LNG: TESLARATI

An automotive industry expert in Germany recently issued a bold dismissal of electric vehicles, declaring that EVs will be overtaken by hydrogen-powered cars. Before an audience, Dr. Felix Gress, head of Continental’s corporate communications and public affairs, argued that battery-electric vehicles represent poor value for money compared to diesel and petrol alternatives. 

While Gress admitted that electric cars today are grabbing headlines and the attention of the automotive industry, the Continental executive predicted that the market would see shift to hydrogen in the next decade or so. “The fuel cell is not ready to kick in yet. By 2030, we’ll see that coming, especially in passenger cars that run long distances, or trucks… Fuel cell is not out of reach, I would say. The question is when it would kick in. We are working on that area, too,” the executive argued. 

Gress added that electric cars will have difficulties finding acceptance among car buyers. “For the customers, it will be difficult to accept such a car in the market – you pay a higher price, you get less of a car, so it will be a tough sell,” he said, stating that based on Continental’s estimates, battery technology, and in extension, EVs in general, have their limits. “The battery technology, according to our estimations, has its limits. It doesn’t generate enough range for some people’s needs,” he added. 

The Continental executive’s dismissive stance on electric cars run parallel to that of BMW’s director of development, Klaus Frölich, who recently stated that electric vehicles have no demand. During a recent round table interview in Munich, Frölich noted that “there is no customer requests for BEVs.” Responding to Europe’s Transport and Environment lobby group, which is pushing for the adoption of more electric cars, the executive fired back, arguing that BMW could easily flood the market with EVs, but no one will buy them. 

“If we have a big offer, a big incentive, we could flood Europe and sell a million cars, but Europeans won’t buy these things. Customers in Europe do not buy EVs. We pressed these cars into the market, and they’re not wanted. We can deliver an electrified vehicle to each person, but they will not buy them,” the executive said. 

Unlike Gress from Continental, Frölich instead argued for plug-in hybrids, which use both an internal combustion engine and an electric motor. He did note that BMW will still make pure electric cars for the US and China, but the company will concentrate its efforts to bring plug-in hybrids with 80 km (49 miles) of pure electric range. “PHEV gives them full freedom and 80 km of EV range,” he said. 

It is quite surprising to see an executive from Continental, the same company that recognized the potential of Tesla as a player in the vehicle software market, completely dismiss electric vehicles as but a prelude to hydrogen propulsion. Hydrogen vehicles, after all, have been around for a while, and for the most part, they have stagnated. The Toyota Mirai, for example, has been around for years, but it has proven to be nowhere near as popular as the Prius, the company’s breakthrough hybrid car. 

One thing where both Gress from Continental and Frölich from BMW seem to agree on is that electric vehicle batteries have limitations that could not be overcome. This is a flawed assumption, as batteries have continued to evolve over the years. Tesla, for example, has made significant breakthroughs in battery technology in recent years, as shown in the 2170 cells of the Model 3 Performance, which help the vehicle handle the extreme demands of closed circuit driving. By the end of Gress’ 2030 estimate for hydrogen cars, electric car batteries will most definitely not be the same as they are today.

Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe was recently profiled by The New York Times, and hidden among the stories about the all-electric car maker’s early design days was an inital production estimate for the R1T pickup truck and R1S SUV. In 2021, Rivian’s estimated first full year of rolling vehicles through the assembly line, Scaringe is anticipating 20,000 to 40,000 cars will be made.

The electric vehicle startup purchased its Normal, Illinois car factory from Misubishi in 2017. Since then, the Rivian team – which includes prior Mitsubishi plant workers – has been hard at work bringing the company up to a high-volume manufacturing level. Rivian’s progress is apparently going very well, and Scaringe has teased a few other projects underway for the facility such as an on-site food farm for employees.

