Can't believe I didn't think of this... brb going to the Tesla store.
What is a "hot market" supposed to mean? There's roughly one competitor with the model 3 at the moment and that's the bolt, which they aren't manufacturing in large volumes.Maybe a few years ago you could have made this claim but this isn't true at all anymore. Its quickly become a hot market and tons of players are in or getting into the game.
People have been waking up to this for a long time. I imagine if I looked I could find WSJ articles talking about production issues every year since 2010. By waking up to it do you mean the stock is absurdly high right now?Any company that misses its own targets and guidance by that much on a regular basis deserves to be ravaged by the market and its investors. The fact that Tesla is not and people are waking up to it is the real story here.
GM shut down their Bolt plant recently and have no plans to manufacture it in high volumes. They're making like 30,000 a year.Exactly. GM actually has a well-built EV and battery testing facility back in 2008 way before Tesla even got off the ground.
artisan organic circuit boards and axles
Been waiting for Elon's bubble to burst. Hype and little more.
Been waiting for Elon's bubble to burst. Hype and little more.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/05/chevy-bolt-ev-europe-ampera-e/While GM has been boasting about the Chevy Bolt EV being the first long-range affordable electric car, supplies have been fairly limited. It's still not clear if the constraints are coming from production or demand since there are decent inventories in ZEV states in the US.
The vehicle is supposed to be coming to Europe this month with the first deliveries in Norway, but despite strong demand, deliveries are reportedly being limited to only a few hundred units by the end of the year.
Before selling its European business, including Opel, to the PSA Group, GM said that around 4,000 people reserved the Ampera E (European Chevy Bolt EV) in Norway.
After the acquisition, they said that the plans for the Ampera E remained unchanged and that GM will build the vehicles and supply them to Opel for them to sell them under their brand.
But as we have been reporting since GM announced the Bolt EV program, it seems to be geared toward regulatory compliance and not a high volume vehicle program. They are reportedly planning only 30,000 units per year and they will concentrate the deliveries where they need to comply with emission mandates since the company confirmed they are losing money on the vehicle otherwise.
Only a few hundred units will reportedly be made available in Norway in 2017 and it's not clear how many more in 2018, but new buyers placing reservations are now are being told not to expect deliveries before 2019 – meaning that fewer than 4,000 are planned for next year.
Camry posts December sales of 33,412 units and earned no. 1 passenger car sales title for 15th consecutive year
But as we have been reporting since GM announced the Bolt EV program, it seems to be geared toward regulatory compliance and not a high volume vehicle program. They are reportedly planning only 30,000 units per year and they will concentrate the deliveries where they need to comply with emission mandates since the company confirmed they are losing money on the vehicle otherwise.
Just watched a Doug DeMuro vid on Chevy Bolt which to me seems like a competent car. I mean, if I were in the market for an EV I'd grab a Bolt instead of waiting a couple of years for a chance to buy the Model 3. Apparently there's plenty of stock in the US and like you posted very little in Europe. What gives?One of Tesla's biggest competitors right now.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/05/chevy-bolt-ev-europe-ampera-e/
He should spend fewer resources and time turning himself into a celebrity and more on getting people to love his actual products.Maybe people will stop idolizing Musk. Maybe.
He should spend fewer resources and time turning himself into a celebrity and more on getting people to love his actual products.
GM shut down their Bolt plant recently and have no plans to manufacture it in high volumes. They're making like 30,000 a year.
One of Tesla's biggest competitors right now.
https://electrek.co/2017/05/05/chevy-bolt-ev-europe-ampera-e/
The stock is high because nobody is going to care if it takes an extra month to get production issues sorted out. For now they have no competition.
Obligatory
https://jalopnik.com/the-tesla-model-3-goes-to-production-in-july-and-protot-1792948565
WSJ report shouldn't be taken at face value.
If you weren't expecting serious issues making the cars at volume early on, you weren't paying attention to the Model S or Model X launches. Sure, they claimed they'd resolved the issues that plagued the X launch, but then, when the X launched they claimed they'd resolved the issues that plagued the S launch.
It will be fine. People will eventually get their cars... but yeah. This isn't remotely surprising given their history of very bumpy launches.
I don't understand why this companies stock goes to the moon when it's pretty clear they're run by incompetent people who are never going to cut an actual profit
Dozens of automakers around the world can do it with out all the snags. Tesla will have to be able to in order to compete.Building a $35,000+ vehicle with thousands of parts from all over the world is difficult, news at 11.
