> Minimalistic interiors, modern infotainment, mobile app performance
None of that is why Tesla was ahead of everyone for so long.
It's because their cars have better range, and Tesla is still the range leader. They held four of the top six spots in 2022, and the number one is the Lucid Air (only 3k of them have actually been sold):
> South Korea’s antitrust regulator said it would impose a 2.85 billion won ($2.2 million) fine on Tesla for failing to tell its customers about the shorter driving range of its electric vehicles in low temperatures.
As a Tesla owner: range and ambient air temperature are significantly correlated (i.e., your 300 miles of range plummets to ~120 when below freezing).
But, on a good, sunny, warm day, their range claims are correct.
That's true with most batteries. It's foolish for car-markers to not include an air-temp variable when making range claims, I predict you will see all of them do that.
Battery longevity will also soon include depth-of-discharge and temp limits as well.
Their new octovalve heat pump stuff makes a significant difference in cold weather. Anecdotally our Model Y (heat pump) is a bit more performant in the cold vs our 2018 Model 3 (not heat pump).
The place where Teslas form the largest fraction of the car population is Norway. They don't seem to have more problems with winter than any other car brand. I have driven my 2015 Mode S 70D at 1000 m altitude, -20°C, on numerous occasions with no problems at all.
My Model S is certainly better at handling the winter than a Nissan Leaf of the same vintage.
Most Norwegians in my experience are a lot happier wearing a woollen jumper or layers to cope with their weather, whereas many Americans are not happy unless their car is cranking to keep the interior at 72 while it's in single digits outside.
Heh, in my experience most Americans start complaining if the heat isn't cranked up to 80F in the dead of winter. But come summer, everybody wants the AC cranked down to 60F. T-shirts in the winter and stylish jackets in the summer, nobody dresses for the seasons.
Personally, I prefer an open window. Fresh air is almost always better than warm/cold stale air. But I think that'll kill a car's aerodynamics anyway, maybe worse for efficiency than running the heater/AC.
You can set your ac or heat to pull air in from outside. With the added benefit that most nice vehicles have an outside air filter to filter the fresh air first.
Hell, higher end vehicles will even auto-switch to recirc air based on outside air quality (particulate count). Surprised me the first time I saw it on my Jaguar.
My driving in the mountains in the winter was in shirtsleeves and bare feet. No trouble keeping the interior of the car warm. Also because it is electric I can sleep in it and be kept warm without the risk of being poisoned by exhaust fumes or kept awake by the noise. There was one occasion when I had to move my car to the other side of the car park because someone parked their ICE car next to mine and left it idling all night while they slept. As this was in an otherwise silent landscape it was pretty annoying.
There's plenty of snowy winter weather within an hour or two drive of LA. I'm sure they test in the Angeles Mountains as much as every other car manufacturer I saw test up there when I lived in those mountains.
They also have by far the best charging network. IMO Teslas have the best long range driving experience. This detail is important although not the only thing to consider. However, it looms large in how Americans think about their cars.
I say this as someone who owns an electric car by a different manufacturer.
This isn't a defensible position though for Tesla. New charging networks are coming online at a furious rate. I'm not sure maintaining their own network makes sense unless everything becomes compatible and they use it as an additional revenue stream. But for them to compete when every other auto manufacturer is subsidizing shared networks is risky.
It's true, but the cost is much higher. Normally I see folks using another vendor nearby in the same parking lot as as the Supercharger as they can get a better rate. In the future I think the other vendors will catch up unless some EV bubble bursts.
Of course, the US and China are the biggest global markets accounting for need and purchasing power. Europe has 400M more people than the US, but not the need for cars like the countries mentioned.
Worth noting that list is each model's top trims. The Model 3 Long Range is currently unavailable for purchase.
