Every automaker is pruning its electric car offerings just a little bit or, at least, delaying the rollout of certain vehicles to certain markets. Honda, which briefly sold one of the more popular EVs in the United States as recently as last year, has announced it’s taking a $15 billion charge related to EV development and, most shockingly, killing the next three electric vehicles it had planned for the United States.
Honda made a big show last January of showing off two different electric car prototypes: the Honda 0 Saloon and the Honda 0 SUV. These are futuristic, wedge-y, very Honda-style electric vehicles meant to pick up demand from the built-by-GM Honda Prologue. Importantly, the vehicles were to built in Honda’s Marysville, Ohio plant in order to take advantage of Inflation Reduction Act-related credits. Joining them would be the 2026 Acura RSX, an EV crossover with the name of the old Integra replacement.
None of that is happening now, according to the annual financial announcement from Honda:
In order to improve the current earnings situation as early as possible, Honda considered various options; however, after careful consideration, the company made the decision to cancel the development and market launch of three EV models that had been planned for production in the U.S., namely the Honda 0 SUV, Honda 0 Saloon, and Acura RSX. Honda determined that starting production and sales of these three models in current business environment where the demand for EVs is declining significantly would likely result in further losses over the long term.
Based on this decision, Honda now expects to record 1) write-off and impairment losses on tangible and intangible assets that were intended to be used for the production of these three EV models, as well as 2) losses related to additional expenses resulting from the cancellation of the development and sales of these models.
There is a lot here. First of all, Honda is probably right. None of the electric vehicles planned here were likely to create positive cash flow for the company anytime soon, especially without government assistance. In particular, the 0 SUV and Saloon were so strange and probably so expensive that it wouldn’t make sense.
The Acura RSX is the bigger surprise. Acura dealers have been clamoring for new products, and while a new SUV probably isn’t what they wanted, at least it’s something. Given that these products were intended to be built in Ohio, it’s an open question of what will be built there now. Here’s a hint from Honda:
In light of the recent slowdown in the growth of the EV market in the U.S., Honda will reassess its resource allocations and further strengthen its hybrid models.
Is this just more hybrid development for Ohio? Will Honda pull back from more investment in the United States as Japan weighs whether the investment is worth it, especially considering the tariff decision by the Supreme Court and higher energy costs in Japan?
The timing of this, of course, is terrible. The world is potentially at the start of a new energy crisis and that might drive more people to seek efficient cars. Right now, Honda has the most popular hybrid in America with the CR-V and plenty of popular hybrid versions of other models. The company is already winding down the Prologue and will have maybe nothing to replace it.
Seeing as how the Prologue was mostly General Motors underneath, the 0 saloon and 0 SUV were meant to be Honda’s first real foray into the North American electric vehicle market. Not only that, but the cars were supposed to spearhead the company’s new corporate design scheme, as well as its new, next-generation operating system, ASIMO OS. The 0 duo was also expected to be Honda’s path to introducing its Level 3 automated driving tech, which it describes as fully eyes-off, to the public.
After all the hype around these vehicles from Honda, the sudden change is going to be discouraging for any customers or employees who worked on the development which, at least in the case of the RSX, seemed to be far along. Honda CEO Toshihiro Mibe agreed, according to Nikkei Asia:
“I’m fully aware of the passion poured in by many employees, business partners and sales staff, as well as the high expectations expressed by our customers,” Mibe said, admitting the three models were hardly viable under current market conditions.
Clearly, Honda didn’t think it was worth it in the long term to keep trying to make electric cars a thing. My next question is: Will Honda and Sony keep trying to pursue the Afeela 1 EV or is that another dream that doesn’t make sense? What will happen to the company’s “EV Hub” in Ohio?
While the specifics of Honda’s Marysville facility are not out, Automotive News is reporting that the company will try to shift its battery plans into making more hybrids:
Honda said it will channel its electrification resources into hybrids. A new hybrid powertrain and automated driving system are under development for commercialization after 2027, Executive Vice President Noriya Kaihara said.
In North America, Honda will expand its local procurement ratio of components and vehicles for this upcoming hybrid lineup, he said. Honda will also explore shifting battery output in North America from electric vehicle batteries to hybrid batteries at its local joint venture with LG.
The company may also divert some of that production to storage batteries.
“We will put the automotive business back onto a growth track,” Kaihara said.
