Porsche, Audi Forced To Change Plans After Tesla Model 3 Teardown


It seems Tesla is making incredible progress with its Model 3 manufacturing materials and process.

According to a recent report by Germany’s Manager-Magazin via Electrek, Porsche and Audi have taken a step back, and may be planning for a new direction after reverse-engineering the Tesla Model 3. Teardowns and reverse-engineering processes are commonplace in the automotive industry. This is especially true when new products are revealed, and, of course, when new competing products are in the pipeline.

We’ve published many Tesla Model 3 teardowns, as well as Tesla battery deep dives. Industry expert Sandy Munro was a bit skeptical of Tesla’s entry-level, lower-priced offering. He even went so far as to compare it to an early Kia, in terms of fit and finish. However, further analysis at a later date told a different story. While Munro still exposed issues with the Model 3, which is part of his job, he was enamored with the car’s construction in a number of ways.

So, we’re not surprised that these German automakers came to a similar conclusion. As it turns out, German automakers that are currently underway with electric cars that will likely compete with the Model 3 may be concerned that the car’s futuristic construction and low production costs will prove difficult to match. The crazy part is we’re talking about a reasonably new American automaker with little experience versus the best in the business. Wow!

Now that the Model 3 is officially integrated into the European market, we anticipate more activity pertaining to the above. As Electrek shares via Germany’s Manager Magazin, the German automakers stated:

The Porsche and Audi engineers have to change [the Premium Platform Electric program] because Tesla’s Model 3 has gotten better than they thought.

The report goes on to say that the companies are concerned their cars are going to be too expensive. While Porsche seems okay with losing money initially, Audi doesn’t want to deal with a loss. The most substantial cost prohibitor is the vehicle’s battery pack, which Tesla is fortunate to build in partnership with Panasonic at its Nevada Gigafactory — the largest battery factory on the planet at this point and growing daily.

Manager-Magazin notes that Audi and Porsche could potentially hold up/push back future production in order to revamp models to better compete with the Tesla Model 3. As the story goes on, Audi’s report even refers to the current Audi e-tron program as a failure (via Electrek):

The e-tron as the first electric Audi is not only late. It does not reach some target values and has become far too expensive with more than two billion euros in development costs. The approximately 600,000 cars sold for the break-even are now regarded as an illusion.

Not unlike Tesla vehicles (wow it’s hard to build and launch these cars?), the Audi e-tron has continued to be way behind its timelines. We’ve seen much the same situation with the Jaguar I-Pace. Anyhow, look forward to more reports like this and either a major delay or revamp to European automakers’ EV production efforts as issues are ironed out.

By the way, what’s up with Volkswagen. Need we say more?

Source: Electrek

Categories: Audi, Porsche, Tesla

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

373 Comments on "Porsche, Audi Forced To Change Plans After Tesla Model 3 Teardown"

newest oldest most voted

So other than the battery cost what was the concern? No information at all – poor journalism.

The “end result” is, it’s the batteries…. BTW, that is the information……

If the competition is learning this, something Tesla knew almost 10 years ago, they are 10 years behind. Might as we’ll just give up. Proves idiom, can’t teach old dogs new tricks.

I’m reading David McCullough’s, The Wright Brothers, now. Old Orv and Will were way ahead of everyone else including well-funded projects by the Smithsonian Institution. If everyone else just gave up as you suggest, where would we be now? The more the better.

Yes. And actually there are no Wright airliners, bombers, fighter jets, cargoplanes etc. None in any category.

Actually Curtiss-Wright is still in the aero-space business and is a successor to Wright Aeronautical corp.

Gustav Weißkopf? Some say he did it 2 years before the Wright Brothers.

If he did actually achieve controlled powered flight, as he claimed, then he doesn’t get credit for the same reason that it is Columbus who is credited with the European discovery of the Americas. The Vikings discovered it earlier, but their discovery didn’t lead to anything. Gustave Whitehead’s achievements, large or small, didn’t lead to anything, either.

Neither Columbus nor the vikings ‘discovered’ anything. You can’t discover a place where people already live. They went there. It’s different.

Good book! I just finished reading it two weeks ago. New ideas and “vehicles” usually start ahead of the pack, but as in the Wright Aircraft company, they fell behind to the bigger, well financed companies that were on their tail… Orville was overwhelmed and spent most of his time in court defending their patients – in which others copied and made better aircraft. The only thing left of the Wright Aircraft Company after ten years was bought up by their oldest competitor, the Curtis Aircraft Co. – becoming the Curtis-Wright Company, which then was bought out…etc.

I’ll bet Tesla will also be gone (in it’s single ownership condition ) within ten years. It usually happens that way. Don’t beat me up Tesla Fans, it’s just the common business cycle of things new.

As long as they buy me out at over $500 a share I will be happy since by then it will be too last for ICE cars.

No they where making it seem that it’s was the platform and other design features but everyone understands that’s it’s the batteries. Nothing to see here

What is your degree in, and have you done a tear down? Sandy Monroe says it’s much more and I’ll take his word over ….. whoever you are.

Well that depends. They could get smart and compete with a better design. But unlikely they will because they really don’t want to build EVs.
With $100mm I could give Tesla a run for the money by making them in composites at 60% of the weight, cost, battery pack.
First I’d order as many cells as possible then start producing EVs. One could build a cool 4 passenger CUV in 1800lbs with 200 mile range for $20k with a good profit from better design, far lower tooling, start up
Composite body/chassis is so much stronger, lighter, along with good aero which is easy but most ignore it, one would have a 30% price advantage over Tesla, if not more.
I was going to say safer but Tesla is hard to beat but it can be done.
One the 3 cost I’ve said for 2 yrs now it was a lot less than people thought plus their battery, EV drive, open minded design, others will have a very hard time competing unless they change greatly.
And 1 thing big auto, most corporations can’t do well is change.

ROFL. You’re completely ignoring the costs of homologation (the safety tests alone, since they are destructive and fully instrumented, require multi-$10M per test per market, and you need multiple iterations), marketing, training servicepeople, maintaining parts warehouses etc.
Try about 30x your figure. And that’s without using radical stuff like composites. Even VW, who has no shortage of supply chain expertise, ended up needed to get their CFRP panels from the PNW region of the US.

And that raises the point that you need to do tests in North America , and in Europe, so double the costs there too.

…fiberglass? Don’t forget the volume required to build a manufacturing system that could compete economically with a Model 3. Even if all of Jerry’s systems were brilliantly designed, it still has to be built in a manufacturing system that is competitive. One offs are incredibly expensive – hand built first editions are reported by OEMs as costing in the millions, and that does not include the development work, nor the production engineering or building the lines etc. That is just the first pre-mass-production build cost!

And i don’t think the makers mark “from Jerry’s garage” is going to spur the level of sales to justify banks and investors to finance the billions it would take to catch up in production capabilities to his 100 year old competitors.

“Composite body/chassis is so much stronger, lighter”

Yes, this is why BMW I3 is relatively light. It is the first mass market car that has a carbon fiber frame. However it is more expensive to manufacture the car like this. Hence the BMW I3 is quite expensive for its size class.

Of course you can, but it suggests there won’t be any real “Tesla killers” any time soon. Big auto only understands ICE right now.

They’re the best in the world in building cars not batteries. The article implies they are being beat by Tesla in regards to what they are best at.

Note: Tesla also has a better electric motor. And the system they use to move heating and coolant around is a design that Sandy says start turf wars in standard car companies.

Basically, car companies will have to do the same as IBM did to start selling PCs. IBM created an independent company that only made and sold IBM PCs, it was doing so okay (stealing sales from the old mainframe company) that IBM the mother company took control back. It did not work, people still kept buying PCs instead of mainframes.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Oh, dear god, this is funny!!! A genuine LOL moment!

In British terms, are you daft? What part of Porsche/Audi cannot make an electric vehicle once they realized their mistakes after reverse engineering a Tesla not inform you of a major rethink? Ice vehicles are entrenched in internal combustion engines, not battery vehicles. Tesla was designed from a clean sheet of paper. Neither Porsche nor Audi have any expertise in designing a new battery car. Unofficially admitting their bewilderment at how Teslas are made is the rude awakening that perhaps they’re not as innovative as they thought they were……. This translates to making a true ev most likely more expensive than Teslas against a narrow market of few buyers interested in high end vehicles with high end prices without high end performance. I can’t imagine a Porsche ev with similar or better all around ice car characteristics unless Porsche alters their baseline parameters to accept higher weight from batteries changing Porsche driving dynamics forever to die hard Porsche owners. Something like Porsche-i and Porsche-e. Two vastly different vehicles with vastly different handling characteristics.

Well the Taycan is literally built on a new platform, so is the MEB, so I’m not sure what your point is here?

I know. Talking out their arse

You are assuming the MEB platform will be good.

The Taycan is being built right. It will be a good vehicle and Porsche should sell a bunch of them. Doubt the SUV will do well. This should be a an electric sports car not an SUV. That SUV body just does not look right.

SUV? The second Porsche EV will be the Cross-Turismo, that is a hatch-back / CUV version of the Taycan.


Worth pointing out that the modern Porsche is “not” a sports car manufacturer any more. Today they produce and sell more SUV’s than their sports cars. People love their SUV’s.

Audi says: «Vorsprang durch teknik»
Which was a fine thing until to say as long as the other classic car industry didnt give a rats ass, and was happy an inch or two behind.

Then Tesla entered the market. And Tesla arrived with a Master-Plan, which was laughed at.
Then the Roadster arrived, then Model S, then Model X. And atleast the S and X are like using a Tomahawk missile as a warning-shot.
And all that time the Model 3 was in the Public Master-Plan. Even the price was revealed, and all the patents opensourced.

And what did Audi say to all of this? Well, nothing worth mentioning.
The arrogancy from the german car behemoths is nothing more then a disgrace.

VWs new BEV are clean slate

Their meb platform has horrible packaging. Each functional unit is a discrete part rather then full systems integration.

You do a integrated system of discrete parts. So what are you talking about?

I presume he’s talking about what Sandy Munro raved about, at length, in the Autoline After Hours video interview. In the Model 3 even more than in their previous models, Tesla has integrated the disparate systems found in other auto makers’ cars into an integrated whole, saving many parts and thus significantly lowering build cost.

