Electric cars

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

BTW - the Model 3 is already in 8th spot in the US for all cars, not just the small/midsize luxury segment (where it is top).

Good news for Tesla indeed - the uncorking of all that backlog of pre-deposits is finally starting.

Once the backlog is totally cleared up, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens ongoing - in the meantime, the Q3/4 and H2 totals will be interesting.

RichardD1970

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Still pushing the Tesla fanboi angle I see. Perhaps you should review my positive comments about Jaguar.

You seem to have some strange ideological approach to this issue, highlighted by your claims to know about EV production, yet admitted not knowing about the Bolt (possibly the most important EV that's come out - maybe the Model 3, maybe the Bolt as it's from an old ICE company), and still claiming the I-Pace took two years to develop and bring to market.

Clearly I've challenged your automotive knowledge (and found it wanting), and that's upset you, but please don't dismiss reality, for the old boys to:
1. Develop an EV.
2. Develop a good EV.
3. Develop a good EV that they can sell (has adequate demand).
4. Develop a good EV that they can sell and make a profit on.

is not an easy thing. Just because they can build 'a car' doesn't mean they can build a desirable and profitable EV.

The sooner they can the better, and the I-Pace is extremely good news as it competes for a market share perhaps just below the X and above the coming Y, and this will further all EV's.

So, overall, do I still disagree with your original claim:

I'm afraid I still do based on GM's and PSA's issues, and the fact that ICE's and EV's (true EV's, not hobbled together attempts to electrify an existing ICE model) are different animals, and require development of the electronics side, particularly the production, or partnership of quality batteries that can meet the already higher demands that customers expect (even Nissan fell foul of this with the 40kWh pack).

Anyway's, clearly we aren't going to see eye to eye on this, and your decision to go down the pathetic 'fanboi' route screams desperation, so perhaps we should end this now on a note we can both agree, and wish Jaguar all the very best with the I-Pace, which by all appearances and reviews, is an excellent addition to the growing ranks of decent EV's.

BTW, I'm not sure if you were serious or not about the 'Tesla worrying EV bit', this may just have been a projection of your going down the fanboi rabbithole and assuming such a remark would somehow irk me. This is an extremely over used claim, alongside 'Tesla killer', everytime a new EV is shown to the world. The car market is huge, and demand for quality EV's is far greater than supply, so the I-Pace is not a 'Tesla worrier' in the same way that a Model X is not a 'Jaguar worrier'. They are both ICE worriers.

Ok last post on this (remember now why I avoided this thread)

I never claimed JLR developed the I-Pace in 2 years. Maybe a bit of lazy language usage by me when I said "a couple of years" but I later quantified it with a quote from the actual person responsible who said it was 4 years from a blank piece of paper to a customer ready car. Not the "at least a decade" that you state. Oh and all new JLR models will be offered as EV/Hybrid from 2020.

As for the rest, we were talking about the actual physical building of the car down the production line and it has been explained numerous times how there is almost no difference in the processes used and in some cases it is easier.

So I've never heard of the Bolt, a car that has never been built for or marketed in this country (I have heard of the Vauxhall Ampera, there's one on the work carpark). It doesn't invalidate my knowledge and experience of build processes in the car industry.

And yes the I-Pace is what I would call an Tesla worrier. It is a direct competitor in the same market sector so will compete directly for customers.

Not a bad thing at all, as more competition in this sector will only drive quality, research and innovation and spur on the necessary infrastructure changes that are need to make EVs a more viable option for more people.

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

It's pretty damn cool, but it's more in the El Camino/Aussie "Ute" mould than the F150. Not a great workhorse, at all - forget 8' x 4' sheets of ply or plasterboard or whatever in the back, for a start.

You can't get a sheet of 8'x4' in the bed of very many pick-up trucks (there's an 8' bed F-150 but it's not that popular, otherwise you're looking at a van), but you are otherwise right. Part of the appeal of the F-150 is the ride height and go-anywhere ability. Whilst most F-150 users could probably get by with an SUV or a Ute (or a city car), very would buy them because of the image.

I nearly bought an L200 a while ago before realising that pick-ups are pretty crap for pretty much everything except carrying building materials, bulk bags or pallets. And even then they suck because of the bed height. Beyond the ride height/4wd, they are worse than vans or trailers in every other way. They are popular because of image and nothing more.

foxy-stoat

Is this still going? Well done for the OP not coming back and sparked a nearly 100 page thread about stuff......now we are talking about 8 x 4 sheets of ply board !!

LOL

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Good news for Tesla indeed - the uncorking of all that backlog of pre-deposits is finally starting.

Once the backlog is totally cleared up, though, it'll be interesting to see what happens ongoing - in the meantime, the Q3/4 and H2 totals will be interesting.

How's the view from the freshly scraped barrel bottom?

Martyn1981

RichardD1970 wrote: »

So I've never heard of the Bolt, a car that has never been built for or marketed in this country (I have heard of the Vauxhall Ampera, there's one on the work carpark). It doesn't invalidate my knowledge and experience of build processes in the car industry.

I just thought it was strange given your steadily increasing claims at both automotive knowledge and EV knowledge, that you wouldn't know about possibly the single most important EV launched.

As it turned out they've tried to restrict sales, especially in Europe, and it's become clear that it was just a compliance car.

