Thứ Hai, 30 tháng 1, 2017

GM to introduce Tesla rival, JB Straubel comments on battery cost part 1

  • Sep 16, 2013
    Sunnyday
    GM is committed to create a Telsa rival. Just what Elon wanted.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=gm%20developing%20car%20to%20rival%20tesla&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323981304579079492902482638.html&ei=xoI3UpAGyoaMArfugMAJ&usg=AFQjCNGq1_9GJKaKeGdh__tf2hZKuaCTSA&bvm=bv.52164340,d.cGE

    Interesting comments from JB on battery cost:

    Tesla Chief Technical Officer JB Straubel says the company's battery costs are half or even a quarter of the price of the industry average, partly because of the company's strategy to use thousands of commodity battery casings rather than the specialized batteries that GM and Nissan use.

    "The battery prices in the Model S are substantially lower than what everyone expects today," he said in an interview. Mr. Straubel expects the energy density in Tesla's batteries will increase by more than 20% by the time Tesla's mass-market car comes out in about four years. More energy in batteries should equate to longer driving range for roughly the same price.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    texex91
    Article is for subscribers only, can you please cut and paste it.

    And GM building something to rival Tesla--that's amusing.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    qwk
    April Fools in September?
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    mershaw2001
    GM Floats Plan for Vehicle that Rivals Tesla - WSJ.com

    Don't want to violate copyright laws here. Here's a link, let me know if it works.

    ps i don't have a subscription and i was originally paywalled out of this. To view the article, I googled GM Developing Car to Rival Tesla, then chose the top link to the wsj. Apparently I bypassed the paywall doing that, even though earlier I was blocked by it. YMMV.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    qwk
  • Sep 16, 2013
    stopcrazypp
  • Sep 16, 2013
    qwk
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Norse
    So they have a car that they could put a battery in? Impressive. I really hope they create a 200 mile car just about the same time as Tesla comes up With a Gen3 300 mile car.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    gym7rjm
    With the 20% increase in battery capacity that JB is talking about we would be looking at an almost exact 200 mi epa rating using 4000 cells. 4000 cells is the guess going around for gen 3 right?
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    sleepyhead
  • Sep 16, 2013
    mershaw2001
    Same thing that happened for me, sleepyhead, if you go through google it's not blocked for some reason.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Zythryn
    Good! I have doubts about GM's execution of the plan, but the more competition the better.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Tesla certainly won't take GM as lightly as you are.

    Gm is serious about electrification. This is very much a new GM that's heavily invested in engineering. It's just that they took a different approach.The Volt was built to a cost, but misjudged the market, while Tesla has focused on engineering first and misjudged the cost. Both are working to bring down costs.

    The Volt's a very nice car, the Spark gets good reviews (just ignore the compliance-based pricing). GM really has their electric **** together. It's quite possible that Akerson arriving earlier would have seen a more top-down approach to PEV, with it coming first to Cadillac. Akerson is focused on rapid, iterative improvement and it's much easier to deliver electrification at Cadillac pricing where a few thousand doesn't radically change the market size.

    Oh and I have to appreciate an article that refers to the use of "commodity casings".
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    marvinat0rz
    This is excellent news. Well, an even better piece of news would be that all the other car companies were still sitting with their heads up their asses, but this is the second best. They're still seeing real EVs as technologically infeasible, and use all their effort on trying to make crappy electric cars seem hip. Contrast this to Tesla's approach: No need for marketing gimmicks, the product sells itself. The difference in marketing style is palpable, and reflects the technological chasm between Tesla and everyone else.

    Okay, so now we have the situation that a few car manufacturers have finally realized that it just might be a good idea to try to make a decent electric vehicle. The Model S is obviously doing well enough. But then they hit the same wall as everyone before: The batteries are too expensive. This means they're still 3 years behind in the development of battery packs, and who knows how much time it would take to engineer a car that actually utilizes the potential of an electric drive.

    Between this multi-year technological head start and the innovator's dilemma of Big Auto cannibalizing existing sales, Tesla would have to screw up execution in a major way (multiple years of delays for MX and G3) in order not to at the very least become a major player. With a good chance of becoming the biggest player as the shift towards EVs gains speed and it becomes obvious for everyone that electric is the way to go. At some point, battery technology will be better than ICE technology even with a trivial effort, but by then Tesla will be established as a major player and it will be too late to catch up. Cost advantages from technologies of scale in battery pack production will make it impossible to compete on price. So assuming that Tesla manage to keep their edge in design, the opposition is in a very bad place.

    We've seen this in the software industry dozens of times: Something is a bad idea until suddenly it isn't. A small player realizes this before everyone else and eats the whole pie. By the time technology had advanced enough to make the non-obvious solution easy, the lead company has the whole market and also a massive technological head start. I'm not certain that the mechanisms are similar enough to have the same effect in the hardware realm, but this is the way things have played out for a lot of software companies. Just from the top of my head Google, Facebook, Dropbox and Stripe all followed this pattern. Tesla has striking similarities at this stage. We'll see how it plays out.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    texex91
    I don't discount any of the big guys--especially the German makers. GM well not the best quality cars. I'm sure they will eventually come out with something (even around the same time as Gen 3)--but who knows. Everyone's playing catch up. Plus for $30K it's going to look like a Volt probably--no thanks. And I hope they do introduce it into Caddy first (like to see that $30k Caddy)--that would be the last vehicle you would ever catch me buying. I'll take my $113K P85+ and smile.

