Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla BEV Competition Developments

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
For what it’s worth, the BYD e6 is certified for sale under California state emissions regulations:

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2017/byd_pc_a4050006_0_z_e.pdf

I think the intent was to allow for possible fleet sales. BYD has apparently been talking about attempting general public sales in 2-3 years.

Meeting state emission standards is one thing, meeting federal safety standards. Though a quick check shows that they did pass federal safety tests too:
BYD Is US EPA Certifying Its 2017 e6 Electric Car - HybridCars.com

Though it looks like its EPA rating is not very good, only 61/65 MPGe.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ValueAnalyst
Yeah, we knew what Roadster would look like then... But the discussion was about "Whitestar" (Model S) and beyond.
2008 Roadster wasn't an "in-house" Tesla design. It wasn't a Franz design.
Sorry for poor communications. I meant to compare/show how advanced the 2007 "Alfa Romeo Visconti concept car" above.
Which just shows how lame auto companies are. Engineers and designers have some great ideas and the upper management, corporate management, stock watchers, bean counters can't evaluate except by the only value they care about. Profit/money. We have to have the government force efficiency (fuel economy) and crash protection. This only happens after years (decades often) of citizens putting pressure on politicians. Seat belts delayed almost 2 decades as just one example. You all know the story of the EV-1.

Chevy Corvair was actually an economical car, safer potentially because of front crumple zone, great in snow. They built about 1.8 million, but Chevy used complaints from Nader and rather than telling the public about on going improvements of the 1965 versions they allowed the design flaws of the pre 1964 versions (1963 had bad rear suspension design flaws [shared by VW and earlier Porsches too] to stop production of the Corvair. Interesting story.

Other example the Pinto [fire bombs] and more recent the GM ignition switch. Your safety not "their concern, except to meet regulations" Elon/Tesla seems one of the few exceptions. (Swedish, French, German - Volvo, Saab, Peugeot, Mercedes, others? were designing safety before US government regulations - were their governments forcing them? don't actually know details.)

PS- In "designing" parts of the Roadster (headlights for example), Elon said he realized he wasn't that good and Tesla had Henry Fisker for about $30 million work on White Star - sadly Fisker did not perform well and took what he learned to start his own EV companies, none of which have done well. Elon commented that design of the body was only part of the EV problems but NOT the only problem. Fisker seems to think appearance is all that counts. What else would you expect from one of the greatest designers (ie not engineer). and note that many of these founding/early stories found at TeslaTap.com the links page.

PPS- Audi A-7 looks very similar to Model S - not sure which was first to market (ie don't really care) and I really like looks of both cars a lot.
 
Last edited:
(Swedish, French, German - Volvo, Saab, Peugeot, Mercedes, others? were designing safety before US government regulations - were their governments forcing them? don't actually know details.)
I can't speak for the others, but at least Volvo saw it as their competitive advantage to bee seen as "the safe car". So they was ahead of any governments regulations on this. But I think it's a fact that European governments was way ahead of the US in safety regulations.
 
Sorry for poor communications. I meant to compare/show how advanced the 2007 "Alfa Romeo Visconti concept car" above.
Which just shows how lame auto companies are. Engineers and designers have some great ideas and the upper management, corporate management, stock watchers, bean counters can't evaluate except by the only value they care about. Profit/money. We have to have the government force efficiency (fuel economy) and crash protection. This only happens after years (decades often) of citizens putting pressure on politicians. Seat belts delayed almost 2 decades as just one example. You all know the story of the EV-1.

Chevy Corvair was actually an economical car, safer potentially because of front crumple zone, great in snow. They built about 1.8 million, but Chevy used complaints from Nader and rather than telling the public about on going improvements of the 1965 versions they allowed the design flaws of the pre 1964 versions (1963 had bad rear suspension design flaws [shared by VW and earlier Porsches too] to stop production of the Corvair. Interesting story.

Other example the Pinto [fire bombs] and more recent the GM ignition switch. Your safety not "their concern, except to meet regulations" Elon/Tesla seems one of the few exceptions. (Swedish, French, German - Volvo, Saab, Peugeot, Mercedes, others? were designing safety before US government regulations - were their governments forcing them? don't actually know details.)

PS- In "designing" parts of the Roadster (headlights for example), Elon said he realized he wasn't that good and Tesla had Henry Fisker for about $30 million work on White Star - sadly Fisker did not perform well and took what he learned to start his own EV companies, none of which have done well. Elon commented that design of the body was only part of the EV problems but NOT the only problem. Fisker seems to think appearance is all that counts. What else would you expect from one of the greatest designers (ie not engineer). and note that many of these founding/early stories found at TeslaTap.com the links page.

