Tesla's Big Gamble: Can The Electric Car Go Mainstream?(npr.org)
npr.org
Tesla's Big Gamble: Can The Electric Car Go Mainstream?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/09/24/161700525/teslas-big-gamble-can-the-electric-car-go-mainstream?ft=1&f=1001
68 comments
> I really really really want Tesla to succeed. But I cannot convince myself to buy a Model-S, it is just past my pain threshold. And for that I am sad.
I'm largely in the same boat. I'm planning on buying a car in the next year and while I think the Model S is downright beautiful, I can't do it. The base model is right in the price range I'd be willing to pay, but the problem is the range; even under optimal driving circumstances, it's quite a bit short of what I'd need to make the trips I'd like to make. One of the higher end models has the range I'd need, but I can't justify the extra $20k or whatever it is.
Hopefully in a couple years there'll be a car from them priced at the perfect level with the things I need, but it's just not there yet.
I'm largely in the same boat. I'm planning on buying a car in the next year and while I think the Model S is downright beautiful, I can't do it. The base model is right in the price range I'd be willing to pay, but the problem is the range; even under optimal driving circumstances, it's quite a bit short of what I'd need to make the trips I'd like to make. One of the higher end models has the range I'd need, but I can't justify the extra $20k or whatever it is.
Hopefully in a couple years there'll be a car from them priced at the perfect level with the things I need, but it's just not there yet.
Depending on how compelled you are and how often you make those trips you'd like to make, you could potentially shore up your garage with a cheap beater from the 90's.
I just purchased a new ~$20k Toyota in Thailand, and its my first vehicle purchase. I'm seriously hoping electric is in my price range here in, say, a decade when I plan to want a new car...
Excellent analogy. Tesla has major challenges to lasting as a company.
It spends about $100M per quarter and it has $200M of cash [1]. So in the next 6 months, Tesla will need to bring margins way up (unlikely), dramatically cut expenses (opposite of the current plan), or raise lots more money.
The company already has $400M in debt. I hope it can raise more. Or that the public will pony up more investment. I also really really want Tesla to succeed.
[1] See "Cash Flows" tab: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATSLA&fstype=ii&...
It spends about $100M per quarter and it has $200M of cash [1]. So in the next 6 months, Tesla will need to bring margins way up (unlikely), dramatically cut expenses (opposite of the current plan), or raise lots more money.
The company already has $400M in debt. I hope it can raise more. Or that the public will pony up more investment. I also really really want Tesla to succeed.
[1] See "Cash Flows" tab: http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ATSLA&fstype=ii&...
If they can build the 5000 cars they claimed for this year (honestly, its doubtful) then they have ~$75k (rough guess on avg car price) * 5000 = ~$375m coming their way this year. And they have a huge backlog of orders (~13.8k), so it's really just a question of if they can scale up their production fast enough to close the gap. It'll happen, possibly without any bridge financing.
Revenues are not cash flows. That $375M of revenues from car orders has real costs associated (i.e. materials, labor).
Ford and GM, established car makers, have gross margins of about 12-15%. Tesla's margins are much lower, at least today. But let's ignore working capital needs and pretend Tesla had the "great" margins of its competitors, then that's still only $50M of cash contribution. Tesla will need lots of cash this year.
Ford and GM, established car makers, have gross margins of about 12-15%. Tesla's margins are much lower, at least today. But let's ignore working capital needs and pretend Tesla had the "great" margins of its competitors, then that's still only $50M of cash contribution. Tesla will need lots of cash this year.
Is there another way of looking at this? Do you need to own the car? I hire a car when I need one, and use feet, push-bike and public transport the rest of the time. I _know_ I save money this way, compared with owning: I used to own a car, kept all the paper work and did the arithmetic.
If you didn't need to own the car, then things like a vehicular equivalent of the old livery stables and post horses might be viable.
If you didn't need to own the car, then things like a vehicular equivalent of the old livery stables and post horses might be viable.
I'm very excited for mine to arrive in the next 90 days. I know I will be an early adopter in the EV world but I look at it as less of a splurge and more of an investment that could move the industry forward. This will be my fifth car owned and I am tired of two faced dealers, incremental improvements, design without vision and an industry that can but won't improve because of the lucrative parts & service aftermarket. Radio and television is littered with people giving away cars with 0% financing (baking in the profit elsewhere I suspect). It's only a matter of time before we have to bail the auto makers out again.
