EVs are in a segment with high discretionary spend. Choices in discretionary spending are notoriously bound up in non-rational choices: I could invest in diamonds, or snort it as coke, or fly to the bahamas in a helicopter is totally different lifestyle choices to "I need to get to Walmart at 3am for diapers, and I cannot afford to pay for more than basic AirConditioning"

When EVs are in the segment of rational-decision bound purchases, when they are "boring" I will deem them to have succeeded.

As long as the competition is Fiskar, not VW, and Not the Ioniq, or other Japanese low-end EV, its not baked yet.

The low-end EV have to get about 50% more efficiency and drop price about 30%. There really is a sweet spot in most people's disposable income and on-road costs and range anxiety (also a highly irrational place btw) which is just around the corner:

under $20,000 in any local economy over 300km range in real-life chargeable for usable amounts (10%? 20%?) in under 15min

Consumers want autonomous self-driving cars. So Tesla creates marketing videos and then calls their glorified lane assistance and distance keeping assistant an "autopilot".

And now, Tesla buyers are frustrated that the software isn't ready yet, or dying due to bugs in said software.

But Tesla gets to dodge legal responsibility by writing into the fine print of their EULA that the so-called "autopilot" isn't actually meant to be used like what autopilot means to most people.

If anything, Tesla has amazing marketing.

This is necessary for human progress. Gutenberg with this idea that will make the investors rich. Colombus stands up and says: I am going to the Indies across the Atlantic, it is going to be easy! Or Magallanes crossing the world, or going to the moon, Knuth creating Latex or the AoCP as a "semester" project, Artificial intelligence would be solved in 10 years...

In the end Gutenberg almost bankrupted his inventors and died penniless, Colombus faced riots and almost starved, most of the Magallanes' crew perished, going to the moon took so much more money, Knuth project took his entire life...

But the courage paid off for society as a whole because they got involved and took responsibility and risk on their lives.

It has always been easier to criticize and risk zero, while cynically putting all progress down.

Tesla or Elon is not perfect, but no human being is, if you wait for something new to be perfect before is ready, then you will never get it.

Progress is not automatic, needs people that believe on it, probably even delusional people.

I am a customer not stunt double.

Tesla is compared to the industry average that is so bad that it kills a 737 load of passengers every hour. Tesla is better than average in that industry.

It is fair to debate why and whether or not Tesla could be even more above average, but that is the baseline.

Both autopilots get sometimes confused and drive into solid wall.

Boeing did recall, fix the problem and is now trying to restore trust.

Tesla just does whoopsie, we are startup, need to fix bugs. Or blames customer: "please do not use our $20k autopilot as an autopilot"

If Tesla takes safety seriously, it should at least rename its software.

I don't know where you buy your autopilot, but even with the recent price increase, autopilot is just $7k.

I doubt the self driving feature drives many sales. It does look flashy and even in its current form it can be very good. Do I think they can deliver self driving cars? No, but I also don't think anyone else can. What they have delivered is a car that can relieve the stress of driving and counter being distracted while driving long distances

As far as being frustrated by the software I am more annoyed how long it has taken for quality of life features to get put in, namely my number one complaint is full blue tooth integration with smart phones. While they finally added the ability to navigate a playlist on screen you still cannot select the playlist you want; or any other selection outside the list like artist and album. I dislike their fixation on games and other features only useful while parked.

Everyone who has ridden in my car had two comments, first being about how clean the interior looked and second being how it felt when accelerating. Every once in a while I will let the car drive and I explain it as letting your highschool kid drive but you have immediate ability to take control. About the only negative comments I get are the door handles which some say are cool but take use getting to but the top one is always pricing.

When I had a Model S loaner, I was blown away how much they've simplified just from S to 3: wide open interior, reduction in the [already spartan] amount of physical controls. (I also briefly had a Kia loaner for that same visit, and I felt like a monkey trying to operate an Apollo spacecraft, unable to find the switches and dials for everything.)

Tesla, whether for cost cutting or genius, simply said "do you really need all of these manual/physical controls, or can it be A) done automatically via software, or B) put onto a single screen?", and it, in my opinion, has worked quite well. Yes the "AI" wipers took time to come around, and you hit the occasional UI bug, but it's far and away a very acceptable trade off for a magnitude more space in the cabin and (if you appreciate such things) clean, simple, lines throughout. Even the silly flip down LED visor mirrors delight people the first time they use them in my car.

AP/FSD may never get where they claim, but I've taken many-hundred mile trips with AP on (on highways), and even my drive to work is immensely better with AP in long stretches, so I consider it well worth the [AP] cost. As ridiculous as it sounds, all those micro-movements on the road do add up and take a toll on you during drives.

I actually drive fairly conservatively (turning into my "slow lane is fast enough" father), but for demos and when I do really want to pass someone, the acceleration and instant power still marvels. :)

The benefits of the touchscreen controls (nav, settings, media player) are that they suck much less than most manufacturers, and with over-the-air updates can suck even less over time.

Driving the S never felt weird to me until I owned the 3 and went 'back' to the S. I was simply overwhelmed at how many buttons there are, everywhere, for everything. There are something like 4 or 5 stalks coming out of the steering wheel, somehow. So many buttons ON the wheel (reminds me of my old Golf; it's great when it's your only car, but when you switch cars it's impossible to remember which buttons are for cruise, which are for the stereo, which are for calls, etc). Which is pretty shocking when I remember the first experience in an S surprised me at how SIMPLE the interior was.

What I've noticed, from Tesla groups, is that virtually nobody is disappointed with autopilot. People who like it, LOVE it, and wouldn't buy the car without it. Those of us who don't think it's all that great, either don't buy it, or bought it cheap (I bought it during the 1 week it cost $2000, as a "why not"). IMO, it's too aggressive to center the steering, too late to brake (waiting until the car directly in front of you begins slowing), often closes the gap too aggressively, etc. Don't get me wrong, I am an aggressive driver, but the AP is too.. "abrupt" for me. When I'm in traffic I like to ride the wave a bit and let gaps enlarge and slowly shrink.

The car is fantastic without autopilot, and it really changes the driving/car ownership experience, and in an almost entirely positive way.

The automatic wipers used to suck; they're great now. The addition of Spotify has made me SO happy. Seat memory based on which driver's phone is on the driver's side when the car unlocks is magic, I'm glad they added it. In general, the phone-as-key is the best feature ever for a 2-driver car in particular.

Things that I wish were buttons/switches:

* Mirror controls.

* Glovebox

* Wipers, probably, though it's mostly fixed now.

And to be fair, the mirrors are only because I've swapped mirror glass 3x now (factory -> suma wide angle reproduction mirrors -> tesla OEM european mirrors) and you never get your adjustment right on the first try.. and we have to do it for 2 drivers.. clicking through the screens while driving is a tad unsafe. But then, once they're set, you pretty much forget them, so I can forgive this. Would be hard for someone borrowing the car to deal with though.

And I just don't see that as much of an everyday advantage or selling point, just like you also pointed out.

Now how are my puts doing...

I recently gave a "state of the art" talk about optical flow and I found it extremely disappointing that current technology still struggles with recognizing shiny surfaces and fences, despite 16 years of hardware progress.

But most AI researchers appear to be more interested in re-inventing the wheel on a GPU instead of doing actual mathematical algorithm research.

Tesla is doing marginally better than the average due to their custom hardware, which grants them more than the 10 GB that people using NVIDIA GPUs are limited to.

But still, Tesla, Skydio, and NVIDIA appear to be using optical flow AI architectures that are fundamentally incapable of performing well, due to being based on the (mathematically provably wrong) assumption that a scale pyramid works for optical flow detection.

Here's the Sintel ranking: http://sintel.is.tue.mpg.de/results

And if you look at the AIs, they all repurpose this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.0237

However, you cannot store one optical flow per pixel, because the solution is not unique. For example, that's why Tesla and Skydio have problems with reflective surfaces. You see both the surface and its reflection move, but the AI can only store 1 result out of those 2 movements.

In my opinion, the solution is to use Fourier methods, which were shown to work well in a 2000 dagm paper called minimum values of the structure tensor. But nobody has even attempted to port that to GPU yet or use it as part of AI.

[1]: https://electrek.co/2020/03/04/tesla-car-find-larking-spot-r...

So it's only misleading due to a common misunderstanding.

That's the buyer expectation for the word "autopilot" that I was referring to.

EDIT: Apparently, the sensor package is still called "self-driving hardware", which I'm sure creates a certain expectation if you purchase the "self-driving hardware & autopilot software" bundle.

But the disclaimer on the bottom is pretty noncommittal:

> "The activation and use of these features are dependent on achieving reliability far in excess of human drivers as demonstrated by billions of miles of experience".

On one hand "are dependent on" actively avoids stating that they're there but the "billions of miles of experience" is clearly aimed at suggesting to buyers that they are. Which they are not since the car cannot handle many/most situations that a human driver is expected to handle to be called "a driver".

[0] https://www.tesla.com/modely/design#autopilot

If you set an autopilot to hold a heading, it will hold a heading. You don't have to supervise it, you can concentrate on other stuff.

If you set a tesla autopilot to keep in a lane, you have to supervise it because it might fail to do so.

Granted, the latter problem is a harder one. But the point of an autopilot is that it manages to do want it promises to do on its own without constant supervision.

The important bit, which is apparently not understood by the public is that it's only used as an aid in controlling the vehicle. You still have to monitor it and be prepared to take over if it doesn't behave properly. I once flew an airplane, set the autopilot and the airplane decided to go into a rapid climb unexpectedly. That's exactly equivalent to the lane assist failing to keep the car in the lane.

That said, it's clear that because the public doesn't understand what it means to be an autopilot it's a bad choice of name. Or at least Tesla should be spending a _lot_ more time educating people on what it means before they use it.

