The Squandered Opportunity of the Cybertruck

[neo von retorch]

This is the kind of innovation that Elon is bringing to the auto industry. Honestly, the legacy automakers should be pretty nervous by now.

Pardon my skepticism but I would posit that Elon Musk brought relentless cost cutting to rocketry where it simply didn't exist before.

What factor of cost reduction do you believe is possible in the automotive industry? 2x? 10x? 25x? Should we be expecting full-sized electric pickup trucks to cost about $2,000 USD in the near future?

Might I suggest that cost-cutting has to be carefully balanced with other values in the automotive industry? Because we've seen cost-cutting used as a guiding principle for building cars, and it usually doesn't go well.

The rocketry industry lacked competition before SpaceX. If anything, Telsa largely lacks competition in the electric car market, but they are still competing at a niche/luxury auto-maker level, and cost optimization is necessary until battery costs get a little lower. (But optimizing for lower cost batteries is an industry wide phenomena. Do we think Tesla engineers will dominate in that field over the thousands of other engineers?)

I mean, I'm not saying your wild prediction of a future where legacy automakers are helpless against the plucky upstart can't come true. It just seems farfetched given the current speed of transition of volume sales of ICE powertrains to electric ones, especially given that there isn't $0 investment from those same automakers. Just a more cautious (could we even say measured?) one. This is why I started the thread about electric cars in the U.S. - I was even a little excited about the Mach-E, but they only plan on selling 50,000 units in the first year. That's about many Honda Fits are sold in the U.S. each year. Fine for a single model but if they're using the Mustang name, they should get serious. (On the other hand, given that only Tesla has managed to sell more than 50,000 units of any electric car model in a year, perhaps it is an ambitious number.)

Maybe I'm just frustrated because I can't find the same kind of wide-eyed optimism just yet. *harumph*

[CowboyAndIndian]

For the skeptics, here is another article.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-and-ice-impact-2023-and-beyond

[Just Joe]

Isn't Seeking Alpha where the Tesla shorters congregate?

[Kyle Schuant]

What if Tesla had set out to build the most affordable truck ever, that was also electric?

It won't happen.

The issue with electric trucks is that in order for them to have any range, their batteries will use up most of the possible cargo space. Transporting 70kg of person is one thing, transporting 2,000kg or more of cargo is another. If you want electric transport of cargo, then it works much better if the vehicle does not have to carry the source of its electrical energy. Ask yourself why electric trains don't carry their own batteries, but instead connect to outside wires.

It's just a toy. An expensive, badly-built toy, but a toy nonetheless. There'll be a market for it, but you're not going to electric trucks hauling large amounts of cargo across countries any time soon. Now, zipping around within a city is another matter - they don't need as much range, so their batteries can be smaller, and their cargoes are relatively light, like postal trucks.

I'm certain some wealthy people will buy these toys. I mean, Arnie has a hydrogen hummer and an electric one, too. The stupid thing needs 2.5 parking spaces and has fuck-all range and few places it can be refuelled, but when you're rich and want to virtue-signal it's great. There's always a market to that.

[CowboyAndIndian]

Isn't Seeking Alpha where the Tesla shorters congregate?

Yup, that is why I was surprised by the article. This is not a new article, but something that came out almost a year ago.

[Herbert Derp]

Pardon my skepticism but I would posit that Elon Musk brought relentless cost cutting to rocketry where it simply didn't exist before.

What factor of cost reduction do you believe is possible in the automotive industry? 2x? 10x? 25x? Should we be expecting full-sized electric pickup trucks to cost about $2,000 USD in the near future?

Might I suggest that cost-cutting has to be carefully balanced with other values in the automotive industry? Because we've seen cost-cutting used as a guiding principle for building cars, and it usually doesn't go well.

The rocketry industry lacked competition before SpaceX. If anything, Telsa largely lacks competition in the electric car market, but they are still competing at a niche/luxury auto-maker level, and cost optimization is necessary until battery costs get a little lower. (But optimizing for lower cost batteries is an industry wide phenomena. Do we think Tesla engineers will dominate in that field over the thousands of other engineers?)

I mean, I'm not saying your wild prediction of a future where legacy automakers are helpless against the plucky upstart can't come true. It just seems farfetched given the current speed of transition of volume sales of ICE powertrains to electric ones, especially given that there isn't $0 investment from those same automakers. Just a more cautious (could we even say measured?) one. This is why I started the thread about electric cars in the U.S. - I was even a little excited about the Mach-E, but they only plan on selling 50,000 units in the first year. That's about many Honda Fits are sold in the U.S. each year. Fine for a single model but if they're using the Mustang name, they should get serious. (On the other hand, given that only Tesla has managed to sell more than 50,000 units of any electric car model in a year, perhaps it is an ambitious number.)

Maybe I'm just frustrated because I can't find the same kind of wide-eyed optimism just yet. *harumph*

One key difference between Tesla and the legacy automakers is vertical integration vs horizontal integration. This is just like SpaceX vs the legacy space industry. Vertical integration allows Tesla and SpaceX to engineer and optimize their products as single integrated systems, which increases efficiency, reduces costs, and accelerates the pace of innovation across the board.

Here are some articles on the subject:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-superbottle-disruption-video/

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/26/tesla-vertical-integration-is-value-integration/

As long as Tesla's competition remains horizontally integrated, they won't be able to match the pace of Tesla's innovation. Horizontal integration worked well in a mature industry where innovation had slowed to a trickle over many decades. But now, Tesla is like a single person running unfettered in a three-legged race.

Imagine that you are a legacy automaker. Your car might have fifty computers. Many of these will be manufactured by completely separate companies. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to do something as simple as over the air software updates. How on earth can you do a comprehensive software update for your vehicle when it contains fifty separate computer systems, many manufactured by separate companies, running code that you don't own? Forget about software updates, the legacy automakers cannot even write comprehensive software for their vehicles in the first place! No wonder Tesla is currently the only auto manufacturer who has had success in this area! To top it off, software is just one area where the flaws of horizontal integration have become apparent for the legacy automakers.

To summarize, Elon is indeed disrupting the legacy auto industry in much the same way as he is disrupting the legacy space industry. Will it enable Tesla to manufacture vehicles at 1/10th the cost of legacy automakers? I doubt it. What I don't doubt however, is that it will give Tesla a competitive advantage and enable them to potentially become the Apple of the automotive industry. What I see playing out right now with Tesla and the legacy automotive industry is eerily similar to what happened a decade ago with Apple and the legacy cellphone industry. Apple came in like a wrecking ball and transformed the entire industry, securing a large percentage of market share and industry profits in the process. As a result, Apple is now tied for the most valuable company in the world and many of the former incumbent legacy cellphone manufacturers such as Nokia and BlackBerry are mere shells of their former selves.

At this point, most of the legacy auto manufacturers have realized that they need to copy Tesla, radically reshape their manufacturing processes, and transition to electric vehicles--or die. If they remain focused on legacy ICE vehicles, they are clearly doomed. If they try to transition to electric vehicles but keep their horizontally integrated patchwork of suppliers, they won't be able to compete with Tesla on the innovation front. Somehow, they must achieve all of this while shouldering the combined burdens of a declining ICE manufacturing business with huge sunk costs, protectionist ICE worker unions (two articles), and outdated corporate culture.

I'll leave you with a few big picture articles which touch on many of these same points:

https://thedriven.io/2019/09/09/the-future-of-legacy-car-manufacturers/

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/15/tesla-model-3-model-y-are-legitimately-disruptive-what-should-automakers-do/

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/mercedes-parent-daimler-projects-profit-squeeze-shift-to-electric-cars-2019-11-1028690718

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autoshow-detroit-ford-motor/ford-plans-11-billion-investment-40-electrified-vehicles-by-2022-idUSKBN1F30YZ

It won't happen.

The issue with electric trucks is that in order for them to have any range, their batteries will use up most of the possible cargo space. Transporting 70kg of person is one thing, transporting 2,000kg or more of cargo is another. If you want electric transport of cargo, then it works much better if the vehicle does not have to carry the source of its electrical energy. Ask yourself why electric trains don't carry their own batteries, but instead connect to outside wires.

