DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 12978
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:17 am

lorenfb wrote:
DaveinOlyWA wrote:
Valdemar wrote:Bad seats with econobox design or crappy battery and shorter range, what would you choose? I think I'll head out to Del Taco.


You forgot to add 2005 level tech.



So what! Many couldn't care less about having a high tech entry level BEV, i.e. for many it's the TCO that's key with EV features.
As mentioned before, the lack of not having reached the Bolt forecast of 30K in 2017 was not because of its lack of tech features,
seats, or exterior design, but the overall lack of a consumer appeal for a BEV at this point in time. To many automotive OEMs,
the first year sales of the Bolt are indicative of a lackluster entry level BEV market presently with marginal profitability.

As mentioned before, the M3 is an anomaly in that it is perceived as an entry level BEV to reservation holders, but in reality
reservation holders will be paying much more ($45K-$50K) than $35K to receive delivery, at least in 2018. Furthermore,
reservation holders perceive the M3 as a MS, but at a much lower cost while still acquiring a luxury vehicle with status
appeal. The way the M3 product entry has been perceived by consumers, i.e. reservation holders, results in its being an
anomaly.


You are right in that it was "mentioned before" just like everything in this thread. But just as many care about tech. So in either case; "Many" comes nowhere near meaning "most"

This "range at any cost" attitude is not as common as you think
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 5775 miles, 488 GIDs, 38 kwh 113.37 Ahr available, SOH 98.21, Hx 115.75
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GRA
Posts: 8565
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:38 pm

Here's the kind of usage report I find especially valuable, as I'm a back-country skier and am most concerned with real world ranges in such conditions that sometimes involve leaving the car parked for close to a week. Via GCR:
Chevy Bolt EV electric car range and performance in winter: one owner's log
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1115039_chevy-bolt-ev-electric-car-range-and-performance-in-winter-one-owners-log

Many of the issues the owner describes are ones anyone who's done extensive winter driving (regardless of car type) has encountered.

Meanwhile, here's the view at the downhill area in Yosemite which is the trailhead for the backcountry hut I normally ski into to spend Xmas or New Year's at (wait until daytime PST): https://www.travelyosemite.com/winter/yosemite-ski-snowboard-area-webcam/

That's almost the most snow this season.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 8565
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:30 pm

Drove a Bolt today, and liked it. Great accel, a bit of easily handled torque steer when you nail it, but IIRR less than the Spark. Firm controlled ride that I prefer, good steering feel and response, like the D/L/paddle, cloth seats worked fine for me (but I'm not broad-beamed and weigh 180. Actually, the side bolsters felt considerably less aggressive than the one's in my Forester). HVAC controls were a bit confusing, but at least they were physical. Only real downside was the lack of length with the rear seats down - sleeping would require angling myself. Checked out a Volt to compare space; the Volt is much better for sleeping w/seats down, has less headroom F/R and a bit less knee room in the rear with the front seat where I want it, but more toe room under it. The Volt's rear view is terrible, with the rear hatch at a very flat angle and not extending very far down. Didn't drive the Volt, as I was pushed for time. If the Bolt was a foot longer behind the rear seats, if QC'd faster and the infrastructure was available where I needed it, I could see owning one.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GetOffYourGas
Posts: 1811
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:56 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Mar 2012
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:44 am

GRA wrote:If the Bolt was a foot longer behind the rear seats, if QC'd faster and the infrastructure was available where I needed it, I could see owning one.


I agree that if GM met all of these, that the Bolt would be much more widely desirable. Hopefully one of the several BEVs they are about to introduce will meet the length requirement and the faster QC requirement. The infrastructure is growing despite GM, mostly due to the push by Nissan and BMW. Soon Electrify America (aka VW) will add to that as well.
~Brian

EV Fleet:
2011 Torqeedo Travel 1003 electric outboard on a 22' sailboat
2012 Leaf SV (traded for Bolt)
2015 C-Max Energi (302A package)
2017 Bolt Premier

DaveinOlyWA
Posts: 12978
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 7:43 pm
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2018
Leaf Number: 314199
Location: Olympia, WA
Contact: Website

