“The guy who’s making the $100,000 car is not changing the world,” one of Xindayang's financiers boasted to Forbes, referring to Tesla's flamboyant founder Elon Musk. “The guy who is making the $10,000 electric vehicle is changing the world.”
That's great for China, but I wonder if a Xindayang car would meet US or EU safety standards.
Also, wasn't the plan for Tesla to "bootstrap" the electric car market with higher-end (and higher-margin) luxury cars? After a few years the technology would be scaled-up enough to make low-cost electric cars feasible.
To my knowledge, they're not. From the Reuters article cited:
> Tesla, most of whose cars are built to order directly, delivered 11,532 cars in the second period and said it had an operating loss of about $47 million, for an operating loss per car of about $4,000.
An operating loss of $4k/car is not the same thing as them each car costing $4k more than it sells for. The loss includes what they're spending on the battery factory, new model development, etc.
Exactly. Tesla's margins are something like 28%. A $100,000 Model S costs around $72,000 to make. If they sell more, their profits go up (or their losses go down, if you prefer).
Tesla's financials are in a weird spot right now because they have all costs for two models of car, but they're essentially only selling one model. Model X production hasn't really ramped up, so they've paid all the massive costs of bringing it to market without the benefits of selling the result. Give it another six months and the picture should look pretty different.
A few companies tried this in the 2000s, but went bankrupt or stopped selling in the US. Some of their models met safety standards but a few failed after the fact.
The Zap was interesting in that they tried to make it a motorcycle. The first generation had a carbon fiber body and met the braking requirements, but the subsequent steel bodied models failed the braking test by a few feet and forced a recall.
Not exactly "changing the world" if the guy who makes a $10K electric vehicle sold about as many as the guy selling a $100K vehicles (WITH more generous subsidies to boot).
Don't matter where its built, but if you are only selling cars the top one percent can afford you are not changing the world. GM will be first in the US with a two hundred mile range EV that is priced within the range of every day new car buyers. While Tesla deserves credit for showing people you can build an electric for everyday use; heck what can't you build for 100k?; they never had the resources the big auto companies have. There have been some good articles showing that GM/LG and BMW have taken the lead in battery tech already. (GM is already boasting a 145 KwH cost for the Bolt and BMW did a simple but very effective modular system with cooling)
Tesla's plan was to make money where it could with the limited volumes they were going to restricted to because they were new to building cars. Big companies can do more with smaller margins because of quantity.
Supposedly, the Tesla Model 3 is going to be cheaper than the Chevy Bolt when it comes out.
"Musk points out that Chevy's claimed $30,000 price tag assumes the $7500 federal tax incentive for zero-emissions cars, putting the vehicle's true price at $37,500. The Model 3, Musk insists, will come in at $35,000 before any incentives, meaning buyers will only be on the hook for $27,500. And that's before any additional state-based incentives."
This is what constantly puzzles me about other manufacturers' plans to get into the EV market. As far as I know, nobody has plans for a usable fast charging network.
One could argue that you don't need one. Most people don't take road trips that often. But they want to be able to. It's one of the most common questions I get about my Model S: "What if you want to take a road trip?" You can make a pretty easy economic argument that you're better off with a shorter-range car for daily driving, and renting something for your once-a-year road trips, but most people just won't do that.
It's great that the GM has the Bolt and other manufacturers are planning to make EVs with decent range. But without a fast charging network, what's the point? I can't see them moving beyond a small niche.
The question I have is, why isn't any other manufacturer addressing this the way Tesla has and is? Are they, and they just aren't discussing it (or I've missed it)? Do they think third parties should take the lead? Do they think it's not important? Are they just incapable? Do they not actually care about the success of their EVs?
Yeah, and even then most of the standards are 50kW(or less) which means that Tesla still has a 2.4x charging advantage(yes I'm aware CCS is supposed to go up higher, but from what I've seen it's limited to 126A vs Supercharger's 300A and we don't see any of them in production yet).
I'd say an even bigger problem is simply that the installations aren't very good.
If Tesla had gone with CHAdeMO and put up 50kW CHAdeMO Superchargers everywhere, that would make road trips somewhat more annoying, but it would still be doable. You don't get to charge at 120kW all the time anyway, since the charge rate tapers off as the battery gets full, and temperature matters. It would definitely slow you down, and I'm glad they didn't do this, but I think it would still work.
But if you try to do a road trip on CHAdeMO as it stands, it's a major crapshoot. The stations are almost always single units. That means that if it's occupied or broken, you could be in trouble. There are a lot of stations that only do 20-25kW, some by design, some because they're half-broken. Often they're not maintained well, so they can remain broken or half-broken for months.
Contrast with Superchargers, where they almost always have 4-8 stalls and are maintained such that you can count on them.