Residents local to Rivian’s facility also appear to be giving their nod of approval to the car maker’s efforts. Earlier this week, the Normal City Council decided to move ahead with a request to rename Mitsubishi Motorway, the stretch of highway leading to Rivian’s plant, to Rivian Motorway. Another street with access to the factory is also in line for a rename – Sakura Lane will become Electric Avenue.

In driving the progress of the company, Scaringe was described as having a few parallels with Tesla’s Elon Musk. “Fortunately, my personality is one that I never lost confidence I could do it,” he told the Times. “That doesn’t mean I always knew how I was going to do it.” Musk’s matra that was repeated often in the early days of Tesla and SpaceX was similar. “If something is important enough, you do it, even if the odds are not in your favor,” he told interviewers on several occasions. Musk even admitted to the low probability of success for both of his primary companies, 10% for SpaceX, and ‘very very low’ for Tesla, specifically. Scaringe seems to have a bit of a better head start with Rivian from Tesla’s spearheading the electric vehicle industry.

A few interesting details about Rivian’s beginnings have made the rounds since the company unveiled its R1T and R1S flagship vehicles. For one, Scaringe set out to start a car company with the global environment in mind. He was a car person at heart, a Porsche fan in particular, but over time he realized there was a contradiction between what he loved and what his values were with regard to sustainability. Even the fuel-efficient sports car Rivian initially designed wasn’t good enough for what Scaringe wanted to achieve.

“In my heart and soul, I knew I wasn’t answering the fundamental question of why the world needs this company to be successful,” Scaringe is quoted as saying in the article.

He decided to start over with something else more aligned with his personal values after finishing the first car in 2011. From there, Rivian was born, built, developed, and now on the way to delivering its first all-electric adventure vehices by the end of next year. If there’s one thing that the Times piece made clear, it’s the level of dedication Scaringe and the Rivian team has put into making their R1T truck and R1S SUV a reality.

Rivian is still taking preorders on its website and aims to have its first vehicles delivered by the end of 2020.

According to comments made by US Air Force officials prior to SpaceX’s latest Falcon Heavy launch, the payload assigned to the military’s first fully-certified Falcon Heavy has been swapped with another, although the mission’s late-2020 launch target remains relatively unchanged.

This new information comes on the heels of the June 25th launch of Space Test Program 2 (STP-2), SpaceX’s third successful Falcon Heavy mission and a huge milestone for the rocket’s future as a competitive option for US military launches. Perhaps most importantly, it confirms – barring a surprise launch contract or internal Starlink mission – that Falcon Heavy’s next (and fourth) launch is unlikely to occur until late next year, a gap of at least 15-17 months.

Announced roughly four months after Falcon Heavy’s inaugural February 2018 launch debut, the USAF contracted with SpaceX to launch the ~6350 kg (14,000 lb) AFSPC-52 satellite no earlier than (NET) September 2020. In February 2019, Department of Defense contract announcements revealed that SpaceX had been awarded three military launch contracts, two for the National Reconnaissance Office (NROL-85 & NROL-87) and one for the USAF (AFSPC-44), all tentatively scheduled to launch in 2021.

First reported by Spaceflight Now, Col. Robert Bongiovi – director of the launch enterprise systems directorate at the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center (AFSMC) – recently indicated that AFSPC-44 – not AFSPC-52 – is now scheduled to be the US military’s first post-certification Falcon Heavy launch. 52 and 44 have essentially swapped spots, with AFSPC-44 moving forward to NET Q4 (fall) 2020 while AFSPC-52 has been delayed to NET Q2 (spring) 2021.

The trouble with launch gaps

Although Bongiovi did not explicitly state that AFSPC-44 will be SpaceX’s next Falcon Heavy launch, there are no publicly-disclosed missions set to launch on the rocket in the interim. That could theoretically change, especially if SpaceX has plans to launch the massive rocket in support of an internal Starlink mission or even something more exotic, but the loss of both Block 5 center core B1055 and B1057 means that the company will have to build an entirely new center core.

SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy lead times are far superior to competitor ULA’s Delta IV Heavy production line, but the process of manufacturing new center cores is still quite lengthy. Critically, Falcon Heavy Block 5 center cores require strengthened octawebs, custom interstages, and propellant tanks that are significantly thicker than those used on Falcon 9. For all intents and purposes, a center core is a totally different rocket relative to a Falcon 9 booster, the latter being SpaceX’s primary focus at the company’s assembly line-style Hawthorne factory. It’s theoretically possible for a dedicated Falcon Heavy center core build to be expedited or leapfrogged forward in the production queue, but most long-lead Falcon 9 booster hardware physically cannot be redirected to speed up center core production.

Unless SpaceX was already in the process of building a new center core prior B1057’s unsuccessful landing attempt, it’s safe to assume that the next custom Falcon Heavy booster is unlikely to be completed until early 2020, if not later. In theory, this means that Falcon Heavy could be dormant for no less than 16 months between STP-2 and its next launch. Traditionally, that sort of lengthy gap between launches has been frowned upon by NASA, ULA, and oversight groups like GAO. If a given rocket doesn’t launch for a year or more, it can potentially pose a risk to reliability and raise costs as its production and launch teams have no satisfactory way to fully preserve their technical expertise.

This can be compared to attempting to become an expert at a musical instrument while only having access to said instrument one or two months a year, essentially impossible. In fact, at one point, NASA hoped to require its Space Launch System (SLS) rocket be able to launch no less than once per year, partly motivated by a desire to mitigate some of the deterioration that can follow extremely low launch cadences. Years later, financial constraints and years upon years of delays and budget overruns have made such a cadence effectively impossible for SLS/Orion, but the fact remains that launching a rocket just once every 18-24 months is likely to inflate both costs and risks.

Thankfully, SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy could scarcely be more different than NASA’s SLS and the retired Space Shuttle it derives most of its hardware from. Even if all things are held equal and not flying a Falcon Heavy center core for 16+ months increases risk and cost, center cores are still heavily derived from Falcon 9 booster technology, including plumbing, avionics, attitude control thrusters, Merlin 1D engines, landing legs, and launch facilities.

Furthermore, the center core is just one of five distinct assemblies that make up a given Falcon Heavy. Both side boosters are effectively Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters with nose cones instead of interstages and slight modifications to support booster attachment hardware, while the upper stage and payload fairing are the same for all Falcon launches. In other words, SpaceX’s workforce will continue to build, launch, land, and reuse dozens of Falcon 9 boosters – as well as upper stages payload fairings – between now and Falcon Heavy Flight 4, even if it’s NET Q4 2020. In a worst-case scenario, SpaceX production and launch staff will be unfamiliar and inexperienced with maybe 20% of Falcon Heavy – at least in a very rough sense. Even then, much of that unfamiliarity may still be tempered by the fact that Falcon Heavy center cores share a large amount of commonality with the Falcon 9 first stages SpaceX’s workforce will remain deeply familiar with.

Indeed, Falcon Heavy’s second launch has already demonstrated this to some extent, occurring without issue more than 14 months after the rocket’s inaugural launch. It seems that the only real loss incurred by a ~16-month delay between Flights 3 and 4 will be having to wait another year (or more) to witness Falcon Heavy’s next launch.

Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes.

Videos taken of the massive, red-wrapped all-electric truck reveal that the Semi carried a long banner on its back, which featured the iconic colors of the pride flag. The Semi, together with Tesla’s overall presence in the parade, appear to have been appreciated by those watching the festivities, as evidenced by the loud cheers for the electric car maker and its fleet of vehicles. 

The Tesla Semi made an appearance at the recently held 2019 Pride Parade at San Francisco, CA. The all-electric long-hauler was placed up front, accompanying Tesla employees and leading the Model 3, Model S, and Model X, which the company also brought over to the event. 

