Then it was "electric cars are too expensive, they are rich peoples' toys, and mainstream consumers will never want them anyway."
Now it is "Tesla will not be able to scale up to meet all the demand."
The fact that EV naysayers have been forced to cycle through this spectrum of responses in less than 10 years should be a clue of some kind.
The main component one has to not underestimate is that in the automobile industry the technology/engineering problem of the car is less important to the technology/engineering/process of the plant itself.
Toyota is not a lumbering clumsy inefficient organization, it is a sharp nimble efficient organization... It only makes rational sense that Tesla should follow their lead
What you say makes some sense, though, you seem to forget that there is vast difference between the technology/engineering/processes of the plants needed to manufacture the electric cars and the ones needed to manufacture the fossil fuel cars.
Another thing, it should not be too difficult for us to grant that Elon Musk is not a fool to make that big a statement without doing some homework. Also, don't forget the current state of the art of the technology/engineering/processes he may employ now that Toyota could (and still can) only dream of.
Are you talking from facts? OR are you talking from feelings, and hunches, and faith in Musk?
Space X, is one thing... in that bracket Musk is competing with inefficient opponents who have historically benefitted from lack of competition, crony government contracts, in an industry that is primarily product engineering driven that requires a small volume manufacturing of extreme high complexity vehicles
In Tesla he is competing against highly efficient opponents who have been in a dog eat dog survival of the fittest competition for going on 40 years which is only somewhat product engineering driven and high volume manufacturing of relatively low complexity vehicles.
Tesla can overcome this... possibly but it is a huge challenge that a responsible investor cannot sweep under the rug...
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-tes...
That's the FOURTH drive unit (3rd replacement) their Model S needed.
The fact of the matter is, my Ford Focus (and most people's Toyota Camry from the 90s) has needed less maintenance than than the two-year test Edumnds did on the Model S.
Unless you like paying $90,000+ for a car that dies in the middle of the highway as the drive unit completely craps out, I'm not sure if the Tesla Model S is actually a sign of Tesla's manufacturing prowness.
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-tes...
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-s/2013/long-term-road-tes...
And considering the widespread reports of issues with the "simple electric" Drive Unit, I'm thinking the electric drive unit is a lot more complex than Tesla's marketing slides indicate.
---------
Worst part is that this isn't anecdotal evidence. MULTIPLE reporters have had their Tesla Model S die on them in the middle of the highway.
Anyway, the Model S was explicitly the stepping stone project to get to the Model 3 (i.e. Musk stated this). They've probably learned a lot.
If it happened ONCE its anecdotal evidence.
If it happens repeatedly to different reporters around the world? That's a statistic. The Model S drive unit is not reliable. Period. It doesn't matter how "simple" an electric motor theoretically is, in practice, the Model S motor has clear drive unit issues.
> Anyway, the Model S was explicitly the stepping stone project to get to the Model 3 (i.e. Musk stated this). They've probably learned a lot.
I thought the "Roadster" was when they were supposed to get all of these issues figured out. The Model 3 has to be built in a year in capacities of (wtf?) 500,000 / year by 2018 or something.
There's no room for experimentation here. Elon Musk is ramping up production extremely fast and has set stunningly high expectations.
---------
Now, don't get me wrong, I think Tesla is a great company with a great vision. And that Musk is doing his best. But what I'm trying to say is that this company's balance sheet, and reliability record with their cars is causing me some concern at this point.
I would like it if Tesla could succeed, but I'm not going to hold back on criticism just because I like their mission.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cars/tesla-reliability-doesnt...
> As part of our Annual Auto Reliability Survey, we received about 1,400 survey responses from Model S owners who chronicled an array of detailed and complicated maladies.
I'm not kidding when I'm saying this "isn't anecdotal" anymore. Over a THOUSAND reports have come in, and the consensus is that Tesla is NOT reliable.
Consumer Reports: "The Tesla wasn’t the only high-performance vehicle that fell below average in reliability. Others include the BMW X5 and 5 Series, and the Chevrolet Corvette."
Or you know, as a smart consumer, I'll be looking at a workhorse car like a Honda Accord, Ford Focus, Toyota Camry, etc. etc. and not have to worry about reliability issues.
