Bloomberg finally writes a really fair and balanced Bolt article

[jbcarioca]

I was surprised this morning to read this thoughtful well reasoned article about the Bolt, which also was quite thoughtful about the Model 3:
Elon Musk Wanted a Race. Now He Has One

 

[strykeroz]

That article does keep everything in perspective I think. Thanks for the link.

 

[Neohippy]

This is a good article. The Bolt is at 238 miles of range but didn't Elon say minimum of 215 on the Model 3? Who knows if it won't have 238 at the smaller battery?

 

[strykeroz]

The Bolt is at 238 miles of range but didn't Elon say minimum of 215 on the Model 3?

Yes, the actual quote from Elon at the M3 reveal is included in the article: "The range will be at least an EPA rating of 215 miles," Musk said at the time. "I want to emphasize that these are minimum numbers—we hope to exceed them."

Who knows if it won't have 238 at the smaller battery?

That's the joy of anticipation...

 

[Vitold]

I was surprised this morning to read this thoughtful well reasoned article about the Bolt, which also was quite thoughtful about the Model 3:
Elon Musk Wanted a Race. Now He Has One

Article implies that Tesla is in the range competition:

"Musk isn't likely to let GM's range victory stand unchallenged."

There's little reason for Tesla to go past ~220-240 (less in sunny states) range because of supercharger network. Therefore, Tesla is not in the range race to begin with. I think it was Bolt racing with itself and thankfully customers won (well not yet since we don't know how many will be sold).

Speaking of range, author neglects to point out that Bolt has less highway range than Model 3. We also don't know Bolt's battery degradation or winter range.

 

[Saghost]

Pretty solid article. The only thing I didn't like was that he seemed to quote the worldwide supercharger total.

Getting a U.S. car into Europe (or vice versa) is challenging for a variety of reasons, and once you got it there it couldn't use the local Superchargers anyway (different plugs).

I'd think it would have been better to use the U.S. total, either locations or stalls - possibly with mention of Elon's promise to double them by next year.

 

[Panu]

Article implies that Tesla is in the range competition:

"Musk isn't likely to let GM's range victory stand unchallenged."

Yes, base Model 3 should be kept affordable and some people never even need 200 miles range. Most likely Model 3 will have bigger battery option for those who need it. Bolt does not have that option.

 

[Jayc]

Article implies that Tesla is in the range competition:

"Musk isn't likely to let GM's range victory stand unchallenged."

There's little reason for Tesla to go past ~220-240 (less in sunny states) range because of supercharger network. Therefore, Tesla is not in the range race to begin with. I think it was Bolt racing with itself and thankfully customers won (well not yet since we don't know how many will be sold).

Speaking of range, author neglects to point out that Bolt has less highway range than Model 3. We also don't know Bolt's battery degradation or winter range.

I agree with most of what you say however, Tesla will want Model 3 to be the best car 35k can buy and being number 2 to Bolt in range will not help so I expect Tesla to have an answer. If they manage the 0.21 cd and with the new cells I think they can get to 240 miles. From Tesla's perspective however, potential repositioning of goal post might eat into their margins - probably what GM wants. If you can't win, try injure your opponent so you might be able to win or even kill the race. Remember Tesla will make most of its money from optioned M3s but the key to survival is that base M3 has to be profitable and shareholders will be watching margins on base.

 

[Booga]

Yes, base Model 3 should be kept affordable and some people never even need 200 miles range. Most likely Model 3 will have bigger battery option for those who need it. Bolt does not have that option.

If people buy it solely for city driving and can charge every night, then yes 200 is enough. Many model s owners can make it work for highway travel but it is restricting, because you can't skip any super chargers and an 80% charge only gets you 160 rated miles of range.

My own opinion is that for you to get closer to acceptance from an *average* user, you really need to push to 300 miles of range and continue going further.

I have 2 model 3 reservations and am anxious to take delivery, but want battery options to get me 300+ miles of rated range for ease of highway travel.

 

[ecarfan]

I was surprised this morning to read this thoughtful well reasoned article about the Bolt, which also was quite thoughtful about the Model 3:
Elon Musk Wanted a Race. Now He Has One

Agreed. That is the best article about the Bolt that I have read. A very reasonable analysis, it just contained one misleading statement:

"...a crucial network of more than 700 Supercharging stations that will charge a car in half the time a Bolt owner could hope for."

I see this error all the time, equating the number of Supercharger locations with the number of charging spots. As everyone on TMC knows, 700 Supercharger "stations" in fact provides way over 3,000 charging spots. The general public does not realize that.

But on the whole a good article.

 

[tashtibet]

Elon Musk wants everyone to pull together to reduce the carbon foot prints (so question of race is irrelevant)- media always blow up or misinterpret to hype it-altogether healthy competition is good for both customer & environment.

 

[Jeff N]

Speaking of range, author neglects to point out that Bolt has less highway range than Model 3. We also don't know Bolt's battery degradation or winter range.

That's not really a fair criticism because those facts aren't known yet.

Does the Bolt have less highway range than the Model 3? The Bolt's EPA highway range is about 217 miles and probably roughly equivalent to driving at 65 mph. Tesla has said the Model 3 will have at least 215 miles of range but we don't know the breakdown of that presumably combined number into its city versus highway components.

In the past, Tesla's highway efficiency has been somewhat better than its city efficiency but that is largely due to weight and the Model 3 should be somewhat lighter than the Model S since it is smaller. On the other hand, the Model 3 is mostly steel which would tend to make it weigh more.

The Bolt has a high strength steel cage but the outer panels like the hood, hatch, and passenger doors are believed to be aluminum.

