Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation China

Tesla Gets the Go-Ahead To Build Cars In China (bbc.com) 94

Tesla has been granted approval to start manufacturing its cars in China. The BBC reports: The electric carmaker, which is run by billionaire Elon Musk, is building a $2 billion factory in the eastern city of Shanghai. Tesla plans to build at least 1,000 of its Model 3s each week in the Chinese factory, which could be up and running within weeks. The new factory will give Tesla access to China, which is the world's biggest car market. It would also help the company avoid higher import tariffs that are imposed on cars made in the US.

The new factory, known as the Gigafactory 3, is the first fully-foreign owned car plant in China. Permission to build the plant has been seen as a sign that Beijing is looking to open up its car market. Authorities in Shanghai have offered Tesla some help to speed up construction of the plant. Meanwhile, China excluded Tesla vehicles from a 10% tax on cars.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Gets the Go-Ahead To Build Cars In China

Comments Filter:
  • by An Ominous Cow Erred ( 28892 ) on Friday October 18, 2019 @09:15PM (#59324186)

    More likely, "seeking to locate another foreign high-tech factory on its soil to improve its ability to steal the technology".

    Tesla is in a unique position as being far and away the leader in electric vehicles. It's not like with the ICE manufacturers that are more or less on equal footing, where you can play them off each other to extract concessions.

    I guarantee that within 5 years anything that Tesla has deployed in China will be replaced by locally produced "TellSa Motors" in Tianjin.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 )

      I guarantee that within 5 years anything that Tesla has deployed in China will be replaced by locally produced "TellSa Motors" in Tianjin.

      China already has plenty of local EV manufacturers, like BYD. They produce both electric cars and electric buses, and several large cities already completely switched to electric public transportation. If anything, in 5 years Western companies will be copying China.

      • by An Ominous Cow Erred ( 28892 ) on Friday October 18, 2019 @09:59PM (#59324238)

        There's a difference between being an electric vehicle manufacturer and being Tesla in the same way there is a difference between being a rocket manufacturer and being SpaceX. Both electric cars and rockets have been made for over a century, but Tesla and SpaceX have pushed R&D in the segment far beyond anyone else. At a surface level they're just refining old technologies, but the amount of R&D they've put in to improve the performance and efficiency of these technologies has put them firmly ahead of the competition. Tesla doesn't have a peer-level competitor yet on that front (the legacy automakers have made some solid products but nothing that pushes the envelope the way Tesla does).

        It's like in the early days of hybrid cars where Toyota had pretty much a lock on that market because they had put in the R&D. Sure, Honda beat them to market by a few months, but Honda's simple flywheel-replacement IMA mild-hybrid system was flat out primitive compared to what Toyota's HSD was capable of.

        China wants the fruits of Tesla's R&D, badly precisely so they can improve their large electric vehicle manufacturing base.

        For comparison, China has a very large industrial base for producing turbofan jet engines, but have been struggling to reach the capabilities of Russian and American designs. They cloned the Su-27 airframe but couldn't completely reverse-engineer the AL-31 engines, consequently their domestic fighter aircraft are underpowered. They managed to steal F-35 designs but failed to steal the designs of the P&W engines that power it. China is desperate for a low-to-mid bypass fighter engine. Meanwhile they managed to arrange partnerships for civilian high-bypass turbofans from GE and outright stole data from GE via CFM, and now the C919 is built with that tech.

        China is genius at mixing and matching technologies into products -- (they're way better at that than America, where it's hard to get product variants to market), but is terrible at R&D. Their education system is built around the idea that you have to rote memorize the works of the masters of your craft over and over until you become the master, and only then are you allowed to try to innovate. Consequently for much of their industry, product R&D consists of "How can we combine and repackage what we have in new ways?", and fundamental R&D consists of "How can we copy advancements from the west?".

        • I'm sure that they have the designs. What they lack is the ability to produce them with the same precision and materials that American companies can do.

