9 ms·

It's hard not to see this as bad for Tesla. The one thing Tesla supporters have pointed to more than anything is that Tesla had a large head-start in battery t

It's hard not to see this as bad for Tesla. The one thing Tesla supporters have pointed to more than anything is that Tesla had a large head-start in battery tech over all of the competitors. So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined, but Tesla's headstart in battery tech and manufacturing would keep them a contender. Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries. I'm not sure how reliable their lead in batteries is right now. There's still that supercharger network, though. I suspect we'll be hearing more about that now that other points in Tesla's favor are dwindling.

shaneos 9y ago
Do you have a reference for the statement that Chevy is selling more Bolts than all Teslas combined? This sounds farfetched.
- Klinky 9y ago
  Also supposedly Chevy is losing money on the Bolt.
  - latj 9y ago
    Lets play a game. How much would you have to be paid to drive a Chevy Bolt? I would probably do it for 50% of the cost of the thing.
    - AYBABTME 9y ago
      As much as I'm into Tesla, a friend of mine has a Bolt and they're way fun to drive, for a Chevy and that kind of car. They accelerate pretty well. Nowhere near what I'd expect of a Tesla, but still pretty torque-ish.
      - Avshalom 9y ago
        The advantage of electric engines, any electric engine, over ICE is that something like 99% of the maximum torque is available from 0rpm to redline.
        YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
        That doesn't make any sense. Just think how much power the engine would have to be able to produce near the redline if it produced anything decent at 5 MPH for that to be true (considering that Tesla's mainstream cars only have 1 gear). Edit: Just to be clear, a constant torque would imply a linearly increasing power output when increasing the revs. Of course Tesla doesn't have that – what they have is high torque, and thus significant power output already at very low revolutions. A typical small DC electric engine has an almost linearly decreasing torque curve (unless capped), although I don't really know specifics about Tesla's engines.
        Avshalom 9y ago
        Force, not power. Basically: for an internal combustion engine the force is the force of the explosion averaged over time, so the higher the RPM the shorter the time between explosions the higher the average force (until you get to a point where your cylinders are moving so fast the start fighting against each other). For an electric car the force is the voltage, there's no impulse to average out, it's just continuous force. Now of course in reality it's not that simple and you actually do have a torque curve, but compared to ICE it's basically a square wave.
        MertsA 9y ago
        That's not true, the other poster had it right. You have peak torque at stall and it decreases mostly linearly all the way to zero at peak rpm. Power is simply torque times speed. Also torque has a basically linear relationship with current, not voltage. It's a shame seeing people just downvote comments without doing even the most basic research to try to disprove someone. For proof, here's the actual torque curve for a Model S. http://mihalache.free.fr/TSLA/ModelS.png http://mihalache.free.fr/TSLA/ModelS.png And you can see very clearly the torque curve looks nothing like a square wave. Also your assertion about internal combustion engines is wrong as well. At higher RPMs you get less duration with the valves open and you can't get as much fuel and air into the cylinder. It's not that mechanical losses are taking away that force, it's that those explosions are less powerful as you approach redline. Then once you're right up at max RPM you start having to deal with stuff like valve float where the springs pushing the valves back up can't keep up with the camshaft but that's over complicating it for a basic explanation.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      At the price of a Bolt, it's great fun to drive. It doesn't compare to a $100k Tesla, obviously, but for a $30k car, it's nice.
    - mikestew 9y ago
      I’ll answer your question after you tell me how many hours you’ve spent behind the wheel of a Bolt.
    - bryananderson 9y ago
      While this comment was snarky, it gets at something very real. The Bolt has great range and I’m sure it’s a joy to drive, but it’s an ugly, tiny subcompact. No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is. The reason the Model 3 has a higher ceiling than the Bolt (if Tesla can figure out their production hell) is because it has the looks and amenities expected of a $35,000 car. We’re never going to solve emissions if only environmentalists and tech lovers like us stop driving gas cars. There have to be alternatives that are compelling to the masses - and not just that, but compelling at their price point.
      - lmm 9y ago
        > No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is. People care about the TCO though. If you're gonna make that extra $15k back in fuel savings in the first two years (and I have no idea whether that's the real number or not, and it's probably very dependent on local fuel charges) then regular people will sign up for that.
        WorldMaker 9y ago
        Also, aesthetics aren't universal. Just because you might think it looks like an ugly car doesn't mean that everyone does. IMNSHO there are much uglier cars on the road than the Bolt, which seems to me rather squarely mediocre/median in looks.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Is Tesla shipping a compact? Margins get thinner (or in this case negative) closer to the bottom of the market. Tesla doesn't have the EPA slowly tightening the CAFE noose so selling Bolts at a loss might still be a net profit for GM over all because it offsets more profitable products.
