Connect with us

Published

on

Tesla’s Robotaxi event came and went last night, and we finally learned (very few) new details about the much-hyped car that CEO Elon Musk thinks will add $5 trillion to Tesla’s market capitalization.

But the main thing it left me (still) thinking is: why does this car even exist?

Tesla has been talking about robotaxis for a long time, so of course it makes sense that it would unveil a robotaxi… right?

But here’s the rub: when Tesla first started talking about robotaxis, it was in the context of the Model 3 and other vehicles that the company already makes.

As far back as 2016, Tesla was talking about “Tesla Network,” a proposed system that would allow Tesla owners to send out their cars to work as taxis once the company had solved full self-driving.

I mentioned all of this in my Tesla Model 3 review back in 2018, showing some of the details that indicated that Tesla was getting ready for this robotaxi future – such as the use of a phone as a key and an interior camera to keep tabs on occupants.

And this wouldn’t just be applicable to certain vehicles, but to all cars that Tesla makes. Because Tesla also said that all its cars come with the hardware for full self-driving as early as late 2016.

Musk even went so far as to say that Tesla will stop selling cars once it solves autonomy. The idea is that those cars would be more profitable to keep around as robotaxis, that each would be worth $100k-$200k due to this function and that they should be considered “appreciating assets” as a result. (Though Musk did say last night that Tesla will sell Robotaxis for $30k, which runs counter to this past assertion of his).

So there is a long history of Tesla referring to its vehicles as potential future robotaxis, rather than talking about an individual robotaxi product. And it even said the same last night, as there were 20 Robotaxis and 30 other Tesla vehicles shuttling people around at the event. Musk reiterated last night that all cars Tesla makes would be capable of full autonomy, and even said that existing cars would be driving all by themselves prior to when he said the Robotaxi will hit the road in 2026-2027 (though he stumbled and said “let’s not get nuanced here” when the crowd asked whether this would apply to HW3 cars, which Tesla previously promised full autonomy for).

But hey, maybe it makes sense to release an individual Robotaxi product that would be fully focused on this function and no other, in order to save cost and reduce complexity.

That’s certainly an argument, and Tesla’s announced $30k starting price for the Robotaxi/Cybercab product (even Musk seemed unsure which name to call it) is a lower price than any vehicle the company has sold yet, and among the cheapest price we’ve ever seen for an EV (shout out to the all-time value winner, the now-defunct Chevy Bolt).

Also, I have to say, it looked great out there. Compared to the previous renderings/models/spy shot we’ve seen, I thought the final product looked fantastic. If it were just a normal EV, with that design, a small sporty low 2-seater for about that price, I’m sold.

A smaller car, without many of the creature comforts that might be desired by a driver, with more simplicity for less maintenance and easier cleaning, can certainly help to get costs down. And that’s great and needed. A $30k vehicle will be available to more people than a $42k Model 3, the next-cheapest car Tesla currently sells.

But…. why not a $25k Model 2 then?

Tesla already had the answer to this question: the cancelled Model 2

So if Tesla wants to have a cheaper, simpler car that is capable of robo-driving tasks, and if it’s still clear that all of its vehicles will gain this capability, why doesn’t it just make the cheaper, simpler car that it’s been talking about for years: the Model 2.

Not much was known about the Model 2, except that it would be a cheaper, smaller EV, starting at $25,000 – long thought to be the appropriate entry-level for consumer vehicles (the cheapest gas cars in America are around $17k – and a $25k EV would cost about the same after the $7,500 federal tax credit).

But earlier this year, it was reported that Tesla was shutting down Model 2 development. Musk denied that report, but like many of Musk’s denials, it turned out to be true.

Instead, Musk directed the company to pivot to Robotaxi, and rhetorically, he has been talking a lot more about robotaxis, artificial general intelligence robots, and various other pie-in-the-sky promises, in keeping with the tech buzzword du jour..

But while there’s a lot of demand in the stock market for CEOs who incessantly talk about AI, there’s also a lot of demand in the car market for a cheap electric vehicle. And Tesla is a car company, after all, not a stock company (isn’t it?).

And what we do know from the event is that Tesla thinks they can make a self-driving electric vehicle for under $30k, and that that vehicle would be “over-specced” for what it is, using a more powerful AI computer than necessary. And they think they can do this within the next 2 years or so.

If these two things are possible, I believe that those efforts would be better channeled towards the Model 2, rather than the Robotaxi.

