Electric cars

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Still looking for desperate negatives I see.

The emperor is up in court tomorrow for indecent exposure. Again.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

What also needs to be recognised is that established vehicle manufacturers have current product of similar build quantities to support the cost of development of new models and that model change on a modern multi-platform assembly line can be managed on a rolling-change basis .... Tesla haven't had this luxury to date, however as new models are introduced they will have the ability to mirror what everyone else does, so the margin impact becomes less of an issue ...

HTH
Z

Hiya, yep that's interesting. Elon has also said that the TM3 is (should be?) the last 'bet the company' expansion Tesla needs to make.

I'd have thought that the MY and semi, probably to be developed/launched over a similar period (not one product at a time anymore) would also be a bet the company move, but I suppose the percentage increase in vehicle manufacture will be much smaller from now on, even if the actual production increase is even bigger than the S/X to S/X/3 jump.

Looking good, and driving the whole industry forward hopefully.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

The emperor is up in court tomorrow for indecent exposure. Again.

2 counts or 22?

Martyn1981

Some very positive news/plans from GM, and whilst I shouldn't tempt fate, I don't think any of the negative nancies will be able to spin this as a bad idea (whether or not it's achievable):

GM & Delta Americas Working On Extreme Fast EV Charging Technology — 180 Miles In 10 Minutes

The development process is expected to take place over the next three years and will support General Motors’ plan to have 20 electric cars with rapid charging capability for sale by 2023. It is being assisted by the US Department of Energy, says Jalopnik. The new charging system will deliver 400 kW of electricity with 96.5% efficiency — the highest number of any charging system. Such high efficiency will be made possible by using solid-state transformers — an industry first.

almillar

As I read it, you're saing that the Model S is now being built at a profit, the Model X is being made at a profit. The Model 3 looks to become profitable at the end of the year. Understood.

But I asked the question about Tesla the company. They've made quarter upon quarter losses, and I know there are good reasons for that (massive R&D and investment) - can you just confirm you're aware of this? I want them to be successful, but if you try to avoid this fact, the 'F' word could legitimately be used (fanboi).

Please don't pander to Adrian by trying to re-write or re-word what he says, the statement was simple:

'Which is exactly why this "Oooh, but there's fewer moving parts" argument is just codswallop.'

You're taking him out of context. He is NOT arguing that EVs don't have fewer parts. That's just daft.

bulgawton claimed that manufacturers are profiteering from EVs - they have fewer parts and should therefore be cheaper to buy and service than ICE cars. I pointed out that he ignored the cost of components by simply claiming there's a lower number. This is a point that Adrian seemed to agree with with the 'codswallop' statement. I've also pointed out that lots of EVs are being built and sold at a loss. You've now contributed that some Tesla models are sold at profit. Adrian was arguing AGAINST buglawton. Take a step back and take the names out of it. It's OK to agree with him!
EVs ARE more expensive right now to buy.
EVs, I'd say, are CHEAPER to run and service whilst in warranty - as has been discussed, there are some high cost parts to replace if anything goes wrong.

BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by my also arguing with buglawton

Don't confuse the work 'argue' with 'row' or 'fight'.

PS - Any chance you can reference your posts properly so I can more easily follow who you are talking too. It's really easy, honest.

I usually just use Notepad and Quick edit - you mean go advanced and include peoples' names in the quotes?

Can you let me know what the production, sales and profitability figures are for the Zoe please. And to be clear. I'm not interested in the profitability of Renault, but of the Zoe, thanks.

I made a statement about the profitability of Tesla, you talked about models. I made a statement specifying it was about a model of car, and you need to clarify you're asking about the car itself.

Paragraph 8 of this news story states profitability:

http://europe.autonews.com/article/20180120/ANE/180119692/renault-strives-to-keep-zoe-competitive-in-growing-ev-market

'Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs." However, he added, "we are not happy in that we are more expensive than internal combustion peer vehicles. We need to keep working hard to reduce costs."'

And this article would appear to be a good read on this topic:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/renault-managed-to-make-money-on-electric-cars-while-tesla-is-miles-away-from-a-profit-2017-10

Renault managed to make money on electric cars while Tesla is miles away from a profit.

I'm not anti-Tesla, I think they're great. You seem to think it's them against the world (the 'legacy' car makers) - some of them are making plenty good EVs, and the point I'm trying to make is that Renault is actually making a profit on their EVs - as opposed to many others making 'compliance cars' that they don't actually want to sell.

Perhaps you need to be more clear in your throwaway comments about Tesla. Are you saying they can't make a profit? Are you saying they won't make a profit in the near term? Are you saying/conflating new investment (at higher rates than the company income) is a loss?

Keep it simple. Here's the statement - 'Tesla aren't in profit'. No twisting. Are Tesla in profit?!

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

'Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs."

Now there's a qualification that speaks volumes...

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

But I asked the question about Tesla the company. They've made quarter upon quarter losses, and I know there are good reasons for that (massive R&D and investment) - can you just confirm you're aware of this? I want them to be successful, but if you try to avoid this fact, the 'F' word could legitimately be used (fanboi).

Yes I'm aware, why would you think otherwise. That's daft. I believe both myself and Z clarified this for you, but please don't drink the Koolaid and swallow all the spin. There is a big difference between making a profit and being unprofitable, as demonstrated by Ade's support for Amazon. Yes I was a bit naughty by provoking his support of the same business model, but I thought it was worth doing to demonstrate the hypocrisy, and also to make it harder for the next chapter of negativity - when the story changes from 'they don't make a profit' to 'they only made a small profit'. [Gotta keep that negative spin a spinning!]

