Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

61 - 80 of 81 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
You mean just a remote outlet? Yes, looks like some condo dwellers have that set up at their reserved parking spot with approval from management.
Yup. My point is, it needs to be mandated. Just like exit signs, emergency lights, fire alarms, etc. Every multi-unit dwelling must provide the option for a metered plug to their parking spaces.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
much snippage...

This is where we are in 100% disagreement. There is nothing, and I mean nothing more convenient on an EV road trip than having a L2 AC charger at your destination where you will be spending the night. It's like having a 100 lb weight lifted off your back. Suddenly, you can relax in your room, do a quick run around town, go grab something to eat, etc. It's like having the same freedom you have at home with a charger in your garage. The convenience is immeasurable, especially when that cost is baked into the price of your room.
Medium speed DCFC does all of the above with the advantage of being able to get enough of a charge while checking in that one can almost immediately turn around and head out without worrying if they have enough charge to head out.

I know it seems that I present this as an either/or proposition. I really only do that because the pushback I get is that L2 is the only solution for public charging outside of road trips. In an ideal world destination charging would be a mix of medium speed DCFC and L2. Someone who is turning in and has time can use the L2. Others who have more immediate needs can use the medium speed DCFC. But I think that many who read what I write conflate medium speed DCFC, which I always use as a term, with what they perceive as ultra fast DCFC travel chargers. Again both are needed but road trip charges are simply too expensive to deploy and use on any regular basis.

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with medium speed DCFC in people's minds. If one can pull into a hotel, plug in, go check in, and by the time the luggage is unloaded and it's time to move the car anyway it has enough of a charge to head out immediately or enough for the next day or two, then what exactly is the problem with that?

Likewise, as someone who spent three and a half years of my Bolt EV ownership without a place to plug in at home, L2 workplace charging made EV ownership possible. Requiring multi-unit dwellings to provide access to power in assigned parking stalls would likewise increase the potential for EV ownership. If a majority of the chargers installed in the next five years are not L2 AC, I will be thoroughly disappointed.

And as for cost, it's not even close. Yes, there are low-power DC fast chargers that can run off of split-phase 240 V AC; however, they are only marginally more effective than L2 AC (with power output up to 20 kW), and those low-power DC units cost five to ten times more just for the unit. Further, that price typically only includes one head, which is not universally compatible. It's the cost of a second L2 AC unit just to install a second cord and head.
The power output is up to 25 kW. 25 kW is 3 times or more faster than most L2. In addition to that it'll deliver that full 25 kW of power to virtually every car that connects to it, unlike higher powered L2 units.

Many installations are using 3 phase, which opens up 30-40 kW units without having to install a new transformer.

Finally there are dual head units with both Chademo and CCS.

And from my research it's not a 10 times cost difference. 25 kW units vary in price from about $7000 to $12000 depending on the configuration. Chargepoint dual L2 stations run about $8000. Commercial L2 units are at a completely different price point than an off the shelf clipper creek or juicebox. In addition the cost recovery occurs precisely because one doesn't need a one to one mapping between L2 stations and potential clients. So significantly less medium speed DCFC can be installed to support a larger potential fleet.

One item I'd really like to get more information on is Efacec's QC45BATT 50 kW charger. Seems to be an ideal combination of a 30 kWh battery and a 20 kW AC input. No demand charges but can deliver 50 kW of power. Efacec's non-battery QC45 50 kW station is priced retail at $30k. So unfortunately the QC45BATT isn't going to be cheaper.

We need more options than ultra fast travel chargers and L2. From a price and utility standpoint this pair simply doesn't cover all the possible charging uses for public charging.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with medium speed DCFC in people's minds. If one can pull into a hotel, plug in, go check in, and by the time the luggage is unloaded and it's time to move the car anyway it has enough of a charge to head out immediately or enough for the next day or two, then what exactly is the problem with that?
How would this be possible with medium speed DCFC? A 50 amp unit will max out at 18kW in a Bolt. Assuming a very generous 30 minutes to check in and unload the luggage (which I personally would consider an excessively long wait at check in) then you're putting 9 kWh in to the battery. About 32 miles? I don't know where that would be enough for the next day, much less two.

