As someone who invested in and got burned by A123 Systems a few years ago, I'll believe these guys are a legitimate company to watch when their battery packs are actually in a large number of cars for a few years without defects. Making LiOn batteries reliable enough for vehicles is harder than most people think, especially when you need extensive QA at scale.
Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
61–70 of 121 posts
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#62Look, it takes some guts of this journalists to come up with titles like this and writing articles.
I wish all this electric cars best of success, but 'taking on Tesla', this is not some small irrelevant company, let's be real here.
Tesla is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone, not only with having electric car, but also this car is like from future.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#63I am a european and getting pissed off by these cocky austrians and germans. They are so full of themselves and keep trash talking about Tesla for so long. Yet they cannot deliver. Tesla does. Period. Also it's not only about technical superiority but experience as well. Tesla excels here.
Look at it from a different angle: They have invested billions in 'traditional' combustion engines, gear-boxes etc. They are earning billions with that technology. Now image a board meeting and you are the guy asking for all the R&D money such that you cannibalise the cash cow. They don't target early adopters but the mass market and that's not where you/we want it to be. I believe that's the reason why their A engineers still work on the 'old' stuff.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the original rationale behind requiring cars to be sold through dealers was to regulate the market and create competition among different dealers. Without that requirement, manufacturers could easily undercut dealers due to lower overhead. I'm not really sure what the point of car dealers is, but they have somehow found a way to prove themselves "necessary" to some lawmakers in…
Dealers must provide value. Using laws to "create" competition is foolish and wrong. If there's no value in me buying a screwdriver set from Home Depot I should be able to buy it from anyone else, including the manufacturer. In other words, there's no fundamental reason or "right" that says a dealer must exist between a manufacturer of a good and the consumers of that good. Forcing such a structure is artificial and…
I hate dealers too and hate this law, but read this[1] comment that is a sibling to yours. It explains why this law exists. It's a shame it hasn't been removed yet because it is quite dated at this point.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the original rationale behind requiring cars to be sold through dealers was to regulate the market and create competition among different dealers. Without that requirement, manufacturers could easily undercut dealers due to lower overhead. I'm not really sure what the point of car dealers is, but they have somehow found a way to prove themselves "necessary" to some lawmakers in…
> I'm not really sure what the point of car dealers is From a DOJ analysis: > Auto production is a capital-intensive business and a franchise system allowed manufacturers to concentrate their resources upstream while accessing capital through franchise fees from independent entrepreneurs at the retail level. Given capital availability and resources at the time, it made sense for the auto makers to franchise. https://…
Not sure why you're downvoted. This is the first rational explanation for this I've ever seen - thanks. Doesn't really justify it still existing today, but makes me hate the system a little less.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#66I am a european and getting pissed off by these cocky austrians and germans. They are so full of themselves and keep trash talking about Tesla for so long. Yet they cannot deliver. Tesla does. Period. Also it's not only about technical superiority but experience as well. Tesla excels here.
Look at it from a different angle: They have invested billions in 'traditional' combustion engines, gear-boxes etc. They are earning billions with that technology. Now image a board meeting and you are the guy asking for all the R&D money such that you cannibalise the cash cow. They don't target early adopters but the mass market and that's not where you/we want it to be. I believe that's the reason why their A engin…
That's the classic "Innovator's Dilemma."
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#67As someone who invested in and got burned by A123 Systems a few years ago, I'll believe these guys are a legitimate company to watch when their battery packs are actually in a large number of cars for a few years without defects. Making LiOn batteries reliable enough for vehicles is harder than most people think, especially when you need extensive QA at scale.
I'm sure you know how much harder it is than a bunch of electrical and mechanical engineers who've been working on it for years. No doubt you're qualified to make such a statement because your expertise and experience in electrical systems and manufacturing trumps theirs. Probably you didn't read the whole article but their batteries have already been in at least one production vehicle for a couple years now (the porsche panamera plug-in). This is the kind of hn comment that I really hate. "Extensive QA at scale". What does that even mean?
*Update: Downvote away! I guess my comment is not HNy enough i.e using big impressive sounding terms like 'extensive QA at scale' to make knowing comments about things I really have no experience with.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. All the stories I ear about software developed by traditional car makers confirm your point. Traditional car makers produce very bad software and have very bad organisation for software development.
To a certain extent, this comes from historically creating safety-critical software which is an entirely different process compared to what is done for web apps etc. I don't think Tesla are as robust with their development processes, but they are able to make up for it with over-the-air updates.
I have worked for nuclear domain and for aeronautical domain. These are domains where safety critical software is understood. AFAIK, software is not understood in car industry. It looks like they compensate poor programming by more testing.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they are all either: A: Hugely overpriced plug in hybrids B: Have pathetic range
And everybody knows that Model S is not an expensive car.
For the performance and features, it is in no way expensive. The P100DL beats a Lamborghini Huracan off the line up to 100mph+ at a fraction of the cost. Disclosure I own a Models S 85D.
Re: Kreisel Electric takes on Tesla
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
The i3 appears to be a really well designed car. It costs about $7000 more than the model 3, but it already exists. And they've just increased the battery capacity 50%, so the nominal range is 200 miles, or 275 with the range extender. I just read BMW think they can double that by 2020. Tesla certainly has at least some competition.
The i3 and i8 are terrible cars as far as I am concerned. Range sucks. And, frankly, if I have to go to a gas station might as well get rid of the electric components and make a nice car. I like the physical design of the i8. I spent a hour looking at one. Ultimately, the idea of having to endure both visiting a gas station and plugging in just turned me off. I'd consider it as a pure electric with decent range or ga…
That's a very odd statement to make. Most people like the reassurance/range-security of being able to visit a gas station in addition to having an electrical engine. That's supposed to be a selling point of the car over Tesla even though it's electrical range sucks and Tesla's extensive supercharger network all but removes range anxiety.