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Thu Feb 08, 2018 7:56 am

With the majority still being single drivers, The Bolt fills the long commuter role very well. Most would charge nowhere but home and that niche is more than large enough to make Chevy smile for decades. Seattle is one of a half dozen areas screaming for talent to fill their jobs while lacking the ability to provide affordable housing for them. Americans may average 35-40 miles per day but people around here have one way commutes that are increasingly longer than that average.
2011 SL; 44,598 miles. 2013 S; 44,840 miles.2016 S30 deceased. 29,413 miles. 2018 S40; 5775 miles, 488 GIDs, 38 kwh 113.37 Ahr available, SOH 98.21, Hx 115.75
My Blog; http://daveinolywa.blogspot.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GRA
Posts: 8565
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:56 pm

GetOffYourGas wrote:
GRA wrote:If the Bolt was a foot longer behind the rear seats, if QC'd faster and the infrastructure was available where I needed it, I could see owning one.


I agree that if GM met all of these, that the Bolt would be much more widely desirable. Hopefully one of the several BEVs they are about to introduce will meet the length requirement and the faster QC requirement. The infrastructure is growing despite GM, mostly due to the push by Nissan and BMW. Soon Electrify America (aka VW) will add to that as well.

I'll add that if they really want to get my attention, the car needs to be considerably cheaper, have AWD and greater range. Not expecting any of that before 2020 at the earliest. Oh, and assuming I'm still living where I can't charge at home, convenient public L2 charging that's less expensive than gas - the closest Blinks are reasonably convenient (4.5 blocks), but $0.49 from the wall ($0.54-$0.56 into the battery) is no encouragement to switch to a BEV as long as my 2003 Forester costs less per mile to fuel.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GetOffYourGas
Posts: 1811
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:56 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Mar 2012
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:18 pm

GRA wrote:
GetOffYourGas wrote:
GRA wrote:If the Bolt was a foot longer behind the rear seats, if QC'd faster and the infrastructure was available where I needed it, I could see owning one.


I agree that if GM met all of these, that the Bolt would be much more widely desirable. Hopefully one of the several BEVs they are about to introduce will meet the length requirement and the faster QC requirement. The infrastructure is growing despite GM, mostly due to the push by Nissan and BMW. Soon Electrify America (aka VW) will add to that as well.

I'll add that if they really want to get my attention, the car needs to be considerably cheaper, have AWD and greater range. Not expecting any of that before 2020 at the earliest. Oh, and assuming I'm still living where I can't charge at home, convenient public L2 charging that's less expensive than gas - the closest Blinks are reasonably convenient (4.5 blocks), but $0.49 from the wall ($0.54-$0.56 into the battery) is no encouragement to switch to a BEV as long as my 2003 Forester costs less per mile to fuel.



Guy, with those kinds of requirements, it seems clear that you have no interest in environmental benefits or energy security. It seems like you will only switch to EV when it benefits you significantly over the alternative, without having to incur any decrease in the benefits of your current ICEV.

All that said, there is nothing wrong with that per se. But why not just come out and say it?
~Brian

EV Fleet:
2011 Torqeedo Travel 1003 electric outboard on a 22' sailboat
2012 Leaf SV (traded for Bolt)
2015 C-Max Energi (302A package)
2017 Bolt Premier

LeftieBiker
Posts: 8794
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 31 May 2013
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:32 pm

And a coffee maker. It HAS TO HAVE a coffee maker. No, make that an espresso machine.
Scarlet Ember 2018 Leaf SL W/ Pro Pilot
2009 Vectrix VX-1 W/18 Leaf modules, & 3 EZIP E-bicycles.
PLEASE don't PM me with Leaf questions. Just post in the topic that seems most appropriate.

arnis
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:21 pm
Delivery Date: 23 Jul 2014
Leaf Number: 015896
Location: Estonia, Europe

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:37 pm

Did anybody mention that Bolt actually has 57kWh pack?
Short range EVs <30kWh -- Medium range: 30-60kWh -- Long range: >60kWh
Charging: Trickle <3kW -- Normal 3-22kW -- Fast 50-100kW -- Supercharging >100kW

GRA
Posts: 8565
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Chevrolet Bolt - 60 kWh, 238 mi, < 7s 0-60

Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:12 pm

GetOffYourGas wrote:
GRA wrote:
GetOffYourGas wrote:
I agree that if GM met all of these, that the Bolt would be much more widely desirable. Hopefully one of the several BEVs they are about to introduce will meet the length requirement and the faster QC requirement. The infrastructure is growing despite GM, mostly due to the push by Nissan and BMW. Soon Electrify America (aka VW) will add to that as well.

