Tesla BEV Competition Developments

[SBenson]

TFTF (and others who rave competitors), You seem to know a lot about competition as you say that Model 3 will enter an over crowded EV market and thus won't make any money.

SO, genuine question, is there even a *single* competitor with a *single* *prototype* that has 250+ mile range capability?

AFAIK, there isn't one. So what is stopping the competitors from building a few prototypes to showcase their capabilities? And what are you basing your predictions on? press-releases? Sorry if you already addressed this and I missed the full debate. The forum is dense, can't keep up with all conversations.

 

[SBenson]

The FF skateboard is exactly what any manufacturer would opt to do if it was unconstrained by the need to avoid competing with ICE vehicles. The variability of it speaks to a philosophy of seeking to amortize R&D over a range of options as opposed to seeking a design optimization for a specific role.

Tesla's philosophy on the other hand is to tackle tough engineering challenges head-on as a method of adding novel value and gaining competitive advantage. The same philosophy is more self-evident at SpaceX.

This may seem like a trivial difference but it isn't.

Vehicles as good as a Model S or a Model X don't just happen as a result of pouring a bigger battery into any platform until it achieves a desired range. As the battery weight goes up the vehicle performance, efficiency and handling goes down and the cost goes up. If the cell-level energy density goes up to compensate then the safety profile and the cycle life typically goes down and the cost goes up. If you simply wait for a low cost, long cycle life, high energy density, excellent safety profile cell to show up on the market then sure you can make a vehicle like a Model S, just ten years later. The real work (genuine innovation) starts at the intersection of competing design priorities like this.

Anyone can set out to do a CAD drawing of the FF platform or even to produce one and anyone can run the math to prove to themselves that an AI EV with a million mile service life pulling 300 Wh per mile average will wipe out the economics of gasoline. So far nobody is even close to Tesla's execution of that future in reality. FF is simply on the right track (which is way better than most). How they cope with the hard work between having the right idea and producing something that works both engineering wise and economically and in a timely fashion remains to be seen. The chance of FF producing a vehicle that a consumer would purchase in preference to a Tesla is I think extremely low indeed, and that will hamper them severely unless they can somehow avoid direct competition with Tesla by for example taking on the hard work of tackling a particular vehicle type that Tesla is not tackling or selling a service or into some niche where Tesla is not selling. An off-road vehicle or a Chinese government block-buy contract for example. Whether they are smart enough for that remains to be seen. The variable platform thing seems to suggest a desire to take shortcuts at a time when it is possible to get established with solid technical foundations and that does not bode extremely well to my mind. I think the default outcome for FF is to become a design workshop for third parties. If they want to become a vehicle or transit service brand in their own right (i.e. anything like Tesla) then there is work ahead both in engineering and in terms of management that was not on display at CES.

Julian, Thanks for the insightful reply. It resonates with what Musk says. He said in a number of interviews that it's not just about how much energy you can pack in a battery but also how well you spend it (compares with bank accounts). So a highly optimised custom solution is the only option to create cars with great range at somewhat reasonable prices at this point. I guess FF is hoping for batteries to somehow evolve to a point where capacity or any other constraints don't matter. Are they actively doing anything to make it happen is anybody's guess. So they are effectively quite far away from producing anything real. And a lot of their business plan simply seems to rely on 'hope'.

 

[adiggs]

Julian, Thanks for the insightful reply. It resonates with what Musk says. He said in a number of interviews that it's not just about how much energy you can pack in a battery but also how well you spend it (compares with bank accounts). So a highly optimised custom solution is the only option to create cars with great range at somewhat reasonable prices at this point. I guess FF is hoping for batteries to somehow evolve to a point where capacity or any other constraints don't matter. Are they actively doing anything to make it happen is anybody's guess. So they are effectively quite far away from producing anything real. And a lot of their business plan simply seems to rely on 'hope'.

Using this view of things, it sounds to me like FF is building the solution today, for the problem of tomorrow where battery technology has improved so much, that we all have as much as we want and though we're willing to take "more" battery (more kwh stored at the same weight and volume and reliability etc..), we're no longer willing to pay more for those kwh. Think hard drive industry today, where we can buy bigger and bigger hard drives, but the amount of incremental demand for 3TB drives over 2TB drives is low, and the increased price we're willing to pay for that extra TB is awfully low.

