Tesla delivered 83,500 vehicles in the third quarter, more than expected
cnbc.com- accelerating China factory due to tariffs of about 40% into China, they don't indicate what accelerating actually means
Numbers:
- Q3 production 53,239, - Bloomberg’s estimate: 53,457
- North American deliveries of 55,840 rank the Model 3 among the 10 best-selling sedans in the region--and the only one that's electric
- pretty good news in the face of what other car companies are doing
- GM sales are expected to fall 14%, after falling 13% in August.
- Analyst estimates for Ford (-9%), Toyota (-6.5%), Honda (-4.1%)
Yeah, there's a clear shift coming in the automotive industry. The auto makers who don't have plans for electrification right now are in big trouble.
Thankfully, the VW group will actually be okay - they've tasked Porsche's engineers with electrification of all the companies owned by the group.
The Taycan will be built on the J1 platform (Porsche controlled/built). Porsche is developing 3 different packages for other car makers: the SPE (Sport platform electric) for Lamborghini, and then they’re developing a PPE (Premium Platform Electric) for Audi and Mercedes, and finally, they’ll have the MEB (modular electrification box) which is a kit for anyone else who wants electric drivetrains (VW, others)
I will never buy from the VW group again. It's almost like people have forgotten about the whole TDI scandal. They literally lied to the world about dirty diesel. Not to mention the new class action lawsuit for both VW and Audi TSI models where they put bad engine parts into new cars.
After the TDI emissions scandal I would never support this corrupt company. Porsche, VW, or Audi - they're all corrupt and in my opinion create engines that systematically fail to keep you coming in. Look at the reimbursement schedule on the class action lawsuit - if your car's engine fails after 100,000 miles they are not paying for anything, which has personally affected me.
> if your car's engine fails after 100,000 miles they are not paying for anything
And exactly what car companies will pay for engine if it fails after 100K miles? Come on, 100K miles and you want to complain about reliability?
> which has personally affected me.
And here you've clearly announced that your condemnation of VW has nothing to do with morals or ethics and everything to do with your personal inconvenience. Your indignation about the diesel scandal is a front to mask your self-serving agenda.
> And exactly what car companies will pay for engine if it fails after 100K miles?
Chrysler (incl. Jeep and Dodge) has a standard lifetime powertrain warranty.
Which doesn't cover their diesel engines, hybrids nor SRT variants of petrol engines.
Thanks, that's pretty interesting. I wasn't aware of that.
> And exactly what car companies will pay for engine if it fails after 100K miles?
Hyundai/Kia will, at least up to 100k. I think Suzuki tried to promise a 10/120 warranty for a little while before they went out of the US.
If you were going to draw the morality line, you'd think WWII era things would have been plenty for you on VW.
And Porsche built prototype tanks, other German companies did bad stuff. Lets not forget IBM.
Life sucks, WWII sucked, all of my family, women and men served, but I love Porsches and I will continue to own them.
And just for completeness, Porsche "only" sold 55,000 cars in 2017. Tesla shipped 30%+ more automobiles in one quarter, yet there is debate about whether Tesla is a viable company and no-one is predicting the imminent demise of that tiny car company, Porsche.
Bias + old thinking dies hard, it seems.
Volkswagen is the world's seventh-largest company by revenue. Porsche isn't going to disappear overnight because they're backed by a massive corporation. They're at "too big to fail" scale; if they have problems the German government will have to bail them out.
Tesla, even with Elon's ability to raise money, does not have that sort of back up.
I think it was at least something to consider, whether tesla would ramp up manufacturing and sales enough to become profitable. All signs were looking good, but if they failed to make them in volume they could have failed. It was stunning to me how many financial analysts just looked at the company and said something along the lines of "they just lost 2 billion dollars in q1, x billion in q2, they will be bankrupt by q3 or q4". But they were spending on improving their infrastructure, they were ramping up. I just expected more in depth analysis than that - I guess they just don't see companies selling expensive products with such a slow painful ramp up in production much; they should just feel embarrassed.
