Article: It's becoming increasingly clear Tesla is just another car company -- agree / disagree?

[Ogre]

So I don't agree with "Selling or renting out data is not part of the manufacturing or auto-making. The former can only enhance Tesla's revenues and profitability", that's a somewhat myopic, short term view.

Reminds me of the PC wars when you could buy a Mac for too much money, or you could buy a PC for much less but it was preloaded with tons of spyware. Many of the PC makers made more money on the spyware than the computers they sold.

No, Tesla does not sell data and I serious doubt they will start to.

 

[HaulingAss]

Tesla's does not own the company that supplies the battery to its cars.

That's an opportunity present to them when they acquired. And it will be in the development of new tech for batteries with new materials, example, anode.

And further opportunities for solar panels and megapacks for commercial and industrial facilities and complex.

Tesla has always made the batteries for their cars, even on the original Roadster. Now they have started making the cells of those batteries themselves and they will ramp to huge volumes. On Battery Day in 2020 (if I recall correctly), Telsa laid out a 6-year development roadmap for the 4680 cell. By 2024 I expect they will pumping out hundreds of millions of 4680 cells and they will still buy as many as they can get their hands on from dedicated cell manufacturers (including those they have supply agreements with).

There's money in them thar batteries!

 

[charliemagpie]

Tesla has always made the batteries for their cars, even on the original Roadster. Now they have started making the cells of those batteries themselves and they will ramp to huge volumes. On Battery Day in 2020 (if I recall correctly), Telsa laid out a 6-year development roadmap for the 4680 cell. By 2024 I expect they will pumping out hundreds of millions of 4680 cells and they will still buy as many as they can get their hands on from dedicated cell manufacturers (including those they have supply agreements with).

There's money in them thar batteries!

3 TW production by 2030
I guess split 50/50 1500 each for GW cars,Energy
40​	GW	Current Lathrop
1460​	GW	New facilities by 2030 (x36)
1500​		1.5TW by 2030
Current - Lathrop 10,000 XL packs per year. $1,000,000 profit each = 10 billion
10 billion x 36 =		$ 360,000,000,000	plus Lathrops 10 billion
PE 40		$ 4,933	Share price 2030 Just energy…. And growing.
Regardless of accuracy, the point is production will continue to grow and this figure is not far away.
Crazy

 

[cvalue13]

Ford, scrambling at top speed was able to produce 15,000 Lightnings last year.

I’m here for and enjoying all the education, but at this marginal topic do have a minor contribution/correction:

I don’t think it’s accurate or compelling to hold up Ford’s Lightning production as being an indices of its execution capabilities as a manufacturer. The Lightning is an inbetweener stop-gap model, intentionally low in production, and purposefully built upon minimal manufacturing investment for that reason. They’ve merely and temporarily stuffed battery guts into the F150 platform.

Ford’s only 3 months ago broken ground on the one of several forward-looking BEV manufacturing pushes around the globe, the one in TN billed as Ford’s “largest, most advanced auto production complex in the company’s 119-year history.” This and similar plants elsewhere in the world all unrelated to the Lightning, and instead intended in furtherance of reaching its targeted annual run rate of 2 million annual by the end of 2026 - including its first actual BEV truck platform, not due until 24/25.

Which is all to say: if Ford was “scrambling at top speed to produce” anything last year, it wasn’t the Lightning - the Lightning may be a big marketing coup, but not a remotely material manufacturing focus in Ford’s grander plans. Instead Ford is scrambling to spin up modern BEV manufacturing machinery whatsoever, and so the jury is still a few years out from any apples-to-apples comparison of execution capabilities.

The relevant critique seems more about Tesla’s head start, with a lingering grimace about the extent to which Ford and others can catch up - TBD.

 

[tmeyer3]

Is this actually a serious question? If Tesla is just a car company, then who did I invest in 5 years ago that gave me and my family complete and total energy independence?

The click bait thread got me!!! Noooooo

 

[Ogre]

I don’t think it’s accurate or compelling to hold up Ford’s Lightning production as being an indices of its execution capabilities as a manufacturer. The Lightning is an inbetweener stop-gap model, intentionally low in production, and purposefully built upon minimal manufacturing investment for that reason. They’ve merely and temporarily stuffed battery guts into the F150 platform.

Ford’s only 3 months ago broken ground on the one of several forward-looking BEV manufacturing pushes around the globe, the one in TN billed as Ford’s “largest, most advanced auto production complex in the company’s 119-year history.”

Calling their factory “Forward Looking” when it was created in response to multiple years of declining sales and an glaringly obvious threat is a bit of a misnomer. As you suggest in your first paragraph, everything Ford has done to date is stop-gap and reactionary.

Ford doesn’t get to be called forward-looking until they actually do something which is ahead of the curve. They haven’t even caught up yet. Starting 5 years too late is absolutely an indices of their execution capabilities.