Meanwhile L2 is far more universal and a hotel, by design, is going to be an overnight stay. It's the best place to have slower charging that puts less stress on the grid, especially if we reach a point where more than 10% of guests are taking advantage of the charging. I do agree with you that these units would be a great fit at locations where you will be spending an hour or two and should be considered more. Shopping malls in particular could benefit from these middle ground units. However a hotel is one place where, until 200 kWh batteries become commonplace, they would serve only the fringe use cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
How would this be possible with medium speed DCFC? A 50 amp unit will max out at 18kW in a Bolt. Assuming a very generous 30 minutes to check in and unload the luggage (which I personally would consider an excessively long wait at check in) then you're putting 9 kWh in to the battery. About 32 miles? I don't know where that would be enough for the next day, much less two.

Meanwhile L2 is far more universal and a hotel, by design, is going to be an overnight stay. It's the best place to have slower charging that puts less stress on the grid, especially if we reach a point where more than 10% of guests are taking advantage of the charging. I do agree with you that these units would be a great fit at locations where you will be spending an hour or two and should be considered more. Shopping malls in particular could benefit from these middle ground units. However a hotel is one place where, until 200 kWh batteries become commonplace, they would serve only the fringe use cases.
Agreed, for hotel guests, L2 is sufficient and is much economical esp toward demand charges. To get a quick charge to go out for dinner after check-in,even L2 might work just fine... 30 min at 32A would be 12 miles. I would expect lots of restaurant choices around the hotel at a 5 mile radius. Upon return, plug-in to L2 for the night to get to 100%.

If guests need faster charging, they should to support DCFC stations around town.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,603 Posts
I still think that's shortsighted thinking.

We should demand that all EVs have DCFC standard. It's up to the individual driver to decide if or when they want to use it. But it's a crime when it's simply unavailable. Same for DCFC charging stations. We need more, even it they are expensive to use.
It's no business of government to decide what technology must be available despite consumer and business demands.

Just the opposite, it would be criminal to dictate these things. It works against EV adoption because it drives cost up at a time when cost is the primary reason EVs aren't more widely adopted.

I have no use for DCFC and would rather have $750 in other investments. In the extremely unlikely event that not having it caused an inconvenience, I'd rather have that inconvenience than not have my $750 invested somewhere. Heck, it doesn't even prevent against inconvenience, only slightly reduces it.

Yup. My point is, it needs to be mandated. Just like exit signs, emergency lights, fire alarms, etc. Every multi-unit dwelling must provide the option for a metered plug to their parking spaces.
I'm all for local government being as retarded as they want, but not from a federal level. For instance, Seattle can have their "Summer of Love" if that's really what her citizens demand. Dictating it from the federal level is an overreach of authority and does harm to the experiment and efficiency of local governance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly is wrong with medium speed DCFC in people's minds. If one can pull into a hotel, plug in, go check in, and by the time the luggage is unloaded and it's time to move the car anyway it has enough of a charge to head out immediately or enough for the next day or two, then what exactly is the problem with that?
#1: Cost
#2: Compatibility (both with vehicles and on-site power)
#3: Limited Value

The power output is up to 25 kW. 25 kW is 3 times or more faster than most L2. In addition to that it'll deliver that full 25 kW of power to virtually every car that connects to it, unlike higher powered L2 units.
L2 AC maxes out at 20 kW. The biggest limitation is the car's onboard charger, but that is typically relative to the car's battery size. For instance, a Bolt EV might only have a 32 A charger for its 66 kWh pack, but a Model LR has a 48 A charger for its 75 kWh pack.

Many installations are using 3 phase, which opens up 30-40 kW units without having to install a new transformer.
Possibly, but I haven't seen any data to support that. Even if true, it doesn't change the additional cost of running that 3-phase power to the chargers.

Finally there are dual head units with both Chademo and CCS.
There are, but that adds significant costs, and they still aren't universally compatible.

