7 ms·

It's hilarious reading comments like this. The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how, and now the motivation to electrify (the key component

It's hilarious reading comments like this. The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how, and now the motivation to electrify (the key component previously missing), will somehow defer to Tesla to build their platforms. If Tesla can figure out how to turn their market cap larger than every other automaker into basic spare parts availability, that will be a starting point. - Also FYI, 2 out of 3 luxury manufacturers you mentioned already do that with established auto manufacturers The Maserati Ghibli platform can trace its roots to the Chrysler LX platform like most FCA products and is intermixed with Chrysler/Jeep parts Lamborghinis share platforms with various Audis Only Ferrari is really putting out really independent platforms

matthewdgreen 5y ago
I don’t know what supply chains the legacy automakers have, but it sure feels like they’re having trouble sourcing efficient batteries.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Are they? Or are they making cars that are less efficient, regardless of battery tech? The Taycan for example, is clearly not focused on being as efficient as possible. It's an opulent car with all the heavy soundproofing and insulation people buying these types of cars expect. The Mach E is probably the most normal looking EV suv, and it's Cd ends up being the highest of the bunch despite not even having door handles. I don't think efficiency is the big win people are acting like it is. Just like there are gas guzzlers and econoboxes that get miles and miles per gallon, there will be more or less efficient EVs. Efficiency by itself is not going to be a differentiator forever because past a certain range figure, most people's needs are met. From there "splurging" an extra 5 cents per mile to have their preferred car is not a problem
  - jsight 5y ago
    I don't know why he used the term "efficient batteries". I don't really know what that means and basically agree with you. Ford doesn't have great driving efficiency, but it doesn't matter as they've solved for that by using a really big battery. However, they seem to be severely limited in production capacity due to the limited number of cells available. Right now, everyone other than Tesla seems to be hitting that issue, and Tesla is at least a year ahead. More if they can actually get the 4680 lines running on schedule, but that's a big if.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      There is enough battery capacity to build plenty of Ford Mach-E's. But Ford can't afford to spend $100,000 to manufacture a $50K car, nor can they use recycled laptop batteries that make the car 1000lbs heavier. The problem here is sourcing batteries that are weight- and cost-efficient, and Tesla has been investing heavily in the production of such batteries.
    - fomine3 5y ago
      So using too much battery for car (or shortage of gigafactories) is current primary problem because EV production is constrained by battery supply, isn't it?
      - jsight 5y ago
        Yes, but "too much battery for car" is subjective. The Mach-E has more range than its closest competitors, so they could have used fewer cells and remained competitive.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    I'm referring more to the poor production numbers and long delays. Efficiency is relevant insofar as manufacturers with less-efficient technology may need more [and more expensive] battery cells to build competitive cars with comparable range (which the market does demand), and this exacerbates the supply shortages and lowers the profitability of the resulting vehicles. Of course I'm assuming that batteries are a major part of the blocker here -- if not, something sure is. ETA: What I'm trying to say is that existing automotive supply chains may not be a massive advantage, if the relevant supply chains are battery/motor tech and Tesla has developed the best supply chains for those specific technologies.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      That's definitely never been what battery efficiency meant in the EV space, but ignoring that... >something sure is [the blocker] Yeah, they didn't want to lol. It's exactly what I said above, they didn't want to go all-in on EVs so they didn't. I know people don't want to accept it's that simple, but that's good old organizational inertia. Like a rolling boulder, once it slowly picks a new direction, it's not going to lose that momentum either > if the relevant supply chains are battery/motor tech and Tesla has developed the best supply chains for those specific technologies So Tesla theoretically has the "best" supply chain for the powertrain (that's questionable)... and the rest of the car? Batteries and motors are the easiest place to be behind. The raw capacity using "behind" tech can be smoothed over with eating some margin. But the rest? Even simple body panel availability had eluded Tesla before COVID gave an excuse for it. And that was after 7 years of production! It's unheard of in the industry. Tesla's supply chain is not anyone's envy in the automotive industry. The only force that can stop major manufacturers from staying competitive just because we changed the engine cars use is their own reluctance, and all signs (and money) point to that no longer being the case.
mhh__ 5y ago
I imagine Ferrari customers in particular would enjoy Silicon Valley chic and startup-quality fit and finish of a Tesla.
- stcredzero 5y ago
  I upvoted you. Tesla did indeed deserve to be called out for this. According to Sandy Munroe, they seem to have learned this lesson, though.
  - rasz 5y ago
    You would think that, yet this is what you get from Tesla in 2020 in NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pg7JmKElUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pg7JmKElUw
OnlineGladiator 5y ago