But at the time it had greater range than the Leaf, and beat the TM3 to market, and was a 'reasonably' priced 200+ mile family EV from GM - hence why it was so, so important at the time.

The lesson - GM needed LG to help them build the car, they can't (probably won't) build enough, and it's unprofitable.

Perhaps the US 'old guard' are hoping to fall back on lower emissions and build quality regs from the Mango-in-Chief, but I suspect that's a short life extension, and they will be killed off completely if they don't make real efforts to build a good, desireable and profitable EV range ....... like what Tesla does.


Pleased, please, please drop the Tesla worrier or Tesla killer nonsense, the ICE market is massive, more EV's will encourage more EV's. We are a long way off from good quality EV's being threatened by other good quality EV's. If you don't believe me just ask Adrian, he loves to point out how small the EV sales are (not sure why?)

NBLondon

AdrianC wrote: »

It's pretty damn cool, but it's more in the El Camino/Aussie "Ute" mould than the F150. Not a great workhorse, at all - forget 8' x 4' sheets of ply or plasterboard or whatever in the back, for a start.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The only place that would sell would be Australia. A green bogan's dream car.

Exactly... it's the image versus the practicality thing. The very first El Caminos and Rancheros in the early 60s were sort of practical small pick-ups but they grew into this strange idea of a luxury coupe front and a pick-up back which was more for pose value than carrying capacity. (Mind you I did once see a 70s Ranchero that had been adapted as a camera car). Same for the ute (and the South African bakkie) which used to be practical vehicles that you could chuck a sheep or a bale of hay in the back. When I was out there in my student days the Ute was a workhorse. Anyone remember the Ford P100? Based on a Cortina Mk V and then Sierra platform. Imagine that with a Mk 2 Granada nose and you've got the 80s Ford Falcon Ute. But as Gloomendoom says - the tuners started playing games and we end up with the likes of the Maloo - while the workhorse role got taken over by Japanese brands.

Back on topic. There's all these smaller market segments around now - why else do Mercedes and BMW and Audi have so many variations? They can do it by having common platforms and varying the body. So as the technology matures - will the new players be able to diversify or will a big name suddenly sweep in? Will Nissan be the biggest player if they can take what they learnt in the Leaf and the NV200 van and suddenly pop up with an electric Navarra and the electric Infiniti they say is coming in 2021 or so?

Martyn1981

Bit more news on the big US car news:

Manufacturers Cheer Insane EPA Decision To Revoke California Waiver. Will Trump Kill The Electric Car — Again?

If you are scratching your head trying to understand the administration’s logic, try this guide. New cars are safer than older cars. But people can’t afford new cars because fuel economy rules make them cost too much. So if new cars don’t have to meet higher fuel economy rules, they will be cheaper, which means more people will be able to afford them, which means highway deaths will go down because more people will be riding in new cars that are safer than their old cars. Got that? The explanation gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “tortured logic.”

AdrianC

NBLondon wrote: »

Exactly... it's the image versus the practicality thing. The very first El Caminos and Rancheros in the early 60s were sort of practical small pick-ups but they grew into this strange idea of a luxury coupe front and a pick-up back which was more for pose value than carrying capacity. (Mind you I did once see a 70s Ranchero that had been adapted as a camera car). Same for the ute (and the South African bakkie) which used to be practical vehicles that you could chuck a sheep or a bale of hay in the back. When I was out there in my student days the Ute was a workhorse. Anyone remember the Ford P100? Based on a Cortina Mk V and then Sierra platform. Imagine that with a Mk 2 Granada nose and you've got the 80s Ford Falcon Ute. But as Gloomendoom says - the tuners started playing games and we end up with the likes of the Maloo - while the workhorse role got taken over by Japanese brands.

My favourite bit of ridiculousness was this Seth Effrikan device...


But we digress.

Back on topic. There's all these smaller market segments around now - why else do Mercedes and BMW and Audi have so many variations? They can do it by having common platforms and varying the body. So as the technology matures - will the new players be able to diversify or will a big name suddenly sweep in? Will Nissan be the biggest player if they can take what they learnt in the Leaf and the NV200 van and suddenly pop up with an electric Navarra and the electric Infiniti they say is coming in 2021 or so?

Toyota have pretty much done that with hybridisation, of course, including the Lexus brand.

Martyn1981

It was some time back when I asked EV'ers what sort of range was actually needed, as different to the large distances (400 miles+) that some non-EV'ers claim is necessary.

The numbers seemed to match what I'd seen on an episode of Tesla Time News (a father and son team with Ev's) of about 200 miles to get a good balance of range for daily driving v's extra cost of bigger batts.

This article seems to be saying about the same, that a range of 200 miles (actually less) is enough for most folk:

What Is The Optimum EV Range?

The number of respondents selecting 50 miles as the maximum they would drive without a break was 15.3%

Those selecting 100 miles were 37.3%

Combining those two as a group who would not drive any more than a hundred miles without taking a break, they account for 52.5% of respondents.

The range requirement of more than half of all drivers is, therefore, only 120 miles.

The respondents choosing 150 miles were 28.8%. Combining them with the previous group creates a group of 81.4% of respondents who would stop after 150 miles or less. The remaining respondents are only 18.7% who would drive for more than 150 miles without stopping.

The range requirement of more than 80% of all drivers is, therefore, only 180 miles, as 150 miles plus 20% is 180 miles.