Porsche pajun / 717 EV (rumor)

[AnxietyRanger]

This approach is wise, if you're talking about an change/improvement to technology. But when a disruptive change occurs, it ultimately results in business failure.

When transistors were first introduced, they sucked but had potential. Some tube companies ignored the new technology; others started their own transistor divisions. But when push came to shove, it made much more sense to invest in the existing, proven technology and markets. None of these companies were successful with the new technology. The end result - every single tube company failed, and the electronics market was taken over by new companies who specialized in transistors. The transistors eventually surpassed the performance and reliability of the tube technology - at a much cheaper price - so the transition was inevitable. This sort of thing has repeated over and over in many different markets. Car companies risk going the same route as EV technology moves forward.

I agree. I was not making a commentary on the wiseness of their "balancing act", merely that I don't think their disparaging comments on EVs are necessarily due to ignorance, it is probably often just a part of that balancing act and PR talk to the benefit of their current products. One can disagree with their decision to try and balance their old and new needs, but that doesn't always mean they are doing it out of ignorace or lack of appreciation towards EVs, they may be doing the balancing act simply because they feel they must or have, in their own calculations, come to the conclusion it is in the best business solution for them.

Not embracing disruptive change, of course, has been the undoing of multiple technology companies (or perhaps not always the undoing of entire companies, but entire businesses at least). Your tube example is a good one. More recently smartphones are another. However, the technology landscape is also littered with companies that have bet everything on a disruptive technology - only to find out the disruption never happened. Or that they embraced the disruption a generation or two too soon and some other company reaps the benefits while they reap Chapter 11. Virtual reality is an area where the 1990s are littered with corpses, let's see if 2010s change that. One might say the same of the electric car in times prior to Tesla's. Tesla, too, is standing on the shoulders of prior EV failures.

Now, it may be - and certainly we all hope - Tesla will be the one to make the EV disruption happen. I think we can say, to an extent, they are already well on that way. But if, say, fuel cells suddenly make it big, it also could be that Tesla was embracing the wrong disruption and the likes on Mercedes and Honda get there first.

Unhinging the power production from the power user is certainly a commendable approach, because it allows separate development and improvement of energy creation and energy consumption, which, at the end of the day, are very separate arts. As things stand, a BEV is, I believe, the only alternative fuel vehicle technology currently going anywhere that accomplishes this separation.

For that alone (and for all the things I list in my signature), I certainly wish Tesla succeeds and the likes of Porsche and other old-auto are decimated for slowing down this progress to protect archaic business interests.

Some say the competition doesn't need to die for Tesla to succeed, and I agree, but it sure would be nice... karma. In the end, Steve Jobs' comment about Apple vs. Microsoft needing to be forgotten wasn't about not decimating a competitor (he quantified in other interviews), it was about not getting stuck on past battles and past technologies, but embracing new disruptions. Apple did this by entering new disruptive markets (iPod, iTunes, iPhone, iPad) where Microsoft wasn't even a thing and going big there.

Tesla is not in the market where Porsche is at all, ICE based cars. Tesla is disrupting things in a completely new market.

 

[ecarfan]

Except Tesla is not in a "completely new" market: EVs and ICEs have more overall similarities than differences. Whereas Apple entered completely different markets (portable MP3 players, smartphones, tablets) that Microsoft entered later and is still struggling to catch up in.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Except Tesla is not in a "completely new" market: EVs and ICEs have more overall similarities than differences. Whereas Apple entered completely different markets (portable MP3 players, smartphones, tablets) that Microsoft entered later and is still struggling to catch up in.

Depends on the perspective, of course. No comparison/parallel is perfect.

Smartphones and tablets are computers too - and indirectly attacked the PC market.

 

[Doug_G]

Except Tesla is not in a "completely new" market: EVs and ICEs have more overall similarities than differences. Whereas Apple entered completely different markets (portable MP3 players, smartphones, tablets) that Microsoft entered later and is still struggling to catch up in.

It's usually more of a market disruption than a technology disruption per se. The disk drive industry went through multiple waves of disruption, with the market leaders being replaced at every generation, and the only defining difference between the generations was the size of the drive. Established companies all managed the technology transitions, but they couldn't manage the market transitions, e.g. mainframe -> minicomputer -> microcomputer -> notebook. Their existing customers wanted more capacity, not smaller drives. But when the drives got big enough that their customers didn't need more capacity, suddenly the rapidly improving smaller drives looked a lot more attractive. Throw in a new generation of smaller computers, with lower margins but higher volumes, and the market leaders couldn't make the transition.