    I do like competition--it validates the space and the technology.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Sunnyday
  • Sep 16, 2013
    ggies07
    They can say they will have a $30,000 car with better miles, but will it look as sleek as a Model S? Everyone else is always looking at trying to beat this new company at battery tech, but they don't understand that we as consumers also want something good looking, not something like a Spark or Volt. I'm all for competition, getting people to transition, but not by the others half-assing any part of it.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    gaswalla
    wsj.com is free if accessed via a google seach... for a limited number of articles/day
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    TSLAopt
    What I find most substantial in this story is JB's comment at the end saying they get the battery power at 1/2 or 1/4 the cost of other automakers who are quoted at $500 per kilowatt on their battery tech...if any of the big boys paid attention to that it should really move the stock up tomorrow in a major way.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    kevin99
    Anyone has the full article can share?

    GM Floats Plan for Vehicle that Rivals Tesla


    GM Developing Car to Rival Tesla
    Cost of Advanced Battery-Technology Remains Hurdle to Building Longer-Range Vehicles

    By Mike Ramsey
    General Motors Floats Plan for Tesla Rival

    Largest U.S. auto maker says it has technology available to make about $30,000 electric car that goes 200 miles on a charge but bringing down the cost of battery would take time.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Sparky
    I just googled the article title.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Convert2013
    This has be be great PR for Tesla. Validates Tesla's technology. Stock should react positively. I see GM, VW, etc all in catch-up mode hence no real time frame for production start. Knowing GM intimately, this will take them 7 to 10 years to release and then they will send out massive recalls due to technical issues, if they went all alone on the project. Build quality will be average and 99/110 for consumer's report and a high crash safety rating..FORGET IT. :) What would be nice is if the majors actually did a partnership with Tesla for their first one. TSLA to $400!
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Palpatine
    It really doesn't matter if GM (or others) come out with a 200 mile EV. From a competitive standpoint, they are all still at a disadvantage to Tesla.

    By 2015-2016 Tesla Motors will have a fully functional Supercharger network covering the USA and Europe.

    Let's say that BMW, GM and Tesla each have a 200 mile EV at approximately $35,000 to $40,000 on the market in 2016.
    From a purely objective standpoint (removing Tesla fanboy hat), Tesla Motors still would have the best product due to the fully developed Supercharger network.

    Until the others have access to a 120 kw network of Superchargers, they are selling EVs at a disadvantage to Tesla.
    Customers don't want to deal with range anxiety. Tesla has resolved that. The others have not.

    Tesla is beating them in safety, style, performance, range and just about every other category. If this was little league, we would be invoking the mercy rule and calling the game early.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    liuping
    If Gen III Teslas have access to the SC network it will become basically useless. There are nowhere near enough chargers to support 500,000 Gen III cars.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    Search for the article on Google or Google News and copy the link via your right click menu. This gives you a link that goes through Google. As others have mentioned, WSJ lets you view a limited amount of articles if you go through Google (this is because that's the only way they get indexed by Google).

    If you click the link first and copy from your address bar, it's not going to work because that is a direct link and you hit the pay wall.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    pGo
    I think this news will make the deals & merger departments of many companies active specially the small players. Tesla may get a few buyers of the proven technology.

    Also, I think Tesla could expedite the introduction of Gen 3 (2015 end?) to stay ahead of competition.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    stopcrazypp
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Discoducky
    The article isn't coming up as it looks like the website fell over (most likely a ton of traffic). I'm getting proxy errors from just the domain http://online.wsj.com/

    Anywho...the above comments are spot on:

    1. GM behind on infrastructure. Could use CHaDeMo to catch up but we know that most likely won't be on par with Supercharging
    2. GM behind on cell size inefficiencies. Could get on the 18650 bandwagon and try a skateboard, but now we are really talking 2018 and beyond.
    3. GM behind on that who 'dependent on ICE' stuff like those pesky dealerships we all love. Could spin off a new company (cough...cough...Saturn) but that just pushes the timeline out farther
    4. GM subjectively behind on aesthetics. Maybe not that subjective as I don't know anyone who thinks the Volt (production version) looks better than the S. I actually think the prototype Volt looked better than the S Alpha...but then they went all ICE sedan on it.

    And let's not forget that GM is ahead in some respects

    1. GM has a huge workforce and under the right leadership, restructuring plan and optimization efforts could put out a car in 2016 if they tried really hard
    2. GM has supply chain. Waking this up to do aluminum, carbon fiber, recyclables...etc could be a huge win long term

    I've most likely left out a bunch but those are what come to mind after a long day at work...
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    mitch672
    It also clearly shows Teslas "first mover / leader" position in the EV space, since GM is trying to figure out how Tesla did it.

