I think this is great but I continue to wonder about Tesla's plan here.
The Supercharger network is one of their remaining competitive advantages. Other manufacturers were behind for years on efficiency, range, etc. but are now catching up - and other manufacturers are far better at making an actual _car_ than Tesla. Build quality, quality control, durability, comfort, noise, etc.
Unless Tesla is so confident that their manufacturing skills will give them a continuing and durable cost advantage - that makes up for the fact that they haven't innovated or even improved their basic vehicle design for the past 10 years - I don't see how this works to their advantage.
First - Tesla had to open charging to other manufacturers to receive additional governmental subsidies.
Second - Tesla will get addition 7 plus billions grants to add additional charging infrastructure.
Third - Tesla will add at least another 10 to 20 billion in charging revenue with at least 30 percent profit to the bottom line.
Forth - Once all the other manufacturers signs on, they can offer other services…
IMHO
Tesla isn't doing this out of the kindness of their heart, they make money off of charging cars. I bet the money they make off of charging stations comes easier too. Like they really just need to pay for maintenance. Compared to building cars, delivering them, providing service, etc. it's kind of a no-brainer to just make tesla chargers able to charge all EV's and just keep building out that network.
The plan seems very clear to me. They developed a better charger that helped kickstart the market and gave them a competitive advantage. In the future, differentiating on a charger becomes a disadvantage as the EV market gets larger and Tesla owns a smaller percentage, meaning most charging stations will not be compatible with Teslas. The inflection point between the charger being a competitive advantage/disadvantage is occurring around now. Additionally, licensing the rights to the charger gives Tesla a stake in the entire EV market as a whole.
Their business plan is that they know they won't make every EV that is sold, but they will make money by charging many more than they sell.
The list of Manufacturers on board at this time: Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo (and presumably Polstar).
Hyundai and Stellantis are considering it. If they join, and it'd be silly not to at this point, that's about half the car market right there. Now it's just up to the German and Japanese automakers.
> other manufacturers are far better at making an actual car
Are they really "far better"? My wife's Tesla hasn't had any issues in the last 3 years. The build quality is great. Every time I have a chance to take the Tesla over my Kia, I do it because it's so much more pleasant to drive it.
Over the years I've had many cars. I am struggling to think of one better than the current Tesla that we have.
This lets them bring in tons of money from owners of other manufacturer's cars using their chargers. It also means they don't get forced into CCS in NA which was the probable alternative path to convincing other manufacturers to use their NACS hardware.
Tesla is confident in their economic skills. They have multiple sources of revenue, both one time (they have massive margins on cars) and recurring (selling software on cars, and money from the Energy division, plus now from charging), and they have a LOT in the bank (a sweet 15-20 Billion cash, iirc).
Other legacy companies have loads of baggage, and they cannot compete. [1]
Supercharging is no longer the moat they must have, and they are willing to drain it to increase more revenue from the access instead.
They generate a decent profit on supercharging and increased usage = increased profits.. On the maufacturing side market is saturated with Teslas. They keep dropping the price to increase demand but you can only play that game for so long.
Sandy Munro currently believes that Tesla is 5 years ahead. Heck, even the Ford CEO has openly said that it’s very hard to catch up to Tesla in terms of software, batteries, and vehicle design [1]. For example, here is a video explaining the differences in the Tesla vehicle manufacturing over the years [2].
I think this is their way of saying the current profit margins aren't going to persist. It is exceedingly difficult to make a fast charging business with the kind of profit margin they currently rake in on new car sales, so giving up the single biggest reason people buy a Tesla is a statement unto itself.
> The Supercharger network is one of their remaining competitive advantages.
