Tesla BEV Competition Developments

[wdolson]

Do you really think that GM will have trouble selling 30k units/year with the announced specs? This car will be sold nation-wide from the start and its development was fast-tracked:



Chevy 'committed to marketing Bolt the right way'

Doesn't sound like a compliance car at all to me. And do you have any links that GM will limit annual sales at 30k? Doesn't make any sense as battery prices keep falling.

I can see GM increasing production targets (unless there's a major hiccup, e.g. a major QC problem or other unexpected launch glitch) soon after the Bolt is launched. Together with the 2017 Volt, GM will have a very compelling line-up in alternative propulsion.

A Cadillac with PHEV options (same battery capacity as 2017 Volt) will also follow in 2016: Cadillac CT6 to Offer Plug-In Hybrid Electric Technology

American car dealers don't like selling EVs. Most will steer you away from the hybrids. There is a long thread about it here on this forum:
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...-Times-A-Car-Dealers-Won’t-Sell-It’s-Electric

Chevy might put pressure on dealers to support the Bolt, but we'll see. Dealers might give lip service and then blow off GM.

Back in the Bolt thread a month or so back there was some speculation about why Chevy was limiting production to 30,000 a year. The conclusion was they are probably battery limited. Most of the batteries for GM, Ford, and Chrysler hybrids comes from one factory in Holland, Michigan which has expanded recently, but probably can't provide the extra batteries. The problem with one company supplying a lot of companies which are all trying to expand their battery powered car options at the same time is the batteries are probably in limited supply and LG Chem is telling its customers they can only have so many batteries a year. At least until they get more battery plants built.

On the other hand Tesla is in control of its own fate for batteries with the Gigafactory. The plant is built to only feed one customer and is being tailored for that customer's needs.

The battle for batteries basically boils down to a conflict between supply models. Most car makers are going with the traditional car production model farming out most of the parts to suppliers and concentrating on engines and final assembly. Tesla has a new model it's putting into practice with a highly vertically integrated supply chain with some suppliers, but almost all the major components completely under Tesla's control and manufacturing highly focused in a couple of locations rather than spread out all over he place.

Time will tell which model will prove better.

 

[techmaven]

That will be solved within 2-3 years (once cars with larger batteries are sold from various car makers supporting the CCS standard). CCS will support 150 kW for upcoming cars with larger batteries. See for example:

Audi Commits To Nationwide 150 kW Fast Charge Network In U.S. - Video

Audi, BMW, Daimler, Porsche, Volkswagen Others All Part Of 150 kW CharIn CCS Fast Charge Initiative

Yeah, not so much.

Audi seeks charging network allies

Clearly, when you strip away the PR bluster, they are still just in the talking stages. Besides, you first establish the standard and then deploy it. They are deploying the wrong, older standard.

 

[Yggdrasill]

That will be solved within 2-3 years (once cars with larger batteries are sold from various car makers supporting the CCS standard). CCS will support 150 kW for upcoming cars with larger batteries. See for example:

It won't be "solved" until there's 150 kW chargers everywhere. Over the last 3 years, Tesla has been working hard to cover the US with chargers, but it's not easy. Negotiating with property owners, electricity companies and the like takes time and effort. Maybe CCS will be able to get the same kind of coverage in 2-3 years, but by then, Tesla will truly have covered the map with Superchargers.

Tesla Superchargers have a significant head start, and it won't be easy to catch up.

 

[tftf]

Yeah, not so much.

Audi seeks charging network allies

Clearly, when you strip away the PR bluster, they are still just in the talking stages. Besides, you first establish the standard and then deploy it. They are deploying the wrong, older standard.

There's nothing wrong with the current CCS chargers for today's smaller batteries. The new 150kW standard will be ready for upcoming cars with larger batteries.

Tesla didn't invest a lot in their Supercharger infrastructure (offering them for "free" forever is another question however). It's all in their 10-Q:

What Does Providing Free Charging Cost Tesla Motors, Inc.? -- The Motley Fool

(I linked to a Tesla fanboy article on purpose).

These investments are chump change for the large car makers supporting CCS - even if they build or finance 5x or 10x as many locations as Tesla. (It's not about Audi, all Western car brands support or will support CCS)

I will bet that evolutions of the CCS standard (maybe some with dual-plugs also featuring Chademo) will dominate the DC charging landscape in 2020 in all major Western car markets (Chademo will likely still dominate in Japan/Asia, ex-China).

 

[dalalsid]

Don't underestimate the power of open standards. CCS went from zero to over 1500 charging stations within 2-3 years in Europe: CCS/Combo Charge Map - Europe (and it's still growing very fast)

Quality > Quantity. How useful are those plugs for actual long distance travel? Have you ever zoomed into that map? Here is Germany:

All those chargers are within major metros. None particularly useful for long distance driving. Now look at the supercharger map and compare:

Chargers are all strategically placed for travel. How many years before these very smart auto companies figure that out?

