Slashdot Mirror
Challenging Tesla, Volkswagen Announces Electric SUV, Mass Production of Electric Vehicles (apnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the AP:
Volkswagen is planning to release a fully-electric SUV in China which could compete with Tesla's Model X. The German automaker said Sunday the ID. ROOMZZ will be unveiled at the upcoming Shanghai Auto Show and will be available in 2021. Volkswagen says the zero-emission vehicle can go approximately 450 kilometers (280 miles) before the battery has to be recharged.
Volkswagen also claims it will have "level 4 autonomous driving," Reuters reports, adding that this electric SUV "is the latest move in Volkswagen's aggressive growth strategy in China, where electric cars are given preferential treatment by authorities..." In fact, the company's chief executive says nearly half of VW's engineers are working on products for the China market, though the electric SUV will eventually be shipped to other markets. "We plan to produce more than 22 million electric cars in the next 10 years."
VW's head of e-mobility also tells Reuters that Volkswagen will convert eight of their factories to mass produce electric Volkswagens, and eight more factories to to mass-produce electric cars under a different brand.
Volkswagen also claims it will have "level 4 autonomous driving," Reuters reports, adding that this electric SUV "is the latest move in Volkswagen's aggressive growth strategy in China, where electric cars are given preferential treatment by authorities..." In fact, the company's chief executive says nearly half of VW's engineers are working on products for the China market, though the electric SUV will eventually be shipped to other markets. "We plan to produce more than 22 million electric cars in the next 10 years."
VW's head of e-mobility also tells Reuters that Volkswagen will convert eight of their factories to mass produce electric Volkswagens, and eight more factories to to mass-produce electric cars under a different brand.
Congratulations, Tesla/Elon Musk! Mission success !
what's the towing capacity and what is the range of that capacity?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
It's hard to see a Volvo brand as less expensive than a VW-branded vehicle, unless they're trying to strip it of Volvo-like (near) luxury in an attempt to cut costs so that it's not more expensive than an actual Volvo.
It's always amazing to me that the company that gave us the 240DL, the official vehicle of democratic socialism, is now mostly a luxury car company.
Volkswagen is planning to release a fully-electric SUV in China which could compete with Tesla's Model X.
Let's see. No pictures, no specs, no prototypes, going to announce it and have it for sale within 18 months but not in any of the mature car markets against ICE competition. But we're supposed to believe it will be a direct competitor to the Model X. Riiiiight... Sounds like vaporware and marketing bullshit to me.
The German automaker said Sunday the ID. ROOMZZ will be unveiled at the upcoming Shanghai Auto Show and will be available in 2021.
Seriously? They named it "ROOMZZ"? That sounds like a cell phone from 15 years ago or a sound my daughter would make to imitate a car noise.
Volkswagen also claims it will have "level 4 autonomous driving," Reuters reports, adding that this electric SUV "is the latest move in Volkswagen's aggressive growth strategy in China, where electric cars are given preferential treatment by authorities...
Yeah yeah, talk is cheap. Tesla is selling very good EVs today. VW isn't - their current offerings are unimpressive. Their Audi and Porsche subsidiaries are promising cars with promising specs but I can't buy them today. All I'm hearing from the traditional automakers is a bunch of weasel word promises that rarely seem to result in a car I can buy. When they do make one it's almost always a pathetic compliance car which won't appeal to the general public.
I own a Chevy Bolt EV which is a good car but it came out 3 years ago and GM hasn't meaningfully updated it or come out with another EV of note since and that doesn't look likely to change any time soon. Ford hasn't sold an EV of any description. Toyota is busy with the delusion that hydrogen fuel cells are the future. Nissan has the Leaf which isn't as good as the Bolt EV much less any Tesla and nothing else. BMW has the remarkably ugly and overpriced i3. Most of the EVs you can buy are little ugly hatchbacks with pathetic range and poor performance. (see Nissan Leaf, Honda Fit EV, BMW i3, VW Golf EV, etc)
VW is talking a lot of shit about EVs after getting their hand slapped over lying about their diesel products. Two questions come to mind. 1) since they lied about the diesel products, why should I believe anything they claim about electric ones? 2) Where are the vehicles they keep promising? They say they are investing all these billions of dollars with no cars to sell and yet Telsa has been selling cars to the public for about a decade now. If I was a shareholder I'd be pissed. Say what you want about Tesla and all their faults, at least they are actually making cars that people want to buy and not just a marketing hand job to pretend like they care about EVs.
