting for the lower gasoline prices, it's still cheaper... at least in California.


You keep harping on the superiority in fossil fuels, but they are already beaten in the cost department, all we are waiting on is for the storage to get cheap enough then it's game over.

Electric motors provide instant torque, and require less maintenance than gasoline engines. Couple that to having to pay less money to travel a given distance... I mean seriously. It's, OVER, the SECOND the batteries that store the electricity get dense/cheap enough.

 

[tybert7]

Go figure, why are all these Eco-friendly cars so ugly.

Because of the success of the prius, it convinced a generation of car makers that people who gave a sh*t about efficient cars wanted to make a STATEMENT and have their car stand out.. not by making it beautiful, but by making it look like a clown car.

 

[Ducman69]

I don't think solar/wind can replace our electricity needs now, but they ARE coming down in price, and there ARE plenty of companies working on both grid level and home storage.

It doesn't matter if it comes down in price, because alternatives aren't remaining stagnant either. A modern clean coal plant today is nothing like coal plants from the industrial revolution. More importantly though, there are serious geographic limitations to solar and wind, and fact that they can't consistently provide power day to day, month to month, and throughout the day even.

Whats one of the FIRST things you learn in physics class? "You can't even break even", which means that every time you convert one form of energy into another, you take losses. So the only way to really make solar and wind a feasible reality is if you can find ways to store massive amounts of power, so that you don't have to grossly overproduce wind and solar and idle half your production capacity at times while having deficits with brownouts at other times. We are nowhere near there.

As for the costs to upgrade the grid, do what they are doing in Santa Monica with fiber deployment. Everytime they have to dig up the street for repairs, they lay new fiber. The marginal cost to add that fiber after already digging up the street is minute, and over time you have more and more capacity built out by piggybacking on the routine maintenance you have to perform anyway.

I don't think you understand what is meant by the OP.

And as for the cost of fuels vs electricity to propel transportation, it is ALREADY cheaper to travel via an electric car vs a fossil fuel car as far as the electricity costs go. Even accounting for the lower gasoline prices, it's still cheaper... at least in California.

So now we're not counting the cost of the battery or its limited lifespan...

You keep harping on the superiority in fossil fuels, but they are already beaten in the cost department, all we are waiting on is for the storage to get cheap enough then it's game over.

You need to drop this fantasy where electric cars don't have to store energy... that's the entire point! Batteries have always been the problem. Always. To act like that's "all we have to do", is to pretend that it isn't the singular sticking point to electric cars since their inception. The very first cars were NOT gasoline powered, they were electric. But they were insanely slow, slow to charge, and had very limited range. To solve that problem, batteries were slowly but surely abandoned in favor of fossil fuels powering steam systems and then the internal combustion engine.

Electric motors provide instant torque, and require less maintenance than gasoline engines. Couple that to having to pay less money to travel a given distance... I mean seriously. It's, OVER, the SECOND the batteries that store the electricity get dense/cheap enough.

Electric motor power delivery is a DOWNSIDE not an advantage!!!

They have far too abrupt of power delivery, which is very hard on the car and reason that we don't have decent transmissions (at least not cost effective ones) for electric cars, and is also problematic even just for accelerating smoothly. Why do you think we launch aircraft for example with steam catapults instead of just using electro-magnets? Its a GOOD thing to have analog instead of binary on-off acceleration. And when it comes to torque, that's where electric cars fail, because the transmissions can't handle it and so you don't get torque multiplication. A Corvette in first gear has MASSIVE torque multiplication at its disposal, while being able to shift so that it has a top speed close to 200mph. If you were to gear a comparable direct-drive electric motor to top out at 200mph, it would be absolutely doggish off the line as it has no torque multiplication. So electric vehicles are typically a compromise right now between being sluggish off the line and having a reasonable top speed.

Look at the Ford Focus electric vs petrol for example. The electric version is direct drive because of the problems of binary torque on the motor, and so has a compromise top speed of 84mph, so that it doesn't feel TOO painful rolling from a stop (think of it as driving your car in 3rd gear all day). The gas Ford Focus has a top speed up to 152mph depending on trim because of gearing and has a superior 1/4 mile time to boot, feeling more torquey at lower speeds in lower gears. Meanwhile, that Focus which costs litereally twice as much in electric form, has a whopping 75 mile range, while the 40mpg gas version has a range of 500 miles (while "recharging" in about 3-4mins at a gas station, compared to the challenge of finding a rapid charger for the electric which will still be a matter of hours).

The cost per mile of an electric car is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than ICE, because the initial investment is so much higher, as are maintenance costs (replacing your Prius pack alone, which is quite small, is $4,400 ask me how I know). You keep wanting to divorce the total cost of driving an electric car per mile from batteries, as if we are going to start adopting overhead powerlines on roads again.