It’s a completely new approach to designing and building cars. Tesla is changing the auto industry in profound ways.

I don’t normally watch extended video interviews lasting more than an hour, but this is one I’ll recommend for everyone who really wants to understand what Tesla is doing. Sandy has a lot to say that I found fascinating.


Keep going Tesla!

How do you know this? Have you seen the details of their design?

They have published enough details to make it believable that it’s a clean-sheet design.

Agreed. I don’t think any large automanufactures wants to go Tesla’s route for the battery pack. Thousands of cells is just a problem in the making. The benefit is the cells are cheap. The downfall is the packs are more complex. And from the video’s I’ve seen the banks of cells that make of the pack are kind of throw away because how everything is glued/glue welded together.

Yeah, why would anyone want to adopt what the company having 80% of the market does? Crazy! 😉

Cylindrical cells are cheaper per kWh, but are harder to package. If you want to produce small compliance volumes, then go for prismatic and do the lesser wiring by hand.

If you want to go for volume market and be profitable, then invest in the capital and expertise to package the cylinders, because in the end the lowest overall price per kWh is the driving point of the lance for profitability in EVs. Because the extra cost of the line will be amortized over a larger volume and eventually result in a lower price at the pack level too.

Some people can forsee the long term consequences of economics and physics.

You have clearly not seen a battery pack made with prismatic cells. It is almost completely automatic (as all serial production is now). Check out a YouTube video, and see for yourself.
Niche market production can of course be way more manual.

You clearly don’t understand what is being said. Cell cost + assembly/packaging = total cost. It doesn’t change if you argue that assembly costs less for cylindrical are higher, but the total cost is still lower. Pack vs pack regardless of what’s inside if they hold the same energy capacity and are both safe, the lower cost one is more economical by definition.

Now here is someone who has been paying attention.

Prismatic cells are better for automation, i.e. high volume.

Cylindrical cells are used in low volume products as you can walk in a store and just buy them. That is why Tesla started with that concept.

At some time Tesla will switch to pouch cells as well.

“At some time Tesla will switch to pouch cells as well.”

Not likely. Pouch cells have to be glued into a rigid frame to keep them from moving around. The so-called advantage of pouch cells is completely negated by the need to provide a framework for every cell. The cylindrical cells which Tesla uses, with their hard case or “can”, are much easier and simpler to assemble into a pack.

Tesla’s pack-level costs are lower than their competitors, despite the need for more connections between the smaller cells.

If you build motors, then it looks bad, but none of the prts move once assembled. If a cell goes bad it turns itself off and none’s the wiser. It has a tiny effect.

Depends on how it fails. Can bring doen a series of batteries.

Gosh yes, it’s terrible how Tesla’s use of small cheap battery cells rather than large-format expensive cells has resulted in lower costs, both at the cell level and the pack level, for Tesla.

Oh, wait…

The full answer can be found in the Autoline After Hours interview with Sandy Munro. He compares what he has found in his teardowns of the BMW i3, the Chevy Bolt EV, and the Tesla Model 3. The full video is pretty long, 1 hr 43 minutes, but for those who really want to learn how Tesla is beating its competitors, it’s worth the time spent. (Do use YouTube’s settings to speed it up, however. I found Sandy quite understandable at 1.25x speed… the other guys in the video speak a lot slower, and can be understood at 1.5x speed. Or better yet, just fast forward past them, ‘cuz what they have to say isn’t that interesting.) The TM3 has a motor which is smaller and lighter, by Sandy’s estimate cheaper, and more energy efficient than its competitors. Perhaps more importantly, Tesla shows surprising innovations in making one part or subassembly perform the function of what, in competing cars, would be several. Sandy showed off the heat exchanger from the Model 3, which he says performs all the heat exchange functions in the car, which in competitors’ cars would take 3 heat exchangers. When it comes to Tesla’s cars, the… Read more »

I watched that video and learned a lot. I also left with a great deal of respect for Sandy, though his cheap plug for Ram pick-ups didn’t help any.

Go back to sleep, Van Winkle.

The article is via Electrek so its not poor journalism. Its not journalism at all. Half of most stories from Electrek seem to be completely made up.

True. ELecTrek was once Tesla Tribune until it made a negative article of Tesla and got thier credentials and access remove

Which article was that?

It does seem to be an interesting and possibly made up story. I am supposed to believe that they bought and did tear downs of a couple of the very first model 3s sold, but they only just recently said “oh crap how is any of this possible?!?”

And the reason? Because these companies have no experience making BEVs!

Except that they actually do.

Nothing in this story passes the smell test.

Fun! Despite the down votes, an interesting thing I noticed about the link that Electrek provides to the German magazine: that link is not to the story they claim.

Further, despite spending some time browsing the site, I can’t find the article in question.

Unless this entire article is based off a single random quote buried deep in another article about something else entirely, I am not completely clear where they are getting this from…

Try the way back machine. Most likely the manufacturers had their lawyer called and they reused the link to get this effect.

Actually, it looks like the article is exactly the one they claim. It’s just that it’s a much broader article about the state of Audi (which Electrek does mention), with the remarks regarding PPE apparently being only one part of it.

(At least that’s what it sounds like — I’m not going to pay for reading the actual article, just to disprove your baseless accusations…)

What paywall, I just went straight to the article – no paywall. Are you too scare to read it?

I don’t know whether you have some “magic” access — but when I follow the link, I get the first few paragraphs of the article, and an invitation to get a “premium” account.

Why would I be scared of reading it? I’m not an Audi stakeholder…

Weird, I never joined the magazine. Chrome translates it to English and I get no premium offer. (Note: I did on other pages) I don’t know why it works for me!

“I am supposed to believe that they bought and did tear downs of a couple of the very first model 3s sold, but they only just recently said ‘oh crap how is any of this possible?!?’.”

Good point. The article should have explained that these “Back to the drawing board!” changes of plans — assuming what’s claimed in the article is true — have apparently occurred shortly after Sandy Munro made his full report on his Model 3 teardown analysis available for those willing to pay his high price for the report. It seems that more than one auto maker was indeed willing to pay Sandy’s price for that.

Supposedly it’s a result of the teardown(s) by German car makers, that were reported on even before Munro’s.

No where in there does it back up the claim however.

It reports that Electrek have a blog post about Model 3’s being air freighted, some comments about it being reverse engineered and then some historic quotes about VW and Mercedes tearing down Model X and complaining about them.

Yeah, it’s an old article about the teardown. The new article supposedly talks about some changes in thinking that resulted from the teardown…

It’s plausible, since one of the German car makers (was it Daimler?) actually stated officially that they have to increase their EV investments, because “competitors have made more advances”, or something along these lines.

Thank you said the same thing

I’m sure they would like to tell you more but the source probably disclosed more than they should have.

“The crazy part is we’re talking about a reasonably new American automaker with little experience versus the best in the business. Wow!”

As I’ve said before: The thing about disruptive tech revolutions is… they’re actually disruptive. 😉

Oh, and a Bronx cheer to all those Tesla detractors and bashers who kept claiming that Tesla has no tech advantage over other auto makers. They were even more wrong than I thought!

Keep going Tesla!

What drives disruptive technology is not entrenched companies, but start ups. We see this time and time again from the likes of Apple, Qualcomm, Google, Tesla.

What is surprising is how GM is able to come second best despite being so dysfunctional.

GM’s problem is that it is shrinking daily. This infuses immediate cash savings and gives the appearance that GM is financially stable or even profitable. The truth is that GM literally has no future. You simply cannot shrink your business every day and expect it to be sustainable. GM is the car manufacturer equivalent of a “dead man walking.” Literally, its only innovation in decades is a new pickup truck tailgate that costs $4,000.

Speaking of that tailgate, it is awesome!

It’s a crazy overdone monster of a thing just like the trucks its attached (to Applies to Ford and FCA too).

With what metric is GM “second best” considering Hyundai/Kia and Porsche/Audi efforts? Honest question.

Well, the fine folks of the United States of Trumpistan uses imperial metrics. And i guess they only measure themselves against other imperial countries. Which i then guess gives GM the second place 😀

Compared to the Tesla Model 3, the Bolt EV and the BMW i3 are second best in motor efficiency, size, and — according to Sandy Munro — cost. Again according to Sandy, Tesla is far and away better at integrating what’s in the car to perform multiple functions with fewer parts, and thus save costs.

Tesla is also, according to many reviewers, best at integrating the functionality and controls if their cars into a whole, a gestalt, in a user-friendly way which is intuitive and easy to use.

It’s not just that Tesla’s cars are significantly better in many ways than GM’s cars. It’s that they are better in many ways than everybody else’s cars.

Other auto makers have better body builds and quality control. But it seems that Tesla is better at pretty much everything else.

I see Kia and Hyundai as second best.

Glad to see Rivian upping game. All this subpar half assign grates me

I guess if your handle is “BoltEV,” one needs to insert GM into any discussion no matter how irrelevant it is.

No, he is right. GM did not as good as it could if it really tried, but it sure did better than most of the other old car companies.

Yea, I don’t know how people have such short memories, GM has actually been a pioneer in EV’s over the years. Nissan too.

Well maybe you can buy one of those Hyundai/KIA EVs but I can’t even get a test drive in North America. GM must be selling something to have their insentives halved so there’s that.

ok, of that list 5th best.

Please. Look at the history of those companies with electric vehicles over the last 30 years or so and then claim Porsche/Audi are anywhere close to “second”. Or Hyundai.

He claimed “second best”, not “second” in terms of timelines — so history is irrelevant. It’s all about their current efforts. And saying that GM is second best right now is indeed a pretty bold claim…

I have yet to see an example of how GM is second to anyone in the EV market. Sure, GM had the idea to use LG’s capabilities in order to build batteries and build drivetrains. But where does that put GM ahead of anyone?

GM is mired in the status of relying on someone else for battery technology. GM is dependant upon LG’s output and pricing. GM, for all of it’s early milestones, still produces one overpriced EV at compliance levels.

GM had a great engineering accomplishment with the Voltec power train, but failed to do anything with it. It, like the Bolt, languished until GM pulled the plug on it.

If this is “second” to Tesla, I fear for the advancement of the electric vehicle.

You said it but did not realize it. The problem is not GM tech, they are in second place because their management keeps them there.

