Apple, Amazon, Tesla and changing dynamics of auto industry

[campfamily]

Interesting article talking about how companies outside of the traditional auto market are impacting the industry.

http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/blogarticle/3493738/apple-amazon-tesla-and-the-changing-dynamics-of-the-car-industry/banking-and-capital-markets-corporations.html#.Vh_NEf5lAVE

Keith

 

[hybridbear]

Very interesting article! Thanks for sharing!

 

[62Lincoln]

The last paragraph of his opinion article is incorrect. GM did not create the Volt "by taking an internal combustion car and dumping an electric engine in." That assertion is absolutely incorrect, and calls into question how much research this person really performed to render his "expert" opinion.

 

[hybridbear]

Another similar article: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/10/17/vw-symptom-widespread-automotive-disruption/

 

[jmueller065]

That cleantechnica article has quite a few assumptions that the FFE proves otherwise, starting with the very first one:

You have to throw away your frames. All of them. To build an effective, long-range, high-performing electric car, you have to start with something like the Tesla power slab at or below the level of the axles.

Not true, just look at all of the EVs today driving around that are based on existing frames? (FFE, eGolf, I'd even lump the Leaf into this category because its really a derivative from an ICE--yeah I get hate mail from that statement). Unless you are saying "effective, long-range" = Tesla (which I don't agree with at all).

You have to throw away all of your mechanical steering and control systems. Everything is drive-by-wire. Anything else is a waste of space, weight, and time. All of those experienced engineers, all of those solutions that worked, gone. They all assume frames that you don’t have any more, and specific areas for mechanical linkages which are no longer there.

Not true at all: the FFE uses the same steering as the ICE Focus and it works pretty good.

The last two are just silly:

You have to throw away your body panels. They all depend on the frame and the gas tank and the mechanical linkages taking up space that they don’t take up anymore.
You have to throw away your seat mounting systems, and possibly your seats. They expect a lot of wasted space due to motor and transmission drive shaft hump and gas tank that just aren’t there anymore. They depend on a frame which doesn’t exist anymore.

Especially all this talk about "frame": Um last time I looked the only things that were body on frame are pickup trucks and full-sized vans (and even the vans are moving to unibody).

 

[hybridbear]

That cleantechnica article has quite a few assumptions that the FFE proves otherwise, starting with the very first one:

You have to throw away your frames. All of them. To build an effective, long-range, high-performing electric car, you have to start with something like the Tesla power slab at or below the level of the axles.

Not true, just look at all of the EVs today driving around that are based on existing frames? (FFE, eGolf, I'd even lump the Leaf into this category because its really a derivative from an ICE--yeah I get hate mail from that statement). Unless you are saying "effective, long-range" = Tesla (which I don't agree with at all).

Is there any other EV you can drive across the country besides a Tesla? Based on that question, "effective, long-range" = Tesla.

 

[jmueller065]

Is there any other EV you can drive across the country besides a Tesla? Based on that question, "effective, long-range" = Tesla.

You can drive ANY EV across the country if you are patient enough.

In addition, an EV doesn't have to be long-range to be effective (most of the members of this forum pretty much prove that). Providing effective = useful.

 

[hybridbear]

Is there any other EV you can drive across the country besides a Tesla? Based on that question, "effective, long-range" = Tesla.

You can drive ANY EV across the country if you are patient enough.
In addition, an EV doesn't have to be long-range to be effective (most of the members of this forum pretty much prove that). Providing effective = useful.

A Tesla is the only EV that can truly work for a single car family. In that sense, other EVs like the Focus Electric, are not useful. A Tesla is the only way to go completely gas free. That will be our goal with our next vehicle when replacing the FFE.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here... I'm mostly happy with the FFE, but I agree that Tesla is a disruptive force & that the legacy automakers will be limited unless they take drastic steps to change their approach, as mentioned in the article. I think the article is rather extreme, but it makes many good points. I don't think you can use the FFE to refute the author's points when Ford sells so few of them.

 

[jmueller065]

I think the article is rather extreme, but it makes many good points. I don't think you can use the FFE to refute the author's points when Ford sells so few of them.