This and similar plants elsewhere in the world all unrelated to the Lightning, and instead intended in furtherance of reaching its targeted annual run rate of 2 million annual by the end of 2026 - including its first actual BEV truck platform, not due until 24/25.

Which is all to say: if Ford was “scrambling at top speed to produce” anything last year, it wasn’t the Lightning - the Lightning may be a big marketing coup, but not a remotely material manufacturing focus in Ford’s grander plans. Instead Ford is scrambling to spin up modern BEV manufacturing machinery whatsoever, and so the jury is still a few years out from any apples-to-apples comparison of execution capabilities.

The relevant critique seems more about Tesla’s head start, with a lingering grimace about the extent to which Ford and others can catch up - TBD.

I totally agree. Except behind is behind. It doesn’t matter if you are behind because the other guy is faster or behind because you were tying your shoes in the locker room when the race started.

 

[cvalue13]

Calling their factory “Forward Looking” when it was created in response to multiple years of declining sales and an glaringly obvious threat is a bit of a misnomer. As you suggest in your first paragraph, everything Ford has done to date is stop-gap and reactionary.

Ford doesn’t get to be called forward-looking until they actually do something which is ahead of the curve.

I didn’t intend my adjective selection to so color an otherwise uncontroversial point: if ICE vehicles/manufacturing are Ford’s past, and BEV vehicles/manufacturing are Ford’s future, then from the perspective of Ford and relative to Ford’s business these BEV factories are *Ford’s* forward-looking efforts. Call them whatever you wish, I wasn’t intending to award Ford an accolade but instead only to describe a distinction.

Nothing seems to necessitate a defensive and indirect comparison to Tesla’s (who else could it be?) relative position in the market

It’s one thing I don’t get about this forum - it’s as though a person must with each participation first utter a unequivocal positive affirmation about Tesla in order to merely avoid being interpreted as critiquing Tesla. Even when the conversation isn’t about Tesla but instead about critiquing other manufactures.

Questioning a specific critique of Ford is synonymous with neither defending Ford, nor critiquing Tesla.

I get Tesla is way out in front, and amazing. I get Ford is behind and faces many challenges. I just don’t always feel I should have to utter that as though it’s the price of virtue-signaling admissions to any conversation lest I draw the ire of sensitive ears who must rush to Tesla’s defense or reassert Tesla’s relative dominance even when the topic is a critique of Ford

They haven’t even caught up yet. Starting 5 years too late is absolutely an indices of their execution capabilities.

Ok maybe so, but it’s not the indices you were asserting. *You* asserted that Ford “scrambling” to put out “only” 15K Lightnings in a year was essentially a sufficient indices of their poor manufacturing execution capabilities. The subject was a manufactures ability to produce units/time, not who was producing the most gross units:

The point isn’t how many Tesla is selling. It is the fact that they were able to more than double production in 18 months. Ford, scrambling at top speed was able to produce 15,000 Lightnings last year. Tesla is producing 3,000 Model Ys per week in less time than that. Mach E production is less than 40,000 cars/ year after 2 years of selling them and ?? Years of planning.

*I* merely injected that this specific critique of Ford, the numerical unit/time Lightning data (and btw MachE data for that matter) wasn’t really a fair apples-to-apples comparison of Ford’s ability to produce BEV units/time.

Except behind is behind. It doesn’t matter if you are behind because the other guy is faster or behind because you were tying your shoes in the locker room when the race started.

Ok, so now instead of comparing unit/time manufacturing capabilities like a runner’s individual speed around the track (the topic I responded to), it’s instead/additionally that indices of manufacturing capabilities is like a race amongst runners, who got off the blocks fastest, and so which runner is likely going “finish” first… I’m not certain I follow the analogy of what constitutes “finishing” or that “finishing” is zero-sum?

Nor that “finishing” second (or third!) is abject failure - especially if starting from so far behind.

So setting aside the fact that Tesla is way out in front (do we have to utter it every time!?), and recognizing that Ford is way behind (have I virtue-signaled my forum alignment sufficiently yet?!), I just don’t think Ford’s present BEV manufacturing rate is a persuasive indicator of it’s fundamental abilities, given that they have barely even broken ground in their actual BEV manufacturing plans. Mock them for being so late to the race, but don’t mistake their warmup lap with their possible ultimate speed once off the blocks. And I’m not so sure that Ford isn’t happy to get silver or bronze, if the alternative is … dying of a heart attack.

 

[Ogre]

Ok maybe so, but it’s not the indices you were asserting. *You* asserted that Ford “scrambling” to put out “only” 15K Lightnings in a year was essentially a sufficient indices of their poor manufacturing execution capabilities. The subject was a manufactures ability to produce units/time, not who was producing the most gross units:

I really don’t dispute much of what you are saying, but I want to point out here that your own words suggest your perspective isn’t that different from my own.

