Clean Technica Online News – Page 227 – I wish I had more to offer

Tesla Supercharger Network Evolution — From 6 To 13,344 Superchargers In 6 Years

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Cars

Published on July 6th, 2019 |

by Zachary Shahan

Tesla Supercharger Network Evolution — From 6 To 13,344 Superchargers In 6 Years

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

July 6th, 2019 by Zachary Shahan

Last year, I published a short review of the Tesla Supercharger network’s tremendous evolution from 2011 to March 2018. I recently ran across that and decided to update it with July 2019 maps and numbers. Here you go:

The Tesla Supercharger network is still one of the top reasons electric car buyers are convinced to buy a Tesla rather than another company’s electric car. The network was a critical competitive advantage we identified years ago when surveying EV drivers and potential EV drivers, and it seems to be referenced every day in comments on CleanTechnica as a core competitive advantage for the Silicon Valley EV & clean energy giant.

We are finally seeing superfast/ultrafast charging stations rise up in non-Tesla charging networks, and hey, one day we’ll have a non-Tesla electric car on the market that can charge at 100 kW or more. But rolling out vast superfast/ultrafast charging stations takes time, and a lot of money.

When I went through our Tesla archives recently to highlight the history of Tesla vehicle sales projections and Tesla Model 3 forecasts, I ran across some old Supercharger maps and announcements. I thought they were rather striking, especially since I had basically forgotten how sparse the network was just a few years ago.

Exhibit A (2011) — Longtime Tesla director of battery technology Kurt Kelty says, “We don’t need a charging infrastructure throughout the country.”

(That actually sounds quite similar to what some major automakers claim today, automakers that don’t have widespread superfast charging infrastructure available for their drivers and don’t have cars that could use such infrastructure.)

Exhibit B (2013) — A whopping 6 Superchargers in California + 2 Superchargers on the US East Coast!

Exhibit C — Also in 2013, big new Supercharger announcements (for the time). Supercharger max power gets boosted from 90 kW to 120 kW. Tesla adds lightning bolt symbol to in-car navigation so that drivers can easily find a Supercharger. Tesla starts adding grid storage at some of its Superchargers, allowing you to survive a Zombie Apocalypse if need be — or at least charge your Tesla during one. Dramatic increase in Supercharger deployment, which leads to this plan:

Exhibit D — A January 2014 tweet from Tesla: “We’ve just opened a bunch of Superchargers to help us get closer to energizing our cross-country route!” Look at this humongous, jaw-dropping, volt-whopping network:

Exhibit E — Around the same time, Tesla patents a system allowing a charging station to prioritize charging based on need and arrival time.

Tesla Motors US Patent Application 2013/0057209

Exhibit F — By the end of 2014, Tesla’s Supercharger network explodes to “884 individual charging points spread across 141 Supercharger stations, as compared to the 776 CHAdeMO charging points now operational in the US.” Check out the exciting map of the time:

Exhibit G — In the second half of 2015, Tesla is up to 487 Supercharger stations globally, with a new one opening nearly every day.

(By the way, another note at that time from TeslaMondo: “Five years ago, Tesla produced 800 cars per year. Now it can produce 800 in three days.” And one more note from Tesla on the initial Autopilot rollout, which was just about to start: This is just the beginning. Don’t treat the initial release like it’s the final one. Hmm, maybe a topic for another article. …)

Exhibit H-oly Cowabunga — This is where the Supercharger network is today was in March 2018, not even 5 years after Exhibit B:

Now, here’s where we are today:

About the Author

Zachary Shahan Zach is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species). He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor. He's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession and Solar Love. Zach is recognized globally as an electric vehicle, solar energy, and energy storage expert. He has presented about cleantech at conferences in India, the UAE, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, and Canada.

Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in. But he offers no professional investment advice and would rather not be responsible for you losing money, so don't jump to conclusions.

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks

BMW Lets Slip That Its Electric Vehicles Can’t Compete With Tesla’s

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Batteries

Published on June 28th, 2019 |

by Dr. Maximilian Holland

BMW Lets Slip That Its Electric Vehicles Can’t Compete With Tesla’s

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 28th, 2019 by Dr. Maximilian Holland

Poor BMW. Director of development Klaus Fröhlich has had yet another EV meltdown, brought on by the pressure of not being able to compete with Tesla in the battery electric vehicle (BEV) market. His excuse for BMW’s failure to compete? “Nobody wants them.” Is Fröhlich really this out of touch? Or is he just playing politics?

Photo of Klaus Fröhlich by Matti Blume (CC BY-SA 4.0 license)

Klaus Fröhlich put on an embarrassing public display of whining and moaning about BEVs at the NextGen conference in Munich this past week. Fröhlich has had faux meltdowns about BEVs before. Most notably, back in October 2018, Fröhlich made a laughable claim that BEVs will “never” be able to compete on price with fossil vehicles. His reasoning? That as EVs become more popular and demand for batteries increases, their price is likely to increase. He stated in October, “When everybody wants to have cobalt, the prices of cobalt will not go down, they will go up.” Poor BMW. Their head of development seems to be living under a rock. Likely a fossil.

Fröhlich has rehashed the exact same argument again this week, as reported by Automotive News and Forbes, claiming:

“The shift to electrification is overhyped. Battery-electric vehicles cost more in terms of raw materials for batteries. This will continue and could eventually worsen as demand for these raw materials increases.”

Even at a time of unambiguous climate crisis, Fröhlich’s plan is for BMW to keep making diesel engines for the next 20 years, and gasoline engines for the next 30 years. BMW also aims to stick with a PHEV-heavy strategy to meet emissions regulations, rather than prioritizing BEVs. (PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.)

Fröhlich Fails Economics 101
Fröhlich’s claims about the price of battery materials are absolute nonsense, and he knows it. It should go without saying — especially for someone whose job should involve understanding the trajectories of auto technology — that cobalt is being steadily removed from battery cathodes, and makes up just 5% to 10% in the latest generation of chemistries (e.g. Tesla’s NCA and CATL’s NCM 811), down from 33% of the cathode in recent generations. With time, cobalt will be removed almost entirely. Furthermore, it’s Economics 101 that prices only increase with growing demand if supply is fundamentally constrained. (Related: Nope, Cobalt’s Not A Problem For The EV Revolution, Or Tesla — #CleanTechnica Exclusive.)

When an industry is experiencing growth (as the BEV industry has been for a decade already), especially growth driven by technological developments, there is de facto an overall increase in volume at all levels of the supply chain over time. This, combined with production learning, technological learning, and economies of scale, drives gradually lower prices. Whilst there may be bottlenecks (or oversupply) at some points along the supply chain for short periods, only a fundamental fixed limit at some point of the basic material supply (one that cannot be overcome) would lead to increased prices as demand grows. And even then — only if there were no possible substitutes.

To the chagrin of those used to being in oligopoly positions in the oil industry, none of these dynamics apply in any fundamental sense in the battery mineral supply chain. Decent returns on investment can certainly be made, but monopolistic pricing and cornering the market on vital commodities do not apply in the age of BEVs (except perhaps in regard to the talent pool).