I'll add that if they really want to get my attention, the car needs to be considerably cheaper, have AWD and greater range. Not expecting any of that before 2020 at the earliest. Oh, and assuming I'm still living where I can't charge at home, convenient public L2 charging that's less expensive than gas - the closest Blinks are reasonably convenient (4.5 blocks), but $0.49 from the wall ($0.54-$0.56 into the battery) is no encouragement to switch to a BEV as long as my 2003 Forester costs less per mile to fuel.

Guy, with those kinds of requirements, it seems clear that you have no interest in environmental benefits or energy security. It seems like you will only switch to EV when it benefits you significantly over the alternative, without having to incur any decrease in the benefits of your current ICEV.

All that said, there is nothing wrong with that per se. But why not just come out and say it?

What I have said, repeatedly, is that any car I buy must meet my transportation needs at a price I can afford - it does not require that "it benefits me significantly over the alternative", only that it provides similar transportation capabilities at a similar price. None of that implies that "I have no interest in environmental benefits or energy security", only that all choices are compromises.

Like many Californians my age I've been interested/involved in environmental issues since the Santa Barbara blowout in 1969, and energy security since Desert Shield, which was when I got seriously involved in designing and selling off-grid (PV/Wind/microhydro) systems. If I weren't interested in environmental or energy security issues, do you think I'd have done that or be:

Living in a small (ca. 325 sq. ft.) downtown studio within walking distance of my routine errands and do my local travel by bicycle and regional by electrified mass transit, or years ago decided to put off taking any more out of state road trips or flying anywhere until I can do so in a ZEV or at least using sustainably produced biofuels, instead of:

living in a large multi-bedroom house filled with lots of energy-sucking appliances and crap I don't need, having kids and driving everywhere, and flying frequently?

BTDT (excepting the kids), long ago decided I wasn't going to live that high consumption lifestyle.

But, like anyone I have limits on what I'm willing to put up with given other options, and I evaluate any vehicle as a transportation tool. If it can't take me where I want to go with adequate convenience and flexibility at a reasonable price, it's unacceptable. While I'm well out of the American mainstream in my lifestyle choices, I do think that my attitude towards transportation is much more representative of mainstream views than is typical of early adopters, which is why I consider limited-AER (20-30 mile) PHEVs as the only near-term option for mainstream car buyers due to their lower price and almost painless conversion. Unfortunately, no PHEV using its AER for short trips will benefit me, the environment or energy security: it's no advantage in any of the above areas of concern for me to travel solo in a 2 ton vehicle however powered, instead of riding a 30 lb. bike powered by me or on an electrified train with hundreds of people on board, which is what I do now. If the added weight/drag of the battery pack also reduces its Hwy mpg and increases its fossil-fuel usage below some other choice for the trip distances I actually drive, and costs more to buy as well, there's no advantage for those uses either.

Not to mention that a PHEV is an interim, transitional technology, and I don't buy cars for the short term - someone like Tony Williams has bought more than twice as many cars in the 6+ years I've been on MNL as I've owned in 40+ years of driving, so we obviously have different standards for the usable lifetimes we require of our cars. If I needed to buy a replacement car at this time that met my needs with the lowest environmental and energy impacts it would be an HEV or PHEV. Subaru's upcoming AWD PHEV (will be on either the Crosstrek or Forester platform, but which isn't known yet) with Prius Prime battery etc. would be an option in that case, assuming it drives like a Subie and not a Prius. But as long as I don't need to replace my current car, I can afford to wait until a ZEV meets my needs.

I use a car primarily for road trips to backcountry trailheads with limited (usually non-existent) electric infrastructure enroute and (especially) at the destination, often in inclement weather. Any car that can't get me to them and back with reasonable convenience and comfort is useless to me, regardless of any other positives the technology might have.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Feb 10, 2018 5:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”