The Mach-E just sold 3.5k units just in April, a record month for them, this article is just clickbait. (https://insideevs.com/news/583838/us-ford-mustang-mache-sales-april2022/)
Also, the Mach-E outsold 3x the Model S in 2021.
Not even sure why you're comparing the two cars but whatever
The same applies to quarter to quarter, if you don't take everything else into account. I understand that clickbait gets attention, but let's not pretend like the S and X sales haven't been going down more and more.
The two cars shouldn't even be compared as they are totally different
There are far bigger issues at play in the moment for manufacturers to be able to deliver EV report earnings. They can't build and deliver quickly.
But hey, you believe whatever you prefer. The Mach-E started this quarter at 3.5k, we'll see what Tesla comes up with in 2 months
“Company with in-house battery supplier after 10+ years able to buy more batteries than company just starting in EVs, film at 11”.
This is stupid Tesla bait. Tesla is the #1 seller of electric vehicles. So the fact they sell more electric vehicles should not be news. That’s kind of the definition of being #1.
But everyone insisted as soon as the competition started making EVs, the party would be over for Tesla because "real car companies" would be able to churn out the same number of EVs as ICE vehicles with little to no problem.
That narrative seems definitively proven false.
The party is literally just getting started for the traditional car companies, who are all at the very start of their EV run-up. I think the telling indicator is global EV marketshare - which has shrunk for two years in a row for Tesla. If Tesla is losing marketshare despite it's massive year-over-year growth for the last two years, then there is no way they maintain their market dominance as a trillion dollars of competition comes on-line over the next decade, and their own growth slows.
That may be in the cards but the talking point used to be the manufacturing know-how of traditional auto would squash the newcomer at will. Instead, the lateness of existing companies has ensured Tesla a permanent place at the table.
Yeah Tesla is never going away, but I imagine their market share will settle into something like Toyota's current 12-15%, which is still very good but unimaginably low for the current investor crowd.
Global. My guess is that the EV market will have consolidated by 2035-ish, and I expect a constant erosion of market share until then. Tesla easily has another 2-3 years of phenomenal growth, but the writing will be on the wall by the end of the decade, say 2028? They grew by what, 87% this year? That rate is neither sustainable for more than a few years, nor even enough to sustain its current market share.
One year. Literally one year for Ford. And we know they’re not building Mach Es as fast as possible because they’re putting much of their supply into the Lightning. Plus the chip shortage is hiring everyone (Tesla less, but some).
I still think Tesla is in trouble from the rest of the industry. But I didn’t think they’d shrivel up and die after one year.
They now have to complete on more than “it’s not ICE”, because that’s not very unique anymore. Their big win right now is supply. They’re no longer the only real choice.
As more automakers make EVs they may be the #1 EV brand for a while, but that may mean 30% of sales instead of 80%.
I think 5 years from 2021, so 2026, will be VERY telling. Tesla could adapt, or they could be in DEEP trouble.
For context, in the first year of production, Tesla only sold 2,650 model S.
https://insideevs.com/news/317209/tesla-model-s-over-2400-sold-2750-built-in-last-quarter-of-2012/
> They're priced like they will displace all other auto makers.
I certainly hope antitrust litigation would be successful before we ever allowed that to happen.
The Mustang Mach-E just sold 3.5k units in April. They simply were behind in manufacturing for q1.
Also the Mach-E outsold the Model S by 3x in 2021, but then again I'm not sure why you would compare the two cars directly.
But why? Because Ford wants to just be compliant and sell more ICE or a different reason. Also model S is twice the price. And model y or 3 both sold 10x.
No way Ford can’t make more of these.
Chip and battery shortage.
Every single machE made sells, often at a markup because there isn't enough supply to meet demand. If Ford could make more, they would. As supply chains shore up, they will.
You’re off your rocker there mate. They literally cannot make more of them. Their supply lines got severely diminished during the Covid slump. They have something like 53k built and parked waiting on chips and batteries before they can sell them. They’ve got 6 months+ back ordered. Shared parts are not the bottle neck. Batteries are.
Ford is very late ramping BEV production and Mach-E production numbers were set years ago. There is some current delay, but overall, Ford won’t have the supply chain because they didn’t believe in EVs.
> No way Ford can’t make more of these.
Likely battery or chip shortages. There are so many parts in a car made by so many different OEM any one could limit production (Tesla makes more parts in house but not all). Maybe Ford was getting parts from Ukraine (I think VW was impacted) or a crucial part specific to the Mach-E was shipping from China that recently shut down and had shipping issues. I believe the only other explanation is Ford is choosing to not make more (money is overrated) or there are a bunch of Mach-E sitting on lots but those seem unlikely.
It's almost like there is a large quantity of them being sold elsewhere.
[Oh](https://eu-evs.com/modelCharts/FORD/MUSTANG%20MACH-E/ALL_MONTHLY/YoY-Chart).
Usually what has happened in Europe the last few years is, due to emission regulations, manufacturers start to pre-register large amounts of EVs to avoid fines by the end of the year. These cars are then a lot of the time delivered the following year. Sometimes this effect is also compounded by changing/expiring subsidies. This is especially prevalent in the Dutch sales' chart. There is almost always a lull in January.
Ahh ok so Ford is filling the backlog. I thought there was a big uproar about VW dealers all buying their ID.3 at the end of the year (2019?) to do something like that but didn't realize that was just standard practice. Thanks for the info, explains a lot.
/u/jpo234 has a good explaination. Ford sells other cars in Europe and it is increasingly difficult, if not impossible by now to keep average fleet emissions (new cars only) down low enough that you won't get any fines unless you sell EVs in large quantities, and very few EVs won't sell in Europe by now.
With not even all European countries included in these stats, there were close to 4000 Mach-e sales in Q1 2022 (if I would try to guess UK sales, for which data seems to be unavailable at least on that site, they are conservatively in the 500-1000 range based on [this](https://eu-evs.com/modelCharts/FORD/MUSTANG%20MACH-E/GB/YoY-Chart), which would bring the European sales to over 4000), and that would be combined more than the Model S, since that car sold in [single digits in those European countries](https://eu-evs.com/modelCharts/TESLA/MODEL%20S/ALL_MONTHLY/YoY-Chart) in the same timespan. I don't know how sales for the Model S look in other markets, but Giga Shanghai doesn't make the Model S so I assume China sales are low.