For a bit more completeness, Porsche AG group delivered nog 55,000, but 246,375 cars in 2017, and made an after-tax profit of just over €3 billion (https://newsroom.porsche.com/en/annual-sustainability-report...)
Fun fact: Porsche almost bought VW*. From memory (don't hold me to this) I believe the recession of 2008 nuked these plans, and instead VW bought out Porsche!
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/porsche-and-volkswagen-wh...
There was a lot of interesting things going on between VW and Porsche 10 years ago. First Porsche silently tried to buy VW by accumulating shares and call options. They ended up with 42% of the shares and call options for another 32%. Since the German state of Lower Saxony owns 20% and would never sell, only 6% of the shares were floating and it created a short squeeze. For a short time, VW was the most valuable company in the world. (1)
Just a year later, after the global recession and the resulting decrease in Porsches sold, they were facing problems repaying debt and ended up being purchased by VW.
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30...
I feel like Porsche has much room to grow. Tesla has made a car that is both sensible and sexy. In the past you had to choose. Anyone in the market for a Tesla might also consider an electric or electrified Porsche. Like a plug-in hybrid Macan.
I for one never considered buying a Porsche. Not a fan of the style. Tesla is another story
Did you just compare a subsidiary of Volkswagen to some singular Silicon Valley startup in terms of production capability, available resources, expertise and infrastructure?
Also, define Porsche:
"Porsche AG is headquartered in Stuttgart, and is owned by Volkswagen AG, which is itself majority-owned by Porsche Automobil Holding SE." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche
I'm a bit skeptical whether Tesla will survive a behemoth like Volkswagen shifting gear towards main focus on electric vehicles.
>>I'm a bit skeptical whether Tesla will survive a behemoth like Volkswagen shifting gear towards main focus on electric vehicles.
Its more like the other way. Imagine a behemoth having to toss out all that IP, know how, patents, manufacturing, factories, assets, product lines and what not all to compete with a start up.
Why do you think Microsoft can't compete with Android? Doing so requires tearing the Windows Operating system and there by the whole company.
Imagine somebody like Volkswagen being made to do that.
Tesla has a head start on serious automotive EV technology, and as a result, has: https://patents.google.com/?assignee=Tesla+Inc
No matter what happens, anyone wanting to build serious EVs will at some point be licensing patents, especially the stuff they do which really is cutting edge around their battery packs.
Head start is no guarantee of success.
History is full of examples of this to be the case. Has Apple ever had a head start on any industry ?
>>Has Apple ever had a head start on any industry ?
No, and that is also why the iPhone is so expensive.
Almost everything in the iPhone has Apple paying some licensing fees to Qualcomm.
Late entry is not free.
My point is that they have a lot of patents around this tech in actual real EVs. Other competitors would have to license it from Tesla.
Has Tesla reneged on the "open patents"?
Define: Good FaithTesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
Porsche was in bad shape not that long ago and they were pretty much selling cars to fund racing. Today that is certainly not the case and they are making the most profit per car.[1]
I would like to see what Tesla’s profit per car is in a few years once the Model 3 production lines have settled.
[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/the-porsc...
And the funny thing is this wouldn't have happened and VW would've likely been one of the bankrupt carmakers in the future if they hadn't been caught cheating on emissions and then forced by both the US government and the public to switch to EVs.
Musk was actually one one of those asking the US government to force VW to build EVs instead of just taking a large(r) fine from them.
If VW hadn't been caught they would've likely continued to be among the very last to switch to EVs because they knew they could rely on the cheating software to pretend that their cars are super efficient and can avoid penalties against new pollution laws longer.
I have no doubt that Porsche can make an excellent car, I think the main question is will they live within the box of limitations that old-line automakers seem to tie themselves into when designing electric vehicles. The main area being self constraining thinking that shows up via limitations in battery costs and logistics. That's not car engineering that limits them, its supply chain inflexibility to really expand or secure a supply to the extent that Tesla has done for itself. As a result, makers like BMW builds these odd little toasters instead of anything like a Tesla or a regular car.