That is not as easy as it sounds and takes time. Kaihara estimated it won’t be until 2028 for Honda to fully start to feel the impacts of those changes.
Update: it sounds like the folks at Sony Mobility/Afeela were also surprised by this news.
Nothing wrong with hybrids, but brands that don’t try to make/sell desirable EVs when it’s not absolutely necessary to so do now will be at a disadvantage when it is necessary in the future. So, I wish Honda would keep it’s toe in the water.
Counter to this thinking, my wife is starting to come around to replacing our old shitboxes with a new-ish EV because of the current energy crisis and the fact that I cannot possibly see it improving in the coming months. The best thing would probably be to consume less energy,petroleum or otherwise,but I cannot see that happening worldwide either.
More hybrids makes sense right this moment.
Of course they did. We have an administration that is actively hostile toward EVs and has made it fiscally irresponsible to manufacture anything here, because now there are tariffs on the way in and retaliatory tariffs on the way out. Apparently aluminum cost is at all time highs, so even if you planned to keep all of these in the US it would still be stupid expensive.
FAFO.
USA still doing everything it can to ruin the progressive industries that it created itself.
Were always #1 at shooting our own selves in the foot.
This is not surprising, given how we (the US) have regressed our car regulations (along with energy regulations) 10-20 years. Meanwhile, the rest of the world moves forward.
If this trend continues, in 10 years there will be no electric car production in the US (except for niche/high-end cars). Or EV market, for that matter. We’ll only have ICE and hybrids available, which will be seen as obsolete by most other car markets, and thus, unexportable.
As a consumer, I will miss out on (even more of) the cool cars the rest of the world will get. That makes me sad, somehow.
I really think your fears are unfounded. Just look at the solar industry – the Trump administration is cutting subsidies left and right, but energy investors are still building out solar farms because solar power with battery banks is the cheapest way to generate energy. Market forces have made solar the best financial investment regardless of what politicians think of it.
The same will happen with EVs. Batteries will get cheaper, and soon, companies will realize they can make more profit selling EVs because the time and cost to manufacturer is way lower than ICE/hybrid vehicles.
That doesn’t mean the US won’t be left out of the best, most compelling EVs on the market. We already are, which is a shame. But I just don’t think market forces will allow EVs to disappear completely. We’re quickly reaching a tipping point where having a selection of EVs will essentially be a mandatory business decision.
You realize solar is largely so cheap because of years of investment into the technology by foreign governments, right? As a result, the US is a net consumer of solar, not a producer of solar panels.
If the same happens with EVs, what does that mean for out domestic car brands?
This aligns with my thoughts (and fears).
Perhaps my prediction on there being no EV market is overly pessimistic. But I still think there will be little domestic manufacture of EVs – we’ll be importing most of them.
And if the regulatory environment continues as is, we won’t be importing as many of them.
I hope I am wrong on this, though. Honestly. As a country, it’d be better if we are not left out of the EV part of the industry.
Nothing will stop EV’s from becoming more common in the future unless there is a technological breakthrough in non electric propulsion.
This is how I read their PR statement: In order to improve the current situation after the Titanic hit the iceberg as early as possible, Honda considered various options; however, after careful consideration, the company made the decision to cancel the deployment of Titanic’s lifeboats that had been planned for. Honda determined that starting deployment of the lifeboats in current environment where the deck is not declining significantly would likely result in further scaring our customers over the long term.
Interestingly, this is pretty much how it happened during the actual sinking of the Titanic
Did it work?
(Hint: It never works)
Where was this level of hysteria?When gas was over eight dollars, a gallon and inflation hit double digits under joe biden.
Lol.
Where are you that gas was $8/gal? Inflation hit double-digits because (and during) pandemic.
In Death Valley CA is one of the only places that I know hit +$8/gallon.
Last time I was there it was back down in the fives.
There’s only enough power charging capacity and raw materials for batteries to replace 10% of the internal combustion engines on the road. So who wants to give up their vehicle?
Electric vehicles were always a bridge to nowhere.
The real plan is you’re going to own nothing and love it. You’re not going to have a car, be it electric or internal combustion engine.
Lol…wakey wakey
Source? And so how are other countries *cough*China*cough* managing? The US has plenty of power, we just need more transformers to handle the demand.
Good for them. Nothing wrong with EVs, but they will never completely replace ICE. Hybirds are the way.
