It's a Tesla
stratechery.com
stratechery.com
> As Pam Fletcher, GM’s executive chief engineer for electric vehicles, recently put it to me with a confident grin: “Who wants to be second?”
Yah but... it's a GM.
I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade. It is a chrome lined bucket of bolts. If they can't do this right how can they do a $25k car right? As I type this my GM is in the shop RN with a hard to reproduce transmission issue. Oh and it cost as much as a Model S. o_O
OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured anything I've ever sat in. It boggles my mind why anyone would buy a second GM. They've had enough time to get it right. Instead they've a consistent track record of mediocrity with an epic failure about every decade.
Tesla tho...
All I can say is, the people baffled by Tesla's success can't have spent much time behind the wheel of a Model S. I didn't realize how much cars suck, even luxury cars, till I spent a day driving an S up and down the PCH.
That is one anecdotal. A much more interesting one is that Tesla is so bad at QC that even the most die-hard Tesla fans are now building checklists to do the quality control that the factory skimped on [1].
It is also rather silly to compare Tesla interior/exterior design or reliability with the big three - it is well known that they are good at neither. Pick a Lexus or a Honda/Acura or an Audi or a Mercedes and see what you get for your money there...
[1] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/model-x-delivery-che...
I'll save you some time ...
The interior of the lowest end BMW/Merc/Audi cars (3series/C-Class/A4) are so much nicer than the interior of a model S so as to be stupefying.
When it comes to the car hardware (besides the battery-thing) the Model S is a rather meager bang-for-buck deal.
I hope for Tesla that they can iterate on that hardware aspect as well as they do on the software part. The quality and looks as well as the manufacturing process are still the bread and butter of old giants.
What I'd like: Put a tesla engine in a car with quality interior (european/asian brands) and quality exterior (european brands/mazda), maybe their software too least for its "evergreen" update scheme - but keep the touchpad away from me unless it dims out in the dark and offers me haptic response.
Personally, I've always felt sports car companies---Porsche, Ferrari, and Mazda for a low-end comparison---all have interiors that feel far less luxurious than any luxury car available for 1/3rd the price, and many family cars of 1/2 the price.
Porsche didn't have cup holders until their 2001 editions, and as an unfortunate owner of one, I can attest those are the flimsiest cupholders ever to grace the face of the earth, and the entire interior is filled with so much fiddly plastic that's just waiting to break and often does. Any Mercedes, even one from 10 years previous, would have a nicer interior.
Did that prevent me from buying another Porsche? Well, no it didn't. I like the way the cars drive, and eschew luxury features if their weight is going to do anything to the handling or performance of the car.
You probably don't like how Model S handles (it's pretty heavy), but maybe you'll like the eventual 2-seater built on the Model 3 platform.
You can choose a drive train that has been more-or-less unchanged for many decades, with all the money spent on the interior, or you can choose a revolutionary drive train, with a basic interior.
It's simply your choice.
You can, for some models, but often not any more. Modern drivetrains include dual-clutch transmissions, which have only appeared in the last 10 years (despite actually being invented before WWII).
>with all the money spent on the interior,
Not really. A lot has been spent on combustion engine efficiency, for instance. I drive a twelve-year-old Renault Megane, not a wasteful car at all at its time, but new ones consume at least 30 % less gasoline.
Of course I'm biased. Owned six Volvos. Always thought you couldn't buy a better interior. Simple tactile controls. Best seats in the business. And I loved the waterfall console in the three that had it.
I think I'm over cars for the most part, but if anything could tempt me it'd be the new S90. Makes a Model S interior look like cheap junk at half the price.
Can you share more evidence to justify that claim? Not that I have any reason specifically to doubt it, but this seems like it warrants a lifetime analysis of the expected manufacturing and repair costs of Teslas.
If in the past years manufacturers had to cheat on emissions in order to present improvements to performance numbers, then there doesn't seem to be much innovation or the tech has stagnated.
On the other hand, there seems to be lots of room for improvement/innovation on the electric side.
The cheating is rather insignificant when compared to the actual decline in emissions over couple past decades.
Internal combustion engines have become more efficient all the time; there is a lot that has been developed there over the years.
Many of those things, such as the material technology, probably benefit also electric vehicles. Tesla as we know it wouldn't be possible without the pile of innovations done with combustion engine cars.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/18/many-awards-tesla-won-in...
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-tes...
This article alone turns most Tesla enthusiasts into apologists immediately. Its a revolutionary drive train, no one has done this before, that's why its having issues. Or we can expect Tesla to fix the issues, or whatever.
Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Tesla is performing awfully in practical long-term tests. IE: apologists, as opposed to enthusiasts.
Yet a staggering 98% of the Mode S owners said they would buy the car again [1]. Can you name a single product that has that kind of loyalty? I've never driven a tesla, but clearly something very different is happening in the automotive industry other than Fanboism.
1. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/12/owner-satisfactio...
[1] I don't know if there are others. But I count on others not knowing either.
I drive Model S. I don’t want to drive anything else ever, because the quality (of driving, of UI, the way service treats you) is superb. I’m damn motivated to earn enough to afford it, or at least Model 3, because my experience is that no other manufacturer gets it or is capable of making a decent driver UI — and yes, that includes Audis or BMWs.
I'll give Tesla a pass on door handles because I've replaced them on my Cadillac 3 times. Also body panels jiggle, buttons stick, fluids leak, electrical problems, should I keep going? Is there any equivalence here?
It amazes me that we can put an SUV sized robot on Mars but Cadillac can't make a car the bumper doesn't fall off of.
You realize that your Escalade would cost millions of dollars if it were produced to the same standard as Curiosity, right? It really is amazing that we can put an SUV sized robot on Mars, but aside from approximate volume, Mars rovers really have nothing at all to do with consumer vehicles.
(Not that it proves anything, ask Harrison Schmitt about the fenders)
That's abysmal. And from your story, it sounds like you could've done a lot worse than to pick up a subscription no?
Look, I'm not a CR fanboy. I only signed up to check out ratings on induction cooktops. Turns out, there doesn't appear to be any (they basically just rate the spec-sheet, no actual reviews AFAIK).
So this discussion is the first time I've used it it's been good for anything. While they may not be perfect, they buy a vehicle, test it, run surveys. I'm not aware of any recent scandals. You're going to have to try harder to discredit them since you're not actually offering an alternative.