But Mercedes is not part of VW group
If you closer into the sales numbers (look at electrek's article about the last quarter [0]), they appear to be reducing mid-priced sedan sales at most of the other leading companies, especially the generally excellent euro manus (bmw, audi, etc). also see [1]
0: https://electrek.co/2018/08/01/tesla-claims-model-3-outsold-... 1: https://electrek.co/2018/05/02/tesla-model-3-best-selling-mi...
Pretty disingenuous posting other car companies.
Their performance has nothing to do with Tesla what so ever and everything to do with the trend in the market towards SUVs and crossovers which Ford, GM etc are highly exposed to.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-05/sick-of-s...
It seems fair to compare an automaker to another automaker. Declining sales among your competitors is a strong indicator of a difficult environment to sell into.
Unless you're saying the cited sales are sedans only, in which case I get your point.
Not really fair, I can walk into a dealer and buy any car from one of those other brands. The Tesla numbers are 1-2 years of built up demand being built/delivered in one quarter. These numbers will definitely not continue.
You're not replying to the substance of my reply. I was saying that analyzing Tesla's sales in comparison to other automakers' declining sales is perfectly fair.
You're right to point out that Tesla has years of pent up sales, but it is still true that, whatever their sales are, they are more impressive in a market where other automakers are declining than they would be in a market of overall double-digit auto sales growth.
Reservations stand at about 400,000 I believe.
At 83,500 vehicles in a quarter, that does come out to 1-2 years.
That's a totally different statement though. Model 3s are also only 53,000 of that, although that's still just under 2 years. But really, the number of deposits doesn't have much of anything to do with the actual demand. The number of cancellations and new deposits also makes it really hard to estimate what it actually is.
The bottom line though is that any reasonable observer will expect the Model 3 to keep a sustained demand at its price point. People really do like them despite what critics say.
>Reservations stand at about 400,000 I believe.
Based on? There's been no official release. If they stood at 400k, Musk would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Many reservations were expecting a $35k car (with a substantial rebate). Even Musk himself said the demand for $50k+ sedans is ~100k annually.
They report the amount of deposits quarterly, ya goober:
> Customer deposits decreased slightly compared to Q1 to $942 million. This does not reflect the incremental deposits we received once we opened the Model 3 configurator for orders in early Q3 2018. Deposits impact the P&L only once the vehicle gets delivered to a customer.[1]
$.94 billion in deposits, where deposits are $1000 for a model 3, $20,000 for a Semi, and $250,000 for a roadster. It's also up by $90 million from two quarters before. No matter how you slice it they have a crazy number of deposits. Musk also does bring it up fairly often, certainly every earnings call that I remember.
[1]: http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9ec...
>Not really fair, I can walk into a dealer and buy any car from one of those other brands.
That's like saying Amazon won't continue because I can walk to Walmart. If the numbers won't continue give specific facts relating to the market of teslas vehicles. Unless the vehicles become failures themselves, a better alternative is made, or tesla suddenly bottoms up, 400,000 new vehicles isn't too bad.
Tesla has a product that people want, and, importantly appeals to the new generation of prospective car owners in a way the other auto manufactures can't come close to even hoping. Youth haven't really been interested in cars in the same way and with the same level of excitement they once were for awhile now until Tesla came along.
To put simply, they will eventually figure out their manufacturing and economies of scale (they are already well on their way to doing so) and when that happens it will be a dramatic rise and unseating of power. We've seen time and time again market share and dominance means very little in the long term and the ability to manufacture a car isn't an exclusive right to the current incumbents.
We'll see. It seems that this debate has quickly polarized.
The Model 3 is still wildly expensive. The ones being shipped now aren't affordable cars. 35k really isn't affordable for a car either. It's firmly in the luxury market until 35k models ship. Even then, it doesn't make financial sense to buy a Tesla over another car without government incentives.
