Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 177 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For those of you that want GM to support a Nationwide Fast Charging Network;

What would you pay to have a Dual-Plug DCFS/Tesla FC charging for your Bolt?

When you open your Bolts charge door, it would look something like this:



You would be able to use Level2, or DCFS, or pull into any Tesla Super Charging station and plug right in (Max 80Kw). Probably not so much about the max rate that would be important, but the access to the expansive charging network.

Was chatting with a colleague in Singapore about the I-Pace, and he has a Tesla S on order in China that he says will have a dual connector charge port. I had never heard of such a thing. Then we discussed how much it cost Tesla - per car sold - to build out it's charging network. I have a good guestimation of this cost that I will share later. If other EV manufacturers, or more importantly, Governments like China forced a common charging standard, then a company like GM could offer a Tesla charge port option. Of course this upgrade cost would be 'contributed' directly to Tesla to support their expansion.

Tesla "claims" it's open to Charging network partnerships, GM "claims" it wants to partner with charging networks. The real question may be if Bolt owners and those who are considering a Bolt, who "claim" lack of access to a nationwide fast charging network is a liability...are they (you) willing to pony up the extra $$$ it actually cost to participate in such a network?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,343 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,343 Posts
Then why doesn't Tesla do this?
[rhetorical question warning :laugh: ]
Because he knows the value of having the only car that has decent charging infrastructure. In five years, if Tesla is still in business, and selling millions of cars, he will gladly charge GM royalties to to use his system, and they will be desperate to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Hummm..

So in 2015, are you suggesting that Elon Musk is a bald faced Liar when he sad: "[Tesla's Supercharging Network is] intended to be available to other manufacturers if they’d like to use it." ?

Help me to understand, Musk is willing to risk insolvency of Tesla because the Supercharging Network has value, and this value is so great, that no amount of competitor investment in it would be acceptable?

"To achieve similar coverage to gas stations, Tesla would need to add an additional 30,160 Superchargers. At a cost of about $250k per station, this implies costs of ~$7.5bn for the US alone." Tesla currently has about 3,200 Superchargers at 400+ locations across the U.S., Canada and Mexico. This at a cost of over $1bn. Tesla has a stated goal of 15,000 total Supercharger stations by the end of this year.

Tesla doesn't have enough cash on hand to fix its TM3 production woes, where is all this capital going to come from for the Supercharging expansion? I think Musk is one of the most brilliant business minds of our time. And it would seem childishly counter-productive of him not to share the cost burden of something so important to the EV industry in general, and Tesla in particular.

All boats rise with the tide.

25,000 customers purchased GM Bolts with NO fast charging network in sight...most paid the additional $750 for a DCFC option. Thus an extensive fast charging network is important for sales, but obviously not that important. Yet Musk doesn't see this, and is willing to run Tesla into the ground because he wants his cake and wants to eat it too?

Lastly, why did Tesla re-engineer its S/X models with dual plugs to comply with Chinese GB standards, if all that was needed was a cheap $450 dongle?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
So in 2015, are you suggesting that Elon Musk is a bald faced Liar when he sad: "[Tesla's Supercharging Network is] intended to be available to other manufacturers if they’d like to use it." ?
There are a few possibilities there.
1: Yes. It's possible he lied. He is a businessman after all. ;-) Or maybe, stretched the truth. ;-)
2: He meant it at the time, but times/variables change.
3: He meant it and is still willing.

My money would be on #1 personally, and I don't mean that as a negative to Mr Musk in any way.
But I suppose option 2 is likely as well..

I don't think option 3 is likely, but who knows. I'm wrong lots, so I wouldn't listen to me. ;-)

desiv
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,343 Posts
OK. Here is a question for computer experts. According to this site

https://greentransportation.info/ev-charging/range-confidence/chap8-tech/ev-dc-fast-charging-standards-chademo-ccs-sae-combo-tesla-supercharger-etc.html

CHAdeMO, Tesla, and GB/T (China) use CAN, while CCS uses a PLC, which is not a language, but a device which the SAE International probably set up to use some other language to screw with the competition.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Canbus-and-a-PLC

If so, it appears that an adapter would need a circuit to translate communications with the PLC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_converter
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
OP, my most important regional SC is at the edge of winter range for my current EV. Ergo, I would pay somewhere south of $1000 to get that privilege.

For the next electric vehicle, chances are excellent the battery will be even bigger, so fast chargers would be even more important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Hummm..

So in 2015, are you suggesting that Elon Musk is a bald faced Liar when he sad: "[Tesla's Supercharging Network is] intended to be available to other manufacturers if they’d like to use it." ?
Musk a bald-faced liar?

Never!

He’s much better at it than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
If so, it appears that an adapter would need a circuit to translate communications with the PLC?
Worked with control systems using PLC's. Basically a ladder logic. Typically used TCP/IP communications between PLC's. But nothing would prevent using CAN bus modules to "talk" to the PLC. Nothing that money wouldn't fix. Hardware is the easy part. It's the programming that gets tricky. Not to mention timing and other issues. I'd think someone with an Arduino could do the whole thing.

Edit: Sorry, the acronym as it relates to CCS, for PLC is for Power Line Control. Not Programmable Logic Controller. Disregard my PLC comments as they don't relate. Arduino still can be custom made to use Power Line Control communication and with the CAN protocol. Would be a fun box to build. Licensing would still be the sticky wicket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
You guys have got this backward; it's not Tesla that's blocking SC usage, it's GM.