    Newsflash GM: Tesla is willing to license their technology to you, for a price. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Palpatine
    If Tesla charges Gen III owners $2,000 for the Supercharger option, that would basically fund the expansion of the system.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    Yep. 500k * $2000 is $1 billion. The currently planned 100 stations will only cost about $125 million.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    brianman
    Pride vs. humility.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    scottf200
    The Model S looks are far from unique. There are a bunch of cars that look very much alike. To the masses they look like a lot of other cars. It is unique is so many ways but looks is not one of them. Put the same grill on several other cars and most could not easily see the differences. Jag XF is obvious but even look up the Ford Fusion or Hyundai Sonata at a glance like the masses look at cars.
    �
  • Sep 16, 2013
    Tacket
    "
    Tesla is the lone auto maker to offer long-range electric vehicles with its Model S�and Tesla still hasn't shown it can steadily make money selling them."

    Oh come on!!    ?
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    aznt1217
    So GM is going to make an electric car while still producing cars like the Cadillac Elmiraj? Goodness people who are running that company are air heads.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    vfx
  • Sep 17, 2013
    texex91
  • Sep 17, 2013
    ggies07
    I didn't say it was a unique style, I said it was sleek like other ICE cars. No other auto company, not even Nissan, has made a nice looking EV yet. I hope GM can prove me wrong, but I doubt it.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    qwk
    They mention that the Tesla battery is not very intriguing? It doesn't have to be, as it just works, and works great.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Bardlebee
    Am I the only one that, even if every competitor such as GM or Ford created a 300 mile car much like the Tesla, I would still buy a Tesla? I mean I just trust Tesla more not to screw me over being a smaller company they can't cut corners to be the best product. Also they already would have then infrastructure installed by the time the big dogs get with the times. I would be glad to see cars like from the big companies, but at the end of the day I would still buy the Tesla for the infrastructure and the security in a quality product.

    What do you guys think?
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    qwk
    You are not the only one. I wouldn't buy any of the "other" makers EV's, because even if they did manage to copy Tesla, their car would still have many shortcomings compared to Tesla. One huge shortcoming is visiting a dealership. No thanks. The dealership model will not only bring an end to itself, but it will take the current auto manufacturers with it.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    AnOutsider
    GM is a large company developing vehicles that meet the needs of many types of people. Nissan makes the Leaf while still making the GT-R. Not everyone bought a Model S to make a statement about the environment or to other companies/people about the cars they produce/drive.

    I'd keep an open mind personally. If they can match the tech inside, it might be worth it. If Audi were to come out with something similarly specced to a Model S, I'd probably get it. Audi has superior interiors, and aside from the touchscreen, already have superior tech. On top of that, it's far more convenient (and cheaper) to get one of our Audis serviced than the Model S.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    aznt1217
    Corporate News: GM Floats $30,000 Electric Car to Rival Tesla Model S
    Mike Ramsey
    By Mike Ramsey
    757 words
    17 September 2013
    The Wall Street Journal
    J
    B3
    English
    (Copyright (c) 2013, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
    General Motors Co. is developing an electric car that can go 200 miles on a charge for around $30,000, officials at the largest U.S. auto maker said, offering a challenge to electric-car startup Tesla Motors Inc.

    Doug Parks, GM's vice president of global product programs, disclosed the effort Monday at GM's battery laboratory and test facility in Warren, Mich., but didn't say when the car would be available. He said while the technology is available now, the cost of the batteries remains too high to be able to pull off the feat today.

    GM's move to raise the profile of its battery research efforts comes as Tesla is challenging the established auto industry's claim to technology leadership with its $70,000 and up Model S. Mr. Parks' comments came just a few days after Germany's Volkswagen AG said it intended to become the largest seller of electric vehicles by 2018.

    Analysts and industry executives say Tesla, GM, VW and the current global electric vehicle sales leader, Nissan Motor Co., all face the same problem: current electric vehicle batteries are too expensive, and deliver too little usable driving range compared with vehicles powered by internal combustion engines.

    The number of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles for sale in the U.S. has more than quadrupled to 15 vehicles since 2010 as auto makers roll out new models to comply with government mandates. But sales of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles account for less than half of 1% of the overall market, despite price cuts, discounted leases and government tax incentives that can add up to as much as $12,500 a vehicle depending on the state.

    GM has sold nearly 15,000 of its battery-powered Chevrolet Volt cars this year through August, aided by incentives and discounts. The Volt's extended range comes from a gasoline engine that recharges its battery.

    Nissan's approach is to argue that extending the range of electric vehicles to 200 miles isn't worth it because most people don't drive farther in a day than the Nissan Leaf's 75 miles of all-electric range. The Leaf costs $28,800 in the U.S. before federal tax credits.

    Tesla is the lone auto maker to offer long-range electric vehicles with its Model S -- and Tesla still hasn't shown it can steadily make money selling them.

    Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk said recently that "it didn't require a miracle" to sell a 200-mile range electric car for around $35,000 in the next three or four years.

    Every other EV currently on the market gets about 100 miles of range or less. Starting prices for them currently range between $25,000 for the Smart Fortwo EV and $50,000 for the RAV4 EV. BMW's i3, launching later this year, is expected to start at $41,350.

    Kevin Gallagher, a chemist and researcher at the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory, said auto makers are spending about $500 a kilowatt hour on battery packs. That means the 24 kwh pack on the Nissan Leaf would cost around $12,000. Last year, Ford CEO Alan Mulally said the battery on the Focus EV with 23 kwh of energy costs between $13,000 and $15,000.

