[Russ]

GM have done no such thing until the Volt is available to buy
isnt the spark only 20KW?

Splitting hairs @Hairy Leafer
The Ampera-e will be driven to the Paris show and be in showrooms years before any of the long range concepts on the other stands are available.
And they are showing it off!
Opel Ampera-e Drag Challenge vs. Astra TCR, ADAM R2 and OPC

 

[Tooks]

Also interesting to note that Nissan along with all other manufacturers apart from GM have only just achieved 30kWh wheres Tesla are 100kWh and climbing.

I think that is more to do with Tesla cars core business being electric cars, as opposed to the mainstream manufacturers remaining interest in ICE vehicles?

I mean, Tesla haven't yet got a turbocharged istraight six petrol in their line up either. It just reflects their business model and market they're targeting.

Unless we're seriously suggesting that Nissan et al don't have the wherewithal to fit a 100kWh battery?

I can't help feeling that there's going to be an awful lot of excess battery capacity being lugged around in the future, which is not good for overall 'fuel' economy or use of raw materials. Doesn't the average driver still only do less than 40 miles a day?

I think we should be wary of using one luxury electric car manufacturer as any kind of yardstick or signpost for the mainstream EV future.

 

[donald]

I just picked this up on the news....

.. Oh FFS, VW. Just get ON with it. Stop yapping about crap.

you can't sell an e-Up to a guy waving a wad of cash at you!!!

If you can do this then freakin' do it!

 

[Siraff]

Well then it's an even better story, they've gone from 81kwh in 2012 to 100kwh in 2016, a pretty impressive 23% increase. Also interesting to note Nissan managed a 25% increase from 2010 to 2015.

Yes and between 2013 and 2016 BMW added around 50%. They are also the only maker to launch an ev with a similar weight to an equivalent ice at anything under around 2 tonnes.
Also the only one to offer a rex/phev version of every ev they sell as far as I'm aware?
I like Tesla but their firsts and innovation don't really amount to much.

 

[Vertigo]

There is no equivalent ICE to a BMW i3, it's the only modern supermini to use CFRP bodywork and an aluminium chassis. It'd be groundbreaking even without the electric powertrain, the closest comparison I can think of is the Audi A2. The battery itself isn't anything particularly special, the massive energy increase on the new pack still only takes them to GM's energy density level.

What Tesla's innovations amount to are the only EVs in the world that sell as well as or better than their combustion counterparts.

 

[Siraff]

What Tesla's innovations amount to are the only EVs in the world that sell as well as or better than their combustion counterparts.

You are confusing "innovation" with "marketing".
Tesla's big problem isn't what they already have - they jumped the gun by cramming in as big a pack as they could which was a gamble that paid off.
Their real problem is that design train (massive, heavy and expensive battery) doesn't translate well when it comes to smaller, less expensive, mass market cars.
What does translate to that is having the production capacity to produce those cars, the connections to suppliers, a solid, massive customer base and enough bankroll to take a hit if it doesn't go to plan.

 

[Vertigo]

If Nissan had tried to make an 85kWh car with the technology they had in 2012, the battery pack alone would have weighed as much as an LMP1 racer, and cost around $50k. Tesla didn't just get lucky, they developed a pack using the better part of a decade's experience working with large-scale lithium-ion batteries, they chose the best cell supplier, and worked with them to establish a format that's still unusual today (NCA chemistry rather than the more typical NMC, cylindrical cells rather than prismatic/pouch). It's very unlikely that anyone else could have made a car like the Model S in 2012, and real competitors still seem to be some way away.

Having the most energy dense and least expensive batteries translates to any EV, the pack constitutes a huge proportion of the car's manufacturing cost (~40% for the Bolt). Any advantage with the battery counts for a lot in the overall vehicle, and given that they already have working Model 3 prototypes trundling around, and the projected specs are distinctly Tesla-y, it looks like they've successfully downscaled their pack technology to the smaller platform.

We'll see how well they're able to meet the production targets, but the tech appears to be there, and the demand certainly is.

 

[Siraff]

If Nissan had tried to make an 85kWh car with the technology they had in 2012, the battery pack alone would have weighed as much as an LMP1 racer, and cost around $50k. Tesla didn't just get lucky, they developed a pack using the better part of a decade's experience working with large-scale lithium-ion batteries, they chose the best cell supplier, and worked with them to establish a format that's still unusual today (NCA chemistry rather than the more typical NMC, cylindrical cells rather than prismatic/pouch). It's very unlikely that anyone else could have made a car like the Model S in 2012, and real competitors still seem to be some way away.