I'm putting my money into Tesla because I believe that if they can make it to the Model E (Bluestar - $30-40k sedan) then we'll have a whole new ballgame on our hands in the automotive space. The Model S is the testing ground for volume manufacturing, the Model X will test platform re-use, then we reach the Model E which will drive down costs.
In the mean time I encourage you all to test drive one - even if you are not going to purchase - it's quite the experience. The Tesla stores around North America are now getting their in-store models for test drives. With leasing opening up next summer (rumour has it) it should also make it a tad more accessible to the general public.
I'm putting my money into Tesla because I believe that if they can make it to the Model E (Bluestar - $30-40k sedan) then we'll have a whole new ballgame on our hands in the automotive space. The Model S is the testing ground for volume manufacturing, the Model X will test platform re-use, then we reach the Model E which will drive down costs.
In the mean time I encourage you all to test drive one - even if you are not going to purchase - it's quite the experience. The Tesla stores around North America are now getting their in-store models for test drives. With leasing opening up next summer (rumour has it) it should also make it a tad more accessible to the general public.
Does the car come with stock? If not it is investing your money for somebody else's benefit, aka charity. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
If your focus in pure money ROI then I supposed you would be right. At some point, however, we need to vote with our wallets to influence larger investment decisions. At the early stages of adoption per-unit costs will be higher than volume manufacturing. This is where Tesla is at this point (and the EV segment as a whole). If I continued to buy internal combustion vehicles because they were cheaper then I would continue to prop up a segment that needs to either be deprecated or pivot.
At this price point I am willing to vote with my wallet in hopes that it will spur on further investment to broaden the market in turn driving down prices through better technology and higher volume sales. This is no different than the PC market in the 1980s - very expensive to buy a PC, but if none of us did then we would have had a different outcome.
What is different about this investment than, say, buying a Ferrari is that this feels like something that is moving us forward rather than burning cash on a cool car that the ladies will dig (although you do hope for that as well - it's cool being green after all, right? :)).
At this price point I am willing to vote with my wallet in hopes that it will spur on further investment to broaden the market in turn driving down prices through better technology and higher volume sales. This is no different than the PC market in the 1980s - very expensive to buy a PC, but if none of us did then we would have had a different outcome.
What is different about this investment than, say, buying a Ferrari is that this feels like something that is moving us forward rather than burning cash on a cool car that the ladies will dig (although you do hope for that as well - it's cool being green after all, right? :)).
I'm sorry but we're past the "can" stage.
Electric propulsion just is better for any type of friction based transport within our atmosphere (trains/buses/planes/cars/bikes). The only problem was battery density per dollar. However, thanks to the incredible - and I mean incredible - success of laptops, phones and tablets over the last decade that problem is just about solved (due to astonishing volume/economies of scale/incremental li-on research/massive factory investment).
High battery density at low cost (key) + 92% efficient electric motors (already done) = cheap, efficient transport for all - everywhere (think the electrification of trains - but throughout suburbia). Hook up this electrified network and make it fully autonomous (cars/trains/buses/planes) - and we've just turned the physical world into the Internet. No more oil shocks, no more traffic jams, no more pollution (in city centres), no more time wasted, fully networked, no more car ownership, no more driver deaths - for more see Google car discussions elsewhere.
We will utilise fully electric transportation systems within the decade for the same reason that gasoline/diesel based transport dominated electric back in 1900 - it's just better, faster and cheaper.
It also has the benefit of allowing us stop giving a shit about the hell hole that is the Middle East (I went there).
With the introduction of electric cars, the astonishing growth and dramatic lowering in cost of solar PV (thanks to China) and the development of nuclear fusion with the ITER plant - you'll soon wonder why you cared about the price of oil at all.
The electric car will send everyone in the Middle East back to Africa level care and development levels - a.k.a. We will no longer give a shit and brutal poverty.
Electric propulsion just is better for any type of friction based transport within our atmosphere (trains/buses/planes/cars/bikes). The only problem was battery density per dollar. However, thanks to the incredible - and I mean incredible - success of laptops, phones and tablets over the last decade that problem is just about solved (due to astonishing volume/economies of scale/incremental li-on research/massive factory investment).