It's just a toy. An expensive, badly-built toy, but a toy nonetheless. There'll be a market for it, but you're not going to electric trucks hauling large amounts of cargo across countries any time soon. Now, zipping around within a city is another matter - they don't need as much range, so their batteries can be smaller, and their cargoes are relatively light, like postal trucks.

I'm certain some wealthy people will buy these toys. I mean, Arnie has a hydrogen hummer and an electric one, too. The stupid thing needs 2.5 parking spaces and has fuck-all range and few places it can be refuelled, but when you're rich and want to virtue-signal it's great. There's always a market to that.

So does this mean that Ford is going down a dead end street with their all-electric F-150? What about Tesla and the other companies who plan to manufacture electric semi trucks? If the problem is as clear cut as you seem to think it is, all these companies wouldn't even be bothering to make electric towing trucks. Note that both the Cybertruck and R1T have massive, heavy battery packs, but also have huge amounts of storage space!

You are on to something, though. Here's some expert commentary on how payload size relates to range. Note that the below links are all for about one minute segments of much longer videos.

https://youtu.be/Dum1s4gfSD4?t=1932

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum1s4gfSD4&t=2598

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWydEgx9N2M&t=437

To summarize, towing 10,000 lbs with a pickup truck reduces the range by about 60%, regardless of whether it is gas or electric.

I don't think there's any doubt about the payload and towing capacity of electric vehicles, and the impact of heavy payloads on range should be roughly similar to ICE vehicles. The issue isn't at all about battery size and weight, or cargo space. It's about range and charging time. Sure, an ICE truck might be just as crippled in terms of fuel efficiency and range when towing a heavy payload as an electric vehicle is. However, the ICE truck can be refueled far faster. Imagine that you are towing something in your electric truck. Because of this, the range is reduced and you have to recharge every two hours. So every two hours, you need to pull into a charging station and spend twenty minutes charging. That's unacceptable!

The good news is that Tesla already knows this, and is innovating accordingly. Charging speeds are only going to go up from here!

https://www.tesla.com/blog/introducing-v3-supercharging

https://electrek.co/2018/02/02/tesla-semi-electric-truck-customers-megacharger-charging-station/

Meanwhile, what is Ford doing to solve this problem? They've already gone the horizontal integration route and outsourced their charging network to a patchwork of 3rd party providers:
https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/ford-taps-ev-charging-networks

Good luck to them!

[FINate]

For the skeptics, here is another article.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4225153-evs-oil-and-ice-impact-2023-and-beyond

Hmmm...this makes me more skeptical if it represents the level of analysis that goes into the Tesla-is-going-to-dominate-the-world line of thinking.

The author's central thesis is that ICE vehicle sales will trend to 0 by 2026(!). A very bold position! Strong claims require strong supporting evidence, and for this he appeals to a crude and simple analogy to adoption of other "disruptive" technologies. The problem with this analogy is that EVs are not disruptive within the core of the automotive industry, they merely change the way potential energy is stored and then converted to kinetic energy. That is, other than the drivetrain, EVs are very much the same as their ICE counterparts: 4 rubber wheels, brakes, metal body, suspension, steering wheel, glass, interior cabin, passenger seats, and so on. Lest we forget, EVs existed in 1910! I see no indication that traditional automotive companies will struggle to adapt to a growing EV market. In fact, there is already a fairly close analog with hybrid technology (we were early adopters of hybrid with the first generation Prius in 2003). As consumer demand increased for hybrids the auto manufacturers responded to the demand and added hybrid options to their product lines. Which brings me to this quote from the article:

It's interesting to understand this and then know that GM and Ford are now grousing that they have no plans to replace ICE for at least a decade in their pickup and SUV lines.

Well, of course they are not going to replace ICE for at least a decade. This isn't "grousing" but rather being smart. There is no need to "replace ICE" when they can respond to customer demand dynamically by gradually adding EV options and vehicles to their lineup over time, which of course is what we're seeing with the EV F150 and the Mach-E. It would actually be quite dumb to suddenly replace ICE with EV, would almost certainly mean instant death for them. And he mostly ignores the effects of increased EV adoption on gasoline prices, and what effect this will have on increased demand for trucks and SUVs, which Americans love (not saying this is a good thing, but I think it is realistic). Fuel at under $2/gallon will make ICEs very competitive cost-wise with EVs. [Incidentally, this is part of my frustration with Cybertruck...Musk should be laser focused on building economies of scale and driving down costs and prices, not creating a new class of vehicle to produce, one with an entirely different type of unproven body no less.]

Back to the premise this is all predicated on. When microwave ovens (yes, one of his technology examples) hit the market they did not put traditional ovens out of business. Nor did they put appliance manufacturers out of business. Instead, established players adapted their manufacturing capabilities to fill demand for the new technology. The big auto manufactures will do likewise, and some such as Ford have already started this process. In the transition from ICE to EV, the businesses that will be most disrupted will be things like oil change companies and/or places that specialize in smog compliance. The most disruptive technology on the horizon for the entire automotive industry (including Tesla) is self driving cars, which will fundamentally change our relationship to individual vehicles. In the meantime, the future of the automotive business is likely a mixed picture. Some households will go full EV, others will cling to ICE, most will mix in an EV, perhaps keeping one large ICE for towing/hauling/roadtrips and one EV for the daily commute.

Since we're talking analogies, and since I was in tech for almost 20 years before FIRE, let me suggest a better analogy to what's happening with EVs and the big automotive companies: Microsoft, Mozilla, and the internet in the 1990s. The internet was (eventually) disruptive for many, and there were predictions of Microsoft's imminent demise at the hands of plucky internet startups. I know this well because I worked for a company on the losing end of competing with MS and I wished this more than anything. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. On the contrary, MS was able to adapt, co-opt (embrace and extend), and even benefit from the Internet wave.

Kudos to Tesla for proving to the world that EVs can be fast and sexy and practical. Yet the first to market isn't always the winner (ehem...Mozilla), and it's entirely possible that Elon will succeed in changing the automotive industry for the better even while Tesla itself fails to take a large market share or generate large profits or even fails as a company.

[Herbert Derp]

The author's central thesis is that ICE vehicle sales will trend to 0 by 2026(!). A very bold position! Strong claims require strong supporting evidence, and for this he appeals to a crude and simple analogy to adoption of other "disruptive" technologies. The problem with this analogy is that EVs are not disruptive within the core of the automotive industry, they merely change the way potential energy is stored and then converted to kinetic energy. That is, other than the drivetrain, EVs are very much the same as their ICE counterparts: 4 rubber wheels, brakes, metal body, suspension, steering wheel, glass, interior cabin, passenger seats, and so on. Lest we forget, EVs existed in 1910! I see no indication that traditional automotive companies will struggle to adapt to a growing EV market.

I think you're missing the vertical integration vs horizontal integration angle. Regardless, why couldn't Nokia and BlackBerry just copy Apple and the iPhone? They were established players with huge economies of scale. Hardware wise, I don't think they had an issue competing. I think it was because they tried to create their own smartphone operating systems to compete against Apple, which turned out to be impossible. It seems that there is only so much room for operating systems for smart devices in any given industry, and Apple managed to plant their flag first with iOS and secure their slice of the market share. Most of the other legacy cellphone manufacturers like Samsung and Motorola realized that their only chance to survive in this new world was to unify behind Android, and they did. Nokia and BlackBerry foolishly tried to cling to their own smartphone operating systems and went down in flames.

Like Apple, Tesla has been the first to plant their flag with their operating system and start securing market share. Legacy automakers are adopting a variety of strategies. Ford seems to be using a dated operating system called Ford Sync which first partnered with Microsoft and now partners with BlackBerry. That doesn't seem very promising to me. GM has announced that they are going to adopt Google's Android Automotive OS. That seems more promising. Volkswagen wants to create their own operating system like Tesla. Good luck to them if that works out! After some searching, I'm honestly not sure what Toyota and Honda are doing. Regardless, how are any of these companies going to get these operating systems to play well with the hodgepodge of horizontally integrated hardware in their vehicles?