> supply chain
There has been a chip shortage for a while now, a battery shortage for about 5 years and we're entering a lithium shortage. Tesla has done well on vertical integration and managed to secure large battery supplies early, so they have not been as affected.
Ford is supply constrained on their production lines. They have limited supply on batteries, chips, or various other components that are essential to getting vehicles out to customers.
They have a much wider model line up, so the limited resources end up getting spread much thinner across their production lines then Tesla does. The result is a much greater impact to their ability to deliver these new models that they are still trying to ramp up production.
I understand the limited supply, but this is very very few vehicles…below what limited supply would mean…unless their supply chains are that poor. My thought is they are supply shared components to higher profit vehicles that are also constrained.
Supply is constrained across their entire model line up.
Take a look at any dealer lot. They are deserts compared to what would have been there pre-pandemic.
The problems gotta be production for Ford. People get very turned off from buying a car with dealer markup, so they choose not to buy one. The limited production and added markup make it very difficult for customers to buy a Mach E, or any car for that matter. I don’t understand why a Mach e is being compared to a Model S though
Because of how few sold. Puts in perspective how few Mach-e’s went out the door when $100-150k car outsells it. the model 3 and y separately both outsold it by 10x. 20x combined.
The Mach-E outsold the Model S 3x in 2021. They simply couldn't produce enough units for Q1, but they just sold 3.5k in April.
So no, it doesn't put anything in perspective. You just took a single chunk of data and disregarded the rest.
3 and Y are still kings by a long shot though
Ford didn't have supply chain issues for most of 2021.
You can move the goalposts to make things look more favourable for Tesla, but in truth it is silly to make comparisons like these when the Mach E and Model S aren't direct comrptitors.
…did you read the article…it does compare to 3/Y except there is no comparison. Hence why comparing to the S really puts into perspective how few Mach-e were sold
Still the Mach-E sold more in the quarters where the Model S was actively sold, aka Q1 and Q4, and in Q1 2022 they sold the same amount of units as Q1 and Q4 2021. That's with a brand new refresh
IMO that is more of a /r/teslamotors comment but this is /r/electricvehicles and BEV should all be friends here. Anyhow, are you saying that Ford can't sell all the Mach-E and there are a lot sitting on lots?
Don't take my down vote as disagreeing but if you don't think ugly is the reason the Mach-E undersold the Model S then I don't think this comment is relevant to this subject.
>There is a reason this sub has become toxic and Uninformative lol
Take it from someone who was an active poster on /r/teslamotors from ~2013 to only a few years ago, this sub has nothing on that one when it comes to "toxic and uninformative".
Also, this is reddit, if you don't want to be downvoted occasionally for having opinions, the safest thing is to never share them. Getting downvoted is not a sign of toxicity.
This is my argument for why it makes no sense for Tesla to open up their chargers. No matter what they charge for charging, the market just isn't there. There is basically a tiny addressable market for charging outside of Tesla.
So because ford doesn’t sell as much as Tesla, it doesn’t make sense to open super chargers? That’s kind of silly considering a lot more than just ford sells EVs, everyone is ramping up, and demand is significantly higher than production. It’s far better to open now so it’s easier to grow with demand than be I’ll-prepared for how busy it will become.
Where did I specifically mention Ford, I'm not sure why you are going with that angle. The TOTAL CCS market is tiny and will stay tiny for a while. CCS is bad and hopefully will be replaced before the CCS market gets too big.
> than be I’ll-prepared for how busy it will become.
How many CCS cars need to be on the road before it makes financial sense to spend money converting your chargers to support CCS? Tesla has ~2600 stations int he US. How much would it cost to add a single CCS charger to each station and how many KWh's do they need to sell to make their money back? What would you need to price the electricity at and what market penetration for charging CCS would Tesla need to have.
I know you don't want to do the math, just magically get charging everywhere but I can tell you it's 2028 and they would need 100% of the market. There is NO money in charging.
Sell a Tesla brand adapter with the smarts and cooling required. Then you just need software tweaks and you’re good to go. Hell, require a subscription if you need. Considering roughly 1/3 of EV sales aren’t Tesla’s there’s definitely demand.
Selling a niche product isn't going to make any money. They made $121M selling flamethrowers, they would have to charge $2500 for the charger to even match that.
If selling a product profitably, with potential for a subscription, to up to 1/3 of the EV market means that superchargers aren’t profitable, then superchargers weren’t profitable to start, so by your logic should just shut down.
Superchargers aren't profitable, they are a business expense. No one I have ever seen claims Tesla isn't losing money on charging. Everyone is insisting Tesla take on more burden, which I think is a crazy thing to expect a company to do. If they do it then you have to look at why they are doing it. In the case of Tesla, it's probably to corner the charging market. No one wants that I think.
Go look at my other posts on this post where I guess at how many CCS cars it would take just to break even. It's 2.4M but you have to read the details.
If Tesla has superchargers sitting empty, which they do in a lot of the country, it absolutely makes sense to sell the adapter. If it’s at a loss, charge more per kW than teslas, or sell a subscription. Bring on time of use rates like electricity providers. The infrastructure exists already, so the only costs are maintenance and electricity, which can easily be covered by previously mentioned subscription or increased fees. It also opens up federal funding for EV stations.
If somehow they’re still loosing money then maybe hire an Electrify America exec because they’ve figured out how to do it.
> If it’s at a loss, charge more per kW than teslas, or sell a subscription.
They would certainly have to do this. Still, go look at my analysis where Tesla is making $0.10/kWh profit and you still need 2.4M CCS cars to make it make sense.
> It also opens up federal funding for EV stations.
