The wealthier end of my acquaintance circle are buying Polestars. The Hyundai Ioniq is also getting very good reviews at the cheaper end of the EV scale.
Lots of Teslas on the streets though & anecdotally the supercharger network makes a big difference.
If Elon were to focus solely on building and improving Tesla instead of diverting his attention to other things like Twitter, he could probably keep up.
Maybe Elon focusing on Twitter is a good thing for Tesla? Until Elon's image suffered enough to impact the perseption of Tesla as something different from a classic car company, and the evaluation drops accordingly.
My head canon is various high profile voices goading Elon into buying Twitter was a campaign to put him in a position to fail.
It would give Tesla, SpaceX, governments, financiers ammo to target him if Twitter flames out. There are too many aligned groups of elites who stand to gain through Elons fall (directly or just having him out of the way) to rule out someone, or many someones, have been supporting him in the Twitter drama with their fingers crossed.
Records from the brief legal proceedings are out there now. This is just intuition from rolling in the mega-millionaire social scene, not the billionaires scene. Given how catty the mega-millionaire scene is, I can only imagine how bad the billionaire scene is.
At this point, with Tesla's quality issues, it seems more like catch-up is what he needs to do.
The solar roof & battery businesses could be really good, but it seems that their battery capacity is constraining their car biz, so no room to expand, and they've been having yet another round of cancelling solar roof installs, but why?
In any case, there's a lot more he could be attending to.
I don't think he actually does anything at Tesla though so they should manage just fine without him. Assuming the company was at all capable of competing which I doubt.
Teslas are fine(ish) cars, but they seem resistant to forming deals to provide skateboards to niche applications, like Chinese companies are doing. There’s big money there!
In case the jargon isn't transparent, in automotive a 'skateboard' is roughly a flat frame with batteries, motor, motor controller, and suspension onto which you can bolt the rest. A vehicle platform, really.
OP is referring to the battery, power electronics and drivetrain. If you picture lifting the body off - sorta looks like a skateboard.
(although cars like Tesla are highly integrated - there's probably still good money to be made in selling the "dev kit")
While more complex unibody construction is generally better than frame on chassis. There is a reason most cars and SUVs are unibody and those won't change. Thus skateboard isn't a useful idea.
Trucks often are frame on chassis though, so if all you are going after is the truck market then skateboard makes sense. A worthwhile market for sure, but not as big as you think it is
>VinFast has announced VF 8 pricing will start at US$40,700 – plus a monthly battery subscription fee of US$110. Customers who don’t travel long distances can pay just US$35 a month for 498km worth of travel each month, with each additional kilometre being charged at the rate of 18 cents
No thank you!?
The upside of this is that they will replace the battery once it goes below 70% and price the car cheaper at 40k USD.
You’d have to batter the battery to get that far down the curve though I think.
I have to admit that that shows some heavy confidence to open with that kind of value proposition. I briefly wondered if it is targeted at businesses, where this could be considered if it comes with some assurances, but it does not appear to be the case. Makes me question, if the company did their target demographic research ( or they simply know something we don't ).
Didn't seem so bad at first. But once i realized that this is just a tiny bit less than one full charge on a Model 3, that number of miles per month seems a tad too small.
Do you take all the risks an owner would? What happens if you don't drive much and leave it out in the cold, killing the battery? Are you on the hook for that?
From the VinFast web site, looks like you can buy the car and battery without a subscription by paying an additional $15,000. I'd still be worried about how the subscription is enforced and tracked, especially from a company that's new to the market.
It's a pretty good roundup of the competition, but the closing line made me chuckle.
'“Production is hard. Production with positive cash flow is extremely hard.” Elon Musk tweeted this in 2021.
Welcome to the car business, Elon. And it’s not going to get any easier.'
The writer supposes that "the establishment" is going to be able to produce EV's at scale with positive cash flow better than Tesla. But:
* The pure EV startups like XPEV and NIO have awful margins
* The OEM's like Volkswagen have ~18% gross and 6.3% net income margins, Vs Tesla at ~26% and ~14.9%. OEM's also don't break down their margins on their EV programmes - Volkswagen's is for the product mix including its established ICE cars. Toyota is similar. Who knows if they're making any profit on their EV's.
The author also claims Tesla is "a company that’s still struggling to build cars at volume". I'm not sure how to reconcile that with their 50% CAGR.
It's great that Tesla has competition! The world needs more EV's! Why can't we celebrate that competition without always having to denigrate Tesla? Why does every new EV entry have to be a "Tesla killer"?
Honestly, the biggest thing going for Tesla’s right now is their charging network. The ratio of supercharger to CCS chargers in most of North America is still unfortunately biased towards Tesla.
When we drove up the West Coast, it was a 5:1 ratio in many places.