Image via Tesla

If you will allow me a side note — it’s worth remembering also that material content of battery cells for 450+ km of range (around 65 kWh) will soon amount to as little as 220–240 kg (@300 Wh/kg), and this amount of “stuff that needs mining” is steadily decreasing as energy density and vehicle efficiency improve. Once mined and refined once, and then in duty for 12–15+ years in a BEV, and another 10+ years as stationary storage, almost all of these materials can be recycled in perpetuity for repeated use in the future. The electrons that “fuel” the battery weigh almost nothing and can come along existing wires, from renewable sources.

Contrast that with the 200 to 300 gallons of gasoline that simply go up in smoke and other emissions each year, when driving 10,000 miles in a combustion vehicle. 200 to 300 gallons at around ~3 kg (6.3 lb) per gallon — that’s 600 to 900 kg of “stuff” that needs mining, shipping, refining, transporting, storing, and delivering each and every year. Over a 15 year lifetime, that’s around 45× more mined material than the BEV requires. Remind folks of that difference if they question the lifetime environmental impact of BEVs vs. fossil powered vehicles.

Getting back to Fröhlich’s FUD on battery mineral prices: There is no fundamental natural supply constraint to battery minerals (lithium is the 25th most abundant element on earth). There is simply an unprecedented growth in demand for some minerals (lithium and, until more recently, cobalt) that have historically had fairly modest supply volumes for other end uses. The supply industry for these minerals is following a normal pattern of the ramp up of mining (and processing) investments sometimes struggling to keep up with rapidly growing ramp in demand. Nevertheless, the price of the key minerals, lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate, as well as cobalt sulphate, have actually reduced over the past two years, even as demand for them, and manufacturing of batteries, has rapidly increased:

More substantial mineral components of batteries are, in fact, nickel (5th most abundant element), aluminium (3rd most abundant), and graphite (essentially limitless, as it can be synthesized from carbon). The supply chains of all of these minerals are very well established, and the relative proportion of the global supply of these minerals that goes to batteries is still minor.

In short, although some supply chains (e.g., lithium) will need to continue to scale up, there are no fundamental mineral supply constraints that would lead to enduring price increases over time. Remember the concerns about limited silicon wafer supply for the PV industry back in the 2006–2008 timeframe? Well, let’s remind ourselves of the big picture on the price of PV watts over time:

The exact same trend is happening with battery pricing:

Fröhlich is either being ignorant, unintelligent, or dishonest (or all 3) when he claims the price of batteries, and battery electric vehicles, is at any significant risk of rising over time.

Fröhlich projects BMW’s BEV Failures onto Others
Every serious auto industry analyst knows that Tesla’s BEVs already equal or outcompete fossils on sticker price in the mid-sized premium segments (and every segment above), and BEVs in general will reach sticker price parity with fossils in pretty much all remaining segments before 2025. See, for example, our recent comparison on China pricing of premium mid-sized sedans, where the Tesla Model 3 crushes BMW 3 Series and Mercedes C-Class “rivals” on price. And, of course, savvy consumers are catching on to the already superior total cost of ownership of BEVs once wealth-draining gas fill-ups and high maintenance are removed from the ownership equation.

This reality on the already superior economic proposition of BEVs doesn’t stop Fröhlich from overstating their relative cost today:

“All this range discussion is complete bullshit because it’s an economic proposition of how much you can afford. … You have to pay for range, this is what people don’t seem to understand. The difference between 350km and 600km of BEV range will be 10,000 euros. You put them both out there and see how many people will buy the 600km car”

Fröhlich appears to be desperate. Of course, having extra range involves having a larger battery and thus somewhat higher cost, but Fröhlich grossly overstates the actual battery cost figures. Let’s take the current BEV best seller, the Tesla Model 3, as an example. This is a high-performance mid-sized vehicle, well matched in size to BMW’s own high selling 3 Series. The Tesla Model 3 Long Range rear-wheel drive has a European WLTP range rating of 600 km, from a gross battery size of ~80 kWh ( ~74 kWh usable). This suggests that a 350 km version would require a battery size of 47 kWh, at most. That’s a difference of 33 kWh in cells. This equates to the difference in battery size for the additional 250 km, that Fröhlich claims costs €10,000.

Image via Tesla

BWM is indeed in big trouble if it is paying €10,000 ( $11,380) for 33 kWh of cells. That’s $345/kWh at the cell level! According to BNEF, as of late 2018, the average market price of bulk contract automotive cells was $127/kWh. That would put the 350km to 600km battery premium at around just $4,191, or €3,680. Tesla’s cell cost is somewhere in the region of $100/kWh, putting the premium at just $3,300, or €2,900.

Is BMW really paying 3× too much for its cells? No. Fröhlich is instead grossly exaggerating the pricing (either deliberately or from ignorance) as part of his off-the-cuff negative spin about the inherent costliness of long-range BEVs. Why is Fröhlich talking such nonsense?

Perhaps what he really means to say is that BMW itself is simply incapable (or unwilling) to make decent-range BEVs that are attractive to consumers. This seems to be the case:

“There are no customer requests for BEVs. None. … There are regulator requests for BEVs, but no customer requests. … If we have a big offer, a big incentive, we could flood Europe and sell a million (BEV) cars, but Europeans won’t buy these things.”

Oh dear, oh dear, what nonsense. Fröhlich is taking B..

If GM/Cruise Is Way Behind Waymo, How Does It Compare To Tesla?

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Cars

Published on June 20th, 2019 |

by Michael Barnard

If GM/Cruise Is Way Behind Waymo, How Does It Compare To Tesla?

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 20th, 2019 by Michael Barnard

First part by Zach Shahan. Second part by Mike Barnard.

A report recently came out, via leaked documents, that supposedly put GM/Cruise way behind Waymo in autonomous driving.

“In particular, the report states that the forecast is that Cruise will, by the end of 2019, have a vehicle that performs at between 5% and 11% of the safety level of average human driving, when it comes to frequency of crashes. As such, Cruise will miss its 2019 goal of deploying a commercial service, though it might deploy one with safety drivers.”

Further, “more than 3 years prior, Google/Waymo was far surpassing what the leaks say about Cruise, and the difficulty of SF streets seems not nearly enough to account for that.

“Waymo stopped reporting this way, sadly. One can only presume record has gotten better in the last 3.5 years, and that it reached a particularly high level when management — and I presume this means the board of Alphabet itself — approved even limited operation without safety drivers in Arizona.”

We’ve seen reports, including one from Navigant Research, that basically put Waymo and GM tied at the top of this industry. It looks like any such evaluation is actually far off the mark. Interestingly, that Navigant Research report also puts Tesla near the bottom. I’ve previously discussed this on two-episode podcast with ARK Invest autonomy expert Tasha Keeney. What it comes down to, seemingly, is that Tesla has a very different approach from companies like Waymo and Cruise, and Navigant (and others) have their own particular measurement systems that don’t combine the vastly different approaches very well.

