How Did GM Create Tesla’s Dream Car First?
mobile.nytimes.com
mobile.nytimes.com
edit: I'm in the UK where coverage is pretty good.
That appears to be changing: http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/09/chargepoint-bmw-and-vw-c....
So for long distance Tesla travel you need to break 30 min for every ~2.5 hours you drive (1/6 of the time waiting), with bolt it is more than 1/3 of the time waiting.
http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html https://www.tesla.com/supercharger
Tesla is guaranteed to lose this game eventually, with all other carmakers aligned to a real standard. Their supercharger system offers only slightly faster charging than SAE combo DC fast charge, and supercharger plug is already less common than the standard.
And then you also have to consider availability. Non-Tesla stations tend to be installed in ones or twos and are often not well maintained. You can't really rely on any single station, because it could very well be blocked or broken. Tesla stations are usually installed in 6s or 8s, which means they're unlikely to be blocked and have some redundancy against failures, and Tesla acts quickly to fix any problems.
Finally, the speed difference is pretty huge. SAE Combo may theoretically offer speeds similar to Superchargers, but in practice it's far worse. Chevy is advertising the ability to add 90 miles in 30 minutes. That's about half of what you get from Superchargers. It's still totally doable, but it you'd spend a lot more time charging.
And Tesla can't really lose the game. They already have an adapter for CHAdeMO stations, and an SAE combo adapter would not be hard for them to make. I'm confident we'll see such an adapter for sale in the next year or two. The worst case for Tesla is that other cars come up to parity here, and even then there's no sign of that happening any time soon.
That said, the Chevy Bolt is not Teslas dream car. That car is ugly, awkward and poorly conceived. It may check out on the spec sheet but there is no passion or personality in that car. Tesla is at least trying to build cars that are desirable as well as efficient, and whether or not they hit the mark, you can see that they are trying to do that.
I understand there is a demographic out there that doesn't care what their car looks like, and maybe that is what they were shooting for when they designed the bolt, but that is not a car I would ever drive. The Model 3 looks upmarket enough to satisfy aesthetics as well as practicality. The Bolt looks like what it is, a frankenstein model that had its ICE powertrain swapped with an electric one. Doing that required design compromises that just don't look good. This criticism carries over to BMW with their i series as well. The i3 is ugly and poor performing, and the i8 is impractical and expensive.
Until GM/BMW/VW/FCA/Ford/ETC start with a real electric platform designed for both efficiency and driving dynamics they will never succeed. Part of me thinks they realize that electrification will largely lead to commoditization and remove a big chunk of the profits that are derived from ICE differentiation, and they don't want that.
I agree with you about the BMW i3. The i8 is pretty though...
It is, and it's not a car you buy for practicality.
Its the only long distance practical EV for at least couple of years for all markets in US, until Model 3 and Leaf Gen 2 come out.
edit: here is the review of the car, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-f...
The bolt is a great car, but its recharging network makes it far less reliable as a long distance car. It's shorter range is part of that, but its not as important as the fast recharger network availability.
It IS possible to make a "better" AND a "prettier" car at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive...
Not NA, more like US. Canadians do like hatchbacks.
The American aversion to hatches is why we don't get sexy cars like the BMW 1 series hatch.
Unfortunately many EV makers are trying to ape Tesla's look and feel, so the Bolt includes a large but not enormous touchscreen display, and graphical instruments as well. But at least they are using hard knobs and buttons for the climate controls.
At night your car's instruments should be very gently illuminated by red or amber lights or LEDs, the way baby Jesus meant for things to be when he invented the BMW E30.
I don't feel the need for my car to scream "Look! A'm electric car! And you people are all ICEhole."
I just want an EV that gets me to the beach and back (120k round trip) and then to work and back the next day (6k round trip) that I can put roof racks on. And I want to buy it second for under AU$15,000.
I don't really care what it looks like, but I do find the BMW i3 weird looking. I will probably wash it twice a year.
Not everyone wants a luxury looking car, or a car with sports styling.
It's a cheap family sedan. It's the car you buy because you need a second car so the other parent can get around all day. This car is targeted at people who buy Volt's, Corollas, Focus, etc...