I’ve never actually wanted a downvote button on the Autopian until this comment.
Looking at how the rest of the world is progressing, and how we’re sliding backwards, there’s only one common denominator. And it was completely avoidable back in November of 2024.
Hardly. Without that common denominator, we were already 90% of the way here. Other people/events could have pushed us to a very similar place. This society has been hanging by many sparse threads for decades such that cutting one of them would result in collapse. It doesn’t justify anything this common denominator does, but this common denominator is not the source of all of the world’s problems. The problems are systemic.
At least China is pushing forward with its plans for thorium reactor powered container ships:
https://interestingengineering.com/transportation/thorium-powered-nuclear-cargo-ship
Decarbonizing that sector of transportation, especially of HFO is a good move forward.
The country isn’t the way it is because he’s in office. He’s in office because the country is the way it is.
That hits deep.
My goodness, how short-sighted these legacy automakers are. New cars are typically in development for around a decade before launching, and Honda is cancelling three new EVs because of four years of temporary insanity?
This reminds me of how all the domestic automakers stopped making fuel efficient cars for big, expensive, thirsty SUVs right before the 2008 financial crisis hit.
Regardless of what incentives are available, EVs are going to become cheaper to manufacturer than ICE cars in the very near future as battery chemistries improve by leaps and bounds. They already are significantly easier to manufacturer and component cost sans batteries is way lower than a comparable ICE/hybrid.
Once inevitable market forces make EVs the more attractive option for most car buyers, Honda is going to be caught dead in the water with nothing compelling to offer.
It’s been pretty interesting to watch the last 10 years play out.
For whatever reason, automakers decided to abandon gas engines entirely instead of bringing EV products to market alongside gas cars. This was bad idea #1.
Naturally, when an oil-friendly president took office, they all canceled EV plans entirely instead of continuing to offer different modes of power to customers. Bad idea #2
Lo and behold, that same president started a war for his own reasons that’s destabilizing gas prices. Now no one has any EVs to appeal to weary customers.
It’s amazing how companies refuse to plan further ahead than the next quarter.
Yep! I am all for EVs, but watching every company bend over backwards with plans to go all-electric in the next 5 years or whatever during the Biden administration was insane. Like, obviously that was never going to happen.
Weirdly, the only car companies that seem to be planning for the future and not knee-jerk reacting to shifting political winds are EV startups.
…and of the more well-known ones, I can only take Aptera and Slate seriously with regard to their design philosophy. If the vehicle isn’t designed to be economically/easily repaired and isn’t designed to be fuel efficient, then what’s the point? These tech-bloated luxobarge SUVs and 9,000 lb trucks destined to end up as landfill fodder aren’t doing anything positive for the environment, and aren’t saving consumers any money vs ICE, both key traits in the supposed justification for switching over.
Tesla and Lucid IMO have the best products currently available in the USA from the standpoint mentioned above, and it’s a very low bar to beat them. The Chinese can beat them with sub-$15k offerings.
Once again proving my thesis that the only company that knows what they’re doing is Toyota.
I may have missed the bit, but are any of these canceled for good or only for the US?
I was wondering the same thing. Given that they were to be manufactured in the US, I am guessing they are cancelled altogether.
I’m starting to think that the Way to automotive company success in the mid-long term is to do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.
“Making decisions today based on yesterday’s events that will be overrun by tomorrow’s news” doesn’t appear to be a path to lasting success.
I think Toyota is an example of what you are talking about.
Biden: Let’s switch to EVs, here’s tons of incentives!
Nearly every Industry: We are building new battery factories and making new EVs
Toyota: I’m going put hybrids in my entire lineup.
Trump: EVS suck, let’s stop incentives! Is there a way to run a car on Coal?
Nearly everyone else: Crap, I spent a fortune on making a new factory and I’m in deep trouble, I have to stop making my new factory.
Toyota: My hybrids are selling well, so I’m going to start getting into EVs now.
I would guess that Toyota is thinking that at some point in the future, there will be an administration that is EV friendly. If incentives come back, Toyota will have fully developed EVs. They can afford to go into EVs during the current administration because they are making money with the Hybrids.
