Who can catch Tesla ? They seem to be experiencing exponential growth…..

[Stuart Watson]

I read the review , I noted the part where the journalist said; “ I remain unconvinced that screens beat old-fashioned analog needles and buttons for form or function”

That tells us all we needed to know about him !

 

[tm1v2]

I read the review , I noted the part where the journalist said; “ I remain unconvinced that screens beat old-fashioned analog needles and buttons for form or function”

That tells us all we needed to know about him !

Wow, yup, is right.

Physical knobs, switches, and buttons are great when they can be single function and you only need 10 (or whatever small number).

Asking for all physical controls and no screen on a modern passenger car is just silly. Does that person miss early 2000s German cars with half a keyboard on the dash? It would be even worse for today's cars.

 

[Yelobird]

Wow, yup, is right.

Physical knobs, switches, and buttons are great when they can be single function and you only need 10 (or whatever small number).

Asking for all physical controls and no screen on a modern passenger car is just silly. Does that person miss early 2000s German cars with half a keyboard on the dash? It would be even worse for today's cars.

Hey! Buttons on cell phones Will come back again you just watch! Lol

 

[DblOSmith]

Psst, Toyota used up all their credits with hyrbids, so now they have to compete on the actual design/quality of their EVs... LMAO. No wonder they tried to deny it for so long. No soup for you. Unlike other subpar offerings from other brands which get handicapped with fed rebates, Toyota's offerings have to compete just like Tesla, w/o any incentives.

I am so disappointed with Toyota. As a 90's Toyota fan... Had the Paseo, Celica, MR-2, Supra, V6 5spd Camry... Prius was introduced... ...and their cars were fun and bullet proof and sexy. bZ4X underwhelming looks, underwhelming performance, underwhelming charging... all so milquetoast. Just feels like a 1/2 effort vehicle.

 

[DblOSmith]

Hey! Buttons on cell phones Will come back again you just watch! Lol

I have huge hands, and I wish I had physical buttons like my old LG Voyager. A modern foldable phone like that would instantly get my money. Can't beat the satisfying "clap" of a clamshell phone closing. ...but I know that ship has sailed. heh.

 

[tm1v2]

I have huge hands, and I wish I had physical buttons like my old LG Voyager. A modern foldable phone like that would instantly get my money. Can't beat the satisfying "clap" of a clamshell phone closing. ...but I know that ship has sailed. heh.

View attachment 826236

Hah yes! I miss that satisfying thwack of a good clamshell too. I don't miss physical buttons for most things, but I certainly miss the BlackBerry keyboard when I need to type a lot from my phone!

 

[richh]

View attachment 818814

If Tesla is outproducing everyone combined, why is the EV charging plug "standard" a J1772/CCS hack and not Tesla's, which is clearly much better designed?

 

[tm1v2]

If Tesla is outproducing everyone combined, why is the EV charging plug "standard" a J1772/CCS hack and not Tesla's, which is clearly much better designed?

@richh Two reasons:

J1772 predates the Tesla plug introduced with the Model S.

J1772 and CCS are actually standards. The Tesla plug is proprietary. I don't recall Tesla ever attempting to make it a standard for others to use.

 

[Earl]

J1772 predates the Tesla plug introduced with the Model S.

It doesn't precede Tesla's DCFC charger though.

I don't recall Tesla ever attempting to make it a standard for others to use.

Just because you were unaware back in the early 201x's doesn't make it a fact.
Tesla was very active but completely overruled by everyone else on the CCS committee that wanted to be sure CCS was annoyingly huge and maxed out at 50 Kw to ensure an EV could never compete with ICE. It was probably the only time a vast majority (all but 1) in a standards committee agreed on the same thing. It was harmonious and a beautiful thing (except to Tesla or anyone who wanted EVs to succeed).
This was the same stunt as they had done previously with J-1772 when Tesla was looking for an AC home charging connector for the Roadster. The majority consensus at that time (late 200x's) was bent on ensuring J-1772 couldn't handle more than 16 amps (also making an ICE essential).

 

[tm1v2]

It doesn't precede Tesla's DCFC charger though.

Just because you were unaware back in the early 201x's doesn't make it a fact.
Tesla was very active but completely overruled by everyone else on the CCS committee that wanted to be sure CCS was annoyingly huge and maxed out at 50 Kw to ensure an EV could never compete with ICE. It was probably the only time a vast majority (all but 1) in a standards committee agreed on the same thing. It was harmonious and a beautiful thing (except to Tesla or anyone who wanted EVs to succeed).
This was the same stunt as they had done previously with J-1772 when Tesla was looking for an AC home charging connector for the Roadster. The majority consensus at that time (late 200x's) was bent on ensuring J-1772 couldn't handle more than 16 amps (also making an ICE essential).

