perhaps Toyota, is simply an ancillary issue; Tesla tops Toyota to become largest automaker by market value Mankind is competitive. Someone will have the fastest feet, the fastest punch, or build the fastest car ...... and/or the most environmentally friendly car. Mr. Musk used to say that even if Tesla fails, but its existence brought about other manufacturers to get on board with EV's, then that goal was achieved. But goals change, and I'm sure failure is no longer one of the ancillary thoughts. Loudmouth Muhammad Ali used to brag, "I am the greatest - I can whoop any man" Musk - being only slightly less boastful, covertly fires a shot across Porsche, who for the same price as a Tesla, has over 100 miles LESS range. It's all about one-upmanship. Think of it as a lineman that blindsides a quarterback. The lineman helps him up & says "nice try, good game! Oh wait, that was bygone days, now they dance over the quarterback. Still, it's all about the competition. Now for a fun fact. Henry Ford had to overcome the naysayers that owned horsey's. Through innovation - it took about 12 years before Ford sold his 1st million cars. To overcome the NEW breed of naysayers - it took Tesla about 12 years to sell THEIR 1st million cars. No, it's not about Toyota, but you can be sure they are rethinking their strategies. .
you think? toyota says there aren't enough batteries, yet another poster here says musk has too many and needs to dump them. (post #73)
I understand the concept very well, and I am not trying to “make it personal”. By the traditional definition, hybrids are stuck in the early segment of the Early Adopters market. Plugin vehicles are just reaching the cusp of the Early Adopter market. Given the context of your comments, you seem to say hybrids are, today for the “masses” and not just “early adopters”. The classic definition disagrees, so I am asking you what definition you use?
While canceling the standard range Model Y is about profits, I don't think Tesla has to worry about unloading batteries. They are also selling to the residential and industrial energy storage markets. Plus, I can see them supplying some of the late comer car companies in the next couple of years, as a battery supply crunch is likely to happen as the supply chain catches up to demand. Then the no standard range range Y could be a temporary move because of COVID. I bet it is also to help out the Model 3 now that it has a SUV sibling. I don't see 300 miles becoming to new standard as 200 is plenty for most peoples needs, and than pool expands with households' second car needs. It might become the standard in the segment Tesla sells in, but the battery is a large cost, and an easy one to cut for more affordable models. Something to keep mind. Tesla's EPA range is not apples to apples with the others. It is based on a "100%" charge, which they don't recommend doing regularly, and the others are being extra conservative when it comes the buffer capacity in their packs. They might be sand bagging the car's range when new in order to keep the effective range for the user at that value for longer as the pack ages. That is true, but reports are the case has nothing to do with IP regarding the cars themselves. Correction: there isn't enough batteries for a price Toyota is willing to pay. Being late in securing battery production and underestimating demand in plug ins has them in a sellers market at this time. Going by their past statements and actions, and the current plug in markets, they might there for a bit, and we'll get few, if any, here. You are moving goal posts. Your initial comment here was that it would be more difficult for Tesla to sell without subsidies and to non-early adopters. I used percentages because there simply isn't another car company in the US that started producing and selling their own car just eight years ago. I used Toyota because this is Priuschat, and they are one of the most successful car companies. With Tesla and Toyota losing the same ratio of sales in light of the pandemic shows that the loss subsidies isn't a major factor for Tesla's drop in sales. If you have evidence that the loss of subsidies has hurt Tesla's sales, show it. As for early adopters, you've been stating they are Tesla's major customer as fact without providing any supporting evidence. your definition for "mainstream" car model in the past here was 60,000sales/year, and the Model 3 has been doing over double that since its introduction. Exposure to the topic doesn't help when you have been as obtuse about it as you have. It took the Prius 6 years to reach the US sales that the Model 3 achieved in one. It was number 6 of midsize(real)cars sold in 2019, and outsold all its upscale competitors. It also outsold the Rav4h. The Model 3 was only one of three models to see sales growth last year. The combined sales of the other two didn't reach half of its annual figure. US sales analysis 2019 – Midsized cars - carsalesbase.com It did this as customers left sedans for SUVs, and the auto market in general started to contract. The continued subsidies played a part, though slaes increased from 2018 when those subsidies were larger. Then many Model 3 buyers came from ICE cars. For their production capabilities, Tesla has done a lot for changing to a clean fleet, and they are rapidly expanding production.
I think that Tesla has been taking bigger and bigger bites out of all the car makers high end products. And this will continue down the price offerings over the next decade. Mike
Setting the range bar to 300 miles puts a real hurt locker on the competition: Extra weight reduces their mi/kWh which requires more frequent charging Extra cost moves them the wrong way to Tesla price reductions They didn’t manage their fast DC charging network Bob Wilson
I still feel there is a place for the 100 & 200 mile BEVs. Part of the issue is education, as a lot of people find fewer miles will work wonderfully for them.
i agree that lower range bevs will work, but not as a primary driver. there is a place for them, and i would buy one. but everyone's circumstances are not the same. the problem is cost. when i look at the size and price of 150-200 mile bevs, my first thought is, 'i might as well buy a tesla. all that being said, i think musks point is that we need more range to convince gasser drivers to switch at this point in time. in the future, things will change. but if you're a luxury car maker, you don't have the luxury of trying to sell a $70,000. vehicle to many people who only use it around town.