Immediately contradicted by the subsequent line that says "concept car". I'm sure they'll release "something" eventually.
Place your bets that like every single other "electric SUV" apart from the Model X, it's simply a moderate-sized 5-seater with "SUV styling".
I too name vehicles after letters that I draw in Scrabble.
Don't strain yourself with the rush there, VW.
Ignoring the constant stream of "actual range being vastly less than the promised concept range" vehicles that we've been getting from European automakers, China measures ranges on the laughably lax NEDC cycle that gives grossly inflated range figures.
A technology which VW is a clear leader in ;) (/snark)
Speaking of that, they're already back to their old ways, trying to cheat the new WLTP standards. This time, the cheat is just the opposite - trying to make their emissions look bad, so that their reductions targets over the coming years will be less stringent. So they've been doing things like testing cars with depleted batteries and disabled engine start-stop systems to make the cars burn more and emit more.
Please try harder than you've tried previously.
Anchor: "We take you now to our Chief Meteorologist, Paris Hilton." Paris: "It's hot." Anchor: "Thank you."
The Volvo V40 is only £23.5k, well under their target price. In fact it's similar to the Kia Niro or Hyundai Kona fossil versions, so add in a similar size battery and ~35k seems perfectly possible.
Also remember that Volvo is owned by Geely and probably has access to Chinese manufacturing for battery packs at very competitive prices. Chinese and Korean battery packs have already overtaken Nissan and Tesla on cost and warranty.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
are these real 450km or is that they wishful thinking again?
we all know VAG is a bit generous with numbers...
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
So has every other car maker. Ranges are measured using standardised procedures (WLTP). The only way to game them is by using the full battery capacity when users are expected not to use the full capacity because the buffers required to make the battery last are not included in the range reported to the driver, like Tesla does.
Germany which is officially a rich marxists' paradise can make you buy stuff if you want to drive anywhere. They are already banning vehicles on basis of models not actual data (see Stuttgart and other cities diesel bans) . VW is partially owned by the state of Niedersachsen (North Saxony) so chances are that VW enforcing laws will come into place. Particularly interesting in this context will be the tearing apart their electricity producing infrastructure - while at the same time getting all transport electric. But hey we do not all have to drive. Neither we all have to have access to electricity all the time and smart grid can switch off on basis of payments and possibly party allegiance. Heil Greta!
Small cars are dangerous on the highway where there is weather. Skinny tires and light frames get pulled around in the snow and wind. Even in cities, small cars can be pulled off the road if there is heavy wet snow.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Their diesel NOX scandal took years off people's lives. NOW they have the perfect combo of large population base, thriving market and regime in which VW are most comfortable to exploit. The VW solution doesn't make a dent in pollution, smog or improve China's air quality but they need a life line.
Glad its not our turn again.
For a smaller manufacturer focusing mainly on the cheaper half of the market, like Ford, it is hard to justify large investments in EVs not (yet) bought by their typical customer that won't be profitable for some years.
Are you seriously describing Ford as a small manufacturer? Ford is one of the 5 biggest automakers on the planet. They are huge by any reasonable description.
Ford make their money selling affordable B and C segment cars and margins are razor thin.
What are you talking about? Ford makes their money selling large pickups and SUVs. You clearly haven't looked at their financials statements. They lose money (and lots of it) on smaller passenger cars which is why they recently announced they were getting out of that market segment.
They have also lost a lot of market share because of uncompetitive products and questionable reliability and now Brexit is threatening the one market where they are reasonably successful, so I can imagine large investments in EVs are not the top priority at Ford.
The UK market is NOT a big market for Ford and Brexit only really matters to them insofar as it affects the global economy. Ford only sold about 375K vehicles in Britain in 2018 versus about 6 million vehicles sold worldwide. Any company that is not investing heavily in EVs already is playing a very dangerous game where they are basically hoping the technology will fail.
They will get to it when the EV market is more mature.
Any company that waits that long will almost certainly lose massive market share. They won't be able to get batteries at a competitive price and their technology will be one or more generations behind the curve. Playing wait and see is a huge risk when it comes to a technology shift like we are seeing with EVs.
found the guy that paid too much for tesla stock.
