Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ford to invest in EV and battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky [pdf] (q4cdn.com)
125 points by KoftaBob 26 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 173 comments

I think 2022 is going to be the year that we really see legacy car manufacturers come out with truly competitive EV options.

I think the legacy manufacturers are targeting a different market than Tesla and you can see this with the F150 vs Cyber truck. The Cyber Truck is positioning itself as a lifestyle truck while the F150 is positioning itself as a workhorse truck. Both are legitimate but distinctive markets.

Legacy manufacturers are catching up on range. I think the next thing they'll need to tackle is charging network, but if they can do that I don't see Tesla's moat lasting as long as people expect once the EV market expands to the general public.

The biggest thing shooting Tesla in the foot is plug standard. Eventually, they'll have to adopt CCS in the US and switch over their chargers.

Gas stations aren't iPhone power adapters. You can't sell more cars than GM + Toyota + Ford + Stellantis + Honda + Hyundai + Nissan. And eventually, they're all going to convert most of their lines to electric.

At which point, new charger installs use the standard. At which point, customers start asking whether they'd buy a car with a standard charger, or a Tesla.

I also suspect regions like the EU will force Tesla to comply with a standard plug, not unlike how the EU is currently in the process of forcing Apple to standardize on it's iPhone charger connector.

> "I also suspect regions like the EU will force Tesla to comply with a standard plug"

Tesla already uses the standard plug in Europe and most of the world.

Countries and territories where Tesla use the Tesla connector:

  United States
  Puerto Rico
  South Korea
Countries where Tesla use the China GB/T connector:

  China (mainland)
Countries and territories where Tesla use CCS2:

  Czech Republic
  The Netherlands
  United Kingdom
  Taiwan [1]
  Hong Kong
  New Zealand
  United Arab Emirates
[1] Tesla transitioning to CCS2 in Taiwan during 2021

Tesla switched to CCS in Australia without being forced by our government. Completely voluntary.

IMHO Tesla shouldn’t just ship a dongle. They should put CCS + Tesla plugs in the charge port of all new North American vehicles. Even if the latter is hidden behind a second manual door. They already put dual sockets on Teslas in other world markets, so it’s totally doable.

Tesla does not have vehicles with dual DC charging sockets anywhere.

In China you see two plugs, but that's because one of them is for AC charging (China's gender-reversed Type 2 connector) and the other is for DC charging (China GB/T connector).

It's somewhat difficult and costly to put multiple DC charging sockets on a vehicle because you need additional high-voltage switches/relays and cabling. Each DC socket must be interlocked and isolated while the other is in use.

If the sockets are right next to each other, couldn’t the interlock be entirely mechanical? Pushing a connector into one socket disconnects the DC from the other socket.

they already do. EU Tesla's have a different (and standard plug) compared to North American Teslas

Tesla switched to CCS in Europe a couple of years ago:


I thought EU was already forcing CCS for Tesla?

There is no rule that requires car makers to use CCS in Europe. Just the charging network providers. Nissan and Lexus are still selling brand new EVs with the CHAdeMO connector.

Personally the biggest thing holding me back from buying a non-Tesla is the Supercharging network. Infrastructure for any other manufacture isn't there yet and its going to be a few more years before anything else is as good.

Electrify America is up to 600+ stations and covers much of the same key interstates as the Tesla network did when it was considered "good enough" for cross-country driving: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/locate-charger/

With the massive infusions of cash from VW's "dieselgate" EPA settlement, Electrify America has been moving very quickly, and it should feel useful today. Electrify America is still way more complicated than Tesla's network (in part because it still supports both CCS for everything new and ChaDeMo mostly in the US just for old Nissan Leafs) and still has a lot of room to grow, but as a network it is still very usable today not just years from now.

Shouldn't it be a few hundred dollars to have both?

(not that it's a good outcome, just feasible and not all that expensive)

Teslas can use standard chargers. And also superchargers.

Have read on this site that the charging experience is great at Tesla at quite poor everywhere else.

At which point, they'll make an adapter like Apple does.

Sounds like there's a market for a Tesla dongle

You'd also have to figure out how to circumvent the Supercharger station's DRM

It’s not so much DRM as authentication, seamless zero-user-interaction payment, safety, and charging protocols.

You’d also need a Tesla account with a credit card on file, and the ability for your vehicle to identify itself as the vehicle associated with that account.

Or… Tesla might just make it happen, in the future.

I feel like they will.

Eventually, the market for EV will be so large that they may as well try and get everyone they can on the chargers, the same way that iTunes on Windows was primarily to grab a huge chunk of the digital music market.

Supposedly Tesla already has one but they barely have capacity for there own fleet let alone everyone else’s and they are building superchargers at a rapid pace

I've got to say I've done a few long (>1000 mile) road trips in my Tesla and I've never once had to wait for a spot to plug in. There's also usually at least one other Tesla charging at the station. Which means they're successfully walking the line between underbuilt and overbuilt, capital efficient while also satisfying their customers. Most non-Tesla charging stations I've seen are under-utilized and often broken.

I think Tesla could build Superchargers faster if they wanted to. If you overbuild, the chargers will rot (the plugs can need maintenance and replacement from weather exposure after 5-10 years if for no other reason) and you're paying expensive utility connection fees.

Tesla switching to CCS would mean their customers get 4,683 extra charging locations without having to buy an adapter:


Kind of a no-brainer for Tesla to switch to CCS.

No thanks, I prefer faster superchargers. But it’s handy that it’s possible to use pretty much every other charger, not to mention any outlet, as a backup when needed, or when sleeping for that matter.

> I prefer faster superchargers.

Teslas charge faster on CCS:


A little bit of how to lie with statistics there, but yes for certain Tesla models in certain continents using certain rare ultrafast versions of CCS2 with a certain state of charge, there is a certain window of time where the speed may slightly exceed certain Tesla superchargers (the current fastest version, admittedly, but faster ones are coming).

I'd gladly use any charger, if it's what is available, but do prefer Superchargers for their faster speed (although yes, there is that edge case you pointed to) and for the community of friendly fellow Tesla owners that you sometimes run into there.

> A little bit of how to lie with statistics there

Nope. No lie, just a flatter charging curve.

> the current fastest version, admittedly, but faster ones are coming

CCS chargers are already faster today than Tesla's promised future chargers. Today's fastest charging EVs use CCS.

