GM plans electric van for business users
reuters.com
reuters.com
Also, the fact that GM has continued to lobby for laxer CAFE standards and is in a legal battle over California's right to set higher fuel economy standards is a big black mark against them in my book.
Yes they have experience but GM is operating from the concept of earning sufficient ZEV credits only. The dropped PHEV (Volt) right prior to the rest of the industry going that direction all because it wasn't worth the cost to ZEV points.
What I am interested in is seeing how invested Ford is, if the Mach E sales take off will they make enough to meet the need to artificially constrain production to just what they need to sale.
The real danger to EV transportation is the big manufacturers trying to keep maximum ranges below three hundred miles. Even luxury makers are barely going there with future products. By keeping ranges in that lower two hundred mile area they can continue to exploit range anxiety issues and consign EVs to local transportation only thereby not threatening their cash cows.
GM also stated that PHEV was a compromise/transition technology and BEVs have hit certain benchmarks (and so too have charging infrastructure) that the focus should be on BEVs now.
(As a 2012 Volt owner, I'm inclined to agree as one anecdotal owner. PHEV made a lot of sense in 2012, but the compromises needed in PHEV increasingly make less sense in 2020 and I doubt my next car will be anything but a full BEV.)
> What I am interested in is seeing how invested Ford is, if the Mach E sales take off will they make enough to meet the need to artificially constrain production to just what they need to sale.
Ford is playing catch up no matter what. The only hope the Mach E has to working well is how much Ford is paying to external collaborators for outside tech.
GM has pre-announced something like a half-dozen to a dozen new BEV models will be announced in the next year or so and heavily invested in BEV only facilities. Ford is still in the dipping the toes in the water stage of BEV production.
> The real danger to EV transportation is the big manufacturers trying to keep maximum ranges below three hundred miles.
The real danger to EV transportation is thinking ~250 miles on a charge is "local transportation only". I understand Americans have a bloated sense of the miles they need to travel regularly, but range anxiety is overblown and 300 miles/charge is no more useful a magic number than 200 miles/charge in assuaging range anxiety. (Some Europeans were already happy with ~100 mile/charge Nissan Leafs for long distance continental travel half a decade ago.)
If people wanted PHEV in great numbers, the car makers would make 5x more PHEVs. What the market is telling us is that people would rather buy a fully EV from Tesla (and a few others) than a PHEV. That's why sales of Tesla reached 370k last year when sales of Volt peaked at 24k in 2016. Volt won't sell 100k a year even if GM made that many.
If Ford and GM started building battery gigafactories in 2016, like Tesla, then they too would have 35+ GWh battery capacity today, enough for 300k+ cars per year.
Today's battery shortages are a direct result of lack of investment 5 years ago.
And Ford and GM will resolve them 5 years from now, if they start investing today. If they don't start investing today, Tesla and Volkswagen will be more than happy to take that marketshare.
I had a Nissan Leaf and the range anxiety was real. I actually couldn't commute to downtown for work, and settled on taking my Leaf to a nearby Park & Ride and rode commuter bus line the rest of the way.
My wife drives a 2017 Volt now, and it's night & day compared to the Leaf. I'm personally ok with the trade-off of carrying a redundant power source for the convenience of never worrying about range again.
Aside from a couple of months where we had an issue with our Level 2 EVSE, we primarily use the battery on it. But it is also our road-trip car, given that our other vehicle is getting towards the realm of unreliable for long-distance driving.
While I wouldn't consider 200mi "local only", I would venture that anything under 100mi is, until destination charging is far more common. At least in the USA (outside the East & perhaps West coasts). Looking at multiple public charging maps, I can't get between Austin & San Antonio Texas without at least 100mi of range, and that's cutting it close.
The scale difference between USA & European countries is rather large, and most people can easily lose sight of that and make statements like 100mi is easily long-distance for Europeans, when most Americans would consider 100mi to be local. I've known people who's daily commute approaches that.
That's why I made sure to include the word "continental". A Nissan Leaf with 100mi/charge in Europe could start in Northern England travel down to Southern Italy (via the Chunnel and France, etc) then back up to Norway because the charging infrastructure is there (and has been built up remarkably in the last 5 years or so from maps I've seen). It might not be the most pleasant trip, but it's more than possible.
