Tesla BEV Competition Developments

[FANGO]

Tesla has not released a concept of the 3. So there's not even a prototype for it not to look like. The volt, though not a full ev, was the first big name PHEV and is not compliance and in fact came out before the S.

If you're going to classify the bolt as vaporware, you need to classify the 3 as it too. Neither are. Because they aren't late. You aren't vaporware until you're late. That's what the term means. The r8, then, which they've talked about since like 2009, is vaporware. The bolt, slated to come out in 2016, will be vaporware no earlier than 2017.

 

[RobStark]

Bolt is scheduled for 2016 production but not for sale til 2017.

Until GM announces considerable expansion of their Holland LG-Chem joint venture Bolt/Volt will be produced in niche numbers.

Tesla is preparing,and laying down concrete,raising steal, to make ~350k Model ≡ per year.

Compliance #s Niche #s and Mass Production #s.

Fiat 500e/Spark EV Volt/Bolt/LEAF Tesla Model ≡.​

As of now Tesla is the only company preparing mass production for a pure electric 200 mile range EV in the ~$35k price range for global release. At least where legal to do so( not Michigan). Nor where tariffs are punitive(India).

 

[daniel Ox9EFD]

OK, ok, the bolt is not complete vaporware. It is planed. I agree.
But here are the two concerns:
1. As RobStark mentioned, it is unclear how it will sell in relevant numbers unless they (as in - LG-Chem) expand capacity significantly.
2. At least AFAIK - they did not publish what kind of battery chemistry will get them those numbers, nor what company they are working with.
Of course this is rightfully proprietary information, but it is also a huge risk factor (remember Envia?).
This is no small issue. And the model 3 does NOT have that risk factor to be clear. Tesla also say they want to use next generation chemistry, but the key cause for the reduction in price is economy of scale from the gigafactory.

 

[Robert.Boston]

I didn't see this article posted anywhere:
Aston Martin Building All-Electric Sedan To Rival Tesla Motors Inc

It is thought that the company’s interest in electric cars stems from increasingly strict fuel economy standards. It appears that the company prefers to focus on electric vehicles rather than small-displacement turbo engines increasingly used by its competitors.

This is great news. A Rapide EV could be a mind-blowingly good car, and priced at $300,000 it represents no real competitive threat to Tesla. But if Aston Martin seriously shifts a big chunk of its lineup from ICE to EV, that would mark an important turning point in the industry.

 

[FANGO]

"If". I'd really like to see more cars, less press releases.

Also this could be a reaction to the Autocar video test where the P85 embarrasses a Rapide.

 

[jhm]

LeftLaneNews Mobile Version

Ghosn is asking for more public assistance so Nissan can sell short-range vehicles. Pretty sad.

The executive wants more help from government agencies to reach the goal. He argues that charging infrastructure must be expanded to support wider adoption of electric vehicles, but he acknowledges the difficulties in convincing state- and federal-level agencies to commit to investments.

Some automakers may agree with Tesla Motors' assertion that mainstream customers are hesitant to buy EVs with less than around 200 miles of range, however Ghosn claims that scarcity of charging stations, rather than limited battery range, is to blame for range anxiety.

 

[dalalsid]

LeftLaneNews Mobile Version

Ghosn is asking for more public assistance so Nissan can sell short-range vehicles. Pretty sad.

The Leaf sold IMHO because of crazy lease deals. I tried to get the dame deal I got in 2013 again last month and it was a no go.

 

[jhm]

The Leaf sold IMHO because of crazy lease deals. I tried to get the dame deal I got in 2013 again last month and it was a no go.

I wonder if they had to modify their residual value assumptions. My local Nissan dealer has rows and rows of used LEAFs for sale around $13k.

So my disappointment here with Nissan is that they seem only to be playing a compliance game. It's all about maximizing regulatory credits for the least investment in battery technology and infrastructure. They want the government to "invest" in putting 110 volt outlets wherever LEAFs park, but they are not willing to invest in a battery big enough not to have to plug in everywhere a LEAF goes. Ghosn has the audacity to lay the blame for range anxiety on not getting enough government support. This suggests to me they don't have a business plan for outgrowing public assistance.

