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

[Ogre]

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.

The 1st gen F150 makes me very curious about their next gen truck where they are likely to design for EV first. They have Fields at the helm which should make things interesting.

 

[cvalue13]

The 1st gen F150 makes me very curious about their next gen truck where they are likely to design for EV first. They have Fields at the helm which should make things interesting.

agreed - that to me will be the inflection point at which the emperor’s clothes will be revealed, or not.

Given the investment Ford is making, the available “cheat sheet” in the market (eg Tesla), and the effective “beta” testing via current MachE and Lightning, it seems Ford’s to lose (in terms of achieving a respectable product).

An interesting side-note: in discussing the next-gen (first gen?) BEV truck, Ford has been noticeably precise in not calling it an “F150” but instead an “F-series.” Makes some sense, given that the ground-up BEV platform will be even more distinct from an F-150 than an F-150 is from an F-250, or even F-650. That it’s not an F-150 also emphasizes the point that the modern Lightning is a one-off chimera specialty vehicle, just as we’re the various prior historical “Lightning” models:

 

[SparkChaser]

They did.

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

-Crissa

It was a very noticeable drop since the max range was 81 miles.

 

[Luke42]

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.

I didn't get a chance to do any range-impact testing during the test drive.

It was very much the standard ICE test-drive routine.

No red flags in a 20-minute drive, and it seemed to be a fully-baked product.

But the kind of thing you're mentioning wouldn't have been evident.

My Model Y (heat pump / octovalve) handles cold weather about as efficiently as our old Prius did (and warms up the cabin faster).

 

[ÆCIII]

Agree or disagree?

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-just-another-car-company-discounts-rentals-stock-2023-1

Disagree - but I don't consider 'Business Insider' a credible source to even bring up for debate anyway.
- ÆCIII

 

[Ogre]

Disagree - but I don't consider 'Business Insider' a credible source to even bring up for debate anyway.
-ÆCIII

This is the correct answer.

 

[Arctic_White]

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.

If what you're stating is true, then Ford (and others) are several years behind Tesla already.

By then, Cybertruck might as well have a production rate of 1M+ per year, and increasingly growing as they will have a base Cybertruck which will be priced under $50K. Remember, Tesla's goal is to make Cybertruck more affordable than an average pickup truck, with more performance and range.

I'm thinking that the competition is really screwed if Ford is going to take 2026 to ramp-up production of their next-gen EV pickup. Yikes.

 

[Arctic_White]

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.



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.

I must say, this is by far the best explanation I've ever read on why legacy automakers are really in deep trouble.

Well said, sir. Well said.

 

[Ogre]

Controversial opinion.

People over-index on competition too much. In this business there are plenty of niches to chase that there is room for more than one auto company for decades to come. I am convinced that some companies will fail at this juncture, but it’s not a matter of being outcompeted, it is a matter of execution and timing.

Provided they have enough time to get their solution in place, a company with good execution can succeed in the auto market. They won’t be competed out, they will succeed or fail so long as they are able to provide EVs people want at a reasonable price.

If Ford can get their next electric truck out the door soon enough and they can price it competitively with Tesla and still turn a small profit. They have a good chance of lasting another 10+ years.

That’s a huge ask though. Ford has about 3 - 4 years here where they can act before the Cybertruck is available on the open market. In that time they need to figure out how to make an profitable, useful electric truck which can replace their F150.

I said they don’t need to compete to win, but they can’t price it at $75k if the base Cybertruck is $50k. They have to be in the ballpark. Brand loyalty and compatibility with older truck products should give them a big edge.

 

[cvalue13]

If what you're stating is true, then Ford (and others) are several years behind Tesla already.

I take that Tesla is “ahead” as a foregone conclusion.

That said, the degree of “ahead” is TBD. I appreciate that I’m in the minority in this forum, but I personally don’t have a strong opinion on how soon, to what numbers, at what price, the CT will be available.

People over-index on competition too much.

Well said (the whole comment - only quoting part). They also under-index on brand segmentation and anthropomorphism.

Sometimes it seems like people believe that the only reason Pepsi and Coke co-exist is because they came out simultaneously with nearly identical product. (They didn’t.) To say nothing of Mt. Dew.

I don’t know who will exist alongside Tesla in the BEV pickup space in 10 years, but I’m pretty sure it is not a world of only CTs.

 

[Arctic_White]

I take that Tesla is “ahead” as a foregone conclusion.

That said, the degree of “ahead” is TBD. I appreciate that I’m in the minority in this forum, but I personally don’t have a strong opinion on how soon, to what numbers, at what price, the CT will be available.



Well said (the whole comment - only quoting part). They also under-index on brand segmentation and anthropomorphism.