+
÷2
=
I’m starting to think that the Way to automotive company success in the mid-long term is to do
the oppositeofwhateveryone else I thinkToyotais an example of what you are talking aboutis doing…?At my work, which has nothing to do with automotive stuff, we have regular classes studying what Toyota does. We have a lot of processes that have Japanese names, because they are cribbed from Toyota.
The Toyota way is very much a big thing in the country in many industries.
I guess you can be off the beat with everyone else either by going ahead or by going behind…
I think you can be both ahead and behind the way things work in the US right now.
I expect that as a result, the likelihood of a return to EV incentives in or around 2030 or so is high. Since it takes time to design a car and to get the factories humming to make quality versions, I think today would be a good time to focus on designing a next generation EV that will be a good seller, assuming incentives will come back by the time the car hits the market.
At the same time, starting in 2030 when incentives come back would be a bad idea. The reason is that by the time the car is in production, it will be close to the end of the 2nd term of the president that puts incentives back into place and the president that will replace him/her is likely going to strip the EV incentives.
“Thanks, Obama!” I mean… TRUMP.
The key phrase being “as gas prices rise”. I’ve said for a while now that we are only one gas price spike away from wider EV adoption and now here we are. But will American’s bite? Guess we’ll see how deep this crisis goes.
Well if the crisis is big enough no one will be able to afford new cars anyway so…
That is a distinct possibility. A rather large(r) recession is looming.
If affordability of transportation is an issue, the last thing someone should be doing is buying a brand new car. Run what you brung. $500 monthly payments buys a shit ton of gasoline. That’s $6000 a year. At, 25mpg and 15,000 miles per year, gasoline can cost $10/gallon before you reach a $6000/year fuel bill.
People with affordability on their mind are probably driving a vehicle that gets better than 25 mpg. Afterall, the world has had a 50mpg Prius for 20 years.
My hot take: EVs were just a ploy to sell more cars as the average age of vehicles on the road keeps rising and that’s bad for the industry. Show people a shiny penny and they might bite. But when finances are actually stressed, it never pays to buy a new car.
You are correct that it almost never makes financial sense to buy a new, more efficient vehicle versus keeping a less efficient vehicle that is paid off.
However, everyone needs to replace their cars eventually. If petrol prices remain elevated, more people will take a good hard look at EVs, especially as they reach price parity with ICE vehicles, when the time comes to get a new car.
I ran the numbers on my situation, too. I have a 2016 Mazda6. 99k miles, paid-off, good condition, averaging 27 MPG with mostly city driving and a short commute. I’m a perfect use-case for a cheaper, used EV. But, replacing the paid-for Mazda (worth around $10k as a trade-in on a good day) with something I’d have to start making payments on again doesn’t make good financial sense. Even if that newer something saves gas by not using any. So, the Mazda stays.
Yep, that makes perfect sense. Once the Mazda becomes reaches the point where it genuinely needs replacement, that’s the time to consider an EV.
Also, I helped a friend buy a manual transmission Mazda 6 a few years ago. It was freaking awesome! The clutch and shifter were sooo nice and I thought the interior punched above its class too.
Theres also the fact that electricity is free. Its not. Im not anti EV or anything, just a realist. Ive seen some shockingly high when rates for EV charging. If you can do it from home, it could be an advantage, but it really isnt for everyone’s situation.
Depends if AI spikes electricity prices too.
This is proof that we live in the worst timeline. Anytime any manufacturer hints at producing something that’s not just another boring, same looking, common SUV/crossover, cancel culture kills it.
That’s okay with me. First of all, they both looked weird to me.
Second, Honda is making a mistake by starting out with smaller/mainstream model right from the start… which is a guaranteed way to lose money. New tech like an all new BEV platform is expensive. The way to NOT lose money is to start with a high end/high margin product.
Third, their size and positioning would mean overlap with existing ICE and hybrid models.
In my opinion, their first BEV should start with a high end/high performance/lower volume product… preferably a luxury product.
So I say Honda should come out with an all-new electric Honda/Acura Legend.
And also make an SUV version… call it the SLX for Acura and the new Prologue (or maybe call it the Epilogue?) for Honda.
Doing that way gives Acura a flagship sedan and SUV and little to no product overlap.
And theoretically once they have these in production, they can figure out ways to take the cost out of the design and start working on smaller/cheaper versions of these top end models… and being able to do it while also making money on them.