Cute. Of course I'm on record multiple times here on slashdot saying that I wouldn't touch TSLA with a barge pole. WAY overvalued. The company is a good company but the stock price lost any tether to reality some time ago. That has nothing at all to do with the quality, capabilities, and popularity of their cars. They are already the top selling luxury car maker in the US, outselling BMW, Mercedes, Lexus and Audi. In fact they sell as many cars as BMW and Mercedes combined in the US. That doesn't happen by accident.
stock that will nosedive with traditional automakers getting into the game, hardcore... with their massively larger manufacturing capacity and a century of automotive manufacturing experience over their upstart competition that's still operating like a 'start up' instead of a legitimate contender, and run by a buffoon that can't keep his fucking mouth shut.
I work in the auto industry making wiring for both ICE and EV automobiles. While the big auto companies are quite capable in many ways as you say, they also by and large have no idea what to do about EVs and they aren't taking them very seriously to date. We make parts for the Chevy Bolt EV and I've seen first hand their project management and it's not impressive. They are trying very hard not to cannibalize their current car sales and in the process they are failing to invest in the future of cars which increasingly appears to be EVs. They haven't invested seriously in battery tech, they aren't making big investments in EV infrastructure, most of the EVs they have made have been half-assed compliance cars with shitty range and poor features. Explain to me how you think they are going to suddenly magically figure out the formula for making a good EV without actually making any. How are they going to compete with Tesla or other companies that invested early when they have a substantial advantage in battery cost and supply and performance?
It's not too late yet for the big auto companies to get in the game but they had better do so fairly soon. (soon meaning serious products within the next 5-10 years with big investment starting NOW) If they wait much longer than that, they'll have basically ceded big market share to Tesla and any other car maker that does take EVs seriously. When EVs reach a tipping point there will be some big auto companies that take the train to bankruptcy-ville if they aren't working hard on EVs now.
the changes that happened in the fallout of the 'emissions scandal' is the best thing to happen to the industry since the assembly line.
I hope you are right but I doubt it. VW is run by some seriously ethically challenged people. They knew what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway. Same people who green-lit the diesel scandal are in charge today. No reason to believe they have suddenly learned how to be ethical or that they seriously care about EVs. I'd be happy to be wrong but there is little evidence to suggest I am to date.
So they will cahellenge Tesla's Model X in 2021? At that point that model will be 6 years old and will be nearing the end of production or will have received a major redesign. Also in 2021 you will have a choice between a car that has already had the early bugs fixed versus the model without any real world testing.
Right. I'm apparently a Tesla fanatic despite buying an EV from a direct competitor. [/sarcasm] You are an idiot and missing the big picture. Evidently you have a raging hate boner for Elon Musk which is bizarre but ultimately unimportant.
I don't care if you like Tesla or not. I don't care if you like Musk or not. I don't own a Tesla and have no plans to get one. I don't own the stock either. Tesla is merely an example. The simple fact is that Tesla is the ONLY significant car company taking EVs truly seriously, selling actually good vehicles in big numbers. They have proven the demand is there for a good quality EV. All the announcements from the big auto companies to date are merely sound and fury signifying nothing. They have close to no products worth mentioning on the market despite their claims of investing billions in electrification.
Now that I own an EV (again, not a Tesla) I understand why they are better in so many ways than ICE vehicles. EVs have plenty of room to get better as battery tech progresses. ICE vehicles are about as good as they are ever going to get. That fact alone should be keeping any CEO of a company that makes their money primarily on ICE vehicles up at night because the future very clearly seems to be in EVs. EVs can get better. ICEs cannot. The EV technology is already just better. They accelerate better, have more torque, are quieter, are FAR more fuel efficient, require FAR less maintenance, they are cheaper and easier to refuel for most use cases. Given a choice I'm never going to buy a non electrified car again.
Only going to happen if you can convince companies to forgo their prime directive: Make money.
It is the biggest market in the world, most companies would happily sacrifice their entire market share of the North American market if it meant they got a share half the size (in percentage terms) of the Chinese market.
On the same token, corporations only care about human rights records if it affects their bottom line. If someone can connect those human rights records to the corporate profits somehow, then they'll start caring. Until then, however, they won't.