    Tesla Chief Technical Officer JB Straubel says the company's battery costs are half or even a quarter of the price of the industry average, partly because of the company's strategy to use thousands of commodity battery casings rather than the specialized batteries that GM and Nissan use.

    "The battery prices in the Model S are substantially lower than what everyone expects today," he said in an interview. Mr. Straubel expects the energy density in Tesla's batteries will increase by more than 20% by the time Tesla's mass-market car comes out in about four years. More energy in batteries should equate to longer driving range for roughly the same price.

    Tesla doesn't disclose what its batteries cost. Toyota Motor Corp.'s electric RAV4 sport-utility vehicle is outfitted by Tesla with batteries and a Tesla motor. It has a 41.8 kwh battery pack and has 103 miles of range. The starting price of $49,800 is about $26,500 more than the internal combustion engine RAV4 that starts at $23,300.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    qwk
    I have a very open mind, and mostly agree with you(audi has much better interior/exterior quality), but the ICE is a deal breaker compared to the Model S. While I'm sure that they can build an EV, it will definitely not be a better EV at the Model S price-point(batteries to go that far are too expensive). While it's cheaper to service and Audi ICE, we cannot say the same for an EV version.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    sleepyhead
    Hey guys, I am working on a design for a $20,000 space rocket. The technology is already here, I just have to wait for the price of materials and rocket fuel to come down.

    Possible media headlines coming tomorrow:

    SpaceX: The Attacks Keep Coming
    Sleepyhead to Attack SpaceX with a Space Rocket
    Sleepyhead Eyeing Cheap Space Rocket to Tackle SpaceX
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    kevin99
    Good one! That was my reaction too.

    You can't blame them for wanting be associated with Tesla, in whichever way they can get. :biggrin: have you seen a PR about a Tesla like motorcycle? It turns out it has nothing to do with Tesla. It was an India company trying to sell something, which I don't even remember now. :confused:
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    AnOutsider
    Good point, but I'd think Audi has the wherewithal to actually absorb some of the service costs of their earlier models. It's all academic anyway as Audi hasn't shown they're capable of creating a true competitor to the Model S (FWIW, if they had one about 10-15k over the S, I'd still strongly consider it).
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    ckessel
    I'd look at the cars and figure out which one had the best value for my dollar, just as I did with Tesla today.

    In the future, it won't be "All cars are Tesla". There will be competitors and like today with ICEs there will be multiple good choices. I suspect Tesla's Gen3 will crush the competition though and it won't be until Gen4 where Tesla really loses it's dominance, but by then the EV market should be rising so quickly Tesla can't meet the demand anyway.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Eberhard
    What about the GEN III competing against BMWs todays ActiveHybrid 3?

    a $35.000 Model E outperforming $50.000 BMW ActiveHybrid 3
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Cameron
    I still firmly believe that the Leaf, Ford C-MAX, BMW i3, etc. are all lame attempts at EVs to make it seem like they are not a viable alternative to ICEs. The big auto manufactures do not want EVs because it would simply ruin their business model. When it comes to EVs, thats what Tesla does so thats who I would trust to give me the best product. If GM suddenly came out and said, in 5 years we will only produce EVs, then maybe I would take them seriously, but even then they would still be playing catch up with Tesla.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    PwrOutage
    My main question is:
    200 miles, great, how do you charge it for trips? Will they licence the supercharger as rumored? Seems likely.

    Also, where is this 120kW charging Tesla keeps talking about but not delivering. Seems like charging can barely support 90kW anyway.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Ampster
    I agree, so much of what goes into those casings is proprietary. That is what gives Tesla the edge, as Capitalist Oppressor has pointed out numerous times.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    hoopty_yo
    While I don't think GM's offering will in any way compare to a Model S, I think it will be of better quality than expected. My guess is it will fall a little short of range and far shorter in safety when compared to a Gen III. Charging will be slower, of course. It should have respectable sales and offer another option in the price range (Nissan really needs to double the Leaf range by this point or build an EV Altima if they want to stay out of the history books).
    If GM wants this car to be competitive, they should bring back the Saturn nameplate (and sales approach) and treat it like a startup, so the car HAS to be good to survive. They dropped the Volt price to boost sales. The can afford to lose money because they have a bunch of other cars they make money on. If they made the car more appealing, maybe the initial price point may have worked. Where's their waiting list?
    For my family, we really need 200 miles before an EV will work for us. The Volt would be a nice hold-me-over-until-Gen III, but it won't work unless I can get two car seats in with the driver seat all the way back. Maybe a crossover? Something like a RAV4 that isn't $50K?
    As far as competition goes, I am more concerned about VW. They have already built the XL1 and the Bugatti Veyron - not just a fast car. I think they may put some R&D time in.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    ElSupreme
    Perhaps GM needs some Quentin Tarantino advice. Down rated to PG-13