High battery density at low cost (key) + 92% efficient electric motors (already done) = cheap, efficient transport for all - everywhere (think the electrification of trains - but throughout suburbia). Hook up this electrified network and make it fully autonomous (cars/trains/buses/planes) - and we've just turned the physical world into the Internet. No more oil shocks, no more traffic jams, no more pollution (in city centres), no more time wasted, fully networked, no more car ownership, no more driver deaths - for more see Google car discussions elsewhere.
We will utilise fully electric transportation systems within the decade for the same reason that gasoline/diesel based transport dominated electric back in 1900 - it's just better, faster and cheaper.
It also has the benefit of allowing us stop giving a shit about the hell hole that is the Middle East (I went there).
With the introduction of electric cars, the astonishing growth and dramatic lowering in cost of solar PV (thanks to China) and the development of nuclear fusion with the ITER plant - you'll soon wonder why you cared about the price of oil at all.
The electric car will send everyone in the Middle East back to Africa level care and development levels - a.k.a. We will no longer give a shit and brutal poverty.
Electric motors are awesome, but you're underestimating how far behind battery technology is as a automotive power source compared to gasoline.
Perhaps - I'm willing to concede.
However the facts of the matter are such:
Gasoline is only ~15% efficient. Gasoline is assumed to be past peak oil - hence prices must rise with time (look at your local petrol station). Battery tech on the other hand falls in cost by 5% per year. Electric engines are 92% efficient - batteries fall in cost 4x over next decade - EV cost/range parity will occur by 2018.
Give it 5 years and they'll be electric Toyota Corolla's rolling around with middle class drivers behind the wheel.
However the facts of the matter are such:
Gasoline is only ~15% efficient. Gasoline is assumed to be past peak oil - hence prices must rise with time (look at your local petrol station). Battery tech on the other hand falls in cost by 5% per year. Electric engines are 92% efficient - batteries fall in cost 4x over next decade - EV cost/range parity will occur by 2018.
Give it 5 years and they'll be electric Toyota Corolla's rolling around with middle class drivers behind the wheel.
It's less the cost that I'm thinking of, but the weight and the recharge times. Of course these can be accepted as trade-offs, but they fly in the face of your apparent idea that electric power is equal or better in all ways aside from cost and thus complicate matters.
Don't forget, by the way, we have to power electric vehicles with something. I expect as gasoline rises in cost, electricity is going to as well, offsetting some of this differential.
It doesn't have to be that way, but what with our fear of nuclear power...
Anyway, I am completely in favor of electric vehicles for many reasons, but to call them inevitable within the near future, I think is unrealistic. Unless we come up with capacitors of wildly improved energy density (on the order of 1,000x) at which point I hope and expect the gasoline automobile market will fold overnight.
Don't forget, by the way, we have to power electric vehicles with something. I expect as gasoline rises in cost, electricity is going to as well, offsetting some of this differential.
It doesn't have to be that way, but what with our fear of nuclear power...
Anyway, I am completely in favor of electric vehicles for many reasons, but to call them inevitable within the near future, I think is unrealistic. Unless we come up with capacitors of wildly improved energy density (on the order of 1,000x) at which point I hope and expect the gasoline automobile market will fold overnight.
not really offsetting, (according to this car review site anyway http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1208_2012_te...) at the end it has a little breakdown...
"During our drive, we used 78.2 kW-hrs of electricity (93 percent of the battery's rated capacity). What does that mean? It's the energy equivalent of 2.32 gasoline gallons, or 100.7 mpg-e before charging losses. That BMW 528i following us (powered by a very fuel-efficient, turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine) consumed 7.9 gallons of gas for a rate of 30.1 mpg. The Tesla's electrical energy cost for the trip was $10.17 (at California's average electrical rate); the BMW's drive cost $34.55. The 528i emitted 152 lbs of CO2; the Model S, 52 -- from the state's power plants."
"During our drive, we used 78.2 kW-hrs of electricity (93 percent of the battery's rated capacity). What does that mean? It's the energy equivalent of 2.32 gasoline gallons, or 100.7 mpg-e before charging losses. That BMW 528i following us (powered by a very fuel-efficient, turbocharged, direct-injected 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine) consumed 7.9 gallons of gas for a rate of 30.1 mpg. The Tesla's electrical energy cost for the trip was $10.17 (at California's average electrical rate); the BMW's drive cost $34.55. The 528i emitted 152 lbs of CO2; the Model S, 52 -- from the state's power plants."