This is basically the Tesla playbook that so many automakers (such as Ford) idiotically refuse to follow… and thus, lose shitloads of money. Only these days, they can’t idiotically say it’s “impossible to make money on BEVs” like they did in the past given how Tesla is making money on BEVs.
I don’t agree with this take.
From a product planning perspective, the “start with high-end EVs first” strategy has actually failed repeatedly.
Ford F-150 Lightning? Cancelled. Rivian? Similar boat–waiting for a cheaper model to save the company from the huge losses on the big boys.
Stellantis also leaned more heavily on high-end EVs: Jeep Wagoneer S and Jeep Recon. Both are dead on arrival.
Meanwhile, General Motors tried an entire range of EVs and what did they ultimately come back to? The cheapest one of all, the Chevrolet Bolt EV. It’s one of the most successful EVs in the US because it’s simple and relatively cheap. That’s where the market is right now in this economy.
If GM took the Bolt platform, chopped the back off, and turned it into a small two-seat EV pickup for under $30,000 it would outsell a lot of these big, expensive EVs. Most people don’t need a giant car and most people don’t want a giant car.
Honda should’ve just made an EV Fit.
I agree with you when it comes to legacy manufacturers, but I have to assume the reason why startups like Rivian don’t start out producing affordable vehicles is because affordable vehicle have mass-market appeal, and it is much more difficult to produce 20,000 sub $50k cars than it is to produce 5,000 over $100k cars.
Remember, Tesla started with the Model S, which was quite expensive, and later introduced the more affordable Models 3 and Y, which worked out quite well for them.
Wrong. Tesla started with the Roadster. A lightweight Lotus chassis.
That’s sort of a silly argument. The Roadster was an extremely compromised vehicle that sold less than 2,500 vehicles overall. It was more of a proof of concept. The Model S was Tesla’s first mass-market vehicle.
Right. It WAS a proof of concept in order to learn how to make electric propulsion viable and they scaled those learnings to build a more feature filled vehicle.
“Ford F-150 Lightning?”
No… the F-150 Lightning is not an example of the high end vehicle I speak of. Both the Lightning and the Mach E are design kludges based on ICE vehicle platforms. Watch the original Mach E teardown videos Munro did and they had a comparison of the cooling system components between the Mach E and the Model Y… and the Mach E had a bunch of unnecessary/redundant shit that essentially drove up the cost WITHOUT providing a real benefit.
“Rivian? Similar boat”
Rivian is where Tesla was right before the release of the Model 3/Y
A company needs a certain amount of sales to be able to cover all the overhead.
For years prior to the 3/Y, Tesla “lost money”… but the S and the X were actually profitable. Just that they didn’t make enough profit to cover all the corporate overhead costs… which included the money being spent on future products.
Unlike Tesla though, Rivian tried to make money while relying on outside suppliers for key stuff like drive motors.
That doesn’t work for the same reason large automakers don’t rely on outside suppliers (except for niche cases) to build their engines.
Vertical integration is important at this stage of BEV development.
That’s why over the past two years, Rivian designed and started building their own electric motors and was able to reduce the cost of building their products greatly… and thus, their finances have been improving.
And with the R2 vehicles ramping, by this time next year, they should have enough critical mass/revenue to start showing a bottom line profit.
“Jeep Wagoneer S and Jeep Recon.”
The Wagoneer S… the Wagoneer that should have been called the Cherokee based on the size alone… and with a nonsense name… and put in the middle of a product line where it has tons of overlap.
On top of that, Stellantis’ execution of their new BEVs was lacking.
Nah… these are NOT an example of “start at the high end” strategy I’m speaking of.
“Meanwhile, General Motors tried an entire range of EVs and what did they ultimately come back to? The cheapest one of all, the Chevrolet Bolt EV.”
Wrong. They came back to The Hummer initially.
And did you know that as of last year, GM actually started to make money on their Ultium BEVs?
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a63608612/gm-stops-losing-money-on-evs/
GM did the “start at the high end” strategy… and it’s working. You think you are proving me wrong by mentioning GM, but with their approach with the Ultium platform proves that what I’m saying is right.
“If GM took the Bolt platform,”
The original Bolt platform was a money loser because the key stuff was designed, built and supplied by LG. And GM lost money on the original Bolt.
The new Bolt is based on a cheaper version of GM’s in-house designed Ultium platform
So the new Bolt further proves I’m right. GM designed the new Ultium platform, started out with high end/high margin vehicles, that enabled them to amortize the cost and figure out ways to take the cost out of the design which enabled them to offer cheaper BEVs without losing money.
