Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

121 - 140 of 181 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
I am hoping to find out in about 3 months if GM's corporate intention is to help us earlier adopters by allowing an update path to Ultium. If I find out I will make sure to post here if You all are interested?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,908 Posts
I am hoping to find out in about 3 months if GM's corporate intention is to help us earlier adopters by allowing an update path to Ultium. If I find out I will make sure to post here if You all are interested?
GM's answer would be to trade it in and buy their new EV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wonderbolt

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
I am hoping to find out in about 3 months if GM's corporate intention is to help us earlier adopters by allowing an update path to Ultium. If I find out I will make sure to post here if You all are interested?
Because the Bolt EV's battery pack is a structural component of the car that was designed before the development of Ultium, I do not see how it would be logistically possible. No one else in the industry (no, not even Tesla) offers upgrades of that magnitude for pre-existing vehicles.

Further, this presupposes that there is a problem with the Bolt EV in the first place. Most people on these boards say they are perfectly happy with 200+ miles of range, so the only things that would need to change would be more infrastructure or (for faster charging) the connecting hardware to enable a slightly faster charge rate or a swapping of battery cells that accept faster than a 1 C charging rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
So far Tesla seems to be pushing a lot more software a lot quicker than anyone else. .. almost hard to keep track
This seems like a bit of old news. Tesla released en route battery conditioning tied to the Nav a while ago, but it didn't seem to make an appreciable difference in charging times.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,603 Posts
I am hoping to find out in about 3 months if GM's corporate intention is to help us earlier adopters by allowing an update path to Ultium. If I find out I will make sure to post here if You all are interested?
You can find out now. The way to update to Ultium is to purchase a new vehicle that has the technology. There's a greater chance of getting struck by lightning than the Bolt having an upgrade path to Ultium.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
This seems like a bit of old news. Tesla released en route battery conditioning tied to the Nav a while ago, but it didn't seem to make an appreciable difference in charging times.

I didn't watch the video but if it's about the update from a few days ago, it allows a manual pre-heat option if you are heading for a 3rd party fast charger that would not be linked to the Tesla Network like the superchargers are. And pre-heating the battery prior to arrival does make a huge difference outside of southern California. I can vouch for that here in Upstate New York.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
Because the Bolt EV's battery pack is a structural component of the car that was designed before the development of Ultium, I do not see how it would be logistically possible. No one else in the industry (no, not even Tesla) offers upgrades of that magnitude for pre-existing vehicles.

Further, this presupposes that there is a problem with the Bolt EV in the first place. Most people on these boards say they are perfectly happy with 200+ miles of range, so the only things that would need to change would be more infrastructure or (for faster charging) the connecting hardware to enable a slightly faster charge rate or a swapping of battery cells that accept faster than a 1 C charging rate.
The Tesla pack is also structural. You alluded on a previous post that it wasn't. That's partially why it's the safest car you can buy.

.

"Tesla’s battery technology is admired for the efficiency of its design - 63% of the weight of the pack consists of energy-storing cells. However, the battery pack in a Tesla isn’t just a container for batteries. It’s also a structural part of the vehicle that contributes to handling and crash resistance. "

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
I didn't watch the video but if it's about the update from a few days ago, it allows a manual pre-heat option if you are heading for a 3rd party fast charger that would not be linked to the Tesla Network like the superchargers are. And pre-heating the battery prior to arrival does make a huge difference outside of southern California. I can vouch for that here in Upstate New York.
3rd party fast chargers? So it's really only of use in Europe, but still, that's important. My point was, this isn't a new feature; Tesla appears to simply be expanding it. I'm sure we'll see a video from Bjorn testing it soon, though I doubt it's cold enough in Norway to matter right now (100 F above the Artic Circle... strap in boys...).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
The Tesla pack is also structural. You alluded on a previous post that it wasn't. That's partially why it's the safest car you can buy.

.

