Hacker News Reader

Comment by 11thEarlOfMar | Hacker News Reader

"Model 3 was the best-selling premium sedan in the world, outselling long-time industry leaders such as the 3 Series and E Class. This demonstrates that an electric vehicle can be a category leader and outsell its gas-powered counterparts."

I find this to be a major milestone in the transition to BEV. This is an achievement.

View on HN

This is a very tricky presentation of the larger image. The document mentions the "Premium Sedan" category market, not the entire market.

So looking at the Premium Sedan market share in the US (which is arguably the most important market in the world) the numbers show a 1% decline in sales for 2020 - "The midsized car segment continues to lose share in the US car market in 2020. Sales were down 22% in an overall market down 14%. As a result the share of midsized cars drops by 1 percentage point to 10.2%, and in absolute numbers, the 1.5 million sales make this the lowest year of this millennium and long before it." - from https://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-analysis-2020-midsized...

So while the premium sedan category (including Tesla 3) is declining overall, Tesla is reporting to its shareholders the "great achievement" of winning that sales declining race.

If the whole market declines but your share of the overall market raises and you overtake everybody else in that market that is clearly an achievement.

Given that this is literally the first mass market car by Tesla, achieving leading sales globally over comparable products by BMW and Mercedes is clearly pretty important.

And as they said, they hope Model Y will hopefully be the best selling vehicle globally next year.

This is important to point out after 5 years of FUD about how Tesla has no demand.

Selling more of the less selling cars is not an achievement by any means.

All the other companies are changing production towards different other categories, but the “achievement” Tesla wants their shareholders to be happy about is that they sell more of the cars less and less people are buying.

If you sell more horses worldwide out of the “four legged category” it has no relevance as long as less and less people are buying horses for transportation.

I'm not sure one years data point makes for a trend. Especially not 2020.

I have no data to back it up, but it seems likely that the people who can afford a luxury car are also the people that could afford to stay home during the pandemic. Personally, I'm finding it hard to justify a new car when I'm 6 months overdue for an oil change and not even at half the miles. :-)

He's speaking of the movement from luxury sedans to luxury SUVs and crossovers.

Just because sedans are not the biggest market anymore doesn't mean competition is over or that there is not still a gigantic amount of money in it.

Tesla is of course also expecting to sell more CUV and Pickups in the future and we have seen the sales growth of the Model Y.

Seriously making the argument that being the globally highest selling car in a well known very well specified category with their first ever turley mass produced car after just a few years of production is not an achievement is just insane argument.

Even Ford stopped making the Mustang sedan. There is a move to SUVs across the auto industry. I'm not sure if winning a rapidly shrinking segment is as much of an accomplishment as Tesla wants investors to believe.

That's not accurate in any form. The Mustang was not a sedan, but a coupe, and Ford has not stopped making the Mustang in the current form. You can still order a GT500 with 12mpg city. They added an electric version, the Mach-E, which is more of a crossover format.

I wouldn't call that a version, the Mustang Mach-E is a different product line. Just shares the branding and takes some design cues. It's like an adopted son who gets dressed up like the father, but has different genes

> And as they said, they hope Model Y will hopefully be the best selling vehicle globally next year.

It's very important to wonder "how much of this is EV demand" vs "how much of this is car specific demand". Tesla's Model 3 sales basically declined in lockstep with Model Y's rise: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/15/tesla-model-3-model-y-o...

It will be interesting to see if Tesla can grow them simultaneously going forward, but it hasn't really seemed to be the case. This doesn't make me bullish on any prediction that the Model Y is going to be the best selling vehicle globally.

A company founded in 2003 on an entirely different concept of automobile propulsion has taken the lead in a multi hundred billion dollar market. Hell yes that’s an achievement and it doesn’t need scare quotes.

"has taken the lead"

Has taken the lead on the "premium sedan" category market, where less and less people are buying "premium sedans".

What scare quotes?

taking the lead on a declining market (while producing more cars overall) is impressive, assuming that market isn't due to be completely wiped out.

Let me rephrase it as "Premium sedan segment would be in free fall if not for Tesla Model 3, a car that didn't exist 4 years ago". People flock to Model 3 despite it being in a less trending segment. They could have got a SUV instead, but they didn't. Sound impressive to me.

It seems that in trying to debunk marketing spin you've deployed even worse spin of your own:

> the premium sedan category (including Tesla 3) is declining overall

Uh... wat? Model 3 sales are growing very rapidly! Trying to argue that they aren't because the category they are being compared to is not is... somewhat weird.

I mean, look. The M3 is now selling more cars than Mercedes or BMW do in the same price segment. That's... pretty impressive, isn't it? I don't think that's spin, the E Class and 3 Series are very successful cars. They seem like a pretty good benchmark.

But yes: it's true that people bought fewer of them during the pandemic. It's also not very surprising, nor very informative about Tesla, who sold far more cars in 2020 than 2019.

"is... somewhat weird."

No, it's not. If you sell more horses worldwide out of the “four legged category” it has no relevance as long as less and less people are buying horses for transportation.

I repeat the more focused point: you don't find it impressive that a car from a manufacturer that was barely on the map five years ago is now beating the Mercedes E Class (edit: C class, sorry) in its own price category?

I mean, by your logic if Tesla isn't impressive for what the Model 3 is doing then Daimler Chrysler must be a flaming disaster, right?

Look at their statement and realize how Tesla is intentionally misleading their shareholders.

If Tesla is so impressive, why do they need to do that?

What incorrect idea do you think shareholders may have taken away that is any worse than "Model 3 sales are shrinking" that you tried to imply above?

> This demonstrates that an electric vehicle can be a category leader and outsell its gas-powered counterparts.

ICE is currently 97% of the automobile market. A BEV taking the lead in any vehicle segment is a major milestone. Nothing is misleading about that.

I agree it's impressive myself. Though they probably mean C or A Class. The E class is larger and quite a lot more expensive than a Tesla 3.