No, you shouldn't. We get it, your current car is a lemon and you consider the Tesla, a car which you don't even own but drove for one day, to be of superior quality.
What exactly are you arguing?
Time will tell tell if they have long term reliability.
Everything from greatly diminished range (which is already well documented) to the drivers screen not working, or working intermittently and other weird stuff my friends attributed to cold weather.
Not sure which parts of MN and ND your friend lives in, but north-central MN like Bemidji or Grand Forks, ND are actually some of the coldest parts of the country.
Nothing about that weather is mildly anything.
ND and MN also sometimes reach -20F, but the problems may (or may not) require so much cold to reproduce.
He's basing that on his perception that Tesla is working out the quality control issues. I'm not in the market for a Chevy or a Tesla - key switch recalls come to mind for one and fit, finish versus price for the other.
Have tried out a full-option Audi A8 or an S-Class or 7 series? During my time in the US I was shocked by the bad interior quality of GM.
Apart from the actual software running on the cars, I think German manufacturers still have very high quality interior in their flagship models.
RE: Software: Current Audis take ~15 secs to boot up the navigation, and during that period you cannot input anything / the screen just hangs.
It's true the interior of the Tesla is spare, but you could also call it clean. The Mercedes S550 has higher quality materials, but the interior is pretty busy/glitzy I think. BMW is also quite high quality materials, and cleaner design than the Mercedes. Tesla materials are not as nice, I have to say.
However:
1. Both the BMW and Mercedes infotainment systems are _profoundly_ clunky compared to the Tesla. Tesla is far, far ahead - not only with the 17" screen, but also UI. Cannot overemphasize this. The Tesla is a pleasure to use & they are clearly working to minimize # of clicks to get a task done - when will BMW get a clue about this??
2. When you press the pedal, the Model S accelerates _right now_. It is like piloting a UFO: car was there; now car is here. This makes the driving experience totally different in traffic. You see an opening in traffic, and pow, you can take it. It's frustrating to drive a gas car after getting used to this. Likewise handling is excellent - the weight of the battery placed so low in the car makes it stick to the road like a go cart. I used to have a BMW M3... so much noise and fuss to accelerate! In the Tesla, it's silent, you just pull away from people effortlessly. I think Tesla is actually under-marketing the driveability. It is not even the 0-60 time that matters: it's the very low latency.
During university there were always these huge talks about the engineering excellence needed for all the fancy embedded systems, but once you get in touch with these systems it leaves a bad taste.
For example with current Audi, if you put it into reverse, the camera pops up and then picture freezes for ~2 seconds.
In every talk with salesmen from the three large German brands I ask about the software issues, but they don't even notice it.
I really feel a lack of focus on UX.
(You could replace "embedded systems" with "human-computer interaction" - car industry was always the big example but once you get more experienced you see they are all hustling, and badly..)
I've owned a bunch of mercedeses over the year and they've generally been pretty good, though expensive to fix when something does go wrong.
My mini, by contrast, has a "sport" button. The documentation says "makes the car more sporty". The current "S" models have a turbocharger not a supercharger. 40% of the manual is on the entertainment system. I think these are all great.
(Of course at the end of the day that mini is a BMW so has all the fit and finish problems I experienced with BMWs before I gave up on them. Fun to drive but never again!)
I did some IT forensics on Mercedes models a couple of years ago, and you could retrace the bad guys' routes by looking at the exception log of their Windows CE navigation software. It had an exception ~5 minutes, and always dumping the stack including the filename of the currently played audio file that told the current road to the driver.
The horrible thing I have learned from car shopping during the past year is that all manufaturers are just repackaging the components delivered by continental. If you buy the premium options at Audi or Volvo, you basically get the same component from a third party. There is no secret sauce in the car apart from the engine and the navigation software, and they screwed up both big time.
The good news is this increases commoditization of the car business.
It's getting a little OT but I'm generally curious about what those problems might be in Mini's case. A close friend wants to buy a second-hand Mini One, I've heard they've got issues, I was curious what those issues might be. I've also heard they're very entertaining to drive, too.
"fit and finish" -- the interior trim on one side pillars didn't match (on the other it butted cleanly). Button finish wore off after a short time. And the brakes, timing belt, high pressure fuel pump all wore out rapidly. You could argue that the brakes could be user failure (riding the brakes) except no other car I had had the same problem, and my clutch didn't show the same problem (which is a correlated "naive driver" failure). Rear inside trim (from the back doors -- I have a clubman) keeps falling off.
I only owned two BMWs, though they both had similar problems. Then I picked my dad up at the airport -- turned out he had the same car with all the identical problems. That was the end of it for me.
I assume you can just turn the navigation off in a BMW so that it doesn't prevent using the rest of the functionality.
Motor Trend's Chevy Camaro SS vs. BMW M4 review is pretty telling. They rated the $46,000 Camaro better than the $81,000 M4 in almost every category, including interior features.
Really? Even though it was still missing features that a Chevrolet had? Like satellite radio, a heated steering wheel, and ventilated seats?
You can easily get an M4 up to $90k ($100k+ if you make it a convertible).
The M4 is basically an M3 - they've been around that price range for quite a while. What else can you obtain with similar performance numbers and fit and finish for "way less money spent"?
I drove an A4 for a while and the gas response was absolutely terrible. You had to press it gently if you wanted it to respond immediately. If you gunned it or even just pressed a little quick to get across oncoming lanes -- expect about a half second delay. One of the worst cars I have driven. Taking it to the dealer the response was -- "that's normal". My boring ass accord responds to the gas pedal better than the A4. Maybe their higher end cars are better, but I wouldn't get another audi.
I'll take a few less horsepower with better responsiveness any day. I'm not trying to beat anyone in a 1/4 mile -- i'd much rather the car be enjoyable and responsive. Half a second can easily mean the difference between getting out of the way of someone coming up on you not paying attention and getting rear ended. Hopefully they got their shit together.
TL;DR: .,-' is better than ___/
There is no way to "solve" turbo lag. The compressor needs torque before it can produce boost. At the high end you can do a twin turbo. Not in an a4. And you could say something similar about having necessary power on the highway to avoid a collision.