"Tesla’s battery technology is admired for the efficiency of its design - 63% of the weight of the pack consists of energy-storing cells. However, the battery pack in a Tesla isn’t just a container for batteries. It’s also a structural part of the vehicle that contributes to handling and crash resistance. "

I was referencing a Sandy Munro interview on Autoline where he claims that the Model 3 didn't require the battery pack as a structural component. And what I stated specifically was that the Model 3's pack contained fewer structural components and mass than Bolt EV's pack (especially relative to pack energy), which is important to note when comparing pack energy densities. Of course, an argument could be made that the cylindrical cell casing is additional structural mass, but that also contradicts Munro's assertion that cylindrical-cell battery packs are natively more energy dense than pouch-cell battery packs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,826 Posts
The most important distinction in this endless conversation, which many choose to ignore, is that no legacy auto maker actually cares if they ever have a successful EV...as long as governments allow them to continue selling their very profitable products. They know their customers are hooked, and will continue to pay for their fix. They delude themselves into thinking they will be able to jump in at the last moment, if/when governments can no longer ignore reality. Given governments' response to COVID-19, I think they are safe.

The only thing that could change the calculus, is if a company which actually needs EVs to succeed delivers an EV which makes switching a no-brainer. A long range, long life battery EV, at ICE competitive pricing would do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
3rd party fast chargers? So it's really only of use in Europe, but still, that's important. My point was, this isn't a new feature; Tesla appears to simply be expanding it. I'm sure we'll see a video from Bjorn testing it soon, though I doubt it's cold enough in Norway to matter right now (100 F above the Artic Circle... strap in boys...).
They sell a Chademo adapter for use here in NA too.


What's new is that previously, the car controlled preconditioning the battery automatically, only when the built in trip planner showed an upcoming scheduled supercharger stop. I have a frequent trip as I described below that is maybe 350 miles round trip. Depending on the time of year, I stop either in Liverpool if cold and like this past weekend, Utica. Neither stop is scheduled as I don't need to load it into the nav. So to have the car precondition in Liverpool (cold weather stop) I would have to touch the charger on the screen and make it a destination. No big deal but it becomes more convenient if I'm stopping at a level 2 in the cold. Rare but can happen locally. I have no interest is ever buying the Chademo or a CCS adapter if they come out so it's not as big of a deal for me but for Canadians it probably helps significantly.


Interestingly, I visited the folks on Fathers Day and stopped at a new "self service" rest stop adjacent to the Mohawk River. It was well done and themed in honor of the Erie Canal and it's importance to western migration, etc.
What caught my eye though was 3 fast chargers so I took a few photos. But what surprised me the most, is they all are Chademo, no CCS that I can see. Not functional yet however.

I'll post these over on the NYS fast charging thread too. IMG_0688.JPG IMG_0689.JPG IMG_0696.JPG IMG_0700.JPG IMG_0706.JPG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
The most important distinction in this endless conversation, which many choose to ignore, is that no legacy auto maker actually cares if they ever have a successful EV...as long as governments allow them to continue selling their very profitable products. They know their customers are hooked, and will continue to pay for their fix. They delude themselves into thinking they will be able to jump in at the last moment, if/when governments can no longer ignore reality. Given governments' response to COVID-19, I think they are safe.

The only thing that could change the calculus, is if a company which actually needs EVs to succeed delivers an EV which makes switching a no-brainer. A long range, long life battery EV, at ICE competitive pricing would do it.
I think the bigger issue is that most automakers are already making a much larger profit with much less effort by selling ICE vehicles. GM has clearly seen the writing on the wall, though, which is why they are transitioning in the way that they are. As slow as their transition might seem, they are far outpacing most other automakers, and the only thing that is likely to speed it up is a reduction or cessation of government fossil-fuel subsidies.

The biggest concern I have for GM is their lack of battery production capacity because that is really the best gauge for determining EV production capacity. If we assume that for the next 5 years, the average new EV battery capacity is 75 kWh (a reasonable number based on what we know), the GM-LG Lordstown Plant will only be capable of supporting about 400,000 EVs a year. With a two-year lead time to get these plants up and running at full capacity, I really think GM needs to start working on a second and third plant now (or at least before the Lordstown Plant even opens).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
They sell a Chademo adapter for use here in NA too.


What's new is that previously, the car controlled preconditioning the battery automatically, only when the built in trip planner showed an upcoming scheduled supercharger stop. I have a frequent trip as I described below that is maybe 350 miles round trip. Depending on the time of year, I stop either in Liverpool if cold and like this past weekend, Utica. Neither stop is scheduled as I don't need to load it into the nav. So to have the car precondition in Liverpool (cold weather stop) I would have to touch the charger on the screen and make it a destination. No big deal but it becomes more convenient if I'm stopping at a level 2 in the cold. Rare but can happen locally. I have no interest is ever buying the Chademo or a CCS adapter if they come out so it's not as big of a deal for me but for Canadians it probably helps significantly.