As discussed on that podcast, Mike Barnard once wrote an article for us (in 2015) explaining the vastly different approaches to self-driving between Tesla and Waymo. It still comes to mind frequently, so in light of the Cruise news, I thought I’d share it again.

Mike, take it over from here …

Tesla recently released its Autopilot mode for its cars. It has a fundamentally different intellectual approach to autonomy than Google’s, and it’s superior.

One of my backgrounds is robotics. I spent a year digging my way through PhD theses from robotics programs around the world as I worked on a startup idea for specific applications of swarm-based robots. We got as far as software architecture, simple simulations, 3D modelling of physical robots, and specific applications which had fiscal value. I have some depth here without pretending to be a roboticist, and I’ve continued to pay attention to the field from the outside.

So I feel comfortable in saying that, in general, there are two approaches for robots getting from Point A to Point B.

→ The first is the world map paradigm, in which the robot or a connected system has a complete and detailed map of the world and a route is planned along that in advance accounting for obstacles. Basically, the robot has to think its way past or over every obstacle, which makes for a lot of programming.

Yes, that’s a cat in a shark costume riding a Roomba. Screenshot from TexasGirly1979 video.

→ The second is the subsumption architecture paradigm, in which a robot is first made so that it can survive environments it will find itself in, then equipped with mechanisms to seek goals. The robot then, without any idea of the map of the world, navigates toward Point B. The robot is robust and can stumble its way through obstacles without any thinking at all. The original Roomba vacuum cleaner was a pure subsumption beast.

Obviously, both have strengths and limitations and obviously, at least to me, a combination is the best choice, but it’s worth assessing Tesla’s vs Google’s choices based on this.

Google is starting from the full world map paradigm. For one of its cars to work, it needs an up-to-date centimetre-scale, 3D model of the entirety of the route it will take. Google’s cars are ridiculously non-robust — by design — and when confronted with something unusual will stop completely. Basically, all intelligence has to be provided by people in the lab writing better software.

Why would Google start with this enormous requirement? Well, in my opinion without having spoken to any of the principals in the decision, it’s likely because it fits their biases and blindspots. Google builds massive data sets and solves problems based on that data with intelligent algorithms. They don’t build real-world objects. And the split I highlighted above in world map vs subsumption paradigms is a very real dividing line in academics and research around robotics. It was very easy for Google and world view robotics researchers to find one another and confirm each others’ biases. Others assert that Google is taking a risk-averse approach by leaping straight to Level Four autonomy, and while I’m sure that’s a component of the decision-making process, I suspect it’s a bit of a rationalization for their biases. It’s also being proved wrong by the lack of Tesla crashes to date, but it is early days.

To be clear, Google cars can do things Teslas currently can’t, at least in the controlled prototype conditions that they are testing. They can drive from Point A to Point B in towns and regions that Google has mapped to centimetre scale, which is basically areas south of San Francisco plus a few demo areas. You can’t get in a Tesla, give it an address, and sit back. These are clear performance advantages of the Google model over current Tesla capabilities, and while not trivial, are enabled by the world map model.

Tesla, on the other hand, is starting with the subsumption model. First, the car is immensely capable of surviving on roads: great acceleration, great deceleration, great lateral turning speed and precision, great collision survivability. Then it’s made more capable of surviving. All the car needs to drive on the freeway is knowledge of the lines and the cars around it. Then it adds cameras to give it a hint about appropriate speed. It has only a handful of survivability goals: don’t hit cars in front of you, don’t let other cars hit you, stay in your lane, change lanes when requested, and it’s safe. Because of its great maneuverability — survivability — it can have suboptimal software because it is more able to get out of the way of bad situations. And it has human backup.

And if that’s where Tesla was stopping, everyone who is pooh-poohing its autonomy would be basically correct. But Tesla isn’t stopping there.

Tesla is leveraging intelligent real-world research assistants to put focused, experienced instincts into its cars. They are called the drivers of the Teslas. Every action the Autopilot makes and every intervention a driver makes is uploaded to the Tesla Cloud, where it’s combined with all of the other decisions cars and drivers are making. And every driver passing along a piece of road is automatically granted the knowledge of what the cars and drivers before them have done. In real time.

So, for example, within a couple of days of downloading, Teslas were already automatically slowing for corners that they took at speed before. And not trying to take confusingly marked offramps. And not exceeding the speed limits in places where the signs are obscured.

Within a couple of days of being available, the first people “cannonballed” across the USA in under 59 hours with 96% or so of the driving done by the car. Given Google’s requirements, they would have had to send at least two cars out, one or more with a hyper-accurate mapping functionality, then a day or a week later, when the data was integrated, the actual autonomous car. And there would have been no chance of side trips or detours for the Google car. It literally couldn’t drive on a route that wasn’t pre-mapped at centimetre scale. But the Tesla drivers could just go for it.

People are driving Teslas on back roads and city streets with Autopilot, definitely not the optimum location-only situations that others claim Tesla is limited to. And Teslas haven’t hit anything; in fact, have been recorded as avoiding accidents that the driver was unaware of. Survivability remains very high.

Tesla cars are driving themselves autonomously in a whole bunch of places where Google cars can’t and won’t be able to for years or possibly decades. That’s because Teslas don’t depend on perfect centimetre scale maps that are up-to-date in order to do anything. Subsumption wins over world maps in an enormous number of real-world situations.

Finally, Teslas have a world map. It’s called Google Maps. And Tesla is doing more accurate mapping with its sensors for more accurate driving maps. But Teslas don’t require centimetre-scale accuracy in their world map to get around. They are just fine with much coarser-grained maps which are much easier to build, store, manipulate, and layer with intelligence as needed. These simpler maps combined with subsumption will enable Teslas to drive from Point A to Point B easily. They can already drive to the parkade and return by the themselves in controlled environments; the rest is just liability and regulations.

The rapid leaps in capability of the Autopilot in just a few days after release should be giving Google serious pause. By the time its software geniuses get the Google car ready for prime time on a large subset of roads, Teslas will be able to literally drive circles around them.

About the Author

Michael Barnard is Chief Strategist with TFIE Strategy Inc. He works with startups, existing businesses and investors to identify opportunities for significant bottom line growth and cost takeout in our rapidly transforming world. He is editor of The Future is Electric, a Medium publication. He regularly publishes an..

JAC Electric-Only Ride-Hailing Service — #CleanTechnica Exclusive

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Autonomous Vehicles

Published on June 26th, 2019 |

by Tim Dixon

JAC Electric-Only Ride-Hailing Service — #CleanTechnica Exclusive

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 26th, 2019 by Tim Dixon

Chinese automaker JAC Motors (江淮汽车) launched an electric-only ride-hailing service called Hexing (Hexing on-line Hailing) (和行约车/Hexing Yueche) on the 9th of January in Hefei, Anhui, China. I have been monitoring this service since launch. Today, I will explain the service, its future expansion plan, and my experience in the vehicles.

