Is the Bolt a compliance car?

[splitmitten]

Omg. Who cares as long as they came up with a car that makes purchasers happy

 

[Michael1]

The term "compliance car" is a derogatory term used by BEV snobs to make themselves feel better.

I would just ignore them. The Bolt is a fantastic car that breaks new ground.

 

[ScooterCT]

I sure wish I could edit the topic title to ask "will the Bolt ever be sold in large numbers outside CA", thereby removing all the semi-religious battles over the term "compliance car", which was not the original intent of this thread.

 

[oilerlord]

I sure wish I could edit the topic title to ask "will the Bolt ever be sold in large numbers outside CA", thereby removing all the semi-religious battles over the term "compliance car", which was not the original intent of this thread.

It's a loaded question, that causes some people to lose their minds. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or another. My EV does everything I expect of it. My EV is clearly a compliance car, and if that label factored in it's 65% depreciation, I got a great deal. So be it.

A few months ago, on a solar panel forum, a question was posed "Are solar panels green?". Brains were broken. You would have thought someone posted "Do Black Lives Matter?". The minutia, and personal takes on the word "green" were relentlessly debated. It got ugly. Seeing this, I offered Merriam-Webster's definition of the word - that clearly showed, by definition, that solar panels were indeed green. Even with that, the battle raged on. Several chose to challenge the Merriam-Webster definition itself, so I offered other sources; Oxford, Cambridge that both confirmed that solar panels are green. Didn't matter. People are going to believe what they are going to believe.

Sadly, some forum discussions become more about winning an argument than listening to someone else's point of view.

 

[roundpeg]

Sadly, some forum discussions become more about winning an argument than listening to someone else's point of view.

Sadly true and even more sadly this way of arguing has bled into the way we discuss everything now.

That said, I have to (again, sadly) report that the term "compliance car" is probably about to take on renewed meaning. Or maybe no meaning at all, as we are poised to take a hard turn backwards to towards the future on energy policy.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

Sadly, some forum discussions become more about winning an argument than listening to someone else's point of view.

This sums it up well. Ironically, you are rarely (if ever) going to "win" an argument on a forum. On the other hand, it is a great means of gaining exposure to others' points of view.

As a whole, I have found this forum to be one of the most civil (so far, anyway). Maybe it's because no one has gotten their car yet, and we're just anxious/excited to get out and drive them.

 

[like2bike]

I only hope GM realizes that they will go from being the darling of the EV movement to the grinch if they fail to increase production to meet demand. Also if the Bolt isn't widely available by the end of 2017 many parts of the country will be angry they aren't delivering what they promised. I would hope they could be swayed by strong internet backlash if they try to make it into a compliance car by limiting production.

 

[oilerlord]

Also if the Bolt isn't widely available by the end of 2017 many parts of the country will be angry they aren't delivering what they promised. I would hope they could be swayed by strong internet backlash if they try to make it into a compliance car by limiting production.

If the Bolt isn't "widely available" by the end of 2017, GM will have lost the initiative against the Model 3. Right now, the Bolt is a one-of-a-kind car in it's segment, and I don't understand putting limits on production. If GM is serious about getting (and keeping) market share, this is the time to expand production, and get as many Bolts in showrooms, and on the road as possible - and in all 50 states.

 

[SparkE]

Also if the Bolt isn't widely available by the end of 2017 many parts of the country will be angry they aren't delivering what they promised. I would hope they could be swayed by strong internet backlash if they try to make it into a compliance car by limiting production.

If the Bolt isn't "widely available" by the end of 2017, GM will have lost the initiative against the Model 3. Right now, the Bolt is a one-of-a-kind car in it's segment, and I don't understand putting limits on production. If GM is serious about getting (and keeping) market share, this is the time to expand production, and get as many Bolts in showrooms, and on the road as possible - and in all 50 states.