Or if I'm actually going to buy on Luxury + reliability: the highly reliable Lexus ES looks like a good pick at half the price of a Tesla.
Tesla has two lines of cars right now, and only a third one planned. Their entire focus is supposed to be on the reliability and features of these two lines they're making.
Look man, I have a Seagate 3TB hard drive. It hasn't failed on me and I bought it damn cheap. But when the statistics come in...
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/bl...
I'm not going to argue against them. Consumer Reports (survey methodology) and Edmund's (single case study) have demonstrated the issue. Tesla cars are NOT reliable, compared to Toyota Camry or Corollas or whatever else is normal out there.
According to your logic, 3 percent of scientists deny global warming, so that is a statistic we should take seriously as well. I don't care what denialists say because I can appreciate the fundamental science behind global warming.
You seem to lack the vision to see that simplicity in design always wins out. It does so in nature, and it will do so in our automobile engines long-term.
You are suffering from an extreme case of cognitive dissonance my friend.
In a world of 7 Billion people, every anecdote has become a statistic. Figure it out or get left behind.
Edmunds is a serious car site, and not an entertainment show like Top Gear.
The statistics include Consumer Reports, who surveyed over 1400 Tesla S owners and have come to the same reliability issue as Edmunds. http://www.consumerreports.org/cars/tesla-reliability-doesnt...
---
And unlike Top Gear, which seems to be an anti-Tesla idiotic entertainment show. Consumer Reports was pro-Tesla until the survey came in.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/27/teslas-p85d-is-the-best-car-c...
Unfortunately, Consumer Reports does not do long-term reliability tests (see Edmunds for that sort of stuff). Instead, Consumer Reports has a very robust survey methodology. They rely upon a survey conducted at a later date. So when their survey results came in that documented the large number of Tesla problems, they had to retreat from their superb rating.
A 103 out of 100 by Consumer Reports (initially). And even then, the Consumer Reports guys could not refute the reliability concerns.
Yes, there was an anti-Tesla conspiracy going on a few years ago. But I don't think we're at that phase anymore. Certainly not with these Consumer Reports surveys or Edmund's tests, which seem to check out as legitimate.
The reports are clear: Tesla has excellent consumer service and warranties. Owner satisfaction is EXTREMELY high, despite the issues. So Tesla is doing everything they can to address the issue, and this is commendable.
However, if you actually compare the reliability scores on pure numbers, it is clear that the Tesla Model S has a problem. It may not necessarily be drive unit related, but there is clearly a problem that affects a huge swath of people.
which is all to really say... 1 plant vs 40-70 plants... 90K vehicles produced per year to 9,000K vehicle/year... unproven manufacturing prowess vs universally accepted best manufacturing capability
toyota is universally accepted as having the most advanced automotive manufacturing as far as major manufacturing... Even Elon Musk wouldnt have the balls to make the claims you guys are making here... please lets stick to reality.
i wish tesla well... they i think are going to be the main catalyst in popularizing the electric car... will they actually hit 500K units in 2018 out of the Fremont factory? seems unlikely given their track record but maybe... i mean toyota was able to produce that much out of the same facility before it was upgrade about a decade ago so its possible...
Your argument is basically "the small company is small". So what? Do you propose that business can work in some other way? How else would you propose that it works?
Do you have any good articles that explain this difference? I'm honestly curious what changes when you change the propulsion system.
I suspect their challenge will be more about getting enough resources for batteries and finishing the production plant.
Remember, right after apple launched the iphone and experts claimed smartphones were for the first world while growth would be in the third world?
The engine is, comparatively speaking, the solved problem for car reliability these days, at least in the first 100k or 200k miles. One of the most common characteristics of unreliable or fancy traditional cars is flaky electronic systems, as Telsa is as complicated as anyone there.
There are ~600 charging stations worldwide, and that's increasing to 1200 during 2016. But you think it's "largely true" that there's no charging infrastructure?
600 charging stations worldwide? That's worse than I thought. I'm traveling across country as we speak (I live in an RV). I've seen one electric car charging option in the past few weeks...I've filled up over a dozen times in that period. Realistically speaking, you cannot take an electric car on vacation.