I wrote about it originally in the January 2019 edition of our China X Cleantech newsletter. The story was based on an EV Partner article announcing the service.

The Service
Similar to other ride-hailing services, you easily download the app by scanning a QR code prominently displayed on any of the vehicles, and whenever you need a ride, you enter your destination and request pickup. The app is minimalist and functional, but the best thing is that all 2,000 cars in Hefei are all-electric vehicles.

The drivers don’t own the cars. They are more like employees of the service. The service owns the car but the drivers are allowed to use it for work — the reason given is so that the drivers and cars go through a thorough background check and technical checks before passengers go in them. This is a big issue in China due to a number of cases of assaults and murders in ride-hailing vehicles in China.

Hexing has three cars available:

JAC iEV A50 (long-range sedan)

JAC iEV 7S (long-range SUV)

SOL E20X (Volkswagen–JAC joint venture long-range SUV)

The service is presently limited to Hefei, but the plan is to expand rapidly.

The Plan
In Chinese press releases, JAC/Hexing mentioned that the plan is to expand to 10 cities across Anhui and have 10,000 cars on the road by the end of 2019. In 3 years, they plan to expand to every major city in China with a combined fleet of 50,000 electric cars. At the moment they have a fleet of 2,000 cars in one city.

Automakers, Post Ownership, & Autonomous Vehicles
I think it is no surprise that JAC is creating a ride-hailing service. Numerous reports and articles are coming out about consumer trends shifting towards ride hailing and autonomous cars getting closer to reality, so it is wise to get ahead and create an in-house service that will use JAC’s car production.

JAC is already investing in partnerships to create self-driving JAC vehicles, such as a partnership with Baidu (“the Google of China”), which is well known for investing heavily into self-driving technology and has recently claimed that its technology can achieve level 4 autonomy.

Other international companies and Chinese companies are planning the same, such as Tesla, BMW, Xpeng Motors, and many others which I plan to test in the future. Why are these companies doing this? Because the combination of electrification and autonomous vehicles will dramatically impact demand and use of vehicles, just as the smartphone impacted the dedicated digital camera market.

My Experience
My family decided to travel to see my wife’s family during the Dragon boat festival and to finally try out the app for that trip. The JAC iEV A50 pulled up and quickly loaded up us and our luggage. The app was quick, but finding drivers was slow due to the holiday — other days it took only a minute.

The A50 was comfy, quiet, and quick. The driver acted professionally and drove perfectly. I decided to ask some questions about what the driver knew and his own experience. I asked how he got the job and he said he applied on the website and had to pass a number of tests and get a certificate to drive for the service. I inquired if he owned the car. He said Hexing owned the car. I asked how he charged and he said he uses the public charging but that it is free due to Hexing providing a card and them partnering with State Grid. I wanted to understand the driver’s side well, so I asked about how he likes the car. He said it was comfortable and made his new (internal combustion engine) personal car felt very uncomfortable by comparison. (No surprise to any EV driver.) I asked about the acceleration and he confirmed he liked it. On working and compensation, I found out he has to drive a certain number of clients per day to get his wage, but after that number, he can either stop or earn extra fares. We also talked about cars and the fleet and he confirmed what I had already found out.

All in all, it was a very pleasant and informative experience. I’ve used the service 6 times now, and the drivers are very professional and courteous.

The Volkswagen Link
This Hexing service is linked to Volkswagen. The two companies previously signed an agreement with the Hefei city government to start a ride-hailing service and short-term rentals of electric vehicles in Hefei. The SOL brand is the JAC–Volkswagen joint venture and Hexing uses the SOL E20X.

The Name
The name of the app/company — 和行约车 Hé xíng yuē chē — like many companies names does not mean anything in particular. It could be understood as many things, including “a peaceful trip” or “with the car.” I used Hexing as shorthand, but that is westernization of the Pinyin.

Conclusion
My wife and I found the service good, better than the local taxi services and Didi Chuxing, and while it is the early days, I think this service is a good example of one of many shifts that automakers are making to get ready for the future of consumer transit — be it ride-hailing, autonomy, carsharing, connected vehicles, or vehicle as a service or advertisement medium. Additionally, Hexing is a good start for JAC to get its electric cars more widely known throughout China, which might also benefit its electric car sales.

All photos by Timothy Dixon (CC BY-SA license)

About the Author

Tim Dixon When not researching the Chinese electric car market, I am teaching in China. My interest in sustainable development started in University and it led me to work with Tesla Europe in the Supercharger team. I'm interested in science fiction, D&D, and travel. You can follow me on Twitter @TimDixon3.

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks

Tesla Falls To 3rd Behind Sunrun & Vivint Solar In US Home Solar

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Clean Power

Published on June 20th, 2019 |

by Joshua S Hill

Tesla Falls To 3rd Behind Sunrun & Vivint Solar In US Home Solar

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 20th, 2019 by Joshua S Hill

Cleantech darling Tesla has fallen to third place in the Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables ranking of US residential solar installers, with Sunrun securing its spot atop the pile and Vivint Solar reclaiming the number two spot for the first time in nearly two years.

Image Credit: Sunrun

Wood Mackenzie published its latest US PV Leaderboard this week, and for the first time since the company started tracking US residential solar installers back in the first quarter of 2018, Tesla has fallen to third place.

Sunrun, which overtook Tesla as the United States’ leading residential solar installer in the second quarter of 2018*, remains atop the pile, installing 11% of all home solar capacity installed through the first quarter of 2019 — its highest share ever. (*Though, note that Sunrun announced in its 4th quarter and full year 2017 financial earnings that it had surpassed Tesla, earlier than Wood Mackenzie figured things out.)

Vivint Solar similarly increased its market share, taking a 7.6% share of the US residential solar pie in the first quarter, while Tesla (a header which includes Tesla’s long-term solar business and that of SolarCity, which the company acquired in November of 2016) saw its share of the US market fall to 6.3%. Together, the three companies accounted for a quarter of the 603 megawatts (MW) installed in the first quarter, a long cry away from the days when Tesla (then SolarCity) could account for more than a third of the entire US residential market on its own.

Leading US Residential Solar Installers

Chart courtesy Wood Mackenzie

“Tesla has essentially thrown in the towel on pursuing growth in the residential solar space because it has concluded that acquiring customers is simply too expensive,” wrote Wood Mackenzie Senior Solar Analyst Austin Perea in a report on Tesla’s store closures published earlier this year. “Rather, Tesla will rely on its brand power and low-cost referral methods to keep the solar business afloat until it stabilizes.”

“For Tesla, the installation bleeding lasted into 2018 when its national residential installation volume fell another 41% annually despite other national installers experiencing growth,” Perea continued. “Vivint and Sunrun’s direct businesses grew 7% and 37%, respectively. But even as other installers grew in 2018, Tesla’s standing continued to have a substantial impact on the national residential solar market.”