We take a lot of road trips. Most are not on the Interstate. Yesterday, I was playing around with the Tesla trip planner and I switched back and forth between the S and 3 long range versions. I input some of our more out of the way locations in-state and longer ones like Big Bend, Ouray, CO, Jasper, AB, etc. and I was surprised just how well each version was able to reach each destination. The S did it much easier with its range, but the 3 got there as well. I don't have many super charges in my area, but they're adding slowly. Last Saturday, we took a drive in the Prime down to the SE part of the state in the pine tree mountains (Octavia, OK). It was on one tank and covered 534 miles all on rural roads. The S could have done it but not by taking the roads we "wanted" to go on. Anything under a 300 mile range is not even a consideration here. For the way we live, I have to have more than 300 mile capability to justify not having a backup hybrid road trip car at least until the charging infrastructure expands. I don't see that happening real fast in the center of the country even including the current planned ones here for 2020.
in comparison to the Eastside of your state? OK City is a-wash in quick Chargers - having driven that part of I-40 on to Arkansas on multiple occasions. But man, the Eastside of your state is one long Dead Zone when it comes to superchargers. We've been waiting for one in Fort Smith - just across the border for some 5 years now. Sure - there are finally a handful of CHAdeMO that you can use with the Tesla adapter on that route, but the reliability, coupled with the issue of 1z 2z implementations at those few locations.... & then they may be occupied? Makes you feel like you're back in the days of the Conestoga wagon trying to get across Donner Pass before winter drops the hammer. And when is that route going to have 5G!!! We are so spoiled. .
All true which is what I was looking at with the trip planner. They're "supposed" to be adding in late 2020 a supercharger at Henryetta, OK which helps from Dallas to Tulsa or going SE from I-40. Fort Smith and Clarksville, AR are also planed for 2020 which would also help. The SE part of OK is something of a little Dixie black hole anyway. Beautiful country to "drive" through in the Weyerhauser forest. 5G we've got if you're on AT&T. Check the AT&T coverage map although you have to zoom WAY in to see the 5G then scroll around. It's in the Ft Smith general area, and around the Guthrie areas among others. We have hundreds of small net neighborhood towers all over OKC and other places. I troll the air using the NPERF app when I'm driving. It's sort of like war driving for WiFi except for cell coverage. 5G is pooping up all over the state. The purple on the image below is the 5G that only "I" have discovered. I know there's lots more than this, I just have not driven there yet since March 2020 when I got my 5G phone. OKC is one of the early 5G rollout cities. I see trucks installing new neighborhood 5G antennae poles weekly.
Drive to "Valley Inn RV" in McAlester with a NEMA 14-50, EVSE. Spend the night and leave with a full charge. Head towards Texarkana Supercharger the next day and enjoy. There are multiple NEMA 14-50 charging options. GOOD LUCK! Bob Wilson
Thanks.That's an option if you're not trying to do a "day" round trip. Unfortunately, I've actually "seen" the Valley Inn "no tell hotel" and RV. Circling back into the 300 mile minimum discussion, this illustrates why that is so important for the average Joe who would not accept 28 mile/hr NEMA 14-50 charging on a "day trip". We've got to get the fast charger density up a bit more and I think it will, eventually.
both valid points. Also circling back to "challenging the competition" - Musk set a goal to NOT have Tesla's Supercharger Network operated as a profit Center. The "other guys" rely on 3rd parties to build out fast networks. Yes they can be fast, but .... control of price per kwh gets LOST. Thus, it gets really outrageous with them. They know they've got you by the short & curlies - so their charging costs will NEVER be able to be reined in. 2 different business philosophies. One philosophy realizes that fueling costs must NOT be higher/worse than gas. The other (traditional car builders) philosophy is, "who cares?" And why should they care because under the gasser philosophy - if prices go up? You sell little cars with high mileage. That's good. Gas prices go down? You get to sell pickups, SUVs, & similar land barges. Seems like a great system, only it doesn't work if your fleet runs on electrons. Tesla on the other hand goes an additional mile, going into solar panel industry. That way, with a goal to eventually have supercharger centers not be beholden to the utility companies - they can assure themselves another industry can't crippled their goals. .
I was noticing the "fuel savings" amount when I was mapping out test routes with their Go Anywhere site. I was a little surprised it wasn't a higher number on the longer trips. I do realize that fuel prices are pretty low but then as you point out, I read that charging is done at local market prices. For me, there's a large "I want full EV" factor, but I also don't want to kill my current flexibility in the way we travel.
It certainly would. That location would solve travel problems from several directions for several states. Highway 69 carries a lot of vehicle and truck traffic from Dallas to the NE. I hear Tesla owners can suggest charger locations . . . . hint, hint.
