Jill.........you will like this one. It explains why Hydrogen-powered cars will be Tesla's biggest threat. I tend to agree.

 

I hear often this tale about hydrogen cars.
But the thing is, I believe it's more a hoax, that is ported by oil companies so that they still can be relevant in the future.
A hydrogene car, is loosing energy in every corner. It needs energy to create the fuel, it needs energy to deliver the fuel and it looses part of the fuel stocked to deliver the power.

IF humanity was intelligent. IF. They would go away from personal transportation, and start to have a public transportation system that would replace the street based systems. Because, for 10'000 peoples, you need to make 8000 cars, to fuel them, to insure them, to park them, to maintain them, but you only need two wagons of tramway, that will be shared bewteen ten of thousands of individuals at different moments of the day.

 

Just ask natnut.
This is what they already have in Singapore and Hong Kong etc.
A sophisticated underground rail system.

 

The problem with your scenario is that, with the unique demands of modern life, everyone's needs are different, public transportation does not go everywhere, it usually does not operate 24 hours a day, it invites crime, it can help spread disease (COVID is an excellent example), you're sometimes out of luck if you lose your fare/tickets, you have to routinely get from your house to the transit-station and back home, there is often political and economic fraud in the way the systems are run, and public transportation systems are often staffed by incompetent or rude managers/employees that can't be reprimanded, disciplined, or fired because of the extremely strong unions. (I'm a strong supporter of employee rights, but also employee responsibilities).

Like it or not, the system we have, with personal transportation and automobiles, evolved at least partly because of the inadequacies and problems of public transportation and railroads. To try and rely solely on public transportation (even cabs/Uber/Lyft) would be like going back to the Dark Ages.

 

I think this is where you are fundamentally wrong and look at Tesla through the wrong lens. In my opinion the absolute worst thing Tesla could have done was tie up with a legacy automaker. Tesla thrives precisely because it is not a legacy automaker nor tied to one. Tesla just doesn’t follow any industry norm on product cycle. A same model year vehicle may see multiple revisions, rolled out just as soon as they are ready, some of these same-year refreshes being highly significant like the Model S/X Raven upgrades, for example. Tesla raises and lowers prices and changes features at will. New vehicles sell largely at MSRP with the exception of a few inventory vehicles. And you’re not buying from a traditional dealer. Tesla also made and continues to make huge investments in charging infrastructure. They can also sell you solar and batteries to optimize home charging.

almost none of this reconciles with a traditional automaker. Such a tie up would stifle innovation and result in a Tesla more like the traditional manufacturer, not the other way around, or even some happy medium. Because Tesla needs no such thing. Tesla is setting a standard for others to follow - but despite all their supposed advantages, they can’t, won’t or haven’t. They just dont operate the way Tesla operates. Tesla does have areas for improvement, most specifically build quality, and here there perhaps is an argument that a competent legacy could help raise their game. But again, that isn’t a compelling enough justification. Tesla owners by and large demonstrably focus much more on other things such as technology, performance and range. And as I’ve said before, Tesla’s ability to close the quality gap is greater then the legacy manufacturers’ ability to close the technology, innovation, performance and brand gap.

And Tesla today hit an all time high and have an enterprise value much greater than many of the legacy industry leaders combined.

And in my estimation almost none of the above would have happened, or happened to nearly the extent it has, if Tesla had tied up with one of them.

Tesla has thrived precisely because it blazes these trail alone.

 

....and that's one of the reasons why they have (arguably) the highest defect-level, in their new vehicles, of any significant manufacturer.

 

What if we have a basic infrastructure for mass public transportation like Benoit proposes already taking place with public underground rail in Singapore and Hong Kong etc.
Then we add Uber/taxis and the traditional motor car to meet personal needs?

I'm only taking an educated guess, but I'd say long term, Tesla will follow in the footsteps of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler...

 

The other fallacy is that the Legacy guys can easily just switch to EV. This switch is going to cause MASSIVE issues in their current business model which Tesla won't have to deal with at all. Imagine a Lexus EV that has bulletproof reliability and NO MAINTENACE SCHEDULE. Buy buy dealership profits. My Tesla has been by far, more convenient and easier than any Lexus I've owned because I have never had reason to go the service station. A well designed magnet motor rarely needs servicing...maybe new gear oil at a couple hundred thousand miles? No tranny or differential oil to worry about...no flushes of coolant...no emissions testing. I would hate to be a dealership right now

 

I think a more feasible solution is to keep personal transportation, but simply have people in smaller, more efficient vehicles that don't take up as much space on the roads. IMO, it ludicrous to see single persons tooling around in Chevy Suburbans/Ford Expeditions unless they have very heavy family-hauling or towing-needs. Or to see people in 700/800 HP Dodge Hellcats/Demons, when all they are doing is running to the grocery store and back. I myself am downsizing, for that and other reasons.

We might (?) also be getting somewhat off-topic, but that's up to the mods.

 

Or people could switch to an EV with 700/800hp when they go to the grocery store and have a much cleaner footprint than a tiny ICE economy car. Plenty of those running around these days anyway (its what a Model S Performance currently has).

 

An EV with that kind of power will take a fair amount of current to recharge it....and electricity itself is not free, nor, except for solar/wind-power, is it itself produced without the need for other forms of energy to produce it. Why not make more EVs with simply the power that is needed for most normal daily-driving, and that's it? I test-drove a Model 3 some months ago, and, IMO, found it ridiculously overpowered...particularly in the hands of unskilled, immature, or careless drivers. It would handily dust-off the fastest of the American muscle cars I grew up with in the 1960s...and they were overpowered for most normal driving.

 

You're thinking about it wrong. You have to look at the inherent efficiency of the vehicle, not how much power it has. For example, a Model 3 LR has an MPGe about 130 miles with about 400hp but the much smaller and lighter and weaker Nissan Leaf has an MPGe about 110 miles. Unlike ICEs, adding power doesn't necessary add more weight or size. Very different paradigm.

 

 

Tesla comes up 500 units short of their goal of selling 500,000....the did lower a lot of prices and gave away a ton of stuff for free. Apparently line speeds were increased quite a bit

 

This is a MASSIVE victory for Tesla. They grew 61% vs last year in a global pandemic.

They are at an all time high with a market value of $670B which is worth more than Toyota and VW combined.

Also, I wouldn't want a Christmas car...think of quality issues with increased line speed