Tesla -- and Elon Musk -- have accomplished a lot with a combination of ingenuity and timing, but their future (and the future of viable electric cars) relies entirely on a single technological advance that's almost completely outside their control: the physics of storage batteries.
In terms of value returned for investment, present storage batteries are almost the single worst modern technology. The storage battery on the Tesla Roadster weighs 990 pounds, stores 56 kWh (about 202 MJ) and discharges in 244 miles (393 km) in normal conditions (vehicle speed and environmental temperature). This is a stellar example of applied science and engineering (it's much better performance than that of similar batteries) but it still represents a big obstacle to wide adoption of electric vehicle technology.
As a seasoned former NASA engineer who struggled with these same issues on spacecraft for years, I offer this advice: young people who are trying to decide what do with their lives should seriously consider a career in battery science and engineering. There is room for huge improvement -- huge.
Very accurate assessment, but although battery technology has proved to be a hard nut to crack I think it might happen within the next few years.
There are sectors of the economy that dearly need electrical storage and are willing to pay for it, primarily electric vehicles and renewable energy. Over the last few years it has become obvious that this is a huge market, and that there are enormous amounts of money involved for whoever improves the technology. This, hopefully, means that it will be the focus of research, grants, startups, and business.
There are sectors of the economy that dearly need
electrical storage and are willing to pay for it,
primarily electric vehicles and renewable energy.
This has been true for 200 years. Electrical vehicles were commercially available in the 1850s, but eventually lost out to gasoline vehicles because of... power storage.
If you have actual evidence to support your argument, provide it, but "we need one" certainly isn't it. We've always needed better batteries.
Given your experience in the area, what battery technology are you most optimistic about? Yi Cui's nanowire batteries [1]? Li-Air [2]? Anything else promising?
If you're not going to college there are two things you'll need to do as an initial step; read a book & get exposure to the technology.
Book: DeGarmo's Materials and Processes in Manufacturing [1] is practically the introductory bible for Engineering students, find a second hand copy and fast skim over all the chapters and then start drilling deeper. It's a good first step as if you can't find any parts of DeGarmo that interest you and spur you to learn further then this is not the path for you.
Exposure: Without a degree your path in is to pretty much become a field cog in a larger organisation; Army / Navy / Airforce / Mining Fleet Operations / Telcoms company that spans at least a state, etc.
Once you've done your time lugging batteries / installing batteries / appeasing customers / dogs bodying you need to leverage your way closer in to where development takes place.
It will be hard at times seem well nigh impossible to make any in roads in a field like this without a degree - rare individuals with the right practical background and an obsessive interest in material properties do sneak through now and again.
Companies or organisations that offer assisted study / in house training can help. Moving to other locations in the world with cheaper education or more job opportunities may help. Having a relevant trade skill (outstanding electrician) coupled with metallurgy skills (home plating baths & furnaces & meters) could help you along.
Obsessively read anything that relates to electron flows and chemical solutions and metal interactions . . .
I'm a former NASA engineer responsible for much man-rated spaceflight hardware, I wrote software that helped get Viking to Mars, I wrote some best-seller programs in the 1980s and retired at the age of 35, and I'm a seventh-grade dropout.
This doesn't mean anyone can drop out and become successful. It means success and schooling aren't strongly correlated.
If I remember correctly, Elon was saying recently* that current battery technology was good enough for EVs, though I'm sure he wishes it would improve a lot. I'm not sure if he meant that just further incremental improvements + economies of scale that come with mass production are good enough to bring EVs to where they need to be, or something else, though. That's from memory and I can't go find the exact quote right now, so I apologize if my memory failed me in this instance.
If the kinks can be worked out, this seems clearly preferable to a fully electric car. The wave disc motor is (claimed to be) extremely light, compact, and efficient. (It's only suitable for a series hybrid, though; it doesn't have the RPM range necessary to power a drive train directly.)
I remember reading something recently about how we don't actually understand how lithium batteries work. I wonder what we'd start to understand once we do.
There are ways to alleviate the need for batteries, although without a powerful source of energy it would be rather moot - Wireless Electricity. It could lift some burden from the batteries, still without an extremely powerful source it would be more or less moot.
An electric field strong enough to supply the power needs of an electric vehicle would fry any pedestrians that happened to pass by. Wireless electricity is only practical for low power applications, where the field strength is harmless to humans.