    "Night of the fight, you might feel a slight sting. That's pride screw'n with you. screw pride! Pride only hurts, it never helps. You fight through that stuff. 'Cause a year from now, when you kicking it in the Caribbean, you gonna say to yourself, "Marcellus Wallace was right."
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    qwk
    This is their main problem. They cannot build a better EV at a decent price point, because it will cannibalize their bread and butter, and make their ICE vehicles very unattractive to the buyer. Very fine line here. This is why most existing companies fail when there is a big technology change in their field, the risk of cannibalizing yourself appears too great, so they continue with business as usual.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    bonaire
    For qwk and others. One thing that hurts GM is their stinkin' dealer networks. Many time, a salesman will route a buyer away from a Volt to offer them the "sensible" choice of something like a Cruze or Malibu. "Why buy this when you can spend 10K less and that pays for a lot of gasoline" they say. GM's dealer network will not assist them to grow the EV sales. It takes certain high volume dealerships, a few of which are in the Los Angeles area, who sell dozens of Volts per week. That compares to shops like the ones near me who either opted out of the Volt program (complaints about certain battery tools they needed to buy - or get out of the program) - or they sell 1-2 per quarter. The Volt buyers out there tend to have to tell the salesperson how the thing works.

    GM is a good company fronted by a wide variety of some good and some horrible dealerships.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    rage_777
    Isn't the problem still the dealership? Since the dealerships are independent of the manufacturers, why should they sell the electric car that won't come in as often for service?

    Looks like bonaire beat me to it.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    bonaire
    Took my Volt to the closest Chevy shop near me recently for some warranty work (very minor rattle).

    The service writer lady there said "did you buy the Volt here? We usually recommend Volt owners to take them to where they bought them." So, I went to another dealership and got it serviced by some really nice folks. Won't be back to that first one. Dealerships can be cannabalized by their own employees.

    Tesla's model is fine - to bypass dealership madness. But since most neighborhood shops don't do electric vehicles, the real problem is going to the "regional sevice center" or having a ranger come by. This means a Tesla owner really needs a standby car "just in case". Most upper middle class families have multiple cars. But once the $35K Model-E is out, the service model needs to be tuned up with far more service centers in metro areas or lots of rangers.

    There will be some blowback from EVs. Neighborhood car repair shops will undoubtably "uprate" a repair such as a wheel alignment or tire repair because you have an EV and you rarely will ever visit for repairs and "being rich" you can afford to pay more. Juts like electricians up-cost the installation of an EVSE unit rather than a standard 14-50 plug. "EV? - Pay Me" is what they're thinking.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    sleepyhead
  • Sep 17, 2013
    ggies07
  • Sep 17, 2013
    texex91
  • Sep 17, 2013
    qwk
    GM is talking about it. Tesla is doing it. Lol
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    dsm363
    Good video. Surprising they still get things like the range wrong (280 miles instead of 265 EPA range). Small detail though.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    texex91
    And what's ironic is that GM is 'trying to build one to go 200 miles'--that horse has left the gate already GM. By the time you figure that out, Telsa will have a 400 mile range. Too funny these GM guys.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    brianman
    He's had trouble with that particular metric before. (Why do I remember stuff like this (while forgetting my passwords)?)
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    CapitalistOppressor
    I've been assuming a 20% increase in battery performance by the time Gen III comes out. The 4,000 cell number is a nice round number that is reasonably close to the value that I get for the average number of cells per car if you assume a 20% increase in performance, a 20% decrease in the size of the car, and two models (a 200 mile and 270 mile battery) with demand for those models being roughly equivalent to demand for the two Model S battery options.

    So 4,000 is a nice approximation that can be used to determine how much battery manufacturing capacity Tesla needs. But because it is a weighted average (and is using some unsupported market assumptions), it actually doesn't correspond to a particular model.

    The current 60kWh battery has ~5,000 3.4aH cells in it and has a range of ~200 miles. Just decreasing the size of the car by 20% would decrease the number cells needed to get the same range, and would get us close to 4,000 cells. When you increase the performance of the individual cells by an additional 20% the number of cells required dips far below 4,000.

    I get to an average of 4,000 because I assume that most of the batteries sold will actually have a longer range than what Tesla has specified as their minimum, just as it is with the Model S, which has two batteries, one with ~5,000 cells and another with ~7,000 cells, and an average number per vehicle of ~6,400.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It's like having someone scrape their nails across a chalkboard. The pain of listening to mistakes like that just move right past the normal mental filters that make it hard to remember passwords and imprint themselves directly into the deep memory reservoirs where your body stores important information, like how to avoid open flames.

    That said, his report did sum up the real issues fairly well. Considering how hard Tesla got hammered for vaporware after putting out an actual Model S prototype, its only fair for GM to get called out for actual vaporware when there isn't anything concrete at all to demonstrate their commitment.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Zythryn
    To be fair, they are trying to build an EV that goes 200 miles for $30,000. That is aimed squarely at Tesla's third gen sedan which Tesla has not built yet.

    I don't believe GM will deliver any more than they delivered the originally talked about Volt ($20k and 50mpg in CS mode).
    However, competition is good and Elon is going to need help to replace the vehicle fleet with EVs:)
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Chickenlittle
    What i find very strange is that GM whether real or not talking up challenging the gen3 car but no response to Model X. do they not know of its existance? suvs are a huge chunk of their profit and yet they have no answer, not even trash talk of developing an answer. funny nobody pointing that out. Model X out in little over a year should be larger than i believe Tesla is talking about. Gas savings, safety rating (doubt they wont get something similar although they may beef up the crushing machine). issue of charging in city moot since most are out in subs anyway with garages
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Zythryn
    I'm guessing they it is too close and they realize they can't respond anytime soon, certainly not before Tesla starts shipping the X.
    Gen 3 gives them a few years, and is also a larger market so gets them more bang for their PR buck.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Teslawisher
    Now hold on a sec...

