More competition means rebates and lower margins, especially in the Model3 space/price brackets.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla BEV Competition Developments
- Thread starter uselesslogin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- TSLA
More competition means rebates and lower margins, especially in the Model3 space/price brackets.
Thanks for responding, tftf. But I am still not on the same train, it seems.
Nobody has implied that the Nevada Gigafactory will be free or get beamed down from an orbiting spaceship. Of course it will cost a great deal of money. That is one reason why it is not being built all at once, another being that it is not yet needed at its full capacity.
The same obviously goes for other big battery factories - but you seem to imply that those will come into being anyway, at no cost or effort.
Also, Tesla has shown it can accomplish these things (not always on schedule, but almost). Other big car companies maybe not so much on EVs. GM might be a contender, and I hope it does well after the restructuring. Have you explained to us how GM will source its batteries? Likewise any others.
We TSLA folks are hopeful that Tesla Motors (& Energy) will "soon" begin to utilize the Gigafactory and make more money to put into its expansion by bootstrapping, as opposed to falling from the sky. That is our bet, if you will.
What is yours, actually?
Edit: This was in response to #529
Nobody has implied that the Nevada Gigafactory will be free or get beamed down from an orbiting spaceship. Of course it will cost a great deal of money. That is one reason why it is not being built all at once, another being that it is not yet needed at its full capacity.
The same obviously goes for other big battery factories - but you seem to imply that those will come into being anyway, at no cost or effort.
Also, Tesla has shown it can accomplish these things (not always on schedule, but almost). Other big car companies maybe not so much on EVs. GM might be a contender, and I hope it does well after the restructuring. Have you explained to us how GM will source its batteries? Likewise any others.
We TSLA folks are hopeful that Tesla Motors (& Energy) will "soon" begin to utilize the Gigafactory and make more money to put into its expansion by bootstrapping, as opposed to falling from the sky. That is our bet, if you will.
What is yours, actually?
Edit: This was in response to #529
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
I never said GM is asleep at the wheel. I think they really are putting their best foot forward. I am also not arguing that LG Chem or any other battery maker would have trouble keeping up.
Let's consider a modest growth scenario for GM long-range EVs (multiplease models. Specifically GM hits 50k units in 2017 and grows 41% each year thereafter, adding models along the way to 2025.
GM Long-Range EV Sales
2017 50k
2018 70k
2019 100k
2020 141k
2021 200k
2022 282k
2023 400k
2024 565k
2025 800k
Do you think that GM can pull off this modest growth scenario? I believe they can, but do you see any issues that would slow them up? If you would prefer to pivot to another automaker, that's fine. Just let us know which automakers you believe will produce 800k or more long range EVs in 2025. I should hope there are at least 10 that can pull this off.
Let's say every major automaker pulls this off. Let's say 10 automakers pull this off including Tesla that gives us 2025 EV sales of 8M. Maybe OPEC is right. Global % of gas vehicles on the road is not likely to decline as fast as we hope. Let's say all 10 get to 2M EVs by 2025, thats still only 20M EVs. A long way away from replacing the 1.2 billion vehicles on the road. What does that mean for Tesla? Nothing really. Except that none of this impacts Tesla's growth at all.
Looks as if the battery pack is influenced by TM's design. The concept is described as having a 101-kWh flat, under-body mounted battery that can deliver 300 miles EPA. Would be great if VW could bring such a vehicle to production.
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
It would be great to have a BEV van alternative, as most vans get terrible mpg. Unfortunately, VW has a long history of releasing concepts that never quite make it to production...so I won't hold my breath. I would say it's also seriously ugly, but VW never makes anything similar to the concept.
That Budd-e also seems quite similar to what Alex Roy of "The Drive", who claimed he had seen the "real" Faraday Future that "was supposed to be what would be revealed". Link here: I’ve Seen the Real Faraday—and You Can, Too - The Drive
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
BMW offers a lot of rebates on the 3 series? Let's be real, The Model 3 is not competing directly against the Bolt and Bolt type vehicles, it's competing against BMW, Audi, etc.
I assume you meant to compare the Bolt to the Model 3. We know quite a bit about the Bolt and I think most of us familiar with Tesla have a very good idea what type of vehicle the Model 3 is going to be. The Bolt is a small economy car with a 200 mile battery pack. Without being an EV the equivalent vehicle is a sub $20K car. The Model 3 is going to target BMW3 series and similar, as an ICE that's a $35K+ vehicle. Unless Tesla completely blows it, highly unlikely, the Model 3 is rather obviously going to be a superior vehicle and in a different market segment compared to the Bolt. Just sharing a similar range and EV propulsion does not automatically mean one EV is in the same market as another. It doesn't work that way for ICE's and it's not going to work that way for EV's.