          I could give anyone the designs for a new engine but without the machines to produce this engine it's not helpful. I could give the molecular structure for a cancer treatment drug, carbon nanotubes, or transparent aluminum, but without knowing the chemistry to build these molecules it's not all that helpful. It shows it's possible to build this, which is

          • Since the late 1970s Russian air crafts are superior to amarican ones, except for electronics.
            The fly longer, farer and faster. Have better maneuverability. The only reason american planes are considered better is the electronic integration and superiour missiles.

        • by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Friday October 18, 2019 @10:55PM (#59324286)

          Looking at previous work, trying it in different ways, coming up with something new.

          Thats basically how all science and technology has been for all times

          All this crap about stealing technology is lawyerese.

          True innovation does not need trade secrets. You simply keep moving ahead of whoever is copying you.

        • It's like in the early days of hybrid cars where Toyota had pretty much a lock on that market because they had put in the R&D. Sure, Honda beat them to market by a few months, but Honda's simple flywheel-replacement IMA mild-hybrid system was flat out primitive compared to what Toyota's HSD was capable of.

          Toyota actually beat Honda's Insight (1999) to the punch with the Prius (1997), but they both wound up with about the same mileage. (Honda only had a concept in 1997.) But do we really care whose system is more complicated if they both offer the same economy? I mean sure, as a matter of knowledge it's interesting, but it doesn't matter to the consumer.

          • But do we really care whose system is more complicated if they both offer the same economy? I mean sure, as a matter of knowledge it's interesting, but it doesn't matter to the consumer.

            What are you, a fucking humanties major?? Complexity determines both reliability and repair ability, Unthinking One.

            • What are you, a fucking humanties major?? Complexity determines both reliability and repair ability, Unthinking One.

              More complicated doesn't necessarily mean less reliable if it's also better designed, and/or made with higher-quality materials. Maybe you should try that thinking stuff.

          • The Insight of the time could only compete by drastically lowering the weight and drag of the vehicle. Its drivetrain was incapable of functioning with the gasoline engine off because the electric motor was actually inside the gasoline engine (replacing the flywheel normally used to smooth engine revving). This limited its ability to provide assistance and recover energy to very small levels, and meant that the car still needed the engine running to move even at tiny speeds (which is very inefficient).

            Toyot

            • The Insight of the time could only compete by drastically lowering the weight and drag of the vehicle. Its drivetrain was incapable of functioning with the gasoline engine off because the electric motor was actually inside the gasoline engine (replacing the flywheel normally used to smooth engine revving). This limited its ability to provide assistance and recover energy to very small levels, and meant that the car still needed the engine running to move even at tiny speeds (which is very inefficient).

              And yet the combined mileage is within the error range of the Prius.

              Toyota's system had a much larger electric motor that could power the vehicle all by itself at slow speeds, and capture far more energy in regenerative braking. It did all this with a real 4-seat sedan.

              You call that a real 4-seat sedan? Where's the trunk? It's a... I don't know what to call it, short wagon? Liftback? And the back seat is a bad joke. It also handles like garbage, although that doesn't differentiate it from any other Toyota of the era.

              I wouldn't buy either one, but I'd far rather have the Honda. And if I were to buy a new hybrid car and could choose any non-luxury/sport model (just to put some kind of limitation on it) I'd

              • The Insight was a coupe with a very small storage area with incredibly reduced weight. That's how it managed comparable fuel economy.

                The 2nd gen Prius was basically a liftback/hatchback, yes, but the rear storage area was fairly substantial. The 1st gen was definitely a sedan with a small but usable trunk. The Prius and the (original) Insight are definitely not remotely comparable in terms of usable volume. Yes the Prius was not amazing in terms of maneuverability but that wasn't the point.

                The main point is

        • No idea where you got your information from: about what China might have stolen.
          It sounds like the 1980 - 1990 myth that russian fighter planes are inferior to american ones.
          The myth started with the idea that the SR 71 is made from Titanium ( which is right) and expanded that all american fighters are made from Titanium (which is wrong) and went further and further proclaiming that the Russian Su's and Mig's where made from steel. Hence the super strong engines. From the super strong engines and the weight

    • "Seeking to acquire some more IP."
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Jmho but after reading tea leaves for many many years, this is a clear signal that they'd like to shut down the Fremont plant and move all production to China. It makes no sense that they're building them for the local market when that market has absolutely cratered and won't recover any time soon.