    "Perhaps more interesting is the benchmarking area, where batteries from seven different manufacturers are being tested, including packs from Nissan, Hyundai, Toyota (variants of the Prius battery) and Ford. Notably missing were any packs from Tesla, but GM representatives did say there are Tesla vehicles on the grounds that have been tested and taken apart. "There is nothing in the Tesla battery that we don't know," said Doug Parks, GM vice president, global product programs. He added that Tesla's strategy is "very intriguing" and that GM is taking a close look at it, but that simply "matching what Tesla did is not that exciting.""

    So, you have the battery packs of all these other cars (which are significantly lower performers of the Tesla) being tested thoroughly, but none of the Tesla? I would think that battery and its complementary systems would be under the largest microscope. Not to copy, but to learn from. How much are they learning and expanding on by testing these other low-end (for lack of a better term) battery systems?
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    jerry33
    A few points:

    1. Who's to say he's actually telling the truth.

    2. NIH is big at GM (and most other large companies for that matter).

    3. Saying that GM will copy Tesla is basically saying GM is a "me too" company.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    rcc
    I bed the challenge with studying the Tesla battery is that the entire drivetrain is an integrated system. A lot of the secret sauce is in the software that manages the draw and charge of the "sheets" or sheet-equivalents in the pack. And there's probably some protocol set up so that the engine control software doesn't do something stupid like try and draw more power than is healthy for the pack to deliver at that moment. Battery pack management is a lot easier when you know the engine is well-behaved. And studying the battery-pack in isolation won't tell you enough. You need to look at the entire system, much of which is software. Good luck with that. Doable but really really hard.

    GM's philosophy seems to be, "We'll wait until easy-to-use auto-grade batteries get good enough to drop into a car." Whereas Tesla's philosophy is, "We'll figure out how to build a car that can use less reliable batteries." Guess what? Less reliable batteries will always be cheaper. Tesla will have an edge until batteries get so good that the cost difference between a super-reliable battery and a consumer-grade battery is negligible. Which won't be any time soon.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Discoducky
    This is going to haunt them
    He is implying that they could do this now 'if they wanted to' and that is just plain false. If they could; they would have. A 200+ mile EPA rated $30K car for GM is *at best* 7 to 10 years away **UNLESS** they license TM drivetrains. Full stop
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    lolachampcar
    A few observations-
    My notion of a 4000 cell Tesla came from comments Elon made regarding the ideal number of cells (4K) for performance, range and safety. He was talking about G3 at the time which leads me to believe (like others here) that we will see G3 models with almost identical range to the MS 60 and 85 models. I find the most useful information comes out of Tesla during casual technical Q&A sessions where core strategic business concepts leak through.

    Any major will have to completely re-invent itself or purchase/create Tesla or a Tesla like subsidiary to be successful. There is no way re-inventing is going to fly in any board room as it means trashing the ICE bread and butter and severely depressing shareholder value for an extended period of time. Buying Tesla is the only way a major is going to pull off anything better than an almost car that is way too late.

    Dealerships, Dealerships, Dealerships..... I do not think we can over emphasize that ball and chain and I do not see ANY way out of it for a major even with re-inventing.

    Tesla has the plan and the smarts to pull off G3 in 1/2M/year numbers but lacks the capital. A very slow ramp will really T off customers. This can not be allowed to happen. I still come back to just how is Tesla going to pull this one off? I can not wait for this education in creative business.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    vfx
    Interestingly Tesla gave them an out here.

    One of the proposed state laws was for factory owned dealerships only for electric car manufacturers. If an offshoot company (skunkworks) of a car major set up and built only EVs then they could work independent (by design and requirement) and then sell them in their own stores like Tesla.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    Tim
    Isn't this the range with aero wheels and lrr tires? Seems like we need to cut the CNBC research guys some slack. I hear a 265 mile range on tmc way too often. That was so a year ago.

    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    sleepyhead
    There are so many ways Tesla can get capital:

    -Tap into another government loan.
    -Issue bonds. They can issue a lot of bonds (a couple $billion) next year if their stock goes up another $100.
    -Free cash flow. This might be a lot higher than you expect. Might have a $billion in cash flow just two years from now.
    -Issue new shares. My least favorite option.

    Raising capital is not a concern for me. If you are talking about building battery factories then look no further than China and they will gladly build as much as Tesla wants once they see how the Model S is selling like hotcakes in China.

    If Tesla is successful then the money will follow big time. If Tesla doesn't grow as fast as I expect then the money will not be necessary.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    dsm363
    Aero wheels are just coming out. The advertised EPA range is 265 so probably the number they should say. 280 sounds nice though and is achievable.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    AnOutsider
    I'm curious why everyone is still throwing around the "dealers won't sell them because they don't make money in service" thing? I've never seen a credible source on that. Is it just some conspiracy theory that sounded good so everyone assumed it was fact? What does the salesman who makes a commission on the SALE care about how often you bring the car in for service? Not to mention, tesla has already shown that EVs aren't exactly zero maintenance (their recommended yearly service is more than I'd pay to service our Audis for a smaller interval).

