Beyond the hype, I think it's feasible to believe that Tesla has a massive multi-year advantage that other car companies will be playing catchup to for a very long time.
Having the global manufacturing infrastructure of someone like Ford or VAG certainly seems like an advantage, but retrofitting that infrastructure to manufacture electric vehicles isn't exactly trivial or cheap. Then consider you also need to "retrofit" all of your people to figure out how to make electric vehicles (or hire new people). The platforms that worked for ICEs don't work for EVs. The electronics don't work. It requires a huge number of new parts. And the parts that stay the same might not be well-suited for EVs; ICE buyers, especially BMW, don't really care about fuel economy, but every EV buyer does care about range. That's a huge shift that affects every part; seats have to be lighter, made of different materials, you have to use more aluminum and carbon fiber in more expensive models, aerodynamics change, etc.
Then consider Tesla's massive lead in battery production which serves to drive down price and increase their technology lead.
Your greatly overstating Tesla's advantages. EV drivetrains aren't quite drop in replacements but they are close enough that the first modern commercial EVs... including Tesla...were simply converted ICE vehicles.
Also, Tesla doesn't make batteries, Panasonic does. Tesla just assembles them. Panasonic also sells batteries to Tesla's competition. And based on Tesla's past issues with paying vendors, if they miss even a single payment to Panasonic their supply advantage could disappear immediately.
Of course the first ones were converted ICE vehicles. I could take a lawnmover and make it electric, that doesn't mean it would feasibly compete with a true designed-from-scratch electric lawnmower.
Those first EVs designed like that sucked. Seriously. Horrible range. Bad part fit. The roadster in a Lotus body was a fast car with decent range, but it also weighed almost nothing, had two seats, and no storage capacity. Come on, you're smarter than to think that's a good argument.
Look at Audi and the e-tron. They're advertising "200+ miles of range", but the only real road test we've heard about so far had it below that, at closer to 175. Meanwhile, the Model X is getting up to 300. And, by the way, before you say it: Yes, the price on both of these is about the same, at the $80k mark.
Consider the Bolt. It's got a range of ~240mi. For roughly the same price (~$40k), a Model 3 will do 310, and it will do those miles with substantially better performance and AWD (and also not look like a squished minivan, beside the point).
Who else is there? The Leaf? Ford Focus Electric? BMW i3? Hilarious. I'm tired of this argument that "the traditional manufacturers will catch up." It's the same argument we were making 4 years ago, 2 years ago, 6 months ago, nothing has changed. They haven't caught up. It's seemingly increasingly likely that the 2021 model year cars might compete with what Tesla is putting out today, in 2018. What will Tesla have by then? Who's to say.
These companies aren't doomed; the car market is vastly large enough to have many many people competing. But Tesla is in a position today to be #1 for a very long time. Their valuation will level off to be more realistic as their revenue catches up with the hype.
For roughly the same price (~$40k), a Model 3 will do 310, and it will do those miles with substantially better performance and AWD (and also not look like a squished minivan, beside the point).
Categorically false, as the Model 3s do not currently sell for that amount with that range. Cheapest model 3 is $46k, without upgrades.
Can't find anything about the electric-only etron, which hasn't been released yet. The hybrid etron only has 16 miles of pure EV range. BMW's I3 is a superior riding experience, range and acceleration aside. Even the Leaf and Focus Electric are nicer to ride in. After the novelty of "Ludicrous" mode wears off, the actual driver experience matters most to most car buyers. Considering that most people don't have a 150-mile commute, the Model 3's only advantage is for the hypothetical holiday drive. Most people would just rather have a nicer car.
The mid-range Model 3 is $46,000 before US federal and state tax incentives. "Categorically false" appears to be an exaggeration, but that fits with your overall posting quality.
No fewer than a dozen car companies are planning to launch more advanced EVs than Tesla within the next 3 years.
Tesla can't afford the capital investment it needs to compete with that generation of competition, largely because it executed this generation's launch so poorly.
Tesla has 50% of the EV market share and is by far the leader in tech. I would love to see anything even close to the specs of the new roadster. Or honestly if any company has any plans for anything as good as the Model S that would be great.
And wouldn't 3 years away give Tesla a multi-year advantage, as claimed?
The only full electric car BMW currently produces is the wacky i3, which doesn't appeal to the average BMW buyer. For some reason all car manufacturers (except tsla) build really lame, goofy, small electric cars, why can't we just have a traditional luxury saloon?