@Earl Have a citation for Tesla pushing the Model S connector as a standard before CCS 1.0 was finalized? I'm not finding it but maybe I'm just not searching with the right terms.

If you're just trying to convince me that CCS is clunky and the Model S connector is nicer, there is no convincing needed...

 

[Takumi]

Combined Charging System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Germany, the Charging Interface Initiative e. V. (CharIN) was founded by car makers and suppliers (Audi, BMW, Daimler, Mennekes, Opel, Phoenix Contact, Porsche, TÜV SÜD and Volkswagen) to promote the adoption of CCS. They noted in a press release that most cars cannot charge faster than 50 kW, so that was the first common power output of CCS stations to be built during 2015. The next step was the standardization of stations with 150 kW output that they showed in October 2015, looking to a future system with 350 kW output.[20] Volvo joined CharIN in 2016;[21] Tesla in March 2016;[22] Lucid Motors (previously Atieva) June 2016;[23] Faraday Future June 2016; Toyota in March 2017.[24]

As part of the 2016 settlement of the Volkswagen emissions scandal, VW committed to spend US$2 billion in the United States over the following 10 years on CCS and other charging infrastructure through subsidiary company Electrify America.[25] In this effort, charging stations will be built with up to 150 kW at community-based locations and with up to 350 kW at highway locations. Besides CCS, CHAdeMO charging stations were to be constructed.[26]

IIRC, the first Model S (2012 ?) that were Supercharger capable were able to charge faster than 50 kW. Tesla's system was faster until the 800V systems came out. Supercharger V1 (150 kW) were capable of faster speeds than what the first Model S was capable of. This was the time of "the bigger the battery, the faster you could charge".

So around the time of the Taycan, I think, is when CCS was comparable to Tesla. Before that, no choice but Tesla if you didn't want to be confined to city limits.
It's why the Bolt is relegated to "compliance" numbers.

So that's about 3 years or so before a faster standard than Tesla was available. Then when CCS anounced 350kW capability:

https://twitter.com/x/status/812708946225963008

But Elon was talking about the Semi, so he sidestepped

Anyway, it was because of this charging speed bottle neck that all other EVs were deemed compliance cars by the EV community. Also why ICE kept championing hybrid.

 

[cwerdna]

Cwerdna, you make it sound like things are fine at Toyota !

However, the figures contradict you;

They seem to be due to supply limits, not lack of demand.

Toyota, just like many others have had to cut production. Examples below:

Toyota cuts July global production plan by 50,000 vehicles

Toyota Motor Corp on Wednesday cut its July global production plan by 50,000 vehicles as semiconductor shortages and COVID-19 parts supply disruptions continued to curb output.

www.reuters.com

Toyota to cut global production plan by 100,000 in June

The company did not change its estimate of producing about 9.7 million vehicles worldwide by March 2023.

www.cnbc.com

Toyota Cuts Production Twice in One Week - The Detroit Bureau

Toyota is reducing its global manufacturing once again. Are there more cuts coming? TheDetroitBureau.com has the answer.

www.thedetroitbureau.com

Again, 9.51 million vehicles is a far cry from "no one wants to buy their cars". How many has Tesla ever sold in a year?

Per Sales, Production, and Export Results for May 2022 | Sales, Production, and Export Results | Profile | Company | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website, from Jan to May 2022 (don't have more recent global sales/production figures from them), Toyota sold 3.8 million vehicles.

I found Jan to Dec 2021 figures at Sales, Production, and Export Results for 2021 (January - December) | Sales, Production, and Export Results | Profile | Company | Toyota Motor Corporation Official Global Website of 9.6 million vehicles sold worldwide.

 

[cwerdna]

Psst, Toyota used up all their credits with hyrbids,

The headlines were a joke/misleading. The "used up" (hit 200K qualifying vehicles mark) credit of up to $7500 applies to plug-in hybrid and pure EVs: Federal Tax Credits for Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Cars. But yes, Toyota used up virtually all of the count towards the 200K vehicle on PHEVs.

It doesn't apply to hybrids, the kind you can't plug in. The old (and long gone) tax credit for hybrids has nothing to do this 200K vehicle limit.

In the US, hybrids (the kind you can't plug in) far outsell plug-in hybrids.