Not _strictly_ true; faults can occur and the system always needs monitoring. Strong turbulence will also disconnect the autopilot (with appropriately attention-grabbing aural and visual alerts).

The cruise control is much more an autopilot than the lane assist, which is just an assist but wrongly advertised.

As long as that other stuff includes paying attention to where you're going. If not you're bound to collide with something at some point.

That's autopilot.

Although it can be argued that with technological progress the meaning of the word has also shifted over time together with the expectations.

I'm neither frustrated or dissatisfied with my purchase. It's the best car I have ever experienced and it just keeps getting better.

That cost is already sunk, Tesla can't recuperate that, and everytime electric cars become a little bit more common, the coolness factor of the electric engine decreases which means the value of that sunk cost goes down. There's two things that save Tesla, the first is plain consumer attitude. Some (many?) consumers will simply not buy an ICE car anymore if they can afford not to, which means the other manufacturers have to compete on Tesla's playing field.

The second is cheap innovations. Tesla can spend a couple tens of millions, and maybe $1000 in hardware, and get something that looks like an AI into their cars that adds maybe $10k of coolness value. Add fancy doors, a big LCD screen, flush doorhandles, and whatever other little thing you have to spend R&D on anyway because you're a new car manufacturer so everything costs more R&D for you than the establishment, and you close the gap.

It's about putting a $80K Tesla next to a $80K Jaguar or whatever, and being able to justify why they cost the same amount of money when the Jaguar is better made.

edit: Note this whole story is about the Model S, which was Tesla's bootstrap model. The goal of Tesla is to produce a car that doesn't compete with Jaguar, but with Volkswagen (or Ford).

ICE engines have larger complex elements that can fail for more reasons, but the most complex part is just this big block that they pour into a mold. After that's done you just have to mount all the little components onto it that the suppliers have refined the tolerances on for at least 20 years.

But the ICE and the electric engine are just peanuts compared to the material cost of producing these huge batteries.

That being said, the customer experience of owning and driving a Tesla far exceeds the traditional options. I fail to find anyone who is unhappy with their purchase. They love their cars and there are still hundreds of features that Tesla has where other manufacturers are barely catching up.

Add in the ecosystem of solar/powerwalls and superchargers along with supplying the wider energy market, and this company has a great future ahead.

Given that autopilot for cars doesn't and never has existed it is likely that it means different things to different people.

When I'm driving a car, my function is pretty much a glorified lane assist. If it can do that for me then I'm sold on it being an autopilot. I don't need my car to actually be smarter than I am.

"The nation’s top safety investigator slammed Tesla on Tuesday for failing to take adequate measures to prevent “foreseeable abuse” of its Autopilot driver-assistance technology" https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-25/tesla-auto...

And the evidence in that article is that the car is basically working on autopilot. So the brand name is quite reasonable. If you expect any transport system not to have accidents you are crazy - all modes of transport have accidents from time to time.

Also; a tired point; but Tesla's autopilot is going to learn from each fatal accident. That is a massive difference from humans; who stop learning after fatal accidents. Fatal accidents are not going to be a major long-term problem here which stands in sharp contrast to human drivers. It isn't a particularly bad sign as it means Tesla's autopilot will have learned a valuable lesson due to someone-who-is-not-me's misfortune. I'd happily pay money for that. Deaths from bad human driving are meaningless tragedies. Deaths in a new but engineer-able system are extremely meaningful tragedies and are almost good news for everyone who isn't immediately involved.

So that'll be a completely different hardware than what Tesla currently sells as their "self-driving hardware" package.

Somebody has already linked an article showing that people in these cars are taking their hands off the wheel and playing videogames while 'driving'. These cars are already self-driving by a reasonable standard, and is certainly fairly described as an autopilot system. Your standards aren't normal.

It's not that others have too high standards, it's that you have low standards and they make basically every mundane thing, that you use every, day a "self-whatever" thing.

That guy died in a car crash while doing that.

Don't be shocked if they[1] do write guidelines for driver attention monitoring that Tesla has to adhere to. Also, don't be shocked if they apply across the board, even to cars that do not have autopilot like features.

[1] By "they" in this case, I do not mean the writers of that report, as that was the NTSB. The NHTSA will likely investigate the concepts more holistically.

I don't mind it being called marketing. But I'd call it overall experience design. Or magic. You really feel it!

I notice the quality of the interior isn't great.

But I do notice that it's quiet and has a lot of torque obviously.

If it wasn't for the emissions I prefer being in a Merc any day.

I agree that's boring.

But it only is boring because BMW has such a crushing market share that the occasional non-BMW car feels like a breath of fresh air. Tesla feeling nice due to their low market share is, however, the opposite of what this article argues for.

My only disappointment was that the giant LCD panel in the middle didn't refresh at high frame rate. I hope they fixed that because I'd expect the car from the future to be able to scroll a map smoothly.

Pary tell, in what way are they better? I've been in both a Model S and 3, and neither of them have a great fit and finish. My VW is far more polished than either. High level Mercs or BMW are way beyond.

I wonder if people saying stuff like this have ever been in a nice car?

Almost everyone else I talk to outside of software seems to pigeonhole AI as magic — either they’re believers who think it can pass the Turing Test, or they’re non-believers who refuse to accept it can do what is in 2020 the AI equivalent of Hello World.

So no, I don’t think most people do know; rather, I think most people either think it’s impossible or perfect already.

So at the very least, the authors of that article were unaware that the limitations of Tesla's autopilot make it effectively equal to the i3's assistance systems for everyday use.

Not sure if Tesla's approach to that is more customer friendly. Their cars are basically iPhones on wheels, they are locked down to the same extent. iirc you cannot even get replacements for the most car parts. With traditional cars however, you can basically go everywhere and get your car fixed. No matter if it is a brand dealer or third party repair shop.

edit: fixed typos

Haha. My buddy just waited for Tesla to finish repairs on his Model 3 for 4 months and in the mean time had to have a rental. The reason? They couldn't acquire certain bolts.

Give me "exploitative dealer networks" that can source parts properly to Tesla's outrageous incompetence of a service network.

The first mass market Tesla (Model S) came to market in post app store world. By that I mean, not only is it possible but it's obvious that vehicles can and should be diagnosed and firmware should be updated over the air. The only reason they were able to throw away the dealer model is because they could collect analytics, perform diagnostics and firmware flashes over the air. Without this advancement, Tesla would need significantly more physical presence akin to dealerships (and in fact, they kind of are building a light showroom/repair network as they grow so the dealer model isn't all that crazy in some respects).

Traditional automakers have been around since before OTA was possible or practical or anyone had even thought of it, so dealers were at least necessary at one point in time to perform these tasks. Now that it is possible, and many new vehicles even have wireless internet, very few traditional automakers actually perform remote diagnostics and even fewer update more than a couple ECUs (Electronic Control Units) over the air.

There are a number of reasons for and against this, but at the end of the day they were forced into a situation where they needed dealers and for that reason they also have the luxury of offloading many of these tasks onto the dealers. This luxury is actually very important because a major OEM has hundreds of models of vehicles that they need to support. Tesla obviously has far fewer so they can afford to take on some of those diagnostic tasks and of course they have to because they don't have franchises with technicians in them.

As for success, I believe Tesla is very successful for a variety of reasons (too many to list, but I'll mention some of the major ones):

1. They care about design. They're not the flashiest or most radical designs, but the designs are very thoughtful, tasteful, elegant and minimalistic -- all of these are qualities that are fashionable at the moment.

2. The cars are technology first... they come with a lot of useful technology that people want because it seems obvious to have these things in contemporary cars. Most other vehicles in the Model 3 price range are technology last -- the technology that seems obvious is a paid upgrade.

3. They are optimistic and progressive. Even when someone knows that some model 3s are built outside in a tent and there are mounting quality and repairability concerns, they don't care because they want to support the flier that just might make a difference in the world.

With Tesla, a lot of the parts are still standard, but you can't replace it with same or better part that isn't sourced from Tesla supply. Even if it's the same part.

What stops you from replacing standard parts?

There are quite a few off-brand repair shops here in Norway for things like wipers, brake calipers, regular service etc.

For example they are not allowed to order extra parts for stock (they have to "tie" them to a car in service) and they are not allowed to use aftermarket replacement parts even if compatible. I am specifically referring to car parts, not consumables. So break pads yes, break calipers no. Light bulb yes, headlight no. For example you will not find aftermarket headlights for Tesla that you can install in an authorized shop, get warranty, and ideally not discover that the car already logged the use of an AM part. In this case most (all?) aftermarket headlights begin their life as an OEM part that gets modified and this pretty much bypasses the restrictions, technical or administrative.

These restrictions may be lifted as Tesla becomes better at making cars and can dedicate resources to making more spare parts, and as they start to allow others to take a bite out of their profit by manufacturing compatible parts but we are not there yet.

Having watched Rich Rebuilds' attempt at buying a second-hand Tesla Model X directly from Tesla, I'm not convinced that a) dealerships are bad b) Tesla are the good guys.

Yeah, cars have had no innovation over time...wait, when's the last time you've been in one?

And for the most part dealers are independently owned, not some scandalous way to rip off customers. I have owned many new cars in my life (I like tech, so I lease). I've never had an issue with the dealer that wasn't pleasantly resolved. I realize that isn't the case for every person, but dealers are not universally bad, or any worse than any other business. In fact, my wife likes the brand dealer so much that she continues to purchase her cars from them based on that alone.

>The dinosars deserve to get their ass handed to them until they wake up and serve customers.

You should look around the Tesla forums and Twitter at the complaints. The 'dinosaurs' may be bad, but the idea that Tesla service is somehow better is laughable.

Who are the dinosaurs? Volkswagen sells 10 million vehicles a year. Toyota sells 10 million vehicles a year. Are you claiming that Volkswagen and Toyota are somehow not serving customers? If they're not serving customers then why are they selling so many cars?