 

[SteveG3]

jhm, you've certainly shared with us a new data point re Nissan. However, as you likely are aware, Nissan has repeatedly given indications a new Leaf coming in the next couple of years will have double the range of the current Leaf. We can speculate re how the pieces fit together, but I think Nissan is making a genuine effort at EVs, almost certainly more than a compliance effort. (My first speculation is that a 170 mile non premium EV cheaper than the Model 3 spares them a head to head matchup where they'd either have to humble their brand by using Tesla's tech, or get their clock cleaned using their own tech head to head vs Tesla).

 

[FluxCap]

jhm, you've certainly shared with us a new data point re Nissan. However, as you likely are aware, Nissan has repeatedly given indications a new Leaf coming in the next couple of years will have double the range of the current Leaf. We can speculate re how the pieces fit together, but I think Nissan is making a genuine effort at EVs, almost certainly more than a compliance effort. (My first speculation is that a 170 mile non premium EV cheaper than the Model 3 spares them a head to head matchup where they'd either have to humble their brand by using Tesla's tech, or get their clock cleaned using their own tech head to head vs Tesla).

Not necessarily the thread for this discussion, but I maintain that unless Nissan or any other manufacturer 1) hires a massive in-house (not outsourced) software development team *in Silicon Valley* and 2) builds a GigaFactory to enable economies of scale, they will be impossibly far behind. I want other companies to make no-compromises/non golf-cart cars but I just do not believe it will happen in a combustion car company that doesn't literally bet their whole existence on BEV. Nissan may be the first to abandon ICE and if so they could survive and thrive, but time will tell. It takes massive CapEx and massive corporate culture shift to do this. Those things don't happen in mature companies unless they believe they face extinction.

 

[jhm]

jhm, you've certainly shared with us a new data point re Nissan. However, as you likely are aware, Nissan has repeatedly given indications a new Leaf coming in the next couple of years will have double the range of the current Leaf. We can speculate re how the pieces fit together, but I think Nissan is making a genuine effort at EVs, almost certainly more than a compliance effort. (My first speculation is that a 170 mile non premium EV cheaper than the Model 3 spares them a head to head matchup where they'd either have to humble their brand by using Tesla's tech, or get their clock cleaned using their own tech head to head vs Tesla).

Yes, perhaps I am being too hard on Nissan. Perhaps my hopes for them were too high. I do wonder if the Leaf may face a huge Osborne effect soon. We've seen Chevy suspend manufacture of the Volt while consumers wait for Volt 2.0 to come out next year. So I wonder of Nissan may do the same before their larger battery comes out. I don't get any sense from Ghosn that Nissan is going to push hard on the Leaf in its current form.

BTW, GA has dropped it's $5000 state income tax credit for low emission vehicles. GA was a huge market for the Leaf, but I'm skeptical they'll be able to sell much around here after July.

It's possible that Tesla could start outselling the Leaf in NA, but I'm afraid this will be for the wrong reasons. I really do want Nissan to do well as an EV maker. Tesla needs strong competitors.

 

[FANGO]

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2015

I wonder if they had to modify their residual value assumptions. My local Nissan dealer has rows and rows of used LEAFs for sale around $13k.

So my disappointment here with Nissan is that they seem only to be playing a compliance game. It's all about maximizing regulatory credits for the least investment in battery technology and infrastructure. They want the government to "invest" in putting 110 volt outlets wherever LEAFs park, but they are not willing to invest in a battery big enough not to have to plug in everywhere a LEAF goes. Ghosn has the audacity to lay the blame for range anxiety on not getting enough government support. This suggests to me they don't have a business plan for outgrowing public assistance.

A compliance game when they've sold 100,000+ leafs? Seriously? That's more than tesla has sold. Nissan is unequivocally not in the compliance game, and seems to be the only manufacturer taking full EVs seriously. I get really tired of tesla people being dismissive of their efforts. Same freaking team, guys.

Anyway Ghosn is right. Government helps gasoline far more than EVs, and that is ridiculous. They should be throwing full support behind EVs. And that means charging, charging is more important than range and is something that governments can accomplish more effectively so they ought to.

Btw, Nissan does have their own battery design/supply iirc. And they are quite proud of it.

 

[ggies07]

A compliance game when they've sold 100,000+ leafs? Seriously? That's more than tesla has sold. Nissan is unequivocally not in the compliance game, and seems to be the only manufacturer taking full EVs seriously. I get really tired of tesla people being dismissive of their efforts. Same freaking team, guys.

