https://electrek.co/2019/02/09/tesla-model-3-cost-surprise-porsche-audi-reverse-engineering/:
Tesla Model 3 is now entering the European market and it is making some automakers nervous. According to a new report, Porsche and Audi reverse-engineered Tesla’s new electric car and they were quite surprised by its cost.
[...] During the early production ramp up, it was difficult to get your hands on a Model 3, but some automakers paid a pretty penny to be amongst the first to be able to check out the new electric car.
About a year ago, two Model 3 vehicles were spotted on their way to Germany – presumably to be reverse-engineered.
Later, a report came out about a German automaker being impressed by Model 3 after reverse-engineering it.
Now a new report from Germany’s Manager Magazin [in German and paywalled] includes a deep dive into the state of Audi with comments from executives and insider sources.
It claims that Porsche and Audi, who are working together on a next-generation electric platform, had to change their approach because the cost was too high compared to what Tesla is achieving.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 17 2019, @02:52PM (15 children)
I can't materially comment on the premise of the article, but it sounds plausible to me. First, distances in Europe are relatively shorter than those in the United States; as such, the current range of EVs works much better there. Second, Europe has generally had more incentives for conversions to green technologies, including EVs. That makes them more affordable relative to their ICE competitors. Third, thanks to high taxes gas and diesel for ICEs are much more expensive per gallon than in the United States, so there's a greater savings for car buyers considering a switch to electric. Fourth, Norway has been buying lots of Teslas for years, and people love them there; it's hard for naysayers to pooh-pooh EVs in their warmer, more southerly regions when they've already been performing well in the colder, snowier, and more mountainous Scandinavian country.
In other words, European manufacturers of ICEs have good reason to be nervous about Tesla. On the other hand, BMW's i3 EV is closer to the ideal form factor for the average European car buyer than the Tesla Model 3 is. It seems to me they could yet give Tesla a run for their money, if they convert their production lines to EVs fast enough.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 17 2019, @04:50PM (14 children)
How so? Average Joe in America is gonna drive 20-40 miles one-way to work and has some reasonable amenities close to where he lives. Rural folk who drive more aren't gonna be buying no goddamn Teslas.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Sunday February 17 2019, @06:06PM (2 children)
I'm one of those "rural folk." I live about 300 miles from the nearest city in my state, and I'm just waiting for the range on these things to get higher. Other than that, I'm ready to buy.
The problem here (out on the Montana plains) is that a great deal of driving must be done in very hot or very cold weather, and the environmental systems on EV's consume huge amounts of power. So the advertised range isn't all that close to the actual range.
Someday, though, I expect them to hit the mark. The question is if I'll have gone nipples north by then. :)
--
You don't like the weather here?
Don't worry... it doesn't like you, either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @11:55AM (1 child)
No they don't....
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/effect-of-speed-air-conditioning-and-wheels-on-range.96935/ [teslamotorsclub.com]
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday February 18 2019, @05:17PM
Yeah, they do, and that page simply reinforces the fact. 23% decrease in range at 70 MPH (our state speed limit, except on the interstate, where it is 80 MPH) with the AC on.
Teslas already can't make the entire trip here; sucking about a quarter of the range off just for driving normal speeds with the AC on... that's a severe hit. That means that (assuming no interstate) a Tesla would need a range of 375 miles on a full charge over its battery lifetime to even limp into the city with the car exhausted. And of course you need more margin than that anyway. Passing, any option at all for side excursions, detours... etc.
Tesla's not even close right now.
--
Are you drunk?
☐ Yes
☐ No
✓
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday February 17 2019, @06:12PM (9 children)
European countries are smaller; Europeans live in smaller areas; population density in Europe is higher. Therefore, they don't travel as far on a daily basis as the average American does. So, the range that EVs have today work better for Europeans than they do for Americans. For that reason car companies that want to sell to Europeans should be more worried about EVs (assuming they don't sell EVs themselves) than those who want to sell to Americans.
That's about as simply as I can put it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday February 18 2019, @12:04AM (8 children)
Citation needed. I'm not saying that you're wrong - just wondering if its as simple as that (or even if the statistic is right, whether it affects the suitability of EVs).