I wish the EPA would clamp down on manufacturer's range estimates, as those ranges are theoretical (perfect driving with no real acceleration, no climate control, etc). We need practical city/highway range like we get for ICE cars. My EV6 is rated at 310, but driving as conservatively as possible in Houston I get more like 285. On a road trip where it was mostly exposed freeway and cruise control, my range was closer to 220.
Should also probably disclose range in freezing temps as well (I'm in Houston so I don't consider that as much as others). The first manufacturer to solve that problem well would possibly be a better car than one with a larger theoretical range.
That article states
> Although we haven't tested each of the longest-range models under our own EV highway range testing procedure, we've provided the data where possible.
I don't think Tesla is as far ahead on range as everyone thinks. Highway miles are what matters and Tesla tends to be optimistic on their numbers.
It might be on par in range, but it's far behind in terms of efficiency... and also much more expensive to boot. Also, comparing it against the Model 3 (which, I know, is not even the same league of 'luxury' as the EQS) it's even further behind in range/efficiency.
The only cars that get the 'A' rating on that spreadsheet are the two Model 3 cars (316 mile version, and 200ish mile one), the 62kWh Nissan Leaf (216mi), and a bunch of super low range cars where efficiency is easy, since weight is way lower.
Competitors are catching up, yes, but they're still pretty far behind in the efficiency game... which means that Tesla can produce quite a few more cars for the same amount of raw battery pack. Which drives better margins and more production capacity.
Is it really that simple? Is there something about Tesla’s technology that enables longer ranges? Surely they just put in bigger batteries and charge more for the car, and competitors could also do that if it was really a primary competitive advantage of Teslas.
Many of the competitors are STILL building on an ICE chassis and stuff batteries where the center axle would have been etc. When enough of them finally switch to pure EV platforms things will quickly improve I guess. But designing a new chassis that behave as well as their previous premium models, is not something they do in 1 year so it makes sense there is some delay..
The competitors also charge much less quickly, so there's some optimization there that they lack. Like, on paper they can do 250 kW but you never get more than 100 when actually charging it etc
Like, on paper they can do 250 kW but you never get more than 100 when actually charging it etc
Yeah this is one area where there's a lot of deceptive marketing. For example the Kia EV6 specs list a max fast charging rate of 350 kW but what that actually means is that you need a 350 kW charging station to reach the car's actual max charging speed of 240 kW (or 180 kW, depending on the battery options).
Granted, that is still nice and fast, and the EV6 is a great car, but it's really frustrating how hard it is to compare charge speed from different manufacturers.
> For example the Kia EV6 specs list a max fast charging rate of 350 kW but what that actually means is that you need a 350 kW charging station to reach the car's actual max charging speed of 240 kW
> it's really frustrating how hard it is to compare charge speed from different manufacturers
Is the discrepancy just the inefficiency (i.e. waste heat) of the charging circuitry and/or battery chemistry? And if so, do different EV battery+charger systems have significantly different efficiencies?
I would have expected that the consumer-facing spec is always the power taken from the grid, that there is always some inefficiency (you can draw less energy from the batteries than came out of the grid), and that the level of efficiency would be roughly similar across all cars.
If that were the case, it wouldn't be much of a problem to compare charging rates across cars. But perhaps one or more of my expectations are wrong.
Oh, and EVs presumably vary wildly in their "fuel economy" (miles per kilowatt-hour or whatever unit EV folks use), so even a "fair" comparison of charging rate presumably wouldn't paint the entire picture.
Is the discrepancy just the inefficiency (i.e. waste heat) of the charging circuitry and/or battery chemistry?
I'm not positive on the specifics but I believe it has more to do with the combination of supported voltages/amperages offered by different chargers. i.e. a "350 kW capable" charger in practice means it can do 800V charging, which other chargers of lower kW ratings typically can't do, and the EV6 requires 800V to reach its max charge speed but can't actually handle a high enough amperage to get to 350 kW.
Like I said though, I might be confused on some of the details there, but I'm fairly positive it's not just waste heat...dissipating 110kW of waste heat would require some pretty insane cooling hardware.