> Don't matter where its built, but if you are only selling cars the top one percent can afford you are not changing the world.
Once upon a time, only the top one percent could afford cellular telephones. Now, subsistence farmers in the poorest nations in the world have them. Markets for these sorts of things frequently start with the rich, and then expand.
As much as I love Tesla, this is hardly a differentiating factor between Tesla and previously failed electric cars, which have mostly been aimed at luxury market.
What previously failed luxury electric cars were there? When I think of previously failed electric cars, I think of stuff like the EV-1, but I'm not particularly knowledgeable here.
What pre-Tesla electric cars where aimed at the luxury market? The only one I can think of is the Fisker Karma, which was almost universally panned for shitty build quality. What Tesla did (with the Model S, at least) that Fisker couldn't was build a car that seems to have traveled back in time from a future where electric cars are ubiquitous. Sure, it's no supercar, but it can go 200 miles on a charge and it outshines its luxury sedan peers when it comes to acceleration and style. If I had to choose between a Tesla Model S and a BMW M6, I'd pick the Model S every time. But if I had to pick between a Nissan Leaf and a Ford Fiesta, I'd get the Fiesta, because cheap electric cars are compromised in a way that cheap petrol cars aren't. That's what Tesla did differently.
The Fisker Karma is not an electric car. Nor is the BMW i8.
Are you listening, incumbents who insist on doing things half-assed ? We're not impressed with the beautiful body and a tiny lawnmower engine hidden inside...
Except it didn't really work, because Tesla products are not good cars in the way that other $100k cars are. Sure, they're fast, but you just can't make a sports car that weighs as much as an F-150 and expect to be taken seriously by gearheads. This has always been a problem for any electric car company.
Tesla products are cars for people who don't particularly give a shit about cars. I'm not slagging this as a negative thing -- it's a much bigger market than "people who care about cars." I just don't think that establishing themselves as a luxury brand is going to do anything toward the ostensible goal of "winning" against internal combustion.
A $20k electric car would have a much better chance of achieving this.
As someone who falls into the venn diagram of "cares about cars" and owns a Tesla I respectfully disagree :).
I think the better comparison is "cares about cars" -> "cares about only electric cars".
FWIW electric powertrains have been making it into high end car tech for a while, I think we're just seeing it move down-market now in interesting ways.
Regardless of whether Teslas are "good cars," (and while they're not particularly good sports cars, they are excellent sedans) they are desired cars. A ton of people who never gave a crap about EVs before now see Teslas as objects of desire. Many of them can't afford to buy one, but they think of them as "if I won the lottery...."
Then when a cheaper one comes out, it will be thought of as a cheaper version of that awesome car people always wanted to buy but could never afford, rather than a crappy "green" car for hippies.
How many new product categories started at the low end and expanded upwards? They always start out expensive and work their way down. In hindsight, it's bizarre that other attempts to produce EVs came at it from the low end.
"Tesla products are cars for people who don't particularly give a shit about cars. I'm not slagging this as a negative thing -- it's a much bigger market than "people who care about cars." I just don't think that establishing themselves as a luxury brand is going to do anything toward the ostensible goal of "winning" against internal combustion."
Have you driven one ?
Every "car guy" (and I mean, deep, deep car guys) that I have talked to that has driven one has walked away starry eyed...
Dramatically lower center or gravity, almost perfect weight distribution, space age shocks and struts that are way ahead of the rest of the auto industry ... there's more there than just a battery and some electric motors...
If you are looking for potential transformation, keep an eye on Gogoro, in Taiwan. Although Taipei isn't nearly as smoggy as some Chinese cities, Taipei moves on scooters. Converting to electric could happen faster and have a much higher impact on pollution as a local manifestation than electric cars in relatively lo-smog cities in the US.
While the ready-fire-aim approach that is a wonderful characteristic of China might be a lab for interesting attempts at changing the architecture of cars for electric propulsion, I'd rather bet on BMW, for example, to bring high volume carbon fiber manufacturing technology to market without sacrificing crashworthiness.
29 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 71.3 ms ] threadThat's great for China, but I wonder if a Xindayang car would meet US or EU safety standards.
Also, wasn't the plan for Tesla to "bootstrap" the electric car market with higher-end (and higher-margin) luxury cars? After a few years the technology would be scaled-up enough to make low-cost electric cars feasible.
[0] http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/tesla-money-lost-model-s/
> Tesla, most of whose cars are built to order directly, delivered 11,532 cars in the second period and said it had an operating loss of about $47 million, for an operating loss per car of about $4,000.
An operating loss of $4k/car is not the same thing as them each car costing $4k more than it sells for. The loss includes what they're spending on the battery factory, new model development, etc.