Are you sure about that I do know that under right frequency Electric Field of over 10000V can be harmless, it's only the low frequency AC that really kills humans. Higher frequency is transmitted over the skin.
right now we rely on chemistry to engage particles small enough to achieve high energy density. Maybe some nanomechanics can play its role? this way we could have better control over the dynamics and maybe use explosives as fuel (only they will oxidize in a controlled way and not explode)
You seem to imply in your first paragraph that they have a real problem by relying entirely on something outside their control: the physics of storage batteries.
But then you end up your post saying that the room for improvement is -- huge [sic].
So which is it?
If it's that huge, why should they be worried? Especially seen that they're apparently going to be profitable with "only" 20 000 cars this year...
> You seem to imply in your first paragraph that they have a real problem by relying entirely on something outside their control: the physics of storage batteries.
Yes, for Tesla Motors, not a scientific research organization, it's out of their control. They are not a science laboratory, they are a car manufacturing company. They must wait for developments made by others.
> But then you end up your post saying that the room for improvement is -- huge [sic].
That's true, it's huge, and the improvements will be made by scientists doing applied research, not building cars.
> So which is it?
You've posed a false dichotomy.
> If it's that huge, why should they be worried?
I don't think they're worried, and I didn't say there were. I think Mr. Musk is betting that battery technology will improve in a timely way, and his record for such judgments is rather good.
They don't manufacture their own cells (why would they?) but the battery pack is their own design [1] and what sets them apart from other EVs:
The battery pack in the Tesla Roadster is the result of
innovative systems engineering and 20 years of advances in
Lithium-ion cell technology. Tesla's ingenious battery
pack architecture enables world-class acceleration,
safety, range, and reliability. The non-toxic pack is
built at Tesla’s Headquarters in Northern California.
Just got my Model S on Friday and it has exceeded all expectations. IMHO, the center console is at least as revolutionary as the fact that it is electric.
The software is world class and feels like it was written by Apple. In fact, it seems eerily similar to how Apple launching the iPhone reset the bar for the "right" way to do smart phone UI. I wonder if Tesla has considered licensing the center console software to other companies.
I almost bought one but it's really more car than we need - almost too wide for our San Francisco garage. Instead I bought $20K of their stock and am waiting for the smaller sedan.
I was shocked to learn the extent of shorting Tesla stock -- Yahoo Finance reports 52% of float (as of Jan 15 2013). That's more than Groupon and Overstock! I suppose it could give the stock some pop if they can pull it off, as those shorts will scramble to cover.
Previously, car controls were designed so that you could find them "by feel" and not take one's eyes off the road. The radio volume and A/C knobs are the prime examples. With a touch screen, this is no longer possible. The benefit of a screen is the reconfigurabilty, but the curse is that the screen can be in any number of different modes, requiring the driver to take time to rescan the screen and reorient. For this reason I expect Tesla's design is less safe. It could be worse, of course--the use of the screen isn't required for more critical functions, like turn signals.
It seems that some of these problems could be solved through voice commands, which the Model S supposedly has. I'm not familiar with the functionality, though.
Congrats on your purchase. By all accounts the Model S seems worthy of the accolades it's receiving.
What I do find interesting, is the apparent failure of the wisdom of crowds in this specific instance. While it has proven to be a useful construct in certain contexts, it's by no means a universal truism.
Searching for Tesla articles circa 2007/2008, one notices a stark contrast. The voice of the majority, as evidenced in the comments, echoes a pessimistic outlook with going so far as to strongly assert arrogance/foolishness on Musk's part.
It's almost too easy to praise a success, looking backwards through time.
I think it's more a matter of most people writing about the Tesla in 2009 were automotive enthusiasts. They could not conceive of somebody wanting something that did not appeal to them, and concentrated only on the negative. This is the foolishness of enthusiasts. The wisdom of crowds was revealed by the purchasers.
"Wisdom of the crowds" is a very specific phenomenon. It specifically depends on people not being able to talk to each other, as one of the four requirements, which is not true in this case. (Another requirement is that it be quantitative.)
I agree with this. If the wisdom of the crowds was always a perfect voice, no stock would ever be mispriced. The stock market is just the wisdom of the crowds where you make money by being right.
Is the center console software and/or hardware easily upgradable? A smartphone has a useable life of a couple years before either being unsupported (no more software updates) or replaced by a new model. An automobile is usually built to last much longer.
