The plot thickens.
Well, I don’t care much, seeing as I’m all electric with two Teslas.
Trump and these guys love pollution!
I’m sure there are a few who will jump up and down and defend this move here on this forum too.
In the same week Trump removed California's ability to control emissions, he threatened to punish California for exceeding emission standards. How can anybody defend this ignorant, evil clown?
Pa-thetic, on all fronts.
Just easy to identify the brands that want to murder us. Thanks GM, Toyota and Fiat/Chrysler for self identifying as fucking useless shitbag losers.
I guess the only other thing to do than develop EVs is to lift inhibiting regulations so you can sell as much gas as possible before no one wants it anymore.
Pulled into a gas station yesterday to wash my windshield (white snow melting stuff form the road in a snowstorm)
I was shocked at how expensive gasoline is.
You think gasoline is expensive? Try bottled water. (haha)
While it might not happen for 10 years, I wonder what kind of liability these companies will be in for creating so much pollution that it kills tens-of-thousands of people. Clearly these are brands to avoid.
I am disappointed to hear of Toyota's involvement in this push against increased emission's standards given that they've already stuck their toes into the water, so to speak, with their hybrid electric Prius models and have even announced plans to release a full EV lineup by 2020:
I am befuddled to learn that people actually consider taking one step forward and two back as 'progress'.
Screw them, and the gasoline they rode in on.
I'm guessing that they won't be selling many GM, Toyota or Chrysler models in California, if any at all.
Happy that Ford was not on the list. At least there may be some hope that Ford is about to get in the EV game in a big way. Can't wait for them to "reveal" the details on their new EV. It is at least a start for Ford.
Trump and Putin are not good people
Greta is stuck and cant make it back to Europe. Maybe Richard Branson will take her back on on hot air balloon!
She's not "stuck" and can go back to Europe whenever she likes, though I'd like for her to have the opportunity to meet and conference with the kids and teens involved in the Juliana v. U.S. suit to see what their collective minds could come up with.
Ford might be doing something with Rivian, at least that's the speculation, though that's only in the case where Rivian proves to be something more than merely another mock up hype piece,which it hasn't thus far.
And now there's even speculation that Michael Manley, CEO of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, might be interested in purchasing a "skateboard" or rolling chassis from Tesla to use as a basis for several of their brands such as Maserati, Alfa Romeo, or Jeep which would then enable them the option of swapping out suspension and braking componentry to befit that particular marque:
So they'd still be able to market their Masti's, Alfa's and Jeeps, though only in skin so to speak.
Again, just more 'speculation'.
I hate to say it, but I believe Toyota's alignment with the Trump Administration may have something to do with their corporate HQ exit from SoCal to Texas. Bad blood between CA and TOY.
Blue adept, that speculation stemmed from a question/answer during the earnings call. Elon was asked if Tesla would be open to selling packs and motors to other car companies, in the interest of accelerating the number of EVs on the road.
The problem is, Tesla can’t make enough batteries/packs to keep up with their own demand, never mind supplying others.
I can only wonder 'why?', but then, there are so many things about the manner of the world today that just don't make any damn sense.
Actually that was Fiat Chrysler Automobiles CEO, Michael Manley (not Elon Musk), who suggested that they might be interested in buying rolling chassis' from Tesla to use as drivelines and/or powertrains for several of their brands to enable them to maintain relevance in the growing EV market.
Thing is is that I couldn't determine whether he was being serious or if it was just a dig at Tesla for the reason you mentioned (in-house battery demand exceeding supply), but I'm pretty sure the Gigafactory will resolve that issue once it get's fully ramped up, at least for Tesla's own needs anyway.
To the @Forum, et al.
Given my recent exchange with @jordanrichard regarding the reported implication that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles 'might' be interested in purchasing drivelines and/or powertrains from Tesla to power several of their brands I'm curious to learn of what everyone's thoughts might be on the matter...
Do you think that Tesla should provide the powertrain solution for other automobile manufacturers so that they could capitalize on Tesla's ingenuity and technical insight, or do you think that they should go it on their own by devising their own means of electrified propulsion?
What say you?
I kinda think it will boil down to what the board thinks. If it were totally up to Elon I don't think he would object to selling any or part of their tech to others IF he sees it as advancing the "Tesla Mission". It has always been my understanding that Elon wants to advance the adoption of EV tech in general, not necessarily making Tesla a giant automaker like our legacy oems.
Tesla better be careful not to become a monopoly.
It would he nice if they could do something so all types of electric cars could use the same supercharging stations and plugs. By having standardized things like these, Tesla could franchise out or make a subsidiary company of charging stations and have other car brands wind up subsidizing part of the cost.
Dont think its a good idea to give battery and chassis info out. South Korea and China wind up copying it and make cheap knockoffs.
I think that the Tesla model lineup more than adequately demonstrates 'proof of concept' that EV's are a viable replacement for ICE's and the ever increasing demand for them 'proves' not only market wide acceptance but also desire for them while real world testimonials from actual owners from all over the world serves to dispel any and all notions or insinuation of inadequacy or incompatibility in the urban, suburban, even rural environment no matter the climate or prevailing weather conditions.
To that end I believe that Tesla has provided more than enough incentive to other automakers to take up the challenge of adopting a purely electric automotive platform which is, in and of itself, more than enough motivation to other automakers to "advance the adoption of EV tech in general" as opposed to providing them with Tesla's solution because they're too lazy to devise their own solution.
I mean, surely they can think for themselves, they're smart people and have some familiarity with vehicle electrification, so I'd like to see what they can manage to come up with on their own as that, alone, could spark additional evolution in the market space and, perhaps, even a few innovations in the technology...they'll never know until they actually try.