Unlike the legacy cellphone makers like Nokia and BlackBerry, the legacy automakers have a disadvantage in hardware as well as software, as I indicated in my previous post. This might actually turn out to be worse for them! That being said, there's a huge wildcard here: apps. Due to security and safety issues, it seems unlikely that vehicle operating systems will ever support a thriving ecosystem of third-party apps--and it was the lack of this ecosystem of apps which truly put Nokia and BlackBerry's operating systems six feet under. In any case, as smart vehicles get smarter, their operating systems are only going to increase in complexity of feature sets and learning curves for consumers. For this reason, I doubt that consumers are going to be receptive to more than a handful of vehicle operating systems. Additionally, just developing and maintaining such an operating system will be a huge burden to any company that takes it on.

Will vehicles be like smartphones, and there will be only room in the market for two or three vehicle operating systems? Will Tesla's operating system give them the same advantages that iOS gave Apple? Only time will tell!

It would actually be quite dumb to suddenly replace ICE with EV, would almost certainly mean instant death for them. And he mostly ignores the effects of increased EV adoption on gasoline prices, and what effect this will have on increased demand for trucks and SUVs, which Americans love (not saying this is a good thing, but I think it is realistic).

That's impossible, actually. There simply isn't enough battery manufacturing capacity. In fact, GM just announced that they are building their own Gigafactory. That puts them more than five years behind Tesla, who announced Gigafactory 1 back in 2014.

[FINate]

I think you're missing the vertical integration vs horizontal integration angle. Regardless, why couldn't Nokia and BlackBerry just copy Apple and the iPhone? They were established players with huge economies of scale. Hardware wise, I don't think they had an issue competing. I think it was because they tried to create their own smartphone operating systems to compete against Apple, which turned out to be impossible. It seems that there is only so much room for operating systems for smart devices in any given industry, and Apple managed to plant their flag first with iOS and secure their slice of the market share. Most of the other legacy cellphone manufacturers like Samsung and Motorola realized that their only chance to survive in this new world was to unify behind Android, and they did. Nokia and BlackBerry foolishly tried to cling to their own smartphone operating systems and went down in flames.

Like Apple, Tesla has been the first to plant their flag with their operating system and start securing market share. Legacy automakers are adopting a variety of strategies. Ford seems to be using a dated operating system called Ford Sync which first partnered with Microsoft and now partners with BlackBerry. That doesn't seem very promising to me. GM has announced that they are going to adopt Google's Android Automotive OS. That seems more promising. Volkswagen wants to create their own operating system like Tesla. Good luck to them if that works out! But how are they going to get these operating systems to play well with the horizontally integrated hardware in their vehicles?

Unlike the legacy cellphone makers like Nokia and BlackBerry, the legacy automakers have a disadvantage in hardware as well as software, as I indicated in my previous post. This might actually turn out to be worse for them! That being said, there's a huge wildcard here: apps. Due to security and safety issues, it seems unlikely that vehicle operating systems will ever support a thriving ecosystem of third-party apps--and it was the lack of this ecosystem of apps which truly put Nokia and BlackBerry's operating systems six feet under.

A phone is heavily dependent on the app ecosystem, which of course depends on the underlying OS. This actually predates phones and is something MS realized early on by making DOS and then Windows cornerstones of the value network. Sorry, the OS in a vehicle is nothing like this, but is rather an appliance.

That's impossible, actually. There simply isn't enough battery manufacturing capacity. In fact, GM just announced that they are building their own Gigafactory. That puts them more than five years behind Tesla, who announced Gigafactory 1 back in 2014.

The big automakers are well versed in big capital investments. They will build what they need to supply batteries.

In Europe, Jaguar and Audi are stealing share of the EV market from Tesla (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/21/top-tech-analyst-says-electric-vehicles-from-jaguar-and-audi-are-stealing-market-share-from-tesla.html). And while Tesla is currently doing well w.r.t. EV market share in the US, the picture could be markedly different in 2020 as European EVs enter the US market (https://www.ibtimes.com/tesla-accounts-75-us-electric-car-sales-model-3-reigns-supreme-2851834). They turned a profit, revenue in the US fell 39% in Q3 (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/reuters-america-update-2-tesla-filing-shows-u-s-sales-tumbled-39-percent-in-third-quarter.html).

The Tesla fanbois are declaring "Mission Accomplished" when in fact the real competition is just getting started. As someone who's not beholden or loyal to any brand (nor do I own any direct stock in any brand), it's interesting to sit back and watch it all unfold.

[Herbert Derp]

A phone is heavily dependent on the app ecosystem, which of course depends on the underlying OS. This actually predates phones and is something MS realized early on by making DOS and then Windows cornerstones of the value network. Sorry, the OS in a vehicle is nothing like this, but is rather an appliance.

I think you underestimate the complexity of these vehicle operating systems. Vehicles are way more complex than dumb appliances, and I think Tesla's operating system proves this. Look at how many features it has--way more than a microwave!

It does seem that we may have apps at some point, especially once self-driving cars become a thing and people spend more time interacting with the screens in their cars:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1123486_tesla-open-to-third-party-apps-for-its-big-center-screens

https://electrek.co/2019/06/04/tesla-platform-app-game-store/

The Tesla fanbois are declaring "Mission Accomplished" when in fact the real competition is just getting started. As someone who's not beholden or loyal to any brand (nor do I own any direct stock in any brand), it's interesting to sit back and watch it all unfold.

Absolutely. The battle is far from over but in my eyes, Tesla seems to have an advantage at this point.

[FINate]

I think you underestimate the complexity of these vehicle operating systems. Vehicles are way more complex than dumb appliances, and I think Tesla's operating system proves this. Look at how many features it has--way more than a microwave!

It does seem that we may have apps at some point, especially once self-driving cars become a thing and people spend more time interacting with the screens in their cars:

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1123486_tesla-open-to-third-party-apps-for-its-big-center-screens

https://electrek.co/2019/06/04/tesla-platform-app-game-store/

I know they aren't dumb appliances, I'm familiar with software and operating systems. [Was also an early adopter of Linux in the 1990s -- installing from a pile of floppy disks FTW!] By appliance I don't mean the complexity of the implementation, but rather that it serves as a black box interface to (mostly) driving related functions. Having Tesla apps isn't a major selling point for your average consumer as long as the infotainment system is easy to use and easy on the eyes. Props to Tesla for pushing the entire industry forward in this area alone, as historically these have been rather terrible.

The Tesla fanbois are declaring "Mission Accomplished" when in fact the real competition is just getting started. As someone who's not beholden or loyal to any brand (nor do I own any direct stock in any brand), it's interesting to sit back and watch it all unfold.

Absolutely. The battle is far from over but in my eyes, Tesla seems to have an advantage at this point.

They have a head start in the market and a strong brand. Although I'm not a fan of Musk's showiness and penchant for overpromising, I rather like the Tesla brand and will strongly consider it when shopping for my next vehicle (at least a few years out). Who knows, Tesla could very well be the winner in the end -- it just isn't clear to me so I'm not as sanguine as some when it comes to a long-term forecast.

Obviously we don't agree and that's fine. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

[Herbert Derp]

I know they aren't dumb appliances, I'm familiar with software and operating systems. [Was also an early adopter of Linux in the 1990s -- installing from a pile of floppy disks FTW!] By appliance I don't mean the complexity of the implementation, but rather that it serves as a black box interface to (mostly) driving related functions. Having Tesla apps isn't a major selling point for your average consumer as long as the infotainment system is easy to use and easy on the eyes. Props to Tesla for pushing the entire industry forward in this area alone, as historically these have been rather terrible.

When I think about it more, it seems more likely that the software system that controls essential vehicle functions and the infotainment system which lives on the dashboard will probably need to be kept as two completely separate systems. From a safety and security perspective, combining these two into a single system sends chills down my spine, especially if third party apps are involved. I mean, we've all seen this scene from The Fast and the Furious, right?