Charge time is a major issue and will be critical for Tesla to solve.
Durability and reliability for high miles remains to be seen. Batteries are expensive to replace.
As for manufacturing, mechanically electric vehicles are far simpler. I highly doubt there is much more to be gained from manufacturing improvements, and most of the car already benefits from the already existing economy of scale on hardware and metal forming. The issue is 1000% the battery. Everything with Tesla hinges on that battery - making it cheaper, more reliable, longer lasting. That's the hard part - because increasing range decreases efficiency because of the size and weight of the battery.
I'm excited - I think with any changes that can disrupt a business a lot of resistance will be faced. But I hope Tesla succeeds.
The TCO of a Model 3 at a MSRP of $35k is comparable to what... a ICE car at $25k? Maybe less. That's assuming all the cash incentives are long gone at that point, and gas stays above $3.00. It's a bit uncharitable to call that "wildly expensive" unless your context is a new grad buying their first ever used car.
> Durability and reliability for high miles remains to be seen. Batteries are expensive to replace.
Actually, we have very good data for longevity of the Model S batteries, and it looks beyond great. [1] Reliability of drive train and suspension remains to be seen for the 3 since it's so new, but the expectation is that maintenance is significantly cheaper for an electric vehicle due to so much reduced complexity.
> ...I highly doubt there is much more to be gained from manufacturing improvements...
Says almost everyone ever about whatever the current state of the technology is they are currently discussing? Materials science is constantly improving, and it would be shocking to me if they are making the 3 basically the same way 20 years from now as they do today.
> Everything with Tesla hinges on that battery...
And hasn't Tesla proven that they are able to consistently drive battery costs down and density and reliability up? Tesla has hinted at $100/kWh costs by the end of 2018. They are at forefront of battery production, and have consistently pushed the envelope since the 900lb, 53kWh battery in the Roadster which cost something like $600/kWh to produce. [2]
[1] - https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-dat...
It's not rocket science of course (hah), they can just keep plugging away at manufacturing and get more and more efficient, eventually being as good as a "real automobile" company. I can't understand the continuing feeling that they can't just make more cars with practice, that people actually want to buy some of them. They aren't for everyone, but they are just fun electric functional cars.
Advantage Tesla has is no legacy products of note. And most of the hard stuff they are trying to do is complex and expensive, but ultimately a solved problem.
Meaning there is no technical, economic, or skills related[1] reason that can't pull this off.
[1] Skills related. There are large numbers of engineers and techs that know how to work out Tesla's production issues. Meaning it's not like Tesla can't find people to fix these issues.
Its time for Detroit & Japan to wake up to EVs. I don't own any tesla stock but my bold prediction is IF tesla is not bankrupt by this time next year, its going to wipe-the-floor with GM & the likes.
Japan has fooloshly bet on fuel cells. Not sure because they wanted to be "different" than Tesla like Nokia once thought with Windows Phone, or some other reason. They'll pay the price for that error big time. Toyota actually had one of the first EVs in recent times but they completely abandoned it for 15 years as the elctric RAV4 saw almost no improvement in all this time.
I used to think HN comments were smart, until you read a thread about Automotive.
Then you realize that this board has no Auto experience, upvotes/downvotes based on their cult hero.
Since HN rules say we cant hypothesize about Tesla Astroturfing these threads, I'll just say that the information on HN regarding automotive is... questionable.
Please don't break the site guidelines while pretending not to break them.
Please do correct misinformation with facts, especially if you know a lot about a field where most of HN doesn't. As long as you're civil and can back up what you're saying, that adds value.
This is great news for Tesla. Despite the Elon's recent conduct, the company is doing well. I hope they continue the trajectory.
“53,239 Model 3 vehicles, which was in line with our guidance and almost double the volume of Q2.”
The 13 weeks by 5,000 per week making 65,000 still seemingly stand:
Hmmm, queer the downvoting on a simple multiplication...
