Reuters: Tesla Has Ditched Its Affordable EV Efforts in Favor of Robotaxis

by Chris Teague

Published: April 5th, 2024

reuters tesla has ditched its affordable ev efforts in favor of robotaxis

Affordable EVs seem to be a nut that no automaker can crack, as every promise of a “sub-$30,000” model or similar has fallen through in favor of higher prices. It now seems that Tesla is following suit, despite repeated promises that it would develop a mass-market EV at a reasonable price. Earlier today, Reuters reported that the automaker had ditched its efforts to develop the car and would look instead at developing autonomous taxis on the platform that would have underpinned it.

CEO Elon Musk has been beating the affordable EV drum for a while, telling investors in January that the car would enter production in Texas as soon as late 2025. The automaker doesn’t have a communications or PR department to respond to inquiries, but Musk posted on X, saying, “Reuters is lying (again).”

The car, which was projected to start in the mid-$20,000 range, would have helped Tesla compete against the increasingly fierce Chinese auto industry. Companies like BYD have built impressive electric vehicle catalogs in recent years, and the automaker has been in a back-and-forth battle with Tesla for the top spot in global markets.

Tesla’s stock, which is more important than the cars for some people, tumbled 3 percent on the Reuters report. The decision was apparently made public, at least internally, in late February, with a source telling Reuters that “Elon’s directive is to go all-in on robotaxi.” Some said they felt optimistic about the call, saying that Musk believes that autonomous people movers are the “future of mobility.”

This course change is surprising and will undoubtedly cause quite a stir, but the truth remains that many automakers are losing serious money on EVs. That makes it exceptionally difficult to be profitable overall and raises questions about affordability for the foreseeable future. Raw materials and manufacturing remain significant financial hurdles to cross, so we’ll just have to wait and see if Elon’s decision is prescient or foolish.

[Image: Tesla]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#Tesla #ElonMusk #affordableevs

Chris Teague

Chris grew up in, under, and around cars, but took the long way around to becoming an automotive writer. After a career in technology consulting and a trip through business school, Chris began writing about the automotive industry as a way to reconnect with his passion and get behind the wheel of a new car every week. He focuses on taking complex industry stories and making them digestible by any reader. Just don’t expect him to stay away from high-mileage Porsches.

More by Chris Teague

Comments

Join the conversation

5 of 76 comments

Mcs on Apr 08, 2024

The model 3 is using a brand new platform. I think the S may have been updated as well. The main problem with Tesla is that Musk is an arrogant idiot. That leads to all sorts of issues. Everything from lack of focus to alienating much of his customer base via twitter.

As far as technology goes, Tesla (and everyone else) needs to get to 800-900 volt architecture ASAP on all it's vehicles. Not just Cybertruck and Semi. That's where the industry is going. Soon they'll be competing with vehicles like the NIO ET9 that can charge at a rate of 150 miles in 5 minutes. There are other benefits as well to 800-900v architecture.

So, get rid of Musk, 900v architecture across the line, put the psuedo-FSD on the back burner, build a $25k car, and a Model Y based pickup. Above all, tell Elmo to go play with his other toys and to leave Tesla alone.

1 Reply
- See 2 previous
- EBFlex on Apr 08, 2024
  
  lol at the people that think Musk is the problem with Tesla
  
  2
- Alan on Apr 09, 2024
  
  EB, you are correct to a degree Musk is having a negative influence on Tesla. X is a problem for him and his right wing agenda.
  
  Like
- EBFlex on Apr 09, 2024
  
  "EB, you are correct to a degree Musk is having a negative influence on Tesla. X is a problem for him and his right wing agenda."
  You can't read. That's not what I said. And he doesn't have a "right-wing agenda".
  Why do you lie so much?
  
  1
Dartman on Apr 08, 2024

Musk is not the only problem, but certainly the biggest…

CEOs job is not to generate “likes” and followers on social media and certainly is not to alienate a large percentage of your customers and potential customers. A CEOs job is to legally generate profits and shareholder value.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.