    - tankenmate 9y ago
      But if come Republicans have their way then all federal subsidies will be gone, but Tesla's were going to start tailing off shortly anyway (they're close to reaching their subsidy cap); so it would hurt GM (and others) more than Tesla.
      - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
        So? Why is this a political discussion all of a sudden?
  - mikestew 9y ago
    As a Tesla shareholder, I advise caution going down the "profitability" line of argument when making comparisons.
  - olivermarks 9y ago
    https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/08/03/2192188/electric-vehicle-realities/ https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/08/03/2192188/electric-vehi... GM lose $9k on every Volt right now after subsidies and are also having trouble selling them. http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/gm-shutdown-chevy-bolt-supply/ http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/gm-shutdown-chevy-bolt-supply/
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - miguelrochefort 9y ago
      Here in Quebec, they're sold out as soon as they're available.
      - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
        Here in Northern Europe, where the Bolt is sold as the Opel Ampera-E, if you order one today you're not getting it until 2019 because of the huge waiting list.
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    But they make up for that with volume.
- johntb86 9y ago
  It's true for October, at least: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/the-chevrolet-bolt-was-octobers-best-selling-ev-could-it-be-2017s/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/the-chevrolet-bolt-was-...
  - yessql 9y ago
    For the US only. Tesla generally ships most cars oversees on the first month of the quarter and loads up in the US in the last month of each quarter.
Nokinside 9y ago
The company behind lithium-ion battery technology in Tesla Gigafactories is Panasonic. They own the core patents and IP. Same is true for solar PV cells.
rohit2412 9y ago
I've never understood what their lead in batteries really is. Isn't it well known that Panasonic manufacturers and supplies battery cells to Tesla? And cost-wise LG Chem seems competitive enough to Panasonic anyway, keeping in mind leaked figures for Bolt.
- azernik 9y ago
  The narrative I've heard is that the secret sauce is the battery-pack that combines the cells, controls temperature, balances loads, etc. Not sure if this is an accurate narrative.
  - rohit2412 9y ago
    That can only explain the performance or the ludicrous mode, if really. I thought Tesla was always marketing that their selling point is cheaper batteries, which cant be a USP, as Panasonic can always manufacture the same for GM/Ford etc.
    - bradlys 9y ago
      How can it explain the performance or the ludicrous mode? Ludicrous mode being a software update could easily be that you already have the performance innately but they cap your output at 85%. Same as any game where you have to pay to get the extra features/items (DLC) but every other player in the game already has the item when you're around them. All the players get it, it's just a flip of a bit to enable the item for you. Just costs $10k in this case...
      - calvinbhai 9y ago
        There a lot more electronic / electric circuit magic in there with the battery for it to achieve the ludicrous mode ability. Initially when I heard that, I thought Tesla was bluffing. But the Ludicrous mode with P100D performance, and the fact that no other electric car maker is able to match that, leads me to believe that they are not bluffing.
startupdiscuss 9y ago
They might still have a lead in battery tech. For instance, suppose Chevy needs to go through this retooling at some point in the future and set back production at that point. A set back is not proof that they don't have a lead in battery tech. However, it should be asked: what is the nature of the lead? What is superior about the batteries? How does this lead manifest?
djrogers 9y ago
> So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined Chevy shipped a few hundred more Bolts than Teslas one month. Tesla is way ahead on the year, and October is always a slow month for Tesla for whatever reason. It’s netiher a trend (yet) not is it ‘many’. Also, those are dealer shipments - anecdotally, I see tons of them on dealership lots being advertised way under list price. The exact opposite of the situation Tesla is in.
- calvinbhai 9y ago
  This point about dealer shipments and number of vehicles in the lots, is conveniently skipped by many reporters reporting to feed the "Tesla is dead" hype cycle. In terms of whats happening with the teams at Tesla, it certainly looks like a lot of churn, but it's hard to know the real severity of it because of the over reactions by the press. 4 years at a company is a good amount of time. I'd be worried if the Head of Battery at Tesla was a super star engineer who joined with a lot of fanfare and then left the company in less than a year or two (e.g. Chris Lattner joining Tesla and leaving after a very short stint).
  - __blockcipher__ 9y ago
    TSLA is bleeding talent all over. Your allusion to Lattner is just one example out of many. Their CFO churn is one great example. I’m surprised they can find anybody to happily sign off on Musk’s borderline fraudulent activity.
    - andrewtbham 9y ago
      People will be poached in a hot market, people will burn out, people's job will outgrow their ability to perform it. That's just the way it is in a high growth company. After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team.
      - Judgmentality 9y ago
        > After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team. Do you have a link where I can read more about this?