Having the most energy dense and least expensive batteries translates to any EV, the pack constitutes a huge proportion of the car's manufacturing cost (~40% for the Bolt). Any advantage with the battery counts for a lot in the overall vehicle, and given that they already have working Model 3 prototypes trundling around, and the projected specs are distinctly Tesla-y, it looks like they've successfully downscaled their pack technology to the smaller platform.

We'll see how well they're able to meet the production targets, but the tech appears to be there, and the demand certainly is.

Sorry but if the willpower was there I could pick out at least 10 makers who could have made the model S. Quite a few of them would also be far less likely to have issues with build on such an expensive car aswell.
The model 3 sounds great but then again so does the GM Bolt. Similar battery size, car size, etc - we will have to see about cost.
Again Tesla isn't offering some breakthrough. It's just a packaging exercise on batteries they already have. You seem to have an idea that they somehow have access to battery chemistry no one else does? Do you honestly think none of the German/Japanese/American/Korean/etc makers could afford to pop to Panasonic with a cheque book? Pretty much any of them could offer any battery company a deal that would end any relationship with Tesla if they so desired.
Simple fact is they haven't because the technology and market isn't there yet. They are starting to show a little interest now (some more than others) but history shows that jumping in first doesn't pay off as much as jumping in when the time is right.
Look at it another way - say li-ion was suddenly become obsolete by a jump in technology. Say Graphene or similar popped up in a usable state and meant that a battery could take 500kWh for the size of a suitcase.
Tesla are then billions into a battery factory which is semi useless with cars that are suddenly obsolete tech and have massive debt to invest with.
Any of the established brands could invest and bring a car to market in under 5 years - less if they decided to just convert their PHEV's thereby having a car with more range than a current BEV and no downside.

The point is Tesla have no breakthrough tech. They are using some of the better available components and packing them in as tight a box as they can.
That works when you have a market segment to yourself which has enough margin in there to support the cost in the first place.
The model 3 may well be competing with a new 60kWh leaf, 60kWh Bolt, possibly things from BMW, Kia, etc and so on. Even more telling is the bigger picture. As ev's get better and more popular the gargantuan difference in buying power and brand value con only go toward the big boys.
There is a very good reason people will pay massively over the odds for something that says BMW, Mercedes, VW, etc on the front and that is because they are established brands with plenty to lose if they don't behave. This is the same reason a Zoe is cheap.

 

[dpeilow]

Tesla's key innovation was to commercialise the method to safely package thousands of high energy density COTS cells into a pack with multiple failsafes. It enabled them to use cheap readily available cells in 2006 and not be tied to a single supplier. Remember what happened to the large format Panasonic NiMH cells used in earlier EVs?

They were able to use LCO cells when everyone else thought they were too dangerous. How many Tesla Roadster packs have caught fire in the last decade? None.

Tesla's relationship with Panasonic has been established by virtue of the latter buying Sanyo. This has enabled Tesla to get access to both Sanyo's and Panasonic's battery development teams and work with them to optimise 18650 format cells for automotive use. They have taken the lithium NCA chemistry used for over a decade in the space sector but still considered too unstable by the automotive sector and commercialised it in the Model S, again via their techniques to mitigate risks of thermal runaway or premature aging.

They are not wedded to Panasonic or indeed lithium NCA and are already working with LG (apparently on the Roadster upgrade). All parties understand the size of the EV market is huge. The tail is now wagging the dog and Tesla has designed a new cylindrical cell format that can be packaged in a more optimal manner. Rumour is that is behind the increase in the P100D pack.

If new chemistry comes along, the gigafactory will be able to package it, just as new chemistry has been packed into cells for the last few decades. I expect Tesla has the best view of what is coming down the line in the industry. There have been press releases about new miracle batteries on a weekly basis since I've been following this topic. I'm still waiting to buy one. Meanwhile Tesla and Panasonic plod on, quietly exploiting the advances Panasonic announced they would bring to market on Christmas Day 2009...

VW had the opportunity to do all this. They hired Martin Eberhard after he left Tesla in 2008. Elon Musk even open sourced all his patents for them. I remember a few articles in the press about how they were also going to go the 18650 route. What became of that?

Yes others could catch up Tesla. Tesla has stated several times that they want others to catch up Tesla. Ask them nicely and they'll even sell you the bits you need to catch up Tesla. They've published the plans. They've made it royalty free. They acknowledge there's no way they can convert all 2 billion cars in the world to electric by themselves. If that means a company the size of VW finally becomes a producer of EVs for the long term, then Tesla will have done its job.

