JRP3
Hyperactive Member
It ran for over a year and all the vehicles were built with the capability. Some members of this forum used it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla BEV Competition Developments
- Thread starter uselesslogin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
I saw something on someone who used the service. If you did a battery swap, the new battery was only a loaner and you had to return to get your original battery back at some point. It was put at Harris Ranch for people traveling round trip between the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
I agree with your second point: supercharging was more convenient, and cheaper for Tesla to build out (no humans needed to attend the supercharger sites). Battery swapping was a bit faster than supercharging back then, but not by much and you had to make an appointment for a battery swap whereas you can just drive up to any supercharger at any time and plug in.
My understanding is that it was done exclusively for the bump in CARB/ZEV credits added by battery swap capacity. Tesla gamed the system in order to get a higher credit per vehicle just by demonstrating that it was possible. I don't believe Tesla ever intended for this to be a scalable or real solution - merely a way to stay solvent in their growth phase and maximally leverage the government subsidy that was being offered.
Volkswagen cites “strong customer reluctance” amid low EV sales
Demand for electric vehicles is running about 30% below Volkswagen's forecasts, as per Manfred Wullf, head of the Emden plant.
www.teslarati.com
VW continues to be VW. If Russia is a gas station run by the mafia masquerading as a nation than VW is a employment agency setup by and financed by the german govt masquerading as a car company.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
I have yet to see a legacy OEM sell more than their regulatory quota. Maybe Mercedes and BMW, but not by much.Volkswagen cites “strong customer reluctance” amid low EV sales
Demand for electric vehicles is running about 30% below Volkswagen's forecasts, as per Manfred Wullf, head of the Emden plant.
VW continues to be VW. If Russia is a gas station run by the mafia masquerading as a nation than VW is a employment agency setup by and financed by the german govt masquerading as a car company.
GM sold itself out of tax credit vehicles with the volt/bolt. Ford is clearly attempting to do so and has spent the $ to support this. in fact with Ford we can see from minerals to battery cells how they plan to do so, does not mean they'll get it done but at least we see the possibility and they are spending to make this transition and have separated reporting at the enterprise level to reveal the specific success or failures. With VW, Toyota, etc I don't really see the possibility of a fundamental shift- everything is lacking. GM can get partway there but only partway.
Nice to Rivian finally make a significant improvement in sales.
Nice to Rivian finally make a significant improvement in sales.
However, the US ZEV regulatory requirement will jump signfiicantly in 2026 and keep ramping through 2035.
This may be a major factor in why Ford decided to jump to NACS. Although NEVI is likely to remove Tesla moat, there's a regulatory risk to it either being canceled or moving slowly.
See page 4. Starts at 35% from model year 2026, and increase 8% per year through 2034, until reaching 100%.
And, unlike current rules that's plain sales. 20% can be PHEV, and there is some bonus for vehicles in "environmental justice" programs.
Toyota having its new PHEVs with 40 mile+ ranges is very likely influenced by the new California rules which gives them full value up to that 20%.
(I wish CARB had had a similar approach when Chevrolet was still selling the Volt, instead of or in addition to the BEVx rule.)
But watch out for some extra discounting of gas vehicle in states neighboring CARB states.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
BMW, Mercedes, VW, and Ford where on their way. But got knee capped by Tesla price cuts.
GM is ramping up and was on schedule for 2024.
I take it both Equinox EV and Blazer EV will be constrained by $48k dual motor Model Y.
In Europe Tesla sells a single motor rear wheel drive Model Y.
Tesla still has that bullet in the holster for the American market. In Europe, the single motor Model Y is 10k Euros cheaper than dual motor.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
If I were in competition in business, Tesla would be high on my list that I would not want to be in competition with. Most companies present some vector in which they're not particularly different, or even bad, relative to competition. That weakness is something that somebody else can do better and potentially build a business around.