It's not about the sales. It's about the brand.

I don't see that it's useful being emotional about it. They're car companies selling cars. You're better off being realistic.

Some people just want a generic econobox that brings them from point A to B, and others are swayed by other things, such as leather seats, ads that show a single car driving by the ocean or in the mountains, fast acceleration, an appealing paint color, high tech looking HUDs, cup holders, moon roof, etc.

well at least we used to have some diversity in design - these days it's mostly variations on the shapeless blob theme. Yes I know, safety regulations etc etc...

https://mediaroom.kbb.com/2020-01-03-Average-New-Vehicle-Pri...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/...

So Tesla is exclusively in the top 5% premium segment here. Most normal people won't even consider a car for half that price.

It's about the same price as an entry Toyota Avensis station wagon.

Denmark also has the tax, but much less (if any, I don't remember) exemption.

The VAT might come in a year or two but not the pollution tax. And the pollution tax will increase until 2025 when the sale of new fossils will be banned.

However the article claims that the model 3 came in third in all of Europe behind the Golf and Clio, so it's selling well all over Europe not just Norway and the Netherlands. Norway is actually a smallish market now compared to what it used to be in market share for EVs.

It does feel more like a workhorse than like a fancy toy, but you can nicely fit 2 parents, 2 grandparents, 3 kids, and enough luggage for a weekend trip in there.

I notice average for Honda, Kia, Nissan etc in your linked article is $30,000... and that's explicitly exclusive of incentives and whatnots. AND inclusive of their luxury brands (Lexus, Infiniti, etc). That leaves room for lots of $20k cars, given that each of the brands has luxury models skewing the average as well.

It would be interesting to see either median, or # of cars in some representative brackets.

So roughly 2% of Honda vehicles sold in the US cost less than $20,000, and that is without taxes and other fees. The Ford F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the US, and the average transaction price of an F-150 (as sold) is around $50,000. New cars under $20,000 basically don't exist in the US.

[1] https://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/honda/

1. Average income of buyer vs car price

2. Average loan totals vs car price

Because, I can tell you that those statistics will probably be absurdly horrifying.

Best example is I was sitting in a dealer and the sales guy was guiding a buyer through getting 3 separate loans for a Honda minivan because the credit union and Honda Fiance deemed him uncreditworthy for one direct loan. And that was one of the many really disturbing things I've directly listened in to.

Next recession is going to result in a complete implosion of the auto lending industry.

Absolutely. I know a guy who runs a few dealerships and they don't even sell cheap cars yet they buy tons of leads each month for people with bad credit who want new cars. The leads cost $50-$150/each depending on how bad their credit is. So you know that those buyers are still buying brand new cars or they wouldn't keep buying these leads. Sure, there are people with bad credit who can afford these cars, but extenuating circumstances are not the majority.

I know it's another anecdote, but from spending a lot of time on car forums, I can't count the number of discussions I've seen around what kind of car people think they can afford. There are people making $35k/yr buying $80k pickup trucks. I don't even know how that's mathematically possible unless they still live with their parents.

Car loans are absolutely horrifying.

Incomes haven't kept up with car prices so the only way people have been affording the same types of cars is with extending the loan payback period and paying a lot more in interest.

Great for banks though.

I'm in Canada, in particular Toronto, one of the couple of priciest spots up here. Not only do we have plenty of cars under $20k, we have cars like Nissan Micra that are bordering on $10k - Canadian. https://www.nissan.ca/en/cars/micra

In terms of Honda, Fit starts at $18k, Civic Sedan at $20k - again, this is Canadian, MSRP.

Toyota? Yaris starting at $17k, MSRP, Canadian. Corolla - $19K, MSRP, Canadian.

A Subaru can be had for as low as $22k MSRP.

This is particularly fascinating to me as I know Canadians feel cars are overall cheaper in US...

And I'd say, sort of definitionally, that the median is the most reasonable figure to use here, precisely because it excludes all those insanely expensive hypercars driving the average up.

I am sure the median car cost in Australia is nothing like that much compared to salary.

Tesla cannot compete with 'boring' cars until it can deliver 'boring' prices. If the price in the USA is within reach of boring, great: Its not yet in the UK, or Europe, or most of Asia, or Australia or New Zealand. It requires substantial support in most economies, and there is no price support for EV in Australia right now.

Anyway, yes, it's true, EVs are not yet as cheap as the cheapest gasoline-powered cars. They're a lot closer over their lifetime in fuel and maintenance, but the up-front purchase cost is more for now. And yet they're selling like gangbusters, because people clearly want them, and the more they sell the more they can benefit from economies of scale and go further downmarket. Remember, the first Tesla targeted the expensive luxury market, and they've now managed to bring the price down by more than half. Just wait.

So $40k is clearly not the right comparison. And it should be pretty obvious why that average is misleadingly high: it includes pickup trucks, minivans, vans, SUVs, and sports cars.

The idea of buying a nice car fell into some disrepute starting in the late 70s, when the major manufacturers stopped making actual nice cars and just added some extra plastic to their economy cars to sell as the premium brand. So people buying Cadillacs in the 90s seemed like, well, chumps. But that shouldn't be a permanent indictment of nice cars! The nice cars of a former era sucked, but now we have nice cars that are actually pretty sweet.

As more people realize that well-designed cars can actually make you and your family happier while driving, there'll be a lot of demand for those cars even at high price points.

To my eyes (auto mech first job/into car/driving experience more than i can afford): There has not been an interesting new car (on my sub 6 figure radar) in around 15 years.

In Washington state subaru are pretty popular seeming (all wheel drive due to rare snowfall in the city). I hopped on the band wagon with an 04' wrx, with a sti conversion, suspension/bushings/motor/turbo etc changes). I'm having more fun with a deeper connection for 1/4 of the money than any porsche i've ever entertained on the freeway. I get that labels are cool, but at the mechanical level it's just a word for OEM perception.

SO yes enjoyable cars. But sadly no nothing to buy. I would love to be a 'normal person' with a car payment and something that is 'new' and fresh. I dont want to knock any newer popular cars but good lord. . i could.

Someone mentioned to me yesterday that the Tesla Cybertruck is a bit odd looking. To me everything is an ugly marshmallow these days (including my 04 i guess but it has a pleasantly stout looking rear). So dear Tesla, thanks for making new car life potentially interesting.

How have you missed the best selling fun car for thirty years? https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/2020-mx-5-miata

And i spent a solid 5 minutes feeling bad making a somewhat negative comment about nearly everyone else's car. It's really a 5050 thing. I guess cars are just appearing too big to me.

Dreamcar 1) datsun 510 with ~600hp 2) A 'disconnected' tesla. (in other words i'd have one today, but i dont my consumer actions to mean that im suddenly married to some company. Regardless of my appreciation/supportive attitude of that company.

I've long dreamed about a project: rebuild a DS from the ground up but with a modern engine (or even electric), run the hydraulics using electronics rather than the system in use based on Mercedes S class parts. Use an original Chassis, make all the panels out of fibreglass. But that requires a lot of space and time to complete. Still, by far the most beautiful car ever made, I always felt that if Citroen had really caught the retro wave that gave us the New Beetle and the Fiat 500 that it would have been a best seller.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGSOZAHg1yQHU1tc_3Y5M...

Why not just use the original hydraulics system? Its only downside is the old pipes, that can corrode. If you replace them with modern coated copper ones, leaks won't be a problem. I think you'd be introducing more problems than necessary if you replaced it with an electronic pump and height adjuster.

(Speaking as someone with a DS 23. And only to be slightly pedantic, I believe the DS19 is an ID19.)

Personally, I would love to buy a series 1 CX and replace its engine with an electric one. That will be my project, once I get to buy my house in the country and get my workshop. (I already have two cars that I need space for.)

The ID19 is the cheap version of the same car, it was sold with a manual gearbox, 'regular' brakes and a cheaper interior.

I would not use the 'green system' because the pumps, regulators, hydro computer and membrane based 'balls' are all way past their end of life. If you're going to upgrade the car you might as well take that bit along. And if the chassis you use as a base has the red system on it you're going to be spending a lot of money anyway. I'd rather use a 'supported' set of parts for something as important as staying off the ground and the S-class system works well and would easily manage a car with the weight of the DS, even when powered electrically. It would use a small fraction of the pump capacity that the DS requires.

I've restored two DS's in the 80's, lots of fun to work on and to drive.

And while, yes, the LHM-system is technically not supported any more by Citroën, there are plenty of licenced manufacturers out there, particularly in the Netherlands, that can provide you with the needed parts.

An LHS-system, I'd rather avoid entirely.

Still, I'll wish you luck on that project.

(And you're right, the ID19 came later. And my DS 23 is with electronic fuel injection. And a 5 speed manual gearbox.)

Likely your DS originally came with the half-automatic and the manual gearbox replaced a broken half-automatic. This was done quite frequently the failure rate on the half-automatics was quite high. I still remember the sound it would make in the last few hundred kilometers before failure.

By the way, that fuel injection system is made by Bosch, the same system was used in the Volvo's of that era, on the Volvo's there are absolutely no problems with the system whereas the DS ones were frequently plagued by failure and fire. Keep an extinguisher in your car please, just in case.

My DS originally came with the 5-speed manual. The 5-speed transmission is special, and the engine was specially built to support it. If your half-automatic failed, you replaced it with a 4-speed manual. Both the half-automatic and the 4-speed could support a manual hand starter at the front, the 5-speed cannot.

I learnt this a few years back, when my engine had to go through a renovation, and it was apparent that only one transmission could fit on the engine; a 5 speed manual. So it would also have had to have its engine replaced, which I find a little unlikely. Although, someone had decorated it to make it look like a Pallas, even though it was originally not.