rsynnott 9y ago
Is the supercharger network really all that big of a deal for the average electric car user, though? As of 2016, there were about 13k charging stations with 30k chargers in the US. 613 of these, with 3600 chargers, were Tesla. And the US is behind the curve here; there are 5000 stations with 14k chargers in the UK. Even most fast chargers are not Tesla, either in the US or worldwide. In the US, Tesla’s network is arguably better distributed along interstates, but this is mostly a US-specific problem. The superchargers are arguably a big deal for model S and X users, who I believe often have free charging. As I understand it, Model 3 users wont have this, though? So what’s so special about the Tesla ones, especially outside the US?
- itengelhardt 9y ago
  IMHO two things: a) "fast charger" is a loose term and is often used for anything exceeding 20kW. Superchargers deliver up to 140 kW (split between two cars) or 120 kW (to one car). That's why Tesla/Elon sometimes refer to them as "level 4 charger", although the specification ends at level 3. Other manufacturers are now getting on that train with (according to specification) up to 400 kW b) The notion of the "average electric car user" does not take into account that yes, people drive less than 80km per day on average, BUT they go on the occasional road trip. And they don't want to have a car sitting around just for road trips. They want one that can do both (commute & roadtrip). That's where the supercharger network helps
  - rsynnott 9y ago
    Not sure about the situation in the US. The bulk of the ‘fast chargers’ in the UK, mentioned above, are CHAdeMO (40-60kW, generally, though higher power are coming) and Mennekes (usually 44kW). This isn’t as fast as the Tesla ones, but it’s not 20kW either.
- outworlder 9y ago
  Have you driven an electric vehicle for any significant amount of time? Number of stations is meaningless. At any given time, a sizeable portion of them will be out of commission. Some will not be accessible outside business hours (the ones at dealerships being the biggest offenders) or will be ICE'd. Even worse, some will be listed as working, but then fail to connect and charge your car at all. This has happened to me, multiple times. In one case, leaving me stranded, as I did not have range to reach the next one, after being unable to charge at two different locations. And that was in San Jose, not in the middle of a desert. I have not checked your numbers, but I seriously doubt 30k is the number of fast chargers. Instead, those will be the slow, L2 chargers, which take 4 hours for a full charge on a Nissan Leaf. Quick chargers are much fewer in number, break frequently and, in the US, can be on two, competing standards (CHADEMO and whatever is that Ford and other manufacturers use). In contrast, Tesla's network is much better maintained, each location has many chargers, and they are all Tesla's proprietary fast chargers. Not to mention, Tesla cars can use their chargers, L2, and have adapters for other quick chargers. TL;DR- This is not an apples to apples comparison.
synicalx 9y ago
And my state has just invested millions in a big bank of Tesla batteries to stop us losing power again this summer. Hurray?
beambot 9y ago
> Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries. Maybe there is some causality between these two statements...
lancewiggs 9y ago
"Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries." Perhaps a look at this from the other way around is more revealing. They were having issues with batteries --> now their head of battery tech is gone.
- avs733 9y ago
  Its not a bad theory but it is one that I am not sure evidence supports that inference. First, the problems (as stated in the article) that Tesla is claiming are the primary constraint with the Model 3 are related to battery manufacturing capacity. That could potentially be related to technology/design obviously, but manufacturing could also just be a production problem. Those batteries in NV are actually built primarily by Panasonic [0]. Interestingly, that article also discusses the fact that Tesla has pulled back on plans to power the factory using a solar roof. Critically, that has left them relying on grid power which has enough power bumps (2-3/week) that it is a major production headache and is combined with labor difficulties in the factory in regards to talented and trained technicians. Second, according to other industry sources [1] The issue is not the batteries but the body manufacturing. The body (which is also the frame in modern unibody cars and even most trucks) line is almost certainly being done by hand based on rate of production. The line isn't just not installed in CA yet, its not even fully built by the Michigan supplier. Why? Someone has to take the blame and it can be either Musk [2] or Tesla [3] because it sure isn't my fault. Toyota gives away the secrets of its internal process for free (partially as internal motivation to continue to improve...because they now must get better to stay on top) but hey they also have a full time CEO. Toyota offered to help Tesla, until Musk kept making fun of fuel cells. On the otherside there is what is happening now, with Tesla sending (confused and in flux) plans to their body line supplier a year after major OEM's sent plans for NEXT years models. Not to mention that the same journalists reported this all a year ago...because Tesla hadn't even begun the permitting process necessary to hit its own ramp timeline with the state of California [4]. Compare to their same reports on Jaguar's upcoming EV [5], It looks like Tesla continues to either (1) not now how to do manufacturing or (2) are still working to define the disruptive innovation in manufacturing that allows them to not test their production line. That disruption has escaped places like Toyota (and every other