Sometimes it seems like people believe that the only reason Pepsi and Coke co-exist is because they came out simultaneously with nearly identical product. (They didn’t.) To say nothing of Mt. Dew.

I don’t know who will exist alongside Tesla in the BEV pickup space in 10 years, but I’m pretty sure it is not a world of only CTs.

That's a good point. And I think we all agree that Tesla will never, ever have 100% market share. But I can tell you that Tesla is likely to take majority of the profits.

Let me give you an example.

Apple's iPhone has a total world-wide market share of less than 20%. Yet it takes in 90%+ of all smartphone profits. Tesla is on a similar path.

 

[Ogre]

That's a good point. And I think we all agree that Tesla will never, ever have 100% market share. But I can tell you that Tesla is likely to take majority of the profits.

Let me give you an example.

Apple's iPhone has a total world-wide market share of less than 20%. Yet it takes in 90%+ of all smartphone profits. Tesla is on a similar path.

I think Tesla coming out of this with a near monopoly is a very real possibility. I don’t think it’s assured by any means, but it’s a real possibility.

The other auto-makers still haven’t figured out that charging is the #1 weakness of their products and that nobody else is going to solve this problem. If I was Ford or Rivian, I would be taking a long hard look at adopting the NCAS charging and getting onto the Supercharger network ASAP. The alternative is massive investment in a parallel infrastructure.

As for the profitability idea, we’re very quickly hitting that point already. This year we’re very likely to see Tesla as the most profitable automaker globally.

 

[Arctic_White]

I think Tesla coming out of this with a near monopoly is a very real possibility. I don’t think it’s assured by any means, but it’s a real possibility.

The other auto-makers still haven’t figured out that charging is the #1 weakness of their products and that nobody else is going to solve this problem. If I was Ford or Rivian, I would be taking a long hard look at adopting the NCAS charging and getting onto the Supercharger network ASAP. The alternative is massive investment in a parallel infrastructure.

As for the profitability idea, we’re very quickly hitting that point already. This year we’re very likely to see Tesla as the most profitable automaker globally.

If RoboTaxis are the norm, then yeah you are absolutely right.

But I think people still want a different product, even though that said product is objectively inferior to the best product (Tesla). People are funny this way. Psychology plays a huge role that's why I maintain that there will be other successful EVs out there. BYD is one such company that is doing really well.

Both VW and Hyundai/Kia are also going all-in on electric vehicles.

Let's wait and see, I guess.

 

[Ogre]

If RoboTaxis are the norm, then yeah you are absolutely right.

But I think people still want a different product, even though that said product is objectively inferior to the best product (Tesla). People are funny this way. Psychology plays a huge role that's why I maintain that there will be other successful EVs out there. BYD is one such company that is doing really well.

Both VW and Hyundai/Kia are also going all-in on electric vehicles.

Let's wait and see, I guess.

I agree mostly.

But what happens if everyone goes bankrupt before they figure out how to scale up EV production profitably?

Imagine for a moment that getting EV production right actually takes 10+ years of planning an execution at scale (that’s what Tesla has invested to get to this point). Most of these companies didn’t even start seriously until 2020. Ford’s first serious EV was the Mach E released in 2021.

VW and Kia have been struggling to sell EVs profitably and they’ve both committed to an EV future a few years back.

 

[cvalue13]

The other auto-makers still haven’t figured out that charging is the #1 weakness of their products and that nobody else is going to solve this problem.

It’s clearly a huge weakness of any non-Tesla BEV platform, for certain (large?) swaths of drivers with material daily commutes, regular long distance driving habits, single car families, etc.

I’m curious though about the extent of that weakness for other types of drivers/use cases, and then again for the evolution over the next 5-10 years.

Take me for example: I only drive ~7,000 miles a year, make >300mi trips by road maybe once a year, and >90% of my driving is around town. I’ve owned the Lightning 6 months, and used “charge network” infrastructure twice: once on the way to the beach, and once on the return. What’s more: while we elected to not take my wife’s ICE vehicle on that longer trips (precisely because we weren’t anxious about range/infra), we could have. In all, the poor quality of non-Tesla charging infra, does not affect me one bit.

People in cities, people with two vehicles, people with immaterial commutes, etc., etc., seem all to be users for whom the grander interstate charging networks are not such a pinch point. Seems possible that’s a large set?

And what happens to the size of that set over the next 5-10 years if:

• possibly more people fall into adjusted driving habits (as transportation patterns evolve)
• people continue to be two-car families, with an ICE in mix for close cases
• battery tech continues providing greater and greater range
• non-Tesla charging infra improves (somewhat?)

It seems completely possible that in the next 5 years we see Tesla vehicles with 600mi range - in which case, doesn’t a lot of that Tesla charging infra become increasingly vestigial?