I'm not sure how a Model 3 or a BMW 3 Series can be compared to a Mercedes E Class. The comparable cars there seem to be the Tesla Model S and the BMW 5 Series. The Mercedes equivalent of a BMW 3 Series or a Tesla Model 3 is the C Class.

Greatly increasing the number of horses you sold in a time when people are buying less horses overall is a better achievement than doing so when total horse purchases increased, not a worse achievement.

Not necessarily. If you mean by a "we were running against the wind" sense, sure, but if you mean in a "what should the valuation of your company be" sense, no.

Can we please not refer to the Model 3 as the M3, an already well known car from a competing manufacturer in the same segment?

I think we can all infer that when referring to mass market sedans, the super-sport model of one particular BMW is not what is being referred to.

The BMW M3 is a different car than the BMW 3 Series. An M3 is as much a 3 Series as an Alpina B3 is a 3 Series. It is ambiguous in this situation. I had to read the comment several times to figure out if it meant that somehow BMW was selling more M3s than the whole 3 Series lineup.

>> The M3 is now selling more cars than Mercedes or BMW do in the same price segment.

> I had to read the comment several times to figure out if it meant that somehow BMW was selling more M3s than the whole 3 Series lineup.

The whole 3 Series lineup is not in the same price segment as the M3, is it?

How could BMW sell more M3 cars than the total number of cars they sell in that price segment?

The usage is ambiguous because it may mean something like the BMW M3 even at a higher price is now generating more sales than the normal 3 Series lineup but those sales are not included in these numbers.

Using the name of a car from an adjacent price range in the same segment is absolutely ambiguous, especially when Tesla is competing on price/performance.

If you want to abbreviate it then call it a TM3 or something. The M3 has been a car for 35 years and it's too similar to the Model 3 for that not to be confusing.

Sometimes it’s ambiguous. In this particular case not that much, I think. That comment is in the context of “Tesla 3” and “Model 3” mentions in the two preceding paragraphs. (And Tesla is selling as many model 3 cars in one year as M3 cars have been sold by BMW in 35 years!)

The mention of "Model 3" in the previous paragraph is what makes the usage of M3 even more confusing. Why inconsistently use this "unambiguous" abbreviation? Especially in a sentence that references BMW?

It’s in the larger context of Model 3 sales relative to other cars with an unclear definition of what those cars are. They compare sales of the Model 3 to the Mercedes E class! It’s reasonable then to wonder if M3 numbers are or maybe are not included.

Additionally the M3 has been a significant volume seller in the past. There are a lot of E46 M3s in comparison to the rest of the E46 fleet. It would surprise me to learn BMW is selling more G80 M3s than G80 3 Series but with declining sales in the segment maybe the “premium” car is the one retaining sales.

The usage of “M3” is ambiguous because at first glance all of that seems possible, if surprising.

Why are we arguing about this? The M3 is a 35 year old name that is in the same segment as a Model 3. Calling a Model 3 an M3 is always going to cause confusion. It would even cause confusion on the showroom floor of a Tesla dealership.

I think the true “spin” is that you think the E Class and 3 Series are way more important than they are because they USED to be important. That’s the cache Tesla is using.

The Germans will admit the SUV are the US market (look at their lineup) and the day that the Y outsells GL class cars, then I’ll eat humble pie.

For Context: The SUV class of the same relative size sells about 3x the sedan.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210108005349/en/Mer...

> the day that the Y outsells GL class cars, then I’ll eat humble pie.

Do you really have doubt this day isn't coming very soon? 2023 tops. Mercedes SUV are niche luxury. Tesla will only shed away price on the Y's due to declining battery prices, improved manufacturing with gigafactories, and their mission of reducing emissions by getting everyone into EV's.

Don't count out Mercedes' ability to come up with a seemingly overly robust lineup of models that cover every conceivable variation/combination of needs for the luxury SUV consumer.

I mean sometimes I think "who the hell needs a GLB AMG??" but it's one of the few SUVs of that size that seats 7 passengers and serves a need for families in certain EU and Asia markets.

Any given Mercedes SUV may be niche luxury but they cover many many niches with their lineup.

> it's one of the few SUVs of that size that seats 7 passengers

Literally the Model Y also. Not sure if this is the need you're referring to or something else. But Mercedes is far behind on EV's and not even close to Tesla. This switch is happening now, if you haven't noticed all the SUV PHEV, ID.4 launch, and Toyota BZ4x announcement. Once the majority of developed nations aren't using much gasoline, taxes will be raised and Mercedes lack of EV will be critical. I mean they are almost dead last behind Tesla, VW, BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, etc.

I have extreme doubts in the trajectory of the Model Y.

Tesla bundles its sales with the Model 3 (bad sign) & 3rd party data suggests they sold 3k in Q4:20 with negative trending.

I agree EVs are the future, I think Tesla was a major innovator in the space, but has stagnated recently and the blind faith in Musk / Tesla is ultimately bad for the cutover

> Uh... wat? Model 3 sales are growing very rapidly! Trying to argue that they aren't because the category they are being compared to is not is... somewhat weird.

I mean, kind of? It's much more complicated when you look at market over market. Tesla sales in the US haven't really grown much since the summer of 2019, and that's despite releasing a whole new model in that period. They've definitely been selling more cars, but the majority of that growth is fueled by entering new markets, not growing existing ones. That's important, because both types of growth have different levels of sustainability.

Pandemic and working from home. I wasn’t about to buy a new car.

This isn't just the pandemic, the fact that Model Y sales just displaced Model 3 sales in the US should be concerning. Also, given the narrative that Tesla is a supply-limited company, the pandemic really shouldn't change their sales at all.

Model 3 is a premium sedan ? Oh :/ Where are my paint color options, ventilated seats ? What about parts for my local car shop ? Did they forgot the safety features unique to german cars ?

Now compare 0-60 and infotainment systems.

Is premium how fast the car goes, or how many paint colors it comes in? Different people have different requirements.

You are likely paying over 100k to get a car as fast as a model 3.

It's still not a premium car.

Premium is defined by price, not your desired feature set.