And from my research it's not a 10 times cost difference. 25 kW units vary in price from about $7000 to $12000 depending on the configuration. Chargepoint dual L2 stations run about $8000. Commercial L2 units are at a completely different price point than an off the shelf clipper creek or juicebox. In addition the cost recovery occurs precisely because one doesn't need a one to one mapping between L2 stations and potential clients. So significantly less medium speed DCFC can be installed to support a larger potential fleet.

ga2500ev
First, you're comparing a dual-head (essentially, two-charger) L2 ChargePoint to a single-head, low-power DCFC. Now sure, even if you split the ChargePoint's cost in half, it's only one half to one third the price of that DCFC; however, ChargePoint's L2 units are some of the most expensive available. And just because it's expensive doesn't make it higher quality. ClipperCreek also makes commercial grade EVSEs. This one, that costs just over $2,000 is almost the same power level as the 24 kW DCFC that are three and a half to six times more expensive (before installation costs): 70/80A Level 2 EVSE CS-100 Hardwired | ClipperCreek

My preference, as a site host, would be to install power sharing units, which will allow faster charging EVs to take advantage of the additional power when not sharing the load. ClipperCreek | Share2® Enabled HCS-80 EVSE Bundle

I think part of the issue here is that you're assuming these sites need or want to network their chargers. I don't think they do. Tesla's destination model works because it's simple. It's private property, so if someone is there without renting a room or registering at the front desk, they'll be towed. There's no need for additional, expensive remote activation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
Everyone keeps thinking about the economy of a single unit. With L2, or even plugs, it won't scale well. Thinking that L2 is the solution fails when you talk about scaling up to electrify every parking space. And with the 1-1 allocation problem it will eventually come to that as having 100 guests with cars that need to be charged and 95 electrified parking spaces isn't going to work.

I cannot wait to see the coversations of "OK honey, we'll head out in the morning after the car is charged." or "OK, honey stay here at the hotel while I drive 30 miles out to a charging station. I'll be back in an hour." Hilarity ensues.

18 kWh in 60 minutes is about the same amount of power on L2 in 3 hours. Why is it better to be forced to wait that amount of time?

Yes it'll cost more. Yes it'll need to be networked so that the actual users of the station are the ones paying for installation, operation, and maintenace costs. No there won't need to be a 1-1 mapping between EVs and stations.

And of course it's always a both/and situation (muttering to myself "which I keep saying") Go ahead and install some L2 stations or plugs too. But now the pressure to try to map the exact number of L2 stations to the number of EVs is reduced, if not eliminated. If all the L2s are in use, pop on a medium speed DCFC for 45 minutes or an hour then be on your way.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
Everyone keeps thinking about the economy of a single unit. With L2, or even plugs, it won't scale well. Thinking that L2 is the solution fails when you talk about scaling up to electrify every parking space. And with the 1-1 allocation problem it will eventually come to that as having 100 guests with cars that need to be charged and 95 electrified parking spaces isn't going to work.

ga2500ev
I'm curious why you think it would be more difficult to install a L2 AC for every parking space at a hotel/motel than it would to install a sufficient number of medium power DCFC to support 100 guests. The former is just one more 40 A circuit breaker per room. The latter would require a complete overhaul of most hotel/motel sites.

What I will concede is that it would be a nice option to have a small number of high-power DC fast chargers at a hotel or a motel that has amenities (such as an on-site restaurant), but that would need to be in addition to the L2 AC chargers. And it simply wouldn't be possible to allocate enough space for the DCFC required to support 100 or more guests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,902 Posts
Yup. My point is, it needs to be mandated. Just like exit signs, emergency lights, fire alarms, etc. Every multi-unit dwelling must provide the option for a metered plug to their parking spaces.



As article states, maybe more interest once EVSE price goes down. This is better than having your own EVSE out in the public...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts

As article states, maybe more interest once EVSE price goes down. This is better than having your own EVSE out in the public...
As old school as this seems, it does eliminate one of the costs of the networked EVSE's and that's the connectivity. I just installed 6 more level 2's at my office and I'm locked in to 4 years of connected service. It costs about $20 month/portal for this service which does provide some monitoring benefits but these are primarily for our business so as soon as my 4 year obligation is met, I'm disconnecting.
Having a touchpad password system would also work if the use is restricted. Our units are about 100' from the main road and we had a stranger plug in one day from out of the blue. I intentionally kept these units off any public mapping so he must have seen the pump/charger from the road or heard through the grapevine we had them. No big deal as far as cost, but the one he used is front and center and intended for clients. I may have to put a sign pointing to the 4 units off the side for our construction vehicles for public use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
I'm curious why you think it would be more difficult to install a L2 AC for every parking space at a hotel/motel than it would to install a sufficient number of medium power DCFC to support 100 guests. The former is just one more 40 A circuit breaker per room. The latter would require a complete overhaul of most hotel/motel sites.
For 100 guests you'd need 100 AC units. That requires 100 parking spaces, 50 circuits minimum that have to be trenched and wired. And it still doesn't solve the allocation problem because if you only have 60 guests, then the lot is overallocated, and if you have 110 guests, then there are guests who will not be able to get a plug.