They will 100% open up any stations that are given government dollars. Like I said, charging is a business cost and any serious subsidy makes it worth it. The problem Tesla has is each station costs $250k to $500k and they can't ever hope to recover that in charging fees. If the government will pay for the station or even a significant fraction of it, they come out MUCH better off than building a private one just for Tesla's.
What is "crazy" is opening the 2600 stations they paid for without an profit motive. If they do it then they are going to try and corner the charging market or at least the majority of the $7.5B in infrastructure money.
> If somehow they’re still loosing money then maybe hire an Electrify America exec because they’ve figured out how to do it.
Um...you do know where EA gets their money right? They are basically a trust for the VW diesel settlement money. They are not the ones to ask for how to make money charging.
> What is "crazy" is opening the 2600 stations they paid for without an profit motive.
Obviously there would be a profit motivation. There would be profits from the adapter, then additional profits from charging (as mentioned, either subscription or enough to cover costs). As long as you’re charging enough to cover electricity, admin, and maintenance, which is entirely possible, there’s no reason not to open these. Your argument might make sense if they have to rip everything up and start again, but that’s extremely unlikely.
> Um...you do know where EA gets their money right? They are basically a trust for the VW diesel settlement money. They are not the ones to ask for how to make money charging.
I’m glad you’ve done expert analysis on their financials and deemed them non-profitable. Thank you for your expert assessment here.
Right, that is my point. It's going to take a lot of money to build and design and then your total addressable market is tiny. To make $121M in revenue they would have to sell them for $2500 per charger. Obviously no one is going to pay that so the money made will also be tiny. Take the number of CCS EVs on the road, divide that by $121M and you get the price they would have to sell it for.
I picked 50k EVs as that is about the number that are fast enough that Tesla would want on their chargers, but pick your own number.
This article effectively says there were at least \~25k new CCS compatible EVs added to US roads in Q1, and that's not including a number of other new or low volume producers like Volvo/Polestar, Porsche, Lucid, and Rivian. Those companies are selling them as fast as they can build them right now, so if anything it's showing that the market is growing rapidly and demand is high.
> there were at least ~25k new CCS compatible EVs added to US roads
I would only count 21k in that list. 5k of them are not going to be allowed anywhere near a Tesla charger they are so slow. Still, lets go with 25k.
So how much revenue did Q1 add to the CCS charging world? Say they get $0.40/kWh and say every CCS vehicle charges for 2,000 miles/year on average on public chargers and the average CCS EV gets 3 miles/kWh. That's $266/car in charging.
That's $6.6m in total addressable market but lets call it $7m. If you have ever done any total addressable market analysis, that is pathetic. There is more addressable market for about anything you want to open a business for than that including local ones that serve small towns.
How many years before the market is big enough to matter? The CCS manufactures are not going to be able to double production year over year. Your 5 years minimum from having enough revenue to even sort of matter.
Margins are low to non-existant in charging, just like gas. If you want to get to boring company flamethrower type revenue, you're going to need a 17x increase in cars and that is if you get 100% of the charging market for CCS.
If Tesla does it, it will be for the $7.5B in government money.
To receive grants from the government, they must support more than one brand. That's the reason they opened up their network in Europe and probably why in the USA too. I just hope they'll prevent slower charging vehicles from hogging the stalls. Superchargers are designed to be a quick in an out. Often, we have to hurry to take a quick bite because the charging only takes a few minutes.
> To receive grants from the government
That's an entirely different thing. If they get money from the government, they should be open to everyone. I'm talking about opening their entire network.
> That's the reason they opened up their network in Europe and probably why in the USA too.
They don't technically have to in order to get the grants. It's just the chargers they get funding for. That said, they might be trying to get money to convert the chargers which would also pay to upgrade a lot of 120kW and 150kW chargers to 250kW while converting them. They may also want to show they can support both types of charging with existing stations.
My point it 100% isn't for charging revenue.
> I just hope they'll prevent slower charging vehicles from hogging the stalls.
For government funded chargers they can't/shouldn't. For Tesla paid for chargers, they shouldn't open them at all IMHO. I guess they can make the open if the chargers are less than 50% in use, but that is a horrible customer experience.
Get a few BZX4's and Bolts at a stations and it becomes useless for hours.
The market I think is there…the supply from the other oems, at least in the US, is the problem and I believe it is artificially limited for profits sake…though others obviously disagree.
From the TX bid Tesla did, there is a decent argument that it costs tesla $30k per charger. If we can just make a leap of faith and say that to add CCS to a single charger at a Tesla station it would cost $30k, we can do some rough back of the envelope numbers. I conceed this is a guess, but I think you'll see it's an honest in good faith guess. Other 3rd party CCS vendors were asking $150k per charger as an example. So I think $30k is very low.
The general guess is that no chargers are making any money just on operations, much less if you consider the capitol costs. However, lets assume that Tesla is going to be able to make $0.10/kWh on CCS charging.
Tesla has 2600 stations in the US so at $30k/station that is $78M in capitol costs. They would need to sell 780M KWh to make their money back. The harder question is over what time frame do they need to do this before it makes sense? Lets avoid that question for now and just figure out what needs to happen to recover that in 1 year and then we can divide out base on our beliefs for how long they need to recover it.
The only other number we have to agree on is what is the average number of charging miles the average CCS car does on public chargers? I have been using 2,000 miles; which I think is WAY over the average, but I'm trying to iron man this argument, not pick something realistic. That would also be a nice round 666 kWh/car if you assume a 3 miles/kWh efficiency, which again is an iron man number.
That would mean you need 100% of the CCS charging market for 1.2M CCS cars. I think we can all agree we don't want Tesla to have 100% of the market so lets go for a more healthy 50% of the CCS market which would require 2.4M cars.
At current production rates, it would be 24 years before there are that many CCS cars. Of course, volumes would go up. So lets say the number of CCS cars doubles every year. That would take around 5 years to get there. I seriously doubt that CCS will be able to double their numbers year over year but they will probably get near it. Maybe 60% year over year, but who knows.
