GM not planning to fund CCS fast chargers

Chevy Bolt EV Forum

Help Support Chevy Bolt EV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Clearly this is sad and unfortunate. GM knows that charging infrastructure is a key element to the success of EV's, but it not willing to spend on it for their own customers (or anyone else).

Then again, why spend when others will do the work for you. GM can just let Nissan and BMW spend on charging while the Bolt gets made primarily with Korean ingenuity/parts (motor, battery pack, infotainment).

Myself, I'd be the kind of buyer that would go for a Bolt. However, that's not going to happen, as we decided to splurge on a used (CPO pre-owned) Tesla 6 months ago. Sure it is a premium over the Bolt, but we choose to spend a bit more to support Tesla and their mission. Plus, we get to road trip on free fuel. It's a lifestyle choice.

I'm confident GM can sell all the Bolts they can make.

That said, people I work with are waiting for Tesla Model 3 and struggling to get the last few years out of their existing cars. Tesla has really built a brand that attracts people that would otherwise never consider an electric car.
 
Doesn't affect my decision. A 200 mile range EV will cover probably 362 days of driving each year for me. Even looking at the Supercharger network maps around me (Minneapolis), it still seems massively limiting - I don't want that hassle. If I'm in a long road trip I'm probably on a tight schedule and need to go a specific route.
 
I like what Tesla is doing with their Supercharger network, but frankly, it's another liability for the company - I assume they are the ones that are expected to 'maintain' the network?

Public charging CSS network makes more sense. Why would an automaker want to maintain a charging network? Instead, sure, help install and fund chargers to get things going.

And the Supercharger network being free to use likely won't be an argument for long. My prediction is we're headed to a place where companies that want business (shopping centers, restaurants, etc) will have CCS chargers installed that are free to use for their patrons. A few cents in electricity in exchange for your business just makes 'cents' :)
 
The superchargers have excellent reliability, speed of charging, and are located ideally for convenient long distance travel.

Having driven on Tesla superchargers to go long distances, and comparing that to the poorly located, poorly maintained and relatively slow DC chargers by others, I'll take Tesla's approach any day.

As the head of Audi electrified vehicles said recently "Tesla got it all right".
 
SmartElectric said:
The superchargers have excellent reliability, speed of charging, and are located ideally for convenient long distance travel.

Having driven on Tesla superchargers to go long distances, and comparing that to the poorly located, poorly maintained and relatively slow DC chargers by others, I'll take Tesla's approach any day.

As the head of Audi electrified vehicles said recently "Tesla got it all right".
And sometime long wait times...
https://transportevolved.com/2015/1...ercharger-heres-why-it-was-the-perfect-storm/

Tesla will have 10x+ the number of vehicles on the road and plan on doubling the number of Superchargers. Something seems wrong with the math to me. Granted the doubling will not be linear and they can add where demand is highest, but I see a potential problem developing.

They have already started placing attendants at busy stations during peak times:
http://insideevs.com/175053-2/
After the Model 3 hits in full force in 4 or 5 years it can only get worse.

I was in favor of a "pay-as-you-go" SC plan for the Model 3, but Tesla decided not to make Model 3 owners "second class". Time will tell on this one. Relying on ANY public charging network for travel or a trip involves the risk of a wait or diversion to a working/available EVSE.

The Portland Airport has installed Level 1 EVSE's in the Economy parking lot and it's a great thing to have. In winter, we can't quite make the round trip on a single charge, so it allows us to take the Fit EV instead of the hybrid. BUT, if they are all taken, it would mean a stop on the way home for a short L2 charge and add 20-30 minutes to an already long travel day (when all we want to do is get home). Last time we pulled up, there were 2 out of 12 spots available in the grouping nearest the entrance (there is another group of 12 at the other end of the lot). I'm a lot more willing than my wife to "risk" taking the EV than she is.
 
hopefully GM will make arrangement with Tesla to open the SuperChargingStation to the Bolt ? after all, Elon had said that these stations are opened to other manufacturer, as long as they adhere to the arrangements (one of it being free to users).
 
summit said:
hopefully GM will make arrangement with Tesla to open the SuperChargingStation to the Bolt ?

GM is actively fighting Tesla. Don't expect GM to give up on that fight.

