Electric Car Holy Grail: The Facts Show No One Can Top Tesla

[gnuarm]

This thread has completely derailed. Let's talk about why or why not Tesla is the current EV market leader or why or why not they have a big jump on EV manufacturing... This was never a thread to introduce ICE versus BEV. As an example idea, will Tesla simply lose its perceived lead to a company that can produce a vehicle with longer range and only 5 minutes to charge from near depleted to full?

There's not a lot to discuss regarding Tesla being the EV market leader. Yes, they are, no question. I would say Nissan is second with an EV they've been making for nearly as long as Tesla has been making them, but with much more limited goals. Seems Nissan was entering the market cautiously, like the others only they are more so. Clearly GM, in spite of having a competitive product, has decided not to push sales on their Bolt so they are a more distant than expected third.

As I have said many times, the biggest factor differentiating Tesla from all the others is not the car, but the charging network. I'd like to tell the GM chiefs, "It's about the charging, stupid!"

 

[StealthP3D]

As I have said many times, the biggest factor differentiating Tesla from all the others is not the car, but the charging network. I'd like to tell the GM chiefs, "It's about the charging, stupid!"

While the Supercharger Network is a big competitive advantage, I think Tesla's superior technology is an even bigger differentiator. Even with an equivalent charging network the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt would not be competitive with the Model 3.

And this thing called "Full Self Driving" is increasing in capabilities at an exponential rate. The difference between Tesla and Chevy/Nissan is stark. You can't even compare them.

 

[Evoforce]

My son has a Bolt and it is a very good electric car. I agree with the above poster that Chevy dealers are mostly not trying to sell the cars. Dealers first have to want to order them in so they have them as inventory on their lot to sell. Chevy is making a better car than Nissan. Nissan still doesn't get that they need to provide active liquid thermal cooling to their car batteries and both of those aforementioned manufacturers are not really helping to provide charging infrastructure. Tesla has a major charging infrastructure advantage.

 

[gnuarm]

I like the way some people in this thread create straw man arguments against what they think others are saying obviously not understanding what they've said at all.

Oh well.

While the Supercharger Network is a big competitive advantage, I think Tesla's superior technology is an even bigger differentiator. Even with an equivalent charging network the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Bolt would not be competitive with the Model 3.

And this thing called "Full Self Driving" is increasing in capabilities at an exponential rate. The difference between Tesla and Chevy/Nissan is stark. You can't even compare them.

Respectfully, I disagree. I think most people won't want to spend the extra money for the self driving. Besides, GM is supposed to have similar technology. I'm sure, unlike Tesla, they aren't willing to show it until it is ready for prime time. This is an area where the boldness of Tesla is working for them.

Otherwise, I think the "superior technology" is not a significant sales tool. The Chevy 0 to 60 time is 6.5 seconds which is so much faster than pretty much any ICE in it's class. Remember, the ICE is the real competition for the short term. Tesla doesn't shine that much more with a sub 4 second 0 to 60 time. In fact, I, like a lot of drivers, keep their Tesla detuned in Sport or even Classic mode rather than drive around in Ludicrous mode.

I think I have mentioned before that I think once competition is in earnest, an important factor will be the lifespan of the batteries and drive units. Tesla has/had an 8 year/unlimited mileage battery/drive unit warranty. I'd like to see everyone have such a warranty or even longer. For a typical driver 8 years is only a bit over 100,000 miles. For the car to be cost effective you need a battery to last as long as the rest of it, 200,000 miles. So maybe this is an area where Tesla will hold the competition's feet to the fire, confidence their drive lines have longevity.

 

[StealthP3D]

Respectfully, I disagree. I think most people won't want to spend the extra money for the self driving. Besides, GM is supposed to have similar technology. I'm sure, unlike Tesla, they aren't willing to show it until it is ready for prime time. This is an area where the boldness of Tesla is working for them.

Otherwise, I think the "superior technology" is not a significant sales tool.

