I've done it a few times but never more than twice a year. I drove from the midwest to DC back and forth each summer for a few years and all the way from Ohio to Texas in a two day trip a few years ago. Outside of that, no more than 250 miles in a trip since 2009. jerry33 is right though that travel distances and needs increase in areas like Texas, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
What is Tesla Motors' biggest flaw/challenge?
- Thread starter Yggdrasill
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
After reading about the Ranault ZOE, I think the biggest challenge is by the time Tesla gets to the mass market car that market will already be owned by major vendors and folks aren't going to want to risk buying from a small company like Tesla. Hell, I'm tempted by the ZOE given the price differential with the S.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Just to back up what you guys are saying, the median distance for long distance travel by car (defined as trips "more than 50 miles from home to the furthest destination") in the US is 194 miles.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey/long_distance.html
Also, from this table you can calculate (by multiplying the "personal vehicle" percentage row with the "total" percentage row):
Percentage of travel via personal transport (one way travel distance) out of all long distance travel
050-499 miles: 85.67%
500-749 miles: 1.92%
750-999 miles: 0.85%
1000-1499 miles: 0.72%
1500+ miles: 0.41%
http://www.bts.gov/publications/ame...ce_transportation_patterns/html/table_04.html
Once you include rented cars, the number will be even smaller.
Last edited:
Its important to remember that the luxury car market in the US is about 1 million cars per year.
Now that Tesla has committed to 3 phase charging for the European market, I think they could likely sell half their cars outside of the US.
That means for the Model S to succeed in the US, they need about 1% of the US luxury car market.
The luxury SUV/crossover/minivan market is probably larger than the luxury car market, so the Model X will need less than 1% of that as well.
Even when they get to Bluestar, they only need to worry about capturing 1% or less of the markets they compete in to succed.
That leaves lots of room to exclude people who don't want to be inconvenienced with a short recharge stop on their 200+ mile trips.
Now that Tesla has committed to 3 phase charging for the European market, I think they could likely sell half their cars outside of the US.
That means for the Model S to succeed in the US, they need about 1% of the US luxury car market.
The luxury SUV/crossover/minivan market is probably larger than the luxury car market, so the Model X will need less than 1% of that as well.
Even when they get to Bluestar, they only need to worry about capturing 1% or less of the markets they compete in to succed.
That leaves lots of room to exclude people who don't want to be inconvenienced with a short recharge stop on their 200+ mile trips.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I think Tesla will remain a premium brand even with its "mass market" car. That car is supposedly aimed at the 3 series.
The trust in Tesla as a brand is going to be an issue no matter what segment Tesla is in. That's why the Model S has to be rock solid when it is released. They can't have incidents like Fisker.
Some of these trips must be multiple day trips. It is just not possible to drive 1500 miles in one day unless you rotate drivers with Formula 1 pit stops, pee in cups and never leave the Interstate.
A 1500 mile trip could easily be several days, and then still easily accomplished by an EV given adequate infrastructure.
Well, yes and no. Long term viability yes regardless, but premium car buyers tend to be more financially secure and buying a car where the manufacturer goes under isn't as big a risk for them as for a blue collar working stretching to buy a $30k car. Folks in that $30k market may not be willing to take the risk at all making it hard for Tesla to even get a chance at that market.
I'm not sure how Tesla's mass market car is going to be premium. The two terms are at odds. It can be a quality car, much like Toyota has a great reputation for quality, but it can't really be in the premium/exclusive niche if it's mass market.
I guess it depends on your definition of mass market. To some, that may need a car around $10-$15,000 while to others, it could be the cheapest model in a premium automaker's lineup such as the 3 series BMW.
I don't think Tesla has any plans to go after the true mass market cars in the sub $20,000 segment but if their blue star can start at below $30,000 then that would achieve their goal.
I don't think Tesla has any plans to go after the true mass market cars in the sub $20,000 segment but if their blue star can start at below $30,000 then that would achieve their goal.
