John's Stuff - Personal Log 1316

April 16, 2025 - April 26, 2025

Last Updated: Weds. 6/25/2025

4-26-2025
Permanent Magnet, follow up. He had made a mistake. I wasn't expecting much, but acknowledgement of there being an error would have been nice. He seemed to be trying for objectivity with his long post explaining why AC motors were better overall than DC. No recognition though can indicate a problem. So what if he made an incorrect assumption. You acknowledge and move on. I wanted to stress the point though. There was no reason for his post to be so terse. I was being objective and wanted to make sure the opportunity for further discussion was still there. I followed up with: No reply (after a week) regarding your errored assumption is disappointing. I was hoping for a constructive exchange upon your discovery that Toyota implemented AC propulsion instead. Many assume Toyota is hopelessly behind, scrambling to catch up. They don't realize Toyota was ahead of the game in some aspects. jumping on efficiency benefits many years ago. Most notably, they used AC motors and heat-pumps long before the majority. Toyota rolling out their next-gen AC motor to increase efficiency even more by switching to SiC semiconductors for its inverter is proof of that. To blow your mind, note that rollout began in 2023. Toyota quietly introduced the upgrade with their Lexus RZ 300e.

4-24-2025
Battery Degradation, part 2. I continued on with the discussion, sharing some of my findings with a friend who is looking at the replacement of his Tesla Model 3 battery-pack. It had a stuck coolant-valve a number of years ago. That accelerated aging, especially from an owner who traveled a lot. Since he had shared detail related to his, I did the same with mine: Looking at that video I captured a year ago (odometer 13,697 miles), it states that value as 198.5 Ah. This morning (odometer 28628 miles) it has dropped to 196.25 Ah. That's a 2.25 Ah difference over 14,931 miles... or 1.1% of the battery capacity.

4-24-2025
Battery Degradation, part 1. Someone started at interesting discussion. He pointed out his observation of supposed battery degradation for his bZ4X. I was intrigued by the value stated. It came from the same phone-app I have been using for years. How exactly what that measurement achieved? I jumped into the mathematics to stir more exchanging of data: I see that the calculation is based on nominal voltage, not fully charged... 400 volts is 4.16667 volts * 96 cells. That 355 volts nominal gives us the 205 Ah rating (72.8 kWh / 355 volts). CarScanner shows my full charge capacity value at 196.25 Ah. Usable capacity with the CATL pack is 65.5 kWh. That calculates to 184.5 Ah.

4-23-2025
Distinctions. Moving on from the hope Tesla had promised, but failed to deliver, we're seeing a lot more attention being focused on other choices. Plug-In hybrids suggest an appealing future for many. Evidence of that comes from some of the change in attitude from online discussion. For example: "The average non-EV nerd consumer neither knows nor cares about the difference between PHEVs and EREVs, they want convenience, zero anxiety about whether they can charge, and flexibility to go where they want, when they want, which either supplies." That's recognition of audience. It's what I have said all along. I said it again today: Whether or not it has a plug is all that matters. Absence of any clear distinction between PHEV/EREV over the past 13 years within the enthusiast community should make it blatantly obvious that less informed mainstream shoppers will be clueless. Know your audience. Most ordinary consumers simply don't pay close enough attention to ever notice details related to efficiency anyway.

4-23-2025
Too Small. We have been so trained to admire the bigger-is-better mindset, that no cognitive effort takes place anymore. Gotta like how normalized "more" has become... since it can be a double-edged sword. The same approach that caused the problem can become the means of solving it. In this case, it is dealing with this: "Anything smaller than a Model 3 is probably too small for the US Market." It's a substanceless comment. Long ago, I remember reading countless posts where the same was said about Prius. What in the world was the appeal? People supposedly wouldn't be caught dead even considering a purchase. But then they get exposed to one by an owner or just give it a "what the heck" test drive, having no idea they would find it compelling. Knowing that, I responded with: There's nothing to support that belief anymore. Economic pressure... and simply how awesome small EVs perform... is a fresh market to explore. There's opportunity Tesla will miss out on by not trying.