The current 5 and 3-series are not offered in an full electric version. Which means that maybe, if we are lucky, there will be an all-electric 3/5 series in the next-generation (to be expected in 2021).
The i3 is one of the best interpretations of the electric car, although it I guess it has been surpassed by now by the likes of the Renault Zoe and Nissan Leaf.
The i3 is what you get when you build an electric car that is optimized towards what an electric drive is good at _right now_. Given the range problem of the current battery technology, a short range city car with minimized energy consumption is where the electric drive is best at showing off it's benefits.
The Tesla on the other hand is what you get when you brutally try to hammer the electric drive towards matching the range that people are used to. It's a heavy machine that uses most of it's energy to hauling around it's battery.
And while, as you can grasp from what I wrote, I really like the idea behind the i3, it's obvious that the Tesla approach turned out to be better. It leads to a more practical and competitive car that is easier to sell.
The story if BMW i is a bit sad, as things didn't turn out that well. The idea was to make purely electric vehicles and built them sustainably (the interior of the i3 is largely made from some kind tree leaves if memory serves me right) - but BMW quickly figured out that they can't sell enough of them. Which is why they switched their approach towards developing vehicles that can either be built with an electrical drive train or with a combustion engine.
They basically have Teslas problem in reverse: Tesla can't build their factories fast enough to meet the demand for their cars, BMW can't build demand for electric cars fast enough to fill the production capacity they have (3 million cars per year).
(This reads more pro BMW as I mean it - I don't wanna say what they do is the best they could, I don't know that - it's more meant to try to see their point of view to understand why they do what they do.)
The i3 is a really good car, I never said it's bad. It is (or was) also one of the very few proper electric city cars. Tesla has yet to make a decent small size city car. So I fully agree with your post.
It's just that I don't understand why BMW won't make their current lineup of luxury saloons and SUV's available in an all-electric version. It feels like they are missing the boat.
I really hope for them that the next-gen cars will have an electric version, or else they will stand to lose a large portion of the market they currently own.
I don't know their specific plans, but the strategy I know of is to build a platform that can support combustion, hybrid and electric. But they seem to take their time with that ... .
Yes, the i3 is a remarkable car on many counts including how it is manufactured. But it really is a niche vehicle that is only ever going to appeal to a small segment of the market.
I drove 2 Nissan LEAFs for 5 years. They are solid cars, and this year's iteration moved out of the "early adopter" segment and is being marketed as a mainstream car.
Their roadmap in 2022 calls for 4 EVs plus 2 more under the Infiniti brand. Unlike GM, Nissan has 8 years of experience with EVs so I think their roadmap is believable.
This is something that also always boggled my mind. One of the most expensive parts on an electric car are the batteries. No matter how cheap you try to make your car, you'll be set back about 20k just with the batteries.
At this point, why even bother trying to go for the lower end.
You can still go for the lower end if you sell based on the total monthly car costs. Many people see what they can afford based on the monthly loan payments rather than the total cost, and if they save more on fuel than what they pay extra on the loan, it's a good trade. But that doesn't work if the extra niceties push the loan value over that line.
>For some reason all car manufacturers (except tsla) build really lame, goofy, small electric cars, why can't we just have a traditional luxury saloon?
Because maybe high-quality saloons with expensive batteries are way to expensive for most consumers?
And yet expensive cars sell. Additionally the margins can be higher if the selling price is higher (and the product more about emotion), so there is more budget to fit in a good battery.
This is the entire reason the Model S was built the way it was.
Depends on the market. I live in the Netherlands (next to Germany) and even though NL is one of the most expensive countries to own a car, luxury german cars are very common here. So are Tesla's by the way.
I've never been to NL and never knew that it was expensive to own a car there. However, having learned that, I am certainly not surprised to also learn that many of the cars there are fancy and expensive. Wealthy people have more fancy and expensive cars than poor people. If none of the poor have cars, a greater portion of existing cars will be fancy and expensive. Singapore was the same, when I lived there. That isn't to say that all vehicles were luxury. Workmen still need work trucks, after all.
Just bought a new Model S 100D. Sat in other cars just for giggles (BMW 5 series, Mercedes E Class, Audi RS 3). Where else am I getting an electric car that holds two large Clek Fllo car seats, two adults, a full trunk of luggage, has 330 miles of range, does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, and I can travel cross country effortlessly in? It doesn't exist besides a Tesla.
Tesla is valued appropriately based on the market.