Tldr: It's all subjective.
(It has a compressor afaik)
I love my 2014 Mazda 3's Sport Mode. When I hit that button, the engine goes from being more than adequate to chomping at the bit. It just flies. Love that thing. Paddle shifters so I can downshift without even moving my hands.
Test drive one someday, Mazda isn't kidding around with the "zoom zoom".
Whenever I drive it I end up jerking forward trying to manually compensate. I imagine if I just accepted it everything would be much smoother .
The parent's lack of throttle response is most likely due to turbo lag. Modern cars are getting better with variable vein turbos.
If your Mom's Mercedes suffers from poor throttle response I'd guess it's because she purchased one with a small engine relative to the size of the vehicle. A C230, for example, isn't the sportiest of cars. A C63, however, does not suffer from poor throttle response.
Turbo lag is a real issue too, although newer cars deal much better with it. Many newer model Audi's for example, it's hard to even identify the lag (not so true 10 or even 5 years ago).
I'm not challenging that, in general, Tesla attracts "non-car people" but the suggestion that people that buy AMGs, RSs and 911s are "car people" is nonsense. I'll give you M though.
Regardless of who buys what, because who cares.. let's compare the acceleration performance of a few (0-60 and 1/4 mi):
Tesla Model S P90D - 2.8s / 10.9s Audi RS - 3.3s / 11.5s 2016 Mercedes AMG GT S - 3.1 / 11.2 2017 Porsche 911 Turbo S - 2.8 / 11.1
These cars aren't even in the same retail category and Tesla is outperforming those that cost a lot more.
Very few 4-door cars offer what the Tesla Model S offers. It's a new brand and seen as anti-establishment, there's not many of them yet, they sell direct and they seem to communicate very well with their customers. Their software and in-car technology is great. People are reacting to many things that Tesla is doing right.
It will be interesting to see how they do as they move downward. It hasn't seemed to hurt Mercedes.
the more things change, the more things stay the same.
One aspect that is interesting to me is how Tesla will change the performance category.
The Model S is a nice looking car but it's a rather pedestrian looking car if you compare it to other cars that cost the same or more.
Yet it can beat way more expensive cars and absolutely destroy all the much less expensive tuner cars that fanboys love.
So when soccer moms and boomers everywhere can (and do) smoke these other performance cars, it becomes a rather sad reality for them. Until Tesla makes one they can afford. :)
That's why I'm kinda hoping Apple ups their game and makes car navigation work. No reason why they couldn't use smartphone hardware and just keep it in low power standby.
It's such a huge shift in mindset and operations for the incumbents they won't be able to make it. Recent models still come with a sim car slot so you can get real-time updates on the map.
I've been saying a while Tesla's competitive advantage isn't batteries or electric motors(these are pretty well understood) but in software. They can aggregate statistics across 100k+ cars and determine how people really use cars as opposed to guesses or surveys which are not nearly as accurate. Combine that with monthly/bi-monthly OTAs and you've got a good chance for disruption.
I'm not sure I'd agree. The much of the interior and door handles felt very low quality to me. Theres just too much creaking/give on a light touch.
The central console is also pretty underwhelming. It's UI is gaudy and slow. The maps stutters and lags like a cheap ass Android phone from 2010 and the display isn't particularly bright or high contrast.
I think BMW is doing the best right now. Their UI is a bit gaudy too but at least it's responsive.
Even worse in the case of Tesla as they need to drive a 1920x1200 panel which is quite a strain on the Tegra3, I'm honestly surprised it's as fluid as it is.
It may be the most expensive and grant you the most prestige among a certain cohort, but it's not the "finest". Putting a Cadillac badge and some extra features on a truck doesn't change the fact that it's a shiny wrapper on a pickup truck chassis.
Edmunds long term Tesla Model S needed its drivetrain replaced twice[1].That doesn't seem very well made to me.
[1] http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-tes...
Disclaimer: I think the Model S is a good car.
It's an unsubstantiated myth, just like the Tesla is the safest and fastest car on the road. The fact is, we don't know much about the maintenance record of these cars, because there aren't that many and they haven't been on the road long.
I wouldn't call the Model S the most well-manufactured ANYTHING. I love the car (and have money down on a 3), but, in particular, it was glaring how cheap the plastic panel on the floor between the front seats (with the rubber strips you can push out the bottom) and the flat hard plastic panel with USB sockets behind it were.
I have 2014 Volt am extremely happy, and do recommend the 2017 Volt which is a much better version retaining its original identity.
But TSLA is the darling of the press, rightfully or other wise. But at a Pound for Pound level, Gen2 Volt is an excellent choice. Unfortunately now those 250K people who reserved a Model 3 could be driving a EV right now and making an impact instead of waiting for 3 more years.
One thing is sure, Cars are not like Phones, you see People with Phones but you see People in the Cars, so once there is a bit of saturation of Model 3 on west coast, people will look around and "discover" Bolt EV or who knows may be Volt.
This is a false dichotomy. As an anecdote, I started a 3 year lease on an EV two weeks before the Model 3 was announced and still put in a reservation.
Who cares if I can get a Volt for 33k right now? It still burns dinosaurs and has a terrible electric range.
Tesla is the press "darling" because it's doing something that the other manufactures aren't: Good looking, All Electric, High Range, Affordable Price. These are things people clearly want.
Every other vehicle sacrifices at least one of those.
http://syonyk.blogspot.com/2016/03/is-tesla-building-throwaw...
I do realize that the Silicon Valley types don't care about this issue, with iPhones behind walled gardens and all that jazz (or at least, SV doesn't seem to care about it anymore... what ever happened to the vision of open source and true ownership?)... but I know plenty of people who are still interested in vehicle with open standards.
Or hell, just a vehicle that can be taken from a junkyard and then repaired in a garage. You're not allowed to take a Tesla from a junkyard and salvage it, not unless you take it to a dealership and have it "reactivated" by Tesla.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1305...
At one point when I was driving the engine came on and ran simply for maintenance because it hadn't been used for so long.
The only time I ever used gas was if I needed to drive out of state or across the state for holidays with the family. I could have bought a Leaf to go 80 miles...and then stop for the day.
Flip it into "sport" mode and you'll get a speeding ticket. Such a great car.