Range anxiety is as much a problem of infrastructure as it is what a car is capable of on paper, and range bloat pretty much insures there's no magic mileage that an EV could get to satisfy "every buyer", but infrastructure can get there.
In many cases, too, infrastructure is already there. So many Americans still hear EV mile range and assume they need to do all their charges in a "pump model". Home charging changes the equation and not enough potential EV buyers understand that yet. So many of the people wanting "300mi" or "500mi" as some magic number where they can't imagine having range anxiety don't yet have an intuition for how home charging feels.
The past 3-4 years have seen capital-B Billions of investment from most of the major automakers. Some are more aggressive than others, but they're all genuinely starting. Money talks.
Obviously Tesla was first, but Renault, Kia, and Hyundai are producing EVs in earnest. VW is starting to ramp up this year. About a dozen companies will kick in over the next couple years.
The economics of EVs make them inevitable.
Ford $11B USD by 2022: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-detroit-ford-mot...
VW Group $84B USD by 2030: https://electrek.co/2017/09/11/vw-massive-billion-investment...
You can find sources with some digging for pretty much all the companies, and they are all in the “Capital B” magnitude category. In addition, the contracts and agreements for new battery cell factories from LG Chem, Samsung, BYD, etc etc.
According to the first article you linked, in January 2018 Ford promised:
>Of the 40 electrified vehicles Ford plans for its global lineup by 2022, 16 will be fully electric and the rest will be plug-in hybrids, executives said.
Needless to say, Ford will not have 16 fully electric cars by 2022.
They'll have Mach E this year, maybe. They promised electric F-150, no date given.
What are those other 14 EVs to be shipped in 2 years when they don't even have a prototype today?
If you want to see their real plans consider this March 2020 report https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a31944369/ford-gm-producti...
>The Reuters news service obtained the production plans of Ford and General Motors, which showed that SUVs and pickups, not electric vehicles, are what's coming.
>Combined, Ford and GM plan to make five million SUVs and pickups in 2026 while building just 320,000 electric vehicles
This is based not on PR promises but actual plans Ford has.
320k / 40 imaginary electrified models is less than 10k per model, in 2026, not 2022. And 320k is combined for Ford and GM.
Generally though I agree that there's a huge difference between cars on lots and plans for the future someone else has to figure out. I imagine Ford/GM figure most of the electric market will be similar to the sedan and compact market, and plan on ceding it to competitors as they have done with those markets, and will focus on larger and/or more brand-ey electrics like the Mach E versus something like a Leaf or Model 3.
The technology is already good enough for a large fraction of business use cases. Now it is up to us to us as customers to put our wallet where our mouth is and to pressure businesses and governments to ditch diesel engines for good.
It makes sense, because we don't have local restrictions on emissions to the degree that exists in Europe.
Total taxes on gasoline and diesel are significantly higher in Ireland (2.50 USD/gal) than the highest gas tax states in the US (like California with total gas taxes of 73c/gallon).
The incentive to lower emissions is provided indirectly by those those high taxes on gasoline/petrol, which directly manifests in the form of higher efficiency vehicles. There is far less of that incentive in the US.
https://www.schmidtmatthias.de/post/april-2020-european-elec...
We'd need a breakthrough in battery technology, or some improved supercapacitors, or productionization of flywheels, to be able to take advantage of that energy.
I think to get the power from more sudden stops, you'd need to have some kind of intermediate storage (like a capacitor bank) that could hold that energy for 20-30 seconds while it's streamed at the appropriate rate back into the main battery.
https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regene...
I will note that the homebuilt electric cars generally had much smaller battery packs, which could not supply the same peak currents that a 50+kWh battery would have.
Its really freeing not to have to look at the regen gauge at all, I just keep my foot over the brake pedal just in case I need to stop quicker than the regen braking.
Supercaps are 28800 Joules per liter, so you'd be needing nearly 700 liters of them to store the energy of the car decelerating from 60 mph once.
700 liters is a lot of volume in a car where you already use a lot of the available volume for batteries - it's more than the trunk and frunk combined on a Model3.