When I referred to Tesla's "superior technology" I was not limiting it to their superior AutoPilot capabilities or even focussing on that. I'm getting the feeling there are a lot of people that think an EV is just an off-the-shelf electric motor, a battery and some wires. In truth, anyone can design and build an electric car. But for it to be competitive it has to be cost-effective and to do that you need to maximize the range per dollar spent which means efficiency is key to making a smaller. less expensive battery go the distance. Tesla is breaking new ground on motor and controller efficiency in the EV space. You can't really separate the two and designing a state of the art motor and controller is not as easy as some would assume. It takes a real depth of knowledge and expertise. Ford and Chevy don't even make their own starter motors and alternators so I'm not sure what kind of in-house expertise they have in low tech electronics, let alone the bleeding edge stuff Tesla has created..

"Superior technology" is a very broad subject. It extends to the cars "nervous system" the network of computers and connections that carry control signals and current to the low voltage side of the car. Tesla has shamed traditional makers with the state of low voltage electrical engineering which reduces weight and costs and increases reliability and capability.

There is the integrated cooling system that so impressed Munroe (who has seen it all). There are the over-the-air updates that allow the car to be continually improved. The entire architecture of the Model 3 is different and better than anything out there. All of the critical systems like the steering and AP computers are redundant fail-safe systems ready for self-driving. The electric steering has two motors with separate power supplies.

And I've only scratched the surface. Not only is the superior technology a powerful sales tool, it also helps dramatically lower costs making the products that much more compelling. If you get 5% more efficiency out of your drivetrain, your battery costs go down by 5% and the car is lighter, saving further money. The dinosaur manufacturers still don't know what to do about it. They have cultures that are slow to innovate and resist change. It's more than obvious, Tesla's superior technology is a primary driver of sales!

In the foreseeable future, no one can top Tesla. I wish they all could but none of them can.

 

[dfwatt]

There's not a lot to discuss regarding Tesla being the EV market leader. Yes, they are, no question. I would say Nissan is second with an EV they've been making for nearly as long as Tesla has been making them, but with much more limited goals. Seems Nissan was entering the market cautiously, like the others only they are more so. Clearly GM, in spite of having a competitive product, has decided not to push sales on their Bolt so they are a more distant than expected third.

As I have said many times, the biggest factor differentiating Tesla from all the others is not the car, but the charging network. I'd like to tell the GM chiefs, "It's about the charging, stupid!"

You are basically the equivalent of what we used to call in mental health circles a "one issue therapist" - there is only one issue that's important, and you just hammer away at that! All else is irrelevant. You insist, and claim to speak for the vast majority of consumers (without any scientific or empirical data to support such claims) that charging is the only meaningful issue extant in the EV vs ICE world.

Please . . . speak for yourself, but don't presume to be speaking for everyone else, esp. not here - it feels more than a little presumptuous. Some of us actually like driving a responsive vehicle, and the Model 3 is a driver's car, much more so frankly than the S or the X. There are many reasons why the 3 is popular - it's very good looking, goes like stink, handles extremely well, wins outright all the NHTSA crash tests, has a unique and well integrated operating system interface, the best current autopilot system, and is reasonably close to autonomous driving (which despite your other statements about it, is a selling point for quite a few people.) It also has the best charging network, is very cost efficient and low maintenance, and by all account, the best BMS, and therefore probably the best battery longevity, which is a HUGE issue for most buyers - one of the first questions they ask in fact ("How long do the batteries last").

Among the most telling data points are experiences reported by women driving the Model 3. Take my wife - someone who hates technology (and she typically blows it up - the current death toll stands at 4 cell phones, 3 laptops, one Honda key FOB, and 1 Ipod) and who previously regarded all vehicles as utilitarian ways just to get from point A to point B. After a very brief period of initial skepticism, this master of technological disaster just LOVES driving the Model 3. And can't stand to drive anything else, due to how slow, unresponsive, and primitive other (ICE) vehicles feel (that includes a Lexus IS and a Honda). We have our fingers crossed that the car can survive my wife's talent for blowing s--- up.

So it's not just the charging network. Like I said earlier, you seem to have restricted vision of the big picture, hyperfocused on all those details. Hopefully your view can expand over time.

 

[gnuarm]

When I referred to Tesla's "superior technology" I was not limiting it to their superior AutoPilot capabilities or even focussing on that. I'm getting the feeling there are a lot of people that think an EV is just an off-the-shelf electric motor, a battery and some wires. In truth, anyone can design and build an electric car. But for it to be competitive it has to be cost-effective and to do that you need to maximize the range per dollar spent which means efficiency is key to making a smaller. less expensive battery go the distance. Tesla is breaking new ground on motor and controller efficiency in the EV space. You can't really separate the two and designing a state of the art motor and controller is not as easy as some would assume. It takes a real depth of knowledge and expertise. Ford and Chevy don't even make their own starter motors and alternators so I'm not sure what kind of in-house expertise they have in low tech electronics, let alone the bleeding edge stuff Tesla has created..