Anyway Ghosn is right. Government helps gasoline far more than EVs, and that is ridiculous. They should be throwing full support behind EVs. And that means charging, charging is more important than range and is something that governments can accomplish more effectively so they ought to.

Btw, Nissan does have their own battery design/supply iirc. And they are quite proud of it.

I totally agree with this, but how does a small company like Tesla put out their OWN charging network and a big compnay like Nissan can't? I've always liked Ghosn, but he's being a baby right now. If he wants to play against Tesla and have some dignity in this race, he will make his own compnay fork over the money to put out a charging network.

 

[InTheShadows]

I totally agree with this, but how does a small company like Tesla put out their OWN charging network and a big compnay like Nissan can't? I've always liked Ghosn, but he's being a baby right now. If he wants to play against Tesla and have some dignity in this race, he will make his own compnay fork over the money to put out a charging network.

IMO it's because the big companies spend more money on advertising than building infrastructure.

One Super Bowl commercial would build what? 3-4 superchargers? Perhaps more, I don't know.

 

[MikeC]

IMO it's because the big companies spend more money on advertising than building infrastructure.

One Super Bowl commercial would build what? 3-4 superchargers? Perhaps more, I don't know.

$4.5M / $150,000 = 30 Superchargers

 

[Citizen-T]

The problem for Nissan is that the number of chargers you need to cover the population explodes as battery size gets smaller. . They can't cover virtually all of the US's driving needs with some 200 stations. They need thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.

 

[FluxCap]

The problem for Nissan is that the number of chargers you need to cover the population explodes as battery size gets smaller. . They can't cover virtually all of the US's driving needs with some 200 stations. They need thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.

Yep. That should have been my #3 after a brigade of Silicon Valley nerds who understand user experience, and a ginormous CapEx battery plant.

 

[ggies07]

The problem for Nissan is that the number of chargers you need to cover the population explodes as battery size gets smaller. . They can't cover virtually all of the US's driving needs with some 200 stations. They need thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.

Tough stuff. Their fault for starting with a smaller battery and if they were really in it to help move the transition forward, they would build one out anyway. Start with just the major highways, do something, but dont whine about it and ask the govt for money.

They should just make the next LEAF compatible with the Superchargers.

 

[Krugerrand]

Tough stuff. Their fault for starting with a smaller battery and if they were really in it to help move the transition forward, they would build one out anyway. Start with just the major highways, do something, but dont whine about it and ask the govt for money.

They should just make the next LEAF compatible with the Superchargers.

Yeah, I have to agree. They knowingly made a short range BEV that was going to need a certain kind of charging infrastructure. They can't possibly claim otherwise with a straight face because there's little Tesla who knew they were going to need a charging infrastructure for a long range BEV. Nissan has several options on how to fix it, and none of those have anything to do with the government. Certainly government can help - I've always liked the idea of turning parking meters into charging meters for a start.

 

[jhm]

The problem for Nissan is that the number of chargers you need to cover the population explodes as battery size gets smaller. . They can't cover virtually all of the US's driving needs with some 200 stations. They need thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.

That is exactly the problem with their product. A smart product design anticipates it's particular infrastructural needs and works toward a total integrated solution. Tesla's Supercharger network is perfectly matched with the capabilities of the Model S and X. That is why both product and infrastructure work. All the other car makers are expecting someone else to solve the specific infrastructural needs of the products they make. This is why I take offense to calls for the government to bail them out. They are not owning a total solution that they can build a business model around. Morever, they turn their noses at Tesla for offering to share the Supercharger network with them. Why? I suspect it is because they do not want to build the kind of products that would make excellent use of that much power. Simply put, they do not want to make high capacity batteries. They would rather petition governments to build out infrastructure suitable for low capacity batteries than to make products compatible with truly high power charging (>100 kW). The only country that has this figured out is China; they've got a 120 kW charging standard. In a few years when all these new 200+ mile range vehicles come on the market, what rate will consumers want to charge at, 7.5 kW? Seriously? Why not just get with Tesla's program and design cars that can Supercharge? Ghosn should not be pleading with governments; he should be strategizing with Tesla.

Let's all keep this one thing in mind. The primary beneficiary of government sponsored slow chargers is the oil industry. Even if there was a slow charger on ever parking space, the oil industry would still compete on the basis of quick refills. The thing that truly threatens the oil establishment is high power charging.