The Toyota Camary is always near the top in sales so that seems a safe definition of "mass market". The price ranges from low 20's to low 30's depending on how it's equipped. The Nissan Altima is comparable in sales and price. If TCO is taken into account, Tesla could compete in the mid 30's or if it follows Renault's lead with leased battery packs the the sticker would be very comparable.
No, I did not. I compared them for marketing. Nissan is a known and trusted brand. Nissan has a dealer in just about every neighborhood throughout the country, and in all major industrial nations. Nissan has service infrastructure and advertising budget. Competition is not about who has the better car. It's about who can convince people to buy. I drive a Roadster and I love it. It's a million times better car than a Leaf. But the Leaf is a good car and there's a dealership about three miles from me that can service a Leaf. The nearest Tesla store & service department is all the way on the other side of the state from me. Nissan has a clear advantage in the market. This has nothing to do with the car, other than the fact that it will be several years before middle-class working Americans will be able to afford a Tesla.
Again, public acceptance has little to do with real needs. I'm on a Prius chat board and there's a lot of discussion about the Volt, the plug-in-Prius (PiP), and EVs. You'd be surprised how many people refuse to even consider an EV because they think they cannot live without a car that can drive forever, anywhere in the country, with no more than a 5 or 10-minute stop for gas every few hours.
I have long advocated that most two-car families could do very well with one EV and one stinker for road trips. But very few people accept that. One person actually wrote that (I'm paraphrasing: ) "Maybe my daughter in school ten hours away will have an emergency while my wife is at work with the gas car and I need to get to her immediately." His scenario is so silly and so unlikely, and what could he really do for the daughter ten hours away that the local emergency system could not? And yet, there was the perception of needing both his cars to be stinkers.
This speaks to the problem of public acceptance and has nothing to do with real needs.
The fact that there will not be fast chargers on my long-trip routes up into Canada is why I keep my Prius for those trips, as well as for the occasions when I need to transport something.
Tesla (and all other EV makers) warrant the battery pack against defects in materials and workmanship. They do not warrant them against loss of capacity with age. With a 245-mile range on my Roadster I have no worries. Even at 50% capacity I'll have all the range I need, except for those road trips where even 300 miles would not be enough.
But again, public acceptance is related to public perception, not reality. People are scared that they might have to spend big bucks on a battery whose range is no longer adequate. In five years we'll have real-world data and that will affect perception. But until then, the unknown is a problem for all EV makers.
I agree, but again, competition is not about facts, it's about perceptions. The public at large trusts an established company more than a start-up.
Quick charging will not even exist in most of the country for many years, and will probably never exist on the roads I drive between Spokane and Revelstoke, B.C., or Spokane and Golden, B.C. or Banff or Lake Louise.
L.A. to S.F., sure. But not out here.
Again, no, I don't. They are two separate issues. First is EV acceptance, which will come very slowly. When it does come, then Tesla will have to compete in a marketplace where 99.99% of buyers are not informed techies, but television watchers who are influenced more by commercials than by facts. Tesla has superior cars. But as the new kid on the block it's competing to sell cars against companies with decades of marketing experience and name recognition. For every person who asks me "How do you like your Tesla?" ten ask me "What's that?"
Let me say that I am optimistic about Tesla. They built a fabulous car (which I drive and love). I think they are very savvy businesspeople. I think they have a real chance of success. I even own a hundred shares of TSLA stock. (And I almost never buy individual stock issues, and I don't own stock in any other start-up company.) I believe in Tesla.
But the things I outlined are where I think the challenges are. Lots of great things flop in the market because people would rather buy cheap than quality. My own father once owned a company that made high-quality furniture. He went out of business because competitors copied his style but with poor quality and undersold him. If this discussion was really about quality, my father's furniture company would be huge today. Instead it went defunct. Walmart is successful because people would rather buy cheap foreign garbage than American-made quality.
Tesla has to convince people that EVs are superior to stinkers; it has to convince people that expensive batteries are worth it and that they won't need replacing every few years; and it has to convince people to buy from a company whose nearest service department may be in another state rather than from a company that can service their car three miles away. And it has to convince people that quality is worth paying for.
