Yes, Chinese team has become very good at developing new top hats especially given the versatility of C2 and regional preference via the local supplier base in China.

Yeah, I misread my source of information related to Tesla and LFP. It appears Tesla is also licensing CATL technology in order to build its LFP batteries. There was indication that they were in the process of developing their own technology however, that apparently has not come to fruition yet. So it appears the LFP batteries they’re building in the Giga, Nevada, factory are not proprietary.   I can see at some point how batteries will be a commodity, but during these early years, they can be a strategic advantage. With that said, I wonder if there shouldn’t be more collaboration between the US manufacturers on battery development in order to rid themselves of Chinese reliance.  

I would think the new target market will be fairly small when you take income into consideration and the price point they are aiming for.      They claim they aren’t abandoning their heritage, but it appears they are to me.

I don’t think the people they claim to be catering to are interested in cars

Doubtful.  There were poor people in 1974 too.  Besides, what’s the big difference between driving at $3 per gallon (in today’s dollar) and getting 15 MPG ($0.20 fuel cost per mile) back then and driving at $10 per gallon today getting 50 MPG, or same $0.20 per mile. Fact remains that when things are cheaper we tend to consume more, whether it’s food, water, gasoline, or pretty much anything.   If we had gradually increased fuel and energy prices over the last 50 years since oil crisis, I’m certain cars today would be even more efficient than 50 MPG, lowering fuel costs per mile below that of 1974.  The poor would have adapted just like everyone else and been fine.  Obviously fuel costs per mile are lower today than in 1974, which leads to people driving more.   As for the poor being affected disproportionately, remember that the gasoline superusers are not the poorest amongst us.  The top 10% of users are estimated to consume more gasoline than the bottom 60 percent.  My guess is that if gas had gradually gone from $3 to $10 per gallon over the last 50 years (in today’s dollar), vehicles like RVs, boats, private planes, etc. would also be much more fuel efficient because even those who are better off financially would not want to spend $1,000 for a fill-up.  Higher energy costs would also incentivize more energy efficient homes, living closer to work, reducing trips through better planning, etc.   Anyway, IMO we squandered a great opportunity over the last 50 years to become a much more energy-efficient country, and in the process also reduce GHGs.  Just hope we learn from past mistakes.

As they say, no guts, no glory.  Time will tell if Jag made the right move or not.  All depends if the owners have the patience to wait it out.  

still looks like a bloated tick...

Well look at how well their last ad campaign went. Also lots of news organizations have been tying that to them killing production off (which was planned anyways) as a failure of the company. 

They are using the tech to make the batteries, that is what the issue is, they aren't coming from China, plus Ford has developed their own batteries, but that is another 3-5 years out for production.  https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2025/04/24/ford-ev-battery-lithium-manganese-rich/83231092007/

That would never fly because it would make it more expensive for everyone to do and disproportionately hurt lower wage makers who often drive further to work. So it wouldn't work politically