Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner
1 - 20 of 86 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
On the negative side, us normal Bolt owners can't use these Maven EVgo stations. Pretty mixed bag IMO. I guess it's a very slight net positive.


(thinking out loud here)
$1,000/Month+ to rent a Bolt.
A 2017 survey by RideShareGuy blog found that drivers earned an average of $15.68 and $17.50 per hour at Uber and Lyft, respectively. But these are gross earnings, and it’s unclear what a driver’s real profits would be after expenses are factored in.
Expenses are the vehicle and associated cost, which is what Maven purports to solve. Using Lyft driver revenue, and assuming a single fixed cost with Maven (Free charging for the moment) of $300/week...a Lyft driver working 40 hours/week would need to work about 18 hours a week to pay the Maven expense. The remaining 23 hours would net them $402. Or about $20,000/year pre-tax.

U.S. Minimum wage is $7.25 average computes to $14,500/year pre-tax.

This could work as an additional income stream for a motivated individual, especially if they already have a main day-gig.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Nice way for GM to crap on their Bolt customers, I will remember that when I buy my next car.
I don't see it as crapping on their customers. Not optimal, sure, but it's better than sitting with their thumbs up their butt doing nothing, like Ford or FCA, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,430 Posts
Would think EVgo could use profit to further network for general use. Not to mention lowering hardware costs from volume installs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,013 Posts
(thinking out loud here)
$1,000/Month+ to rent a Bolt.

Expenses are the vehicle and associated cost, which is what Maven purports to solve. Using Lyft driver revenue, and assuming a single fixed cost with Maven (Free charging for the moment) of $300/week...a Lyft driver working 40 hours/week would need to work about 18 hours a week to pay the Maven expense. The remaining 23 hours would net them $402. Or about $20,000/year pre-tax.

U.S. Minimum wage is $7.25 average computes to $14,500/year pre-tax.

This could work as an additional income stream for a motivated individual, especially if they already have a main day-gig.
Always appreciate your numbers approach to things to keep things in perspective.

Most leases include mileage limits, but if this service had no limits and free charging, it might make sense for full-time Uber/Lift drivers. My friend drives for Uber and Lift and averages about 200 miles per day. Depreciation is his biggest expense by far, but fuel is another. I wonder what those 2 expenses combined amount to in a typical month? At least with privately owned vehicles, the monthly payment builds equity in the vehicle so that there is residual value when it is paid off. There is no residual value in leasing a vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
So I actually signed up for Maven way back in September, a full 5 months before I ended up buying my Bolt, for the express purpose of being able to "rent" a Bolt so I could get a very extended several hours long test drive. As soon as I signed up I found two problems:


  • The closest Maven location was 15 miles away from me, with most of them being well over 20 miles away. I live in Los Angeles which is one of the original Maven markets too but there weren't many locations and none of them were remotely convenient.
  • Even if I was willing to drive 20-25 miles away (easily an hour even with light (by L..A. Standards) traffic) to get into a Bolt there simply weren't any available in the system. I could get a Volt (lots of them) or an ICE vehicle but could not find the one car I was looking for even if I was willing to look a month in the future. I tried this multiple times over at least a 2 month period too and not once could I find a Bolt available within 50 miles of me.

Needless to say the whole Maven experience was beyond disappointing. I did still end up buying a Bolt in February, and I'm happy with it so far but yeah Maven was useless.

Also, the Maven app is pretty crappy, of course now that I've experienced the steaming pile of excrement that is the My Chevrolet app the Maven app is looking pretty decent.

