Will any companies be able to match Tesla's performance and range by 2012?

[stopcrazypp]

I don't think Tesla has commented much, and rightfully so, on BlueStar. They probably have some stuff going on behind-the-scenes but, at least publicly, it appears to be just an idea at this point.

They aren't even commenting much on the Model S anymore. Tesla rarely officially comments on something until they have something substantial to show. Elon sometimes lets thing slip a bit, but he's kind of a big mouth/big optimist.

 

[AndrewBissell]

We now have an answer to the thread title: No.

Any bets on when we will see a Range competitor to Tesla? And who will it be?

 

[dsm363]

We now have an answer to the thread title: No.

Any bets on when we will see a Range competitor to Tesla? And who will it be?

It would have to be an up-market brand like Audi.

 

[mnx]

We now have an answer to the thread title: No.

Any bets on when we will see a Range competitor to Tesla? And who will it be?

My guess is Mercedes, with Tesla supplied powertrain bits.

 

[widodh]

My guess is Mercedes, with Tesla supplied powertrain bits.

My guess is that it will take a very long time since I have the feeling none of the big car companies are really interested.

They all seem to do it for their image, but that's all.

 

[AnOutsider]

I don't think Tesla has commented much, and rightfully so, on BlueStar. They probably have some stuff going on behind-the-scenes but, at least publicly, it appears to be just an idea at this point.

However, I'd guess that optimistically it will be late-2013 or early-2014, depending on when Model S is officially launched.

Pessimistically, >2015 or possibly never if Model S doesn't generate enough revenue to fund building BlueStar. Tesla could also get bought out by a bigger automaker before then.

Heh, first prediction works for the (then unknown) Model X, and the latter is the new gen 3 date.

 

[vfx]

Answer this.


So after telling someone a litnay of Tesla's advantages in the EV space, the response was, why is Tesla so much better? It was asked with sincerity and I was not happy with my answer.

Anyone want to field that question with a short burst?


There are credulity issues that come up when trying to convince. For example if when selling toothpaste and your study shows 10 out of 10 dentists reccomend using your brand, you still say 9 out of 10 to give the facts plausability.

 

[Lloyd]

Answer this.


So after telling someone a litnay of Tesla's advantages in the EV space, the response was, why is Tesla so much better? It was asked with sincerity and I was not happy with my answer.

Anyone want to field that question with a short burst?
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Well....Short answer

Tesla was the first to seriously engineer and patent advances in EV technology for mass production. The Roadster was a tremendous success and their test-bed for their advancements. As a result, Tesla is many years ahead of other major automakers, and their patents may keep them this way for some time.

Long answer would include their advances and patents, etc. and an explaination of how each keeps Tesla in the forefront.

 

[RDoc]

Answer this.


So after telling someone a litnay of Tesla's advantages in the EV space, the response was, why is Tesla so much better? It was asked with sincerity and I was not happy with my answer.

Anyone want to field that question with a short burst?

I'd say because their cars do what people expect cars to do, and they do it very well.

It's fine to say that most people don't drive more than 40 miles per day, on most days, but people expect a car to be able to travel hundreds of miles. They may not use that capability often, but without it, it's not really a car.

 

[vfx]

Good answers guys.

New thread please.

"Why is Tesla so advanced?"

 

[Zzzz...]

Well....Short answer

Tesla was the first to seriously engineer and patent advances in EV technology for mass production. The Roadster was a tremendous success and their test-bed for their advancements. As a result, Tesla is many years ahead of other major automakers, and their patents may keep them this way for some time.

Long answer would include their advances and patents, etc. and an explaination of how each keeps Tesla in the forefront.

I'm willing to listen to the long answer. I did personally scanned through many Tesla patents and have not seen anything fundamental or anything that could be considered breakthrough covered by them. I mean copper rotor induction motor is Tesla's base motor tech. But it was around looong before Tesla was formed. Yes Tesla made minor improvements and patented some. But without those improvements motor would be something like 1% less efficient. Or battery pack thermal management would be, not even one, but 0.1% heavier. Same go for chargers. Everything been around for long time, and while some tweaks were made here and there, there is actually nothing that was dramatically modified. And think about EV-1. Anything that was implemented during it development already out of patent protection. And could not be patented because of prior act.

I do not want to belittle Tesla's achievements. It was really hard to develop efficient electric powertrain system (Roadster) suitable for mass production. And because it is a hard task, Toyota and Daimler is paying Tesla for helping them.

But I do want to listen to long answer, and I admit that I might missed something.

PS. Yesterday learned that motor tech was codeveloped with FUKUTA Motors :smile:

 

[ElSupreme]

Answer this.


So after telling someone a litnay of Tesla's advantages in the EV space, the response was, why is Tesla so much better? It was asked with sincerity and I was not happy with my answer.

Anyone want to field that question with a short burst?


There are credulity issues that come up when trying to convince. For example if when selling toothpaste and your study shows 10 out of 10 dentists reccomend using your brand, you still say 9 out of 10 to give the facts plausability.

Three reasons:

1. Tesla is 100% dedicated to electric. It isn't a side project. They aren't adapting cars. They can't rely on ICE sales to prop them up. They have to be at least one of the best, if not the best, in EVs to stay alive. They have to have decent performance. They have to have range. Their small size and lack of other products force them to have all of this.