GM CEO stated categorically they are not going to fund charging infrastructure. Tesla have said that anyone who wants supercharger access will have to help fund it, so no, it's not happening.
 
DucRider said:
I was in favor of a "pay-as-you-go" SC plan for the Model 3, but Tesla decided not to make Model 3 owners "second class". Time will tell on this one. Relying on ANY public charging network for travel or a trip involves the risk of a wait or diversion to a working/available EVSE.

Where did you get this information? If you had watched the unveiling event, Musk clearly said from the beginning "Supercharger Capable". It was even projected in large letters on the wall behind him. That means it can use the network, NOT that it is "free for life".

Tesla has also updated their website to clarify these things:

http://electrek.co/2016/04/08/tesla-model-3-features-safety-autopilot-supercharger/

While that article claims they are "backtracking on promises", it's not actually true. What is happening is that people know what the Model S can do, heard what Musk said, and then read between the lines. Many people assumed that certain things would be standard (supercharging free-for-life, activation of full autopilot, that huge panoramic roof, to name a few) that were NEVER stated to be standard.

To bring this around to the Bolt, I believe that the Bolt will be cheaper than the Model III, when comparably equipped. The $35k entry Model III will have far fewer features than the $37.5k entry Bolt. And the fully loaded Model III may be as much as $10k more than a fully loaded Bolt.
 
I'd have to agree with GetOffYourGas.

It seems really unlikely to me that Tesla can produce a vehicle that looks better (subjectively of course), has a better range, and has more features than the Bolt.

It's like most Tesla fans assume the rest of the established automakers are going to lay around waiting for Tesla to take over. They see what sort of following Tesla has when they can put 300K+ real money reservations down for a vehicle people have never seen. They have to be thinking ahead.

If the supercharger network was something the GM and Nissan thought was a huge feature, and that CCS couldn't compete with in the near future, you can bet they'd be building out their own network.
If auto-pilot and all the other features were available at the $30K price point, you can bet GM and Nissan would get in gear to follow suit.

If Tesla Model 3 really is better in every way than the Bolt and LEAF 2.0, then Tesla does deserve to win. Otherwise, I put Tesla in a category with Apple. They have cult followings, regardless of features, and they have some that they've swayed to come over from competitors. Yes they are successful and have the lion's share of the market, but it only takes a mistake or two and the competitors will be right there. Tesla may have the win in 2017/2018 with the Model 3, but I can see the revised Bolt or the LEAF 2.0 doing something surprising in 2018/2019.
 
ziv said:
Tesla fans assume the rest of the established automakers are going to lay around waiting for Tesla to take over

Um, so far, so mostly true. The competition gave Tesla a long head start, and they now own the market space of "innovative and high performance electric vehicles". Tesla have defined how an electric vehicle can be the best car in the world.

Give props to Nissan for blowing big $$ chasing the short range, mid price market with the Leaf.
GM for chasing 'range anxiety' (and driving that term with their marketing) with the Volt.
BMW for innovating with light weight materials with the i3.

Meanwhile, 4 years after the Tesla S came out in late 2012, only a single competitor in the longer range space is coming in, and that is GM Bolt.

Mercedes is having their "kodak moment" at their recent share holders meeting, with CEO grilled on their lack of innovation and letting Tesla steal market share away with the high end performance/luxury segment in terms of growth over the past 4 years.

Ford is keeping things close to their chest, while keeping on with their rather unimpressive 'electrified' offerings.

Toyota, wow, they just want EV's to stop being mentioned so people buy hybrids.

Seems to me it's pretty obvious that the establishment is letting Tesla run the show in terms of attracting next generation auto buyers.
 
ziv said:
I like what Tesla is doing with their Supercharger network, but frankly, it's another liability for the company - I assume they are the ones that are expected to 'maintain' the network?

I see it the other way around. Ceeding the control of maintaining the charging network is itself a huge liability. What if the charging network goes bust? It's happened to Blink already. Car Charging Group are really struggling to maintain the old blink network. Tesla on the other hand can provide a consistent level of service anywhere on the globe.

It maybe a 'financial liability' but it avoids the strategic liability of having no control over the reliability and quality.

ziv said:
Public charging CSS network makes more sense. Why would an automaker want to maintain a charging network? Instead, sure, help install and fund chargers to get things going.