> and for the community of friendly fellow Tesla owners that you sometimes run into there

Soon owners of all brands of EV will charge there. Tesla will put CCS plugs on the chargers and you'll be able to meet everyone:


Tesla switched to CCS in Europe a couple of years ago. It's time to switch to CCS in North America too.

The other charge networks are notoriously bad and many of them already support Tesla’s native plug.

That will charge slower and be an extra thing to buy and carry around. It's better to have a CCS plug on the charger and a CCS inlet on the car.

All other EV manufacturers have standardized on CCS in North America so there's not much value in Tesla not going CCS at this point. Doubly so because Tesla is supposed to be opening up its network to other brands:


Yes for non-Teslas.

Every US Tesla comes with a ccs adapter. Zero chance that any material segment of customer makes a buying decision based on the shape of the charge port connector.

Since when? I've never seen one and there are threads on Tesla owners' forums from literally minutes ago where people are still discussing the lack of factory adapters for J1772/CCS1.

J1772 adapters came with mine. And you can buy them on the Tesla site.

CCS, I would not use, because superchargers are so much faster and easier. Plug in, done. No extra cards, apps, face scan, login, etc.

CCS supports "plug & charge" technically, but right now it is between the manufacturers and the networks to arrange which cars support it. Obviously, Tesla doesn't right now have a reason to support "plug & charge" on CCS networks when they've got their own network. But on the flipside, Europe has several networks with CCS "plug & charge" working for a number of vehicles and Electrify America is just now starting to light up CCS "plug & charge" for interested manufacturers. (I believe the Ford Mach-E and F-150 Lightning both support it today, IIRC.)

Mine came with one in 2019. Never use it. There are at least 4 different J1772 plug types though so probably one of the others is what people are missing. The Tesla connection is slim and sleek compared to the ccs boat anchors

I think you're confusing the J1772 plug with CCS Type 1 Combo. The combo plug has J1772 on top and two extra contacts on the bottom for DC fast charging:


This is CSS type 2 and supports up to 142 kW fast charging.


This is the US j1772 that’s limited to 19.2kW. https://shop.tesla.com/product/sae-j1772-charging-adapter

The Tesla super charger network does 250 kw on the newest stations and they said they will roll out 300. Why would anyone want to limit their charge speed and have a bulkier plug doesn’t make sense I would guess long term us will adopt Tesla standard it is simply better.

> The Tesla super charger network does 250 kw on the newest stations and they said they will roll out 300

The fastest CCS chargers in North America do 350 kW today. The CCS Megawatt Charging System will do 3.75 megawatts:


> I would guess long term us will adopt Tesla standard

No. Everyone else has standardized on CCS Type 1 Combo for North America. Tesla will switch to CCS too.

Something being better does not mean it will win

Linux is objectively better than Windows, even for the desktop, Windows still wins.

Tesla has other issues around it that other manufacturers will simply not adopt the "Tesla Standard"

Most of them have already signed on to something else..

Not only does it not come with a ccs adapter you can not even buy one from Tesla.

I guess you mean J1772. But CCS adapters are available from third parties.

Tesla drivers don’t need CCS though since the supercharger network is so good.

It's not so good everywhere.

Where I am there is one Tesla charging location (with 8 charging stations). It is roughly 20 minutes away from any of my usual work/shopping/dining destinations. The next closest superchargers are over 50 miles away.

Wall outlets also work, and available in many homes and apartments. They are slow of course but it’s been surprising to us how much we can get away with just a single 110 alternating for two cars.

They come with a J1772, not CCS Combo 1. Combo 1 is J1772 + some DC pins.

The DC pins are the desirable part. J1772 is limited to I think 19kWh and is considered L2.

CCS Combo 1 is very rare in North America.

I've been driving a 2019 Bolt for over a week now. I bought out the final year of the lease from a friend who didn't need the car anymore. Now I wish I had just purchased one.

Battery scandal aside(affecting 13? vehicles so far), I'm really happy with the car. It has a couple small quirks, but so far so good.

Granted, I've only been a passenger in a Tesla, but from what I've seen, GM is already competitive.

I’ve test driven a few higher end EV, and the objection I can’t possible get past is the lack of physical controls. I guess Tesla made “everything on a touchscreen” popular, but I really hate it. I hate it in the Tesla, but it’s even worse in other models. The screen in the Tesla at least seems decently made to me, but the one in the Taycan I drove was a laggy PoS.

From the drivers seat of the ICE car I currently drive, I can use my hands to control basically everything without taking my eyes off the road. This hasn’t been possible in any of the EVs I’ve driven. I think some of the more affordable models have more traditional central consoles, but I don’t really want a low end EV…

I expect all my sales objections to EVs will disappear over time, as the technology and infrastructure improves. But that’s one I’m never getting over. I just can’t imagine I’ll ever buy a car where everything’s controlled by touch screens.

That is one of the things I liked about the F150 Lightening. The interior of the Lightening is almost the same as the F150 gas truck.. Which i love.

I thought I would hate that too but got over it quickly with the Tesla. All the controls you need while driving are on the wheel voice control works really well too

>>voice control

No thanks.

I do not have an Echo, Google Home, or any other voice automation. I have no desire to replace all my UI's Knobs, and switches with Voice Control

I have no desire to talk to my home or my car.

As many times as speech-to-text on a phone has garbled my message, it gives me the shivers to think about controlling my car with voice commands. "NO! I only said inverse, not reverse!"

I hate speech to text on my phone and never use it but works really well in the Tesla. Was shocked frankly.

Out of curiousity, what would you be telling the car to inverse?

I’m open to the possibility that I’m just being a Luddite about it, and tbf ICE cars have also been slowly adopting some of the same design patterns. But I don’t think I’m ready to gamble on buying an expensive new car just to find out whether I’ll get used to it.

Perhaps I’ll be forced to adjust one day. Perhaps the world is just leaving my preferences behind. I do complain even more passionately about touchscreens on blenders…

I kind of think we'll eventually have tactile touchscreens eventually. Like folding phones, but the technology extrapolated 20 years from now.

EDIT: Here's a proof of concept from 8 years ago. I think this would be nice to have on my Tesla. Best of both worlds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JelhR2iPuw0

Before I clicked that I was thinking “I hope that isn’t tactus”. They tried to make a phone case with the tactile touchscreen and never got out of production hell. They laid off everyone involved and pivoted to making coatings for other screen manufacturers. The struggling startup I was working at at the time hired one of their engineers after the layoffs. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.