While Musk stated in the event that existing vehicles would be capable of full autonomy before the Robotaxi starts shipping, I don’t think anyone believes this. After a decade of FSD coming “at the end of next year,” the boy has thoroughly cried wolf and this timeline does not seem realistic.

Further, Musk said that it would come to California and Texas first, pending regulatory approval. Even if Tesla does swiftly get regulatory approval in those states, that still limits the addressable market while it works to scale up and get approved in other regions. The process of homologating a Model 2 would go much more smoothly than that, and could be sold globally much faster.

And while Tesla’s car timelines also tend to slip by several years, with how long we’ve been talking about a “cheaper Tesla car” and its relative similarity to existing vehicles (as opposed to the vast differences involved in making a Cybertruck or Roadster), I also think the Model 2 could have been manufactured before Robotaxi could (especially when taking into account regulatory timelines).

If that’s the case, then wouldn’t it be better for Tesla to make this car that I believe would be ready before Robotaxi will, that will fulfill a need for a lot of buyers right now (especially in a circumstance where affordable Chinese EVs are popular enough to force protectionist trade measures), that would have global appeal, and that will have all the capabilities of a Robotaxi once (or if) FSD finally ever gets solved?

Maybe it’s about cost-cutting… or maybe it’s about the stock

Now, perhaps part of the reason for Model 2’s cancellation is because Tesla did not see enough cost-cutting possible to build an EV for $25k, or thought the level of cutting would be too severe to sell desirable consumer vehicles at that price. With a Robotaxi, perhaps customers would accept a more bare bones experience than in a Model 2 that they own as a personal vehicle, and maybe that’s the only way that Tesla can get the price down.

And there’s something to be said for a vehicle that’s fully autonomous-focused, with things like inductive charging and being designed for robo-vacuums to clean the car without human intervention (both were briefly glossed over in last night’s presentation).

But there’s definitely demand for a cheaper, human-driven EV, and I think Tesla got the order wrong on this one – it would be better to sell a bunch of Model 2s earlier than a bunch of Robotaxis later, since I don’t think full level 5 FSD, along with regulatory approval, is coming within the next year or two. And if you have to choose whether to have hardware or software ready first, you definitely want to choose software – because hardware costs a heck of a lot to build.

Or… maybe all this AI talk is more about the stock than it is about actual products, as alluded to above. This has been a common theory among Tesla haters for some time, but was never all that realistic because Tesla did and does sell a lot of cars, and a whole ecosystem around them of energy products like Powerwall and Superchargers, which work well and make a lot of revenue, with pretty good margins.

But when Musk suggests that Robotaxi will be worth $5 trillion in market cap, when he goes on a months-long rampage at the company to sell his own stock grant package to shareholders, and when he goes on about long-term dreams and how Tesla is going to change the world in 6 huge ways next year alone (really next year this time, I promise), that feels less like a mature and achievable product timeilne and more like a set of actions that are driven by a desire to, let’s say, make up for a really bad personal business decision that he funded on the back of TSLA’s formerly-high share price.

But if it is about that, it seems that Elon has run out of rope. The market, this time, doesn’t seem too convinced. Maybe instead of sky-high promises that nobody thinks will be met, and that you are burning public trust with each time you make them (or uh, maybe that’s happening for another reason)… people really do just want a cheaper car that everyone can buy.

Make it.


Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla’s top crash safety architect quits

Published

on

By

Tesla's top crash safety architect quits

Tesla’s top crash safety architect, who helped the automaker achieve top safety scores for its entire car line-up, announced that he is leaving the automaker after 14 years.

We are talking about Petter Winberg, Tesla’s Principal Engineer for CAE crashing safety for the last decade.

After an extensive career at Volvo and SAAB, both car brands praised for their commitment to safety, Winberg joined Tesla in 2011 to work on the “crash safety development of Model S structure and side occupant restraints.”

At the time, Tesla was still working on the Model S, its first vehicle built entirely from the ground up, considering the original Roadster was based on the Lotus Elise.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

CEO Elon Musk aimed for “Tesla vehicles to be the safest on the planet,” and Winberg took the challenge seriously.

He led the development of the vehicle body and chassis structure for Model 3 and Model Y, as well as the crash structure for Model S and Model X.

All of these vehicles have received top safety crash scores from independent testers worldwide – quickly elevating Tesla’s brand into a leader in passive safety.

