> With relatively low gas prices at the moment, decreasing federal subsidies for electric cars, and more players entering the market, it seems like Tesla is in a pretty tough spot.
Nothing you couldn't see coming 5 years ago, however.
If they would focus on building cars they might have been there but they are betting the farm on FSD and its that short term push that might end up hurting the most.
Plus as an owner, their priorities are just whack. Next update we get a Sentry icon on the main display and, wait for it, animation of rain on the car if its raining. I guess that is better than video games.
A Toyota Camry, scratch that, Corolla, can respond to more voice commands than my TM3 and best yet, you can select through blue tooth or USB the music play list you want to play, and more, all without having to use your phone which is illegal in most states.
So love the car but I have my doubts about Tesla's ability to focus on what is required instead of pissing away resources on Easter Eggs like fart noises; I wish I were kidding
I think you’re overestimating FSD current vs. sunk costs. They’re not betting the farm unless you mean the model 3 lease return but that can always change.
I question that CW. If that were true, the competitors would be making sporty sedans like Tesla. But almost none are. The competitors—the Bolt, Kona, etc., are all totally different form factors.
The alternative, potentially better, theory is that everyone is reacting to the same incentives and market structures. Governments are pushing electric vehicles through subsidies and mandates. Meanwhile, exploding use of portable electronics has led to massive improvements lithium ion battery technology. Tesla has targeted a flashy niche market, expensive sports sedans, but has largely avoided trying to compete in the markets where the sales really are: crossovers and SUVs. (Every year, Toyota sells as many RAV4s as all the vehicles Tesla has ever sold.)
The Model 3 and even the X can barely be considered expensive sport sedans. The first is a low end lux compact, the second is an expensive SUV or crossover. Only the model S is in that category.
In Beijing, I saw a lot of Model S’s on the road in the year before I left. These people would have been driving Audi A5+ or an S-class if it wasn’t for Beijing’s plate lottery (you can get a car quicker if it’s an EV). As far as that goes, the Model S is a good strategy outside of the USA where people aren’t so SUV crazed.
> Governments are pushing electric vehicles through subsidies and mandates
Specifically, isn't this because of CAFE[1]? Gas mileage compliance is calculated per manufacturer. So BMW can keep selling 17mpg M3s as long as they're selling enough of those i3s[2]
Any comment on whether it's a car that would last to 150,000 miles? I see a warranty of "guaranteed at least 70% capacity for 8 years or 100,000 miles".
This is my foundational fear of losing Tesla. Love them or hate them if they were to sink I feel the large drive to compete with them goes away and we go back to business as usual burning dead dinosaurs. While Tesla isn't perfect by any stretch I do think they continue to be very important to the overall market progression and higher expectations of auto manufacturers.
Is there really a large drive to compete with them? So far they have proven that unit profitability is difficult if not impossible with current tech.
And meanwhile, Ford is selling a quarter million F-150 trucks every quarter compared to Teslas total units per quarter around 40k. I don't think the big automakers are worried yet.
There is. Buyers of an F150 are not buyers of any Tesla product. Ford just invested heavily in Rivian [0]. That's Tesla's backyard for sure and is a departure from those buyers of the F150.
Self driving and electric cars have been in development for a long time. Mercedes Benz in the 1980s was testing automated driving on empty streets in Munich.
The difference between Tesla and others isn't that Tesla somehow was the first to come up with these ideas, they were the first to attempt to run a car company like a startup and marketing themselves as a disruptor.
Which in a sense is true because it brought the products to the forefront, but there's a reason that hadn't happened before, because a car manufacturer actually needs to make money on the existing markets. No use in pushing a good idea before the time is right.
>To be fair, the current competition is largely a reaction to Tesla's accomplishments.
Does it really matter?
Tesla is doomed. It’s run out of early adopters and its cool factor is diminishing. The last quarter’s results indicate that demand is down. Supply issues can be spun as a positive, but if demand is weakening...
Combine that with increased competition from a half dozen well established players and the writing is on the wall.
This ignores the fact that EVs are currently the only viable path towards road-based transport that is compatible with the continued existence of our species.
The transition isn't urgent due to oil prices. It's urgent due to greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable for humans.
Musk has said that hydrogen is foolish. I can understand that angle, because the concussive blast from compressed hydrogen ignition would be more dangerous than a lithium fire.
But a hydrogen economy feels like it could work when scaled up. Somehow it feels practical as the most abundant element in the universe, with high energy density. Lithium/cobalt reserves are limited, though recycling measures might could solve that problem.
Platinum-group element coated electrodes powered by ~25 year life spans of cadmium/tellurium solar cells (or Perovskite, and many others I'm sure, but Cd/Te is the one I've deployed en masse personally) would allow for low maintenance hydrogen generation and a shift away from natural gas sourcing.
Nafion is necessary for the fuel cells themselves but I'm not sure about the production process behind that.
"less urgent" doesn't mean its not important at all. When we were constantly at the brink of war and supporting all kinds of terrible governments to secure stable access to oil and keep the petrodollar intact.. There was more pressure to quickly develop alternatives to oil.
Depends on where you live. If Vermont, more than 90% of their grid is powered by renewables and other non carbon sources like nuclear.
Not to mention that the equivalent mpg for a Tesla is 100mpg.
Add to that the fact that mass produced grid electricity is massively more efficient and clean than everyone generating energy themselves. (ala internal combustion engine).
It would be like saying that everyone having their own gas generator at home is just as bad as having a single gas power plant that powers the grid.
Sure, there are other sources of pollution like the batteries but "all in", electric cars are still significantly better for the environment.
Nothing you couldn't see coming 5 years ago, however.