I understand. There could be a number of reasons why production is slow THE FIRST MONTH. Most importantly, they are rolling out a new car - a VERY important new model. I would imagine that they want to get it right - perfect. So they are slowly ramping up production. That doesn't sound crazy or unlikely to me.

"Limiting production" is somebody's imagination. *I* haven't seen any reports of GM limiting production. Just "If GM doesn't ...." posts on the internet. (And I'm not trying to single out any one person here - I've seen lots and lots of posts on multiple sites speculating on what GM is doing wrong *before the first cars arrive in people's hands* based on rampant internet speculation. Then the posts/replies multiply.) I'll reserve judgement for 6-12 months and see what really happens. I don't see any reason to invest time in "what ifs" at this point. There's a great expression in French about "ifs" that I love : "Si ma tante en avait, on l'appellerait mon oncle." (If my aunt had a pair, then we'd call her my uncle)

 

[roundpeg]

There's a great expression in French about "ifs" that I love : "Si ma tante en avait, on l'appellerait mon oncle." (If my aunt had a pair, then we'd call her my uncle)

That made my day.

While we're at it, a little bit of pedantry goes a long way: Everything is limited, unless it's unlimited.

 

[Michael1]

Also if the Bolt isn't widely available by the end of 2017 many parts of the country will be angry they aren't delivering what they promised. I would hope they could be swayed by strong internet backlash if they try to make it into a compliance car by limiting production.

If the Bolt isn't "widely available" by the end of 2017, GM will have lost the initiative against the Model 3.

Let's not panic. The car hasn't even shipped yet, and it's not 2017 yet. Any new model starts shipping slowly at first while they work out the production issue.

 

[oilerlord]

I understand. There could be a number of reasons why production is slow THE FIRST MONTH. Most importantly, they are rolling out a new car - a VERY important new model. I would imagine that they want to get it right - perfect. So they are slowly ramping up production. That doesn't sound crazy or unlikely to me.

"Limiting production" is somebody's imagination.

I'm sure you're right. Additionally, If reports that GM is selling the car at a $9,000 loss are true, it wouldn't make financial sense for the company to put a Bolt in every dealership before understanding the public demand for the car. How many they sell between now and the end of 2017 is anyone's guess. Perhaps there should be a thread for that.

 

[Michael1]

I understand. There could be a number of reasons why production is slow THE FIRST MONTH. Most importantly, they are rolling out a new car - a VERY important new model. I would imagine that they want to get it right - perfect. So they are slowly ramping up production. That doesn't sound crazy or unlikely to me.

"Limiting production" is somebody's imagination.

I'm sure you're right. Additionally, If reports that GM is selling the car at a $9,000 loss are true, it wouldn't make financial sense for the company to put a Bolt in every dealership before understanding the public demand for the car. How many they sell between now and the end of 2017 is anyone's guess. Perhaps there should be a thread for that.

We don't know if that phantom $9000 number (which could very well have been made up), is based on amortizing fixed costs over a particular sales volume, or variable costs. You can lose money on a production run, without losing even more money with higher volume.

I'll be honest with you. One characteristic of the EV community I have noted is the people in it are so negative.

 

[michael]

This month's Car and Driver magazine has a two page spread advertisement exclusively about the Bolt, first few pages of the magazine. This is an expensive ad.

Last night I heard an ad for the Bolt on the radio.

Give it a rest, guys, GM are seriously trying to sell this thing.

 

[WetEV]

We don't know if that phantom $9000 number (which could very well have been made up), is based on amortizing fixed costs over a particular sales volume, or variable costs.

Oh, I'm sure the $9000 per car is correct, in a sense, but we are missing the key information.

What volume of production is this $9000 loss for? 5,000 cars? 10,000 cars? 40,000 cars? 100,000 cars?

The reason why a flat $9000 per car is correct is that for some unknown volume that production costs+R&D costs/number cars less GM's net selling price (Not MSRB or Invoice) will work out to exactly $9000 per car. We just don't know the volume of production that point is at.