No, not completely offset- partially. I don't mean I expect it will cost an electric car just as much to drive as a gas car; I mean that the falling costs of electricity storage cannot be taken in isolation against the rising cost of gasoline. Let's not forget as well that if everyone is suddenly driving electric cars, electricity demand will explode and prices will rise. I expect the result is simply that it will draw out the "crossing point".
Really, that's all I'm arguing, is that we are not twenty-four months away from the electric car takeover. It's probably more than a decade out.
Really, that's all I'm arguing, is that we are not twenty-four months away from the electric car takeover. It's probably more than a decade out.
We'll power it with rooftop/plant-scale solar PV and nuclear fusion.
Recharge times are about as much an issue as they are for smart phones. Humans need to rest ~12 hours a day. During that time they charge their tablets, phones and wait for it - also their cars. Charging is not an issue if you need to sleep.
Long car trips are not relevant for the vast majority of people for the most time. iPod succeeded because it's what people needed - not what they thought they wanted.
Recharge times are about as much an issue as they are for smart phones. Humans need to rest ~12 hours a day. During that time they charge their tablets, phones and wait for it - also their cars. Charging is not an issue if you need to sleep.
Long car trips are not relevant for the vast majority of people for the most time. iPod succeeded because it's what people needed - not what they thought they wanted.
Good luck with that. Solar equipment still isn't cheap, and while I wish it was otherwise, the voting public is incredibly averse to anything with the word "nuclear".
Smart phones have 1000mAh batteries. A Nissan Leaf can mostly charge in a 12 hour period, and get 80 miles on that charge. What about if you want 200 miles, or if you've got an SUV? The grid is not prepared for that kind of power draw.
Agreed, but there is no clean solution yet for that remaining 5%, which will keep many people from buying one.
Smart phones have 1000mAh batteries. A Nissan Leaf can mostly charge in a 12 hour period, and get 80 miles on that charge. What about if you want 200 miles, or if you've got an SUV? The grid is not prepared for that kind of power draw.
Agreed, but there is no clean solution yet for that remaining 5%, which will keep many people from buying one.
Tesla's supercharger stations are designed specifically to address this 5%. He quotes studies about driving that show that most people stop for approximately 30-60 minutes every 200 miles or so. The Supercharger stations are supposed to be able to charge to 160 miles of usage in 30 minutes, enough time to get a bite to eat.
The specs for the Model S (options section of the site, actually) state the single plug charger replenished 31 miles of ranger per hour of charge, and the optional dual plug charger replenishes 62 miles of ranger per hour of charge.
That doesn't address power grid problems if there is a large influx of demand because of electric vehicles, but at least it's at night, when there's less demand on the system from other sources. Ideally, that would spur more power grid development, but I'm not going to make predictions on such sparse and tenuous assumptions (even if they come from myself).
The specs for the Model S (options section of the site, actually) state the single plug charger replenished 31 miles of ranger per hour of charge, and the optional dual plug charger replenishes 62 miles of ranger per hour of charge.
That doesn't address power grid problems if there is a large influx of demand because of electric vehicles, but at least it's at night, when there's less demand on the system from other sources. Ideally, that would spur more power grid development, but I'm not going to make predictions on such sparse and tenuous assumptions (even if they come from myself).
> Tesla's supercharger stations are designed specifically to address this 5%. He quotes studies about driving that show that most people stop for approximately 30-60 minutes every 200 miles or so. The Supercharger stations are supposed to be able to charge to 160 miles of usage in 30 minutes, enough time to get a bite to eat.
I've driven cross-country many times and we never stopped for 30 minutes every 200 miles. We might be off the freeway for 15 minutes every 300 miles, but less than 10 minutes of that time is available for charging. (Pulling off the road and getting somewhere to do something takes time.)
And no, eating within walking distance of the only charging station in Elko, Winnemucca, or Battle Mountain isn't enough.
I've driven cross-country many times and we never stopped for 30 minutes every 200 miles. We might be off the freeway for 15 minutes every 300 miles, but less than 10 minutes of that time is available for charging. (Pulling off the road and getting somewhere to do something takes time.)
And no, eating within walking distance of the only charging station in Elko, Winnemucca, or Battle Mountain isn't enough.
Have you seen the Renault-Nissan's QuickDrop battery swap?
Solves your problem of charging for cross-country drives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Azrt_wUkc
And we even have some running in Israel already:
http://www.just-auto.com/the-just-auto-blog/israels-quick-dr...