Not really. Tesla chargers are slow and low voltage compared to other charger manufacturers. Other charging networks are deploying 400 kW chargers. Like FastNed has deployed 400 kW chargers from EVBox and Alpitronic:
Seems like you answered your own question. Tesla realizes that other makers are at least perceived to be better at making actual cars. It's immaterial whether that's actually true (though I personally happen to believe it is) because perception is what matters in the market. Therefore, continuing to focus on cars is a losing strategy. They're pivoting to their only real long-term differentiator, which is the charging network and the hardware that connects to it. The interesting question here IMO is when they made that choice.
They were probably forced their hand here by the US Government, which is really sad given that the rest of the industry basically got a free pass for shunning EV adoption for years.
That said, this is definitely making me interested in a non-Tesla for our next EV. Tesla's tech is unrivaled, but the competition has better hard products.
Once the competition's lane-keeping/"smart" driving catch up to Tesla's APv2, I think I'm out. Even though I absolutely love using FSD beta.
This would mean they are a nationwide power company with the ability to charge more kWH for reduced charging time. Add in solar panels,battery banks, and optimizing recharging with the local power company and it's printing cash at that point.
I think it's also that the EV market needs better charging stations, that are more reliable as the existing charging brands have a bad reputation. Tesla also needs charging stations to work for non-tesla vehicles or the trust in a EV would drop.
Speaking for myself, but although I loathe Elon and deride Tesla’s build quality, there’s truly nothing like driving around a Plaid Model S for it’s absolutely tearjerking speed. The weird steering wheel continues to annoy, however.
Stepping back though, one can get a performance Model 3 very inexpensively, relatively, and as far as I can tell or have seen, no other manufacturer outside of Porsche (with BMW making some minor inroads) has electric cars close to as fast.
So if given a choice between a ridiculously fast Tesla and a, say, much slower Volvo for the same or more money, I’ll go with the Tesla. Not that I base the entire purchase on acceleration performance, but all else being relatively equal I will be driving a Tesla until others catch up.
It probably doesn't, apart from some kind of bragging rights about how their charge connector standard won in North America (which however facile, is important to the most zealous among their customer base).
Tesla was forced to open their charging network to become eligible for federal tax credits. If Tesla starts preferencing or discounting charging for their cars in their network going forward, they will lose those credits and perhaps get in other trouble.
Given that, they are making the best of the situation by partnering with their competitors, who themselves failed to have Tesla's foresight about the importance of a comprehensive charging network - even after Tesla clearly demonstrated the value in that. Remember, VW was forced to create Electrify America as part of the Dieselgate settlement.
It's pretty shocking that all the charge networks are getting rug pulled because they couldn't figure out how to accept payment reliably.
I wonder if Tesla has figured that out for third-party automobiles yet. (I mean, I assume they have, but I assumed the other charge networks would be able to obtain working credit card readers, and that definitely didn't happen.)
The plug is more about combining DC and AC pins, payment is orthogonal. The difference between "NACS" and "Tesla" is that because Europe has mandated CCS, Tesla has made their connectors talk CCS because global simplicity.
Yes, Tesla's will still have plug-to-pay, but that's on top of NACS, not part of NACS. NACS is just CCS with a different (smaller) handle.
The Technology Connections guy made a good explainer about all this the other day, if you don't mind a slightly-get-off-my-lawn youtuber persona: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjny4u5THpU
IMO the non-Tesla networks thoroughly misunderstood the market. People are willing to drive, specifically, to a Tesla charging station because they have the biggest network (and they’re fairly reliable, but anyone could achieve that). Other than that, there is no particular network effect, and drivers don’t want a network effect. Drivers want a charger at a convenient location that works, but there is no more inherent brand loyalty than there is with gas stations.
So, to compete effectively, chargers should have deployed in useful locations and made charging convenient. Using gas station-style card readers would have worked fine, and they are a mature technology. No one needs to install an app or create an account to buy gas, and charging should have worked the same way.
All these unreliable fragmented networks that think they're precious enough to demand downloading a crappy app and registration deserve to go out of business.
When my car needs 20 minutes to recharge, I hate spending 15 minutes fighting someone's dumb password policy just to start charging.
