It hit the front page on reddit and now it's naturally flowing down into the HN karma grab. I personally didn't know it was planned for this early until now.
It hit the front page of reddit due to a backlash by users against mods of /r/Technology secretly removing all posts about Tesla. Users are upset and posting tons of posts about Tesla in protest. They are spelling it "Telsa" and "teslas motors" to get around the automated filter.
>The third, lower-priced model could make its official debut at the 2015 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Tesla confirmed Friday. It would begin selling in 2016 or 2017.
In one context they're talking about when it will be available for shows and demos, and so people can start doing reviews and all that. They aren't planning on being at the mass production, on the market level until a bit further after that.
This was announced shortly after BMW provided price information (about $40k) on their i3 all electric cars (plus the version with a range extender) - both of them available today and not in 2016/17.
What is the main attraction behind buying a Tesla or other electric vehicles? The main sources of energy in the United States are still oil, coal, and natural gases. This means that most energy use in the US will still contribute to pollution and consumption of a non-renewable resource. It makes a lot of sense to drive an electric vehicle in a country like France, where 75% of energy comes from nuclear and around 15% comes from hydro sources.I think a Model S would still be an interesting car to drive given the torque provided by an electric motor, but the car still is pretty heavy (5,000 lbs due to batteries) and uses a lot of electricity to charge.
The environmental stuff is actually just the icing on the cake - EVs have a number of advantages over internal combustion and the disadvantages keep getting smaller.
-awesome acceleration due to instant torque and no gearbox
-amazing handling due to low centre of gravity (heavy batteries at the bottom)
-quieter
-minimal servicing / repair costs due to much simpler drive train with fewer moving parts and no fluid
-more internal space (no crank shaft etc - especially in the back row this makes the middle seat so much more comfortable without a big bulge between your feet)
-more external space (e.g the Tesla S has a front trunk (frunk) where the engine normally is)
-safety factor - extra crumple space with the frunk and no engine to go into your legs in front on collision
-cheaper to run especially in high gas cost areas like Europe
-some areas have perks like using the HOV or bus lane
-convenience factor of 'filling up' at home
The environmental stuff is all goodness (and other responses have illustrated how this still holds even in coal dominated areas) but for many is not the driving factor.
Obviously EVs are not for everyone. My analogy is that they are like SSDs - better in every way except size (range) and cost, and therefore not viable for some...but that will rapidly change as the technology moves on.
One issue that still has to be solved is for people like me to charge them without a garage. Swapping batteries is interesting, I wonder if it will become a cheap reality.
This is a huge issue that doesn't get a lot of airtime. Many urban city dwellers rely on street parking. What solution is around for them to charge their vehicles? I love the concept Tesla is pushing, but this problem has me vexed.
You are correct that today, in the US, on average, electric vehicles do not provide a significant improvement in emissions over hybrids like the Prius. [1] However, something to consider is that an electric vehicle effectively decouples transportation from the emissions source, forever. Power generation is projected to continue to get cleaner over time [2], and as power generation improves, the emissions of electric vehicles improve with it, even without any additional improvement of electric vehicles themselves. While US power generation may never be as free as fossil fuels as that of France, it is only getting better, and electric vehicles can ride that wave. If instead, we continue to drive gasoline vehicles (even hybrids), we will never stop pumping out CO2 with our cars.
The only renewable resource that can power a car directly, without transitioning through electricity, is solar, and there just isn't enough power in the solar radiation that strikes the roof area of a car to be practical.
Natural gas vehicles are actually a good stepping stone to reducing CO2 emissions, since methane (CH4) has roughly half the carbon per unit of energy. There is renewed interest these days in developing natural gas vehicles, but I personally think electric vehicles will win the race.
>The main sources of energy in the United States are still oil, coal, and natural gases.
This is a problem that cries out for math.
On average, the CO2 intensity of US electricity is 690 g/kWh. This makes the Model S the CO2 equivalent of a car getting 37 mpg. This is a lot higher than comparable cars.