4-23-2025
Regulatory Credits. Earth Day yesterday was good reason today to point out just how bad Q1 financials for this year were for Tesla: "The Washington Post reported that if Tesla did not include $595 million it received in automotive regulatory credits, which other manufacturers buy from Tesla to comply with emissions requirements, Tesla would have posted a loss in the quarter." I had been saying for years that Tesla vehicle sales weren't enough. This is where that problem of Innovator's Dilemma makes enthusiasts really upset. They were absolutely insisting annual sales of 20 million per year by the end of this decade were totally realistic... without ever taking into consider how profit was achieved. Heck, many forgot that Elon had fired the entire SuperCharger division of Tesla on a whim last year. Where the heck would profit come from. Tesla was already struggling at that point with competition. Huge price drops had devastated resale value for existing owners. Absence of anything new to sell was making the situation worse. Loss of revenue from selling credits is a really big deal that no one had been taking seriously. Now, that exposure is getting unwelcome attention. Enthusiasts are scrambling. I wonder what effort they'll make with regard to damage control. With so many other problem Tesla now faces, nothing good for financial outlook is devastating. Between the Cybertruck disaster and FSD (Full Self Driving) liability, things look ugly for Tesla... without even mentioning the political backlash from Elon's activities.

4-21-2025
No Impact. We're seeing the "Who?" question emerge as the most vital information related to future success of Cybertruck. Go figure. That was the very same nonsense I battled GM enthusiasts for years... starting with Two-Mode, then gen-1 Volt, then gen-2 Volt, then Bolt. Each time, growth failure came from not reaching new customers. Who exactly was each of those efforts supposed to appeal to? They were vehicles catering to enthusiast appeal. That resulted in conquest sales... nothing sustainable or representative of change. They had no impact to the status quo. They didn't change anything with regard to loyal customers wanting something new. That's why whenever there's a reference to "marketplace" making the decision, I get quite upset. It's meaningless. Who exactly is being referred to. I asked countless times in the past. Enthusiasts never have an answer. They are blinded by the engineering. They don't understand the business. Ugh. I try to point out what they don't see. It pretty much never works. It does reinforce my stance though, as this instance should: That is why I asked who, since "marketplace" does not represent any demographic. Successful designs/configs target specific groups. Cybertruck doesn't seem to identify with any.

4-20-2025
Really? This is where shooting the messenger ends up becoming a reflection of the accuser: "People like you are part of the reason why so many people won't consider an EV for their next vehicle." I have to shake my head to that, in dismay from the irony. He made such a big deal about family emergencies but didn't see how incredibly rare any such situation actually is. How often in your life have you had to drop absolutely everything to travel a long distance immediately? For that matter, how many have close family far enough away to be beyond the distance of a battery-pack with a single fast-recharge somewhere along the drive? That is such an incredibly rare circumstance, it's easy to identify as FUD... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Why even bring up a topic so unlikely? He did. How exactly does that help promote EV purchase consideration? It doesn't. It's a deterrent. Ugh. This is how I dealt with his counter-productive post: Most of us are well aware of how long-range capacity isn't necessary when there are enough DCFC available. Heck, we have all heard about road trips with Leaf & Bolt. They managed fine in the past. Now, each new DCFC location makes a NACS-equipped EV more practical.

4-20-2025
Family Emergency. Gotta love when someone gets upset by a callout and responds with FUD. In this case, he asked what a person is supposed to do if there's a family emergency. Ugh. If it's a true emergency and you have to travel a long distance, you fly. Driving makes no sense. The need to get there as fast as possible means buying a ticket and renting a car after landing. Taking the time to drive means a subjective consideration of when. You're already adding many, many more hours for driving. What's another 1 or 2 for charging? Needless to say, such critical thought never took place. Instead, it was an attack. You know, shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In this case, that was: "Who died and made you God to where you get to decide what people do or do not need?" How exactly is another 50 miles of range anything more than just an arbitrary assessment? It's the same old thing. Someone will post a reply implying their choice is vastly superior without actually provided any data to support that. I fired back at that nonsense with: Critical thinking... Need is an objective measure. Want is subjective. Mixing them up is often a cause of misunderstanding.