Yes, I've seen those posts and it's amazing that they even have Prius.
This is just like all the "I won't buy a Prius because the battery only lasts five years and will cost $6,000 to $10,000 to replace" comments that you hear. Of course, the truth is that the battery is no more likely to fail than a transmission but the perception is there. I see the same posts today over ten years later. Public acceptance is very slow.
However, because of the small volume of Teslas produced (even 20,000 a year is very small compared to the total number of cars produced). I don't think Tesla will have a problem in finding enough informed people to buy--provided they deliver quality trouble-free cars.
I know someone whose Prius battery died days before the warranty expired. So I can understand the concerns about batteries, but Tesla has resolved that with their 8 year warranty.
I think the established dealer networks are a double-edged sword. Many dealerships aren't interested or are even actively hostile to EVs. Tesla may take some time to build out their service network, but if they get enough geographic coverage and fulfill the promise of very low service vehicles then this isn't going to be a big issue either.
I think the established dealer networks are a double-edged sword. Many dealerships aren't interested or are even actively hostile to EVs. Tesla may take some time to build out their service network, but if they get enough geographic coverage and fulfill the promise of very low service vehicles then this isn't going to be a big issue either.
smorgasbord
Active Member
The optional Roadster Battery Warranty does. I am assuming that the Model S 8 year/mileage warranty will similarly cover loss of capacity with age.
As for the rest, well, I agree with some of your points, and disagree with others, but a moving target doesn't interest me.
The optional battery replacement allows the owner the ability to replace their battery once, at any time after the 3 year 36k warranty expires. If the battery request is made prior to the 7th year then you must pay Tesla a 2k fee per year when you advance replace the battery (this is in addition the 12k that was paid up front). The replacement of the battery via the optional battery warranty is completely up the customer of when they would like to replace the battery (with applicable penalty if battery replacement is exercised prior to year 7). Where does it say that Tesla will warrant against loss of capacity with age?
Huge problem I have begun to see with the Roadsters is the costly repairs that right now Tesla covers (since most Roadsters are in warranty still). I have seen several Roadsters that have required 10-20k +worth of work within a few mos or even years of the owner taking delivery (PEM, Battery etc). These components seem to be failing far more frequently than one would expect. Every time I go into a Tesla service center there are at least a few Roadsters getting their battery/PEM etc replaced. Once the warranty starts to expire on Roadsters, I am sure Tesla will start to face a wave of angry Roadster owners who are stuck with huge repair bills for these items.
Worse than all this the cost of used Roadsters will plummet since it will be cost prohibitive to replace a PEM or Battery...If Tesla is charging 10k for a PEM (part alone) and 40k+ for a battery....plus the $175/hr labor rate the cost to fix these cars will be so costly that Roadsters resale value will fall rapidly.
At least with a Mercedes/BMW/Audi/Ferrari/Lamborghini/Bugatti's etc that are out of warranty there are thousands of indy mechanics that can fix the vehicles and can procure the equipment to do repairs for a relatively reasonable rate. With Tesla, they are the only repair game in town, if your PEM fails or something like this, you are stuck always having to go to Tesla and paying their exorbitant repair costs forever.
The actual physical labor is not the problem here, the way a roadster is put together is very primitive. The problem is the software.
dmckinstry
Model X 2019
For what it's worth, I've found used Prius batteries from wrecked cars (under 2 years old still testing good) for under $300. I doubt we could find anything similar for the Tesla in the near future, but perhaps in time.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I'd agree with the challenges you have listed earlier. However, I think there are reasons one can be quite optimistic that Tesla will be able to meet these.
Why do you say "probably never" above? The US has around 130,000 gas stations (depending on how you count). Having as many fast-chargers, gradually, appears entirely feasible. At a gas price of $3.50, the US spends more than $400 billion per year on gasoline. Take 1% of that and you can finance a lot of fast-chargers.
Referring to your example, I could easily imagine fast-chargers on highways "95", "3", and "1". Within a few years, we'll also likely have 400 and then 500 mile batteries, so you could make one way of your trips on a single charge. Fortunately, I think most people are in a much easier to address situation.
