GM not planning to fund CCS fast chargers

[SeanNelson]

I honestly believe that 90 kW (or greater) charge rates are needed to support long distance travel - I don't think that 50 kW chargers will suffice.

That really depends on why you're traveling long distance. If it's a business trip where time is money and you're trying to cover as much ground as possible in as short a time as possible then yeah, I agree.

But for vacation travel where you're going to need to stop for lunch somewhere and maybe take in a sight or two along the way, a 50KW charger that gets you 80% of the Bolt's range in an hour is pretty doable, IMHO. Topping up your charge at lunchtime and then getting a full L2 charge overnight gives you about 600km (5-6 hours) of realistic daily driving, which is a pretty decent amount of travel.

IMHO the availability and spacing of chargers along the route would be a more important consideration than >50KW charging, because busy/broken chargers coupled with large gaps in coverage would seriously compromise how far you could go and how often you'd have to stop to get an "insurance" top-up just in case the next charger isn't available. Fortunately, coverage gaps are steadily being filled in, at least here on the west coast, making road trips a very viable possibility.

Of course if you're in the heartland then you're SOL...

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Moreover, many of us probably don't even need twice the Bolt's range, so continually stopping for an hour every 2.5 hours isn't a problem.

Almost all of my trips are <300 miles. To get 300 miles from a Bolt requires only a single stop somewhere along the way for less than half an hour. I have two kids, so such a stop happens anyway.

For my longer trip of ~400 miles to visit my brother, well that's an all-day trip anyway. Stopping twice is a given, for 45 minutes to an hour anyway. Again, a Bolt can easily do that with properly located 50kW chargers.

So the Bolt fits my travel patterns remarkably well. Tesla's superchargers are nice, don't get me wrong. But they are overkill for what I need. That doesn't mean I don't want them, though.

 

[SparkE]

I honestly believe that 90 kW (or greater) charge rates are needed to support long distance travel - I don't think that 50 kW chargers will suffice.

That really depends on why you're traveling long distance. If it's a business trip where time is money and you're trying to cover as much ground as possible in as short a time as possible then yeah, I agree.

But for vacation travel where you're going to need to stop for lunch somewhere and maybe take in a sight or two along the way, a 50KW charger that gets you 80% of the Bolt's range in an hour is pretty doable, IMHO. Topping up your charge at lunchtime and then getting a full L2 charge overnight gives you about 600km (5-6 hours) of realistic daily driving, which is a pretty decent amount of travel.

IMHO the availability and spacing of chargers along the route would be a more important consideration than >50KW charging, because busy/broken chargers coupled with large gaps in coverage would seriously compromise how far you could go and how often you'd have to stop to get an "insurance" top-up just in case the next charger isn't available. Fortunately, coverage gaps are steadily being filled in, at least here on the west coast, making road trips a very viable possibility.

Of course if you're in the heartland then you're SOL...

Personally, when I travel long distances I travel more than 400 miles in a day - and not for business. I visit family in OR or WA, and I like to do the drive in one day (or 1 1/2, when going to Yakima). I do NOT want to spend 1/4 of my travel time waiting to charge the damn car! Heck, I don't even want to do that when driving up to Reno from San Jose to visit my sister, and that's 'only' 300 miles. While I *do* stop for bathroom breaks, and coffee, and sandwiches (and gas), I do not stop for an hour. In fact, the bathroom & coffee breaks are generally during the gas stops anyways. And I'll probably stop a few times to get out of the car and walk around for 3-5 minutes. That is five minutes, however. That is a FAR cry from stopping for an hour every 3 hours! I imagine it would be worse with small children. "Just wait 15 minutes honey bear, and you can walk around all you want, we'll be at the next stop for 45 minutes anyhow!". My wife would have *loved* the car trips with the little-uns even more! :roll:

In my experience, the existing 50 kW chargers are NOT located in spots where one would normally choose stop for an hour during a trip. I have NEVER seen a DCFC in a national forest or recreational area, or any 'tourist spot'. When they are near restaurants, they tend to be fast food crap (dennies, long john silvers, burgers) because they are in MALLS (although, interestingly, in Vegas there is a gas station chain installing them) or car dealerships. About ten SuperQuick (SQ) charging installations (with 6-16 charge bays) would cover the entire state for long distance travel. And CA is the third largest state!