4-20-2025
Necessary? Loss of critical thought on a regular basis has resulted in the inability to recognize the difference between want & need. That why I confronted a poster, who posts very long comments daily with this: "In an objective manner, tell us why it "should" have more battery." He absolutely insisted Toyota should have made an effort to squeeze in as much battery as possible. In his mind, the most range was required. A sense of balance never came into play. More was absolutely required and he explained why by sighting chemistry providing greater energy density and more accommodating packaging. His response to my question was nothing but a tangent, no acknowledge of need. It was clearly a want he was trying to justify. My reply to his nonsense was a repeat callout to his claim: That's a long-winded nothing, never actually explaining your own assertion. Again, why do you claim "As such it should (also) have the battery capacity to perform a maximum 350 miles range +/- 50 miles on any given day" is necessary?

4-18-2025 Textbook Example. This is the type of ringing endorsement I have heard for years from Tesla owners: "I am not trading my Model Y in. One of the best cars I have ever owned. No comments on politics. No comment on Elon. Tesla as a car is awesome!" They didn't care about anything beyond the technology. It was a massive vulnerability they were unwilling to address. And just like those who did the very same thing with GM, they ended up having to. You can't run away from the business aspect. They certainly try though. This was my dose of reality for today's encounter with that:

Trouble is, the reality of business isn't promising when market growth is required but all you have is Model 3/Y.

Tesla should have diversified in a productive manner. Spending so much time & resources on Cybertruck has revealed itself as a financial disaster.

15 years ago, the mantra of "nicely under $30,000" was GM's core focus. Somehow, a plug-in offering had to target that price point. All this time later, that's still true. And even though GM failed to deliver, others recognize the vital nature of that market segment. Tesla still isn't taking entry-level choices seriously.

So even though Model Y can continue being competitive, it is not enough to be sustainable. Tesla thrived as a niche, but that's not what is needed anymore.
In short, this is a textbook example of Innovator's Dilemma

4-18-2025 Brand Loyalty. The article was on Tesla's decline, how conquest sales did not result in customer retention. Sound familiar? We saw that with GM twice, from both of their conquest vehicles. After a day of comments on that very popular topic, a comment starting with this was posted: "All this negativity is brand new anti-trump anti-musk it's ridiculous I didn't like electric vehicles but I hate the fact that an over 80% American made American company developing cars that are affordable that are well made is being trashed and attacked..." It was quite the rant. Someone else beat me to the punch, calling out how the long post didn't actually address being affordable. Some of the claims were contradictory too. It was one of many posts we have seen from people upset about political things have become, only wanting peace rather than solving the actual problem. Ugh. I jumped into that mess with:

Cold, hard reality is Elon lost his way. Efforts with Model 3/Y were admirable. What had been learned from Model S/X was used to make a compelling choice for early-market buyers. But instead of taking that knowledge the next step to create an offering for mainstream consumers, a very expensive niche was delivered. So even without any political fallout, Tesla had nothing planned to offer the masses.

There's simply no excuse for not having a path forward, especially from an automaker who supposedly is the EV leader. Notice how Tesla supporters have grown silent? They have nothing to look forward to. Meanwhile, there's a wide variety of choices coming from others. We'll see a mix of new battery chemistries used in a mix of PHEV/EREV and BEV.
With regard to your "trading in a 2024 Mercedes GLE 350 at a loss so that I can purchase a Tesla Y" comment, how is that a recognition of what ordinary people face for vehicle purchases? There's nothing in the affordable sedan category... a replacement for their aged Corolla, Civic or Jetta. Hype was that Tesla would be selling 20 Million vehicles annually by 2030. How could that even remotely be possible if there is no comparable EV available from Tesla?

4-18-2025 Bigger Picture. Remember just a year ago when enthusiasts were celebrating an annual sales target of 20 Million for Tesla, without any explanation how that would be achieved? That was long before the downfall of Cybertruck became obvious. Now that it is undisputed, posts like this are becoming common: "The initial specs of the cyber truck were so outstanding that I suspect almost all of those pre-orders were legitimate. They simply did not deliver on the specs in the end." Asking how so many sales would be possible came about from the problem of Innovator's Dilemma, which was obvious long ago. Few rarely look at the bigger picture though. That's why I wonder how many understand my replies like this:

Yes, Cybertruck is a rather extreme example of "over promise, under deliver". It would have been a runaway success had that hope been fulfilled.