The problem with the fuel injection system in the DS is that power distribution is not electronic (while the rest is). But you can buy a replacement for that to make it electronic, which greatly reduces the risk of catching fire. Most people these days replace their power distributor to an electronic one. Although, more for the reason that you get a smoother ride, since it is better at distributing the fuel.

That being said, in all my time of owning a DS, I have not heard of anyone catching fire in their DS.

Great cars. I really commend you for managing to keep one alive after so many years. I wished I could have justified keeping mine on the road, DE-70-72, if you can find out where it sits (it's been sitting unused for many years) you'll find a DS that looks crap but was technically completely rebuilt. It should sit somewhere near IJmuiden. There is an engine in there with about 2000 km on it, brand new steering assembly, suspension arms, hydraulics, the lot.

Maybe I'll find it someday. I will admit, these days I have been doing the most to ensure that my cars are kept running, and that they are stored safely, i.e. dry indoor garages. But once I get my own workshop, I may get back into the business.

However, my first project, would be a series 1 CX with an electric engine.

This needs government regulation that guarantees tenants can get charging infrastructure installed with some reasonable cost-sharing setup.

It's likely we'll install the ring, the circuit, but not fit outlets unless the owner pays some quotient of the cost, and we will have to inform everyone there is a process, but not everyone can get one. It will be very unequal.

Retrofit is going to be a very painful topic for years, for apartments, which is also why their lovely high, un-obstructed roof line is not covered in Solar Cells: it makes perfect sense, but its like herding kittens to get the body corporate or condo committee to agree to spend money.

Or pool heating: the retrofit cost is $150,000 for something which could have been planned in for under $50,000. Insanely short sighted design decisions echo down the years.

Isn't that coming anyway? "The EU aims to replace at least 80% of electricity meters with smart meters by 2020 wherever it is cost-effective to do so." -- although I don't know what cost-effective meant.

The building I live in has smart meters, and there are two parking spaces with 400V 3-phase sockets. (I assume the car owners just paid the installation cost.)

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/markets-and-consumers/sma...

My friend lives near Brussels, Belgium. I currently live in between the cities of Hasselt and Antwerp also Belgium. The distance covered in a single trip is 83.2 Km. He drives and I quote: "a full spec Nissan Leaf" whatever that may mean.

During winter times, my friend has to take a look at traffic flows because if he has a traffic jam he'll run his battery flat and be stranded.

During summer, he's hot because the car can't sustain AC and drive the distance without running his battery flat and be stranded.

When he arrives, he has to find a charging pole in the middle of the city centre. He checks this in advance on his application/website/... before he leaves because else, he is stranded.

If we go out in the evening he has to spend the night or his car isn't charged and he's stranded.

To start charging he has to select one of the three cables he has in his car because of "standards".

In the end, I pick him up in my ICE because he's not even at his destination.

We have done this dance for about 5 times now and I can assure you that -to me- the EV market seems to be doing everything it possibly can to make me as uninterested as possible in buying an EV.

I'd rather take Belgian public transportation than deal with this nonsense. A train might get cancelled, but at least I know I'll be home that same day.

With 2018 gen Leaf, or any Tesla model really, round trips on a single charge at that distance are unproblematic.

As a side remark, I never met an EV owner who actually run their battery flat while going somewhere, it's always a hypothetical.

In most European cities I am familiar with, the very concept of driving into the office is totally alien - no one does it because a) traffic, b) no parking, and c) there is usually a semi-decent public transport system that is usually quicker when you factor in traffic.

Certainly in London, there are some underground/multi-storey parking places you can just drive up to and use, but it is fairly uncommon and always hugely expensive. E.g. nearest one to my office is £38/day ($50) + £11.50 ($15) congestion charge , then it is a 18 minute walk on top of however long it took you to get to the parking (e.g. Google maps suggest 50 minutes for the 5 mile journey for me). Comparable tube journey is about 25 minutes door-to-door and £3.30/$5

Supercharge obviously only works if you own a Tesla.

I often jump at the opportunity to talk EVs with common folks who aren't car enthusiasts but do own/operate automobiles.

What I've come to appreciate is that range anxiety isn't even the primary anxiety anymore. There's enough EVs out in the wild and just general evidence of their being usable as daily drivers that it seems to be a thing of the past.

What does seem to be a major source of anxiety is battery lifetime and serviceability/cost.

And I think that's a perfectly rational thing. Consider what most people experience with laptops and smartphones when it comes to modern rechargeable battery technology. They swell up, they catch fire, they lose capacity, they're not even standardized on EVs so you're locked into a specific vendor, it might not even be made by the OEM anymore so you're stuck with shoddy reverse-engineered replacements (classic thinkpad owners know this experience all to well). With volatile companies like Tesla you can't even be confident they'll still be around to service the electrics/battery in 5-10 years.

What I wish companies like Tesla would do is define some standard form factors for things like batteries, motors, motor controllers, and charge systems. If they'd just get things to where EVs are very much like oversized electric RC vehicles, where we can buy the vehicles potentially without any battery at all with a competitive market of battery vendors to choose from fulfilling requirements of an open standard, a lot of these sources of anxiety completely vanish.

Imagine a world where you could have a Tesla delivered to your local mechanic without a motor, motor controller, or battery. It's a roller conforming to a set of standards for those components. Then you buy those to your liking from whatever vendors you prefer in the size/capacities/costs you prefer.

I'm pretty confident such a situation would have EV adoption explode everywhere, nobody would be worried about having an unmaintainable rube goldberg machine of proprietary electronics collecting dust on their driveway in 10 years.

They failed because Renault didn't deliver in the quantities needed and they tried to make up the cash shortfall by over-pricing the distance fees (more expensive than gasoline costs unless you regularly drove huge distances). Too many ducks needed to line up and investors stopped ponying up. It's fair to say that they were before their time - they probably could have gotten SoftBank to throw them another ten figures, but the Vision Fund didn't exist back then.

Tesla looked at battery swapping after Better Place proved feasibility and passed, probably due to the cost of retrofitting to the existing design and various engineering compromises (specifically related to speed and acceleration, which Musk prizes) that would be needed.

The Model S demonstrated battery swapping technology. There was no retrofitting to the design needed, as it was designed to support it from the beginning.

Some say it was all done for show and they never had any intention of following through. From the interviews with Musk at the time, I got the impression that it was more of a defensive move in case the concept started to gain traction.

Either way, though, the vehicle was built for it and it literally took the same time as a gas fillup. I'm sure the demonstration videos are still on Youtube if you are interested.

Battery lifetime is way more of a concern for cars with small batteries.

For an original leaf with a 20kwh battery pack, you have to charge it to higher levels and discharge to lower levels just to get your daily range. For a tesla model 3 you can charge for battery health and still have convenience and longevity.

Basically, to predict car lifetime calculate battery cycles * range for one cycle.

If a battery will survive 2000 cycles, a leaf @ 50 miles range will get 100k miles, a tesla model 3 @250 miles range will get 500k.

And service seems to be working out to significantly less than gasoline cars.

I do dislike that teslas are not "open" cars, tesla carefully hoarding service procedures unless the law requires it.

A much larger issue is the loss of range as a car ages. Used cars are more noticeably degraded which is going to seriously impact the used car market over time. That may eventually be a non issue if range keeps increasing, but it’s a real consideration.

The Fiat Centoventi (aka the electric Panda) is closest to what you want for batteries. It has a battery system with modules which are easy to install and remove. The idea is you can buy the battery capacity that suits your needs and then you can buy or rent extra capacity as needed:

https://www.drivingelectric.com/fiat/933/fiat-centoventi-con...

Being able to rent some extra battery capacity for the occasional road trip is an interesting idea. And the modular system makes it easy to replace modules that fail over time.

It makes your motor controllers, safety systems, and chargers significantly more complex and more expensive.

Leasing is probably a better approach for customers concerned over battery life.

So say silver tier - 70% max range after 7 years. gold tier - 80% max range after 7 years, etc.

A modern (non-Tesla) EV-Vehicle can be recharged to 80% within half an hour or so. That works without issues as long as very few people have electric vehicles. If everyone had one, we would get into problems with recharging. You can assume the infrastructure to scale with sold vehicles, but there are other requirements that suddenly become an issue. Many gas stations just don't have enough electrical power for example.

You cannot look at one trip and call it irrational since it isn't applicable for your commute or short trips. I think these issues will be solved, but there are still changes needed.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-production-1-million-electri...

In truth, no car is boring. they're amazing machines. But something which takes more than the median wage ($AU50,000) to acquire, when substitutable vehicles are $AU30,000 or less (excluding luxe from the equation) puts them into a different category than a boring car.

A friend had an ex-diplomatic corps DS19 which had a glass barrier between the driver and the PAX. Now that is stylish.

The best I had was the Lesney toys "safari" DS19 model car in zebra stripes.

Sideways open rear door on the wagon.. Death trap for non LH side parking.

Yes, decision to buy particularly expensive car is very rational, with lot of time, choices and your personal preferences are of course part of it. Old cars do have their merits, and cost premium associated with them is real, economical fact.

Very very little of price of car cannot be explained by market forces at work.

Do you see something preventing or slowing this from happening? Why would society not adopt EV?

Unless you’re discussing degree or rate of adoption, which I don’t care about, but your comment seems to imply doubt that EVs will ever succeed... which seems extremely short sighted and naive.

My dream is an ioniq, or for Nissan to wise up and fix the problems with their battery model (rental?) or for a european manufacturer like VW to make good on the promise of their common-design chassis and break open the market. They aren't doing this yet for very good reasons, not dissimilar to why oil companies include a small number diversifying into Solar and Wind, and a lot who are selling as much oil as they can before it becomes a stranded asset: Most of the car production line is sunk cost around ICE. re-making ito EV implies a huge re-fabrication of the plant around EV not ICE and lots of sunk costs go up in smoke. If I was a BMW or VW or Toyota or Mazda exec, and my annual bonus depended on volume profit sales, standing up to propose a giant hole of capital be dug now, to save 15 years hence is .. well.. sensible but also not in my gene pool.