I should not need to point to GM’s lack of effective management. Isn’t it always about management? Most don’t question GM’s engineering prowess, but in the end everything is dependent upon how management invests in, utilizes and advances the engineering skills of its employees. Sending the design and engineering to a third party rather than building the product yourself is not the way to move forward.

Why is GM reliant on LG? The design is GM. They could move production to another vendor if they offered better pricing.

Sure, GM could go to the lowest cost supplier. GM would simply be moving the production to one vendor after another while saving pennies rather than building its own manufacturing and saving real dollars.

This is why automakers all build their own engines. An automaker can’t farm out production of its most expensive part and expect to make sufficient profits (except for low production and rare exotics). If the argument prevailed that vendors could build cars for less than automakers, all we would have is Apple style automakers who farm out the manufacturing to others. That works fine for small consumer electronics. Not so fine for large scale manufacturing. And GM proves this with the Bolt.

Sorry but most cars are made with parts sourced from all over. The idiot in the White House may not understand it but automakers have been building internationally made cars and trucks for quite some time. Even Tesla shares the construction of it’s batteries with an outside firm. Not sure how this article became a GM criticism but they make a decent, reasonable priced EV in numbers to fit the demand. I wish there were more companies doing that right now. (Looking at you VW).

The e-Golf sells in similar numbers as the Bolt.

I agree with your comments, with one missing detail, they are widely believed to lose money per vehicle. It isn’t year one of production, where are the innovations and cost savings being enacted to actually make it a volume car (Bolt). They have stopped production the Volt. The dedication to EVs is currently lip service, while like has been said having the #2 EV out there (partially due to losing money per sale). Also, not selling it at many dealerships. I contacted Chevy last year for a test drive. They directed me 600 miles away to be able to test drive.

Jean-Baptiste Labelle

Well, no, almost any manufacturer are making the platform and the drivetrain, including the motor themselves as this is a big differentiator.

Many automakers outsource engine and even transmission design and manufacture. Some examples are Cummins, Mercury Marine and Allison transmission.

There are certainly exceptions, but most GM automobiles use gas engines built by GM factories. There are many parts that are cheaper for an auto maker to farm out to a supplier, but farming everything out doesn’t make economic sense if you’re going to build cars in high volume.

“This is why automakers all build their own engines. An automaker can’t farm out production of its most expensive part and expect to make sufficient profits…”

Precisely. GM didn’t farm out the design and build of the entire EV powertrain for the Bolt EV to LG Electronics/ LG Chem because that would make the car more profitable; they did it to get a BEV into production in a quick-and-dirty fashion. As a result GM is making very little if any profit off the car, at least partly because much of the profit margin is going to LG.

When GM gets serious about making and selling a high-volume production BEV, then it will be assembling the EV powertrain in-house, and making many of their own parts… just as GM makes its own gas engines rather than farming that out.

How you got two thumbs down is a mystery to me. Some say Elon didn’t invent anything but chose off the shelf parts to create a Tesla. I think innovate may be a better description to incorporate all that’s known to create a mass produced vehicle for the people interested in iceless vehicles. Perhaps the brilliance was innovating at every level to fine tune an all electric vehicle from a blank piece of paper and partnering with Panasonic to create the first gigafactory manufacturing lithium battery packs for Teslas in order to meet the huge demand of battery manufacturing for evs. And let’s not forget Elon stepping up first to erect super charger stations to allow long distance trips.

Who designed the magnets in the motors Tesla is using?

Tesla builds their own electric motors onsite in the Fremont factory. There is even video of it on youtube

Sure they ASSEMBLE their own motors, and it’s likely their own design, I have trouble believing they are building and designing their own sub-components (magnets, wire, shafts, bearings) – I could buy the housing is their own specific design.

I’m sure they set the requirements for alot of these sub-components, but I’m pretty sure Telsa isn’t drawing copper wire, or fabricating their own magnets.

Your comment is nonsensical. What does producing nuts and bolts have to do with ANY automaker? Does it matter that VW doesn’t produce its own tires or draw its own wire?

Did you think we wouldn’t notice you moving the goal-posts, from talking about who designed the magnets, to who fabricated the magnets? Shame.

The reality is that Tesla not only designs and build their own electric motors, they also design and build their own inverters.

That is a given. They buy bearings, wire, magnets and stuff like that. They either order off the shelf parts, or get some parts custom made. They may buy parts from a foundry as well.
The design could be their own anyway.
It would normally not be profitable to make all by their own (lots of expensive special equipment and machinery) unless they reach a certain volume.

What does your comment have to do with the post? Of course no automaker has its own steel factory or mining operations. Does this somehow take away from the fact that successful automakers control production and design to a very large degree. Tesla didn’t have someone else build its cars because that’s not how automakers make the big bucks. Having someone else build your cars is also not how automakers influence the marketplace.

Some auto manufacturers have their own steel production. Fully or partially owned. Hyundai for example..
Special steel types are bought by companies like ThyssenKrupp for example.

And some of the larger manufacturers have their own foundries.

Tesla’s top electric motor designers, Principal Motor Designer Konstantinos Laskaris, Motor Design Engineer Konstantinos Bourchas, and Staff Motor Design Engineer Vasilis Papanikolaou, all came out of the National Technical University of Athens. Tesla has its own motor research group in Athens.
The breakthrough in solving the torque ripple problem of Switched Reluctance Motors by adding small magnets comes from research conducted by Nimal Savio Lobo in 2011.
The software and inverters required are likely Tesla designs.
Tesla uses a 6 pole design instead of 3 pole to further reduce ripple.
They also use the motor to generate heat for battery conditioning.
Munro could not think of anyone who could make the 4 stack magnets…

Contrary to some early speculation, Tesla does *not* use an experimental SRM motor design with magnets in the stator. It uses an IPM motor — with some amount of reluctance torque — just like pretty much everyone else nowadays. The major innovation is the use of Halbach arrays for the magnets.

(There might be some other minor improvements that haven’t been discussed widely…)

Link to where I can read about this?

Don’t have a link at hand; but the fact that it’s an IPM motor is obvious from the teardown photos published by Sandy Munro, and has been discussed in various places. The Halbach array has been discussed in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVnRQRdePp4

The motor that Tesla uses in the Model 3 is a new and greatly improved design, yielding higher efficiency. Sandy Munro raved about that at length. It’s not just “minor improvements”, and it’s certainly not appropriate to dismiss Tesla’s significant achievement in making the already very energy-efficient AC motor even more efficient.

Nor is it appropriate to dismiss Tesla’s achievement in making a motor which is smaller, lighter, and according to Sandy Munro, perhaps as much as 20% lower in costs than the EV motors used by Tesla’s competitors.

The higher power density and lower cost are all a result of the use of Halbach arrays. That’s a major innovation. I said any *other* improvements there might be are probably minor. (Munro didn’t mention anything else IIRC.)

The magnets could be bought on Ebay – since they are used for other motors.
Just Google it, and you can see. Cheap from several Chinese manufacturers.
Interesting that Tesla used it in EV motors. Clearly some of the younger engineers were allowed to give input. It gives improved efficiency, which is allways popular, but use a lot of rare earth magnets though.
The technology behind how magnets like that is used in electric motors are explained in books and educational videos on YouTube and so on. A manufacturer of educational test equipment used in schools have made a good model with a magnetic field sensor arrey. You can change magnet types and location and get a clear understanding on how it works. Expensive, like a lot of educational models though. Many schools just show a video from YouTube that explained it quite well.

“The magnets could be bought on Ebay – since they are used for other motors.”

Magnets composed of four sections with the 3D pole directions in different orientations in each section? I rather doubt that. According to Sandy Munro, nobody else is using magnets like that in their electric motors.

Well, Halbach arrays are formed from four individual magnets glued together… AIUI, the individual magnets are “simple”, i.e. they could be more or less off-the-shelf I guess — though the entire thing is clearly not off-the-shelf.

Other motors use simple flat magnets, not Halbach arrays formed from several bar magnets glued together. While such bar magnets might or might not be available on eBay, they are certainly not used in other EV motors.

(Also, there is nothing interesting about permanent magnets being used in EV motors in general — pretty much everyone does it nowadays. It’s the arrangement that is unique.)

There are many companies that manufacture magnets like that. I was very surpriced that Monroe did not know the tech behind it, or had the ability to use a magnetic film, to see the magnetic field direction of each magnet element.
He should watch a few YouTube videos of the magnet guy.
For cars, Tesla is probably the first who user. Audi made a notice they did not use rare earth magnets at all. Different philosofies. That is cool with choise and competition, since we’ll see a lot of different solutions for many things. There may be several pros and cons to different solutions. The most important one is more EVs come to the market in several price ranges.
I’m interested to see the new Zoe and the new smaller Audi they will show in the swiss car show. The new Zoe may have the new integrated driveunit.

Munro did know the technology — he just hasn’t seen it used at such scale by anyone before.

Keep going all EVs

600 000 e-Trons? Doable. One thing e-Tron has over any of its competition is those die-hard fans of a sticker on the front of the car. Just that could translate into good sales.
However, the best what Audi can do now is to assess what of that investment can be repurposed for the next BEV model, and the next after it and the …

Probably not at the current price point… That appears to be the issue that is dawning on the Audi planners, hence they will likely follow your advice and start intensive work on the next cost reduced platform. History will show the e-Tron to be a transition era novelty.

It probably will be that. But yeah. E-tron vs Model X. The Audi is cheaper, has indeed slightly less range. But that is only if you drive a long distance. In a normal work day you won’t come close to any of the range limits. My last job where I drove around 100.000km a year could be done with this Audi if you did a small amount of trip planning that I already did.

If by “slightly” you mean fully 1/3 less.

In my country the Model X is about $150k, the iPace is about $138k. If I had that sort of money I’d really pay the extra and get a Model X. Audi is a premium brand, if it comes in less than iPace here I’ll be very surprised, so price difference to Model X is negligible.

E Tron does not compete with the Model X, they are entirely different sizes.

Just like the Roadster, Model S & X were..

Imagine that..

No, more like how the I-Pace is a transitional car. Those in the know have described how it very much shows its origins, as the first BEV from a gasmobile maker.

Nothing at all like the Tesla Model S or Model X.