They probably won't license it out to other manufacturers, considering it's such a competitive advantage.
The car has permanent cell connection (and WiFi, but thats still lacking software support). Theres even an API [0] you can talk to and have it give you GPS coordinates or turn on the climate control.
It seems really silly to me that all manufacturers don't do this. If amazon can do it on a $189 kindle and google can do it on a $300 laptop, surely ford or Hyundai could do it on a $15000 car. There's no reason a data link should be a premium feature.
The Chevy Volt has a data link and remote apps for IOS and Android. There's a web API that allows sites like Volt Stats to download from thousands of cars. The Chevy is not a $15000 car, but the prices are dropping. The Nissan Leaf can be bought for under $20k after tax rebates in California.
Definitely, but this is not completely new territory. Mercedes can remotely update these days as well. Not sure about the other telematic systems, but it's all definitely going this way.
It's probably got an infinitesimal surface area. At least, it better. More importantly, the servers Tesla uses to do the updating better be equally secure.
Pretty much any car in the same class of the Tesla Model S has remote tracking. It competes against Mercedes, BMW, Audi, etc. All provide similar features.
I'd bet that Tesla licensing their center console to other car companies is about as likely as Samsung being able to make iOS devices would have been in 2010.
Arguably, licensing that while not licensing look-and-feel elements would be a smart strategy. Licensing the under-the-hood tech gets them money to fund the really expensive and groundbreaking R&D, while keeping the UI out of competitor's hands lets them effectively differentiate.
I have it in the back of my mind that in fact some of Tesla's Software Engineers are from Apple previously.
A simple Google search isn't returning anything backing that up unfortunately so take it with a grain of salt for now. I think I remember it from a Model S release video I once watched on YouTube which means I can't look it up right now. If I remember when I get home I'll try to dig it up and link it.
I remember hearing that Joe Nuxoll[1] (from the Java Posse[2] podcast, and ex-Apple employee[3]) did start working at Tesla, about near about the time I stopped listening (about a year ago?)
Though I'm not sure what position he had here, but it does line up with your claim.
There's one piece that's missing: production support.
Now Tesla is entering a phase where they will have perhaps tens of thousands of heavy, battery-powered pieces of transportation hardware deployed, and user support might be a bitch. Nobody's done this before. Ever.
Don't get me wrong. They have done a tremendously fine job so far, but they are nowhere near out of the woods yet, as I'm sure Musk knows. Here's wishing them the best of luck through the hump over the next five years or so.
(Interesting how with startups you do one impossible thing only to be given another, and another. Each time it's like "And now comes the really tough part...")
Tesla needs to empower a network of traditional mechanics and service stations who can run diagnostics and do basic maintenance on these cars.
Imagine a sign on auto service centers that says "TESLA Serviced Here" or something similar. This would build public awareness and confidence and create an entire new class of Tesla advocates.
(disclosure : I work for a major aftermarket parts distributor)
by law Tesla won't be able to exclude them but from what I have read they seem to think they can change all facets of current automobile marketing and support.
However laws prevent traditional auto manufacturers from requiring buyers to only obtain service from the dealers. I do not see how Tesla is going to circumvent that nor do I believe they should.
As for the article's premise, I don't see the genius. I simply see it as a requirement to break into the market. I also do not think battery powered cars will be the end all, the major automakers are going down many different paths, Tesla is betting the farm on one.
Plus, 400 hundred cars a day? Its going to be a long long time at that pace before they have any noticeable effect. Before then someone is going to craft an environmental impact law to make these battery powered cars more expensive.
It is almost as if Tesla is travelling a familiar timeline at an accelerated pace, forced into the luxury market by the high costs of novelty and experimentation, waiting for production and brand uncertainty to drop low enough for mass production. In 1878 (t=0) Benz invented his first engine; by 1885 (t=7) he had built his first Motorwagen and in 1914 (t=36) the Model T lines started running [1]. Tesla was founded in 2003 and sent off its first Roadster in 2008 (t=5) [2]. Assuming exponential growth this means we should expect a mass produced Tesla vehicle (or equivalent) no later than 2029 (t=26).
Interesting model, but I predict we'll see it way before 2029. We're not going from the first engine to the first mass-produced automobile, and manufacturing, technology, and operations improvements are orders of magnitude higher than a century ago.