For personal vehicles it makes a lot more sense, particularly when you realize using regen braking means less brake and battery wear so it helps lower maintenance. I do similar things with the fuel economy gauge in my car.
So the interesting question is can operating costs make their way into the incentive structure (theoretically it should be able to with good vehicle telemetry).
Whether it's worth it or not to adopt that incentive structure is another question: is the cost of fuel and maintenance greater or less than the marginal revenue from each additional package? Because you're right, currently the incentives are infamous for maximizing number of deliveries. However, the famous UPS-minimize-left-turns routing optimization story suggests operating costs do factor in as well.
It would likely be easier to just increase vehicle efficiency in the form of better braking, lighter vehicles, higher battery density, etc.
And I'm pretty sure your meter is measuring KW, not Wh. Regardless, I question its accuracy in our Leaf. How thick is the cable taking the 30KW and putting it in the batter, when the on-board charger on that thing only puts out 3.3KW? And maybe the answer is, "as thick as your wrist, but it's very short"), dunno, but color me skeptical.
The main inverter is going between motor voltage and pack voltage, and depending on the car can handle regeneration at upwards of 60 kW (Teslas) to 265 kW (Porsche Taycan).
The cable that is putting 30 kW into the battery? It's the same one that's designed to conduct 80-110 kW from battery to motor in your Leaf.
https://youtu.be/KAIzAlgHF2E?t=57s
It measures regenerated Wh. In my case it was in increments of 30Wh.
How thick is the cable taking the 30KW and putting it in the batter, when the on-board charger on that thing only puts out 3.3KW?
As thick as the one putting 100kW into the motor I guess, so at 300V - not very thick.
Skeptical of what exactly?
Even if the benefits of regenerative braking were zero, electric vehicles still make sense for delivery vans. They have known ranges, usually less than 100 miles and the reduction fuel and maintenance costs will be huge. This is why there is so much interest in the Tesla semi and other similar tech where regenerative braking has nearly little effect on milage because the vehicles aren't stopping often.
But existing driving data suggests there will be some non-zero effect on efficiency through regenerative braking so I'm not sure what the point here is.
You see the traffic slowing down, foot off the pedal, regen starts and the car slows down. Traffic gets going again, push the pedal.
If you drive a hybrid/PHEV/EV like you would an ICE, it won't be economical.
But that's not the only way to define good enough that might be relevant here.
Many electric vehicles have a greater range in city traffic than they have on the highway, which is the opposite of how it is for ICE vehicles. So that means the benefit is quite significant, enough to help with cost savings.
Also, stop/start driving creates a lot of wear and tear on brakes. Maintaining brakes is probably a significant part of operating costs. If regenerative braking can reduce those costs, even if it doesn't eliminate them, it could still be significant.
Does it really require a lot more than 300KW to stop a UPS truck on an average start-stop (traffic light or stop sign) situation?
It just doesn't seem like the issue of being able to disappate the energy with regenerative brakes would be a real problem with a full EV delivery vehicle. I think the people pointing to it as an issue are thinking of either different battery tech or hybrid delivery vehicles that had much smaller batteries (and thus lower peak regen).
Is this something you have numbers on or just seat of the pants math? Most mileage numbers for electric cars are much better in city driving with start/ stop conditions so I'm a bit skeptical about your methods.
When you hit the brakes on a regenerative-braking hybrid, you will see a bar start to fill up. The bar is divided into two sections.
If you tap the brakes, the bar only fills up a little, and stays in the left section. That means that your regenerative brakes are slowing you.
If you slam the brakes, the bar fills up fully, and is way in the right section. That means that your friction brakes are slowing you.
If you drive 'normally' - like most other people drive, you will never keep the bar in the left section during braking. It will always be half-way in the right section. This means you are wasting ~half of your braking energy, as friction and heat.
If you drive very smoothly, with no sudden braking, you can keep the bar almost constantly in the left section. But this requires you to start braking a lot earlier than most drivers, when you see, say, a red light.
This isn't a bad thing, since smoother acceleration/braking reduces traffic jams, but it's not how most people drive.