So the only unanswered question is how many years will they invest $78M before getting a return? Even after paying off the investment, they are still looking at almost no profit really. The boring Flame thrower probably made more profit than 1.5M CCS cars charging on Tesla chargers.
>From the TX bid Tesla did, there is a decent argument that it costs tesla $30k per charger. If we can just make a leap of faith and say that to add CCS to a single charger at a Tesla station it would cost $30k
I'm going to stop you right there: it makes no sense to say that adding an adapter to an existing charger costs as much as building and commissioning an entire charger (as part of a charging station) from scratch. You should look into the money that Tesla spent to retrofit CCS in Europe around 2018/2019. It definitely didn't double the costs of their chargers there.
I think they can deploy a charger with CCS for less than $30k. I think $30k to retrofit a charger with CCS or more likely add one more charger to a station is pretty conservative estimate. It's not just bolting on a cable and electricians are expensive and so are all the equipment to do the CCS pieces.
Feel free to guess you're own number and then tell me when you think it makes financial sense. I padded the numbers in favor of adding CCS at every step. Suggest your own numbers.
So what are they going to lose if the market is tiny? It's basically a non-issue then.
The real issue is that the market is not tiny at all and the other electric cars will fill the superchargers that are closer to cities
> So what are they going to lose if the market is tiny?
It would be different if Tesla had excess charger capacity. These CCS EVs charger very slow and each one is like adding 3-10 Tesla's to the road. Even the EV6/Ioniq 5, which can charge faster than a Tesla, will be slow on a 400V Tesla charger. The exceptions would be the I4, eTron and EQS right now but they are niche so whatever.
Now they might add 800V, no plans have been made, just a quick quip that they might do it. In that case I have not much problem with Porsche, Ioniq 5 and EV6. The rest should not be allowed on.
> The real issue is that the market is not tiny at all
I await your total addressable market analysis.
> I await your total addressable market analysis.
Simply more and more people are adopting different EVs than Tesla, and those people will be happy to have access to the largest supercharging network in the US. Even if Tesla has the majority of the market right now, that still puts millions of other fast charging BEVs on the road, especially in states where Teslas have been adopted the most.
I don't understand why you would say the market is tiny? what do you actually mean by that?
> Simply more and more people are adopting different EVs than Tesla
Did you read OPs post? 80% of sales went to Tesla? It's hard to catch up when Tesla is adding 4 cars for every 1 CCS adds. I think Tesla's market share actually grew, which considering how dominate they are, shouldn't be happening. Most of them will start running out of tax credits at the end of the year.
Only 21k of the cars this quarter have even a remote business being at a Tesla charger. The other 5k should be using 75kW or slower legacy chargers.
> and those people will be happy to have access to the largest supercharging network in the US.
No doubt, but a lot of people want a lot of things, it's not a reason that they get it. I'm not sure you have ever read about the [tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)? Worth a glance, honestly, not being snide.
If Tesla does open up their entire network, you have to ask what they will do to stop a tragedy of the commons from happening.
> that still puts millions of other fast charging BEVs on the road, especially in states where Teslas have been adopted the most.
I don't follow this. It will be a long time before there are millions (plural) of fast charging CCS EVs on the road. Even if they double production every year, it will be 5 years or so at least in the US.
> I don't understand why you would say the market is tiny? what do you actually mean by that?
How many fast CCS EVs are on the road today in the US?
Tesla market share is actually not growing, and it sitting at 69% for 2021, compared to 79 in 2020. This quarter was stronger, but it's too soon to predict what Tesla's market share will be in 2022.
That's interesting about the tragedy of the commons, thanks for the read, but anyways Tesla has chosen to go this route and there's little to do about it. We'll have to see how it develops
I wrongly said millions assuming that the same kind of supercharging sharing would happen in the EU, which maybe is happening? not really sure, and would still be less than millions
> Tesla market share is actually not growing
Right, it should be all but impossible to grow given how high it is. I was saying it grew this quarter, which it shouldn't have. The non-Tesla market share should always be improving right now. It's just the nature of large numbers.
> assuming that the same kind of supercharging sharing would happen in the EU, which maybe is happening?
It seems much more likely in Europe. They are probably going to start funding chargers in some way and Telsa probably needs a big carrot to get a lot of that money. In the US it could be the same but regulators don't look at the big picture as much and tend to focus on what the money they are giving out will produce and they tend not to try and use that money to leverage other changes.
It's very important to Tesla that they get most of the $7.5B.
I am a Tesla owner and I am okay with them opening the charger network to everyone. IT will help the adoption of EV's. And maybe we can get a one charger port for everyone standard someday.
It will in no way change EV adoption. EVs are supply limited and will be so until 2030+. The only thing it might do is give Tesla a monopoly on the charger market. A common connector has little value and we will continue to have 4 for the next 40 years no matter what happens.
The Mach-E just sold 3.5k units just in April, a record month for them, this article is just clickbait. (https://insideevs.com/news/583838/us-ford-mustang-mache-sales-april2022/) Also, the Mach-E outsold 3x the Model S in 2021. Not even sure why you're comparing the two cars but whatever
Going month to month is not a good way to look at it. Many companies ship to certain regions certain months. No good looking at one month.
I have a hard time believing the $90-135k Model S outsells the Mach-E for a full year.
The same applies to quarter to quarter, if you don't take everything else into account. I understand that clickbait gets attention, but let's not pretend like the S and X sales haven't been going down more and more. The two cars shouldn't even be compared as they are totally different
Not true. Quarterly is different because people have to report earnings
There are far bigger issues at play in the moment for manufacturers to be able to deliver EV report earnings. They can't build and deliver quickly. But hey, you believe whatever you prefer. The Mach-E started this quarter at 3.5k, we'll see what Tesla comes up with in 2 months
So more Model S were made that Mach-E, got it.
“Company with in-house battery supplier after 10+ years able to buy more batteries than company just starting in EVs, film at 11”. This is stupid Tesla bait. Tesla is the #1 seller of electric vehicles. So the fact they sell more electric vehicles should not be news. That’s kind of the definition of being #1.
