JRP3
Hyperactive Member
They should save a seat for the head of the Flat Earth Society.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Ulmo
Active Member
Tesla defintely has a lead. However, dedicated engineering-based car companies would be able to get something competitive within a handful of years; the big question is always how full is a hand. Tesla was delivering in 2008, and GM in 2016 (I'm talking only about EVs with a range over 200 miles on a charge, i.e., one day's commute from home round trip back to home for me at some of my almost-most distance work sites I've been to; at least I could get to all my work sites I've ever been to with that range). Yes, that's right, there's only two car companies with an over 200 mile range EV out on the market right now; someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
GM Bolt - Tesla Roadster = 8 years. Add 6 years to GM from today (8 from release of Bolt), and they'll have their EV SUV, EV luxury sedan, and on their way toward a pickup and a semi, or whatever sequence they choose. Take a look at any other EV maker that manages to get a >200 mile range EV out there by 2020, and then in 2028, they'll also have their SUV, luxury sedan, sports car, cheaper mid-cost car, and on their way to pickup and semi, or whatever order they want to choose. And they might take less years to do some than Tesla, or more years.
And anyone can come out at any time with their "Roadster" (their first EV over 200 miles range), but as with GM, it could be the "cheaper car", or their pickup, or their semi, or whatever; not everyone starts with the Roadster. So, there could be 5 companies that come out with their first >200 mile range EV, and by then, almost every road vehicle type could be represented by at least two EV makers, or by at least EV makers other than Tesla, just because of everyone coming out with their first as some other type of vehicle than a Roadster or mid-level luxury sedan, like GM did with their less expensive car.
Ulmo
Active Member
Money is a problem. Running an insurance company is capital intensive. Tesla not being rich and cash flush is actually a big deal for Tesla's opportunities. There are still lots of opportunties for Tesla without being flush with cash by still using their available funding sources (revenue, investors, loan deals, etc.), but there is definitely a long list of things that they can't do because they have not gotten to the fat cat stage. I'm not sure it's smart to get there without trying to stay lean enough to keep doing good work. However, having enough to eat is vital.
Having said that, Tesla could work their angles and become a sort of clearing house or brokerage for insurance that works closer to their specifications. In order for Tesla to be able to do that, I can imagine they would have to show real underwritable numbers to a financing company willing to put up the cash for such insurance, one that isn't already fully extended with Tesla already. I can imagine this could come out of private meetings between Tesla and choice insurance underwriting companies, showcasing the efficiency of the new pilot Tesla body work shops and their cost structures. If Tesla can show the cost structure of handling repairs is reasonable, then there might be a chance for financing closer to Tesla-spec insurance without Tesla using its own cash pot.
I mean... it has to dementia, right?
Several years ago when ARM started to rule mobile computing, I always thought Intel would be able to come up with something and crush them. Worked with their engineers, I had no doubt Intel employee top notch engineers in the world. Given the ARM architecture is so much simpler than many of the things Intel tried, it should be easy for them.
Ulmo
Active Member
I wonder how much management policy has to do with it. It's amazing how many wonderful products fail not because of engineering or manufacturing but because of the other parts of a company (policy, marketing, support, etc.).
Easy, now, I resemble that. The idea stings me like a hornet, but methinks you miss a be.
you can see this is not a one off event. It happened over and over again. Steven Jobs got a page or two from Sony's playbook, the beautiful design, attending to details and holistic user experience. But Sony was defenseless against Apple. IBM essentially invented client-server based system, and their research on distributed high-reliable system was cutting edge. They had almost all the right ingredient for cloud computing before anyone else. Today they are on the verge of irrelevance.
So I am not sure I can believe it would be just 'matter of time' for other car makers to catch up.
Intel suffers a problem that is related to the Innovator's Dilemma. Whenever they acquire a company, or outside talent, or develop new talent inside, they move that talent onto maintaining their monopoly on PC and server CPUs. So they mostly continue to win over AMD, but fall behind ARM and NVidea, and fail to gain traction in wireless chips against Broadcom, Qualcomm and Samsung. So "should be" is the correct take on this. Just like the Germans "should" crush Tesla in EVs.
I don't understand his hatred for Tesla ... well maybe it's because they keep accomplishing things he couldn't get done at GM. At this point Lutz's jealousy seems to engulf him with the mention of the word Tesla.
He is to be ignored at all costs, yet CNBC will drag him out at every opportunity to act as their resident automotive "expert" .
Cheers to the longs ...
Without alleging any intention on the OP, here is a list of intentional fallacies which may come handy here...
Fallacy - Wikipedia
Wow. Just wow. So without any evidence to the contrary, they are dismissing official 2016 data as it does not fit their narrative. And we are supposed to be the delusional ones...
They know that they are lagging behind with their EVs and disappoint with the specs thats why they have to go lower in price. Also the EQC price is still unknown.
Germany cars have before considered premium with a premium price and thats changing now. Given the lack of vertical integration and Battery cells and partly packs they buy from Asia we can imagine what effect the lower ASP price will have on their margin.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
They are a little cheaper for a lot less car.
These CUVs should have a base no higher than $50k.