In practice, I have observed that the difference between these two forms of driving (Aggressive braking + accelleration, smooth braking + accelleration) is the difference between ~43 MPG and ~48MPG.
Regenerative braking improves efficiency even without careful driving, additionally you can drive carefully and improve your efficiency even more. This isn't the same as suggesting current regenerative braking isn't "good enough" for start stop applications.
Braking will always involve energy loss, that's just physics. Over time we can improve how much energy is regained during braking but again that it can be better does not prove that it's not worthwhile now.
I've never said it doesn't help. When the bar is in the right section, that means that your regenerative braking is operating at peak capacity, with extra friction braking applied on top.
> Braking will always involve energy loss, that's just physics. Over time we can improve how much energy is regained during braking but again that it can be better does not prove that it's not worthwhile now.
The energy loss of regenerative braking is some XY%. The energy loss of friction braking is 100%.
The optimal way to drive with regenerative braking is slow and steady braking. So that you are eating XY% energy loss in your braking energy, and not "Partially XY%, partially 100%". Most people drive in a way that would put them in the latter category.
As another poster mentioned, its quite possible for cars with $10,000 batteries to usefully absorb more energy through their regenerative braking.
I'm not really sure what your point is or where your comments fit into this conversation at this point.
All that's required is storage for ~35mph to 0, and you get 95% regen instead of 10%.
Can still shunt to the battery on long descents, but for UPS, this would be perfect.
It didn't really. The European and Chinese markets are further along:
- Peugeot e-Expert: https://insideevs.com/news/423332/peugeot-electric-expert/
- Toyota Proace: https://insideevs.com/news/425503/toyota-proace-electric-15-...
- Opel Vivaro-e: https://int-media.opel.com/en/04-28-vivaro-e
- UPS Vans: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/29/uk-electric...
- Citroën ë-Jumpy: https://www.electrive.com/2020/05/12/citroe%cc%88n-e%cc%88-j...
Some US ones:
- Workhorse C-Series: https://insideevs.com/news/404214/workhorse-deliveries-c-ser...
- Ford Transit: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/03/cars/ford-electric-transi...
Although with normal cars, most of the braking is done in the front anyway? And vans can be 4x4, electric motors are probably relatively affordable to put on all wheels, considering things like the Toyota SUVs with AWD system that has electric motor in the back instead of shaft from the engine.
I don't get the point here. If it's 40% effective on his LEAF and 20% effective on a delivery van, then it is. Anything that increases range or decreases the cost of the vehicle is a big win. Regenerative braking is one of many reasons why electric delivery vans make a ton of sense, it's not the only reason.
Think of the progression. We have had electric scooters for a while already. We have just started to see electric cars going mainstream. We have seen a lot of interest in large electric vehicles like semi-trucks and commercial vans, but nothing viable yet.
EDIT: Another way of thinking about this problem: Why do Teslas have so much storage space? You could easily fill the frunk with batteries and still have competitive storage space. The reason they don't is because adding more battery really doesn't help.
I agree with your general point, but at the same time, the cost of batteries are getting exponentially cheaper. It's just a matter of time for all transport to be BEV, so it makes sense for companies to want to be ready for the new market realities.
I don't think the price of batteries tells the whole story. Until the tech is viable, people are not going to buy an inferior car.
Most roads, at least in America, have weight limits per axle. A van or semi can only be so heavy, and having batteries take up half your cargo budget is a huge disincentive. This is on top of the severly limited range of a big, heavy, full-of-cargo EV.
Bottom line: batteries do scale - at least in terms of weight.
In return you get way better battery life because there’s loads of excess capacity in the battery compared to nameplate capacity
The 60kWh one was fairly popular and battery prices were much greater back then, so a physically different battery was justified.
Only later did the 60kWh version shrink enough in sales for Tesla to apply this trick to it.
For ground transportation, the percentage of the weight dedicated to batteries is important, but so is the ratio of wind resistance to battery power.
For low speed start and stop traffic, it is true that if your car is already 90% battery by weight, adding battery won’t help. For freeway driving, this doesn’t hold at all, since most of the energy is being lost to wind resistance.
The reason teslas have so much storage space is that air doesn’t weigh much, and the empty space helps them design for aerodynamics. Filling the space with batteries would make the vehicle too expensive.