1.5. Along these same lines they are building dedicated parts for EVs. The didn't buy a GE or Siemens motor, they built their own EV dedicated motor. The same goes for their inverter/PEM.

2. Tesla has wrapped their car around a drive train, versus designing a drive train around a car. This may sound the same as above, and may not sound significant but it is VERY significant. They don't compromise on the drive, the most important part of a car, not the vessel it is put in. Looking at that suspension article shows they are modifying traditional car parts to fit their drive train not the other way around. Sure this philosophy can cause some serious problems, but it is why they have a better 'EV' than everyone else. And as many have pointed out BMW and the like are slightly better at building interiors and vessels. But a car is supposed to drive first.

3. They started at a different spot than EVERYONE else (except maybe Rimac). They started with expensive cars. Everyone else started with Low/Medium cost cars. Expensive cars are better/nicer than Low/Medium cost cars. Plain and simple. This supports the appearance that Tesla is better, but not that Tesla actually is better. I believe that Tesla will be better on a constant cost level, because of the other two points. And this won't help you convince other people that Tesla is better, and may support the opposite. They are using HIGH quality materials.

And you may be able to support the 'Tesla started first' argument. But I don't think it plays a significant role. If GM or BMW or Nissan really decided to put out an EV they could make up the time head start in a couple of years.

 

[ckessel]

1. Tesla is 100% dedicated to electric. It isn't a side project. They aren't adapting cars. They can't rely on ICE sales to prop them up.

Just quoting this part since I think it's the most significant. Tesla has a focus and a huge driver to stay ahead in their space. Current car companies just don't have that.

Basically any successful upstart in nearly any industry has to have that same focus, a commitment to filling an unfulfilled need or doing it in a way that's fundamentally better. Most such companies die off of course since they didn't really have something valuable, but Tesla seems to have built something of real worth.

 

[Eberhard]

Yes, Mate Rimac does. range 600km 0-100km/h 2.8sec

 

[doug]

The Roadster was a tremendous success...

This depends how you define success. The Roadster was a technological success in that it had great performance (while looking good), and was a PR success for EVs in general since it changed the public's perception. However, I don't think it was the sales success Tesla was hoping it would be, but it was a good starting point even though the company had their difficulties.

I agree with ElSupreme. Basically Tesla is actually committed to EVs. This is not a side project for them, it's their entire business. But also Tesla is willing to make fewer cars at a higher price so that the tech doesn't suffer.

 

[DavidM]

This was a good question. I really think that the plug-in EV space is evolving into 3 main areas:
1. Plug-in hybrids, with no range anxiety - Chevy Volt leads here. Expect this space to grow.
2. Pure (battery only) EVs, essentially branded as a City Car (commuting vehicle) - Leaf, and several other options.
3. Pure (battery only) EVs with no range anxiety - Tesla is alone here, and will be for years to come.

Consumers previously compared all these cars because they are all plug-in EVs. They will slowly learn that they are comparing apples and oranges. Tesla's patents, engineering advantages, and price will be hard to match for any competitor wanting to design a car for the 3rd category. Tesla's closest competition might wind up being performance, plug-in hybrids.

 

[ckessel]

One thing Tesla currently has is a performance image, which is in stark contrast to how anything electric (hybrid or full) has been marketed previously. So far all hybrids exists purely for eco reasons: "green", or good mpg, etc. Tesla will hopefully break that and show, as they often tout, that an EV can simply be a better car. Until other automakers get out of the eco mindset and into the "better car" mindset, Tesla is going to have a significant advantage simply in their approach to building a product.

 

[mnx]

One thing Tesla currently has is a performance image, which is in stark contrast to how anything electric (hybrid or full) has been marketed previously. So far all hybrids exists purely for eco reasons: "green", or good mpg, etc.

I think the BMW Activehybrid 3 might be the exception to that. It's faster and more efficient than the 335i.

Infiniti marketed it's M Hybrid and being a performance sedan, I remember the commercials quite clearly (however not the fastest M, but quicker than the base Model)
Same goes for the Porsche Panamera and Cayenne Hybrids, they are both faster than the non hybrid base models as well.

 

[mitch672]

Although not directly about this topic, SeekingAlpha did a nice job comparing Tesla to the other EV mfrs, and stating why "Tesla had it right, and everyone else doesn't"

Why Tesla Has It Right And GM, Ford And Nissan Have It Wrong - Seeking Alpha

 

[RDoc]

If the question is "Why is Tesla, the company, more advanced in what it builds compared to other car companies", I think it's very similar to why SpaceX is more "advanced" than other space companies.

IMHO, neither is particularly advanced in the sense of using some new technology. They don't. The technologies both Tesla and SpaceX use are pretty much standard. What's different though is that both companies took pretty normal technologies and pushed them well outside their industry standard envelopes. In the case of SpaceX, it's to much less expensive launches, in the case of Tesla, much longer range and/or performance.

It's somewhat analogous to Brunel's Great Western, the first real steam ship to cross the Atlantic. Brunel realized the capacity went up as the cube of the length, but the power needed only went up with the square, so he just made it huge (~250ft). He didn't need new technology, just willingness to go outside the normal envelope.