Absolutely correct, my crude estimate is an upper bound.
The Ford Model T sold for $850 in 1909 ($2012 21,390), $550 in 1913 (12,580), and $440 in 1915 (9,640) [1].
Also, noting that the Ford Model T was on sale in 1909 (t=31) I revise my original estimate down to 2025 (t=22). Assuming 2% CPI inflation that means {$2025: 27,670; 16,270; 12,720}.
Contrast Tesla's from-scratch, top-down strategy with those of some existing car manufacturers, which is to add electric motors and batteries incrementally to existing car platforms, which leverage their huge economies of scale: existing plants and parts can be reused.
The same plants which make a million gas-powered Honda Accords per year can be used to make an incremental 100,000 electrics, then 200,000 a year later, then 500,000, as sales grow and technology matures. Ford is using this strategy to great effect with their Focus and C-MAX EVs which are fairly affordable and accessible to the average consumer.
The question is whether electric technology is so revolutionary as to require a complete redesign of the car, (e.g. body panels and frame) in which case Tesla's approach may win out. BMW, for example, is pursuing this route for at least one of their models; they're building a carbon fiber manufacturing facility in Washington State for their new i3 electric, which will use carbon fiber body panels for decreased mass.
> The question is whether electric technology is so revolutionary as to require a complete redesign of the car, (e.g. body panels and frame) in which case Tesla's approach may win out.
Aren't the body panels and frame of a Tesla basically just an off-the-shelf Lotus roadster?
I've noticed where they were going with their strategy a while ago. They're basically trying to cut the price in half or so for the next model, every 3 years. This worked perfectly considering they were a start-up and could only build a few one of them at first, and then as they become more demanded, they can build more.
We'll see a $30,000 model from them in 2015, and then a sub $20,000 model by 2018, with reasonable mileage. By then the country should also be covered with their solar-powered superchargers, that charge the cars for free. All of these factors should help them, and EV's in general, to become mainstream by 2020.
In regards to the author's last statement, when Tesla started pushing for Tesla Roadster I also thought they would eventually become the "GM of the new electric car industry". Tesla is the Apple of EV's, and GM is Nokia. And both incumbents were gigantic at first in their own markets, compared to the new entrants, but that quickly changed in a few years.
Electric tech is clearly developing and generating buzz.
And yet oil probably won't get too much more expensive for decades, while solar is ridiculously expensive without any clear prospect of becoming cheaper (currently parts are only as cheap as they are because the Chinese government is subsidizing their production, which can't last forever). Burning gasoline is not going to stop being economical and reliable any time soon.
Also, given the expensive reality of solar and the way we generate electricity, electric cars would still be getting their electricity from plants which burn coal. Perhaps in 20 years we will be using more natural gas than coal, which at least means we're not depending on the Saudis - but still we'll be using hydrocarbons, fracking, etc.
The only way electric vehicles will become mainstream is if the government mandates this. Seeing the way the Obama administration's "clean energy" agenda has tanked (even among the liberal base preoccupied with drones and Manning), there isn't going to be anybody to support this kind of action when it makes all transportation more expensive and thus makes everything more expensive. In a country which is physically very large, with an economy driven by domestic spending.
It was my understanding that one of the reasons that electric cars are greener is because power plants (oil, coal, whatever) are more efficient at extracting energy from fossil fuels than cars are, so even though electric cars run on fossil fuels indirectly, they do so much more efficiently. The other benefit is that the source can easily be exchanged for something renewable, while for a gasoline car, that is impossible. I don't have the numbers on this though, so if I'm wrong please correct me.
On a naive per-mile basis, for short trips, electric cars kill gasoline powered ones. The "fuel" cost for overnight charging is approaching the golden age of $1/gallon. The real question is TCO. Whoever has the better TCO in the long run is going to win, and electric cars have some strong fundamental advantages in their favor here. The biggest stumbling block is the battery. A 40% improvement in TCO of batteries for electric vehicles seems likely, and would enable near future electric vehicles to be competitive on a TCO basis. I'm limited to short trips, but my vehicle becomes maintenance-free? Sold!
We're going to need something as fossil fuels run low and coal becomes increasingly stigmatized. Solar is an interesting field to explore, as is wind, hydro, tides, and other non-fossil energy sources. Sooner or later, one of those fields is going to generate electricity efficiently, even if only because fossil fuels (very eventually) get more expensive. Researching these things now means that there will be more options later.