This will likely change soon as CCS cars overtake Tesla and I’d be curious how things would fare then.
FSD is potentially another differentiator, but in my experience with our own MY, Tesla is way worse at the basics of autonomous driving than other brands but better at the advanced stuff that nobody else is rolling out likely due to liability. I expect many of those other brands could have similar autonomous capabilities licensed from vendors like NVIDIA.
The new Volvo EX90 is a really interesting vehicle in this regard. Where Tesla says sensor fusion is difficult, Volvo are revelling in more sensors and more kinds of them.
The chargers and the heads up display/software nav independent of FSD place them far ahead of anyone else. People complain a lot on HN about the touchscreen but it’s really good and most car systems are really bad.
That and their range/performance per dollar is really competitive. They’re dominating the space for a reason imo.
The other car companies ignored EVs for a decade and are still hamstrung by dealerships in the US (which are really awful). I don’t expect them to be much of a threat.
The software and nav? Really? Actually operating the non-driving features of a Tesla is an exercise in every-changing frustration. Want to see if your seat heater is on? It used to be on the screen all the time, but now it's buried. Want to find a radio station or streaming station? It moves around on a regular basis and always takes several taps.
At least the nav is decent these days. It used to be comically poor. Although the "heads up display" is essentially absent on the 3 and Y.
The concern for me is, the user interface can wildly change again because some PM somewhere needs a raise and a bonus. I don’t like the idea of not having a say in things like the heater functionality being arbitrarily buried, and I find out on some random weekday morning that everything is different.
This is the opinion of someone that doesn’t own a Tesla and hasn’t had this happen to them, can anyone weigh in on this from experience?
I have a Model 3, previously had a Fiat 500e, VW GTI, and Saturn. I’ve driven other high end cars and their systems are way harder to use imo. It’s worth just trying yourself vs. listening to people on HN.
Most people don’t bother with their in car nav and just use their phone. I’ve heard apple car play isn’t bad though.
The Model 3 did have an update that made things worse for a bit, but they fixed it. Since I’ve owned it (2018) it’s much better than it was when I bought it because of updates.
I don't know why anyone bothers with in car nav. Who doesn't have a smart phone with up to the second maps on their person? (Hint the type of person who can't program the in car navigation). Sure I could get my car updated, but it isn't worth it, the maps are obsolete before the programming is done.
Indeed. Google and Apple are pretty good at giving directions that actually relate to the signs on freeway off-ramps. Tesla tends to give directions based on a naive reading of the map (exit descriptions don’t reliably match signs), and the freeway lane indicators, while helpful, often show up too late.
To be clear, Tesla’s nav is pretty good, but I’d rather use CarPlay or Android Auto.
It definitely is frustrating as a Tesla owner.
The latest UI redesign is a mess for usability while driving.
The navigation area is smaller to show more visualization area, many things that were one click away are now two to four clicks away, and there’s less information available.
Granted they’ve slowly started bringing back stuff from the old UI, but there’s many things that make it seem like the designers are designing at their desk and not dog folding their work.
Take the new video feed when you turn. great feature that finally showed up on Tesla (been on many other cars for a while) but the initial implementation put it in your blind spot behind your arm. The only way I can see that happening is if the features were signed off of independently of testing the design on the road or in a realistic simulator. It’s now in a better spot after much feedback from customers.
The same can be said for many of the other car settings. They finally moved many of the one click actions back, but how did there come to be a giant release that reduced much used functionality unless you weren’t testing in the field?
This. When I bought my 2018 Model 3, the tablet interface was a joy to use. Every function was obvious, critical functions were at top level. The more recent interface has buried every useful function into some tiny submenu which is labeled only with a non-intuitive icon rather than any text. And for some reason all the text has been re-rendered in medium-gray on dark gray, which makes it unusable. It’s still basically “fine” but I’ve never seen such a reduction in UX quality happen without a user base rebelling before.
The rest of your comment is subjective IMHO. Granted Tesla have the most responsive in-car system, I know many people who refuse to buy one if a comparable car with an actual instrument cluster and any form of physical buttons exist.
Especially with CarPlay and Android Auto in the mix, many cars offer better experiences than Tesla when coupled with a phone.
Tesla’s UI isn’t what makes them dominate the market, it’s their price and first mover advantage. They dominate the market in spite of their UI , not because of it.
Are the more mainstream car companies just waiting for other companies to make all the mistakes before heavily pushing EVs? Honestly I don't think I'd make the switch to an EV before a well established car company makes one that looks good to me. Tesla seems like a death trap of poor software and bad manufacturing that I wouldn't trust my life with.
Most/all of the mainstream brands do have EVs already available or coming soon. A lot of them have gotten over the weird EV stylings of yore and made very approachable designs.
