e-tron [Official] Audi e-tron

[DjordjeC63]

e-tron O-60 sprint in 6.2 sec vs 4.9 sec inModel X 75D

5.5sec

 

[BKK-ES]

I think there is more technical info for the battery they didn't tell us. May be 95 kwh is the total capacity but usability is locked at 80% or around 76 kwh. This is to preserve battery life (and may be reduce charge time) and it means user can access to 400 km range all the time. Just my wild guess. Sorry if I'm wrong.

 

[CrunchSlaughtered]

I'm very curious to see which nation will get the supremacy in the electrical car production. I don't see this as a direct successor to the ICE car production but also important is the experience in the smartphone production. And this is where the Germans are lacking. I don't believe they will achieve the economy of scale in the battery production and they will lose their biggest sales advantage-the mechanical technology. No engine, no gearbox, no LSD differential - I don't see the Germans prevailing in this. And not to mention the home market, where Germans are delayed with two years in their plan for 1 mln elcars on the streets. China, Korea and the USA are my bet.

 

[klier]

Like the EQC, it looks like a converted ICE car. It's probably just a Q5 without an ICE in the end....correct me if I am wrong.

 

[55tamperln]

Like the EQC, it looks like a converted ICE car. It's probably just a Q5 without an ICE in the end....

Well if you make ice cars pretty well and you want to sell electric for profit (and not be effectively insolvent like Tesla may soon be) then you should be leveraging existing infrastructure and design

 

[SCOTT27]

I'm very curious to see which nation will get the supremacy in the electrical car pr...

You are absolutely correct.
In order for Germany to be a leader there most be serious investment in regards to infrastructure.
You would be surprised how limited infrastructure can be found across Germany or indeed Europe.
Compare and contrast to China where they have embraced it that even when you visit smaller populated areas there is infrastructure compared to the little available in larger populated areas in Germany.
You cannot expect to be a leader of Electric Autos if your host country cannot provide the available infrastructure.

 

[EnI]

I'm very curious to see which nation will get the supremacy in the electrical car production.

China. Hands down. They control lithium & cobalt & neodymium supply (mostly via smelting industry). And are investing crazy sums of money into battery & e-motors production.

Just like chine is the biggest producer of ICEVs it will also be biggest when it comes to BEV production. The question is, how many Chinese BEVs will actually be exported around the world - will the export vehicle or BEV parts only (batteries, e-motors etc).

 

[Sunny]

They can't throw caution into the wind likeTesla, so we'll have to wait a while for the truly competitive product to hit the market.

But they can! At least, more so than Tesla. They have much deeper pockets than Tesla and other profit making products that they can use to offset things. They just don't have the leadership with the will or the vision.

• VMax for e-tron limited to 200 kp/h
VMax forModel X is 250 kp/h

Funny how Tesla got hit with, "Oh it is too slow for the Autobahn" hammer all this while and now the German EVs have even worse top speed. It is almost like they are trying not to lead in anything.

 

[Serpens]

But they can! At least, more so thanTesla. They have much deeper pockets than Tesla and other profit making products that they can use to offset things. They just don't have the leadership with the will or the vision.

Sorry, shouldn't have said "can't." Should've said "they know it'd be unwise." Are you really going to convince a bunch of board members and share holders that plunging your profit margins at this exact moment is a good idea? Especially when Tesla as a company is still on [very] shaky ground?

I think leadership has plenty of will and vision, they're just taking a measured approach.

 

[Sunny]

Are you really going to convince a bunch of board members and share holders that plunging your profit margins at this exact moment is a good idea

That is exactly where leadership matters - having the long term view that coming out of the blocks as a leader in future of transportation tech for foreseeable future is much more important than next few quarterly results.

 

[Serpens]

That is exactly where leadership matters - having the long term view that coming out of the blocks as a leader in future of transportation tech for foreseeable future is much more important than next few quarterly results.