If you want passion and personality from a chevy you are looking buying a Camaro, or a Corvette.
and it looks worlds better than the ugly as sin i3.
It's the market's short-termism that has led to this epidemic of 'If you don't meet our arbitrarily-set profit goals designed to enrich us at the expense of almost every long-term goal, you are dead to us.' Musk is playing the long game, not Wall Street's game.
[1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you
Personally, I think competition is great. Now that the Bolt EV is entering the market and the EPA range has been announced, you can be dang sure the Tesla Model 3 will beat it.
Disclaimer, I work for GM, but not on this program. Any opinions are solely my own.
The overall sentiment of the article isn't different than other coverage of the Bolt like from Wired for example:
https://www.wired.com/2016/01/gm-electric-car-chevy-bolt-mar... https://www.wired.com/2016/09/chevrolet-bolt-range-epa-ratin...
Effectively GM "beat" Tesla to the punch, while the Model 3 might have some additional features and luxuries over the Bolt they also won't be available for the base 30,000$ model. Without Tesla neither the Bolt nor it's predecessor the Volt would've existed but it doesn't diminish the accomplishment that GM has pulled off.
Also while it's very nice that Musk has published the Patents it's not exactly "open-sourcing" them, they were released for "in good faith use" which is actually a pretty clever strategy that can be used against competition if the need arises, don't get me wrong this is still a huge deal but this isn't a pure altruistic move on Tesla's part either.
In this particular case, the author didn't even cite any behavior that indicates being a fanboy, they're just claiming that anyone who points out that Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy. All of these are legitimate things to say about Tesla and do not require some sort of blind devotion to Tesla in order to point out.
I once dared to make the comment that one day a Tesla battery pack would catch fire or explode and out of the woods they came with their pitchforks and downvotes explaining in length like why it can never happen and how safe are 18650's and the Tesla power bank, and the car, and how smooth Elon Musk's skin is.
About 3 weeks later just that thing happened, a Tesla caught fire due to the power pack malfunctioning, since then there were 2-3 more similar cases.
There are Tesla and more Elon Musk in general fanboys out there.
And I don't really understand why you are taking offense, no one made those claims here, no one even argued that there are no advantages to the Tesla. However those advantages come at a cost, a Model 3 won't be a 30,000 car, it would be close to it after the rebate, you will have to pay extra for luxuries, as well as potentially access to the supercharger network.
And I'm not sure about the rest of your arguments, profitability is in question here, it's doubtful that the Model 3 will be as profitable, infact it won't be by design, the question would then be how many Model S/X's Tesla can sale because that would be the limiting factor in it's ability actually ship Model 3's as those partially fund it.
As for the brand strength, the brand is considerably more limited than what you think, sure on HN and in a few other circles it has a huge presence but if you think that in the middle of nowhere America, or the rest of the world Tesla has a brand presence you are going to be disappointed, most people do not know what Tesla is. If you ask the average person to name car companies Tesla is about as likely to be named as Alpina, heck i would be that more people are aware of Aplina world wide than Tesla.
It's really hard to take you seriously when you say something like this. If someone's behavior really is remarkable, then there should be no need to exaggerate. If you exaggerate, it suggests that maybe your complaint isn't legitimate.
> it's doubtful that the Model 3 will be as profitable, infact it won't be by design
Why do you say that? People seem to be in agreement that GM can sell their car at a loss because they make up for it in the ability to sell other gas-guzzling cars. Tesla can't sell their cars at a loss because they don't have any way to make it up. The people who claim Tesla is losing money on their cars are doing so by including R&D costs as part of the cost of the car, which is nonsense. If Tesla sells 10k more cars, they didn't just lose a bunch of money, they made money on each car. Sure, if Tesla doesn't sell enough to recoup their R&D then they've taken a loss overall, but the idea is that they should sell enough cars to make a profit, which they can then plow back into R&D to make even better cars. And they can take a loss in the short term if it leads to profitability later, what they can't do is take a loss on each unit sold.
In fact, if I search for "tesla model 3 profitability" on DDG, the very first result is a Fox Business article from March saying that a goal of the Model 3 is to be profitable, something the other cars haven't been (I assume here that it means after taking R&D into account, as opposed to being a loss on each unit sold) - http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/03/31/tesla-counts-o....
