GM Volt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
Tesla loses money because they are expanding production. It takes a lot of capital to design and build cars in a timely fashion. The next 2 Bolt derived cars will likely not be much higher production than the Bolt EV, maybe 50k a year, don't know yet, but that means they would still be less than the Model 3 will be next year.

None of the competition will bury Tesla until they can answer the points I mention in my other thread:
1. OTA updates, Volt owners having to take their car in to reflash it and being charged $300 is uncool.
2. Supercharger network. Why would I buy any competitors model over a Tesla when I can't drive it very far?
3. Autopilot. Everyone else has been toying around with this, Tesla jumped straight in.
4. Customer service, bring the car service to my house or workplace.
5. It is okay to make a cool looking EV. In fact, it will help it be more marketable...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
None of the competition will bury Tesla until they can answer the points I mention in my other thread:
1. OTA updates, Volt owners having to take their car in to reflash it and being charged $300 is uncool.
2. Supercharger network. Why would I buy any competitors model over a Tesla when I can't drive it very far?
3. Autopilot. Everyone else has been toying around with this, Tesla jumped straight in.
4. Customer service, bring the car service to my house or workplace.
5. It is okay to make a cool looking EV. In fact, it will help it be more marketable...
1.OTA won't really help if you needed to upgrade hardware sensors. OTA is less secure than bringing it to the dealer.
2. Vast majority don't travel very far every day, and your charging at home or where you park is more than enough for your daily and sometimes weekend commutes. Government should take leadership to create standards, help build the supercharging network in major thoroughfares when you need to travel long distances on your vacations or other purposes.
3. Tesla used live human eager beavers as guinea pigs to gather data resulting in the deaths of some early adopters for the Autopilot. GM and Google has heavily invested in formal testing and development of AutoPilot, having redundant systems and very solid hardware. Tesla's cameras aren't redundant with other tech and needed reinstallation of additional sensors and hardware.
4. This would be unsustainable for Tesla when the Model 3 have reached peak production.
5. I agree. Looks and real utility would be really nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Right now the supercharger network is a plus for tesla, but it could become a hindrance if the market adopts the ccs standard. Tesla's standard is effectively a closed standard now. When there are millions of ev's they will be limited to the tesla network, while good today it could easily be overwhelmed unless third parties pick it up.
Everyone touts over the air updates. Personally I don't think it's a selling point. Much like automatic updates to Microsoft. I have it turned off so I can choose what is installed, not what they think I should have. Just wait until it's hacked and all the cars are suddenly disabled.
On the ugly styling side, ev's need to be aerodynamic. Batteries are too expensive to build large boxy vehicles which would take a lot more power. On the Bolt the hood angle looks odd, but I think it's so the windshield line continues down to the bumper unlike a normal SUV. Personal I think the model X is quite ugly, it looks like a sedan swallowed a balloon. Probably so the aero is decent instead of being shaped like a Tahoe where the range would have been far less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
1.OTA won't really help if you needed to upgrade hardware sensors. OTA is less secure than bringing it to the dealer.
2. Vast majority don't travel very far every day, and your charging at home or where you park is more than enough for your daily and sometimes weekend commutes. Government should take leadership to create standards, help build the supercharging network in major thoroughfares when you need to travel long distances on your vacations or other purposes.
3. Tesla used live human eager beavers as guinea pigs to gather data resulting in the deaths of some early adopters for the Autopilot. GM and Google has heavily invested in formal testing and development of AutoPilot, having redundant systems and very solid hardware. Tesla's cameras aren't redundant with other tech and needed reinstallation of additional sensors and hardware.
4. This would be unsustainable for Tesla when the Model 3 have reached peak production.
5. I agree. Looks and real utility would be really nice.
You have to understand that I regularly defend GM and their efforts, but these points are largely true. Yes, your responses will apply to some, but my hunch is the vast market will disagree.
1. Most people will want OTA as their smartphone has this. Edit: of course no hardware update, but with more and more software in cars the hardware shouldn't change as often.
2. Most people want to be able to drive their car longer distances. If the Government touches this, they will likely break it.
3. a. They did, at least 1 anyway, but that was also that drivers fault. The point is for better or worse they spurred action from others.
3. b. GMs autonomous program is definitely more advanced, but less consumer oriented. I would like some AP features in my daily driver, but don't really need full autonomous yet. My point here is that GM should have something like Nissan ProPilot in the Bolt EV, nothing is available.
4. Maybe not, especially if the car is more reliable. Most of these EVs should be able to go longer between service visits.