No, not at all, because as the guy below you in your link said, the guidance was 50,000-55,000 and "we expect an average of 5000 Model 3s per week" was a random offhand comment by Musk. He's probably thinking of the operating rate (ie average cars per day) and not the overall rate, since the operating rate is the statistic that he'd actually be capturing. There were 63 work days in Q3, and IIRC there were about 8 days of planned shutdowns, which would put the rate right at 5000.
Countering your nitpick with another nitpick seems inadvisable, but like... you're blatantly ignoring the actual company guidance to focus on a single random remark that was still essentially right. That's just goofy.
Isn't "in line with our guidance" the key phrase here? How often does Tesla get to say that?
Who care about quarter to quarter guidance, except the investors and short sellers? What actually matters is how Tesla executes compared to their long-term plans. Despite all the delays and "failed" promises, they keep exceeding their multi-year goals.
Just check this out: http://www.autonews.com/article/20140113/OEM/301139981/audac... (or watch any JB Straubel's keynote)
They're killing it. In fact, the naysayers just keep moving the goalpost.
Next year (March 2019) they will show the model Y, the smaller SUV based on the model 3 platform, but I doubt they'll start making them. The next year after that is the roadster. It's their secret plan that has been out on the web for years.
From their press release:
"We also want to thank all of our customers who volunteered to help us with deliveries, and our new customers who are showing their faith in Tesla by purchasing our products in such large numbers."
Isn't it illegal for a for-profit company like Tesla to make use of "volunteers"/unpaid labor? There are only narrow exceptions e.g. interns for school credit.
They are talking about the Tesla fan groups that have meetings, do test drives, demos, etc. It's no different from say, Hot Rod culture or Harley culture.
Current Tesla owners volunteered their time to help new customers take delivery and get familiar with their new vehicles over the course of a single weekend.
I think you're going to have a hard time getting any of the people involved to try and fight to be classified as "employees"
FLSA prohibits employees volunteering at their employer, to avoid that becoming "volunteering". Customers showing up to help other customers is not really contemplated by the law, and is probably just part of the "brand experience".
I suspect Tesla is referring to customers driving out to pick up their Tesla from the factory or distribution center rather than waiting for Tesla to ship it to them. Something likely encouraged by long wait times.
Nope. Sounds like volunteers did new-customer orientation:
http://www.thedrive.com/news/23779/tesla-accepts-volunteers-...
Sounds like a face-to-face version of the unpaid peer-to-peer "support" you get in some product support forums.
Impressive, but they are going to need to dramatically increase that number to if they wish to compete when the big car companies wake up.
After seeing the recent Audi and Mercedes efforts, consensus seems to be that making EVs is not as easy as everyone thought and the big car companies still have a long way to go before they catch up
"UBS says Audi's new electric car shows industry has a long way to go to catch Tesla"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/ubs-says-audis-disappointing...
I'm very interested to see what Ford is coming out with in the 2020 time frame, with their fleet of "electrified" vehicles. I have a strong feeling that gas/electric hybrids which get decent electric-only range will be where the market is at (however they need to be targeting more than the 20-mile electric range they currently have). And I also like what I've read in some Ford interviews, where they aren't pushing electrification as an eco move, instead they plan on promoting it as a performance boost (i.e., the hybrid 2020 Mustang).
Plug-in hybrids appear to be pretty much a failure in the marketplace[1], I don't think that releasing more models is going to help. BTW boosting performance with a hybrid has been done for a long time now.
I also expect hybrids to be where it'll be at. The new Kia Optima wagon claims 40 miles pure electric range. Electric cars seem still to be (artificially?) limited, e.g. no station wagons, mostly no roof racks (except Model S), no tow bar (except Model X). All of which means most people 'round here can't have just an EV, it's only useful as a second car.
They won't be. Transitional tech always fails because when people want to switch to a new paradigm product they wanted to to enjoy ALL all its benefits. That's why the "touch optimized" (read: not touch born) Symbian, BB OS and Windows have all failed, too.