> If you ask the average person to name car companies
If you ask the average consumer that cares about electric vehicles, they probably do know about Tesla. The average person doesn't really care much about that, beyond maybe thinking that a hybrid car is a good idea (or even thinking it's a bad idea because those usually compromise on power).
Edit: Corrected "Business Insider" to "Fox Business". Not sure why I mixed those two up.
It's also hard to take them seriously, and you to some extent since you decided to take offense about an issue that no one in this thread even raised, usually the first sign of "irrationality" is taking offense when not only it wasn't directed at you, but also wasn't even given to anyone.
>Why do you say that?...
Because even Elon Musk said so, they are banking on the Model S and X to push the Model 3. Overall the profitability of the Model 3 is still questionable, they are using very expensive materials and platform even for the base model, they are betting on state based rebates to keep it close to 30K (which is risky since those rebates can disappear) and their overall profit margins would be relying on the people that buy the premium modules and upgrades for the model 3, as well as of course buying the very expensive Model S and X's especially the higher end models of those like the P100D.
That's where the money is some Core i3/5s are effectively Xeons (or the otherway around depending on how you want to look at it) but Intel sells them for as low as under 100$ while their Xeon counterparts go for 3-5 times the price, what Tesla is doing is effectively binning and selling very minor upgrades at very high relative costs (e.g. using Intel again akin to the 6700 vs 6700K same CPU 50$ difference (300 vs 350$) for an unlocked multiplier which is effectively a microcode patch) which may or may not work for cars.
>If you ask the average consumer that cares about electric vehicles, they probably do know about Tesla.
This is an utterly irrelevant question to ask if you want to make a change in the world, even Elon Musk made this same argument, the point of the cars like the Bolt isn't to sell them to people who want to buy an electric car specifically but to anyone who wants to buy a car in general.
This is why range and price point are so important, if you are able to bring an electric car to a range equivalent to a gas car (without refueling) under the 30,000 price point you have yourself the ability to push for real change in the automotive industry and more important a real environmental change both locally and globally.
The whole idea is to make the fact that a car is electric so irrelevant that it would be akin to asking if a car has power steering in this day and age. So pretty much when we get to the point of: >The average person doesn't really care much about that Is when we "win".
> Because even Elon Musk said so
Citation please? I'm not seeing this anywhere. In fact, an article from just 1 week ago talks about how Tesla might achieve GAAP profitability in Q3 - https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-tsla-could-achieve-gaap...
> and their overall profit margins would be relying on the people that buy the premium modules and upgrades for the model 3
Isn't that true for all cars? If the optional features didn't improve profit margins, dealerships wouldn't be pushing them.
> This is an utterly irrelevant question to ask if you want to make a change in the world, even Elon Musk made this same argument, the point of the cars like the Bolt isn't to sell them to people who want to buy an electric car specifically but to anyone who wants to buy a car in general.
One of Elon Musk's goals was to push other car manufacturers into making electric vehicles. The fact that a widely-recognized brand like GM is coming out with the Bolt is exactly what Elon Musk wanted to happen.
I'm not being defensive at all =) And you were offended, and defensive, you somehow brought an entire argument about why "doing X isn't fanboyism" when no one talked about it, the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Ironically this entire argument is a litmus test for their existence.
>Citation please? I'm not seeing this anywhere.
Every talk he made about the Model 3, including his plans, eventually the Model 3 may become profitable, but if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat.
>In fact, an article from just 1 week ago talks about how Tesla might achieve GAAP profitability in Q3 - https://electrek.co/2016/09/07/tesla-tsla-could-achieve-gaap....
Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
The Model 3 won't lose money, but they expect the profits to come from the add-ons, and the larger profit margins to come from the more expensive Model S and X's this is in Musk's bloody "Plan".
>One of Elon Musk's goals was to push other car manufacturers into making electric vehicles. The fact that a widely-recognized brand like GM is coming out with the Bolt is exactly what Elon Musk wanted to happen.
Which is exactly what I said. The Future of Electric cars isn't Tesla, it might pave the road there, or help push some companies along, but it would be out paced by the giants once the EV scene kicks into full gear, that is OK.
