You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The most effective and efficient way to end ICE sales would be to start by ending oil and gas subsidies; and tax ICE vehicles to cover the true cost to the economy of their extra emissions.Yeah, few governments have the courage to set a close firm date to stop ICE sales.
Norway is the only major example but if they had an existing car industry it would have been more difficult for them to do so.
Similarly part of the reason for China to stop ICE sales as quickly as possible is to give Chinese EVs the opportunity to take the market.
I don’t see other major countries doing the same.
But if it were the same motor, then in order to make more torque, it would at some point be drawing more power from the pack...Another possibility is there are new components (battery assembly?) in the EU version that need testing confirmation before a software update releases moar power.
I have a theory about what is going on with the affordable compact Tesla car. For arguments sake lets call this car the Model 2, or the M2. Even though we know that will not be the name its easy and convenient to call it that (for now).
We now know a hybrid version of the M2 is coming, a mix of the current Gen2 designs (M3 & MY) and the upcoming unboxed design (the RT and what was going to be the M2). Lets call this hybrid design the Model 2.5, or M2.5.
Tesla said the release timeline of the affordable car has been accelerated. Before it was slated to release late 2025, so this new M2.5 will likely go into production in early 2025. But it won't be the new unboxed production line, its going to be made on existing M3 & MY lines alongside Gen2 cars, yet it will have some design qualities of what was going to be the unboxed M2.
My theory is this new M2.5 will release alongside the Juniper refreshed MY and both versions will have qualities of the unboxed design (RT). For example, steer by wire and 48v architecture, things which the CT also adopted from the unboxed design.
My hunch is the M2.5 will be a downgraded version of the MY+, with differences like these possibly:
- MY+ has new ventilated seats, M2.5 does not
- MY+ keeps heated seats and steering wheel, M2.5 does not have them
- MY+ has rear passenger LCD screen like the M3+ has now, M2.5 would not
- MY+ keeps the current motors or maybe even upgraded motors, M2.5 has lower power and cheaper motors and is slower
- In face M2.5 might come RWD only with one motor
- MY+ keeps current 82kWh battery pack and range, M2.5 has slightly smaller LFP pack with less range, maybe 220 to 250 miles
- MY+ has the interior light strips the CT and M3+ have now, M2.5 does not
- MY+ keeps powered liftgate, M2.5 has manual liftgate
This is what I think we might be seeing. A downgraded MY to fill the affordable car gap in the lineup. Rather than spend the money to build the true M2 on the new unboxed line in Austin they've decided to build a new cheaper version of the MY on the future Juniper MY lines as a new variant, to sell at a much reduced price. I also think we'll see a similar reduced M3 version on the Highland M3 lines too, with similar changes as I listed above.
This approach both utilizes existing lines to expand production higher, while also allowing the new Gen3 unboxed production line to be dedicated 100% to RT's, one model only, no variations, thereby greatly simplifying RT production and reducing costs.
Part of my thinking here is I do feel its unrealistic to expect Tesla to build a new unboxed design on the existing M3 & MY lines, these just aren't compatible manufacturing processes. I also don't think they've designed an entirely new hybrid unboxed / old car design in such a short timeframe. I feel its much more realistic we'll see them use current M3 & MY designs to downgrade into cheaper variants instead, especially given how soon this new M2.5 is expected to go into production.
Just my two cents. We'll know in a year or so for certain.
Gas Guzzler tax for all ICEThe most effective and efficient way to end ICE sales would be to start by ending oil and gas subsidies; and tax ICE vehicles to cover the true cost to the economy of their extra emissions.
Norway didn't ban ICE, they taxed it and exempted EV's (until recently, now EV's pay some tax IIRC). I think the Canadian government still talks about banning new ICE in 2035 (always far enough away that the timelines can be bumped, it's more virtue signalling) - but the actual effect it's had is increase resentment among the poor who are panicking. I do my best to share about how EV's (at least Tesla) are getting cheaper and ICE's aren't as cheap as they think, but outright bans are simply unnecessary.
With Tesla in the picture, all governments have to do is stay out of the way - they were the first to actually want to try to 'win' with BEV. If governments can resist the urge to bail out legacy auto, we'd transition faster.
When ICE becomes more expensive than BEV, people will change by choice. It's why I'm very much looking forward to the end of the year and our next gen models, whatever they may be. Build something safe but cheap without bells and whistles, and we can finally dominate the entire car market, not just the medium-high end.