A stop gap measure (your phrase) is a temporary expedient solution to a problem.

You are taking umbrage with my use of a slightly more flavored word that means roughly the same thing as what you are saying. Ford rapidly put together a sub-optimal solution and they’ve pushed hard to get that out the door.

Most of what you are saying seems to be splitting hairs about a lot of different things.


My concern for most legacy automakers isn’t whether they finish in 2nd or 3rd, it’s mostly whether they will survive this at all. Most companies involved in this sort of transition don’t. I think I’ve made it clear I think Ford has a better chance than most, but if they aren’t scrambling to move over to EVs… they should be.

 

[SparkChaser]

If the 2015 Ford Focus EV i had for a few years is any indication they have no idea of integration of a true EV platform. That was 7 years ago but I still see much of the same.

 

[Luke42]

If the 2015 Ford Focus EV i had for a few years is any indication they have no idea of integration of a true EV platform. That was 7 years ago but I still see much of the same.

I test drove the F150 Lightning. I can't compare it to the Focus EV (that's a California car), but the F150 Lightning was really well put together.

 

[JBee]

Balanced and nuanced conversation based around common definitions without bias, is hard to find.

Generally, if there was a race competition between manufacturers, then I don't see why Ford and any other manufacturer, can't just cut accross the field to catch up to Tesla. In fact Tesla offer others to use their tech...technically meaning they can start from where Tesla is running right now. The point is that Tesla's advantage is their rate of innovation, meaning even if a manufacturer copied Teslas state now by the time they got their manufacturing up and running, Tesla would have innovated and implemented more changes to stay ahead.

The real race is simply "the rate of innovation". The rest is just legacy thinking.

 

[SparkChaser]

I test drove the F150 Lightning. I can't compare it to the Focus EV (that's a California car), but the F150 Lightning was really well put together.

So how do you feel about the integration. My biggest problem was that everything drained the battery almost as fast as driving the car. even turning the fan on (there was no passive setting, if you wanted any air it had to be a fan) you lost 10 miles range. When you only have 80 it was critical.
seat warmers were great but again turn them on and loose 15-20 miles. Everything was inefficient. I hope they at least moved everything to LEDs to save range.

 

[Crissa]

I hope they at least moved everything to LEDs to save range.

They did.

Those things all apply to ICE vehicles as well, we just don't usually notice.

-Crissa

 

[HaulingAss]

It’s one thing I don’t get about this forum - it’s as though a person must with each participation first utter a unequivocal positive affirmation about Tesla in order to merely avoid being interpreted as critiquing Tesla. Even when the conversation isn’t about Tesla but instead about critiquing other manufactures.

My observation of this forum is different than yours. I have never noticed that people require participants to utter an unequivocal positive affirmation about Tesla in order to avoid being seen as critiquing Tesla.

My observation is that critique of Tesla is welcome if it's accurate and fact-based. It has to be true and align with reality on the ground. And that test of being fact based applies equally to a conversation about other manufacturers.

I own and drive (when I have to) a 2010 F-150. I bought it in 2009 only because it does what I need it to and Ithe solutions from GM and Dodge were even worse. Even before I had an inkling of how good a car could be, I thought the design and engineering decisions of my F-150, from the thermal management of the engine, the placement of the A/C condenser, the ergonomics of the cab, the way the doors latched, the operation of the climate control, the design of the vents, the aesthetics of the dashboard, the sound of the stereo, the pattern of the headlights at night, the instumentation, etc. etc. etc. were sub-optimal and poorly designed. I felt like the auto industry had refused to make a quality product. Yes, it worked and was reliable but so much seemed like it was designed by someone with poor ideas, someone who didn't want to make the product better. There was no delight embodied by the product and this sad characteristic carried through to the purchase and service experience at Ford dealerships.

The more I've learned about the auto industry, the more I have concluded that the industry has a culture that does not reward change or thinking of better ways to implement ideas. That's why I was so taken with Tesla when I drove one for the first time. Here was a manufacturer that didn't cheap out where it mattered most, who thought through how people actually used cars and designed the vehicle and its operation to make sense; it was a joy to use and own.

So setting aside the fact that Tesla is way out in front (do we have to utter it every time!?), and recognizing that Ford is way behind (have I virtue-signaled my forum alignment sufficiently yet?!), I just don’t think Ford’s present BEV manufacturing rate is a persuasive indicator of it’s fundamental abilities, given that they have barely even broken ground in their actual BEV manufacturing plans. Mock them for being so late to the race, but don’t mistake their warmup lap with their possible ultimate speed once off the blocks. And I’m not so sure that Ford isn’t happy to get silver or bronze, if the alternative is … dying of a heart attack.