How many people in the US rarely drive further than the local airport? Here in the UK, sure, we do have internal flights but they're not hugely popular or convenient because, by the time you've got to the airport, faffed around at the airport, then got from the destination airport to where you're actually going its usually quicker to drive. There's a 300 mile each-way drive that I make once or twice a year, that it would be technically possible to do by air, if the flights ran in the winter... another 200-mile each-way trip several times a year (with no guarantee of a charger at the end of it). Europe also has tunnels, bridges, car ferries etc, and not everybody just drives around their own country. An acquaintance of mine drives from the UK to the South of France a couple of times a year...
That might not affect the average journey length, but its your maximum journey length that might affect whether you buy an EV. OK, you could hire a petrol-burner for road trips, but personally, I'm not going to spend a ton of money on a nice car and then not be able to use it for the long trips where a nice car would be... nice - frankly, if I were going to hire a car for longer trips I could probably get by without owning one.
How many US households have multiple cars c.f. Europe (I'm betting U!S!A! on that one)? Again, the limitations of an EV are less relevant if its not your only car.
How many US households have their own driveway or garage c.f. Europe (lots of street parking in those high-density areas) - that's a must-have if you want an EV.
Also, I'd wager that the public transport (of the non-airbourne variety) is typically better in Europe than the US, which is the better solution if you want to save the planet. Heck, there's this thing called w-a-l-k-i-n-g which, over here, often gets you from A to B rather than A to the side of a 12-lane highway. (I've tried walking in the US - even if it doesn't wind up an an impassible obstacle its always 5 times further than it has any right to be).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Monday February 18 2019, @12:40AM (6 children)
You may do a 300 mile each way trip once per year, but not many people in the UK do. 300 miles is about half the distance from John O'Groats to Lands End, so if you live around Manchester or somewhere in the north Midlands, 300 miles is probably the maximum one-way drive that is possible without crossing the sea.
Here in CA, many people frequently do 200-mile each way one day trips to the Sierra snow many times per year. People drive from the SF Bay Area to Los Angeles, etc..
Average annual mileage on a car in the USA is over 13,000 miles and only 7,900 in the UK.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday February 18 2019, @03:59PM (5 children)
So, according to the RAC [racfoundation.org] "The estimated average annual mileage per car in England has decreased as the number of cars per household has risen, falling from around 9,200 miles in 2002 to 7,800 miles in 2017"
Meanwhile, here [lovetoknow.com] we find that: "the average American driver logs 13,476 miles each year"
Oops. Statistics - slippery, aren't they? (also note the question in my previous post about the number of cars per household - I'm betting that a lot of those people who make regular trips to the Sierra also have a SUV in addition to their daily driver) - my guesstimate would bet that once you allow for multiple cars per driver, there's not a lot of difference. Oh, and both figures exclude people who do zero miles because they don't have a car and use public transport.
I'll leave out "you fail statistics forever for comparing averages without testing significance" thing, because I can't be arsed to drill down through six layers of links on the off-chance that there's a reference that gives standard deviations either... Oh, there's also the "in England" thing that removes a bunch of relatively low population-density areas from the equation. Plus, averages are a crappy measure anyway, because it doesn't take too many people driving from LA to New York four times a year (or, conversely only taking their car to the local shops every other weekend) to skew the figure.
In Europe we have these things called "car ferries" which are like ferries that you can take cars on. There's also this thing with the English Channel where you drive your car onto a special train and it takes it through a big hole under the sea. We also have this trick where you build a road on legs, or hang it from two big towers so it can go over the water (I believe there's one between Denmark and Sweden, for instance) although I'm sure I've seen those in the USA. People can and do drive to the South of France or Switzerland if they want. Unfortunately, I believe the roads get a bit sketchy towards the Bering Straits so we can't quite make it to Alaska (I'm sure its been tried).
Oh, and my 300 mile drive is actually a 300+200+200 "triangle" at least once a year plus two or three 200-mile round trips (which, at one point, were every 2-3 weeks) and, yes, I've done 200-mile day trips. Its really about people's inclination to drive vs. the hassle level of the alternatives - not the lack of opportunity.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday February 18 2019, @05:15PM (4 children)
Were you so busy with your snark that you overlooked "without crossing the sea" in my comment?