Ford: F150 and Mustang Mach-e
BMW has several
Mercedes has several in the EQ range
Toyota has finally gotten on the bandwagon as does Lexus.
VW has EVs for VW, Audi and Porsche.
GM and Chevy have a few models lined up.
Hyundai and Kia both have multiple EVs.
I’m sure I’ve missed a brand but I’d be curious which brand you’re waiting for?
I am in market for an EV and tried the Model Y and the Audi E-tron and the difference is massive. The Audi is so much nicer and only slightly more expensive. It was an easy decision with the new Q8 coming now which passes my “more than enough range” threshold
I don't think so there's some really nice options like the bolt out there, the biggest issues with adoption is probably customers needing reassurance regarding things like charging network coverage which will charge over time
I'd be willing to be that in 10 or so years most new cars sold to consumers will be EVs from the 'mainstream' automakers
Other than Toyota and Dodge, what mainstream car maker isn’t offering an EV today? You have Ford, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, BMW, GM, VW, Porsche all with EV offerings.
Generally speaking no company will willingly canabalize it's current product line for an unproven and premature technology in a new product line.
That's also usually how companies get displaced. I'm not sure we'll be driving any cars from established manufacturers if EVs gain wide adoption and reach a price level that's affordable to the average person.
> Tesla seems like a death trap of poor software and bad manufacturing that I wouldn't trust my life with.
Don’t believe the hype.
Teslas get very high safety ratings from IIHS and NHTSA.
Any sort of failures (frequently corner cases or user-induced) get heavily reported due to Tesla in the title being click bait.
I recommend taking a test drive if you have any doubts. Teslas are quite good cars.
Are they as good as or better than other cars in the same price range? That’s debatable, especially with the S and X.
The biggest reasonable complaint that I have is that some features are inappropriately labeled. FSD is good, but it over promises by a lot. Auto Pilot is more like advanced cruise control — and it’s good at it — but it’s not a set it and forget it feature.
This company has “full self driving” and thinks it’s a good idea to require touchscreen interaction for nearly everything. Safety clearly is not its primary concern. I would give them a little more credit if they didn’t use the ridiculously misleading name of “autopilot” for something that will readily steer the car straight into danger.
> thinks it’s a good idea to require touchscreen interaction for nearly everything
I use voice control for almost everything that I adjusted with physical controls on my previous car.
If voice control isn’t your jam, then I humbly suggest that the screen is very easy and fast to use once you get accustomed to the different UI. There definitely is an adjustment period, but it’s not long, imho.
> would give them a little more credit if they didn’t use the ridiculously misleading name of “autopilot”
I think we agree that it is inappropriately named. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t do some things extremely well (it does).
> for something that will readily steer the car straight into danger
This has happened to me approximately never, and I use AP a lot.
It will turn off if it can’t see the lines, which is why I think it is grossly misnamed, but that’s why you are supposed to be ready to resume control at any moment. This is what the user manual tells you to do.
Voice control isn't my thing. Touchscreen is not accepable as a substitute, I need buttons where I can feel that i'm hitting the right one without taking my eyes off the road.
I'm not even very old, but I refuse to talk to a computer. That is not a real world use-case to me. At best it is a neat gimmick. Cars need buttons, dials, switches or whatever else has some tactile response to being used.
I don't understand why light pickup trucks and small vans aren't featured in this review, and don't seem to be a major target of EV manufacturers? There are a few in the pipeline, such as VW's ID.Buzz but these look like personal/family models, not much seems available in the commercial utility sector. Kind of odd, really.
Batteries still don't match the power density of liquid hydrocarbons, so large, heavy trucks with useful ranges end up with large, expensive batteries. The Rivian R1T has a 135KWh battery for 314 miles of range and starts at $69,000, while the Chevy Bolt has a 66KWh battery for 259 miles of range and starts at $26,595.
The R1T has a mighty curb weight of 7,148 lbs, almost three thousand pounds more than the notoriously oversized 2023 Ford F-150.
Because EVs kind of suck when you want to transport things. Most countries have weight limits relative to your driver licence. I'm not allowed to drive any car whose weight is more than 3.5 tons (and that includes what you are currently carrying). So, instead of a 150kg engine and a bunch of gas, you now have at least a ton of batteries to carry around for your vehicle to be somewhat useful. And that's before everything else. So now, an artisan can only bring around 1 ton of crap, instead of the 2.5 he could before. This is even worse for long haul trucks.
There are a bunch of commercial EVs in Europe, eg. Renault is building small electric delivery vans, and Mercedes has the e-Vito van.
I think the reason why there's little commercial interest in EVs is that the vehicles are extremely expensive up front, and just make no sense from a financial perspective.