Your view is a common misconception about Teslas. Teslas have ample physical buttons and other physical controls. You actually don’t need to look at or touch the screen while driving.

In a Tesla, you need to interact with the screen (or the voice control) to:

* Control the wipers

* Adjust air con

* Adjust the stereo

In the newer model, the blinkers are controlled by some horrible touch sensitive buttons on the front to the steering wheel.

There’s no misconceptions here at all. I went and test drove one and that’s how it works. You can go watch some users guides on YouTube of people explaining all of this.

Wipers: automatic, overridable with a physical button. Wiper washers, also a physical button. Voice control also works. No need to use the screen. Doesn’t mean you can’t use the screen of course. You absolutely can look if you want to. But no need.

Air con: automatic works great. No need to adjust. Absolutely no need to look at it either. Of course you can optionally do so if you really want to. There might be voice control for this too but I haven’t even had a need to try.

Stereo: There’s a button for adjusting the volume and navigating to the next song, and back to the beginning of this song and then, if clicked again, to the previous song. Also plenty of voice search and voice control options. And sure the screen may optionally be used if you want, but no need.

It would be unfair to expect anyone to learn all these things from a test drive. But that’s no reason to assert that they positively do not exist.

But I don’t want my car to automatically decide what I want the temperature to be, or when I’d like to use the wipers.

The buttons on the wheel can be used to control the stereo, but the functionality of those buttons on the steering wheel is context-dependant on… what’s happening on the screen.

Now, it’s fine for you to like these design decisions. They’re very popular cars, so it seems likely that a lot of people do. But I can’t stand them, and you’re not going to convince me that they don’t exist.

I guess It’s also possible that I’m just very stupid, and I’m using it wrong. In either case, as a consumer, my preferences are for cars that are designed to be more suitable for the stupid.

All these things are up to you. You can invoke the wipers whenever you want to, by pressing the physical button provided for that purpose.

You can set the temperature by voice control. Or… you could buy another car.

What the buttons do is dependent on modes that do happen to show up on the screen, but you can switch those modes using voice commands.

>I guess It’s also possible that I’m just very stupid

Unlikely, and I don't think so, but I'd say it's possible to miss some things in a test drive or two. I'm still learning new things about the car after two years of driving it. It takes a lot of complex work to make things simple.

It's also a moving target. You can say "it doesn't do X" but next week it might, with a software update.

Meantime, there are other cars, so it's all good! Sure it's true that some car models adopt patterns innovated by others, but I'm sure some cars will remain strictly manual control for those who want that.

>> lifestyle truck while the F150 is positioning itself as a workhorse truck.

The secret that Ford relies upon is that there are no work trucks. The vast majority of pickups in the US will never go off road. They will never pickup a load of lumber from a mill. They will never tow a rescue boat to the seaside. They are all lifestyle trucks. The lesser Ford pickups are cheap because they are essentially cars with large trunks and raised "high command" seating. The more expensive Fords are capable, but are still far more likely to be parked in a suburban garage than on a jobsite. Their sound systems cost more to manufacture than all their optional towing equipment.

The secret sauce is to make a truck that looks and sounds tough enough for use in the bush but that in fact is cheaply constructed enough to sell to the masses. I'm not sure Tesla's efforts hit that Ford sweet spot.

There absolutely are work trucks, but it's also true that Ford has variants of the F150 for people who want the "look" of a truck but will never take it off road or onto a job site.

Also, it's important to differentiate "fleet" from "personal" work trucks.

Fleet work trucks are Tacomas with tiny tires, no options, and maybe an extra toolbox in the back.

Personal work trucks are however much profit someone needs to offset from operations this year.

Pavement prima donna is absolutely a category, but I'd say in the last 10 years the needle tends to run the other way.

Since Japanese companies moved into the truck market, even the lowest trim domestics are exceedingly capable. And certainly more capable than they were in previous years. (An easy way to date is to see when GM and Ford started putting new engine designs in their trucks, instead of 70s/80s-ancestry powerplants, circa late-90s)

It's a pretty competitive market. And as with muscle cars, competition has raised the level of everyone.

This depends what you mean by "truly competitive". I work in this space and we're expecting the real turning point to be around 2025 for the mass market unless the infrastructure bill gets passed as-is with the massive incentive for BEVs, in which case it would pull that forward by ~1 year.

The F150 is arguably a lifestyle truck these days. But that's okay -- it probably makes it easier to build an electronic version that can do what its owners expect of it.

The F-series has traditionally had very strong commercial sales, even compared to other pickup trucks.

Yes and Ford caters to both markets. You can get a bare-bones F150 work truck with only federally-required features or you can get one that's as fully appointed as a Cadillac with comfort accessories.

Or you can get a happy medium...

F150 is about the most customizable from the factory vehicle sold, one of the reasons it is soo popular.

> I think 2022 is going to be the year that we really see legacy car manufacturers come out with truly competitive EV options.

That was supposed to be 2021. And 2020 before that. And 2019. Remember in 2018 how GM was going to kill Tesla because the Bolt beat the Model 3 to market by like five months? (Remember when people genuinely felt the Bolt was going to be competitive with the 3?)

> I don't see Tesla's moat lasting as long as people expect once the EV market expands to the general public.

Maybe 2022 is the year. But... I'm not holding my breath.

>That was supposed to be 2021. And 2020 before that. And 2019. Remember in 2018 how GM was going to kill Tesla because the Bolt beat the Model 3 to market by like five months?

Said who? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of things on the internet. This is nothing more than a strawman argument.

Personally, I was never under the impression that the Bolt EV was going to "kill" Tesla, but I can only speak for myself.

Anyways, that's all tangential. Just about every major automaker has announced that they are transitioning to EVs within the next decade or so. Further, in a growing number of countries, these manufacturers are legislatively bound to fully transition to EVs by either 2030 or 2035 (depending on the jurisdiction). So unless you believe that for whatever reason automakers will not be able to figure out how to build EVs, the tipping point is going to come sooner or later. The exact date really doesn't matter.

> Said who? There are a lot of people out there saying all kinds of things on the internet.

Coverage like this (from 2016 in this case, well before either car shipped) was pervasive:


Just read that and keep in mind the actual cars that shipped, and their sales volume. Also keep in mind how the framing of the argument ("Tesla's clock is ticking") is almost identical to the grandparent post written five years later!