car manufacturer), Intel (and every other semiconductor manufacturer), and every other manufacturer in general who run a LOT of prototype prior to committing to production and build that time into their schedules. The other option is (3) Musk knew all this a long time ago and has been misleading folks for quite a while. TL;DR: Tesla thought it was immune from the god given rules of running a factory. Human and robot factory employees are not AWS instances. Meatspace =/= code Side story: One area Toyota save immense time was reducing the time it took to change over metal stamping dies from 3 days to less than ten minutes [6]. GM took a lot longer to learn these lessons [7]. [0] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-power-scrapped-insider-claims/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-powe... [1] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/model-3-body-line-still-in-development-in-michigan/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/model-3-body-line-still-in-d... [2] https://dailykanban.com/2017/07/fremont-problem-starts-m/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/07/fremont-problem-starts-m/ [3] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/source-tesla-responsible-model-3-production-hell/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/source-tesla-responsible-mod... [4] https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/docs-reveal-teslas-production-capacity-limited-less-half-500000-vehicle-target/ https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/docs-reveal-teslas-productio... [5] https://dailykanban.com/2017/11/no-production-hell-jaguars-pace-peaceful-insider-says/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/11/no-production-hell-jaguars-p... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-minute_exchange_of_die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-minute_exchange_of_die [7] https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1986_Die_Change_Challenge https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1986_Die...
CalChris 9y ago
A Bolt is a $36K-$7.5K car. A Tesla is a $100K-$7.5K car. These are very different cars, a Golden Delicious vs Honeycrisp comparison. Of course the Bolt is going to outsell the Tesla.
georgeecollins 9y ago
Who cares how many Bolts are sold, if the average Tesla sells for two or three times as much. As they used to teach in business school, its not your share of the market that counts, its your share of the market's profits. Also, maybe no one is making a profit yet but the point is, if you can charge a lot more than your competitor you don't have to outsell them in units.
- VintageCool 9y ago
  In their earnings call last week, Tesla said that their margins on existing vehicles were dropping, and they were diverting resources from the Model S and Model X to focus on the Model 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605480
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Even dropping, Tesla’s margins are still higher than legacy automakers.
    - bjl 9y ago
      Except that they use wildly different accounting practices than the rest of the industry to make their numbers look better. For example, they don't include the cost of R&D (like every other manufacturer does), and they use retail price instead of wholesale price when calculating margin. If you use the correct numbers, their margins are significantly lower than the rest of the industry.
      - sempron64 9y ago
        It's fair to use the retail price since they sell direct to consumer
flexie 9y ago
Tesla currently has a lead in: - battery range (the tech and battery production capacity doesn't disappear with the manager) - charging network (passing 1,000 stations) - autonomous driving (miles recorded and in all kinds of traffic and weather) - selling online and through own dealers in malls as opposed to through independent dealers in the outskirts of town - integrating electric into every part of the car design - over the air updates - brand (you don't think f Nissan, Chevy, BMW etc. as EV makers) They are also still the only manufacturer that makes EVs look attractive and perform better than ordinary cars. Everybody else on the market seem to deliberately make ugly cars with mediocre performance. The reason probably is the simple fact that Tesla wants you to buy electric cars whereas the other manufacturers already make money on selling combustion engine cars and would make less selling EVs. They are in the EV market reluctantly. In theory, the above could change quickly. But how does a company that for 100 years has made combustion engine cars and has thousands of employees, suppliers, facilities, contracts, etc all geared up on selling combustion engine cars through dealerships and who are dependent on making money on spare parts and repairs of mechanical parts suddenly pivot into selling EVs that barely need repairs online or in malls? It's as likely as Google launching a Facebook challenger. Or Microsoft beating Amazon on selling consumer goods. Actually, it's less likely since all the incumbent car manufacturers run on razor thin margins. They don't have piles of cash to reinvent themselves. It's more like Nokia winning the smart phone game or a news paper beating Google on selling online ads. My bet is still on Tesla, but it would be nice if I'm wrong and the incumbents rise to the challenge.
- lafar6502 9y ago
  Its not about the car, its about company unable to make money
dayaz36 9y ago
>So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined What? That's not even remotely accurate. Tesla sold ~75,000 vehicles in q1-q3. Year to date sales for Bolt is approximately 17,000. And that includes all cars sitting at the car dealership not even sold. Tesla only counts a sale once it's delivered into the customers hands. Bolt sales are a very tiny fraction of Tesla's sales.