It is a decent car but the first key is that they really don't want to sell it. They'd rather make their traditional ICE cars. Tesla is also a really strong brand when it comes to electric cars. Features wise it's styling is rather basic. No frunk! No OTA updates, no prospect of autonomy, no fast charging/ inadequate charging infrastructure etc...Just watched a Doug DeMuro vid on Chevy Bolt which to me seems like a competent car. I mean, if I were in the market for an EV I'd grab a Bolt instead of waiting a couple of years for a chance to buy the Model 3. Apparently there's plenty of stock in the US and like you posted very little in Europe. What gives?
Also, they really screwed the naming of their vehicles EV both in the US and in Europe.
But that's past the topic which is Tesla.
The station, as EVgo stations do, shut down after precisely 30 minutes of fast charging.
Our Bolt EV, which had arrived with 78 miles of range, now showed 131 milesmeaning a half-hour boost of 53 miles, or far from the 80 percent possible in a Tesla.
And that highlights the limitations of today's fast-charging infrastructure for any car other than a Tesla: the current 50-kilowatt maximum simply doesn't permit longer-range cars to recharge anywhere near fast enough to make road trips practical.
We would have required a second 30-minute session, probably even a third, to get the battery back to more than 200 miles for any kind of road trip.
The Bolt EV is capable of charge rates up to 80 kw, Chevrolet says, which provides some built-in futureproofing.
Since there are no public CCS stations in the U.S. now capable of delivering that rate, we don't know yet how well that works in a Bolt EV.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109627_fast-charging-a-2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-electric-carThe charging experience itself was painless, but the relatively minor increase in capacity we got as a result wasn't.
As our reader Dawn Hall discovered on an 800-mile California road trip in her new Bolt EV, the car leaves something to be desired as a long-distance traveler.
Which is a shame, frankly, because the Bolt EV is otherwise quick, smooth, quiet, spacious for its size, and an enormously competent car.
For about 200 miles. After that, there's work to be done.
Ultimately most saw this coming. It's why I decided to hold off on pulling the trigger for one. I'll be waiting another 3 years to check in on Tesla when I go shopping for evs.
Maybe people will stop idolizing Musk. Maybe.
I bought a Model S P100D when it became known that the 3 was being delayed. I recommend this route for everyone.
That in itself isn't particularly damaging to Tesla. The important stuff is the details. Like at what price, with what features, in what markets, at what volumes. A lot of news articles hype this stuff without a clear understanding of the details. Volvo's electrification plan recently for example including hybrids. That's not to say there's going to be no competition but for now there basically isn't any.This really isn't true. Audi, BMW and Mercedes all have electric cars coming between 2018-2020. Audi's first E-tron car will be released next year.
It is a decent car but the first key is that they really don't want to sell it. They'd rather make their traditional ICE cars. Tesla is also a really strong brand when it comes to electric cars. Features wise it's styling is rather basic. No frunk! No OTA updates, no prospect of autonomy, no fast charging/ inadequate charging infrastructure etc...
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109627_fast-charging-a-2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-electric-car
Why does every Elon thread have to go in this direction?
For perspective:
1) Typical car factory can pump out about 1000 cars per day
2) That is Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) or even Hybrid cars
3) Hybrids are the most complicated to produce*, then come diesel ICEs, then petrol ICEs and last electric cars**
*not counting hydrogen ones
** adding stuff like "auto pilot" surely adds complexity, but it's mostly about development, than manufacturing
"We cant' produce enough 3's, because we have production bottlenecks" statement hardly makes sense, it's basically like saying "no no, it's not something else".
An example of something else would be not being able to produce it and not lose (too much) money.
"We cant' produce enough 3's, because we have production bottlenecks" statement hardly makes sense, it's basically like saying "no no, it's not something else".
An example of something else would be not being able to produce it and not lose (too much) money.
Honestly if you are going to throw shade at the management you should also target the more established auto makers in the US. Several got bailed out for the utterly fucking stupid decisions they made.
Imagine where Telsa [automotive, and battery tech] ]would be today if we let the GM, Chrysler and Ford take the hits they absolutely deserved and diverted funds to better tech.