Accelerating more mass takes more energy. While you can recover it with regen, you can never break even.
Swappable batteries, like they have for electric warehouse forklifts, would likely help solve the charging speed issue... but it adds an infrastructure challenge. Someone like the Postal Service would be a good candidate since they have many "warehouses" where they could station battery chargers/swappers. AMZL, UPS, Fedex, etc would be more difficult since they tend to have fewer warehouses that are further from many of their delivery endpoints. It's not impossible, and they'll likely be forced to go electric at some point, but it will require additional infrastructure.
I'm sure that market will buy them too, and that market is growing in the US too (mostly NYC and LA) but I don't think that's the intention. The article specifically says, "The GM electric van project is aimed at an important segment of the emerging EV market – commercial delivery vehicles."
Problem is they are a bit of a joke. The pickup they were marketing has an advertised range of like 80 miles and the commercial vans they still appear to be working towards have an advertised range of 100 miles. I think the strategy of going into a market Tesla isn't in yet is a loser if the reason you are doing it is because you can't compete with Tesla. Business isn't going to be anymore willing to accept a crappy product than a consumer is.
Using compressed methane could be better (I have seen buses here in Czexh Republic using compressed natural gas, which is basically just methane, very often) or even skipping the carbon and using hydrogen, if you can store it safely and efficiently.
But indeed, if you can store the power directly instead of usinfpg it inefficiently to make fuel, thats the best.
Except, vehicles with those dimensions and cargo capacity are very widely used outside of NA, they're just covered and called vans. I don't think the CyberTruck could be converted to a van (the glass seems too sloped and the first row too far back), but it seems that when they complete the truck a van program could borrow very heavily.
Imagine they keep the battery capacity, stainless steel exoskeleton design, hauling and carrying capacity, but have a design that has the glass much more vertical, one row closer to the front and a very tall, boxy back. It would sell very well.
With that said, custom trailers should be able to minimize that hit, albeit with significant restrictions to what you can tow.
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerodynamic-trail...
Commercial vehicles would need 150+ kw batteries, with huge batteries comes huge weight and long charge times. Having said that TSLA is probably best positioned to do well and solve these trade-offs.
edit - for using AWD instead of dual motor
Even if Tesla doesn't win the EV war, its legacy will always be getting us into it. Future generations will thank them.
There is no EV war. There are only car companies selling cars.
For GM and Ford, building the vehicle is the easy part. At this point, they all know how to build an electric vehicle.
They definitely need to do a lot more talking. They need to normalize the idea. They need the buyers to believe that it's better. These are commercial vehicles, they need to have a lower cost of operation. And buyers have to believe it. So keep talking (and also build them).
We don't need more talk, we need better prices. Sub 30k crossovers/hatchbacks is what consumers are buying in droves. These markets aren't exactly flush with EVs or even hybrids.
If you want the average person to be buying an EV, the price needs to come down.
It should also be mentioned that loan terms for new vehicles are insane right now which is partially why the average price of new cars is so high - GM is offering 84 month, 0% loans on its trucks - today!
Often in the UK you'll see 10 or more Tesla rapid chargers with 200+kw charging rates at key locations, then for everyone else there are perhaps just two 50kw chargers which are either ice'd or broken or both.
Until people see rapid chargers they can actually use in most supermarket and shopping mall's car parks etc it is going to be a hard-sell. We're getting there slowly with things like Ionity, but it is still a rarity to see decent rapid chargers in convenient & plentiful locations.
Of course, for commercial operators this wont be a concern. but for the average joe who doesn't have off-street parking at home then they need a reliable place to refuel.
They know how to do it.
Just not an EV that's profitable that consumers actually want, or can compete with other EV's at similar price point. Tesla Model 3 being best selling car by revenue means consumers are already sold on the idea.
Do a quick search for 'van upfitter' and see. That's the market they are aiming for. What Tesla offers is completely orthogonal. Given the way that Tesla treats 3rd party repair shops, it's hard to believe that they could possibly make a serious offering in this space.