Winberg and his team deserve a lot of the credit for this.

The engineer also led the design of crash readiness and the energy-absorbing capacity of Tesla’s latest “gigacasting” and structural battery pack designs, for which he obtained patents. Other automakers have since adopted similar designs.

For those less technical who want to understand how good and respected Winberg is at Tesla, he has been working for Tesla remotely in Sweden for the last five years. That’s impressive in itself, considering how much Musk hates remote work. He previously emailed Tesla management to tell them that only exceptional employees would be eligible for an exemption to work remotely, which he would approve himself.

After 14 years at Tesla, Winberg announced last week that he is leaving (via LinkedIn):

Having developed Model S, S-DM, X, 3, Y, Y-SP as well as future crash architectures, I have decided now is the time to move on. Thank you Tesla, keep crushing it! What an incredible team, I will miss you all.

He didn’t elaborate on his reasons for leaving the automaker or announce another venture.

Electrek’s Take

While Tesla has received much criticism for the dangers of its Autopilot and “Full Self-Driving” systems, I don’t think anyone can question that Tesla vehicles perform extremely well in terms of passive safety.

Independent testing has proven it time and time again.

Tesla has led the way in taking advantage of designing electric vehicles from the ground up. Its skateboard-like powertrain design and lack of engine in the front allow for a giant crumple zone to absorb the energy in case of a crash.

A big thank you to Petter Winberg for his designs and leadership in improving Tesla’s passive safety. He has undoubtedly made the automotive industry safer and saved lives. Congratulations.

As for his departure, it’s certainly a blow for Tesla. As we previously reported, the company has suffered a significant exodus of talent over the last year, with a big part of its leadership leaving during and after a wave of layoffs last year.

Many predict that Tesla could again initiate another wave of layoffs in the coming months as its sales are crumbling worldwide.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla Model S Plaid gets smoked in drag race by Xiaomi’s cheaper SU7 Ultra

Published

on

By

Tesla Model S Plaid gets smoked in drag race by Xiaomi's cheaper SU7 Ultra

The SU7 Ultra, Xiaomi’s new flagship electric vehicle, went against a Tesla Model S Plaid in a drag race and it smoked it.

The car is ridiculously powerful, and it’s about 35% cheaper than the Plaid, which is already affordable relative to its supercar performance.

We recently released a report about how impressed we are by Xiaomi’s incredible rise in the EV market in China.

Its first vehicle, the SU7, is a smash hit. It now consistently delivers over 20,000 units a month, it has surpassed the Tesla Model 3, its closest competitor, and has a more than 30-week-long backlog of orders.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The vehicle achieves more range and is cheaper than Model 3 while having additional features.

Last month, Xiaomi launched a new top-of-the-line version of the SU7: the SU7 Ultra.

The headline is that the $72,800 (529,900 RMB) has a powertrain packing up 1,526 horsepower. That’s absolutely insane. Xiaomi quotes a 0 to 100 km/h (0 to 62 mph) acceleration in just 1.98 seconds.

While the SU7 is meant more as a Model 3 competitor, the SU7 Ultra actually competes with Tesla’s flagship Model S Plaid in terms of performance.

They organized a drag race between the SU7 Ultra and Model S Plaid. Here it is:

As you can see, the SU7 Ultra slipped at the start, which is not surprising considering how much power it outputs, but it still managed to catch up and beat the Model S Plaid.

At over 1,000 horsepower, many, myself included, thought that it was a bit mad to offer a vehicle like the Model S Plaid with such supercar power for a relatively cheap price – RMB 814,900 (approximately $112,000 USD) in China and just $95,000 in the US.

But now, Xiaomi shakes things up even more by offering 1,500 horses for just a little more than $70,000. It’s mad.

Now, I can hear your thoughts: “but it’s just good in a straight line drag race like other EVs.” Think again, the SU7 Ultra prototype claimed the title as the fastest four-door sedan at the famous Nurburgring race track in Germany.

Electrek’s Take

Damn, the Chinese are good. Xiaomi has come hard with the SU7, but the crazy thing is that it’s just one of several Chinese top-of-the-line EVs coming out. Nio has the ET7, BYD has the U7, and there are many more.

These vehicles are all impressive in their own rights.

It’s easy to understand why American automakers are so scared and lobbied the US government for 100% tariffs on them.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Trump administration sends a clear message to the oil and gas industry: ‘You’re the customer’

Published

on

By

Trump administration sends a clear message to the oil and gas industry: 'You're the customer'

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum: We're bringing back manufacturing and mining to the U.S.