In EU there's Ionity and Fastned that always work and always accept contactless payments.
My Canadian town of 70,000 has about 100 public CCS charging stations but one for Telsa. So no not great. It's already there so why are they switching?
A GM executive was on the news saying how Canadians complained in a survey there were not enough charging stations. I say BS. This sudden study appears and contradicts the 10:1 ratio of CCS to Tesla charger in my town?
My only concern with one is that we're giving one private company a monopoly on it. Is that good, I'm not sure but in general it's usually not good for consumers.
I am kinda glad that NACS won. It wouldn't really break my heart if it did not, but I own two EVs -- one is CCS1, the other Tesla. It's just a minor irritation, but there is no doubt at all that the J1772 connector is far more likely to be finicky when I plug it in every day. The fact that it's the same connector no matter what kind of charging is happening is icing on the cake.
Good question. They'll be understandably unhappy that their competitive advantage is being muscled away. I worry about the future innovation that was planned for these companies that are moving from CCS to Tesla, as adopting it really does put an upper bound on charge speeds. Definitely a big win for Tesla across the board.
Yes a big leap backward for any EVs with 800V systems like Hyundai, Porsche, Mercedes, Polestar, Lucid Air. Until NACS v2 arrives but even that is less than 1000V edit: I guess NACS 1000V would be v4 not v2
Same parent company and same technology (the 2 is basically an XC/C-40 with a different body). Yes they will make the move, just need the announcement.
CCS is still the standard for the entirety of the EU including Tesla's own cars. It may be dying in NA but the EU is still a large market and using a different plug isn't that big of a deal for the manufacturers.
[+] [-] avalys|2 years ago|reply
The Supercharger network is one of their remaining competitive advantages. Other manufacturers were behind for years on efficiency, range, etc. but are now catching up - and other manufacturers are far better at making an actual _car_ than Tesla. Build quality, quality control, durability, comfort, noise, etc.
Unless Tesla is so confident that their manufacturing skills will give them a continuing and durable cost advantage - that makes up for the fact that they haven't innovated or even improved their basic vehicle design for the past 10 years - I don't see how this works to their advantage.
[+] [-] gizmo888|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willio58|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sxg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonestamp2|2 years ago|reply
The list of Manufacturers on board at this time: Ford, GM, Rivian, Volvo (and presumably Polstar).
Hyundai and Stellantis are considering it. If they join, and it'd be silly not to at this point, that's about half the car market right there. Now it's just up to the German and Japanese automakers.
[+] [-] starik36|2 years ago|reply
Are they really "far better"? My wife's Tesla hasn't had any issues in the last 3 years. The build quality is great. Every time I have a chance to take the Tesla over my Kia, I do it because it's so much more pleasant to drive it.
Over the years I've had many cars. I am struggling to think of one better than the current Tesla that we have.
[+] [-] rtkwe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryzvonusef|2 years ago|reply
Other legacy companies have loads of baggage, and they cannot compete. [1]
Supercharging is no longer the moat they must have, and they are willing to drain it to increase more revenue from the access instead.
----
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/27/23771407/ford-f150-lightn...
[+] [-] hahla|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huijzer|2 years ago|reply
[1]: https://youtu.be/JdId8tXiJIo
[2]: https://youtu.be/WNWYk4DdT_E
[+] [-] rootusrootus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clouddrover|2 years ago|reply
Not really. Tesla chargers are slow and low voltage compared to other charger manufacturers. Other charging networks are deploying 400 kW chargers. Like FastNed has deployed 400 kW chargers from EVBox and Alpitronic:
- https://fastnedcharging.com/hq/fastned-and-evbox-join-forces...
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4ZWN_-a2j4
[+] [-] notacoward|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nunez|2 years ago|reply
That said, this is definitely making me interested in a non-Tesla for our next EV. Tesla's tech is unrivaled, but the competition has better hard products.