Of course CO2 isn't the only pollutant. It would also emit 0.43 g/mi of NOx (blowing the limit by nine times), 0.011 g/mi of NMOG (1/7th the limit), 0.015 g/mi of PM10 (the limit is 0.01 g/mi), and 0.13 g/mi of CO (a miniscule 1/27th of the limit). So it's a mixed bag.
Caveat: I used the average US energy mix, but electricity production is highly regional. Here's a map Tesla made regarding pollution from electricity: http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#electricity Some states also let you choose where your power comes from, and of course rooftop solar is currently available (unlike rooftop oil wells).
The combined efficiency of an electric motor + fossil fuel power plant is still much greater than in a conventional internal combustion engine and therefore the environmental impact from the car is much reduced regardless of the fuel source.
A secondary factor - driving a car like a Tesla communicates an image of environmental responsibility. Even if the government and energy companies aren't supporting renewable fuels, you are. When there is a wind turbine on every corner, and a solar panel on every roof, you will be ready with your Tesla. You're a good citizen, and a forward-thinker...
Isn't it more efficient to have fewer large power plants rather than lots of little power plants (i.e. car engines)? Maybe not with the transmission loss and factoring in the batteries...
Long distance utility transmission losses are around 6% according to Wikipedia. I don't know what losses there are in recharging the batteries, but it's surely not 100% efficient. I also don't know how that compares to costs (pipelines, trucking etc.) used to distribute petroleum fuels.
Modern internal combustion engines with mandated emission controls are really very clean. Very likely cleaner than coal plant smokestack exhaust.
I live in Texas and pay a half-cent premium to get 100% wind-power at around 9.6c per kWh to charge my Nissan Leaf.
Since I use a 7kw charger at home almost exclusively then actually running the car (not including it's production) is actually extremely "green".
The owner friendly side of the deal is that I never visit gas stations, never change oil or other fluids, don't have to do anything much to it outside of tire rotation. Maintenance is both very cheap and very convenient (since there isn't much of it).
Personally, I never want to give another dime, directly, to any Gas company, ever.
Their business practices are cancerous. Sadly, we don't have a choice in requiring energy - and while Enron is a perfect example of absolute corruption in the energy industry, if I can cut out at least vehicle gas requirements from my wallet, I'd be a happy man.
I had the understanding that it could be more efficient to be able to use fewer power plants that can be operated efficiently or replaced individually rather than millions of independent ICEs. But I'm far from an expert on this.
As for the competition, Volkswagen e-Golf will have a range of 118 miles, Kia Soul EV a range of 124 miles and Nissan Leaf is rumored to have a 135 miles range by 2015.
The BMW i3 is available now (at least here in Europe, don't know about the US) and is getting excellent reviews and delivers a lot of technology (most of it is carbon-fiber reinforced plastic) for a fairly low price - starting under £30K here in the UK.
Especially if this is the base price. I'm prepared to be massively disappointed when 40k is the cost of the smallest battery model and the largest is 50-60k. I don't care about most optional car upgrades but vehicle range is so important that I hope they don't choose to bundle a larger battery with cosmetic options.
Price out a Model S. They're as bad (or worse) as BMW as far as options go.
$80K with cloth seating. You don't even get the plug in charger standard, just a trickle charger. And the plug in is three times the price of a good 7kw charger. You don't even get Maps integration standard.
So yeah, unless they pull a 180 on the Model S options by 2017 I'd fully expect a Model C to ship with $10K in options as a rule, and come in a Leaf/Focus range matching version around 150 miles and a 250+ mile version for a substantial premium.
As a Leaf SL owner the only thing I don't have is the Bose audio system and the "around view" camera system.
You needn't be disappointed, what you suggested is clearly IMO what I expect to come to pass. These are steps, not leaps. A model with a full-range battery at $40k would mean Tesla cut the price in half compared to the S. That's just not realistic.
Far more people shop in the $40-60k range versus the $60-80k of the Model S. So more economies of scale are realized, the tech marches forward, and then the NEXT evolution could possibly provide base models in the mid 20s.
People who buy cars that are in the "mainstream" price range tend to be much more focused on the price of the car, or more likely the monthly payment, than they are to be thinking about longer term costs like fuel and maintenance.