> The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how, and now the motivation to electrify The car companies supply chains are set up for ICE, not EV. Likewise, their know-how is also for ICE, not EV. It's like saying Kodak was in a prime position to take advantage of the digital camera (which they invented), but it was actually the opposite - they'd spent decades optimizing around a separate core technology and couldn't change until it was too late. I'm not a fan of Tesla for a myriad of reasons and I love cars. But the notion that traditional car companies can magically start cranking out profitable EVs (Tesla made most of their money from tax credits which are essentially gone now) is laughable.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Do people realize how little of a modern car's complexity is the powertrain? The eTron was built on a rework of the Audi platform that's in twelve ICEs before hosting it's first EV. I mean, there's a reason the manufacturers will give you a 100k mile powertrain warranty, but won't cover a broken cup holder past 40k. ICEs have been iterated to the point of boredom. Most engines today are 3rd or 4th generations of their original designs with emissions improvements and moderate power gains. Making flexible platforms, having a supply chain that isn't so starved they're actually able to provide parts post-sale (current global woes notwithstanding), things like that's... That's what make the notion that car manufacturers suddenly can't make cars just because the powertrain changed is what I find laughable. - Actually, funnily enough people don't realize this has actually happened before. 1970 Clean Air act and the 1970 oil crises might as well have been a "reset" in powertrain development. Many cars could no longer exist as they did, and manufacturers had to adjust to a completely new market, with new competition from efficient overseas competitors (who's efficient-focused powertrains previously had no place) Sound familiar? Some companies that were already floundering did fold. American Motors died off and Chrysler picked up the pieces. But for the most part the industry adjusted and moved on. Because at the end of the day the powertrain is just that, the powertrain. It's supposed to be boring for the manufacturers because people will put up with a infotainment system that can't play video games when you're parked, but they won't put up with an engine that works when it wants to.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
while1fork 5y ago
Koenigsegg does almost everything and has a lot of unique features like all carbon wheels.
stcredzero 5y ago
The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how, and now the motivation to electrify (the key component previously missing), will somehow defer to Tesla to build their platforms. That takes some doing, as GM is finding out with the Bolt EV catch-fire recall, costing them many 100's of millions. Even if they can source the batteries, and get to a minimum level of quality and dependability, they will probably still be far behind in terms of margins, power density, and efficiency -- for several years at least. Also FYI, 2 out of 3 luxury manufacturers you mentioned already do that with established auto manufacturers Indeed. And at this point, Tesla is the most established EV manufacturer.
- BoorishBears 5y ago
  Lol those brands didn't randomly go to those manufacturers, Maserati is owned by FCA/"Stellantis" and Lamborghini is owned by VAG. I can't believe people are seriously entertaining the idea that a major auto manufacturer would need Tesla to make cars for them. At that point what is the manufacturer bringing? Tesla's totally-not-marketing has brought them more cachet than anyone "boring" like Ford or Toyota
  - stcredzero 5y ago
    I can't believe people are seriously entertaining the idea that a major auto manufacturer would need Tesla to make cars for them. The trend I see, is that the more people know about what it takes to mass-manufacture an EV, the more they expect that legacy auto companies are going to turn to another manufacturer for the battery pack and the drivetrain. At that point what is the manufacturer bringing? The strength of the brand. It's hard to deny the brand strength of Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, Maserati, and Lamborghini. People will pay ridiculous markups to own brands like that. This opens up the margins such companies would need to survive. Tesla's totally-not-marketing has brought them more cachet than anyone "boring" like Ford or Toyota Does Tesla have the equivalent cachet of Lamborghini? It's debatable, I think.
    - BoorishBears 5y ago
      Luxury car brands are not major auto manufacturers by themselves, they're owned by them. A Rolls-Royce is a BMW. My M4 had RR chimes in it's hidden configuration settings. A Lamborghini is (usually these days) an Audi. The Urus is a Q8 and the Huracan is an R8 (or the other way around, hard to keep track at this point) A Maseratis has an infotainment system out of a Jeep Cherokee and shares transmission bugs with a Chrysler 300 Their brand cachet doesn't matter to this conversation because they're not the ones who control its application. The "boring" parent company will. And why will the parent company do that for their ultra-luxury brand that's all about image and not their normal cars? They won't. So the parent company needs to have a reason to go to Tesla. - A skateboard is not just a drivetrain, it's the entire platform. Manufacturers have just spent millions and billions in R&D to develop modular platforms that can do things like transition from ICE to BEV without feeling like an electrified ICE. They're going to throw that away? Because their margins on batteries aren't quite as good as Tesla? Lol if that's the case I think the last thing that helps margins is having someone else provide the whole platform.

matthewdgreen 5y ago

I don’t know what supply chains the legacy automakers have, but it sure feels like they’re having trouble sourcing efficient batteries.