Unlike western nations, the Chinese market isn't really afraid of having big corporations cut them off. What's the worst that'll happen? That China ends up with another company like Huawei or tencent except in automobiles? Sounds like a plus to them. And we've already seen how worried Huawei is about the US government sanctions. Which is to say, it appears to rank about the level of a minor inconvenience.
Z
Well I'm talking about NOT crashing in the first place.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Level 4 autonomy sounds impressive
Only to the likes of you, bub.
Nobody tows anything with an SUV
That's simply not true. I live in an area where people routinely tow with SUVs of every description. Equipment trailers, horses, boats, etc. I see trailers hooked up to SUVs literally daily. Sure there are a lot of people that don't tow with SUVs but that doesn't mean nobody does. Close friend of mine works in skilled trades and has a trailer he tows behind an SUV to every job site.
Reliability may also be a strong incentive to choose a more expensive option over a Tesla.
So basically anything other than a VW or a Volvo...
Those companies won't compete in such a tiny market.
They know there's not much profit in it, and that what profit there is will be shared among them all, and be at the expense of their ICE engines for the next few years (at least).
When people *stop* buying 10-20 times as many ICE cars each year, then they'll roll out the models they have on standby and ramp up production, and likely not before.
It's a niche market, an expensive market, and a profit-less market at the moment, and as soon as one jumps on the bandwagon, they'll all end up fighting for it.
Much better to hold back, let Tesla run themselves into the ground (buoyed up by investors and Musk, and nearly gone bankrupt several times already), and if they ever do make profit then they can own the market in a year.
Their choice at the moment is "invest in R&D" (which they already do an order of magnitude or more than Tesla ever could), "put out to a niche market" or "do nothing". You can be sure that none of them are "doing nothing" given that many places are making noises about banning ICE car production.
Once those kinds of bans start to hit the bottom line, then it's worth paying to move all the production over once and for all, and not before. At that point, 10-20 times the R&D, production capacity, and market instantly open up and Tesla are small-fry.
Musk will say "that's what he always wanted". Which I'm sure will interest his investors who poured all their money into a company which then just disappears overnight when the big boys come in.
Think back 10-20 years. Hey, you can sell me a incandescent lightbulb now and make thousands of them for pence. Or you can sell a tiny percentage of the market an expensive CFL bulb. Sure, people will buy them. Sure, legislation will be put in place to work against them. But until then it pays to get the absolute most out of your existing production facilities, make and sell as many incandescents as you can, while you can, and then wait for the slow tilt in favour of CFL products. Because... hell.. let's hope you don't have to change technology in the meantime to something like LED, eh? Wouldn't that be a mistake, to bet the farm on CFL only to have your business go to some LED producer?
That's what the big boys are doing. If there was a battery breakthrough tomorrow that made everyone realise that there's no reason NOT to go electric now, who do you think would be snapping up the patents and rushing out models with it... Ford , or Tesla? The one with 10 times more R&D cash and production capability.
They hold back, let Tesla throw their money away testing the market, use their flops/successes as indicators for their own market research (i.e. I bet nobody will be calling them anything even close to Autopilot), and wait until the market is at the point that they can tip all their investments into it, while selling off the last of their ICE models.
Tesla is an order of magnitude out in production numbers, investment amounts, etc. from any of the big names. They just don't see the point in moving yet as they are making huge profits on every car they sell still, and electric wouldn't give them that, except in luxury models (which is where hybrids etc. are priced).
The man on the street will likely never own a Tesla. By the time Tesla make something he can afford, the others will have flooded the market with their own, while he's still trying to retain his old ICE car against the bans.
What we really need are advances in battery energy storage.
They'll happen but it's going to take time. The good news is that batteries are already more than good enough that we could switch many/most cars from ICEs to EVs today with only modest changes to habits and infrastructure. Basically if you have a garage and don't need to routinely travel longer than 200 miles in a single trip, you can switch to an EV today.
No more IC engines, and cars can be redesigned from the ground up better using space that the engine, fuel delivery, and exhaust systems once took up.
I don't think ICEs will ever go away completely but I can see a day when they are a rarity or at least a minority. That's going to take a few decades to get to however. There are some use cases where ICEs just make more sense than pure EVs. But even the ICEs that remain I think will mostly be electrified because it will make economic sense to do so.