Back when the Volt concept was first revealed, a want-list emerged and grew enough to nearly double that of first year's planned production. As rollout grew near, discovery of specs falling far short of expectations made people abandon ship. That number of anticipated sales never changed though. Media focused on hype that had generated. And sure enough, only roughly 10% resulted in actual purchases. That history taught us to figure something similar would happen with Cybertruck.

The reality that there has been overwhelming evidence of better choices from other automakers set the stage for sales decline rather than growth. Combined with self-deprecating political turmoil caused by Elon, there's nothing he can do at this point to save Cybertruck, nor should he try.
Tesla needs to take their technology and put it into a competitive vehicle, something targeting the entry-level market. Leaving that massive consumer segment for competitors makes no sense whatsoever. If the only mainstream offering remains Model 3/Y, there's no chance of Tesla breaking out beyond the niche it is still stuck in.

4-16-2025
Permanent Magnet. Reward from teaching moments can be quite fulfilling. You wait for the opportunity, never knowing if a big one will ever emerge. Today, it definitely did. I had been posting about the efficiency Solterra delivers. A supposed expert jumped on my to contradict my claim. He replied with: "PM [Permanent Magnet] motors do not freewheel like an induction or EESM. For this reason, most automakers have implemented disconnect systems that disconnect one of the PM motors from the drivetrain when only one motor is needed." He then continued on, listing EVs with freewheel ability: "Blazer/Equinox. Model 3/Y, ID.4, Q6 e-tron, etc." And summarized: "Unlike PM motors, inductions motors don't create a magnetic field every time they rotate. This give the automaker the ability to only power that motor when needed, without the penalty that PM motors have." It was his conclusion that got me going: "The issue with using two PM motors with no disconnect clutch (as used in the Solterra and bZ4x) is that if you only wanted to power one motor, the one that isn't power creates a magnetic field which caused drag every time the motor spins. This causes a huge penalty for efficiency as speeds rise." Needless to say, I was thrilled to point out he was wrong. Solterra & bZ4X do indeed use induction motors. His assumption of the PM, commonly referred to as "DC" powered, was quite incorrect. I suspect that mistake came from DC being easier and much less expensive to implement. I highlighted his error by providing what Subaru/Toyota actually uses: BluE Nexus Rear eAxle unit (80 kW) AC synchronous motor.