 

[Earl]

@Earl Have a citation for Tesla pushing the Model S connector as a standard before CCS 1.0 was finalized? I'm not finding it but maybe I'm just not searching with the right terms.

There won't be any citations from back then. AFAIK, the only folks in the room were the participants and they all had their own self-serving objectives. I heard word directly from Chargepoint and Tesla folks whom I knew from before that were in the committee. That was in a meeting about installing public charging that I attended in Palo Alto, CA. Chargepoint, known as Coulomb Technologies back then, was clueless about fast charging but they were the only non-manufacturer there and they did corroborate Tesla's story, to a degree albeit not in writing.

I'm not really trying to convince you about the CCS history since I realize that to you, this is very weak since:
1) Who the heck am I? Just another person on the internet
2) Can you believe what Tesla said?
3) There was no 3rd party or unbiased party at the table to report.

I just request that, as history is rewritten by all, you don't promote that what you don't recall makes it fact.

I was at the Tesla rollout in the Barker Hanger at the Santa Monica Airport in 2006 and Tesla's story then was that they wanted to use charging standards. As a Signature 100 Roadster owner, since July, 2006, I was constantly in communications with Tesla and their story remained consistent with what I relate. The J-1772 Standard was definitely not finalized before the Roadster hit the streets, hence its clunky connector. When the Model S came out, CCS was necessary because J-1772 did not facilitate power connectors that could handle fast charging, thus necessitating the frankensteined power ports. I don't know exactly when Tesla decided to completely go-it-alone with their own system but clearly, they weren't happy with how the standards committees were treating their (and our) needs.

Musk was definitely quoted as saying that "Tesla IS the Standard" and he claimed they would open it up to others who would support its rollout.
The company that I worked for at the time was also a supplier to the automotive industry although I had nothing to do with that side of the business. Our CEO, however, often took jabs at me about my Roadster, telling me that he had heard through his auto industry contacts that Tesla was losing their shirt on their charging network and was desperately begging other auto manufacturers to adopt their standard and bail them out.
While not a provable fact, given the pathetic compliance cars being built at the time by GM, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, VW, BMW, etc, this is all consistent with the story I've pieced together.

 

[tm1v2]

There won't be any citations from back then. AFAIK, the only folks in the room were the participants and they all had their own self-serving objectives. I heard word directly from Chargepoint and Tesla folks whom I knew from before that were in the committee. That was in a meeting about installing public charging that I attended in Palo Alto, CA. Chargepoint, known as Coulomb Technologies back then, was clueless about fast charging but they were the only non-manufacturer there and they did corroborate Tesla's story, to a degree albeit not in writing.

I'm not really trying to convince you about the CCS history since I realize that to you, this is very weak since:
1) Who the heck am I? Just another person on the internet
2) Can you believe what Tesla said?
3) There was no 3rd party or unbiased party at the table to report.

I just request that, as history is rewritten by all, you don't promote that what you don't recall makes it fact.

I was at the Tesla rollout in the Barker Hanger at the Santa Monica Airport in 2006 and Tesla's story then was that they wanted to use charging standards. As a Signature 100 Roadster owner, since July, 2006, I was constantly in communications with Tesla and their story remained consistent with what I relate. The J-1772 Standard was definitely not finalized before the Roadster hit the streets, hence its clunky connector. When the Model S came out, CCS was necessary because J-1772 did not facilitate power connectors that could handle fast charging, thus necessitating the frankensteined power ports. I don't know exactly when Tesla decided to completely go-it-alone with their own system but clearly, they weren't happy with how the standards committees were treating their (and our) needs.

Musk was definitely quoted as saying that "Tesla IS the Standard" and he claimed they would open it up to others who would support its rollout.
The company that I worked for at the time was also a supplier to the automotive industry although I had nothing to do with that side of the business. Our CEO, however, often took jabs at me about my Roadster, telling me that he had heard through his auto industry contacts that Tesla was losing their shirt on their charging network and was desperately begging other auto manufacturers to adopt their standard and bail them out.
While not a provable fact, given the pathetic compliance cars being built at the time by GM, Ford, Chevy, Toyota, VW, BMW, etc, this is all consistent with the story I've pieced together.

@Earl Gotcha, I think. Thank you for all the clarifications.

I try to be careful in what I write - hence my "to my knowledge" disclaimer, and why I referenced the Model S connector specifically, not the Roadster. I don't doubt there were people in Tesla who wanted to make the Model S connector a standard. And I'm sure that actually doing so would have been a very tall order for a company in their position then.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike CCS as much as anyone, from the chonky connector to the overly complicated communications to the lack of standard vehicle port placement to the absence of plug-n-charge as a core required feature when payment is needed. But to the question @richh asked, there are clear reasons why the Model S charge connector didn't become standard across the industry.