If we can get the energy per unit volume within an order of magnitude of gasoline, propane, or other fossil fuels, transportation would be radically changed.
You are measuring the wrong thing. What matters is usable energy/power per kilogram for the whole drivetrain. You are making the mistake of comparing the energy content of a volume of gasoline with the energy content volume of a battery but that's a flawed comparison. Gasoline is useless without a very large and very heavy engine to turn it into useful work. Just using the volumetric energy content of gasoline doesn't tell you anything really useful because the liquid does nothing by itself. You need to know how much the whole system weighs, how efficient it is at turning that energy into useful work, and how much it costs to do that. While there are some limitations and caveats, existing EVs today already have substantially better fuel economy for a given power and weight output for a wide variety of use cases. My Chevy Bolt EV has more torque than my pickup truck, vastly better fuel economy, comparable range (about 238 vs 275-320 miles) and only weighs about 300kg less. A Telsa Model X actually weighs more than my pickup and has more power, more torque, FAR better fuel economy, comparable range, etc.
And the good news is that battery technology is going to continue to get better. ICE technology is close to as good as it will ever get. An ICE produces more heat than it does useful work and there is no way to change that. Given that EVs are already matching or exceeding ICE performance in many cases and have lots of room to improve as battery tech improves, the future seems dim for ICEs in the long run.
VW makes cars, too. EV and ICE. By the millions. And they tend to have a much better track record of launching vehicles on-time, and in all promised configurations, unlike Tesla.
Name one EV that VW currently sells to the general public that is remotely competitive with anything Tesla sells. Or name one that sells in numbers competitive with Tesla. I'll wait....
...Crickets...
That's what I thought.
Yes VW makes cars. VW has made a handful of shitty, short range, compliance car EVs that almost nobody wants to buy. They've promised a lot and delivered approximately nothing to date. Maybe that will change but until it actually does I'll take Tesla's (admittedly spotty) record on EVs over VWs any day of the week.
Small cars are dangerous on the highway where there is weather.
Snort. Large vehicles are far more dangerous in weather.
Skinny tires and light frames get pulled around in the snow and wind.
Cars don't even have frames any more, they have unit bodies. Even some full-sized SUVs now use unibody designs. Large vehicles like trucks and buses are still built on frames, though. They have flat sides and lots of surface area, so they tend to be highly affected by wind. When's the last time you heard about the wind blowing a car over? It happens to big rigs all the time. And in the snow? They have less contact patch per pound than a smaller vehicle, even when they have more wheels, and once they get going they're vastly harder to stop. Just the snow building up under your vehicle will stop a car from sliding, eventually. Heavy vehicles tend to have much more trouble stopping. And if they slide into you, they do much more damage.
This is why cars should stay on the road in a pileup, and let the heavy vehicles go off of it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
SUVs are an American niche market for the most part and as such they are uninteresting for the future of the EV.
I think Ford and GM will be VERY surprised to hear that. In 2015 worldwide SUV sales were approximately 20 million units. If you think that is a niche market, you have a very curious definition of the term niche.
Also, I don't think consumers are going to care much about self driving in the near term at least it's an option most of them will be willing to dispense with.
It's a moot discussion because any reasonable semblance of a fully autonomous self driving car that could be sold to the public in volume is still quite a few years off. (meaning a car that technically doesn't need a steering wheel or a human to touch any controls ever) At least 10-15 in my opinion and probably more in reality. That said, self driving tech is going to work its way piecemeal into regular cars driven by humans. This has already happened. Lane keeping, adaptive cruise control, emergency braking, self parking, and lots more are already technologies in day to day use today. More are coming and eventually they will push humans out of the drivers seat or at least mitigate some of the worst failures of human drivers.
I see people driving well below the speed limit all the time in small cars, on snowy days, on windy days, I can only assume they are afraid of the weather because the car doesn't really handle it correctly.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I'm pretty sure the SUVs are in the ditch because they have to pass the small cars that are diving slowly.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Common' VW, stop hyping concepts and start delivering cars...
Level 4 autonomy sounds impressive
Brought to you by the guys who cheated about their diesels. Or maybe not really. Let the early adopters test it and count the crashes...
C - the footgun of programming languages
I see people driving well below the speed limit all the time in small cars, on snowy days, on windy days, I can only assume they are afraid of the weather because the car doesn't really handle it correctly.
I see stupid people. I see them all the time. They just drive around like everyone else. Most of them don't even know they're stupid. Seriously though, I don't know why so many people are allergic to just pulling over and letting someone else go by. I am guilty of waiting until someone gets up on me pretty close, but I know how to drive a line and often lose people in the twisty parts even when (as recently) I'm driving a Sprinter and they're in a car. Most people don't know how to drive, and are afraid to drive, and arguably shouldn't be driving. I fit that description myself, at one time. I take driving a lot more seriously now. Have hope for the stupid.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Indeed, it happens only by redefining 'luxury' to equal 'expensive to buy' and by only looking at the country where Tesla happens to be from and where it is much more popular than elsewhere.
I didn't define the term luxury car and Tesla's sell well around the world, not just in the US. If you think Tesla's aren't luxury cars then you have no idea what the term means. Luxury comes in many forms but only two factors are universal. Cost and brand. Tesla has both - ergo it is a luxury brand. Your personal opinion of the products is irrelevant. Quality, reliability, comfort, and other factors can contribute but do not necessarily define luxury. A Lamborghini is obviously a luxury car but if you had ever been in one you would know that the quality sucks, the reliability is abysmal, the fit and finish aren't great, and the comfort is non-existent. They are flashy, expensive, fast and fun. Tesla obviously focuses their cars on good looks, fast acceleration, and tech. If you prefer a sort of luxury that comes in the form of overpriced moving leather furniture (think Cadillac) that is fine but it's not what defines the category.
Ultimately what defines a luxury car or any luxury good is exclusivity. It is the fact that it is priced out of the reach of most buyers. Hence it is a luxury instead of a necessity. Any other definition is bullshit.
Nobody with the faintest knowledge about cars would call a Tesla a luxury car.
Oh really? You are aware that pretty much every automotive magazine and every major media outlet that deals with cars considers Tesla to be a competitor in the luxury car market. Gotta love the snob argument. It's such a great way to move the goal posts to make "luxury" mean whatever you want it to mean.
Riddle me this. If Tesla isn't a luxury car then why are Audi, Porsche, Volvo, Lamborghini, and other luxury brands tripping over themselves to copy what Tesla is doing?
The interior and the fit and finish are apalling even to American standards.
Cute. So you think interior fit and finish is all that defines a luxury car? Evidently you've never examined a Lamborghini (or Alfa or almost any other Italian car) very closely if you think fit and finish are what defines luxury. Drive a supercar sometime. Clearly luxury and they are mostly made like shit. They only last because nobody drives them very much.
Only fossils still use fossil fuels for vehicles.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This reads like someone who doesn't understand just how different the European and US car markets are. The European market sells gazillions of hatchbacks, and while US consumers may find them ugly, European consumers love them.
I'm well aware of the differences and I make car parts for both markets. However there are attractive hatchbacks and there are ugly ones. Most EVs made so far fall into the ugly category. Have you actually seen the BMW i3 or the first gen Nissan Leaf? Wow are they ugly. If you think otherwise then I think you need new glasses.
Ranges of under 200 miles work particularly well in Europe, where hatchbacks are often used almost exclusively as city runabouts, driven for well under 20 miles a day.
Ranges under 200 miles work fine in the US too but nobody wants a car with less range that that anyway. People in Europe buy cars that go quite a lot further than 100 miles too. Good luck finding a gas powered car with that sort of range. Trying to convince people that they really only need 80 miles of range is just companies trying to find a way to pretend it isn't actually a problem so they can sell a second rate vehicle.
You also come across as naive about car platforms.
Well my day job is as an automotive engineer so I'm pretty confident I know more about them than most people reading this.
VW has been investing billions in MEB. It's routinely discussed in the professional press.
Yes I've seen the press. And guess what? They don't have any products I can buy today so until they do then it is nothing more than marketing bullshit. They can spend all the money they want but until it results in a real product that you or I can buy it is meaningless. Tesla made popular EVs years ago on a much smaller budget so VW really has no excuse.