PPS- Audi A-7 looks very similar to Model S - not sure which was first to market (ie don't really care) and I really like looks of both cars a lot.

I have a friend who is a software project manager. She's spent most of her career going into failing projects and turning them around.

She once told me software people tend to either be good at the internals or the interface, very rarely both. If she sees new software that has a nice interface, she knows it's probably going to function poorly.

It's similar with a lot of other forms of engineering. There are function over form people and form over function people. It takes a careful balance of talent on a development team to get both right. Even Tesla has missed a bit on some details. A lot of criticism has been heaped on the original interior of the Model S. It is very functional with poor form and a lot of common functions left out.

On the other end, they have also over engineered some "cool" features to a point where they aren't very functional. Some X owners say they try to avoid opening the back doors because they take a while to cycle and tend to attract a crowd when they don't want a lot of attention. The S's door handles can be unreliable.

There are some cases where established car makers get it wrong. There was a case in the 1960s when Pontiac came out with a new model with skirts over the back wheels only to discover that it was impossible to remove the back wheels once the body was mated to the chassis. The car was on the market a few weeks before someone had a flat and found out the hard way. They had to do a recall.

Toyota has gotten a lot of criticism of late for their redesigned exteriors. Many people find them overdone and ugly.

As EVs become a more important part of car makers' lineups, they are going to probably make a lot of design mistakes. Up to now, most EVs have been designed as weirdmobiles, I think in part to prevent them from competing with their ICE vehicles. Tesla has a number of people following them or owning them who would never buy another brand's EV and in many cases because other EVs are horrible looking prat-mobiles and Teslas tend to blend into the crowd unless someone knows what they are looking at.

I expect a number of EVs coming out as companies try and catch up to Tesla to initially be weird-mobiles and will get redesigned as something normal after initial release.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pollux and Brando
Note that the 'sub-headline' to that article suggests GM is the EV mfg to catch up to, and purposely mentions Tesla as 'other major automakers'. Also note that Tesla is not even mentioned anywhere within the content of the article (yes, Tesla, the EV mfg with multiple EV car of the year awards, awards around the world, recently suggested for the car of the century award for an EV, and a 400,000+ EV buyer waiting list). Does the Verge have an agenda here? Maybe its time to add the author of this 'piece' to the list on TMC:

Ford is throwing $11 billion at its electric car problem
More than doubling its investment in EVs in bid to catch up with GM and other major automakers
 
  • Funny
Reactions: BornToFly
2010-2016 in 7 years Tesla spent TOTAL R&D of less than $3 Billion actually $2,825,000,000.
AND Tesla has open sourced their patents.
Tesla's R&D costs 2010-2016 | Statistic

We shall see if these massive investments crush Tesla.
(think of the cars you'll get IF that is true)
or will Tesla continue to take market share a fraction of a percent each year.
Interesting times.

PS- "Jim Lentz, chief executive of Toyota Motor Corp’s North American operations, said it took Toyota 18 years for sales of hybrid vehicles to reach 3 percent share of the total market. And hybrids are less costly, do not require new charging infrastructure and are not burdened by the range limits of battery electric vehicles, ..." this is from RobStark's Reuters article above. thanks Rob.
 
Last edited:
2010-2016 in 7 years Tesla spent TOTAL R&D of less than $3 Billion actually $2,825,000,000.
AND Tesla has open sourced their patents.
Tesla's R&D costs 2010-2016 | Statistic

We shall see if these massive investments crush Tesla.
(think of the cars you'll get IF that is true)
or will Tesla continue to take market share a fraction of a percent each year.
Interesting times.

PS- "Jim Lentz, chief executive of Toyota Motor Corp’s North American operations, said it took Toyota 18 years for sales of hybrid vehicles to reach 3 percent share of the total market. And hybrids are less costly, do not require new charging infrastructure and are not burdened by the range limits of battery electric vehicles, ..." this is from RobStark's Reuters article above. thanks Rob.

Hybrids aren't exciting, and no one was standing in line to get the next gen Prius. I believe Toyota had to raise over $4B to continue advancing their FCEV program, which they had already spent billions on, and they've sold less than 6k since they brought their first one to market in 2015. I'm also fairly certain that the gross margin on the Avg. Tesla is higher than a Prius...

If simply investing money returned positive results we'd have far more successful companies. Even building a good vehicle doesn't guarantee success...just ask SAAB, Suzuki NA, Chevy Bolt (yeah, I said it, <30k/yr isn't an accomplishment).