90 kW is well within the current standards - there just aren't any chargers or cars that currently do it (besides Tesla). And the consortium for CCS (CharIN e. V.) are working on version 2.0 of the standard already : backwards compatible, charge at 150 kW rate using same plug (existing cars will get charged at 50 kW, existing 50kW chargers will charge cars that accept CCS2.0 rates up to 150 kW). There is talk that it will be rolled out in 2017.

Frankly, I think that the most important thing missing from the Bolt is SuperQuick charging. There's not much of an incentive for me to trade in my 80 mi range SparkEV for a 220+ mi range Bolt, since realistically I won't be using the additional range that often, and I won't use it on long trips. I might get a used one (lease return) in 3-4 years just so that I don't have to stop at a DCFC to go to San Francisco or Monterey. But honestly, my Spark will handle 97% of the trips, and 90% of the miles that my family drives. When we drive further than 60 miles away (120 mi or further round trip), we use a gas-mobile. That's maybe once every 2 months (trips to SF are electric, as there are over 10 DCFCs between me & SF, and I only need to add 40 miles or so, about 10 mins).

 

[SeanNelson]

I honestly believe that 90 kW (or greater) charge rates are needed to support long distance travel - I don't think that 50 kW chargers will suffice.

That really depends on why you're traveling long distance.

Personally, when I travel long distances I travel more than 400 miles in a day - and not for business. I visit family in OR or WA, and I like to do the drive in one day (or 1 1/2, when going to Yakima).

Yup, that's what I mean by "It depends on why". Some people drive to get to where they're going, and others drive for the journey. I'm in the latter camp.

 

[SparkE]

Well, repeatedly spending 50 minutes in some random mall or generic parking lot waiting for my car to charge doesn't sound like much of a fun journey to ME. But then, maybe you like that sort of thing. Whatever floats your boat. I have yet to find a fast charger in any place that ISN'T some generic parking lot (or gas station), but I suppose they must exist *somewhere*. They sure aren't very common around here.

As I said :

I honestly believe that it would really help the sales of longer-range electric vehicles if *somebody* set up a 'supercharger-like' network for the 'standard' charge plug formats. It wouldn't (and shouldn't) be free, but just a handful of 90-100 kW multi-space charging lots in out-of-the-way spots along high-density travel routes would make a HUGE difference.

While many EV aficionados might be willing to wait (a few times, before giving up and driving the ICE instead on trips), for general acceptance of BEVs - that it can be the only vehicle one needs - people are going to want to be able to charge very quickly. When one is talking 'adding 160 miles of range' (i.e., 40 kWh), 90 kW charge rate is pretty much a minimum, and 150 kW would be loads better - and would get Joe Public to buy an electric, instead of just us green freaks. Given, the '90 kW or better' rate is only needed for trips a ways from home, and 50 kW chargers are fine around home and at the tail end of a trip. But then, that's what I have been saying all along - the SuperFast chargers are only needed on travel routes, because people won't want to sit around 50 minutes before they can continue their journey.

 

[litesong]

.......

............................

 

[jimmyjon]

On a purchase - fast charge should be included

 

[SparkE]

On a purchase - fast charge should be included

Could you please explain your point in more detail? I can think of different interpretations based on what you wrote.

 

[jimmyjon]

On a purchase - fast charge should be included

Could you please explain your point in more detail? I can think of different interpretations based on what you wrote.

If an individual leases a vehicle often these are short-term leases. Technology changes better products come out there seems to be a lot of reasons to have a short-term lease. Once that new vehicle leaves the lot it has depreciation. When it is returned as a used leased vehicle to the dealer it is no longer as valuable as it was 24 months ago and the Dealer having only received partial payment has to once again take that vehicle into their inventory.