My #1 concern as a Tesla owner, and TSLA shareholder, has always been service. Not that it's an actual business problem for me - just that its the closest thing to a weakness I can id. To be painfully clear - I view even service & support to be a competitive advantage for Tesla, if for no other reason its a lot easier to be consistent (vs. dealerships that each do their own thing, and get constraints on the mfg written into law), and the scalable tools are increasingly in place to make it better.
The kicker is that Tesla is being run by a CEO on a mission, and who is willing to lower profit margin (still making money and with generous free cash flow) in order to support a high growth rate. Business school folks learn that in such a dominant business position, the smart thing to do is lower the growth rate, max the revenue / unit, and get really big margins. There's a point on the supply/demand curve that yields the best business results (aka profit) and that's what the company should target.
Elon is perfectly happy with adequate margins and more units - it supports the mission. Were Tesla targetting that sweet spot on the s/d curve, there would be room at lower price and profit points for competition.
That doesn't leave much any room for competition to operate in. They've got to have better tech, better software, cheaper assembly, cheaper raw materials, lower corporate overhead, and/or flat out better cars. Something to find an edge. Otherwise their competitive position is "not-Tesla", for those that want to drive something different. Or really high end, and small volume, luxury.
Or just be dead even with Tesla and let the (HUGE) car market naturally bring a significant subset to your own cars. This is how I view the ICE car market. If for no other reason there are plenty of people that want to drive something different from the increasingly generic and ubiquitous Model Y. Just dead even across the board with Tesla isn't something I've seen anybody achieve yet (not units - on the ability to supply equally desirable units, and grow into actual competition).
Writing this out - I probably put Tesla #1 on that list I wouldn't want to be competing with
Interesting idea about a RWD US model Y. I did a little checking and in Germany the RWD is 18.4% cheaper, Canada is 15.4% cheaper and Australia is 16.6% cheaper. These are in comparison to the Long-range dual-motor since the standard range dual motor seems to be unique to the US.
So with a conservative estimate of 15% cheaper vs MYLR, that would put a hypothetical US RWD Model Y at $42,900. That's basically on par with loaded CR-V or RAV-4 hybrid, Ford Explorer, etc. That is a HUGE market segment.
So with a conservative estimate of 15% cheaper vs MYLR, that would put a hypothetical US RWD Model Y at $42,900. That's basically on par with loaded CR-V or RAV-4 hybrid, Ford Explorer, etc. That is a HUGE market segment.
Not quite. Difference is 7k Euros.
Also in june Tesla ran a financing campaign, where LR models came with 2.99% interest, RWD still had 5.19%.
Campaign basically made the monthly payments equal between lr amd rwd models.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The Escape is the Ford equivalent to the CR-V and RAV-4.
A Ford Explorer King Ranch starts at $54k.
If I were in competition in business, Tesla would be high on my list that I would not want to be in competition with. Most companies present some vector in which they're not particularly different, or even bad, relative to competition. That weakness is something that somebody else can do better and potentially build a business around.
My #1 concern as a Tesla owner, and TSLA shareholder, has always been service. Not that it's an actual business problem for me - just that its the closest thing to a weakness I can id. To be painfully clear - I view even service & support to be a competitive advantage for Tesla, if for no other reason its a lot easier to be consistent (vs. dealerships that each do their own thing, and get constraints on the mfg written into law), and the scalable tools are increasingly in place to make it better.
The kicker is that Tesla is being run by a CEO on a mission, and who is willing to lower profit margin (still making money and with generous free cash flow) in order to support a high growth rate. Business school folks learn that in such a dominant business position, the smart thing to do is lower the growth rate, max the revenue / unit, and get really big margins. There's a point on the supply/demand curve that yields the best business results (aka profit) and that's what the company should target.
Elon is perfectly happy with adequate margins and more units - it supports the mission. Were Tesla targetting that sweet spot on the s/d curve, there would be room at lower price and profit points for competition.