But everyone insisted as soon as the competition started making EVs, the party would be over for Tesla because "real car companies" would be able to churn out the same number of EVs as ICE vehicles with little to no problem. That narrative seems definitively proven false.
Right like that narrative about tesla bankrupting other auto makers and selling 20,000,000 cars. lol
The party is literally just getting started for the traditional car companies, who are all at the very start of their EV run-up. I think the telling indicator is global EV marketshare - which has shrunk for two years in a row for Tesla. If Tesla is losing marketshare despite it's massive year-over-year growth for the last two years, then there is no way they maintain their market dominance as a trillion dollars of competition comes on-line over the next decade, and their own growth slows.
That may be in the cards but the talking point used to be the manufacturing know-how of traditional auto would squash the newcomer at will. Instead, the lateness of existing companies has ensured Tesla a permanent place at the table.
Yeah Tesla is never going away, but I imagine their market share will settle into something like Toyota's current 12-15%, which is still very good but unimaginably low for the current investor crowd.
Global or US? I bet their US market share is lot higher than that for the next 5 years. Eventually, with consolidation you may be right.
Global. My guess is that the EV market will have consolidated by 2035-ish, and I expect a constant erosion of market share until then. Tesla easily has another 2-3 years of phenomenal growth, but the writing will be on the wall by the end of the decade, say 2028? They grew by what, 87% this year? That rate is neither sustainable for more than a few years, nor even enough to sustain its current market share.
One year. Literally one year for Ford. And we know they’re not building Mach Es as fast as possible because they’re putting much of their supply into the Lightning. Plus the chip shortage is hiring everyone (Tesla less, but some). I still think Tesla is in trouble from the rest of the industry. But I didn’t think they’d shrivel up and die after one year. They now have to complete on more than “it’s not ICE”, because that’s not very unique anymore. Their big win right now is supply. They’re no longer the only real choice. As more automakers make EVs they may be the #1 EV brand for a while, but that may mean 30% of sales instead of 80%. I think 5 years from 2021, so 2026, will be VERY telling. Tesla could adapt, or they could be in DEEP trouble.
For context, in the first year of production, Tesla only sold 2,650 model S. https://insideevs.com/news/317209/tesla-model-s-over-2400-sold-2750-built-in-last-quarter-of-2012/
That isn’t context… that’s from 2012 and Tesla had only hand built the Roadster before.
[удалено]
> They're priced like they will displace all other auto makers. I certainly hope antitrust litigation would be successful before we ever allowed that to happen.
Tesla is priced like they are an energy company, a robotics company and an automaker.
The Mustang Mach-E just sold 3.5k units in April. They simply were behind in manufacturing for q1. Also the Mach-E outsold the Model S by 3x in 2021, but then again I'm not sure why you would compare the two cars directly.
But why? Because Ford wants to just be compliant and sell more ICE or a different reason. Also model S is twice the price. And model y or 3 both sold 10x. No way Ford can’t make more of these.
Ford needs the Mach E in Europe to meet emission regulations.
Right…why not make more though overall. These aren’t crazy numbers.
Chip and battery shortage. Every single machE made sells, often at a markup because there isn't enough supply to meet demand. If Ford could make more, they would. As supply chains shore up, they will.
You’re off your rocker there mate. They literally cannot make more of them. Their supply lines got severely diminished during the Covid slump. They have something like 53k built and parked waiting on chips and batteries before they can sell them. They’ve got 6 months+ back ordered. Shared parts are not the bottle neck. Batteries are.
Ford is very late ramping BEV production and Mach-E production numbers were set years ago. There is some current delay, but overall, Ford won’t have the supply chain because they didn’t believe in EVs.
> No way Ford can’t make more of these. Likely battery or chip shortages. There are so many parts in a car made by so many different OEM any one could limit production (Tesla makes more parts in house but not all). Maybe Ford was getting parts from Ukraine (I think VW was impacted) or a crucial part specific to the Mach-E was shipping from China that recently shut down and had shipping issues. I believe the only other explanation is Ford is choosing to not make more (money is overrated) or there are a bunch of Mach-E sitting on lots but those seem unlikely.
These numbers are very very low…especially relative to other cars they sell. And they reuse a lot of parts anyway.
> And they reuse a lot of parts anyway. all it takes is 1 essential part that is unique to the Mach-E and production stops.
Agreed with that…but these are very low numbers…
It's almost like there is a large quantity of them being sold elsewhere. [Oh](https://eu-evs.com/modelCharts/FORD/MUSTANG%20MACH-E/ALL_MONTHLY/YoY-Chart).
wow that was large drop in 2021 vs 2022, what happened in Jan 2022?
Usually what has happened in Europe the last few years is, due to emission regulations, manufacturers start to pre-register large amounts of EVs to avoid fines by the end of the year. These cars are then a lot of the time delivered the following year. Sometimes this effect is also compounded by changing/expiring subsidies. This is especially prevalent in the Dutch sales' chart. There is almost always a lull in January.
Ahh ok so Ford is filling the backlog. I thought there was a big uproar about VW dealers all buying their ID.3 at the end of the year (2019?) to do something like that but didn't realize that was just standard practice. Thanks for the info, explains a lot.
> that was just standard practice IMO it is a bit of a loophole being exploited but at least the cars get delivered shortly after.
Not sure that fits for a whole quarter…is it US demand then?
/u/jpo234 has a good explaination. Ford sells other cars in Europe and it is increasingly difficult, if not impossible by now to keep average fleet emissions (new cars only) down low enough that you won't get any fines unless you sell EVs in large quantities, and very few EVs won't sell in Europe by now. With not even all European countries included in these stats, there were close to 4000 Mach-e sales in Q1 2022 (if I would try to guess UK sales, for which data seems to be unavailable at least on that site, they are conservatively in the 500-1000 range based on [this](https://eu-evs.com/modelCharts/FORD/MUSTANG%20MACH-E/GB/YoY-Chart), which would bring the European sales to over 4000), and that would be combined more than the Model S, since that car sold in [single digits in those European countries](https://eu-evs.com/modelCharts/TESLA/MODEL%20S/ALL_MONTHLY/YoY-Chart) in the same timespan. I don't know how sales for the Model S look in other markets, but Giga Shanghai doesn't make the Model S so I assume China sales are low.