I don't know that it's really worth arguing that the tenor of Tesla coverage in business and auto press has been outrageously negative for years and years. And... it's been wrong basically every time.

I think a lot of people have memory-holed this stuff for some reason, but "Tesla killer" predictions are incredibly common for every year over the last entire decade (here's one from 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/nissan-esflow-photos-2011-2)

And yeah, a common thing said is that major automakers will just crush Tesla when they decide to make electric cars. But Tesla is now producing almost 1 million EVs per year. This is no longer a company that doesn't know what they're doing when it comes to mass manufacturing, and it has turned out to be much harder to market and manufacture a lot of compelling EVs even for major automakers like GM (see the Bolt recalls... I'm not worried about GM long term just due to this recall, but it should make it clear it's not trivial for a traditional automaker to bring an EV to mass manufacture).

2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/nissan-esflow-photos-2011-2# 2013: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1088628_chevy-volt-owne...

2014: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bmw-s-tesla-kill... Bolt being called the Tesla killer in 2015: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/11/gm-chev...

...and that's enough. It's most certainly not a strawman after a decade of these predictions being wrong and, if anything, Tesla is more dominant in EVs than ever.

I believe many will go bankrupt.

> Remember in 2018 how GM was going to kill Tesla because the Bolt beat the Model 3 to market by like five months?

Umm, no? That sounds like a straw man to me. I have been a Chevy Volt owner for a while now, and I love that car, and I certainly followed the news when the Bolt came along, and I don't remember anyone saying it was a "Tesla killer" (though, it's the Internet, I'm sure someone said that somewhere). I especially don't remember any "non-EV gearheads" (maybe EV gearhead is an oxymoron?) giving 2 shits about the Bolt.

I contrast that with the F-150 Lightning or the Mustang Mach-E, where I have "truck lover" family members who have never cared about EVs putting down deposits for the F-150.

Regardless of whether one chooses to anoint 2022 as "the year of X", it's clear to me that at least the EVs being offered (now or in the near future) by the legacy manufacturers are fundamentally way more compelling than previous options like the Bolt.

There's a big difference between legacy manufacturers selling concept-plus vehicles never intended to reach scale on the one hand and making their flagship vehicles into EVs on the other.

Mustang, F-150, Hummer, Volvo electrifying its entire line, etc. are legacy brands betting their core assets (brand equity) on electric. They have much more incentive to get it right this time. Which is not saying they will be successful! But it is fair to view these launches as the real initial wave of competition from the legacy makers.

GM, Ford, Volvo etc. are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Most electric F-150 sales will take away super-profitable non-electric F-150 sale.

Profit is made from scale and for the first few years they won't have scale for electric version so every F-150 electric sold will take away F-150 profit AND add a loss of their own.

That will be very bad for their quarterly balance sheet and Wall Street will slaughter their stock price.

That's the good news.

The bad news is: if they continue to drag their feet on transition to 100% electric cars, they might delay the problems by a few quarters but when the problems hit, they'll hit ever so harder.

A year ago Ford's official position was that making their own batteries makes no sense, they'll just buy the best and cheapest batteries from suppliers.

Today they're talking about 240 GWhr battery production in 2025 from JV with SK Innovation.

I have my doubts they'll achieve that. Tesla started JV with Panasonic in GigaFactory Nevada in 2016 and it took them 4 years to scale up to 35 GWhr. Both Ford and SK Innovation are novices at this so they don't have my benefit of the doubt.

Even if they execute on those 240 GWhr by 2025, it's still only about 20% of what Tesla is planning by 2025.

The Gas and Electric Truck will share alot of parts. I know they are billing it as "completely new" but there is far too much of "this is the same old F150" for me to believe we will not see many many many many of these parts in the 2022/2023 Gas F150's when they are released.

It would not make any business sense for the 2 trucks to not share most of the interior, body panels, wheels, breaks, etc etc etc.

Hell I I would not be surprised if the Frame is not the same, just the gas version omiting the battery between the frame rails.

>A year ago Ford's official position was that making their own batteries makes no sense, they'll just buy the best and cheapest batteries from suppliers.

A year ago they did not suffer massive shutdown due to supply chain issues, I think you will be seeing many manufacturers wanting more and closer control over the supply chain for their factories. This means ford will want battery manufacturers to be close to their F150 factories in the US, which likely means they will need to front some capital to get these companies to build said factories that do not exist today

> A year ago they did not suffer massive shutdown due to supply chain issues, I think you will be seeing many manufacturers wanting more and closer control over the supply chain for their factories. This means ford will want battery manufacturers to be close to their F150 factories in the US, which likely means they will need to front some capital to get these companies to build said factories that do not exist today

Hence the article here where Ford announced massive battery plants in Kentucky and Tennessee closer to their other plants.

Though Ford's biggest supply chain issue right now is still processor chips. Maybe Ford also needs to also invest in a big semiconductor fab stateside. I know some minds in Kentucky and Tennessee that have wanted such a facility for some time, if Ford is interested.

Agree with most of this. The key difference from (say) 2018 is that the incumbents are necessarily in a "bet the company" phase with respect to EVs. No matter who wins, it's clear that at a minimum it's going to be a tough bit of competition for Tesla.

Cybertruck vs F-150 Lightning in particular could go either way. F-150 has a ton of brand equity among people who already own trucks. It will not help Tesla that F-150 Lightning w/300 mile range will be effectively ~$17k cheaper at launch. Similar compares are likely to play out against Model X and eventually Model 3 and Model Y.

> Tesla is planning by 2025

I own Tesla stock, but nobody can take seriously their projections 4 years out. (Remember that we were supposed to be awash in fleets of self-driving taxis for the last couple of years.)

Funny how people always use self-driving to claim anything Tesla says will not happen.

Yet other predictions did come true. Tesla has managed to keep up its growth up for quite a long time even when people made fun of them for their claims.

Self-driving is fundamentally different to scaling manufacturing.

They are still globally outselling VW by 2x in terms of BEVs and GM and Ford are not close.

In my opinion neither F-150 or Cybertruck will have a demand problem for years. So it really doesn't matter what the performance-vs-price is 'at launch'. Overall the Cybertruck is very competitive.

> Funny how people always use self-driving to claim anything Tesla says will not happen.