That doesn't leave much any room for competition to operate in. They've got to have better tech, better software, cheaper assembly, cheaper raw materials, lower corporate overhead, and/or flat out better cars. Something to find an edge. Otherwise their competitive position is "not-Tesla", for those that want to drive something different. Or really high end, and small volume, luxury.
Or just be dead even with Tesla and let the (HUGE) car market naturally bring a significant subset to your own cars. This is how I view the ICE car market. If for no other reason there are plenty of people that want to drive something different from the increasingly generic and ubiquitous Model Y. Just dead even across the board with Tesla isn't something I've seen anybody achieve yet (not units - on the ability to supply equally desirable units, and grow into actual competition).
Writing this out - I probably put Tesla #1 on that list I wouldn't want to be competing with
One drawback that plagues Tesla is that they continually come in low in the ranks for reliability. All new models from any manufacturer has reliability problems, so this isn't a serious threat to Tesla yet.
Once other manufacturer's EV start getting up in reliability to their ICE, Tesla is going to be at a quality disadvantage unless they do a lot of get their quality up to the level of the quality ICE cars.
For being at a disadvantage they seem to be doing pretty well. I think the quality issues that Tesla have are different than the ones that the other companies have. Paint quality, software for functions they don't have etc and other that are a result of doing new things rather than old things. Things that most customer might be annoyed with yet still prefer to buy over the alternative. Lots are growing pains and as Tesla grows they can access better suppliers, use more shared parts that have higher quality due to being in production longer and cybertruck will not have any paint quality issues ^^
Tesla goes for a very sparse interior that has downsides. The early Model S was terrible for cabin stowage and got better with the center console becoming standard, but the lack of door pockets is annoying. Also the concentration of some many controls onto screens can be annoying. Having a physical control that never moves is an advantage when you are driving and don't want to take your eyes off the road.
As other EVs come along in large enough volumes and at decent price points, Tesla's advantages are going to fade.
Tesla is still going to be a major player, but the quality problems could hurt them down the road if they don't deal with them and the sparse interior is not going to appeal to all customers. My 2016 has more controls than the new 2021 refresh and I still find myself wishing for physical controls for some things like the HVAC controls.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
The "quality problems" at this point are largely based on 'surveys of people too old to figure out how to cancel their consumer reports subscription" not "actual mechanical problems with the car"
If you look at actual real world warranty claims rates Tesla has the lowest rate (as a % of total sales) of any car maker selling in the west... slightly better than Toyota, and MUCH better than most other legacy selling EVs.
If you look at actual real world warranty claims rates Tesla has the lowest rate (as a % of total sales) of any car maker selling in the west... slightly better than Toyota, and MUCH better than most other legacy selling EVs.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The paint chips on my 22 Model 3 rockers with only 6K miles have nothing to do with my age. Nor did the misaligned steering wheel and trunk lid upon delivery.
navguy12
Active Member
Do you use mudflaps?
After three months of use, it became painfully obvious to me I needed mudflaps on my May 2018 build TM3; I use smaller ones when the summer tires are used, larger ones when winter tires are used.
I also added PPF to the “dogleg“ zone (leading edge of rear wheel wells).
Having white paint does hide much of the sandblasting damage.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Literally every brand of car out there, go to their respective forums, and you'll find pages of threads about how "thin" the paint is and how easily it chips.
The Lexus my Tesla replaced was no different
This is why I got PPF immediately after I took delivery.
(car was otherwise flawless- and I've had significantly fewer reasons to visit the dealer during the warranty period than I did with that Lexus I mentioned)
I mean, nobody has a warranty rate of 0.
I'm just pointing out Teslas is better than everyone elses.
1.1% in both 2020 and 2021.
Toyota was 1.4% and 1.0% respectively (so slightly worse on average).
The vast majority of car makers were in the 2-4% range so double to as much as four times worse than Tesla.
Last edited:
Similar threads