Now they want to expend precious resources building L3 chargers that seemingly won't even ever be used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,510 Posts
Wishful thinking: GM eventually sees the futility of locking these EVSEs to the Maven service exclusively... And opens them up to be Bolt-only. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
This just adds insult to injury. GM must be the most tone deaf car company in the world. They must be in a contest with United Airlines to see to alienate their customers the most.
Really? The first mainstream automotive company to develop, produce, and sell a 238-mile EV at a sub $40,000 price is tone deaf? Does it make sense that people who will be Maven participants will not have L2 charging infrastructure installed at their home, so giving them priority at a public charging station supports the business case for car sharing where the cost of using the transportation device includes maintenance and fuel?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Really? The first mainstream automotive company to develop, produce, and sell a 238-mile EV at a sub $40,000 price is tone deaf? Does it make sense that people who will be Maven participants will not have L2 charging infrastructure installed at their home, so giving them priority at a public charging station supports the business case for car sharing where the cost of using the transportation device includes maintenance and fuel?
Very tone deaf indeed. The specs for the car aren't germane to this discussion. As person that actually bought a car, I expect to be treated at least equally to a person who is leasing. I have much more "skin in the game". GM is telling us, clearly and loudly, we are second class customers. I've bought several new GM vehicles in resent years. I was actually thinking of get a Volt this summer for a trip car. At this point, that doesn't look likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
I don't quite get the animus towards GM here - nor am I arguing GM is on the ball. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Maven is GM's version of Zipcar. They have reserved parking spots so that renters can retrieve or return cars easily. For locations with plug-ins, it makes sense for GM to place L3 chargers there so that customers can pickup a car with a decent state of charge. While I'd love the EV infrastructure to be better, I also kinda hope it will be manufacturer agnostic in the same way I'm glad there are no GM gas stations (or Tesla only + Nissan only + VW only, etc). I'm not sure what GM may or may not be doing behind the scenes, but it sure seems they could be doing more to promote the use of their products.

Obviously, at the end of the day I'd rather have a 240 mile Bolt without a charging tie-in than a 110 mile Leaf with one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Very tone deaf indeed. The specs for the car aren't germane to this discussion. As person that actually bought a car, I expect to be treated at least equally to a person who is leasing. I have much more "skin in the game". GM is telling us, clearly and loudly, we are second class customers. I've bought several new GM vehicles in resent years. I was actually thinking of get a Volt this summer for a trip car. At this point, that doesn't look likely.
It is apparent you emotionally bruise quite easily. You are the one arguing the specs of the car are exactly germane to the discussion. If the Maven company was renting only gasoline cars to it's customers you'd not even have an issue, because the gasoline car could be recharged at any gas station in the USA. Maven isn't a leasing company, it is a transportation device rental company, which supplies the fuel as part of the rental price, so it must have some type of priority electrical recharge point to support the model of providing the electric fuel as part of the Bolt rental price. It is a completely different business model than either purchasing or leasing a Bolt. You are making a false comparison and getting upset about it. You are now not going to buy a Chevy Volt because you are ignorant in the understanding of the business case for the Maven transportation company. Put your money where your insulted mouth is and go sell your recently purchased Bolt (and take the huge depreciation hit) and buy a different EV. In fact go buy a Tesla Model S, X, or 3 so you can have a company-owned priority charging system all to yourself.

Sorry, but your bashing of GM is unwarranted in this case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
I installed a Level 2 charger at home, and literally nobody else in the world can use it. Chevy also sells them, so that customers can charge exclusively in their garages. Maven-only chargers are the same thing, just owned by a company not a person.

Also because of my Level 2 charger at home, I'm not worried about finding power at those types of locations anyway. My concern will be finding DCFCs along the I5 or US 101 corridors on longer treks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,024 Posts
I don't quite get the animus towards GM here...
I agree. This is basically part of their Maven infrastructure, and it essentially has nothing to do with public charging. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that the chargers they're installing are designed with a potential capability to automatically plug into the autonomous cars that GM is planning to deploy with their ridesharing service.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,385 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I don't quite get the animus towards GM here...
I agree. This is basically part of their Maven infrastructure, and it essentially has nothing to do with public charging. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that the chargers they're installing are designed with a potential capability to automatically plug into the autonomous cars that GM is planning to deploy with their ridesharing service.
I bet they will be CCS only too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
Wishful thinking: GM eventually sees the futility of locking these EVSEs to the Maven service exclusively... And opens them up to be Bolt-only.;
Still the wrong approach. The Maven folks need exclusive parking and priority charging. But exclusive charging really should not be needed. CCS can do both automatic authentication and dynamic power sharing. So putting Maven folks in a walled garden, and sharing the power, with Maven folks getting as much as they can take, would accomplish the same thing and leave room for public charging too.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
I installed a Level 2 charger at home, and literally nobody else in the world can use it. Chevy also sells them, so that customers can charge exclusively in their garages. Maven-only chargers are the same thing, just owned by a company not a person.