“Honda should’ve just made an EV Fit.”
Terrible idea. The Fit won’t be brought over in any form for tariff reasons alone. And North Americans don’t buy that size class vehicle enough to make the production investment worthwhile.
And I’m saying that as someone who would love to have an EV Fit.
The F-150 Lightning average transaction price is something like $70,000 and Mach E goes up to $70,000.
You’re missing a giant part of the story with Tesla. Tesla did NOT fund it’s vehicles with profits from previous vehicles. They funded them with venture capital. They raised money through stock offerings, convertible debt, government loans (A TON OF THEM) and investor hype. While vehicles may have been profitable per unit, it did not fund Tesla’s growth whatsoever.
Tesla only survives because investors bankroll the company. Legacy automakers don’t have that luxury. Honda, Ford, GM can’t burn billions for a decade hoping investors stay patient.
You’re also not quite right about the Bolt. The upcoming Bolt is not simply a “cheaper Ultium vehicle” that proves the luxury first strategy worked. GM has already confirmed the new Bolt largely retains the original BEV2 architecture from the first generation, whilst adopting some newer battery tech and componentry developed during the Ultium phase. That is very different from saying it sits on the same platform as vehicles like the GMC Hummer EV or Cadillac Lyriq. The Honda Prologue is more Ultium than Chevy Bolt.
So the idea that GM started high, amortized Ultium and then moved the Bolt downmarket is a bit too tidy. The reality is GM keeps circling back to the Bolt concept because smaller, more efficient EVs with reasonable battery sizes are easier to make work economically. Also it turns out that’s what people want to actually buy. Nobody is asking for a GMC Sierra EV. Nobody.
Ford has lost billions selling $70,000 EVs. The problem is not that they didn’t start high enough. It’s that they didn’t start low enough. We can agree to disagree, but my reading of the history of this industry differs from your take dramatically.
Also, Honda makes cars in the United States. They could make a Fit EV here.
“Most people don’t need a giant car and most people don’t want a giant car.”
This is completely wrong. Most new car buyers want the largest car they can get within their budget. There is is almost no market for compact cars in the USA and the Fiat 500 is the only remaining subcompact.
Yeah, that’s demonstrated by all the “high margin” EV makers that are turning profits right now…
/s
Tesla, in spite of the PR disaster he created himself, is still making money.
Rivian and Lucid aren’t making money, but I guarantee you that if they started out with something cheap, both would be bankrupt by now because they would have lost way more.
A company needs a certain amount of sales to be able to cover all the overhead.
For years prior to the 3/Y, Tesla “lost money”… but the S and the X were actually profitable. Just that they didn’t make enough profit to cover all the corporate overhead costs… which included the money being spent on future products.
Legacy car makers already have tons of revenue from existing product. So they wouldn’t/shouldn’t have the ‘not enough revenue’ issue that Tesla had in the first half of the 2010s.
And because legacy automakers have existing product, they have a unique issue… avoiding product overlap.
Hence my view that bringing out an all new Legend (and an SUV version on the same platform) that would sit above the Accord in size and price should work… as long as it’s a great flagship image vehicle.
But that’s just not a successful path for product development. Scaling UP is how you develop products. Not scaling down. You run out of money before it’s viable.
And Tesla did scale up. Their first car was an ultra light weight Lotus…It was still pricey, but it was a much simpler vehicle used to develop the processes to scale up into something bigger.
Remember how Honda started? They were making motorcycles. They should be making Electric scooters, not electric cars. That is how you develop a successful product.
Small scope concept. Small scope product. Medium scope concept based on learnings from small scope product. Medium scope product.Large scope concept based on learnings from Medium scope product. Large scope product.
“But that’s just not a successful path for product development.”
Yes it is. It’s a very successful path for introducing new/expensive tech.
You scale up AFTER you get it into lower volume production, get some of the initial development cost amortized and figure out ways to take the cost out of the design… which in turn enables selling it at a lower price, which in turn facilitates the higher sales/scaling up.
“And Tesla did scale up. Their first car was an ultra light weight Lotus…”
And what was the price and volumes on that?
Oh right… it was low volume, high cost. And the Model S that followed was higher volume and lower cost compared to the Roadster. And the Model 3 that followed was even higher volume still, with even lower costs.