I could totally see Tesla keeping most of their current vehicle software, but adopting Android Automotive OS for infotainment purposes once apps become a thing. That could explain their current reluctance to add third party app support to their in-house infotainment system.

They have a head start in the market and a strong brand. Although I'm not a fan of Musk's showiness and penchant for overpromising, I rather like the Tesla brand and will strongly consider it when shopping for my next vehicle (at least a few years out). Who knows, Tesla could very well be the winner in the end -- it just isn't clear to me so I'm not as sanguine as some when it comes to a long-term forecast.

Obviously we don't agree and that's fine. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

Thanks for the good discussion as well. Thoughtful points all around! Keep in mind that Tesla doesn't have to drive everyone else out of business in order to "win"--Apple certainly didn't. In fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be multiple winners in this race.

[CowboyAndIndian]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have enjoyed the conversation between @FINate and @Herbert Derp.

Both have laid out very great arguments for and against, without resorting to calling names. I cannot think of another hotly debated topic like this which has reached page 5 without acrimonious name-calling.

It does seem that both sides are firmly entrenched in their positions and neither giving up any ground. I for one, have picked my side and put my money where my mouth is.

[powersuitrecall]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have enjoyed the conversation between @FINate and @Herbert Derp.

Agreed.  In particular the boundless optimism of HD.  I want to believe!!!

I think Tesla has done a massive service in pushing forward mass adoption of EVs.  Had it not been for them, I doubt we would be seeing so many car companies jump in right now.

This is a fun read: https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html

[FINate]

Thanks for the good discussion as well. Thoughtful points all around! Keep in mind that Tesla doesn't have to drive everyone else out of business in order to "win"--Apple certainly didn't. In fact, I don't see any reason why there can't be multiple winners in this race.

We are in violent agreement ;-) I'm just pushing back on the Tesla-will-dominate-the-world and therefore traditional automakers are doomed narrative. For the record, I hope Tesla continues to scare the bejesus out of the automotive industry for a while longer. [Since this thread is about Cybertruck, I suspect this unveil may have had the opposite effect but that's just like my opinion man.] This forces them to commit to real EVs that people want to buy, and this competition is good for the entire EV market. More important, this will force the big companies to get their heads out of their asses and start forming consortiums, and out of these come industry standards and compliance certifications for things like battery and charging technologies. Some of this exists today, but it's nascent and incomplete. Hence some non-Teslas can charge at some Superchargers, but it's inconsistent. This would also mean the automakers could collectively contribute to a charging network that together would be far more impactful than a vertical walled garden by a single company.

My hope is for a day when all EVs work at all compliant charging terminals, and these are ubiquitous even out in the boondocks. The ultimate success will be when name brand gas stations start rolling out DCFC at existing locations.

[FINate]

Speaking of charging stations, was looking at the PlugShare map this morning. When did Walmart roll out so many L3 DCFC 150-350 kW charging stations? This is fantastic, good for them! Oh, LOL!, this was part of Electrify America (https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2019/06/06/electrify-america-walmart-announce-completion-of-over-120-charging-stations-at-walmart-stores-nationwide-with-plans-for-further-expansion) which was formed in the wake of VW dieselgate, which was why VW purchased back my Touareg at a *very* good price :)

[lemonlyman]

Decreasing costs in battery manufacturing is the driver behind EV adoption. The reason there are very bullish ideas about ICE pretty much falling off a cliff by 2025 is their economics won't make any sense then when you follow the cost curve. Now imagine that cost curve including energy density and charging speed improvements too. ICE cars don't just have the problem of pure price comparison, they also have issues with gas stations closing or transitioning to other types as EVs take up more of the market share. That will undercut ICE convenience.

[FINate]

Decreasing costs in battery manufacturing is the driver behind EV adoption. The reason there are very bullish ideas about ICE pretty much falling off a cliff by 2025 is their economics won't make any sense then when you follow the cost curve. Now imagine that cost curve including energy density and charging speed improvements too. ICE cars don't just have the problem of pure price comparison, they also have issues with gas stations closing or transitioning to other types as EVs take up more of the market share. That will undercut ICE convenience.

If they can drive down costs and charging time while simultaneously increasing range then, yes, this should greatly speed up adoption. But again, the countervailing factor is a resulting drop in fuel prices. It may make sense for the government (states or fed) to put a floor under prices (tax increase below some set level to keep price at the floor), which could be used to subsidize the EV charging network...though this may be politically risky. In any case, I see no reason why it has to be all or nothing, and expect fossil fuels and charging stations to co-exist for a long time (at least 10 years, maybe more?). Certainly the existing fleet of ICE vehicles will anchor gas stations for the foreseeable future, and there will long be demand for gasoline for things like vintage cars, though agree that gas stations will likely become fewer and farther between, which isn't really a problem for things like a pickup truck with a range of 800+ miles per fill up.

Per this thread, the unknown factor is whether or not EVs will solve the towing range problem. Bigger and higher density batteries kinda help, but the way I think about this is the energy expenditure required to sustain a heavy non-aerodynamic trailer and how quickly this energy can be transferred back to the battery. So a big battery may give a range of 300 miles towing, but that's of little comfort if you're on a long distance trip and have to stop for 2 hours to recharge instead of stopping for 1 hour every 150 miles.

[Telecaster]

I fully believe EVs are the way of the future, and in fact own one myself.  However, despite the head start, I'm not convinced that Tesla is the EV if the future.  The reason is simple.  The legacy manufactures have a long record of doing something Tesla has never done:  Post an annual profit.   The legacy manufacturers haven't entered the EV realm in a meaningful way because nobody knows how to make money doing it. 

[lemonlyman]

Per this thread, the unknown factor is whether or not EVs will solve the towing range problem. Bigger and higher density batteries kinda help, but the way I think about this is the energy expenditure required to sustain a heavy non-aerodynamic trailer and how quickly this energy can be transferred back to the battery. So a big battery may give a range of 300 miles towing, but that's of little comfort if you're on a long distance trip and have to stop for 2 hours to recharge instead of stopping for 1 hour every 150 miles.

Higher energy density batteries compound the range. You need fewer batteries for the same energy output. That decreases the overall weight of the vehicles which in turn requires less energy to propel.

Tesla is deploying 250kw chargers now. The cybertruck has a "250+" charging speed implying it'll be faster then. 2 hours is too slow an estimate by over 100% for even today's tech. Electrify America has the 350kw chargers which would make it close to par with filling up a gas truck. There is a megacharger on the way for the semis. Maybe it could use that. I don't know, but charging is not going to be like it is today in 5 years.

[HBFIRE]

The reason is simple.  The legacy manufactures have a long record of doing something Tesla has never done:  Post an annual profit. 

Eh, I don’t find that reason very compelling.  Tesla is literally building out all the required infrastructure so it’s expected to lose money for awhile.  Amazon wasn’t profitable for TEN YEARS while it worked on growth and infrastructure.  I’d go so far to say if Tesla had been focused on profits it would take too long to scale and remain a niche auto maker.

[FINate]

Per this thread, the unknown factor is whether or not EVs will solve the towing range problem. Bigger and higher density batteries kinda help, but the way I think about this is the energy expenditure required to sustain a heavy non-aerodynamic trailer and how quickly this energy can be transferred back to the battery. So a big battery may give a range of 300 miles towing, but that's of little comfort if you're on a long distance trip and have to stop for 2 hours to recharge instead of stopping for 1 hour every 150 miles.

Higher energy density batteries compound the range. You need fewer batteries for the same energy output. That decreases the overall weight of the vehicles which in turn requires less energy to propel.

Tesla is deploying 250kw chargers now. The cybertruck has a "250+" charging speed implying it'll be faster then. 2 hours is too slow an estimate by over 100% for even today's tech. Electrify America has the 350kw chargers which would make it close to par with filling up a gas truck. There is a megacharger on the way for the semis. Maybe it could use that. I don't know, but charging is not going to be like it is today in 5 years.

The engineer in me can't resist putting some numbers behind this to quantify the comparison :) Please correct my math and assumptions, honestly just want to understand the situation.

A gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 33.7 kWh of electricity. [https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf]

Of course, we have to consider thermal efficiency of engines. It's difficult to find exact numbers for a given make and model, but modern IC engines are somewhere around 25% efficient. Ford's popular turbocharged Ecoboost engines are probably somewhere around 30% efficient as they capture some of the energy that otherwise would be lost out the tailpipe*. Electric motors are around 90% efficient.

  33.7 kWh * 0.30 / 0.90 = 11.2 kWh

So each gallon of gasoline pumped into a F150 Ecoboost is equivalent to about 11.2 kWh of real-world EV energy.

Most folks who intend to tow opt for the 36 gallon tank, which means one can fill up with 36 * 11.2 kWh = 403 kWh of equivalent energy in less than 5 minutes**. Now, to be fair to EVs I don't think the average consumer will differentiate between 5 minutes and, say 10 minutes. This is a big fat assumption on my part that I make in favor of EVs, but I think it's reasonable. After a long stretch of driving people want to stretch, get a bite to eat, use the bathroom. The 10 minute range seems like a fair comparison. To charge a 403 kWh battery in 10 minutes:

  403 kWh * 60 min / 10 min = 2418 kW

So the jump to 250 kW chargers is a good start, but still a long way off.

Off course you are free to play with the assumptions: Increase or decrease ICE thermal efficiency, and mess with how long you think customers are willing to wait to recharge. These all shift the results around. But even if these estimates are off by half, that still means planned charging capabilities of 250 kW are still about 1/4 of where they need to reach. This doesn't account for inefficiencies in charging or the charge schedule...guessing you can't just jam kW in a battery at full bore.

* The naturally aspirated V8 is likely between 20-25%, whereas the turbo diesel is probably north of 30%, may even approach 40%. Ford is testing a new ICE technology in F150s that will potentially boost efficiency to 45%, and running multiple turbochargers in serial has the potential to increase efficiency to about 50%.

** More precisely, a little under 3 minutes at a fairly standard 13 gallons/minute.

[lemonlyman]

I'm not an engineer. Is that really apples to apples? The amount of energy the motor consumes to move each vehicle/mile will be different. Right? A lot of these questions about capability of electric towing will be answered next year. Tesla confirmed the Semi will start production in 2020.

I'm guessing the 500mi cybertruck will have a 200kwh pack. Most of the charging is to 80% on trips. 160*60/10 = 960. Very fast indeed. So 40 min stop to charge is most likely. Stopping every 200 miles if a trailer reduced range by 50%. Yeah, pretty inconvenient. Guess it just depends on how far people have to go and how often. I wouldnt buy an ICE truck to do that a couple of times a year.

[FINate]

I'm not an engineer. Is that really apples to apples? The amount of energy the motor consumes to move each vehicle/mile will be different. Right? A lot of these questions about capability of electric towing will be answered next year. Tesla confirmed the Semi will start production in 2020.

I'm guessing the 500mi cybertruck will have a 200kwh pack. Most of the charging is to 80% on trips. 160*60/10 = 960. Very fast indeed. So 40 min stop to charge is most likely. Stopping every 200 miles if a trailer reduced range by 50%. Yeah, pretty inconvenient. Guess it just depends on how far people have to go and how often. I wouldnt buy an ICE truck to do that a couple of times a year.

Energy is energy. Thermal efficiency estimates account for differences in the motors. There may be some difference in efficiency of the drivetrain linkages, but this is likely to be marginal. Another other big consideration is weight, but EVs are usually heavier due to the batteries. Finally, aerodynamics, but this doesn't really matter for much if you're towing a big boxy trailer. I think these estimates are in the ballpark, which is why many analysts have come to the conclusion that Musk must be planning on megawatt chargers for the Tesla Semi. 

[aspiringnomad]

The reason is simple.  The legacy manufactures have a long record of doing something Tesla has never done:  Post an annual profit. 

Eh, I don’t find that reason very compelling.  Tesla is literally building out all the required infrastructure so it’s expected to lose money for awhile.  Amazon wasn’t profitable for TEN YEARS while it worked on growth and infrastructure.  I’d go so far to say if Tesla had been focused on profits it would take too long to scale and remain a niche auto maker.

Yup. As a shareholder, I'd actually prefer they not focus on profits for a bit (queue the crazy fanboi accusations). Profits are mostly irrelevant in the short-term, and assuming anything close to the current pace of innovation, inevitable in the long-term.

I think Musk is hyper focused on driving down the cost of producing everything he's involved in, from rocket engines to battery packs. Rather than a squandered opportunity the Cybertruck is just the latest, perhaps most out-there, example of that effort. He'll eventually get to a consistently and comfortably profitable place with EVs. And as an added bonus Tesla currently has a pretty obvious leg-up in vehicle autonomy, fast charging, and energy storage relative to the competition. I think he's earned a huge amount of runway, and sometime along that future runway the switch will flip permanently and profoundly to profitability. Once it does, it will be obvious in hindsight.

[JLee]

Per this thread, the unknown factor is whether or not EVs will solve the towing range problem. Bigger and higher density batteries kinda help, but the way I think about this is the energy expenditure required to sustain a heavy non-aerodynamic trailer and how quickly this energy can be transferred back to the battery. So a big battery may give a range of 300 miles towing, but that's of little comfort if you're on a long distance trip and have to stop for 2 hours to recharge instead of stopping for 1 hour every 150 miles.

Higher energy density batteries compound the range. You need fewer batteries for the same energy output. That decreases the overall weight of the vehicles which in turn requires less energy to propel.

Tesla is deploying 250kw chargers now. The cybertruck has a "250+" charging speed implying it'll be faster then. 2 hours is too slow an estimate by over 100% for even today's tech. Electrify America has the 350kw chargers which would make it close to par with filling up a gas truck. There is a megacharger on the way for the semis. Maybe it could use that. I don't know, but charging is not going to be like it is today in 5 years.

The engineer in me can't resist putting some numbers behind this to quantify the comparison :) Please correct my math and assumptions, honestly just want to understand the situation.

A gallon of gasoline contains the equivalent of 33.7 kWh of electricity. [https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf]

Of course, we have to consider thermal efficiency of engines. It's difficult to find exact numbers for a given make and model, but modern IC engines are somewhere around 25% efficient. Ford's popular turbocharged Ecoboost engines are probably somewhere around 30% efficient as they capture some of the energy that otherwise would be lost out the tailpipe*. Electric motors are around 90% efficient.

  33.7 kWh * 0.30 / 0.90 = 11.2 kWh

So each gallon of gasoline pumped into a F150 Ecoboost is equivalent to about 11.2 kWh of real-world EV energy.

Most folks who intend to tow opt for the 36 gallon tank, which means one can fill up with 36 * 11.2 kWh = 403 kWh of equivalent energy in less than 5 minutes**. Now, to be fair to EVs I don't think the average consumer will differentiate between 5 minutes and, say 10 minutes. This is a big fat assumption on my part that I make in favor of EVs, but I think it's reasonable. After a long stretch of driving people want to stretch, get a bite to eat, use the bathroom. The 10 minute range seems like a fair comparison. To charge a 403 kWh battery in 10 minutes:

  403 kWh * 60 min / 10 min = 2418 kW

So the jump to 250 kW chargers is a good start, but still a long way off.

Off course you are free to play with the assumptions: Increase or decrease ICE thermal efficiency, and mess with how long you think customers are willing to wait to recharge. These all shift the results around. But even if these estimates are off by half, that still means planned charging capabilities of 250 kW are still about 1/4 of where they need to reach. This doesn't account for inefficiencies in charging or the charge schedule...guessing you can't just jam kW in a battery at full bore.

* The naturally aspirated V8 is likely between 20-25%, whereas the turbo diesel is probably north of 30%, may even approach 40%. Ford is testing a new ICE technology in F150s that will potentially boost efficiency to 45%, and running multiple turbochargers in serial has the potential to increase efficiency to about 50%.

** More precisely, a little under 3 minutes at a fairly standard 13 gallons/minute.

I've never had a pump that fast, so I looked it up. The US limits pump rate for light passenger vehicles to 10 gallons/minute, and most I've used are far slower.