There are lots of electric vans, mostly for urban use. At this point, most courier and post office vans I see in Dublin are electric (as are, mildly oddly, the electricity network's maintenance vans; this seems like it could go wrong in a major outage...)
Smallish range and payload, but then you don't really _need_ that much for a lot of urban applications.
As to why they're not highlighted in the article, they're generally not aimed at consumers (and that article is from a consumer magazine). Consumers don't buy these things, as a general rule.
As soon as any EV actually threatens Tesla’s spot on top of the premium mass market, then Tesla will whip out advanced battery tech that they are sitting on that will enable them to crush the competition in terms of range/weight ratios and pricing flexibility that gives them.
I’m not saying this as a fanboy, rather as someone who is willing to acknowledge the lead in batteries that Tesla has on everyone else.
Tesla’s moat is in their battery tech, and I think that they will be able to maintain this moat for at least five years, perhaps more. They need to catch up in manufacture and design in order to remain competitive, but I think that they can do that.
What lead? 99% of their battery volume is coming from Panasonic or CATL or other chinese manufacturer, Their 4680 cell has same power density as panasonic as of today and they are only producing a tiny tiny volume today.
Do you think current production is the best they have?
I don’t.
The current production battery is most likely the most cost-efficient in terms of getting them into cars at the volume required, but I imagine that this could change very quickly if deemed necessary.
Is there anything in Tesla's history that would lead you to believe they'd be sitting on some technology and not making announcements every few months about their amazing progress on it and imminent production of it?
Tesla is much more likely to announce a great new battery before they've even started working on it than after it's almost ready.
They absolutely are not going to announce/reveal their moat, especially when it loses a lot of its value as a moat when it is revealed.
It seems like there are some doubters here.
Just remember that you heard it here first when it happens.
Expect 500-600 mile range for current vehicle line and substantially lower prices for current “long”range of ~320 miles, probably sold as one-motor “standard range” in order to keep the markets siloed.
The current energy density of their batteries is pretty much at the theoretical limit of the “lithium-ion” chemistry. Unless they are sitting on a new battery chemistry, which I doubt, they would need to develop a new one.
You said battery technology lead. Tesla is a battery manufacturing tech laggard. Tesla will ramp up but their current suppliers are not going to be sitting still.
I don't quite understand the strategy of sitting and waiting on a technology competitive advantage. Surely, to get the technology ramped up and integrated into their manufacturing process isn't an instantaneous thing?
I do agree that Tesla's entire value is in their battery tech. Their 'premium' cars are actually about on par with Korean and Japanese mid-tier vehicles in terms of quality at best, by every objective measure. But their pricing is luxury level simply due to the cost of batteries.
> I don't quite understand the strategy of sitting and waiting on a technology competitive advantage.
1. Utilizing current facilities, thereby being able to spread out the fixed cost of building a manufacturing plant over more units.
2. Related to 1, waiting until building new facilities is necessary to be competitive in order to be able to use the most up-to-date battery design as well as most up-to-date facilities design.
3. Keep the design a secret as long as possible. I’m not sure if its possible to keep battery tech a secret, but if there is no functioning version, then it can’t be reverse engineered.
> Their 'premium' cars are actually about on par with Korean and Japanese mid-tier vehicles in terms of quality at best, by every objective measure. But their pricing is luxury level simply due to the cost of batteries.
Tesla told everybody their advanced battery tech on battery day. It's coming, and it's impressive, but so is the new stuff from CATL et al. Not a massive advantage they have in their back pocket, and it's not secret.
What Tesla does have is a massive margin. If/when they are ever threatened, they have lots of room to cut prices. AFAICT, given the choice Elon would rather cut prices than margin.
I was hoping for some e-bike mentions, which are far outselling the electric car market for many reasons, and would be revolutionary if we only dedicated a fraction of the effort we devote to car infrastructure.
E-bikes as a second or third car replacement quickly pay for them selves and would free family's of the hidden costs associated with vehicle ownership. I suspect people would be more receptive to e-bikes, and other forms of low cost micro-mobility, if they knew the true costs of vehicle transportation systems.
By far the biggest problem with e-bikes is theft. Theft of regular bikes hurts but a regular bike costs $200-$600. A $2000 ebike is both more a target for theft and more painful to lose.
I’m not sure what we can do but people aren’t going to ebike to the supermarket when thieves carrying battery powered grinders are everywhere.
Yes, that's definitely a problem. Most home insurance products cover bikes (I've had my stolen road bike mostly replaced by insurance), but it's not an ideal solution given the hassle and time cost. I imagine theft prevention trackers would make this less of an issue over time, at least on the higher end models.
The phrase "Tesla killers" needs to be killed. Every EV maker sells every EV they make. EVs are supply constrained.