This is not to say that Tesla will be able to withstand the onslaught from other manufacturers, but even if Tesla loses we win...and even Tesla would win, at least from the standpoint of their mission statement.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Brando
2010-2016 in 7 years Tesla spent TOTAL R&D of less than $3 Billion actually $2,825,000,000.
AND Tesla has open sourced their patents.
Tesla's R&D costs 2010-2016 | Statistic

We shall see if these massive investments crush Tesla.
(think of the cars you'll get IF that is true)
or will Tesla continue to take market share a fraction of a percent each year.
Interesting times.

PS- "Jim Lentz, chief executive of Toyota Motor Corp’s North American operations, said it took Toyota 18 years for sales of hybrid vehicles to reach 3 percent share of the total market. And hybrids are less costly, do not require new charging infrastructure and are not burdened by the range limits of battery electric vehicles, ..." this is from RobStark's Reuters article above. thanks Rob.

If the mainstream car makers get very lucky, they might be able to force Tesla into a niche, but how much a company spends on R&D is secondary to how smart they are in their spending. So far established car companies have been afraid to make compelling BEVs and all their designs are small, compromised vehicles in every case except the Bolt have short range.

There are a number of designs that look like they will become reality in the near future. Time will tell if they are any better than what Tesla offers now. If past is prologue, there will be something wrong with these designs too.

And the most critical piece of the whole puzzle: Tesla is the only car company with enough batteries to mass produce BEVs for the next few years minimum. VW or Mercedes, or one of the other established car companies could hit the market with a $40K car that is a decade ahead of the Model 3, but the Model 3 will still win out because it's the only BEV that can be built in large numbers. A car a company can build in only low volume ~50K a year or less can't beat a car that can be produced in 500K volumes, no matter the technology.

Realistically, I don't think any car company in the world can produce a car that is dramatically better than what Tesla can make. Someday somebody will have a better battery tech, but that isn't available today. Anything better than what Tesla has is only marginally better. There are some little features some car companies can do better. I'm sure Mercedes could make a much more luxurious interior than anything Tesla has, but that is window dressing, that isn't technology.

Tesla saw a lot of low hanging fruit in EV design that nobody else was exploiting like putting the batteries under the floor and the motors at the wheels. And things like over the air updates and the supercharger network. All those things have been done and done fairly well. There are some tweaks other car makers could do, but there are no huge technological leaps like happened with the Model S that's sitting there waiting for someone to exploit.

The Model S was a leap from a WW I biplane to a P-51 Mustang. There are improvements to automotive technology to come, but all the remaining work is taking a lot of effort and everyone is moving at roughly the same pace. Remaining improvements include things like autonomous driving and better battery tech. Nobody has the capability to leapfrog over Tesla with some huge technological leap, no matter how much money they throw at it.

Because Tesla has such an early lead and all the other major players have so much historical baggage to drag along, it's more likely Tesla will be one of the biggest car companies in the world in 10 years than they will get crushed.
 
Tesla saw a lot of low hanging fruit in EV design that nobody else was exploiting like putting the batteries under the floor and the motors at the wheels

Enjoyed your post, but this claim is not strictly true.

Mercedes/Daimler/Smart Fortwo was designed with an electric motor between the rear wheels and battery under the floor from the original design pre-2008 but shipped with a gas motor at the time due to cost/practicality of technology of that age.

Daimler contracted Tesla to build the components to put in the 2011 Smart Electric drive, Tesla had no design monopoly on this layout, and wasn't even first to do so.

The new 2018 Smart ED many years later has the same basic layout as 2011 but is based on an entirely new vehicle architecture, see this quaint 2011 Smart Electric video review from CNET.
 
Enjoyed your post, but this claim is not strictly true.

Mercedes/Daimler/Smart Fortwo was designed with an electric motor between the rear wheels and battery under the floor from the original design pre-2008 but shipped with a gas motor at the time due to cost/practicality of technology of that age.

Daimler contracted Tesla to build the components to put in the 2011 Smart Electric drive, Tesla had no design monopoly on this layout, and wasn't even first to do so.

The new 2018 Smart ED many years later has the same basic layout as 2011 but is based on an entirely new vehicle architecture, see this quaint 2011 Smart Electric video review from CNET.

I stand corrected, but that makes it even worse for the rest of the car industry. It was a known concept 10 years ago and nobody put it into production until Tesla did it.
 
Enjoyed your post, but this claim is not strictly true.

Mercedes/Daimler/Smart Fortwo was designed with an electric motor between the rear wheels and battery under the floor from the original design pre-2008 but shipped with a gas motor at the time due to cost/practicality of technology of that age.