For example, I don't need supercharging, but if I bought a Bolt EV to replace my Volt, my Minivan would get extra miles. The Model 3 could handle most of those trips, albeit with some inconvenience.

Again, I really like what GM is doing, but many investors betting against Tesla are the ones posting this FUD. Look at the ages of people interested in Tesla, and many of them will aspire to drive those cars in the future, or even young well to do ones will buy one now.

What I gather over and over about GM from more Tesla oriented sites, is GM has a huge image problem with Millennials that they need to fix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,405 Posts
Tesla probably already has a CCS adapter on their bench in the lab.
If you can design an inverter and design a SuperCharger, making an adapter is really, really, really small potatoes. I don't care if CCS communicates using Swahili Morse Code, it's a published spec. And I have no doubt that Tesla know how THEIR communication system works.

So why no CCS? The more cars that use CCS the faster the network will expand. Tesla had to make a wildly overpriced CHAdeMO adapter because there were more CHAdeMO sites than Tesla remote charging locations. And also for non-US support, where SuperChargers are still fairly limited, but CHAdeMO has a good presence.

When SuperChargers are no longer a major selling point, they will release a CCS adapter. But that would take a lot of flyover state CCS expansion and faster CCS speeds.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,866 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,634 Posts
It really is, and keep in mind I have been defending GM in their EV efforts for a while, but they really do need to address some competitive points to help their marketing department, or be religated to second tier EV maker and not compete higher end.

Did you see the new CUV EV in there? Based on Bolt. Bottom of page 12.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
To the topic, Joann highlights:

One key, she said, is the new modular EV platform that will cut the cost of lithium-ion batteries to less than $100 per kilowatt-hour from $145 per kilowatt-hour by 2021. The batteries will be integrated into the floor of the vehicles from the start, a common architecture that will be both flexible and simpler to build, reducing overall costs. By the time the new vehicles launch in 2021, GM expects prices of EVs to be comparable to those of gasoline-engine models.

But scale is just as important. As the No. 2 player in China, the world’s largest market for EVs, GM is well-positioned to capitalize on a government push for more battery-powered vehicles. Together, GM expects to sell 1 million EVs a year by 2026.

The new EV platform will also be the basis for a fleet of autonomous taxis that GM has been testing in San Francisco, and plans to launch commercially in a matter of “quarters, not years.”
That's HUGE if true.

Now this.....

Tesla loses money because they are expanding production.
Tesla has always lost money save for one quarter of creative accounting. I'm sure there are lots of reasons.

Lots of car makers expand production and turn profit at the same time.

It takes a lot of capital to design and build cars in a timely fashion.
Something other car makers take seriously, and usually have on hand without selling junk bonds or diluting stock.

The next 2 Bolt derived cars will likely not be much higher production than the Bolt EV, maybe 50k a year, don't know yet, but that means they would still be less than the Model 3 will be next year.
The key here is "don't know yet".

None of the competition will bury Tesla until they can answer the points I mention in my other thread:
I don't know why GM needs to bury anyone. That aspect of Joann's article is silly really. But with China sales they stand to outsell Tesla, yes.

2. Supercharger network. Why would I buy any competitors model over a Tesla when I can't drive it very far?
That's just not true. There may be more superchargers about, but it's not the only game in town.

3. Autopilot. Everyone else has been toying around with this, Tesla jumped straight in.
And landed on their face. There are a few things missing - lidar for one. Inability to recognize anything above the belt line for another. Naming it "autopilot" was a mistake too.

4. Customer service, bring the car service to my house or workplace.
Take the car to where the tools are. Often coming to your house means driving off with your car. Don't expect that kind of service on an alleged $35K car.

5. It is okay to make a cool looking EV. In fact, it will help it be more marketable...
Sedans are in rapid decline. Making another one may turn out to have been a mistake. Next is a semi that will have (perhaps severely) limited market penetration, yes? Where's the SUV or CUV (and please don't tell me about plans just this once)? Shoulda done this instead of the 3.