I would be more interested in the Kona and Niro which should have US pricing more in line with typical car buyers pricing ranges.
I have a 3, it is a great car, but it is also proof of how far EVs have to go before they can be the only car for many families. I think an EV is a great second car for all families. If you don't make any long trips then an EV might suffice. I did a long trip recently but I had the luxury to stop for the thirty-fifty minutes needed to get sufficient charge for my next stop or destination travel.
Audi was hyping up their E Tron SUV and then they released it and it wasn't all that impressive. It gets 248 miles of range on the WLTP with a 95 kWh battery which is average.
And Google is going to be in big trouble when IBM releases their search engine.
It always seems like it should be easy for legacy companies to stamp out disrupters but it almost never works out like that. It is very hard to refocus giant companies.
Tell that to Netscape. Point being, there's anecdotes in both directions. Only time will tell if Tesla's brand is truly industry defining or if it's just the vanguard of a broader industrial shift.
Tesla may or may not survive, but in some ways tesla vs gasoline auto manufacturers is similar to the web vs Microsoft. Car dealers make most of their money on maintenance after the sale, and electric vehicles (not just Tesla's cars but all of them) need a lot less maintenance than gas cars. My car in point, 35,000 miles drive, 3.5 years old, all I have done is get new tires. I didn't even take it in for annual maintenance, but I will do that before my non-drivetrain warranty runs out.
This is a big disincentive for bmw, etc (ice makers), in kind of the way that the web was a challenge to windows dominance - if microsoft supported the web too well in a standards compliance way, it would hurt their future prospects. There wouldn't be a viable ev market with customer pressure without tesla.
Sure it benefits Tesla to produce more cars to compete with the big auto companies. But I do not believe that suddenly any of them will be able crank out a cost competitive electric car with the same range in any large quantity.
Sure your existing car companies are better right now at physically building the conventional parts of a car, but the most expensive part of an electric car is the batteries. Tesla's partnership with Panasonic (Gigafactory) is their true advantage over all the other manufacturers, since they have a reliable source for large quantities of batteries. The rest of car companies are fighting for supply from LG Chem.
Don't forget the Supercharger network; seems like that's another big part of Tesla's first-mover advantage that any serious competitor will need to address at some point if they want to "catch up".
> Don't forget the Supercharger network For some reason, the majority of the "competition" does forget the supercharger network. Its the reason Tesla is a road-trip car, and capable of being your primary/only vehicle.
Meanwhile all other EVs are nothing more than commuter cars. Maybe suitable for day-trips if you're really lucky.
Tesla also acknowledges that you need these high-speed charging stations conveniently located along the highway. Not in the middle of town, and certainly not in the parking lot of a store you'd never spend more than 10 minutes at.
>Don't forget the Supercharger network
Part of the VW "Dieselgate" settlement requires VW to invest $2BB in charger infrastructure.
Installing chargers is not rocket science, nor a huge advantage.
It is harder than you think and it is a HUGE advantage. I have a non-Tesla EV, trust me, the public charging network is pretty horrible.
Oh definitely, so there are plenty of other electric car charging stations. The issue though is that there is no uniform paying experience and also you don't know what kind of charging speed you will get. I have been looking at the new Hyundai Kona Electric and the Kia niro EV which are both competitively priced.... But you don't have the super charger network which might be a deal breaker.
The issue though is that there is no uniform paying experience
I grab the appropriate card of the two (Blink and ChargePoint) in the console, tap it, sorted.
But you don't have the super charger network which might be a deal breaker.
In seven years of Nissan Leaf ownership, I’d bet i could count the number of times I’ve used a public charger on both hands. Electric’s aren’t like ICE where you’re always looking for a place to fill up. You fill up at home, like civilized people do. Super charger is nice, but I personally wouldn’t factor it in.