A DCFC with a 2 hour limit can service up to 12 cars in a 24 hour period. So 8, or maybe 9 of them can in theory cover the same 100 guests taking up less space, less wiring, less circuits. Now I'm aware that scheduling is a problem. It's one of the reasons I'd like to see multi-headed DCFC that can service up to 4 cars. It would still only require a single circuit and trench, 4 cars can park, and the power cycled among them. The key difference is that it's possible for a single car to get the full power of the station for a period of time, so that if a particular car doesn't have the same time availability of the others, it can get a signficant charge in the timeframe available. With those same 8 or 9 units, 16 or 18 cars can all park, plug in, specify the amount of time they plan to use, and walk off with the expectation that they will get a decent charge by the time they come back.
What I will concede is that it would be a nice option to have a small number of high-power DC fast chargers at a hotel or a motel that has amenities (such as an on-site restaurant), but that would need to be in addition to the L2 AC chargers. And it simply wouldn't be possible to allocate enough space for the DCFC required to support 100 or more guests.
See above. Also L2 can be in addition to the DCFC, not the other way around. But then one doesn't need 50-100 units.

I know I'm talking about infrastructure that doesn't exist yet. My advocacy is for the creation of that infrastructure as opposed to simply settling with L2 everywhere "because that's how we've always done it." Everywhere outside of our private dedicated L2 chargers, we as a community need to think of how to service everyone who needs public charging, not just the way we want it or how we are used to it. We're going to reach the end of the early adopter phase soon enough. The next wave of EV people are simply not going to accept the same limitations that we find routine. A mix of fast and slow charging stations better serves a diverse EV community better than a uniform mix of slow charging stations.

ga2500ev
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
As old school as this seems, it does eliminate one of the costs of the networked EVSE's and that's the connectivity. I just installed 6 more level 2's at my office and I'm locked in to 4 years of connected service. It costs about $20 month/portal for this service which does provide some monitoring benefits but these are primarily for our business so as soon as my 4 year obligation is met, I'm disconnecting.
Having a touchpad password system would also work if the use is restricted. Our units are about 100' from the main road and we had a stranger plug in one day from out of the blue. I intentionally kept these units off any public mapping so he must have seen the pump/charger from the road or heard through the grapevine we had them. No big deal as far as cost, but the one he used is front and center and intended for clients. I may have to put a sign pointing to the 4 units off the side for our construction vehicles for public use.
My workplace is currently using non-networked, RFID activated units (only security can activate). I was a very loud voice in insisting that my workplace charge employees for the service. It's not much (only $3 for a 4.5 hour session), but it's enough to discourage the hundred or more plug-in vehicles on the lot who don't need to charge from taking the spaces as a convenience. As it is, we have about a dozen or so plug-in vehicle owners who do need to use these chargers on a fairly regular basis, so it's good that they aren't crowded out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
For 100 guests you'd need 100 AC units. That requires 100 parking spaces, 50 circuits minimum that have to be trenched and wired. And it still doesn't solve the allocation problem because if you only have 60 guests, then the lot is overallocated, and if you have 110 guests, then there are guests who will not be able to get a plug.

A DCFC with a 2 hour limit can service up to 12 cars in a 24 hour period. So 8, or maybe 9 of them can in theory cover the same 100 guests taking up less space, less wiring, less circuits. Now I'm aware that scheduling is a problem. It's one of the reasons I'd like to see multi-headed DCFC that can service up to 4 cars. It would still only require a single circuit and trench, 4 cars can park, and the power cycled among them. The key difference is that it's possible for a single car to get the full power of the station for a period of time, so that if a particular car doesn't have the same time availability of the others, it can get a signficant charge in the timeframe available. With those same 8 or 9 units, 16 or 18 cars can all park, plug in, specify the amount of time they plan to use, and walk off with the expectation that they will get a decent charge by the time they come back.

See above. Also L2 can be in addition to the DCFC, not the other way around. But then one doesn't need 50-100 units.

