Exciting times.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB-yc-lVExw
And for reliable general reporting on Tesla, Tesla Daily is far better than HyperChange (who's far too hyperbolizing): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgYkuL87rUwiBl7tqfN53Eg
Are they really though ? You don't see Tesla being much more efficient than any other EVs so far ?
Chevy Bolt: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/42191.shtml
Tesla Model 3 Standard Range+: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/42278.shtml
Here's a complete list: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfuel/EV2020.shtml
The Hyundai Ioniq is a similarly shaped EV as the Model 3, and it gets very similar numbers - 133 MPGe (Ioniq) versus 141 MPGe for the best version of the Model 3 Standard Range, a difference that's smaller than going from 18 to 20 inch rims on the Model 3 Long Range Performance.
It is essentially useless to compare cars that are within 10 MPGe of each other at 130+ MPGe. If your tires are slightly off optimal pressure, or you've left something heavy in the trunk, or you've chosen different rims than standard, you've lost more than this. God forbid if you've put on a roof rack, probably drops you 30 MPGe down to 100-ish.
This discussion also underpins why MPG is a poor unit to measure efficiency with. The inverse measures used in Europe like L/100km or kWh/km are much easier to compare, as differences can be compared directly between a low and a high efficiency car
https://nudges.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/mpg-graph.jpg
If an average driver (12,000mi/yr) switches from a 12 mpg car to a 15 mpg car, they save 200 gallons of gas per yr.
If someone who drives the same distance switches from a 60 mpg car to a 63 mpg car, they save 10 gallons of gas per yr.
If someone who drives the same distance switches from a 133 mpg car to a 141 mpg car, they save 5 gallons of gas per yr.
In addition to aerodynamic improvements (which is of course a non-trivial engineering effort), Tesla does have a unique rear motor design that is more efficient, an industry-leading inverter design, and many incremental engineering efforts that cumulatively save several percentage points. Because they are "all-in" on an EV design they don't have to compromise because of a shared EV/Hybrid vehicle frame design for example.
The EPA listings also provide kWh/100 miles which I use for comparison to avoid the unfair MPGe equivalency.
Another example: the Hyundai Kona is a purely electric platform that doesn't need to compromise, and it matches the efficency of the Model Y.
The Ioniq has substantially less range than the Model 3, and is a much smaller car. If the Model 3 still gets slightly better MPGe despite those differences, I'd say Tesla still has a pretty significant efficiency advantage in this comparison.
So they've sacrifised range by installing less batteries, gaining more luggage space, lower weight and lower price.
Tesla last Qt showed 25% margin on their cars. That is higher then most OEM get on their cars (usually its cheaper cars to be fair). Other OEM don't report the margins on their EVs, but most analysis shows that they make basically no money, and very often negative money.
Tesla is pushing on batteries like crazy and trying to vertically integrated and innovate both on the chemistry and on the packaging. Most OEM buy battery cells from the same 3 companies, and that often leads to delays for all of them. LGChem in Czech Republic had shortages and that lead to like 5 different EV being produced in numbers far bellow announcement. With every car maker claiming to massively increase EV sales, those battery companies are standing to make huge money but they will capture much of the margin as well, because the battery is like 1/3 of the cost of the car.
The next generation drive train Tesla has announced for their S, X, Cybertruck and Roadster will blow out of the water even what you can get from a 200k Porsche Tycan. Nobody else has announced anything like it. Breakdowns of Tesla shows that their cheaper drive trains are both lighter and cheaper to produce then the competition (see Sandy Monro).
In terms of Self Driving, among OEM so far as I know they are the only ones that are building their own self driving computer. They costume design their own hardware solution including their own designing their own dedicated chip and software to run on those chips. Plus, their tight fleet integration of cars that already have the sensor suited necessary allows them to query the fleet and use driver to train the network. Also, these computers are pretty cheap and light to build compared to the hardware that is in a Waymo car.
There are other things like software updates, business model innovation (no franchise dealership) that other car makers struggle with. The franchises is specially important because those dealers make their money on servicing, so they don't want to sell EVs.
