Audi, Porsche and Mercedes preparing a rival for Tesla

[ToddRLockwood]

Tesla welcomes the "competition." As far as they're concerned, the more the merrier. Tesla's mandate since the company's founding ten years ago is to convert the world to sustainable transportation. They know they won't do this alone. It's a job that will require a commitment from other manufacturers as well. While we nitpick the details of these cars, Tesla sees a much bigger picture. I imagine they are encouraged by these announcements from other luxury carmakers. It adds further validation to the idea that electric vehicles are the best fit for the future.

 

[ckessel]

Would like to see Audi's answer to Tesla's rapidly-expanding Supercharger network as well. That's Tesla's trump card for the foreseeable future.

Indeed. I absolutely did not appreciate what a market advantage this network would be. It worked for me, since I'm on I5, but for so long the network was so small that the idea it'd be big enough to be a major competitive edge just didn't sink in. I mean, I had a conceptual idea it could be, but it wasn't until this last summer that I took a step back and went "damn...imagine how huge Tesla's infrastructure lead will be in another few years!"

 

[green1]

Indeed. I absolutely did not appreciate what a market advantage this network would be. It worked for me, since I'm on I5, but for so long the network was so small that the idea it'd be big enough to be a major competitive edge just didn't sink in. I mean, I had a conceptual idea it could be, but it wasn't until this last summer that I took a step back and went "damn...imagine how huge Tesla's infrastructure lead will be in another few years!"

Then the other manufacturers should launch in Canada first. The Supercharger network here is such a joke so far (and not planned to be all that much better any time in the future) that competing with it would be trivial.

 

[Krugerrand]

Then the other manufacturers should launch in Canada first. The Supercharger network here is such a joke so far (and not planned to be all that much better any time in the future) that competing with it would be trivial.

Big country, low general population concentrations, relatively few Model S spread out over vast land = not a priority when compared to much smaller countries with higher population density and Model S ownership.

 

[CalDreamin]

Big country, low general population concentrations, relatively few Model S spread out over vast land = not a priority when compared to much smaller countries with higher population density and Model S ownership.

While Canada overall has a low population density, the population density in the Toronto --> Ottawa --> Montreal --> Quebec City corridor is actually fairly high. I've been surprised how slow the Supercharger build out has been in that area. Plus that population corridor is relatively linear, so it probably doesn't require a huge number of Supercharger stations to serve it.

Lots of low-carbon sourced electricity in Ontario and Quebec make a good match for plug-in cars.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Slide over to 2014 on the Supercharger-map (just over 1 month left) and that corridor in Canada looks pretty much covered: Supercharger | Tesla Motors

 

[Krugerrand]

The delay may be Canadian laws/politics/all kinds of stuff and have nothing to do with Tesla.

 

[ckessel]

An example of why VW doesn't scare me as a competitor or at least not yet. There was an add for a VW e-Golf in my browser with a tagline something like "You'll almost forget it's electric".

The VW mindset is that EVs are so horrible their best advertising idea is to say that you might forget it's electric.

Until that mindset changes, they won't be a competitor in the EV space.

 

[Robert.Boston]

More about Audi:

Audi Confirms Tesla Model S Rival with 280-Mile Range for 2017

Something is seriously wrong with this quote from the article:

According to Dr. Heinz-Jakob Neußer, head of powertrain development at the Volkswagen Group, the electric motors are up to five times more efficient than the current motors used in models such as the VW e-Golf.

Electric motors have been >80% efficient for the past century or so. You can't make an 80% efficient motor 5x more efficient.

While Hackenberg remained silent on the new EV’s body style, it is expected to adopt a sedan shape which would allow for better packaging. In a sedan, the bigger and more powerful batteries would be placed beneath the floor of the car so they would not impact on boot volume or passenger space.

Well now, there's a novel idea. ;-)

 

[sandpiper]

Indeed. I absolutely did not appreciate what a market advantage this network would be. It worked for me, since I'm on I5, but for so long the network was so small that the idea it'd be big enough to be a major competitive edge just didn't sink in. I mean, I had a conceptual idea it could be, but it wasn't until this last summer that I took a step back and went "damn...imagine how huge Tesla's infrastructure lead will be in another few years!"

If Tesla is smart (and i think they are) they will encourage other manufacturers to use the SC network, and to assist in building it out. If Audi is smart (and I think they are) they will make their vehicles compatible with it. Using the SC network as a means of competition would be stupid. The real opportunity here is to displace the many millions of ICE vehicles - and not just to compete with other EVs. A solid charging network is a necessary condition to make that possible - and so it's in the manufacturer's interest to work together on it.

 

[JohnQ]

...The real opportunity here is to displace the many millions of ICE vehicles - and not just to compete with other EVs...

This is true for a new manufacturer. For an existing manufacturer they would be displacing their own business and that is harder to do as an established company, particularly when in denial about when the demand curve for EVs will increase to the point that it's a significant threat. The best that can be hoped for is that the company will view an EV as a conquest vehicle.

 

[Model 3]

Something is seriously wrong with this quote from the article:
Electric motors have been >80% efficient for the past century or so. You can't make an 80% efficient motor 5x more efficient.

May be an translation error for "the electric motors are up to five times more powerful than the current motors used in models such as the VW e-Golf"?

 

[WarpedOne]

Electric motors have been >80% efficient for the past century or so. You can't make an 80% efficient motor 5x more efficient.

Sure you can. 80% efficient motor wastes 20% of energy. 5 times more efficent one wastes only 1/5 or 20% of that i.e. 4% of all used energy.

So, 96% efficient motor is 5times more efficient than 80% efficient one.
But it will still only get you 96/80 = 20% farther then that old 80% efficient one.