Installing the charging devices is the easy bit. Convincing hosts to take the devices is probably the hardest part, followed by keeping the network operational. Nissan's EZ-charge network based on partnerships is falling apart. ChargePoint left the scheme early on, Blink have recently removed themselves from the network. Drivers having been promised free charging for 2 years are probably pretty mad now few free options remain on the EZ-Charge network.

ziv said:
And the Supercharger network being free to use likely won't be an argument for long. My prediction is we're headed to a place where companies that want business (shopping centers, restaurants, etc) will have CCS chargers installed that are free to use for their patrons. A few cents in electricity in exchange for your business just makes 'cents' :)

That's what everyone thought 5 years ago. eVgo have had a terrible time convincing hosts to take DC Fast charge units at no cost as a boost to their prestige and attracting new business revenue. Very few hosts are buying the argument. Don't know why, but they aren't.
 
I like Chargepoint's model better than eVgo - having to pay a monthly fee is a challenge even if you are a serious EV supporter. The only people will to pay that are folks who driver long distances regularly.

Chargepoint is also less expensive per charge, as well.

The main issue is FINDING a quick charging station, in a convenient enough location AND having it working AND not occupied.
 
NeilBlanchard said:
I like Chargepoint's model better than eVgo - having to pay a monthly fee is a challenge even if you are a serious EV supporter. The only people will to pay that are folks who driver long distances regularly.

Chargepoint is also less expensive per charge, as well.

The main issue is FINDING a quick charging station, in a convenient enough location AND having it working AND not occupied.

eVgo have the Flex subscription which has no monthly fee. That's what I use.

I agree ChargePoint are probably the best charging network and by quite a wide margin. They just don't have many units where I live/drive.

Nashville had the early benefit of the Bink network, which has slowly turned into a curse.

eVgo are good in Nashville, but now they are going independant from NRG I fear they will follow a similar financial trajectory as the Car Charging Group/Blink.
 
NeilBlanchard said:

That is a good article.

Hopefully the authors warning about building infrastructure without a way to maintain it later (e.g. Blink) will be heeded by those responsible for disbursing the funds.

One point the article highlights I didn't know before now is that California is destined to get 40% of the 2 Billion in infrastructure funding.

I believe the funds would find a good home if a portion was shared between ChargePoint and Tesla. Both of those networks appear to be well run and should survive beyond the short term.

Workplace charging is likely to be well managed and does the most to promote EV adoption. I'd like to see that funded too.

While I agree with the author that well managed charging networks or workplace charging are good places for the money to go to, I doubt that our political system will tolerate 2 Billion being disbursed to private organizations on a selective basis. Rather the funds will probably be made available on a first come first served basis for whomever can qualify for the funds and the money grab will ensue.
 
The issue with giving funds to Tesla's network is that the network is proprietary. It only works with Tesla cars. That is my biggest peeve wrt to supercharging network. I would much rather see the funds go to CCS / CHAdeMO style chargers, which all EVs can use, including Tesla (with an adapter)
 
GetOffYourGas said:
The issue with giving funds to Tesla's network is that the network is proprietary. It only works with Tesla cars.

The article proposes given the funds to Tesla so that CCS/CHAdeMO capability can be added, and because Tesla has shown it has the chops to manage an extensive charging network without letting it fall into disrepair.
 
SeanNelson said:
GetOffYourGas said:
The issue with giving funds to Tesla's network is that the network is proprietary. It only works with Tesla cars.

The article proposes given the funds to Tesla so that CCS/CHAdeMO capability can be added, and because Tesla has shown it has the chops to manage an extensive charging network without letting it fall into disrepair.

Alright, you caught me. I didn't read the article.

That would be really cool, and would completely change the landscape of EV charging. I'm not sure that would happen, though. As much as Tesla claims they want to change the world, their actions have shown otherwise. They are actively discouraging other EVs through their infrastructure efforts. It's not just supercharging grabbing all the ideal locations. They have put a lot of time and money behind destination charging too. And the EVSEs they install are all their proprietary plugs rather than J1772s. And all Teslas can charge from either, but nobody but Tesla can charge from their plug. Hmmm...
 
Back
Top