Image Credit: Tesla/SolarCity

Looking out at 2019, Wood Mackenzie predicts growth for the US residential solar market of only 3%, with Tesla serving as the major factor depressing numbers. “The growth outlook for 2019 — like 2017 and 2018 — continues to be hampered by Tesla’s decisions to cut back on its customer acquisitions channels,” explained Austin Perea, speaking this week. “They have effectively cut out every single form of active customer acquisition.

“We actually expect them to continue to see year-over-year declines relative to 2018 through 2019.”

Tesla has made several shifts in sales strategy over the past year which have relegated its residential solar program to the back burner, including ending its sales partnership with American home improvement supplies retailer Home Depot and moving to close down many of its own branded stores which sold solar alongside the company’s batteries and vehicles.

In a way, Tesla is simply carrying on its efforts to do business differently to the rest of the market. As the company expressed in its first-quarter letter to shareholders (PDF), “For residential solar and energy storage, traditional industry-wide sales techniques require customized systems, installations and purchasing processes. This results in a cumbersome buying experience and limits market potential.

“As we have done for the vehicle business, the key to accelerating mass adoption is to standardize the product offering, simplify the customer buying experience, and focus on the markets with the strongest economics. This results in cost efficiencies.”

Tesla is obviously looking to avoid customer acquisition costs — costs which make up the largest portion of solar installation costs, accounting for 21% of total costs in 2018 — and the company has begun to see its customer acquisition costs dropping, though that is only because they are no longer putting any money towards it in the first place. Conversely, companies like Sunrun and Vivint Solar are suffering customer acquisition costs of $0.90 per watt and $0.94 per watt, respectively.

“With current saturation levels, customer acquisition costs are not going to come down,” explained Perea. “Tesla understands where the cost stack is right now and they’re able to rely on other business units. … They’re diversified in a way that other models aren’t.”

In the end, only history will be able to decide whether Tesla or its competitors like Sunrun and Vivint Solar made the right business decisions for themselves, and for the residential solar market in the United States. As it stands, however, Tesla will only continue to see its market share decline unless it does something dramatic to reverse this unravelling trend.

About the Author

Joshua S Hill I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket!

I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at about.me for more.

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks

Tesla At Least 4–5 Years Ahead Of Competition — According To German Auto Industry Expert

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Cars

Published on June 19th, 2019 |

by Dr. Maximilian Holland

Tesla At Least 4–5 Years Ahead Of Competition — According To German Auto Industry Expert

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 19th, 2019 by Dr. Maximilian Holland

In a recent review of the Tesla Model 3 by German newspaper Die Welt, auto industry expert Prof. Ferdinand Dudenhöffer is quoted as saying that Tesla has a huge lead over the competition. “The technical lead is easily four to five years. Range and driving pleasure are unmatched.”

Dudenhöffer’s comments are quoted as part of a review of the Model 3 Performance by Die Welt’s experienced auto journalist, and former EV skeptic, Nando Sommerfeldt. The veteran reviewer’s previous doubts about EVs were completely blown away by his experience in the Tesla. The review article is titled “This Tesla destroys all my prejudices against the electric car” (translated).

Combatting the myth that an EV powertrain cannot match the driving experience of traditional vehicles, Sommerfeldt has an unambiguous response:

“Nonsense. The Model 3 drives terrific. … The Model 3 feels like a sports car, like an extremely fast sports car.” (Translated from German Original)

[Editor’s note: It’s not only EV skeptics who have been surprised by the Model 3. My first review of the Model 3 was titled, “Sorry, Elon — Tesla Model 3 Much Better Than I Expected.” My review of the Model 3 Performance was titled, “Tesla Model 3 Performance Is A Freakin’ Race Car — Unbeatable.” But to get the same response from old-school, skeptical auto reviews is exciting.]

The Tesla Supercharger network made a very positive impression on the former EV skeptic. After taking a road trip with his family on board, he shared his experience of Tesla Supercharging:

“After my family and I bought ice cream and coffee instead of fuel at the petrol station shop, almost 30 minutes passed. 30 minutes in which the Model 3 actually gained 300 kilometers [186 miles] of range. … The Tesla stations are widespread, well distributed and fast loading. That is the secret. I drove 2000 kilometers by car. The Superchargers have taken away my range anxiety.” (Translated from German Original)

Professor Dudenhöffer is quoted as agreeing with Sommerfeldt that the Supercharger network is a large part of what sets the Tesla ownership experience apart:

“Right from the beginning, the company had a clear plan of where its customers’ traffic flows. … The Tesla owner can also refuel at all the other chargers in this country. But first of all, it would probably be too slow for him. And second, he does not need them.” (Translated from German Original)

With the new Supercharger V3 technology now beginning to roll out to key highway locations, that 300 km (186 miles) regained in 30 minutes that Sommerfeldt experienced on a V2 Supercharger will soon improve even further — to around 20 minutes. We saw last week that the Tesla Model 3 can already regain around 180 miles (289 km) in 20 minutes on 3rd party high power CCS chargers. This is over 61% more range in that time, compared to the closest competition, the Audi e-tron. And the high-power CCS network (150 kW and above) is still nowhere near as developed as the Supercharger network.

Will Tesla’s 4 to 5 year lead remain over the longer term? If ability to attract talent counts for anything, the lead may widen even further. We recently saw that Tesla is one of the most attractive employers for engineering graduates, as well as students of most other disciplines, with other automakers hardly even on the radar.

Do you agree with Sommerfeldt and Dudenhöffer? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

About the Author

Dr. Maximilian Holland Max is an anthropologist, social theorist and international political economist, trying to ask questions and encourage critical thinking about social and environmental justice, sustainability and the human condition. He has lived and worked in Europe and Asia, and is currently based in Barcelona.

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks

Automotive Design: Tesla & Other Carmakers Plan For “ACES” In The Future

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Autonomous Vehicles

Published on June 18th, 2019 |

by Guest Contributor

Automotive Design: Tesla & Other Carmakers Plan For “ACES” In The Future

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 18th, 2019 by Guest Contributor

Originally posted on EVANNEX.
By Charles Morris

The automobile has always been a very dynamic product. Since cars came into widespread use in the early 20the century, almost everything about them has been constantly (albeit slowly) changing. Over the decades, vehicles have become more reliable, more powerful, and more efficient; and a continuous stream of new features has made them more comfortable (AC, adjustable seats), more convenient (keyless entry, cruise control, GPS), and safer (from seat belts to airbags to collision-avoidance systems).

Image credit: JRR

Meanwhile, the appearance of our cars has gone through many phases, driven less by technical requirements than by shifting fashions. Most of us can guess which decade a movie was set in by looking at the cars, from the big boxy tourers of the 1920s to the rounded contours of the 1940s to the tail fins of the 1950s to the sleek sedans of the 1980s to today’s SUVs (which arguably are beginning to look a lot like those boxy tourers).