I would still rather own a Tesla because I find it the cooler however living in London considering one costs about as my yearly pre-tax wage (The P90D) and the fact I won't be able to park it anywhere kinda make it impossible.
If Tesla is really lucky it would have the same impact that Apple had on mobile phones, maybe it would come to a point where everyone thinks about Tesla when they think about a "cool car", but still the majority of the world would be driving something else, EV but something else.
> the only thing anyone said is that saying that there are "Tesla Fanboys" doesn't intrinsically mean that some one is biased against Tesla.
Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla. That was my original point. The author didn't say "There exist Tesla 'fanboys'", instead the author very strongly implied that anyone trying to defend Tesla is a fanboy (and thus should be dismissed). You'll notice that after making that list of arguments in favor of Tesla, the author then proceeded to address none of them. After all, why should he, when anyone who makes those arguments is obviously a "fanboy"?
And no, I'm not offended. Why would I be? I'm not a Tesla "fanboy". What I am is annoyed. This kind of behavior is a pet peeve of mine (as are most attempts to dismiss an argument by evading it instead of addressing the points), and I bring it up because most people don't, or even leap to defend this behavior by claiming "but there are fanboys!", even though that argument relies on a logical fallacy (the existence of fanboys that defend the company does not mean that anyone who defends the company is a fanboy).
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
Again, give me a citation. I've searched and found the exact opposite of what you're saying, and linked it. You need to give me an authoritative link, just claiming this repeatedly is meaningless.
> Did you read the article, they expect profitability before the Model 3 arrives, then it would dip until the Model 3 production kicks into full gear, this is almost utter contrast to your original claims of the Model 3 being highly profitable.
Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable", please don't put words in my mouth. And secondly, you apparently either don't understand the article or don't understand my argument. Tesla's going to have a dip because of capital expenditures. These aren't per-unit costs. I said Tesla cannot sell cars at a per-unit loss (which is what I've seen a lot of people claiming over the past year), because they don't have any other way to make it up. But GM can sell the Bolt at a per-unit cost (whether they actually are is irrelevant, I'm not sure we'll know that unless GM tells us) because selling the Bolt allows them to sell more profitable gas-guzzling cars and still meet fuel-economy standards, which is something the article itself even admitted.
> if you think they'll beat the profitability of the large car companies you are really off the beat
Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
Because you've kicked off something that wasn't even discussed.
>Implying that anyone who brings up those legitimate points is a tesla "fanboy" does in fact imply that you're biased against Tesla.
No one was implying anything, no one was saying anything negative or positive about Tesla.
> Every talk he made about the Model 3
I'm pretty sure you can use Google and hear him talk when he says that the Model 3 couldn't happen without the Model S ;) Like the launch event where he said that the people who buy the Model S effectively are paying the way forwards for the Model 3.
I'm also pretty sure when you know that Model 3 owners have to pay for everything including access to the Supercharger network it's not the same as the Model S.
>Yes I did read the article. And first off, I never claimed it would be "highly profitable"
>Literally nobody has made this argument. I do not appreciate being made into a straw man.
You claimed it would be more profitable than the traditional car companies at scale.
"Tesla's car has more luxury options, can upgrade to the autopilot, has access to the supercharger network, has brand cachet, and will be more profitable at scale is a fanboy"
How do you think things get discussed? Because someone brings them up. Congratulations for pointing out the origin of literally every discussion ever made.
> I'm pretty sure you can use Google
Seriously, give me a link or shut up. When I ask for a citation, you can't just tell me to Google for it. That's not a citation, and I've already explained that when I search I find many articles that contradict your claim and none in support.
> You claimed it would be more profitable than the traditional car companies at scale.
No, not "than the traditional car companies". More profitable than it is at launch. And this argument comes straight from the article, it's not actually my argument, I only rephrased it for brevity:
> And when its battery factory is running at scale, it should be able to produce batteries at a lower price, bumping up its profitability.
Or /r/technology, which I removed from my subscriptions because it was becoming all tesla all the time.
More constructive is pointing to 2013, where Tesla's public regard for competition was from a position of superiority. http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-response-to-bmw-i3-...