Also because of my Level 2 charger at home, I'm not worried about finding power at those types of locations anyway. My concern will be finding DCFCs along the I5 or US 101 corridors on longer treks.
Here's the problem: everyone isn't you. Neither technically, or emotionally. Technically, there are folks who simply do not have the ability to put in a charging station at their home or work. The Bolt can actually fill this niche pretty well as long as there is public DCFC charging available.

Then there's the emotional frustration that others have expressed. GM has been explicit that they have no plans to deploy a charging network while selling electric vehicles. Then as part of a complementary transportation service GM deploys a charging infrastructure and then locks their own customers completely out of it. It really doesn't matter why they are doing it. What's important is that a large swath of Bolt owners are going to be really ticked off when they see Bolts charging somewhere convenient and there's no opportunity to use that infrastructure. Or even worse, the infrastructure in place and no cars there charging at all.

GM had a chance to promote their EV program, open another profit center, engender owner loyalty and do it all without impacting Maven at all.

Not smart at all.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
Here's the problem: everyone isn't you. Neither technically, or emotionally. Technically, there are folks who simply do not have the ability to put in a charging station at their home or work. The Bolt can actually fill this niche pretty well as long as there is public DCFC charging available.

Then there's the emotional frustration that others have expressed. GM has been explicit that they have no plans to deploy a charging network while selling electric vehicles. Then as part of a complementary transportation service GM deploys a charging infrastructure and then locks their own customers completely out of it. It really doesn't matter why they are doing it. What's important is that a large swath of Bolt owners are going to be really ticked off when they see Bolts charging somewhere convenient and there's no opportunity to use that infrastructure. Or even worse, the infrastructure in place and no cars there charging at all.

GM had a chance to promote their EV program, open another profit center, engender owner loyalty and do it all without impacting Maven at all.

Not smart at all.

ga2500ev
My counter to this is then if there are people who want to own an EV but who do not have the ability to have a charging station at their home or work, then perhaps they should not consider an EV as a vehicle choice. The arguments one can read all over the internet as advocating to convert from ICE to EV is the convenience of charging at home. I've been in countless discussions with EV advocates that claim one of the deciding factors is not having to go to the dirty gas station and spend the 20 minutes (their exaggeration) it takes to refuel an ICE. I fill up my ICE at least 3 times a week and it takes 6 minutes per refuel (I've timed it - and that's with me logging the fuel quantity, cost, and mileage). DCFC at best takes 30 minutes to gain 90 miles of range (per ChargePoint.com), I'd say that is hardly an acceptable (only available) working refueling methodology for 95% of vehicle owners. 30 minutes is assuming one can just pull up to a DCFC station and plug in. If one has to wait 15 - 30 minutes to just plug in and then wait another 30 minutes to get just 90 miles of additional range, and DCFC was their ONLY refueling option, they's be giving back their Bolt right quick. The entire premise of EV ownership is that of full-charging the vehicle while it is not needed for transportation, either at home, work, or some dedicated private charging station. If Maven had to share its DCFC infrastructure with road-tripping Bolt owners at the inconvenience of the Maven customer (i.e. they have to wait to charge their Bolt), then the business case to operate a company such as Maven would soon fall apart.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,149 Posts
My counter to this is then if there are people who want to own an EV but who do not have the ability to have a charging station at their home or work, then perhaps they should not consider an EV as a vehicle choice.
It's going to be difficult to get EV adoption off the early adopter end of the S-curve without consideration for those who do not have complete control over their living and work environments. While of course it may not be a good decision at this point in time for some folks in this situation, it is an issue that needs to be addressed in the longer term.

The combination of longer range EVs and DCFC charging opens up the possibility of functioning in this scenario. The fact is that it comes as close to the gas station model as you will get, where someone does not refill where they park, and refill quickly at some non-home, non-work centralized place.