I think most people define premium by the build quality, interior design, options etc. But if you want to only define it by price, then the model 3 is definitely not in the premium segment. It's a very cheap car... So much so that I know a few people that literally joke at a white model 3 company lease as "your consulting job must suck"

FWIW, I drove a BMW 328i for 20 years. Paid $39,000 for it. Put 230,000 miles on it. I loved that car dearly.

I replaced it with a Model 3 and put 70,000 miles on it so far. Paid $49,000 for it, which is in the mid-point of what you'd pay for a new 328i. It's even more fun to drive, with operating costs at about 1/4 the BMW.

The model 3 looks like a $25,000 car when you buy it new though, and that's my problem with it.

25k cars don’t have the sound system nor performance nor screens of a 3. Let’s sit side by side with a civic and compare...

I agree. Among other things, it's not shaped like other cars. I found the nose off-putting when I first saw the prototypes, and I was really skeptical about the display and mounting in the center of the cabin.

In all sincerity, after reading through the comments, it seems to me that the folks making negative claims are picking specific things they don't like, or relating what they've heard about the car. I expect that if they spent a week driving it in place of their current pony, they'd change their opinion. The overall experience is better than any other car I've driven.

Also, there are for sure people who simply don't care about the driving experience itself and see cars as nothing more than transportation. For them, I also can see the a Tesla would have much less appeal.

The rich get after market effects.

So you're defining premium cars by the things that everyone hates about those cars, other than build quality.

The German car companies will nickle and dime you to death with options, they have terrible interiors/user interfaces, etc. Granted I wish the model 3 had cooled seats but meh.

Even a model S doesn't count with that logic.

They did patent a system for heating and cooling seats[1], so I suspect that will come eventually.

[1] https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20190291613&ID...

Compared to a luxury German car I think the model 3 has far worse isolation, more plastic and vibrations, fake leather, much less seat options in terms of adjustments, often misaligned panels. All OK for the mid range car that it is, but I was responding to Tesla calling it the best selling premium car.

'More plastic and vibrations...' Please be more specific. More plastic than the BMW or Mercedes?

And what parts are vibrating? Do you mean making an audible sound? Or the car is shimmying?

Premium sedan, not sports car. E classes do not and have never competed on 0-60 times

“Premium Sedan” includes a lot of things. BMW certainly classifies driving performance as part of that. As does Lexus. Mercedes has it’s own performance models.

Now if you wanted to argue that the Tesla Model 3/Y aren’t “Luxury Sedans”, I think you have a point. Not so much for the reasons you list, but because the ride is harsher than the Mercedes. But then, some BMWs have a similar ride so it’s hard to say.

Premium sedan has nothing to do with 0-100 km/h times. Those don't differ between segments.

What Model 3 lacks is quality interior and options.

>You are likely paying over 100k to get a car as fast as a model 3.

Define fast

I believe they are talking about 0-60 times.

Model 3 Performance in Track mode is #12 in this list[0]. The least you can pay for this version is $55k.

#13 is a Jaguar XE SV Project at $188k

#11 is a Bentley Bentayga at $160,000

#10 is an Acura NSX at $157,000

[0] https://www.motortrend.com/news/quickest-cars-motortrend-201...

> Now compare 0-60

What is this, kindergarten?

It's in the same price bucket. If in your opinion is not a premium sedan, it's all more impressive.

Let's not forget impossibly advanced German car user interfaces, such as trackpad to gesture individual characters to spell a word!

For reference: https://youtu.be/_aV91djgwEc

I'm astonished this made it to production. Red tape and bureaucracy means nobody is willing to push back against a feature that is bad and potentially dangerous (maybe not any more dangerous than touchscreens though).

In my experience working for a US subsidiary of a Japanese company, there's very little "push back" by underlings. That's simply not part of the culture.

As for peers, rather than underlings, the key word is consensus. Which is only achieved after endless months of interminable meetings during the day and interminable socializing during the evening. Maybe they finally reach consensus because they're worn out by all the discussion?

I hate touchscreens on the dash of moving cars. This interface is (perhaps?) worse, since the guy was making mistakes even in a stopped vehicle. But it would be interesting to try to use the interface while moving. One's hand is probably more stable down low, resting on the console, rather than extended out in space reaching for a touchscreen?

Either way, the interface is much worse than physical buttons on a console or dash.

> maybe not any more dangerous than touchscreens though

Maybe not any more dangerous than fancy lane control marketed as full self driving...

Acura is German, not Japanese, you're not replying to the correct comment, I think.

Also, Acura's trackpad or whatever just needs a cursor. I wonder why they didn't think of that.

Acura is luxury division of Honda, and headquartered both from the Japan and USA

Damn, I can't edit my comment. I meant that Acura is Japanese, not German. I wrote the comment the other way around :-(

Regarding headquarters, true, but it's still a division of Honda, which most people would consider a Japanese company.

My 2018 Audi has the same braindead touchpad interface. It's completely unusable.

Ah, damn. I wonder if they've changed something recently. I saw that more recent Audi models seem to have a 2 screen UI (driver console and central screen).

There are few repairs needed so parts don't matter ;-) More seriously I do hope that there can be third party access to shop manuals and repairs though.

> Model 3 is a premium sedan ?

I'm with you. It's certainly a premium price, but (IMHO) it really shouldn't be considered "premium" on overall build quality or accoutrements.

The E-class is an entirely different class from the Model 3 and 3 series. Maybe just a C-class typo.

Pretty impressive, especially considering that the 3 series is a similar age (both ~2018). The C class is getting long in the tooth, though, dates to 2016.

It definitely looks like a typo. But the Audi A6 is also an equivalent to the BMW 5 Series or Mercedes E Class. The A5 seems like a better comparison to the Model 3.

I wonder if the numbers are also wrong? Did they actually compare E Class and A6 sales instead of C Class and A5 sales?

Are 4 Series included in with 3 Series numbers? What about M cars?

Good point. Since they specifically mention sedans, likely it's limited to 4 door 3 series, C class, A4 type cars, wagons/coupes/convertibles need not apply.

Yeah the A4 and A5 seem comparable but Tesla only mentions the A6, a larger sedan like the 5 Series or E Class. I'd like to see the detailed numbers on this.