Interestingly, I visited the folks on Fathers Day and stopped at a new "self service" rest stop adjacent to the Mohawk River. It was well done and themed in honor of the Erie Canal and it's importance to western migration, etc.
What caught my eye though was 3 fast chargers so I took a few photos. But what surprised me the most, is they all are Chademo, no CCS that I can see. Not functional yet however.

I'll post these over on the NYS fast charging thread too. View attachment 29687 View attachment 29688 View attachment 29689 View attachment 29690 View attachment 29691
Yes, but that adapter maxes at 50 kW, so preconditioning the battery will be of little benefit. In Europe, however, a number of public chargers are actually faster for Tesla owners than V2 Superchargers, so for them, the benefit is huge.

Yes, there are a number of CHAdeMO only sites still deployed in the United States. Even here in California, there are still a number of EVgo sites with two CHAdeMO plugs and only one CCS plug. It's why I'm not that upset by Electrify America's only installing a single CHAdeMO plug. It all balances out, and in some ways, CHAdeMO owners still have more options.

When automakers such as Ford, GM, Rivian, and Porsche start installing charging stations, they're likely to install single-head, CCS-only chargers. Yes, that leaves out DIY, Nissan, and Tesla owners, but hopefully, Nissan makes the transition to CCS. I'm no longer holding out hope for Tesla in that regard. They are pot-committed to their own standard in North America, though by their actions in Europe, they've proven that they can make a CCS adapter if they want (even for the S/X). I am still baffled by why they haven't made one yet, as the only defensible reason I can think of is they are attempting to preserve the mystique of the Supercharger Network and the negative narrative about the public charging infrastructure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
Yes, but that adapter maxes at 50 kW, so preconditioning the battery will be of little benefit. In Europe, however, a number of public chargers are actually faster for Tesla owners than V2 Superchargers, so for them, the benefit is huge.

Yes, there are a number of CHAdeMO only sites still deployed in the United States. Even here in California, there are still a number of EVgo sites with two CHAdeMO plugs and only one CCS plug. It's why I'm not that upset by Electrify America's only installing a single CHAdeMO plug. It all balances out, and in some ways, CHAdeMO owners still have more options.

When automakers such as Ford, GM, Rivian, and Porsche start installing charging stations, they're likely to install single-head, CCS-only chargers. Yes, that leaves out DIY, Nissan, and Tesla owners, but hopefully, Nissan makes the transition to CCS. I'm no longer holding out hope for Tesla in that regard. They are pot-committed to their own standard in North America, though by their actions in Europe, they've proven that they can make a CCS adapter if they want (even for the S/X). I am still baffled by why they haven't made one yet, as the only defensible reason I can think of is they are attempting to preserve the mystique of the Supercharger Network and the negative narrative about the public charging infrastructure.
There's a number of members here that have posted a "want" to precondition their Bolt that maxes out at that level under ideal conditions, so why would the Tesla battery not benefit as well?

I agree that 50kW is something I would only consider in an emergency which is partly why I would never buy the adapter. But I've read about charging speeds in the cold on Bolts in the 20kW range so doubling the speed or halving the time seems worthwhile especially since it didn't cost me anything to get the feature.
Your mystique theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense since they made the Chademo adapter and I fully expect at some point they probably will make a CCS one as well. You should probably think a little harder and less negative if that's the only conclusion you could come up with.
Maybe they have more important goals on their plate.
Maybe the owners aren't requesting it enough to justify.
Maybe the supercharger network has reached the tipping point of self sufficiency without need of "outside" charging.
Maybe the SAE is dragging their feet on approval.

You have an odd perspective of Tesla's business ideologies and strategies.
The sooner you let your animosity and conspiracy theories of Tesla go, the quicker you can become a more objective contributor to the EV community. There's no evidence that Tesla's motivation is to cripple the adoption of BEV's or isolate themselves from the EV community.
I know you've made the claim before that Tesla is behind the smear campaign to destroy the Bolt and you've been asked to provide the proof repeatedly and I've still not seen it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
There's a number of members here that have posted a "want" to precondition their Bolt that maxes out at that level under ideal conditions, so why would the Tesla battery not benefit as well?
Because Tesla vehicles already run hotter. A majority of Tesla vehicles still ship with induction motors, which are highly inefficient, but Tesla does put that waste heat to good use (i.e., maintaining a higher operating temperature for the battery). The Bolt EV's battery electronics are very stingy, releasing very little waste heat, so most energy used to heat the battery must be drawn from the battery.