Unless you can afford a dedicated "commute only with no need to take on long trips" vehicle, I do not understand the appeal of fully electrics aside from status symbols.
Compared to a plug-in hybrid like the Volt, you have: more interior space, less maintenance, cheaper per-mile cost, convenience of not having to stop at gas stations, quieter, safer, etc. Sure, the Volt is a great car, and there are plenty of people I would recommend it to. But EVs are certainly not just "status symbols"; for some people they are legitimately better cars.
Speaking from experience, the Supercharger network really does make road trips a non-issue as well. I'd honestly rather stop at a Supercharger station and get a free charge while I relax and eat lunch for 20 minutes than find a smelly, expensive gas station and stand outside pumping fuel.
I count TWO Superchargers in all of South Carolina, and SEVEN Superchargers in all of North Carolina. That's... pretty awful selection.
Seriously? I'm not buying a vehicle to pretend to be an elitist and superior over my fellow citizens and neighbors.
The fact of the matter is, being forced to stop at extremely limited locations to act high-and-mighty over the "poor gas users" (who are really the typical American's who can't afford a $30k+ vehicle so get off your damn high horse) is the biggest brand of elitism I've seen this week.
There's nothing wrong with stopping at gas stations. They're common, they are convenient, they're cheap and they're close to where the action is.
If you're happy to sit on a high-horse and pretend that TWO locations in some states is sufficient for a good long-driving experience (or even if Tesla DOUBLES the amount to FOUR locations by 2020)... suit yourself. But this sounds like an utterly awful road-trip experience in my opinion.
If you haven't looked lately, look up the price of a 2014 Volt with up to 40,000 miles on it. You can get one for around $15,000 USD. If after 2 years you can get a Bolt for ~half MSRP, like you can a Volt, I'm not sure how I can resist a deal like that.
You get the battery for daily usage, and the electric generator for long trips. That's a lot more practical than waiting 30 minutes every ~200 miles on the supercharger network. GM has utterly solved the "range anxiety" problem entirely, with only a 40-mile electric battery.
There's a big difference between an electric-assist Prius and an electric-first plus Gasoline Generator Volt. The Prius is always burning gasoline, while the Volt only starts burning gas when it runs low on charge.
There's a newer model Prius (ie: Prius Prime) that has 20-miles of pure electric range, but that's not even enough to get me from home to work and back. In practice, I'd have to keep the Prius in gasoline / hybrid mode even for a daily commute.
In contrast, the Volt's 40-mile pure electric range is a big deal changer. Again, the Volt is a pure electric vehicle with a generator. The Prius is a hybrid engine (and the Prius Prime is a hybrid engine that can shut off the gasoline feed, but is still a hybrid engine nonetheless).
I'd say the standard Prius is closer to the Malibu Hybrid, or other hybrids. But the plug-in pure electric mode of the Volt (and the recent Prius Prime) almost demands a new category.
There is a role for plugin hybrids for people who have structured needs. If your commute and daily chores are fixed and do not have much variations and they fit within the AER(all electric range), PHEVs give you the best bang for the buck.
None of us have to defend a Car with excellent track record and is available against a not ready for pre-prod vehicle with evolving specs and likely delivered 3 years from now.
You are missing the point and missing it intentionally.
I like comparing the Volt to A10-warthog and Model S to F-22. I have to see Model 3 and test drive before passing judgement, I hope it is not F-35.
It's been a long time since Cadillac has been the Cadillac of cars …
I honestly don't think I'll ever buy an American car again, although I have heard from friends that Fords are pretty decent nowadays. I'm all about the Japanese cars for the foreseeable future.
Besides the whole electric car thing, there seemed to be a general opportunity in the auto industry for an upstart firm. It looks like a classic oligopoly where the incumbents got lazy.
Tesla is doing to everyone what the Japanese did to the Americans in the 70s and 80s. Outcompeting the complacent incumbents.
The Volt was excellent and really just needed some refinement on the interior consoles. Drove well. Had great pickup. Unlimited range via gas generator that gets 37 mpg if you need to take it more than the battery's 40 miles.
Love that car and still miss it.
The Tesla forums have quite a few people complaining about blown drive units, missing paint, stuck doors...this is for a low volume car.
From an outsiders view, I'm not sure your experience with 1 GM and 0 Teslas is relevant.
I feel the same way. Thought briefly about getting a new Corvette. Have had several 911's and other Porsches. Just can't wrap my head around buying a Chevy. When I was a kid it was all the rage (long long time ago). So was Porsche for that matter and Mercedes had just broken into the luxury market here (mid 70's).
(And just like every other car out there, the in-dash software sucks, but that's mitigated by it having Car Play.)
Car and Driver had a bit of a problem with their long-term Z51 (the one i would option out - no one needs 650hp) http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-corvette-...
I'm not sure I would get a used one, but hopefully they've got the bugs worked out by now.
(Full disclosure: I'd spend my 50k on a gently-used Evora S)
With that said, I personally chose to spend more for a very boisterous German muscle car...
No comment on how much other roads suck, after a day driving up and down the PCH? More seriously, do you think spending the day on the PCH colored your perception of the Tesla?
I did reserve a Model 3.
Of course, I don't know if that really counts as bias, since sitting in traffic is actually a representative task.
I drove a 2013 Nissan Leaf that I took into the shop because the main 12V fuse (seat heaters and dash lights, but not the instrument cluster) blew reliably every time I remotely warmed the car up with front and rear seat heaters enabled while plugged into my 240v charger. 4 times. It was obviously a short somewhere but they'd just replace the fuse and tell me they couldn't reproduce it. I did lemon that vehicle.
I had a 2015 Mazda 3 for a few months but meh. Nice car, but after the cavernous cargo space of the leaf I really grew to resent the sloped roofline and limited cargo of the Mazda 3. Reliable for the short time I had it though.
Now I drive a 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 Denali. The EGR valve disintegrated in the first month and left debris in the #1 cylinder. I made them replace the engine and extend the powertrain warranty. They also threw in an under-the-rear-seat organizer I didn't feel like paying $500 as a dealer installed option previously. "I bought a new truck with a new engine. Not a new truck with a rebuilt engine."
For the scope of that job I walked away impressed with how quickly they resolved it, (two weeks total; I think 4 days after ordering the engine, which had to be shipped by rail from Michigan) and with such little arguing/hassle compared to Chrysler or Nissan.
