4 ms·

“The guy who’s making the $100,000 car is not changing the world,” one of Xindayang's financiers boasted to Forbes, referring to Tesla's flamboyant founder Elon

by jobu 11y ago

“The guy who’s making the $100,000 car is not changing the world,” one of Xindayang's financiers boasted to Forbes, referring to Tesla's flamboyant founder Elon Musk. “The guy who is making the $10,000 electric vehicle is changing the world.” That's great for China, but I wonder if a Xindayang car would meet US or EU safety standards. Also, wasn't the plan for Tesla to "bootstrap" the electric car market with higher-end (and higher-margin) luxury cars? After a few years the technology would be scaled-up enough to make low-cost electric cars feasible.

breckenedge 11y ago
That was the plan, though I don't expect that to happen until they stop losing money on every high-end luxury car they sell [0]. [0] http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/tesla-money-lost-model-s/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/tesla-money-lost-model-s/
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  To my knowledge, they're not. From the Reuters article cited: > Tesla, most of whose cars are built to order directly, delivered 11,532 cars in the second period and said it had an operating loss of about $47 million, for an operating loss per car of about $4,000. An operating loss of $4k/car is not the same thing as them each car costing $4k more than it sells for. The loss includes what they're spending on the battery factory, new model development, etc.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Exactly. Tesla's margins are something like 28%. A $100,000 Model S costs around $72,000 to make. If they sell more, their profits go up (or their losses go down, if you prefer). Tesla's financials are in a weird spot right now because they have all costs for two models of car, but they're essentially only selling one model. Model X production hasn't really ramped up, so they've paid all the massive costs of bringing it to market without the benefits of selling the result. Give it another six months and the picture should look pretty different.
alvern 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Electric_Vehicles#Bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Electric_Vehicles#Bankru... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZAP_Xebra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZAP_Xebra A few companies tried this in the 2000s, but went bankrupt or stopped selling in the US. Some of their models met safety standards but a few failed after the fact. The Zap was interesting in that they tried to make it a motorcycle. The first generation had a carbon fiber body and met the braking requirements, but the subsequent steel bodied models failed the braking test by a few feet and forced a recall.
josefresco 11y ago
Not exactly "changing the world" if the guy who makes a $10K electric vehicle sold about as many as the guy selling a $100K vehicles (WITH more generous subsidies to boot).
ljk 11y ago
> That's great for China, but I wonder if a Xindayang car would meet US or EU safety standards. Hopefully the new ones will be safer than these Chinese cars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxbbvCf3zY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxbbvCf3zY
Shivetya 11y ago
Don't matter where its built, but if you are only selling cars the top one percent can afford you are not changing the world. GM will be first in the US with a two hundred mile range EV that is priced within the range of every day new car buyers. While Tesla deserves credit for showing people you can build an electric for everyday use; heck what can't you build for 100k?; they never had the resources the big auto companies have. There have been some good articles showing that GM/LG and BMW have taken the lead in battery tech already. (GM is already boasting a 145 KwH cost for the Bolt and BMW did a simple but very effective modular system with cooling) Tesla's plan was to make money where it could with the limited volumes they were going to restricted to because they were new to building cars. Big companies can do more with smaller margins because of quantity.
- MilkyWayMasta 11y ago
  Supposedly, the Tesla Model 3 is going to be cheaper than the Chevy Bolt when it comes out. "Musk points out that Chevy's claimed $30,000 price tag assumes the $7500 federal tax incentive for zero-emissions cars, putting the vehicle's true price at $37,500. The Model 3, Musk insists, will come in at $35,000 before any incentives, meaning buyers will only be on the hook for $27,500. And that's before any additional state-based incentives."
- vvanders 11y ago
  I think you're giving GM a bit too much credit here, there's one thing that's sorely lacking: Infrastructure. Tesla already has a fantastic network of superchargers. CCS(which GM is betting on) has very low penetration(Sea -> Portland is a dead-zone, also Portland -> North CA) compared to CHAdeMO. Telsa has the advantage of a better infra(120kW vs 50kW) and the ability to use other standards like CHAdeMO.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    This is what constantly puzzles me about other manufacturers' plans to get into the EV market. As far as I know, nobody has plans for a usable fast charging network. One could argue that you don't need one. Most people don't take road trips that often. But they want to be able to. It's one of the most common questions I get about my Model S: "What if you want to take a road trip?" You can make a pretty easy economic argument that you're better off with a shorter-range car for daily driving, and renting something for your once-a-year road trips, but most people just won't do that. It's great that the GM has the Bolt and other manufacturers are planning to make EVs with decent range. But without a fast charging network, what's the point? I can't see them moving beyond a small niche. The question I have is, why isn't any other manufacturer addressing this the way Tesla has and is? Are they, and they just aren't discussing it (or I've missed it)? Do they think third parties should take the lead? Do they think it's not important? Are they just incapable? Do they not actually care about the success of their EVs?