Daimler contracted Tesla to build the components to put in the 2011 Smart Electric drive, Tesla had no design monopoly on this layout, and wasn't even first to do so.

The new 2018 Smart ED many years later has the same basic layout as 2011 but is based on an entirely new vehicle architecture, see this quaint 2011 Smart Electric video review from CNET.
2008 Tesla needed investors. Tried to get Merc to consider, they were not interested. Elon/JB found out Merc was coming to Silicon Valley. Tesla sent Employee to Mexico with CASH to find/buy Smart car and drive up to Palo Alto (Smarts were NOT yet imported to US. When Merc showed up they were shocked to see Smart car as they had not started to import to US yet. Merc ended up investing $50 million in Tesla stock and gave Tesla contract to supply drive train. I think two years later Merc couldn't resist the increase in Tesla stock and sold off all Tesla stock. Can't remember timeline when Toyota sold Fremont Plant AND Tesla supplied drivetrain for electric RAV4. Stupid seems to have taken over (actually Wall St. Banksters, money only value that counts, stock price only concern for managers). Toyota also bought $50 million and they also later sold for "big profits" later. Probably lucky for Tesla they both bailed out.
(story from memory, so below link may correct my recall of events)

Turns Out Tesla Actually Made An Electric Smart Fortwo That Could Do Wheelies

reminder: Tesla patents open sourced AND Merc could easily copy, right? Toyota the same.

PS- I'll let others find/post the Toyota RAV4 story. (might find at TeslaTap on link page)
Bob Lutz still rants about Tesla failing whenever MainStream media calls, right?
 
Last edited:
If the mainstream car makers get very lucky, they might be able to force Tesla into a niche, but how much a company spends on R&D is secondary to how smart they are in their spending. So far established car companies have been afraid to make compelling BEVs and all their designs are small, compromised vehicles in every case except the Bolt have short range.

There are a number of designs that look like they will become reality in the near future. Time will tell if they are any better than what Tesla offers now. If past is prologue, there will be something wrong with these designs too.

And the most critical piece of the whole puzzle: Tesla is the only car company with enough batteries to mass produce BEVs for the next few years minimum. VW or Mercedes, or one of the other established car companies could hit the market with a $40K car that is a decade ahead of the Model 3, but the Model 3 will still win out because it's the only BEV that can be built in large numbers. A car a company can build in only low volume ~50K a year or less can't beat a car that can be produced in 500K volumes, no matter the technology.

Realistically, I don't think any car company in the world can produce a car that is dramatically better than what Tesla can make. Someday somebody will have a better battery tech, but that isn't available today. Anything better than what Tesla has is only marginally better. There are some little features some car companies can do better. I'm sure Mercedes could make a much more luxurious interior than anything Tesla has, but that is window dressing, that isn't technology.

Tesla saw a lot of low hanging fruit in EV design that nobody else was exploiting like putting the batteries under the floor and the motors at the wheels. And things like over the air updates and the supercharger network. All those things have been done and done fairly well. There are some tweaks other car makers could do, but there are no huge technological leaps like happened with the Model S that's sitting there waiting for someone to exploit.

The Model S was a leap from a WW I biplane to a P-51 Mustang. There are improvements to automotive technology to come, but all the remaining work is taking a lot of effort and everyone is moving at roughly the same pace. Remaining improvements include things like autonomous driving and better battery tech. Nobody has the capability to leapfrog over Tesla with some huge technological leap, no matter how much money they throw at it.

Because Tesla has such an early lead and all the other major players have so much historical baggage to drag along, it's more likely Tesla will be one of the biggest car companies in the world in 10 years than they will get crushed.
fully agree
IF a dramatically better battery comes along, what car company might well be (already is??) the largest customer for this battery? Tesla, right? History would indicate [especially as we have no working theory of how batteries operate] that trial and error development will continue at 5-8% improvement averages annually. see below video Jeff Dahn
We could have a "put men on the moon" size project to try for battery breakthrough - working theory of how batteries actually function. Who might do it? Auto consortium? Perhaps the Chinese?? perhap a South African immigrant will help direct (Elon/JB have hired Jeff Dahn and Jeff knows/says a working theory is most needed) while doing his other project of putting men on Mars.