Much more change is coming, and it’s going to unfold much more quickly than ever before, thanks to a quartet of technological trends that some are now referring to as ACES (autonomous, connected, electric, shared). Tesla has been at the forefront of the first three of these developments, and intends to be a major player in the fourth as well.

In a recent article in The Conversation, entitled “Cars will change more in the next decade than they have in the past century,” Dan Lewis, Claude C. Chibelushi and Debi Roberts take a look at some of the innovations that are coming down the road.

Some changes will be cosmetic. The air intakes and grills that have long defined some brands’ signature looks will disappear, as electric powertrains don’t need them (Teslas never had them). Side rearview mirrors (wing mirrors across the pond) are also slated for extinction, thanks to improved camera technology and the need for better aerodynamics. (Tesla wanted to eliminate side mirrors on the Model X, but regulators wouldn’t allow it. Some European versions of the new Audi e-tron are spiegellos.)

Other changes will be much more fundamental — the advent of autonomy and new ownership models will gradually change the basic concept of what an automobile is. The article in The Conversation predicts that, once humans don’t need to drive, windows could be adjustable in size — larger for better views (a la Tesla’s glass roofs), non-existent for naps. Cars could even have flexible layouts, able to be configured as a mobile office, a bedroom, or a cargo carrier. Volvo’s 360c concept car presents one vision of this future.

The way we control our cars is evolving quickly, and the end result could be that they become like extensions of our human bodies. Augmented-reality systems will provide more and more information about a vehicle’s surroundings, and voice commands could someday develop into direct brain-to-computer interfaces, allowing occupants to control vehicles with pure thought. Cars will also communicate with various smart city features, from traffic signals to charging facilities to multimodal public transport.

Volvo’s 360c concept car could tease a few features we might see in future cars. (YouTube: The Tech Chap)

Alongside the technological trends of ACES, business and political shifts are changing the makeup of the auto industry. Tomorrow’s configurable, self-driving electric cars may very well be designed in China or Germany, not Michigan (that is, unless the legacy US automakers start raising their games very soon). The Conversation speculates that tomorrow’s drivers (riders?) might not be riding in a Ford, a Chevy, or a Beemer; but in a Tesla, a Dyson, an Apple iCar, or a Google.

About the Author

Guest Contributor is many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts in a large variety of fields. This is our contributor account for those special people. 😀

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks

Tesla On Track To Nail Its 2014 Forecast For 2020 Production & Sales

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Cars

Published on June 16th, 2019 |

by Zachary Shahan

Tesla On Track To Nail Its 2014 Forecast For 2020 Production & Sales

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 16th, 2019 by Zachary Shahan

Preface: I first published this article in March 2018. A recent tweet highlighting a 2014 interview with Elon Musk reminded me of it, and since the piece is as relevant today as ever, I’m reposting it below with only minor changes. Enjoy!

I think it was April 2013 when we first got word that Tesla Model 3 production would probably start in 2017. Well, we didn’t have a name for the car yet, so we called it “Tesla’s fourth production model.” Tesla CEO Elon Musk was apparently hoping for a 2016 release, but quietly knew and told himself 2017 was more likely. His exact response to some questioning from Engadget on the matter: “Hopefully 2016, but I would say no later than 2017.”

In August 2013, we found out the name was probably going to be Tesla Model E. Tesla tried to trademark that name to have some fun with the spelling of its eventual vehicle lineup (S-E-X-Y). However, Ford apparently had the trademark “Model E” and didn’t want to give it to Tesla, so Tesla later changed the name to Tesla Model ☰ (aka Tesla Model 3).

What’s interesting to me here is that the statement the car would be in production by 2017 was accurate even though that was long before the car was even named Model 3.

Furthermore, for all the hype of the Model 3 being delayed, look, production actually began on the Model 3 within the timeframe Elon estimated way back in 2013.

I think the 2017 estimate was mentioned by Elon again in the following year, but I’m not finding any reference to that in our archives.

In late November 2014, I polled our readers about the 2017 production target for the Tesla Model 3. The target at that time didn’t include any forecast for the number of cars produced — just that production on the Model 3 would start by the end of 2017. The majority (62.5%) of our Tesla enthusiast/fanboy readership responded that they didn’t think the Model 3 would arrive in 2017. (Note, in case you missed it: the Model 3 did arrive in 2017.)

By the way, in October or early November 2014, Jerome Guillen (then Tesla’s “Chief Designer,” then head of the Tesla Semi project, and now Tesla President of Automotive) stated that Tesla was aiming to produce 500,000 cars/year by 2020. Presumably, if people thought the Model 3 wouldn’t arrive on time, they also thought the 500,000 cars/year by 2020 goal was unrealistic, but we didn’t poll that. Tesla later moved up the 500,000 by 2020 goal to a goal of 500,000/year by 2018 (in response to massive consumer demand for the Model 3). Even though this stretch goal wasn’t achieved, the 500,000 cars/year by 2020 goal still seems like a good possibility.

As a side note: We heard rumor in June 2015 that the Model 3 would actually have a range of 250 miles per charge, not simply the promised 200 miles. That was a big rumor, and we weren’t sure whether to get excited or be skeptical. As it turns out, the base Model 3’s EPA-rated range is 220 miles, the most popular trim, model 3 Standard Range Plus, has a range of 240 miles, and the Model 3 Long Range has 310 miles of range.

In August 2015, these were some of my notes from a Tesla quarterly shareholder report:

The Model 3 design will be revealed in the first quarter of 2016. (Woohoo!)
First deliveries are still expected in late 2017.
Basically, the 3 is still on schedule, but there’s not much more to say at this point.
Tesla thinks it is still on track for 500,000 cars a year by 2020, and that it might even go beyond that. 500,000 is based on Fremont factory production capacity, but Tesla may localize production in some places in 3–5 years. (Update: We now have the Chinese Tesla Gigafactory rapidly moving toward completion.)

Again — first deliveries did occur in 2017. Actually, first deliveries came in the middle of 2017, not the end of 2017. However, it’s true that first deliveries to non-staff customers came in late 2017.

Now, I would also note here that Elon never claimed mass production would begin right off the bat. Anyone familiar with ramping up production of a new vehicle would know that’s not how it would happen. Taking that into account, start of production in the middle of 2017 and slowly ramping that up (with hiccups) through the end of 2017 and beginning of 2018 was actually ahead of the schedule we presumed back in 2015.

And, again, if you look at our 2014 poll, even bullish Tesla fans largely didn’t expect Tesla to get the Model 3 into production in 2017. (Context, Sherlock, context.)

I’ve got another “by the way” note for you. In late 2015, Elon stated: “And with the (Tesla) Model 3 and various iterations on that platform, I’m really confident that we can do, you know, another 300,000 or 400,000 cars per year.” That implies that Elon thought annual demand and production of the Model 3 and Model Y (at least) would total 300,000–400,000 units per year (combined).

Mr. Musk’s 2016 view on that topic was that he expected demand for the Model 3 and Model Y to be approximately 500,000–1,000,000 units a year each — which implies 1–2 million units a year combined. I haven’t seem him change course on that general expectation.