by jobu 11y ago

breckenedge 11y ago

That was the plan, though I don't expect that to happen until they stop losing money on every high-end luxury car they sell [0]. [0] http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/tesla-money-lost-model-s/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/tesla-money-lost-model-s/

ceejayoz 11y ago
To my knowledge, they're not. From the Reuters article cited: > Tesla, most of whose cars are built to order directly, delivered 11,532 cars in the second period and said it had an operating loss of about $47 million, for an operating loss per car of about $4,000. An operating loss of $4k/car is not the same thing as them each car costing $4k more than it sells for. The loss includes what they're spending on the battery factory, new model development, etc.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Exactly. Tesla's margins are something like 28%. A $100,000 Model S costs around $72,000 to make. If they sell more, their profits go up (or their losses go down, if you prefer). Tesla's financials are in a weird spot right now because they have all costs for two models of car, but they're essentially only selling one model. Model X production hasn't really ramped up, so they've paid all the massive costs of bringing it to market without the benefits of selling the result. Give it another six months and the picture should look pretty different.

alvern 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Electric_Vehicles#Bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Electric_Vehicles#Bankru... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZAP_Xebra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZAP_Xebra A few companies tried this in the 2000s, but went bankrupt or stopped selling in the US. Some of their models met safety standards but a few failed after the fact. The Zap was interesting in that they tried to make it a motorcycle. The first generation had a carbon fiber body and met the braking requirements, but the subsequent steel bodied models failed the braking test by a few feet and forced a recall.

josefresco 11y ago

Not exactly "changing the world" if the guy who makes a $10K electric vehicle sold about as many as the guy selling a $100K vehicles (WITH more generous subsidies to boot).

ljk 11y ago

> That's great for China, but I wonder if a Xindayang car would meet US or EU safety standards. Hopefully the new ones will be safer than these Chinese cars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxbbvCf3zY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTxbbvCf3zY

Shivetya 11y ago

Don't matter where its built, but if you are only selling cars the top one percent can afford you are not changing the world. GM will be first in the US with a two hundred mile range EV that is priced within the range of every day new car buyers. While Tesla deserves credit for showing people you can build an electric for everyday use; heck what can't you build for 100k?; they never had the resources the big auto companies have. There have been some good articles showing that GM/LG and BMW have taken the lead in battery tech already. (GM is already boasting a 145 KwH cost for the Bolt and BMW did a simple but very effective modular system with cooling) Tesla's plan was to make money where it could with the limited volumes they were going to restricted to because they were new to building cars. Big companies can do more with smaller margins because of quantity.

MilkyWayMasta 11y ago
Supposedly, the Tesla Model 3 is going to be cheaper than the Chevy Bolt when it comes out. "Musk points out that Chevy's claimed $30,000 price tag assumes the $7500 federal tax incentive for zero-emissions cars, putting the vehicle's true price at $37,500. The Model 3, Musk insists, will come in at $35,000 before any incentives, meaning buyers will only be on the hook for $27,500. And that's before any additional state-based incentives."
vvanders 11y ago
I think you're giving GM a bit too much credit here, there's one thing that's sorely lacking: Infrastructure. Tesla already has a fantastic network of superchargers. CCS(which GM is betting on) has very low penetration(Sea -> Portland is a dead-zone, also Portland -> North CA) compared to CHAdeMO. Telsa has the advantage of a better infra(120kW vs 50kW) and the ability to use other standards like CHAdeMO.
- mikeash 11y ago
  This is what constantly puzzles me about other manufacturers' plans to get into the EV market. As far as I know, nobody has plans for a usable fast charging network. One could argue that you don't need one. Most people don't take road trips that often. But they want to be able to. It's one of the most common questions I get about my Model S: "What if you want to take a road trip?" You can make a pretty easy economic argument that you're better off with a shorter-range car for daily driving, and renting something for your once-a-year road trips, but most people just won't do that. It's great that the GM has the Bolt and other manufacturers are planning to make EVs with decent range. But without a fast charging network, what's the point? I can't see them moving beyond a small niche. The question I have is, why isn't any other manufacturer addressing this the way Tesla has and is? Are they, and they just aren't discussing it (or I've missed it)? Do they think third parties should take the lead? Do they think it's not important? Are they just incapable? Do they not actually care about the success of their EVs?