There are lots of good arguments for electric cars. Fossil fuel supply is not one of them. At a bare minimum, we have 64 years of oil left, but that assumes that we will never be able to find any more or wring more oil out of fields than expected. History shows that both assumptions are not good ones to make.
Emissions, cost & the environmental impact of tar sand mining are better arguments for electric cars.
Unfortunately it seems to be more politically rational to invest in existing inefficient green technology than R&D (see: Solyndra).
Fossil fuels can last a very long time. America's largest shale oil reserve isn't in North Dakota, it's in California in the Monterey Shale formation, currently unexploited.
I'm actually more worried about flying than about individual transport. I'd argue that affordable intercontinental flights have had a tremendously positive effect on the world's society as a whole. The intensified relationships make war between industrialized nations very unlikely for the time being. Yet we don't really have any feasible alternative to fossil fuel there at the moment. The sooner we save it for those important matters the better, but unfortunately that's not how free market economy works. I expect we'll have a period where flying is a privilege again.
Wind is already cheaper than nuclear would be in Denmark (using prices from the UK). Solar is getting cheaper too. Whether they're viable or not depends on location, e.g. solar isn't really too great in Denmark, we're too far north. Storage is a problem, but not quite as big as you would think, and a multitude of solutions do exist.
Denmark has a plan of getting rid of fossils over the next decades, and we're well on our way. It's not a research plan, it's an investment/building plan.
Furthermore, while some subsidies are currently needed to cover risks and capital expenditures, the studies I've seen predict that we're probably going to end up with an infrastructure that's not more expensive, it may even be cheaper. Like energy from an old nuclear power plant is really cheap today because the capital expenditures have been covered many years ago (discounting insurance and other thorny nuclear issues).
But these things have already been researched for some time. More than being researched, they have been put into practice. And this has already shown us that they are relatively expensive and hard to scale, while hydrocarbons are cheap and scale well and are not subject to much in the way of political risk or NIMBYism. And this will continue to be so for decades at least.
Any promoter of renewable energy really has to be aware of this or they will not be able to target their interventions effectively.
Tons of effort has gone into PV cells for decades (they were being manufactured in quantity in the 70s). They are our dearest hope for renewable energy at scale. And they are still more expensive than any other source of electricity we actually use by such an embarrassing margin that even really impressive cost improvements will still leave them pretty much non-competitive (making steam is a little better). Recent price drops due to subsidies are not going to be sustainable unless the industry is weaned off the subsidies.
Most of the reduction in that Economist graph is after Obama takes office, before that the changes are not all that dramatic to really support a comparison to Moore's law (which has itself shown pretty flawed as a way of predicting the computing future).
So I just don't see any substantive, fundamental reason (i.e.: clear prospect) to suppose that solar generation will get so much cheaper that it will reach striking distance of natural gas, of which we have quite a supply. But I'm not saying it's impossible to have another opinion.
The current pricing for the different size batteries that Tesla offers implies a cost of ~$500 per kWh (the cost differential between the 40 kWh, 60 kWh and 85 kWh packs is $10k). I read "somewhere" (random stranger on the Internet alert) that the cost of raw materials is in the ballpark of $80 per kWh. Now, I'd think that the current scale of battery production (certainly at least millions of units in the 18650 form factor that Tesla uses) doesn't leave much room to handwave the magic "scale effect" wand. On the other hand, it does seem like there is quite a bit of headroom between $80 (if that is realistic) and $500.
If a large chunk of the delivered cost of a battery is attributable to fixed costs, like R&D, rather than the process of turning the raw materials into a finished battery, then maybe it isn't too implausible that the price could drop by a factor of two (or four). You might be able to glean some that information about that from carefully reading the SEC reports from public battery manufacturers.
I seem to remember in an interview with Elon, that he quoted the current raw material cost per kWh. I think it was quite low, and that suggests good potential reductions in $/kWh. I'll try to find the interview
Interesting article, but mostly wrong. The article claims:
> The point isn’t to sell a lot of roadsters, it’s creating a brand.
> The low production volume also gives the company a chance to learn how to run a car factory on a small scale.
So the article claims that the primary reason to start with an expensive sports car is to build a brand, and that technical and practical concerns are less important. This is absolutely 100% wrong. There's absolutely no way Tesla could have started with a mass production car for the general consumer, exactly for the reasons everybody already knows. You have to build a factory. You have to learn from mistakes. You have work out the kinks in the design, and so on. This takes time.