I'm not sure how important it is that you make everything yourself. The most important part of the equation is the battery cells and even Tesla doesn't make those, Panasonic does. That potentially creates all manner of logistical issues just like the present report that Panasonic is not ramping up at gigafactory 1. I'm not trying to open a debate on that report, only to point out that outsourcing is clearly a logistical issue while I'm not so sure it is important to the technology of the car. What matters is that the technology is in the car.

So GM having the Bolt motors made in Korea (I think) is not a technology impact.

"Superior technology" is a very broad subject. It extends to the cars "nervous system" the network of computers and connections that carry control signals and current to the low voltage side of the car. Tesla has shamed traditional makers with the state of low voltage electrical engineering which reduces weight and costs and increases reliability and capability.

Shamed??? I am in electronics and big iron has been working on reducing the wiring in cars for decades. The difference is changing things at the most suitable rates vs. starting from scratch. Big iron has things like extensive service networks that need more gradual change to prevent high capital costs while Tesla barely even has a service network. Which one is a net positive???

There is the integrated cooling system that so impressed Munroe (who has seen it all). There are the over-the-air updates that allow the car to be continually improved. The entire architecture of the Model 3 is different and better than anything out there. All of the critical systems like the steering and AP computers are redundant fail-safe systems ready for self-driving. The electric steering has two motors with separate power supplies.

Dual motors is the easy part of drive by wire. Both motors have to receive controlling instructions from some place. I don't know how they design their system so I can't tell you if there is a single point of failure, but during an earthquake here some years ago a single point of failure was uncovered in the cooling system for the North Anna reactor designs. It happens in the most important systems.

And I've only scratched the surface. Not only is the superior technology a powerful sales tool, it also helps dramatically lower costs making the products that much more compelling. If you get 5% more efficiency out of your drivetrain, your battery costs go down by 5% and the car is lighter, saving further money. The dinosaur manufacturers still don't know what to do about it. They have cultures that are slow to innovate and resist change. It's more than obvious, Tesla's superior technology is a primary driver of sales!

I see no evidence of lower costs. What sells cars is not lower costs, but lower prices. The eTron and I-Pace are both lower priced from what I've seen.

Same with the drive train. The proof of the pudding... Show me the numbers where thee battery cost or lightness of the car. The model X (comparable to the two new competitors) is the heaviest of the three. The model 3 is not really comparable.

I've wondered why Tesla came out with a sedan rather than the SUV first. Everyone else seems to understand the SUV and pickup categories are the way to sell the most cars these days. The first model 3 owner I spoke to showed me how limited the trunk is in the 3. He would have preferred a hatchback like the S.

In the foreseeable future, no one can top Tesla. I wish they all could but none of them can.

Not sure what "foreseeable" means in this context. I don't see any problem with a number of auto makers introducing cars that compete very well with the Tesla. The bottom line is what the consumer sees, not what is inside and invisible. If Tesla doesn't improve on service, they may not be able to give their cars away in a few years.

 

[dfwatt]

I'm not sure how important it is that you make everything yourself. The most important part of the equation is the battery cells and even Tesla doesn't make those, Panasonic does. That potentially creates all manner of logistical issues just like the present report that Panasonic is not ramping up at gigafactory 1. I'm not trying to open a debate on that report, only to point out that outsourcing is clearly a logistical issue while I'm not so sure it is important to the technology of the car. What matters is that the technology is in the car.

So GM having the Bolt motors made in Korea (I think) is not a technology impact.

Shamed??? I am in electronics and big iron has been working on reducing the wiring in cars for decades. The difference is changing things at the most suitable rates vs. starting from scratch. Big iron has things like extensive service networks that need more gradual change to prevent high capital costs while Tesla barely even has a service network. Which one is a net positive???

Dual motors is the easy part of drive by wire. Both motors have to receive controlling instructions from some place. I don't know how they design their system so I can't tell you if there is a single point of failure, but during an earthquake here some years ago a single point of failure was uncovered in the cooling system for the North Anna reactor designs. It happens in the most important systems.