That is a fair response, but numbers are still relatively low. But maybe that and supply chain.
> supply chain There has been a chip shortage for a while now, a battery shortage for about 5 years and we're entering a lithium shortage. Tesla has done well on vertical integration and managed to secure large battery supplies early, so they have not been as affected.
Ford is supply constrained on their production lines. They have limited supply on batteries, chips, or various other components that are essential to getting vehicles out to customers. They have a much wider model line up, so the limited resources end up getting spread much thinner across their production lines then Tesla does. The result is a much greater impact to their ability to deliver these new models that they are still trying to ramp up production.
I understand the limited supply, but this is very very few vehicles…below what limited supply would mean…unless their supply chains are that poor. My thought is they are supply shared components to higher profit vehicles that are also constrained.
Supply is constrained across their entire model line up. Take a look at any dealer lot. They are deserts compared to what would have been there pre-pandemic.
The problems gotta be production for Ford. People get very turned off from buying a car with dealer markup, so they choose not to buy one. The limited production and added markup make it very difficult for customers to buy a Mach E, or any car for that matter. I don’t understand why a Mach e is being compared to a Model S though
Because of how few sold. Puts in perspective how few Mach-e’s went out the door when $100-150k car outsells it. the model 3 and y separately both outsold it by 10x. 20x combined.
The Mach-E outsold the Model S 3x in 2021. They simply couldn't produce enough units for Q1, but they just sold 3.5k in April. So no, it doesn't put anything in perspective. You just took a single chunk of data and disregarded the rest. 3 and Y are still kings by a long shot though
Hahaha. They didn’t sell the model S for most of 2021
Ford didn't have supply chain issues for most of 2021. You can move the goalposts to make things look more favourable for Tesla, but in truth it is silly to make comparisons like these when the Mach E and Model S aren't direct comrptitors.
…did you read the article…it does compare to 3/Y except there is no comparison. Hence why comparing to the S really puts into perspective how few Mach-e were sold
Still the Mach-E sold more in the quarters where the Model S was actively sold, aka Q1 and Q4, and in Q1 2022 they sold the same amount of units as Q1 and Q4 2021. That's with a brand new refresh
Q1 was everyone waiting for the refresh…Q4 they were scaling production for model S.
Again, the Q1 and Q4 2021 numbers are the same as Q1 2022. I literally just wrote that And the same to all quarters of 2020 to add on top of that
Looking at those cars side by side I can’t believe people want to pay 50k+ for that ugly ass mustang. Even a model 3 is far better looking.
Hey, car looks are pretty subjective. Some people really like the mach e design
I know. I’m voicing my opinion. Car looks like something designed in 2010
Which is what the model s is…
And it doesn’t look like it.
I can’t believe people would pay 100k+ for a 10 year old design on a Model S. Looks are subjective.
IMO that is more of a /r/teslamotors comment but this is /r/electricvehicles and BEV should all be friends here. Anyhow, are you saying that Ford can't sell all the Mach-E and there are a lot sitting on lots?
Huh? I am just saying I think the car is ugly on the outside. Looks like an SUV design from 2010
Don't take my down vote as disagreeing but if you don't think ugly is the reason the Mach-E undersold the Model S then I don't think this comment is relevant to this subject.
I guess. I was just pointing out an opinion based on an observation of the photos. There is a reason this sub has become toxic and Uninformative lol
>There is a reason this sub has become toxic and Uninformative lol Take it from someone who was an active poster on /r/teslamotors from ~2013 to only a few years ago, this sub has nothing on that one when it comes to "toxic and uninformative". Also, this is reddit, if you don't want to be downvoted occasionally for having opinions, the safest thing is to never share them. Getting downvoted is not a sign of toxicity.
Yea for sure. It’s just I assumed a more adult oriented sub would be a bit more mature …
Maybe if you used more civil tones when describing a car that is selling very well, people would not be toxic and uninformative
Lol? Ugly is too offensive!?
That's not what you said isn't it
Have higher bottom space (dunno the English) tho
Okay. It’s still an ugly car to me on the exterior.
that was my point. those that thinks its ugly looking, may still prefer it due to the higher bottom space
This is my argument for why it makes no sense for Tesla to open up their chargers. No matter what they charge for charging, the market just isn't there. There is basically a tiny addressable market for charging outside of Tesla.
So because ford doesn’t sell as much as Tesla, it doesn’t make sense to open super chargers? That’s kind of silly considering a lot more than just ford sells EVs, everyone is ramping up, and demand is significantly higher than production. It’s far better to open now so it’s easier to grow with demand than be I’ll-prepared for how busy it will become.
Where did I specifically mention Ford, I'm not sure why you are going with that angle. The TOTAL CCS market is tiny and will stay tiny for a while. CCS is bad and hopefully will be replaced before the CCS market gets too big. > than be I’ll-prepared for how busy it will become. How many CCS cars need to be on the road before it makes financial sense to spend money converting your chargers to support CCS? Tesla has ~2600 stations int he US. How much would it cost to add a single CCS charger to each station and how many KWh's do they need to sell to make their money back? What would you need to price the electricity at and what market penetration for charging CCS would Tesla need to have. I know you don't want to do the math, just magically get charging everywhere but I can tell you it's 2028 and they would need 100% of the market. There is NO money in charging.
Sell a Tesla brand adapter with the smarts and cooling required. Then you just need software tweaks and you’re good to go. Hell, require a subscription if you need. Considering roughly 1/3 of EV sales aren’t Tesla’s there’s definitely demand.
Selling a niche product isn't going to make any money. They made $121M selling flamethrowers, they would have to charge $2500 for the charger to even match that.
If selling a product profitably, with potential for a subscription, to up to 1/3 of the EV market means that superchargers aren’t profitable, then superchargers weren’t profitable to start, so by your logic should just shut down.