I've never been into cars until Tesla, but I've been reading more about cars and watching some YouTube channels that are entertaining. The vast majority of the population see cars as transportation from point A to point B. They want something reliable with at least a few creature comforts. Some people use their car as an extension of their ego, they want to be seen driving their car.
But there is a core group of true car enthusiasts are bonded to everything ICE. They obsess about the specifications of ICE motors, transmissions, performance, and even the exhaust note. Their identity is wrapped up in ICE. A lot of these people gravitated to the car business in one way or another because of their love of the machine. Those who worked for car makers put up with putting out boxes for the masses, but their passions were special vehicles: sports cars, tricked out trucks, etc.
EVs destroy all that sexiness to them. All the parts of the car they love are gone replaced with vastly simpler systems. To rub salt in the wound Tesla went and proved that EVs can be vastly better cars than any ICE. Compare the Model S P100D and the Dodge Demon. The Demon sacrifices everything, including driving in the rain, to be the best stock drag racer ever built. The P100D is just a tiny sliver slower than the Demon, but it also can be an everyday family car too with no compromises except a bit of range loss over the S 100D. As a practical car, the P100D is vastly superior to any car it is competitive with on the drag strip.
This ICE mentality is there with many of the higher performance EVs and PHEVs coming out. The Taycan has fake tail pipes and both the i8 and iPace have fake engine noises. The iPace's noises are more electric in nature, but it still makes fake noise at you. The i8 makes fake large ICE noises like some kid playing with his toy cars.
The gearhead ICE lovers are very threatened by EVs. They know the tech well enough to realize that EVs really are a superior technology, but they just can't let go of their passion. In a weird sort of way they're mourning the loss of the tech they had their identity wrapped up in.
I don't get it with cars because I'm more the get from point A to point B type, but I have felt it with some other technology. My father has a lifelong passion for steam trains. They started phasing out when he was a young adult in the 50s and he was very into model railroading then. There is a restored Southern Pacific Daylight passenger locomotive here in Portland, OR that sometimes rides the rails around the country.
One time when I was in college it was headed to New Orleans for a movie and was scheduled to pass through the Tehachapi Loop east of Bakersfield, CA. It's a famous place for trainspotters to get pictures. In one place long trains will cross over themselves on the winding climb over the pass. My father stationed family members along the track to get pictures from various spots. When the locomotive went by it was pulling the grade and the feeling of those steam cylinders slamming home was primal. I grokked why steam engine fans went so nuts about them. Diesel locomotives are like steam locomotives the same way EVs are to ICE cars. Diesels are superior tech, but steam engines are more varied sounds and feel different.
I also have always been into WW II aircraft and those high power engines can have that same primal feeling. I once was standing on the edge of a runway when several P-51s took off. I couldn't hear very well for a few days, but it was an intense feeling.
Those high performance piston engines are now only used in antique aircraft maintained for museums and air shows because they have been passed up by better tech that's simpler. But they do have character. Even the same engine in different planes can sound different due to differences in exhaust, but a 787 sounds pretty much the same as a 737.
Ulmo
Active Member
Yes, I agree, in most cases. Even GM with their Bolt (and previously with their EV1) could languish and keep pushing the Bolt as a loss compliance car. Your Apple example is good. My counterexample is Samsung, and the other list of cell phone manufacturers. Just because it doesn't have the "Mercedes" or "GM" badge doesn't mean it won't have the "Lucent" or "BYD" or "Nio" or who the heck knows what badge on it that actually brings something to the market.
How much each respective company will make on their respective EV models still is yet to be seen. Since ICE vehicles are more complicated than EVs, it seems to me that it would take worldwide blunders for every Tesla competitor to fail.
Let`s think about this for a moment though:
- From an engineering POV: both the I-Pace and the E-tron have significantly bigger battery packs to kinda achieve Model X 75D range, or just fall short of it. I-Pace: 90kWh pack / 240m EPA range; E-tron 95kWh pack / ~217m range (based on Leaf Gen 2 WLTP vs EPA range difference). So much for heritage car maker 100 year old engineering prowess vs these silly Silicon Valley boys. (Add to that, both cars are 5 seaters, so about one class smaller than the X.)
- From a financial POV: both cars are cheaper than the X. I-Pace $70k base, E-tron $78k base, X $83k base. So - cost of of materials for the different trim levels notwithstanding - they both sell ~20% larger batteries for 7-15% lower total vehicle prices.
Ulmo
Active Member
Unanswered is whether those larger batteries cost more, or more relevantly, what the cost comparison is. I believe Tesla is ahead there, too. But there are options: a different battery chemistry or battery design could allow faster charging, higher speed driving (although I think we learned with Model 3 motor analysis that that is more based upon motor heating than battery heating), or some other tradeoff that doesn't result in more range. If they spaced their charger setups in such a way they could "fill" like a gas station, then that might, in their mind, solve the "range" issue. I'd hate to have to "fill" twice a day just to go to work, though, if the alternative is plugging in my EV every time I come home. But those are European, so perhaps their idea of "long range" is a lot smaller.
My paragraph begs the question: do their motors keep up with Autobahn speeds for hours at a time? I still want to know how well the Model 3 Performance does on the Autobahn for extended periods of time (not in heavy traffic); we know the Model S and X fall short, and the Model 3 should be theoretically better. I could do my own tests here in California if someone wants to loan me their Performance model.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Article