The supercharger network is one of the main reasons I bought a Tesla, rather than a competing car like a Leaf or a Bolt. Without the Supercharger network, road-trips become charge-seeking adventures. I recall reading a story about somebody who drove their Bolt across a few states, and how they had to stop for hours at Chevy dealers, and scrounge charging wherever they can. With my Tesla, I stop for 30-45min every few hours while I get a snack and use the restroom.
Until there is a widespread, standard high speed charging network available, Tesla is basically the only choice for an EV that can do road trips.
"Infrequently-used feature Z is why I bought the $80k car instead of the $40k car."
Really? Unless you do road trips every week, you'd be way better off buying the Bolt or Leaf and then renting an ICE for whenever you go on a road trip.
My minivan is a road trip machine. Until we have EV minivans, my electric car would be in region only. Further trip is to a nearby airport.
Maybe if I replace my minivan with an EV minivan I would care.
Oh definitely, the charging at in my garage is a main reason that I would like an EV. My issue is that my family lives in Michigan while I am in upstate NY. So the super charger stations would be super useful for that trip when I don't fly. That definitely is a small amount of my total travels but I only have one car, so it is a consideration.
Also it is good to hear that it only takes about two cards for charging. It is something that you think about but can't really test how it would work with your driving until you do it.
An irrelevant question:
Do drive through Canada, or is it too much hassle?
(I live in Europe; within most of the EU a national border is irrelevant to planning a route – there is no check, just a blue sign "Welcome to XYZ". When I visited Quebec, I couldn't drive with the rental car to the USA, so I never saw the border.)
If your question is not directed specifically at OP, and is "if you live close to the US/Canadian border...", I can answer since OP hasn't. Being a few hours from the border in WA state, we don't think a thing about crossing the border. It takes time (an hour or more, depending), and as a U. S. citizen I find it ironic that coming back is often more hassle than leaving, but we otherwise don't think much about it except for the time needed.
I can imagine you never took a long road trip (say 600+ miles) with your Leaf. Then you'll understand the value of a fast charging network like Tesla has.
Agreed. I worried after I got my Tesla 2 years ago that it would just be a toy, only usable for short range trips. But 2 weeks after we got it we went on a 2,300 mile each way road trip, and it worked great. I was sold on the super charger turning the car into a truly useful thing instead of just a toy. And the new ~3.5x faster chargers are going to make it a gas-like experience.
You would imagine correctly.
Then you'll understand the value of a fast charging network like Tesla has.
I understand the value just fine. And for me, it's not very high; certainly not high enough to pay more than double for the car (had Model S's even existed when the Leaf was purchased).
So, basically, you're saying that the supercharger network has no value for anyone because you own a Leaf?
No wonder Tesla-related threads on HN are such high value.
Next up: guy complaining that electric cars will never succeed because he lives in an apartment and can't currently charge at home.
So, basically, you're saying that the supercharger network has no value for anyone because you own a Leaf?
I can’t begin to imagine the mental confusion necessary to lead you to that conclusion. To be clear, no, that’s not what I said at all.
Cool. I'll just remain confused. Thanks.
I think a cool start up idea would be to install fast chargers at peoples homes and they could then offer them up to travelers for a fee.
The startup would install the charger and split the fee with the homeowner.
Anyone want to work on that with me? Or feel free to critique. It’s sort of like air bnb for car charging.
Capital costs seem rough. You can’t use a normal wall plug for a supercharger. How many amps do they pull, 200? You would need a new breaker box and the super charger hardware.... say 10k per house.
Who is going to spend 10k to get a charger in their driveway strangers can stop by and pay you $20 to use?
Uber works because people already own the car. Even EV people don’t already own a supercharger, they have a much simpler one.
Fast chargers need a high voltage electric hookup, which is expensive and often unavailable in residential neighborhoods.
Couldn't the mainstream auto manufactures install chargers at each of their dealers? It seems that for any major car brand, there are more dealerships than there are Tesla chargers.
Seems like a decent idea, but it wouldnt be free. The dealers are independent businesses. Also have you ever seen a dealership with a bunch of empty parking spaces? The charging stations will be competing with the dealership's storage space for cars.