For years, since at least 2018, I've had to endure people telling me that Tesla didn't know how to make cars, that as soon as companies like Ford and GM who were good at making cars determined there was demand for EV's, they would flip a switch and crank out hundreds of thousands of superior EV's at prices that would embarrass Tesla, and Tesla would die the quick death that Tesla deserved. Because the competition was coming and, unlike Tesla, they know what they're doing.

So maybe you can forgive people if they take issue with statements that still imply companies like Ford know what they're doing. From my perspective, it looks like Ford has been bad at making cars for decades now, and the only reason they are considered good is because all their competitors have been equally bad (or worse) for just as many decades. Maybe it's time to demand real innovation so customers aren't over-paying for crappy, low-tech cars made by companies who think adding two more cup holders, lifting it an inch higher and boosting power by 5 HP is innovative and responsive to customer's needs. I mean, the thing gets 17 mpg and is gutless.

Ford's position in the market today is a direct result of an inability to change with the times, to intelligently incorporate new technologies, not only in the vehicles but also in the production of the vehicles, in a timely fashion and failing to bring real value to customers. Prices are too high; quality and innovation are too low.

When compared to to the way Tesla designs, specs and builds cars, the logical deduction is that Ford is literally incapable of catching up. They are structurally unsuited to reverse years of declining value and increasing inefficiency in production systems. No amount of waving magic wands in the factories is going to change that in time to catch up to Tesla. And it's necessary to avoid failure because consumers demand value.

The F-150 Lightning is over-priced for what you get and yet it costs Ford more to make it than they sell it for. Incremental improvements are not going to get them to where they need to be to compete head-to-head with Tesla. People who don't understand that are going to cheer them on and be constantly disappointed that they can't offer a great product at a great price without going bankrupt. All the cheering in the world will not change their future prospects. I get it, they want to change, but they are entirely unequipped to change. Their corporate culture will not allow them to change as quickly as they need to. Corporate culture does not change on a dime - it takes decades.

Maybe taxpayers will bail them out, that's what the intent of the IRA is. If not, maybe private equity capital will, people who don't want an American icon to go away. I don't see either "solution" as working, look at GM, they were bailed out and they are in a worse position than Ford. Auto manufacturing used to be a shining example of American manufacturing and efficiency. But the great barriers to entry caused manufacturers to become fat and lazy. They all declined together, and no one could even see it. Laws designed to protect their market share hastened their demise. Now it's time to pay the piper.

If you believe this is not fact based, then how do you explain years of declining sales while allowing an inexperienced upstart like Tesla to grow profits and sales at an astounding rate, like a wildfire in a dry pine forest, eating into legacy auto profits and sales? There is only one rational answer, legacy auto is inept at providing the cars that consumers want and has been providing terrible value for decades. People knew that new cars had become increasingly unaffordable, but they thought it was unavoidable. Electric cars are supossed to cost a lot more to make than traditional ICE vehicles because EV's have large expensive batteries. But Tesla can make a Long-range Model Y for somewhere around $38K and that cost is declining, a Mach-e costs more to manufacture than Ford can sell it for. Cybertruck is going to be the nail in the coffin for Ford and GM as it eats into sales of high margin SUV's and trucks they can't afford to lose.

If you think a couple of new purpose-built factories are going to allow Ford to offer their customers tremendous value, I think you will end up disappointed. The problem is too ingrained and structural.

 

[cvalue13]

So how do you feel about the integration. My biggest problem was that everything drained the battery almost as fast as driving the car. even turning the fan on (there was no passive setting, if you wanted any air it had to be a fan) you lost 10 miles range. When you only have 80 it was critical.
seat warmers were great but again turn them on and loose 15-20 miles. Everything was inefficient. I hope they at least moved everything to LEDs to save range.

things may well be inefficient in the way you describe, I don’t know - which is why I’m curious how you arrived at your figures RE losses of range for a given function?

I have 3,500 miles on my Lightning, and am unfamiliar with any vehicle-provided metrics that would proffer this sort of if-this-then-that range data

after 3,500 miles, using whatever electronic functions Willy-Nilly including over Texas summer (ie not worrying about range loss from turning anything on), no pre-conditioning, being heavy of foot (ie driving a bit like a teen), and almost entirely around-town driving - my GOM has me getting ~285 miles on a full charge, which is a 35mi “loss” from expected EPA range.

From the perspective of Ford delivering the benefit of the bargain, I think it’s fully delivered *despite* these purported inefficiencies you mention.

but if true, the take-away from that to me, is that Ford’s engineering inefficiencies mean it could/should be delivering an even better product, not that it is under-delivering the advertised product.

That said, the Lightning from an engineering perspective is an intentional stuffing of battery guts into the maximum usage of OEM ICE F-150 platform - so I’m not surprised to find a number of sub-optimal systems resulting.