When a legacy manufacturer or EV startup adds to the EV supply, it takes from ICE vehicle market share, not Tesla market share. So any new EV is an ICE killer, not a Tesla killer. The majority of people buying EVs from legacy brands are doing so because they are fans of those brands; they weren't going to be buying a Tesla anyway. And even those who considered Tesla and chose another brand do not result in a lost sale to Tesla since someone else will buy that unit. Demand exceeds supply.
Another faux pas the article makes is assuming that the number of models has any meaningful relationship to the number of units delivered to customers. Tesla continues to dominate the world EV market with just four models: a mid-size sedan, a CUV, a full-size sedan, and a mid-size SUV. It doesn't matter if you have 11, 14, or 30 models in the pipeline if you simply cannot manufacture as many units because of battery constraints or whatever excuse applies at the moment.
It's also bizarre to see Tesla's very high R&D capital efficiency as a liability:
> Tesla, by contrast, has spent less in total vehicle R&D since 2008 than Toyota and Mercedes-Benz each spent in 2020 alone.
Toyota has essentially nothing of note in the BEV space to show for their big R&D expenditures in 2020, aside from the underwhelming BZ4X.
The article claims traditional OEMs are poised to out-produce Tesla with no explanation of how they expect to achieve Tesla's current production rate, let alone Tesla's future production rate with two big factories spinning up in Austin and Berlin.
Don't get me wrong. I really like the looks of several EVs from the likes of Polestar and Nio. But it's clickbait to call these "Tesla killers."
All true, it will take a while for EV supply to catch up with demand, and Tesla is in a very good position, they seem to have locked in a lot of battery supply, their production is very efficient and they have much better margins than all other manufacturers. Most traditional manufacturers sell EV´s at a loss, and talk about 50% EV´s in 2030, which seems far to little too late, I think they´ll need to move much faster if they want to avoid bankruptcy.
I do think Tesla´s position is very similar to Ford´s position over a hundred years ago. Ford initially had all the same advantages with the T model. Yet Ford was overtaken in the 1920´s by GM who started segmenting the market, giving customers different brands, models and options to choose from.
For the coming years no manufacturer will be able to really compete with Tesla, but I do think Tesla will need to introduce more models and start covering more niches in the car market.
If there aren't enough batteries, we should be focused on PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles). They use 1/5th the amount of batteries but provide 90% of the electric driving as an EV because 90% of trips are less than 50 kms. You only use fuel if you go beyond 50 kms.
We could have 5 times as many vehicles reducing fuel usage by 90% instead of having 1/5th the EVs reducing fuel usage by 100%. Also, when the battery on a PHEV runs out, it switches to hybrid mode which is still more efficient than and ICE.
Additionally, with a PHEV, you don't have range anxiety and don't need a supercharger network. With 1/5th the batteries, you can charge overnight on 120v instead of having to install an expensive 240v charger at your home.
Of course, a PHEV is more complex than an EV, requiring oil changes, etc., but their engines are smaller, more efficient because they run at their optimal RPM, and aren't strained like engines in ICE vehicles. Consumer Reports claims hybrids and plug-in hybrids are very, very reliable.
Forgive me while I roll my eyes. People have been predicting teslas death or Tesla killers for more than a decade. The model y is getting close to being the top seller in the USA.
I just did another round of car searching to non-EV and ended up deciding that the model Y and the rivian were the only options. Rivian is too far out with unclear scaling.
They don't mention Nio, which is interesting because of its bet on battery swapping.
For a lot of fleet owners, being able to swap a battery in less than ten minutes rather than charge it in 30 or 50 minutes is attractive. Less time off the road.
For me as a potential private owner, making the battery into someone else's problem is attractive too.
110 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadLots of Teslas on the streets though & anecdotally the supercharger network makes a big difference.
It would give Tesla, SpaceX, governments, financiers ammo to target him if Twitter flames out. There are too many aligned groups of elites who stand to gain through Elons fall (directly or just having him out of the way) to rule out someone, or many someones, have been supporting him in the Twitter drama with their fingers crossed.
Records from the brief legal proceedings are out there now. This is just intuition from rolling in the mega-millionaire social scene, not the billionaires scene. Given how catty the mega-millionaire scene is, I can only imagine how bad the billionaire scene is.
The solar roof & battery businesses could be really good, but it seems that their battery capacity is constraining their car biz, so no room to expand, and they've been having yet another round of cancelling solar roof installs, but why?
In any case, there's a lot more he could be attending to.
Trucks often are frame on chassis though, so if all you are going after is the truck market then skateboard makes sense. A worthwhile market for sure, but not as big as you think it is
No thank you!?
The upside of this is that they will replace the battery once it goes below 70% and price the car cheaper at 40k USD.