 

[Gerardf]

That will be solved within 2-3 years (once cars with larger batteries are sold from various car makers supporting the CCS standard). CCS will support 150 kW for upcoming cars with larger batteries. See for example:

Audi Commits To Nationwide 150 kW Fast Charge Network In U.S. - Video

Audi, BMW, Daimler, Porsche, Volkswagen Others All Part Of 150 kW CharIn CCS Fast Charge Initiative

Don't underestimate the power of open standards. CCS went from zero to over 1500 charging stations within 2-3 years: CCS/Combo Charge Map - Europe (and it's still growing very fast)

Well. You keep stating how the Bolt is a 'danger' for the Model-3. From your answers I can only conclude that your opinion is not based on any facts, but just guesswork.
- No information about DC-FC capabilities of the Bolt. Will it support 100 kW or more ?
- No information on how GM will make sure there will be DC-FC chargers. Your own guess is 2-3 years (that makes it 2018-2019)
- Who will invest in > 50 kW CCS without many cars already on the road to use them ?

Please note that there is no business case for pay-per-charge commercial Fast-DC chargers. FastNed in NL is trying, however they charge 65 cents per kWh, and still can not make any money on that.

A single (50 kw) FastNed station in NL costs Euro 200k. Note, these do not have 8 stalls like a SuperCharger. That is a lot of kWh to sell just to cover that CAPEX. At the (very high) 50 cents per kWh 400.000 kWh or 8.000 full 50 kWh charges.
Not to mention the OPEX costs at high peak-use, billing infrastructure costs, maintenance, etc, etc.
Assuming an optimistic 25 cents / kWh for all these OPEX items, leaves 25 cents / kWh gross profit. So 16.000 full (50 kWh) charges just to break-even on the CAPEX. Say such station sells 4 full 50 kWh charges every single day, that is 4.000 days... or 11 years.

Who will invest in such business case ?? My guess is most chargers for BMW, GM etc will end up being a single 24 or 50 kW charger located at car dealers. Car dealers will be 'forced' to invest in and install these chargers without a business case behind it.

In case you do not agree with my numbers, feel free to tweak them yourself. I would be interested to see what business case can be made.

P.S. of one could try to cover CAPEX with a 2k (pre-) payment on each car sold, instead of having third parties trying to make a business case / profit center of them.
With 100.000 cars sold that is around 200 M (and zero costs for some OPEX like billing-infrastructure). With total 1M cars sold in say 2020 that gets to a really interesting total amount to invest in Fast-DC chargers.

 

[Krugerrand]

Do you really think that GM will have trouble selling 30k units/year with the announced specs?

Do you really think Tesla will have a problem selling hundreds of thousands/year of the Model 3 with the announced specs, a worldwide Supercharing Network, a 5* star plus sub-category safety rating, OTA updates, sleek design with a drag coefficient of 2.0...

This car will be sold nation-wide from the start and its development was fast-tracked.

The Model 3 will be sold WORLD-wide and wasn't fast-tracked. Instead Tesla took their time producing first a proof of concept sports car, then designing from the ground up the first premium aluminum BEV sedan that's won every major award, has an outstanding safety rating and record, outstanding performance, outstanding cargo space, OTA updating which improves the car month after month for owners, with the most advanced and unique powertrain and battery system, then offered a FREE for life long distance Supercharging Network around the world - making note that that network produces the FASTEST, most powerful charging standard in the world -, then took even more time to design an SUV with features never before seen in a vehicle including an expected off the chart safety standard - give it time my friend, the Model X will embarass the premium SUV market and win every major award....all of this meaning that a whole heck of a lot of R&D will in turn be invested into the Model 3.

Yeah, GM should sell their fast-tracked 30k Bolt units. That'll be 30k more BEVs on the road, they'll also be great advertising for the much superior and equally priced Model 3. Go GM!

 

[tftf]

Please note that there is no business case for pay-per-charge commercial Fast-DC chargers. FastNed in NL is trying, however they charge 65 cents per kWh, and still can not make any money on that.

A single (50 kw) FastNed station in NL costs Euro 200k. Note, these do not have 8 stalls like a SuperCharger. That is a lot of kWh to sell just to cover that CAPEX. At the (very high) 50 cents per kWh 400.000 kWh or 8.000 full 50 kWh charges.
Not to mention the OPEX costs at high peak-use, billing infrastructure costs, maintenance, etc, etc.
Assuming an optimistic 25 cents / kWh for all these OPEX items, leaves 25 cents / kWh gross profit. So 16.000 full (50 kWh) charges just to break-even on the CAPEX. Say such station sells 4 full 50 kWh charges every single day, that is 4.000 days... or 11 years.

