what have I criticized Tesla for that throws you in such a tizzy? Nissan has been at the forefront of making an affordable EV and Chevy ups the ante with a 200 mile version. This on the heels of poor Volt sales. The car you hate hearing about because it was the failure I predicted it would be.
Now refresh my memory. Who is getting all the credit for an affordable EV that gets 200 miles to a charge? the whole thread is about a car that doesn’t exist revolutionizing American driving.
Musk gets credit for identifying a niche and building a great car. If you read his blogs he’s all about open source technology with a goal of common platforms. Faraday’s concept leans heavily on common platform design.
I don’t see this influence in either the Leaf or the Bolt. They’re the natural progression of established car companies who want to have cars ready for quick-charge batteries when they’re finally available.
Whether or not Tesla succeeds, whether the Model 3 lives up to the hype, whether it’s value for money really doesn’t matter right now.
They [Tesla] have gotten people excited about all electric like nothing else, they’ve made it accessible and believable and have done more to drive acceptance than anything else.
You might argue about what Chevy have done, but their cars weren’t “believable” the way that Tesla is.
And Porsche throwing their weight behind all electric is entirely due to Tesla - once Porsche starts pushing, how long till the others follow, and how long till whatever tech they develop migrates to the rest of the group.
Have you read my first post in this thread? At many points you have said or implied I’m a Tesla fanboy, and it’s clear you think this thread is about you versus everyone else who are all fanboys.
What you have consistently done is argue a double standard throughout this thread. You criticize Telsa for vaporware, and now you’re saying that Porsche is going to eat Tesla’s lunch. Here’s the double standard: Porsche’s project is not a competitor to the Model III, and it is probably 5 years from production. Yet, you consistently say that the Model III, which is probably about two years from production, maybe three, is vaporware, but don’t apply the same criteria for Porsche. You’ve criticized the Gigafactory and unable to keep up with demand, and conveniently ignore that no other car company, now or in the near future, has anywhere near the battery production capacity to overwhelm Tesla. Double standard.
Pretty much the same with Faraday. You’re already calling it better, and yet, nobody has seen it. You’ve labelled it more promising based on reuse of platforms, and gloss over that the Model S and X are on the same platform, and the Model III is supposed to have a couple different versions based on the same platform. And still, you are silent on Faraday touting vaporware. Double standard.
The thread is asking whether the Model III WILL revolutionize driving, not whether it HAS. And seriously, go back and read my first post in this thread. It is clear you haven’t, even though I’ve quoted it to you. Your mind will be blown.
Well here’s the interesting conundrum. I’ve heaped a great deal of praise on Tesla. Deaf ears aplenty because I pointed out what’s happening in the real world. True I’ve pointed out Tesla’s financial problems and the fact that they are not going to be the first to market.
Of course not. Why should 2 other companies being first to market revolutionize American driving. A trivial matter.
Well that’s a remarkable statement to make. A car that few can afford has revolutionized how American’s will drive by announcing they will build a car a year after other car makers introduce an affordable model. I AM IMPRESSED.
I don’t have to argue anything. The first cars to hit the road will by default drive the purchase decisions.
I said all along that Tesla’s ludicrous upgrade was a game changer and would force (possibly to their detriment) other sports car makers to introduce their version. He didn’t just recognize a niche market he blew it out of the water.
If Musk is true to his philosophy about open architecture and is happy getting overshadowed then I will kick in a fiver for his statue. He seems fine with Faraday stepping into the ring. If he builds a second (or third) gigafactory that will be his legacy. He’s not building cars, he’s looking at it from an industry perspective much like Edison with the lighting industry.
But IMO Nissan gets the credit for fronting an affordable EV. They’re the ones who put the Leaf on the road first. I doubt they will let Chevy take that from them without a fight.
Low cost is a necessary but insufficient condition for “revolutionary”. It doesn’t matter if Chevy sells the Bolt for $1 if they’re only making 30k a year, because the Model S is already beating that by a wide margin.
The first maker to sell hundreds of thousands a year will legitimately change the landscape and can be called revolutionary. We already know it won’t be this iteration of the Bolt, regardless of how good it is, since Chevy won’t be able to produce enough of them to really affect much. Perhaps they will scale up by the next version, but by then the Model 3 will be out.
What are you basing this on? There are excess factories left over from all the downsizing within GM, Ford, and Chrysler. We just had a Chinese firm take one over in my area and they’re on track for being the largest producer of auto glass in the world. Demand drives supply.