You’d have to batter the battery to get that far down the curve though I think.
Not sure the payoff is there.
'“Production is hard. Production with positive cash flow is extremely hard.” Elon Musk tweeted this in 2021.
Welcome to the car business, Elon. And it’s not going to get any easier.'
The writer supposes that "the establishment" is going to be able to produce EV's at scale with positive cash flow better than Tesla. But:
* The pure EV startups like XPEV and NIO have awful margins
* The OEM's like Volkswagen have ~18% gross and 6.3% net income margins, Vs Tesla at ~26% and ~14.9%. OEM's also don't break down their margins on their EV programmes - Volkswagen's is for the product mix including its established ICE cars. Toyota is similar. Who knows if they're making any profit on their EV's.
The author also claims Tesla is "a company that’s still struggling to build cars at volume". I'm not sure how to reconcile that with their 50% CAGR.
It's great that Tesla has competition! The world needs more EV's! Why can't we celebrate that competition without always having to denigrate Tesla? Why does every new EV entry have to be a "Tesla killer"?
Doubt average consumer would want to drive on the road in "anything"-killer, if you know what I mean :D
Doesn't Tesla make more money per car than anyone else except, maybe Ferrari?
It’s an ad to sell the adoption of EVs. Trade groups, press, PR campaigns acting on the behalf of entire industries are a thing.
When we drove up the West Coast, it was a 5:1 ratio in many places.
This will likely change soon as CCS cars overtake Tesla and I’d be curious how things would fare then.
FSD is potentially another differentiator, but in my experience with our own MY, Tesla is way worse at the basics of autonomous driving than other brands but better at the advanced stuff that nobody else is rolling out likely due to liability. I expect many of those other brands could have similar autonomous capabilities licensed from vendors like NVIDIA.
The new Volvo EX90 is a really interesting vehicle in this regard. Where Tesla says sensor fusion is difficult, Volvo are revelling in more sensors and more kinds of them.
That and their range/performance per dollar is really competitive. They’re dominating the space for a reason imo.
The other car companies ignored EVs for a decade and are still hamstrung by dealerships in the US (which are really awful). I don’t expect them to be much of a threat.
At least the nav is decent these days. It used to be comically poor. Although the "heads up display" is essentially absent on the 3 and Y.
This is the opinion of someone that doesn’t own a Tesla and hasn’t had this happen to them, can anyone weigh in on this from experience?
Most people don’t bother with their in car nav and just use their phone. I’ve heard apple car play isn’t bad though.
The Model 3 did have an update that made things worse for a bit, but they fixed it. Since I’ve owned it (2018) it’s much better than it was when I bought it because of updates.
The display is big, the maps are google maps, it has traffic routing, it can route you via super chargers, etc.
Both CarPlay and android auto are miles ahead of where Tesla is, but as a result the comparison becomes murky.
Do you compare vanilla car to vanilla car? Or do you consider the actual use case or capability for most people?
If you believe Apple’s own marketing, the existence of CarPlay is a massively considered factor for the purchase of new cars.
To be clear, Tesla’s nav is pretty good, but I’d rather use CarPlay or Android Auto.
The navigation area is smaller to show more visualization area, many things that were one click away are now two to four clicks away, and there’s less information available.
Granted they’ve slowly started bringing back stuff from the old UI, but there’s many things that make it seem like the designers are designing at their desk and not dog folding their work.
Take the new video feed when you turn. great feature that finally showed up on Tesla (been on many other cars for a while) but the initial implementation put it in your blind spot behind your arm. The only way I can see that happening is if the features were signed off of independently of testing the design on the road or in a realistic simulator. It’s now in a better spot after much feedback from customers.
The same can be said for many of the other car settings. They finally moved many of the one click actions back, but how did there come to be a giant release that reduced much used functionality unless you weren’t testing in the field?
The rest of your comment is subjective IMHO. Granted Tesla have the most responsive in-car system, I know many people who refuse to buy one if a comparable car with an actual instrument cluster and any form of physical buttons exist.
Especially with CarPlay and Android Auto in the mix, many cars offer better experiences than Tesla when coupled with a phone.
Tesla’s UI isn’t what makes them dominate the market, it’s their price and first mover advantage. They dominate the market in spite of their UI , not because of it.
Teslas don't have a heads up display. Heads up displays are projected on to the windscreen. They make use of augmented reality features these days:
- Volkswagen ID EVs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQT5pRs0yCQ
- Audi Q4 e-tron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ7axYz27DE
- Mercedes S-class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk-0TjxFkZQ
Ford: F150 and Mustang Mach-e
BMW has several
Mercedes has several in the EQ range
Toyota has finally gotten on the bandwagon as does Lexus.
VW has EVs for VW, Audi and Porsche.