 

[Rizen]

Also just to add that the Tesla has never been a particularly nice car. Its always been a quite mediocre Ford Taurus type of platform, just with an ungodly expensive drivetrain.

If the Tesla had a turbocharged V6 for example, it wouldn't be an expensive car.

Take a Rav 4 for example... not a particularly impressive vehicle right? It goes for $22K for a gas version. But what if there was no gas version, and you only knew about the Tesla powered one which goes for $50K? That's AFTER the government is paying for a huge portion of the car (IOW the buyer's neighbors).

You might be fooled into thinking the Rav 4 is not just a little economy SUV, and instead is a upscale vehicle, not realizing its just a cheap chassis with a really expensive drivetrain.

We see the same thing with a Ford Focus. The gas version is cheap, sure, but the electric conversion costs a fortune. Its still a cheap car underneath.

Which Tesla are you referring? Because if you mean the Model S I disagree entirely. I've seen them in person and they are very nice cars. Interior, paint, fit and finish, everything looks top notch. Yes the drive train is the most expensive part, but you're not buying a $100k Ford Focus.

 

[Jagger100]

Which Tesla are you referring? Because if you mean the Model S I disagree entirely. I've seen them in person and they are very nice cars. Interior, paint, fit and finish, everything looks top notch. Yes the drive train is the most expensive part, but you're not buying a $100k Ford Focus.

If a Ford Focus was $100,000 it would be as good, likely better. Really, you think the 'quality' and the price tag aren't one and the same?

 

[tybert7]

It doesn't matter if it comes down in price, because alternatives aren't remaining stagnant either. A modern clean coal plant today is nothing like coal plants from the industrial revolution. More importantly though, there are serious geographic limitations to solar and wind, and fact that they can't consistently provide power day to day, month to month, and throughout the day even.

If "clean coal" can actually get rid of all the soot and filth spewed into the air and be cheaper to produce electricity than natural gas and nuclear, then have at it. I am not opposed to anything but solar, I just think that the trend lines for solar cost are coming down. Obviously, it will not be ideal for all locations, but in places like Arizona and southern california, people who lease solar can already save on electricity rates compared to power companies like southern california edison if enengy usage is high enough. Also, part of the draw of home storage is so that you could fast charge an electric car without taxing the grid so much.

Whats one of the FIRST things you learn in physics class? "You can't even break even", which means that every time you convert one form of energy into another, you take losses. So the only way to really make solar and wind a feasible reality is if you can find ways to store massive amounts of power, so that you don't have to grossly overproduce wind and solar and idle half your production capacity at times while having deficits with brownouts at other times. We are nowhere near there.

Did I say we were? Read what I wrote, I am talking about things coming online, not what is here now, ready to replace everything. Until those options come online I fully expect us to continue using natural gas and coal and nuclear for base load power generation.

So now we're not counting the cost of the battery or its limited lifespan...

You need to drop this fantasy where electric cars don't have to store energy... that's the entire point! Batteries have always been the problem. Always. To act like that's "all we have to do", is to pretend that it isn't the singular sticking point to electric cars since their inception. The very first cars were NOT gasoline powered, they were electric. But they were insanely slow, slow to charge, and had very limited range. To solve that problem, batteries were slowly but surely abandoned in favor of fossil fuels powering steam systems and then the internal combustion engine.

Of course battery costs matter, we are talking about trends not right now. Electric car costs are FAR to expensive to have mass market appeal, they need to go lower. I was just point out that the actual cost to propel an electric car is already lower than gasoline.

As for battery costs, are you being deliberately obtuse? The tesla roadster was north of a hundred thousand dollars to break 200 mile range. The model S was north of 80k to break 200 miles range.

the model 3, third generation tesla, is supposed to target 200 mile range at a pre tax price of 35k.

That is solid improvement, is it still to expensive to replace the fleet of corollas and civics? Sure, but plenty of people by camrys in that range, or entry level bmws or mercedes, and this will be a solid alternative while ALSO having more torque and efficiency. Superior in virtually every respect aside from people that have some personal distaste for better things.

Electric motor power delivery is a DOWNSIDE not an advantage!!!

They have far too abrupt of power delivery, which is very hard on the car and reason that we don't have decent transmissions (at least not cost effective ones) for electric cars, and is also problematic even just for accelerating smoothly. Why do you think we launch aircraft for example with steam catapults instead of just using electro-magnets? Its a GOOD thing to have analog instead of binary on-off acceleration. And when it comes to torque, that's where electric cars fail, because the transmissions can't handle it and so you don't get torque multiplication. A Corvette in first gear has MASSIVE torque multiplication at its disposal, while being able to shift so that it has a top speed close to 200mph. If you were to gear a comparable direct-drive electric motor to top out at 200mph, it would be absolutely doggish off the line as it has no torque multiplication. So electric vehicles are typically a compromise right now between being sluggish off the line and having a reasonable top speed.

