I’m not sure anyone’s claiming that it’s revolutionary. Indeed, you can just look at Tesla’s press release on it: Tesla’s commitment to developing and refining the technologies to enable self-driving capability is a core part of our mission. In October of last year we started equipping Model S with hardware to allow for the incremental introduction of self-driving technology:
It’s true that the media has made a big show of it, and Tesla isn’t shying away from the spectacle. I’d say that two features contributed to this:
that you don’t have to keep your hands on the wheel (even if Tesla recommends it)
that it was rolled out to tens of thousands of people over the air and all at once
The first is an incremental improvement and the second is something that Tesla already had. But the fact that no-hands driving was enabled literally overnight made it a big deal. It felt like a revolutionary step change, even if it wasn’t.
In any case, I don’t really disagree with you here; other manufacturers will continue to refine their own systems. But they won’t garner the same attention because it’ll just be rolled into new models, and not be deployed to the existing user base.
I’m realizing now that Tesla’s over the air updates is as much a marketing win as a technology win. The media loves stories that affect lots of people. Deploying features to tens of thousands at once gets their attention.
I agree with you about Apple, but we’re probably in the minority and it hasn’t hurt their market cap any. If Tesla is similar Musk will be able to buy Mars.
And even if Tesla goes bust it will still be revolutionary, since often big companies need to be goosed to take the next step. Still I see a Tesla car nearly every day, though I do drive past the Tesla plant going to and from work.
OK, lets look at the 90,000 unit number you just posted. that’s how many they’ve sold WORLDWIDE, in 3 YEARS. Now lets look at the Honda Accord. they sold 360,089. In one year. In the United States.
Not only is Tesla not profitable they don’t have the capital or the assets to compete in the real world. This thread asked if the Model S will revolutionize the way Americans drive. The answer is no.
I’ll say it yet again, Tesla doesn’t have the necessary backing to compete against other car manufacturers. the nano-second they bump heads with the major car makers they will be pushed to the side. this isn’t a case of a sports team with a few extra million to spend on better talent. These are corporations with massive production facilities all over the world, major engineering facilities, and the money to run it. They have the distribution dealerships in place to sell and repair the cars.
You act like nobody else is working on electric cars when in reality the opposite is true. The difference which you won’t acknowledge is that there is no money in making low volume cars. All the major manufacturers have their toe in the pool waiting for the market to change. They’re selling gas, diesel and hybrids that make money. They’re all working on small, cost competitive cars. When electric cars become mainstream they will already have cars in position to sell in large volumes. Tesla does not have that ability. Nothing they’ve built will have any affect on the engineering done by other manufacturers.
The other car makers are already making electric cars. There is nothing revolutionary about Tesla’s vehicles. There is no legacy in low volume luxury cars beyond collectors items.
Tesla’s software is probably their biggest strength and by now they have real life performance data from all the miles that Tesla owners have driven. That data is really valuable and not something their competitors have.
It does raise a issue that no one seems to bring up: Are people aware that their cars are reporting back to Tesla everything they’re doing with it?
Perhaps it’s more a marketing thing than an engineering thing, but Tesla made electric cars cool. They used to be toys, or golf carts, or something your weird tinker-uncle might play with. Now they look like something people might want to have. It wasn’t the Volt or the Leaf that did that, it was Tesla.
An awful lot of people use Android phones that report much more intimate stuff back to Google.
If they don’t, they figure it out after their first service call. From what I hear, support calls frequently go something like “Oh, I see you’re at the supercharger station in Gilroy at bay 3, and it’s not charging. I’m not seeing any red flags on your telemetry. Try moving to a different bay; we’ve had other reports of flakiness on that charging unit.”
I guess the Ev1 didn’t make much of an impression. When you look back on the Bricklin and DeLorean cars and how much fluff came out of the promises Tesla has come far. It’s actually impressive what was done on the back of promises made even if they were always late. The Bricklin was all bark and no bite and the Delorean wasn’t any better. At today’s prices Tesla mops the street with them. So I agree they made them cool and did a good job of it.