Is the future of transportation technology solely lie in getting electric cars out on the market first? I'd say no. Audi is already investing heavily on its autonomous driving tech, V2V and V2i communication, and its electrification strategy at the same time. They're also aware that electric consumers still make up a small part of the market; their dedicated platforms and new models will arrive right at the time that this population will increase and battery tech costs come down.

 

[Sunny]

Is the future of transportation technology solely lie in getting electric cars out on the market first?

Sorry, but that is disingenuous twisting of words. Never said "future of transportation technology solely lie in getting electric cars out on the market first". If you can't argue honestly with out setting up straw men, I don't have the time or inclination.

 

[Cashmere]

That is exactly where leadership matters - having the long term view that coming out of the blocks as a leader in future of transportation tech for foreseeable future is much more important than next few quarterly results.

This comes back to the Kodak example that has been mentioned before. There's a great quote from Steven Sasson (creator of the digital camera) talking about why the executives didn't care about the digital camera invention:

“When you’re talking to a bunch of corporate guys about 18 to 20 years in the future, when none of those guys will still be in the company, they don’t get too excited about it,”.

The same quote is applicable to most of the current crop of automotive CEOs - focused on (short term) selling ICE because of higher profits margins (and fat pay cheques) the same way the Kodak executives were focused on selling film cameras because it was more profitable than digital cameras.

 

[Sunny]

This comes back to the Kodak example that has been mentioned be...

[Some scrambled unedited thoughts]

Yes, the weird thing is - on one hand, it is a well understood and documented phenomenon (most aptly described in the book "Innovator's dilemma" by Clayton Christensen - The Innovator's Dilemma - Wikipedia.
But yet, it is still almost predestined and difficult to escape for large companies.


A cliff note version here - Understanding the Innovator’s Dilemma and a relevant excerpt -

What the theory — and the extensive evidence — in fact support is that incumbents often are the ones to spot and develop new technologies while easily reorganizing themselves to do so. The problem is they fail to value new innovations properly because incumbents attempt to apply them to their existing customers and product architectures — or value networks. Often new technologies are too new and weak for the more advanced and mature value networks that incumbents operate.

This leads to the ROI needed to advance the innovation to be seen as low. In other words, management acts sensibly in rejecting the continued investment in these new technologies and act in the company’s best fiduciary interests. Moving into new markets is rejected as they are seen as too small to make a dent for them and their cost structure prohibitive to enter at sensible margins.

In other words, the management of big companies are doing exactly the "right" thing by concentrating their resources on their main markets and focusing on the bottom line (as many here are arguing) but doing that "right" thing is exactly what also causes their downfall... it is almost as they are required to act illogically and say f#ck my current profitable business and customers and go all in, into this tiny niche market - which obviously is not as easy thing and in turn what makes it almost predestined.

ps. On Kodak itself, that is an extreme example, a more subtle and recent one is Intel - still a profitable and sustainable company but lost out on the entire mobile CPU market, because they were so focused on the desktop/laptop/server CPU business. And even when they tried to enter the mobile market, instead of a fresh start, they tried to foist some version of their desktop CPU, which obviously was a dollar short and a day too late. I think some/most of the German manufacturer's will fall into this model (vs Kodak) - still continue to build/sell ICE/hybrid cars successfully for many decades to come but miss out on being a prominent player in the EV market.

 

[EnI]

Automotive industry is much more complex - compared to eg. consumer electronics industry (mobile phones, PCs incl notebooks, audio/video devices incl cameras etc).

Sur it's alluring to apply cases and make comparisons from consumer electronics industry to automotive industry. But automotive industry is completely different story. Mainly due to the fact a car is product that has significantly longer life-cycle than any consumer electronics product - and it is much more difficult to develop & to produce than any consumer electronics product. Also due to tons of applied (mostly safety) regulation (and currently in ICEV & PHEV case also environment protection regulation). And such regulation is not universal around the globe - there are quite significant differences from market to market, which carmakers have to address to provide proper homologation for a car, so the car can be officially acquire a license plate and get permission to be a part of traffic on public roads.

Completely different situation from consumer electronics products, where there's almost no regulation. And R&D + production + sales + aftersales is much simpler & much quicker & much nimbler & more flexible than making automobiles.