I think competition is a great thing. There would be no Tesla without the EV1 (at least not as we know Tesla today). Likewise there would be no Volt PHEV without Tesla, no Bolt EV (My own opinion only).
My point is, the market reacts to what is put out there. There is almost no case where you can find a car without parallel from another company. You can certainly find better and worse, cheaper and more expensive, greater or fewer features, etc; but rarely does the market leave the field open for one player to run wild.
Can you elaborate on that? How did the EV1 influence Tesla?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t22D4aUs0iw
https://www.motortrend.com/news/general-motors-ev1/
For example, the EV1 had a heat-pump. Tesla only got around to that with the Model Y.
Limited adoption in EVs and PHEVs has largely been due to limited availability as there weren't any commercial adaptations for vehicles. Toyota and Nissan have been using heat-pumps for a while now though.
Ah, so it's even worse that Tesla didn't implement it earlier.
1) GM chose to put resistive heating in the Spark, Volt, and Bolt.
2) Nissan put a heat-pump in the Leaf.
2) Tesla manages to make the most efficient EVs without using heat-pumps.
So perhaps the choice between a heat-pump or resistive heating goes beyond efficiency? Or maybe in terms of biggest bang for the buck, heat-pumps are low on the list.
Instead of trying to find fault in Tesla for what must surely be the biggest blunder in automotive history and will go down in the annuls of time as the defining moment where Tesla brought utter ruination upon us all, why not consider alternative theories?
Maybe there aren't any commercially available ODM heat-pumps? That would explain why GM didn't use one and why one is absent from the S and Y that are closer to traditional vehicles.
As for the Model 3, it's likely Tesla wanted to minimize space and maximize efficiency by integrating a custom thermal solution and a heat-pump just didn't make sense at the time.
Heat-pumps are more complex than resistive heating and the Model 3's revolutionary SuperBottle integrates all of the vehicles thermal management systems. Perhaps they were playing it safe, or didn't have the time/budget to do a heat-pump. Regardless, the Model Y comes with a heat-pump to feed the Octovalve, the evolution of the SuperBottle.
Not in lower temperatures without a heat-pump, which is when a heat-pump is at its most useful. Look how a heat-pump affects the range of the ID.3. There's worthwhile benefit even at 15 degrees Celsius:
https://i.redd.it/mjcgffzui0c41.png
https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/electric/id/faq/electric-car-te...
> why not consider alternative theories?
There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.
I'm not sure what you're saying. You're disputing the overall efficiency of a Tesla based on the heat-pump performance of a car that has not yet shipped?
> There's no need for theories. The engineering is well understood. The EV1 got there first.
No one is disputing that the EV1 had a heat-pump first or that heat-pumps are more efficient than resistive heaters.
You slighted Tesla for not having a heat-pump as if it were a serious fault. I am stating that the heating system isn't the most critical system in terms of overall vehicle efficiency.
Heat-pumps make the car more efficient. Look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7wxGl7m2sw
Look at this road test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH7V2tU3iFc
The two smallest cars in that test are the 64 kWh Kona and the Model 3 Long Range. The Kona has the smaller battery and worse aerodynamics. The Kona achieves 90% of its claimed WLTP range. The Tesla Model 3 Long Range only achieves 78% of its claimed WLTP range. The difference in those conditions is the heat pump. The Kona has one, the Model 3 doesn't.
> You slighted Tesla
Oh noes. Does Elon know? Please don't tell him.
Your "road test" video proves nothing. Not only is it not a cold weather driving test, but they test the Kia e-Niro and not the Hyundai Kona. The e-Niro and Kona share the same battery and motor but are not the same car.
The heat pump is optional equipment in the e-Niro and the "road test" video doesn't specify equipment configuration and more importantly isn't testing the climate control system.
If you really want an Apples-To-Apples comparison, why don't you find a comparison of a Canadian Kona to a US one since the US version doesn't come with a heat pump?
Heat pumps provide benefit even at 15c as I have shown you. They were at 7c.
> The e-Niro and Kona share the same battery and motor but are not the same car
Same difference. New Soul EV too.
> The heat pump is optional equipment in the e-Niro
It's standard equipment in Europe. All trim levels have it.