Also, the 3 Series wagon seems like it would be included in these numbers?

3 series wagon is no longer sold in the US, sadly.

That is sad. But this raises another question, is Tesla only quoting US sales here?

If I were Tesla, I would absolutely exclude wagons, because it makes my numbers look worse, and IMO it's legitimate because it's a different body style (I'm a wagon lover, but I own a Model 3).

I can understand them excluding wagons if they did. The issue is I don't know what these numbers actually represent so it's hard to draw any conclusions. Is there somewhere with more detail on what numbers they actually used for the "Global premium vehicle sales" graph on page 8?

I'm surprised by how micro-managey Tesla is with their Model 3/Y prices. Most manufacturers release a static MSRP for that model year. However, Tesla the past year was dropping prices $500-$1,000 periodically. And then as of last month, has raised prices $500-$1,000 twice.

Maybe they are doing A/B testing of the price?

In reality this is likely because they suspect the US EV tax credit extension to pass and they're slowly increasing the price to indirectly grab some of that as profit.

Is that in the US or Europe. In Europe they bounce it around a bit because of shipping costs from US and China fluctuating.

Now that you mention it - they're almost replicating the dealer experience.

In the beginning Tesla's selling point was that they were not a dealer, you go to the showroom and there is no pressure because everyone pays the same price.

Except with their pricing monkey business, you're replicating the same high-pressure "buy now before the price goes up"... for everyone.

Aren't they over the hump? Can they get away from gym-membership stuff?

Combine that with the variability of other nonsense - when will I get my car/truck? surprise! square steering wheel! etc...

A true premium experience should treat people better, and ONLY inflict positive drama.

Every 2 or 3 months it changes for everyone when they +/- it by $500. It's not a negotiation. It is surprising to me they do this, I cannot understand the tweaking.

I was looking at a used car, and it changed price several times a week. You might also look at the experiences of used tesla buyers. The price isn't the only thing they've played with, they've been doing the same sorts of things with features and even warranty coverage, all of which have in general gotten worse.

Other manufacturers are manage prices with consumer and dealer incentives. If you pay attention to car promotions, there's almost always a lot of differences in consumer cash back by model. Some manufacturers almost always have a baseline cash back, but if they want to raise prices, they can reduce that; if there's a model they want to move, it gets more, etc. Premium brands like to push leases and run promotions there. For the manufacturers with a captive finance company, there's even more room to play with pricing there.

I don't think Tesla runs promotions like that, so if they want to change the price, they have to change the price.

Other manufacturers don't deal with customers directly. There is at least as much, if not more, micromanagement of pricing and allocation in the traditional dealer world, it's just hidden from the public. And it's not unique to the auto world either, every vendor of items sold via large single contracts has an ability to pinch pennies that isn't available to small ticket retail items.

It seems like a bad business practice, because it screws the resale value of any current owners. People want MSRPs to remain relatively consistent to their purchase, and greater uncertainty also generally makes lease rates higher because they need higher prices in order to justify the additional risk they take on.

They're balancing their production capacity with price. I.e. price that keeps delivery window not too long or short. They could sell them cheaper, but then they would be limited by manufacturing capacity.

What’s amazing is that just 5 years ago, it seemed like a distant goal. People were skeptical of Tesla in 2015 (rightfully so). Almost went bankrupt in 2017. They dug themselves out of there despite of Elon’s PR shenanigans. Pretty amazing I think! Now about that stock price, I’m not so sure. It’s like next 20 years are baked into $735/share price now.

The inflated stock price is easy to explain: intangibles are part of the balance sheet.

In my guesstimation, Tesla will be making electric cars with a range to dollar ratio that can’t possibly be matched by incumbents for the foreseeable future.

VW and the rest are more capable of producing a refined car, but (again, my opinion) Tesla’s EV advantage is similar to the big three’s various inertial advantages that they enjoyed in the mid-20th century.

Perhaps more US-specific: buying a Tesla over something like a VW ID.4 gives you the supercharger network. It will be years if not decades before the general open standard charging network can compete with that benefit of ownership.

So I just bought an ID.4 this weekend after seeing on HN on Friday that it launched in the US. I also test drove a Tesla Y just to double check Saturday morning before doing so.

Tesla Y is for sure faster and the better drive. It's also like 10-15k more expensive and that's not even before VW's rebates. The interior was weird -- tiny headrests, tiny mirrors, and really poor back visibility. A giant screen in middle and nothing else wasn't particularly great, and I don't have CarPlay (I know Tesla has a lot of functionality in their system, but I'd personally rather drive it all from my phone to have a more continuous experience in car and out of car). On that screen was a 'video game'-ified representation of what Autopilot was seeing... not only distracting, but kept being wrong while I was stopped at a red light staring at it as it missed the cars in front of me and kept rapidly alternating what direction the incoming lane was going to turn. And that's driving the car? Scary!

I don't care about being faster, the ID.4 is plenty fast. I also don't really care about 250mi versus 350mi range or whatever right now.. all are inconvenient for a super long trip. I just recently drove from SF to near Canada... that was a very long multi-day drive and I would for sure not want to have multiple 35m+ stops in addition to the long drive. Until the technology gets WAYYY better I'll just rent ICE cars for a very long drive. Until then 250mi is plenty to get around the Bay Area knowing I can just plugin at home overnight to recharge.

VW has build a Electrify America charging network from a 2B settlement for their diesel emissions standards. If they're smart they'll capitalize on this and win much more in the long run by becoming Exxon AND a car company... their network isn't exclusive to their cars.

With everyone coming online in the next couple years, Tesla is going to have very real competition. I don't think the areas that they're better at are quite as make/break for car decision making as they claim to be. Elon Musk himself certainly doesn't help as a very divisive figure (and was part of the reason I didn't want a Tesla).

These are almost the exact reason I'm looking forward to test driving an ID.4. I just don't care about the acceleration enough to have that be a plus. I hope you like your ID.4, it really seems like a 'regular car' BEV.