HOUSTON — The officials leading President Donald Trump’s energy agenda made clear to oil, gas and mining executives this week that they have an ally in Washington who intends to make it as easy as possible for them to drill in federal lands and waters.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told executives gathered for the world’s largest energy conference that the Trump administration does not view climate change as an existential threat. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said rising global temperatures are simply a byproduct of developing the country’s national resources to support economic growth and national security.

Burgum leads Trump’s recently established National Energy Dominance Council and Wright serves as his deputy on the interagency body tasked with boosting production. Burgum was effusive in his praise of the oil and gas industry during remarks delivered at CERAWeek by S&P Global conference.

“I’m going to share two words that I do not think that you have heard from a federal official in the Biden administration during the last four years. And those two words are thank you,” said Burgum, who previously served as governor of North Dakota, a state that produces 1.2 million barrels of oil per day.

Burgum leaned on his experience as software company executive to lay out his view of the interior department’s role. The department under his leadership views the companies developing resources on federal lands as “customers” who are contributing revenue to the nation’s “balance sheet,” Burgum said.

“If someone was sending me revenue, they weren’t the enemy. They were the customer,” Burgum said. The administration loves anyone who wants to harvest timber, mine for critical minerals, graze cattle, or produce oil and gas on federals, the interior secretary said.

Royalties sent from lease agreements on federal land will help the U.S. pay down its national debt and balance the budget, Burgum said. “You’re the customer,” the interior secretary told the executives.

The value of nation’s abundant natural resources far outweighs its $36 trillion in debt, Burgum said. If financial markets understood the value of America’s natural resources, the 10-year long-term interest rate would come down, Burgum claimed.

“The interest rates right now are one of the biggest expenses we have as a country,” Burgum said. “So one of the things that we have to do is unleash America’s balance sheet, and President Trump is helping us do that,” he said.

Burgum slammed the Biden administration’s focus on climate change as an “ideology.” He said the Trump administration views Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon and China winning the artificial intelligence race as the two existential threats facing the U.S. rather than global warming. Wright said Biden had a “myopic” and “quasi religious” belief in reducing emissions that hurt consumers.

Burgum and Wright dismissed policies that support a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, arguing that wind and solar won’t be able to meet rising energy demand in the coming years from artificial intelligence and re-industrialization.

“There is simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas. I haven’t even mentioned oil or coal yet,” Wright said at the conference. Wright previously served as CEO of oilfield services company Liberty Energy and a board member at nuclear startup Oklo.

Oil execs see allies in Washington

Oil executives are enthusiastic about the change of administrations in Washington, returning the praise they received from Trump’s energy team during the week.

ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance said Wright and Burgum “understand the business,” describing them as the best energy team the U.S. has seen in decades. TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné said he was “impressed by the quality of our counterparts.” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said the industry is “seeing some reality come back to the conversation.”

“For years, my message has been, we need a balanced conversation about affordability, reliability and the environment, and focusing only on climate leads us to ignore the first two,” Wright said.

Energy Sec. Wright: We can get to no or very low tariffs, but it's got to be reciprocal

The executives all referred to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, following Trump’s executive order to rename the body of water. The president issued an order on his first day to repeal Biden’s ban on offshore drilling in 625 million acres of U.S. coastal waters.

BP CEO Murray Auchincloss briefly slipped before correcting himself when discussing how generative AI is helping with exploration: “We started doing this in the Gulf of Mexico, uh America, and we spread that to other nations as well.”

But Trump’s calls to “drill, baby, drill” are running up against market reality. The CEOs of Chevron and Conoco said U.S. oil production will likely plateau in the coming years after hitting new records under the Biden administration.

“Chasing growth for growth’s sake has not proven to be particularly successful for our industry,” Wirth said. “At some point, you’ve grown enough that you should start to move towards a plateau, and you should generate more free cash flow, rather than just more barrels.”

Lance sees U.S. oil production plateauing later this decade and then slowly declining.

“Maybe it’s time to go back to exploring the Gulf of America,” Pouyanné said. “The new administration is opening the Gulf. It has been slowed down after the Macondo drama,” he said, referring the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest in the history of marine drilling operations.

U.S. oil producers are scheduled to meet with Trump next week, industry lobby group American Petroleum Institute said in statement.

Continue Reading

Trending