Last time I checked, which was a year ago, there's a federal $7500 tax credit and a California $2500 tax credit for electric cars. I don't know if these still exist or if they will when Tesla's new car is available. But if they still exist, it would have a significant impact on sales.
Yes. My parents would never consider purchasing a car over $30k, much less one that costs $40k. I really want a Tesla because it's the environmentally responsible thing to do (provided that you must drive a car). If it ever became affordable, I would buy it in a heartbeat and so would a lot of people who aren't rich (like my parents).
Ferrari is owned by Fiat (and it has an exceptional history).
Lamborghini is owned by VW.
RR is owned by BMW.
All of these cars use technologies funded by or borrowed from their parent. Lamborghini was seriously behind the cutting-edge when VW bought it, now they are catching up (last independently made Lambos had tubular frames).
One of the smallest independent automaker is Mazda, it produces around 1.2M cars per year, they can afford this because they're really innovative.
Tesla has some leeway for now as electric engines are significantly simpler than modern combustion engines, as the latter are extremely difficult to design because of environmental regulations (especially European ones). Designing a nice interior or rigid chassis is simpler than operating a naturally aspirated V10 in the E90 M5 that has an Euro5 cert..
Ford has had varying degrees of ownership in Mazda. For most of the 1990s and early 2000s they had controlling interest. There has been a lot of technology and design sharing. I don't follow it closely, but I think in recent years Ford as sold off a good chunk of their Mazda investment and no longer has a controlling share.
Yeah, I gawked when I saw the Mazda comment too. A bunch of Mazda's in those years, especially the 90's were rebadged Fords. Compare the Mazda Navajo to Ford Explorer Sport's of the same vintage [1]
Lots of design sharing in the sedans too. Ford Fusions/Mercury Milans/Lincoln MKZs were all based on the same platform as Mazda 6, and even use their transmissions.
Lamborghini belongs to Volkswagen (as do Bentley, Bugatti and Porsche).
Rolls Royce belongs to BMW.
None of these except for Porsche were viable on their own. At the very least, they need R&D for engines and other components from their parent, but usually much more.
In many cases, they are viewed more as a branding exercise by their parent companies, somewhat like luxury brands like the Phaeton (VW) or Maybach (Mercedes), which are also usually not profitable.
According to Wikipedia [1] in 2011 Bentley made €1.1 billion in revenue and €8 million in profit on sales of 7500 vehicles (but lost €245 million the year before).
The FT says McLaren[2] expected to break even in 2013 on sales of 1,500 vehicles (but lost £10.9 million the year before).
Of course, making profit one year having made a loss the last doesn't exactly prove long term profitability.
Pagani "has made about 130 cars in the past 10 years", and has been profitable since day one. It is absolutely possible to thrive in the highest of the high end niche and sell only a few cars a year.
No, it's not true. There are many luxury car makers who are plenty profitable. If you make a huge profit on each vehicle and you can cover your fixed/development costs then you're golden, regardless of volume. At low volume that typically means higher profit margins, but that's nothing new. Companies like Maserati, Aston Martin, and Lambourghini have sales volumes in the 1-2k per year range. Companies like Bugatti are lucky if they break 100 car sales a year.
Obviously Tesla isn't quite in the same market as those companies but that still demonstrates the point.
If you have a sub-$100k car then you generally do want higher sales volume in a fleet. If you look at, for example, Audi they have a mix of cars at a variety of price-points, which enables them to amortize development costs of shared components. That effectively raises the profit margin on their luxury margins (since the development of stuff like the frame, most of the engine, etc. is payed for by sales of the down market models).
All of the companies you mentioned are owned by huge corporations (Fiat, Ford, Volkswagen).
I can't speak for the others but Lamborghini and Bugatti would have ceased to exist a long time ago if it weren't for VW.
A lot of comment answer that. However, they miss the point. Tesla cannot survive with 30K car. The reason is that they are betting big on infrastructure: supercharger network, new superfactory.
Those kind of investments both enable and require Tesla to sell a much more mainstream cars than the Porsche of electric cars.
Cheaper Tesla car might be announced in early 2015, but it will not be available until Gigafactory starts making batteries. Battery cost is the main obstacle.
