Electric cars

almillar

No Tesla is not currently in profit.

That's all I needed to hear. Not the rest. No buts.

They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.
Do you agree with/support that statement?

Absolutely not. They're in the early stages of being a car company, plus other ventures funded by a very rich man. There will be losses for 'the first few years'. I've never said that's negative. I just wanted to make sure you've got a grip on reality whilst accusing others of not.

Is Adrian C overly negative on EVs? Yes, I think so. I also think you're overly defensive of Tesla (I know, you're fighting the good fight), and overly critical of other car makers. That's just my opinion, and yes, I'm a fence sitter.

Do you agree with this comment: <numbers>

I don't know enough to agree or disagree with it

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

Rampant astroturfing is that? I don't think you're paid by Tesla, and I don't think he really believes that either. You called him a Peugeot fanboi though, so careful about name calling.

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.]

No I don't agree with his negativity about it, but they certainly have a lot of catching up to do to become the biggest selling car.

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)?

I believe either. I'm at the mercy of posters in this thread getting their info right. Have we agreed at a figure of 22x then? I would believe that Ford sell 22x as many F-150s per month, say, as Tesla have Model 3s, yes.

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?

I think he's too negative about EVs, I think you're a bit positive, or defensive, about Tesla.

Again, don't drink the Koolaid

I'm not, I'm trying to be the one in the middle remember. (In the middle = driving my second EV!).

[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.]

Yes - the point I'm labouring is that at a very basic level many of the old guard aren't pro-actively selling EVs because there's no profit in them. Yet. Nissan, Renault, BMW, Tesla are an example of manufacturers taking the plunge, spending the money, and pro-actively selling EVs - and Renault and Tesla have managed to turn that investment into PROFIT on some MODELS. We've then got the next stage of manufacturers merely paying lip service - Ford, Fiat, GM, that have models in their lineup, but don't actually want to sell them. Reason number 1 is because they can't do it at a profit. This is why I made my point about Renault, and you've also made the same about Tesla.

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

Is Adrian C overly negative on EVs? Yes, I think so.

That certainly isn't my aim. I've said many times in this thread that I have no issue with EVs as a concept, and that they provide compelling benefits in certain circumstances. I think those benefits are primarily currently limited to locations where there are simply better transport solutions than the continued expansion of personal car use - city centres. When viewed more widely, the benefits are much less clear-cut, because of the much more complex issues surrounding battery manufacture and electricity generation/supply in this country.

Even ignoring the battery, there are (IMHO) still major practicality issues surrounding the widespread adoption for heavy users and they are the ones for whom the generation-versus-tailpipe question is most relevant. Those issues are both charge-point availability and the capability of the grid to support an increase in fast charger usage. Those issues also apply to users who only occasionally need long journey capabilities.

For perpetual light users, that's much less relevant - simply because there is very little energy use, and there is likely to be a high crossover between EV early adopters and microgenerators with sufficient spare capacity to cover their own use. But, equally, light users currently use very little fossil fuel.

What I've also done is pointed at the reality behind the hype - both technically and commercially - and that is where it seems Martyn has taken greatest exception.

If we look at the specifics of Tesla...
Do I have some kind of vendetta against Tesla? No.
Do I see them as some kind of "special case" to whom normal commercial reality does not apply? No.
Do I see them being part of the long-term future of transportation? No. As I'm sure I've already said before, I do not see Tesla having any kind of long-term future. At some point in the short-to-medium term, I suspect either Musk will become bored or burn out, or investors will start to demand a degree of commercial realism. At that point, the bubble of their market capitalisation will burst, and their share price will fall to a level at which they will be taken over by a "traditional" car manufacturer. Assuming they don't simply run out of money first. Right now, my money's on Musk personally burning out - and it wouldn't surprise me if we were seeing the first signs of that already - the "pedo" saga/"taking it private"/self-medicating and simply being unable to delegate effectively. Quite simply, the cult of personality never works in the long term.

almillar wrote: »

Yes - the point I'm labouring is that at a very basic level many of the old guard aren't pro-actively selling EVs because there's no profit in them. Yet. Nissan, Renault, BMW, Tesla are an example of manufacturers taking the plunge, spending the money, and pro-actively selling EVs - and Renault and Tesla have managed to turn that investment into PROFIT on some MODELS. We've then got the next stage of manufacturers merely paying lip service - Ford, Fiat, GM, that have models in their lineup, but don't actually want to sell them. Reason number 1 is because they can't do it at a profit.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

That's all I needed to hear. Not the rest. No buts.

Interesting.

So let's see. You want to also push and promote the issue of Tesla not currently being profitable (assuming they don't go profitable this quarter) but see any pushback on this spin as 'but's'. So one rule for you and Ade then.

Yet you then go on to admit reality:

almillar wrote: »

Absolutely not. They're in the early stages of being a car company, plus other ventures funded by a very rich man. There will be losses for 'the first few years'. I've never said that's negative. I just wanted to make sure you've got a grip on reality whilst accusing others of not.