The first Tesla model was mostly hand-assembled because that was the only option. As a consequence of that the car model is very expensive and low volume. And as a consequence of that the car has to be a sports car, because the high price low volume model doesn't make sense otherwise.
Creating a sports car also makes building a brand easier -- but that's just a nice side benefit. Nothing more. So the article gets the causality wrong.
I don't claim in the blogpost that technical and practical concerns are less important, on the contrary. I even write that in the article, but maybe it isn't clear enough.
My argument is, condensed, that in order to build a mass produced car you need a brand and a factory that will churn out cheap working cars. Since you can't realistically go from 0 to fully working mass production you need to take it in steps. So you start on a small scale with the roadster, step it up with the model S. and so on. Of course the first models were hand assembled, but that's the first step on the long road to mass production.
Also, I think you severely underestimate brand value. There's noway Joe average would choose a car he's never heard of instead of a brand he knows. If you look at the statistics it's amazing how many people stick to one brand in cars, without even considering the viable alternatives.
You certainly do seem to claim that. You say "the point [...] is to create a brand", and a few sentences later you say "also [technical reasons]". That to me looks like a clear distinction between primary and secondary reasons.
Secondly, you say that focusing on the brand like this is part of Tesla's "ingenious strategy". However, as I pointed out in the previous post, all of the strategy you covered follows directly from constraints Tesla had. So Tesla's strategy of building a Roadster first is completely straightforward.
Tesla does have an ingenious strategy, though. For instance they are working on Free Charging Stations, they have unique showrooms and they are willing to license their technology to some of their competitors. I don't think any of those things are straightforward. So there is a lot to say about Tesla's ingenious strategy, but their expensive-cars-first strategy is not the ingenious part.
If you haven't read "The Innovator's Dilemma" and "The Innovator's Solution", you really should, because the Tesla strategy is straight out of those books.
>So the article claims that the primary reason to start with an expensive sports car is to build a brand, and that technical and practical concerns are less important.
I didn't read it that way at all.
The writer says it's more important than selling a lot, but it's hardly an exclusive statement. You seem to be reading an awful lot into it.
>And as a consequence of that the car has to be a sports car, because the high price low volume model doesn't make sense otherwise.
There are other high price/low volume segments in vehicles.
>Creating a sports car also makes building a brand easier -- but that's just a nice side benefit. Nothing more.
That seems like quite an understatement. They didn't just need to build Tesla as a brand, they needed to build the concept of fully electric vehicles beyond golf carts and buses.
>So the article gets the causality wrong.
Not really. The article spends 1162 words discussing a number of things, of which branding is just one. You chose to quote just 37 of them and provided your own assumptions to flesh out an argument that doesn't necessarily exist and certainly wasn't the focus of the piece.
Having driven an electric car (not Tesla, Nissan Leaf) I can say that they are pretty awesome and this article is spot on with my thoughts about how you get people to switch to electric, make it normal and everywhere and people will begin to buy. I disagree with the article with regards to people not caring about the fact it's electric, they will because of the finite, hard stop, don't get it wrong range limitation. Although the claims of 300 miles for the Model S is far greater than the LEAF that I drove (18 months old, 80 miles with climate control on as it was -5 outside)
I enjoy driving electric too. Electric motors are quiet, clean and responsive. There are 18 models of plug-in hybrid coming to the market by 2018. I think the hybrids will sell better than the pure battery vehicles as they don't cause range anxiety.
One key advantage that is often overlooked and undermarketed for electric cars is they have a superior preformance and experiance than internal combustion (IC) cars. The Model S has a 0-60 time comparable to a Porche 911 Carrera or a BMW M3, is quite a bit faster accelerating than the (non-AMG) Mercedes S-Class, and knocks the socks off a BMW 5xx. The problem is I don't think the value translates into the $25-35,000 car market.
I dont want to discredit the whole article based on a few things.
There were some things that he says either didn't impress me or seemed inaccurate
<Quote>These are huge obstacles, and is probably why there hasn’t been a new major auto maker in the United States for 90 years </Quote>
Kia - Founded in 1940s.
Also its not clear why US is the only country that is being considered?