      Also, I can't imagine the terms with Chinese creditors were very good given Tesla's constantly dire financial position. In the end the Chinese will fully own that asset when Tesla files. Will be interesting to

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        It makes no sense that they're building them for the local market when that market has absolutely cratered and won't recover any time soon.

        Come again? They're still on target to beat last year's U.S. sales. For the first six months of this year, Tesla's U.S. sales exceeded the same-month sales from the previous year, and even the last three months are only off a little. I'd hardly call that cratering. Most companies would kill to fail that well.

    • Hasn't Tesla already offered up their patents for others to use?

      https://www.tesla.com/about/le... [tesla.com]

    • Actually the most important tech is the AI, and China is pulling ahead of USA in that area.
    • by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Saturday October 19, 2019 @12:03AM (#59324366)

      There are easier ways. They could just... use Tesla's patents.

      https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you/ [tesla.com]

    • by drnb ( 2434720 )

      More likely, "seeking to locate another foreign high-tech factory on its soil to improve its ability to steal the technology".

      Like stealing the patented technology that Tesla has made freely available to everyone already?

      • There is a difference between reading the patent and getting to inspect the machine that makes the item. The inability of China to copy Russian jet engines shows this.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Tesla are one of the front runners but not "far and away the leader" in EVs.

      They have some nice high performance tech, although others have had better chargers than Tesla's superchargers for a couple of years now. They still suffer from quality issues (a recent software update nerfed Model 3 range by about 6% for example) and they aren't even the kings of efficiency - that award goes to Hyundai with their still competitive 2016 Ioniq.

      Where they really fell behind is on cost optimization. They $35k Model 3 h

    • China has a long history of doing just this. Invite foreign company, steal secrets, give secrets to local rival, give local rival unfair advantages so they replace the foreign company.
    • How to craft an electric car is not exactly a secret. Every ten year old, smart/strong enough to handle the tools can do it.

  • Welcome (Score:4, Informative)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Friday October 18, 2019 @09:33PM (#59324206) Journal
    to Communism.
    Make sure your brand keeps its good Social Credit.
    Dont mention Tibet, the protests for freedom in Hong Kong, the political cartoon bear, organ transplants, the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, South Park...
  • It's pretty clear he will bend over for some cash, just like Lebron.

    The spying he already does on his customers should fit right into China's authoritarian mindset.

  • Wonder how long it'll be before they (a) kick him out of China, and (b) start making/selling cars of the 'Teslo' or 'Tosla' or 'Tisla' brand?
    • Re:How long? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Friday October 18, 2019 @10:59PM (#59324288)
      I love how everybody in this thread thinks they're smarter than Elon Musk.
      • What makes you think my comment was aimed at Elon Musk?
      • I love how everybody in this thread thinks they're smarter than Elon Musk.

        In general I think that syndrome is hilarious, but this is one of those cases where it remains to be seen who's smart. Hopefully he's getting enough money out of the deal in early years to prop up Tesla, because there's still a good chance that it will go badly, sadly wrong as it has for everyone else so far. Musk has tried to get people to use his IP before, though, so I don't think that's his biggest concern... as long as he can make basically any profit it's a win for his stated goals if they do copy him

  • Smart move. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday October 18, 2019 @10:33PM (#59324266)

    We already know China is looking to steal as much IP as possible and thus are very interested in copying Tesla cars. Objectively, one may say, this is a stupid move because they'll get ripped off. However, you should consider that may actually be the objective. Tesla wasn't founded to be the electric car company, it was founded to prove electric cars were viable and to proliferate them(the exact reason they let people use their patents). Wall Street types will say it's a gamble but copied (proliferating EVs) or not (cheaper construction), Tesla still wins.

    Motive is important.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Since Tesla opened their patents there isn't really anything to steal.