Tesla’s gigafactory hasn’t been completed yet and Musk said it isn’t sufficient to meet the demands of their battery storage systems. From Wiki: “After receiving $800M of orders ($179M PowerWall, $625M PowerPack) within 1 week of unveiling, Musk estimated that the Gigafactory 1 is not enough to supply demand”. They’ve already sold out orders for the entire year of 2016.
It’s an interesting if not enviable position to be in when you have more orders than you can produce and future sales are anticipated to exceed production. If the Model 3’s production hinges on the gigafactory and the industrial power storage units are growing beyond capacity what do you think the outcome will be?
He’s currently not going to build the South Africa factory.
[quote]
(No plans for SA Gigafactory: Tesla confirms - Memeburn): “We are focused on finalising construction of the Gigafactory in Reno, Nevada. There are no current plans to build another factory,” Tesla spokesperson Ricardo Reyes told Memeburn. It doesn’t make sense but that’s what he’s said.
However, battery production is the big thing. They can only build 30,000 because LG doesn’t have that much production capacity. They had never fully built out the Holland, MI, LG plant that supplies GM and Ford. They are doing that now. Since LG’s sales of EV-related batteries have been really poor thus far and they suffer from chronic underutilization, it is difficult for them to invest the billions into plant(s) expansion(s) beyond finishing to nameplate capacity.
LG produced about 7 GW-h of cells last year, which is theoretically enough for 116k 60 kW-h packs. But LG isn’t dedicating their entire capacity to just Bolt production. Besides, cells come in many form factors and LG can’t just wave a wand to convert all that capacity into Bolt-compatible packs. Obviously they’ll be able to scale up their capacity over time, but it takes years.
“No current plans” is a fairly meaningless phrase. In all likelihood, it just means that Tesla is shopping around for where to place the next factory. They took their sweet time before finalizing the location of GF1, and since GF2 will almost certainly be overseas, they have even more reason to let different countries fall over each other in offering tax breaks and other incentives.
I’m sure Tesla will find some means of splitting production between Powerwalls and Model 3s. Even if the Model 3 only gets half of the total production, that’s still enough for a few hundred thousand cars. It’ll take some time before production hits those rates, anyway.
I’ll correct myself slightly and say the Bolt still has a slight chance at beating Tesla to 100k/year, since they can almost certainly ramp up vehicle production faster than Tesla. But as I’ve said, they need to be increasing their battery production now, and there are no indications of this. I’ll say that if we haven’t heard anything from LG in 6 months, we’ll know for sure.
Interesting review. Did you notice the three features the Bolt took directly from the Tesla S? Question still remains if the features of the Bolt (+200 mi / < $40000) are a natural outgrowth of the Volt or if it was to beat Tesla to the Model 3. In other words, would we be seeing this Bolt if Tesla were not designing the 3?
Interesting article on the Bolt’s production plans. Link. Long story short: some financial analysts think that the Bolt may have production capacity of about 20,000-30,000 per year, due to limitations on battery production (are you listening, Magiver?). GM is closed-lipped on what its estimates are for production capacity, but say that they could do 50,000 a year.
In comparison, Tesla sold 50,000 Model S and X (many more the former than the latter) worldwide in 2015. Tesla’s target (yeah, take with a grain of salt) is to sell 500,000 Model 3’s in 2020.
It isn’t quite clear whether GM is planning to ramp up production of the Bolt, or if they plan to sell a few tens of thousands per year – leading to questions on whether the Bolt is just a compliance car, a real attempt to revolutionize auto technology, or somewhere in between.
It’s not a meaningless phrase. In fact it’s quite specific. You’re taking their word about future production plans yet ignore a statement regarding factory plans. Can you name one venture of Musk’s that’s been on time?
Interesting line of thought. You’re sure Tesla will find a way to make it work yet GM, a far larger company with more resources, cannot.
Oddly I agree they’ll find a way of splitting production. They already have a business model for it. They can delay delivery on both projects. But don’t forget Panasonic. They bought into the factory. Musk can delay his own customers and they will somehow thank him for the honor of it but I don’t think their business partner is going to be agreeable to it.
So we’re right back to the beginning. Tesla, money, time and a very forgiving fan base.
That’s not what your link says at all. It says estimated sales are in the 20-30,000 range and they could make 50,000 if sales materialized.
LG rep says “I’m not going to give you a number that would be a threshold where we’d have to add some potential capacity to our supply base,” said Kelly implying that expansion might be a logical step if Bolt demand increased, “but we have said and continue to support it that we will meet the customer demand for the vehicle so that’s our commitment.”
did it ever occur to you that a production plant can add more shifts to their factory to meet demand? No additional expansion needed.