> If you really want an Apples-To-Apples comparison
I don't want this boring brand loyalty from you. It's tedious. Remember where this started: the GM EV1 pioneered automotive use of heat pumps. As you say, "no one is disputing that heat pumps are more efficient". Teslas are less efficient without it. Accept it instead of making excuses for it.
You're just looking for any excuse to hate on Tesla. What's the opposite of a fanboi? You're a hatergurl?
I think it’s fair to say there would be no Tesla if so many companies hadn’t colluded with the oil lobby to kill off their own electric car lines.
Wikipedia says it better than I can. The article also has a timeline of commercial production of electric vehicles starting in the 1800’s.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehi...
> In the early 1990s, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the government of California's "clean air agency", began a push for more fuel-efficient, lower-emissions vehicles, with the ultimate goal being a move to zero-emissions vehicles such as electric vehicles.[50][51] In response, automakers developed electric models, including the Chrysler TEVan, Ford Ranger EV pickup truck, GM EV1 and S10 EV pickup, Honda EV Plus hatchback, Nissan lithium-battery Altra EV miniwagon and Toyota RAV4 EV. The automakers were accused of pandering to the wishes of CARB in order to continue to be allowed to sell cars in the lucrative Californian market, while failing to adequately promote their electric vehicles in order to create the impression that the consumers were not interested in the cars, all the while joining oil industry lobbyists in vigorously protesting CARB's mandate.
This is only my own opinion, again.
The section titled "Select historical production vehicles" [0] is interesting.
There were EVs being produced at times before 1996, but they don't really look like anything I would want to drive in traffic. Maybe the Skodas, but nothing besides that.
When it comes to accusing corporations, I think it's fair to judge on outcomes, but also remember that the people who work at corporations have their own opinions and values.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicl...
Modern battery electric vehicles require power electronics and lightweight, robust batteries, with good power and energy.
Take a look at the top speed of the BEVs in that historical list, then look at the form factor. There are some really good youtube videos out there of people driving them, for example Cheese Louise owned by Simone Giertz (of Truckla fame) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXzcIoq2ing
That's really only true when the car is intended to be sold in volume. Many vehicles are introduced as compliance vehicles designed to bring down overall fleet emissions levels.
The Volt and Bolt were both compliance vehicles and when the Bolt exceeded expectations in terms of popularity, GM's response was to eliminate the Volt platform entirely as it was redundant to the purpose of the vehicles.
Also, GM argues that PHEVs were a no longer necessary transition technology for past years and the present is now full BEVs.
The plant wouldn't have been closed if the Volt, which was a compliance car, were necessary. To my original point, the Bolt's popularity removed the need for the Volt as a compliance vehicle and thus made the plant closure feasible.
> Also, GM argues
That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
(The Gen 1 Volt was a hatchback intended to push the Hamtramck sedan plant away from being entirely sedans. A huge mistake with the Gen 2 was sedan-ifying it to cut costs at that plant rather than moving it to another plant or following the original Gen 1 plan to move Hamtramck to mixing in more "light cross-overs".)
> That's never a good argument, GM Marketing is never going to issue a statement that contradicts it's actions.
Who said anything about GM Marketing? I'm talking about GM Shareholder reports. It's an arm of marketing, sure, but with the activist parasites chumming the GM Shareholder waters, their Shareholder reports have been quite honest.
The success of the Bolt removed any argument for keeping the Volt around.
"GM executives wanted an EV that could generate serious volume. The design should be expressive and distinct without veering into “science project” territory, Norris said."
https://www.autonews.com/article/20160807/OEM03/160809904/gm...
Additionally, if it was only a compliance vehicle it would be sold only in the US. But it was first sold in Korea
"The Bolt is making its commercial debut in Korea, albeit only 400 units initially are being distributed to winners of a lottery draw held among the few thousand applicants who had completed orders. Bolt sales have just begun in the U.S."
https://www.wardsauto.com/technology/bolt-s-lead-designer-de...
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, the "olt" in their name and the Chevy badge are the only things they shared in common between the two vehicles. The Volt was designed in Michigan where as the Bolt was designed in Korea.
The Volt is a radically different platform with a completely different drive train, different battery chemistry and BMS, and different cooling solution.