BoorishBears 5y ago
Are they? Or are they making cars that are less efficient, regardless of battery tech? The Taycan for example, is clearly not focused on being as efficient as possible. It's an opulent car with all the heavy soundproofing and insulation people buying these types of cars expect. The Mach E is probably the most normal looking EV suv, and it's Cd ends up being the highest of the bunch despite not even having door handles. I don't think efficiency is the big win people are acting like it is. Just like there are gas guzzlers and econoboxes that get miles and miles per gallon, there will be more or less efficient EVs. Efficiency by itself is not going to be a differentiator forever because past a certain range figure, most people's needs are met. From there "splurging" an extra 5 cents per mile to have their preferred car is not a problem
- jsight 5y ago
  I don't know why he used the term "efficient batteries". I don't really know what that means and basically agree with you. Ford doesn't have great driving efficiency, but it doesn't matter as they've solved for that by using a really big battery. However, they seem to be severely limited in production capacity due to the limited number of cells available. Right now, everyone other than Tesla seems to be hitting that issue, and Tesla is at least a year ahead. More if they can actually get the 4680 lines running on schedule, but that's a big if.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    There is enough battery capacity to build plenty of Ford Mach-E's. But Ford can't afford to spend $100,000 to manufacture a $50K car, nor can they use recycled laptop batteries that make the car 1000lbs heavier. The problem here is sourcing batteries that are weight- and cost-efficient, and Tesla has been investing heavily in the production of such batteries.
  - fomine3 5y ago
    So using too much battery for car (or shortage of gigafactories) is current primary problem because EV production is constrained by battery supply, isn't it?
    - jsight 5y ago
      Yes, but "too much battery for car" is subjective. The Mach-E has more range than its closest competitors, so they could have used fewer cells and remained competitive.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  I'm referring more to the poor production numbers and long delays. Efficiency is relevant insofar as manufacturers with less-efficient technology may need more [and more expensive] battery cells to build competitive cars with comparable range (which the market does demand), and this exacerbates the supply shortages and lowers the profitability of the resulting vehicles. Of course I'm assuming that batteries are a major part of the blocker here -- if not, something sure is. ETA: What I'm trying to say is that existing automotive supply chains may not be a massive advantage, if the relevant supply chains are battery/motor tech and Tesla has developed the best supply chains for those specific technologies.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    That's definitely never been what battery efficiency meant in the EV space, but ignoring that... >something sure is [the blocker] Yeah, they didn't want to lol. It's exactly what I said above, they didn't want to go all-in on EVs so they didn't. I know people don't want to accept it's that simple, but that's good old organizational inertia. Like a rolling boulder, once it slowly picks a new direction, it's not going to lose that momentum either > if the relevant supply chains are battery/motor tech and Tesla has developed the best supply chains for those specific technologies So Tesla theoretically has the "best" supply chain for the powertrain (that's questionable)... and the rest of the car? Batteries and motors are the easiest place to be behind. The raw capacity using "behind" tech can be smoothed over with eating some margin. But the rest? Even simple body panel availability had eluded Tesla before COVID gave an excuse for it. And that was after 7 years of production! It's unheard of in the industry. Tesla's supply chain is not anyone's envy in the automotive industry. The only force that can stop major manufacturers from staying competitive just because we changed the engine cars use is their own reluctance, and all signs (and money) point to that no longer being the case.

mhh__ 5y ago

I imagine Ferrari customers in particular would enjoy Silicon Valley chic and startup-quality fit and finish of a Tesla.

stcredzero 5y ago
I upvoted you. Tesla did indeed deserve to be called out for this. According to Sandy Munroe, they seem to have learned this lesson, though.
- rasz 5y ago
  You would think that, yet this is what you get from Tesla in 2020 in NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pg7JmKElUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pg7JmKElUw

OnlineGladiator 5y ago

> The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how, and now the motivation to electrify The car companies supply chains are set up for ICE, not EV. Likewise, their know-how is also for ICE, not EV. It's like saying Kodak was in a prime position to take advantage of the digital camera (which they invented), but it was actually the opposite - they'd spent decades optimizing around a separate core technology and couldn't change until it was too late. I'm not a fan of Tesla for a myriad of reasons and I love cars. But the notion that traditional car companies can magically start cranking out profitable EVs (Tesla made most of their money from tax credits which are essentially gone now) is laughable.