shaneos 9y ago

Do you have a reference for the statement that Chevy is selling more Bolts than all Teslas combined? This sounds farfetched.

Klinky 9y ago
Also supposedly Chevy is losing money on the Bolt.
- latj 9y ago
  Lets play a game. How much would you have to be paid to drive a Chevy Bolt? I would probably do it for 50% of the cost of the thing.
  - AYBABTME 9y ago
    As much as I'm into Tesla, a friend of mine has a Bolt and they're way fun to drive, for a Chevy and that kind of car. They accelerate pretty well. Nowhere near what I'd expect of a Tesla, but still pretty torque-ish.
    - Avshalom 9y ago
      The advantage of electric engines, any electric engine, over ICE is that something like 99% of the maximum torque is available from 0rpm to redline.
      - YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
        That doesn't make any sense. Just think how much power the engine would have to be able to produce near the redline if it produced anything decent at 5 MPH for that to be true (considering that Tesla's mainstream cars only have 1 gear). Edit: Just to be clear, a constant torque would imply a linearly increasing power output when increasing the revs. Of course Tesla doesn't have that – what they have is high torque, and thus significant power output already at very low revolutions. A typical small DC electric engine has an almost linearly decreasing torque curve (unless capped), although I don't really know specifics about Tesla's engines.
        Avshalom 9y ago
        Force, not power. Basically: for an internal combustion engine the force is the force of the explosion averaged over time, so the higher the RPM the shorter the time between explosions the higher the average force (until you get to a point where your cylinders are moving so fast the start fighting against each other). For an electric car the force is the voltage, there's no impulse to average out, it's just continuous force. Now of course in reality it's not that simple and you actually do have a torque curve, but compared to ICE it's basically a square wave.
        MertsA 9y ago
        That's not true, the other poster had it right. You have peak torque at stall and it decreases mostly linearly all the way to zero at peak rpm. Power is simply torque times speed. Also torque has a basically linear relationship with current, not voltage. It's a shame seeing people just downvote comments without doing even the most basic research to try to disprove someone. For proof, here's the actual torque curve for a Model S. http://mihalache.free.fr/TSLA/ModelS.png http://mihalache.free.fr/TSLA/ModelS.png And you can see very clearly the torque curve looks nothing like a square wave. Also your assertion about internal combustion engines is wrong as well. At higher RPMs you get less duration with the valves open and you can't get as much fuel and air into the cylinder. It's not that mechanical losses are taking away that force, it's that those explosions are less powerful as you approach redline. Then once you're right up at max RPM you start having to deal with stuff like valve float where the springs pushing the valves back up can't keep up with the camshaft but that's over complicating it for a basic explanation.
  - pwinnski 9y ago
    At the price of a Bolt, it's great fun to drive. It doesn't compare to a $100k Tesla, obviously, but for a $30k car, it's nice.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    I’ll answer your question after you tell me how many hours you’ve spent behind the wheel of a Bolt.
  - bryananderson 9y ago
    While this comment was snarky, it gets at something very real. The Bolt has great range and I’m sure it’s a joy to drive, but it’s an ugly, tiny subcompact. No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is. The reason the Model 3 has a higher ceiling than the Bolt (if Tesla can figure out their production hell) is because it has the looks and amenities expected of a $35,000 car. We’re never going to solve emissions if only environmentalists and tech lovers like us stop driving gas cars. There have to be alternatives that are compelling to the masses - and not just that, but compelling at their price point.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > No one outside of our tech early-adopter bubble is going to pay $35,000 for a car that looks like that. Every other car that looks like that sells for $18-20k. Most people don’t care what the propulsion is. People care about the TCO though. If you're gonna make that extra $15k back in fuel savings in the first two years (and I have no idea whether that's the real number or not, and it's probably very dependent on local fuel charges) then regular people will sign up for that.
      - WorldMaker 9y ago
        Also, aesthetics aren't universal. Just because you might think it looks like an ugly car doesn't mean that everyone does. IMNSHO there are much uglier cars on the road than the Bolt, which seems to me rather squarely mediocre/median in looks.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Is Tesla shipping a compact? Margins get thinner (or in this case negative) closer to the bottom of the market. Tesla doesn't have the EPA slowly tightening the CAFE noose so selling Bolts at a loss might still be a net profit for GM over all because it offsets more profitable products.
  - tankenmate 9y ago
    But if come Republicans have their way then all federal subsidies will be gone, but Tesla's were going to start tailing off shortly anyway (they're close to reaching their subsidy cap); so it would hurt GM (and others) more than Tesla.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      So? Why is this a political discussion all of a sudden?
- mikestew 9y ago
  As a Tesla shareholder, I advise caution going down the "profitability" line of argument when making comparisons.
- olivermarks 9y ago
  https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/08/03/2192188/electric-vehicle-realities/ https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2017/08/03/2192188/electric-vehi... GM lose $9k on every Volt right now after subsidies and are also having trouble selling them. http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/gm-shutdown-chevy-bolt-supply/ http://fortune.com/2017/07/17/gm-shutdown-chevy-bolt-supply/
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - miguelrochefort 9y ago
    Here in Quebec, they're sold out as soon as they're available.
    - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
      Here in Northern Europe, where the Bolt is sold as the Opel Ampera-E, if you order one today you're not getting it until 2019 because of the huge waiting list.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  But they make up for that with volume.
johntb86 9y ago
It's true for October, at least: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/the-chevrolet-bolt-was-octobers-best-selling-ev-could-it-be-2017s/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/the-chevrolet-bolt-was-...
- yessql 9y ago
  For the US only. Tesla generally ships most cars oversees on the first month of the quarter and loads up in the US in the last month of each quarter.

