[beatgammit]

Yeah, there are plenty of avenues for Tesla to increase profit, such as:

- new vehicle markets (def. semi trucks, perhaps boats and trains as well) - solar - military

They don't have a ton of baggage like their competitors, so they can pivot their battery business in a variety of ways without too much additional investment.

The real question is if they can stay ahead of competition as they expand.

[lazyjones]

> The real question is if they can stay ahead of competition as they expand.

So far they have not only expanded their lead (e.g. Nissan Leaf used to be a bestseller), they've also proven that they got their priorities right from the start. Look at the new Audi e-tron, the Mercedes GLC and the i-Pace: they're all suffering from horrible aerodynamics that cost them 20% or more range at freeway speeds compared to Teslas. They have no fast charging networks able to support similar sales numbers even to Model S/X. Tesla apparently did proper planning while the big car makers are just trying to produce their usual cars with electric engines. They are now making expensive mistakes that Tesla avoided altogether, so I'm confident about Tesla's leadership.

[gamblor956]

Nissan has sold nearly every Leaf it has ever made. It simply doesn't make many of them, since it was first intended to be a compliance car and a loss leader for the brand.

You can't even buy a Leaf in most of the country, so if you were to scale up sales of the Leaf to the same geographic territory as Tesla sells to, the sales would be about comparable.

Tesla apparently did proper planning while the big car makers are just trying to produce their usual cars with electric engines.

Ah, proper planning. That certainly explains the billion-dollar line collecting dust, the year-long delay on every model, and their inability to properly deliver finished cars to their customers when promised (i.e., basic logistics). The cars you've mentioned aren't meant to have maximum range at high speeds; they're meant to have X range at commuter speeds while providing a luxurious ride. You'll also have to demonstrate (with cites) that the aerodynamics will cost them 20% of posted range, since those aerodynamics have already been factored into their range as part of the federally-mandated testing.

[lazyjones]

> and their inability to properly deliver finished cars to their customers when promised (i.e., basic logistics).

What are you even talking about? I bought my Model S 2 years ago and waited the same amount of time as for the previous BMW (3 months), which didn't even come from overseas (I'm in Europe).

> The cars you've mentioned aren't meant to have maximum range at high speeds; they're meant to have X range at commuter speeds while providing a luxurious rid

And this is why they are no Tesla competitors for most people - who don't want or can't afford a second car for long distances.

> You'll also have to demonstrate (with cites) that the aerodynamics will cost them 20% of posted range

Lots of people have, it's simple physics. At higher speeds, air resistance causes most of the energy consumption. The results can be calculated easily:

https://www.ecalc.ch/evcalc.php?lang=en

130 Km/h (= 80 mph)

Model S = 22 KWh/100 Km

Mercedes EQC = 30 KWh/100 Km

i-Pace = 28,5 KWh/100 Km

[ams6110]

The fast charging network only exists in a few areas. If you happen to live there, great. But for the rest of the country, "range anxiety" is still pretty real.