The current generation of auto execs have no motivation to compete right now. They'd rather buy off the Californian clean air taxes by investing in Tesla shares to green-wash their needs, believing they can rush in at the end and steal the market.

There is a tension between first mover advantage and second-system effect.

I interpret it totally different. I the parent like they think we are close to it.

Agree that they're still too expensive for the average consumer to afford, and that the specs on the low-end EV models aren't yet competitive with traditional ICE cars.

The VW ID.3 looks like it would have the same problem. I know this is very subjective, but why not make a car that looks more like their already successful models?

I'm 100% with you. The X is one of the most awkward looking SUV's ever made, and the 3 looks awkward past the C pillar. In my opinion their best looking vehicle is the S because it looks correctly proportioned, and also because it has the semblance of a grille, even though it's just black plastic and doesn't actually function as a ICE car's grille.

As for the upcoming Roadster, that looks smashing. Too bad it's massively expensive.

I don't think I've ever been in a sedan that doesn't have this feature, but you usually get a little more space out of a hatchback if the roof-line doesn't taper down.

The Honda Fit and a few others are the exception but I assume the reason is that the SUV form factor has gobbled up most of the market for “hatchback with a lot of space for cargo”. E.g. Toyota discontinued the Prius V and is instead offering an electric RAV4.

I'd love to see some old designs from that era reproduced with electric. I'm not talking about monstrosities like BMWs mini (anything but mini) or VWs attempt to revive the beetle. They basically lost the essence of both designs and turned them into pompous monstrosities with a lot of plastic, leds, and ugly loud colors. The current mini especially is offensive to me compared to the original. Completely misses the point of the original in every possible way.

For the North American market; what about some old school muscle cars, Cadillacs, etc. Those were awesome design classics. Their modern descendants are not even worth mentioning. It's not like a modern SUV is in any way efficient or practical. With EVs, aerodynamics matter a lot less because the fuel (i.e. electricity) is cheap.

But it seems like designers these days insist on rubbing out all the little details in the original that made them so nice.

What makes you think you can speak for the entire car driving population?

This is just your opinion, no? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

They should have made more electric models since, but their different CEOs that succeeded were only looking at the current numbers. Hopefully for them, they will catch up.

Many people dislike the look of the i3 but that's just a matter of tastes. Personally I think the tesla model S and model 3 are very boring looking cars. They look okay, but I much prefer the i3.

In current cars models, The Renault Zoé looks very normal, the Volswagen Golf is a Golf, the Peugeot 208 looks exactly the same as a BEV or ICE, the Jaguar I-Pace looks like a ICE car too, the Audi Etron cannot look more normal, same for the Mercedes EQC.

This.

"I know this is very subjective, but why not make a car that looks more like their already successful models?"

Carmakers: We don't want your electric car. We want your car, electric.

I don't want to buy your iMobile or your eCar. I want a Volvo v90, but electric. I want a BMW 7-series, but electric. I don't want your Tron-mobile.

https://www.caranddriver.com/bmw/i4 https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/e-tron https://www.caranddriver.com/mercedes-benz/eqc

And if you want something similar to a Model S, Porsche has got you covered with the Taycan:

https://www.caranddriver.com/porsche/taycan

Traditional carmakers are obviously capable of making electric cars that look like any other of their cars, it's annoying that it took them this long to get on that train...

That being said, if Honda releases their little wagon thing in NA, that might be my next EV. If not, a Y is in my future.

Some of the excesses of the trend setting designs got dropped, for example the huge double spoiler on the sport version of the Sierra, however, the aero shape gave fuel efficiencies important to the fleet buyer so that stayed. Nowadays all saloon cars have a little bit of Sierra 'jelly mould' in their design.

With EV design the fake grille that Tesla started out with has been dropped. Tesla also don't do the funny blue lights 'because it is electric' styling that other marques sucker themselves for.

Some people do not want an EV car that has retro, e.g. the grill, or the inane, e.g. the funny blue lights. A different future is sought, more along the lines of the second generation Nissan Leaf that is 'conventional' rather than the first, which had the silly blue lights styling in abundance.

Now your suggestion of a BMW 3 series with the ICE replaced with batteries is a non-starter. Sure you can do what MINI have done and just shove batteries where the ICE bits would go, but it always feels retro-fitted. It would not be the 'ultimate driving machine' or offer the passenger luxury that EV is best at (3 series BMW's have miserable rear legroom because it is a driver's car). There would be this stupidly large bonnet for an ICE that did not exist. And you would not get your 350 miles range with ICE grade aero and weighty steel.

Would they do this internationally? They are a luxury brand in America and moving downmarket doesn't seem to be their strategy or good for their brand.

The only non-ugly electric car is Ioniq. New Audi/Mercedes are going to be sane too.

Most auto manufacturers are limited to making things that are profitable. I'm sure any one of them could have easily sold a million electric cars if they were willing to sell them at cost-$10,000 and burn up a couple 10s of billions of dollars.

As it turns out, local EV cars such as the Renault Zoe are below the threshold, not the least because you buy the car but rent the battery, so the price appears much lower to the consumer, and the price of the battery is magically not factored in against the threshold.

Airbus wanted to build a new freeway through a protected forest to deliver planes on, but EU rules prevented it. Instead they built the road and put a thin surface of gravel on top so they could claim it was a "forest track", and it became legal.

Other countries are just bad at getting anything done, for local or foreign companies.

Do you have a source or more details on this, because I fail to see what Airbus “freeway” or gravel road this could be referring to.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/business/the-three-stud...

This isn't necessarily a bad or evil thing to do. A price threshold increases the incentive for manufacturers to reduce their costs and bring their pricing under the threshold. Subsidy or not, EV prices must come down before they can fully displace combustion as the mainstream technology.

(In Tesla's case, EU import tariffs are included in their prices. Once the Berlin factory is up and running, they'll be more competitive in Europe)

You need to have income, but you can get a car on a bluecollar salary, and an incentive of 10% on the price is significant.

If you're actually wealthy you'll want to buy a bigger car, and the same incentive is both less significant and less useful.

I don't mean to claim that anyone who buys a new car is financially independent.

Then again Tesla is not hurting, they sell just about everything they can build.

Unless they cost more than 40,000 at first sale, and then it's a few hundred quid a year after the first few years.

Only the 'worst' model of the Model 3 is below that bar, pretty much all Tesla vehicles are subject to that tax.

See *cars over £40,000 pay £310 supplement for 5 years

The V5c for my Tesla Model S specifically mentioned this charge. I sold it recently so never had to pay it.

I believe it's due for years 2-6 so a total of around 1500 quid.

The new rules apply from April 1st, 2020.

The government likely wants to give local manufacturers an advantage even if it means not playing fair. I don't know if it's right but I understand why they do it (jobs & tax revenue).

On the subject matter, Tesla cars are a problem, they are too big and heavy for Europe. And European car makers should stop increasing their car sizes too.

You do realise that a battery is very heavy? Also, just because you don't want a bigger car, doesn't mean that others don't, there are still lost of smaller cars around.

Unfortunately, I can't comfortably sit in my current D-segment vehicle because I am taller than average (and there is no room in the back behind me), and any seating in buses or trains is even worse (not to mention airplanes).

So while I'd love to get the smallest car possible, I am a bit restricted if I want to actually fit my family in.

I want a small electric car for city driving though! My back will manage for short rides (I hope)!

There also was a delay in the increase of the "Umweltbonus". Some people said it was on purpose to get closer to the release date of the Volkswagen ID.3 electric vehicle which will be slightly cheaper than Teslas Model 3.

The increased Umweltbonus of 8000€ (4000€ of which are paid by the car companies) will be interesting to see in the context of the upcoming Dacia K-ZE low cost electric car. If they offer it for, say, 13000€ the price after Umweltbonus will be 5000€.

You have to take into account that Tesla's are relatively expensive cars, and you see them mostly where there's quite a bit of money and you see a lot of luxury vehicles in general. Cars with a 100k+ price tag are pretty damn common here (Porsches and high-end BMW/Audi/Merc SUV's), and cars in the 50-60k range are even more common. The Model S was for a long time competing in the latter segment due to fiscal benefits, which are now disappearing, but now Tesla has the Model 3 to compete in this segment...

And what also is a kind of misleading is that overall cars sales went up in Europe.

Personally I think Tesla is going to have a hard time in the near future now all big brands start producing EVs. The Porsche Taycan for example made a lot of Tesla owners switch to Porsche. I believe the same will happen when the new BMW i4 launches next year.

And most European people don't care much about range. Distances are very different here. In the Netherlands you can cross the country with a 400km battery.

October 2019 also had almost no deliveries due to no vessels delivering Tesla's to Europe (think they arrive in Zeebrugge Belgium). One car carrier has 4000+ cars on it. They're then delivered quickly after that.

The incentives is just part of this.

Edit: For a tracker of these car carries, see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10Uh_GSkShwPPlrE5mOJc...

They must be walking then.

The Taycan has had a lot of deposits put down, but we are way off significant numbers of deliveries. The factory isn't debugged yet. I would be surprised to see a Taycan in the wild on the streets any time this year, even in Knightsbridge or the Silverstone car park.

Tesla cars are quite common (if still unusual and therefore noteworthy) even in provincial towns.

Tesla ruled almost all EV classes because there were simply no other EVs in those classes. But that is going to change in the near future.

The Taycan is in the luxury sports car class. And that is the first class where Tesla is going to lose customers.

That's just because Tesla remains production constrained. All the car delivered to Netherlands or Norway couldn't be delivered to any other European country.