Sure there's a potential danger for some automotive companies to fall back because they tend to rely on current business model (which in the end of the day is also a political issue - since the established automotive industry employs millions of people): sustaining & supporting current suppliers, current sales channels, current after sales services etc etc. But almost everyone in the automotive industry bar Tesla still relies on the current system - only applying required changes & corrections to make it work in the new BEV & AD era. And even Tesla is will have to build a proper sales & after sales network - selling 1.000.000 vehicles per year is completely different to selling 100.000 vehicles per year. Solutions that worked for limited customer pool won't work for much larger one.

Back to legacy carmakers ... Most of them are aware of the change & are getting ready for it. Sure regulation & legislation is much stronger drive than the market demand right now. The demanded compliance to the newest, stricter emissions regulation in the biggest markets (China, EU, California et al.) is the real drive. And the subsidies / government incentives for buying cleaner vehicle. Forcing legacy carmakers around the world to comply & to move on. And they are moving on. According to required compliance.

Sure BEV market is rising quickly & BEVs are increasing their market share. But a vast majority of vehicles are still (fully or partially) ICE driven - and they will be for at least 2 decades. Also due to limited supply of materials (rare earths) used for batteries & e-motors. No to mention in many markets electric grid is still not ready for mass BEV usage. It takes time to build up & to update the grid & charging network ... and supply chain for new material & parts etc. But ALL legacy carmakers are doing it. Some a bit more faster, some a bit more slower. But nobody is completely lagging behind.

Sure everybody is now obsessed with Tesla - sure, they are first & they are the best. And they are the benchmark. Just like some legacy brands are still benchmark for eg. performance, or comfort, or reliability, or versatility, or fuel consumption etc etc And others try to catch up. Some succeed, a vast majority don't. But that does not mean all the others fail & go out of business. Has everyone that could not provide eg. BMW-like or Porsche-like performance went out of business? No. Perhaps sales stalled for them for some time - but they addressed the issue. And the sales went up - either did they catch up or reinvent / reposition themselves.

There's absolutely too much drama about automotive industry. And people who tend to compare apples to oranges are oversimplifying the matter & overblowing the issue - and most of them are business professors & "gurus" etc who don't really know the specificity of the automotive industry well.

Also: being the first to the market also does not mean you'll stay the best in the market in the eg. mid-term. Tech does change. And eg. somebody who bets too much on eg. current battery tech could end up being a loser in the end. Since as we know - shifting from one tech to another is more difficult than starting with that new tech in the begging. Eg. Toyota is betting like everything on solid-state batteries. And that's also why German carmakers are not getting into battery cell business right away right now. They might. Someday. When the new tech is out & ready. And then the tables will be turned. It's a cycle. It's a circle.

Sensationalist doomsday scenarios are good for attraction readers. Especially in digital media in this digital era. But they are hardly good analysis & assessment of the real situation (in a certain industry, market etc). For that you need data. A lot of very specific data. That nobody has. Because it's not public. Perhaps some inteligence services & agencies are pursing that. I'm sure they are. The industrial espionage etc. But neither general public nor professional one has the access to the most important data.

As said before: the real danger to the (legacy or brand new) carmaking companies is the software part of the equation in the digital car era. The content. Most of them will definitely lose that war. IT giants are just too strong & much better provided with various resources. Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent. Got the pattern? US & China only. And that's it. No EU, no Russia, no India, no ...

The real long-term danger to automotive industry are the IT sector & the content providers. There's a danger carmakers will be reduced to hardware producers only - when the big money & biggest profits will come from the content, from the software.

 

[Rainer271]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[cawimmer430]

Beautiful inside and out. I think the Audi design language is both understated but also futuristic, at least this SUV looks very futuristic.

By contrast I really am not feeling the Mercedes EQ-C on the outside. Just doesn't look special enough and I don't think seeing it in person will change that. At least it has a stunning interior!

 

[Jan]

Nice view...

 

[JHF]

 

[Rainer271]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies