[rrsteer]

Originally Posted by androdev

Leaf and Prius are chart toppers themselves even though they miss the Tesla wow factor. My point really was not to hate Tesla but to say Prius and Leaf have impressive technology. I know a bit about this stuff and I am trying to say technology gap is not as much as people imagine it to be. But people seem to be offended by such a remark.

Hi Androdev, can you throw some more light on the technology gap and other points of differences between Tesla and others? Also since you have worked ith Toyota and have knowledge in this field what are Toyota top three strengths and failures and if you can compare Toyota with Tesla?

Asking these questions totally as an enthusiast. I am ok if you dont feel the need to answer them.

[HKap]

I was at one of the Tesla showrooms yesterday and saw all 3 models. I had seen and sat in the S and the X earlier but saw the 3 for the first time. While the tech in the 3 is fantastic, the build quality is a little questionable. It almost looks like a project car in some places. The place where the rubber/plastic meets the metal on the door was just ridiculous. To make sure I wasn't over reacting, I checked the same spot in my Acura and the difference was night and day. The model S and X seemed to be better built but I don't think any of these cars have that "solid feel" that the Germans have. The cars meet the safety standards alright but the perceived quality and even shut lines are nowhere close to the Germans or even the Japanese luxury brands.

[bigdad]

Guys musk knows how to play in this century. The market is being played by non doers who tend to scrible out stories, that is the Wall Street. So this a tug between the finance industry and a business. Go with the doer always.

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

Hi Androdev, can you throw some more light on the technology gap and other points of differences between Tesla and others? Also since you have worked ith Toyota and have knowledge in this field what are Toyota top three strengths and failures and if you can compare Toyota with Tesla?

This would be an eye-opener. I really look forward to this.

Originally Posted by androdev

See, I have developed this system of "hype alert". Some companies are extremely good at it. They also make good products for sure but without their hype machine, they would not have such extraordinary results. Tesla cars IMO fall into that category. It's like ISRO doing a Falcon Heavy, nobody would have given a $*^@! And he had the amazing sense of sending a Tesla car as payload, just brilliant but I am afraid that little trick will cost me when I go to buy their car.

Gotcha.

Why is my neighbour getting all the attention when we both seem to be equals? Hhm, not sure what can be done.

[androdev]

Originally Posted by rrsteer

Hi Androdev, can you throw some more light on the technology gap and other points of differences between Tesla and others? Also since you have worked ith Toyota and have knowledge in this field what are Toyota top three strengths and failures and if you can compare Toyota with Tesla?

Asking these questions totally as an enthusiast. I am ok if you dont feel the need to answer them.

@rrsteer, I ran out of steam on this thread man To be honest my understanding is limited to motors so I may not be qualified to make sweeping statements on the complete stack. Hope this post is not totally OT.

1. Drivetrain: My involvement was limited to working on a project to localise Toyota's hybrid motor. With decades of experience and after 4 iterations in hybrid tech, Toyota is pretty good at technology related to motor + control systems + battery. Equally important, they produce these cars at larger scale, higher reliability and lower cost than others. Hybrid and full EV are very similar in terms of components and controls: essentially extracting maximum juice out of battery while being extremely reliable under harsh working conditions. If you take Prius Plug-In Hybrid which has a range of 25 miles using a motor + controller + battery stack, they are solving the same problem as Tesla but with a totally different customer in mind. Tesla stack is 'revolutionary' because of simple hardware components (3 phase squirrel cage induction motor, invented by Nikola Tesla hence the name btw, no gearbox as it uses only 1sp reduction, etc) coupled with very sophisticated, highly tuned controllers. And their touchscreen replacing all buttons and stuff Toyota stack is more complicated hardware (permanent magnet BLDC motors, e-cvt gearbox, of ource the ICE) coupled with less sophisticated hardware. Tesla claims they got super simple hardware setup that is cheaper to manufacture and easy to scale but in practice it is Toyota that is cheaper and produced in much bigger numbers if you consider their complete hybrid range. I can get more technical about the motor used by both companies but it will not add much value to the discussion because what matters is the optimization of motor+controller+battery stack and not just individual items.

Quoting from the blog on Tesla website:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/induction...ushless-motors

Both DC brushless and induction drives use motors having similar stators. Both drives use 3-phase modulating inverters. The only differences are the rotors and the inverter controls. And with digital controllers, the only control differences are with control code.

So as far as drivetrain is concerned, the analogies of disruption faced by Kodak and Nokia don't apply here in my opinion. I don't think any of the major auto companies fear Tesla's drive train technology as much as their 'brand appeal'. Let us move on to the other technologies involved.

2. Auto Pilot/Self-driving: In my opinion this is the most disruptive thing and for sure to have huge implications. Nobody is sure of the future of Lithium battery based EVs but everyone is sure that self-driving cars are the future. But so many big players are working on this including Google and Uber, so I am not sure if Tesla can have much competive edge. If you are an investor, this is what you should bet on and not the EV stuff. EV cars are easy to make and will get even more easier to make. But the self-driving tech depends on machine learned AI and like Google search the more you learn the harder it is for others to catch up. Even though Tesla is the first to do this, other companies have much bigger fleet with much more varying data to learn from so this space is wide open. Imagine a Google+Toyota like partnership, Tesla doesn't stand a chance.

3. Software over the air: Cool feature, will be standard in other cars soon I hope. Everything in a car is already a microprocessor and CAN bus networked, dealers routinely perform such software updates.

4. Charging: Can easily done by others as well, in fact like petrol stations, it will become 3rd party business.

5. Gigafactories: Would Lithium be the mainstay of battery technology? For how long? In the EV stack motors and controllers are the stable pieces but battery technology is open for disruption. In fact, if you ask me the EV technology development is already behind us because a traction motor and controller are as old as electric trains. Everyone is now chasing the battery technology.

Then why don't other companies make EVs when Tesla is becoming a roaring success. Tesla is making losses and it's valuation is based on it's future potential, a silicon valley gamble. No established player will be allowed to run a EV program for 8 years without becoming profitable. So it is about profitability which is very important for their board, investors, etc. but they are watching this space and preparing themselves. They are more worried about govt regulations to ban ICE than Tesla having monopoly of 1% EV cars catering to $45K MSRP. In fact, Toyota CEO said in an interview that the German luxury brands are more worried about Tesla and not Toyota.

[sri_tesla]

Originally Posted by androdev

Then why don't other companies make EVs when Tesla is becoming a roaring success. Tesla is making losses and it's valuation is based on it's future potential, a silicon valley gamble. No established player will be allowed to run a EV program for 8 years without becoming profitable. So it is about profitability which is very important for their board, investors, etc. but they are watching this space and preparing themselves. They are more worried about govt regulations to ban ICE than Tesla having monopoly of 1% EV cars catering to $45K MSRP. In fact, Toyota CEO said in an interview that the German luxury brands are more worried about Tesla and not Toyota.

Tesla is making losses as it is investing every penny (from sales) and some more in expansion. They are developing new models (Tesla semi, new roadster, Model Y, etc...) and expanding production for both cars and batteries.

I agree that, its not difficult for other companies to build very good EVs as shown by GM with bolt or Hyundai Ioniq. But they are just compliance vehicles with limited production. All the companies have EVs in pipeline 3-4 years down the line, that too with very limited production. They don't have battery contracts which will be major struggle for the entire industry in future. See below article as an example. Ioniq production started in 2016 but almost 2 years later, they are still struggling for batteries. Funny thing is Ioniq battery size less than half of Tesla's smallest battery.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news...electric-sales

Also, I don't agree that traditional companies are not worried about Tesla. For now, Tesla may be catering to $45K market. By end of this year $35K model 3 will be available. Average price of cars in US is $33K which is very close to base Model 3 at $35K. Another major point is many people buying Teslas would not spend that much money for a traditional ICE vehicle. It is similar to Apple where people spend extra for brand Apple and iPhone.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by sri_tesla

Tesla is making losses as it is investing every penny (from sales) and some more in expansion. They are developing new models (Tesla semi, new roadster, Model Y, etc...) and expanding production for both cars and batteries.

This is just simply not true. You seem to have fundamental misunderstanding about profits, dividends, capital investment.

Tesla does not have ANY profits. It has operating losses. It doesnt have any left over money from operations to invest back into the company or to give back to investors in the form of dividends. All investments are made through fresh issue of capital. And the money raised through such fresh issue is being burned every year to run the company. And I honestly dont understand the constant excuses people make up for Tesla not being profitable. Its not some gigantic telecom/infrastructure company needing decades to reach break even point. Its just a car company. Should have started making money years before. Atleast it shouldnt be losing money like it is now. Thats for sure.

[sri_tesla]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

And I honestly dont understand the constant excuses people make up for Tesla not being profitable. Its not some gigantic telecom/infrastructure company needing decades to reach break even point. Its just a car company. Should have started making money years before. Atleast it shouldnt be losing money like it is now. Thats for sure.

So all car companies should make profits or else close the shop? Didn't GM just came out of bankruptcy in 2009 with govt support? Why did that happen?

I think most people like me defending Tesla because they are making EVs. If Tesla had been making regular ICE vehicles they would have treated it just like other car makers. Tesla investors and shareholders does not seem to be worried about them losing money every year. In fact they will worry if Tesla stops expansion and developing new products.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by sri_tesla

So all car companies should make profits or else close the shop? Didn't GM just came out of bankruptcy in 2009 with govt support? Why did that happen?

I think most people like me defending Tesla because they are making EVs. If Tesla had been making regular ICE vehicles they would have treated it just like other car makers. Tesla investors and shareholders does not seem to be worried about them losing money every year. In fact they will worry if Tesla stops expansion and developing new products.

The U.S Federal govt stepping in to save G.M was wrong and immoral. Using tax payer money to bail out inefficient , unsuccessful businesses is something I do not support in any way or form. I mean imagine if Kingfisher airlines was bailed out by govt with our tax money. GM should have gone bankrupt. The management should have been sacked. The Comapny should have been put up for sale. But alas politics got the better hand at the end of the day. Obama bailed out GM so he could gloat about how he saved it or something.

[sri_tesla]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

The U.S Federal govt stepping in to save G.M was wrong and immoral. Using tax payer money to bail out inefficient , unsuccessful businesses is something I do not support in any way or form. I mean imagine if Kingfisher airlines was bailed out by govt with our tax money. GM should have gone bankrupt. The management should have been sacked. The Comapny should have been put up for sale.

Please read below exactly what happened with GM with bailout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...reorganization

Govt sold lot of assets of GM to get back the money that they gave. They got substantial amount back. US govt spent $49.5 billion on GM bailout and they got $38.3 billion back after the sale of different assets and selling shares later. Loss to govt was $11.2 billion but it saved more than million jobs and as per a report govt got back more than $35 billion as tax from jobs saved. They have used tax payers money to save GM but they got much more in tax payers money because of bailout. I don't think its immoral to save people's jobs.

By the way, there are many govts across the world that provide lot of incentives to corporations for setting their manufacturing or development centers in their regions. Those govts also use tax payers money to provide different facilities to companies. Its not illegal or immoral to do that. It will create lot of jobs and govts will get back indirectly in form of personal and corporate taxes over a period of time.

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by sri_tesla

Please read below exactly what happened with GM with bailout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...reorganization

Govt sold lot of assets of GM to get back the money that they gave. They got substantial amount back. US govt spent $49.5 billion on GM bailout and they got $38.3 billion back after the sale of different assets and selling shares later. Loss to govt was $11.2 billion but it saved more than million jobs and as per a report govt got back more than $35 billion as tax from jobs saved. They have used tax payers money to save GM but they got much more in tax payers money because of bailout. I don't think its immoral to save people's jobs.

By the way, there are many govts across the world that provide lot of incentives to corporations for setting their manufacturing or development centers in their regions. Those govts also use tax payers money to provide different facilities to companies. Its not illegal or immoral to do that. It will create lot of jobs and govts will get back indirectly in form of personal and corporate taxes over a period of time.

So would you support then if our central govt stepped in and saved kingfisher airlines? Lots of people lost their jobs at KFA. What about when Satyam went under? Would you prefer it was the central govt that took over Satyam instead of Mahindra? And who gets to decide which companies needs to be bailed out and which dont? How do you decide between bailing out a large corporation or 50 smaller ones ? Who has the moral authority to do that and on what basis? My father is an owner of an enterprise so are lots of bhpians here. Why cant we all be bailed out too if we go under?

If GM was allowed to go bankrupt, the private players would have taken over the assets, identified what went wrong, changed the management, restructured the company and we would have had stronger GM now like we have a stronger Mahindra Satyam. As far as Ive heard Gm is just another recession away from being broke again. People call it Government motors instead of General motors in jest. GM is getting around now in U.S because of the insanely low interest rates on car loans. The whole auto car loan market is a bubble in the U.S. No thanks again to the U.S govt giving a helping hand to stimulate the economy.

Incentives for companies to invest like low taxes and building of infrastructure like roads and power lines isnt the same as outright bailing out of a failing company. One would argue the former is a duty of the government. The latter is most certainly not. Bailing out failing companies only provides a perverse moral hazard. The company that knows its going to be bailed out takes all sorts of wild risks, makes rash decisions, operates inefficiently because at the end of the day who cares if it goes broke. Big Sugar daddy government will bail them out again and again. And its grossly unfair to smaller competing companies.

[GTO]

Mod Note: No more off-topic posts please. Thanks!

[Steeroid]

Originally Posted by satishv1987

Hypothetically if Ambani were to buy Tesla, he could do to EVs what he did to 4G. That is not a bad thing.

i.e., kill the industry?

I'm not sure how that could be a good thing.

[maddy42]

Originally Posted by Steeroid

i.e., kill the industry?

I'm not sure how that could be a good thing.

Haha, also this may be the only case where Mukeshbhai does not have deep enough pockets to pull this off at current valuation. Poor him


FYI: GM does not seem to be doing great themself still. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...rter/34262273/


Maddy

[Nissan1180]

A publicly listed company with transparent financials would not be treated with kindness by the stock market unless investors knew that the picture was bigger than immediate profits. Amazon's performance was similar for more than a decade. I think people trust Tesla because the company showed the world what electric cars could achieve. Toyota Prius may have been innovative when it was launched. However, at less than 17 kmpl in the city, it offers no economic advantage over a electric car. If launched in India, I am pretty sure a lot of people would buy this over a Mercedes A class or a BMW 1 series hatchback. Think about it. Tesla is offering a capable electric car for less than what Toyota charges for an Innova. If this is not innovation and a promise of a better future, I don't know what is.

I met someone who shared insights about 'hunting' and 'farming' sales strategies. The only reason the bigger companies are notbin the EV game yet is because they want the market to mature. They have the technology. Unfortunately, they don't have the foresight to realize that a consumer market is not driven by bureaucratic decision making constraints. That's a good thing. It makes it easier for Tesla to succeed.