Tesla's financials are in a weird spot right now because they have all costs for two models of car, but they're essentially only selling one model. Model X production hasn't really ramped up, so they've paid all the massive costs of bringing it to market without the benefits of selling the result. Give it another six months and the picture should look pretty different.
A few companies tried this in the 2000s, but went bankrupt or stopped selling in the US. Some of their models met safety standards but a few failed after the fact. The Zap was interesting in that they tried to make it a motorcycle. The first generation had a carbon fiber body and met the braking requirements, but the subsequent steel bodied models failed the braking test by a few feet and forced a recall.
Hopefully the new ones will be safer than these Chinese cars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxbbvCf3zY
Tesla's plan was to make money where it could with the limited volumes they were going to restricted to because they were new to building cars. Big companies can do more with smaller margins because of quantity.
"Musk points out that Chevy's claimed $30,000 price tag assumes the $7500 federal tax incentive for zero-emissions cars, putting the vehicle's true price at $37,500. The Model 3, Musk insists, will come in at $35,000 before any incentives, meaning buyers will only be on the hook for $27,500. And that's before any additional state-based incentives."
Tesla already has a fantastic network of superchargers.
CCS(which GM is betting on) has very low penetration(Sea -> Portland is a dead-zone, also Portland -> North CA) compared to CHAdeMO.
Telsa has the advantage of a better infra(120kW vs 50kW) and the ability to use other standards like CHAdeMO.
One could argue that you don't need one. Most people don't take road trips that often. But they want to be able to. It's one of the most common questions I get about my Model S: "What if you want to take a road trip?" You can make a pretty easy economic argument that you're better off with a shorter-range car for daily driving, and renting something for your once-a-year road trips, but most people just won't do that.
It's great that the GM has the Bolt and other manufacturers are planning to make EVs with decent range. But without a fast charging network, what's the point? I can't see them moving beyond a small niche.
The question I have is, why isn't any other manufacturer addressing this the way Tesla has and is? Are they, and they just aren't discussing it (or I've missed it)? Do they think third parties should take the lead? Do they think it's not important? Are they just incapable? Do they not actually care about the success of their EVs?
If Tesla had gone with CHAdeMO and put up 50kW CHAdeMO Superchargers everywhere, that would make road trips somewhat more annoying, but it would still be doable. You don't get to charge at 120kW all the time anyway, since the charge rate tapers off as the battery gets full, and temperature matters. It would definitely slow you down, and I'm glad they didn't do this, but I think it would still work.
But if you try to do a road trip on CHAdeMO as it stands, it's a major crapshoot. The stations are almost always single units. That means that if it's occupied or broken, you could be in trouble. There are a lot of stations that only do 20-25kW, some by design, some because they're half-broken. Often they're not maintained well, so they can remain broken or half-broken for months.
Contrast with Superchargers, where they almost always have 4-8 stalls and are maintained such that you can count on them.
Once upon a time, only the top one percent could afford cellular telephones. Now, subsistence farmers in the poorest nations in the world have them. Markets for these sorts of things frequently start with the rich, and then expand.
Selling a 100k (actually, more like 150k for the initial roadsters) was a necessary part of this.
The Fisker Karma is not an electric car. Nor is the BMW i8.
Are you listening, incumbents who insist on doing things half-assed ? We're not impressed with the beautiful body and a tiny lawnmower engine hidden inside...
Tesla products are cars for people who don't particularly give a shit about cars. I'm not slagging this as a negative thing -- it's a much bigger market than "people who care about cars." I just don't think that establishing themselves as a luxury brand is going to do anything toward the ostensible goal of "winning" against internal combustion.
A $20k electric car would have a much better chance of achieving this.
I think the better comparison is "cares about cars" -> "cares about only electric cars".
FWIW electric powertrains have been making it into high end car tech for a while, I think we're just seeing it move down-market now in interesting ways.
Then when a cheaper one comes out, it will be thought of as a cheaper version of that awesome car people always wanted to buy but could never afford, rather than a crappy "green" car for hippies.
How many new product categories started at the low end and expanded upwards? They always start out expensive and work their way down. In hindsight, it's bizarre that other attempts to produce EVs came at it from the low end.
But to an F-150, it's a bug on the windshield. For safety, maybe we could limit urban traffic to lighter-weight vehicles?
Have you driven one ?
Every "car guy" (and I mean, deep, deep car guys) that I have talked to that has driven one has walked away starry eyed...
Dramatically lower center or gravity, almost perfect weight distribution, space age shocks and struts that are way ahead of the rest of the auto industry ... there's more there than just a battery and some electric motors...
While the ready-fire-aim approach that is a wonderful characteristic of China might be a lab for interesting attempts at changing the architecture of cars for electric propulsion, I'd rather bet on BMW, for example, to bring high volume carbon fiber manufacturing technology to market without sacrificing crashworthiness.
Start-up ---- $1 billion plant. Love it.