I drove a friend's Bolt a few weeks back and my next car will be an EV.  I suspect the vast majority of people will quite happily transition when it's an equivalent cost to a traditional car - electric is so vastly superior that there's not even an argument for me.

[FINate]

I've never had a pump that fast, so I looked it up. The US limits pump rate for light passenger vehicles to 10 gallons/minute, and most I've used are far slower.

I drove a friend's Bolt a few weeks back and my next car will be an EV.  I suspect the vast majority of people will quite happily transition when it's an equivalent cost to a traditional car - electric is so vastly superior that there's not even an argument for me.

Yeah, that may be on the high end.  Though 10/min still puts it at ~3.5 minutes. Again, I doubt a minute here or there matters much to most people.

Our next car will almost certainly be an EV. The benefits for daily driving, the most common use case, significantly outweigh the downsides. I'm confident they will eventually figure out the towing/hauling range and charging problem, along with rounding out the charging network in remote areas. However, my takeaway from running the numbers (based on what I believe are realistic assumptions) is that the Cybertruck and the Rivian vehicles aren't quite ready to fill this gap, unless of course the Cybertruck hits production with significantly more battery capacity and they start deploying >1MW charging stations in earnest.

[JLee]

I've never had a pump that fast, so I looked it up. The US limits pump rate for light passenger vehicles to 10 gallons/minute, and most I've used are far slower.

I drove a friend's Bolt a few weeks back and my next car will be an EV.  I suspect the vast majority of people will quite happily transition when it's an equivalent cost to a traditional car - electric is so vastly superior that there's not even an argument for me.

Yeah, that may be on the high end.  Though 10/min still puts it at ~3.5 minutes. Again, I doubt a minute here or there matters much to most people.

Our next car will almost certainly be an EV. The benefits for daily driving, the most common use case, significantly outweigh the downsides. I'm confident they will eventually figure out the towing/hauling range and charging problem, along with rounding out the charging network in remote areas. However, my takeaway from running the numbers (based on what I believe are realistic assumptions) is that the Cybertruck and the Rivian vehicles aren't quite ready to fill this gap, unless of course the Cybertruck hits production with significantly more battery capacity and they start deploying >1MW charging stations in earnest.

We're still solidly in the 'early adopter tax' phase -- pay more for an inferior product just to be one of the first out of the gate.  It will get better and cheaper with time - I am actually a little excited for the future of cars. It's getting interesting again!

[FINate]

We're still solidly in the 'early adopter tax' phase -- pay more for an inferior product just to be one of the first out of the gate.  It will get better and cheaper with time - I am actually a little excited for the future of cars. It's getting interesting again!

Agree! Excited for the future of EVs.

To round out this discussion, found this great video by Jason at Engineering Explained that explores the towing question in depth. My only quibble with his analysis is the assumption that people will always tow a rated (max) load. Many travel trailers are in the 5000lb range, so under this load the Cybertruck may be a reasonable tow vehicle for going 100 miles into the mountains with the 200 kWh battery. Which is fine if that's your primary use case for towing, but the charging problem becomes an issue again if you have to go much beyond this. So I think he's right that the energy density of batteries will need to double or even triple to compete with ICE trucks, but would also add that charge time will also need to be addressed with a much higher kW standard. Eventually things will hit a tipping point (like with passenger cars) where range + charge times are good enough for most people most of the time.

[GodlessCommie]

How many times per year do you need to tow stuff long range for it to makes financial sense to own a new-ish tow-capable truck as opposed to renting?

[FINate]

How many times per year do you need to tow stuff long range for it to makes financial sense to own a new-ish tow-capable truck as opposed to renting?

That's a different question than the practicalities of towing. But I'll bite. When we had a travel trailer we took 5-ish trips a year, but for this we towed with the VW.

The reason for my truck is to have a decent 4WD with better than stock tires (OEM tires aren't very good), roof racks, and a camper shell for road trips (place to lock gear) and dispersed camping. These are things I just can't get in a rental truck near where I live. So while it doesn't make financial sense -- I don't *have* to drive into the mountains on bad roads -- it's something I enjoy and given how little I drive otherwise it's extremely cheap compared to air travel or staying in hotels.

But if the economics of towing are the main consideration then Cybertruck makes even less sense. A $28k F150 will tow a 5000lb trailer just fine with great range, whereas to get a Cybertruck with marginal towing range you're looking at the $70k build. It would make way more sense to buy a Model 3 or Model Y and then rent a vanilla pickup for towing.

The more I consider all this, and the more I see "not a truck guy" guys who are interested in Cybertruck, the more I'm beginning to believe this is going to cannibalize sales of other Tesla models. 

[aspiringnomad]

The more I consider all this, and the more I see "not a truck guy" guys who are interested in Cybertruck, the more I'm beginning to believe this is going to cannibalize sales of other Tesla models.

Yep, of course it's going to cannibalize sales of existing models to some degree. But to what degree? 10%? 70%? Whatever the number, I'd wager the Cybertruck will be accretive to Tesla revenue and income even accounting for cannibalization of existing models. In any case, not offering a product because you're worried about protecting legacy offerings is a classic sign that a company has stopped growing, so I'm glad that Tesla isn't overly worried about that.

[GodlessCommie]

The more I consider all this, and the more I see "not a truck guy" guys who are interested in Cybertruck, the more I'm beginning to believe this is going to cannibalize sales of other Tesla models.

Thanks for the answer. I wasn't trying to prove anything, just get some understanding. I completely trust that you know what you are doing, and if you say that the Cybertruck will not work for you or others with similar use profiles, then that's it.

Some cannibalization is sure to occur. Right now, the only Tesla that can handle bigger boxy things is Model X, and it's not in everybody's budget. Model Y will be better, but from $ per cubic foot perspective, Cybertruck is even better, and the base version is *relatively* affordable.

Note, though, that Model 3 is pulling in people who haven't driven luxury sedans or EVs before: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-tesla-model-3-survey/market-evolution.html Like, Prius and BMW are predictable, but plenty of trade-ins are Accords, Civics and Camries.  I expect the same to happen with the Cybertruck. Some will convert from other Teslas, some from traditional trucks, and some from all sorts of other cars and SUVs.

[neo von retorch]

Some cannibalization is sure to occur. Right now, the only Tesla that can handle bigger boxy things is Model X, and it's not in everybody's budget. Model Y will be better, but from $ per cubic foot perspective, Cybertruck is even better, and the base version is *relatively* affordable.

Note, though, that Model 3 is pulling in people who haven't driven luxury sedans or EVs before: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-tesla-model-3-survey/market-evolution.html Like, Prius and BMW are predictable, but plenty of trade-ins are Accords, Civics and Camries.  I expect the same to happen with the Cybertruck. Some will convert from other Teslas, some from traditional trucks, and some from all sorts of other cars and SUVs.

EDIT: OK they have more granular numbers. But overall the point remains; lots of alternative fuel vehicles traded in, and some luxury. And some of the top-selling vehicles. No real surprises.

Ah statistics! :) #5, 6 and 8 on that list are EVs and PHEV. How many of those were even in existence and on the road prior to Model 3s being available for purchase? If you take the total sales of Model 3s, as well as how many Leaf, Volt and Model S, and consider where they are on a Top 10, you're talking about very small numbers in general. The  Accord, Civic and Camry being on that list is no surprise, being the top selling sedans  of all time.

To illustrate my point, lets assume people hold onto their cars for 3 years.  In the U.S. in 2016, 345,135 Honda Accords were sold. In the survey, 135 people switched from Honda Accord to Tesla Model 3. This was a survey of 5000 owners, so 2.7% came from Accords. Would you say 500k total have been sold? So maybe 13,500 total Honda Accord owners switched to Model 3?

All I'm saying is take that idea with a grain of salt; that there are a lot of "conversions" here. I mean, those Accord/Civic/Camry buyers might have been gearing up to buy Acura/Lexus next, and the Model 3 may have taken away those sales. I don't know if it's true, and I wouldn't make any big predictions based on that idea. I'd just be careful what you read from a top 10 list, especially without more definitive numbers.