In other words, Elon’s 2015 timeline for the Model 3 turned out to be essentially accurate but he was drastically underestimating demand compared to today’s expectations. (Sound familiar?)

When did the mid-2017 start of production target first come into play? On May 4, 2016, Elon hesitantly shared the accelerated target. You could tell before he said it that he didn’t really want to share the dates, but my guess is he figured the word would get out anyway (or he was just trying too hard to explain how the tofu is made). He unveiled that the official Tesla target for start of production was July 1, 2017, but he emphasized that the target was for suppliers just to try to get them to deliver in a reasonable time frame. The realistic target for actual beginning of production remained late in 2017.

As it turned out, in the beginning of 2017, everything seemed to actually be on schedule for start of production in July 2017. It was shocking. Most people didn’t believe it. Hardcore critics still claimed Model 3 production wouldn’t start until 2019 or 2020 or something like that.

No, volume production didn’t start in the summer or ’17, but production of the Model 3 did indeed start. By that time, of course, many a skeptic, “very serious analysts,” and naysayers dropped their claims of Tesla being unable to produce the Model 3. They stopped stating with 100% certainty that it would be years before the Model 3 went into production, if it ever did. They dropped their claims that there was no way Tesla would hit its targeted “end of 2017” start of production. Nope, the goal posts had moved.

And in the second half of 2017, it finally happened. Tesla finally fell behind on some of its stated production targets for the Model 3. Bottlenecks with battery production in particular — which Elon Musk admitted was ironic and presumably due to misplaced complacency — slowed down Tesla’s Model 3 production ramp. Perhaps other bottlenecks are at play as well, but we haven’t really heard of anything else. Anyhow, with even one critical machine down and one piece of the car coming out slower than planned, Tesla missed a few Model 3 production forecasts. It’s not fun. It’s yet another sign that Tesla and Elon do not defy the laws of this universe and are indeed fallible. But it’s also a bit extreme, short-sighted, and disingenuous to act like Tesla is always late, only late, and needs to find a working watch.

In fact, the bottlenecks in the second half of 2017 didn’t stop Tesla from reaching Model 3 production in 2017, as it had targeted back in 2013 or even earlier. The bottlenecks slowed down the production increases Tesla was aiming to achieve, but they’ve more or less left Tesla where it was expecting to be when it was forecasting the story back in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.

Elon gets slammed quite frequently for being overly optimistic with timelines. If you look at what he said back in 2013 about Model 3 production beginning no later than 2017, the man was accurate. His estimate was on the mark. His timeline (not quite his hopes, but his committed timeline) was right on the mark.

Who trusted his timeline? Who expected he would actually get the Model 3 into production in 2017? Not many people. And certainly not the people who said Tesla would crash in burn in 2013, in 2014, in 2015, in 2016, and yet again in 2017.

When considering who is more accurate with timelines, perhaps it’s time to give Elon a little more props and a little less sass.

As a final note, remember, many critics also repeatedly said the Tesla Model X couldn’t be mass produced. Some “very serious industry analysts” claimed it was fundamentally impossible. But that’s a story for another day.

About the Author

Back t..

Bob Lutz: Improved Tesla Panel Gaps Are Now “World Class”

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Cars

Published on June 16th, 2019 |

by Dr. Maximilian Holland

Bob Lutz: Improved Tesla Panel Gaps Are Now “World Class”

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 16th, 2019 by Dr. Maximilian Holland

Renowned Tesla bear Bob Lutz has recently sung praises of the build quality of Tesla’s vehicles, saying of a Model 3 that he inspected, “not only was the paint without any discernible flaw, but the various panels formed a body of precision that was beyond reproach.”

This is a significant high note from Lutz, who has been singing of Tesla’s imminent downfall for years. Now a retired veteran of the auto industry, Lutz’s views on the world’s largest EV producer have been mixed, at best.

Recall that, back in the July 2006, Tesla revealed the world’s first compelling long-range EV, the Roadster. Then, in August 2006, Elon Musk “leaked” the secret Tesla Motors master plan, announcing their intended product roadmap of increasingly affordable EVs.

Lutz later famously credited Tesla’s Roadster and early EV plans (along with the early success of the Prius) as inspiring GM to work on the Chevrolet Volt (watch Chris Payne’s Revenge of the Electric Car for more early history). Lutz has also said of Tesla, and its pioneering work in EVs, that he will “always owe them a debt of gratitude for having kind of broken the ice.” Lutz evidently recognizes the role Tesla played early on, in creating the EV renaissance and inspiring others to work on their own EVs.

Lutz has frequently praised Tesla’s vehicles themselves, saying of the Tesla Model S: “A Model S, especially with the performance upgrades, is one of the fastest, best handling, best braking sedans that you could buy in the world today. … The acceleration times will beat any $350,000 European exotic.”

However, Lutz has often expressed doubts about Tesla’s business model and lack of focus on profitability. There are many examples of Lutz’s Tesla bashing, but this one gives the general flavour: “Tesla’s business model is upside down. … Their costs have always been higher than their revenue. … They always have to get more capital, then they burn through it.” We have several times covered the shade that Lutz has thrown Tesla’s way over recent years — if you want more examples, our full archives are here. Charles Morris also has an excellent article charting many of Lutz’s various statements on Tesla and Elon Musk, if you want a deep dive.

My own take on Lutz’s misunderstanding of Tesla’s investment-for-growth-before-profit strategy is fairly simple. Lutz himself was always a career man working for existing, well-established automakers which were well beyond their early growth phase, and likely never understood the culture of an innovative startup looking to disrupt the status quo. He probably didn’t grasp Tesla’s deliberate focus on continuous investment in (extraordinarily) high growth, not quarterly profits per se. This is conscious business strategy on Tesla’s part, and one that Elon Musk re-iterated in the recent 2019 Tesla Annual Shareholder Meeting.

In fairness to Lutz, given his own career, he could scarcely hope to understand this. Since retiring from his fairly conventional management roles, Lutz has only been involved with two small startup auto businesses (VIA Motors and VLF Automotive). It seems neither got beyond showing rough concepts and have now both seemingly either failed or gone into suspended animation. In short, Lutz has never been involved with a successful startup. He is not an entrepreneur.

Bob Lutz. Image credit: Ed Schipul/ [CC BY-SA 2.0] via Wikimedia Commons

The wind has now changed once more and we find Lutz singing the praises of Tesla’s vehicles again. In a recent Road and Track article, Lutz writes, “When I spied a metallic-red Model 3 in an Ann Arbor parking lot, I felt compelled to check it out.” Lutz was expecting to see evidence of the Tesla Model 3’s “production hell” writ large, in uneven panel gaps and imperfections in the paint work.

To his great surprise, Lutz found something completely different:

“But, when next to the car, I was stunned. Not only was the paint without any discernible flaw, but the various panels formed a body of precision that was beyond reproach. Gaps from hood to fenders, doors to frame, and all the others appeared to be perfectly even, equal side-to-side, and completely parallel. Gaps of 3.5 to 4.5mm are considered word-class. This Model 3 measured up.”