<Quote>
Tesla’s strategy for overcoming these obstacles is ingenious; Start at the top and work our way down. </Quote>
Thats how its been for many businesses. Cars in general had a similar history. It was only available for rich people initially!
<Quote>
If I was General Motors I would be afraid. Very afraid.
</Quote>
Statements like this are too generic. What time frame? No quantification? General Motors was about to be bankrupt a few years back. Their business is already being threatened by many things, I dont know if Telsa is their biggest concern!
Tesla is hardly a sure thing, and I think that many of the big car companies feel that they have sufficient engineering resources to tackle the problem on their own. You never know, maybe someone has made a bid to purchase Tesla and was turned down. It appears, however that if any electric auto upstart is going to make it, Tesla has a great chance. Fisker does not seem to be generating the press coverage of Tesla, and the only story I can recall is one where a Fisker Karma burned to a crisp and took half a house with it.
Hydrogen! The auto industry is already looking past electric.
Look at market signals and the faltering focus on electric, despite massive efforts to sell electric cars by the industry. Nissan, who has taken the biggest stab at electric, is already (publicly) licking its wounds from its $5B gamble.
Tesla’s making a brave and extremely innovative foray, I will certainly give them that. But with the lack of electric traction amidst $4+ gas (2x since 2008) and the promise of hydrogen...I’d say the odds are against them. Hybrids will probably be the bridge to something else.
> Hydrogen! The auto industry is already looking past electric.
At the moment the practical problems with hydrogen are worse than those involving electricity storage. There are many problems with the electric vehicle scheme, but on the plus side, there's already an electric infrastructure that can be used to charge the vehicles. There's no hydrogen infrastructure, it would have to be built.
This may all change in the long term, and hydrogen might end up being a much better solution, but the immediate problems are severe.
Though I agree with most of the article, the statement "you need a finely tuned, automated and hugely expensive factory".
I've always seen that as a moderate flaw in Tesla's plan.
With the Roadster, they had essentially outsourced much of the 'car' engineering to Lotus which built the frames and many of the components for Tesla.
Just like computer companies don't manufacture computers anymore, I believe outsourcing the manufacturing of Tesla cars would have taken a large part of the financial risk off the table.
Elon seems to be really big on vertical integration. He does the same thing with SpaceX which allows him to have much lower costs by only outsourcing stuff if he absolutely has to with plans of bringing it in house in the future.
You can see this also in his desire to sell these cars directly instead of working through dealerships that is currently causing some legal battles.
The risk of outsourcing is that there aren't a lot of suppliers who can build the parts they need. If they outsource key components, they can get into a situation where the supplier can name a punitive price for parts.
I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before Tesla gets involved in it... but for now Musk is on record saying that the current state of battery technology is sufficient, so it doesn't make sense for them to invest in R&D on that front until they have some surplus.
Looks like you got downvoted, but I was confused as well. After reading the article, I conclude that Tesla could've used some of Tesla's ingenious strategies.
Musk has no reason to sell. He's already a billionaire. He is part of what is referred to as the "PayPal Mafia". They're not in it for the money anymore, they're in it for the "flying cars"—the things they were promised as children but the future didn't provide. This is also why he founded SpaceX and why there are so many rumors about a high-speed hyper-tube for mass transport.
Tesla's huge ambitions are to sell electric cars to the mass market. Becoming a new car manufacturer from the ground up is unbelievably hard.
They are using the classic Silicon Valley approach: start with early adopters that just want a cool new toy, then cross the chasm to mainstream customers...
http://tldr.io/tldrs/51115df9de23f156580000a8/teslas-ingenio...
One suggestion to the author of the article. Let the reader decide if Tesla's strategy is ingenious. It may seem like a small thing, but I don't like being told what to think. Make your points and leave it up to the reader.
In terms of value returned for investment, present storage batteries are almost the single worst modern technology. The storage battery on the Tesla Roadster weighs 990 pounds, stores 56 kWh (about 202 MJ) and discharges in 244 miles (393 km) in normal conditions (vehicle speed and environmental temperature). This is a stellar example of applied science and engineering (it's much better performance than that of similar batteries) but it still represents a big obstacle to wide adoption of electric vehicle technology.
As a seasoned former NASA engineer who struggled with these same issues on spacecraft for years, I offer this advice: young people who are trying to decide what do with their lives should seriously consider a career in battery science and engineering. There is room for huge improvement -- huge.