Mean while to have insights to where the US puts it's major efforts (~50% of Federal Budget??) I suggest:
 
2008 Tesla needed investors. Tried to get Merc to consider, they were not interested. Elon/JB found out Merc was coming to Silicon Valley. Tesla sent Employee to Mexico with CASH to find/buy Smart car and drive up to Palo Alto (Smarts were NOT yet imported to US. When Merc showed up they were shocked to see Smart car as they had not started to import to US yet. Merc ended up investing $50 million in Tesla stock and gave Tesla contract to supply drive train. I think two years later Merc couldn't resist the increase in Tesla stock and sold off all Tesla stock. Can't remember timeline when Toyota sold Fremont Plant AND Tesla supplied drivetrain for electric RAV4. Stupid seems to have taken over (actually Wall St. Banksters, money only value that counts, stock price only concern for managers). Toyota also bought $50 million and they also later sold for "big profits" later. Probably lucky for Tesla they both bailed out.

The current Tesla factory was originally a GM plant, but it became NUMMI in the 1980s as a joint operation between Toyota and GM. When GM went bankrupt in 2009, they pulled out of NUMMI leaving Toyota with the plant. It was the only unionized Toyota plant in the world and Toyota wanted to simplify their HR so they decided to close the plant. Right about that time Tesla was looking for a factory for the Model S and Toyota dumped the entire plant (including some equipment) for well below market at only $40 million just to get it off their hands. I believe Tesla ended up hiring back some of the NUMMI workers.

fully agree
IF a dramatically better battery comes along, what car company might well be (already is??) the largest customer for this battery? Tesla, right? History would indicate [especially as we have no working theory of how batteries operate] that trial and error development will continue at 5-8% improvement averages annually. see below video Jeff Dahn
We could have a "put men on the moon" size project to try for battery breakthrough - working theory of how batteries actually function. Who might do it? Auto consortium? Perhaps the Chinese?? perhap a South African immigrant will help direct (Elon/JB have hired Jeff Dahn and Jeff knows/says a working theory is most needed) while doing his other project of putting men on Mars.

Mean while to have insights to where the US puts it's major efforts (~50% of Federal Budget??) I suggest:

I think electro-chemistry in general is pretty well understood. It's li-ion technology that's the really weird thing. It was discovered due to a laboratory accident and li-ion is a class of batteries rather than just a chemistry. Lead acid and nickel cadmium, etc.chemistries don't have too many variations because they are pretty straight forward, put the two materials together and they produce electricity, pump electricity in the other way and the rechargable chemistries recharge.

Li-ion has lots and lots of different chemistry combinations that work and many, many variables. The only thing they have in common is one of the electrodes are particles of lithium in a matrix (usually graphite but sometimes other material) and the other electrode can be one of many different things. There are so many different combinations of ingredients, it's been impossible so far to predict exactly which mix of ingredients does what without some experimentation.

Li-ion batteries are only a stepping stone though. They all have a downside that they require a liquid electrolyte to keep the two electrodes separate and that both adds weight and is a safety problem if the cell gets crushed. If the cell gets crushed enough, the electrolyte squishes out and the electrodes come in contact. This allows all the energy stored in the battery to be released very quickly, which usually means fire or explosion.

There are a number of very credible labs working on solid state lithium electrode batteries as well as some other chemistries that are safer, lighter, and more energy dense than the best li-ion. Solid state means there is no liquid in the battery. A professor named Goodenough who had a major role in pioneering li-ion is one of the people working on solid state lithium batteries.

There was a PBS Nova episode last year which looked into emerging battery tech and the host went to a lab that was working on one of the solid state batteries. The lab examples were so safe you could drive a nail through the battery and it would keep working.

Tesla being quicker to jump on new tech will either be the first car maker to offer solid state batteries, or they will be the first mass producing them.

We really don't need much more investment in battery tech than we have now. There is a lot of venture capital out there and the next big battery chemistry is the next big tech, so there is a lot of money chasing the technology. Some governments are putting money into it too.

If any government really wants to foster the technology, they should start building battery plants that can be converted to new chemistries as they become available. The bottleneck is going to be battery production, not R&D. The R&D isn't going any faster because these things take time no matter how much money or people you have working on the problem. It's like the saying about needing 1 woman 9 months to get a baby, putting 9 women on the job doesn't get you a baby any quicker.
 
Still no theoretical models of Li-Ion battery hense trial and error development. Jeff Dahn explains in his video above.
I think I read, Li-Ion can improve 3x or 4x current levels. Perhaps solid state (they are also Lithium, right??) will/is a big jump. Government lousy at building things - great at funding research, which is all they should do.

Can you document (I'll try some searching) R&D money on batteries? Historically battery development has been very very slow - well over 100 years, right? Have we seen much in the last 20? just "refinement" of Li?

I didn't know VC did any research spending. I thought only product/business model investing. Panasonic needed Tesla to build the GigaFactory. Why isn't panasonic building battery factories?? a lot I don't understand
Any VCs in the Rocket business? I'd call them more like angel investors gambling.