But simply hand waving such drivers off as being non feasible will only hamper a more widespread, mainstream adoption of EVs.

The arguments one can read all over the internet as advocating to convert from ICE to EV is the convenience of charging at home. I've been in countless discussions with EV advocates that claim one of the deciding factors is not having to go to the dirty gas station and spend the 20 minutes (their exaggeration) it takes to refuel an ICE. I fill up my ICE at least 3 times a week and it takes 6 minutes per refuel (I've timed it - and that's with me logging the fuel quantity, cost, and mileage).
DCFC at best takes 30 minutes to gain 90 miles of range (per ChargePoint.com), I'd say that is hardly an acceptable (only available) working refueling methodology for 95% of vehicle owners. 30 minutes is assuming one can just pull up to a DCFC station and plug in. If one has to wait 15 - 30 minutes to just plug in and then wait another 30 minutes to get just 90 miles of additional range, and DCFC was their ONLY refueling option, they's be giving back their Bolt right quick.
It is certainly one of the reasons. And it is best to simply charge where the car is going to be parked anyway. However, it's important to realize that it isn't the singular circumstance for all potential adopters.

As for the time, it really isn't necessarily as important in normal use if the activity is coupled with something the driver was going to do anyway. While home and work are clearly the #1 and #2 parking situations, people do shop, or go to movies, or make other visits. If it's possible to charge while doing those, then the time isn't as crucial an impact. But accessibility is the crucial impact.

As some of you know I considered buying a Bolt, but settled on a 2014 Fiat 500e. It's the classic definition of a low range, slow charging EV. And yes, The vast majority of my charging is done at home. However, last weekend I needed to take a run to get some parts. While I probably could have made it out and back in a single charge, it just so happened there was a charging station 2 blocks from my destination. So I parked, put the car on charge, and walked the two blocks to shop, and the two blocks back. In the 40 minutes I was gone, I recovered most of the charge that I used to drive up, and got back with no worries.

The points are that was possible only because of the accessibility of the charger. And that the time wasn't as crucial because the charging occured as a byproduct of another activity, not specifically for the act of charging.

The other issues you raise do need to be addressed. One in particular is realizing that in virtually every circumstance, that charging and parking need to be coupled together. Future charging stations need to be set up with more parking than the number of active charging cars, sufficient "hoses" so that all the cars that are parked have access to power, and enough intelligence to schedule the distribution of power so that each car/driver's needs are met. If you and I pull up to two slots served by the same charger and you are going to be there for 20 minutes but I'm going to be there for 2 hours, then the charger should give you all the power you can handle for the 20 minutes you are going to be parked. Also I shouldn't have to move my vehicle for the 2 hours I plan to be there. In short we need to rethink the model from "a charging spot that I need to move from." to "a parking spot where I can recharge."

The entire premise of EV ownership is that of full-charging the vehicle while it is not needed for transportation, either at home, work, or some dedicated private charging station. If Maven had to share its DCFC infrastructure with road-tripping Bolt owners at the inconvenience of the Maven customer (i.e. they have to wait to charge their Bolt), then the business case to operate a company such as Maven would soon fall apart.
It's not the entire premise of EV ownership, though a significant one. As advocates we have to understand and promote that there is no single silver bullet that solves every potential EV purchasers problems. Nor that situations outside the mainstream should simply be dismissed.

My specific proposal was designed to not inconvenience Maven customers. Given enough parking slots and charge cables, there is going to be excess power available at these locations. The walled garden will guarantee Maven users their parking spots, and the priority charging will guarantee them maximum power. Public users of the chargers will have access to the excess power. And they will have to pay for that access as a normal EVGo customer.
The point is that there is going to already have to be a significant electrical infrastructure upgrade to support the Maven stations anyway. Having already made that investment, what's the point of then closing off access to the public? Now that I think about it, some would probably even be willing to rent a Maven Bolt from the charging depot for an hour or two while their own car is charging.

ga2500ev
 
1 - 20 of 86 Posts
Top