The fact that it's electric is not even close to the only advantage that Tesla's cars have over ICE cars.
Tesla turned the car into a software problem, and I would argue they have demonstrated they are WAY WAY ahead of the major OEM's at software and in the infrastructure supporting it.
Not to mention extremely sleek and well loved design, autopilot, etc. To just make a Camry electric won't be enough ( though it definitely will take some of the market share ).
GM Supercruise is the only other thing on the market that is comparable, and with Nav on Autopilot I'd argue Tesla is a fair bit ahead.
Maybe they are not ahead of Waymo, but can you buy a Waymo? If not then when will you be able to?
There is Comma.ai which I am impressed with and think will be the general autonomous solution to many (most?) non-Tesla cars going forward, but their product at the moment is for hobbyists and not consumers.
No, they convinced fanboys that they turned it into a software problem. The reality is they are no different than any other auto manufacturer. Being in Silicon Valley doesn't change that.
An electric Camry would sell so much more than the model 3.
What are you talking about? They have turned it into a software problem. Name another company where you can make meaningful over the air software updates that affect more than the dashboard?
Also while I am a Tesla fanboy, I work in automotive technology and interface with many of the major car companies daily, so I'm not just getting this from articles.
Battery packs for EVs are expensive and heavy. And more complicated than people realise. They're not just big batteries. Making an electric car with decent range at an affordable price* is not easy at all. Tesla is closer than anyone else.
* edit: an affordable price that isn't loss-making, I should say
I can go to a dealer today and grab a Chevy Bolt for under $32k with no haggling with 238 mile range. Hyundai hasn't come out with US pricing for their Kona EV yet, but in Norway they're selling it for the equivalent of $40k with 258 mile range.
It certainly isn't trivial and Tesla has invested a good bit in EV technology, but it looks like rivals aren't that far behind.
Both Chevy and Hyundai have decent range EVs that are significantly less expensive than a Tesla, so it seems like it's not a problem only Tesla knows the answer to.
I'm more concerned with what's available on the market, not whether or not it sells in enough quantity to offset R&D, etc. Tesla had it's first profitable quarter in what, 15 years? It might be premature to move the goalposts ;-).
The fact remains that both Chevy (or LG) and Hyundai clearly know how to make a battery that competes on price. Tesla doesn't have any magic technology, what they have is good marketing. They have a plausible shot at replacing BMW as the image car of choice for folks in the lower premium car range, which seems fairly lucrative. Not a bad niche to be in.
Chevy (or LG) and Hyundai clearly know how to make a battery that competes on price.
No, they don't. That's my point. They've made long range EVs that they are selling at a loss, or only in small numbers which implies either loss-making or supply-chain problems.
Tesla doesn't have any magic technology
Thats not clear. Look at the recently announced Audi and Mercedes EV efforts (and the Jag i-Pace) and see how they compare with Tesla in terms of battery size, weight and efficiency.
The Tesla 3 base model is not in production right now. Only the higher priced models are. I'm sure they'll eventually get to it, but you're comparing a model that is available to buy today with one which is not.
Some high demand cars sell over MSRP. Seeing deep discounts at the end of a model year is common when trying to shift inventory or when dealing with very high margin trim levels. Advertising 26% under MSRP for a base 2019 model in 2018 is a rather extreme case.
PS: For some actual numbers: GM delivered 3,949 Bolt EVs during the last three months in the US from 6,710 units during the same period last year. In automotive sales terms that's very close to zero. https://electrek.co/2018/10/03/chevy-bolt-ev-sales-slumping-...
I looked at & test drove the Bolt before buying my Tesla. I kind of liked it, but I bought a Tesla instead. The two issues that pushed me to get a Tesla:
1) GM seem to go out of their way to make the Bolt seem cheap and unappealing. The seats in particular are too narrow and are uncomfortable. The car is wide enough to accommodate more comfortable seats, but they just decided to use the cheapest seats possible.
2) There is no DC fast charging network that the Bolt can use in the US.
Thanks to the supercharging network, I can (and have) take thousand mile road trips in my Tesla without worrying that I'll be able to find a place to charge in a reasonable amount of time.
With a Bolt, any trip approaching 1/2 the car's range (eg roughly 115mi) from home suddenly becomes an adventure where you have to look for slow level 2 chargers and be prepared to wait hours for your car to charge. The Chevy dealership where we drove the car had a charger, but it was ICE'd in by their inventory of giant gas guzzling SUVs. I imagined this scenario would be typical.