You ran with the profits argument, demanding I make a statement, which itself suggests or implies that I'd said they were currently profitable, I hadn't - so you used the cheap - "have you stopped beating your wife" trick, where any answer given appears to validate the need for such a question.

almillar wrote: »

Is Adrian C overly negative on EVs? Yes, I think so. I also think you're overly defensive of Tesla (I know, you're fighting the good fight), and overly critical of other car makers. That's just my opinion, and yes, I'm a fence sitter.

So you admit the negative spin, but want to criticise my pushback. Also interesting to see that you maintain your position where I'm not allowed to criticise the lack of action/support from some other companies. Funny how you don't chase Ade around for his false claims, but spent a week upset that I said something negative about PSA, something that was fully supported by all the articles. Have you considered being more balanced?

almillar wrote: »

I don't know enough to agree or disagree with it

I don't understand this statement as you then go on to address the points, unless you are saying you haven't checked any of his claims/statements and just let them stand?

almillar wrote: »

Rampant astroturfing is that? I don't think you're paid by Tesla, and I don't think he really believes that either. You called him a Peugeot fanboi though, so careful about name calling.

Hmmmm. One rule for one and another rule for me again I see. As you'll recall I called him and you PSA fanboi's in a tongue in cheek way to show how the use of such terms is wrong. Yet you seem to consider that equal to claiming someone who disagrees with you is therefore a paid poster?

almillar wrote: »

No I don't agree with his negativity about it, but they certainly have a lot of catching up to do to become the biggest selling car.

Assuming they sell all production in the US, which is of course unlikely, they'd need to increase production (at the time) from approx 20k per month to 30k (5k pw to 7k pw (they are aiming, eventually(?) for 10k pw)). Does that help you come to a decision on the possibility, a possibility I suggested simply as it would be such great news for EV's, and EV's in the US? [Such good news, that that might have been the catalyst for Ade's attack.]

almillar wrote: »

I believe either. I'm at the mercy of posters in this thread getting their info right. Have we agreed at a figure of 22x then? I would believe that Ford sell 22x as many F-150s per month, say, as Tesla have Model 3s, yes.

No you are not. You should be able to consider the info and check it out. How long would it take you to check my comments (later agreed by Ade) that F-150 sales in the US are around 500,000 pa? How long to check that TM3 production was at approx 20k per month (Ade himself confirms this)? How long to check the maths to see what the ratio of 500,000pa is to 20,000pm?

Do you still agree (or fail to disagree) with Ade's claim of 22x?

On that post as a whole, are you happy with his claims about me and about Tesla, or do you think some pushback was warranted? In fact, would you now agree that everything I said was fair and reasonable?

Why didn't you feel a need to challenge his post, rather than your recent efforts to continue the FUD about Tesla profits, a negative stream of comments on an issue that is in no way negative, just normal business?

almillar wrote: »

I think he's too negative about EVs, I think you're a bit positive, or defensive, about Tesla.

Yes I'm very positive about EV's, and more than happy to pushback on old and false claims.

My position on Tesla is simple, they are an EV only vehicle producer (plus energy production and storage) and have pushed the industry forward. We would not be where we are today without their actions, that doesn't mean they are perfect, far from it, but once again ..... please don't drink the Koolaid, labeling me (and others) a 'fanboi' is a simple tactic to denigrate my comments. If you want a crusade, then false labelling such as 'fanboi' and paid promoter (astroturfing - fake grass roots campaigning) would surely be a better use of your time.

almillar wrote: »

I'm not, I'm trying to be the one in the middle remember. (In the middle = driving my second EV!).

Firstly, why? As I said before, any comments from him to me, or me to him, would be better ignored. He will post spin and false claims (such as the Tesla semi statements), and I will pushback. Nothing will be gained as it's now clear that being proven to be wrong won't stop him continuing to post new spin and FUD. Look at his responses most times I pop a good news article on here. Look at his desperate attempt to find some sort of negativity from the excellent news that EV sales were still accelerating?

Secondly, hopefully my last few posts have now shown that you are not in the middle. You have repeatedly challenged me for pushing back, back haven't even bothered to check the entirely false claims that I've challenged. You've even compared astroturfing claims to my lighthearted use of PSA fanboi, that's hardly middle of the road.

almillar wrote: »

Yes - the point I'm labouring is that at a very basic level many of the old guard aren't pro-actively selling EVs because there's no profit in them. Yet. Nissan, Renault, BMW, Tesla are an example of manufacturers taking the plunge, spending the money, and pro-actively selling EVs - and Renault and Tesla have managed to turn that investment into PROFIT on some MODELS. We've then got the next stage of manufacturers merely paying lip service - Ford, Fiat, GM, that have models in their lineup, but don't actually want to sell them. Reason number 1 is because they can't do it at a profit. This is why I made my point about Renault, and you've also made the same about Tesla.