I agree that 50kW is something I would only consider in an emergency which is partly why I would never buy the adapter. But I've read about charging speeds in the cold on Bolts in the 20kW range so doubling the speed or halving the time seems worthwhile especially since it didn't cost me anything to get the feature.
Your mystique theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense since they made the Chademo adapter and I fully expect at some point they probably will make a CCS one as well. You should probably think a little harder and less negative if that's the only conclusion you could come up with.
Maybe they have more important goals on their plate.
Maybe the owners aren't requesting it enough to justify.
Maybe the supercharger network has reached the tipping point of self sufficiency without need of "outside" charging.
Maybe the SAE is dragging their feet on approval.
As for the adapter, the CHAdeMO adapter was a necessity early on when the number of CHAdeMO charging sites rivaled (or even exceeded) the number of Supercharger sites in certain regions. Even now, it's a necessity for Tesla owners who use their vehicles for towing. Maintaining that 50 kW restriction on owners seems absurd at this point.

I'm sure Tesla has a lot on their plate, but they took the time to make a CCS adapter for Europe, which is a much smaller market for them than North America. As for owners not requesting it, the very notion of a CCS adapter for North America went viral when news about the European CCS adapter broke, and every Tesla owner I know (yes, I know many) referred to that story as proof that Tesla would be providing them a CCS adapter soon, too. So there's definitely support in the Tesla community. Especially among those who know that the public charging infrastructure would provide speeds faster than V2 Superchargers.

The rest of your potential reasons simply don't make sense, other than the premise of "self sufficiency," which is really just a repackaging of my assertion that Tesla is maintaining the mystique of the Supercharger Network. It's clear from holiday backlogs, inadequate coverage for vehicles that are towing, and extreme compromises for SR/SR+ owners that that simply isn't true at this point.

And as for SAE dragging their feet... what does that even mean? The standard is published and open. In fact, it appears that the Model 3 (and by extension, the Model Y) ship from factory CCS-compatible. It's only the Model S/X that require hardware to be installed under the rear seat to translate the CCS protocol (part of the CCS adapter package purchased in Europe). Basically, a Model 3/Y might only be a physical adapter socket away from plugging into an Electrify America charger and charging at 180 kW. A friend (Tesla owner) contacted Tesla inquiring about it, and they told him that they would void his warranty if he attempted it.

You have an odd perspective of Tesla's business ideologies and strategies.
The sooner you let your animosity and conspiracy theories of Tesla go, the quicker you can become a more objective contributor to the EV community. There's no evidence that Tesla's motivation is to cripple the adoption of BEV's or isolate themselves from the EV community.
I know you've made the claim before that Tesla is behind the smear campaign to destroy the Bolt and you've been asked to provide the proof repeatedly and I've still not seen it.
Finally, in terms of the smear campaign, it's not just against the Bolt EV. It's against any and all competing EVs. While you claim Tesla can disavow any responsibility and that "journalists" who own TSLA shares and receive Tesla referral bonuses are unbiased, the fact is, all of those "news" outlets predominantly publish negative stories about non-Tesla EVs. It's not even close. Whether you're looking at Electrek, Evannex, Now You Know, Teslarati, or those EV media writers who are more subtlety funded and supported by Tesla, a majority of their stories paint non-Tesla EVs in a negative light.

Now, many (maybe most?) Tesla proponents simply dismiss that bias as, "Well, yeah. It's because those EVs suck! I would NEVER recommend them to someone in the market for an EV." However, that's not actually the truth. It's why independent automotive journalists tend to be a lot less negative about non-Tesla EVs and a lot less positive about Tesla EVs (i.e., being willing to call out design flaws and issues). If you think the money those Tesla-friendly media outlets are receiving from Tesla isn't influencing the the stories they publish, I don't know what to tell you. It's pretty obvious from where I'm sitting.
 
121 - 140 of 181 Posts
Top