GM and Chevy have a few models lined up.
Hyundai and Kia both have multiple EVs.
I’m sure I’ve missed a brand but I’d be curious which brand you’re waiting for?
I'd be willing to be that in 10 or so years most new cars sold to consumers will be EVs from the 'mainstream' automakers
Ford has f150 and mustang EVs, bmw and Mercedes have multiple lines, toyota has lines coming up, Honda/dodge/etc have cars coming out in 2023.
Honda have a more mass market EV in the works but do have an EV in Japan already.
Mazda have the MX-30
Chrysler have one in the works https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/14/chrysler-reveals-400-mile-...
Same to Chrysler, but that's a "concept" car and they're "planning" to release in 2025 lol.
MX-30 is 100-mile range, California-only, and "sold out", as in not selling any right now. Forgive me, but I won't consider that a valid EV offering.
Thus, I stick to my point on all these brands.
Toyota have a couple if you include Lexus
That's also usually how companies get displaced. I'm not sure we'll be driving any cars from established manufacturers if EVs gain wide adoption and reach a price level that's affordable to the average person.
I imagine the deadlines European countries have put on ICE sales might change that attitude in this case.
Don’t believe the hype.
Teslas get very high safety ratings from IIHS and NHTSA.
Any sort of failures (frequently corner cases or user-induced) get heavily reported due to Tesla in the title being click bait.
I recommend taking a test drive if you have any doubts. Teslas are quite good cars.
Are they as good as or better than other cars in the same price range? That’s debatable, especially with the S and X.
The biggest reasonable complaint that I have is that some features are inappropriately labeled. FSD is good, but it over promises by a lot. Auto Pilot is more like advanced cruise control — and it’s good at it — but it’s not a set it and forget it feature.
I use voice control for almost everything that I adjusted with physical controls on my previous car.
If voice control isn’t your jam, then I humbly suggest that the screen is very easy and fast to use once you get accustomed to the different UI. There definitely is an adjustment period, but it’s not long, imho.
> would give them a little more credit if they didn’t use the ridiculously misleading name of “autopilot”
I think we agree that it is inappropriately named. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t do some things extremely well (it does).
> for something that will readily steer the car straight into danger
This has happened to me approximately never, and I use AP a lot.
It will turn off if it can’t see the lines, which is why I think it is grossly misnamed, but that’s why you are supposed to be ready to resume control at any moment. This is what the user manual tells you to do.
Batteries still don't match the power density of liquid hydrocarbons, so large, heavy trucks with useful ranges end up with large, expensive batteries. The Rivian R1T has a 135KWh battery for 314 miles of range and starts at $69,000, while the Chevy Bolt has a 66KWh battery for 259 miles of range and starts at $26,595.
The R1T has a mighty curb weight of 7,148 lbs, almost three thousand pounds more than the notoriously oversized 2023 Ford F-150.
I think the reason why there's little commercial interest in EVs is that the vehicles are extremely expensive up front, and just make no sense from a financial perspective.
ID Buzz Cargo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIHTSYUPalk
Ford E-Transit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttitQvs8y1Q
Renault Kangoo ZE and Renault Master ZE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJOfU-cZYNo
Tiny van: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31o6htzyH9E
Other vans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXa7OgLud8I
More vans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP8yHkb-ucY
They usually seem to be this: https://www.citroen.ie/models/berlingo-van.html
Smallish range and payload, but then you don't really _need_ that much for a lot of urban applications.
As to why they're not highlighted in the article, they're generally not aimed at consumers (and that article is from a consumer magazine). Consumers don't buy these things, as a general rule.
Anything that isn't in mass production can be ignored as probably vapourware.
I’m not saying this as a fanboy, rather as someone who is willing to acknowledge the lead in batteries that Tesla has on everyone else.
Tesla’s moat is in their battery tech, and I think that they will be able to maintain this moat for at least five years, perhaps more. They need to catch up in manufacture and design in order to remain competitive, but I think that they can do that.
Do you think current production is the best they have?
I don’t.
The current production battery is most likely the most cost-efficient in terms of getting them into cars at the volume required, but I imagine that this could change very quickly if deemed necessary.
Tesla is much more likely to announce a great new battery before they've even started working on it than after it's almost ready.
The other is a moat.
They absolutely are not going to announce/reveal their moat, especially when it loses a lot of its value as a moat when it is revealed.
It seems like there are some doubters here.
Just remember that you heard it here first when it happens.
Expect 500-600 mile range for current vehicle line and substantially lower prices for current “long”range of ~320 miles, probably sold as one-motor “standard range” in order to keep the markets siloed.
I am willing to bet that there is a new design that is “in the can”.
I am also willing bet that they will continue optimizing that design until the market dictates that it has to go to production.