All that being said, I really hope you get an "everything but the biggest battery, AWD and AutoPilot" version for a real out-the-door (before taxes/fees) price of $39,900. I think if that's real, it'll sell better (maybe much better) than my current expectations. But previous Tesla models have not instilled confidence in base prices. Seeing videos, I think it's "cooler" than the photos and memes suggest ;) But I'm Mustachian and in no position to buy one for myself without compromising other long-term goals.

[GodlessCommie]

All I'm saying is take that idea with a grain of salt; that there are a lot of "conversions" here. I mean, those Accord/Civic/Camry buyers might have been gearing up to buy Acura/Lexus next, and the Model 3 may have taken away those sales. I don't know if it's true, and I wouldn't make any big predictions based on that idea. I'd just be careful what you read from a top 10 list, especially without more definitive numbers.

All that being said, I really hope you get an "everything but the biggest battery, AWD and AutoPilot" version for a real out-the-door (before taxes/fees) price of $39,900. I think if that's real, it'll sell better (maybe much better) than my current expectations. But previous Tesla models have not instilled confidence in base prices. Seeing videos, I think it's "cooler" than the photos and memes suggest ;) But I'm Mustachian and in no position to buy one for myself without compromising other long-term goals.

Everything not previously a Tesla is a conversion. Not a single grain of salt here. And the consequences are being felt: https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/the-tesla-effect-how-tesla-is-changing-the-used-car-game/1096

Just like popular sedans are being traded in for Model 3, I expect popular trucks and SUVs to be traded in for the Cybertruck. Maybe not trucks used by every segment of pickup owners (the argument about towing seems to be especially convincing). Maybe SUVs more than trucks. But if M3 sales are of any indication, the Cybertruck will find its customers.

Model 3 has followed through on the base price promises. Tesla doesn't really want to sell the base model - that much is true. But you can buy it, over the phone or in the Tesla store.

[neo von retorch]

Model 3 has followed through on the base price promises. Tesla doesn't really want to sell the base model - that much is true. But you can buy it, over the phone or in the Tesla store.

That's not what I said. I said with all the things you need for it to be a cool, useful truck. Not sure what options there will be other than battery range, AWD and autopilot. Solar roof. Sliding bed cover. Etc. With the base Model 3 you get no color options, ugly wheels, etc. Really Spartan without paying for extras.

Kind of like how if you buy a $25k Chevy it comes with a tiny screen and no Android Auto, no bedliner or bed light, etc.

Anyway the conversions are still kind of meaningless without comparison to other $50k cars and what their previous cars were.

[Just Joe]

Per this thread, the unknown factor is whether or not EVs will solve the towing range problem. Bigger and higher density batteries kinda help, but the way I think about this is the energy expenditure required to sustain a heavy non-aerodynamic trailer and how quickly this energy can be transferred back to the battery. So a big battery may give a range of 300 miles towing, but that's of little comfort if you're on a long distance trip and have to stop for 2 hours to recharge instead of stopping for 1 hour every 150 miles.

BIG batteries: There is video of the Tesla semi-truck charging at normal Tesla chargers with 4-6 charging cords plugged in all at once. There might be a limit to how much power that can be passed through one charge port and one battery but if it is split into two batteries and two charge ports, charging times would stay lower right?

Gasoline: as an owner of antique cars, I expect gasoline to be available for the rest of my driving years but it'll be like looking for ethanol-free gasoline now - one or two gas stations across the county that specialize in it. Not their core profit maker but they sell it. Don't know what it is like where you are but kerosene is hard to find now here. Once upon a time a fair number of people including my family supplemented their home heating with kerosene. It was easy to find at just about any gas station. Now like ethanol free gasoline, it is hard to find.

AutoOS: I'd be happy if the car's functions were handled by the car but everything else was a screencast of my phone. Same music, same media player, same GPS, etc. There are aftermarket solutions that enable a direct screencast for some cars.

[GodlessCommie]

Stepping back from the Cybertruck, and puttung on my save the world cap, I'm not even sure towing is the problem that needs to be solved now. There are use cases for which electric trucks and vans are suitable in their existing state. Electrifying those provides a much better carbon bang for the buck.

Which is why, BTW, I'm extremely excited about the electric F-150. I don't even care how its specs look like compared to Cybertuck. If Ford is serious about it, and doesn't screw up, it will sell to people who would never get into an EV otherwise. That's a big if, though - both I-Pace and eTron proved that building EVs is harder than it looks, and legacy automakers have a hell of a learning curve and investment to make. Battery supply is another huge limiting factor, as Ford is behind not only Tesla, but also VW and GM.

I have to agree with FINate: the Cybertruck's appeal to traditional pickup customers is limited. Look at F-150e promotional video: it's their truck pulling a train, with burly guys in plaid shirts and jeans looking with a reserved respect. The message is: I'm one of you, I understand what's important to you, my new truck can do what you value better.
Enter Tesla with it's Cybertruck vs F-150 video: hey, sucker, look what I can do with your favorite thing in the world, haha. Even if it's not the intent, I bet it is seen like that. The reaction from the pickup crowd - which we could all observe online - was resentment and entrenchment. Not quite what drives sales.

Now, it doesn't mean that the Cybertruck will not sell. It will, and I'm quite sure it will be a commercial success. But in terms of reducing CO2 emissions of pickup trucks, F-150 has a chance to do much better.   

[Kyle Schuant]

So does this mean that Ford is going down a dead end street with their all-electric F-150? What about Tesla and the other companies who plan to manufacture electric semi trucks? If the problem is as clear cut as you seem to think it is, all these companies wouldn't even be bothering to make electric towing trucks.

You are using American auto companies as examples of intelligent forward-thinking which cannot fail?

[lemonlyman]

Both parties backing the USMCA trade deal. It requires 75% of auto parts to be made in made in NA to avoid tariffs up from 62.5%. It also means auto workers must make $16/hr to avoid tariff which is 3x avg Mexican auto workers wage. Since Tesla already manufactures most parts in the USA, it's prices won't be affected but almost every other automaker will take a hit on parts & labor. If ratified, Cybertruck price competitiveness will increase.

[Jon Bon]

I have to agree with FINate: the Cybertruck's appeal to traditional pickup customers is limited. Look at F-150e promotional video: it's their truck pulling a train, with burly guys in plaid shirts and jeans looking with a reserved respect. The message is: I'm one of you, I understand what's important to you, my new truck can do what you value better.

IMO Ford (and GM/Ram) they are not in fact advertising to construction workers.

They are advertising to relatively wealthy suburban dads who want to cosplay a construction worker on the weekend.

The tucks in the commercials are not the ones on the actual job-site. No one takes a 80k tricked out truck to a open put coal mine. Everyone is driving the most basic white truck that they can get at the lowest price.

Fleet sales are good, but only if you have excess capacity. Something that Tesla likely will not have for a long time. Fleet sales are super low margin, so those orders would be filled last. I would expect Tesla to go after that market only after 2-3 years of maximum production to clear out their backlog. The big 3 can handle producing 50k trucks a month to sell to all price points. Tesla is going to start high, if they need to get into fleet sales they eventually will. But I suspect the demand will be there for a long time. Kind of for the same reason they have not gotten into leases yet.

[PathtoFIRE]

Kind of for the same reason they have not gotten into leases yet.

I've known a family that has leased an S and X for several years.
https://www.tesla.com/support/tesla-leasing

[GodlessCommie]

IMO Ford (and GM/Ram) they are not in fact advertising to construction workers.

They are advertising to relatively wealthy suburban dads who want to cosplay a construction worker on the weekend.

No disagreement here. Relatively wealthy suburban dads - and others who buy trucks mostly for cultural reasons - are the most lucrative truck-buying demographics. And it's their cultural sensitivities that are the biggest barrier to them buying an EV of any kind.