The same $9000 loss would be true for any car made, any cell phone made, any TV made, any computer made: The first unit is going to cost a lot more. We just don't know the volume at which the loss is $9000. And volume is the key number. $9000 by itself is meaningless. Break even volume is even more important.

Oh, and it's not just R&D costs and other fixed costs. Order 100 of something, pay one price. Order 10,000, pay much less. Order 1,000,000 of the same thing, the price will be drastically less. "Variable" costs are not the same cost per unit, they decline with rising production. It takes less labor to assemble the 10th car than it did the first car. Even less for the 10,000 car. And so on.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

We don't know if that phantom $9000 number (which could very well have been made up), is based on amortizing fixed costs over a particular sales volume, or variable costs.

Oh, I'm sure the $9000 per car is correct, in a sense, but we are missing the key information.

What volume of production is this $9000 loss for? 5,000 cars? 10,000 cars? 40,000 cars? 100,000 cars?

The reason why a flat $9000 per car is correct is that for some unknown volume that production costs+R&D costs/number cars less GM's net selling price (Not MSRB or Invoice) will work out to exactly $9000 per car. We just don't know the volume of production that point is at.

The same $9000 loss would be true for any car made, any cell phone made, any TV made, any computer made: The first unit is going to cost a lot more. We just don't know the volume at which the loss is $9000. And volume is the key number. $9000 by itself is meaningless. Break even volume is even more important.

Oh, and it's not just R&D costs and other fixed costs. Order 100 of something, pay one price. Order 10,000, pay much less. Order 1,000,000 of the same thing, the price will be drastically less. "Variable" costs are not the same cost per unit, they decline with rising production. It takes less labor to assemble the 10th car than it did the first car. Even less for the 10,000 car. And so on.

And this sums up why I, and presumably many others here, am so annoyed that this number was published. It feels like more EV bashing by the mainstream media to me. And the typical reader will neither know nor care about the details leading to this number. They just hear that GM loses money on each Bolt. Which reinforces the idea the government regulations are strangling US corporations. Which leads to...well, you can guess the rest.

 

[oilerlord]

We don't know if that phantom $9000 number (which could very well have been made up), is based on amortizing fixed costs over a particular sales volume, or variable costs. You can lose money on a production run, without losing even more money with higher volume.

I'll be honest with you. One characteristic of the EV community I have noted is the people in it are so negative.

If GM really is losing money per unit sold, I'm not sure why that would be interpreted as a "negative". If by making the car more affordable to a larger group of buyers, and more EV's are on the road - I'd put that in the win column for consumers and the environment.

To the contrary. one characteristic of the EV community I've noted are the people in it that look at EV's through rose-colored glasses, and seemingly take it as a personal attack when their shortcomings are discussed. No car is perfect, and If we can't openly and honestly discuss some of the work-in-progresses, challenges, and areas that EV's can be improved upon without it disintegrating into a pro/anti EV debate, then we're doing each other a disservice.

I applaud GM for allowing the Bolt to exist, and offering it to us regardless if it makes money for them or not.

 

[SeanNelson]

I applaud GM for allowing the Bolt to exist, and offering it to us regardless if it makes money for them or not.

They didn't just "allow" it to exist, they spent a considerable amount of time and money to bring it into existence. Much more time and money than for a typical "compliance car" like the Spark.

 

[oilerlord]

They didn't just "allow" it to exist, they spent a considerable amount of time and money to bring it into existence. Much more time and money than for a typical "compliance car" like the Spark.

No, Sean. The GM corporate decision to allow the project to go ahead came before they spent time and money bringing it into existence.

 

[Michael1]

They didn't just "allow" it to exist, they spent a considerable amount of time and money to bring it into existence. Much more time and money than for a typical "compliance car" like the Spark.

No, Sean. The GM corporate decision to allow the project to go ahead came before they spent time and money bringing it into existence.

Wrong. Much time and money was spent on electric powertrain research prior to the decision to bring the Bolt into existence.