Nokinside 9y ago

The company behind lithium-ion battery technology in Tesla Gigafactories is Panasonic. They own the core patents and IP. Same is true for solar PV cells.

rohit2412 9y ago

I've never understood what their lead in batteries really is. Isn't it well known that Panasonic manufacturers and supplies battery cells to Tesla? And cost-wise LG Chem seems competitive enough to Panasonic anyway, keeping in mind leaked figures for Bolt.

azernik 9y ago
The narrative I've heard is that the secret sauce is the battery-pack that combines the cells, controls temperature, balances loads, etc. Not sure if this is an accurate narrative.
- rohit2412 9y ago
  That can only explain the performance or the ludicrous mode, if really. I thought Tesla was always marketing that their selling point is cheaper batteries, which cant be a USP, as Panasonic can always manufacture the same for GM/Ford etc.
  - bradlys 9y ago
    How can it explain the performance or the ludicrous mode? Ludicrous mode being a software update could easily be that you already have the performance innately but they cap your output at 85%. Same as any game where you have to pay to get the extra features/items (DLC) but every other player in the game already has the item when you're around them. All the players get it, it's just a flip of a bit to enable the item for you. Just costs $10k in this case...
    - calvinbhai 9y ago
      There a lot more electronic / electric circuit magic in there with the battery for it to achieve the ludicrous mode ability. Initially when I heard that, I thought Tesla was bluffing. But the Ludicrous mode with P100D performance, and the fact that no other electric car maker is able to match that, leads me to believe that they are not bluffing.

startupdiscuss 9y ago

They might still have a lead in battery tech. For instance, suppose Chevy needs to go through this retooling at some point in the future and set back production at that point. A set back is not proof that they don't have a lead in battery tech. However, it should be asked: what is the nature of the lead? What is superior about the batteries? How does this lead manifest?

djrogers 9y ago

> So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined Chevy shipped a few hundred more Bolts than Teslas one month. Tesla is way ahead on the year, and October is always a slow month for Tesla for whatever reason. It’s netiher a trend (yet) not is it ‘many’. Also, those are dealer shipments - anecdotally, I see tons of them on dealership lots being advertised way under list price. The exact opposite of the situation Tesla is in.

calvinbhai 9y ago
This point about dealer shipments and number of vehicles in the lots, is conveniently skipped by many reporters reporting to feed the "Tesla is dead" hype cycle. In terms of whats happening with the teams at Tesla, it certainly looks like a lot of churn, but it's hard to know the real severity of it because of the over reactions by the press. 4 years at a company is a good amount of time. I'd be worried if the Head of Battery at Tesla was a super star engineer who joined with a lot of fanfare and then left the company in less than a year or two (e.g. Chris Lattner joining Tesla and leaving after a very short stint).
- __blockcipher__ 9y ago
  TSLA is bleeding talent all over. Your allusion to Lattner is just one example out of many. Their CFO churn is one great example. I’m surprised they can find anybody to happily sign off on Musk’s borderline fraudulent activity.
  - andrewtbham 9y ago
    People will be poached in a hot market, people will burn out, people's job will outgrow their ability to perform it. That's just the way it is in a high growth company. After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team.
    - Judgmentality 9y ago
      > After Facebook didn't sell to Yahoo, they lost their entire management team. Do you have a link where I can read more about this?