It does have some signs of a true EV platform though, such as short hood / long wheelbase… Which makes it more advanced than the e-Tron or the EQC, which are visibly derived from combustion cars.

Bjorn’s review is worth a watch. His remark about how quiet the eTron is inside came with emphasis. It’s true, for those using it as a daily vehicle, there is plenty of room for happiness. Many wouldn’t buy anything else.

-1 because you sound professional PR
BUT the point about soundproofing is valid. That was always a luxury quantity in a car.

Mercedes and Audi will battle for the quietest car.


Read my posts, to see how I otherwise feel about VW group. Big oil, etc, want this war on all other EVs almost as much as Tesla. Over defending Tessa, by taking down the others, is not helpful.

Agreed. But until the Model Y arrives, what choice do they have? Except to buy a Model Y competitor…at near Model X prices!

QCO, Audi sold 1.8mil vehicles in 2017. 100,000 e-Tron shouldn’t be that hard, and if they have to sell 600,000 at one price, then they could sell 1mil at a slightly lower price and get the same ROI. Like wise they could sell 400,000 at a higher price. Really, they would have crunched all the numbers before even making this vehicle, so I think it highly unlikely they actually lose any money over a 6-10yr period.

The won’t sell the e-tron 55 for 6-10 years. In 2022 this car is practically not sellable and they know that. 600.000 is absolutel impossible.

Normally a car is on the market for 5 years. After 2-3 years they have a facelift, and after 5, a new vehicle replace it.
With the number of EVs Audi and others plan to release, they will probably offer a midlife upgrade, with a facelift – and then replace it. Depending on sales of course.

The fact that the e-Tron uses inferior technology, will make it obsolete as soon as more models based on a proper BEV platform arrive — including the MEB/PPA models from VW (Audi) themselves. That is supposed to happen way sooner than a traditional automotive product cycle.

The article clearly says that Audi missed their targets. So they did crunch the numbers — they just didn’t achieve what was assumed in their number crunching…

Correct. They need a 95kw battery to get range like a Tesla 75kw. So there alone is a big cost difference. Then, LG Chem just demanded 10% more for the batteries…and now you have a 31% cost difference. These companies can’t compete, and certainly can’t scale.

Yet another perfect example of the absolute importance of the gigafactory exactly as Elon said… how many years ago?

I got jeered at repeatedly for claiming, over the past few years in comments to InsideEVs, that other auto makers would need to build their own high-volume battery cell factories, so that like Tesla, they can control their own battery supply, rather than having their EV production being dependent on the ability to buy EV batteries on the open market.

I think those people jeering at me have fallen silent of late. 😉

I have “fallen silent” only in the sense that I can’t keep up with the volume of discussions here.

Tesla has a contract with Panasonic that describes a method for setting prices for the Gigafactory cells. Such a contract doesn’t really require a co-located factory — just being serious about locking in supply. If Audi failed to negotiate something similar, that just suggests their negotiating position was weaker — probably because they weren’t committed to anything near the same volumes… So yes, Tesla does have an advantage here — but not directly related to building their own battery cell factory, for all we know.

It’s interesting to note that apparently they don’t intend to make cells at their Shanghai Gigafactory… The situation has changed: obtaining the volumes they need is apparently now possible without doing a large part of the investment themselves.

Nonsense. Audi E-Tron Quattro has more range than the Tesla X 75 kWh had and E-Tron is cheaper.

Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that e-Tron has more range, considering that AFAIK Audi only published WLTP range so far, while Tesla never published WLTP range… Given Audi’s WLTP range versus Tesla’s EPA range though, I have a hard time believing the Audi will get more when using the same testing regime.

Audi E-tron 55 Quattro range is 417 km WLTP.
Tesla X 75 D range was 417 km NEDC.

The WLTP test cycle much tougher than NEDC. Audi has more range than Tesla.

Try talking to some of those die-hard fans, and you will quickly realize they have badmouthed themselves into a corner.
Since i ordered my first Tesla early 2014 ive heard nothing but negatives. So loud and so many times that its gonna be a pretty big walk of shame to admit they were wrong.

There is only two things left that german cars are «better» at:
1) panel gaps
2) polluting the enviroment

To sell 600,000 of them during the short timespan it will likely be on the market, they’d have to sell way more each year than Tesla sells Model S and Model X combined… Frankly, the brand isn’t really so strong as to outsell Tesla with a rather mediocre product.

Usually I think the Tesla stories are mostly fluff. But, this is really good information. Great job Tesla.

And how does fluff equate to almost every ice car losing a1/4 mile drag race to a Tesla in ludicrous mode? Acceleration from 0-60 in 2.3 seconds? Proven everywhere as old school ice drivers are learning the hard way electric cats can beat them any time any where. I think a McLaren 720S(?) may be one of the very few to beat a Tesla. Oh and I’m not a fanboy of Teslas but admire Elon for presenting a true electric car competing with the big boys.

Because what does a drag race prove? Congrats, you can cover a set distance very quickly. This is a pet peeve even with ICE cars. One of the most glorious eras of motoring was when you could be homologation super hatches that could destroy an apline pass or gravel road, but if all you care about is 0 – 60 times then they wouldn’t have registered.

Before Tesla, all electric cars were considered “golf carts”, particularly slow and uninteresting to drive.
The performance of Tesla’s proves those old stereotypes are wrong. Overcoming that old stereotype was a requirement for Tesla to succeed in its mission.

And at the price points, as well – they are smoking or matching cars that cost 2x, 3x as much, and are purpose-built for sports and speed, while the _P100D_ models are perfectly comfortable family vehicles.

North American mindset. Europeans think about a track, North Americans think about the drag strip.

Because there are vast differences in terrain.

My detailer has a friend with a 720S. It is a dead heat against my P100D with both in commuter setup. Taking two hours to pull my frunk and all easily removable pieces and there is no contest. He does pass me at about 100MPH being notably faster 100 to 150. He has stopped racing due to breakage whereas the P100D seems unaffected.

I don’t get the drag race thing at all. Yes great that you can accelerate quickly. But around a track like Spa/Nurburgring/ Hockenheim the McLaren will be faster than the Tesla.

This year but not next year. ICE is dead.

Model 3 will be in Germany soon enough, I’m sure we will see the odd video of it going around the Nurburgring. I hope it does reasonably well. Track mode already seems to be pretty good.

Before 2008, all electric cars were considered “golf carts”, being slow and uninteresting to drive.
The performance of Tesla’s proves those old stereotypes are wrong. Overcoming that old stereotype was a requirement for Tesla to succeed in its mission.

There were the Eliica EV prototypes in 2004. top speed 320 km/h, 470 kW from 8 hub wheel motors. Limo with gull wing passenger doors, which car did that 10 years later?

Eliica was what got me interested in performance EVs.

None of us will ever drive on the Burger ring so its Irelevant LOL
In downtown Murica its all about stop light to stop light bragging

I don’t care about stop lights, it getting up to speed to merge in to highways I am concerned about. The ramp near me to the 401 is shorten as it ends at an overpass. I need to get up to speed to merge in with big trucks. This is not a place for “slow” cars.

Try the 405 in LA. 3 perf is like priceless.

“But around a track like Spa/Nurburgring/ Hockenheim the McLaren will be faster than the Tesla.”

…the Tesla; Model S – a large luxury sedan? Ha ha funny observation, nice that he can accelerate quickly! Wasn’t the 720s designed to compete (in markets/on tracks) with cars like the 2nd generation Tesla Roadster?

And be prepared to have no regenerative braking because the battery pack is too hot and can not take the energy back fast enough. The disc brakes alone are not adequate to stop from high speed.

Any excuse is good to delay once again its exit, which did not occur in 2018 and will not in 2019.
First software, then the structure of the battery and now Simplemeante is that the Tesla are better and we ashamed get a etron and a taican that are not up to par

ROFL. Soon Tesla will be acquired by Porsche

More accurately – Posche will be begging Tesla to join them

“Alternate Facts” from a troll that defy reality!

And unlike you trolls, Tesla has proven that they can teach old dogs new tricks!!

Correction. Old dogs are still sniffing their tails for exhaust fumes. They’re unable to recognize the new kid without exhaust smells.

Actually, Porsche has recently invested in Rimac, the company making the C Two, 0-62 mph 1.85 second EV hyper car.

And Rimac does help Porsche and Audi to make things for them. And the C2 is indeed a beautiful car.

Much like the Bugatti car, they sell a limited quantity at a loss for the exclusivity and ‘male enhancement’. It’s an interesting concept car but hardly anything a manufacturer of more than 10,000 a year. I think VW does it so they can pretend to use the expensive engineering on their more common cars.

Well, VW is rumoured to have been lined up as a major investor for taking Tesla private — but supposedly Elon didn’t want that… So in a way, Porsche (through VW) was already begging, but Tesla said no…

Unfortunately you’d need the support of shareholders & Elon Musk. Since they’d have neither, neither board would try.

“Soon Tesla will be acquired by Porsche”

😆 😆 😆

Maybe on the planet you live on, but not in the real world. I doubt Tesla would even be interested in buying Porsche. What do they have that Tesla would want?

LOL. Just wait until Tesla misses yet another production target and a bond payment. Right now their market cap is absurd – and VW’s market cap is 33% higher (but based on actual performance).

Hold your breath while you wait,we will see who mises what..LOL

they haven’t missed a bond payment.

What null said! And their production targets are absurdly high. Even with the reduced ramp, the Model 3 production expansion was higher than for any new car ever, aside from the Ford Model T. Their market cap is now about 2 x revenue, for a large cap auto/tech company that has doubled sales year over year. The company’s performance includes growing sales by 25,913% from 2012 to 2018. And no dieselgate losses.

LOL. Just wait until the VAG CEO is in jail.

Your comment reads like someone who judges the performance of a company based on the performance of its stock price.

I prefer to judge a company by its accomplishments, or lack thereof. By that metric, in the EV industry, Tesla is succeeding far better than any other auto maker in the entire world, China included. That’s why Tesla has a lot of fans… as well as investors. And by “investors” I mean real investors who buy Tesla stock… not short-sellers who merely borrow it.

Porsche is 911. The rest is cheap but overpriced VW technology

At one point Porsche nearly acquired VW. Those days are long gone. Tesla made as many cars in Q4 2018 as Porsche and Jaguar combined.

Actually, Porsche *did* acquire VW — though in a rather convoluted series of transactions.

(The original Porsche company was split into the Porsche SE holding and the Porsche AG car maker; the car maker was transferred to VW, but at the same time the majority of VW was transferred to the Porsche holding… I.e. the original Porsche owners now hold a majority of VW.)

Tesla has made all of their patents public. Maybe there would be a good start if Porsche and Audi intend to compete.

By definition, patents are automatically public when they’re issued. The question is do you license or not.

If im not mistaken, Elon said his patents are open for anyone to use. This implies no royalty payments to use his patents. A huge gesture to invite manufacturing to innovate electric vehicles.

He actually said they were “open source”. If so please provide a link or any other info on (a) the license, (b) the source files and example projects and support forums expected in any open source endeavor.

I’ve looked, no such thing found.


I havent read thru them all, sonce there is a gazillion pages. But it looks good to me.

Tesla’s Pledge Tesla irrevocably pledges that it will not initiate a lawsuit against any party for infringing a Tesla Patent through activity relating to electric vehicles or related equipment for so long as such party is acting in good faith. Key terms of the Pledge are explained below. Definition of Key Terms “Tesla Patents” means all patents owned now or in the future by Tesla (other than a patent owned jointly with a third party or any patent that Tesla later acquires that comes with an encumbrance that prevents it from being subject to this Pledge). A list of Tesla Patents subject to the Pledge will be maintained at the following URL: https //www.tesla.com/about/legal#patent-list. A party is “acting in good faith” for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not: asserted, helped others assert or had a financial stake in any assertion of (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies relating to electric vehicles or related equipment; challenged, helped others challenge, or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or marketed or sold any… Read more »

If the other party also shares the patents with Tesla.

Which really doesn’t make them free or open, it’s a proposal for patent sharing, such deals rarely come without a financial deal attached as most often one side has an advantage on the number and quality of patents. It’s a nice gesture in a sense, but most companies are not going to want to give up their own patents if they think they give them a competitive advantage.

There is NO patent sharing, Tesla specifically does NOT require other companies to license their intellectual property to Tesla in order to use Tesla’s IP.

This meme needs to die.

Tesla states that absolutely no such transfer of rights can ever happen as part of this offer, when they say:

“no rights shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise. “

If anyone claims that there is an implied granting of rights due to any other part of the statement, or through estoppel, this part of the offer EXCLUDES that from ever happening.

I don’t know where you got that idea? The pledge says clearly that a condition for someone to use Tesla’s patents is not asserting any of their own patent claims against Tesla…

You are trying to IMPLY that that suddenly Tesla is granted the right to use other company’s IP. That is false.

That clause CANNOT, and DOES NOT grant Tesla the RIGHTS to use any IP of any company, even if there is a stand-still.

The ONLY way Tesla can gain any rights under this Pledge is if those rights are “expressly stated in the Pledge”. And there is NO such express statement that Tesla gets rights to use any other company’s IP.

You are absolutely wrong if you claim that any clause IMPLIES rights are granted that are not EXPRESSLY granted. Again, you hit the exact same brick wall as others. You simply cannot say that one clause IMPLIES Tesla is granted rights, where no such grant of rights is EXPRESSLY stated.

It is actually very similar in nature to a copyleft Free / Open Source Software license. (In fact there are “Open Source” patent pools, created by companies making Free / Open Source Software, that come with similar terms.)

Kill that dumb meme with fire. It states right in their policy that it specifically IS NOT a patent trade. Tesla does not gain the right to use anyones IP in exchange

Maybe the meme started here:
“Should Tesla ever transfer a Tesla Patent to a third party, it will do so only to a party that agrees, by means of a public declaration intended to be binding on such party, to provide the same protection that Tesla provided under the Pledge and to place the same requirement on any subsequent transferee.”

You do understand that is actually a guarantee that if Tesla ever had to sell their own intellectual property, that who ever bought it would be bound to the same terms as part of the condition of sale?

It doesn’t have anything to do with anybody else’s IP.

I don’t “understand” that at all, since Tesla’s “Patent Pledge” requires anyone agreeing to their terms offer all their own patents similarly free for use by others, not just the Tesla patents they were using.

Not exactly. It distinguishes between patents relating to EV technology, which must not be asserted against anyone; while any patents at all must not be asserted against Tesla specifically.

Pushy — My post was in response to a specific clause that was quoted by Mark.

That very specific clause is a transfer of ownership clause.

In the context of this specific clause, the “third party” can ONLY be the purchaser of any of Tesla’s patents, IF Tesla were ever have to sell them. This specific clause is straight boilerplate language with decades of case-law that standardizes the meaning under the law. It is not open to alternative interpretation. Please go back and read the quoted text in Mark’s post.

That’s pretty much what Elon said, but it’s not actually true. Tesla imposes terms of service on the use of their patents, and those terms have what amounts to a “poison pill”.


That has nothing to do with a Poison Pill. Read up on what that term actually means.

Tesla only shares their patents if the other automaker opens theirs to Tesla as well; most major manufacturers will refuse on that basis alone. Tesla’s EV intel is second to none but the other automakers likely have a boatload of juicy patents related to countless other parts of the car as well as material science, manufacturing techniques, etc. that they will not want to expose to Tesla.

Additionally, they will refuse the offer to avoid the horrendous reaction of the press, their investors, and the public when word gets out that they are admitting they can’t figure out EVs on their own and have to resort to copying a brand new start up just to compete.

They are only going to take Tesla up on their offer if they are truly desperate. That very well might happen in the future, especially if Tesla develops a groundbreaking battery chemistry, though it’s probably not even an option they are seriously discussing right now.

A breakthrough battery chemistry would probably not be patented, that’s more likely a “trade secret,” like the herbs and spices KFC uses or the recipe for Coca-Cola. Additionally, even if you know the exact composition of my battery you may not be able to reproduce it, the method I used to process those materials and how I sintered them and deposited them is as important.

They’ve had several breakthroughs in battery chemistry. The most important is the highest Si used w/o swelling problems or more dendritic formation.

Funny, considering that just days ago Tesla got granted a patent on certain aspects of battery chemistry…

Thanks, “ab”, for that excellent summary of the situation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it explained so well.

Notice how Pushmi is clueless because s/he does not understand legalese as pointed out by Nix.

The quote Nix used is priceless. Ab just offered his/her opinion, but opinions are not facts.

I feel sorry for anyone who is so threatened by someone else’s intelligence, or understanding of a subject, that they feel the need to engage in cyber-bullying.

But I agree: Opinions are not facts. Especially not very uninformed opinions.

Nix is rarely wrong. But this is, I think, a rare exception to that rule.

Pushy, I’m sorry you have decided to give up on learning about this issue, the reality is this:

1) Tesla has very clearly communicated that they are offering their patents as open source. Open source is the legal OPPOSITE of an IP trade. These are legal terms with real meaning.
2) Tesla clearly states that you cannot read any part of the pledge to IMPLY that rights are granted. Such as Tesla being granted the rights to use the IP of other companies.
3) Tesla clearly states that the only way rights can be granted is if they are EXPRESSLY stated. For Tesla to gain the right to use the IP of other companies, it would have to EXPRESSLY state in the Pledge that the other companies EXPRESSLY must agree to grant Tesla the rights to use that IP.
4) Everyone who tries to claim that Tesla is granted rights to use other company’s IP under this Pledge, all rely upon the idea that there is an IMPLIED grant of rights for Tesla to use other company’s IP, where there is NO rights EXPRESSLY GRANTED. That simply cannot be read into this.

Wrong. There is no exchange of patents. This is stated directly.

“no rights shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise. “

You conveniently left out the part of the sentence providing context: “Except as expressly stated in the Pledge, no rights shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel or otherwise.”

It doesn’t mean what you claim it does. Not even close.

Actually, the additional part you quoted actually makes my point STRONGER, not weaker.

Because for any rights to be granted, they would have to be EXPRESSLY STATED under that clause.

Not implied.
Not through estoppel.

So for that part of the language to grant ANY rights, you would have to quote the exact line in the Pledge that EXPRESSLY states that some other company would EXPRESSLY have to grant Tesla IP rights.

This exists nowhere in the Pledge.

Using things covered by patents doesn’t amount to copying. That’s not how patents work. You can come up with something independently — but if it’s sufficiently similar to the invention claimed in the patent, you have to license it anyway. In many fields, it’s virtually impossible to sidestep all existing patents.

(If this sounds obnoxious: yes it is. Virtually all economists agree that patents are a bad idea. Those lobbying in favour of patents are lawyers, along with incumbent companies wishing to block innovative competitors.)

If you can, I’d recommend to read the original article (unfortunately it’s behind a paywall). It’s actually nothing like the distorted reporting by Electrek. The article says very little about Tesla, and certainly doesn’t imply that Audi is changing course because of Tesla. It’s primarily about a number of internal problems, with Manager Magazin suggesting that the company is in need of a major restructuring.

Thanks for the link. This is another case of always read the source.

It was not the battery that amazed them, it was the power electronics. The meaningful quote is (via google translate):

Then engineers tackled the car and dissected it. “Each module was put to the test, but especially with the power electronics, the testers made big eyes,” writes the “Süddeutsche”. These are the central components of the drive train, which conducts the power from the high-voltage battery to the axles via the electric motor.

“Compact, expandable, fully integrated, modular, easy to access, well protected, low priced and amazingly clever in many details,”

Tesla has tried to deny it, but Model 3 is really Generation 3 of their technology.

The switched reluctance sync motor is a massive range advantage for a given battery size. Nobody else can match the power/efficiency combination.

Tesla manufactures these in house, but that isn’t the true advantage. From what I have read, nobody else has cracked the control theory on how to use these motors in a vehicle application. Maybe an EE could weigh in here and confirm this is true.

This link is to a different, much older article, with different contents. (Though the teardown referred to is likely the same one.)

Electrek never claimed the article was primarily about Tesla. They just extracted the parts that seemed relevant to them. Nothing wrong with that.

(I don’t know though whether these particular bits are presented in a distorted way…)

“The crazy part is we’re talking about a reasonably new American automaker with little experience versus the best in the business. Wow!”

I’m not at all surprised, since Tesla isn’t bound by the traditional engineering thinking that the incumbents practice, since “we’ve always done it this way”. In a company, it’s often the newest hire that comes in with fresh eyes who can see the problems most clearly.

Exactly. Tesla has made themselves the authority/veteran on EV tech at this point. They actually have tons more experience in *their industry* (pure electric vehicles) than any of the other automakers.

I don’t think Tesla has come up with a new engineering discipline that mechnical or electrical engineering doesn’t already cover. Tesla’s real feat has come from dealing with Wall Street. As long as they keep funding them Tesla has a bright future.

No, Tesla’s real innovation is in integrating everything in its cars to work well together, both in functionality and in “user interface”. It’s not so much that you can point to what’s in a Tesla car and say “This is better than what the others do” — altho there is some of that, and Sandy Munro has a lot to say on the subject. No, it’s more a matter of Tesla cars being “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts” in a way far beyond what any other auto maker does.

It’s what the Germans call the gestalt.

Depends – GM uses the same inverter on the Bolt EV as the Volt. Does that make it a good design or bad because it’s modular. I’m sure GM has many times the electrical engineers and foundery access than Tesla to craft whatever IC’s they want, but choose not to. Part of the reason I’m sure is economies of scale sharing parts with ICE vehicles as much as possible.

This is part of the problem. It looks like a solution, but the Bolt inverter is a packaging nightmare compared to the Model 3 inverter requiring extra cooling hoses, power cables, control harness, a big aluminum box on a special welded bracket. Contrast Model 3 where the inverter is integrated into the motor housing with no extra harnesses or hoses. Also, the GM inverter does not seem to be able to do good traction control. It works, but it is very obvious in action and there is still wheel slip and tire squeal. In a Model 3, you can floor the accelerator in any road condition., wet, dry, snow, whatever, and it will just go, no noise, no slip.

The Bolt would have been a better car with a bespoke inverter instead of a parts bin item.

Not to pick on just GM, the Mercedes effort has this problem as well. If you look at the cutaway views they have no Frunk because they filled the whole space under the hood with electronics boxes and other “stuff” that in a Tesla would all be integrated and compact.

Perhaps GM using the same inverter in the Bolt EV as the one designed for the Volt isn’t as good a solution as you think.

Sandy Munro said the Bolt EV was “good” for GM, altho it was cobbled together quickly. Good in that it let GM get something into production quickly. This gives GM some experience in making and selling BEVs.

But not so good when it comes to making a per-car profit margin.

Nobody claimed Tesla has come up with a new engineering discipline. They “just” have the best technology in their particular field.

> By the way, what’s up with Volkswagen. Need we say more?

This is the original PR from 2016: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/press-releases/id-the-world-premiere-1488

> Volkswagen plans for the visionary ID. to hit the road in 2020

While VW seems to often stand for vaporware, I still think they may be uniquely positioned to sell a lot of EVs. Their market has a lot of eco-conscious folks, and with dieselgate, they don’t have much of a choice.

Uh, oh. Could it be design AND production hell?

Maybe they meant «hit the road» when they drop it from a crane?

The ID hatch is on pace to be in production in 2020 with a few other ID vehicles to shortly follow. So I don’t see what the confusion is?

Actually, it’s on track to start production in November 2019, and start deliveries in early 2020. That’s what VW has been saying for a while now.

The confusion is that some clueless WardsAuto reporter failed to see the difference between production and deliveries, and concluded that VW missed their target, although VW actually said THE EXACT SAME THING THEY WARE SAYING BEFORE. InsideEVs — like many other sites — just blindly parroted this fake news; and although we have pointed it out (and they took note), not only they failed to retract the bogus article, but they keep citing it as if there was actually truth to it. Shameful.

But the 900 lb gorilla is still there.
Even at Tesla’s volume, EV ‘s are still too expensive to build, but give you credit for trying to spin that as a Tesla success!


To find the 900 lb gorilla, look in any mirror….. gorilla might well be too optimistic an adjective…..

How much would be a gallon of gaz if the petroleum industries was not receiving billions of dollards every year.

So the price per gallon at the pump is not real.

The price of petroleum products would be much lower if they were not heavily taxed. Crude oil from the ground today costs about $53/bbl in the commodities market or about 1.26 per gallon. Regular gas is 1.46 today on the commodities market. The price increases at the pump from transport/overhead and profit for retailers, and TAXES both federal and state. Oil is NOT subsidized it is taxed. Oil is so ubiquitous because of its amazing properties (like being liquid at typical ambient temperatures) and it’s high energy density (roughly 13 kWh per kilogram). Like all carbon based fuels we should tax it more, IMHO, but don’t delude yourself with silly ideas like it being cheap because it is subsidized. It’s cheap because the oil industry worldwide has gotten better and better at finding it and extracting it. BTW, coal is the worst offender—much less energy per unit weight because it is almost all carbon (not a hydrocarbon like oil) and is used to make about half the world’s electricity (roughly 75% in China, the worlds largest electricity producer).

Dutch government spends some 7 billion euro annual on ‘gifts’ to oil industry. Thats taxpayers money. Also highest petrol taxes in the world. 1 euro per Litre = tax. DOUBLE screwed over here.

Last i checked Model 3 was down to around $37.500 ?
And Tesla has never mentioned going into the lowest $20k market.

Can you please explain in details how you mean Model 3 is expensive to build?
And by all means, do compare it with similar cars like Audi A4, BMW 3-series and so on, with similar performance and equipment.

No it was not down to $37k fuel and maintenance reduction savings iBaloney

So you don’t think there are any fuel savings from owning an EV? Do the savings become less real when Tesla offers a calculator that actually shows customers the very real savings right when they are considering buying one?

NOT talking about fuel cost savings sounds like what an ICE car company would do when they don’t want to sell you an EV, and want to sell you a gas hog SUV or pickup instead. Why would you fall for that?

Legacy auto makers aren’t 600 lb. gorillas; they are 6 ton dinosaurs, whose lunch is increasingly being eaten by the small furry mammals, the EV startups, running around underneath them.

Those dinosaurs are going to have to adapt fast, or become extinct, just as happens in every disruptive tech revolution. Some of the current market leaders will manage to adapt; the others will become extinct as the EV revolution progresses.

It’s not a question of whether or not some current automotive market leaders will become extinct over the next 10-15 years. The only real question is which ones.

How is it not a Tesla success if Audi had to admit (more or less) that they failed to match Tesla’s costs?

Without a gigafactory all their profit goes to the bottleneck 3rd party middle man

I Keep Instilling that Traditional auto makers are F00LS With this New*Brain Dead Idea* They Call “0utsourcing”, all there profits go bye bye to their suppliers before there even is a profit for themselves to be made . This new Outsourcing Idea is Totally Stupid. Up until recently All Big Autos made their own parts in house with the exception of a few small items .They Kept most of all the Profits in house & everything was going fine !, .Henry Ford Was Quoted as saying that he could give away his Cars & make all his “PROFIT” back by selling Parts..

When I ran my alternative fuels business, I knew it was all about vertical integration. That’s the only way to succeed as a manufacturer unless you are starting with a bottomless pool of house money.

They were going fine until pensions and retirement benefits threatened to bankrupt them, outsourcing the parts suppliers was a way for them to disentangle themselves from having to pay those things. Now I must add I don’t have a problem with the pensions and benefits the employees received, but just explaining why the big manufactures went through this process of selling off their parts suppliers.

True but these days, the possibilities for automation are endless. If you factor it in… vertical integration makes more sense.

Automation kills jobs that buy your vehicles. Ford model

I agree ! That was part of the reason … But the suppliers managed to deal with all those obstacles , They found a way & are doing very well.. However,They all took it “Too Far” .., Hence , I Also do Believe that there Must Have Been “Insiders On the Take” who Helped the Suppliers Succeed in a BIG Way !. . The Suppliers Have & are Indeed Doing Extremely Well . Now the Out sourcing “Brain Wash” is a way of Life .

All industries basically eat themselves eventually. It’s a vicious cycle of lowering costs, getting economies of scale, buy out your competition with profits, get to a point you are an oligopoly, collude to raise prices and control supply and demand, lobby the government and change regulation to ensure you have no competition.

GM Executives siphoned much of their profits off to subsidiaries the exec’s owned. That’s why they didn’t have enough money.

But, if he gave the cars away, people could just get the parts for free by pulling them off another free car. I’m surprised Mr. Ford didn’t notice that giant hole in his proposal.

Check it out , He was Quoted ….I’m Not Making it Up… Honest … 🙂

But to get the parts they would need to pay a mechanic, and for many parts it would have been cheaper to get them from Ford than pay a mechanic.

Speaking of middle man they can bypass dealerships and sale direct.

Sell direct, and skip service. Good luck getting Tesla parts!

How is the gigafactory any different than any other supplier-buyer setup. Panasonic operates as an independent company co-located in a Tesla owned building. Automakers do that type of setup all the time. Panasonic is the company that took on a lot of risk doing this – not Tesla. Also given pesla’s back design they need millions and millions of cells since every vehicle has thousands in it. Other automakers are using pouch cell where it only requires a few hundred per vehicle. The logistics can be different. You can ship them across town, state, or countries. Make them where they are the cheapest, not necessarily the closest.

The real difference is that Tesla controls the rate of battery cell production for its own supply, rather than Panasonic controlling that. (Not perfectly in control, but mostly.) That allows Tesla to control how fast it grows its production of EVs. No other EV maker except BYD is in the same position.

Without Tesla controlling the rate of battery cell production at Gigafactory 1, Tesla never would have sold 245,240 cars last year… or anything remotely close to that.

As Tesla said: “To put our growth into perspective, we delivered almost as many vehicles in 2018 as we did in all prior years combined.” No other EV maker outside China is within the ballpark of being able to do that.

Does Tesla control the output or does Tesla just have a contract with Panasonic to delivery a specific volume just like any other supplier – buyer contract?

The partnership is more like a joint venture. They cell lines were re-designed by Tesla to reduce cost (solvent capture and reuse, energy saving tech, robot delivery of supplies) crank up the volume. Tesla designs the battery chemistry. Panasonic is like the grey beard, mature and exceedingly capable of productionizing the people and process.