In California, which is currently one of the major markets for EVs, it seems relatively easy to build a fast-charger infrastructure. And in so far as the 300 mile battery allows charging with 90 kW, I'd say that unless you are racing for time from A to B, but are planning to stop for lunch and/or coffee, you might even loose less time with an EV, if the fast-charger is close to a restaurant/coffee shop/downtown street/whatever. You don't have to go to gas station first, you can just charge while parking. More convenient, and even faster under favorable circumstances.
And once that is possible (which I am convinced it will be, and that Tesla will get there as one of the first companies), and a good number of EV owners are making that experience in real life, it will be easy to communicate and advertise.
Let me assume that the 300 mile battery can be used sufficiently often for fast-charging (we'll know soon). We don't have the Supercharger announcement/installations yet, so you might not be sure whether that will become reality soon. But even if not, there surely will be a 200+ mile range (to put it very cautiously), and that by itself is currently a unique value.
If Tesla were to try building low-cost 100-mile-range EVs, they would have a difficult life competing with EVs from established car makers. So if you are negating the possibility that EVs can be used for longer trips, you must have a rather negative view of Tesla's future. However, if you grant that Tesla's long range and fast-charging ability will allow Tesla to increasingly build EVs that are more and more like ICEs in this regard, then that means that Tesla will be competing in a huge market which supports a lot of variety. Tesla already shows that they are quite clever in coming up with quite unique value propositions.
First of all, I want to say that I am optimistic about Tesla and EVs in general. I listed what I think are the major challenges. I think they can be overcome. I think they must be addressed, and I think that Tesla and other companies will address them. The fact that I consider them challenges should not be taken as a pessimistic outlook regarding the possibilities of dealing with them.
But I also think that general EV adoption will be slow. Tesla's total output will be a tiny fraction of new cars for a long time, and other auto makers' EV numbers will be small in comparison with their numbers of gas cars. The down side is that we'd like to see more EVs sooner. The up side is that the gradual introduction of EVs will allow infrastructure to evolve as EV numbers gradually increase.
Right now, if I was picking the small company most likely to succeed, I'd pick Tesla. I think the challenges are very real and very difficult. And I think Tesla can do it. I would not have bought my Roadster if I didn't think the company would be around for the long term to service it.
But I also think that general EV adoption will be slow. Tesla's total output will be a tiny fraction of new cars for a long time, and other auto makers' EV numbers will be small in comparison with their numbers of gas cars. The down side is that we'd like to see more EVs sooner. The up side is that the gradual introduction of EVs will allow infrastructure to evolve as EV numbers gradually increase.
There is no optional Roadster battery warranty. There is a $12,000 battery replacement option. For $12,000 now (if you buy within 90 days of delivery IIRC) you get a replacement battery in seven years, pro-rated according to when you ask for it. They get some cash now, when they need it, and you get a battery probably cheaper than the cost will be in 7 years. The replacement option guarantees that the replacement battery wil be free of defects for 3 years. It does not promise a new battery. (Could be refurbished. And they get to keep the old battery.) It's not a guarantee because it does not require that there be anything wrong with your old battery. You give them $12K now and they give you a replacement battery in 7 years.
Because of the extremely rural nature of the places I go for my summer hiking. But I probably should have said "Not while I am still driving."
That would indeed be a game-changer. Fast charging would no longer be needed. But it's not a trivial matter. Building an affordable 400 or 500-mile battery could prove more difficult than it seems. However, this would be my most optimistic outcome.
My understanding is that Tesla intends to do just this, with the next car after the Model X. And I think they can compete on quality. I think I did list competition with bigger companies as one of the challenges. But I think that Tesla is up to the challenge. If they cannot move into the lower-cost segment, they'll always be a low-volume niche car maker, and I don't think that is their intention.
Right now, if I was picking the small company most likely to succeed, I'd pick Tesla. I think the challenges are very real and very difficult. And I think Tesla can do it. I would not have bought my Roadster if I didn't think the company would be around for the long term to service it.
Similar threads
