Well....
So, Tesla should have sold the S60 back in 2012 when there were few Supercharger stations? The S60 was just a compliance car?
No, because the Model S was designed to be a realistically usable long distance BEV. The Model S was designed to utilize the Supercharger network and the two combined presented a reasonable BEV-only solution. Of course, some people could choose to use the Model S in other manners and for a while, Tesla thought that people would buy a range crippled version for shorter use patterns. But since the Model S was designed for owners to realistically drive long distances and Tesla was building out the Supercharger network, it isn't just a compliance car. In other words, Tesla's design choices primarily had end user's actual usage model in mind first, not merely landing on the other side of a government rule.
In my area in the SF Bay Area, at least, I would have sufficient CCS stations from day one of ownership to take road trips around most of California, and western Oregon and Washington. As a practical matter, those are the areas where I take road trips. True, many of those stations are single plug and "24 kW" but there are plans by EVgo to upgrade some of those soon. New ones along highways will generally be faster as well. Existing CCS plugs are lower power since they matched the capability of the 75-100 mile cars on the road. The new generation of 200+ mile cars will drive "100 kW" and faster chargers. There will lots of CCS stations installed over the lifetime of a Bolt EV purchased in 2017.
The Bolt can't charge at 100 kW at "100 kW" stations. It might do 70 kW. But it doesn't matter, since almost all of them in northern CA are 24 kW and the rest are only 50 kW when they actually work and are not busy. Tesla owners are worried about Supercharger congestion with 8-16 plugs available and 100-135 kW charging rates. How exactly will the Bolt work out any level of increased adoption with single or even double 24 kW and 50 kW plugs? Oh, right, it won't. Further, the cost of driving on the NRG eVGo network makes gasoline look cheap. The $4.95 per session charge or the monthly charge both present awful dilemmas.
Again, are you assured that the Bolt ships with what is necessary to charge at over 200A? Matter of fact, we don't even know if the Bolt will charge even at 200A if you can find one of the few stations that can charge that fast.
Vehicle weight has minimal impact on highway mile efficiency and the Bolt EV is only about 250 pounds heavier. The aerodynamics CdA numbers published by Car and Driver for the LEAF and Bolt are very similar (7.8 and 8.05). Powertrain efficiency differences could easily make up that difference.
I generally drive slower than usual in bad weather. And actually, I'm perfectly happy to drive 60 mph if needed to stretch out my distance capacity to 200 miles at 285.4 Wh per mile (INL) which makes about 130 miles under your formula (same as your Model 3 going 70 mph).
Read the link. At 70 mph, the Leaf has 98% battery roundtrip efficiency. How is GM going to improve on that? At 250 pounds heavier and worse aerodynamics, the Bolt is guaranteed to have terrible efficiency at highway speeds. Maybe you are okay with driving 60 mph when others are driving 70 or 75 mph, but for a BEV for the masses, no the masses won't like that at all. Now, the Leaf's onboard charger has terrible efficiency so the overall trip efficiency isn't particularly good, but once the juice is on-board, the efficiency is hard to beat.
The Model S:
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact2014teslamodels.pdf
Hits 97% battery roundtrip efficiency, 91% on board charger efficiency for a pretty good overall trip efficiency of 89%. The overall trip efficiency beats the Leaf, the i3, and the Ford Focus EV at 70 mph.
The Chevy Spark EV on the other hand:
https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fsev/fact2015chevroletspark.pdf
Wow, just terrible. Only 95% battery roundtrip efficiency and 83% on board charger efficiency for an overall trip efficiency of just 79%. Since it is so small, the overall CDa lets the Spark still hit a low Wh/mi at 70 mph, but the Bolt has a bigger CDa than a Leaf. Therefore the Bolt needs to have a far better power electronics and motor setup than the Spark EV if they hope to even get close to the efficiency of the Leaf.
So, according to you, the difference between viable and not viable is driving 70 mph in the Model 3 versus 60 mph in the Bolt EV to achieve similar mileage range on the highway?
Frankly, neither the base Model 3 or the Bolt EV (or the Model S60) are ideal for routine long-distance driving but all three are certainly capable of occasional road trips when "fast" DC chargers are available. A Model S85+ or a Model 3 with the optional bigger battery pack will work better.
The base Model 3 and the Model S 60 kWh represent near the minimum for range and charging cadence for realistic long range BEV charging and driving cadence. If you aren't going to meet that level of usability, then why bother with that much battery? In order to achieve the usability, the long distance range has to be there, the charging speed has to be fast enough, and the charging network has to sufficient to support that.
Now, the Model S was initially sold in 2012 and 2013 without all those pieces in place, but there was certainly the promise that it would eventually be there for the vehicles sold. And it was for many. Even with the Model 3 launch, there will be plenty of places where the criteria isn't met. But the rapid growth of the Supercharger network means there are fewer and fewer places where that's true.
The Bolt, on the other hand, does not meet any of that criteria. The long distance range isn't there. The charging network would have to be spaced around 100 miles apart and the charging speed isn't there. The realistic cadence for a Bolt is then 1.5 hours of driving, 55-120 minutes of charging. For a base Model 3, it's 2 hours of driving, 30-35 minutes of charging. Add to it the likelihood of the availability of a fast charge plug at the distance of the cadence.
One of the additional problems for CCS is trying to choose the spacing. Since Tesla is designing all of their vehicles to hit about 200 miles of highway range, they can space the network accordingly (120-140 miles apart for 80% of the battery). CCS on the other hand has to cater to low range vehicles and potentially a raft of different sized batteries and therefore different highway ranges. So can we expect 10-20 plug CCS stations at 100 miles apart? Well, that's not the right spacing for a BMW i3 33 kWh nor an Audi Q6 e-tron. Likely, they will have to put them at a variety of shorter distances apart... which is great when they are all built out, but the cost of doing so... wow, to achieve the same utility as a the Supercharger network, they'd have to spend about 5-10x for the same geographical region. And thus far, CCS charging vendors already charge a lot of money.
Once upon a time "compliance car" meant low volume (a few thousand s year) and only sold in CARB states. Now you are throwing around this term for a car planned to be sold at 30,000 to 50,000+ year in all 50 states, Canada, and much of Europe (as an Opel Ampera-e)?
Sure, why not, as it fits. The Bolt is designed to be classified as a CARB ZEV Type III vehicle which needs 200 miles of range on the UDDS scale. It probably does that handily. However, it does not fulfill the real promise of a 200 mile range BEV - that it can realistically do long distance trips. The base Model 3 and the Model S 60 kWh skirt the edge of that. While the Bolt is a conversion of the Gamma 2 platform, GM could have spent more time and resources to make the vehicle a more realistic long range BEV, which also means developing the plug standards and the charging network. Instead, we get basically an electrified Buick Encore with attendant terrible aerodynamics since that is likely the cheapest from a development cost and production perspective. If the Type III classification was for 160 miles, I suspect they would have designed the Bolt for that range instead. The battery would then be smaller, it would weigh less and cost less. The long range usability is already compromised and it has more than enough range for most daily driving operations anyways. It would even do better at urban taxi use. Since it is a 200 mile range BEV that doesn't really tackle realistic long range BEV utility, the primary purpose of the Bolt is to achieve the CARB ZEV credits to let GM sell more SUVs and trucks. Therefore, it is a compliance car.