Dealerships aren't in the right locations to make long-distance travel work out. You'd have huge holes in the network.
Would you enjoy spending several hours of your vacation hanging around auto dealers' showrooms?
How is Tesla any different?
My road trip to the beach would take 4 hours more in a Tesla than a ICE. That time would be waiting at rest stops along the way...
Not to mention that the battery business is a huge deal on it's own - potentially as big as car business
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/27/south-aus...
I don't think so either, but the hoops the big auto companies need to jump through are a lot lower. Once they have the design, they have the supply chains, assembly lines, and logics networks in place to go from 0 to 100 in months not years like Tesla.
Batteries are going to be an issue
> But I do not believe that suddenly any of them will be able crank out a cost competitive electric car with the same range in any large quantity.
This is ignorant and downplays the companies that have existed for decades.
Tesla isnt profitable, the rest of the auto companies are profitable.
These auto companies have already developed electric vehicles(see Bolt and Leaf) but demand doesnt cause them to produce Tesla amounts of electric vehicles. If they saw an increase in demand, they will use their billion dollar infrastructure to continue to produce vehicles.
To think there is any 'struggling to keep up' with Tesla for automotive is an ignorance of the automotive industry. Tesla is trying to survive, the established players are developing their own new technology.
"UBS says Audi's new electric car shows industry has a long way to go to catch Tesla"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/ubs-says-audis-disappointing...
Its not as easy as they thought.
Audi/VW are not considered very good companies.
They used to have Best In Class interiors which gave them a boost in the luxury markets, but they are average in 2018.
VW is the largest car manufacturer in the world
They are among Toyota and GM. Not that popular=quality.
Audi, Porsche compete with Toyota ?
I dont see how your personal opinion about VW interiors has any relevance to the article I posted.
This. Ford makes 1.6 million cars (worldwide) per quarter. Tesla, while impressive, cannot keep up when someone else enters their market segment.
If tomorrow Ford/Chevy/Toyota announces a model 3 like car for 2020 release with something close to the 3's specs, Tesla is dead unless they can pull a rabbit out of their hat. Tesla can do what- 350k to 400k cars a year based on current numbers? The big players can do that in weeks.
I think there is some merit to the point about batteries- Tesla has a supply chain in place for that while everyone else is going to be fighting on the open market (as far as I know).
This is almost sounds eerily like "Blackberry will release a phone that will kill Apple". If it were that easy to just crank out an EV, all manufacturers had a 2 year window to release one and capture the Model 3 backlog. But nobody has released a compelling product. As it is not about just manufacturing a product. It is about manufacturing an EV that is competitive with Tesla's software prowess, monthly over the air updates, massive super charger network, battery capabilities, cooling tech, a no dealership model, and brand signalling. Beyond that, big cos just don't venture into a new market. A electric BMW 3 will actually cannibalize their own 3 series first. Can they actually sell a higher margin electric 3 series ? Otherwise investors will punish BMW. Will their dealership network accept selling a lower margin product ? A product that requires fewer service visit ? There are a TON of considerations on why Big Cos are caught flat footed by disrupters. Look at SAP and how it missed the Cloud movement as Salesforce ate their cake. Google and Yahoo, Walmart and Amazon, and many more
The battery is not an afterthought. The big players do not have an answer to the gigafactory at this point. They can build all the cars they want but without batteries they won’t be electric.
Yeah.. just like when Nokia and Blackberry started releasing iPhone Killers.. ohh wait..
Big car companies waking up.. easier said than done. It is ALL just talk right now. As Tesla succeeds, they will be forced to participate. But right now, there aren't many actual players (Tesla, Nissan, GM): https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/
If doubling the production numbers of the M3 from Q2 to Q3 isn't a dramatic increase, I don't know what is :). They are probably not attempting to have further doublings each quarter, but even smaller quarter to quarter growth rates are going to put them to impressive numbers. In Q3 Tesla already overtook Porsche.