Oh, and EVs presumably vary wildly in their "fuel economy" (miles per kilowatt-hour or whatever unit EV folks use), so even a "fair" comparison of charging rate presumably wouldn't paint the entire picture.
This is indeed a good point. A more relevant measure of charging speed would be something like "miles per hour at EPA rated efficiency", though even that gets messy since most cars don't charge at a linear speed. And I haven't seen any car manufacturers use this metric other than Tesla, who like to brag about their supercharger stations exceeding 1,000 MPH of charging speed (though only the newest stations can just barely do that, for very short durations, and only on certain car models). "Time from 20%-80% charge" would also be a better metric, due to non-linear charging speed curves, but I haven't seen that one used much either.
> A more relevant measure of charging speed would be something like "miles per hour at EPA rated efficiency", though even that gets messy since most cars don't charge at a linear speed.
Pretty much the only time charging speed even matters is the "road trip" mode, where you are driving further than a single battery charge in one day and you want to stop as little as possible. In that mode, all I really want to know is what my duty cycle will be, e.g. "every 5 hours of driving you'll need to stop to charge for 30 minutes."
If I'm not in road trip mode, then as long as I can Level 2 charge overnight and/or all day at work, I would barely care what the peak charge rate is. It would still be nice to have something quick for the rare pickle (and of course road trips), but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. I guess it's so prominent in marketing because range anxiety is still so deep in our mindset?
How is this deceptive? Anyone who has ever charged a phone is probably familiar with the concept that a higher wattage charger provides faster charging speeds - electric cars are no different. Higher power chargers charge faster is not some secret.
The car simply states the fastest DC connection it supports - 350kw. It works with any charger up to this wattage, just like my laptop charges from any USB-C source up to 100w - was I missold my laptop too because if I use a 50w charger it only charges at 50w?
EVs must charge from a huge range of different wattage chargers - I regularly switch between 7kw, 11kw, 50kw and 250 depending on the spec of the power source.
The power you get is determined entirely by the DC plug you use (and to some degree state of charge, but lets not complicate this further...) - the car has no bearing on this beyond supporting up to 350kw in this example. The car can't magically make a 50kw charger output 350kw, as nice as this might be.
DC Fast Charge Time (10-80% @ 350 kW via Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) Level 3 Charger: Approx. 18 min.
and
Drive Battery Energy: 77.4 kWh
The battery is 77.4 kWh. This implies the battery is charging at 180kW.
If it were taking in the full 350kW and losing 170kW as heat that would be one (inefficient and dangerous) thing, but it doesn't sound like it actually draws 350kW?
For comparison, they say 73min for charging at 50kW, which implies the battery is charging at 45kW. If we figure that same 10% loss, then to charge at 180kW it's probably drawing 200kW from the charger.
As battery charges its pretty common to taper the charge rate to improve health of the battery. To my knowledge, no EV today will sit at 350kw for the full 10 to 80 percent even if it can draw this. You still get faster charge times as the full draw can usually happen at close to empty, but charge rate will taper as battery fills. 181kw average is still pretty great - there are many EVs on sale that still max draw at 50 (looking at you VW...).
If the peak current draw were 350kW then I'd agree the specs were fine.
I'd thought they were advertising a 10% to 80% charge because that's the period over which they can charge at max speed? Looking now, it seems like they start tapering at 50%, and it's peak draw is 235kW? https://www.arenaev.com/kia_ev6_crowned_the_best_charging_ev...
(I agree this is very good, but it's still wrong to quote 350kW if they never draw this much.)
> For example the Kia EV6 specs list a max fast charging rate of 350 kW but what that actually means is that you need a 350 kW charging station to reach the car's actual max charging speed of 240 kW (or 180 kW, depending on the battery options).
This is a huge dealbreaker for me tbh. Tesla's competitors are mostly still using an electrified ICE platform, showing even now they're years behind. It's comparable to countries who were pioneers in broadband internet and who are now lacking in progress and falling behind, or like MS Internet explorer that totally stagnated and held back browser technology.