That doesn't mean I don't love electric cars (I even held TSLA for a while before needing to sell some stocks for a major purchase...I kept my GOOG and sold my TSLA).
One can love electric cars while still acknowledging what they cannot yet do. There was a time when horses were a better cross country means of transit than automobiles because there wasn't infrastructure for cars yet. We're at that stage for electric cars. It'll pass.
Availability of non-Tesla electric charging depends vastly on where you are. In the northeast, there are a bunch of places that have 2-4 EV spaces with a CHAdeMO connector which (anecdotally) are always full. So if you're planning a trip cross-country, you basically have to stick to the interstates for superchargers.
If you have an RV, you probably think that traveling cross-country via only the interstates is a pretty bad way to see the sights though :).
Therefore, emphatically Yes, it's "largely true" that there is no charging infrastructure.
All of the things people have cited as challenges for EVs are still true:
- limited charging infrastructure - limited range - limited data on longevity (look at Leaf's battery life)
The range issue may be moot for commuters, who drive 40-50 miles. They can also plugin at home, and recharge at night.
EVs will grow in usage. Slowly.
The question of whether Tesla can scale up its manufacturing operation is a different one. Unrelated to EVs.
The bottom line is that even if an EV meets your daily needs, it isn't going to be good enough to be your only car. That really isn't going to be the case until EVs regularly have a 350-400 mile range, the supercharger network is reasonably dense, and a supercharger can top off your car in 10-15 minutes, tops.
If you take a look at the affordable EV segment, in the 2011 to 2016 era, it has been represented only by Nissan Leaf.
People are reporting anywhere between 15-30% of capacity loss within the first 45,000 miles. The problem with battery powered vehicles is that there's a guaranteed loss of capacity after N charge cycles, which currently seems to be ~600-800 charges (77 miles of range x 600 charges = 46,200 miles)
Teslas have obviously not run into this problem yet, because their range is 200+, so you'd only start seeing significant capacity losses at 120,000 miles driven, which I'm guessing not many people have done since 2012.
But for smaller range vehicles this presents a significant problem: the commute you are able to make in the beginning of ownership may suddenly become impossible in just 3-4 years of driving. And how do you get more range? You need more batteries.
In fact the first vehicle to solve this and have a decent enough capacity buffer at an affordable price will be Tesla 3.
On the other hand, this will put the nail in the coffin of the "not being able to scale" argument. In fact, Tesla 3 will be successful ONLY if they're able to scale.
Electric cars are getting there, but you need to be in a specific location and have specific requirements for owning one to make sense.
I've yet to see anything that will convince me that they will ship 500,000 cars in 2018.
These are moribund industries where nothing has changed since the 60s. After a while they've come to believe that nothing can change.
Lithium is more common in Earth's crust than lead and many other materials that are mined in significantly greater quantities.
I get the point of the original article, production manufacturing at this scale is a whole different animal from making products at lesser volumes for early adopters.
But there's another way to look at it. It's another challenge. And so far, Tesla has been up to the challenge. And so has SpaceX.
Yeah, that's just the right argument. I'm sure you are talking about taking your car to the track, no driving like a reckless idiot.
Its 4500lbs minimum, the P85D is even heavier (larger batteries I guess?). Its got a skidpad turn of .85g, while the good high-performance cars are .95g or higher.
A $25,000 Subaru WRX achieves 5-star safety rating and gets 1:45 Laguna Seca lap time.
The Tesla Model S "Performance Edition" gets a 1:48 Laguna Seca lap time.
https://forums.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-laguna-s...
I think its weight forces the Tesla S to take slower and wider turns, while the more nimble cars manage to beat it on the Track.
Once you leave the 30k price range and into the cars that are ACTUALLY competing against the Tesla Model S, you start getting to Cadelac CTS-V and faster cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la6BZ89Z6bs
1:38 on the CTS-V.
And yes, the CTS-V is a large 4000lb luxury 4-door sedan. Its price, size, and weight-competitive against the Model S.