As a former Audi owner, I would never ever buy anything from VW (certainly not after the dieselgate scandal). But good luck with your $45k purchase!

Why specifically? Don’t we want to support them in EVs?

Btw it’s -9k with rebates. But I also leased as I anticipate it being uncompetitive in 3 years. Everyone has EVs coming so the tech and competition will mature quickly. This is a first gen car for VW.

There is no obligation to "support" a for-profit corporation like some kind of charity. Certainly VW deserves no such charity. It is a recidivist emissions violator that has been caught doing defeat devices on multiple occasions. It treats customers with the same contempt as it does the EPA.

It is good though that you got your vehicle on lease. If it is like my first-generation A4, everything will start to fall apart after 3 years.

I wouldn't just say 250 vs 350 is a wash on trips . While the Y isn't better then ICE for road trips its way better then the VW for EV road trips

My point being that neither of which I want to take on a road trip. For that very rare occasion (for me), I’d rent an ICE.

A 350 mi range makes all the difference on a trip to Yosemite, Sacramento, Tahoe.

> And that's driving the car? Scary!

The visualization happening there is more limited than what the car actually sees via the cameras, probably for performance reasons (it runs on a Intel Atom processor in the 3/Y) - you can see a more detailed representation on page 8 of https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/4E7BR9_TSLA_Q3_2020_Updat... and you can see more from public personalities with access to the beta https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tesla+fsd+beta

> With everyone coming online in the next couple years, Tesla is going to have very real competition.

This is true, but BEV sales is currently only 3% or so of the total automobile market. There is so much room for growth. Tesla, VW, GM, and practically all major automakers pour money into BEV not to take a share in the 3% slice of the market.

Tesla will remain the leader in the BEV in the foreseeable future even with more competition. Smaller slide likely, but of a much bigger pie.

I recently compared the number of charging stations for Tesla, Ford and VW here in Reno. Tesla had some, Ford had many, VW had very few. In markets like this that’s gonna hurt for a while.

Except most real world tests show Tesla doesn't go any further than competing cars regardless of what their self reported EPA estimates say.

Can we have a source here?

Here's a range test of a Tesla Model Y (EPA range 326 miles) versus a Ford Mustang Mach E (EPA range 270 miles). But in a real world drive the Mach E gets more range:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s

Tesla likes to maximize their EPA test cycle results to make the advertising look good, but it doesn't necessarily translate to real world results.

The difference, as other testers have noted, is that Tesla's notion of "0% battery" is a bit more conservative than other brands.

It's important to appreciate that the utility of energy efficiency metrics are different for ICE and EV. In an ICE car, fuel efficiency is pretty much just a stand-in for running costs and tailpipe pollution, so it makes sense for the test cycle to represent a plausible balance of city and highway driving.

But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about range in the context of long distance driving. What matters is highway cruising efficiency, not some emissions-focused test cycle. So when judging the range of an EV, it should be as simple as highway efficiency multiplied by usable battery capacity.

> The difference, as other testers have noted, is that Tesla's notion of "0% battery" is a bit more conservative than other brands

It's not enough of a difference to account for the range deficit. Add on 12.6 miles for the Model Y and 7.3 miles for the Mach E. The Mustang still comes out on top:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131706_tesla-saves-mor...

> But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about range in the context of long distance driving.

Yes, the Mach E does it better.

> What matters is highway cruising efficiency

No. What matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent.

I don’t disagree with any of that. Sorry if my prior post implied that I thought Tesla vehicles were special or magical, I’m just pointing out that it’s not so straightforward to interpret the metrics.

My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery. Its battery pack is 75 kWh nominal. The battery pack in the Mach E is quite large, it's basically 99 kWh nominal."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s&t=61s

Note that the above are nominal (i.e. physical) battery capacities. Ford generally promotes the usable capacity of the battery, which is 88 kWh. The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction.

You correctly point out that what matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent. I agree. When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.

> The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction.

It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. It's 73 kWh usable in the Model Y:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY

A better question is why does Tesla not reveal such a basic detail in its marketing.

> When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.

You aren't going to see much benefit from that. The difference is 6%.

The Mustang Mach E is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Model Y with the current incentives that it qualifies for. The California Route 1 trim is cheaper even without incentives and gets even more range because it's rear wheel drive. That's a lot of charging to make up the difference.

That logic does make sense if we assume that the purchase price of a vehicle is entirely for the battery and all other parts of the car are free.

Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. The vehicle with a 88 kWh "usable" capacity goes a little bit further on the highway compared to the vehicle with a 73 kWh "usable" capacity. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?

My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery." That was my point. You're making another point and I'm not disagreeing with it.

> Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one.

It isn't weird that car buyers consider how much the car will cost them.

> Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?

This has all been a surprise to you. You're not across the detail but that's okay. Now you know more.

> The difference, as other testers have noted, is that Tesla's notion of "0% battery" is a bit more conservative than other brands.

Most reviews also note that tesla clings to their bullshit remaining range number until the battery is near depletion then suddenly drops. Other EVs have a remaining distance gauge that closely matches actual remaining range.

https://driving.ca/tesla/model-s/features/feature-story/rang...

our 2019 100D promised 491 kilometres of electrically-powered zero emission motoring while the Porsche’s said the Taycan would only be able to manage 345 km.

the Porsche had almost exactly delivered its expected range — 342 km according to our calculations, versus its original 345-km claim — the Model S was all but as dead as a door-nail at 355 klicks. For the record, the Tesla underperformed its predicted range by some 136 kilometres, or negative 27 per cent, while the Taycan exceeded its EPA rating by 15 klicks (more than four per cent).

According to the linked article they were going noticeably above the Model S's optimum driving speed. In fact, they're driving at a speed above the USA highway speed limit. Not sure this is sufficient to claim "most real world tests show Tesla doesn't go any further than competing cars"

It was 77.6 mph - under the speed limit in areas of texas and the real world driving speed of inner west states.

I bought a Ford Mach-e, after comparing the mileage, build quality and pricing with model Y. The Tesla drives better, performance wise they felt the same, but build quality and cabin noise is way better in the Mach-e.