The problem with these things is it isn't always clear at the outset what is disruptive and what isn't. It's almost always a wise choice for the established companies to stick to their guns, except when it really is a disruption this seemingly wise choice is fatal.

 

[3mp_kwh]

I lean much heavier on Porsche being able to compete in the sedan space, but not being willing. The Pajun isn't coming. This isn't Ferry's "Volks" company anymore. Even his son and grandsons are starting to pass away. So, like other big, fat OEMs, how does VWG preserve 25-30% margins by including batteries? And enough people expect to go from dealer, to pit lane, that they can't make a Model S. I'm not seeing the epiphany others claim.


Technically, I don't think Tesla has a significant advantage in Porsche's (former) space. While the sports car company now makes its money from Panamerras, Cayennes and Macans, racing is a place where energy density still rules. They will "sell" that in their money makers, even if they've become 2 ton beasts. Frankly, of all the car makers, the ones most defined by racing heritage are the ones we should least expect will get involved. To know when they will, you'd need a financial crystal ball, that showed the point of market share loss that justified the introduction of a new, lower-margin product. IOW, 50k ICE cars sold @28%, don't beat 55k ICE and BEV cars sold at @28%, and @13% profit. All that would need to happen is cannibalizing 5% of ICE sales, and profit falls (with 10% higher share).


These internal bean-counting wars haven't stopped just because Musk showed battery powered cars can be profitable.

 

[30seconds]

Technically, I don't think Tesla has a significant advantage in Porsche's (former) space. While the sports car company now makes its money from Panamerras, Cayennes and Macans, racing is a place where energy density still rules. They will "sell" that in their money makers, even if they've become 2 ton beasts. Frankly, of all the car makers, the ones most defined by racing heritage are the ones we should least expect will get involved. To know when they will, you'd need a financial crystal ball, that showed the point of market share loss that justified the introduction of a new, lower-margin product. IOW, 50k ICE cars sold @28%, don't beat 55k ICE and BEV cars sold at @28%, and @13% profit. All that would need to happen is cannibalizing 5% of ICE sales, and profit falls (with 10% higher share).

I disagree. I think the ones defined by racing heritage have the most to lose in terms of performance characteristics and absolutely have to get on board. I think that the Model S has already taken sales from the Panamerra / M5/ AMG lines based on performance (way more than 5%) and every new line that Tesla comes out with will do the same.

Better margins don't help if your product is losing sales.

 

[tga]

And the rumor returns. The Motley Fool reported it yesterday:

Porsche Is Planning to Eat Tesla Motors' Lunch (TSLA, VLKAY)

 

[ecarfan]

The Motley Fool has been fooled...it's all about getting clicks and page views.

 

[Alfred]

Under development at Porsche is rumored a project #717. Horizon is perhaps 2019. Four seater with 300m range and possibly inductive (fast-?)charging. The problem is, that Model S is not as easy to copy as the superficial simplicity of its drive train suggests in displays. Even more difficult is to start a decade late to produce something that will also better Tesla 5 years from now.

 

[mknox]

Porsche is developing an electric vehicle that will rival the Tesla Model S

Saw this AutoGuide article on a new Porsche EV that seems to be taking aim at Tesla.

 

[Robert.Boston]

Saw this AutoGuide article on a new Porsche EV that seems to be taking aim at Tesla.

Ah, once again, Audi proves itself to be the master of the electric vehicle press release. To paraphrase Audi/Porsche's statements: "Five years from now, we'll have something that can compete with Tesla's current offering."

Wayne Gretsky: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Read this article Will Porsche’s New EV Affect Tesla Motors Inc’s (TSLA) Prospects?.

What the heck is this? "However, Porsche 717 will use battery packs that will resemble the shape of a mountain range; they will have a topological platform with the center tunnel rising as the highest peak. Around 108 battery pouches will be installed in the German EV"


​That hurt my brain.

 

[WarpedOne]

Consider the battery from Nissan Leaf:

It is not flat, it has 'platos' of different heights.
Now imagine another raised plato in the cenetrline and you get something approaching the thing described above.