Clearly with battery tech and EVs, we're not there today, nor are we in danger of seeing it anytime soon. One data point - at 900 wh/mile for towing a big boat at highway speeds, I'd want a 500 kwh battery ideally (instead of 90 kwh). Battery technology has a LONG ways to go to provide 500 kwh in the same package (cost, weight, volume) as today's 90 kwh battery pack.

I do believe that time will come, but I'd say FF is comfortably decades ahead of themselves. Today while the technology is far from adequate (cost, utility) for the vast majority of the market, successful solutions are custom and vertically integrated solutions, where the vertical integrator controls all of the interfaces and can optimize them jointly to squeeze as much performance out of each one as can be done.

 

[roblab]

Using this view of things, it sounds to me like FF is building the solution today, for the problem of tomorrow where battery technology has improved so much, that we all have as much as we want and though we're willing to take "more" battery (more kwh stored at the same weight and volume and reliability etc..), we're no longer willing to pay more for those kwh. Think hard drive industry today, where we can buy bigger and bigger hard drives, but the amount of incremental demand for 3TB drives over 2TB drives is low, and the increased price we're willing to pay for that extra TB is awfully low.

Clearly with battery tech and EVs, we're not there today, nor are we in danger of seeing it anytime soon. One data point - at 900 wh/mile for towing a big boat at highway speeds, I'd want a 500 kwh battery ideally (instead of 90 kwh). Battery technology has a LONG ways to go to provide 500 kwh in the same package (cost, weight, volume) as today's 90 kwh battery pack.

I do believe that time will come, but I'd say FF is comfortably decades ahead of themselves. Today while the technology is far from adequate (cost, utility) for the vast majority of the market, successful solutions are custom and vertically integrated solutions, where the vertical integrator controls all of the interfaces and can optimize them jointly to squeeze as much performance out of each one as can be done.

Well, I disagree. Relying on hope is not building anything, and hoping on the future is not building anything. Hoping battery costs will come down is nothing like building a battery factory where you can MAKE the costs come down.

Your comparison to a hard drive is the wrong direction. Try comparing to batteries, as in smart phones. I can't tell you how often I am talking to someone when they say their phone battery is low so they can't look something up. I paid extra for a battery that will last a couple days, and it doesn't, but it's a whale of a lot longer than having to plug in whenever you're in your car so you can use it another few hours.

Clearly, with battery tech and EVs, we ARE there today. Tesla seems to be able to do it. FF is FFantasizing. GM is scared. Nissan is trying.

I'm also sure you'd want a 500 kWh battery, but I'm curious how big the engine is in your car. I'd bet that most people opt for the minimum they need instead of the maximum. And again, there are not very many that absolutely must haul a boat at freeway speeds (I am reading 70 mph here, where in reality they should be going 55). You don't buy a Porsche Panamera and then haul a boat with it. The X is way better, but it doesn't have to do everything at one third the current price.

I think Tesla is facing reality quite well and actually doing something with it.

 

[lango]

The new BEV platform VW is developing I think is significant. They only have few (two?) major platforms now. I expect them to not undercut it in favour of the ICE platform and put significant resources behind.

This particular concept car does not mean much if anything, though.

However, even if they manage to make a really good platform for BEV, they will still have the battery supply problem, the problem how to position these vehicles in relation to ICE/Hybrids and the problem with the long-term range charging. There is also the potential problem (which I think is not that big of a problem) with the dealer network wanting to sell ICE/Hybrids.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The new BEV platform VW is developing I think is significant. They only have few (two?) major platforms now. I expect them to not undercut it in favour of the ICE platform and put significant resources behind.

This particular concept car does not mean much if anything, though.

VW said as much. The platform ideas they will use, but they say they are not planning to make this particular concept into a production vehicle. However, that is par for the course for large automakers and appropriate for them to do such concept car unveilings (much worse is when VW promises production and then cancels as they have done many times in the past).

The problem with Faraday Future is they chose to do that in their first unveiling, which was not received well (gives a strong impression of vaporware).