If a vehicle is purchased the dealership makes the money, doesn't have to deal with the depreciation and no longer has to have that vehicle in their inventory in the near future. This is a big benefit for the dealership and because of that the purchaser should receive a greater amount of "free" options the sale of anything ideally should be win - win. This of course is only my opinion

 

[JPWhite]

On a purchase - fast charge should be included

Could you please explain your point in more detail? I can think of different interpretations based on what you wrote.

If an individual leases a vehicle often these are short-term leases. Technology changes better products come out there seems to be a lot of reasons to have a short-term lease. Once that new vehicle leaves the lot it has depreciation. When it is returned as a used leased vehicle to the dealer it is no longer as valuable as it was 24 months ago and the Dealer having only received partial payment has to once again take that vehicle into their inventory.

If a vehicle is purchased the dealership makes the money, doesn't have to deal with the depreciation and no longer has to have that vehicle in their inventory in the near future. This is a big benefit for the dealership and because of that the purchaser should receive a greater amount of "free" options the sale of anything ideally should be win - win. This of course is only my opinion

Do lease returns go back to the dealer?

Doesn't GMAC or who ever does the lease own the vehicle?

 

[jimmyjon]

On a purchase - fast charge should be included

Could you please explain your point in more detail? I can think of different interpretations based on what you wrote.

If an individual leases a vehicle often these are short-term leases. Technology changes better products come out there seems to be a lot of reasons to have a short-term lease. Once that new vehicle leaves the lot it has depreciation. When it is returned as a used leased vehicle to the dealer it is no longer as valuable as it was 24 months ago and the Dealer having only received partial payment has to once again take that vehicle into their inventory.

If a vehicle is purchased the dealership makes the money, doesn't have to deal with the depreciation and no longer has to have that vehicle in their inventory in the near future. This is a big benefit for the dealership and because of that the purchaser should receive a greater amount of "free" options the sale of anything ideally should be win - win. This of course is only my opinion

Just to clarify a little bit more. When I say imo that is based on the win - win the purchaser should receive more"free" options. Each dealership has to purchase their inventory out right and the vehicle is looked at as a liability not an asset. You will always receive a better deal purchasing a vehicle on the Dealer's lot versus the dealer having to purchase the vehicle you want from another dealer or from the manufacturer. So based on that knowledge having a lease returned and becoming part of their inventory again is a negative for the dealer but having the vehicle paid and removed from the lot now that vehicles has changed to an asset

 

[DucRider]

Could you please explain your point in more detail? I can think of different interpretations based on what you wrote.

If an individual leases a vehicle often these are short-term leases. Technology changes better products come out there seems to be a lot of reasons to have a short-term lease. Once that new vehicle leaves the lot it has depreciation. When it is returned as a used leased vehicle to the dealer it is no longer as valuable as it was 24 months ago and the Dealer having only received partial payment has to once again take that vehicle into their inventory.

If a vehicle is purchased the dealership makes the money, doesn't have to deal with the depreciation and no longer has to have that vehicle in their inventory in the near future. This is a big benefit for the dealership and because of that the purchaser should receive a greater amount of "free" options the sale of anything ideally should be win - win. This of course is only my opinion

Just to clarify a little bit more. When I say imo that is based on the win - win the purchaser should receive more"free" options. Each dealership has to purchase their inventory out right and the vehicle is looked at as a liability not an asset. You will always receive a better deal purchasing a vehicle on the Dealer's lot versus the dealer having to purchase the vehicle you want from another dealer or from the manufacturer. So based on that knowledge having a lease returned and becoming part of their inventory again is a negative for the dealer but having the vehicle paid and removed from the lot now that vehicles has changed to an asset

A couple of things not quite right here:
1) Dealers do not generally "purchase their inventory outright" - they go thru a process called "flooring" when they are financing and pay a monthly fee per car. They do owe for the car, but have not paid for it with cash out of their bank account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retail_floorplan
So yes it is a liability, but also an asset (double entry accounting drove me nuts at first when I took Accounting in college).

2) When dealers sell a financed or leased vehicle, they get paid the entire sales price by the finance company - no partial payment.

3) When the vehicle is returned "off lease", the finance company owns it. The dealer may or may not purchase it to place on their used lot, but are under no obligation to do so.