Yet when I said that about PSA you got upset with me. Perhaps I should have been clearer that by saying they haven't supported EV's, I meant the development of EV's as they are in fear of Chinese EV's eating their lunch, when they could have been developing and selling their own car like the Renault Zoe, after all they can't just re-badge cars, they need to make the move to EV's or die. Again balance is needed.

BTW, you keep pushing the Renault profitability issue, but, and I have to say this, Ade made an absolutely great point, especially given how short it was.

So, can they cover all costs I don't know, but specifying variable costs raises a massive red flag. I'd assume that Tesla has been covering all variable costs on the TM3 for a long time, yet the full picture is that an overall profit has/had not been reached - again balance until we know more, perhaps, as we can't hve different rules for different companies?

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

What I've also done is pointed at the reality behind the hype - both technically and commercially - and that is where it seems Martyn has taken greatest exception.

Nope. You've made numerous false claims and statements, all of which have been negative about EV's especially Tesla. If you were fair and balanced, then half your errors would be positive.

Simple check, do you now stand by your claims in this post, or will you admit that your attack on me, and your F-150 claim (then and later revised) is false:-

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...

If we are all seeking balance, then this might be a start.

Martyn1981

The more the better I'd say, but true EV's, built and designed from the ground up, is where the future lies.

The Electric Cars From Germany Are Coming. Should Tesla Be Worried?

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

Even ignoring the battery, there are (IMHO) still major practicality issues surrounding the widespread adoption for heavy users and they are the ones for whom the generation-versus-tailpipe question is most relevant. Those issues are both charge-point availability and the capability of the grid to support an increase in fast charger usage. Those issues also apply to users who only occasionally need long journey capabilities.

I'd argue that for all but very few groups of heavy users, EV's are becoming a no-brainer choice. They can't currently tow much, or run all day on a 5 minute stop, but that's the extent of their limitations.



For the road warriors, they'll need to stop every couple of hours to recharge, and Leaf excepted (with the charging/heat issues), most will allow the driver to grab a meal and do some paperwork whilst charging. The reduction in car tax and fuel costs mean that it's almost mad to consider paying for combustible fuel.


For the normal users, it's less clear cut - you likely need to be doing about 20,000m/year for the fuel saving to cover the cost of the car. There's some convenience (charge overnight at home, never visit a petrol station) and tax breaks for an EV, but for many it's still not economically viable to chose one over an ICE.


For very low mileage drivers it doesn't make much sense. If you're only going to the shops twice a week and filling up the car every other month, you'll never see any noticable saving from going electric. The car would last longer, and be cheaper to service, but it'd take years to cover the cost difference.




I also can't believe the generation vs tailpipe thing is still an argument. ICE cars are, what, 30% ish efficient, and run purely on oil based fuel (petrol/diesel). Oil power stations are somewhere like 90% efficient, so even with significant transmission losses it's better to burn the fuel at a station. Then you can also harness renewables that isn't possible on a car.
Then you can also apply a lot greater filtering, carbon capture etc.
And finally, with no emissions at tailpipe, population/traffic centres will have a better air quality.


Arnold Schwarzenegger made a good point: You've got 2 sealed rooms, one with an EV running, one with an ICE running. Which room would you rather be in?

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Simple check, do you now stand by your claims in this post

Y'know, rather than keep reposting it like some kind of personal vendetta, it might help if you actually read it - because the working, and sources, are in it.

silverwhistle

AdrianC wrote: »

That certainly isn't my aim. I've said many times in this thread that I have no issue with EVs as a concept, and that they provide compelling benefits in certain circumstances.

You started well and then proceeded to prove you don't really understand the market.



Read Herzlos's post which has saved me making a few points. Perhaps go on one of the EV forums where you'll see how people practically use EVs now, or even Stageshoot's posts on this thread. (She's seen there's no point posting here any more). For what it's worth I'm nearest to his third group, and have my own solar panels (busily exporting as I type). I also take an interest in the bangernomics thread although I'm not really in that category, but can't justify even a second-hand EV at the moment. In two years time I'd hope to benefit from a better second hand EV market and in the meantime I'm keeping an eye on things.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Y'know, rather than keep reposting it like some kind of personal vendetta, it might help if you actually read it - because the working, and sources, are in it.

That's not an answer now is it, though it does speak volumes. So is the figure 22x or perhaps ..... 2x?

AdrianC

silverwhistle wrote: »

Perhaps go on one of the EV forums where you'll see how people practically use EVs now

And yet, every time I've mentioned actual real-world use that would be prohibitive for me, it gets poo-pooed, and I've been told that nobody actually does what I actually did the very previous day.


Here's another example. Just this last Saturday - thick end of 300 miles in the day, heading west for a bit of a meander, an explore, and a sight-see. Longest parked-in-one-place time? Two hours in a city with a grand total of one publicly-available 7kW charging point, according to Zapmap, and two 7kW National Trust charging points within ten miles.