It's not just the platform. Another hindrance is baseline expectations: if Tesla designs the exterior strictly form-follows-cda, it's the "Tesla style". If an ICE maker does the same they break brands identity. Same for interior minimalism. Same for configuration options. They are used to selling a product that is basically solved (consider how cheap you can get e.g. a Dacia) and filled whatever capacity in terms of mass, cost and complexity with extra bells and whistles. That their customers now expect, ICE or not. Or that they suspect their customers to still expect, that's perfectly sufficient to never dare going a bit leaner. But for a BEV the manufacturer mostly sells a battery (in terms of mass, in terms of cost, in terms of quality) and the entire rest needs to be lean. Lean in cost, lean in complexity, lean in physical characteristics like mass and cda like it wasn't really all that necessary with the ICE.
A trivial example (in unnecessary complexity, physical properties not really involved): on the German website, when you pretend to be ordering an Audi A6 you get twelve different sets of wheels to choose from at five price points. And that's before you add winter wheels to the mix. And tire options, and different approaches to the pressure gauge problem and theft preventing bolts. The Tesla S offers a choice between baseline and expensive an optional winter wheel. Now this isn't an example that directly relates to range, but it's organisational cruft. They need to have boatloads of people employed only for solving various aspects of their solution to the made-up problem of not enough wheel choice (all the way from design to spare parts logistics..) and that robs focus. Those people might actually have better careers than their peers dealing with batteries and they do compete for intraorganizational attention. It's all rooted in customer expectations built over decades of inventing car problems to solve better than the competition, after the ICE was basically done. New, BEV-specific lines can help (apparently the e-tron gets by with only eight sets of wheels at two price points, yay!), but they are far from being as much of a fresh start as that blank slate as Tesla has been.
Counterintuitively, it can be cheaper timewise (and money-wise) to spec and build a new factory than to re-tool one that was custom-built to manufacture cars with a large set of core assumptions about power plant and drive train.
And they basically all did develop EV platforms, probably the main reason it took them as long to catch up as it did. But now that they have them, the benefits coming from those platforms are just enormous.
As batteries were even more expensive years ago, Elon put energy efficiency above everything else, like putting in lighter seats than ICE car manufacturers and optimizing the thermal system (octovalve).
The ,,false advertising'' that others say come from the fact that when you drive fast it doesn't matter how energy efficient you are, so it works out only with low speeds.
Tesla's range advantage exists primarily in advertising. In real world tests it ranges from barely higher to moderately lower to equivalent competitors.
not quite, if you bought it in the open market its 10~20% more $ than having a fixed longterm contract. and ICE carmakers usually have one OEM like samsung and Panasonic who have interest in getting best price for each cell . Tesla has inhouse cell production capacity and uses cells from all oems to get the best possible price / cell . This will give tesla a permanent 5% lead (outside of china) in cell pricing.
Yes. And if Tesla would move to block them from doing so, they would set themselves up for an anti-competition suite of epic proportions in all markets, from the US over the EU all the way to China.
The problem of procurement is about access to Lithium and Nickel ores. Telsa has a joint partnership with a Nickel mine in New Caledonia and rights on mining Lithium in Nevada. GM, Ford don't and there is a global shortage, so I don't see them succeeding in battery production long term. If they source batteries from Panasonic, they're buying an inferior battery. If they source from Tesla, that's obviously positive for Tesla.
None of that is why Tesla was ahead of everyone for so long.
It's because their cars have better range, and Tesla is still the range leader. They held four of the top six spots in 2022, and the number one is the Lucid Air (only 3k of them have actually been sold):
https://www.caranddriver.com/shopping-advice/g32634624/ev-lo...
Also, I just want to say I am categorically not an Elon or Tesla fanboi and I am rooting for other brands to meet and exceed their range performance.