According to a member (and Tesla owner) of the German Tesla Fahrer und Freunde (TFF) forums, 150kW CCS chargers exist at least as a prototype, as he has seen one of them (most likely at the manufacturer). Of course there are no cars yet to use those chargers, so he probably didn't actually test if it works as advertised.
Agreed. We have some hard numbers now (533km range, 92+kWh, 150kW charger for 80% SoC in 30 minutes), but no planned delivery dates, no cost estimates and we don't know how many CCS 150kW chargers are going to be installed.
So the GM Bolt will be the only EV (other than Tesla) to compete in the $30-50k price bracket in your opinion?
My point exactly is that every large car maker (maybe Toyota and Fiat-Chrysler will be the only major laggards) will offer long-range EVs by around 2020 - eventually you can get one with a BMW badge and an Audi badge.
Do you think BMW for example isn't aware of the Bolt's range? They will need to increase the i3 range as well to about 200 miles by 2018-2019 to match the Bolt etc. Otherwise, no one will buy an i3 in two to three years time.
Judging from the specs, the Bolt looks like a winner - which means GM will likely increase production in model year 2+ and attract new entrants/competitors. We already know Hyundai and Nissan will soon arrive with cars in the same range.
You seem to be very sure what the Model3 can do and how it will compete with the BMW3 series.
So far, we have seen nothing. You are comparing a real car (BMW3) and a car that's ready for production later this year (GM Bolt) and driven around by auto journalists as I type this to a Powerpoint from Tesla about the Model 3.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
So by the time the other OEMs catch up Tesla and the Model 3 will be well established. You keep crowing about the advantage the Bolt will have by coming out before the Model 3 but apparently see no advantage for Tesla by coming out with a more upscale vehicle before all the others.
We will see in about 12 months who will buy this car. Looking at Nissan Leaf sales I think GM can easily sell double that number in the US (assuming the car has no major quality issues when it launches).
And you certainly know that LG Chem offers EV batteries with the same range to many large car customers. I'm sure you will get one in other form factors and other brands / badges.
TFTF is stubbornly sticking to the idea that EV's will compete with each other. In his mind if Tesla wants to sell 100k cars, and GM can sell 20k, Tesla can only sell 80k because EV buyers are green weirdos. GM can make a fine Bolt, and sell all of them. This doesn't impact Tesla or model 3 sales one iota.
JHM. I am also highly supportive of any and all efforts to replace ICE with EVs but the GM Bolt is not it.
Three elephants in the room block the doorway to the Bolt being of any interest. If all three are removed then maybe, but that is a really big if.
1. To make an effective EV (one that can take meaningful sales from ICE vehicles) it needs to represent an attractive value for money comparison to ICE vehicles. It needs to perform well enough, handle well enough, be aesthetically pleasing enough and be practical enough to justify its price tag. The Bolt uses low energy density cells from LG and is therefore a heavy low-performance vehicle. It shares it remaining characteristics with the GM Sonic that at $17500 is faster and more practical. With fuel savings and tax incentives the Bolt is worth about $25K maximum to the mainstream car buyer and without incentives about $17,500. In the absence of the option of just reserving a Tesla Model 3 for $2.5K less and getting more than twice the vehicle for your money there could well be some environmental sympathizers that could be willing to buy a few tens of thousands of them. With that option available, I am not so sure.
2. GM still has no expertise in EVs. All of the Bolt technology is outsourced to LG just as all of the GM EV1 technology of the 1990s was outsourced entirely to Aerovironment. GM is an engine maker and a steel body shell maker, not an EV maker. The EV unit sales ramp you describe is LG's business model. Nothing to do with GM. As previously noted LG has the option of licensing an EV skateboard platform from FF if it wants to.
3. GM is non-existent without its ICE revenues. Take those away and it has no use for most of its workforce. It has no money to justify its share price or even cover its overheads, it can't even pay for the loans on its machines that make engines. The very last thing that GM is able to do as a company is to attack its ICE revenues by producing an EV that undermines those sales on both performance and price simultaneously. Wrong company for the job. GM cannot do this technically and it cannot do it financially. Hence the GM bolt at $37500. Priced not to sell. PR stunt, sledging exercise. Timewaste.
The only winner in the GM Bolt deal is LG - it got GM to pay for it to validate and road test its EV R&D program. LG would be the company to watch as a future EV maker. There is no solution to the Innovator's Dilemma for GM, it will go bust (again) as a result of the transition to EVs, rapidly and guaranteed. The Ford family might have a chance to set up a Newco EV maker with Google that would have first dibs to the bankruptcy assets of the Ford Motor Company. That would be a valid solution to the Innovator's dilemma. I understand that the Quandt family is independently getting into batteries, that could also be a valid solution to the Innovator's Dilemma too regards absorbing the bankruptcy assets of BMW. GM does not have the private ownership structure that contains anyone with the will to see past GM as an engine maker. Just a bunch of execs who will serve until the golden parachute and either retire or go work somewhere else. VW and Toyota are too intertwined with their respective national governments to behave like private companies too and their big hopes of a lifeline from China, India, Africa and South America I think will be dashed owing to the fact that these economies are not so deeply intertwined with ICE that they cannot simply leapfrog to new technology adoption all the faster as soon as the cost advantages become self evident. Those cost advantages will become self evident with autonomous EV fleet. Starting now it is a nonsense to invest in a new ICE vehicle manufacturing plant. By the time it opens five years from now, its products will be worthless within the following five years. Large scale business when that scale is tied to assets producing engines (assets ripe to be stranded) is absolutely no defense and no advantage. Permission to use Tesla's patents is no advantage because using them will stand ICE assets all the faster.