They used this differentiator to presell hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars of nonexistent software to their customers. It wasn't a one-time gaffe by the CEO. It's absolutely fair game. (But if you don't like that, pick one of their other products and compare initial the initial announcement to the actual first availability. They miss their initial dates, it's part of their culture of setting dates very aggressively.)

Again, I'm very pro-Tesla. I can also recognize that their projected timelines are fantasy, even when they ultimately end up delivering in the end.

> They are still globally outselling VW by 2x in terms of BEVs and GM and Ford are not close.

As a Tesla shareholder, this comparison is silly. None of those legacy manufacturers have released "real" EVs yet. An EV Jetta vs Model 3 is the interesting compare, and it's still likely some years out.

I understand the complaint, but it really has nothing to do with the question about manufacturing scaling.

> None of those legacy manufacturers have released "real" EVs yet.

This is simply not true. ID3, ID4, Mach-E are very real, BMW, Mercedes have also released vehicles of that class. Including from China, Geely (Volvo, Polestar) BYD, Xpeng and so on.

These are all build on competitive platforms that the manufacturer hope to reuse the next few years.

Its just that in the US, many of these are almost not sold so in the US Tesla has a huge market share. In Europe Tesla market share is already far lower.

I think the moves to start banning the sale of ICE cars post 2030 or 2035 is going to start making a huge difference pretty quickly. There are definitely some compelling models on the horizon already, but now any laggards in the industry have to start moving right now.

It still could take three or four years for EV prices to come down to being generally affordable across the industry, but I’m pretty excited about some of the cars due to release over the next six months or so.

Looking at current real-world pricing, the most basic Tesla costs $10k more than the Bolt. This is comparing a currently in-stock new Bolt from a local dealer to a deeply backordered new Tesla. Self driving adds another $10k for the Tesla. It doesn’t seem like the Tesla is really competing for the same market as the Bolt. Rumor has it Tesla will be entering that segment in a few years with the Model 2?

> Looking at current real-world pricing, the most basic Tesla costs $10k more than the Bolt.

That's because of demand curve effects though! They launched at pretty much the same MSRP. And one has been getting more expensive as lead times got longer and longer and the other one had to be repeatedly discounted.

You're citing the price difference as if it's evidence that these don't compete for the same market, when it's actually evidence that they already did compete for the same market. And one of them lost.

The base model Bolt MSRP is within $1k of the entry level Model 3. The reason you are seeing such cheap bolt prices is because they have to heavily discount them to compete. Even without the 10k fsd option the base model Tesla autopilot and safety features are better than anything you could buy from Chevy at any price. They are competing for the same market Tesla is just dominating so hard it looks like two different price segments.

If you just go on Tesla’s website, click the model 3, switch “potential savings” to “purchase price” you find that the model costs $40k before tax incentives. If you go on Chevy’s site you’ll find that the Bolt price is $31k before tax incentives. So, it looks like I was off by about $1k in my initial estimate. Let me know if you are seeing different numbers. Maybe Tesla has some kind of hidden option to get a cheaper Model 3?

Interesting looks like they changed pricing. 6 months ago the Tesla Model 3 SR+ was $38,500 and the Bolt was $37,495. In any case the point stands the pricing you are seeing is the result of supply and demand dynamics not a decision by Chevy to target a different market segment. I makes sense for Chevy to sell a certain number of bolts even at a loss so they don’t have to pay their competitors for ev credits that is what is going on there. Chevy didn’t somehow figure out how to make a cheaper ev in the past year.

Perhaps the Bolt is competing for people who do actively do not want Tesla's autopilot. I would put myself in that camp. I don't buy new cars but I might consider an EV if it was just a standard manually operated one.

You aren’t required to ever use AP…

Plenty of new EVs have been released in 2021. Most are somewhat volume constrained for now.

Exactly, these are such tired arguments by people that honestly do not keep up with Tesla. HN for some odd reason has a bias against Elon Musk and Tesla, a lot of people on here hope they fail. SMH

> Cyber Truck is positioning itself as a lifestyle truck while the F150 is positioning itself as a workhorse truck

Why? Cybertruck is positioning itself as 'tough' even more so then F-150. Its price, and capacity for load and towing make it really good work truck.

While many people use F-150 for lifestyle.

In my opinion these are basically the same thing for both markets.

Its really more about what design you prepare.

What if the legacy manufacturers used their dealership locations as charging stations?

There sure are a lot of them all mostly next to major highways.

Auto makers of old already did this years ago. They put subpar effort into vehicles, sell more of them because brand and existing supply chain, and people hate them. They pull it, and people love the gas models by comparison. We are already seeing this with bad batteries that catch fire spontaneously. They know this will happen, and given enough of it EV batteries will endure restriction if not outright ban from some roads.

Ford, nor any other American manufacturer of old can change into a business of lithium batteries and EV design. They lack the R&D or care. You can't take engine nuts and tell them their next project is 4 DC motors with wheels and a big battery. Imagine the racing dialogue: "team A has the 1.1 5 firmware update, giving them a leading edge over team B with a 5% increase in 0 to 60!"

I think we're finally past that stage. Legacy automakers stopped stalling with showroom-only dorky space-ship-like prototypes, and half-assed ICE conversions with 10-hour charging (fast charging is fast now.)

Automakers have shipped real EV "platforms" (VW MEB, Hyundai E-GMP) and models designed from ground-up to be EVs. These cars are really good.

VW id4 rocks already

I don't totally buy it myself, but there is a case for polar opposite market segment targeting.

Cybertruck is positioning itself as a stainless steel workhorse capable of operating in in adverse conditions with little maintenance. Whether it will live up to Elon's forward looking statements is anyones guess.

While F150 is positioning itself as electric truck for people who buy Ford trucks... which could be reduced to a lifestyle choice.

The hybrid F-150 with an onboard generator and all electric F-150 are being positioned for people who need to do serious work, like arc welding, or for whom a mobile power plant is useful.

Didn’t the Cybertruck announce features like 220 power and built in compressor long before Ford marketing started copying the ideas?

Disagree, F150 is more for fleet, labor, handyman, "serious" work.

The cybertruck looks cool, but it lacks many features that are needed for daily usage for an actual laborer/worker.

Not at all bad, but working on the field, the cybertruck already falls short to Ford in many aspects.

Can you actually explain what those features are that Cybertruck is missing?