Which is fine. My personal car of choice apparently overheats its brakes on the Laguna Seca under stock settings (Ford Focus, although the recent "RS" edition looks to have significantly better specs for a track). Its a challenging track. So the Tesla Model S isn't the only car that is unable to sustain high-performance throughout an entire course.
But lets not pretend that the Model S is a real performance car or anything, not until it starts placing somewhere impressive on a track somewhere (Laguna Seca, Nürburgring, or whatever)
--------------
http://jalopnik.com/heres-what-a-tesla-model-s-can-do-around...
> "The lap itself was around 10 minutes Bridge to Gantry (in heavy traffic) but unfortunately the car went into a reduced power mode about 3 minutes in due to excess battery heat (at least, that's my guess)."
So there's probably some heat issue with regards to Tesla Model S on serious test tracks.
All in all, the Tesla isn't a "performance" car, although it "isn't slow" by any stretch of the imagination.
I used an Accord as an example because I'm familiar with it, feel free to pick almost any midsize sedan to reach the same conclusion. Perhaps a Volvo or Subaru would address whatever your safety concern is.
If you look at the 90th percentile car buyer driving 12-15k/year, there is still a total cost premium from an operations POV. Insurance will skew that more.
In terms of range, Tesla makes a compelling case for a typical commute. But any distance driving is a different story. Charging on the go is both sparsely available and very time consuming.
I'm not saying it's a bad car, just a poor value for most people.
EDIT: "Pretty sure you can have one delivered like, next day." Love the HN optimism. As if my comment didn't imply that I just got fuckin' rear ended and tried to buy one of the damn things. Website says June on the S. I was told July. X is several months out (no firm date).
You know what really sucks about talking to a salesman on the lot? Being told, "ain't got any and you can't have one."
EDIT 2: CPO? If I'm going to pay $130,000 for a used car it better come with C3PO. The pre-owned market is warped because you can't buy a new one. It's all part of being unable to meet demand. My argument stands.
- high cost of batteries
- limited range largely limits them to urban settings
- materials currently required for manufacturer are limited
- cold weather reduces battery effectiveness and thus range
- time to charge is a huge issue compared to simply refilling a tank
- charging stations require a massive and expensive infrastructure upgrade for widespread use
- cost
- unproven reliability. This is partly an issue of the technology being so new but even Tesla says the batteries need to be replaced after ~8 years.
Battery technology has come a long way in the last 20 years. It's already enabled a bunch of applications that are hugely significant (eg smartphones, drones) to the point where I think that a massive breakthrough in battery technology may well be the most important discovery of the 21st century as the consequences will be so staggeringly massive.
So I'm not saying the electric vehicles are the future or that they aren't. The future is hard to predict. Regardless, putting liquid fuels into vehicles is here for some time to come yet.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/news/a25...
Whatever the case, I tend to agree that battery swaps is not a scalable solution.
I don't think so. The Tesla Model S batteries are everywhere through the chassis. There is no single "battery" to replace. It would be major surgery to swap batteries - you'd have to remove the passenger compartment from the lower frame. The car is not designed for that form of "refueling".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY
Here's a closeup video where you can see the battery pack being lowered and another being pushed into place:
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-battery...
Basically, if a battery swap facility exists and has done it on at least one car, then all cars in the fleet capable of this battery swap can enjoy the extra tax credits, even though said facility is not open for actual use and has no plans to employ swapping on the other vehicles.
I'd also claim that the drawbacks you mention don't merit the word severe, given that Tesla is able to sell ~100,000 vehicles per year with these drawbacks. They are certainly disadvantageous, but not to such a degree that they are a limitation to more than a few precent of the use cases. Also, there are advantages to electric vehicles - e.g. less routine maintenance, fewer moving parts to service, lower operating costs, less noise and emissions. So to a degree it evens out even with the present limitations.
This seems to be another example, particularly on this forum, of "living in the bubble". The bubble in this case is urban living in California, a situation with relatively low ranges of driving with temperate weather.
Again, I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm simply pointing out the obvious: it's got incredibly far to go and there are enormous challenges to overcome such that, at a minimum, it's going to take a long time.
Dominating their niche will be a useful outcome. If light vehicles in cities become predominantly electric, that is a useful outcome and I look forward to it for the reduction in air and noise pollution.