Solves your problem of charging for cross-country drives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-Azrt_wUkc
And we even have some running in Israel already:
http://www.just-auto.com/the-just-auto-blog/israels-quick-dr...
You sure about that? See here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4568396
I hope someone from Tesla is reading this. I really, really wanted to buy a Tesla. But the Roadster was too small, and the Model S is too big. At 196 inches long, it's almost as big as a BMW 7 series. The Right Size for an electric car is ~170-180 inches, about the size of a Prius (or a Lexus IS or an Infiniti G). I was a little dismayed to see that the next car in the pipeline, the Model X, bills itself as a blend of SUV and minivan. That is totally the wrong direction IMHO. You already have one very big car and one very small one. You need a compact-to-midsize to fill out the lineup, not a second huge car.
Tesla is in 'sniper' mode right now; few bullets, and they have to hit with them or the company goes down.
Selling a 50-100k sedan almost requires it to aim at the BMW 7 market, IMO. But don't despair, over time they'll expand the lineup and I'm sure they'll make one that fits your needs.
The next model should be 30-50k and I would expect it to be about the size that you describe.
Selling a 50-100k sedan almost requires it to aim at the BMW 7 market, IMO. But don't despair, over time they'll expand the lineup and I'm sure they'll make one that fits your needs.
The next model should be 30-50k and I would expect it to be about the size that you describe.
I understand they're in sniper mode, and I understand why the Model S is the size it is. What I don't understand is why the Model X (http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx) is the size it is. They're going to have two seven-passenger vehicles and zero four-passenger vehicles. That doesn't seem like the right way to diversify.
The Model X is built on top of the Model S platform. That's probably why.
Making it smaller would probably require a lot more complex engineering and tradeoffs when it comes to the powertrain/batteries/etc.
It's actually very smart because they are leveraging all the work they have done for the Model S and getting another model out of it. Elon Musk has said in interviews that the Model S was actually over 90% new parts, which made it very complex to design and get the supply chain going. If the Model X has a significantly lower number of new parts, that'll make a big difference to the bottom line and time to market.
Making it smaller would probably require a lot more complex engineering and tradeoffs when it comes to the powertrain/batteries/etc.
It's actually very smart because they are leveraging all the work they have done for the Model S and getting another model out of it. Elon Musk has said in interviews that the Model S was actually over 90% new parts, which made it very complex to design and get the supply chain going. If the Model X has a significantly lower number of new parts, that'll make a big difference to the bottom line and time to market.
Ah. Well, I suppose that makes a certain amount of sense. But it does leave me wondering how hard it can be to shorten the wheel base. The battery pack already comes in different sizes so they must have that figured out. There's no drive shaft or transmission. It's hard for me to imagine that making the platform shorter is that much harder than designing a whole new body.
It probably requires re-tooling their assembly line. One of the main purposes of the Model S is to scale the assembly system.
Elon has five children. Getting Elon + 5 children into a Tesla is a key goal, and presumably his smallest child is going to outgrow the optional rear facing seats in the Model S at some point...
I think their rationale is: Their cars are very expensive. People would buy a 196 inches-long expensive car, they also would buy an expensive sports cars. They wouldn't buy an expensive Prius easily. Maybe they are using their high margins on those cars to have some chance against Asian makers in the future. But, sad truth is, they will develop the very tech that nissan, toyota, hyundai, et al, will use to kill them.
I think their rationale is that they need to fit a lot of battery somewhere. The Model S is not just long, it's wide for a sedan. That's all about fitting the massive battery pack under the passenger compartment.
Tesla is licensing some of their tech to Toyota iirc. I think they are of the attitude that in the current market more electric cars from everyone is good for business.
>>But, sad truth is, they will develop the very tech that nissan, toyota, hyundai, et al, will use to kill them.
Could you expand on this? How exactly will Tesla bring about its own demise?
Could you expand on this? How exactly will Tesla bring about its own demise?
By licensing, or being forced to license, their tech to extremely competitive companies. I believe that Tesla will end up making only high-end cars and making money mostly from licensing. But that's just an opinion, really. No one really knows where things are headed to. One thing is for sure: youngsters don't like cars as people my age.