I agree about the article being extreme (I guess my pointing out "deficiencies" in the article is my way of saying that).

Not necessarily being specific to the FFE to refute the points as may of the current <100 mile range BEVs also have similar traits to the FFE (even though I was using the FFE specifically LOL).

Nonetheless: I do agree that Tesla is a disruptive product for the current automotive industry.

 

[hybridbear]

That cleantechnica article has quite a few assumptions that the FFE proves otherwise, starting with the very first one:

You have to throw away your frames. All of them. To build an effective, long-range, high-performing electric car, you have to start with something like the Tesla power slab at or below the level of the axles.

Not true, just look at all of the EVs today driving around that are based on existing frames? (FFE, eGolf, I'd even lump the Leaf into this category because its really a derivative from an ICE--yeah I get hate mail from that statement). Unless you are saying "effective, long-range" = Tesla (which I don't agree with at all).

You have to throw away all of your mechanical steering and control systems. Everything is drive-by-wire. Anything else is a waste of space, weight, and time. All of those experienced engineers, all of those solutions that worked, gone. They all assume frames that you don’t have any more, and specific areas for mechanical linkages which are no longer there.

Not true at all: the FFE uses the same steering as the ICE Focus and it works pretty good.

The last two are just silly:

You have to throw away your body panels. They all depend on the frame and the gas tank and the mechanical linkages taking up space that they don’t take up anymore.
You have to throw away your seat mounting systems, and possibly your seats. They expect a lot of wasted space due to motor and transmission drive shaft hump and gas tank that just aren’t there anymore. They depend on a frame which doesn’t exist anymore.

Especially all this talk about "frame": Um last time I looked the only things that were body on frame are pickup trucks and full-sized vans (and even the vans are moving to unibody).

I think by "frame" the author means "platform". Such as Toyota's TNGA platform that's used for the new Prius. Since the platforms are designed for ICE cars, they don't work well to accommodate an HVB that is as large as what Tesla uses. That's why Tesla's platform is built specifically for a BEV.

As far as steering, more cars are going to electric power steering now, but many still use a belt driven power steering pump. That system wouldn't work without an ICE.

Body panels absolutely makes sense. The Leaf doesn't share body panels with other Nissans. It has funky looking headlights & an odd shaped rear end. All things unique to making a BEV.

Another thing is the rear seat hump. Chevy designed the Volt with a battery to fill that hump. A Model S has no hump in the rear floor.

 

[jmueller065]

Now this is interesting: GM admitting that a lot of the Bolt is being built by LG Corp and not GM:
http://longtailpipe.com/2015/10/20/gm-turns-over-bolt-design-work-to-lg-corp-while-dissing-bevs-in-new-advert/

Kind of shows that the other article is right (ditching most of GM's design staff in lieu of LG Corp). Basically GM is taking the same route Ford did with Magna and the FFE: let someone else design it. That article also seems to think that GM is trying to distance itself from BEVs by doing this (hmm also much like Ford is doing).

Seems to me that both companies are taking the wrong strategy. They should be embracing them and building more models (or at least offer their current ICE car models with EV powertrains as Ford was implying when they first built the FFE).

The interesting thing about this is if you browse through Ford's job postings there are quite a few EV related (and indeed EV only) jobs. Looks like Ford is trying to gear up for making EVs--at least from the employee side.

 

[hybridbear]

Kind of shows that the other article is right (ditching most of GM's design staff in lieu of LG Corp). Basically GM is taking the same route Ford did with Magna and the FFE: let someone else design it. That article also seems to think that GM is trying to distance itself from BEVs by doing this (hmm also much like Ford is doing).

Seems to me that both companies are taking the wrong strategy. They should be embracing them and building more models (or at least offer their current ICE car models with EV powertrains as Ford was implying when they first built the FFE).

This ties in well with the previous article. The legacy automakers just aren't that interested in EVs. I similarly doubt even Nissan's interest. With all the money spent on the Leaf, they should be making more than one EV. Nissan should be making PHEVs & BEVs in a variety of shapes & sizes. They could even just offer the Leaf powertrain in other cars, such as a BEV Altima. The only work would be fitting the components into the Altima.