Electric cars

gzoom

AdrianC wrote: »

I'm sorry. I assumed you knew the difference between a cell and a battery.

You are clearly an international expert on battery technology with no peers, frankly am surprised given your knowledge you haven't started a car company to rival Tesla. After all Elon Musk has done pretty well for him self with Tesla and using generic battery tech, I recon given your know how you could easily get better results.

Elon was only worth $21 billion end of last year, you should be able to hit $40 billion am sure by 2020 if you put your mind to it .

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-net-worth-2017-10

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So all cell/batt chemistry is the same.

All commercial LiIon cell chemistry is, yes.

Model T's were Venetian ships.

They were built using the same principles - the moving assembly line. Ford did not invent that.

And as for Tesla Semi's ...... well, we may never know the truth ......

That's the thing with vapourware.

Car_54

gzoom wrote: »

Elon was only worth $21 billion end of last year, you should be able to hit $40 billion am sure by 2020 if you put your mind to it .

http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-net-worth-2017-10

In competing with Musk, Adrian starts at a distinct disadvantage (unless he is already a muli-millionaire, which I suspect he isn't).



Musk was already mega-rich when he became involved in Tesla, which after 15 years has yet to make a profit.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Just blow on em, jeez, do I have to think of everything!

Tried weeing on them but as they're underneath, got a bit wet.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

Clue: Not all vehicles are cars.

The Venetians were building ships by moving them from stage to stage, with each stage having a defined role, from at least the start of the 12th century. The Chinese had similar ideas at a similar time, too.

Hi

I totally appreciate the history lesson, but find it strange that you labour so hard to correct your own viewpoint on your own spin by attempting to spin the views as being those of others, particularly after my post referenced previous technologies (ie horse-drawn transport), hay, petroleum & batteries ...

Anyway, it's still the case that the difference between the '12th century' and just about 100 years ago isn't quite a millennium, even less time if you'd more accurately defined the process in question as being of the 14th century .... whilst talking about accuracy, the ships weren't 'moved from stage to stage' in some form of production line at all, the process involved allocating large teams of stage-specialist craftsmen between ships as they reached particular points in the build ... the workforce moved to the product, not the product to the workforce with the build rate being achieved by a combination of decent project management, planned materials supply & a huge workforce (far larger than at comparable shipbuilding sites of the time), however there was little in the way of product standardisation & each unit was effectively a unique craftsman-built product.

More apt would have been the effective industrialisation of Dutch shipbuilding & their standardised product offerings in the 17th century, or better still the level of standardisation and mass production flow processes in the armaments sector, particularly at the Springfield arsenal, in the mid 19th century which Ford would have been aware of ... isn't it refreshing when you can rely on memory & previous knowledge of something as opposed to referring to a single wiki as a source! ...

Now, what's this all got to do with EVs? ... well, it's established that in it's early stages FoMoCo & Henry Ford were doing little different to Tesla & Elon Musk, both playing the disruptive technology & volume related economies of scale game to deliver their visions .... products at prices that create a mass market.

If Henry Ford hadn't done it then someone else would have in time, the same applies for Elon Musk, but someone needs to take the lead and attract all of the negativity from those experiencing the disruption .... after-all, I can't see Mr Ford being too popular with coach-builders or other vehicle manufacturers at the time that he was performing some seriously disruptive stirring in the market, just think of the arguments used at the time regarding the number of filling stations & the distance between them compared to locally grown hay ...


"nay-say, nay-say, listen to ME, I thrice say 'NAY-SAY' ... I'm really, really clever & I can tell you that with all of the problems I can think of, this newfangled 'horseless carriage' thing - no, it'll never work ... I guarantee it " ... [sort of, with caveats and plenty of spin, avoidance & annoying distraction - of course]


Anyway, good to see that Tesla are building 5000 model 3's a week and meeting their standardised DPV target of 1000/day ... their suppliers & customers must be happy! ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

So all cell/batt chemistry is the same.

All commercial LiIon cell chemistry is, yes.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You'll be telling me that Ah's and kWh's are the same next ..... oops, too late.

AdrianC

zeupater wrote: »

Now, what's this all got to do with EVs?

Not very much, although t'wasn't me that introduced analogies between Musk and the (generally rather loathsome) Ford.

well, it's established that in it's early stages FoMoCo & Henry Ford were doing little different to Tesla & Elon Musk, both playing the disruptive technology & volume related economies of scale game to deliver their visions .... products at prices that create a mass market.

Yes, both are great at spinning a relatively minor refinement to pre-existing technology as some kind of great novelty.

Anyway, good to see that Tesla are building 5000 model 3's a week and meeting their standardised DPV target of 1000/day ... their suppliers & customers must be happy! ...

Indeed. Better late than never.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

All commercial LiIon cell chemistry is, yes.

They were built using the same principles - the moving assembly line. Ford did not invent that.

That's the thing with vapourware.

.... :rotfl: (yet again!)

Let me think ...

(i) - Cobalt, Manganese, Nickel Manganese, Iron Phosphate ... shall we continue? .... Cobalt Aluminium .... more ? ... Titanate ..... myth busted, even when concentrating on one battery segment, not 'all commercial LiIon cell chemistry is' the same, not even when used in EVs! ...

(ii) - The workforce moved between ships in specialised groups according to workflow schedule ... the vessels were static until the hull was launched.

(iii) - Taking the definition of 'vapourware' then everything that exists on the open market met this definition at some stage, including almost everything everyone has ever held or owned and therefore forms a convenient description to use by those resistant to change ... however, I'm sure that there's not many people that don't order product before any are available ex-stock .... Tesla seem to be taking orders on their future products quite successfully, just as the likes of Samsung, Apple, Jaguar, Peugeot, Nissan & countless other's do all over the world on a daily basis .... in short, apart from continuing a crusade against EVs (Tesla & Musk in particular) what's your point, or is that the issue, there is no substantive point, simply argument for argument's sake!?

Scoring 0/3 looks like an abysmal anti EV fail to me, do try better, we all enjoy a good :rotfl:!

HTH
Z

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

Not very much, although t'wasn't me that introduced analogies between Musk and the (generally rather loathsome) Ford.

Yes, both are great at spinning a relatively minor refinement to pre-existing technology as some kind of great novelty.

Indeed. Better late than never.

Hi

So, there is an accepted analogy between the early development of Ford & Tesla and that Henry Ford & Elon Musk were/are in many ways similar characters with similar visions ... however much you may loath both Ford & Tesla, you'll have to swallow the fact that they represent the two most valuable automotive companies in the world (by market capitalisation) and that Tesla are now building at volume market quantities with customers receiving product & still holding a considerable order book ....

Anyone else you particularly loath that are doing well or we should keep half-an-eye on?... :cool:;)

HTH
Z

AdrianC

I don't particularly loath either Ford or Tesla.

Ford build a lot of utterly bland conventional cars.
Tesla build a small number of premium cars.
Neither's products particularly appeal to me.


What I do loath is baseless hype. Tesla do some of that, but their echo-chamber fanbase amplify it uncritically - and that's what contributes to their market capitalisation. It's just the usual bubble. <shrug>


What drags the "traditional" car makers - along with most other long-established industrial corporates - down financially is the millstone of their legacy pension schemes. If you apply the normal rules, then consider that Ford have made ~$20bn profit in the last two financial years. Tesla?