I know I'm talking about infrastructure that doesn't exist yet. My advocacy is for the creation of that infrastructure as opposed to simply settling with L2 everywhere "because that's how we've always done it." Everywhere outside of our private dedicated L2 chargers, we as a community need to think of how to service everyone who needs public charging, not just the way we want it or how we are used to it. We're going to reach the end of the early adopter phase soon enough. The next wave of EV people are simply not going to accept the same limitations that we find routine. A mix of fast and slow charging stations better serves a diverse EV community better than a uniform mix of slow charging stations.

ga2500ev
I'm not seeing the allocation problem. Most of these chargers, DCFC or L2 are going to sit idle a vast majority of the time. That's just the hotel/motel business. It doesn't hurt anything to have these chargers sit idle; it's not a problem for a majority of the Tesla Destination chargers I've used.

Also, running conduit and putting in split-phase 240 V circuits for L2 chargers -- even if your covering 100% of the spaces -- is still far less difficult than installing a large, medium-power DCFC bank.

In addition, I should be clear here. I don't think we need to jump from covering 0% of hotel/motel parking spaces to covering 100% with L2 AC overnight. Even when EVs enjoy near 100% of new-car marketshare, it will be a decade or more before they represent the majority of vehicles being driven on the roads. As it is, hotels/motels only shoot for 80% occupancy. Ironically, after 80% occupancy, the cost for a new guest almost completely negates the revenue. That's probably the actual number hotels/motels should be shooting for.

In fact, the best model would probably be 80% of the parking spaces covered by access to L2 AC, and two to four (depending on size of the facility) pay-for-use 100 kW to 150 kW DC fast chargers. That provides maximum flexibility and convenience to their customers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
A DCFC with a 2 hour limit can service up to 12 cars in a 24 hour period. So 8, or maybe 9 of them can in theory cover the same 100 guests taking up less space, less wiring, less circuits.
Now this makes even less sense. First, if we are limiting to 2 hours then 25kW units no longer works. If it can't charge most vehicles to full within the time limit, it's a non-starter. Even a Bolt would take 4 hours on one of these. Second, assuming you mean that each space has a cable then there is going to be just as much cabling requirements as installing L2 units. Actually, it would take more metal total since we are talking DC instead of AC. Unless you mean for people to be moving their vehicles in the middle of the night, in which case that's a total non-starter on the idea. Third, J-1772 is universal. Every single vehicle that arrives can use it. With DCFC you need CHAdeMO, Tesla head or adapters, and CCS. That's not cheap.

NC's idea for L2 in the lot with a couple high-speed DCFC makes the most sense and offers the most flexibility. If someone needs a fast charge then they want a fast charge, not a 25kW compromise. If someone wants to park their car for the night and just wake up to a full battery without thinking about it, L2 is the best fit. That covers almost all guests at a hotel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,331 Posts
Now this is an interesting point. Actually I'm all for paying premium prices for ultra fast charging precisely because it is likely to be a necessary, but minimally used convenience for the average driver. But the counterpoint to that is heavily traveled corridors should have enough traffic to support that expanding charging network.

Each charging network has its own genesis, so pushing the narritive that longer range drivers built those networks really only works for Tesla. We need to be grateful that DieselGate created the ability to break out of the chicken/egg conditions that exists for the public charging infrastructure because I severly doubt that the federal government would have made the investment otherwise. But folks do need to recognize that there isn't an underlaying subsidy behind network systems like EVGo (well anymore), ChargePoint, and EA. So that will result in much higher prices.

Even worse is that most folks do not understand electrical demand charges at all. They call fast charging highway robbery because the cost isn't within a few cents of what they pay at home. Demand charges are astronomical. And unless every other business, where the cost is hidden in the goods and services offered by those businesses, DCFC charging has nowhere to hide the cost. We're going to have to educate new EV folks in the mass public that the faster you charge, the more expensive it's going to be. That's why I continually push medium speed DCFC in non road trip charging situations. It offers flexibility of charging speed while reducing installation and operational costs to the point it's useful on a daily basis.

But the short of it is that the US has over 150,000 gas stations. Even with the EV community having to pay the cost, it's not unreasonable to think that eventually the DCFC charging network will need to approach that number to be functional for millions of EVs.

ga2500ev
Here's a recent video from E for Electric with Tom Moloughney, a regular contributor, discussing Tesla's new 400+ mile range for the Model S that is now for sale. Actually, it's been available for at least a month but they were waiting on the official EPA range to publish.
He's of the same opinion of a few members here, like you.