All of that is too much detail and speculation for a Bloomberg article. Future battery degradation and winter range are even more speculative.

GM and LG have had a good reputation regarding battery degradation on the Volt and Spark EV. The Volt used a conservative state of charge window of 65% (now 75% on 2016+ Volts). The Spark EV has only a small anti-bricking zone much like Tesla vehicles but it has only been on the market with LG cells since 2015. Both the Volt and Spark EV have aggressive liquid battery thermal management. The Bolt EV also has liquid battery thermal management but it is not as aggressive although LG says the cells are now more heat tolerant.

The Bolt EV apparently still uses resistive heating of a liquid loop with a heat exchanger to warm the cabin air but claims it is faster to warm and more efficient because the loop is smaller and uses less liquid. The first Bolt EV owners will get their cars in mid-winter so we will soon find out how much range effect cold temperatures have on the car.

 

[ProphetM]

Agreed. That is the best article about the Bolt that I have read. A very reasonable analysis, it just contained one misleading statement:

"...a crucial network of more than 700 Supercharging stations that will charge a car in half the time a Bolt owner could hope for."

I see this error all the time, equating the number of Supercharger locations with the number of charging spots. As everyone on TMC knows, 700 Supercharger "stations" in fact provides way over 3,000 charging spots. The general public does not realize that.

But on the whole a good article.

I don't really consider that misleading. They called them "supercharging stations" and not just superchargers, so they're treating the idea of a supercharger location the same as anyone would treat a gas station. How many pumps a gas station has is not really a concern. The information they're intending to convey is how many different places are covered, not how many cars can be served.

 

[Vitold]

I don't really consider that misleading. They called them "supercharging stations" and not just superchargers, so they're treating the idea of a supercharger location the same as anyone would treat a gas station. How many pumps a gas station has is not really a concern. The information they're intending to convey is how many different places are covered, not how many cars can be served.

Comparing charging stations to gas stations is misleading also since they have little in common and there are no gas stations with single stall.

 

[Vitold]

That's not really a fair criticism because those facts aren't known yet.

Does the Bolt have less highway range than the Model 3? The Bolt's EPA highway range is about 217 miles and probably roughly equivalent to driving at 65 mph. Tesla has said the Model 3 will have at least 215 miles of range but we don't know the breakdown of that presumably combined number into its city versus highway components.

In the past, Tesla's highway efficiency has been somewhat better than its city efficiency but that is largely due to weight and the Model 3 should be somewhat lighter than the Model S since it is smaller. On the other hand, the Model 3 is mostly steel which would tend to make it weigh more.

The Bolt has a high strength steel cage but the outer panels like the hood, hatch, and passenger doors are believed to be aluminum.

All of that is too much detail and speculation for a Bloomberg article. Future battery degradation and winter range are even more speculative.

GM and LG have had a good reputation regarding battery degradation on the Volt and Spark EV. The Volt used a conservative state of charge window of 65% (now 75% on 2016+ Volts). The Spark EV has only a small anti-bricking zone much like Tesla vehicles but it has only been on the market with LG cells since 2015. Both the Volt and Spark EV have aggressive liquid battery thermal management. The Bolt EV also has liquid battery thermal management but it is not as aggressive although LG says the cells are now more heat tolerant.

The Bolt EV apparently still uses resistive heating of a liquid loop with a heat exchanger to warm the cabin air but claims it is faster to warm and more efficient because the loop is smaller and uses less liquid. The first Bolt EV owners will get their cars in mid-winter so we will soon find out how much range effect cold temperatures have on the car.

If what you're saying is that whole article is based on assumptions and declaring any of the cars "range winner" is premature - I agree.

 

[Red Sage]

From Tesla's perspective however, potential repositioning of goal post might eat into their margins - probably what GM wants. If you can't win, try injure your opponent so you might be able to win or even kill the race. Remember Tesla will make most of its money from optioned M3s but the key to survival is that base M3 has to be profitable and shareholders will be watching margins on base.

I would be perfectly happy if Tesla Motors only offered a single battery pack capacity for Model ☰ just to make their order fulfillment and inventory control go more smoothly. 100 kWh would do the trick (Model ☰ 100, Model ☰ 100D, and Model ☰ P100D). But I expect they will offer around three capacity choices instead (55 kWh, 75 kWh, and 100 kWh). Either way, it could cost Tesla money to implement.

 

[Booga]

I would be perfectly happy if Tesla Motors only offered a single battery pack capacity for Model ☰ just to make their order fulfillment and inventory control go more smoothly. 100 kWh would do the trick (Model ☰ 100, Model ☰ 100D, and Model ☰ P100D). But I expect they will offer around three capacity choices instead (55 kWh, 75 kWh, and 100 kWh). Either way, it could cost Tesla money to implement.

100 kWh... wouldn't that be something? If the 55 is rated at 215, assuming no other changes, the 100 would be really close to a full 400 miles of range. If 215 is with a single rear motor, maybe 400 happens with the dual motor version.

I'd stop at the 75 likely due to cost myself.

 

[McHoffa]

after full specs and reveal part 2, I guarantee these articles will seem almost funny...

 

[SageBrush]

n the past, Tesla's highway efficiency has been somewhat better than its city efficiency but that is largely due to weight and the Model 3 should be somewhat lighter than the Model S since it is smaller. On the other hand, the Model 3 is mostly steel which would tend to make it weigh more.

Presuming the Model3 Cd of 0.21 comes to fruition, the highway MPGe is going to surpass the City MPGe by a fair amount.

 

[aronth5]

Generally a good article. I liked the last sentence.
"This isn't the end of the race for electrification; it's the starting line. "