4-26-2025	Permanent Magnet, follow up. He had made a mistake. I wasn't expecting much, but acknowledgement of there being an error would have been nice. He seemed to be trying for objectivity with his long post explaining why AC motors were better overall than DC. No recognition though can indicate a problem. So what if he made an incorrect assumption. You acknowledge and move on. I wanted to stress the point though. There was no reason for his post to be so terse. I was being objective and wanted to make sure the opportunity for further discussion was still there. I followed up with: No reply (after a week) regarding your errored assumption is disappointing. I was hoping for a constructive exchange upon your discovery that Toyota implemented AC propulsion instead. Many assume Toyota is hopelessly behind, scrambling to catch up. They don't realize Toyota was ahead of the game in some aspects. jumping on efficiency benefits many years ago. Most notably, they used AC motors and heat-pumps long before the majority. Toyota rolling out their next-gen AC motor to increase efficiency even more by switching to SiC semiconductors for its inverter is proof of that. To blow your mind, note that rollout began in 2023. Toyota quietly introduced the upgrade with their Lexus RZ 300e.
4-24-2025	Battery Degradation, part 2. I continued on with the discussion, sharing some of my findings with a friend who is looking at the replacement of his Tesla Model 3 battery-pack. It had a stuck coolant-valve a number of years ago. That accelerated aging, especially from an owner who traveled a lot. Since he had shared detail related to his, I did the same with mine: Looking at that video I captured a year ago (odometer 13,697 miles), it states that value as 198.5 Ah. This morning (odometer 28628 miles) it has dropped to 196.25 Ah. That's a 2.25 Ah difference over 14,931 miles... or 1.1% of the battery capacity.
4-24-2025	Battery Degradation, part 1. Someone started at interesting discussion. He pointed out his observation of supposed battery degradation for his bZ4X. I was intrigued by the value stated. It came from the same phone-app I have been using for years. How exactly what that measurement achieved? I jumped into the mathematics to stir more exchanging of data: I see that the calculation is based on nominal voltage, not fully charged... 400 volts is 4.16667 volts * 96 cells. That 355 volts nominal gives us the 205 Ah rating (72.8 kWh / 355 volts). CarScanner shows my full charge capacity value at 196.25 Ah. Usable capacity with the CATL pack is 65.5 kWh. That calculates to 184.5 Ah.
4-23-2025	Distinctions. Moving on from the hope Tesla had promised, but failed to deliver, we're seeing a lot more attention being focused on other choices. Plug-In hybrids suggest an appealing future for many. Evidence of that comes from some of the change in attitude from online discussion. For example: "The average non-EV nerd consumer neither knows nor cares about the difference between PHEVs and EREVs, they want convenience, zero anxiety about whether they can charge, and flexibility to go where they want, when they want, which either supplies." That's recognition of audience. It's what I have said all along. I said it again today: Whether or not it has a plug is all that matters. Absence of any clear distinction between PHEV/EREV over the past 13 years within the enthusiast community should make it blatantly obvious that less informed mainstream shoppers will be clueless. Know your audience. Most ordinary consumers simply don't pay close enough attention to ever notice details related to efficiency anyway.
4-23-2025	Too Small. We have been so trained to admire the bigger-is-better mindset, that no cognitive effort takes place anymore. Gotta like how normalized "more" has become... since it can be a double-edged sword. The same approach that caused the problem can become the means of solving it. In this case, it is dealing with this: "Anything smaller than a Model 3 is probably too small for the US Market." It's a substanceless comment. Long ago, I remember reading countless posts where the same was said about Prius. What in the world was the appeal? People supposedly wouldn't be caught dead even considering a purchase. But then they get exposed to one by an owner or just give it a "what the heck" test drive, having no idea they would find it compelling. Knowing that, I responded with: There's nothing to support that belief anymore. Economic pressure... and simply how awesome small EVs perform... is a fresh market to explore. There's opportunity Tesla will miss out on by not trying.
4-23-2025	Regulatory Credits. Earth Day yesterday was good reason today to point out just how bad Q1 financials for this year were for Tesla: "The Washington Post reported that if Tesla did not include $595 million it received in automotive regulatory credits, which other manufacturers buy from Tesla to comply with emissions requirements, Tesla would have posted a loss in the quarter." I had been saying for years that Tesla vehicle sales weren't enough. This is where that problem of Innovator's Dilemma makes enthusiasts really upset. They were absolutely insisting annual sales of 20 million per year by the end of this decade were totally realistic... without ever taking into consider how profit was achieved. Heck, many forgot that Elon had fired the entire SuperCharger division of Tesla on a whim last year. Where the heck would profit come from. Tesla was already struggling at that point with competition. Huge price drops had devastated resale value for existing owners. Absence of anything new to sell was making the situation worse. Loss of revenue from selling credits is a really big deal that no one had been taking seriously. Now, that exposure is getting unwelcome attention. Enthusiasts are scrambling. I wonder what effort they'll make with regard to damage control. With so many other problem Tesla now faces, nothing good for financial outlook is devastating. Between the Cybertruck disaster and FSD (Full Self Driving) liability, things look ugly for Tesla... without even mentioning the political backlash from Elon's activities.
4-21-2025	No Impact. We're seeing the "Who?" question emerge as the most vital information related to future success of Cybertruck. Go figure. That was the very same nonsense I battled GM enthusiasts for years... starting with Two-Mode, then gen-1 Volt, then gen-2 Volt, then Bolt. Each time, growth failure came from not reaching new customers. Who exactly was each of those efforts supposed to appeal to? They were vehicles catering to enthusiast appeal. That resulted in conquest sales... nothing sustainable or representative of change. They had no impact to the status quo. They didn't change anything with regard to loyal customers wanting something new. That's why whenever there's a reference to "marketplace" making the decision, I get quite upset. It's meaningless. Who exactly is being referred to. I asked countless times in the past. Enthusiasts never have an answer. They are blinded by the engineering. They don't understand the business. Ugh. I try to point out what they don't see. It pretty much never works. It does reinforce my stance though, as this instance should: That is why I asked who, since "marketplace" does not represent any demographic. Successful designs/configs target specific groups. Cybertruck doesn't seem to identify with any.
4-20-2025	Really? This is where shooting the messenger ends up becoming a reflection of the accuser: "People like you are part of the reason why so many people won't consider an EV for their next vehicle." I have to shake my head to that, in dismay from the irony. He made such a big deal about family emergencies but didn't see how incredibly rare any such situation actually is. How often in your life have you had to drop absolutely everything to travel a long distance immediately? For that matter, how many have close family far enough away to be beyond the distance of a battery-pack with a single fast-recharge somewhere along the drive? That is such an incredibly rare circumstance, it's easy to identify as FUD... Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Why even bring up a topic so unlikely? He did. How exactly does that help promote EV purchase consideration? It doesn't. It's a deterrent. Ugh. This is how I dealt with his counter-productive post: Most of us are well aware of how long-range capacity isn't necessary when there are enough DCFC available. Heck, we have all heard about road trips with Leaf & Bolt. They managed fine in the past. Now, each new DCFC location makes a NACS-equipped EV more practical.
4-20-2025	Family Emergency. Gotta love when someone gets upset by a callout and responds with FUD. In this case, he asked what a person is supposed to do if there's a family emergency. Ugh. If it's a true emergency and you have to travel a long distance, you fly. Driving makes no sense. The need to get there as fast as possible means buying a ticket and renting a car after landing. Taking the time to drive means a subjective consideration of when. You're already adding many, many more hours for driving. What's another 1 or 2 for charging? Needless to say, such critical thought never took place. Instead, it was an attack. You know, shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In this case, that was: "Who died and made you God to where you get to decide what people do or do not need?" How exactly is another 50 miles of range anything more than just an arbitrary assessment? It's the same old thing. Someone will post a reply implying their choice is vastly superior without actually provided any data to support that. I fired back at that nonsense with: Critical thinking... Need is an objective measure. Want is subjective. Mixing them up is often a cause of misunderstanding.
4-20-2025	Necessary? Loss of critical thought on a regular basis has resulted in the inability to recognize the difference between want & need. That why I confronted a poster, who posts very long comments daily with this: "In an objective manner, tell us why it "should" have more battery." He absolutely insisted Toyota should have made an effort to squeeze in as much battery as possible. In his mind, the most range was required. A sense of balance never came into play. More was absolutely required and he explained why by sighting chemistry providing greater energy density and more accommodating packaging. His response to my question was nothing but a tangent, no acknowledge of need. It was clearly a want he was trying to justify. My reply to his nonsense was a repeat callout to his claim: That's a long-winded nothing, never actually explaining your own assertion. Again, why do you claim "As such it should (also) have the battery capacity to perform a maximum 350 miles range +/- 50 miles on any given day" is necessary?
4-18-2025	Textbook Example. This is the type of ringing endorsement I have heard for years from Tesla owners: "I am not trading my Model Y in. One of the best cars I have ever owned. No comments on politics. No comment on Elon. Tesla as a car is awesome!" They didn't care about anything beyond the technology. It was a massive vulnerability they were unwilling to address. And just like those who did the very same thing with GM, they ended up having to. You can't run away from the business aspect. They certainly try though. This was my dose of reality for today's encounter with that: Trouble is, the reality of business isn't promising when market growth is required but all you have is Model 3/Y. Tesla should have diversified in a productive manner. Spending so much time & resources on Cybertruck has revealed itself as a financial disaster. 15 years ago, the mantra of "nicely under $30,000" was GM's core focus. Somehow, a plug-in offering had to target that price point. All this time later, that's still true. And even though GM failed to deliver, others recognize the vital nature of that market segment. Tesla still isn't taking entry-level choices seriously. So even though Model Y can continue being competitive, it is not enough to be sustainable. Tesla thrived as a niche, but that's not what is needed anymore. In short, this is a textbook example of Innovator's Dilemma