If GM can leverage one of their platforms for most of the Bolt it can dramatically lower the cost. What they do with the Bolt can bleed back over to the rest of the platform.
I'm not sure I'd call Tesla a "scrappy upstart". They're a publicly traded company with a market cap of $28B, versus GM's $47B. They employ 14,000 people. That's a lot less than GM, but it's also not an insignificant amount. At what point does one stop being a scrappy upstart, and start being a mature company?
It may not seem like much of a difference, but when you're trying to spin as a new arrival...
Similar to the DPR / Silk Road case, where Ross's attorneys tried to paint him as "just a young kid making some silly mistakes". "Youthful indiscretion".
Ross was about to turn thirty.
Not the "same" thing, but how many teenagers do you know who wouldn't be offended by being called "barely 10"?
Compare this: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/brookecrothers/files/2016/01/...
to this: https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/images/model-3/gal...
In my opinion that's why Tesla has big fans. It's not because people are rallying around the "little guy", it's because we want a car that looks nice and actually has technology from this decade in it.
Edit: I don't mean to knock on the hatchback in particular. I can't articulate it, but this car just communicates the typical EV look. As opposed to something more serious imo.
Sure, Malibu/Insignia looks different but it also takes more space.
Hatchbacks are practical. If I just want a car that looks as nice as Tesla, I can get a Ford Mondeo.
As an aside, I personally think the Model 3 is absolutely hideous to look at. The Model S is very good-looking on the outside but not more so than most non-EV saloons in the higher segment. I don't think 'good looks' are going to save Tesla.
Plus, Tesla's usually have a lot of technology packed in them as well. So it's not just good looks that are going to save them.
I agree, but my point was that the Bolt actually does look like something people take seriously, as demonstrated by the fact that the roads here are crowded by cars that look exactly the same. I'm 100% convinced that if you took a Bolt for a drive here, almost no-one would even notice it. It may surprise car enthousiasts, but that's a very powerful property of car design in the mid-range segment.
I never understood why hatchbacks are so unpopular in the US, maybe that's the reason you think it looks like a 'wonky toy'?
Usually when I think of something that I want to load stuff into, I go with at least a mid-size SUV. Those you can lay the seats down and put stuff in it. It also will have places for roof racks and potentially a little hitch if you need a trailer.
Also I don't mean to insult anyone's taste in hatchbacks. Just compare this hatchback to any other hatchback. Even by those standards it doesn't look as good imo.
While larger SUVs, crossovers or even sedans might have more total cargo volume, they may be narrow in a certain dimension (why I hate trunks vs. 5th doors) or just are much deeper. Usually you don't use all that space, and you end up carting around all that extra vehicle weight. If you need that spaces less than a few times a year, you're better off renting a large vehicle for those jobs or trips.
I also like how the wheels tend to the corners on hatches, it gives them great driving dynamics and still leaves a lot of room for legs and shoulders for 4 adults.
The Model 3 is, all-around, very unusual to be a car that appears exotic, but costs much less. Of course, it's being "paid for by purchases of the Model S and Model X," which means... at some scale (i.e. 500k+) Tesla is clearly losing money on the exotic sheet metal.
On the other hand, GM is building a car they can sell, and it won't be a bad business model.
Of course, since the masses love sedans, the 3 will easily outsell the Bolt anyway... but all of this will be a turbulent footnote to a different future where electric cars are commonplace. Neither of these cars will be the most popular electric cars on the road 10 years from now.
s/I want the sedan/I want the hatchback/ ? Or do you just hate office chairs? ;)
It also has a ton of great tech in it. Does this look like it's from the appropriate decade? http://insideevs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Chevrolet-vo...
The Bolt can even be considered a tad too big, but at least you'll be able to park it in London or Paris.
VW Golf https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/VW...
Ford Fiesta https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Fo...
VW Polo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/VW...
Renault Clio https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/20...
Opel / Vauxhall Corsa https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Op...
Peugeot 208 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Pe...
Nissan Qashqai https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Ni...
Opel / Vauxhall Astra https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/20...
Ford Focus https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Fo...
Skoda Octavia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Sk...
Fiat Panda https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/20...