I see no evidence of lower costs. What sells cars is not lower costs, but lower prices. The eTron and I-Pace are both lower priced from what I've seen.

Same with the drive train. The proof of the pudding... Show me the numbers where thee battery cost or lightness of the car. The model X (comparable to the two new competitors) is the heaviest of the three. The model 3 is not really comparable.

I've wondered why Tesla came out with a sedan rather than the SUV first. Everyone else seems to understand the SUV and pickup categories are the way to sell the most cars these days. The first model 3 owner I spoke to showed me how limited the trunk is in the 3. He would have preferred a hatchback like the S.

Only in the US do SUVs and pickup trucks dominate. That's not the whole market anymore, and hasn't been for a while.

The glass continues to be barely half full, and draining fast through many imagined leaks in the bottom.

With this much dislike if not antipathy for Tesla, why do you even own one? Why not sell it and get an E-tron or an Ipace? Put your capital where your mouth is? As for those being cheaper - cheaper than what - a Tesla Model X? Both in base trim are more expensive than a Model Y Performance version, which while not available yet, will likely outsell those both 10 to 1. Easily. And in terms of performance and range, not even close. So your comparisons are stilted.

Your marginalizing of the Model 3 (which blows away both the E tron and the Ipace as sport sedans) shows you're not listening to any argument about people who buy cars based on HOW THEY DRIVE!!

Conclusion: you're not listening to any data points not aligned with your dismissive and pessimistic assessment of Tesla. I am not sure that further discussion is going to yield much other than more evidence that it's just more pessimism and dismissal. I can't imagine owning an Uber-expensive product from a company that I have such little regard for. You're in the wrong place it seems to me.

 

[Tarzan_fi]

You are basically the equivalent of what we used to call in mental health circles a "one issue therapist"

Please . . . speak for yourself, ... the Model 3 is a driver's car, much more so frankly than the S or the X. There are many reasons why the 3 is popular - it's very good looking, goes like stink, handles extremely well, wins outright all the NHTSA crash tests, has a unique and well integrated operating system interface, the best current autopilot system, and is reasonably close to autonomous driving (which despite your other statements about it, is a selling point for quite a few people.) It also has the best charging network, is very cost efficient and low maintenance, and by all account, the best BMS, and therefore probably the best battery longevity, which is a HUGE issue for most buyers - one of the first questions they ask in fact ("How long do the batteries last").

Seems now you are not speaking for yourself.

In my view, Model 3 looks like something between a duck and a frog, and I would have never switched to so slowly accelerating car as P3D, I did not feel it handles that well, and objectively most sporty ICE cars in the same category are faster around the track. Safety is somewhat of a question mark, like the possibly spontaneous explosion of MS in China showed. Charging network in many parts of Europe is typically better for other brands (esp Chademo; sure, I guess you can have such cable for Tesla, but with an extra cost and reduced convenience). I did not like that screen of M3, which seemed like an afterthought; not integrated at all, and cumbersome to use vs physical buttons. It may be cost efficient to own but certainly expensive to purchase.

I bought MS because I am getting old, but I still want to have fun at traffic lights without sacrificing the space and comfort of a big sedan. But I will definitely miss the sound and sporty feeling of my GT-R.

 

[dfwatt]

Seems now you are not speaking for yourself.

In my view, Model 3 looks like something between a duck and a frog, and I would have never switched to so slowly accelerating car as P3D, I did not feel it handles that well, and objectively most sporty ICE cars in the same category are faster around the track. Safety is somewhat of a question mark, like the possibly spontaneous explosion of MS in China showed. Charging network in many parts of Europe is typically better for other brands (esp Chademo; sure, I guess you can have such cable for Tesla, but with an extra cost and reduced convenience). I did not like that screen of M3, which seemed like an afterthought; not integrated at all, and cumbersome to use vs physical buttons. It may be cost efficient to own but certainly expensive to purchase.

I bought MS because I am getting old, but I still want to have fun at traffic lights without sacrificing the space and comfort of a big sedan. But I will definitely miss the sound and sporty feeling of my GT-R.