Heck I'm still mildly bitter how the Model 3 charge port door is so big and sticks out in a very fragile-looking position, vs the original Model S charge port door, just to accommodate CCS in other markets. Of course it's still better than the friggin' gas filler doors that everyone else making EVs now is stuck on! (Even on their ground up EV platforms...it's inexplicable to me, when Tesla showed how elegantly it can be done so long ago.)

 

[Earl]

@Earl Gotcha, I think. Thank you for all the clarifications.

I try to be careful in what I write - hence my "to my knowledge" disclaimer, and why I referenced the Model S connector specifically, not the Roadster. I don't doubt there were people in Tesla who wanted to make the Model S connector a standard. And I'm sure that actually doing so would have been a very tall order for a company in their position then.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike CCS as much as anyone, from the chonky connector to the overly complicated communications to the lack of standard vehicle port placement to the absence of plug-n-charge as a core required feature when payment is needed. But to the question @richh asked, there are clear reasons why the Model S charge connector didn't become standard across the industry.

Heck I'm still mildly bitter how the Model 3 charge port door is so big and sticks out in a very fragile-looking position, vs the original Model S charge port door, just to accommodate CCS in other markets. Of course it's still better than the friggin' gas filler doors that everyone else making EVs now is stuck on! (Even on their ground up EV platforms...it's inexplicable to me, when Tesla showed how elegantly it can be done so long ago.)

Don't forget that the ICE makers wanted to kill EVs. They took our first EV away from us and crushed it while making up and propagating lies about how nobody wanted them and how they didn't work.
Everything bad you say about CCS and J-1772 and their cars pretty much supports the thesis that they don't want EVs.
If Tesla hadn't come along and started blasting away their market, they would not be doing anything to support EVs and certainly not making them.
Even today, they hire shills such as "our own" @Mockingbird to try to push their anti-EV (= anti-Tesla) agenda.

 

[tm1v2]

Don't forget that the ICE makers wanted to kill EVs. They took our first EV away from us and crushed it while making up and propagating lies about how nobody wanted them and how they didn't work.
Everything bad you say about CCS and J-1772 and their cars pretty much supports the thesis that they don't want EVs.
If Tesla hadn't come along and started blasting away their market, they would not be doing anything to support EVs and certainly not making them.
Even today, they hire shills such as "our own" @Mockingbird to try to push their anti-EV (= anti-Tesla) agenda.

Nah, I don't buy that CCS came out of malice. More likely incompetence, combined with short-sighted unwillingness to replace J1772.

 

[Earl]

Nah, I don't buy that CCS came out of malice. More likely incompetence, combined with short-sighted unwillingness to replace J1772.

Malice is a tricky word. Bias toward self interest and apathy toward any effort or investment in anything perceived to not be in it might be more correct.
GM (Bob Lutz) believed (conveniently) that PHEV (the Volt) was the solution for sustainability. They pushed to protect the ICE which pays the salaries for most of their employees who will go the way of the buggy-whip braiders in a pure EV world.
- 16 amp J-1772 meant 12 mph charging. No driving 30 miles of errands in the morning, then charging over lunch for afternoon ones.
- 50 kW CCS (if forced to support DCFC) meant no road trippable EVs. An ICE would be needed for long trips.

You may not buy it but everything you see makes sense if you accept it. It's kind of like what Galileo saw in the solar system: When he put the Sun in the center, everything he observed made sense.

 

[Stuart Watson]

Don't forget that the ICE makers wanted to kill EVs. They took our first EV away from us and crushed it while making up and propagating lies about how nobody wanted them and how they didn't work.
Everything bad you say about CCS and J-1772 and their cars pretty much supports the thesis that they don't want EVs.
If Tesla hadn't come along and started blasting away their market, they would not be doing anything to support EVs and certainly not making them.
Even today, they hire shills such as "our own" @Mockingbird to try to push their anti-EV (= anti-Tesla) agenda.

Well said !

They seem to be due to supply limits, not lack of demand.

How ridiculous. Look at Toyota availability ( you can drive one home today from my local dealer, plenty of stock ) whereas a Model Y requires a 12 month wait.

 

[Stuart Watson]

New factories before they are making much stuff do indeed burn money.

But tesla is the most efficient in this process, with the most in demand product with the most efficient build.

They'll also have more factories and sales with products that have a higher gross margin than anyone else.

But whatever

Well said