There is a big difference between Electric Vehicles as a whole and Tesla. Electric Vehicles are 'probably' here to stay and will 'probably' eventually make up a significant portion of first world mainstream automobile market. Whether Tesla significantly leads the industry in volume of Electric Vehicles manufactured and sold is another matter entirely.
The main component one has to not underestimate is that in the automobile industry the technology/engineering problem of the car is less important to the technology/engineering/process of the plant itself.
Toyota is not a lumbering clumsy inefficient organization, it is a sharp nimble efficient organization... It only makes rational sense that Tesla should follow their lead
>>The main component one has to not underestimate is that in the automobile industry the technology/engineering problem of the car is less important to the technology/engineering/process of the plant itself.
What you say makes some sense, though, you seem to forget that there is vast difference between the technology/engineering/processes of the plants needed to manufacture the electric cars and the ones needed to manufacture the fossil fuel cars.
Another thing, it should not be too difficult for us to grant that Elon Musk is not a fool to make that big a statement without doing some homework. Also, don't forget the current state of the art of the technology/engineering/processes he may employ now that Toyota could (and still can) only dream of.
What are you talking about. I mean specifically. What state of the art manufacturing/engineering/processes do you specifically speak of that Toyota can only dream of that Tesla can employ?
Are you talking from facts? OR are you talking from feelings, and hunches, and faith in Musk?
Space X, is one thing... in that bracket Musk is competing with inefficient opponents who have historically benefitted from lack of competition, crony government contracts, in an industry that is primarily product engineering driven that requires a small volume manufacturing of extreme high complexity vehicles
In Tesla he is competing against highly efficient opponents who have been in a dog eat dog survival of the fittest competition for going on 40 years which is only somewhat product engineering driven and high volume manufacturing of relatively low complexity vehicles.
Tesla can overcome this... possibly but it is a huge challenge that a responsible investor cannot sweep under the rug...
What are =you= talking about? Tesla's manufacturing capabilities are far more modern and informed by Silicon Valley. Electronic cars (outside the Model X) have far fewer parts and are substantially less complex than combustion engine. Tesla has =far= better software development capabilities which is becoming much more important. Tesla has a much simpler distribution network and much closer contact with users. etc, etc, etc. It's hard to make much of a comparison.
That's the FOURTH drive unit (3rd replacement) their Model S needed.
The fact of the matter is, my Ford Focus (and most people's Toyota Camry from the 90s) has needed less maintenance than than the two-year test Edumnds did on the Model S.
Unless you like paying $90,000+ for a car that dies in the middle of the highway as the drive unit completely craps out, I'm not sure if the Tesla Model S is actually a sign of Tesla's manufacturing prowness.
And considering the widespread reports of issues with the "simple electric" Drive Unit, I'm thinking the electric drive unit is a lot more complex than Tesla's marketing slides indicate.
---------
Worst part is that this isn't anecdotal evidence. MULTIPLE reporters have had their Tesla Model S die on them in the middle of the highway.
In the early days of Tesla Model S, they strived to get people back on the road quickly, and they replaced entire subsystems when they didn't really need to. If you search the news group "tesla motors club", you'll find discussion of how telsa found a number of tiny tweaks that they could use to adjust some of these minor issues. They were not drive train failures really. I have driven about 40k miles, no drive train failures (anecodotal, blah blah).
Even if they weren't technically drive unit failures, it is clear that a number of Tesla Model S cars have failed in some form. They were forced to be taken back to the shop and "fixed".
The reports are clear: Tesla has excellent consumer service and warranties. Owner satisfaction is EXTREMELY high, despite the issues. So Tesla is doing everything they can to address the issue, and this is commendable.
However, if you actually compare the reliability scores on pure numbers, it is clear that the Tesla Model S has a problem. It may not necessarily be drive unit related, but there is clearly a problem that affects a huge swath of people.
Does that include the episode on Top Gear that was scripted into breaking their Tesla down in the middle of a test run?
According to your logic, 3 percent of scientists deny global warming, so that is a statistic we should take seriously as well. I don't care what denialists say because I can appreciate the fundamental science behind global warming.
You seem to lack the vision to see that simplicity in design always wins out. It does so in nature, and it will do so in our automobile engines long-term.
You are suffering from an extreme case of cognitive dissonance my friend.
In a world of 7 Billion people, every anecdote has become a statistic. Figure it out or get left behind.
Unfortunately, Consumer Reports does not do long-term reliability tests (see Edmunds for that sort of stuff). Instead, Consumer Reports has a very robust survey methodology. They rely upon a survey conducted at a later date. So when their survey results came in that documented the large number of Tesla problems, they had to retreat from their superb rating.
A 103 out of 100 by Consumer Reports (initially). And even then, the Consumer Reports guys could not refute the reliability concerns.
Part of it is acknowledging that the Top Gear show was truly awful though. It was unfair for sure, and I can see why someone who was only familiar with the blatant anti-Tesla Top Gear episode would be distrustful of these sorts of arguments.
Yes, there was an anti-Tesla conspiracy going on a few years ago. But I don't think we're at that phase anymore. Certainly not with these Consumer Reports surveys or Edmund's tests, which seem to check out as legitimate.
If it happens repeatedly to different reporters around the world? That's a statistic. The Model S drive unit is not reliable. Period. It doesn't matter how "simple" an electric motor theoretically is, in practice, the Model S motor has clear drive unit issues.