All in all its fair to say that they do have a lead on a number of fronts. The competition has been catching up slowly, but mostly because they stared from nothing basically.
Car companies have deep pockets and catching up is always easier than going first. I can’t think of many industries where the first mover was the winner. Usually it’s the second movers who succeed and gain dominance. Tesla is still bound by the law of physics and chemistry so what they do, others can do too.
The deep pockets of the non-electric car companies are evaporating fast nowadays, they margins keep dropping while Tesla's increase. Things are moving quickly, and far too quickly for those who couldn't change while they were massively profiting from internal combustion engines.
I think the death of ICE manufacturers is overblown right now, pending a major increase in battery tech by Tesla, which would just be awesome - but Buying an electric car right now is not a financially smart move for most buyers. First, the biggest market in automotive, crossovers and SUVs, there are not any affordable options for electric vehicles. Even in the sedan segment, with gas so damn cheap, the Model 3 just isn't worth it if you care about saving money.
The ICE manufacturers are not gone die just like that for many years, however the question is, when they have all made the transition, what will the market share of Tesla be and who will they take it from.
The problem for old manufactures is that they have a gigantic capital investment in things like engines. A lot of that investment has not been amortized. Switching to EV requires both a massive investment in redesigning all cars to be EVs, huge investment in retooling your manufacturing and a lots of margin if you don't build batteries.
All that goes into your margin for EVs, and thus they are terrible for most automakers. So you are forced to sell a product that doesn't make much profit and requires a huge capital base, when you already have a huge capital base for producing marginally profitable ICE cars that are dropping in resale value quickly.
I think I disagree with the point about finaces. Sure a cheap ICE car is better, but when buying an car comparable with a Tesla in price, I rather have the Tesla. Gas is cheap now, but power is still cheaper usually. Gas could be more expensive again for many reasons. In 5 years ICE car will have basically no resale value while EV should hold their value much better.
All that said, buying a cheap ICE car with an efficient engine is the way to save money. Or use public transportation like me :)
This isn't like Google. There will be some brand loyalty, but tastes change, and 99% of car sales today are not all that dependent on the drivetrain. People buy cars on things like how they look and the features they have. Eventually when battery tech is competitive there will be more options.
Ultimately it's not a huge loss - you still need wheels, brakes, drivetrains, and all of the other work that goes into making a car, a car. Only now you have a much simpler motor, without a need for a gearbox. Really, I'd argue that Tesla's only advantage is the battery. That market, imo, is far more lucrative - making batteries for other carmakers is eventually what will happen. Retooling happens relatively often - when new platforms are developed. It's not like cars are manufactured today like they were 50 years ago.
> I think I disagree with the point about finaces. Sure a cheap ICE car is better, but when buying an car comparable with a Tesla in price, I rather have the Tesla. Gas is cheap now, but power is still cheaper usually. Gas could be more expensive again for many reasons. In 5 years ICE car will have basically no resale value while EV should hold their value much better.
I don't see how you can disagree about finances and then argue "but if I'm buying a luxury car..." That's exactly my point: it's a luxury car. I've been hearing gas prices will go up for over a decade now - they haven't, and I'd bet they won't in 5 years. There's too much supply now, and more supply coming (arctic reserves, for example). It will be awhile before prices go back up. And on top of that - it's a luxury car. Why care? No one cares about luxury car resale value - everyone just leases them anyway.
It's just argument after argument about how this is better but the bottom line is they're too expensive, and really not economically better than most ICEs. Without a doubt, no better than any hybrid, in terms of cost.
> In 5 years ICE car will have basically no resale value while EV should hold their value much better.
I'll bet you :)
Some people want luxury cars, so I don't know what to tell you.
EV are gone expand increasingly fast every year, in 5 years buying a new ICE Porsche will seem idiotic, mark my words.
The biggest risk is running into cashflow issues but I believe at the last report they had about 2 years worth of capital expenses in the bank, so this is also unlikely to be an issue.