> Bolt was intended to be mass volume, not a compliance vehicle.
Being a mass volume vehicle doesn't preclude it from also being a compliance car. In fact former vice chairman of Global Product Development at GM said it was a compliance car AND Steve Majoros, marketing director for Chevrolet cars, officially acknowledged it's role as a compliance car.
> We can confidently say Bolt EV is not a exclusively “compliance play.”
- https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1103482_bob-lutz-called...
The term "not a exclusively" is official acknowledgement that it serves the role of a compliance car.
By your logic, ANY electric vehicle GM produced would have been a compliance car...because...any electric vehicle would also have met that requirement.
Spark EV was manufacture for compliance. Bolt...no.
Tesla was only possible because Lithium Ion battery technology came along and supplanted NiMH. They also weren't motivated by government regulation so much as the desire of the founders to make it work.
In 5 years I would be willing to bet GM goes the way of every other company who killed newer technology in order to extend the market for their incumbent products.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_au...
I was only trying to talk about the marketplace, perhaps I should have used more generic terms.
As for the regulatory stuff, it is fair to judge a corporation by outcomes, just remember the employees have their own opinions and viewpoint.
As for what happens in 5 years, we'll see. If gas stays super cheap (it won't) and regulations are removed (they won't be) and EVs stop being more fun than ICE (they won't), then maybe GM will go back to ICE only.
Feel free to be skeptical, but I think a lot of people at GM are excited about EVs.
All of the above is my own opinion only.
--- Below is a statement from my company:
"As General Motors continues to drive toward an all-electric future, we’re also ensuring that the charging infrastructure can keep up. To that end, we recently announced a collaboration with EVgo, ChargePoint and Greenlots to establish the largest collective EV-charging network in the United States with access to more than 31,000 charging ports."
https://www.gm.com/our-stories/technology/gm-technology-pave...
To this day GM continues to announce electric products which they delay or cancel before they come to market (ie: Cadillac Lyriq) and it seems the only reason they have the Bolt at all is to avoid having to buy regulatory credits from Tesla. They also seem to miss the point of why Tesla is successful. Most of the people that buy Tesla's don't do so because they care about the environment. They do it because it is a really great car, that just happens to be electric.
Hell even if they just took the original FWD ICE platform adding a skateboard full of batteries with RWD electric, cover the roof with solar panels, it'd make an interesting plug-in electric hybrid.
Many municipalities buy electric golf cart things for road and part maintenance, electric traffic enforcement trikes, and electric police motorcycles.
I dont see any reason why a GM-Tesla merger makes any sense. But would be happy to hear some.
But this is contingent on Tesla losing its current trajectory. There would be no incentive for Tesla shareholders to do such a merger the way things look today.
GM’s core businesses is threatened by technological change. They might not be around in ten years.
Batteries and self driving cars are a big threat, of course. However, Detroit can probably catch up on those, eventually.
Factory direct sales and service (i.e., “the internet”) are the bigger long term threats, and are ones that GM is contractually forbidden to address. Also, they’ve had 20 years to adapt, and have clearly failed to do so. There’s no reason to expect that to change.
That gives Tesla a sustainable advantage. I’d certainly pay a premium for a car if it meant bypassing the local dealerships’ service counters.
Most of what would be left is the brand (mostly worthless, except stuff like Chevy trucks and Camero), and the engineering / IP. That might let them expand into more body styles more quickly.
They could also take over GMC’s fleet contracts, and the financing divisions loan servicing. Those are pretty lucrative.
Having said that, I doubt it makes sense, or would go well. Union busting and stealing pensions would severely damage the Tesla brand, and I don’t think they could do any of that stuff outside bankruptcy proceedings. If they could, GM would have already done much of it.
Also, trying to integrate a car company with a completely different business model and tons of legacy baggage is probably riskier than continuing down the path Tesla is on.
Is this positive or negative value for Tesla? A lot of a Tesla's value is it's distinctive look as a status symbol, meanwhile Tesla is primarily production constrained in how many they sell. Expanding into more styles lowers the value proposition of buying a tesla, and they probably can't actually produce enough cars to take advantage of the moderately larger market.