And obviously you are speaking for yourself but counterfactually. You're obviously unaware of the track results with the model 3 and I'm sure you're not interested in that set of data points against your argument either where it is consistently faster than any BMW M Series, MB AMG 6.3 and Alfa Romeo Quad, so I won't bother providing you with links (you can find them if you were at all interested).

On the other hand, it's fine that you prefer your Model S to the Model 3. We've driven both we prefer the Model 3 for too many reasons to spell out here.

 

[Tarzan_fi]

No. I would be happy to be wrong on that. But I doubt e.g. BMW M3 vs. Tesla M3 would turn that way round. Edit: That would be one argument less for owning an ICE vehicle. But having driven both cars, the only way that could to my experience happen is on very twisty stop-and-go track, where AWD would bring in significant performance gains when launching from the corners. But even Tesla cant fight the physics of 2+ ton car.

Like you, I think M3 was much more of a driver's car than MS but I was there for a straight line performance, because neither was able to compete with my earlier car in terms of track performance. If only we could have the best of both worlds, but currently that seems impossible. In the future it may be, but I can't afford the Roadster 2.0.

Edit 2: I found a link where Tesla M3 was faster on Street of Willows after several days of factory supported tuning for that track and with track day tires than Alfa Quadrifoglio with stock tires. But e.g. in Laguna Seca the difference was 6s (I cannot believe it would be that much in real life and with the same tires and driver) to benefit of BMW M3.

So you are right. Internet cannot be used to judge it with 100% certainty. I wish someone did M3 vs. M3 test soon, and did that objectively enough. I would put my money on BMW M3, as I trust on my butt feeling from driving them.

 

[dfwatt]

No. I would be happy to be wrong on that. But I doubt e.g. BMW M3 vs. Tesla M3 would turn that way round.

Like you, I think M3 was much more of a driver's car than MS but I was there for a straight line performance, because neither was able to compete with my earlier car in terms of track performance. If only we could have the best of both worlds, but currently that seems impossible. In the future it may be, but I can't afford the Roadster 2.0.

What was your earlier car, a McLaren 720 or a GT-R? LOL!

It is reasonable to disparage a $60,000 car that can't beat a car more than twice as expensive around a track, and one that "guzzles gas like a drunken sailor" (to quote another PD3 owner on this thread)? For the price, it's the fastest track car in its class and 0-60 - easily. And over short distances, beats not only its class members handily, but also can best some exotics. Cars with much better hp/wt ratios catch it eventually, but still, it's pretty impressive.

With minimal, I mean really minimal, effort, you can find evidence that the Model beats the M series and the AMG 6.3 around several tracks. Both in that link and on data extracted from Fastest laps. And the slightly more powerful Alfa Quad, even besting the earlier gen exotic, the Ferrari Italia 458 around the track.

So, again, claims that there are better sports sedans in its price class in terms of performance look counterfactual.

 

[dfwatt]

No. I would be happy to be wrong on that. But I doubt e.g. BMW M3 vs. Tesla M3 would turn that way round. Edit: That would be one argument less for owning an ICE vehicle. Edit 2: I found a link where Tesla M3 was faster on Street of Willows after several days of factory supported tuning for that track and with track day tires than Alfa Quadrifoglio with stock tires. But e.g. in Laguna Seca the difference was 6s (I cannot believe it would be that much in real life and with the same tires and driver) to benefit of BMW M3.

I would put my money on BMW M3, as I trust on my butt feeling from driving them.

Again, closer to accurate but still some counterfactual statements. On the Streets of Willow, the Alfa had quasi track or so called extreme performance dry track tires (their 'stock' tire P Zero Corsa isn't really a street tire), the Model 3 just got comparable rubber. As for Laguna Seca, no real comparable test has been done with a truly level playing field (same tires, same track pads, no engine mods or turbo tweaks). so no real data for comparison. And with completely stock cars, existing data doesn't support BMW having any advantage at all on most tracks.

It's nice that you trust your butt. I'd trust the existing data.

 

[Tarzan_fi]

GT-R.

0-60 absolutely. That is where BEV is at its strongest. MS will be faster on 0-60 than my mildly tuned GT-R as it needs to be launched with wheel spin in order to keep turbos rolling.

Like said, I would be happy to be wrong on that one.