Apart from Tesla, several notable companies such as Google also made their presence known at San Francisco’s Pride Parade this Sunday. Interestingly, Google’s appearance had a shade of controversy, as some employees of the search giant showed up to protest the company’s stance on alleged hate speech present in platforms such as YouTube. Prior to the parade, Google was criticized by the LGBTQ community for allowing videos of conservative commentator Steven Crowder, who had constantly attacked Vox journalist Carlos Maza’s sexual orientation and ethnicity, to remain on the video streaming platform. 

Upon review of Crowder’s content, YouTube noted that the commentator, while using hurtful language against the journalist, did not violate community guidelines on hate speech. Protesting YouTube’s decision, a group of Google employees then called on the Pride Parade organizers to drop the search giant’s sponsorship of the event. Google was ultimately still allowed to participate in the parade, on account of the company’s history of being a strong ally to LGBTQ communities.

Tesla, for its part, has developed a reputation for being one of the most inclusive companies in the market, ranking a perfect 100 score at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Foundation’s 2019 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) earlier this year. The HRC dubbed Tesla as one of the best companies for LGBTQ workers in the United States, thanks in part to policies such as equal health coverage for transgender individuals, equivalency in same and different-sex spousal medical and soft benefits, and policies that actively prohibit the discrimination of employees based on their gender orientation. 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is no different. Having made his stance clear on the LGBTQ conversation in the past, Musk has exhibited little patience for hate speech. This could be seen in an interaction with a Twitter user last year, who complained about Tesla’s pro-LGBTQ stance. In a quick response, Musk wrote “Don’t buy our car if that’s a problem. People should be free to live their lives where their heart takes them.”

A walkthrough video featuring one of Porsche’s Taycan prototypes has provided an idea about the interior space of the German automaker’s highly-anticipated all-electric sedan. While still camouflaged, it was quite evident that in terms of interior space, the Taycan appears to be closer to the Tesla Model 3 than the Model S.

Auto YouTuber and Porsche enthusiast ThomasGeigerCar was able to get a close look at a camouflaged Taycan prototype. Similar to other reviewers who have interacted with the vehicle, Thomas was impressed with the Taycan’s driving capabilities, which is specifically being designed by the company to be just as compelling as their other iconic creations like the legendary 911. The reviewer also added that in terms of size, the Taycan is expected to be a bit smaller than the Panamera, Porsche’s premier four-seater. 

A good part of the review involved a look at the interior space of the upcoming all-electric vehicle. Based on footage taken inside the Taycan’s camouflaged interior, it seems like there is ample space for passengers in front, though similar to other vehicles in the company’s lineup, seating appears to be quite low. The back seats of the Taycan appear to be another story, as they seem to be quite cramped. Headroom at the back seats seems adequate at best as well. 

It should be noted that the Taycan prototype that was featured in the review is a camouflaged unit, which means that several aspects of the vehicle could still change in its production version. The roof of the production Taycan would likely not be as simple as the prototype’s, for example, and this could result in improvements for the rear seats’ headroom. Nevertheless, it is still evident that the overall space at the Taycan prototype’s rear seems notably smaller than that of the Tesla Model S, a vehicle that is being considered as its main competition. 

The Porsche Taycan has spent several years in development, and during that time, it has been framed as a vehicle that can challenge the Model S, which has been making waves in the large premium sedan market. Considering that Porsche already has the Panamera, it is understandable that the company is making the Taycan more compact than its own large four-seater. Unfortunately, this strategy would likely make the Taycan’s interior space closer to the Tesla Model 3, which is more affordable. 

Yet, despite the Taycan’s rear not being as spacious as the Tesla Model S, the vehicle would likely play a big role in the electrification of Porsche’s lineup of vehicles. The automaker, after all, is not a mass-market brand, which means that the Taycan, instead of attracting customers away from a Model S or Model 3, will likely attract potential car buyers from the internal combustion engine. And for a company like Porsche which has already sworn off diesel, the Taycan’s characteristics, from its driving dynamics to its interior, could very well be part of a long-term plan. 

Watch ThomasGeigerCar‘s review of the Porsche Taycan’s interior in the video below.