Yes, I think it’s appropriate to describe the relationship between Tesla and Panasonic as a true partnership. Not just a supplier-buyer relationship.

I’m not so sure that Tesla “designs the battery chemistry”. I think that, too, is a true partnership between Panasonic and Tesla. It used to be that chemistry R&D was all up to Panasonic, but now Tesla has its own battery research group.

“The crazy part is we’re talking about a reasonably new American automaker with little experience versus the best in the business. Wow!”

Finally people are beginning to wake and realize that simply being a legacy car company, with a lot of ICE people, experience, facilities, supply chains, etc…. does not give you many positives when it comes to producing a successful EV. In fact, the negatives generally outweigh the positives. ICE experience pushes the design effort towards using an ICE platform converted to an EV product, which will never result in a compelling, elegant product.

With the resources a Legacy could throw at a new project, they COULD have a sizable advantage if they chose to do it. GM, Ford, Toyota, or Honda could have created a new sub-brand for EVs, funded it, and told them: Go compete with our gas cars and see who can make the most money. But at the core of their foot-dragging is, I’d guess, a very simple and potentially highly risky calculation: These companies think they can outsmart Tesla and the market by delaying a full embrace of EVs for now and maximizing short-term profits. They think they can leap into the EV market and blow away Tesla whenever they want. Given the supply bottleneck for batteries, this is a highly questionable tactic, to say the least. As I keep pointing out: Does anyone here think that Honda isn’t developing/hasn’t already developed a much longer range version of the Clarity EV? And if they had that work done, how quickly could they convert production to the new variant, given that the small-pack model is already in production? I consider this virtual proof that Honda is doing exactly what I said above — preparing for the obvious, inevitable tipping point,… Read more »

You just gave away the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car?” That movie is now 12 years old. If Big Auto acted 12 years ago, they would have survived but now Big Auto is toast.

As I’ve been saying for a while, it’s not clear that it’s possible to convert a large-scale ICE vehicle manufacturer to an EV manufacturer. Sure, they can put out a minority of their product line that’s “electrified,” but converting all production to EVs, profitably, is a trick no one has done yet.

And there are huge obstacles to overcome if they want to do it: creating compelling EV-only products, losing the value of most of their engineering experience, losing the value of much of their supply chain, and dealing with the loss of aftermarket service profits. In the US, seeing dealerships lose their profit model as service needs dwindle.

It’s much more than just a question of throwing resources at learning how to build EVs. These companies will need to re-invent themselves in a fundamental way. I’ll be surprised if more than a handful manage it.

You know, it’s far, far too early for those kind of conclusions… EVs are still at a tiny marketshare in global terms.
More significantly, the total drivetrain is just 20%-25% of the overall cost of a car, BEV or ICE, even at current battery costs. The other systems/major components (body, steering, suspension, braking, safety, infotainment, low-voltage electric, interiors) make up the rest, and they’re not significantly different for different drivetrain types. The supply-chain logistics, assembly efficiency & quality and marketing are what will determine success going forward.

If all the other parts are essentially the same as in every other vehicle, it follows that power train technology is where a difference can be made…

If the translation accurately represents the original sentiment, it appears to imply the automakers did another teardown, perhaps of EU Model 3’s (if they could get them this fast), or of more recent USA Model 3’s and found internal cost improvements above the first version a year or so ago. From my point of view, it also implies that Tesla’s focus on overall efficiency naturally leads to lower costs if you care primarily, as buyers do, about range and DC charging speed—in miles/km, not in kW. The European EV’s are coming in with good designs, good handling, good power and much worse efficiency. The Koreans have efficiency equal to Tesla but at a lower performance point. Funny, Tesla saw the two key axes of engineering and economics: electrical efficiency & battery costs as central many years ago. Thus investment in getting good at power electronics, aerodynamics and battery production. I bet Audi didn’t think it would have to become an electronic design firm, but that’s what Tesla is, designing boards and chips from scratch in Palo Alto. It shouldn’t be shocking that the next best electronic design location outside of California is Korea. That’s also the reason Tesla went into… Read more »

Agree. But mainstream people don’t like efficiency. Look they buying freaking SUV

status driven species, we are.

Conspicuous consumption to demonstrate to people they can burn money.

Efficiency in design and construction can yield significant reductions in cost and therefore price, and that is something that “mainstream people” most certainly do care about!

Efficiency applies to a lot of different things, not just energy efficiency.

“If the translation accurately represents the original sentiment, it appears to imply the automakers did another teardown, perhaps of EU Model 3’s (if they could get them this fast)…”

Actually, the timing seems to imply that the change in course was prompted by the companies buying and digesting Sandy Munro’s detailed and comprehensive teardown analysis report on the Model 3; a report which he has been talking about a lot of late.

Or at least, that’s what I infer. The timing certainly is suggestive of that being the cause.

I don’t think it implies another teardown — quite possibly just ongoing repercussions from the original one…

Very suspect claim. The PPE program will not compete with the Model 3. VAG’s MEB will.

Would love to read the full article if anyone has a link

Eh? The Model 3 is a premium/performance sedan. It’s precisely what PPA-based sedans from Audi will compete with. MEB will cover a lower price segment.

I think the last thing legacy auto wants is to put a car out and then have people compare unfavorably with the Model 3, and that’s what they were looking at. The concept cars would roll onto the stage, and people already start bashing them as the specs were released which did not even come close to matching those of the Model 3. for then you have a newer car considered by many as inferior to the earlier release. One point on the article that rings a bit hollow, is that Tesla were fortunate to hook up with Panasonic, yes they were, but fortune favors the brave, and Tesla did not just fall into to bed with Panasonic, they wooed them, and enticed them into their boudoir. So the gist is that Tesla was right all along, and the neighsayers , were wrong. There is no European flood of evs coming that will crush Tesla, it’s merely a trickle, and the water does not taste all that sweet. Get it from the pure spring of Tesla, which makes the best evs. Still I like the European interiors better, and Kia and Hyundai are coming with good evs. The problem is… Read more »

Those other EVs don’t make money, but they also don’t have much in the way of support. That is just as serious an issue.

Good Point. Though Ionity in Europe is an effort that is progressing, along with slow roll out of Electrify America.

And all the service issues with Tesla just don’t exist and what Elon has said about improving this area of the business was just fake news then?
All car makers could improve their levels of service and support. They all have good and bad points, strengths and weaknesses.
Kudos to Tesla for admitting that this is one part of their business where they must do better.

It might be a trickle if you live in the US. Tesla hasn’t exactly been fast in getting the Model 3 to RHD markets and won’t have the entrenched head-start it does in the US. Meanwhile, we already have VW Group/Hyundai/Kia dealers here.

Yes but how many vehciles are VW/Hyundai/Kia selling now and will sell in a year? Last count, Tesla is sending 3000 Model 3’s to Europe a week. That is 150,000 in a year or so.

Last count Tesla has built precisely 0 RHD Model 3s. So the others are already doing pretty well. They’re also going into these markets at premium prices and not relying on a tax credit to make them affordable, so they aren’t. Current expectation is that the Model 3 will come in at or about $80K. That’s $20K more than an Ioniq, $15K more than an E-Golf and $7K more than a Kona EV. Meanwhile we’re mopping up every Nissan Leaf we can get our hands on ex-Japan.

E-gulf has 40% the range, not comparable.

“One point on the article that rings a bit hollow, is that Tesla were fortunate to hook up with Panasonic, yes they were, but fortune favors the brave, and Tesla did not just fall into to bed with Panasonic…”

Well said. This was neither fortune nor luck. The partnership with Panasonic was the result of a lot of planning and a major effort on the part of Tesla to get Panasonic to, somewhat reluctantly, agree to the partnership.

Successful people make their own “luck”.

It is strange that Tesla hasn’t yet achieved the charge curve of the e-tron, much less 350 kW from the soon to be introduced Porsche. In my view Tesla is too busy with 0-60 times and AP. What matters is that we need much faster charging, that is what pulls new customers. Acceleration isn’t that important, practicality is key for EV.

hey Meister, apparently Porsche / Audi aren’t too worried about the battery degradation that will ensue from the rapid charging of the cars they have yet to sell. Interesting Porsche/Audi bench mark their future prototypes vs. the products Tesla has already had on the markets for years, don’t you think?

Audi guarantees its electric vehicles’ batteries for eight years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first. My guess is they know what they are selling.

My guess is, they have to replace a lot of batteries! No, we do not need much faster charging. 100-150kw is absolutely enough. 350kw charing is ridiculous.

And I’m sure you’re computer only has 640k of RAM? Anything more that that is ridiculous.

While I have more ram than that, for years because I write efficient programs I have seen people with machine with 3-8 times more memory and CPUs that are a lot faster than mine not be able to solve the same problems that I solve om my machines because their code is so poor compared to mine.

Programming to do searches of the surface of a 6 dimensional sphere and writing multi-threaded programs to create optimized S-Boxes quickly shows you who knows how to write good code and who just throws computer resources at a problem.

Well that’s their own problem. That’s why it’s called a warranty

oh, 100,000 miles. check the stats of tesla’s battery degradation.

Similar to their ICE engines: It will break down between 100.000 and 101.000 miles. Audi response: your problem, battery is out of warranty. Check with Audi/VW owners in the EU and you will know all about their customer policies.

you might be surprised. The easiest way to up the c rate is to accept lower, much lower, charge cycles (lifespan).

It is strange that Porsche hasn’t yet delivered volume production of cars that match Tesla? What matters are actual cars that customers can drive. Announcements aren’t that important, actual cars are.

According to some recent research, in most markets across the world (including Germany), way fewer people listed charging speed as a major deterrent than range anxiety. In other words, while nerds might fawn over charging speeds, for the public at large Tesla’s focus on maximising range over charging speed is actually the right approach.

(As for the e-tron, the charging speed advantage is entirely eaten up by the poor efficiency.)

The faster you charge the battery the faster you have to replace it.

I hope this doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to include an active battery heater. If I have a Porsche capable of 350kW charging, I really am not going to want to wait for it to heat up the battery when it is extremely cold outside. I think it would make sense to be able to inform the car that I will be using a fast charger before actually arriving so it can prepare the battery well before plugging in.

