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.
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.
Tesla already uses the standard plug in Europe and most of the world.
Countries and territories where Tesla use the Tesla connector:
United Arab Emirates
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.
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.
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.
(not that it's a good outcome, just feasible and not all that expensive)
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.
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.
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.
Kind of a no-brainer for Tesla to switch to CCS.
Teslas charge faster on CCS:
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.
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.
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:
CCS, I would not use, because superchargers are so much faster and easier. Plug in, done. No extra cards, apps, face scan, login, etc.
This is the US j1772 that’s limited to 19.2kW.
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.
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..
Tesla drivers don’t need CCS though since the supercharger network is so good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
F150 is about the most customizable from the factory vehicle sold, one of the reasons it is soo popular.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
There sure are a lot of them all mostly next to major highways.
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!"
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.
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 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.
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.
You don't love Tesla enough. /s
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.
edit: the intended implication of the last sentence is that it costs a good chunk of money, not that it's a bad vehicle.
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.
It’s almost funny how backwards you have this
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 ;<).
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.
I'm sure Michigan is still important to Ford as well, but these aren't entirely new territories for Ford plants either.
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.
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.
(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...
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.
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.
That seems like a good deal to me, and the bonus money won't go to any mexico-made models.
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.
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.
Unless you are suggesting Tesla... threaten to fire their employees unless they unionize? That doesn't sound very worker-friendly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
I don't see anyone interpreting things as "forcing workers to unionize" except you. The argument you're making seems to be a strawman.
How else could this be accomplished?
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 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.
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."
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.
This feels credible.
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 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.
The ongoing yearly costs for the 11k jobs salaries are a separate thing.
How's the quality on their recent models?
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  on original tires at 45k miles without rotation due to my negligence - that angular stainless steel body ain't gonna budge).