 

[farzyness]

Chevy Bolt - around $30k after incentives, 200 mile range, 80% in 60 minutes.

http://jalopnik.com/2017-chevrolet-bolt-meet-americas-30-000-200-mile-ele-1751426729

 

[adiggs]

Well, I disagree. Relying on hope is not building anything, and hoping on the future is not building anything. Hoping battery costs will come down is nothing like building a battery factory where you can MAKE the costs come down.

Your comparison to a hard drive is the wrong direction. Try comparing to batteries, as in smart phones. I can't tell you how often I am talking to someone when they say their phone battery is low so they can't look something up. I paid extra for a battery that will last a couple days, and it doesn't, but it's a whale of a lot longer than having to plug in whenever you're in your car so you can use it another few hours.

Clearly, with battery tech and EVs, we ARE there today. Tesla seems to be able to do it. FF is FFantasizing. GM is scared. Nissan is trying.

I'm also sure you'd want a 500 kWh battery, but I'm curious how big the engine is in your car. I'd bet that most people opt for the minimum they need instead of the maximum. And again, there are not very many that absolutely must haul a boat at freeway speeds (I am reading 70 mph here, where in reality they should be going 55). You don't buy a Porsche Panamera and then haul a boat with it. The X is way better, but it doesn't have to do everything at one third the current price.

I think Tesla is facing reality quite well and actually doing something with it.

You're misunderstanding my point Rob - we're in agreement. I think you misread my comments as being applied to Tesla - they are not; they are my interpretation of how FF sees and is approaching the world. My point is that FF is attempting today, to solve the business problem of some guessed at future where battery tech is so improved over today's battery tech, that you can have whatever sized battery you want; that bigger batteries are available but the extra storage is irrelevant in individual consumer's eyes (the evidence being they will take the bigger battery if it's provided, but they won't pay for it). That's the analogy to the hard drive industry of today - I'll take a 3TB drive if that's all that's available, but I won't pay more for it than the 2TB drive. Actually, improve the performance a fair bit, and I'll drop all the way down to 500GB and go SSD, because 500GB is enough raw storage space, and the speed is more valuable.

To be clear how I see today's market, consumers are indeed demanding more and better battery tech. Tesla is the evidence for it - today we want ~90 kwh battery packs instead of 20 kwh packs, and consumers are paying for them. The Model X towing video posted by Max points at a path where a 500 kwh battery pack has utility, at least for a towing subset of the market. Market consumers are screaming out their demand for more capacity and reliable fast charging networks, and the only suppliers that is providing supply for that demand is Tesla. The market as a whole isn't providing.

You can identify markets where the technology is inadequate to the need when you see consumers buying as far up the feature curve as they can afford. When I look at Tesla, that is precisely the market that I see; the evidence I use with that observation is the large number of people (whether a significant minority or majority, the point is the same) that have never previously, and given a choice, wouldn't dream of spending $100k for a car. But they do spend that for a Tesla. (And a similar dynamic in the used Tesla market, with people that wouldn't spend $50k for a car, finding a way to afford $60k worth of CPO / used Tesla).


I agree that relying on hope isn't building anything. I agree that designing today, to solve the business problem that will exist in decades, is a business plan that is doomed to fail - likely with nothing brought to market that can be used.

FF is using the wrong business plan for the market that exists today. Their business plan will, I believe, someday be relevant. If they don't shift gears fast, it'll be somebody else putting that business plan to work decades down the road.


I agree that Tesla is facing reality quite well and doing something with it. I'd say they're the only ones doing so, really. They are dealing with the market as it exists today, and in doing so, they are better defining and creating that market.


This view of markets is drawn from the Innovator's Dilemma and Innovator's Solution - especially the latter.

 

[dakh]

The critical parameter to EV transition is specific energy and price of batteries. Remember the big three makes the most profit off of truck sales and we're pretty far from having batteries that enable building such vehicles.

At the same time cheaper batteries make it much easier to build a compelling EV. At a certain price/density we'll enter commodization stage. Tesla's value is in solving a hard problem. If we had cheap and very energy dense batteries that problem would no longer qualify as being hard.