Still waiting for the $35k Tesla. (without gov’t credits). Remember, a $45k Tesla means they cost 30% more than they were intended to.

Musk explicitly stated a few months ago that the planned base Model 3, at that time, would cost $38k to build. Anything else is speculation.

Class action lawsuits are waiting to be filed when that cancel $35k car

The deposit is not a sales contract, there is no commitment to deliver a car, and it is refundable. I suppose there will a a suit, but what do you suppose the grounds and claims will be?

The “grounds” will be the wishful thinking of serial Tesla bashers. 😉

That’s a production efficiency problem (which will be worked out over time), not an engineering problem. Everyone agrees that the engineering on the Model 3 is excellent in terms of costs.

Somebody says that somebody says that somebody believes that engineers might have been impressed. What type of journalism is this? Why should it be credible? Why did Audi built the etron or Porsche the Taycan, both completely different cars than the Tesla, when they wanted to aim at the model 3. Model 3 was clearly not in their mind.

Thank you. Where’s the editor?

The point is that they realised their technology is not up to standard — no matter in what car.

The Tesla Model 3 is just as much of a hardcore smack down as the next gen Tesla Roadster

Actually even moreso, from what Sandy Munro said. It think Porsche and Lamborghini and Ferrari and a few other high-end sports car makers could match what Tesla is doing with the new Roadster, or at least come close, if they really wanted to… which, of course, they don’t.

What Tesla has done with the Model 3 is a lot harder, and has much bigger implications for the automotive market. Or at least, that’s what Sandy Munro said after his teardown of the Model 3, and comparison to the BMW i3 and the Chevy Bolt EV. Sandy thought the Bolt EV was a pretty good car… until he did a detailed teardown analysis of the Model 3!

He said that Bolt was easy to built sans battery since it was parts that were already developed and easy to mingle and cost effective

Sandy said the development was fast and cost-effective, as a (my words, not his) quick-and-dirty way to get a BEV into production.

But the profit margin and the unit build cost… not so much. That’s why GM is only using the Bolt EV as a sort of overgrown compliance car, not selling many units outside CARB States, and not supplying anywhere near the demand in places like Canada and S. Korea.

I feel pretty confident in predicting that GM is developing other BEVs that will be more profitable for them, and in predicting that the Bolt EV won’t remain in production for long after some of those appear on the market.

Effective in bringing a low-volume compliance car to market quickly with limited investment — not effective for mass production.

I don’t think any of the legacy supercar makers has the expertise to match Tesla any time soon… Though I guess with some effort they might be able to come up with something at least roughly in the same ballpark in a few years?

Source: Electrek

Ok.. I know all I needed to know. Bye.

Me too. I don’t even step foot in that bias site

That article is from one year ago. It is still funny to read though, as the German auto industry looks pretty miserable. The article finishes with a (typically German) statement that in 2019, Tesla´s lead will have disappeared as ´zhe djermans´ will have Model 3 competitors ready on the market. Now, one year later, the German Model 3 competitors are still nowhere to be seen, other than in glossy press statements for the year 20XX.

I want a garage that looks like that!

I am familiar with “manager-magazin”, I do not trust anything they publish. One of the worst publications IMHO.
If we can confirm these reports through other sources – fine. But Manager-Magazin is not a source one should rely on, no matter which tendency the article has. For example: http://www.manager-magazin .de/unternehmen/autoindustrie/wasserstoffauto-toyotas-plaene-mit-der-brennstoffzelle-a-1251106.html
let’s see how you like this Manager Magazin article. Recommend running this through Google Translate, and you shall be pleasantly outraged

Thank you

OMG! The same stupidity here also!
You saw they got 1000 comments and you want some clicks also, don’t you?

Good job Tesla. Just idiots drive and support VW Group. Hope Audi will sit on all the costs

Audi are great driving cars

People hate on “legacy” care companies for being fat and lazy and stupid, but thats not why the never made a badass EV. What they are is RISK AVERSE. Tesla is the only one who said – lets bet 10 billion dollars we can do this. Probably a 1 in 20 chance that they would make it, but hey, they HAVE and the whole world is better for it. No existing company will be willing to bet their whole future on a 1 in 20 chance – thats not dumb or lazy thats just good business.

Now that Tesla has led the way, everyone else is racing to follow in their footsteps, knowing that its not 1 in 20 anymore, its a sure thing.

Great point! I think companies still see it as a long play. EV enthusiasts want EVs to be 50% of the market by 2025, but until EV Civics, Trax and Corollas can be had for similar ICE prices it’s going to take awhile.

Thank you.

VW claims it will offer BEVs at (diesel) ICE prices next year.

That’s the conundrum with disruptive changes: trying to get on early is very risky… But not doing so is certain death.

Seems to me that Tesla has a very short development/production cycle. Even though companies like GM have been working a long time on EVs, Tesla goes from idea to design to production car much faster. Different corporate culture. German car makers are probably more like GM than Tesla.

GM doesn’t really have much EV experience, most of their experience was in pet projects which never got much commitment and most of their expertise has long left.

There are a lot of learning for the old manufacturers about EVs. First they need to make their first platform from scratch, than go on from what they learned in their 2nd platform. This is precisely why the Model 3 is shocking them so much, because Tesla has learned a lot from their first attempt at an EV from scratch and included it in the Model 3.

They will catch up eventually, but they need to take things seriously if they wish to be competitive.

Part of the Tesla magic is that almost everything is in software. Just this week, they introduced an option to autofold the mirrors based on GPS location. No new hardware involved.

Tesla certainly has a shorter development cycle — but the difference is not *that* huge. Model 3 for example went from drawing board to meaningful production in about 3 1/2 years. Industry standard seems to be about 5 years.

The more important difference is probably that Tesla knew in time what they need to do next, while legacy makers only started catching on quite recently…

This is a lie. The platform is VW so it’s a share cost though out the company’s brands. Please make more investment in reading articles

The e-tron is a one-off design (or two-off, if counting the upcoming “sportback” variant), derived from a combustion car — not a “real” platform.

The article explicitly refers to the fact that PPE is shared between Audi and Porsche. It is *not* shared with any other VW brands. (Aside from possibly Lamborghini at some point in the future…) The one to be used across more brands is MEB.

Seems like an article from Electrek

I hate this putting one EV against the other. It’s so freaking stupid

This isn’t about EVs. It’s about companies. Specifically, it debunks certain Tesla naysayers’ claims that Tesla has no competitive advantage whatsoever…

Tribalism at its finest

Who knew EVs were going to be so difficult and expensive? LOL

I am not sure if this article makes any sense, because Porsche doesn’t sell any cars in Tesla Model 3 price range. So it is not surprising that their car is not competitive with Model 3. They will definitely target Model S.

Audi also looks like targeting Model X with their e-tron. Quite frankly Tesla Model 3 doesn’t look as premium as any Porsche or Audi e-Tron, so I am not sure why they should be competitive pricewise.

I think vehicles based on VWs MEB platform will be targeting Model 3, probably VW/Audi models in Europe and Audi models in US. In Europe VW is much more premium than US, so they can compete with Tesla. In US probably Audi is better positioned for this.

Tesla Model 3 Performance is a much close competitor to Porsche than the Model S.

e-tron is a Model S competitor.

Model S is outselling Audi in the full sized premium car segment in Europe. So its premium enough to be taking sales.

I agree with Model S being a competitor, but this article talks about Model 3. I don’t see how a Model 3 can be a competitor to a premium Porsche. The performance is competitive, but in terms of quality they are not in the same class.
Also I don’t agree with Model S outselling Audi in Europe. Audi has multiple models in that segment (A6, A7, A8, Q7, Q8) so you should compare the combined figure not a single model. Just the A6 class sells about 80k per year in europe.

Once Audi introduces a PPE-based EV equivalent of the A4, it will be a direct competitor to the Model 3. AFAIK A4 and up never shared the platform with less premium VW brands — and I don’t expect that to change with MEB/PPE.

Good point about Porsche, though… Note that according to the article, Porsche was fine with the higher costs, but Audi wasn’t.

On a completely different note: That is not the most flattering photo angle shot of the M3. Good thing most of the rest of the visual perspectives look very good.

I can hardly wait for the day when batteries are as big as a laptop and go 1000 miles.
I am a motorhead and live for the day big oil no longer has a hold on my addiction to drive.

Use the SC network instead of spending hundreds of dollars on oil each year. Improve the world, start with yourself.

That would imply an energy density dozens of times higher than liquid fuels…

Well maybe Tesla is better than the Germans thought because it’s still losing money on each car they build.

No, but I would guess you are losing a lot of money on your “short” investment in Tesla stock!

Note to self: Get a Tesla instead of VW car when my Crypto explodes.

Two simple economic concepts that Elon learned in basic Econ 101 (with more advance stuff using calculus being taught in Microeconomics at the 300 level).

Economies of Scale: Reduce the fixed cost per unit by averaging down (e.g. spreading) the fixed cost component via large units of production such that average total cost per unit is minimized.

Economies of Scope: Steve Jobs and Apple rewrote the book on economies of scope with iPhone and iPod Touch and Elon had a role model or framework to work with in his Telsa cars

The model3 has been out for a year and besides the model S and X are not exactly new. It is really poor management for VW group to be this late to market and not competitive.
Just put the cars out there, people will buy them even if they are not perfect. Then they can work on the next iteration with real focus and intent. If they keep delaying, Tesla will be exporting Y’s to Europe in volume before they have their act together.

“The model3 has been out for a year…”

But Sandy Munro’s detailed report about his Model 3 teardown analysis was issued only fairly recently. Now, I don’t know that this is what has prompted some German auto makers to go back to the drawing board for their BEVS… if they really have. Some of the comments here suggest this article is based on a year-old German article, and that it’s merely Electrek’s biased pro-Tesla interpretation of that article.

But if there really is a sudden and recent “back to the drawing board” movement among German EV makers, then Sandy’s report is very likely the cause.

They have nothing to gain from putting out early a product that’s not competitive. Let them get it right.

“But, but, but Big Auto will easily surpass Tesla when they decide to join the EV party.” Or so, I’ve been told numerous times, LOL.

Just a silly German tabloid article, which has been hyped up by Electrek for obvious reasons (as they have an investment in Tesla), but not sure why it’s so credulously reported here.

top car

i love car