"In reality 400 miles isn't necessary for the vast majority of people."
"Right now with where we are, more range is better."
"Over the next decade, the range may be reduced as the infrastructure becomes more robust."
"As high speed fast charging infrastructure becomes more prevalent, we won't need 300-400 mile range cars. It will just make them cost more, heavier, less efficient. Once we have infrastructure everywhere where 10-15 minutes will get you 150 miles, 200 mile range cars will be typical."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,518 Posts
"Once we have infrastructure everywhere where 10-15 minutes will get you 150 miles, 200 mile range cars will be typical."
I dunno, I have the feeling that some folks who've been posting here still won't be satisfied at having to stop for 15 minutes every 2 hours. Some people really seem to be pressing for nonstop 4- or 500 mile trips, and for that only a big battery will do.
 

·
Registered
2018 Bolt EV Premier Nightfall Gray
Joined
·
77 Posts
I dunno, I have the feeling that some folks who've been posting here still won't be satisfied at having to stop for 15 minutes every 2 hours. Some people really seem to be pressing for nonstop 4- or 500 mile trips, and for that only a big battery will do.
My bladder just upvoted you!

To me, 15 min every two hours would be ideal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
I dunno, I have the feeling that some folks who've been posting here still won't be satisfied at having to stop for 15 minutes every 2 hours. Some people really seem to be pressing for nonstop 4- or 500 mile trips, and for that only a big battery will do.
To be precise, it's not 400 to 500 mile trips non-stop. It's 400 to 500 mile trips without a fueling stop. That's a subtle, but very important distinction.

For instance, if I drive 400 to 500 miles around Lassen and Plumas National Forests, I might make plenty of stops. Some of them might even be overnight. A 200-mile EV won't do, and you'll never make charging infrastructure ubiquitous enough to support that. And we shouldn't want to (nature deserves its space). There's a reason people call heading out into nature "unplugging."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
@Dyefrog, Rich and people like him are in a very gray area. To Tesla all vehicles with a salvage title are unsafe, but in the US each state issue that title for different reason only a hand full of states issue a salvage title for safety reasons. 1000s of People reprogram vehicle computers on daily basis in the US you can buy the equipment at most auto parts stores. If it's not already out I am sure some one is working on a perfomance chip for the Bolt EV. The Bolt EV has 4 warranties the standard, the power train, the battery and a warranty against rust. If you chip the vehicle to have more torque or horsepower Chevrolet doesn't care. An if you end up damaging the motor and Chevrolet will only void the power train warranty leave the other 3 warranties intact. Tesla is the only company that will void the warranties for the entire car not just the system modified. It's illegal to void my paint warranty because I changed the exhaust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,271 Posts
@Dyefrog, Rich and people like him are in a very gray area. To Tesla all vehicles with a salvage title are unsafe, but in the US each state issue that title for different reason only a hand full of states issue a salvage title for safety reasons. 1000s of People reprogram vehicle computers on daily basis in the US you can buy the equipment at most auto parts stores. If it's not already out I am sure some one is working on a perfomance chip for the Bolt EV. The Bolt EV has 4 warranties the standard, the power train, the battery and a warranty against rust. If you chip the vehicle to have more torque or horsepower Chevrolet doesn't care. An if you end up damaging the motor and Chevrolet will only void the power train warranty leave the other 3 warranties intact. Tesla is the only company that will void the warranties for the entire car not just the system modified. It's illegal to void my paint warranty because I changed the exhaust.
Yup. Rich is a space to watch, especially now that he is unlocking Supercharging capabilities and providing hardware and software updates outside of any Tesla approved program. I think Tesla's loophole for being able to void all warranties on the vehicle is that they offer a "recertification," but you can only get it through Tesla and must pay regardless of whether vehicle passes. Now, though, Rich is offering these updates and modifications to Teslas that were never salvaged titles, so they are modifying vehicles with intact warranties.

There's over 100 years of automotive consumer's rights in the United States, and Tesla seems to be skirting the edge of a lot of them. Quite frankly, they've gotten away with far more than any of the Big Three could have just in the last few years. I understand that they are the darling, Cinderella story of the U.S. auto industry, but at some point, they will need to start being held accountable in the same way as the other automakers.
 
61 - 80 of 81 Posts
Top