rsynnott 9y ago

Is the supercharger network really all that big of a deal for the average electric car user, though? As of 2016, there were about 13k charging stations with 30k chargers in the US. 613 of these, with 3600 chargers, were Tesla. And the US is behind the curve here; there are 5000 stations with 14k chargers in the UK. Even most fast chargers are not Tesla, either in the US or worldwide. In the US, Tesla’s network is arguably better distributed along interstates, but this is mostly a US-specific problem. The superchargers are arguably a big deal for model S and X users, who I believe often have free charging. As I understand it, Model 3 users wont have this, though? So what’s so special about the Tesla ones, especially outside the US?

itengelhardt 9y ago
IMHO two things: a) "fast charger" is a loose term and is often used for anything exceeding 20kW. Superchargers deliver up to 140 kW (split between two cars) or 120 kW (to one car). That's why Tesla/Elon sometimes refer to them as "level 4 charger", although the specification ends at level 3. Other manufacturers are now getting on that train with (according to specification) up to 400 kW b) The notion of the "average electric car user" does not take into account that yes, people drive less than 80km per day on average, BUT they go on the occasional road trip. And they don't want to have a car sitting around just for road trips. They want one that can do both (commute & roadtrip). That's where the supercharger network helps
- rsynnott 9y ago
  Not sure about the situation in the US. The bulk of the ‘fast chargers’ in the UK, mentioned above, are CHAdeMO (40-60kW, generally, though higher power are coming) and Mennekes (usually 44kW). This isn’t as fast as the Tesla ones, but it’s not 20kW either.
outworlder 9y ago
Have you driven an electric vehicle for any significant amount of time? Number of stations is meaningless. At any given time, a sizeable portion of them will be out of commission. Some will not be accessible outside business hours (the ones at dealerships being the biggest offenders) or will be ICE'd. Even worse, some will be listed as working, but then fail to connect and charge your car at all. This has happened to me, multiple times. In one case, leaving me stranded, as I did not have range to reach the next one, after being unable to charge at two different locations. And that was in San Jose, not in the middle of a desert. I have not checked your numbers, but I seriously doubt 30k is the number of fast chargers. Instead, those will be the slow, L2 chargers, which take 4 hours for a full charge on a Nissan Leaf. Quick chargers are much fewer in number, break frequently and, in the US, can be on two, competing standards (CHADEMO and whatever is that Ford and other manufacturers use). In contrast, Tesla's network is much better maintained, each location has many chargers, and they are all Tesla's proprietary fast chargers. Not to mention, Tesla cars can use their chargers, L2, and have adapters for other quick chargers. TL;DR- This is not an apples to apples comparison.

synicalx 9y ago

And my state has just invested millions in a big bank of Tesla batteries to stop us losing power again this summer. Hurray?

beambot 9y ago

> Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries. Maybe there is some causality between these two statements...

lancewiggs 9y ago

"Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries." Perhaps a look at this from the other way around is more revealing. They were having issues with batteries --> now their head of battery tech is gone.

avs733 9y ago
Its not a bad theory but it is one that I am not sure evidence supports that inference. First, the problems (as stated in the article) that Tesla is claiming are the primary constraint with the Model 3 are related to battery manufacturing capacity. That could potentially be related to technology/design obviously, but manufacturing could also just be a production problem. Those batteries in NV are actually built primarily by Panasonic [0]. Interestingly, that article also discusses the fact that Tesla has pulled back on plans to power the factory using a solar roof. Critically, that has left them relying on grid power which has enough power bumps (2-3/week) that it is a major production headache and is combined with labor difficulties in the factory in regards to talented and trained technicians. Second, according to other industry sources [1] The issue is not the batteries but the body manufacturing. The body (which is also the frame in modern unibody cars and even most trucks) line is almost certainly being done by hand based on rate of production. The line isn't just not installed in CA yet, its not even fully built by the Michigan supplier. Why? Someone has to take the blame and it can be either Musk [2] or Tesla [3] because it sure isn't my fault. Toyota gives away the secrets of its internal process for free (partially as internal motivation to continue to improve...because they now must get better to stay on top) but hey they also have a full time CEO. Toyota offered to help Tesla, until Musk kept making fun of fuel cells. On the otherside there is what is happening now, with Tesla sending (confused and in flux) plans to their body line supplier a year after major OEM's sent plans for NEXT years models. Not to mention that the same journalists reported this all a year ago...because Tesla hadn't even begun the permitting process necessary to hit its own ramp timeline with the state of California [4]. Compare to their same reports on Jaguar's upcoming EV [5], It looks like Tesla continues to either (1) not now how to do manufacturing or (2) are still working to define the disruptive innovation in manufacturing that allows them to not test their production line. That disruption has escaped places like Toyota (and every other car manufacturer), Intel (and every other semiconductor manufacturer), and every other manufacturer in general who run a LOT of prototype prior to committing to production and build that time into their schedules. The other option is (3) Musk knew all this a long time ago and has been misleading folks for quite a while. TL;DR: Tesla thought it was immune from the god given rules of running a factory. Human and robot factory employees are not AWS instances. Meatspace =/= code Side story: One area Toyota save immense time was reducing the time it took to change over metal stamping dies from 3 days to less than ten minutes [6]. GM took a lot longer to learn these lessons [7]. [0] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-power-scrapped-insider-claims/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/tesla-gigafactory-solar-powe... [1] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/model-3-body-line-still-in-development-in-michigan/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/model-3-body-line-still-in-d... [2] https://dailykanban.com/2017/07/fremont-problem-starts-m/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/07/fremont-problem-starts-m/ [3] https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/source-tesla-responsible-model-3-production-hell/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/10/source-tesla-responsible-mod... [4] https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/docs-reveal-teslas-production-capacity-limited-less-half-500000-vehicle-target/ https://dailykanban.com/2016/09/docs-reveal-teslas-productio... [5] https://dailykanban.com/2017/11/no-production-hell-jaguars-pace-peaceful-insider-says/ https://dailykanban.com/2017/11/no-production-hell-jaguars-p... [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-minute_exchange_of_die https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-minute_exchange_of_die [7] https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1986_Die_Change_Challenge https://history.gmheritagecenter.com/wiki/index.php/1986_Die...