It is a decent car but the first key is that they really don't want to sell it. They'd rather make their traditional ICE cars. Tesla is also a really strong brand when it comes to electric cars. Features wise it's styling is rather basic. No frunk! No OTA updates, no prospect of autonomy, no fast charging/ inadequate charging infrastructure etc...
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1109627_fast-charging-a-2017-chevrolet-bolt-ev-electric-car
Because there seems to be a lot of people here who have quite the hatred for Elon Musk, and rejoice in any negative news that involves him.
So wait youre theory is there are no production bottlenecks and they just realized it costs too much so theyre...making less of them?
Huh?
I'm saying that things do not add up and this is one possible explanation, certainly not only one.
Sure it is, they made it because they had to. Margins don't seem that great!That's not true either. GM heavily invested into their EV department during their 2008 restructuring because they knew that their margins won't be in gas guzzlers.
You can see this trend in both Ford and GM: smaller, more efficient vehicles -- ICE, hybrid, or EV.
There's also a Wired article on GM's development of EVs but I'm on mobile right now.
General Motors Co. stands to lose as much as $9,000 on every Chevrolet Bolt that leaves a showroom once the all-electric subcompact starts rolling out. Sounds crazy, but the damage makes perfect business sense under the no pain, no gain policy driving the electric-vehicle boom in the U.S.
California crafted the doctrine, with tough clean-air rules and a mandate that automakers sell some non-polluting vehicles if they want to do business in the Golden State. Nine others have adopted it, New York and New Jersey among them, and all told they make up close to 30 percent of the U.S. market. That goes a long way to explaining why zero-emissions models from more than 10 brands are on the roads, with more on the way. Most are destined to be loaded with red ink for their makers, but theyll be great deals for consumers as companies unload them to meet their targets.
Can that really happen? The idea that automakers will sell 40 percent of their vehicles at a loss in California is ludicrous, said Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in Orange, California, who reckons most electric cars lose at least $10,000 per sale.
The industrys willing to take the hit on a small scale now. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NVs battery-powered Fiat 500e is made for California alone, and Chief Executive Officer Sergio Marchionne said in 2014 that it was losing $14,000 per sale. The companys pretty much giving it away, at a monthly lease-rate of as little as $69. Nissan Motor Co. has advertised lease deals for the Leaf at as low as $149.
Of course, the industry might figure out how to make ZEVs into money makers, once the charging-station infrastructure is built out and as battery costs fall. Global demand seems sure to rise, with major economies, including China, having recognized climate change as a threat and tailpipe-emissions from gas-powered autos as a chief contributor.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2016/11/30/gm-zev/94660092/Heres how the math works for GM in California. Lets say it sells a total of 219,962 vehicles in one model year (as it did, in fact, in 2015). To avoid heavy fines or the threat of getting shut out entirely, it would need state-awarded ZEV credits equal to 14 percent of the total or 30,794. That would mean finding buyers for 7,698 Bolts, earning four credits for each, or 10,082 Chevy Volt plug-in hybrids or a combination of the two.
EVs are compliance vehicles and GM knows this, said the CarLabs Noble. The Bolt will take sales from all of the other vehicles on the market, and GM will get a lot of credits.
Sounds like he thinks he's running a Kickstarter campaign.... as this would be par for that course.
The fact they aren't making them because the production line isn't ready isn't the bad part of this at all... it's the lack of transparency to investors and customers that's the problem.
Which... oddly enough sounds like your normal everyday troubled Kickstarter campaign.
Sure it is, they made it because they had to. Margins don't seem that great!
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2016/11/30/gm-zev/94660092/
Sounds like he thinks he's running a Kickstarter campaign.... as this would be par for that course.
The fact they aren't making them because the production line isn't ready isn't the bad part of this at all... it's the lack of transparency to investors and customers that's the problem.
Which... oddly enough sounds like your normal everyday troubled Kickstarter campaign.
So you're saying GM is releasing a poorly optimized car at a loss. Sounds a lot like Tesla!Yet again, another misleading article. The Bolt is first gen and hasn't gone retooling and/or optimizations. The 2nd gen Volt is breakeven I believe, and it was released five years after the original with significant improvements.
Even the first Prius was a loss.
he ran a kickstarter campaign last year when he got thousands of suckers to drop deposits
So you're saying GM is releasing a poorly optimized car at a loss. Sounds a lot like Tesla!