For someone who is so snarky about statistics, you seem remarkable ignorant of how your anecdote is not data. It's a single data point that is not reflective of the general population.
There are a lot of misconceptions in your post. For example, the need to have your own garage or driveway in order to own an EV. Many people charge at their offices, or charge their Teslas at the weekend at their local supercharger station. Since electricity is more expensive at Superchargers, we can infer that they don't have access to a charger where they live.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday February 18 2019, @10:53PM (3 children)
No. The whole point was that your constraint of "not crossing the sea" is irrelevant.
Yes, its only a single data point - but I'm not presenting it as anything else. Doesn't prove anything, but it adds plausibility (its hardly an extraordinary claim unless you have reason to believe that I'm Mad Mr Drives A lot). Your own arguments are full of "many people drive to the Sierras"-type claims - I only started snarking about statistics when you started quoting (broken) statistics.
OK, maybe "must have" was too strong - but not being able to charge an EV at home is a major disincentive. Pretty sure only a minority have charging facilities at the office.
No, we can't infer anything from that because a lot of Tesla S and X owners (and the more expensive versions of the 3) got the "free supercharging for life" deal so it would make sense for them to use the supercharger as much as possible.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday February 19 2019, @04:27AM (2 children)
I don't accept your opinion on that. Crossing the sea involves additional cost, time and bureaucracy (passports, etc.). That extra friction means that people don't do it as often as people in the USA undertake 300+ mile drives.
Actually, I do believe you are "Mad Mr Drives A lot". That wasn't remotely similar to my experience during the many years I lived in the UK.
It doesn't "add plausibility" because there is nothing else for it to add to. Your anecdote is the only data point.
How about this table for comparisons:
http://internationalcomparisons.org/environment/transportation.html [internationalcomparisons.org]
It clearly shows more kilometers per capita in the USA than the UK, by a large margin (2x), so much greater that any minor quibbles about methodology would not come close to making the numbers comparable. It shows that you are full of shit.
You started by stating that you didn't have any statistics, then proceeded to relate your personal anecdote as though it was generally applicable. You provided no citation to support your claim of general applicability, just a bunch of speculation. Just a bunch of bullshit.
Then, with no citations of your own, nothing to support your personal, singular anecdote, you have the gall to criticize me for actually looking for and citing data. Really? THat's the best you have? No facts, just snarks about statistics. No corrections on the statistics I found, nothing? You have nothing except speculation.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:20PM (1 child)
That's rich. You presented numbers without naming the source, I searched for where you might have got those figures from, provided links to the source and then actually read the small print that showed why you were comparing apples with oranges.
Compare averages without reading the small print is little better than relying on anecdotes (and, unfortunately, the small print doesn't often make it onto the interwebs because it so often spoils a good story).
Meanwhile your own posts are littered with vague, unsubstantiated claims like "many people do day trips to the Sierras" or "You may do a 300 mile each way trip once per year, but not many people in the UK do." (you even misquoted my 'anecdote') or "Many people ... charge their Teslas at the weekend at their local supercharger station" so you really shouldn't be lobbing any bricks in that particular greenhouse.
...well, at least (a) you've provided a link to the source that people can check and (b) the two figures they're comparing are apparently measuring the same thing, so its a vast improvement over your first figures. However if you read on, you'll also find out that it is 20 year old data - it is a second-hand estimate from a 2008 paper that cited a 1998 chart from a report that is no longer easily available. So there's no way of checking that they didn't make the same mistake you did.
NB: the main clam in that paper seemed to be that miles driven was correlated with fuel price. Now that might be a plausible reason why EVs are proving more popular in Europe...
From your stats: 6500 km per capita for UK in 1998. From the RAC page I linked to: [racfoundation.org] 9,200 miles (14800 km) per car for UK in 2002. So, yes, you absolutely can get a 2x margin from what you dismiss as "minor quibbles about methodology".