I think that mostly comes down to the dealership in that case.
Point is, all vehicles can have issues. I've been more unlucky than most. But I take comfort in the fact that the issues I've encountered are abnormal. My wife happily drives her Nissan Quest with no issues. My dad and my sister-in-law both had/have Chevy Cobalts with no issues that they paid very little for compared to a Corolla or Civic.
The Escalade has a reputation for having issues. I don't see why Tesla should get a pass on poor reliability (as someone who's had to replace door handles and power window motors and switches in used cars it's completely insane to me you'd want a motorized door handle) but an individual experience with a particular vehicle should sour you on an entire brand.
That's just not very rational.
Yes I was pissed at Chrysler (and with their ratings I'd probably be more justified than most). Yes I was pissed at Nissan.
If you're upset about your Escalade, I'd suggest it's probably more of a dealership issue than anything else. I'd be surprised if after one bad repair experience Sewell didn't make it right. They did for me. Which is a lot more than I can say for some of my experiences.
Which on the one hand might endear Tesla more (not having dealership franchises). Or not if you'd have to drive 150 miles each way just to drop off your vehicle to get a door handle motor replaced.
"All cars have issues, ho hum what's so great about Tesla"
The Model S has a lower than average reliability rating.
Just because I, individually, might buy a lemon MacBook doesn't make Apple an unreliable brand.
The Cadillac CTS for example has a much better reliability rating than Tesla (from Consumer Reports, which if you actually read the article on downgrading the Model S comes off as a bit fawning).
So should I judge Cadillac on a vehicle known to have way below average reliability? By that standard, sure, a Model S might look pretty good.
It's no Audi or Lexus though.
EDIT:
Also, this is what bothers me about fawning over Tesla. I pay what, a 20% maybe premium for Apple products MSRP? A decently equipped Model S costs 4X the price of a Leaf.
Be willing to spend $120K on a Leaf and I'm sure you'll see bigger motors and double or triple the range. You'll get LTE for free for life. You'll get free DC quick-charging for life (while there are a handful or NRG evGo stations in DFW, there are ZERO superchargers, unless you count the one in Denton 46 miles and right at an hour away from anywhere). You'll get a bigger central display, better ergonomics, much better reliability and more utility (unless you actually plan to load up a 5th adult I suppose).
Tesla isn't doing you some kind of a favor letting you spend over $100K on a vehicle with high depreciation. And there's no way you spent that much on your Escalade.
They're nice cars. Nice for the price? Your Escalade will have lost much less value. We've got a few years yet before battery warranties expire. How big of a hit are you going to take when the market is flooded with off-warranty Model S's selling in the mid 20's to mid 30's range?
Their claim that the reason for the selection is "comparably priced four-door sedans" is also inaccurate. They've skipped similarly priced "large luxury vehicles" while including some on the list which are much more expensive (almost $100K).
Obviously this was created to wow Tesla's investors. But I think you'll find it was designed to create a picture that Tesla owns 50% of the "large luxury vehicle" market with the highest growth and to accomplish that they had to selectively include and exclude vehicles that didn't fit that narrative.
Granted, all are less expensive ($45k-$55k base). But they also sold better: 23k, 53k, and 44k for Audi, Mercedes, and BMW respectively.
Don't get me wrong, Tesla's success is incredible, and their forays into the mid-market with with Model 3 is going to be insane. (The A3/4, C-Class, and 3-Series being the highest-selling models in their respective lineups.)
Add in that I would imagine (can someone confirm) that Tesla is still scaling manufacturing of the Model S which likely contributes to the growth...when where those orders placed, when were they filled, and in what Q/FY did they get classed as revenue and as sales for that chart?
[1]http://time.com/money/3728663/bentley-rolls-royce-car-sales-...
That wasn't a claim I made.
I said the table was set up in such a way as to read like Tesla controlled 50% of the large luxury vehicle market. If you include more vehicles, even if they sell worse, then Tesla's proportional market share drops.
But since you brought it up, if you wish to tell us which comparable large luxury vehicle outsells the Model S then I invite you to do so?
Just to give an example, if I search for "Large Luxury Vehicles" and click the first link here is the list of vehicles:
- Tesla Model S
- Porsche Panamera
- Audi A7
- Cadillac CT6
- Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class
- Kia K900
- Infiniti Q70
- Cadillac XTS
- Hyundai Equus
- Acura RLX
- Lincoln MKS
Now there are two interesting things about this list: We see a lot new vehicles not on Tesla's list, and the price of these vehicles are a lot tighter than Tesla's list. For example no $96K S-Class listed here.
It is hard to justify why some of these wouldn't be in Tesla's list, they're in the same ballpark price wise, they claim to offer luxury, and even the fit & finish seems to be as nice. So I'd argue Tesla's list is very arbitrary, there's no rhyme or reason, no set standard. Just a list that makes Tesla look good.
(The A7, 6-Series, and CLS are probably the best "direct" comparisons, but are also the "in-between" models in their lineups, where the Model S stands alone.)
Tesla's strategy is to drive volumes with gradually more affordable cars to bring down battery costs until there is a crossover where gasoline cars are impractical. That also explains the Gigafactory and the wall battery. So far, it's working.
[1] http://rameznaam.com/2013/09/25/energy-storage-gets-exponent...
[2] http://www.strategosinc.com/articles/strategy/learning_curve...
Tesla is expected to have $200/KWh batteries once the Gigactory starts making batteries. Bolt is already said to use $145/KWh batteries, but I figure that's mainly because they're using cheaper batteries with much shorter life (kind of how Tesla's 10KWh PowerWall was cheaper than its 7KWh PowerWall).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_controversies#Tesla_R...
The article closes with a similar sentiment. I see this a lot, and I wonder where it comes from. Late, no question, but higher price? I think the Roadster may have had a price increase, but both the Model S and Model X hit their price targets. I think there's a lot of confusion because prices are sometimes quoted with the Federal tax credit (and even state credits in some cases) and sometimes without, and because the Model S 40 was discontinued pretty much immediately due to low demand.
