Rawlinson Reveals Why Tesla Charge Ports are on Left Rear

[HC_79]

I’m not at all confused. I don’t like monopolies and wish a strong group of other automakers would have fielded a serious competitor to Tesla’s near monopoly on a vital piece of infrastructure.

EA, EVGo, ChargePoint, and others had ample time to prevent Tesla from becoming a monopoly, but they abysmally failed. If they had actually deployed reliable CCS networks, Tesla would have undoubtedly been compelled to switch to CCS rather than everyone else having to switch to NACS.

Tesla is currently deploying 20, 50, and 100 chargers at its sites, while the other companies still believe 6 to 8 chargers are sufficient. EA demonstrates that no traditional automaker has any place deploying mass-scale infrastructure.

 

[EVCar]

What kind of pressure was exacted on the charging industry by the auto manufacturers when the complaints from EV users were so deafening?
No one I knew was happy with the status quo.
I never saw any news report on what EA's obligation, responsibility, or promise was, to the court and, especially, to Lucid and all other manufactures who signed up with them.
Or maybe there was, but I just missed it.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

EA, EVGo, ChargePoint, and others had ample time to prevent Tesla from becoming a monopoly, but they abysmally failed. If they had actually deployed reliable CCS networks, Tesla would have undoubtedly been compelled to switch to CCS rather than everyone else having to switch to NACS.

Tesla is currently deploying 20, 50, and 100 chargers at its sites, while the other companies still believe 6 to 8 chargers are sufficient. EA demonstrates that no traditional automaker has any place deploying mass-scale infrastructure.

I completely agree with your post. That doesn’t mean I cannot wish it was different, right? Tesla’s charging network is light years ahead of everyone else’s, for sure.

 

[HC_79]

I completely agree with your post. That doesn’t mean I cannot wish it was different, right? Tesla’s charging network is light years ahead of everyone else’s, for sure.

Volkswagen was sitting on a goldmine and squandered it. They could have turned a punishment into a win by monopolizing the charging market with every non-Tesla vehicle. Instead, they did what was expected of them with their tails between their legs.

If anyone is seeking someone to blame for the widespread adoption of NACS, blame Volkswagen.

 

[hmp10]

I’m not at all confused. I don’t like monopolies and wish a strong group of other automakers would have fielded a serious competitor to Tesla’s near monopoly on a vital piece of infrastructure.

The problem is that the legacy automakers who had the financial means to collaborate on building a CCS infrastructure were too on-again-off-again in their commitment to EVs in the first place. Every time they hit a road bump, they panicked and pulled the plug, literally and figuratively. And they're still doing it today. Tesla was dependent on a robust charging infrastructure for its very survival and had no choice but to go there. Unlike Tesla, which essentially had the whole potential BEV market to itself for several years, the only other two all-BEV automakers who got a toehold in getting over the entry barriers to auto manufacturing -- Rivian and Lucid -- arrived after a dominant player was already in place. And they did not garner the first-mover interest from retail investors that Tesla did.

 

[msaunders9430]

Nick's response makes me wonder if others had concerns about Peter's interview statement about the 20/80 strategy.
Perhaps not.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

Nick's response makes me wonder if others had concerns about Peter's interview statement about the 20/80 strategy.
Perhaps not.


View attachment 26603

Yup sounds like a bit of necessary..."walk back" / clarification IMHO...

 

[hmp10]

There are so many ways to think about Rawlinson's 80/20 remarks that it makes my head spin.

In one way, it could be looked at as simply a re-emphasizing of Atieva's original business model of supplying state-of-the-art technology components to vehicle manufacturers.

It could also be looked at as part of a strategy to bring the whole industry along faster and further in the quest to make global transportation more energy efficient. Spreading Lucid technology into multiple brands moves the ball much further than just trying to do it off a single brand platform.

The dual mission of being a multi-brand source for automotive technology while also trying to build a business as a single-brand manufacturer could also contain an element of nostalgia for the days when cars were great driving machines first and foremost instead of the increasingly gaudy mobile computers some storied brands are becoming. (I still remain in awe of how good a job Rawlinson and the team he assembled have done of bringing old-style driving magic into the EV realm. I suspect Rawlinson, hardcore "car guy" that he is, simply doesn't have faith than anyone else in the industry will do it if he doesn't. For all the talk of efficiency and environment, tossing a car along a canyon road seems to be his deepest and most-enduring love.)

And maybe this is also the voice of the Saudis coming through. If they hope to use Lucid to help move them beyond an oil economy, they need more than just a car brand to do it. They need tentacles spreading throughout the broader industry, and powertrain technology would be those tentacles. This, more than owning a car brand, may be the reason they keep the money taps open for Lucid.

 

[Ughwhy]

I don't get all the hate at having to back into Tesla chargers. Unless the charger is designed as drive-through charging, you'll have to back-out one way or another (i.e. either when you arrive at the site or when you leave the site). In some ways, backing into the site is easier than backing out. For me, I don't really care, its the same distance traveled in reverse either way.

 

[hmp10]

I don't get all the hate at having to back into Tesla chargers. Unless the charger is designed as drive-through charging, you'll have to back-out one way or another (i.e. either when you arrive at the site or when you leave the site). In some ways, backing into the site is easier than backing out. For me, I don't really care, its the same distance traveled in reverse either way.

It's for the same reason that some parking lots have signs prohibiting back-in parking. You're more likely to sideswipe another car backing into a space between two cars than backing out into a travel lane. Especially in Florida, where sideswiping cars while parking is almost an Olympic event.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

There are so many ways to think about Rawlinson's 80/20 remarks that it makes my head spin.

In one way, it could be looked at as simply a re-emphasizing of Atieva's original business model of supplying state-of-the-art technology components to vehicle manufacturers.

It could also be looked at as part of a strategy to bring the whole industry along faster and further in the quest to make global transportation more energy efficient. Spreading Lucid technology into multiple brands moves the ball much further than just trying to do it off a single brand platform.

The dual mission of being a multi-brand source for automotive technology while also trying to build a business as a single-brand manufacturer could also contain an element of nostalgia for the days when cars were great driving machines first and foremost instead of the increasingly gaudy mobile computers some storied brands are becoming. (I still remain in awe of how good a job Rawlinson and the team he assembled have done of bringing old-style driving magic into the EV realm. I suspect Rawlinson, hardcore "car guy" that he is, simply doesn't have faith than anyone else in the industry will do it if he doesn't. For all the talk of efficiency and environment, tossing a car along a canyon road seems to be his deepest and most-enduring love.)

And maybe this is also the voice of the Saudis coming through. If they hope to use Lucid to help move them beyond an oil economy, they need more than just a car brand to do it. They need tentacles spreading throughout the broader industry, and powertrain technology would be those tentacles. This, more than owning a car brand, may be the reason they keep the money taps open for Lucid.

GREAT POST!

 

[momo3605]

It's for the same reason that some parking lots have signs prohibiting back-in parking. You're more likely to sideswipe another car backing into a space between two cars than backing out into a travel lane. Especially in Florida, where sideswiping cars while parking is almost an Olympic event.

There are also some parking areas that are mandatory back-in only in CA too. It goes both ways lol