In a way, from the investment perspective, Tesla would probably do better if battery tech doesn't have any substantial leaps any time soon.

 

[ScepticMatt]

Posted yet?

Mercedes Ecolux project has gotten the greenlight. They will spend $2b for four car models.
The platform is now known as "electric vehicle architecture (EVA)". Derivative of MRA platform.

Anyway, more info here:

Mercedes signs off four electric Tesla fighters by CAR Magazine

Sources have revealed the latest developments: the first car will come to market a year earlier than originally planned, as Mercedes seeks to keep pace with Porsche and Audi’s electric production cars arriving 2018, the Mission E and Q6 e-Tron.

The final internal hurdles have also been cleared, with the electric vehicle architecture – logically dubbed EVA – approved by the board. The launch cycle has also changed: the two midsize vehicles have been given priority, rather than the supersized SUV that was originally set to kick off the programme.

[...]

 

[techmaven]

Posted yet?

Mercedes Ecolux project has gotten the greenlight. They will spend $2b for four car models.
The platform is now known as "electric vehicle architecture (EVA)". Derivative of MRA platform.

Anyway, more info here:

Mercedes signs off four electric Tesla fighters by CAR Magazine

Starting at $102k? Sized between a C class and an E class?

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Ars Technica's first drive article on the Bolt is posted:

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/01/chevrolets-bolt-is-an-electric-vehicle-for-the-masses-and-weve-driven-it/

My take:

It's actually a big relief to read that the Bolt is actually a real, useful car, rather than the alarmingly crazy (and ultimately disappointing) vehicle that Faraday hyped up on Monday. I see a number of parallels between the Bolt and the LEAF, notably that both are front-wheel drive hatchbacks built on a skateboard battery platform. The LEAF is pretty useful at carrying stuff, due to it being a hatchback, but its range (80-100 miles) has been a weakness, along with batteries that did not seem to fare all that well in hot temperatures.

The Bolt cures the range issue. In a LEAF, even if one only drove 40-50 miles/day, that leaves little margin for error if one needs to go for an unexpected errand and/or the weather isn't cooperating. The Bolt's 200 mile theoretical range gives a comfortable safety net. Without knowing more about the battery architecture, it's difficult to know how the pack will fare in the long haul, but I'm guessing that GM and their partners at LG are probably smart enough to learn from Nissan's mistakes.

vs. mainstream vehicles, the Bolt should sell just fine. No, it's not a looker, but neither are crossovers like its Chevy Trax cousin or the Honda CR-V (quite ugly, yet a top seller nearly every year).

vs. Tesla, the Bolt simply isn't sexy enough to get people who want something sleek and beautiful. This is not a car that stirs people to want it. It is like a Honda Fit: good at being useful & carry stuff.


Now, the caveats:

37.5k before federal tax credit is expensive upfront for a base model, which will likely have cloth seats and lack some options. People in the market for a small family crossover might not even have enough federal tax liability to take full advantage of the credit. I would guess that the kind of customer who will go for a Bolt would be an upper-middle class family that is eco-minded, can afford entry luxury prices, and has a second car for long range trips. Think the kind of people who bought a Prius 12 years ago: interested in a techy car with the utility of a hatch, enough space for people, and willing to pay a premium, but not too much.

The only issue I really see with the Bolt is that it will not be suitable for long-distance travel anytime soon. 1 hour to 80% charge is ok, but (1) a charging network isn't in place and I don't see good plans for stations along major travel routes (2) still too slow. Above 30 minutes to +150 miles begins to seem inconvenient.

Conclusion: potential to be the new "Prius". Toyota should be alarmed... the simply Mirai won't do against the Bolt. Nissan, your move.

 

[FluxCap]

Hmm.

Have they tested real-world range yet to verify these 200mile claims? Are they able to make more than a handful of these in a year? Will dealers actually allow them to be sold, breaking with years of precedent of downselling EV's? Can LG Chem deliver enough batteries for more than a few thousand or so of these cars per year? Can the car's software be upgraded in realtime? Can it drive itself autonomously? Is it as safe as a Tesla? Will GM fund a Supercharger network to enable long-range travel? Do people really want a Chevy Sonic for the price of a BMW 3-Series? Are dealers equipped to service the car?