For a 7 passenger vehicle, the Model S is tiny. I hate SUV's and my wife hates minivans, but a 7 passenger vehicle would be really quite convenient. Nobody makes 7 passenger wagons any more, so we're quite likely to end up with a Model S simply because of the form factor. Not this year, though. Our youngest daughter is still too young for the rear-facing seats on this car. Maybe next year, though.
Tesla, here's what I want.
- $30k base (I buy around $20k, but can justify the delta because of the fuel savings), could care less what the top end is, but probably no more than $45k.
- Accord or Sonata size. I'd even settle for a BMW 3-series or C class size.
- For the base price I want 300 mile range.
- Seats 4-5 adults
- don't need leather seats or other fancy stuff, just a/c am/fm/hd/xm radio with an Aux in. Don't care about touch screen nonsense, GPS nav, maybe just give me a place to put my phone and it'll fill in for all that stuff. I don't even care about a CD player, the phone will handle it all through aux.
- Cruise control is cool, but I won't pay a dollar more for it
- 0-60 in under 6 seconds.
- 5 star crash ratings all around
- sell it with civic/accord like reliability for 5 years
- then I'll buy it
everything else is cool, hell I'd love to plunk down on a top of the line model-S, I drool when I watch Veyron top speed runs, I love this stuff, but honestly when I get down to it, I think of cars like rapidly depreciating transport appliances. They have to be cheap and reliable, utilitarian and just reasonably comfortable (not luxurious). I don't care if the car is 50/50 weight balanced, or the car can park itself, or the cup holders retract into the dash. I don't give a shit about this. It's not that I can't afford it, it's just that I'd rather do other things with my money. This is not a value judgement on those that do spend on cars, but it's not what I spend my money on.
I'm the type of car buyer that buys 1 car every 10-12 years and drives them for over 250k miles or till the wheels fall off. I buy in the segment of cars that sells something like a quarter million cars a month in the U.S. alone. There are a lot of us.
(and yes, the model-S and X are probably among the most beautiful production cars in the world today)
- $30k base (I buy around $20k, but can justify the delta because of the fuel savings), could care less what the top end is, but probably no more than $45k.
- Accord or Sonata size. I'd even settle for a BMW 3-series or C class size.
- For the base price I want 300 mile range.
- Seats 4-5 adults
- don't need leather seats or other fancy stuff, just a/c am/fm/hd/xm radio with an Aux in. Don't care about touch screen nonsense, GPS nav, maybe just give me a place to put my phone and it'll fill in for all that stuff. I don't even care about a CD player, the phone will handle it all through aux.
- Cruise control is cool, but I won't pay a dollar more for it
- 0-60 in under 6 seconds.
- 5 star crash ratings all around
- sell it with civic/accord like reliability for 5 years
- then I'll buy it
everything else is cool, hell I'd love to plunk down on a top of the line model-S, I drool when I watch Veyron top speed runs, I love this stuff, but honestly when I get down to it, I think of cars like rapidly depreciating transport appliances. They have to be cheap and reliable, utilitarian and just reasonably comfortable (not luxurious). I don't care if the car is 50/50 weight balanced, or the car can park itself, or the cup holders retract into the dash. I don't give a shit about this. It's not that I can't afford it, it's just that I'd rather do other things with my money. This is not a value judgement on those that do spend on cars, but it's not what I spend my money on.
I'm the type of car buyer that buys 1 car every 10-12 years and drives them for over 250k miles or till the wheels fall off. I buy in the segment of cars that sells something like a quarter million cars a month in the U.S. alone. There are a lot of us.
(and yes, the model-S and X are probably among the most beautiful production cars in the world today)
I think that was about as useful a list of demands as mine:
- $30k base price
- Be a Ferrari
You're basically asking for the performance and size of an M3, the reliability of a Civic, the range of a Japanese gasoline car, all for the price of... well, a Civic. Presumably all while maintaining electric's 200mpgE+. Of course it would sell; it would be the biggest bargain in automotive history.
*mpgE = miles per gallon equivalent
- $30k base price
- Be a Ferrari
You're basically asking for the performance and size of an M3, the reliability of a Civic, the range of a Japanese gasoline car, all for the price of... well, a Civic. Presumably all while maintaining electric's 200mpgE+. Of course it would sell; it would be the biggest bargain in automotive history.
*mpgE = miles per gallon equivalent
I don't think so. I'm basically asking for them to sell me an all electric replacement for a V-6 accord with the absolute minimum trim level (which runs around $25-27k) But with the inconvenience of having to spend several hours charging it instead of a few minutes refueling it.