Once the competition's lane-keeping/"smart" driving catch up to Tesla's APv2, I think I'm out. Even though I absolutely love using FSD beta.
[+] [-] jabart|2 years ago|reply
I think it's also that the EV market needs better charging stations, that are more reliable as the existing charging brands have a bad reputation. Tesla also needs charging stations to work for non-tesla vehicles or the trust in a EV would drop.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
NACS for Ford doesn't mean a Supercharger experience. Tesla's tight integration will continue to yield fruit for at least a few more years.
[+] [-] constantly|2 years ago|reply
Stepping back though, one can get a performance Model 3 very inexpensively, relatively, and as far as I can tell or have seen, no other manufacturer outside of Porsche (with BMW making some minor inroads) has electric cars close to as fast.
So if given a choice between a ridiculously fast Tesla and a, say, much slower Volvo for the same or more money, I’ll go with the Tesla. Not that I base the entire purchase on acceleration performance, but all else being relatively equal I will be driving a Tesla until others catch up.
[+] [-] KindAndFriendly|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alienzx|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pkulak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danans|2 years ago|reply
It probably doesn't, apart from some kind of bragging rights about how their charge connector standard won in North America (which however facile, is important to the most zealous among their customer base).
Tesla was forced to open their charging network to become eligible for federal tax credits. If Tesla starts preferencing or discounting charging for their cars in their network going forward, they will lose those credits and perhaps get in other trouble.
Given that, they are making the best of the situation by partnering with their competitors, who themselves failed to have Tesla's foresight about the importance of a comprehensive charging network - even after Tesla clearly demonstrated the value in that. Remember, VW was forced to create Electrify America as part of the Dieselgate settlement.
[+] [-] hedora|2 years ago|reply
I wonder if Tesla has figured that out for third-party automobiles yet. (I mean, I assume they have, but I assumed the other charge networks would be able to obtain working credit card readers, and that definitely didn't happen.)
[+] [-] floatrock|2 years ago|reply
Yes, Tesla's will still have plug-to-pay, but that's on top of NACS, not part of NACS. NACS is just CCS with a different (smaller) handle.
The Technology Connections guy made a good explainer about all this the other day, if you don't mind a slightly-get-off-my-lawn youtuber persona: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjny4u5THpU
[+] [-] amluto|2 years ago|reply
So, to compete effectively, chargers should have deployed in useful locations and made charging convenient. Using gas station-style card readers would have worked fine, and they are a mature technology. No one needs to install an app or create an account to buy gas, and charging should have worked the same way.
[+] [-] pornel|2 years ago|reply
All these unreliable fragmented networks that think they're precious enough to demand downloading a crappy app and registration deserve to go out of business.
When my car needs 20 minutes to recharge, I hate spending 15 minutes fighting someone's dumb password policy just to start charging.
In EU there's Ionity and Fastned that always work and always accept contactless payments.
[+] [-] nharada|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dghughes|2 years ago|reply
A GM executive was on the news saying how Canadians complained in a survey there were not enough charging stations. I say BS. This sudden study appears and contradicts the 10:1 ratio of CCS to Tesla charger in my town?
[+] [-] notyourwork|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootusrootus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KyleBerezin|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wnevets|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BooneJS|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1970-01-01|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WaxProlix|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dghughes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fffernan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|2 years ago|reply
(AIUI, the comm protocol is (will be?) CCS/IEC 61851?)
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
Something like that [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/06/27/tesla-ele...
[+] [-] ryzvonusef|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
Is Volvo properly described as a European car maker? I thought it was owned by Geely. (EDIT: Missed the merger being called off [1].)
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/25/business/geely-auto-volvo-int...
[+] [-] the_mitsuhiko|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jguimont|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|2 years ago|reply
https://www.cars.com/research/volkswagen-id.4/recalls/
[+] [-] ryndshn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jguimont|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] b0sk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtkwe|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sschueller|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
Who are the remaining CCS adherents?