In the case of Tesla (and all businesses as they start or expand rapidly) they incur losses whilst planning, building for, and beginning production. This should not be a surprise, and it should not be promoted as a negative.

What is important is the ability of the company to be profitable when they achieve what they plan to achieve. Tesla has done this already post S and post X, and look like they will do it again post 3 in Q3 or Q4.

So the banging out of 'losses' in the context used - to promote anti-Tesla FUD is clear, obvious and pointless.

You can defend his actions if you like, but when you need to carry out Trumpton'esque translations of 'what he actually meant' then I see little point in what you are doing.

Do you agree with this comment:

AdrianC wrote: »

Is there any reality which will impinge upon your rampant astroturfing for St Elon?

Yes, they're finally ramping production up - but still very slowly. To date, they've had 2x 4,000+ car weeks, 2x 3,800+ car weeks, and another 3x 3,000 car weeks (one in April, one in May). A week ago, they put out just 2,800 - one of just three weeks ~2,500+. The grand total is still <60k cars.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/

And you reckon that in the year from this month on, they can actually make a big dent in the US car market? Tesla has 0.7% of the car market this year to date...
https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_usa_2018
...and trucks outsell cars 2:1. Ford shift over 800,000 F150s - to get close to that, Tesla would be looking at nearly a quarter of the total car market, a 35x increase from now...

Do you agree with his claim that I'm paid to promote Tesla (or to disagree with his anti-Tesla posts)?

Do you agree with his negativity about my fun guess that the TM3 could become the top selling car in the US? [Note, in a later post he actually seems to agree with me.]

Do you agree that to match F-150 sales in the US, TM3 production would need to increase 35 fold, later revised to 22 fold (thereby belittling any and all achievements so far)?

Do you agree with the general tone, and his need to pop some sort of negativity down after I post, or post a positive EV news item?

Perhaps you shouldn't defend him. Just ignore his posts to me, and my posts to him. They have no real value, and given that numerous of his negative EV comments have now been shown to be false, but he still keeps making more, it's clear that he's coming from an ideological position.

almillar wrote: »

Don't confuse the work 'argue' with 'row' or 'fight'.

No confusion, you said argue, I said argue. I simply wasn't sure what you were going on about. Still not.

almillar wrote: »

I'm not anti-Tesla, I think they're great. You seem to think it's them against the world (the 'legacy' car makers) - some of them are making plenty good EVs, and the point I'm trying to make is that Renault is actually making a profit on their EVs - as opposed to many others making 'compliance cars' that they don't actually want to sell.

Again, don't drink the Koolaid. You should be able to see through the FUD and realise that labeling anyone that says something nice about Tesla as a fanboi is simply a way to dismiss counterarguments. If I respond to a false statement about Tesla, then I'm a fanboi ...... see how it works.

It's not Tesla v's the rest of the world, the EV future I want to see can't be achieved without many manufacturers building EV's and good EV's. A great example is the Chevy Bolt, a good car, but not getting the support and marketing (or production numbers / cost reductions) it deserves. This seems to demonstrate a compliance car approach to the issue from a long established car manufacturer. But as per my post earlier today, their attitude may be changing. [Edit - please note this doesn't read very well, and I'm agreeing with you on the compliance car issue, that I think has and is still being used to delay a switchover, not disagreeing. M.]

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

Keep it simple. Here's the statement - 'Tesla aren't in profit'. No twisting. Are Tesla in profit?!

Worth it's own post.

No Tesla is not currently in profit.

Now for the fun bit. You appear to want to lecture me on twisting, but this issue has come up because of the blatant misuse of the profitability position.

It's being promoted in order to misrepresent or 'twist' the truth, yet you want to take the issue up with me, not Ade, that seems strange?

So you don't want to get to the bottom of the problem, you simply want to criticise me for taking a stand.

AdrianC wrote: »

They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.

Do you agree with/support that statement?

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

'Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs."

Now there's a qualification that speaks volumes...

Yes, on that I agree entirely.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

AdrianC wrote: »

'Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs."

Yes, on that I agree entirely.

Hi

To me that means that they cover materials, direct labour & variable overheads and then make a 'Contribution' towards fixed costs & overheads as opposed to making a profit .... effectively production of other vehicles are cross-subsidising the EV production as the manufacturer can't currently recover the R&D, capital investment, management, support, administration & plant running costs at the current selling price ...

Not surprising really as Renault would be experiencing some of the same issues as Tesla, it's just that they have the advantage of currently having production of ICE vehicles to cover fixed costs within their development & learning stage and also have an extensive existing volume production parts inventory as opposed to investing in new tooling to build one from scratch ....take this and the cross-subsidy away and it'd be interesting to compare the relative true profitability (as in covering all material, fixed, variable, admin, IPO royalties, distribution, tax etc. costs and having money left to keep the investors happy) between a 'legacy manufacturer' & the 'new kid on the block' ... sometimes starting off with a clean sheet has advantages, sometimes experience counts & it doesn't - but as long as Tesla make it though the current volume related step-change (and it's almost certain that they will!), it'll be interesting to see how profitable they eventually turn out to be!

HTH
Z