Agree.....Tesla has provided the "spark".......now will others come up with "fire". ?
I think that part of the reason behind making the supercharging stations (and their "plugs") proprietary was to avoid the potential for sabotage or leeching by other EV owners, not to mention to ensure that actual Tesla owners would always have guaranteed access (well, unless some a$$hole in an ICE blocks the charger or something) for their charging needs, whereas 'standardizing' the charger's "plugs" would pretty much eliminate that convenience and render the chargers susceptible to the sort of shenanigans I've mentioned.
The suggestion is NOT to "give battery and chassis info out", but to allow other automakers the option of purchasing chassis' from Tesla to use as powertrains for their various models, effectively turning Tesla into merely a 'parts supplier' catering to the rest of the automotive market, although that runs into the same issue mentioned by @jordanrichard and Tesla's ability to provide chassis in quantity for their own models alone (which, again, I'm sure the Gigafactory will resolve).
So what do you think of the suggestion of Tesla becoming a parts supplier to provide chassis' to other automakers for them to fit their body panels onto in order to market their models?
Thus far Tesla has proven itself to be the zeitgeist of this era's automotive world, the next step in the evolution of the technology, now we can only wait and see whether or not the rest of the world will catch afire, otherwise, Tesla might well become the sole provider of automotive transportation.
Only Time will tell.
When Tesla announced the Gigafactory and the ultimate size and manufacturing capability, I figured their ultimate goal was to become a supplier of EV batteries/power trains. They created the demand for for EVs, the traditional car companies which really don’t make anything other than engines and transmissions would find it far cheaper and faster to buy made power trains from someone else and that would be Tesla. I still think that is their goal, they just need to catch up and then exceed their own needs.
Becoming the number one supplier of batteries for the world's needs is certainly a worthy goal. Not just for cars, but also for battery storage.
Good presidence for this. Tesla used to make EV systems for Mercedes-Benz line of EVs.
Good way to get into the EV business, while buying some time to come up with your own designs and production.
@jordanrichard & @sosmerc
I think we have a slight difference of opinion regarding our perception of Tesla's end goal(s), specifically, there are literally thousands of battery manufacturers the world over, hundreds of which are here in America alone, for both vehicle and energy storage applications:
The goal of Tesla's Gigafactory is to provide batteries to meet the needs of its' motors and power divisions for its cars, CUV's, upcoming truck's and semi's, as well as its various energy storage facilities, not cater to the needs of everyone else in the market who're either too lazy, or just unwilling, to do their own work.
You don't see Ford selling their power trains to GM or Chrysler, or Chrysler selling theirs to GM or Ford, or GM selling theirs to Chrysler or Ford, no! Instead you see each of them doing their own thing, in their own way, suited to their own vehicle models.
Similarly, you also don't see IBM selling their hardware to Apple or Apple selling theirs to Microsoft, or vice-versa.
That's the way it always has been and always will be because that is the way competitive 'business' is, has, and will continue to be done.
To that end their "ultimate goal" is to bring electrified transport to the world to replace ICE-powered transportation by disproving all of the disinformation with real world examples of its viability and practicality in order to incentivize other auto makers to take up the charge to a sustainable energy powered, pollution free world.
Yes, they provided the drive trains or management components for a number of their SMART ED and B-class ED vehicle lineup, at a premium, to help them (Mercedes) gauge the market viability of the platform and while it seems to have been an exclusive arrangement to help Mercedes kick-start their own EV-olution which, all things considered, seems to be stagnant at this point, unfortunately.
I agree you don’t see GM selling engines to Ford but GM for literally decades provided transmissions to RR/Bentley. They even supplied transmissions to Jaguar in the late 70’s and I believe right up until Ford bought them. GM also provided engines to Fisker. Rover and then more recently BMW supplied engines to Morgan, Toyota supplies engines to Lotus. So yes, I recognize these are bit players within the automotive world, but the common theme here is each fo those companies didn’t have the money to develop and build their own components. It was far cheaper/faster to buy from one of the big companies.
Given that GM is a 111 yr. old company with a net worth of $140 BILLION, and Ford is a 116 yr. old company with a net worth of $160.3 BILLION, and last but not least Chrysler is a 119 yr. old company with a net worth of $97.8 BILLION, all as of 2018 and all easily accessed information with a simple Google search, I'd have to conclude that any rationale person would be able to see for themselves that each of those companies has not only more than enough "...money...", but also (by your own accounting) more than enough connections and resources scattered ALL AROUND THE WORLD "...to develop and build their own components", hence the reason for part of the reason why I'm so annoyed with these damn legacy auto maker's procrastination and feigned inability to produce a viable, market appealing EV (you know, if they only just got up off of their asses, afterall, GM already has once in the form of their own EV-1).
I can only presume that you were unaware of these facts and that's the reasoning behind your position on this issue, though I'm curious whether this information gives you any cause to change your mind on the matter now that you do know?
For reference Tesla Motors is only a 16 yr. old company with a net worth of $56.47B as of November 01, 2019, yet they've been able to "develop and build" an EV that surpasses the performance, safety, and functionality of every other automobile by every other manufacturer in the entire WORLD, and did it all primarily in-house!
But panel gaps!
Yep, "panel gaps" and all (as is to be expected from a fledgling company composed of people who've never even built a car before, let alone from scratch) and yet they still literally whipped everyone's ass!
But that only goes back to what I've been saying all along about all of these legacy auto makers who've got over 100 years of experience, global connections, infinite resources, and relatively limitless funds, yet continually take swipes at Tesla when all that they've managed to come up with are a Bolt, a Spark, and a Focus (none of which even remotely come close to matching Tesla's performance, safety or functionality) while insisting that they can't manage to come up with a battery/motor solution on their own...
Are you effing kidding me?!