      Anyway, the Chinese are way ahead with EV technology so there probably isn't much they could learn that they don't already know or didn't get from a teardown (which all the western manufacturers did too, by the way). They have been building and running much bigger batteries (550kWh for busses/trucks) and faster charging for years now.

      Maybe Tesla has some performance tech that might be of interest, but they are mostly focused on value at t

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re "which all the western manufacturers did too, by the way"
        A factory selling the same product would open... after a Western brand got approval to build a factory in Communist China.
        Western brands look at other brands products for very different reasons...
  • What China wants more than electric cars is a carbon neutral fuel.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Electric cars might be viable for the average commute but electric airplanes are not viable for transoceanic flight. A Boeing 737 has a maximum takeoff weight of about 80 tons. About 40 tons of this is the plane itself. About 20 tons is the passengers and cargo. The last 20 tons is fuel. If the energy of the fuel is cut in half for the same mass then the cargo carried by this plane over the same distance

    • A modern internal combustion engine can now burn air so cleanly that the exhaust is often cleaner than the air that went in.

      Prove it with a video of you inhaling exhaust for an hour or so. The claim you make is based on what ? VolksLiar ?

    • Really? Exhaust is cleaner than the air that went in? Would you run your car in a closed garage to clean the air of the garage? While you sleep there with your family?

      Energy density is only part of the issue. Electric power trains are four time more efficient than gasoline power trains for road vehicles. So one fourth of the energy density.

      In a gasoline car, weight has a serious effect on efficiency. You spend energy to accelerate the vehicle, and then when you brake all the kinetic energy is converted

      • Now multiply them up 0.25 * 0.667 * 0.333 =~ 0.05, meaning 5% of the energy density is enough for battery vehicles.

        Let's assume this is true. I believe this is a total bullshit calculation, but let's go with it. What is the energy density of a lithium-ion battery from Tesla compared to that of other automotive fuels in common use today. A quick Google search tells me that a Tesla battery provides 265 Wh/kg, which is just a bit short of 1 MJ/kg. Which is a slight improvement from what is listed on this Wiki page on energy density: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Now, what is the energy density of gasoline from that

        • You always forget that a heat engine in earth atmosphere has a maximum efficiency of 42% ... while a battery + electric engine is close to 100%.

          • You always forget that a heat engine in earth atmosphere has a maximum efficiency of 42% ... while a battery + electric engine is close to 100%.

            The calculations used assumed a car with an internal combustion engine had an efficiency of 1/4 that of a battery electric car, if we assume 42% efficiency then the battery electric vehicle looks worse. That means the battery needs to have something closer to 10% of the energy density of gasoline, instead of about 5% that was calculated, to reach parity.

            So, instead of being nearly halfway to parity, batteries need an improvement in energy density of 5 times from the 2% they have now.

            The calculation used is

            • You are mixing up fuel energy density with efficiency. What is it worth if your high energy/weight only has a yield of 20% - 40%?

        • What happened to the idea of you sleeping in the garage while your gas car engine is running continuously to "clean" the air? Quickly glossing over that?

          Your/my numbers are not too far off. A typical gas car has much larger range than a Tesla. Easily 400 miles for the ice car. Adjust for that my 5% becomes 3.5% and it is within the tolerance for approximate calculations. It is not one or two orders of mag different as you were claiming.

          The energy density is not an issue now, and it is improving continua

      • Cleaner has a meaning dumbass.
        Obviously the CO2 produces would kill them in the long run.
        Dumbass thinking he is smart ...

    • Electric rail is a thing. We already have electric cars. Adding a power rail to highways would allow long haul electric trucks. Broadcast power would allow long distance electric aircraft (Tesla was working on this, the inventor not the company).
  • Not politically related. Rather, quality related.
  • this is huge (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Saturday October 19, 2019 @12:55AM (#59324402) Homepage Journal

    is the first fully-foreign owned car plant in China

    This is huge. It's much bigger than most people here realize.

    For decades, the only way to produce in China was to have a joint-venture with a chinese company. At least in the automobile industry this was the case, don't know about others (but I'd guess it's the same).