CalChris 9y ago

A Bolt is a $36K-$7.5K car. A Tesla is a $100K-$7.5K car. These are very different cars, a Golden Delicious vs Honeycrisp comparison. Of course the Bolt is going to outsell the Tesla.

georgeecollins 9y ago

Who cares how many Bolts are sold, if the average Tesla sells for two or three times as much. As they used to teach in business school, its not your share of the market that counts, its your share of the market's profits. Also, maybe no one is making a profit yet but the point is, if you can charge a lot more than your competitor you don't have to outsell them in units.

VintageCool 9y ago
In their earnings call last week, Tesla said that their margins on existing vehicles were dropping, and they were diverting resources from the Model S and Model X to focus on the Model 3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15605480
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Even dropping, Tesla’s margins are still higher than legacy automakers.
  - bjl 9y ago
    Except that they use wildly different accounting practices than the rest of the industry to make their numbers look better. For example, they don't include the cost of R&D (like every other manufacturer does), and they use retail price instead of wholesale price when calculating margin. If you use the correct numbers, their margins are significantly lower than the rest of the industry.
    - sempron64 9y ago
      It's fair to use the retail price since they sell direct to consumer

flexie 9y ago

Tesla currently has a lead in: - battery range (the tech and battery production capacity doesn't disappear with the manager) - charging network (passing 1,000 stations) - autonomous driving (miles recorded and in all kinds of traffic and weather) - selling online and through own dealers in malls as opposed to through independent dealers in the outskirts of town - integrating electric into every part of the car design - over the air updates - brand (you don't think f Nissan, Chevy, BMW etc. as EV makers) They are also still the only manufacturer that makes EVs look attractive and perform better than ordinary cars. Everybody else on the market seem to deliberately make ugly cars with mediocre performance. The reason probably is the simple fact that Tesla wants you to buy electric cars whereas the other manufacturers already make money on selling combustion engine cars and would make less selling EVs. They are in the EV market reluctantly. In theory, the above could change quickly. But how does a company that for 100 years has made combustion engine cars and has thousands of employees, suppliers, facilities, contracts, etc all geared up on selling combustion engine cars through dealerships and who are dependent on making money on spare parts and repairs of mechanical parts suddenly pivot into selling EVs that barely need repairs online or in malls? It's as likely as Google launching a Facebook challenger. Or Microsoft beating Amazon on selling consumer goods. Actually, it's less likely since all the incumbent car manufacturers run on razor thin margins. They don't have piles of cash to reinvent themselves. It's more like Nokia winning the smart phone game or a news paper beating Google on selling online ads. My bet is still on Tesla, but it would be nice if I'm wrong and the incumbents rise to the challenge.

lafar6502 9y ago
Its not about the car, its about company unable to make money

dayaz36 9y ago

>So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined What? That's not even remotely accurate. Tesla sold ~75,000 vehicles in q1-q3. Year to date sales for Bolt is approximately 17,000. And that includes all cars sitting at the car dealership not even sold. Tesla only counts a sale once it's delivered into the customers hands. Bolt sales are a very tiny fraction of Tesla's sales.