Edit to add: I don't know if or how Bolt is a CUV, but that's the perception being pushed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Take a look at this presentation. GM is making a serious effort. Dare I say they are planning on a exponential ramp?

https://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265845-684463-Chartset-11-15-2017
That is huge news! The biggest feature in the GM presentation that most may miss in the excitement of all the new EV plans is that GM has been and will continue to aggressively to grow margins, pay stock dividends, improve free cash flow - and to date it has bought back 25% of outstanding shares, increasing value for each remaining share. This is exactly what the institutional investors are looking for. Tesla has continued to dilute their stock through new stock offers to raise cash, borrowing like crazy in junk bonds to address cash flow, "hope" to get to decent margins by 2019. Tesla's mountain they must climb to join the big boys just became a lot steeper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Edit to add: I don't know if or how Bolt is a CUV, but that's the perception being pushed.
I think the Bolt is classified as a station wagon of all things. Page 12 of Barra's presentation shows what looks like an E CUV, perhaps Equinox sized.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
The Forbes article and Mary's presentation has blown my mind clear out of my skull, and it isn't even Thursday yet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
Take a look at this presentation. GM is making a serious effort. Dare I say they are planning on a exponential ramp?

https://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265845-684463-Chartset-11-15-2017
Fine print time:

Our actual results may differ materially from forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including:
<snip>
(2) sales of full-size pick-up trucks and SUVs, which may be affected by increases in the price of oil;
<snip>
(13) our ability to realize production efficiencies and cost reductions;
Keeping it in perspective.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,416 Posts
I think the Bolt is classified as a station wagon of all things. Page 12 of Barra's presentation shows what looks like an E CUV, perhaps Equinox sized.
I LOVE the one on the right. Should be my next car, even if it's BEV (and 250+ miles). If EREV I'll move that up to will be my next car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,642 Posts
Take a look at this presentation. GM is making a serious effort. Dare I say they are planning on a exponential ramp?

https://www.gm.com/content/dam/gm/events/docs/5265845-684463-Chartset-11-15-2017
The poor ELR gets no love. It’s missing from slide 11

Don’t get too excited. One thing I’ve learned, these cars get released at a glacial pace. So 7 years after we saw the first volt production, they’ve finically decided modular platforms was the way to go? They should have done that from the onset. I want my Voltec or boltec Subyukonade.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,289 Posts
Discussion Starter #17

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Tesla probably already has a CCS adapter on their bench in the lab.
If you can design an inverter and design a SuperCharger, making an adapter is really, really, really small potatoes. I don't care if CCS communicates using Swahili Morse Code, it's a published spec. And I have no doubt that Tesla know how THEIR communication system works.

So why no CCS? The more cars that use CCS the faster the network will expand. Tesla had to make a wildly overpriced CHAdeMO adapter because there were more CHAdeMO sites than Tesla remote charging locations. And also for non-US support, where SuperChargers are still fairly limited, but CHAdeMO has a good presence.

When SuperChargers are no longer a major selling point, they will release a CCS adapter. But that would take a lot of flyover state CCS expansion and faster CCS speeds.
While I agree that Tesla could make a CCS adapter, it’s actually not as easy for them as the chademo adapter was. That’s because supercharging uses a modified form of the chademo protocol. CCS is a completely different animal.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,866 Posts
Tesla probably already has a CCS adapter on their bench in the lab.
If you can design an inverter and design a SuperCharger, making an adapter is really, really, really small potatoes. I don't care if CCS communicates using Swahili Morse Code, it's a published spec. And I have no doubt that Tesla know how THEIR communication system works.

So why no CCS? The more cars that use CCS the faster the network will expand. Tesla had to make a wildly overpriced CHAdeMO adapter because there were more CHAdeMO sites than Tesla remote charging locations. And also for non-US support, where SuperChargers are still fairly limited, but CHAdeMO has a good presence.

When SuperChargers are no longer a major selling point, they will release a CCS adapter. But that would take a lot of flyover state CCS expansion and faster CCS speeds.
While I agree that Tesla could make a CCS adapter, it&#8217;s actually not as easy for them as the chademo adapter was. That&#8217;s because supercharging uses a modified form of the chademo protocol. CCS is a completely different animal.
Hmmm. I thought Tesla?s protocol was actually the same as CCS?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,410 Posts
Namely, by making a profit, which Tesla can't seem to do.
Also, the next 2 Bolt-derived EVs will both be crossover SUVs.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannm...es-that-will-gasp-make-a-profit/#da6aac623415
So out of curiosity...if Tesla were to pull a GM and declare bankruptcy...does anyone think Trump's Administration would bail it out??

FLASHBACK:
In late 2008, Chrysler and General Motors told America that they were in danger of folding. George W. Bush agreed to a temporary bailout, but handed the auto companies' long-term future over to his successor, President-Elect Barack Obama. Obama then shepherded a comprehensive bailout of the two companies that allowed them to stay in business but imposed numerous conditions that, it was hoped, would secure their viability and allow the companies to eventually return to profitability.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top