I won't be at all shocked if the Model 3 ends up being late. But I think it's a safe bet that it will cost $35,000 as announced.
http://jalopnik.com/laptesla-kills-the-50-000-model-s-makes-...
edit: oh sorry you already mentioned that
I'm curious what will be included in the $35K Model 3 and what will differentiate it from the higher speced models. I think that will indicate if this is "really" a $35K car.
Really exciting regardless.
Dad had to give up performance. The car is jumpy, very loud and sluggish when accelerating 50-60 mph and the stereo is just bad.
Tesla has satisfied both mom and dad by achieving both the safest and highest performance car ever mass produced, and, the total cost of ownership, factoring in depreciation, fuel, maintenance, insurance, is 1/2 an equivalently priced gasoline car over 10 years.
That is why they have >300,000 pre-orders for the Model 3.
Environmentally friendly, never have to smell gasoline again, drive in the car pool lanes, these are all icing on the cake.
Every vehicle I care about seems to have 5 stars in all categories. Safety of modern vehicles is exceptionally better than even just 10 years ago. You can achieve 5-stars in the original three categories with a $15k Honda Fit (Moderate front, side, and roof)
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/honda/fit-4-door-...
> highest performance car ever mass produced
Take a look at Leguna Seca lap times. Model S isn't doing as well as "high performance" cars.
EDIT: Focus on the 1:48 laptime, the best one. It looks like it was a casual race for the most part. The 1:48 time however is a record not only for Tesla Model S, but for electric vehicles in general and should be taken as the "serious" indicator of the Model S's overall performance.
https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-laguna-s...
5-stars in every safety category with performance and cheap is like... Subaru WRX. Fords are a bit easier to maintain though, so I'd go with Ford Focus ST or Focus RS (and switch out the tires, because stock tires on that suck apparently)
It all depends on how you like to 'measure' performance. The model S dominates when it comes to acceleration, pedal response and road (!= track) handling due to the low center of gravity. However, the S does very poor on a circuit because the motor/inverter tends to get hot and the software will reduce the maximum output power accordingly.
You have to keep in minds that the model S is a 4 door, 2 trunk luxury sedan, not a race car.
There are multiple Model S here. The P85D which "dominates" acceleration has a curb weight of 5000lbs and likely handles like a boat. (The typical F150 truck actually weighs less than the Model S P85D).
The older, more typical Model S, have Zero-to-Sixty scores in the 5-seconds to 6-seconds range, which is easily bested by the Subaru WRX STI.
The Model S probably wins on rolling-start 5-to-sixty, as the ICE engines won't be able to rev-high and drop the clutch.
Only Model S P85D "dominates" in acceleration, and that car comes with its own compromises.
> road (!= track) handling due to the low center of gravity
Model S measures .87g for road holding according to Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s), while the other cars I was talking about are all easily above .9+g. I'm unsure which model it is, I can only assume that's a more typical Model S as opposed to the heavier-than-a-Toyota-Sienna swagger-wagon P85D.
Electric vehicles are heavy, and that negatively plays into its performance characteristics.
> You have to keep in minds that the model S is a 4 door, 2 trunk luxury sedan, not a race car.
Indeed. But if you want to step into the arena of "high performance", what better comparison is there than a standardized track?
As for the apples-to-apples comparison, try 1:40 for the Cadillac CTS-V Sedan on the Leguna Seca, while 1:48 seems to be the best time for the Model S. Luxury sports sedan vs Luxury sports sedan, both are $85,000+ large cars claiming awesome performance after all.
I don't know why you think the RS has crappy tires; it comes with PSS stock, which is what I put on my Golf R. But then again, the RS isn't even out yet.
> I've driven 4500lb P85s that handle exceedingly well
Numbers just don't match your claim. I realize the low-center of gravity can give you confidence on a corner, but the best skidpad numbers I'm finding are all 0.87-ish g for the Model S.
Performance cars are all 0.95g or so on the skidpad, including the "luxury sedan" Cadillac CTS-V (Car and Driver reports a skidpad 0.98g)
I can't help but think the 500lbs to 1000lbs difference between the CTS-V and Model S is tilting the odds in favor of the lighter car when it comes to handling.
I've not driven a recent CTS-V although I've spent a bit of time behind the wheel of a 660+HP ~2011 CTS-V wagon. My experiences with the Model S are back to back with E92 M3s with the dual-clutch transmission, and of course you feel the added mass, but in terms of performance, I find the sheer size to be the biggest obstacle on a narrow course.
The performance that matters to me personally is getting off the dime and passing on the highway. Too many tentative drivers in California these days... I don't drive on race tracks, though I am sure that would be a blast.
FastestLaps.com has the P85D (aka: Ludicrous mode) explicitly in its Autozeitung test track database in case you want another data-point.
Then again, the car is probably configured more to cruise at a constant speed instead of hammering around a circuit with lots of violent speed changes
Agreed with all the other pros.
Unless said purpose was reducing pollution emissions.
We have money down on a Model 3; my wife has the longer commute. If carpool lane privileges are set to expire (SF Bay Area) before it comes out, and something else (like the Bolt) looks compelling at the time, we may jump to that.
Not at all; people camped out/stood in line to buy Windows 95.
Tesla popularity is a pop culture fad/novelty. Not to say the car isn't a great technical achievement, but these kind of responses have been seen before.
Also Windows had huge lines... the iconic photo: http://i.imgur.com/oc2EDhE.jpg?fb
There are some pictures of the lines here:
- there is market for luxury cars
- luxury cars market was full of expensive but uninteresting, crapy and low quality cars.
- Tesla make cool car for same price as other luxury cars but it was way cooler. It worked well.
- Tesla now goes to conquer low end of the market
So it is typical market disruption: make something better than others for lower price.
NOTE: People say Tesla Model S is expensive but it is actually less expensive that Mercedes CLS which is has 2 stars reliability rating by JD Power.
The canonical example from his book is about hard drive manufacturers increasing the storage space of their hard drives for mainframes (something the market asked for). They got disrupted by manufacturers making hard drives that had much less storage space (so considered inferior by the existing market), but were physically smaller allowing them to be used in minicomputers, a new market.
Now, it might still be possible to apply disruption as Christensen defines it to the market for cars, though arguably it might be stretching it. It seems to me that Tesla sacrificed some of the metrics used by current buyers of luxury cars, but appealed to a previously ignored segment of "green" or "techie" buyers. Compare for instance the interior of a Tesla model S against a Mercedes S class and the Tesla would lose. However, Tesla correctly identified that there appears to be a market for electric cars where customers are willing to pay a premium.