4-18-2025	Brand Loyalty. The article was on Tesla's decline, how conquest sales did not result in customer retention. Sound familiar? We saw that with GM twice, from both of their conquest vehicles. After a day of comments on that very popular topic, a comment starting with this was posted: "All this negativity is brand new anti-trump anti-musk it's ridiculous I didn't like electric vehicles but I hate the fact that an over 80% American made American company developing cars that are affordable that are well made is being trashed and attacked..." It was quite the rant. Someone else beat me to the punch, calling out how the long post didn't actually address being affordable. Some of the claims were contradictory too. It was one of many posts we have seen from people upset about political things have become, only wanting peace rather than solving the actual problem. Ugh. I jumped into that mess with: Cold, hard reality is Elon lost his way. Efforts with Model 3/Y were admirable. What had been learned from Model S/X was used to make a compelling choice for early-market buyers. But instead of taking that knowledge the next step to create an offering for mainstream consumers, a very expensive niche was delivered. So even without any political fallout, Tesla had nothing planned to offer the masses. There's simply no excuse for not having a path forward, especially from an automaker who supposedly is the EV leader. Notice how Tesla supporters have grown silent? They have nothing to look forward to. Meanwhile, there's a wide variety of choices coming from others. We'll see a mix of new battery chemistries used in a mix of PHEV/EREV and BEV. With regard to your "trading in a 2024 Mercedes GLE 350 at a loss so that I can purchase a Tesla Y" comment, how is that a recognition of what ordinary people face for vehicle purchases? There's nothing in the affordable sedan category... a replacement for their aged Corolla, Civic or Jetta. Hype was that Tesla would be selling 20 Million vehicles annually by 2030. How could that even remotely be possible if there is no comparable EV available from Tesla?
4-18-2025	Bigger Picture. Remember just a year ago when enthusiasts were celebrating an annual sales target of 20 Million for Tesla, without any explanation how that would be achieved? That was long before the downfall of Cybertruck became obvious. Now that it is undisputed, posts like this are becoming common: "The initial specs of the cyber truck were so outstanding that I suspect almost all of those pre-orders were legitimate. They simply did not deliver on the specs in the end." Asking how so many sales would be possible came about from the problem of Innovator's Dilemma, which was obvious long ago. Few rarely look at the bigger picture though. That's why I wonder how many understand my replies like this: Yes, Cybertruck is a rather extreme example of "over promise, under deliver". It would have been a runaway success had that hope been fulfilled. Back when the Volt concept was first revealed, a want-list emerged and grew enough to nearly double that of first year's planned production. As rollout grew near, discovery of specs falling far short of expectations made people abandon ship. That number of anticipated sales never changed though. Media focused on hype that had generated. And sure enough, only roughly 10% resulted in actual purchases. That history taught us to figure something similar would happen with Cybertruck. The reality that there has been overwhelming evidence of better choices from other automakers set the stage for sales decline rather than growth. Combined with self-deprecating political turmoil caused by Elon, there's nothing he can do at this point to save Cybertruck, nor should he try. Tesla needs to take their technology and put it into a competitive vehicle, something targeting the entry-level market. Leaving that massive consumer segment for competitors makes no sense whatsoever. If the only mainstream offering remains Model 3/Y, there's no chance of Tesla breaking out beyond the niche it is still stuck in.
4-16-2025	Permanent Magnet. Reward from teaching moments can be quite fulfilling. You wait for the opportunity, never knowing if a big one will ever emerge. Today, it definitely did. I had been posting about the efficiency Solterra delivers. A supposed expert jumped on my to contradict my claim. He replied with: "PM [Permanent Magnet] motors do not freewheel like an induction or EESM. For this reason, most automakers have implemented disconnect systems that disconnect one of the PM motors from the drivetrain when only one motor is needed." He then continued on, listing EVs with freewheel ability: "Blazer/Equinox. Model 3/Y, ID.4, Q6 e-tron, etc." And summarized: "Unlike PM motors, inductions motors don't create a magnetic field every time they rotate. This give the automaker the ability to only power that motor when needed, without the penalty that PM motors have." It was his conclusion that got me going: "The issue with using two PM motors with no disconnect clutch (as used in the Solterra and bZ4x) is that if you only wanted to power one motor, the one that isn't power creates a magnetic field which caused drag every time the motor spins. This causes a huge penalty for efficiency as speeds rise." Needless to say, I was thrilled to point out he was wrong. Solterra & bZ4X do indeed use induction motors. His assumption of the PM, commonly referred to as "DC" powered, was quite incorrect. I suspect that mistake came from DC being easier and much less expensive to implement. I highlighted his error by providing what Subaru/Toyota actually uses: BluE Nexus Rear eAxle unit (80 kW) AC synchronous motor.