You think you’re proving me wrong, but you’re actually proving me right.
You’re confusing two different things. Something being low volume and high cost does not mean they made the most complex version of the thing under development. The roadster was much more simple than the Model S; they bought the chassis for fucks sake. It was low volume and high cost because it was the first iteration, not because it was the most complex and highest margin. There is no margin to make if you haven’t perfected the process yet.
The first iteration is always low volume and high cost, but it’s nearly ALWAYS the simplest iteration of the thing. That’s my point. So why are Rivian, Lucid, et al trying to build the most complex iteration of their EVs when they didn’t even know how to build an EV to begin with?
Planes? Started without engines. Cars? Started as engineless buggies. Space craft? Started as rockets staying in orbit. A wood worker builds cutting boards before they build cabinets. The list goes on and on. Lord knows that wood workers first cutting board was extremely low volume and cost them tons of money because they didn’t know how to do it. Only once they know how to do it, do they build more complex things out of wood.
No, you just don’t understand what you’re being proved wrong on.
“The roadster was much more simple than the Model S; they bought the chassis for fucks sake.”
The Roadster was NOT simple and it shared less than 10% of the parts with the Lotus it was based on. Even the chassis was heavily modified to accommodate the batteries and the torque of that electric motor.
I’d argue that the initial 2012 Model S was NOT more complex than the Roadster in any big way
It was an updated version of the same single motor, same single speed transmission and a battery pack that continued to use mass-produced 18650 lithium cells (but integrated into the floor instead of being a box shape behind the back seats).
Oh sure it added powered door handles and an optional air suspension. But neither of those are rocket science… even back in 2012.
And it some ways, it was a simplified design over the Roadster as it wasn’t an ICE platform kludged into being a BEV.
The 2 screens in the Model S are an example of that… They replaced THREE smaller displays, different buttons/knobs and made accommodating different languages and other localizations a simple software setting. And they could do that as the cost of touch screens had come down in price since the 2000s.
The Model S brought in fast charging… but the design of the charge port was actually simpler. The design of what is now called the NACS plug is simpler and lower cost than J1772 or CCS.
And the Model 3 that followed the Model S was even more simplified… going down to 1 screen but more importantly, greatly reducing the number of circuit boards needed to achieve the same tasks.
You are incorrectly conflating “newer and improved” with “more complex”… and that’s not really reality.
“So why are Rivian, Lucid, et al trying to build the most complex iteration of their EVs when they didn’t even know how to build an EV to begin with?”
Because loaded trims have bigger margins and/or could be sold for more money. Whether they sell a loaded version or not doesn’t have that much impact on the issue of figuring out production.
Oh I get you now. You’re just another clueless Tesla stan.
You just do not understand how products should be developed for long term success. Rivian and Lucid aren’t just making trim levels; they are making the halo car FIRST before they even knew how to build an electric scooter. That is the problem. That’s not a traditionally successful product development path.
Tesla didn’t build their halo first. The roadster was a simpler engineering project (for the sake of R&D) than building a bespoke vehicle. Cutting and gluing things back together is not harder than designing and building your own vehicle from scratch. You’ve got manwich on the brain if you think it is.
“You’re just another clueless Tesla stan.”
Nope.
“ they are making the halo car FIRST before they even knew how to build an electric scooter. “
Building a low margin product first is a guaranteed way to massive losses.
“Tesla didn’t build their halo first”
Yes they did. They started with the Roadster… which WAS a high end/expensive electric sports car.
Then when they introduced the Model S, they started with the version with the largest battery capacity.
“. The roadster was a simpler engineering project (for the sake of R&D)”
That’s what they thought, but if you actually followed the development the way I did, you would know that’s not how it played out.
And if you actually knew what you were talking about, part of the reason why they used a Lotus design was also for manufacturing… in that Tesla at that time didn’t even have their own manufacturing plant. They had to rely on Lotus for that.
I clearly understand more about how things actually happened with Tesla as well as introducing new/expensive tech than you do… and how to do it without losing massive amounts of money.
You look at the Roadster and think it was “simple”
It wasn’t.
You’re missing the point still. I’m not talking about margins or how complicated the R&D was. I’m talking about what project do you execute first in order to build a car with high margins. The answer is the smaller scope project. Which is what the roadster was.