Audi is still full of BS, even when technically correct.
Such quotes make me loose faith in them. It just shows they just don't get it.

 

[ggr]

Something is seriously wrong with this quote from the article:
Electric motors have been >80% efficient for the past century or so. You can't make an 80% efficient motor 5x more efficient.

But you can make them 5 times less inefficient. That is, if you could reduce the inefficiency from 20% to 4%, some might say it's 5x more efficient. I woudn't, but some would . I have no idea whether this might be what was meant or not, just commenting.

 

[sandpiper]

This is true for a new manufacturer. For an existing manufacturer they would be displacing their own business and that is harder to do as an established company, particularly when in denial about when the demand curve for EVs will increase to the point that it's a significant threat. The best that can be hoped for is that the company will view an EV as a conquest vehicle.

Tesla's success in the lux market has opened a lot of eyes, and made it clear that people will accept EVs when the specs start to provide the capabilities that people want. EVs (but for the battery) are going to be significantly less costly to produce than ICEs at equivalent volume. They're much simpler and the "skateboard" concept allows them to produce many unique vehicles on one frame/drive system. In a decade, batteries will be relatively cheap and the range will be significantly improved.

The Germans are smart, they plan far ahead, and they've run the numbers. Provide a highly reliable, silent, powerful, 800km range vehicle at a price competitive with an equivalent ICE, and you've got a landslide on your hands. And this is even more true in Europe than in North America.

 

[peet365]

I dont think we will see 800km real life range EV unless costs are below 50USD/kWh and density is way above 500Wh/kg. 800km is around 200 kWh. IMO over 100-120kWh much more important will charging speed and infrastructure.

 

[WarpedOne]

The Germans are smart, they plan far ahead, and they've run the numbers.

Where are they building their gigafactory?
They aren't? They are not that smart after all.

 

[sandpiper]

I dont think we will see 800km real life range EV unless costs are below 50USD/kWh and density is way above 500Wh/kg. 800km is around 200 kWh. IMO over 100-120kWh much more important will charging speed and infrastructure.

I was implying 800km rated range. Real world varies depending upon which world you live in of course. It's very rare than I can't get where I need to go on one tank of gas - which is usually 750-800km. That's plenty enough to allow me to make an EV my primary vehicle. The current 470km is pretty marginal.

If 85kwh -> 470km, then 800km -> 145kwh. Even at $100/kwh, you're looking at a $15k battery pack. There's nothing there that seems implausible to me inside of a decade.

Where are they building their gigafactory?
They aren't? They are not that smart after all.

Good question. They'll either do what Tesla is doing right now - buy from a battery maker, who will be responsible for building the capacity. And maybe they'll buy packs directly from Tesla. Dismiss he Germans at your peril.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I was implying 800km rated range. Real world varies depending upon which world you live in of course. It's very rare than I can't get where I need to go on one tank of gas - which is usually 750-800km. That's plenty enough to allow me to make an EV my primary vehicle. The current 470km is pretty marginal.

If I had a gas pump in my garage, then I'd concede the point. But on average I have about half a tank in my ICE, so I'll still need to stop and refuel on a trip over 200 miles.

But I nitpick -- the key point is that any EV manufacturer is balancing four design parameters:

1. Energy stored
2. Battery weight
3. Battery size
4. Battery cost

The first is a 'good' and the other three 'bad'. Elon already said that they could have made the Model S with a larger battery, but in balancing these factors, Tesla concluded that (at the time) the 85kWh size was the sweet spot. As battery cost falls and energy density rises, the sweet spot will migrate to a higher point. Tesla will at some point drop the 60kWh (a careful reading of Tesla's comments about the Model X indicate that there will be no 60kWh version of that vehicle), and then introduce a new battery with the same footprint but higher energy stored. And they'll make a lot of money selling these new packs to existing owners.

I don't think that many ICE buyers think much about the gas-tank sizes on competing models. Why? Because refueling is fairly fast. As Superchargers become more ubiquitous, I think there'll also much less concern about super-long-range EVs.

 

[sandpiper]

If I had a gas pump in my garage, then I'd concede the point. But on average I have about half a tank in my ICE, so I'll still need to stop and refuel on a trip over 200 miles.

But I nitpick -- the key point is that any EV manufacturer is balancing four design parameters:

1. Energy stored
2. Battery weight
3. Battery size
4. Battery cost

The first is a 'good' and the other three 'bad'. Elon already said that they could have made the Model S with a larger battery, but in balancing these factors, Tesla concluded that (at the time) the 85kWh size was the sweet spot. As battery cost falls and energy density rises, the sweet spot will migrate to a higher point. Tesla will at some point drop the 60kWh (a careful reading of Tesla's comments about the Model X indicate that there will be no 60kWh version of that vehicle), and then introduce a new battery with the same footprint but higher energy stored. And they'll make a lot of money selling these new packs to existing owners.

I don't think that many ICE buyers think much about the gas-tank sizes on competing models. Why? Because refueling is fairly fast. As Superchargers become more ubiquitous, I think there'll also much less concern about super-long-range EVs.

A lot of business travelers routinely do 4-5 runs non-stop. In a Canadian winter, the current battery gives you a practical range of 250km at realistic highway speeds. That won't even get me to the closest "planned" supercharger. To have to stop for a 1/2 hr charge, 2 hours into the trip is not great. An 800 km rated battery brings the vehicle close to the range you'd get on a standard ICE tank of gas (although not quite).

It depends on where you live and what your mission is. The Tesla (looking forward to receiving it though I am) is unusable in winter as a traveling vehicle for me, and marginal in summer. I suspect you'll find the same for a lot of folks who don't live in a dense urban center, or need to travel for business.