I won't pretend to be an expert on internal combustion engines, but I don't think the demands are that bad. Electric engines have 100% torque all the time, which isn't true of gas engines. I believe that essentially implies a fast take off speed isn't that difficult for an electric car, and would have very little affect on it's overall distance per charge.
Any light weight electric vehicle could be a Ferrari.
And I believe Shai Agassi said his goal is to get a car down below $10,000 (without the battery). If safety wasn't a concern, it'd be easy to build such a car.
And I believe Shai Agassi said his goal is to get a car down below $10,000 (without the battery). If safety wasn't a concern, it'd be easy to build such a car.
Look at the technology adoption lifecycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Technology-Adoption-Lifecy...
The reason Tesla aimed upmarket first is to sell a somewhat mass-market, high-quality product (Roadster and Model S), when the underlying tech is still somewhat expensive - meaning the early products will be relatively expensive (think of early laptops, iPods, solid state drives, anything really). So you're getting a great product, just not cheap. Other electric car manufacturers try to make cheap, small, slow electric cars that are a joke and no one takes seriously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REVA
Elon Musk is using rich dentists to finance the R&D of the mass-market, affordable electric car that regular middle class people could buy.
It's a very smart plan, in my opinion. Ensures high-quality products throughout the adoption curve, meaning that investors, future customers and even competitors will take Tesla seriously. Having rival car companies sit up and take notice is great, meaning competition. Look at the rash of MP3 players on the market after the iPod launched - this forces prices down, for both the raw materials and the finished products. We're at a tipping point.
The reason Tesla aimed upmarket first is to sell a somewhat mass-market, high-quality product (Roadster and Model S), when the underlying tech is still somewhat expensive - meaning the early products will be relatively expensive (think of early laptops, iPods, solid state drives, anything really). So you're getting a great product, just not cheap. Other electric car manufacturers try to make cheap, small, slow electric cars that are a joke and no one takes seriously:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REVA
Elon Musk is using rich dentists to finance the R&D of the mass-market, affordable electric car that regular middle class people could buy.
It's a very smart plan, in my opinion. Ensures high-quality products throughout the adoption curve, meaning that investors, future customers and even competitors will take Tesla seriously. Having rival car companies sit up and take notice is great, meaning competition. Look at the rash of MP3 players on the market after the iPod launched - this forces prices down, for both the raw materials and the finished products. We're at a tipping point.
I think in order to make the electric car go mainstream, we need to move past the idea of car ownership.
For a lot of people, car sharing provides people with the benefits they need from a car without the hassle of owning it.
In the case of electric cars, where a huge barrier to using one is the charging time, car sharing nearly completely solves the problem. Because cars are returned to the same locations in between reservations, they will be constantly charging during the time they're not being driven. Plus all the infrastructure cost is shared over the members (if, for example, you live in a city, you might not be able to install a charging station because you have on street parking)
For a lot of people, car sharing provides people with the benefits they need from a car without the hassle of owning it.
In the case of electric cars, where a huge barrier to using one is the charging time, car sharing nearly completely solves the problem. Because cars are returned to the same locations in between reservations, they will be constantly charging during the time they're not being driven. Plus all the infrastructure cost is shared over the members (if, for example, you live in a city, you might not be able to install a charging station because you have on street parking)
> Musk says eventually the company will make another car that many more of us could afford.
> "It's really been my goal from the beginning for Tesla to produce a mass-market car," Musk says.
It blows my mind that the article and comments here have yet to mention the Nissan Leaf.
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index
Isn't that more mainstream already? By miles? I see them in New Hampshire for chrissake. You can get them for 27K after rebate.
Does nobody care because it doesn't look fast?
> "It's really been my goal from the beginning for Tesla to produce a mass-market car," Musk says.
It blows my mind that the article and comments here have yet to mention the Nissan Leaf.
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index
Isn't that more mainstream already? By miles? I see them in New Hampshire for chrissake. You can get them for 27K after rebate.
Does nobody care because it doesn't look fast?
It is a mainstream car - but it isn't mainstream because their range is atrocious (good for some - not for most).
We need ~250-300 mile range cars going at 30K for mainstream adoption.
We need ~250-300 mile range cars going at 30K for mainstream adoption.