Peugeot 308 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/20...
Renault Captur https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/20...
Audi A3 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/20...
VW Passat https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/20...
Toyota Yaris https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/20...
Fiat 500 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/%2...
Peugeot 2008 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Pe...
Opel / Vauxhall Mokka https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Op...
Skoda Fabia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/De...
Dacia Lodgy https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Lo...
Or in Japan.
Toyota Aqua (Prius C) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/20...
Honda Fit (Jazz) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/20...
Nissan Note https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Ni...
It looks like it fits between those cars.
The BMW i3 is more of a Bolt competitor than the Model 3.
People loved the EV1. It had its limitation due to the battery tech at the time. If they had kept up the program up we would probably have a $35000/200Mile electric car by now.
I also wonder how much impact selling money losing electric vehicles would really have had on battery research (vastly better batteries are the big difference between 2002 and now...).
The company truly was enthusiastic about the electric car, but then the law played unfavourable and they had to kill it.
Tesla is much an example of how Tech People can make things better. What makes me worried is they're not taking the high road. They're pumping out cars and not following the smart approaches. They're making mistakes that have already been made (thats not innovation or iterating fast...). They may screw up the narrative.
I'd still rather use my ok Honda Civic while I wait for a Model 3 in the future than get the Bolt.
I don't have pre-order stats, but if Bolt sales are anything like Volt sales, which recently crossed 100,000 after years on the market, meeting demand shouldn't be that challenging.
http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail...
Also, comparing Volt sales to Bolt sales is a bit like comparing Model S sales to Model 3 sales; different target markets and different price points entirely. At this point I don't think anyone has a good idea (except for projections that may or may not be accurate) what the Bolt demand will be until the Bolts start showing up in dealerships soon.
If you're curious what unsexy GM depreciation is, check out used Volt prices. Here's what I found in 20 seconds of searching: https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/675207037/overview...
... flies away from HN to do the daily job ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/business/tesla-motors-mode...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/business/a-fatality-forces...
Personally, I think we need as many Electric Vehicles as possible, so my kids' kids will be able to swim in the coral reefs and climb glaciated peaks. I don't care much for the hit pieces - I want BOTH Tesla AND GM to succeed.
GM has fielded electric cars off and on for 20 years now (going back to the EV1). The field is maturing quickly, but the Bolt and other cars like it are really just electric versions of existing ICE platforms. In the case of the Bolt, it's the same platform as the Buick Encore and Chevy Spark in the US. There are very few platform-specific updates that serve to differentiate the Bolt from its siblings. That's not a criticism in and of itself, but it serves as an illustration of how GM's approach differs dramatically from Tesla's.
What Tesla is doing by creating entirely new platforms is ensuring that they are engineered not just to be electric vehicles but - more importantly - to be autonomous vehicles. This article is overlooking just how important that functionality will be in Tesla's vision for the Model 3 (and all of their other future offering). Musk has made no secret of this. So, no, the Bolt is not Musk's White Whale.
I'm glad there's a bit of competition, though.
edit: coverage is good in europe but not so good in the US from what people are saying elsewhere in this post
Superchargers are, more or less, the only game in town. There's apps that tell you where other types of charges are though, like ChargePoint stations.
Wasn't one of their stated goals "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport?" (https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)
It sounds like that goal is finally starting to become successful. We should all be grateful at the economic pressure Tesla applied to change the market. I hope that our next milestone is to see more EV sold than Combustion vehicles.
The real achievement is range. GM finally got good range at a low price point. That's what's needed to make electric cars go mainstream.
(YC-type business opportunity: get public charging points to report their status (available, in-use, broken) and transmit that to cars and phones. There are maps of charge points, but not enough status info.)
Tesla no longer deserves a market cap half that of GM.
-Probably won't have anywhere as good of warranty service
-Probably has a much less nice interior
-Probably has much worse control and media electronics for the driver
-Probably isn't nearly as fast
-Lacks access to the Tesla superchargers
-Doesn't have advanced features like Autopilot
-Won't receive anywhere near the same level of ongoing software support and updates
For only potentially $5k less, I'll pass. GM has in no way made a competitive alternative to the new Tesla.