Also, surprisingly actual road mileage is better in the Mach-e too[1].

Tesla felt like a car built around the software and ford felt like a car with the software as an afterthought. But I like driving cars (drive a manual right now), so, don’t really care as much about the software as others.

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...

Tesla has ~2,000 charging stations (with 20,000 chargers).

The stations seems to cost a few hundred thousand dollars.

So they have a lead, but it's roughly a billion dollars (or maybe 2) to build out something similar, that isn't going to take decades.

There are tens of thousands of places that might install a couple high power chargers (restaurants and similar). Doesn't take that many of them to add a lot of capacity, even if it isn't spaced out quite as well.

It's not impossible, it just takes planning and multiple technical steps. Until the last 6 months, no other cars had plug in and charge (with your car telling the charger the credit card number and/or car id)! You had to sign in to an app or scan your card on the charger itself.

Telsa also is the only car manu. was access to enough batteries to ship car in en masse. All the the companies making evs are significantly limited by batteries. Finally teslas have much better energy efficiency/mile. 800v charging and car systems is one area tesla is behind (they are 400v).

That other vehicles are getting plug and charge is a sign of the lead eroding. They only have to figure it out the one time.

I would expect battery production capacity to be somewhat lumpy (with big shifts when new mines or factories open). That can take a long time and I haven't looked at where things are, but it also means that there can be a very sudden shift.

I follow the development of the stations pretty closely. It is much much much harder than you think it is. Some stations take well over a year from permitting to lighting them up. Tesla has also made deals with a lot of businesses and states to put them on highway rest stops. The other charging stations are spotty at best. I live one mile from the Electrify America HQ. Even the station at their HQ is iffy and I had issues with payments on it.

Also Tesla has two full production lines for the station gear. One in Shanghai and one in Buffalo NY. Electrify America is a hodgepodge of 4 different suppliers gear.

Tesla has made approximately 2000 deals. Years aren't decades, and the cost just isn't high enough that it will drag out.

It's sort of neutral that there's more than one manufacturer of the other chargers, if the chargers work well with vehicles it doesn't matter if they come from 15 factories or 2.

Tesla clearly has a lead. My point is that it is unlikely to be durable.

The lead remains durable in the medium term because Tesla can remain doggedly single-minded. Whereas established automakers have monumental scale investments in their present-day supply chains which can't easily be write off.

Long term? While I don't feel confident hazarding a guess when the ICE–EV inflection point will occur, I expect that inflection point to be marked by a series of corporate collapses as the transition (or indeed the failure to transition) ultimately bankrupts them.

No there are issues with the EA chargers being from different vendors. This article is really good and gets into it:

https://insideevs.com/news/389891/exclusive-interview-electr...

“Electrify America currently uses units made by ABB, BTC, Signet, and Efacec. Every time they have a software or hardware update, it has to be done on all four brands, and they don't always all work the same afterward. Fitezek has to work out the kinks with all four partners and they all respond on different timelines. I could see that this was clearly a pain point for him.”

> Tesla will be making electric cars with a range to dollar ratio that can’t possibly be matched by incumbents for the foreseeable future

That isn't true today, never mind the future. If you want range to dollars then the Chevy Bolt is hard to beat. Especially with deals like this:

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/chevy-bolt-ev-available-f...

It's also important to consider real world miles versus paper miles. Tesla's EPA range figures are inflated. On paper, the Tesla Model Y should have more range than the Ford Mustang Mach E. But in real world driving the Mach E has the greater range:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s

Almost went bankrupt during the first Roadster deliveries in 2008 as well: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43365710

Even if Tesla eventually failed, this is an achievement. They've fully validated the EV market. I highly doubt that we'd be seeing accelerating EV adoption like this without Tesla.

Too many countries are banning ICE sales in the next decade. So they have at least a decade of life left.

Nissan deserve some recognition as well, it's not just Tesla.

I own a Leaf. They're great cars, sort of the electric alternative to the Honda Civic and more economical than Tesla, but they're not cool or sexy. Tesla made EVs cool and desirable for car people.

Also the Tesla Roadster was slightly before the Leaf if my memory is correct. It was a super-expensive niche car but it showed what an EV can do.

BTW my Leaf out-accelerates many muscular gasoline cars. The torque curve benefits of EVs are universal and apply even to wimpier EVs.

Why is Model 3 even considered as a premium? What makes it premium comparing to established German holy trinity (BMW, Merc, Audi)? It's average car at best, and with its notorious build quality standards it's not even an average.

As noted elsewhere, I've put 70,000 miles on my Model 3. After driving a 328i for 20 years, the Tesla is more fun in every way.

As for build quality, my maintenance so far is $850 for a windshield. Cuz... I drive it so fast all the time, pebbles chipped away at it until it cracked down the middle. That's it.

I can also attest that operating costs are 1/4 the BMW. Energy costs, yes, but also $0 for brake pads (I'm at 90% after 70k miles), $0 for fluids (no oil, brake fluid, transmission fluid, radiator flush, ...).

So reading your comment, what makes it premium? Fun and cheaper maintenance?

For reference, I put 230k miles on a 328i, 80k on an E430, 70k on a 2017 Model 3.

The good:

- Handling. Model 3 is sharper acceleration, flatter and faster curves, 4-wheel active traction control(<- this is amazing, it automatically corrects the car's position when breaking traction)

- Sound System. Model 3 sound system is better than either of the other two. Moreover, it actually improved since I bought it through software upgrades. They even download new firmware into the amplifiers.

- Comfort. The Tesla seat is amazingly comfortable. I drove for 9 hours on Sunday for example. Never felt fatigued, no soreness, no pressure points in my ass. In the other cars, which are also very comfortable, I'd at least have a sore lower back after that amount of time in the saddle.

- Charging: Since Tesla has a captive charge station network, charging is a non-event. Back in to the stall and plug it in. It's fast and getting faster. No credit card input to futz with. Note that I don't have experience using other systems, but I've seen them collocated with Tesla chargers and I've seen users struggle trying to figure out how to get the juice flowing.