"additional cost/time" - compared with what? Even if it involves a ferry, going by car - esp. with more than one person - is typically cheaper and not always much slower when measured door-to-door.
Passports? Most of continental Europe and Scandinavia is the border-free Shengen Area [wikipedia.org] - and although you still need a passport to travel between the UK and mainland Europe, there's no visa requirements, "EU passport holder" fast lanes and minimal bureaucracy (OK, that might change now Brexit is turning into a clusterfuck) - and although the "only 10% of Americans have passports" figure is bunk, passport ownership is still quite a bit more common in the UK/EU c.f. the US [bbc.co.uk] so its not a big deal.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:21AM
You have provided absolutely zero citations to support your claim that people in the UK have a similar need to drive long distances as people in the USA.
You provided your personal anecdote, which I countered with my personal anecdote.
Find something to support your assertion or GTFO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @03:41PM
Of course there are those who have two cars, because it is convenient that both partners can use a car independently (especially if at least one of the partners uses the car to get to work). In those cases, it is typical that only one of the cars is used for long distances, so the other one could then be electric.
(Score: 2) by NateMich on Monday February 18 2019, @12:13AM
Why is that do you suppose? Because they are country bumpkins?
(Score: 3, Informative) by RandomFactor on Sunday February 17 2019, @05:19PM (5 children)
If you can change the headlight bulb without removing the damned bumper. [youtube.com]
Screw you Ford.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday February 17 2019, @05:33PM (3 children)
I doubt that you can change the bulb, irrespective of what it takes.
The lights use LEDs, and are probably replaced only by replacing the whole headlamp unit.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday February 17 2019, @10:53PM (2 children)
Indeed, it has become almost impossible to work on your own car.
I remember Peugeot in the 90s had a similar trick. You had to remove the bumper to change a bulb. A right PITA that seemed to have been designed in such a way to maximise the amount of chargeable service, to the detriment of all else.
I had to switch headlights on two of my cars recently. On the 90s one it was a quick 15 min job. Lift up the bonnet, three bolts on each headlamp. Out and in, then tighten again, and it was all done and aligned. On my 2005 model, it was a two day job to switch the headlamps, and involved removing both front wheels, the wheel well guards, the front bumper, the top panel across the engine bay, and the front grill, after which it was just three bolts, etc... I will have to do it again in a few days time, and I really don't look forward to doing it to the 2005. You basically have to dismantle the front end to get to them. It has gone from a 15 min job you can do on the road to something that requires you to have a proper garage to do it (especially if you have to leave the car in pieces overnight)
Even more fun, is that you can't fit the fog lamp bulbs in without removing the headlight, so if a fog lamp bulb goes, I would have to take the bastards out and put them back in again.
Seems car makers have gone out of their way to make cars as unfriendly as possible for you to do even basic tasks on them. It isn't a specific brand, they all do it. I first encountered it with the French, but it seems they all do it now. I guess it is an attempt at the "inkjet cartridge" business method, where you make the bulk of the profits by forcing people to pay you for basic maintenance, and the car is nothing but a locked down black box to the owner.
(Score: 3, Informative) by beckett on Sunday February 17 2019, @11:30PM (1 child)
Perhaps try the Subaru BRZ/Toyota 86, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Tacoma, Honda Accord, Hyundai, Chevy Cruze? not all modern cars are impossible to service.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @02:23AM
I have owned Hondas most of my life.
The last Honda I owned that was simple to service was a Civic built in 1995.
I have owned an Odyssey and a Pilot since then (family man now), and I can assure you that the ease and cheapness of repairs has disappeared in proportion to the adoption of new technology, just as the grandparent commenter said. Even replacing the goddamn windshield is no longer a simple "monkey" job now that there is a camera mounted in the mirror region of the windshield (windscreen to our UK friends). As a matter of fact, you can no longer use a simple effing parking tag hanging off the mirror because it messes with the camera. WTF?? There is no simple, cheap repair anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 18 2019, @08:14PM
yeah, i worked on my mom's exploder and it has plastic timing components inside the engine! as you might imagine these might go bad a little earlier than you might like... if they want to ever sell me a vehicle they will have to show me blueprints or some shit. i'm not your victim, ford.