First off, it's my understanding that when you plug your Tesla into an SC, the servers at Tesla HQ communicate with the car verifying the VIN number, it's eligibility to use the network, and probably some other parameters. Once this information is confirmed, the network turns on the SC and the car starts to charge. This is how Tesla handles the cars that don't have unlimited SC usage and let's them bill for power. There is no way that GM is going to hand VIN numbers and contact information on their customers to a competitor in exchange for SC access. I expect that GM considers this list internal marketing data.

Secondly, there is no way that GM is going to hand money to a competitor to expand the asset that sets the two apart. I wouldn't suggest giving money to a competitor to improve their financial stability and get nothing concrete back. If GM cared enough about the charging ability of their customers, they would build their own network and charge for its usage. Or, alternately, they would do what Tesla does and add cost into the base price of the car to cover future charging costs. However, that would increase the cost of the car and likely slow sales.

Maybe, when there is more completion in the EV market, Tesla will start to sell access to their network directly to non-Telsa owners to try and make money off the infrastructure, but for now, it's too valuable as a marketing tool and a way to distinguish them from the competition. Why make it easier for someone to buy a BoltEV and use the SC network when you can do nothing and force them to choose between the two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,343 Posts
.

Edit: Sorry, the acronym as it relates to CCS, for PLC is for Power Line Control. Not Programmable Logic Controller. Disregard my PLC comments as they don't relate. Arduino still can be custom made to use Power Line Control communication and with the CAN protocol. Would be a fun box to build. Licensing would still be the sticky wicket.
No apology necessary. Thanks for the info. OK. Now we need somebody to build this adapter, and somebody with a Model 3 to let us copy the data stream between their car and the Supercharger. Then, when it works, we shame Musk on Twitter until he sells us access. This is how you get things done in the age of social media. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
I know that I would happily pay $0.75/kWh to use the supercharger network, as needed. Why? Because if I were fine with the idea of paying that much, then I really needed the charge and would be happy to be able to get it.

If Musk were serious about wanting electric vehicles to proliferate, he would make it possible for everyone to use the supercharger network - not for free, but for a price (an expensive price). It is obvious that a CHAdeMO adaptor is pretty easily done (since they sell one already, albeit in the other direction). For CCS charging, it would probably be necessary to modify actual chargers, adding software (and plugs) to comply with CCS. Maybe just one or two station per "universal" supercharger site (they work in pairs, right)? Heck, the new software could even be programmed to give priority to Teslas (on each pair of chargers, max charge rate for the Tesla with the remaining trickle available for the CCS/CHAdeMO).

Heck, he could even sell it as "getting other people paying for your supercharger network" (since said charging would be at a much, much higher rate than Tesla customers pay).

Instead, he keeps the network closed - when it could easily be opened (for a price). Instead, it is just a marketing spiel "gee, I'll open it if other vendors pay me". Both CCS and CHAdeMO are international standards, not owned by anyone. The Tesla supercharger spec is corporate intellectual property.

The whole "I'll open superchargers if vendors pay me" is pure marketing BS (i.e., bald-faced lie).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,343 Posts
Is the Bolt capable of using an 80kW charging rate?
From a European forum:

torer2
Jr. member
**
Posts: 16
Vis profil

Charging of Ampera-e / Bolt
« Reply # 206 on: Sunday, 13 August 2017, at 23:13»
Quote from: zbk on Friday, 11 August 2017, at 23:25
Seems that AR charger at Vestby is open for a period. Anyone who has the opportunity to test with Ampera-e to see what's the maximum on a 100kW charger?
Swept me a walk past tonight to test.
The charger showed the following values:
7% SOC 52.6kW
11% SOC 53.7kW
21% SOC 53.8kW
33% SOC 54.6kW
44% SOC 55.2kW
49% SOC 55.5kW

The circulation pump for BMS started quite early, after which also the A / C compressor and fan started to run. Then it went between 3-4kW for it.

It adjusted the charge in what it reached 50% SOC, and it was a little strange that it then went down to the same level as I previously experienced at 57% SOC, about 37kW. It may seem that the temperature in the battery might be the limitation. By quitting the charge and leaving the battery "rest" slightly, I gained "full" speed again for a while when I reconnected.

Without the opportunity to see the charging voltage, I assume that the maximum current the car accepts is 150A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,766 Posts
Is the Bolt capable of using an 80kW charging rate?
I think that the max pull of the Bolt is 150A (on the DCFC). We will find out when somebody charges at the new EVgo charging lot in Baker , CA and posts results here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
You guys have got this backward; it's not Tesla that's blocking SC usage, it's GM.
GM isn't doing anything to help it, but they aren't blocking it.

There is no way that GM is going to hand VIN numbers and contact information on their customers to a competitor in exchange for SC access. I expect that GM considers this list internal marketing data.
GM doesn't have to do any of that.
Tesla could set it up so that Bolt owners register and give Tesla the information. No GM needed.

Secondly, there is no way that GM is going to hand money to a competitor to expand the asset that sets the two apart.
GM doesn't want to host a charging network; it's not their core business.
And if there was a way for Bolts to charge at Superchargers, then it would be even less of a differentiator.
With that reasoning, its more important for Tesla not to allow any competitors access to their network, not the other way around. ;-)

GM isn't going to help it happen, but they would do nothing to block it from happening.
If Tesla made an adapter and offered owners to sign up, GM couldn't stop it. With the adapter, it would appear to the Bolt just like any other CCS charger.

I don't see GM jumping on the bandwagon as I honestly think they don't see the need (right or wrong), but they are doing nothing to block it.

desiv
 
1 - 20 of 177 Posts
Top