The Not Good:

- If the window is rolled down when you close the door, you can hear that it's not secured within the door (not premium).

- The trunk doesn't lift when you unlatch it from the console (not premium).

- Some carpeted seams are overlaid rather than joined. That seemed to be a miss in premium.

Overall, I'd say they focused on the elements that matter most (drive, comfort, sound) and the lesser factors, while important, will be corrected over time (fingers crossed).

FWIW, I did not label it as Premium. I don't know what I'd label it as, cuz I think BEVs are a different enough experience to have their own label. Just trying to offer some objectivity in this thread.

You should still change the brake fluid every few years. I don't know what Tesla recommends but most car manufacturers recommend brake fluid flushes every 2-5 years (the Germans generally recommend 2 year intervals, GM generally recommends 5 year intervals, the Japanese brands seem to recommend 3 year intervals).

DOT 3, 4, and 5.1 fluid will absorb water on purpose and disperse it throughout the fluid. Over time if you do not flush out this water-contaminated fluid it'll start to cause corrosion inside the brake system.

Yes, I agree. Will do soon.

The price makes it premium

Let's call it bad value for money then

Honest question: how does this factor in with BMW's leasing program? Most people I know (outside of... myself... lol) refuse to actually buy a BMW, and just lease it.

Are these numbers included?

Lease German, Buy Japenese/Korean/Asian.

I've heard this many a time.

Teslas are still pretty new, but generally speaking leasing them is not a great choice. The terms are fine, but financially you are better off buying one and selling it after 3 years. They tend to hold their price a lot better than a Mercedes or a BMW.

That makes them a great choice for lease companies. Lease companies are popular for company cars in e.g. the Netherlands and the UK. EV adoption in that market is very high because of this reason. I agree it makes less sense for private ownership; though the lack of hassle associated with ownership is worth something to some people as well.

Fully charged recently did an episode on second hand value of EVs. Basically, lease cars are sold in auctions and they indeed hold their value amazingly well. Most EVs produced since 2012 are still on the road and are still very decent value.

There are definitely reasons leasing is appealing, dealing with trade ins and resale can be a big headache.

I tend to hang onto vehicles for 7+ years regardless so it’s not a big issue here.

That's just cleverly chosen comparison point. The only "premium" thing about Teslas is their price. They have laughably low quality compared to top BMW or Audi models.

The model 3 really isn't a premium sedan. It's more like a mid range Skoda than an Audi, with a cheap plastic interior and pretty bad build quality.

They sell very well because it's cheap and in many countries you get a great tax deal on them making it even cheaper. Which I'm really happy for because EVs help against climate change. But I'm also very happy I cancelled my pre-order and don't have to drive a model 3.

So tell us what one should drive instead of a model 3?

What you can buy instead is 99% based on personal preference, I cancelled the model 3 and got a BMW because I liked the few I had before. But my co-founder would never drive a BMW. He returned his second model S and got an Audi EV instead. Which is not a car I would pick.

My point is that a model 3 isn't really a luxury car, it's an entry model and has the build quality and options that go with that.

So I don't get this. You bash the Model 3 for build quality but you support BMW which is notorious for having horrible reliability.

I'd pick the car with just okay paint and maybe some not-so-perfect gaps over a car that I know is going to cost me thousands in maintenance.

OP could be in Europe. German premium cars are a lot cheaper to maintain there (still more than a Toyota though), and somehow seem to have less issues than the US.

In Europe indeed, no idea why American BMWs are so much worse. There is also a huge amount of complaining online about the dealers, that could be part of the problem.

Had a similar feeling driving a rental VW Passat in the US, it felt like they make a special US version. Most notable difference was a very very lazy feeling gearbox.

Funny you mention Passat. I owned one for a few years and it was pretty solid, was surprised esp. hearing all the negative towards VW reliability. But then I rented one in Florida that felt like it was about to rattle itself apart.

And just so I don't sound like a Tesla fanboy or anything, I got a Model S high mileage loaner that also felt like it was about to break apart at any second.

I guess Americans just can't make cars! I hear the Chinese made Model 3's are really solid

Yes I had the same comparison having also rented several VWs in Europe and feeling like it's an entirely different car in the US.

Not sure whether a US market BMW is produced locally. If they are that would explain a lot in terms of US customers complaining about reliability and thinking a model 3 is like a German luxury car while to European customers it feels like a cheap American car. The frame of reference isn't the same.

Edit: So a quick Google shows a US BMW 3 series is produced in Mexico. And apparently has to use at least 50% locally made parts according to Mexican law.

According to ADAC (in german) BMW is pretty good in terms of reliability. https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/unfall-schaden-panne/a... They do mention battery issues with the BMW 5 series prior to 2010.

Great to learn today that the model 3 is not a premium car. My whole life has been a lie. How do I refine my tastes to appreciate premium cars like the bmw like you? I never had a mentor who could teach me the finer aspects of premium taste.

I do think the model 3 is a premium car, and I don't understand how you can say the opposite with a strong confidence. But some other cars are better on some aspects, and worse on some aspects.

It's not very important but when you close a door or the trunk on the model 3, it doesn't sound premium. It has this cheap metallic sound. When driving, the sound proofing is not the best either compared to similar priced EVs. About the interior materials, I am not a fan of the fake leather and I prefer the real leather you can find in most premium vehicles but I know it depends a lot on tastes and many like that it's not dead animals skin. The top of the trunk has no cover and someone at Tesla had fun with the hot glue gun on the car I rented, but I heard that the Porsche Taycan has no cover either.

At the same time the model 3 has a great entertainment system, drives super well, and I love the interior design. I would like to replace my old "premium" BMW i3 with a "premium" Model 3.

What you're saying may be an important detail for car enthusiasts but that's mostly irrelevant given the context. From the business side of things what matters is that the Model 3 outsells all of its competitors at its price point.

If anything, the fact that a car that uses cheap plastic is outselling the car that doesn't use the cheap plastic at the same price is phenomenal.

Skoda's have pretty good build quality nowadays.