I do agree that Tesla's entire value is in their battery tech. Their 'premium' cars are actually about on par with Korean and Japanese mid-tier vehicles in terms of quality at best, by every objective measure. But their pricing is luxury level simply due to the cost of batteries.
1. Utilizing current facilities, thereby being able to spread out the fixed cost of building a manufacturing plant over more units.
2. Related to 1, waiting until building new facilities is necessary to be competitive in order to be able to use the most up-to-date battery design as well as most up-to-date facilities design.
3. Keep the design a secret as long as possible. I’m not sure if its possible to keep battery tech a secret, but if there is no functioning version, then it can’t be reverse engineered.
> Their 'premium' cars are actually about on par with Korean and Japanese mid-tier vehicles in terms of quality at best, by every objective measure. But their pricing is luxury level simply due to the cost of batteries.
Totally agree.
What Tesla does have is a massive margin. If/when they are ever threatened, they have lots of room to cut prices. AFAICT, given the choice Elon would rather cut prices than margin.
I’m not sure what we can do but people aren’t going to ebike to the supermarket when thieves carrying battery powered grinders are everywhere.
When a legacy manufacturer or EV startup adds to the EV supply, it takes from ICE vehicle market share, not Tesla market share. So any new EV is an ICE killer, not a Tesla killer. The majority of people buying EVs from legacy brands are doing so because they are fans of those brands; they weren't going to be buying a Tesla anyway. And even those who considered Tesla and chose another brand do not result in a lost sale to Tesla since someone else will buy that unit. Demand exceeds supply.
Another faux pas the article makes is assuming that the number of models has any meaningful relationship to the number of units delivered to customers. Tesla continues to dominate the world EV market with just four models: a mid-size sedan, a CUV, a full-size sedan, and a mid-size SUV. It doesn't matter if you have 11, 14, or 30 models in the pipeline if you simply cannot manufacture as many units because of battery constraints or whatever excuse applies at the moment.
It's also bizarre to see Tesla's very high R&D capital efficiency as a liability:
> Tesla, by contrast, has spent less in total vehicle R&D since 2008 than Toyota and Mercedes-Benz each spent in 2020 alone.
Toyota has essentially nothing of note in the BEV space to show for their big R&D expenditures in 2020, aside from the underwhelming BZ4X.
The article claims traditional OEMs are poised to out-produce Tesla with no explanation of how they expect to achieve Tesla's current production rate, let alone Tesla's future production rate with two big factories spinning up in Austin and Berlin.
Don't get me wrong. I really like the looks of several EVs from the likes of Polestar and Nio. But it's clickbait to call these "Tesla killers."
Just be honest: they are ICE killers.
I do think Tesla´s position is very similar to Ford´s position over a hundred years ago. Ford initially had all the same advantages with the T model. Yet Ford was overtaken in the 1920´s by GM who started segmenting the market, giving customers different brands, models and options to choose from.
For the coming years no manufacturer will be able to really compete with Tesla, but I do think Tesla will need to introduce more models and start covering more niches in the car market.
If you look at it by brand, Tesla is the best selling EV brand in Europe in 2022:
https://eu-evs.com/bestSellers/ALL/Brands/Year/2022
But Volkswagen, for example, owns many brands (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT, Porsche, etc.) and its EV sales are split across many models.
By auto group, Volkswagen is the biggest EV maker in Europe. Tesla has gone from number 1 in 2019 to number 3 so far this year:
https://eu-evs.com/marketShare/ALL/Groups/Line/All-time-by-Y...
The EV model segmentation you're talking about is already happening.
We could have 5 times as many vehicles reducing fuel usage by 90% instead of having 1/5th the EVs reducing fuel usage by 100%. Also, when the battery on a PHEV runs out, it switches to hybrid mode which is still more efficient than and ICE.
Additionally, with a PHEV, you don't have range anxiety and don't need a supercharger network. With 1/5th the batteries, you can charge overnight on 120v instead of having to install an expensive 240v charger at your home.
Of course, a PHEV is more complex than an EV, requiring oil changes, etc., but their engines are smaller, more efficient because they run at their optimal RPM, and aren't strained like engines in ICE vehicles. Consumer Reports claims hybrids and plug-in hybrids are very, very reliable.
I just did another round of car searching to non-EV and ended up deciding that the model Y and the rivian were the only options. Rivian is too far out with unclear scaling.
For a lot of fleet owners, being able to swap a battery in less than ten minutes rather than charge it in 30 or 50 minutes is attractive. Less time off the road.
For me as a potential private owner, making the battery into someone else's problem is attractive too.
https://insideevs.com/news/591837/nio-battery-swapping-stati...
https://www.nio.com/blog/current-state-ev-battery-swapping