Who will invest in such business case ?? My guess is most chargers for BMW, GM etc will end up being a single 24 or 50 kW charger located at car dealers. Car dealers will be 'forced' to invest in and install these chargers without a business case behind it.

In case you do not agree with my numbers, feel free to tweak them yourself. I would be interested to see what business case can be made.

Well, car makers can always go to a station operator like FastNed and offer the same "free" Tesla deal (but only for a few years, I doubt Tesla's lifetime access to SC stations is a wise business decision...). Nissan is already implementing something along these lines with the "no charge to charge" for 2 years with each new EV sold.

I don't understand your opex and capex projections above when comparing to Tesla's Superchargers. All Western car makers have billions to spend each year, some of which can go into financing DC charging stations at 150kW.

The rest - once the stations are constructed - is purely a business model decision. It's either a fee per charge, per month/year or "free" for some time with each new EV sold (the last option is basically a more limited replica of Tesla's approach, Nissan is already testing that in some markets: Nissan Leaf Electric Car | No Charge To Charge ).

The business model can be adapted dynamically as consumer preferences change over time - just like mobile phone contracts etc.

Or do you think Tesla can outinvest all other Western car brands with its SC network over the coming decade?

PS: We still haven't heard of any major car company licensing access to Tesla's network. Maybe a very small company will bite, but the rest of the world has settled on either CCS or Chademo (except for China's domestic standard).

 

[Krugerrand]

Or do you think Tesla and its proprietary chargers can outinvest all Western car brands with its network over the coming decade?

They kind of already have. :wink:

 

[Gerardf]

Or do you think Tesla can outinvest all other Western car brands with its SC network over the coming decade?
.

I am very much looking forward to GM's presentation & roadmap of a Fast-Charger (100 kW capable) road-trip enabling network that can be used by their future Bolt customers. I very much hope they will indeed invest in that, however I remain skeptic until I see it.

 

[tftf]

They kind of already have. :wink:

Do I really have to present the numbers again? Apparently the linked Tesla fanboy article wasn't clear enough, here's the latest 10-Q:

As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the net book value of our Supercharger network was $152.4 million and $107.8 million and currently includes 536 locations globally. We plan to continue investing in our Supercharger network for the foreseeable future, including in North America, Europe and Asia and expect such spending to be approximately 5% of total capital spending over the next 12 months. During 2015, this investment will grow our Supercharger network by about 50%. We allocate Supercharger related expenses to cost of automotive revenues and selling, general, and administrative expenses. These costs were immaterial for all periods presented.

Let's say the consortium or consortia of carmakers / station operators will build 10x as many locations as Tesla. So let's assume $1.5 billion over the next 5 years.

Compared to the combined R&D and annual cap-ex budgets of major car makers this is chump change for them - especially on an annual basis.

PS: The issue again is the appropriate business model to run/operate such networks profitably, not the cap-ex to build the stations in the first place. It remains to be seen which business model is best (lump sum for "free" access with each new car, a charge per month/year, a charge for each visit like gas stations...). That is a pure implementation question - and can be changed on the fly in the future, much like mobile phone contract offerings.

 

[BornToFly]

tftf - Please answer these question. Why are you here? What is your end game? Are you shorting the stock? Are you buying an EV? You obviously spend much of your day here, and I don't see why. Your arguments are all flawed just enough to support the Tesla Bull case. Thanks to guys like you, I had the confidence to increase my stock holdings by 50% recently. I will soon be richer because of you, and more shorts will burn.

 

[scaesare]

They kind of already have.

Do I really have to present the numbers again?


Let's say the consortium ... will build 10x as many

Much like facts, tenses also matter when defending your point.

 

[tftf]

tftf - Please answer these question. Why are you here? What is your end game? (...) Thanks to guys like you, I had the confidence to increase my stock holdings by 50% recently. I will soon be richer because of you, and more shorts will burn.

Why are you so concerned if I apparently make you richer by the minute ? But this thread is about BEV competitive developments.

- - - Updated - - -

Much like facts, tenses also matter when defending your point.

I didn't say they will bulld 10X as many stations. I used 10X of Tesla's current SC book value to show that even that cap-ex is chump change given all the names behind the CCS standard (or for that matter even Chademo).

Note that rival car makers even decided to build/finance dual charger locations (with both CCS and Chademo plugs) and that many countries subsidize such stations with public funding - which will never happen for Tesla's SC stations because it's a proprietary standard.