    That meant your partner got all your secret information. Many German car manufacturers avoided China for exactly that reason for years and years, until market pressures forced them. The first ones who went quickly made the discovery that all their fears were correct - in the first year, you made great sales on the chinese market. In the second year your sales plummeted. In the third your you finally figured out that your joint-venture partner built an identical factory, just without you, a few cities away and is selling your cars under their brand name.

    Being able to manufacture in China without a joint-venture means that Tesla keeps its trade secrets, and that's a huge step forward.

    • All those workers building and running the factory didn't get hired in California. They will greatly benefit from the extra pay they get copying all the tech.
      • by Tom ( 822 )

        That is by far not the same as having the original plans in a file, you know?

  • by Vandil X ( 636030 ) on Saturday October 19, 2019 @02:05AM (#59324446)
    Politics aside, if a country with some of the highest pollution wants to foster and encourage EV use, I think that's a great idea.

    The sooner EVs become widely used, the better for our environment.
    • They already want EVs. China is the largest EV market by a landslide. But they also want EVs that don't suck. They already buy Teslas, even though they are expensive when imported. Now they will buy even more Teslas. But it won't increase EV adoption, or at least not much. It will primarily increase Tesla adoption.

  • This also means that cars delivered by Tesla to the rest of the world can allow Tesla to horde cash outside of the US in places with lower tax rates... once they become profitable without subsidies that is.

    In reality, it would probably prove very profitable for Tesla to simply reincorporate in China or just outside of the US in general. As the unions become a bigger problem for Tesla in the states, it will almost certainly be cheaper for them to produce entirely outside of the US anyway.
  • China offers another very large market to help Tesla with scale and broader adoption of standards. A tough place geo politically to do business but if can tolerate then seems logical especially since Tesla can be fully owned and not do the JV which used to be required.
  • by Socguy ( 933973 ) on Saturday October 19, 2019 @11:56AM (#59325108)
    Once again the Slashdot comment section is pitted with nonsense. Now the same folks who've vigorously argued for years that Tesla and Musk are bound for failure in the USA because the established legacy players can simply flood the market with cheap superior EV's whenever they decide to get around to it, flip the script and now argue that that Tesla and Musk have made a major mistake opening a factory in China because the Chinese just want to get their hands on Tesla's superior technology.

    Point of fact: Tesla wants into China because it's the largest automotive market in the world. The USA has also got a trade war going on with the worlds largest market which makes importing Tesla's into the worlds largest auto market far more expensive than it need be.

    China wants Tesla because China has a tremendous air quality problem in major cities and as part of the solution, wants zero emission vehicles wherever possible. China is also determined to become the next great superpower in the world and part of this is to control the lions share of the worlds industry and be on the leading edge of new technologies and the next wave of industry.

    The USA by contrast has become complacent. It has spent decades allowing their nation to tilt towards towards rich, established players who have firmly entrenched their positions through various means such as creating walled gardens to protect their business, and utilized lobbying to prevent regulations or squelch upstart competitors and a healthy dose of propaganda to keep the masses in line lest they be forced to change from the status quo. Heaven forbid that all that liquid gold gets left in the ground unburned... Frankly, just look at the comment section here whenever a Tesla story comes up, or climate change comes up. What should be celebrated as an American success story along with the next opportunity to innovate and solve a crisis, and thus maintain the nations status as the global superpower, is instead met with hostility, trolling and denialism.
    • Once again the Slashdot comment section is pitted with nonsense.

      Well you know this is going to be good.

      Now the same folks who've vigorously argued for years that Tesla and Musk are bound for failure in the USA because the established legacy players can simply flood the market with cheap superior EV's whenever they decide to get around to it, flip the script and now argue that that Tesla and Musk have made a major mistake opening a factory in China because the Chinese just want to get their hands on Tesla's superior technology.

      I have no idea how you think these are somehow mutually exclusive ideas. The doubts about Tesla's future were in no small part based on the barriers to entry in auto production, marketing, and distribution. Even if you have the superior tech, that doesn't mean you're going to get it to market successfully. I don't know about where you live, but I don't exactly see fleets of Teslas running around. Then, should some "established legacy player" in a country with a lax

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...