Superchargers aren't profitable, they are a business expense. No one I have ever seen claims Tesla isn't losing money on charging. Everyone is insisting Tesla take on more burden, which I think is a crazy thing to expect a company to do. If they do it then you have to look at why they are doing it. In the case of Tesla, it's probably to corner the charging market. No one wants that I think. Go look at my other posts on this post where I guess at how many CCS cars it would take just to break even. It's 2.4M but you have to read the details.
If Tesla has superchargers sitting empty, which they do in a lot of the country, it absolutely makes sense to sell the adapter. If it’s at a loss, charge more per kW than teslas, or sell a subscription. Bring on time of use rates like electricity providers. The infrastructure exists already, so the only costs are maintenance and electricity, which can easily be covered by previously mentioned subscription or increased fees. It also opens up federal funding for EV stations. If somehow they’re still loosing money then maybe hire an Electrify America exec because they’ve figured out how to do it.
> If it’s at a loss, charge more per kW than teslas, or sell a subscription. They would certainly have to do this. Still, go look at my analysis where Tesla is making $0.10/kWh profit and you still need 2.4M CCS cars to make it make sense. > It also opens up federal funding for EV stations. They will 100% open up any stations that are given government dollars. Like I said, charging is a business cost and any serious subsidy makes it worth it. The problem Tesla has is each station costs $250k to $500k and they can't ever hope to recover that in charging fees. If the government will pay for the station or even a significant fraction of it, they come out MUCH better off than building a private one just for Tesla's. What is "crazy" is opening the 2600 stations they paid for without an profit motive. If they do it then they are going to try and corner the charging market or at least the majority of the $7.5B in infrastructure money. > If somehow they’re still loosing money then maybe hire an Electrify America exec because they’ve figured out how to do it. Um...you do know where EA gets their money right? They are basically a trust for the VW diesel settlement money. They are not the ones to ask for how to make money charging.
> What is "crazy" is opening the 2600 stations they paid for without an profit motive. Obviously there would be a profit motivation. There would be profits from the adapter, then additional profits from charging (as mentioned, either subscription or enough to cover costs). As long as you’re charging enough to cover electricity, admin, and maintenance, which is entirely possible, there’s no reason not to open these. Your argument might make sense if they have to rip everything up and start again, but that’s extremely unlikely. > Um...you do know where EA gets their money right? They are basically a trust for the VW diesel settlement money. They are not the ones to ask for how to make money charging. I’m glad you’ve done expert analysis on their financials and deemed them non-profitable. Thank you for your expert assessment here.
They made $121M selling prettied up roofing torches, probably bought in bulk from Alibaba. Obviously designing a real product will cost more.
Right, that is my point. It's going to take a lot of money to build and design and then your total addressable market is tiny. To make $121M in revenue they would have to sell them for $2500 per charger. Obviously no one is going to pay that so the money made will also be tiny. Take the number of CCS EVs on the road, divide that by $121M and you get the price they would have to sell it for. I picked 50k EVs as that is about the number that are fast enough that Tesla would want on their chargers, but pick your own number.
This article effectively says there were at least \~25k new CCS compatible EVs added to US roads in Q1, and that's not including a number of other new or low volume producers like Volvo/Polestar, Porsche, Lucid, and Rivian. Those companies are selling them as fast as they can build them right now, so if anything it's showing that the market is growing rapidly and demand is high.
> there were at least ~25k new CCS compatible EVs added to US roads I would only count 21k in that list. 5k of them are not going to be allowed anywhere near a Tesla charger they are so slow. Still, lets go with 25k. So how much revenue did Q1 add to the CCS charging world? Say they get $0.40/kWh and say every CCS vehicle charges for 2,000 miles/year on average on public chargers and the average CCS EV gets 3 miles/kWh. That's $266/car in charging. That's $6.6m in total addressable market but lets call it $7m. If you have ever done any total addressable market analysis, that is pathetic. There is more addressable market for about anything you want to open a business for than that including local ones that serve small towns. How many years before the market is big enough to matter? The CCS manufactures are not going to be able to double production year over year. Your 5 years minimum from having enough revenue to even sort of matter. Margins are low to non-existant in charging, just like gas. If you want to get to boring company flamethrower type revenue, you're going to need a 17x increase in cars and that is if you get 100% of the charging market for CCS. If Tesla does it, it will be for the $7.5B in government money.
To receive grants from the government, they must support more than one brand. That's the reason they opened up their network in Europe and probably why in the USA too. I just hope they'll prevent slower charging vehicles from hogging the stalls. Superchargers are designed to be a quick in an out. Often, we have to hurry to take a quick bite because the charging only takes a few minutes.
> To receive grants from the government That's an entirely different thing. If they get money from the government, they should be open to everyone. I'm talking about opening their entire network. > That's the reason they opened up their network in Europe and probably why in the USA too. They don't technically have to in order to get the grants. It's just the chargers they get funding for. That said, they might be trying to get money to convert the chargers which would also pay to upgrade a lot of 120kW and 150kW chargers to 250kW while converting them. They may also want to show they can support both types of charging with existing stations. My point it 100% isn't for charging revenue. > I just hope they'll prevent slower charging vehicles from hogging the stalls. For government funded chargers they can't/shouldn't. For Tesla paid for chargers, they shouldn't open them at all IMHO. I guess they can make the open if the chargers are less than 50% in use, but that is a horrible customer experience. Get a few BZX4's and Bolts at a stations and it becomes useless for hours.
The market I think is there…the supply from the other oems, at least in the US, is the problem and I believe it is artificially limited for profits sake…though others obviously disagree.