So in the car example, this interpretation of "innovator's dilemma" would mean that something like electric Smart cars would gradually encroach on Mercedes' luxury market. Clearly it hasn't worked that way -- so that suggests that consumer cars are fundamentally different from excavators bought by businesses.
(I know that Smart is actually a Mercedes brand. I have a suspicion that the huge investments that Mercedes made in Smart around the turn of the millennium were motivated by Christensen's theory so much in vogue at the time...)
That is the opposite of a disruptive technology, as defined by Christensen. Disruptive technologies are making something worse and typically more expensive but which has a key advantage which can't be replicated in the old paradigm. The newcomer establishes themselves in the niche for whom that key advantage is most important, and over time achieves cost and feature parity with the incumbent, at which point the new technology is better and cheaper in every way and they become the new incumbent.
OP's article describes "obsoletive" technology as the counterpart to "disruptive" technology, and defines it as technology which is simply better or cheaper than the old generation, rendering it obsolete. That's a closer fit to what you're describing.
I'm not saying the CLS isn't more expensive, or less reliable, I just don't know what that has to do with anything.
He tackles the whole topic from the demand side (how to have people liking and buying the product), but the real issue with the model 3 will be: can they PRODUCE it right?.
All the comparisons with Apple the iphone clearly show he's approaching this business as it was just consumer tech, which is really not.
Just think about the effects that shifting from a low volume-high margin business to a high volume-low margin one can have on return on capital... And that's happening in a very capital intensive business, so tons of money re/invested at low ROE..
I wish Tesla can really make it happen but if I was a shareholder I would be quite reasonably scared.
I just don't get people who hold this opinion. What exactly do you think is going to happen?
Do you envision Tesla admitting, say Q2 2018, "Serious supply shortages continue to prevent us delivering on the Model 3, we now hope for Q1 2019 delivery," and ultimately just go out of business, meanwhile competitors suddenly come up with incredibly compelling cars that they've somehow never managed to create before? Is that really the outcome you anticipate??
This is the same guy who's now successfully landed rockets . . . but you think manufacturing cars will be unachievable for him, even after Tesla has continually demonstrated rapidly climbing production and sales of the S and X?????
They're obviously not going to go out of business as a result. But considering Tesla has already had earnings calls pretty much exactly like that with respect to slower than expected Model S production, yes I would expect Tesla in 2018 to admit that most people on the pre-order list are going to be waiting a very long time.
That leaves Tesla in the awkward position of either needing to massively ramp up every aspect of its production pipeline now (which is a HUGE undertaking) at the cost of not producing Model S and Model X on schedule, or facing a significant number of pre-order people giving up on waiting, and a constrained production capacity well into 2020.
The OP's comment was with respect to shareholder confidence, which is currently propping up the stock price based on future expectations. I believe the point was that if Tesla can't come even close to meeting the market demand for its vehicles, that's a signal of weakness on several fronts that would need to be priced into the stock.
I'm also not sure what landing rockets has to do with mass-producing cars. SpaceX's achievements are indeed amazing and I watch all of their launches, but figuring out how to land a first stage is an engineering challenge. Figuring out how to produce 300,000 cars in a short time is a logistics challenge. Not to mention no one yet knows how Tesla's model will scale to the larger market with respect to service, support, parts replacement, etc. Scale in the automotive market just brings with it a huge number of issues to tackle that don't exist in smaller volumes.
That's assuming continued linear growth of adding 20-30k per year. Musk has said repeatedly he is aiming for 500k by 2020. While I don't doubt that will be missed, it implies we'll see more than linear growth.
I understand there will be challenges -- I just have strong faith in their ability to surmount them.
Oook...look I'm cheering for this but then there is this thing called "reality".
And I'm not even say it won't happen, but I'm doubting whether it will be sustainable in terms of the obligation a company has with its shareholders.
Producing so many cars requires crazy amount of capital and that capital will yield very little on this model...and yes on top of it competition will come...can Tesla be a sustainably profitable company pursuing this strategy? That's my question.
Nonetheless I firmly believe the answer is yes, since the alternative means Musk has failed in his mission to move the world over to electric transport, and I have a hard time picturing him failing in that fashion.
I just find it incredibly hard to picture Musk in 2025 during an interview "Yes, we failed with Tesla because...etc etc, achieved an incredible amount of progress in 12 years but ultimately were unable to etc etc"
Like, he'd rather be homeless on the street than let the company fail. He'll give up his last penny for it. I know you consider this irrelevant, but I simply don't. His track record is too strong to ignore.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/28/investing/tesla-junk-bond-ra...
I admit I don't understand the full consequences, but it's very easy to imagine them being on the verge of launching a product but being unable to raise more money given their at-the-time dilution, valuation, etc etc etc etc.
Talk to Porsche enthusiasts who buy GT cars from their motorsport division. They'll view such an ideal as not only normal, but required. The common phrase is, "This is how the game is played."
Want the next GT3 RS (991.2)? Too bad, but you're already too late. Yes, the car will probably not be announced for another 2-3 years, but Porsche dealers/OPCs probably have enough deposits in hands TODAY in which 95% of them are likely spoken for. Second hand at massive premium is your only real chance at one. Hell, add the GT4 (and GT3, of course) to that as well.
Want the RS of 991.2's successor? That you have a chance at. Just get your deposit in today. In five years you'll know what the car is, and you'll have bought yourself right of first refusal. Porsche doesn't care if you don't want it and want your money, because there's already a few people in line behind you.
What is different is this isn't a low-volume enthusiast car. This is a volume seller. This is targeting the 3-series, which moves over 100K units/year in the US alone. As a result, that's what is impressive. It's the game normally played by people wanting hard-edged Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, McLarens, etc., but for a volume seller.
There are really no good options. The closest is probably the Renault Twizy, essentially an enclosed electric bike with 4 wheels. It's very expensive, and more worryingly there are lots and lots of them available on the second hand market, almost new, at greatly reduced prices.