    I think dealers didn't push EVs because they didn't think consumers would want them. The volt, who,e nice, isn't exactly flying off the lots like some other models. Same with the Leaf. Lets face it, the non tesla EVs tend to suck a little bit. If they out out compelling EVs, they'll sell.
    �
  • Sep 17, 2013
    vfx
    There have been many times over the years that dealership employees have said this to EV proponents. I don't think you are going to find it quoted in print though. TEG?

    The other barrier I have heard from people I trust is that salesmen don't want to bother with EVs. They have to spend 3 to 4 times as much time explaining them to customers. Sales per day go down and they make less money. Easier to steer the customer to the ICEs.
    The exception is that some locations have the "one" guy" at the dealership that makes the EV his specialty and the other salespeople give him all the business. It's pretty rare though and only in top EV markets.
    �
  • Sep 18, 2013
    lolachampcar
    sleepyhead,
    I hope you are right but I think the numbers are very big, even for a $22B market cap. I like the idea of a Gov loan tailored to (and limiting only) the battery production problem. It would just seem odd for Tesla to be soooo hot to replace debt with equity money to get out from under one Gov loan only to jump right back into the same frying pan. As for China solving the battery problem for Tesla, I think Tesla is the only one that can sell the idea of doubling the world's capacity of 4/3rds A fat cells thus they are the ones in a position to best generate funding to build capacity. I really do not see any single source drinking enough of the KoolAid to build the capacity but then I have been wrong before.

    It's the management bandwidth on funding that has me most concerned. It's easy to lull yourself into believing the magician can pull another rabbit out of the hat when you've seen him do it a couple of times already. My fear is that these rabbits are getting mighty large for the hat and there are a lot of them in need of pulling (battery capacity, non-battery capital ramp costs, funding receivables,,).

    I've got my popcorn out and am looking forward to an education.



    On a different topic.
    Tesla may be making headway against the dealers but let one OEM with an existing dealer network even think about going around them with what they tout will be the future of car sales. Dealers know Tesla is trying to crack the door open. The concern is not if Tesla gets through the door but that the majors will try to follow. To really push BEV, the majors will eventually have to tout them as THE future and when they do the writing will be on the wall for the dealers. They will not go quietly which adds one more bump in the road for an existing mfg.

    My gut tends to agree with Elon that conventional dealers do not work on BEVs. Sure, it could be a chicken and egg thing. Do they not sell because they are not compelling or because the dealer is not the right channel. Perhaps it is both. An interesting although very small comparison may be Zero Motorcycles. Zero has a compelling product albeit an expensive one. Their largest outlet by far is a pure electric motorcycle outlet even though they have conventional ICE dealers all over the country.
    �
  • Sep 18, 2013
    bonaire
    Battery discussion is based on today's technology. The 15 or 20 Ah prismatic or "toast-sized" flat cell versus the cylindrical cell.

    Let's say a new prismatic comes out with same size but double capacity. You can still do a flat skateboard using them or use the T-shape or block packs using them. The benefit of using cylindrical cells today is still there if chemistry can be stuffed into either format but the range available of the competition goes up with higher capacity prismatic form factor. Even though the Volt has a 40 mile electric range plus engine range extender, not much benefit is found in saving gas if you double the battery range since many drivers don't travel more than 40-50 miles a day. But it would be a huge selling point. The Volt range is stymied due to "SOC range limit boundaries to give longer battery life". If range is doubled, then many more commuters can get to *and back* from work and not need to plug in there at their job site making that design more compelling, especially if the price can stay the same. A 150 mile Leaf would be nice but what really will sell will be the high-demand CUV style vehicles with EV and EREV designs. In my area, at least 50% of the cars I see while driving around are CUV or larger. Go to the mid-west and there are even more trucks and "family trucksters".

    Putting a 6Ah cylinder 18650 against a 30Ah prismatic would double Tesla's range and also double Volt and Leaf range. Tesla then can either drop the # of cells (lower range) or keep the large pack and market 400+ mile range. What the competition has to do is figure out how to best place prismatics in a wider, flatter placement pack with good TMS and adopt a new platform(s) for various model sizes. It has to happen in order to manage the future demands of BEV and EREV needs.

    I think the failure of the competition was to try to adopt batteries into a traditional chassis and not build a purpose-built frame like the latest Prius or the Model-S. The issue is - can they adopt to a new architecture and cell placement for their future designs in a cost-effective manner? Is it a matter of altering the frame and metal dies to store batteries in a flat pack?

