Correct. Tesla just closed another record quarter. And BYD just surpassed them as the largest EV producer in the world. Both of those things are true because the overall market keeps on growing very rapidly. Which means Tesla can break it's own records and yet not be the largest anymore because another company is growing even faster.
We're in a major economic down turn because of things like global pandemics and other macro economic events like the conflict in the Ukraine. Yet, this has barely impacted the growth of the EV market.
The article is rehashing the myth spread by traditional car manufacturers that the reason they are selling so few EVs is that nobody wants EVs. Which is patently false. More people bought EVs last year than any year before. Just not from them.
The actual reason they are producing so few EVs is that they are struggling to produce them cost effectively. There is no demand problem if they price them right. But if they do that, they actually loose money on the few EVs that they do produce. The reasons for all this are complicated and relate to their outdated manufacturing and supply lines that are optimized for their now obsolete ICE vehicles. They can build EVs but they just aren't very good at it yet. Too many parts. Too many suppliers. Too slow to assemble them. Lots of supply chain issues to source batteries, chips. Lots of issues with software. Etc. They are basically about 5-8 years behind technically.
Tesla, BYD, and others don't have these issues because they built their EV manufacturing from scratch and have been optimizing how that works for the last ten years. Tesla became profitable about six years ago (and ridiculously so). BYD has been growing in China and started expanding internationally only recently. Both are profitable and rapidly growing market share. And they are now able to produce vehicles much more cheaply and are waging a price war that pushes prices down for everyone else too.
And its about to get worse as they are getting ready to mass produce cheap (<~25K$) EVs by the millions. All the signs are that 1) this is actually happening in the next 2-3 years 2) there are exactly zero signs of demand challenges whatsoever for any of those vehicles 3) this will start decimating the market for traditional ICE vehicles and 4) This will continue relentlessly beyond 2026 until there's nothing left of that market; probably by the mid to late 2030s or so.
So, yes the article, and the site it's on are not great. To put it mildly.
Food delivery drivers in our area are from what I've noticed mostly using scooters. Because in traffic they can get one where in half the time; not to mention costing less to own and operate then even a Prius.
That said when my partner and I see a Prius it's synonymous with Uber i.e. that Uber just cut me up.
I have noticed that the MG5 is making in roads though as the electric taxi of choice.
>Tesla, BYD, and others don't have these issues because they built their EV manufacturing from scratch and have been optimizing how that works for the last ten years.
The fact that Tesla and BYD don't have large, entrenched, auto unions to deal with is the biggest factor in keeping costs low.
GM produced the first modern EV, then recalled and scrapped them all. Nissan was far ahead of Tesla (on sales) with the Leaf.
Both could have easily won the race if they had tried, with the massive financial instruments they had availability, compared to tiny Tesla. Instead, they kept them as compliance cars because they 'had' to and continued to push for larger gas guzzling models with more profit.
I guess the financial analysts saying similar things are also dumb?
>This is all "a potential nightmare situation for GM and Ford," Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a note to clients this month. Any threat to supply would also inevitably diminish year-end production and inventory, chipping away at holiday season deals.
>Tesla, which does not use union labor, is situated to benefit from any work stoppage at competitors, especially at a time when the industry is pushing harder into electric vehicles, Ives said.
>"Tesla does not face similar issues which speaks to the complexity both GM and Ford face going up against the EV leader Tesla, while trying to satisfy rising union demands," Ives said. "If a strike happens then ultimately production and the EV roadmap could be pushed out into 2024 and delays would be on the horizon at this crucial period for GM, Ford, and Stellantis."
Try Google. Refer to quarterly reports by mentioned companies. There's also some fun comments from the likes of CEOs of VW and other companies commenting on the undisputed lead in manufacturing that Tesla has over them. VW actually used this as a reason to motivate some recent layoff rounds. There are lots of other reports.
It's a fact that the large automaker unions like UAW are not present in Tesla operations. It's also a fact that BYD has no North American operations and obviously UAW doesn't operate in China.
Do you think the presence of UAW makes a car manufacturer more or less cost efficient?
>This is all "a potential nightmare situation for GM and Ford," Wedbush analyst Dan Ives said in a note to clients this month. Any threat to supply would also inevitably diminish year-end production and inventory, chipping away at holiday season deals.
>Tesla, which does not use union labor, is situated to benefit from any work stoppage at competitors, especially at a time when the industry is pushing harder into electric vehicles, Ives said.
>"Tesla does not face similar issues which speaks to the complexity both GM and Ford face going up against the EV leader Tesla, while trying to satisfy rising union demands," Ives said. "If a strike happens then ultimately production and the EV roadmap could be pushed out into 2024 and delays would be on the horizon at this crucial period for GM, Ford, and Stellantis."
IDK who's downvoting you. We've been in "Schrodinger's recession" for the last 3 years. Everybody has been accurately predicting the other shoe falling every single day while SPY is breaking records and the outlook on inflation looks like a successful soft landing.
We're in a major economic down turn because of things like global pandemics and other macro economic events like the conflict in the Ukraine. Yet, this has barely impacted the growth of the EV market.
The article is rehashing the myth spread by traditional car manufacturers that the reason they are selling so few EVs is that nobody wants EVs. Which is patently false. More people bought EVs last year than any year before. Just not from them.
The actual reason they are producing so few EVs is that they are struggling to produce them cost effectively. There is no demand problem if they price them right. But if they do that, they actually loose money on the few EVs that they do produce. The reasons for all this are complicated and relate to their outdated manufacturing and supply lines that are optimized for their now obsolete ICE vehicles. They can build EVs but they just aren't very good at it yet. Too many parts. Too many suppliers. Too slow to assemble them. Lots of supply chain issues to source batteries, chips. Lots of issues with software. Etc. They are basically about 5-8 years behind technically.
Tesla, BYD, and others don't have these issues because they built their EV manufacturing from scratch and have been optimizing how that works for the last ten years. Tesla became profitable about six years ago (and ridiculously so). BYD has been growing in China and started expanding internationally only recently. Both are profitable and rapidly growing market share. And they are now able to produce vehicles much more cheaply and are waging a price war that pushes prices down for everyone else too.
And its about to get worse as they are getting ready to mass produce cheap (<~25K$) EVs by the millions. All the signs are that 1) this is actually happening in the next 2-3 years 2) there are exactly zero signs of demand challenges whatsoever for any of those vehicles 3) this will start decimating the market for traditional ICE vehicles and 4) This will continue relentlessly beyond 2026 until there's nothing left of that market; probably by the mid to late 2030s or so.
So, yes the article, and the site it's on are not great. To put it mildly.