Modem 3 a premium sedan, well idiots will be idiots I guess, carry on the torch.

> I find this to be a major milestone in the transition to BEV. This is an achievement.

While I agree it would be great if we had 0 emission vehicles, today EV in US or Germany run largely of coal , hence battery production is anything but green...

Thus I still don’t see the point of what’s called « Transition ».

Climate change is real , but at the moment without nuclear fusion I fail to see how this is going to change anything it seems to be deporting the problem to be honest.

Coal is 20% not most

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_Sta...

It’s not an either or problem. It’s an also problem. Make power plants cleaner and make cars cleaner. Hit it from Both ends.

> Coal is 20% not most

You’re right ! US has shifted from coal ... to Natural Gas !

I don’t think that this is solving the problem , natural gas comes from fracking ... but it’s definitely a small win knowing how big is America and how much less natural gas produces CO2.

Natural gas is already a big step as it only emits 2/3rds of the CO2 per kWh compared to coal (high hydrogen content). Also, gas power plants can be regulated faster than coal power plants, so they work much better together with wind/solar power and make the transition easier.

There are a ton of viable and productive energy production methods that at least start to address climate change between where we're at now and "nuclear fusion".

Fission may have plenty of issues, but lets not pretend that the entire world is "fusion or bust".

> Fission may have plenty of issues, but lets not pretend that the entire world is "fusion or bust".

Unfortunately , that’s no how it’s work.

Yes fission is great ! France runs on Fission it works greats.

Problem ? In 2015 at the current rate of consumption 130 years of uranium left on earth !

Sadly for us International Nuclear association estimated that if most country shifted to Nuclear that uranium would shift from 130 to just 30 years...

Regardless of how your turn the problem you’ll always end up to the same solution to satisfy the world need for energy :fusion.

Especially if you intend to have EV widely deployed.

> Problem ? In 2015 at the current rate of consumption 130 years of uranium left on earth !

First of all, this is nonsense. The same old peak-blabla nonsense.

Second of all, thorium can be used in current reactors. Third, thorium is practically unlimited.

Existing nuclear 'waste' and nuclear bombs contain huge amounts of potential energy as well.

With newer reactors these limits can be further broken by moving from terrible utilization to much higher utilization. And lets not ignore that modern CO2 turbines can improve efficiency by a further 20% at least.

There is absolutely no limit to fission in any theoretical or practical sense.

Its arguably renewable as volcanoes transport new thorium to the surface.

Uranium is practically unlimited too. We can extract it from seawater for $200/kg.

Germany has more solar than coal

https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

But does it have more renewables than Fossil fuels?

Don't cherry pick the data on a week when there's loads of the sun in Germany. Take whole "normal" 2019. for example: https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

Coal - almost 30% vs less than 10% of solar

Ah you're right, I didn't catch that the default view is "this week." Thanks.

> today EV in US or Germany run largely of coal

No? Coal accounts for 11% of US energy production. 7.5% for Germany.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/736640/energy-mix-german...

Unfortunately, you seem to have misread the report you quoted. Germany's not-so-secret is lignite, a dirtier kind of coal supplying 16.8% of its electricity. Lignite together with traditional coal at 7.3% supplied 24.1% of Germany's electricity. [0]

[0] https://strom-report.de/germany-power-generation-2020/

And steadily declining year on year. The next government is likely to feature the green party and possibly even a green party prime minister. IMHO that will set in motion an accelerated shut down of lignite and coal, which only narrowly got averted by the CSU in the current government (the CDU looked more likely to compromise on this). Even so, it will likely take a while.

Otherwise the headline here is that renewables are already the dominant source of energy in the German market. Gas is the only thing growing in market size currently other than renewables and that's mostly just offsetting the decline of coal and nuclear. Overall, renewables grow faster. Otherwise, many EV owners also put solar on their roofs and/or buy power from renewable sources or charge at public chargers hooked up to renewable sources. So, the notion that EVs are powered by coal is very dated at this point.

Lots of reasons to expect accelerated lignite shutdown and solar/wind buildup indeed. And quite impressive to see that 50.5% of Germany's electricity production was wind, sun and water already!

I didn't know the German political system had a prime minister. What's the role of the prime minister, and how does it relate to the chancellor and to the president?

The point of the transition to BEV is that electricity production is fungible. It's easier to modify the mixture of generation sources and to scale into renewables a whole lot faster than trying to modify or convert the drivetrain of an ICE vehicle.

Furthermore, even if renewables do not fully power the BEV, it's easier to filter/capture pollutants at a single point source of generation than it is to try to capture these things across millions of vehicles. It's not just CO2 that's harming the environment, it's also nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, formaldehyde....

Even if all your electricity comes from burning fossil fuels switching to EVs should be an emissions win.

Your fossil fuel burning electrical generation facility can be equipped with things to capture emissions. So can a fossil fuel burning car, but the car needs to be small, mobile, and light weight and that limits how much you can capture emissions. The electrical generation facility doesn't have those constraints.

In addition to capture, there's also simply efficiency — those same factors cut into how much power is obtained from a particular quantity of fuel and a large professionally-maintained facility which isn't weight/size-constrained should be much better there. If it's going to be burned, we should get maximum value out of it.

The other big win is time: if I buy a conventionally-fueled car now I'm locking in its use of fossil fuels for 15+ years unless there's a major improvement in biofuels whereas if I buy an EV in many states I can at any time switch to 100% renewable electric charging. A non-trivial percentage of EV owners will consider that option over the life of the vehicle and that opens the possibility of policy makers making a substantial change without needing to coordinate with millions of people: bring wind, solr, geothermal, nuclear, etc. capacity online and you have a guaranteed day one reduction in the CO2 generated for transportation.

It also moves the emissions away from where people live for the most part. Not as much a win with CO2, but gas cars spit out a lot of other nasty stuff too.

Definitely - and regenerative braking should cut into the brake residue which contributes to conditions like asthma, although it won't change tire dust much.

That's just not true.

Also, we can't have both "electric cars are only for rich coastal elites" and "... but the power they're run on is the dirtiest power available in coal country"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com