BoorishBears 5y ago
Do people realize how little of a modern car's complexity is the powertrain? The eTron was built on a rework of the Audi platform that's in twelve ICEs before hosting it's first EV. I mean, there's a reason the manufacturers will give you a 100k mile powertrain warranty, but won't cover a broken cup holder past 40k. ICEs have been iterated to the point of boredom. Most engines today are 3rd or 4th generations of their original designs with emissions improvements and moderate power gains. Making flexible platforms, having a supply chain that isn't so starved they're actually able to provide parts post-sale (current global woes notwithstanding), things like that's... That's what make the notion that car manufacturers suddenly can't make cars just because the powertrain changed is what I find laughable. - Actually, funnily enough people don't realize this has actually happened before. 1970 Clean Air act and the 1970 oil crises might as well have been a "reset" in powertrain development. Many cars could no longer exist as they did, and manufacturers had to adjust to a completely new market, with new competition from efficient overseas competitors (who's efficient-focused powertrains previously had no place) Sound familiar? Some companies that were already floundering did fold. American Motors died off and Chrysler picked up the pieces. But for the most part the industry adjusted and moved on. Because at the end of the day the powertrain is just that, the powertrain. It's supposed to be boring for the manufacturers because people will put up with a infotainment system that can't play video games when you're parked, but they won't put up with an engine that works when it wants to.
AnthonyMouse 5y ago

while1fork 5y ago

Koenigsegg does almost everything and has a lot of unique features like all carbon wheels.

stcredzero 5y ago

The car companies that have the supply chains, the know-how, and now the motivation to electrify (the key component previously missing), will somehow defer to Tesla to build their platforms. That takes some doing, as GM is finding out with the Bolt EV catch-fire recall, costing them many 100's of millions. Even if they can source the batteries, and get to a minimum level of quality and dependability, they will probably still be far behind in terms of margins, power density, and efficiency -- for several years at least. Also FYI, 2 out of 3 luxury manufacturers you mentioned already do that with established auto manufacturers Indeed. And at this point, Tesla is the most established EV manufacturer.

BoorishBears 5y ago
Lol those brands didn't randomly go to those manufacturers, Maserati is owned by FCA/"Stellantis" and Lamborghini is owned by VAG. I can't believe people are seriously entertaining the idea that a major auto manufacturer would need Tesla to make cars for them. At that point what is the manufacturer bringing? Tesla's totally-not-marketing has brought them more cachet than anyone "boring" like Ford or Toyota
- stcredzero 5y ago
  I can't believe people are seriously entertaining the idea that a major auto manufacturer would need Tesla to make cars for them. The trend I see, is that the more people know about what it takes to mass-manufacture an EV, the more they expect that legacy auto companies are going to turn to another manufacturer for the battery pack and the drivetrain. At that point what is the manufacturer bringing? The strength of the brand. It's hard to deny the brand strength of Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, Maserati, and Lamborghini. People will pay ridiculous markups to own brands like that. This opens up the margins such companies would need to survive. Tesla's totally-not-marketing has brought them more cachet than anyone "boring" like Ford or Toyota Does Tesla have the equivalent cachet of Lamborghini? It's debatable, I think.
  - BoorishBears 5y ago
    Luxury car brands are not major auto manufacturers by themselves, they're owned by them. A Rolls-Royce is a BMW. My M4 had RR chimes in it's hidden configuration settings. A Lamborghini is (usually these days) an Audi. The Urus is a Q8 and the Huracan is an R8 (or the other way around, hard to keep track at this point) A Maseratis has an infotainment system out of a Jeep Cherokee and shares transmission bugs with a Chrysler 300 Their brand cachet doesn't matter to this conversation because they're not the ones who control its application. The "boring" parent company will. And why will the parent company do that for their ultra-luxury brand that's all about image and not their normal cars? They won't. So the parent company needs to have a reason to go to Tesla. - A skateboard is not just a drivetrain, it's the entire platform. Manufacturers have just spent millions and billions in R&D to develop modular platforms that can do things like transition from ICE to BEV without feeling like an electrified ICE. They're going to throw that away? Because their margins on batteries aren't quite as good as Tesla? Lol if that's the case I think the last thing that helps margins is having someone else provide the whole platform.