Just watch the UK deliveries for the 1rst quarter of 2020.

It makes sense for Tesla to prioritize by markets with big EV incentive, but this shouldn't be interpreted as a lack of demand.

You can see the figures here: https://eu-evs.com/

Click on NL+No+Sp on the left, then click Specific Brand -> Brand QoQ with Tesla selected for a nice graph of Tesla registrations in those countries.

This is before any Coronovirus impact hits as well, since I presume these registrations have a certain amount of lag.

This is made very clear in the official reports[0]:

>Although it is possible to deliver a higher number of vehicles, we believe it is important to begin unwinding the "wave" approach to vehicle deliveries, where overseas cars have been made in the first half of the quarter and North American cars have been made in the second half. This puts extreme stress on Tesla, negatively affects our working capital needs and adds to our cost structure.

So far, they have been unable to unwind the waves so this means European deliveries will continue to take place at the end of the quarter. And, as explained in my earlier comment, Tesla is focusing on the UK for this quarter anyway, so your stats for NL, NO and SP are even less significant. All car delivered in the UK can't be sold in any other European countries, as long as Tesla remains production constrained (i.e until the Berlin factory is up and running).

[0] https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/b2218d34-fbee-4f1f-ac95-05...

That doesn’t alter the fact that /this/ Q is worse than all the others to date.

It seems the first deliveries will be March 10th, the last deliveries were quite a while ago. Tesla in Europe isn't something you should track per month due to the deliveries not being like a production line.

And yet, here we are ...

I picked Tesla for my next EV because of the charging stations. Level 2 and even CHAdeMO and CCS are just too slow, and there’s not enough of the latter two.

Even then, I think those buying an electric can afford air travel.

I wouldn't be so quick to claim "Tesla should be worried" - Tesla should only be worried about its own execution, and should be ignoring competition altogether (which I think they do).

I'm not exactly a Tesla fan, I think their cars are pretty bland, certainly the interior is pretty spartan for the price you're paying, and I'm not convinced of the entire infotainment system/massive screen in the middle.

But... Other manufacturers allowed Tesla to become an established brand, and right now if you tell someone you have an electric car, their response will be "oh a Tesla?" 9 out of 10.

On top of that, Tesla is learning quality/finish faster than other manufacturers are learning how to mass produce electric cars properly. The newer model 3 from one colleague is miles ahead build-quality-wise of the one from another, who got one of the first to arrive in Europe.

And lastly, Tesla has a massive head-start in battery production capacity, and I would not be surprised if they'd start selling batteries to other manufacturers soon. Battery supply chains are currently the limiting factors for many car models (the Hyundai Ioniq has a massive waiting list for this exact reason for example).

Most classic car brands also give priority to direct battery supply towards their more mass-market lineup where they're now offering hybrid solutions. They can make what - 10 hybrid cars with the same amount of batteries it takes to make a single-electric-one? Choosing between selling 1 or 10 cars limited by a strained supply chain is an easy choice. Sure they'll offer electric versions for a premium, but the hybrid-ones are the ones they're really producing and driving sales.

While Musk has said and done some dumb things, I'm still rooting for Tesla. Beyond the fact that electric cars are cool and good, I like the fact that Tesla is shaking the industry up, especially that they don't use dealerships, which are frequently scummy and often outright predatory. That we've tolerated them exploiting the ignorant or unwise for so long is a black mark against us as a society.

For decades American and Japanese manufacturers have tried to compete with European luxury brands. American companies had almost no success and Japanese very little. Lexus does well, but it never displaced German car sales the way Tesla is now. I am not a Tesla fanboy, but I do like cars. You have to respect the product.

The bottleneck is no longer fuel costs and delivery. It’s technology cost and it’s declining rapidly. Look at Enphase’s IQ8X grid forming micros. The future is coming fast.

Some people obsessively, maniacally try to deny Tesla the credit they deserve for changing the auto market (for the exact same reason some people try to deny Apple the credit it deserves for entirely changing the phone market). Nobody else did it, which is also why they're so far ahead of their peers. The giants of the industry handed them a decade headstart.

My understanding is that gas is quite expensive in many European countries compared to the US, so even if there are purchase incentives that expire, I think there is probably still strong economic pressure to buy electric.

Until someone else comes out with a strong electric vehicle offering, that means Tesla.

https://www.electricchoice.com/electricity-prices-by-state/

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-house...

I stumbled upon a comment online, recently, from a guy who went on and on about peak oil for years. In 2008, he made a joke about "Tesla will have surpassed the US car industry". I don't remember the time horizon, but the first Roadster was delivered to Elon in February 2008. It just made me reflect on what we'd think of that prediction/joke and how it turned out, if we were to go back in time.

They've just passed 1 million vehicles manufactured so that shouldn't take long.

Saying nothing about Tesla cars versus other companies, that's a huge financial advantage against other car companies. This is particularly true given that most of those car sales happened post-Q1-2018, when Tesla had already established a strong brand.

I'm not sure any established player could, at that point, compete with a company that gets to lose $13.5k per car they sell. That would be like if Nissan started building base-model Sentras and selling them for $4500. Yes, they would sell a lot of them.

As markets normalize and Tesla has to compete on a level playing field, my guess is their product is viewed more and more as what it is: a luxury car. Nothing wrong with that, but it's hard to see them owning more than a few percent of the market, especially considering established companies have gone all in on electric at this point.

And, nothing can justify a price-sales multiplier of 20 for the company. Nothing.

The money was spent on things like R&D and product development. That means you amortize it over the total number of cars they're ever going to make using that technology. They've made 1M already, but why would you expect them not to make any more?

Some of that money went into developing models that haven't been released yet. If you break it down per model using existing sales numbers then those models would have cost infinity dollars per car, but that's now how it works.

That said, Tesla is still selling cars with no federal rebate. So, actually, while you're right about $13.5k (historically), that's no longer correct. (of course, they've lowered prices, so perhaps that $6k number goes up?)

I don't doubt a more efficient automaker could shave thousands off that $6k number. And people would still buy it for a couple thousand more; making up the pricing difference.

Of course, that still brings us "only" to $0 unit profit.

Polluting and emissions have a very real cost (climate change, particulate pollution). I am astounded when someone complains that this cost must be paid for, and that it was in some way wrong or economic fraud for Tesla to take advantage of intelligent public policy (ZEV credits, tax credits, etc).

Disclaimer (bigger one in profile): I am a TSLA shareholder, and willing to wait until the heat death of the universe for any return on capital. My investment is in fixing climate change.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/chrsyelr-ceo-evs/fiat-chrysl... (“I hope you don’t buy it because every time I sell one it costs me $14,000,” he said to the audience at the Brookings Institution about the 500e. “I’m honest enough to tell you that.” -- Sergio Marchionne)

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-09/fiat-will... (Fiat Will Effectively Fund Tesla’s German Factory, Baird Says)

I focus on solvable problems. Tesla solves problems today that the United States Congress might never solve (a carbon tax is extremely unlikely to pass with the current legislature configuration). Every Tesla sold gets us closer to a zero emissions future. You go to war with what you have, not what you want. Dysfunctional government? Those factories still churn out EVs that generate revenue to scale up battery manufacturing across the world.

I have nothing against Tesla as a luxury car brand. I do get tired of fanboys suggesting they'll take over the entire industry. Normal people can't afford a $60k Model 3 (and that's what they actually cost). Other companies will do fine in the electric space. I'm quite happy with my used Nissan Leaf. Price? $8500. Let's see Tesla beat that.

That's hyperbole. I paid a little less than $60K out the door for my Model 3, and it is the Performance model. You can order a $40K Model 3 right off the web site that is substantially identical aside from being slower and having a few miles less range (though in practical terms it's probably about the same because the P3D doesn't get anywhere near rated range). AFAIK you can still special order the $35K model.

A Nissan Leaf is a glorified golf cart with an air cooled battery that has no longevity and no fast charge network. There is a reason they are so cheap used. It is not a realistic competitor to an internal combustion vehicle, such that a Model 3, Y, S, or X is. That is why Tesla is successful and has sold their millionth car, and is running at a 400k unit/year run rate (based on Fremont and Gigafactory 3 production data). There is no need for Tesla to meet unrealistic expectations such as your example ("I'm quite happy with my used Nissan Leaf. Price? $8500. Let's see Tesla beat that.") when there is an entire worldwide auto market with consumers ready to pay top dollar for the cars Tesla builds (in the US, average sales prices of a new car in the US is $35K and 17 million cars a year are sold), and Tesla commands roughly 1/3rd of the Chinese EV market as of February 2020.

They cost $40k, you can try to do whatever random math magic you want to make your argument but that generally won't fly well on this forum.

To take over they would need to:

- Release a sub 10k car which is focused on in-City only use case but can also handle your grocery shopping and pre-planned inter City treveling to close by cities.

- Solve the logistic problem that everyone wants to charge theire car. (Note: I don't mean the whole bs. about power grid crashing, all this are technically problems with existing solutions).

- One way to solve that would be batteries with a capacity so large that you only charge once in four days _for the cheap sub 10k version_.

- Another would be batteries so small that they are easily exchanged instead of charging. (Tesla did implement that but the way it currently is, is just to unpractical. It would need a industry wide standard solution and a really easy to maintain exchange station.)

So could Tesla take over: yes.

Will Tesla take over: most likely not, they will just probably become well established for the mid/upper marked segment.

Will battery powered electric cars take over: likely but not necessarily. The often overlooked truth is the race is still on and the winner not yet clear as neither batteries not full cells have yet reached a level at which they can widespread replace fossil fueled cars.

Also let's not speak about current battery tech and fire...