Look at the Ford Focus electric vs petrol for example. The electric version is direct drive because of the problems of binary torque on the motor, and so has a compromise top speed of 84mph, so that it doesn't feel TOO painful rolling from a stop (think of it as driving your car in 3rd gear all day). The gas Ford Focus has a top speed up to 152mph depending on trim because of gearing and has a superior 1/4 mile time to boot, feeling more torquey at lower speeds in lower gears. Meanwhile, that Focus which costs litereally twice as much in electric form, has a whopping 75 mile range, while the 40mpg gas version has a range of 500 miles (while "recharging" in about 3-4mins at a gas station, compared to the challenge of finding a rapid charger for the electric which will still be a matter of hours).

If you think ICE is better than electric motor propulsion in terms of reliability and maintenance and efficiency, I don't know what to tell you. Stick with your gas cars then, you'll be like those guys still clamoring for casette players and cd drives in their laptops. Old and dying tastes being passed on by the market without those self imposed mental cages you place upon yourself. Get back to me when tesla releases their 35k electric car. ford and other car makers like nissan do not strike me as serious about electric cars like Tesla is, they are the leaders here and set the standard. You pick out the ford pinto of electric cars, then go on to say that that is what electric cars are like. No, bad, TERRIBLE logic. That is what THAT car is like. I want to see how electric cars perform where the manufacturers are serious about the platform.

The cost per mile of an electric car is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than ICE, because the initial investment is so much higher, as are maintenance costs (replacing your Prius pack alone, which is quite small, is $4,400 ask me how I know). You keep wanting to divorce the total cost of driving an electric car per mile from batteries, as if we are going to start adopting overhead powerlines on roads again.

Guess how much it would have cost me to replace my intel pentium III cpu back in 2000? 800 dollars. And yet you can spend a little over a third of that on an i7 from intel that will blow the doors off that chip. That is what we are talking about here. So far batteries have lagged, but everyone, and I mean EVERYONE that uses electronics needs better batteries. smarphones, tablets, laptops, and now cars. More and more research funding is being poured into this sector to make improvements, including more basic research.

IF the eternal nihilistic death spiral pessimist that you seem so filled with is correct, and none of this amounts to anything, then electric cars will never be that attractive to a mass market. But I'm pretty sure your outlook and give up and quit attitude about electric cars and batteries and motors is wrong.

Note, I do not own an electric car, primarily due to costs. But as soon as the cost issues are dealt with I will gladly switch. The 35k pre tax price point is right around the price point I'd switch into one. Not purely for cost savings, but having a nicer lower maintenance car that I can plug my laptop into without the car battery going dead or running an inverter and burning through gas. A car where I can refill at home using my own power, or power from numerous sources like natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, coal vs the ONE locked in source of power like gasoline, where energy prices fluctuate with the market, where I and everyone else is forever a slave to the twists and turns of those prices. I don't want to live in that world, that you think it's actually preferable is a gulf we cannot bridge.

 

[Rizen]

If a Ford Focus was $100,000 it would be as good, likely better. Really, you think the 'quality' and the price tag aren't one and the same?

What? That was exactly what I was saying. Most of the Teslas are actually very nice cars. They're not expensive just because they are EVs.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Oh look, another ugly EV with terrible range, shit charge time and far less space/amenities for its price point then comparable IC cars..

Pass.

Let me know when EV's can compete with IC cars across the board without more government subsidizing and I'll care. Until then they are nothing more then stupid wastes of money for hipsters who want to pretend they are saving the environment.

 

[Rizen]

Look at the Ford Focus electric vs petrol for example. The electric version is direct drive because of the problems of binary torque on the motor, and so has a compromise top speed of 84mph, so that it doesn't feel TOO painful rolling from a stop (think of it as driving your car in 3rd gear all day). The gas Ford Focus has a top speed up to 152mph depending on trim because of gearing and has a superior 1/4 mile time to boot, feeling more torquey at lower speeds in lower gears.

Nobody who's buying a Ford Focus and isn't 16 cares about top speed or quarter mile times, so what does that matter?

 

[tazeat]

When electric cars stop looking like:

and start looking like:

For a reasonable price, I'll bite. Ok, they can lose the spoiler

 

[mope54]

the result of engineering costs would double/triple or more the price of the car

 

[Master [H]]

IMO, until you have a decent sedan or SUV EV, it's not going to really get past a niche stage. However, I do understand that's not the immediate goal. The direction we want to see in an EV isn't there yet, nor is country-wide infrastructure like we have with gas stations.