 

[Tarzan_fi]

Again, closer to accurate but still some counterfactual statements. On the Streets of Willow, the Alfa had quasi track or so called extreme performance dry track tires (their 'stock' tire P Zero Corsa isn't really a street tire), the Model 3 just got comparable rubber. As for Laguna Seca, no real comparable test has been done with a truly level playing field (same tires, same track pads, no engine mods or turbo tweaks). so no real data for comparison. And with completely stock cars, existing data doesn't support BMW having any advantage at all on most tracks.

It's nice that you trust your butt. I'd trust the existing data.

To destroy part of that illusion, P Zero Corsa is a street tyre, something close to Pilot Sport 4 and slower than P4S. Pilot Sport Cup 2 is a track day tyre comparable to Pirellin P Zero Trofeo (albeit a bit slower).

My butt is a rather educated one, but like I highlighted in another thread, it could benefit from EV experience.

 

[dfwatt]

To destroy part of that illusion, P Zero Corsa is a street tyre, something close to Pilot Sport 4 and slower than P4S. Pilot Sport Cup 2 is a track day tyre comparable to Pirellin P Zero Trofeo (albeit a bit slower).

My butt is a rather educated one, but like I highlighted in another thread, it could benefit from EV experience.

Almost but not quite. The P zero Corsa is listed as a so-called Extreme Performance Tire in a different class from so-called Max performance tires like the Michelin Pilot Sport 4S.

And actually I think I misspoke, as the evidence suggests that the tire that came with the quadrifoglio is actually got treadwear rated at 60 so it probably is the Trofeo. So it's really an extreme Extreme Performance tire, otherwise known as a track tire frankly. People are reporting about 7,000 miles of wear before they have to replace it. So no, it is actually not in the same class as the 4S. And therefore the Motor Trend results actually leveled the playing field rather than tilted it in Tesla's Direction.

And we're not even talking about track mode 3.0. The model 3 is the only car that's going to get faster with each iteration of software. To paraphrase Motor Trend, fear 3.0.

 

[malcolm]

Yet just a mere 48 hrs ago, the OPs claim would have been ridiculed.

I think a better view is that an apparent market lead / lag can change very quickly.

This isn't over and Tesla is a strong contender. The overall winner? Maybe.

 

[Tarzan_fi]

If it is 60 then it is not Corsa, although the text stated that. (I think Corsa was above the 220 threshold). I found from Alfa Romeo Giulia Quadrifoglio: 6th Place - 2017 Motor Trend Best Driver's Car - MotorTrend that it was Pirelli P Zero Corsa AR Asimmetrico. Then it is fair to use Cup 2.

But the standard Corsa is slower than 4S. I have had both of them. It is Pirelli's top tyre but it can't match Michelin. Trofeo on the other hand is super sweet but soap in the wet. My MS will get Cup 2s. Hmm...should I still consider returning MS and take P3D despite its looks. Performance is always pretty.

 

[dfwatt]

Yet just a mere 48 hrs ago, the OPs claim would have been ridiculed.

I think a better view is that an apparent market lead / lag can change very quickly.

This isn't over and Tesla is a strong contender. The overall winner? Maybe.

Are you reading the same thread? People think even now that the Op's claim is ridiculous.

And anyone who thinks that the race is over is crazy - it's barely started.

And as acknowledged in a previous post, arrogance has derailed a lot of early and even dominant Market leaders. So there's a lot of territory ahead of us before EV is a mature technology. I think what I'm encouraged by is that although Elon is a bit impulsive and makes ill-advised tweets he is not fundamentally arrogant. And I think he has a deep respect for nature and for the need to live in harmony with natural systems. Can't say that about a whole list of GM and Ford executives.

 

[StealthP3D]

Conclusion: you're not listening to any data points not aligned with your dismissive and pessimistic assessment of Tesla. I am not sure that further discussion is going to yield much other than more evidence that it's just more pessimism and dismissal. I can't imagine owning an Uber-expensive product from a company that I have such little regard for. You're in the wrong place it seems to me.

Your conclusion appears to be spot-on. If you dissect his rebuttals, gnuarm stretches logic just for the sake of putting Tesla in a negative light. It's not about clear thinking, it's about torturing logic until he comes up with another negative way to frame Tesla, no matter how minuscule and irrelevant the topic. He does this again and again on topics so small and meaningless that it leaves you with no question as to what his true motives are.