I have no beef with their car(s). I just pointed out that they survived long enough to successfully fill a niche. Not just successfully but well done. They just don’t have the assets to compete in the econo car market. GM is actively testing their car on public roads. They are ready to go with the flip of a switch. Tesla is still selling dreams with a down payment system. When you look at what they have to work with and what the other car companies have to work with then it should be obvious what’s about to happen.
GM already has the tooling to make their 200 mile electric car and they have 50 of them running around in test mode. Ford and every other manufacturer is gearing up for the same thing.
Yeah, just meaningless squiggles, like Ravenman said.
Tesla has not been shy about their long-term business model, so I don’t see what’s so difficult to understand. But let me recap.
Roadster: Expensive, very low volume. Proof of concept that electric cars can actually have both reasonable range and high performance. Intended mainly to prove to investors that electric cars are not doomed to suck. By itself, however, no more revolutionary than a Ferrari.
Model S: Significantly lower baseline price. Volume on par with existing luxury cars in the same bracket. Intended to provide a significant revenue stream by selling cars with the same high performance and range as the Roadster but at much higher volume. Still not revolutionary, but nevertheless has changed the conversation about electrics: they can actually be a completely normal primary vehicle for many people. Still too expensive to change the public’s buying habits significantly, though.
Model 3: Baseline price close to the average price of cars sold in the US. Intended to sell in significant numbers, if not quite Accord/Civic/etc. territory. Just as importantly, serve as an existence proof that electrics can be awesome, fun and (relatively) cheap. Revolutionary, because cost is the last real obstacle to electrics dominating the market. The fact that they will have competitors is evidence of its revolutionary nature, not a mark against it.
Whether the Model 3 will succeed remains to be seen. But it’s clearly seen as a threat. This would not be the case if the Model S had not been successful. The other automakers would not have paid it any heed had Tesla not proven their capability. The Model S was very important in that respect even though their numbers are a relatively small part of the market.
In short, the Model 3 is the only one that has the chance at revolutionizing American driving. Just like the thread title asks.
and like the thread title I addressed the issue. Which comes down to money and assets. Which they don’t have.
So maybe if people like you would put their money where their mouth is and buy new stock then maybe they’ll be able to knock out 50,000 of them before getting steamrolled.
Tesla has a higher market cap than Fiat/Chrysler, Mazda, Hyundai, Kia, and probably some others. And only one car to build instead of a giant existing lineup to maintain. They’ll almost certainly have enough money to bring the Model 3 to market.
Assuming the preview for the Model 3 looks decent, they’ll at least get a deposit from me. I do have a few bucks in TSLA stock but I don’t deviate much from a market-based stock allocation.
Maybe. Look, with the Leaf, Nissan is trying to start the revolution years ahead of whenever Tesla starts producing Model Ξ/E/3/whatever. It’s taking a while, but revolutions aren’t all won in a day.
Once Ford, Nissan, and presumably GM/Chevy all have mid-size battery-powered cars on the road, and expect to keep that as part of their line, then some amount of revolution has already…revolved.
Is that where we are? Partway. Toyota is still looking at fuel cells for some reason, and if they’re (somehow) right, then battery-powered cars may not be THE revolution.
Is Tesla undercapitalized compared to Nissan, GM, etc.? Yes, of course.
Are they taking too long? Not necessarily. They’re trying to find a way to do it right, and sell enough to compete, probably of something that looks like a big enough improvement to stick out in the market. But Ghosn did sort of jump ahead with the Leaf.
There is a revolution. That revolution won’t entirely belong to Tesla, but it looks like they will continue to be in it. With huge batteries and long ranges, apparently. I actually expect Nissan to be able to outsell the Model 3 in its own niche, if not in the first or second year then maybe in the third. But I don’t think Tesla will to be squashed, and the Model 3 is probably going to be a little bit revolutionary, even if Nissan comes out with an overall better car two years later.
So, yeah, I see your point, but I don’t think it’s enough to wipe Tesla off the map.
I’m pretty sure that you don’t quite understand how companies are run, and proper accounting techniques. It’s not proper to say that “Tesla loses $4000 on every car it produces” if Tesla is spending investor money on tooling for the next model, yet that is what a superficial financial article does.