[MilesTeg]

I have to agree with FINate: the Cybertruck's appeal to traditional pickup customers is limited. Look at F-150e promotional video: it's their truck pulling a train, with burly guys in plaid shirts and jeans looking with a reserved respect. The message is: I'm one of you, I understand what's important to you, my new truck can do what you value better.

IMO Ford (and GM/Ram) they are not in fact advertising to construction workers.

They are advertising to relatively wealthy suburban dads who want to cosplay a construction worker on the weekend.

The tucks in the commercials are not the ones on the actual job-site. No one takes a 80k tricked out truck to a open put coal mine. Everyone is driving the most basic white truck that they can get at the lowest price.

Fleet sales are good, but only if you have excess capacity. Something that Tesla likely will not have for a long time. Fleet sales are super low margin, so those orders would be filled last. I would expect Tesla to go after that market only after 2-3 years of maximum production to clear out their backlog. The big 3 can handle producing 50k trucks a month to sell to all price points. Tesla is going to start high, if they need to get into fleet sales they eventually will. But I suspect the demand will be there for a long time. Kind of for the same reason they have not gotten into leases yet.

People DO buy higher end trucks to use as a truck. Don't fool yourself. There's plenty of well off folks who still do things like pull campers, boats, horse trailers, etc. And plenty of blue collar workers and trademen that also want more than a stripped down "white truck".

Every tradesman I have hired out for any job that shows up in a truck shows up in something much more than a stripped down "white truck". I don't think even a single one has shown up in a base model. Most of the trucks I see doing recreational towing are high end trims. Not surprisingly, if you have the money to spend on horses, 4 wheelers, campers, or big boats (etc.) you also have the money for a fancy truck.

The only time I see "white trucks" are with companies that use large fleets and have some semblance of watching the bottom line. I ain't saying there aren't a ton of "truck cosplayers" as you say out there, but in reality people with money use trucks too.

[GodlessCommie]

The only time I see "white trucks" are with companies that use large fleets and have some semblance of watching the bottom line.

My observations match yours, with the exception that bigger companies in my area tend to use vans more than trucks. A lot to parse here, though, which I will not do for fear of confirmation bias getting the best of me.

[MilesTeg]

IMO Ford (and GM/Ram) they are not in fact advertising to construction workers.

They are advertising to relatively wealthy suburban dads who want to cosplay a construction worker on the weekend.

No disagreement here. Relatively wealthy suburban dads - and others who buy trucks mostly for cultural reasons - are the most lucrative truck-buying demographics. And it's their cultural sensitivities that are the biggest barrier to them buying an EV of any kind.

I don't see "relatively wealthy suburban dads" as being culturally biased against EVs. I see them as the primary demographic for EVs of all kinds. It's the rural dads, especially from more right leaning places, that will be biased against EVs.

When's the last time you saw a suburban dad buying a truck and modifying it to "roll coal" in order to protest the very existence of the prius?

[GodlessCommie]

When's the last time you saw a suburban dad buying a truck and modifying it to "roll coal" in order to protest the very existence of the prius?

Never.

I can only offer anecdotes, but trucks outnumber EVs in my suburb at least 10:1. Vast majority are for cosplay.

My neighborhood is about 40-45% conservative, judging by election results. That's well below white rural areas, but still a lot of trucks that might as well be electric.

Also, while many suburban dads around me are not culturally averse to EVs, they are averse to change (as are suburban moms), and that's the biggest obstacle.

[Jon Bon]

I have to agree with FINate: the Cybertruck's appeal to traditional pickup customers is limited. Look at F-150e promotional video: it's their truck pulling a train, with burly guys in plaid shirts and jeans looking with a reserved respect. The message is: I'm one of you, I understand what's important to you, my new truck can do what you value better.

IMO Ford (and GM/Ram) they are not in fact advertising to construction workers.

They are advertising to relatively wealthy suburban dads who want to cosplay a construction worker on the weekend.

The tucks in the commercials are not the ones on the actual job-site. No one takes a 80k tricked out truck to a open put coal mine. Everyone is driving the most basic white truck that they can get at the lowest price.

Fleet sales are good, but only if you have excess capacity. Something that Tesla likely will not have for a long time. Fleet sales are super low margin, so those orders would be filled last. I would expect Tesla to go after that market only after 2-3 years of maximum production to clear out their backlog. The big 3 can handle producing 50k trucks a month to sell to all price points. Tesla is going to start high, if they need to get into fleet sales they eventually will. But I suspect the demand will be there for a long time. Kind of for the same reason they have not gotten into leases yet.

People DO buy higher end trucks to use as a truck. Don't fool yourself. There's plenty of well off folks who still do things like pull campers, boats, horse trailers, etc. And plenty of blue collar workers and trademen that also want more than a stripped down "white truck".

Every tradesman I have hired out for any job that shows up in a truck shows up in something much more than a stripped down "white truck". I don't think even a single one has shown up in a base model. Most of the trucks I see doing recreational towing are high end trims. Not surprisingly, if you have the money to spend on horses, 4 wheelers, campers, or big boats (etc.) you also have the money for a fancy truck.

The only time I see "white trucks" are with companies that use large fleets and have some semblance of watching the bottom line. I ain't saying there aren't a ton of "truck cosplayers" as you say out there, but in reality people with money use trucks too.

Yup sure, lots of business owners/foremen do. For instance my roofer does just fine and rolls around in a 60k ride. However, a cybertruck would suit him just fine. He mainly rolls around and checks on jobs. Hes not towing and not really hauling. Hell a model 3 would be perfect for him.


Also an f150 or any half ton also is not really gonna work for a horse trailer or 5th wheel. So I dont feel that is exactly applies to applies. I know the big 3, and even tesla are in the towing arms race but when your load is putting you into CDL territory due to weight half ton is not the way to go. So I would say lets keep our discussion in the half ton market.

No vehicle can be all things to all people. Just because a cyber truck cant pull a horse trailer over the Rockies in the winter does not make it a failure.

So I guess my thesis would be the cyber truck will be fine.

It will sell to suburban dads who want to play construction worker
It will/can sell to tradesmen who do mostly city driving (like my roofer above)
It won't sell for long range towing, like the horse trailer, 5th wheel cross country crowd.

That is still a huge and rich as hell market to be in. Its a much bigger market than the compact truck market and the 3/4 ton crowd (made up assumptions)

[MilesTeg]

When's the last time you saw a suburban dad buying a truck and modifying it to "roll coal" in order to protest the very existence of the prius?

Never.

I can only offer anecdotes, but trucks outnumber EVs in my suburb at least 10:1. Vast majority are for cosplay.

My neighborhood is about 40-45% conservative, judging by election results. That's well below white rural areas, but still a lot of trucks that might as well be electric.

Also, while many suburban dads around me are not culturally averse to EVs, they are averse to change (as are suburban moms), and that's the biggest obstacle.

Most people are resistant to change, it's in our nature. Yet suburbanites were the first and remain the largest demographic buying EV cars so it's reasonable to assume they will be that for any type of EV. Especially because they have the money and typically do no have the extreme use cases that EV trucks will not handle anytime soon (e.g. towing 20-30k in a goosneck across country)

[GodlessCommie]

Most people are resistant to change, it's in our nature. Yet suburbanites were the first and remain the largest demographic buying EV cars so it's reasonable to assume they will be that for any type of EV. Especially because they have the money and typically do no have the extreme use cases that EV trucks will not handle anytime soon (e.g. towing 20-30k in a goosneck across country)

Again, no disagreement. I'm all for solving their truck use case first, and worrying about towing a boat coast to coast later. Their use case is infinitely easier to solve, removes most CO2, and they are happy to pay enough for bells and whistles to cover the higher cost of battery.

Apparently, good folks at Autolist knew what we were discussing, and came up with a survey of ~1,000 people currently shopping for a truck. As some here predicted, people already owning a truck were noticeably cooler to Tesla and warmer to an electric Ford/GM. First time truck buyers were about evenly split. Al in all, 20% would buy Cybertruck - which, if it stands, would be an insane success for Tesla.

https://www.autolist.com/news-and-analysis/survey-electric-pickups-GM-ford-tesla-rivian

h/t Cleantechnica