> Anyway, the Model S was explicitly the stepping stone project to get to the Model 3 (i.e. Musk stated this). They've probably learned a lot.
I thought the "Roadster" was when they were supposed to get all of these issues figured out. The Model 3 has to be built in a year in capacities of (wtf?) 500,000 / year by 2018 or something.
There's no room for experimentation here. Elon Musk is ramping up production extremely fast and has set stunningly high expectations.
---------
Now, don't get me wrong, I think Tesla is a great company with a great vision. And that Musk is doing his best. But what I'm trying to say is that this company's balance sheet, and reliability record with their cars is causing me some concern at this point.
I would like it if Tesla could succeed, but I'm not going to hold back on criticism just because I like their mission.
No, it's still anecdotal evidence unless you actually have a meaningful statistic gathered through scientific inquiry. If you have just heard several people complain about failures, that's anecdotal evidence. After all, that is precisely the definition of "anecdotal evidence."
> As part of our Annual Auto Reliability Survey, we received about 1,400 survey responses from Model S owners who chronicled an array of detailed and complicated maladies.
I'm not kidding when I'm saying this "isn't anecdotal" anymore. Over a THOUSAND reports have come in, and the consensus is that Tesla is NOT reliable.
Tesla reliability not unlike other performance vehicles that are version 3, 4 or 20. That tesla has achieved what it has on v1 is amazing.
Consumer Reports: "The Tesla wasn’t the only high-performance vehicle that fell below average in reliability. Others include the BMW X5 and 5 Series, and the Chevrolet Corvette."
Yes. Lets compare Tesla with the worst cars on the market in terms of reliability. And then demonstrate that other cars can have problems too.
Or you know, as a smart consumer, I'll be looking at a workhorse car like a Honda Accord, Ford Focus, Toyota Camry, etc. etc. and not have to worry about reliability issues.
Or if I'm actually going to buy on Luxury + reliability: the highly reliable Lexus ES looks like a good pick at half the price of a Tesla.
Sure. But you don't get to pick the least reliable model of the NINE lines of SEDANS that BMW makes, and then decide that its a fair comparison.
Tesla has two lines of cars right now, and only a third one planned. Their entire focus is supposed to be on the reliability and features of these two lines they're making.
Tesla's are generally reliably. I bought an original one in 2012, then I upgraded to AWD when that came out. Never had a problem other than "slight amount of moisture in my tail light" which they fixed. There have been a number of reporters who appear to have an anti-tesla bias, notable the NY Times report Broder. His name has become an adjective ("That guy brodered you"). They are physical objects, they can fail of course, but generally they are very reliable, and in my experience owning them over 4 years, have been without issue.
I'm not going to argue against them. Consumer Reports (survey methodology) and Edmund's (single case study) have demonstrated the issue. Tesla cars are NOT reliable, compared to Toyota Camry or Corollas or whatever else is normal out there.
Tesla has one facility, which is definitely state of the art, and has some of the largest automobile manufacturing robots in the world... on the other hand toyota has about 40-70 plants of varying level of technological advancement... its quite a range because some are only operated by toyota not owned... there more recently opened factories such is the one in Mississippi are pretty much universally accepted amongst the most advanced in the world... In fact Tesla's current factory is actually an upgraded old ford/toyota partnership which was upgraded as part of a tesla/toyota partnership...
which is all to really say...
1 plant vs 40-70 plants...
90K vehicles produced per year to 9,000K vehicle/year...
unproven manufacturing prowess vs universally accepted best manufacturing capability
toyota is universally accepted as having the most advanced automotive manufacturing as far as major manufacturing... Even Elon Musk wouldnt have the balls to make the claims you guys are making here... please lets stick to reality.
i wish tesla well... they i think are going to be the main catalyst in popularizing the electric car... will they actually hit 500K units in 2018 out of the Fremont factory? seems unlikely given their track record but maybe... i mean toyota was able to produce that much out of the same facility before it was upgrade about a decade ago so its possible...
Your argument is basically "the small company is small". So what? Do you propose that business can work in some other way? How else would you propose that it works?
Elon setting aggressive goals is a management tactic and it works well for him. Sure, it'll probably slip till 2019. But if the goal was 2019, it would slip to 2020.
> there is vast difference between the technology/engineering/processes of the plants needed to manufacture the electric cars and the ones needed to manufacture the fossil fuel cars
Do you have any good articles that explain this difference? I'm honestly curious what changes when you change the propulsion system.
Having issues with, say, your gull-wing doors is not specific to electric cars. Same with the issues they're having with the Model 3 and suppliers not being able to meet the dates they want. (Drive units dying is specific to electric cars, but that's also likely to just be teething pains.) There's a lot more to a car these days than a power plant.
The engine is, comparatively speaking, the solved problem for car reliability these days, at least in the first 100k or 200k miles. One of the most common characteristics of unreliable or fancy traditional cars is flaky electronic systems, as Telsa is as complicated as anyone there.
The main component one has to not underestimate is that in the automobile industry the technology/engineering problem of the car is less important to the technology/engineering/process of the plant itself.
Toyota is not a lumbering clumsy inefficient organization, it is a sharp nimble efficient organization... It only makes rational sense that Tesla should follow their lead