But you do have it right that a dealer would much rather sell a vehicle that is physically on their lot. Every month it sits there, they owe another payment to the flooring company. The longer a vehicle sits, the higher the cost of that vehicle to them, and the less money they make selling it.

But they would also much rather do a dealer trade (or factory order) to get the vehicle you want rather than not make sale at all. They get volume and other incentives that make it worthwhile.

There are some dealers that do their own financing, but I've only seen that on lower-end used cars to people with poor credit (and at a high interest rate). I've never heard of lease payments going directly to the dealer.

 

[SparkE]

How did the 'fast charging' thread mutate into the leasing thread?

 

[JeffN]

How did the 'fast charging' thread mutate into the leasing thread?

Back on topic....

VW Settlement May Supercharge non-Tesla DC Rollout in US

http://www.hybridcars.com/vw-settlement-may-supercharge-non-tesla-dc-rollout-in-us/

 

[SparkE]

A similar settlement is what got the EVgo network going. The power company that manipulated the power market in CA in the late 90s/early 00s was allowed to take their 'fine' and use it to build an EV network and thus EVgo proliferated. Yes, there's a big network, but it just allowed them to start a new business (EV charging). The same thing could be happening with this. I would much prefer that VW be forced to fork over cash, and that the money be used to install fast charging networks in a network-neutral manner (i.e., VW won't end up owning one of the largest fast charging networks in the country).

 

[Geo]

A similar settlement is what got the EVgo network going. The power company that manipulated the power market in CA in the late 90s/early 00s was allowed to take their 'fine' and use it to build an EV network and thus EVgo proliferated. Yes, there's a big network, but it just allowed them to start a new business (EV charging). The same thing could be happening with this. I would much prefer that VW be forced to fork over cash, and that the money be used to install fast charging networks in a network-neutral manner (i.e., VW won't end up owning one of the largest fast charging networks in the country).

Quite honestly, at this point, I just want a widespread open-standard fast charging network. If VW owns it, then so be it. We would still benefit, and a good network would encourage more people to buy EVs. And, if VW actually makes money off of the network, then it would encourage other car companies to do the same.

Perhaps the more perfect route involves the government taking the money and building it themselves, but I suspect that process would take a whole lot longer. I want it now.

 

[Gatedad]

Not having a Tesla(and never having even sat inside one)I had not spent a whole lot of time perusing Tesla videos on You Tube. However, with some unexpected free time at home, and bored at the time, I decided to check out some Tesla videos. After watching a number of well made videos extolling the virtues of the car(not that I needed much encouragement, I think the cars are fantastic)I settled in on several that dealt specifically with the Super Charger network. I was in for a surprise, the SC Network totally changes the dynamic of driving electric. I mean I could not believe the difference I sensed in Tesla drivers who have little to no fear of being unable to charge. Whether at a dedicated SC site, or at a Tesla destination charging location, there was a viable, productive way to drive to every single vacation spot I have taken in my Volt. By the way, even though I did not charge my Volt on my trips(for a variety of reasons, among them the slow charging speed and the existence of a range extender, and then of course that there were a great deal less options for charging the Volt at the places my family and I visited) I would have liked to be able to charge the car. In a Tesla, just plug in your destination, and up pops a list of SC locations, with estimated miles and range calculated and you know that these sites will be operational and in good working condition, and more often than not situated near restaurants and bathrooms. Try that with the rest. If you can find a CCS/Chademo often they are not in particularly good spots. They will do, but are not really necessarily convenient. Not to mention that they are not free.

This is NOT a rant against GM, nor meant to be a Tesla fan-boy posting. I am just commenting on the utility and attractiveness of a legitimate, coordinated, well functioning network as opposed to a mishmash of chargers and sites. How well the M3 will be incorporated into that same network, I am not sure. But it will almost certainly be a great selling point. I have very high hopes for the Bolt EV, and truly believe that it will be successful. However, the limitations of lacking a cohesive network of fast charging will hurt. Let's hope that there is a consortium of charging companies, OEM's and retailers who will work together to make a viable network a reality.

Lou