The average price of a new car in the US is $37k which gives Tesla access to half the new car market. Used car buyers are meaningless in the metrics as they make car companies no money. Tesla is far far from saturating that part of the market so there's little incentive for them to move to cheaper cars (and dilute the brand in the process). In fact, it's probably better economically for Tesla to let other brands make cheaper electrics, annoy customers due to shortcomings and then swoop in with a superior product down the line (having learned from the mistakes of other companies).

edit: Or in other words, used cars are irrelevant in terms of market adoption since their supply is limited by the supply of new cars. So you need to look at the demand and sales of new cars.

The LEAF S and SV with a 40kWh battery have 149mi range up to a $34,190 base price.

The cheapest 226mi range LEAF is $38,200.

Nissan offers a cheaper base price for a market segment Tesla is not playing in, which is great.

But if you want to compare apples to apples, the pricing is basically the same.

And then there's depreciation..........

They market themselves as environmentally friendly while representing a comedically small percent of global emissions reduction. And within the auto industry itself the increasing efficiency of ICE vehicles has reduced emissions by far more than Tesla and their electric car hype.

At the same time, they advocate infrastructure expansions to accomodate their vehicle's needs while handwaving away the emissions and environmental consequences this process would create. And every time this is mentioned people just blubber some line about the long term while covering their ears to the tide of environmentalists saying that we need change /now/.

They might conquer Europe through legislation but the only reason that's practical is because European countries are tiny so the range issue is less relevant to them. Tesla hasn't actually cleared their hurdles, they've surrendered to them.

Meanwhile, they drum up this idea that Tesla's can be more than toys for rich people even though no one blue collar who isn't already a hard fan chooses a Tesla. In fact, speaking of legislation, they're so uncompetitive that Europe has to ban ICE engines for them to gain ground.

Even you framed this as Tesla competing against luxury brands, key word being luxury. This world where they've paved the way for cheap mainstream electric vehicles is a fantasy. They've paved the way for novelty in the luxury market and since doing so have shown little aptitude beyond their ability to wield that accomplishment as a shield to deflect criticisms.

You have to start somewhere. Tesla is increasing their manufacturing capacity about as fast as you can reasonably expect any company to do it. Just because high-volume manufacturers like Ford or Honda or Volkswagen can have more impact on CO2 emissions by reducing fuel consumption slightly on many more vehicles is no reason to disdain what Tesla is doing on a smaller scale.

I'll tell you something. I'm sure enjoying having that extra $60k in my bank account that I saved by not buying a horribly overpriced depreciating asset.

And you're quite off on the price of a Model 3. I think you're confusing it for the Model S.

Also, a new model 3 is 40k, and Teslas depreciate a lot less than a Nissan. But I do agree that buying brand new is generally a bad idea imo

Replacing an oxygen sensor – $249 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing a catalytic converter – $1,153 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing ignition coil(s) and spark plug(s) – $390 - Teslas don't have these

Tightening or replacing a fuel cap – $15 - Teslas have a charging port cover, and it breaks

Thermostat replacement – $210 - Teslas don't have these (in engines)

Replacing ignition coil(s) – $236 - Teslas don't have these

Mass air flow sensor replacement – $382 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing spark plug wire(s) and spark plug(s) – $331 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing evaporative emissions (EVAP) purge control valve – $168 - Teslas don't have these

Replacing evaporate emissions (EVAP) purging solenoid – $184 - Teslas don't have these

For 2005 Malibu:

Oxygen sensors: one is $19, still running on originals.

Catalytic Converters: one side Carb Compliant $319, still running on originals

Spark plugs: Iridium NGK 6*$5, took me 1 hour to replace

Thermostat: $4 + $3 shipping, 15 minutes to replace

Mass air flow sensor: still original $62

Prices from RockAuto.

Secondly, it's not just the pure monetary value. We have four cars in a family of six, and despite my brother being good with the wrench, ICE manufacturers have made it incredibly time consuming and difficult to do even the most basic maintenance work outside of maybe oil changes and brake pads. HUGE dealership service costs are practically unavoidable with modern ICE cars despite improvements in reliability to previous eras. The peace of mind and reliability gained from having fewer mechanical problems is invaluable. I'm gladly willing to pay MORE for electric cars in their current state to not have to deal with dealerships and mechanics. They're only going to get better.

Thirdly, I've been in the market for a new car for the past year. Driving assistance on motorways and London like traffic where you spend hours daily are a huge help. Virtually every viable option right now is a baby compared to Tesla's autopilot. Although this could be improved upon, I have no trust in ICE manufacturers to make any meaningful strides to catch up anytime soon. They're still figuring out android auto (which is a must because their proprietary tech is equivalent to a kick in the balls). The new kid on the block is just doing it better.

Lastly, a decade-ish old company/tech here warrants serious discussion in its CURRENT state compared to giants that are decades old, and they have no answer so far. ICE Vs electric is a forgone conclusion at this point, but I wish other manufacturers catch up to the trend sooner rather than later because that's ultimately better for us consumers. I'm not a fan of Tesla's Apple like views on product ownership in regards to repairs etc. But sadly, their current offering is far better than competition so we have no choice.

Car buying is a LOT of signalling. There is a reason for the stereotypes surrounding people who buy those types of cars.

Did you not read the article?

Also: https://twitter.com/thirdrowtesla/status/1236678690462765057

The people interested in buying a BMW are not going to be swayed by "cost effectiveness" arguments.

Tesla is a new successful electric car company that is helping with CO2 emission reduction. Nothing in your rant challenges this.

It's a reasonable point, our economy is energy based and so the more you spend the bigger the environmental impact. We are trying to decouple it but we have a long way to go yet.

And what does this have to do with whether their products are good for the environment anyway? Whether it makes sense to take on debt to establish a new business seems completely orthogonal.

A used electric car is better for the environment than a used ICE car, but the only way to get used electric cars is to make new electric cars.

E-bikes are a much better environmentally friendly solution for most trips. The problem is the road infrastructure isn't there for them to be safe enough yet; we only build roads for cars, and anyone else (pedestrian or cyclist) is at high risk.

And what about overall pollution. Lithium batteries hold a lots of poison.

It takes into account different types of ICE cars, it takes into account the environmental impact of building the batteries, it takes into account the emissions produced by the power plants for several European countries, and it even predicts how things can improve or change if current trends continue.

With the exception of Germany (where lifetime EV emissions are very similar to an "efficient" ICE due to their more "dirty" power generation), an EV produces less CO2 over it's lifetime.

In fact the higher upfront emissions in manufacturing an EV are "paid back" within 2 years on average.

And because the environmental impact of an EV is so dependent on how "green" the power generation is, investments in green power can lessen the impact of cars already sold!

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life...

The emissions reductions attained by manufacturers have been done while fighting tooth and nail against them; also, it's good that they're reducing emissions, but you just eliminate them completely by driving a Tesla.

As long as we keep ramping battery and renewables production, we'll get ahead of the emissions. To reduce emissions, you must displace combustion in all its forms, and destroy demand for fossil fuels. Renewables push out coal and natural gas on the grid, utility scale batteries push out natural gas due to price volatility (hat tip to Saudi Arabia on their current efforts to destroy the US fracking industry through pumping at full capacity, utilities desperately require stable prices for their fuels which is unlikely to happen if shale production declines due to low oil prices, which will prompt more rapid battery uptake), cheap/clean energy drives demand for EVs due to lower cost per mile than internal combustion (EVs are roughly half the cost per mile to operate as an internal combustion vehicle).

It does not matter to me if you're the House of Saud or US frackers, if you're pumping oil I want you out of business. My agenda is the end of fossil fuels, and I don't much care how we get there. Saudi Arabia requires $80/barrel to fund their state (Russia is ~$40/barrel), a highly unlikely long term market price for oil even with Saudi Arabia increasing their market share. So, if they can drive US shale (which is heavily leveraged using debt [1]) out of business before they decline, kudos. The planet, nor carbon emissions, care not about geopolitics.

Not buying oil from an authoritarian regime who funds terrorism is also an option if you're not a fan of Saudi Arabia (see: tariffs and embargoes). Why getting off oil is never the first option is always strangely not prioritized. Can't complain they're terrible folks (which they are!) but do nothing to migrate away from depending on them. It's been almost 50 years since the 70s oil embargo, and the US is still pathetically behind (compared to resources available) electrifying transportation. We have only ourselves to blame.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-energy-companies-hav...

My friend is a Master electrician in the IBEW union. He is in no way a “hard fan” of Tesla. He put down a deposit on the new truck that they are making because he thought it was better than his other options.

this is arguably a pretty big red herring and despite good intentions the focus on electric cars will probably be a disaster by prolonging the broken American car-centric development.

Mind you an electric vehicle is only as clean as its primary source of energy (at the moment its lifetime emissions are about 70% of a traditional car), and the production of particular the batteries is ecologically problematic to say the least.

I think electric cars will prolong the situation by giving influential people in the managerial and political class, in particular, the illusion that EVs are a big enough step towards changing our lifestyles and that it will induce a sort of "I've done my part" complacency.

Basically a Tesla is the car equivalent of a biodegradable Starbucks cup. I've even heard people like Zuckerberg say the 'future' is autonomous vehicles in hyperloops carrying people from or to ever larger suburbs. If that's the future I hope spacex works out so I can be shot to Mars at least

Further, you're totally ignoring how much greening of the grid will occur. Some places like Scotland, Iowa, Texas, california, Iceland, etc. Have very clean grids due to ample renewable power generation. Sure an EV in west virginia or Wyoming will be charging with dirtier electrons, but most EVs in the US are in California which has a ton of solar and more all the time.

In some ways yes, in other ways the incumbents are a decade ahead. Both sides are racing to replicate the other's competence.

Tesla has just shipped their 1 millionth vehicle ever, after 17 years. (1)

VW ships around 11 million vehicles per year. Every year. (2)

Tesla needs the scale with reliable high build quality that VW has. VW needs to make more of them electric vehicles, and to that end make them comparable to Teslas.