In case anyone is concerned that Lutz may have been abducted and replaced with an avatar, don’t sweat it:

“So, while I continue to be critical of Tesla’s business model and Musk’s strategy, it was impossible to find fault with the visual quality of that Model 3.”

Thanks Bob, good to know some things never change. 😉

Editor’s note: As much as I’ve enjoyed laughing at Bob Lutz’s comments about Tesla over the years, I think he deserves huge props for having a fairly open mind and so publicly praising Tesla after putting so much pessimism out there about the company’s ability to succeed or to even produce some of its vehicles (Model S, Model X, Model 3). Thank + kudos to Bob for not being a tribal Tesla troll.

About the Author

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks

Breaking! Tesla Now Offers Used Model 3’s — Should You Buy One?

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

Cars

Published on June 15th, 2019 |

by Paul Fosse

Breaking! Tesla Now Offers Used Model 3’s — Should You Buy One?

Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook

June 15th, 2019 by Paul Fosse

Image from Tesla

TL;DR: It depends.

If you ever take a management class in college, that is the answer to every essay question on the test. The instructor expects you to justify the reasons for the different cases. Maybe that is where I learned to be able to argue any side of any issue. Or maybe it was my involvement in politics. Regardless, the used Model 3’s are either a great deal or a horrible one and I will present both cases and they are both potentially true. I depends on your situation.

First, though, I’d like to give my Twitter friend, Steve Jobs (@tesla_truth), credit for letting me know these cars are now available.

I wasn’t able to find used Model 3’s anywhere but in San Francisco, but over time, they should show up around the country. If you really want one, you can have it shipped to you for $2,000 if you are outside of California, but I wouldn’t recommend it. You wouldn’t be able to inspect the car and it just makes the deal more complicated and expensive.

Example Used Vehicle

This early Model 3 has the classic Long Range Rear Wheel Drive that all the first cars came with, and also has the optional 19″ sport wheels and red paint.

Comparable New 3

You can’t order the same car new online today. You can just order the Long Range with All Wheel Drive and Autopilot. Don’t worry, I’ll adjust for that and discuss later.

Comparison

So, first, the case for the used Model 3.

If this is your dream configuration, it allows you to get the car you want for more than $10,000 less than a new Model 3 — that could be a couple hundred bucks a month and the difference between the car being affordable or being out of reach!

Clearly, you have to like the configuration, because if you start changing the wheels or color, you are going to just be spending extra money that you won’t get back. If you can’t find a configuration you love, it is better to buy new. So, if you love the red, long-range, rear-wheel-drive Model 3 with sport wheels, this might be a good deal for you. It would be a good choice for people who have the money to buy the car, but don’t have enough taxable to take the tax credit on the new car. [Editor’s note: This car is now actually gone, with all used Model 3 options now blue.]

For people who love driving the Model 3 (and it is EXTREMELY fun to drive) and don’t care about Autopilot (which I also love for longer trips), why pay for it? The warranty Tesla is offering on used cars is very good and overlaps with the new warranty. This means, in our example, if you bought the car on June 17, 2019, it would cover bumper to bumper till June 16, 2023 or until 78,201 miles on the odometer, whichever comes first. The battery and drive warranty is only 5 years and 92,000 miles from today, but frankly, there have been no reported problems with either of those (and you can bet any problems would be highly publicized by those who want Tesla to fail), so I’m not too worried about them. If you are keeping the car for a while, you don’t care too much about the miles on the car, since over time the condition of the car matters more than the miles.

Now, how about the case against the used car?

The first downside is that only people in California can consider this and really save any money. Another is that you may not like the configuration — you would rather spend your money on Autopilot instead of the red paint and sport wheels, for example.

Most people can use the tax credit and enjoy having the car from day one. There is a special bond many people feel when they buy a car new, to some degree or another (my wife feels this bond quite strongly, I don’t feel it as strongly).

If you are going to resell the car in a few years (possibly to buy a Model Y), I think getting the new one might be better since you will have fewer miles on it and it will be a one-owner trade-in, which may be better. I played around with Kelley Blue Book’s What’s My Car Worth site, and it appears that 15 cents a mile is a pretty good assumption for how much you will be docked for extra miles, but I didn’t adjust for it being one model year older — it seems that would be worth about $3,000 if you trade it in soon (if you keep the car 10 years, nobody cares if it is a 2018 or 2019).

For many, they would prefer to give up a little range and a few other minor features and go with the Standard Range or the Standard Range Plus rather than going used if they have trouble affording the Long Range car.

Conclusion
As I said, I tried to present a compelling case for buying the used vehicle and also a compelling case for why the new vehicle could be a much better deal. I think it is a great option for those who are looking for that specific vehicle and plan to keep it long enough that the miles and model year don’t matter. Which situation resonates with you? Let me know in the comments if you thought I was fair in my comparison.

If you want to take advantage of my Tesla referral link to get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging on a Tesla Model S, Model X, or Model 3, here’s the link: https://ts.la/paul92237 (but if someone else helped you more, please use their code instead of mine).

About the Author

Paul Fosse A Software engineer for over 30 years, first developing EDI software, then developing data warehouse systems. Along the way, I've also had the chance to help start a software consulting firm and do portfolio management. In 2010, I took an interest in electric cars because gas was getting expensive. In 2015, I started reading CleanTechnica and took an interest in solar, mainly because it was a threat to my oil and gas investments. Follow me on Twitter @atj721 Tesla investor. Tesla referral code: https://ts.la/paul92237

Intern OpportunitiesWe Need You! Internship Program Openings
Advertisement

Advertise with CleanTechnica to get your company in front of millions of monthly readers.

CleanTechnica Clothing & Cups

Top News On CleanTechnica

Join CleanTechnica Today!

Follow CleanTechnica Follow @cleantechnica

Our Electric Car Driver Report

Read & share our new report on “electric car drivers, what they desire, and what the demand.”

The EV Safety Advantage

Read & share our free report on EV safety, “The EV Safety Advantage.”
EV Charging Guidelines for Cities

Share our free report on EV charging guidelines for cities, “Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure: Guidelines For Cities.”

30 Electric Car Benefits

Our Electric Vehicle Reviews

Tesla News

Cleantech Press Releases

Hannon Armstrong & Summit Ridge To Jointly Invest In Community Solar; Initial Projects Launching in Maryland

“That Was Quick” Category: Carbon Engineering Partners With Occidental To Pump More Oil

Texas Cooperatives Agree to Purchase 7 MW of Distribution-Scale Solar Energy

38 Anti-Cleantech Myths

Wind & Solar Prices Beat Fossils

Cost of Solar Panels Collapses

Invest
Electric Cars
Electric Car Benefits
Electric Car Sales
Solar Energy Rocks
RSS
Advertise
Privacy Policy

This site uses cookies: Find out more.Okay, thanks