Nobody else is doing anything other than sampling 4680s yet.I think there are enough battery suppliers producing 4680, Tesla has accomplished their goal which was to encourage suppliers to mass manufacture the 4680 form factor. Batteries are low margin, they will be commoditized further like solar panels. Tesla would prefer to be in higher margin businesses that cannot be commoditized.
This is along the same lines as my thinking yesterday. Today is a new day, so time for a new theoryI have a theory about what is going on with the affordable compact Tesla car. For arguments sake lets call this car the Model 2, or the M2. Even though we know that will not be the name its easy and convenient to call it that (for now).
We now know a hybrid version of the M2 is coming, a mix of the current Gen2 designs (M3 & MY) and the upcoming unboxed design (the RT and what was going to be the M2). Lets call this hybrid design the Model 2.5, or M2.5.
Tesla said the release timeline of the affordable car has been accelerated. Before it was slated to release late 2025, so this new M2.5 will likely go into production in early 2025. But it won't be the new unboxed production line, its going to be made on existing M3 & MY lines alongside Gen2 cars, yet it will have some design qualities of what was going to be the unboxed M2.
My theory is this new M2.5 will release alongside the Juniper refreshed MY and both versions will have qualities of the unboxed design (RT). For example, steer by wire and 48v architecture, things which the CT also adopted from the unboxed design.
My hunch is the M2.5 will be a downgraded version of the MY+, with differences like these possibly:
- MY+ has new ventilated seats, M2.5 does not
- MY+ keeps heated seats and steering wheel, M2.5 does not have them
- MY+ has rear passenger LCD screen like the M3+ has now, M2.5 would not
- MY+ keeps the current motors or maybe even upgraded motors, M2.5 has lower power and cheaper motors and is slower
- In face M2.5 might come RWD only with one motor
- MY+ keeps current 82kWh battery pack and range, M2.5 has slightly smaller LFP pack with less range, maybe 220 to 250 miles
- MY+ has the interior light strips the CT and M3+ have now, M2.5 does not
- MY+ keeps powered liftgate, M2.5 has manual liftgate
This is what I think we might be seeing. A downgraded MY to fill the affordable car gap in the lineup. Rather than spend the money to build the true M2 on the new unboxed line in Austin they've decided to build a new cheaper version of the MY on the future Juniper MY lines as a new variant, to sell at a much reduced price. I also think we'll see a similar reduced M3 version on the Highland M3 lines too, with similar changes as I listed above.
This approach both utilizes existing lines to expand production higher, while also allowing the new Gen3 unboxed production line to be dedicated 100% to RT's, one model only, no variations, thereby greatly simplifying RT production and reducing costs.
Part of my thinking here is I do feel its unrealistic to expect Tesla to build a new unboxed design on the existing M3 & MY lines, these just aren't compatible manufacturing processes. I also don't think they've designed an entirely new hybrid unboxed / old car design in such a short timeframe. I feel its much more realistic we'll see them use current M3 & MY designs to downgrade into cheaper variants instead, especially given how soon this new M2.5 is expected to go into production.
Just my two cents. We'll know in a year or so for certain.
3-row SUV/CUV is over 10% of the US market.We will see what Q2 looks like, Kia just dropped the EV9 price by $7500.
If one subscribes to the thought ICEs are competition, add up the sales of the Toyota Grand Highlander, Highlander, Ford Explorer, Chevy Traverse, and Honda Pilot, all three-row CUVs. Why would not go for that low-hanging fruit when Tesla has the platform and production capacity to make a sizeable dent in that segment? Give the suburban moms what they want.
But what about all the other car manufacturers? Other BEV only players get hurt just as bad by its withdrawl. Don't the legacy benefit from the IRA by selling their hybrids? Seems to me if the IRA goes away legacy will be hurt worse by it's withdrawl as they're already admitting they can't compete profitably in the BEV space and pivoting to hybrids. The IRA goes away and they're still not competitive in the BEV space, hybrids become more expensive (after they've transitioned to making the inferior to BEV hybrids) for the consumer and they're left with their dying ICE vehicles. IMO everyone else is far more dependant on the IRA to grow their BEV/hybrid businesses than Tesla and their ICE business will be irrelavent within a decade.Hopefully we can wean ourselves off the IRA gradually?
Europe had sky-high gas taxes for decades, yet EVs were only 3-4% of the market until EU 95g mandated an overnight ramp to 20% in 2020-21.Extra Gasoline tax on every gallon
My understanding is that Safety Score is turned off (or at 100%) whenever FSD is used.Is there anywhere any info/thread about FSD vs Safety Score? Curious to see if 100% use FSD how it'd relate to Safety Score. Thanks.
I agree with most of your post, but I think there is something the Canadian government could do a lot more of to help with the switch to EVs, namely subsidize the installation of superchargers in the northern regions of Canada. I'm on the northern edge of the supercharger network and effectively can't take take a full day trip north and back. And I'm only 108 km from the US border. The vast majority of Canada is not conveniently accessible by EV.banning new ICE in 2035 ... it's more virtue signalling
Norway was going well with generous incentives, but what gave the biggest boost was the introduction of more affordable long-range BEVs.Europe had sky-high gas taxes for decades, yet EVs were only 3-4% of the market until EU 95g mandated an overnight ramp to 20% in 2020-21.
I do think that building infrastructure is a legitimate use of taxpayer money - as long as the bidding process is open and transparent. My bias is that I trust Tesla to actually produce quality charging infrastructure that lasts, but our federal government seems to want to deal with the likes of VW... I know that some provinces (BC at least) have made an effort to build charging facilities. Though it's still concentrated in the south. Would be nice to make a corridor up to Alaska to help those folks up there get connected to the rest of the continent.I agree with most of your post, but I think there is something the Canadian government could do a lot more of to help with the switch to EVs, namely subsidize the installation of superchargers in the northern regions of Canada. I'm on the northern edge of the supercharger network and effectively can't take take a full day trip north and back. And I'm only 108 km from the US border. The vast majority of Canada is not conveniently accessible by EV.
This is Kia's in Q1. Don't think Tesla needs to be focused here hardly anyone buying them
View attachment 1041537
None of this changes the impact to Tesla specifically lol, and earnings or what may be required in terms of further price cuts if the IRA benefit disappears.But what about all the other car manufacturers? Other BEV only players get hurt just as bad by its withdrawl. Don't the legacy benefit from the IRA by selling their hybrids? Seems to me if the IRA goes away legacy will be hurt worse by it's withdrawl as they're already admitting they can't compete profitably in the BEV space and pivoting to hybrids. The IRA goes away and they're still not competitive in the BEV space, hybrids become more expensive (after they've transitioned to making the inferior to BEV hybrids) for the consumer and they're left with their dying ICE vehicles. IMO everyone else is far more dependant on the IRA to grow their BEV/hybrid businesses than Tesla and their ICE business will be irrelavent within a decade.
The IRA is a nice bonus for Tesla. It's a lifeline for everyone else trying to compete/transition from ICE in the US car market.
Don't even get me started on how USA isn't the only car market in the world.
Silly FUDster...
(Likely someone else has pointed this out, but busy day for me today and it'll be hours before I catch up to see if someone else has this covered. Apologies in advance if so.)
Not snark. it seems to me they can and might achieve quite major decreases in Capex for the new vehicle(s) while simultaneously reducing manufacturing costs by a combination of GigaCasting and even more extensive modularization as in Model Y already. Combining those with already in production rare earth content in motors and vastly cheaper batteries (whether 4680 or not, battery component costs are continuing their slide.I'm hoping "magical" was autocarrot messing up "marginal" and not snark...
HP=TQ*RPM/5252. Motor construction, gear ratio, and inverter max current set max torque at the wheels.
Peak torque = peak_stator_current * torque_per_amp.
0 RPM gives max possible torque due to no back EMF to deal with and the battery power is near zero at that operating point due to no work being done.
Ron Baron on CNBC this morning, who was just at SpaceX this weekend and Tesla and likely knows more than anyone outside of Tesla, explained :
....
5. Robotaxi- He invested in Cruise to learn and they invest $250k per car. He got a ride with FSD V12 by software employee and believes only Tesla has the compute and data. Believes the timing is "now, now!"
Good question. In the past, I recall some info that my score would go up if I engaged FSD more often, along the same lines as if we drive at night the score goes down (a while ago). This implies that Tesla scored FSD higher than Humans, and maybe they valued the data more and just encouraged us to use it.Is there anywhere any info/thread about FSD vs Safety Score? Curious to see if 100% use FSD how it'd relate to Safety Score. Thanks.