Live data from Hacker News

Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

audiusanews.com

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#41

For kicks, re-read the article as something written 4+ years ago substituting "Apple" for "Tesla" and any other cellphone manufacturer for "Audi." “Tesla has to show it can be consistently profitable with a single product that is priced so high that most buyers can’t afford it,” Indeed.

They are in no way comparable. I make a pretty damn good living and can easily afford a $400-$500 phone, but there is no way I'll be buying a $60,000 car from either Tesla or Audi.

There are people who do buy $60k cars. It's a market that actually exists, just as there was a market for $500+ phones before the iPhone, which at it's introduction actually wasn't the most expensive phone on the market. Just because you're not part of the market for a car in that range is no more relevant than the fact there are plenty of people who would, or could never pay $500+ for a phone is to the success of Apple.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#42
I thought it was implied in the original article that Tesla was beating the other car makers for their specific high-end models only.

It's pretty obvious that Tesla cannot beat Mercedes, BMW, and Audi in ALL models.

Still, its funny to see a car company write a blog post like this. They are all scurrying about trying to make sure Tesla can't operate in all states because they want to sell directly instead of through dealerships.

The car industry is being disrupted.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#43
post #8

Now here's an interesting question, or maybe some interrelated questions. First, will Tesla be able to manufacture profitably in the sub-$50k range (competing with the Audi/BMW/MB low end), with a car that is range-comparable to the S? In other words, can they build a genuinely useful electric drivetrain for about the same price as an internal combustion drivetrain? Next, as they start spinning up long-term reliabili…

1) I think Tesla will be able to manufacture cars with ranges comparable to the Model S in the near future at a price tag below $50k. I even believe that in the near future a car comparable in performance and luxury along with range will be in the sub 50K range.

I mostly believe this because of how early in the era of electric car technology we are in right now compared to the internal combustion engine era. Many technologies follow an exponential curve in performance, quality, lowering of cost etc. over time. However, at a certain point the curve flattens out. As an example, look at how much the top speed of travel by humans increased from the creation of the steam engine all the way to the launch of the space shuttle. Humans managed to perfect the technology and it grew at an exponential speed. (think of small improvements of train technology over time for a hundred year, then rapidly followed up by the introduction of cars, planes, jets, then space travel in a much shorter period of time).

When you compare this to internal combustion engines, they are much later in their evolution than electric cars. This suggests electric cars are in for a long period of exponential growth, while internal combustion engines are closer to the flattening of the curve (which may still be a long way off anyways.)

Additionally, you have to look at the fuel costs. Oil is expected to continue increasing in cost. It's in higher demand than ever before, it's becoming harder and more expensive to extract etc. Meanwhile, electricity can come from many sources, including solar which is developing at an exponential rate and could start to bring the cost of electricity down in the near future.

Now, your question concerned the price tag of the car, not the ownership costs. However, this is actually relevant to the ownership costs. The rising cost of the fuel can inject uncertainty into the market about cars that run on fossil fuels if the price of those fuels get too high. This can do two things 1) it can increase the cost of capital for traditional car companies because banks are unwilling to lend to a manufacturer of cars with high operating costs, and 2) it could create investor doubt and bring down the stock's price. If either of these things happen for a sustained period of time then it could create an ugly feedback loop for a manufacturer. If 1 or 2 happens and they have to raise the price of their product, then the market may begin to doubt the manufacturer more (especially if Tesla continues bringing down its price tag).

If the traditional manufacturers get caught in a spiral with their traditional engines then they may have to quickly develop electric alternatives. This will likely be fairly tricky. First, they lose part of the brand they have invested in for their traditional line cars (and their trademarks are some of their most valuable assets). Second, they will likely have to abandon traditional internal combustion drivetrain technology that they have already invested in but not recouped the profits of (although they shouldn't fret too much about sunk costs and focus on moving forward). And third, most importantly, if they want to make a quick transition that can at least restore faith from the market, they will likely have to license technology from companies like Tesla (bringing Tesla's cost down while increasing the costs of the traditional competitors)

Finally, one of the biggest costs in a Tesla is the battery. I haven't read about the cost of the battery for a couple years, but I remember reading that the Roadster's battery cost about $40K, and that the S uses the same battery (or at least battery technology). I assume the cost has come down a bit since then, but regardless, the party is likely the most expensive single part of the car. This is extremely relevant because many actors have an interest in producing more efficient batteries (Cell phone companies, Energy Companies, The Military etc.). All these mean that more companies will be putting pressure on the market to develop more efficient battery technology and to bring the cost down.

2) Can't speak as confidently about this because I haven't heard about Tesla's racking up that many miles yet.

However the two things I would consider are 1) operating costs, and 2) legacy costs. As I mentioned before, the price of oil is going up, while the price of electricity is more promising. This means that the cost to the consumer of operating a combustion engine increases, and could offset the increased operating expenses from failure of Teslas in real conditions. As for legacy costs, just look at the history of American auto manufacturers vs. Asian manufacturers. One of the reasons the Asian manufacturers were able to undercut their American rivals was because they did not have retired workers living off pensions. They had lower legacy costs. This is true for Tesla, just as it was true for the previous Asian manufacturers. Of course pensions and unions are no longer anywhere near as important as they were 30 years ago, this could still bring down the lifetime cost of a vehicle from a manufacturers perspective. This means that fuel costs can offset reliability costs from the consume perspective, and legacy costs can offset the reliability costs from the manufacturer perspective.