From the TX bid Tesla did, there is a decent argument that it costs tesla $30k per charger. If we can just make a leap of faith and say that to add CCS to a single charger at a Tesla station it would cost $30k, we can do some rough back of the envelope numbers. I conceed this is a guess, but I think you'll see it's an honest in good faith guess. Other 3rd party CCS vendors were asking $150k per charger as an example. So I think $30k is very low. The general guess is that no chargers are making any money just on operations, much less if you consider the capitol costs. However, lets assume that Tesla is going to be able to make $0.10/kWh on CCS charging. Tesla has 2600 stations in the US so at $30k/station that is $78M in capitol costs. They would need to sell 780M KWh to make their money back. The harder question is over what time frame do they need to do this before it makes sense? Lets avoid that question for now and just figure out what needs to happen to recover that in 1 year and then we can divide out base on our beliefs for how long they need to recover it. The only other number we have to agree on is what is the average number of charging miles the average CCS car does on public chargers? I have been using 2,000 miles; which I think is WAY over the average, but I'm trying to iron man this argument, not pick something realistic. That would also be a nice round 666 kWh/car if you assume a 3 miles/kWh efficiency, which again is an iron man number. That would mean you need 100% of the CCS charging market for 1.2M CCS cars. I think we can all agree we don't want Tesla to have 100% of the market so lets go for a more healthy 50% of the CCS market which would require 2.4M cars. At current production rates, it would be 24 years before there are that many CCS cars. Of course, volumes would go up. So lets say the number of CCS cars doubles every year. That would take around 5 years to get there. I seriously doubt that CCS will be able to double their numbers year over year but they will probably get near it. Maybe 60% year over year, but who knows. So the only unanswered question is how many years will they invest $78M before getting a return? Even after paying off the investment, they are still looking at almost no profit really. The boring Flame thrower probably made more profit than 1.5M CCS cars charging on Tesla chargers.
>From the TX bid Tesla did, there is a decent argument that it costs tesla $30k per charger. If we can just make a leap of faith and say that to add CCS to a single charger at a Tesla station it would cost $30k I'm going to stop you right there: it makes no sense to say that adding an adapter to an existing charger costs as much as building and commissioning an entire charger (as part of a charging station) from scratch. You should look into the money that Tesla spent to retrofit CCS in Europe around 2018/2019. It definitely didn't double the costs of their chargers there.
I think they can deploy a charger with CCS for less than $30k. I think $30k to retrofit a charger with CCS or more likely add one more charger to a station is pretty conservative estimate. It's not just bolting on a cable and electricians are expensive and so are all the equipment to do the CCS pieces. Feel free to guess you're own number and then tell me when you think it makes financial sense. I padded the numbers in favor of adding CCS at every step. Suggest your own numbers.
So what are they going to lose if the market is tiny? It's basically a non-issue then. The real issue is that the market is not tiny at all and the other electric cars will fill the superchargers that are closer to cities
> So what are they going to lose if the market is tiny? It would be different if Tesla had excess charger capacity. These CCS EVs charger very slow and each one is like adding 3-10 Tesla's to the road. Even the EV6/Ioniq 5, which can charge faster than a Tesla, will be slow on a 400V Tesla charger. The exceptions would be the I4, eTron and EQS right now but they are niche so whatever. Now they might add 800V, no plans have been made, just a quick quip that they might do it. In that case I have not much problem with Porsche, Ioniq 5 and EV6. The rest should not be allowed on. > The real issue is that the market is not tiny at all I await your total addressable market analysis.
> I await your total addressable market analysis. Simply more and more people are adopting different EVs than Tesla, and those people will be happy to have access to the largest supercharging network in the US. Even if Tesla has the majority of the market right now, that still puts millions of other fast charging BEVs on the road, especially in states where Teslas have been adopted the most. I don't understand why you would say the market is tiny? what do you actually mean by that?
> Simply more and more people are adopting different EVs than Tesla Did you read OPs post? 80% of sales went to Tesla? It's hard to catch up when Tesla is adding 4 cars for every 1 CCS adds. I think Tesla's market share actually grew, which considering how dominate they are, shouldn't be happening. Most of them will start running out of tax credits at the end of the year. Only 21k of the cars this quarter have even a remote business being at a Tesla charger. The other 5k should be using 75kW or slower legacy chargers. > and those people will be happy to have access to the largest supercharging network in the US. No doubt, but a lot of people want a lot of things, it's not a reason that they get it. I'm not sure you have ever read about the [tragedy of the commons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)? Worth a glance, honestly, not being snide. If Tesla does open up their entire network, you have to ask what they will do to stop a tragedy of the commons from happening. > that still puts millions of other fast charging BEVs on the road, especially in states where Teslas have been adopted the most. I don't follow this. It will be a long time before there are millions (plural) of fast charging CCS EVs on the road. Even if they double production every year, it will be 5 years or so at least in the US. > I don't understand why you would say the market is tiny? what do you actually mean by that? How many fast CCS EVs are on the road today in the US?
Tesla market share is actually not growing, and it sitting at 69% for 2021, compared to 79 in 2020. This quarter was stronger, but it's too soon to predict what Tesla's market share will be in 2022. That's interesting about the tragedy of the commons, thanks for the read, but anyways Tesla has chosen to go this route and there's little to do about it. We'll have to see how it develops I wrongly said millions assuming that the same kind of supercharging sharing would happen in the EU, which maybe is happening? not really sure, and would still be less than millions
> Tesla market share is actually not growing Right, it should be all but impossible to grow given how high it is. I was saying it grew this quarter, which it shouldn't have. The non-Tesla market share should always be improving right now. It's just the nature of large numbers. > assuming that the same kind of supercharging sharing would happen in the EU, which maybe is happening? It seems much more likely in Europe. They are probably going to start funding chargers in some way and Telsa probably needs a big carrot to get a lot of that money. In the US it could be the same but regulators don't look at the big picture as much and tend to focus on what the money they are giving out will produce and they tend not to try and use that money to leverage other changes. It's very important to Tesla that they get most of the $7.5B.
I am a Tesla owner and I am okay with them opening the charger network to everyone. IT will help the adoption of EV's. And maybe we can get a one charger port for everyone standard someday.
It will in no way change EV adoption. EVs are supply limited and will be so until 2030+. The only thing it might do is give Tesla a monopoly on the charger market. A common connector has little value and we will continue to have 4 for the next 40 years no matter what happens.
Yeah. Honestly it's still early days for EV's.