 

[Tooks]

Some genuinely interesting posts above.

Reading between the lines though, it's lots of industry developments stuck together with words/phrases such as 'working with', 'relationships' and 'taken', which demonstrate that they're not really doing anything unique. You can bet Panasonic et al are not giving away their battery secrets anytime soon, which is why the battery manufacture facility in the Giga factory is ring fenced and separate to it, for example.

Don't get me wrong, Tesla's aims are laudable, and I think it's a difficult message to criticise them for anything, but the bottom line is they're a business and they need to make money. They are currently carving themselves a niche and have certainly woken up the automotive Giants from their EV slumber, which is a good thing, but they don't really have much electric competition to the MS/MX.

I guess those last two vehicles must have taken sales from the luxury ICE segment, but although a profitable sector, the numbers are quite small in overall sales terms. I imagine many brands are happy to keep a watching brief and let Tesla do the leg work around what works or not. The Model 3 though does takes them into mass market car territory, and if it ever gets off the ground in sufficient numbers that vehicle will be competing with the established brands, premium or otherwise, and then we'll see what the competition will look like.

As I think Elon himself has said, the potential EV market is absolutely massive, and there is plenty of room for everybody who wants to be in it. I'm pretty sure the 'big boys' will go all in when they think the time is right, and when you're manufacturing on the scale that Nissan/BMW/VAG/Kia/GM are, it's critical to get that right.

 

[Simon Mac]

@dpeilow I suspect the stumbling block on the royalty free / patent free stuff, was they way it was set up.

The patents are still held by Tesla, but they have in effect said others can use them for a period of time royalty free, however this timescale is not open ended, and Tesla reserve the right to charge for it later. (They also held some patents which were critical to the overall system).

VW et al would have looked at this in detail far beyond the Tweets, and the lawyers would have got very, very nervous.

They are also following the nasty software patent routes common in Silicon Valley i.e. filing patents on the bleeding obvious. One example is taking "old school tech" like liquid cooled motors (used in industry for decades) and land grabbing patents with pernickety caveats like "when used in EVs".

Playing devil's advocate, if VW started building a massively successful EV, then in 5 years time Tesla started demanding royalties on future VW EV products, VW would be in a world of hurt.

It made for great headlines, but the devil is in the detail

Getting back on topic, IF (and it's a big one), Tesla were to be part of a takeover the due diligence process would be all over the intellectual property rights of Tesla, and I suspect why they "released" the patents in the way they did. In effect they still need to "own" them.

(P.S. not that I blame them, they are after all a corporation motivated to give shareholders the greatest return, and this is the environment they operate in. I am just a little sceptical of the "charitable foundation" view PR stunts like the patent thing were clearly designed to create.)

 

[dpeilow]

I remember the articles when the Roadster was first announced and the trolls we used to get on TMC claiming that only idiots would contemplate packing thousands of "laptop cells" into a car. The gleefully predicted that it would go horribly wrong and lead to the company's demise. One still keeps this nonsense going Tesla Death Watch - The Truth About Cars

I've no doubt there are enthusiastic people in VAG about this. I'm sure they could build a competitor quite easily, but a few press releases and platform that has been designed for electrification does not an EV make. The Audi A2 was designed for electrification. The Mercedes A Class was designed for electrification. We expected it to happen in the 90s.

 

[Simon Mac]

Ironically the forerunners of the Model S were both based on cars never designed for electrification, the Elise being designed around the engine out of a Rover 200

Before that the tzero was originally based on the Sportech which was intended for a Suzuki bike engine before the boys at AC Propulsion got their hands on it.

Certainly adds credence that the car was not the hard bit for Tesla/ACP to crack, really the clever bit is the BMS / PEM (especially when using the 18650's)

 

[dpeilow]

Certainly adds credence that the car was not the hard bit for Tesla/ACP to crack, really the clever bit is the BMS / PEM (especially when using the 18650's)

Indeed and don't forget that although AC Propulsion also used an 18650 based pack, theirs was air cooled. Tesla not only worked out the smart bits of adding liquid thermal management, but also how to build it automatically (spot welding thousands of cells reliably).

 

[Tooks]

Liquid thermal management and automated soldering are not exactly new innovations though are they?

I'm not down on Tesla, I'm really not, I'd buy one tomorrow if I could afford one!

But I don't believe they have done anything particularly innovative either, they've packaged something up and marketed it very well and created a demand for EVs. The latter should be applauded though, and is one of Elon's stated aims.