I would make the case for either a volt or if you are a motorcycle person check out the Zero line. I am electric only on my volt probably 29 days a month. 30-50 miles of battery is enough for 99% of what I do, but having the option to go much further and not be limited by having to wait for charging is a huge plus to me. On the rare times I do need to go further it usually turns into a several hundred mile trip, at which point a Tesla isn't a whole lot of help. Additionally, I have no concerns with where or how I can get maintenance done...Chevy dealers are everywhere. It is my only vehicle and I am a happy camper (literally, I have taken it camping).
The Volt is far from perfect, but my friends with Tesla S's seem to report a similar number and type of issues. Having sat in and driven their cars I would say that the fit and finish on the Tesla is marginally better but at 3x the cost...and that margin is not enough for price jump. Every person I know with a model S owns a second car, I don't...that money goes into an investment account.
I really like the low maintenance aspect. Not having to do oil changes would be nice (because I don't ride much, I'm changing my oil every 400 miles).
At my university, there is another option very similar to the Twizy, but I haven't found the website yet.
https://preorder.vanmoof.com/?ct-referral-code=nw5wFevx
(shameless referral link they provided when I ordered mine)
It's nice that the electric drive is cleanly integrated, but it won't stop the bike getting attention.
You can get an electric golf cart new for as low as 4k, with 5-10k being the average.
At the ultra low end you can buy an electric gokart for under 1k. Which is not that safe, sit's one person, and requires you to get really low to the ground.
PS: I think an unexplored option for a gated community is to include a custom track for electric cars to a community pool, restaurants, metro stop, etc. You would need tunnels / bridges to get around the car issue, but I think it would be cheaper than most Personal Rapid transit approaches.
So why not get a second hand one?
My dad owned a GM dealership. I was in high school when the 1973 oil embargo happened. Around the same time, the 1973 issue of Scientific American showed how bicycles where 46x more efficient that cars. (I think this was the issue where Steve Jobs got the inspiration for "Bicycle of the Mind") So, I gave up cars. But then, my Dad started to carry Citicars.
It had a couple issues: First, it had a 40-mile range. Second, the body was ABS Plastic. Because there was so little mass, drivers would stomp down on the accelerator, rear-end the car in front, and do $500 damage to the body. So, after the first shipment, the dealership stopped carrying them.
[EDIT] 40 not 20 miles, though the last 20 didn't go up hills very well.
For reference, I currently have two vehicles: a 2008 Jeep Liberty and a motorcycle. The motorcycle is the commute machine.
The Jeep is family travel and hauling machine. The latter is the killer use case for a car for me. Recently cleaned out old furniture from my garage, simply opened the backdoor of the car, folded the rear seats over and loaded all the crap in. The car is dented, scratched, I don't care. A workhorse, at my disposal. Ski trips, bike trips, shit weather commute.
Where is the electric version of that?
Yes, because there's no such thing as production scaling
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/iPhone-SE-...
Nope #1: http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?rssid=32951 Nope #2: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Yes, natural gas still emits CO2 compared to a coal fired power plant. But, those natural gas emissions are much cleaner, and those combined cycle plants can be throttled much faster on demand from the ISO authority, which helps solar and wind generation.
Electric cars get cleaner every year because of this. Gas cars will always burn gas their entire life.
2016 EIA Generator Turnups: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c....
2016 EIA Generator Retirements: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_d....
Also, Tesla has a closed loop recycling process for their battery packs.
This might be true in the future but we aren't there yet unfortunately. This is due to the incorrect assumption that natural gas is a clean bridge fuel. Once you take into account the methane emissions/leaks from natural gas you end up with a fuel just as bad as coal and oil from a global warming perspective. This is due to methane being very dangerous greenhouse gas in the sort term (now - 100yr time period). This plus the emissions required to produce any consumer product like a car probably means for now electric cars not much better than a traditional gas car.
The only way to make these cars truly emissions free is to remove ALL carbon based energy from the chain. That includes car and battery production, charging, maintenance, and disposal. Until you do that your just switching the source of emissions around. The climate system doesn't care if the greenhouse gas comes from a car or a power plant.
The best thing we could do in the short term until we have a 100% green grid is to hold off on buying the car and walk/ride a bike :)
http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-n...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL067987/abst...
I agree natural gas isn't perfect, but we won't need it for very long.
On the technological side as projects get bigger they are running into issues. Take the large solar plant in California for example:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601071/one-of-the-worlds-...
Naturally, these are typical issues that we see when scaling any new technology up for the first time. They will be resolved, but how soon?
Secondly, and this is probably the bigger issue, without a Manhattan like project for zero emissions energy production the political drive to switch will be painfully slow. Remember how much MONEY there is in fossil fuels and these companies are not going to go silently into the night. There are large states where significant numbers of americans live (think Texas, Arizona, Florida) where the politicians won't even acknowledge global warming! (IE see who funds the campaigns). Homeowners in Oklahoma face a fee for using solar.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oklahoma-solar-surcharge-...
Nevada got rid of net metering
http://www.marketplace.org/2016/02/23/world/nevada-solar
There was this collapse of the Cape Cod wind project last year...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/01/30/what-really-...
Even though we NEED to be off fossil fuels for energy generation in 12-15 years I fear we won't be anywhere close.
The best thing that can be done for the near term is limit consumption as much as possible until we are completely off ALL fossil fuels.
And typically get worse performance over time, usually due to poor maintenance.
US electricity is about 1/3rd coal, 1/3rd gas, and 1/3rd non-fossil, according to your second link. If we take the figures from your first link and total up 1/3rd of the electric coal emissions and 1/3rd of the electric gas emissions, you get about 140, which is a lot better than any of the non-EV options. Never mind that the grid is getting cleaner all the time.
Ah yes, the typical Tesla rationalization that attempts to excuse present-day behavior. Clinging to this rationalization is the equivalent of murdering someone and then saying "don't worry about it, in the future homicide will be legal". No, homicide is illegal today and you're going to jail, and no, the electrical grid is made up of about 70% fossil fuels and you're heavily contributing to air pollution.
Not only is the amount of pollution from the electric grid important but also the basic economics that come with it. Any adult with half a brain can understand that as the usage on the electric grid increases, the incumbents gain more profits (coal, gas), which they can then reinvest into their infrastructure, in effect reinforcing their current entrenchment and preventing progress to a cleaner grid.