3) I honestly have no clue how far into development any of these companies are for their own electric vehicles. Honestly though, how much of their capital can they devote to developing electric cars? They probably won't throw the kitchen sink at the problem. Thus, if they are only directing a percentage of their resources to electric cars, then their electric car divisions may only have the same amount of resources as Tesla does. Thus, the only advantage they have over Tesla is brand, but right now given the Tesla hype, it seems brand is in Tesla's favor anyways.

Also, other autos getting into electric can help Tesla by bringing the cost of batteries down, and by spurring the development of a national charging network (And hopefully better cafes along the highway for us to wait at while our cars charge).

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#44
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

There are a lot of interesting aspects to electric-only cars, especially from a manufacturing aspect. There are lots of parts that you just don't need in an electric car, which can lead to efficiencies of mass production. Now that electric cars are no longer either improbably futuristic nor merely the butt of jokes a lot of people are finding it easier to have an electric car be a part of their lives, and that's a pretty big deal. I don't know how things will go, but it'll be nice to get a lot more R&D into electric vehicles for a while.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#45
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, will Tesla be able to manufacture profitably in the sub-$50k range (competing with the Audi/BMW/MB low end), with a car that is range-comparable to the S? I can tell you what Musk is betting: that the supercharger network will eventually make this a moot point. Of course, advancing better batteries will result in the lowest Model S range (160mi) likely becoming Tesla's "baseline", I imagine.

The supercharger network doesn't really help all that much if you don't have ranges like the S. Let's suppose you only have 100 mi range. If so, you have to stop for fairly long time (on the order of a lunch break) in order to recharge. And the numbers I've seen say 30 minutes for a "half charge". If that was also true of a 100 mile range car (or even 160), then 300 mile trips in one day become a huge hassle. And 200…

And the big question as to whether a Tesla is a "trip" car or "commute/grocery grabber/fun" car.

There is a large market for electrics that don't meet all the needs an ICE can do - many many families have more than one car. Especially the ones that can afford a luxury vehicle like a Tesla/Audi.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#46
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are in no way comparable. I make a pretty damn good living and can easily afford a $400-$500 phone, but there is no way I'll be buying a $60,000 car from either Tesla or Audi.

There are people who do buy $60k cars. It's a market that actually exists, just as there was a market for $500+ phones before the iPhone, which at it's introduction actually wasn't the most expensive phone on the market. Just because you're not part of the market for a car in that range is no more relevant than the fact there are plenty of people who would, or could never pay $500+ for a phone is to the success of Ap…

Another way to think about it is that if someone told me I would be paying $500 for a phone before the iPhone came out I probably would have laughed at them. In fact, before the iPhone I don't think anyone in my family ever bought a phone that was more expensive than the 1 cent models that came with contracts. Now we buy the $200 models that come with contracts.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#47
post #34
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to #1 is that Tesla's ability to do that is entirely dependent upon improvements in battery technology. Based on those projections of about 7% improvement/year in batteries, in a few years they will. #2 will be of interest, but I think it mostly comes down to battery technology. As for #3, the history of other disruptive innovations says that by the time it is possible to sell cars that meet the mass marke…

> Based on those projections of about 7% improvement/year in batteries, in a few years they will. Take this with a grain of salt, but it might not be in their best interest to move to the lower end market. If they can make a cheap EV car then so can another producer somewhere else in the world. Just recently I read Ferrari actually dropped the number of cars they produced per year. Why did they do that? The wanted to…

Whatever you might think, moving from the top of the market down has always been their plan.

See http://www.teslamotors.com/fr_CH/blog/secret-tesla-motors-ma... from 2006 to prove it.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#48
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, how long until one of them buys Tesla and combines its expertise with their existing infrastructure for mass production?

I'm pretty smart finance folks have learned from GOOG stock structuring and the like to prevent LBOs/corporate takeover threats. I'm reasonably sure some of them work for Tesla.

Why would you assume it would be hostile? Ultimately either someone's going to buy Tesla, or Tesla's going to buy a legacy automaker that's in trouble. Setting aside dealership issues in the US, it doesn't make sense to rebuild an entire worldwide distribution system from scratch when the innovation is the car, primarily. Either that, or license the Tesla tech to a major car manufacturer and let them serve the downmarket while protecting the Tesla brand as high-end and innovative. I don't think Tesla wants to become Honda.

Re: Tesla sales 'misleading' says Audi blog post

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they did not say "Model S vs A8", they had said "Tesla vs Audi" - which does not mean "Model S vs A8".

they actually did say it. there was a whole article, including a clearly labeled graph, underneath that headline. They didn't say it in the headline, but that's the reason articles exists instead of just headlines - sometimes they have stuff in them. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/13/autos/tesla-sales-bmw-merced...

So because the article exists it is now OK to lie in the headlines?
Post reply on HN