Does anybody know if any other company has used any of Tesla's patents by the way? Or have they just developed a variation of their own?

 

[dpeilow]

It's not soldering, it's ultrasonic welding fuse wires millions of times reliably.

Charged EVs | A closer look at wire bonding

 

[Siraff]

Tesla's key innovation was to commercialise the method to safely package thousands of high energy density COTS cells into a pack with multiple failsafes.

That's exactly my point though.They didn't come up with wonderful new battery tech. They didn't actually innovate anything. They took what was already on the table (well in the laptop) and packaged it to suit a car. I'm not saying it wasn't a good idea (though it was a gamble) but it's certainly not something any of the other car makers couldn't have done.

 

[dpeilow]

The history of invention is almost exactly that though. Almost every product is built on a series of iterations of what came before.

Anyone could have made a practical go-anywhere PHEV since the days of Karl Benz or Ferdinand Porsche. They didn't. The fact that it took over a century is testimony to how comfortable the status quo was with churning out the same cheap rubbish. It took some guys with nothing to lose to bring together the disparate elements to make a modern EV. And there is entrenched culture in every industry. It's taught from the days of the classroom. Don't underestimate the corporate inertia of dinosaur companies that can't see the asteroid coming.

Saying there is no innovation in what Tesla did with their battery packaging, management and power electronics is as bad as the dinosaur managers in the old guard companies. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.


I'll give you another example: There is nothing "new" in a rocket that can land itself. In fact the Falcon 9 is quite a simple rocket design. The engines are old tech, the structure is old tech, the avionics is based off COTS technologies. The existing aerospace companies could have done this years ago, but they had no incentive to - in fact quite the opposite. Yet at university we were told by a professor that this was impossible (we set out to disprove him by the way). Will you claim that a self landing rocket is not innovative?

 

[Tooks]

It's not soldering, it's ultrasonic welding fuse wires millions of times reliably.

Charged EVs | A closer look at wire bonding

Thanks for the link, an interesting read.

My word soldering did indeed do it a mis-service, but the patent appears to be a slightly new way of bonding wires, which as the article states has been going on since the 70's.

The point for me is, It's not like a patent/technique that suddenly made something possible to build that was impossible before. Possibly more efficient/reliable, but not innovative.

 

[Siraff]

The history of invention is almost exactly that though. Almost every product is built on a series of iterations of what came before.

Anyone could have made a practical go-anywhere PHEV since the days of Karl Benz or Ferdinand Porsche. They didn't. The fact that it took over a century is testimony to how comfortable the status quo was with churning out the same cheap rubbish. It took some guys with nothing to lose to bring together the disparate elements to make a modern EV. And there is entrenched culture in every industry. It's taught from the days of the classroom. Don't underestimate the corporate inertia of dinosaur companies that can't see the asteroid coming.

Invention is a very different thing to chipping away at what's already there. The car was an invention. Electricity was a discovery. li-ion was a development. Sticking thousands of batteries in a box under a car is packaging.
There has been plenty stopping then making good ev's all these years - ice. The entire reason electrics (which were more popular in the early years) died out was that the internal combustion engine offered far better power over far greater distances with a far smaller recharge time.
That still holds true today. Recent advances in battery tech are getting things along but until there is a big leap it's all just packaging and chipping away at chemical structures - much in the way the ice has been honed over 100 years.
Look at a basic (lawnmower or similar) engine today and innovation wise there is little to seperate it from the very early ones. Maybe electronic ignition. Otherwise it's just repackaging what was already there.
I can't think of many actual innovations for ice's over all those years. Turbocharging, maybe? Pretty much everything else is honing a design.
Until li-ion there was little point in adding PHEV or similar batteries because the tech just wasn't up to a high enough standard to make it worthwhile. Cars were much lighter anyway and fuel was easy and cheap to get so what would be the point in carrying around half a tonne of lead acid for a couple of miles of ev range?

Whichever way you cut it even the best ev's are still a very long way from the go anywhere ease of even the cheapest ice's. A £6k Dacia has a longer range than a £100k Tesla. It also takes a couple of minutes to refil and it's fuel is available almost anywhere in the modern world. That's a far cry from having to make sure you have a charger on your route if you need to do more than a couple of hundred miles and it makes the usual ev's with a realistic 70 mile range look a bit silly.

Ev's at the moment are still held back by their batteries and infrastructure (the second being a complete joke) and still will be for quite a few years to come.
Tesla putting loads of batteries in a box hasn't changed the basics.