1) https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2020/03/10/tesla-el...

2) https://www.statista.com/topics/1574/volkswagen/

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/25/tesla-an-uncomfortable-...

If you don't have a Tesla you need like 10 apps for charging to travel through EU and you'll be paying through your nose for fast charging.

But you need to know which networks you can use them on too, not all the charging companies are on plugsurfing and not all are on virta etc.

I hope one day they all will just have a card terminal like gas stations or charge ID like tesla with the superchargers or mercedes with ionity.

Peugeot and Renault are having a decent success with their latest cars: https://uk.motor1.com/news/401562/europe-ev-sales-january-20...

Tesla can use this to their advantage to sell more cars while the traditional automakers play catchup. But eventually they will get closer.

And Volkswagen alone can introduce dozens of new models every year, based on their building blocks (MEB) and numerous brands. There will be cars this year from 15.000€ (VW e.Up and friends) to 150.000€ (Porsche Taycan), and a few others in between. VW alone plans to introduce 70 electric models in the coming years.

How will Tesla, who did 4 models in ten years, compete with the sheer breadth of this market? Looking at what’s parked in the street, people choose lots of different types of cars, there’s no one-fits-all.

Imagine this argument:

"How will Apple, who only has one phone model, compete with the sheer breadth of this market? Looking at what’s in people's hands, people choose lots of different types of phones, there’s no one-fits-all."

Yet here we are. Having so many car models is frankly exhausting.

One of my silly little hobbies is trying to spec out cars online I dream of buying and everything becomes a chore after the first 10 seconds. Options that I don't want to think about being nickel-and-dimed for, features that should come standard but require an upgrade 'package' I dont want etc.

Until they change how they think about cars, Tesla will keep beating them in the market in the price ranges Tesla competes in. And shit will hit the fan if Tesla ever figures out a way to make a much cheaper car for the mass market

You can't expect normal people to keep up with the minutae of every combination of trim levels to make the best decision. And we can't rely on dealerships for their expertise to get correct info because they have proven themselves to be scam artists over the decades. I have a hard time believing that companies could be this bad at organising and categorising their offerings unintentionally. This experience has to be intentional.

Tesla makes this process much simpler. I'm a motorcycle enthusiast, I don't care to keep up with boring car minutae. I need something that works, and is simple to deal with so I can focus on other aspects of life with its utility. Virtually every other big manufacturer lags behind Tesla in this department.

Tesla might very well have 10 cars in the future but for now, buying a Tesla is an easy decision: 1. Do I want a big sedan? Model S 2. Do I want a big suv? Model X 3. Do I want a smaller sedan? Model 3 4. Do I want a smaller suv/crossover/cuv? Model Y

And just like apple, you get very similar experience across the entire lineup. Autopilot, automatic updates, etc. Not "Well, you can buy the lexus/bimmer/merc if you want a more luxurious experience but the base model is honestly just okay so you should probably get a specced out mid-tier car instead unless you have the $$ to spend on a top trim"

IMHO, most manufacturers need another five years to straighten out their supplies and then another five to scale down their legacy business. That's why you see the likes of Toyota talking about hybrids a lot because they simply can't scale up EV production right now even if they wanted to. Because they lack access to enough batteries.

Some manufacturers have wisened up. It looks like VW and GM have pretty solid plans and are expanding production as fast as they can. But they are talking about keeping up with and not overtaking Tesla. At least VWs CEO is.

Building batteries seems to be a simple process, at least compared to building the rest of the car: https://youtu.be/PZBQzLfCKpw

As there is more demand, it seems straightforward to bring up Gigafactory-sized new assembly lines quickly.

It's still doable but just not in a hurry. Five years is not a lot of time to build this up from nothing. It took Tesla a decade plus to get where they are now.

A lot of manufacturers don't have the know-how, technology, factories, or access to raw material and are competing for contracts with the same sets of suppliers who are already shipping as fast as they can. The result is a lot of compliance and concept cars that were never even meant to be profitable and definitely not shipping in meaningful numbers because the manufacturer never planned to ship meaningful numbers and does not have the ability to fix that.

Which is hugely ironic given their old reputation for paper launches.

A few others finally get it, and are starting to invest billions just like Tesla's Panasonic arrangement. However, Tesla will soon be moving to their next iteration, producing far more batteries faster, cheaper, and in much less space.

[0] https://insideevs.com/news/397955/10-chinese-battery-makers-...

How is the situation for Volkswagen?

This is exactly what Elon said was going to happen years ago: Car manufacturers do not have the capacity to build batteries in sufficient quantity and quality and will not for many years.

2020 Tesla Model S performance: 222 miles

2020 Porsche Taycan Turbo: 204 miles

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a30874032/porsche-tayca...

Whatever that one test says, the Porsche is still rated 100 miles under the Tesla in range and is twice as much in cost. That's not exactly tied in tech.

And that's just the Model S. Where is the competitor to the Model 3?

The Taycan is closer to the Tesla Roadster, except for the 3x range the roadster has. Similar price though.

The Model S has no competition.

The Model 3 has no competition.

Is it really though?

It's not something I would ever want to use in its current form (which I understand is not safe enough to leave 'unattended', as it were, so so it seems to fall into a dangerous valley where it's autonomous enough that I don't have to pay full attention but also inadvisable not to)

I'm pretty sure the main selling points are all around the electrification - superior range to other electric competitors plus the running cost benefit of electric vehicles in urban areas with pollution taxation.

Yep. When people buy high performance or luxury cars, part of the mystique is that it is the latest evolution of some sort of classic. It's going to be hard for BMW et al to position electric vehicles as belonging to any existing lineage. This puts their brand at risk unless they can figure out how to make a remarkable electric car. But nobody really knows what that would be.

1) Porsche’s got 120 years of work since their first electric car [0]

2) I remember pulling the leg of some Tesla fans a long while ago (maybe when the first roadster came out) about how the “no radiator, front trunk, smooth underbody” sounded a lot like the air-cooled VWs we’ve all been enjoying since the 1930s.

The manufacturers will find a way...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Porsche

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/04/cars/porsche-taycan-elect...

New is cool & electric cars have acceleration.

Also German cars companies have had their reputation tarnished with the emissions cheating scandal.

I wouldn't see the 'autopilot' feature as a big draw - you'd be mad to use that on most European roads, and you buy cars like that to drive

I remember when newspapers had editors who cared about what words meant.

The government DID paid out GM, Chrysler and Ford. I.e. it lent $80.5 billion dollars and $10 billion will never be repaid. [2] Taxpayers paid for that so those companies can keep making private profits.

I wish this kind of misinformation would die, because it's so easy to google and it's factual.

[1] https://money.cnn.com/2013/05/22/autos/tesla-loan-repayment/...

[2] https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-chr...

The Ford Motor Company didn't need the funds since it had already cut costs. But it asked to be included so it wouldn't suffer by competing with companies who already had government subsidies. (from your link).

I can't find anything about the $10B that won't be repaid. Do you have further details?

OK sure. The government gave a private company taxpayer money that didn't need it so it's profits wouldn't suffer.

> I can't find anything about the $10B that won't be repaid. Do you have further details?

Last sentance in the first paragraph of my link says "In the end, taxpayers lost $10.2 billion." (with a footnote to [0])

[0] https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TAR...

> OK sure. The government gave a private company taxpayer money that didn't need it so it's profits wouldn't suffer.

Agreed. Same as Tesla (in your words: "The government did not "bail out Tesla". They lent them $465 million, and Tesla paid it all back, plus interest, ten years before it was due.")

> Last sentance in the first paragraph of my link says "In the end, taxpayers lost $10.2 billion." (with a footnote to [0])

Thanks. Ironically that reference says "While the auto industry rescue resulted in a cost of $9.3 billion to the government". I guess maybe they are correcting for inflation?

No, not the same at all. One was a loan (which was paid back plus interest), while the other was a gift that will never be paid back.

From your linked article:

On June 23, 2009, Ford received a $5.9 billion loan from the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program.... Ford will repay this loan by 2022.

(Note "loan".. "repay").

You can call it what you want but in the end the govt bailed them out.

If that were the case, for the sake of humanity and the environment, we should be obliged to support Tesla exclusively, otherwise we will never free ourselves from diesel / gas based pollution machines.

On the bright side, this might be excellent for the environment because the best car for the environment is not a new car, it's to continue using the car you already have.

They are building them because of government requirements. Some of them are instead buying credits from Tesla, so if Tesla stopped producing they would have to make more.

Privately owned cars and private transport will become a relic of the past soon enough.

Claims like "Cars are going to be the predominant mode of transportation indefinitely" sound an awful lot like "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." (Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943) or "Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within ten years." (Alex Lewyt, president of Lewyt vacuum company, 1955).

Just like Apple killed Nokia with a single product within two years, owning a car might become obsolete for the vast majority of people.

It's also the most US-American-centric things to say: there are A LOT of countries where owning a car just isn't the norm - even in rural areas (1.35 BILLION Indians would agree, for example).

Let me guess, you dont have kids.

Bikes, buses, trains.

For me it's only the camping holidays in summer that I really need a car for, and renting one for that costs close to what owning an old car costs, so I still have one. But I'm constantly considering getting rid of it.

Once their production hits its stride and has a surplus of models, they can bring oldworld craftsmanship to a modern canvas.

With the limited model lineup, who wouldn`t want a bespoke Tesla personalized just for them.

I would still pick the 7-speed dogleg manual in the Vantage S, but a personalized Tesla would be a close second.

What I don't conflate with "Iphone moment" is that European car companies are not Nokias and there are no Elop style saboteurs in them. All of them are used to "fight to bitter end" mentality, even though they haven't had such a moment when they really needed to for a very long time.