 

[scaesare]

I didn't say they will bulld 10X as many stations. I used 10X of Tesla's current book value to show that the cap-ex to build a global DC network is chump change given all the names behind the CCS standard (or for that matter even Chademo).

I'm not sure if you are missing the point, or deliberately evading it.

We all know we are talking about spending.

Krugerrand pointed out Tesla has already outspent the other manufacturers. You are countering that with what the manufactures will (might?) do.

 

[Gerardf]

Let's say the consortium or consortia of carmakers / station operators will build 10x as many locations as Tesla. So let's assume $1.5 billion over the next 5 years.
Compared to the combined R&D and annaul cap-ex budgets of major car makers this is chump change for them - especially on an annual basis.
PS: The issue again is the appropriate business model to run such networks, not the cap-ex to build the stations in the first place. It remains to be seen which business model is best (lump sum for "free" access with each new car, charge per month/year, charge for each visit...). That is a pure implementation question - and can be changed on the fly, much like mobile phone contract offerings.

As unimportant as you feel the CAPEX is, fact remains that there is no business case for operators to invest in this, so the CAPEX investment will indeed have to come from the carmakers.
And we have so far only seen press releases, no investments from the car makers. I feel they actually hope the tax-payers will pick up that bill.

I think most of the TSLA share owners here would actually LIKE to see more Fast DC chargers investment by the other car makers. It will help increase the TSLA SP. Not only will it be seen as a confirmation of the Tesla story, it will also give Tesla customers more charge options. A win-win for Tesla anf Tesla customers (and shareholders) in every scenario to my opinion.

 

[FluxCap]

tftf - Please answer these question. Why are you here? What is your end game? Are you shorting the stock? Are you buying an EV? You obviously spend much of your day here, and I don't see why. Your arguments are all flawed just enough to support the Tesla Bull case. Thanks to guys like you, I had the confidence to increase my stock holdings by 50% recently. I will soon be richer because of you, and more shorts will burn.

He's declared that he is short time and again and while it is valuable to engage with short theses, in this case it comes down to him believing GM's PR machine, playing fast and loose with the facts of limited battery supply, and disbelieving Elon Musk's own words.

Last time he showed up, that timed a nice local bottom in the stock price and I made some money.

Side note: NHTSA just gave MBLY a huge boost, and I think people are discounting how much Tesla's self-aware/autonomous car hardware/software integration is in another league. How long until GM designs a long-range, affordable, self-aware EV with networked AI that teaches itself to drive better and be safer? I'm guessing 20 years.

 

[tftf]

Krugerrand pointed out Tesla has already outspent the other manufacturers. You are countering that with what the manufactures will (might?) do.

Do you think that a network with a net book value of just $150 million (let's be generous and say $250 million because Tesla will continue to add stations) offers any sustainable competitive advantage for Tesla by, say, 2020?

Spending $1 or $2 billion (a multiple of Tesla) to build a network far denser than Tesla's SC network on a global basis until 2020 is chump change for major rival car makers - especially since they decided on two standards (CCS and Chademo).

- - - Updated - - -

Side note: NHTSA just gave MBLY a huge boost, and I think people are discounting how much Tesla's self-aware/autonomous car hardware/software integration is in another league. How long until GM designs a long-range, affordable, self-aware EV with networked AI that teaches itself to drive better and be safer? I'm guessing 20 years.

Maybe more like 2 years: GM will let employees ride around in self-driving Chevy Volts starting next year | The Verge

 

[Johan]

Do you think that a network with a net book value of just $150 million (let's be generous and say $250 million because Tesla will continue to add stations) offers any sustainable competitive advantage for Tesla by, say, 2020?

Spending $1 or $2 billion (a multiple of Tesla) to build a network far denser than Tesla's SC network on a global basis until 2020 is chump change for major rival car makers - especially since they decided on two standards (CCS and Chademo).

- - - Updated - - -



Maybe more like 2 years: GM will let employees ride around in self-driving Chevy Volts starting next year | The Verge

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts the major rival car makers would have one helluva christmas (in 2020).

 

[Gerardf]

Do you think that a network with a net book value of just $150 million (let's be generous and say $250 million because Tesla will continue to add stations) offers any sustainable competitive advantage for Tesla by, say, 2020?

Spending $1 or $2 billion (a multiple of Tesla) to build a network far denser than Tesla's SC network on a global basis until 2020 is chump change for major rival car makers - especially since they decided on two standards (CCS and Chademo).

Actually I do think Tesla's SuperCharger network will still have an advantage in 2020. By that time Tesla will have received close to 2B US$ prepaid for SuperCharger investments & spending.

And even in case the other carmakers surprise me (us), it will still be a win-win for Tesla drivers (having an additional network of Fast_charge options), and Tesla Shareholders (increased EV market).