They have released tons of pictures and prototypes and what not. You are deluding yourself if you think VW won't have these on time. Since they have publicly claimed they will, they are now beholden to their shareholders to deliver.
Somehow, I find it difficult to believe Elon Musk *really* put all the effort his did into Tesla because he felt it was necessary to help counter climate change.
(And frankly, if he did? That's kind of sad, because he should be intelligent and scientifically aware enough to realize that the number of Teslas his company could produce over a decade's time is little more than a drop in the bucket of the total number of machines out there burning fossil fuels. And that's not even factoring in how many fossil fuels are burnt to generate a portion of the electricity used to charge these cars.)
Personally, I think he was just a shrewd enough businessman to realize that "Green" promises sell, even when your product is relatively costly and doesn't quite make economic sense on its own. It's telling that the very first car he sold was a 2 seater sports car; not something practical. Tesla has *really* always been about driving something futuristic, high-tech and cool, with high performance. As far as efficiency per watt of power used goes, it doesn't really do that well vs. many other electric cars. That's never been the focus....
Tesla included? ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Somehow, I find it difficult to believe Elon Musk *really* put all the effort his did into Tesla because he felt it was necessary to help counter climate change.
Because people never have good intentions?
Ezekiel 23:20
Meet ROOMZZ.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You may think an i3 is ugly. I may think an i3 is ugly. But they're pretty successful cars -- a slow burn but it's now selling in reasonable numbers in Europe.
BMW sold 24,432 units last year across all of Europe and 34,829 units globally. For reference Tesla sold 139,782 Model 3s in the same period. But that isn't really the point. The point is that BMW and other companies making these EV hatchbacks probably are leaving money on the table by making their cars needlessly ugly. Yes that matters. Make no mistake that a significant part of Tesla's success has been that the cars they make are attractive to look at. It makes NO sense to design a car that is unattractive unless the point is intentionally to dampen sales because the car is nothing but a compliance car.
You missed my point about range anxiety and the difference between the US and European markets.
No I did not. I'm saying you (and others) are wrong about that point. Sure there are some EV enthusiasts who don't actually care (we have them here too) and are rational about their driving habits, but most people simply won't buy a vehicle with limited range. Not gas nor electric. It's not just range anxiety, it's value for money. Would you spend more money for a car with less range even if you weren't sure you really needed it? Most won't. If it really wasn't a problem you would see gasoline powered cars with sub-200 mile ranges too and you don't. (yes I understand the economic differences in what I'm saying) After all, if they really only drive 20 miles per day that means they would only need to visit the fuel station occasionally which shouldn't be much of an imposition. Most people are clearly not EV enthusiasts like (presumably) you and (definitely) me. The argument that people "don't really need longer range" is objectively mostly true but buying cars is not an entirely rational decision for most people.
I know you're an automotive engineer, which is why your statement about "marketing bullshit" comes across as just weirdly naive. Surely you understand that building a new platform takes multiple years?
Of course it takes years - and VW has HAD years to build an EV platform and they have failed to do so. They were busy lying about their diesel emissions until 2014-15. They could have even adapted an existing platform into a passably decent EV if they needed a stopgap. The Chevy Bolt design was started in 2012 and went on sale by 2017 and it runs down the same assembly line as the Chevy Sonic at the Lake Orion assembly plant (about 20 miles from where I sit).
They only did their pivot to high-volume EV in 2015, and only started designing the MEB in 2016. So it's pretty fast for a legacy automaker.
I'm aware of this. A ground up platform can be designed in 3-5 years depending on how motivated they are. The Chevy Volt was shown as a concept car in January 2007 and the first factory built Volt rolled off the assembly line in March 2010. The Chevy Bolt EV platform started design in 2012 and the first units started production in late 2016. VW should be rolling out new vehicles this year and the news seems to corroborate that as likely. But until they do I'm reserving any judgement. Furthermore if they weren't working on EVs seriously prior to 2015 then I have very little sympathy. It wasn't like EVs were some tightly kept secret so they should have been working on them looooong before 2015. (and realistically they probably were but how much is unclear)
I mean: do you believe they haven't spent billions?
They have PROMISED to spend billions. While they undoubtedly have spent significant sums already (see Audi and Porsche for evidence of that), their promises so far are manifestly mostly just that - promises. The distinction is important. Until they actually spend the money and it re