It's pretty classic "innovator's dilemma" material but a more interesting comparison here is Fisker (probably going out of business) vs Tesla (currently making a small bit of money).
Fisker did exactly what you suggest, they took a bunch of 'off the shelf' components and bolted them together into a nicely shaped car body. They 'designed' an electric car where "car" was the most significant bit and "electric" was the least significant bit. Since existing off the shelf electric gear couldn't get the range they wanted they added a gas powered generator.
Tesla (and I put all of this on Elon) appear to have ripped up history and started from how do we build something you can drive around based on electricity. They seem to have started with what properties do the batteries have to have, what capacity, what weight does that impose etc. They took that very expensive engineering and thinking about power trains and then slapped a Lotus brand body on it to appeal to the elite geek crowd. And they instrumented the hell out of it.
Then they took all of that knowledge and said, ok, given what we know about how this stuff worked, what did and didn't work? Now lets incorporate that into what comes next.
I found that engineering focused direction very appealing, work from zero, develop an expertise, test that understanding, iterate and improve. Now at rev 2.0 they have a much better product than rev 1.0. Their X series should be really something to behold.
Elon also bet big on being able to create an electric drive train with range. Had he started a couple of years earlier he might have missed out by building with Nickel based batteries rather than Lithium based ones. So there is a timing component as well. The larger companies have all put their toes into the water (the EV-1 for example) but hadn't yet committed to jumping. They don't have to commit since they have a working business, building the equivalent to the Roadster or the Model S would have been merely incremental to their business rather than whether they lived or died. So I expect they were waiting for a bit more clarity on this stuff. They always have the option of buying Tesla later and they take no risk in the meantime. Clearly that was on Toyota's mind when they invested.
You can see the same forces at work in SpaceX so it suggests to me it's a management style that Elon expresses.
I think this is an underlying strength of Elon's success and the success of innovators in general (there were a few pages on this in Salman Khan's The One World Schoolhouse) -- starting from first principles. When you have an old model, it's come about due to whatever the situation in the industry was like at the time, and it's evolved due to past forces acting on the old model. To take a basic idea that seems figured out and "fine" (education, or a car) and get rid of any preexisting notions or ideas of how it should work, and start from first principles and think from the very start how it should be given modern advancements, is a difficult and powerful thing.
> Now at rev 2.0 they have a much better product than rev 1.0.
But really, what's amazing to me is that rev 2.0 is better than most cars on the road today which are at rev double digits, having developed in one of the more competitive markets in the world.
I think it really is what your parent said, for any other large existing automotive company, each car is a small piece to their overall offerings. With Tesla, they have a single car that they push extremely hard to perfect, because they need to make this kind of impact to get some remote chance of a stake in the automobile industry.
Basically, rev 2.0 desperately needs to be this good, otherwise no one would pay attention.
It's pretty classic "innovator's dilemma" material but a more interesting comparison here is Fisker (probably going out of business) vs Tesla (currently making a small bit of money).
Fisker did exactly what you suggest, they took a bunch of 'off the shelf' components and bolted them together into a nicely shaped car body. They 'designed' an electric car where "car" was the most significant bit and "electric" was the least significant bit. Since existing off the shelf electric gear couldn't get the range they wanted they added a gas powered generator.
Tesla (and I put all of this on Elon) appear to have ripped up history and started from how do we build something you can drive around based on electricity. They seem to have started with what properties do the batteries have to have, what capacity, what weight does that impose etc. They took that very expensive engineering and thinking about power trains and then slapped a Lotus brand body on it to appeal to the elite geek crowd. And they instrumented the hell out of it.
Then they took all of that knowledge and said, ok, given what we know about how this stuff worked, what did and didn't work? Now lets incorporate that into what comes next.
I found that engineering focused direction very appealing, work from zero, develop an expertise, test that understanding, iterate and improve. Now at rev 2.0 they have a much better product than rev 1.0. Their X series should be really something to behold.
Elon also bet big on being able to create an electric drive train with range. Had he started a couple of years earlier he might have missed out by building with Nickel based batteries rather than Lithium based ones. So there is a timing component as well. The larger companies have all put their toes into the water (the EV-1 for example) but hadn't yet committed to jumping. They don't have to commit since they have a working business, building the equivalent to the Roadster or the Model S would have been merely incremental to their business rather than whether they lived or died. So I expect they were waiting for a bit more clarity on this stuff. They always have the option of buying Tesla later and they take no risk in the meantime. Clearly that was on Toyota's mind when they invested.
You can see the same forces at work in SpaceX so it suggests to me it's a management style that Elon expresses.