I guess you haven't met modern truck owners.

What does this mean?

A significant portion of modern truck owners buy trucks for the image and to make themselves feel powerful, not because they actually require the capabilities of a truck.

That is pretty much the definition of anyone who orders a Cybertruck. The Cybertruck is more likely to become the Hummer of the EV truck world, a useless fashion accessory for people who think a big truck compensates for other shortcomings. In five years, when the Cybertruck is a discontinued memory, the F-150 Lightning is likely to be the most popular EV in the US.

No, not really. If that was the case, they would've cheapened out already and gone unibody, no 4x4, etc.

Sure, a maverick and a ranger were cheaper options, but the maverick is new and the ranger is not that much cheaper, in fact a F150 can be much more cheaper.

> What does this mean?

You don't love Tesla enough. /s

What I really hope is that the F150 has decent insurance prices through either volume or repair parts overlap with the ICE version.

Gotta admit that the concept of emergency power for the house makes it tempting. The Prince of Darkness (PG&E) makes such thinking a necessity in this day and age.

A nice whole house generator is like $10k, which you can spend and also buy a nice electric vehicle that isn't an F-150.

edit: the intended implication of the last sentence is that it costs a good chunk of money, not that it's a bad vehicle.

Have an upvote.

From all accounts, the F150 EV looks like kind of a good deal in terms of electric cars. What the reality on the ground will be is a different matter. Personally, I have zero need for a car and a fair amount of need for a pickup.

Truth is, it's hard to justify any new car, but then again that's always been true.

For those in PSPS (public safety power shutoff) areas, due to both the reasonably predictable timing and duration, probably the best way to go is a combination of a larger portable inverter generator (in order to avoid the constant roaring) and an interlock to feed the house.

> F150 is positioning itself as electric truck for people who buy Ford trucks... which could be reduced to a lifestyle choice.

It’s almost funny how backwards you have this

The worst kind of problem in the car business is to have a hit and not be able to produce them. I told some Ford people over a year ago that I questioned the company's commitment to EV's. They asked why and I said that because they have no plans to build their own batteries.

They have a hit with the Mustang EV with some dealers asking $20,000 over list for them ;<(. They will have even more success with the F-150 EV.

Presently they can't produce near enough of them because of the chip shortage. But if that wasn't a limitation then batteries would be. Must be they've figured that out ;<).

They don’t produce more because they lose money on them and only make enough so the don’t have to buy credits from other manufacturers

Memphis has slowly bled jobs for the past 60+ years, and we’ve been darn close to bleeding out since 2008. We’ve routinely lost corporate jobs to other headquarter cities, we’ve had outright corporate theft from the city including Delta Airlines stealing Northwest Airlines, lying to Congress under oath by saying the merger would not hurt competition and they wouldn’t close the hub (it did, they did).

Not to say that Memphis “deserves” jobs, but other cities seem to get the government jobs handouts (namely, military or 3 letter mega-orgs), the big corporate “insider deals” due to better politicians and connections, and Memphis has been shut out de facto. The case for Memphis is just a phenomenal location within the US, excellent freights access via interstates, rail, FedEx super hub, and river, low cost of energy, cheap land and cheap labor. You would think this would mean something for corps looking to do business, but it’s been crickets.

This is tremendous news for the region.

Ford should be making the plants in Michigan where it's based. They've shut down so many factories there over the last 30 years...

Wages are lower in the Deep South than they are in the Great Lakes area. Sometimes by a lot. That's why there's so many factories there - Boeing, VW, Toyota, etc.

And there is a lot less union strength.

A predecessor to Ford's Louisville Assembly Plant was one of the earliest Model T factories and Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant has nearly always been one of the largest truck plants in the company's portfolio.

I'm sure Michigan is still important to Ford as well, but these aren't entirely new territories for Ford plants either.

Also, part of the infrastructure bill gives $15,000 credit to new EV car purchases (if the manufacturer hires union labor). Musk is fighting this.

Every car maker that makes car in US without union labor is fighting the union provision: Toyota, Honda, BMW. Why are you singling out Musk?

And for the record: the last version of the bill is $7.5k + additional $4.5 if made by union.

Car makers that don't use union fight the $4.5k union provision, not the whole credit.

And for a good reason. The union provision would be historically unprecedented government handout to unions and potentially illegal. There are laws limiting what the government can do and this kind of discrimination of US workers that don't belong to union may very well cross the line.

Some politicians are fighting to get an income cap as low as $100k, which would all but kill the tax credit.

>as low as $100k

Which is nearly 50% higher than the median wage. We cut down these incentives in the UK because they appeared to be a bung for the rich.

I have doubts that the lower 50% of wage earners buy new cars in general. I'm very doubtful that they would be buying any new electric vehicles.

This is a disgusting example of political lobbying by unions. Fords makes Mach-E in Mexico while Tesla makes cars sold in US in US. Why is the one who makes cars here and who is effectively the reason why this market exists at all should be excluded from the incentive??

"Every F-150 is proudly assembled at Ford’s Dearborn Truck Plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and Kansas City Assembly Plant in Claycomo, Missouri." [1]

(Obviously, various quantities of parts for all vehicles assembled in the US will be imported. I do not know how Ford compares to Tesla in this regard.)

1 - https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2020...

The post you replied to said Mach-E, not F-150.

And assembly is not manufacturing. The sentence you quoted is making careful use of weasel words by zeroing in on assembly.

Tesla brings in rolls of aluminum and steel (and other things) and puts out cars. Even the seats are manufactured in the same town. The motors are wound from scratch on site. Casting and stamping happens on site as well. Like you, I don’t know the full picture on externally sourced parts, but there are a lot fewer parts, and I do know weasel words when I see them.

I stand corrected on the Mach-E.

But automakers all necessarily focus on assembly because at a minimum the electronics are imported. It would be a good idea to know fractions of parts that were sourced domestically, but an effort to do this in the 80s failed because it's too easy to game and ultimately consumers do not really care.

What I found is "Most recently, the US Senate Finance Committee passed a reform bill that would increase the tax incentive to $10,000 for EVs produced in the US, and to $12,500 for EVs produced in the US by union workers."

That seems like a good deal to me, and the bonus money won't go to any mexico-made models.

IANAL but I’ve heard that under the terms of our cross border agreements with Mexico, “Produced in the US” is a legal term that can also be applied to items manufactured by Mexican workers in special economic zones in Mexico on (the Mexico side of the) US border. In other words, take it with a grain of salt.