Tesla is deep into developing a private independent, go anywhere transportation technology, a complete replacement for the private ownership of a vehicle that can get you from any A to any B in your own privacy. This a service that anyone can calculate that Tesla is able to deliver at $0.06 per mile at cost, all in. That includes the vehicle build-cost amortization, the energy, the maintenance, the insurance and the finance. You can hardly sell gasoline at a profit at $0.06 per mile having gone to the effort of mining crude, refining it and delivering it to a fuel retailer - nothing left to produce or buy an ICE car with let alone maintain it. Meanwhile Tesla has a steady cadence of evolutionary vehicle sales and R&D to get to that revolutionary tipping point.
For those that require an analogy, there is SpaceX. First the evolutionary advancements undercutting the old-guard on price and performance of commercial launch and a business model for launching satellites while working on re-usability. Then the revolutionary improvement of landing and reusing rockets and the services that such a move enables - like launching a global satellite broadband internet practically for free with rocket cores left over from profitable commercial launch sales. SpaceX reusability makes programs like developing the Arianne 6 to compete on cost with the Falcon 9.0 completely pointless.
ICE and gasoline is dead man walking with absolute mathematical certainty. As Elon is apt to point out: A company is just a group of people gathered to create a product or service and to the extent that the product or service is useful the company deserves to succeed. GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, VW are groups of people gathered to make engines. As that product becomes useless over the coming decade the purpose of those groups (those companies) will end and will be superseded by groups of people gathered to make something useful instead. In that regard Tesla will be joined in the auto market by diverse companies from electronics and software makers to battery makers and pure startups. The only absolute disqualification from participating in the future of automotive is to be running a corporation that is beholden to the Internal Combustion Engine in the present.
This is why I find the bull/bear debate surrounding TSLA to be so completely asinine.
Before all the others? Looking at announcements from various car makers, I wouldn't be so sure.
At least Hyundai, GM and Nissan should beat the Model3 to market. Other existing players like BMW and VW will also increase the battery range of their cars to 150-200 miles to stay competitive.
And few people believe Tesla can actually release the Model3 in "late 2017". I still think the Model3 will be delayed by 1-2 years (not the reveal in March 2016, but the actual on sale date in volume production).
Mods: please move this discussion to the long-term or BEV competition threads. tftf loves to visit our forums and write about hypothetical General Motors products which is fine, but the discussion of this does not belong in the Short-Term TSLA price movements thread.
You seem to be very sure that we will have EVs from other car makers by 2020 too while all we have is pie in the sky concepts and vapor statements. I place more reliance on Tesla powerpoints than other car companies cars simply because Tesla delivers, often late, but always delivers. When Tesla says the Model 3 will be competitive with the BMW 3 series, we have reason to believe them. GM Bolt is not even in the same segment as the BMW 3 series so I'm not sure why it is a Model 3 competitor other than being electric. While the Model S is the best selling car in the USA in it's price/segment - what is GMs history for that? Volt in the Corolla/Civic segment - where does that stand? Where do you think the Bolt will stand in the Fit/Sonic segment? Will it outsell the Fit/Sonic/Yaris or whatever. Will dealers sell me the car without my creating a fuss?
Also, when Tesla unveils the Model 3 in March, will the people considering a Bolt vs Model 3 hold off on getting the Bolt? Even if everything you say is right and the Bolt is fantastic and will sell like gangbusters, what does that mean for the Model 3? If Model 3 sales are a conservative 5X Model S sales, the US alone can absorb 100k Model 3s. I dont see how the Bolt or any other car will affect Model 3 sales. At best what we see is a transformation from ICE to electric going faster and the rising tide lifts all boats. At worst we will see non-Tesla EVs fail until everyone builds out a proper charging network. Either way it is good for Tesla
Keep also in mind this minivan seems to be taller and wider than the existing VW Sharan and about 2 inches shorter. So it seats 7 then I suppose, no... it seats 4! What kind of packaging efficiency does that showcase, in a concept car no less. I'd rather go for the Model X if I want a minivan. It seems the X90D goes about the same length and has 3 more seats, and propably MUCH better performance.
Cobos
Cobos
Similar threads