I'd love a credible threat. This is not it. If Tesla made this car, it would do so for $20k before incentives.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Hmm.

Have they tested real-world range yet to verify these 200mile claims? Are they able to make more than a handful of these in a year? Will dealers actually allow them to be sold, breaking with years of precedent of downselling EV's? Can LG Chem deliver enough batteries for more than a few thousand or so of these cars per year? Can the car's software be upgraded in realtime? Can it drive itself autonomously? Is it as safe as a Tesla? Will GM fund a Supercharger network to enable long-range travel? Do people really want a Chevy Sonic for the price of a BMW 3-Series? Are dealers equipped to service the car?

I'd love a credible threat. This is not it. If Tesla made this car, it would do so for $20k before incentives.

I don't believe this car was ever designed or meant to be a credible threat to Tesla. The lamestream media will do their best to say this is competition, but Model S/X are in a completely different performance/size/utility category than the Bolt, which is basically a small CUV like the Chevy Trax.

The design and performance all say to me that this is meant to upstage Nissan's leadership in the mainstream segment, and steal Toyota's green crown while Toyota is distracted with the Mirai. If GM really wanted to compete with Tesla, they would have built a BEV with Cadillac CTS and CTS-V level performance. They didn't do that.

 

[Saghost]

I don't believe this car was ever designed or meant to be a credible threat to Tesla. The lamestream media will do their best to say this is competition, but Model S/X are in a completely different performance/size/utility category than the Bolt, which is basically a small CUV like the Chevy Trax.

The design and performance all say to me that this is meant to upstage Nissan's leadership in the mainstream segment, and steal Toyota's green crown while Toyota is distracted with the Mirai. If GM really wanted to compete with Tesla, they would have built a BEV with Cadillac CTS and CTS-V level performance. They didn't do that.

Well, I don't think this was intended to be a credible threat to the Model S or Model X. I agree with most of your analysis, but I do think GM is very much hoping to steal the march on the Model 3 and capture as much of that market segment as they can. If they build a credible DCFC network to add to what seems to be a very competent little car (though no one has said anything about driving aids that I can find,) they might manage to make a pretty big dent, too.

It'll be interesting to see how the 3 stacks up compared to the Bolt (prototype reveal is supposed to be this spring, right?)
Walter

 

[stopcrazypp]

GM made so not so subtle jabs at Tesla when they unveiled the concept. However, I remember an executive later distanced the car from Tesla saying it was in its own segment (mini SUV). The moderate 30k volume isn't going to threaten Tesla, plenty of room in the market for that kind of volume.

 

[green1]

If they build a credible DCFC network to add to what seems to be a very competent little car (though no one has said anything about driving aids that I can find,) they might manage to make a pretty big dent, too.

I believe GM has been on record specifically stating that they aren't going to be in the charging station business, they hope the free market (or government) will take care of that part for them. Coming from an ICE world where they never had to build a gas station, I see where they're coming from, but if they really want to sell vehicles I think someone needs to work on the charging situation and it sure isn't going to be blink...

 

[AudubonB]

They also, according to Reuters, have no interest in being in the over-the-air upgrade business: GM says will not use 'over-the-air' upgrades on safety systems - Yahoo Finance

I read that as GM looking after #1 (who is not them, rather is their customers: franchise dealers)

 

[ggies07]

They also, according to Reuters, have no interest in being in the over-the-air upgrade business: GM says will not use 'over-the-air' upgrades on safety systems - Yahoo Finance

I read that as GM looking after #1 (who is not them, rather is their customers: franchise dealers)

haha, love it. You'll probably get post cards in the mail that say it's time for your software upgrade, only $29.99! But you have to stop by the dealership........*a certain hand motion*

Meanwhile The S,X, 3, and Y are getting them in someone else's garage.

How could she stand up there and talk about GM knowing "what customers want" and being "part of the next evolution" of transportation without this feature!?!

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Starting at $102k? Sized between a C class and an E class?

Looks like the FOMO effect is kicking in. Mercedes Benz doesn't want to be left behind by Audi. Will BMW follow (and no, an "i5" that is a stretched i3 doesn't count!!!).