I believe it also includes Canada.

> Why is the one who makes cars here and who is effectively the reason why this market exists at all should be excluded from the incentive??

This bill hasn't passed yet, so it's hard to speak definitively about it, but the current draft bill provides:

a $12,500 rebate for vehicles that are:

- assembled in the United States, - with union labor

or a $7,500 rebate for most other electric vehicles


As such, being made and assembled in the United States would be a requirement for the $12,500 rebate.

No one is excluded. Like all tax deductions/credits, this one incentivizes a goal decided on by the legislature. One major purpose of government is realigning incentives. If this makes it cheap enough, Tesla will likely use union labor; if not, they won't.

At the same time discriminating against US citizens that chose to not join the union might very well be an incentive that the courts will deem illegal.

Many people believe this won't end up in the final bill.

But if it does, it's 100% sure it'll be challenged in court by every car maker that makes cars in US and doesn't use union labor: Toyota, Honda, BMW and others.

Tesla can't "use union labor" unless their employees vote to unionize... which they are perfectly free to do.

Unless you are suggesting Tesla... threaten to fire their employees unless they unionize? That doesn't sound very worker-friendly.

Not illegally firing them for trying to unionize would have put them on the right track.


Honest question - don't you believe that Tesla Factories don't unionize because Tesla puts a significant amount of effort, manager training, and probably millions of dollars of investment into preventing them from unionizing? And, if Tesla stopped that effort - wouldn't they naturally unionize fairly quickly?

Something like 13% of private-sector US workers are unionized... choosing to unionize is not some kind of default position. It's pretty rare.

And not every employer is pushing hard to prevent it from happening. Most employees just aren't that unhappy and would prefer to work under their own contract w/o answer into another intermediary that gets a cut of their money.

Most employees aren't even aware of what a union is or does. When something isn't part of your experience, you don't even have a preference one way or another.

Your comment is evidence: it sets up a false dichotomy. The whole point at a workplace that chooses to unionize is that they want to work under a different, better contract, and they're willing to invest in the organizing that it takes to get there.

Sorry, I use to work for GM under a union. When I left and started working in non-union businesses I never once said "I wish we had a union here.".

Unions have done a lot of good in the past, but for the last couple of decades they seem to be more organizations more interested in paying big paychecks to their own representatives.

That's fair! But you know your workplace and you know what a union could look like. The union I was in paid a little bit to a national parent union, and got a lot more than we paid for when it came to legal representation in a contract dispute, training, etc. And all the local leadership was entirely volunteer.

Still, the vast majority of workers in the U.S. don't have much exposure to what the tradeoffs even could be, so as to even make a decision. And frankly, for the folks here on HN, it's not especially surprising that a union isn't a priority. But there are a lot of people who would be grateful for things like consistent week-to-week scheduling, health coverage, fair dispute resolution, etc., and don't even know that there are peer workplaces that have all those things thanks to a union.

This is interesting. Do you do the same kind of job that you did when you were a union employee?

My understanding of unions is employers hate them in part because they make labor more expensive, which would seem to be exactly why one would want to be represented by a union. Is that not correct?

It depends on how much of that extra expense you can capture as your own pay and how much is dead weight costs (e.g. union overhead or additional costs imposed on employers), as well as how likely it is to mean you can't get a job in the first place. So it depends very much on things like overall economic growth, how the union cooperates with management, etc. In Europe, unions collaborate with management whereas US unions have historically been more adversarial. In the US, for example, managers can't be union members whereas in some places in Europe union reps have board seats and are partners with management in trying to get the company to grow.

Quick stats check via Google shows that in the US, union workers earn ~11% more than non-union workers. Which would seem enough to warrant a modest membership fee. Also aligns with the management rhetoric that union labor & benefits are expensive and reason enough to move entire factories to the South to escape collective bargaining. (It does not make sense that they would do this to save the cost of union management's paychecks, the numbers are not big enough.)

What I was trying to understand from the OP was what's missing from the picture and whether perhaps her role was somehow an outlier.

By that logic, if we fired everyone earning below $20/hr, then the average wage of workers would go up, but that doesn't necessarily mean workers as a whole would be better off under that deal. Yes, the company with unionized workers pays 11% higher wages. It also hires fewer workers.

By limiting employment to only workers earning that extra 11%, yes, those workers are doing well but overall employment is lower, there are deadweight losses to pay for the union fees, and that isn't necessarily a policy that can scale to the whole economy. This is why there are such problems with youth unemployment in nations with high unionization rates -- it's tougher to break into that labor market.

Yes, obviously unions have problems scaling to the entire country. But I was specifically asking why someone (the OP) who is presumably earning 11% more would rather work in a non-union shop.

So think of the union as hiring someone to negotiate for you.

there is option A:

In option A, you are already being paid the market wage for your job. The job has a number on it for the wage. That number doesn't change. When you unionize every job with a low number disappers. Thus joining a union can only hurt you, because at best you stay where you are (but pay the union overhead). Nevertheless the jobs that are unionized earn 11% more.

People who think of themselves as having bargaining power view themselves in this bucket, e.g. that they are being paid the market wage already and don't benefit from the union.

Then there is option B:

Unions cause the same workers to earn 11% more - the number does change -- and the firm just scales back on hiring (or lays off workers) until it's total labor expenditure is back in line with its expenses. People without a sense that they have market power (e.g. that the labor market is driven by real competitive pressure in which companies bid on your skills, as opposed to firms mandating wages to workers without better options).

Now someone who views themselves in category B would or would not join the union depending on whether they thought the risk/reward trade off was worth it. E.g. yes, maybe you'd be less likely to get the job but if you did you'd have a better life so maybe its worth it to you.

But note that these choices are not exogenous: once a lot of people join unions, the labor market as a whole becomes less flexible and they end up with fewer options. Thus their market power decreases and they are more dependant on the union. This is especially true if an industry as a whole unionizes. That gives unions a stickiness because those workers know it would be really hard to find a better job on their own. So unions are something you join out of greed but stay in out of fear.