    The biggest hurdle for Tesla is it's success. It has awoken the giants. VW, GM, Ford and others now have a much stronger focus on EVs and can small Tesla keep up with those organizations who already have a large number of international car factories and large buying-power with the suppliers. BMW messed up with their iterations (i3 and i8) but the others know how to build consumer cars. The i3 might actually do well once it grows on people. The Prius was pretty ugly to start. I envision Toyota even coming to the party at some point with something more than their hybrids. And as we know, Tesla is selling with a good percentage of the reason being its looks. Looks, size and Performance are trumping "green" for the Model-S when it compares to the other EVs on the market. However, to really make EVs work for humanity, the Model-S is not the answer - we all know a small, cheap and easy to manage EV is what "most people" will be able to want/afford/adopt. With Europeans mainly driving econo-box diesels to get by, something small is fine as long as it doesn't use that expensive petrol there. The USA is going to grow slowly in the EV marketplace unless car prices come down or gas goes way up. Given that 25% or more EVs are sold in CA and many for the use of the HOV lane, the compelling growth curve will not be enormous for years to come. However, each $1K lower in price for the Leaf and Volt, I believe that would lead to 1000 more per month sold. Take the Volt down to MSRP of $30K and they'll hit 5000/mo easy. Take it to $25K and 10,000/mo is possible.
    �
  • Sep 18, 2013
    rage_777
    The reason that I think it's true is because the dealers don't make much on the new cars. They do make a lot of money on used cars. But the manufacturers don't have anything to do with the service, so the dealerships can make all their money from there. Not to mention the price difference when going to a dealership for service and any other place. If I were to change my front brake pads at a dealership, it might cost me $300. Do the same service at another place and it will cost about $150. Which brings up another point, the dealerships make a lot of money off of parts. OEM parts are ridiculously expensive.

    I also think most manufacturers don't really want to sell the EVs because they don't make money producing them. Aren't they selling the Leaf and Volts for less than it costs to make it? If that is the case, then why would you want to sell them instead of the cars that will make you money? If you were selling lemonade and one makes you money and the other one costs you money to make, wouldn't you be trying to sell the one that makes you money?
    �
  • Sep 18, 2013
    Evpro2
    GM and the other competitors have dream cars, Tesla has real cars. By the time a competitive EV comes out Tesla's SC nationwide network will be a reality. Advantage Tesla.
    �
  • Sep 18, 2013
    vin5xxx
    @lola

    "On a different topic.Tesla may be making headway against the dealers but let one OEM with an existing dealer network even think about going around them with what they tout will be the future of car sales. Dealers know Tesla is trying to crack the door open. The concern is not if Tesla gets through the door but that the majors will try to follow. To really push BEV, the majors will eventually have to tout them as THE future and when they do the writing will be on the wall for the dealers. They will not go quietly which adds one more bump in the road for an existing mfg."

    The majors can't follow Tesla because they have contracts with the dealers. Their dealer relationship is permanent because of all of the state legislation.
    �
  • Sep 20, 2013
    Ampster
    As others have commented in other threads, this could be a major sea change to and industry that has been historically slow to change.
    �
  • Sep 20, 2013
    CapitalistOppressor
    First, it's possible that other automakers are not legally capable of building a Tesla style pack. There is a fair argument to be made that Tesla has surrounded their pack design with an impenetrable wall of patents. If so, it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to spend a lot of time studying the Tesla pack design, because its a fundamental departure from the way big batteries have traditionally been built, which means any insights you get from the design are useless unless you are willing to hire Tesla to build your batteries.

    Second, there is an equally fair argument that the path Tesla has chosen is ultimately going to be a blind alley because the economies of scale you get from 18650 production are an illusion that can only be maintained in the tiny niche that Tesla currently inhabits. Once you invest the billions of dollars needed to scale up the capacity needed for significant market share, the economies of scale for large format cells are superior to the small cells that Tesla is using. That, in fact, has been what automakers have been saying for years. If so, it doesn't make much sense to study Tesla's pack.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I agree that Tesla can raise the cash they need. My only concern is that their public position to this point has been that they don't need any more cash in order to roll out GenIII. That is clearly wrong I think, and as an investor I want to see a plan to address their battery production issues. Otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that they have fairly low expectations for S and E platform sales in the 2018 timeframe, and those expectations are not compatible with their current stock price.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I didn't even realize Elon had mentioned the number 4,000. When I simulate the pack though, that's what I get as an approximate average number of cells. It wouldn't shock me if Tesla intended to just release a single model with 4,000 cells and a ~240 mile range though and call it a day, instead of having an entry level car with a 200 mile range and a better model with a 270-300 mile range.

    Almost 75% of current sales are cars with the bigger 85kWh pack. Tesla might be smart to just go with a common pack size with a range substantially larger than the 200 mile number they have been discussing.

    Thinking about it, the weighted average I have been using in my simulations probably does qualify as an "ideal" number from Tesla's point of view because it's essentially what the market has been shown to want (in aggregate) in terms of range, only scaled into a simulated GenIII pack.
    �
  • Sep 20, 2013
    lolachampcar
    the only caveat I would have on G3 pack size(s) would be the need to do whatever is required to make the $35K x-Fed subsidy price point. They may not be able to do that with the "85" size pack whatever that actually turns out to be.
    �
  • Sep 20, 2013
    CapitalistOppressor
    The cells would likely still cost ~$2.00-$2.50 each. So a total pack cost of $10-$12k, which is why I've been assuming that there would be two models.

    If you go with just the number of cells to get ~200 miles of range the initial pack cost is much closer to $8-$9k, which is much more compatible with a $35k price point. I think that to be competitive and profitable, the total pack cost probably needs to be kept under 25% as it is with the Model S.

    It seems easier to do that if you have two batteries like you do now, and is probably a more rational way to satisfy the market.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)