 

[FOCUSEV]

TESLA has the automobile reputation and experience of a gnat compared to all of the other vehicle manufactures. Most of the people on this board need to study some automotive history. Automobile manufactures need to make money, if they don't they get gobbled up by a manufacture that does. TESLA makes no money. Their car could be the best in the world, if their cars are not widely purchased they will go out of business. The assumption by fans that other manufactures have no experience with BEV's is ridiculous. The TESLA Model S has no better or worse efficiency than any other current EV it just has a giant battery compared to the others therefore has a greater range. Do you really believe Ford, Nissan or any other manufacture cannot package a large battery in a purpose built vehicle and sell it with the same or greater range than a TESLA. I suggest you all study some automotive history, I drove the model S and said to myself this is the future of the automobile the smoothness and torque was awesome. The sales person pointed out the revolutionary "skateboard chassis" and what I immediately recognized was a modern version of the pan chassis of a 60 year old VW Bug. I suggest TESLA win a few 24 hour or Dakar style races then start puffing out their chest.

 

[rabar10]

TESLA has the automobile reputation and experience of a gnat compared to all of the other vehicle manufactures. Most of the people on this board need to study some automotive history. Automobile manufactures need to make money, if they don't they get gobbled up by a manufacture that does. TESLA makes no money. Their car could be the best in the world, if their cars are not widely purchased they will go out of business. The assumption by fans that other manufactures have no experience with BEV's is ridiculous. The TESLA Model S has no better or worse efficiency than any other current EV it just has a giant battery compared to the others therefore has a greater range. Do you really believe Ford, Nissan or any other manufacture cannot package a large battery in a purpose built vehicle and sell it with the same or greater range than a TESLA. I suggest you all study some automotive history, I drove the model S and said to myself this is the future of the automobile the smoothness and torque was awesome. The sales person pointed out the revolutionary "skateboard chassis" and what I immediately recognized was a modern version of the pan chassis of a 60 year old VW Bug. I suggest TESLA win a few 24 hour or Dakar style races then start puffing out their chest.

Lots of scattered statements and opinions here, some more valid than others.

But what does any of this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[wart]

TESLA has the automobile reputation and experience of a gnat compared to all of the other vehicle manufactures. Most of the people on this board need to study some automotive history. Automobile manufactures need to make money, if they don't they get gobbled up by a manufacture that does. TESLA makes no money. Their car could be the best in the world, if their cars are not widely purchased they will go out of business.

Right now Tesla is exactly as profitable as they want to be. Tesla could easily turn a profit in 2015 if they decided to level off at about 50,000 vehicles a year and stay in the premium end of the market. But that is not the Secret Master Plan. Tesla is re-investing every dollar they can into growth and development so that they can bring affordable electric cars to more people.

The assumption by fans that other manufactures have no experience with BEV's is ridiculous. The TESLA Model S has no better or worse efficiency than any other current EV it just has a giant battery compared to the others therefore has a greater range. Do you really believe Ford, Nissan or any other manufacture cannot package a large battery in a purpose built vehicle and sell it with the same or greater range than a TESLA. I suggest you all study some automotive history, I drove the model S and said to myself this is the future of the automobile the smoothness and torque was awesome. The sales person pointed out the revolutionary "skateboard chassis" and what I immediately recognized was a modern version of the pan chassis of a 60 year old VW Bug. I suggest TESLA win a few 24 hour or Dakar style races then start puffing out their chest.

Several other manufacturers are quite capable of building a good electric vehicle drive unit. It's not that hard. The difference with Tesla is the battery pack, and the management software. Yes, other companies could put a huge battery pack in a car. But so far they have chosen not to. Why have they chosen not to?

The other thing about Tesla's battery pack is the energy density. Tesla was willing to invest in battery pack engineering, and use an "unsafe" consumer electronics battery chemistry, and add safety at the pack integration level. Other companies insist on using a safer "automotive grade" chemistry which has less energy density. Experience over the last few years has shown that Tesla's strategy provides more than enough real-world safety, combined with best-in-class energy density.

Nearly everything I know about electric cars I learned by reading this forum. There are a lot of smart, well-informed people around here. I humbly suggest you spend a few months lurking and learning.