Note that Toyota declared today they are getting out of the plug-in (no gas engine) business entirely.
It's interesting it that it likely means they cannot make the margins they want.
It's interesting it that it likely means they cannot make the margins they want.
"Toyota Prius Plug-In adds electric-only mode"
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/11/living/automotive/...
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/08/11/living/automotive/...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/us-toyota-electric...
From today: "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge," said, Uchiyamada, who spearheaded Toyota's development of the Prius hybrid in the 1990s.
From today: "The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge," said, Uchiyamada, who spearheaded Toyota's development of the Prius hybrid in the 1990s.
Probably not when their cars start at $50,000. I would really love for it to happen though.
But perhaps I am just poor.
But perhaps I am just poor.
50K is too much. That's in the luxury brand segments where car companies spent decades to build up brand awareness to justify the price. Put it in the 20K to 30K range and they will make a killing.
May be their production capacity can't handle the high volume so they price it to throttle demand.
May be their production capacity can't handle the high volume so they price it to throttle demand.
The problem is that batteries are expensive. High-end cars have high margins (it doesn't cost 2x as much to build a $50k car as it does to build a $25k car). When Toyota introduced the Prius, they added all sorts of (what were then) $30k car features. Why? Not because they wanted to make a luxury car, (a friend of mine remarked that if they just added leather seats he would buy one instead of an expensive Lexus) but because it costs next to nothing to add those convenience features. That way people compare the Prius to a $30k car and see only a $1000 hybrid premium instead of a $5000 premium. That's also why you don't see $15k hybrids: Taking all the "premium" features out don't make it cost any less.
The reason this is possible is that hybrids and EVs have the margins of much less expensive cars.
Edit: added a sentence
The reason this is possible is that hybrids and EVs have the margins of much less expensive cars.
Edit: added a sentence
The problem with material cost based approach is that it ignores the value of the brand. Yes, it doesn't cost 2x as much to build a $50K car as a $25K car but the branding of the $50K cars took a lots of money and a long time to build up. People are willing to buy a $50K BMW instead of a $20K car not because of the material cost but because of the intangible brand. A Prius arguably does not have the branding of a $30K car. Toyota still sold tons of them, kudos to them. Similarly Tesla simply doesn't have the branding power of a $50K car now.
Yeah, I don't remember where I saw it but Elon Musk had mentioned that the main goal was to go from the Roadster to something affordable at a price range of $20k to $30k. Increase production and decrease price with each production run.
The article does mention a $30k car (and loceng kindly pointed it out as well). I look forward to hearing more about it.
They are planning a $30k sedan.
I believe for cities and dense populated area's were charge points easily viable that electric cars have there real niche if the price and incentives to migrate are there. Offset against cleaner air in dense populated area's/cities and its a win win. But until some extra leaps in power storage are made then we still have a little way to go until things truely pick up.
Though a car that could act as a pod that could attach onto a transport train line would truely open up interesting options in personal transport and charging alternatives.
Though a car that could act as a pod that could attach onto a transport train line would truely open up interesting options in personal transport and charging alternatives.
One of the big downsides I see in owning a Tesla is the need to also own a house with a garage. The Model S has the range to handle my daily commuting needs, but I have no place to charge it.
any numbers on cost per mile just to get from point a to point b as compared to a gas-powered car?
Does it matter? Producing electricity is almost trivial to scale up when compared to oil, especially if the political weather forecast for your region is nuclear-friendly.
Wolfram has the estimate for you: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2885*kW*h%29%2F%28300*...
Thats half of what you pay per mile with a Prius: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28gas+price%29+*+%281%...
Not included in these calculations is the wear and tear of a standard gasoline engine, which are still running on pretty much the design of the original 1885 Daimler Reitwagen.
Wolfram has the estimate for you: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2885*kW*h%29%2F%28300*...
Thats half of what you pay per mile with a Prius: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28gas+price%29+*+%281%...
Not included in these calculations is the wear and tear of a standard gasoline engine, which are still running on pretty much the design of the original 1885 Daimler Reitwagen.
The electricity cost is noise compared to the depreciation and wear on the battery.
On that front, Better Place says they can make money leasing batteries to you at 10 cents a mile.
On that front, Better Place says they can make money leasing batteries to you at 10 cents a mile.
I really really really want Tesla to succeed. But I cannot convince myself to buy a Model-S, it is just past my pain threshold. And for that I am sad.