Currently we are drowning in cheap gas. I don’t see high numbers next year. There just isn’t the utility in the vehicles. The model S delivers serious performance. The Leaf and the Volt have to compete against ICE cars. And this isn’t a new competition. EV’s came out the same time as ICE cars. They were quick, dependable and the driver didn’t risk breaking an arm to start it. Yet the utility of unlimited range won out.
We know that Tesla does not plan on stopping after the first Gigafactory. They have said as much numerous times. The only way to reconcile this with the other quote about “no current plans” is that they have no concrete plans at the moment, but that this might change in the future.
We also know that Tesla has expansion plans for the currently built Gigafactory. This expansion will give them some freedom in delaying a second factory if demand proves to be higher than expected.
Cannot is the wrong word. Has not is correct. GM has the billions they need to build a Gigafactory equivalent in partnership with LG. But that hasn’t happened yet, and we should be hearing about it already if GM plans on scaling up production within the next few years.
It seems from Ravenman’s link that LG may be able to support 50k units with their current capacity. That’s great, but it still only puts the Bolt in Model S territory–which, as you’ve pointed out numerous times, is a niche market. LG obviously can’t support production of 100k units, let alone 500k, or we’d be hearing about it.
Both GM and LG are being very cautious. The Bolt isn’t a compliance car, but it isn’t much more than that. Neither is willing to make a several billion dollar bet in the way that Tesla is, and so unless they change their mind soon (or Tesla is very late), they’ll lose the race to a high-volume car.
Tesla (and SpaceX) still have a hard time hitting their schedules, but they are getting better. The Model S was a few years late, while the X was 1.5. The Model 3 will almost certainly be late but there’s a good chance it will be less than a year (publicly they’ve been optimistic, but who knows).
Yet again with the double standard. You claim the Gigafactory is tapped out already and can’t meet demand, but LG can just hire more people.
What I said was, “some financial analysts think that the Bolt may have production capacity of about 20,000-30,000 per year, due to limitations on battery production…” and the article says, “Since last year rumors have perpetuated a notion that GM and supply partner LG Chem have production capacity of only 20,000-30,000 Bolt EVs per year…”
No, I made no such claim. Tesla made the claim about production capacity. Do you think Tesla can’t figure in multiple shifts when making such a statement?
Again, both GM and LG say they can meet demand. Tesla says their storage system sales are already booked for the entire 2016 year and will max out the factory. Given that their sales greatly exceeded their wildest guess it stands to reason they didn’t blurt out such a statement just to piss you off.
The difference between you and I is that I don’t give a shit who makes 100,000 cars first. I’ve never owned a Chevy or a Nissan.
I’ve just pointed out the reality of the situation. They already have a year’s worth of commitments in advance for a product that exists. It appears they greatly underestimated the sales potential. They don’t have any commitments for a car that currently doesn’t exist.
what possible point do you think they’re making. If tomorrow they said they decided to build another plant it doesn’t affect anything in 2016 or 2017. It will take that long to finish the current one.
The Model S is a luxury car. The Bolt and Leaf are not designed to compete with it on any level. Sales or otherwise.
Caution is the wrong word. They predicted 20-30,000. That’s what their research suggests. We are currently in a gasoline glut. People are buying trucks. They are in a position to sell 50,000 if the demand is there. GM is not the hobby of a billionaire. They are obligated to operate as a profitable company. They will have built a margin of production variability to handle a range of sales demands. They will NOT build 50,000 for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s fair to include SpaceX in the conversation of maintaining schedules. Rockets are notoriously hard to design on a drawing board. They are too close to the ragged edge of structural failure.
whatever optimism Tesla had for the Model 3 has to take a back seat to sales of other products that occurred after any initial public announcements. they had no way of knowing the power packs would take off like they did.
what possible point do you think you’re making. If tomorrow they said they decided to build another plant it doesn’t affect anything in 2016 or 2017. It will take that long to finish the current one.
The Model S is a luxury car. The Bolt and Leaf are not designed to compete with it on any level. Sales or otherwise.
Caution is the wrong word. They predicted 20-30,000. That’s what their research suggests. We are currently in a gasoline glut. People are buying trucks. They are in a position to sell 50,000 if the demand is there. GM is not the hobby of a billionaire. They are obligated to operate as a profitable company. They will have built a margin of production variability to handle a range of sales demands. They will NOT build 50,000 for the sake of it.
I don’t think it’s fair to include SpaceX in the conversation of maintaining schedules. Rockets are notoriously hard to design on a drawing board. They are too close to the ragged edge of structural failure.
whatever optimism Tesla had for the Model 3 has to take a back seat to sales of other products that occurred after any initial public announcements. they had no way of knowing the power packs would take off like they did.