 

[ecarfan]

Most of the people on this board need to study some automotive history...I suggest TESLA win a few 24 hour or Dakar style races then start puffing out their chest.

At the 2014 TSLA shareholders meeting I was in the audience and listened while a shareholder recommended to Elon that the Model X be entered in the Dakar Rally. He quickly and politely dismissed the suggestion saying that auto manufacturers enter car races simply as a marketing tool to boost sales and that since Tesla was selling cars far faster than they can make them that there was absolutely no reason for Tesla to get involved in racing. And he was absolutely right.

You say that Tesla has done nothing special except build a really big battery which any car company could do. Except no other car company has built a long-range EV with an extremely sophisticated battery management system that can serve as a primary car except Tesla, and six years after Tesla introduced the Roadster there are still no other long range EV competitors. This despite the fact that there is obviously a large market that desperately wants a mid-priced long-range EV.

This is what recent automotive history clearly shows. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

 

[NickInLab]

TESLA has the automobile reputation and experience of a gnat compared to all of the other vehicle manufactures. Most of the people on this board need to study some automotive history. Automobile manufactures need to make money, if they don't they get gobbled up by a manufacture that does. TESLA makes no money. Their car could be the best in the world, if their cars are not widely purchased they will go out of business. The assumption by fans that other manufactures have no experience with BEV's is ridiculous. The TESLA Model S has no better or worse efficiency than any other current EV it just has a giant battery compared to the others therefore has a greater range. Do you really believe Ford, Nissan or any other manufacture cannot package a large battery in a purpose built vehicle and sell it with the same or greater range than a TESLA. I suggest you all study some automotive history, I drove the model S and said to myself this is the future of the automobile the smoothness and torque was awesome. The sales person pointed out the revolutionary "skateboard chassis" and what I immediately recognized was a modern version of the pan chassis of a 60 year old VW Bug. I suggest TESLA win a few 24 hour or Dakar style races then start puffing out their chest.

So, Tesla has a major advantage that I think you're overlooking: Real-world data on charging (and discharging) EV batteries at Superchargers.

Every Supercharger is (probably--I'm speculating here--but I'd be just floored if they weren't doing it) connected to Tesla HQ for things like authorizing charging and reporting energy use. As long as they have that data feed, why wouldn't they use it to monitor battery parameters during charging? The SC needs to know the battery state in order to deliver the appropriate amount of current, and feeding that back to a data warehouse is no big deal. Storing that data also allows Tesla to monitor battery health (degradation) over time.

In addition to whatever Tesla collects from the Superchargers, don't forget about the wireless data connections in the car. Tesla probably knows the distribution of maximum charges for every car in the fleet (and, from that, the distribution of maximum charges of the fleet). That, combined with battery health data, would be *fantastically* fun to play around with (hmmm, Tesla appears to have some data scientist openings...).

Here's another thing: Trickle-charging a battery (even lithium) over 8 to 10 hours is easy, but fast charging is not. There are all sorts of failure mechanisms in a lithium battery and your only window to the battery state is the potential across the electrodes. When you trickle charge, you can pretend that the battery is equilibrated. Not so when you're pumping chunky amps through it. So, you need lots of test data to determine an appropriate charging algorithm (Superchargers are very much *not* using the tried-and-true "constant current to a threshold voltage, then constant voltage to a threshold current, then stop").

Even after you have a "pretty good" algorithm, you're going to want to refine it and also validate that it works in the field. Once you have a huge fleet of monitored cars charging all the time, you could apply small perturbations to the charge rate called for by the existing best algorithm. This data would end up being fairly sparse because the dimensionality is going to be pretty big, but it should be possible to back out an optimal charging algorithm (importantly over a wide range of battery and environmental states).

My optimistic take on this is that Tesla is going to be able to push their batteries harder and farther than other manufacturers. Harder in the sense of charging faster, and father in the sense of deeper charge/discharge. I think they will be able to do this by having smaller engineering margins. Remember, batteries don't really have a hard end state on the top or bottom end. You can always push another Coulomb in or suck it out, but your electrodes and electrolyte wear out faster. It would be an enormous advantage if Tesla could get 10% more range for the same amount of battery (how ever you define "amount of battery").

If I were a betting man, I'd say the new firmware update that's supposed to blow everyone's socks off will have something to do with battery charging or discharging.