Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mtgx | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I hope Model 3 can beat the Bolt in range. That would be a nice surprise. I wouldn't say it's necessary, but the Bolt has already gotten a lot of press, with some even saying it's what's making EVs "mainstream", even though they're only selling like hundreds of them at a time right now, and that probably won't change anytime soon considering GM loses $9,000 for each unit sold. Plus, I hear all the time how the dealerships try to dissuade people from buying a Bolt and turn them towards buying an ICE car instead.

I also hope Musk reconsiders his strategy of not making much cheaper EVs "because everyone will pay to be driven by an autonomous vehicle soon".

I think he's way overestimating how soon that will happen. I don't think most people, even in the U.S., where a "Tesla Network" may actually be viable, let alone in the rest of the world, will do that by 2025, if not 2030. That leaves a lot of wasted opportunities for Tesla to become a "market leader" in EVs - or rather to maintain its EV leadership in the market.

By 2025, there will definitely be EVs from Renault and others that cost less than $20,000 and have 200-mile ranges. At half the price of a Model 3, those cars are going to gain a lot of market share, fast, even if Tesla's numbers continue to grow as well.

I know Musk has already mentioned that Model Y will be cheaper, but we don't know just how much cheaper. Hopefully, it will be like $25,000. That would be a nice price-point for an EV by 2020. But I think Tesla needs to go down to $15,000 or at least 18,000 by 2025, as well, even if for that price point and by that moment in time, those cars can't be "Level 5" - although if Model 3 will have that hardware, I think so will the $15,000-18,000 car by 2025 (it will probably need to be more like 2023, and announced in 2021, though, as a lot of EVs will start to come out in 2021-2022).

"GM loses $9,000 for each unit sold."

I'd be careful with figures like this. It's possible they are investing with the idea to ramp up production and get to profitability with scale, or with predicted reductions in battery price. It's also possible that the way CAFE rules calculate an average over a manufacturers entire fleet mean that by taking a loss in one place they can earn or save money in another.

Right, its important to calculate profit/loss differently from 'marginal profit' or the money made by each unit over cost of manufacture. Sell enough units, you can cover the fixed (development) costs. Sell too few, and you can claim "They lost money on every unit" which is sort-of correct.

I recall this sort of figure being thrown around for the Volt, and it was calculated by taking the full cost of R&D and allocating it equally to each unit sold so far, which is idiotic. But a lot of people hate alternative fuel cars and so it got a lot of traction.

>I hope Model 3 can beat the Bolt in range. That would be a nice surprise.

Why do you care whether Tesla has a good car or GM has a good car, rather than, overall, we have many good cars to choose from?

>I know Musk has already mentioned that Model Y will be cheaper, but we don't know just how much cheaper. Hopefully, it will be like $25,000.

We haven't even seen the M3, or heard the price. But we're already talking about the next, cheaper model?

I care because the Model 3 is almost certainly going to be a much better car overall (better performance, far superior driver assistance technology, vastly better charging infrastructure) and it would be a shame if its success were hobbled due to one relatively small factor that gets blown out of proportion.

Of course I'd love to have many good cars to choose from, but there's no sign of that happening any time soon.

>I care because the Model 3 is almost certainly going to be a much better car overall

I'll bet that the cars from Tesla and GM within similar price range will have similar features and performance. Why would you think that Tesla, operating at a much smaller scale, will necessarily be able to do everything cheaper and better? That seems counterintuitive; GM has scale and a dialed in supply chain.

I stated three specific areas where the Model 3 will be better. These aren't speculation, they're facts. The base Model 3 will be faster 0-60, and it's confirmed that they'll have high-performance options. The Bolt's driver assistance technology is anemic, while we know that the Model 3's will be at least as good as what Tesla is shipping today on the S and X. The charging infrastructure for long distance travel in the Bolt is awful, and the Bolt can't charge very quickly even if that infrastructure were better, whereas the Model 3 will be able to use Tesla's extensive Supercharger network.

I couldn't tell you exactly why Tesla is able to do better than GM, despite GM having vastly more resources, but it's quite clear that they will.

>These aren't speculation, they're facts. The base Model 3 will be faster 0-60,

You know for a fact that a car that doesn't exist yet is faster than one that does? That's interesting.

I, on the other hand, will wait until there's a comparable Bolt and Model 3 on the market, with a similar price, to determine what's better. A 3 series BMW is also "better" than Bolt, but that's irrelevant.

>"The charging infrastructure for long distance travel in the Bolt is awful"

You realize that there are far more regular chargers across the nation than superchargers, right?

Yes, Tesla said that the base Model 3 will be under 6 seconds for 0-60, and I'm perfectly confident in trusting them to deliver on that.

"You realize that there are far more regular chargers across the nation than superchargers, right?"

You realize that the vast majority of "regular chargers" are L2 units putting out 6-10kW and are therefore completely worthless for long distance travel? And that the CCS infrastructure is woefully incomplete in the US? And that even if CCS were ubiquitous, the Bolt maxes out at 180MPH charging, which is terrible?

Plan a drive from NYC to LA using the Supercharger network and "regular chargers" and compare how long the trips would take. And that's assuming that the CCS units, which are often installed in single units, aren't blocked or broken.

>Yes, Tesla said that the base Model 3 will be under 6 seconds for 0-60, and I'm perfectly confident in trusting them to deliver on that.

This is different from a "fact".

>Plan a drive from NYC to LA using the Supercharger network and "regular chargers" and compare how long the trips would take.

Plan a drive across Canada, where I live, and see how far you get with the Supercharger Network. I'll be stranded 300 miles from where I start.

But guess what? Charging infrastructure isn't rocket science. It can be ramped up quickly.

The moment someone actually ramps up non-Tesla fast charging infrastructure to make long-distance travel in non-Tesla EVs, I'll remove this as a "pro" on the Tesla side. Until and unless that happens, it remains an advantage.

I don't see why someone would buy Bolt over a Model 3 because of a few miles. If there really is so important then get a larger battery, but for most people the different style and features will probably be most important than 10% more range.

For the Model 3, the important thing is that the battery is big enough to get you from supercharger to supercharger for long trips.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com