Then of course people make irrational choices as well. E.g. they oppose unions purely because they are morally offended at price fixing, even if it's for their benefit, or support unions purely because they are morally offended by low paying jobs existing, even if there are people who would rather have those jobs than be unemployed. The fact of the matter is that labor markets are not always competitive but it's also true that in many cases they are quite competitive, or close enough to being competitive that they wouldn't justify the overhead of the union. So it depends on how competitive your particular labor market is, whether the union will help you or hurt you, and that is true even if people working for unions earn more on average than those who do not.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't looking for the game theory of unions. The person to whom I replied made a claim about their lived experience having worked as a union employee, and I just wanted to learn more about their thoughts on the matter. No amount of theorizing will suffice to replace that perspective.

Right... and the Tesla employees didn't.

You seem really convinced that if Tesla forced and up/down vote on a union their employees would vote yes, and I just don't think that matches the reality of labor in the US.

At the root of this thread is that someone implicitly suggested forcing workers to unionize (or be fired) as a solution to Tesla not being unionized, and I stand that that's a gross distortion of what it means to grant rights to labor.

Not at all convinced. It takes a lot of work to organize a workplace, and a lot of people are skeptical of unions—for some good reasons, and some bad ones.

I don't see anyone interpreting things as "forcing workers to unionize" except you. The argument you're making seems to be a strawman.

> If this makes it cheap enough, Tesla will likely use union labor

How else could this be accomplished?

They can invite workers to unionize and facilitate that with education, obviously. They could even share some of that $15,000 tax credit directly with workers!

Or maybe I'm wrong, and Tesla is just going to have to reap what it sowed in violating long-established worker rights. That's another way a tax incentive could work: by translating into market rewards. That doesn't make it exclusive.

You can cut this however you want with pretty semantics, but your argument is predicated on not giving the workers the right to choose whether to unionize. If they choose no, Tesla has no option but to replace them.

You want to "educate" workers in order to help them make the right choice... you are not coming at this from a position where you actually respect the rights of workers to make a choice.

Of course they have an option! They can follow the law, not fire their workers for making their own choices about (non)representation, and just not get the tax credit.

Saying that Tesla would be forced to do anything here is absurd. I'm not the one making an "argument predicated on not giving the workers the right to choose."

"To invest" sounds great, but I'll believe it when I see it. For a long time now, American car makes have treated EVs like a second-class product compared to their gas models. Even if these plants go up on time, I don't think Ford is going to elevate the EV to parity with their gas models.

It's hard to say for certain of course, but I believe part of Tesla's success is due to their commitment to the idea of the electric vehicle. With Tesla, I know I'm getting the best car Tesla can make because all Tesla makes is EVs. With Ford or GM or Toyota, I don't get that same impression. If I buy a Volt or an e-Mustang, I feel like I'm buying an inferior product.

If Ford wants to win in this space, they need to change that perception.

IIRC, this is roughly equal to what Tesla spent from inception through achieving mass production of its EVs (e.g. with Model 3). Ford will lose some leverage on this investment due to their older bureaucracy, but they also don't have to start from scratch on aspects like design (they already know how to make F-150s well).

This feels credible.

Good to hear about more domestic battery production coming online. I wonder what kind of cells these will be? They're partnering with SK Innovation, which appears to be a major battery manufacturer, but I haven't found anything about what kind of cells they make.

I keep hoping we get more lithium iron phosphate production going in the U.S.. The energy density is a bit lower than other lithium ion chemistries, but it's been improving with new technology, and we really need more low-cost long-life cells to put in mass-market vehicles. LFP doesn't require cobalt or nickel, so it can be produced in higher volume than chemistries that do without running into resource bottlenecks.

Tesla's approach is fine if you want to make a million cars. To make a hundred million cars requires a different approach, and that's the scale we should be thinking about.

I don't have knowledge about this other then watching the industry closely.

I would bet being pouch style cells using NCM811 or a further evolution there-off.

> LFP doesn't require cobalt or nickel, so it can be produced in higher volume than chemistries that do without running into resource bottlenecks.

I don't think raw resource availability is the major problem. Lithium refinement and cathode and anode production is more likely to cause issues.

> Tesla's approach is fine if you want to make a million cars.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Tesla uses the second most LFP cells as far as I know.

Tesla already uses NCA, NCM and LFP and they are buying from the 3 largest suppliers, Panasonic, CATL and LG. In addition to that they will also produce their own cells with their own high nickel, and nickel-manganese chemistry.

They are absolutely thinking how to make many millions of cars, be diversifying suppliers (including themselves), diversifying chemistries while trying to unify the format.

That's ~$1 million per worker. Sounds like they'll be building heavily automated factories.

Well keep in mind the bulk of that investment, which is over several years, goes towards the construction of the plants themselves, and the supply chain logistics to support those plants.

The ongoing yearly costs for the 11k jobs salaries are a separate thing.

Sounds like all the hard work the governments of Tennessee and Kentucky have put into achieving labor-market equality with Mexico are bearing fruit.

Kentucky already has a Ford truck plant, which is why they're building a plant there. I believe F-250s/F-350s are made there.

One of the issues stemming from this announcement is the precise location: it's in a region of approximately 1700 residents who have been vocal about how they aren't a fan of this choice because they LIKE being rural (doxxing myself with this source: local radio). The estimated job numbers that this would bring in is around 5000, which would significantly disrupt the local community if true.

Also a predecessor to the Louisville Assembly Plant was one of the earliest big Model T factories, so Ford has a lot of history in Kentucky.

What do you mean? Are wages in those states equal to Mexico?

Wow, that's 20% of Ford's market cap. They are going hard towards EV. Hope this works out well for them.

How's the quality on their recent models?

The Mach-E has great reviews and anecdotally my friend with one loves it. The F-150 Lightning has great early reviews though it is still very early before most consumers can get their hands on one.

Is anyone making an EV with good privacy?

This is awesome. Looking forward to deploying my labor on this front in the region I was born & raised after plenty of experience on 4th floor Tesla GF1 cooling tubes (they were forced by aging shareholders to mask me prompting my resignation because I refuse to be muzzled as a healthy heaving/efficient/necessary proletarian that builds this nation's assets with their bare hands).

Still looking forward to a chance at acquiring the seemingly indestructible Cybertruck in 2025 (my Chinese Zodiac. Flimsy Model 3 frontal hardware destroyed by hydroplaning into guard rail [0] on original tires at 45k miles without rotation due to my negligence - that angular stainless steel body ain't gonna budge).

[0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/189Kyds9I5PL5UJTi_P6nDLv-PMO...

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact