Electric cars

ElefantEd

Nobody is saying that EVs are suitable for everyone at the moment, nor for every conceivable journey.


However, the vast majority of people don't do 300 miles in a day on a regular basis (or ever in many cases) and thus a range of 100 miles, so home charging is feasible, makes an EV perfectly practical for those people. Other than those who do very long journeys, the group that are least able to have an EV are those without a driveway or garage eg flats or terraced houses, so having your own charging point and using your own electricity isn't viable. Clearly a solution needs to be available for that group.


As for 300 mile meandering journeys, I don't think that EVs entirely capable of managing this comfortably are very far away at all. Then the lack of public charging points becomes irrelevant.

almillar

(AdrianC)

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

And this is where we disagree. EVs suit city centres well, but are certainly not restricted to here. Less so than a Smart for2 for example.

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.

Sure. Range is still an issue for some. Chargers aren't, from a technical point of view. The solution is SO easy. Instead of big peaks in demand from fast charging cars, stick batteries in the charging sites. The batteries fast charge the cars, and draw a more constand demand from the grid, avoiding those peaks everyone fears so much.

As I'm sure I've already said before, I do not see Tesla having any kind of long-term future.

As I've said, I disagree on this one. Yes, they have to become profitable at some point, but they're on the way to that, after their massive initial investments.

(Martyn)
(Me)

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:

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.

No, no, no. See, you're twisting again. Tesla aren't in profit. With no further comment, good or bad. I'm not pushing it nor promoting it, in fact, as I've said, you seem very defensive of Tesla and I though you were brushing over it.
I KNOW why they're not in profit. I've EXPLAINED why, and I've also said that I don't have a problem with it (AdrainC does) - and yet you still put me in an anti-Tesla camp.

So you admit the negative spin, but want to criticise my pushback.

I guess so. Maybe I think you're pushing back too hard. Maybe I think your 'spin' is too positive. You're passionate, you want to work with facts, but you just have to acknowledge all of them, not just the positive ones. And vice versa applies to AdrianC. And all of us.

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

Have you considered being more balanced?

I wasn't aware I disallowed you from anything. The whole point to a lot of my postings recently and previously is about trying to bring balance. I am on my second electric car, I'm pro electric car, but you want me to be more balanced?! I'm trying to balance both AdrianC and your comments. On balance, Id say I'm much more on your side, but you just want to push away.

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?

Precisely, and I do the same with yours. Balance.

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?

Didn't seem tongue in cheek at the time, I'm actually not keen on Peugeot at all - but the fanboi comment came first, and came from you. Maybe AdrianC was being tongue in cheek, if that gets him off with saying anything.

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?

Sure does, yes, that would be great.

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?

I ain't got time, sorry. Just trying to establish and agree on facts in here. Let's work with yours -
So, 41,667 cars per month, is roughly 2 times 20,000 per month. Are these numbers right? Can we agree on them?

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?

Some pushback is certainly warranted, but I think you go too far, as I've said. Just my opinion.

Why didn't you feel a need to challenge his post,

OK, you're joking, right? You're not reading my pushing back against him all through this thread?! I've pushed back on him LOADS in this thread, and in this very post. Do you have selective blindness?!

rather than your recent efforts to continue the FUD about Tesla profits

Don't start that again! They don't have profits!! That is not FUD! That's the truth! You're pushing FUD if you're saying they're profitable!

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

100% agree.

Firstly, why? As I said before, any comments from him to me, or me to him, would be better ignored

But people read this thread. You're trying to find the truth, so is he, so am I. I'll post my agreement, disagreement with either of you, if I think it better educates people about EVs.

haven't even bothered to check the entirely false claims that I've challenged.

Haven't checked yours either. Balanced, see.

Yet when I said that about PSA you got upset with me.

I pointed out they had been selling an EV since, what, 2010? You obsessed on 1 article from this year or last.

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.

I got you to agree with Ade! Woohoo! Why are you so determined that Renault can't make a profit on EVs, but Tesla can. Renault have said they make a profit, I showed you the evidence on request, all I can do is take them at their word. Why do you want me to believe what Tesla says, when you won't believe Renault? Again, this is pro EV stuff, and you're throwing negativity at Renault, one of the first manufacturers with EVs on the road.

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?

Read that back to yourself. I'm trying to apply the same rules to both. You take Tesla at their word but not Renault. I take both at their word. That's balance.


(Herzlos)

I also can't believe the generation vs tailpipe thing is still an argument

I didn't think it was, at least in this thread, but we'll put anyone right that wants it!


(AdrianC)

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.

No, you're one person that EVs don't suit for now. You think there are many people like you, I think there are not. Average mileage per year in the UK is 12,000, and that suits EVs. That's, say, roughly half the population that could be in an EV RIGHT NOW.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

No, no, no. See, you're twisting again. Tesla aren't in profit. With no further comment, good or bad. I'm not pushing it nor promoting it, in fact, as I've said, you seem very defensive of Tesla and I though you were brushing over it.
I KNOW why they're not in profit. I've EXPLAINED why, and I've also said that I don't have a problem with it (AdrainC does) - and yet you still put me in an anti-Tesla camp.

Some corrections. Myself and Z explained to you why they were not in profit, but that that wasn't a negative.

Interesting that you want no buts answers from me, but want to push the 'Tesla makes no profits' FUD. Clarification is important, you can't be so selective.

Nice to see that you agree that the problem is Adrian's, however, your taking up the issue with me, not Adrian gives the impression that you are also supporting the FUD.

almillar wrote: »

I guess so. Maybe I think you're pushing back too hard. Maybe I think your 'spin' is too positive. You're passionate, you want to work with facts, but you just have to acknowledge all of them, not just the positive ones. And vice versa applies to AdrianC. And all of us.

You're assuming that the negative info posted by Ade is true, that's a false assumption. I'm allowed to challenge false negatives, and I do. We'll revisit this, and your balanced 'middle-man' position later.**

almillar wrote: »

I wasn't aware I disallowed you from anything. The whole point to a lot of my postings recently and previously is about trying to bring balance. I am on my second electric car, I'm pro electric car, but you want me to be more balanced?! I'm trying to balance both AdrianC and your comments. On balance, Id say I'm much more on your side, but you just want to push away.

I see little balance. You equate my calling you and Ade PSA fanbois to show why calling me it (not you, Ade) is a nonsense. I did this when you took such offence at my agreeing with all the articles on PSA's lack of support for EV's. And for clarification, I meant their lack of support for developing their EV's.]

almillar wrote: »

Precisely, and I do the same with yours. Balance.

No balance. You refused to see any reasonableness in my PSA comments, have gone to extraordinary lengths to demand I state Tesla aren't making profits today, something I never said anyway, and seem to allow Ade to post false statements about me, but criticise (day after day) my rebuttals.

almillar wrote: »

Didn't seem tongue in cheek at the time, I'm actually not keen on Peugeot at all - but the fanboi comment came first, and came from you. Maybe AdrianC was being tongue in cheek, if that gets him off with saying anything.

Nope, I was called it beforehand, and used the term tongue in cheek to point out why it is such a stupid tactic.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Says the PSA fanboi!

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry but I've got to do it - Looks like the PSA fanbois are out in force today!

I'm pretty sure that's tongue in cheek, and not first. You can't criticise me for not being realistic, just because you are working to a different reality.

almillar wrote: »

Sure does, yes, that would be great.

That also means that my suggestion was fair and reasonable, not fanboi, certainly not astroturfing then?

**So the question remains why you would spend so much time nit picking at every word I say, but leave his wild claims unchecked?

almillar wrote: »

I ain't got time, sorry. Just trying to establish and agree on facts in here. Let's work with yours -
So, 41,667 cars per month, is roughly 2 times 20,000 per month. Are these numbers right? Can we agree on them?

**You seem to have no end of time for nit picking, but can't take the information given, by both us, then divide 500,000 by (20,000 x 12)?

Yes, the answer is 2, not 35, nor 22. Might I also point out that you will have seen Ade avoid this issue multiple times, even today - you will be aware by now, that when he won't come back, he knows he's wrong.

**So again, given that my second statement in that post, that the TM3 could (but unlikely) not only match the top selling car in the US, but also the top selling vehicle, was also reasonable ..... how do you explain your failure to take the issue up with Ade, when tiny little things I say seem to take over your world?

almillar wrote: »

Some pushback is certainly warranted, but I think you go too far, as I've said. Just my opinion.

You seem to have no issue pushing back at me. Just my opinion.

almillar wrote: »

OK, you're joking, right? You're not reading my pushing back against him all through this thread?! I've pushed back on him LOADS in this thread, and in this very post. Do you have selective blindness?

Nope. I've asked why you took no interest in an abusive post, which used false information, but instead chose to let it slide because I tongue in cheek called him and you PSA fanbois?

almillar wrote: »

Don't start that again! They don't have profits!! That is not FUD! That's the truth! You're pushing FUD if you're saying they're profitable.

But I haven't said they are profitable. I've challenged the negative spin.

The FUD here is the constant use of the 'Tesla isn't profitable' claim, which you well know is being used to suggest that they are not a profitable company. Yet twice before, and possibly this quarter or the next, they will be profitable, as their products are profitable once production has ramped up.

almillar wrote: »

But people read this thread. You're trying to find the truth, so is he, so am I. I'll post my agreement, disagreement with either of you, if I think it better educates people about EVs.

Fair enough, but as long as you are aware that Ade will continue to post FUD and straight false claims when needed (2 v's 22 v's 35).

And I will pushback.

But nothing much will ever be gained, but I have no worries nor concerns as i can run out the clock, since EV's will continue to take over the world (cue manic laughter). I've had the same experience with anti-PV commentary, all of which was killed off by time, but was always replaced with another nugget of falsehood to maintain an ideological position.

almillar wrote: »

Haven't checked yours either. Balanced, see.

I'll assume that's a joke, though it could explain why you waste so much time on me and minutia, but ignore the big fat whoppers.

almillar wrote: »

I pointed out they had been selling an EV since, what, 2010? You obsessed on 1 article from this year or last.

Nope. I simply agreed with an article, and the many many more that said the same. The obsession was yours, almost fanboi like (take the joke) that I'd criticised PSA's EV efforts, or lack of.

almillar wrote: »

I got you to agree with Ade! Woohoo! Why are you so determined that Renault can't make a profit on EVs, but Tesla can. Renault have said they make a profit, I showed you the evidence on request, all I can do is take them at their word. Why do you want me to believe what Tesla says, when you won't believe Renault? Again, this is pro EV stuff, and you're throwing negativity at Renault, one of the first manufacturers with EVs on the road.

Did you miss the critical words in the quote you gave?

Tesla too will be profitable now, and probably all this year on the TM3 when it comes to variable costs.

So you call that profitable for Renault, but in the exact same position, you demand I state that Tesla isn't profitable.

Now, I don't want to knock Renault, and I most certainly want them to produce good EV's at a good price, so maybe the statement wasn't true, and they are fully profitable - but, and this is a huge but, why would they clarify the statement.

So I suspect Renault and Tesla are in the same position, however Tesla has the production numbers to go fully profitable, whereas Renault might not, but cross subsidisation is also fine at this stage.

almillar wrote: »

Read that back to yourself. I'm trying to apply the same rules to both. You take Tesla at their word but not Renault. I take both at their word. That's balance.

There seems to be some confusion. I'm taking Renault at their word, you seem to have ignored it, or perhaps missed the importance, which credit to Ade, he didn't, nor did Z.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

No, you're one person that EVs don't suit for now. You think there are many people like you, I think there are not. Average mileage per year in the UK is 12,000, and that suits EVs. That's, say, roughly half the population that could be in an EV RIGHT NOW.

That's very true, but the figures I have seen are 7,900 miles pa, so even better for EV's, especially for second cars, and secondhand cars giving cheaper running costs.

Herzlos

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

It doesn't get poo pooed. Your last trip we showed would have been more convenient with an EV assuming sufficient chargers. That one is the same.

We usually point out your usage is one of the few that doesn't suit current EVs and chargers. Average car use is less than yours day trip every week. And even then you want on what was at least 2 hours each way, so stopping for a 20-30 minute fast charge would have added 15% to your journey time, and saved you enough petrol money to buy yourself and the Mrs a coffee and a donut whilst it charged.

Most mega mile drivers will have enough paperwork to keep them busy for 30 minutes every 3 hours. The fuel saving and BIK also means they'd need to try really hard to justify internal combustion.

It's a different story for haulage and couriers though; but had to drivers need to take a break every 4 hours anyway, which is at most about 240 miles.

zeupater

almillar wrote: »

...

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?

Read that back to yourself. I'm trying to apply the same rules to both. You take Tesla at their word but not Renault. I take both at their word. That's balance.
...

Hi

That's not really the case though ... what you're comparing is a margin on the build of one EV model which is manufactured by a group of companies to the statutory reported profitability of another company ...

Tesla's profitability is hindered through rapid expansion and development of volume product where none existed before, therefore the line between profit & loss (ie break-even) is relatively high. Although each M3 will be covering it's prime cost elements and contributing to the fixed costs associated with the business, profit cannot be made until sufficient build volume has been achieved for the aggregated fixed cost contribution from each vehicle exceeds the company's total fixed costs ...

Renault on the other hand may be in profit as a group, however they have plenty of other vehicle lines at sufficient volumes to cover their fixed costs & cross-subsidise their EV development program without having too much impact on their accounting bottom line. Despite this, the reported statement that ... "Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs." ... suggests that the Zoe is manufactured & sold at a per-vehicle profit loss (ie at contribution only levels) ...

So, in business terms, both Tesla & Renault seem to have been making a loss on each vehicle sold to date ... however the ramping-up of production at Tesla to levels at which it's possible to make an operating profit may already have happened, it's just a case of waiting for the end of the current reporting period (or the next) to find out.

Renault on the other hand has a really serious issue with pushing the Zoe into full profitability - the sales revenue value from a lower priced vehicle line is likely to result in losses being made until the cost of the EV power-pack falls significantly ....

Where Tesla could (yes, could!) already be making a per-unit profit, it's likely that Renault aren't and wont be until economies-of-scale push battery prices down ... and that's the area where Tesla, with their Panasonic partners, have stolen a lead as they already have control over their own supply-chain ...

.. that's a balanced assessment ! ...

HTH
Z

Car_54

We are in danger of letting the issue of a single company’s (Tesla’s) profitability cloud the arguments about the EV in general.

Considering the former, only profit that really matters is the company-wide bottom line, which needs to generate a return to shareholders. Shareholders ( who haven’t seen a cent so far) will put up with that so long as they have confidence in the business plan. That’s confidence is a fragile thing, and must be seriously weakened by (a) constantly missed targets and (b) erratic behaviour by Musk. The sceptical might say that the indefinite postponement of paying a dividend in order to finance expansion looks suspiciously like a pyramid selling scheme.

On the latter, I have no doubt that the EV will prevail, but it will take longer than the evangelists think.

My own car usage would be a perfect fit for an EV, except that I have no means of charging at home (2nd floor flat) and no convenient public charging point, even in a very prosperous London borough. The future tax regime is also a concern, but not necessarily a show-stopper.

Martyn1981

Car_54 wrote: »

We are in danger of letting the issue of a single company’s (Tesla’s) profitability cloud the arguments about the EV in general.

Considering the former, only profit that really matters is the company-wide bottom line, which needs to generate a return to shareholders. Shareholders ( who haven’t seen a cent so far) will put up with that so long as they have confidence in the business plan. That’s confidence is a fragile thing, and must be seriously weakened by (a) constantly missed targets and (b) erratic behaviour by Musk. The sceptical might say that the indefinite postponement of paying a dividend in order to finance expansion looks suspiciously like a pyramid selling scheme.

On the latter, I have no doubt that the EV will prevail, but it will take longer than the evangelists think.

My own car usage would be a perfect fit for an EV, except that I have no means of charging at home (2nd floor flat) and no convenient public charging point, even in a very prosperous London borough. The future tax regime is also a concern, but not necessarily a show-stopper.

But to avoid that argument becoming FUD and spin, it's necessary to balance it with the facts about the company so far:

When production reached the necessary level for the S, they became profitable. When production reached the necessary level for the X, they became profitable. And whilst we have to take Tesla's word for it, the stated position is that when production reaches the necessary level for the 3, they will again become profitable.

So the business model, and costs/pricing appear to be sound.

So history and facts seem to shine a positive light on Tesla, whereas the constant FUD about profits is highly misleading.


Regarding the time it takes for EV's to prevail, whilst none of us know, the facts seem to clearly show that it is already prevailing, or should I say the direction of travel looks to be unstoppable now.

The percentage of cars sold that are EV's is growing steadily, actually the rate is rising and heading nicely for the mythical 8% point when newer technologies become disruptive and growth speeds up even faster (though I personally think supply limitations may be an issue for EV's).

The BEV element of EV's will, without doubt, get cheaper (and better) but are already cheaper than ICE's on a TOC basis, and there is nothing ICE's can do to change that, in fact the numbers are only going to swing further in the favour of BEV's - this in turn will lead to more sales, which in turn will improve the profitability of BEV's as production ramps higher.


Edit - A timely article on the issue of Tesla and FUD:

Tesla’s Enemies Are Perfecting The FUD Machine, & Playing The Media

As Mr. Forman explains, “While conceptualizing the new vehicle and building prototypes, cash needs are relatively low, but as the production line is built and then labor is added, the negative cash flow is at its highest. Finally, after revenues start arriving from the sale of the new vehicles, the cash flow situation improves until we see positive cash flow at Tesla again. It’s been this way for Model S, for Model X, and it will be this way for Model 3 as well, but the scale of Model 3 is so massive that the swings between negative cash flow and positive are much more dramatic.”

The general public, ignorant of Tesla’s master plan, hears about million-dollar losses and assumes that the company is circling the drain. Forman believes that most short sellers must also be falling into this error; otherwise, they wouldn’t be betting so aggressively against the company.

Martyn1981

It sometimes feels that posting good news about Tesla is not allowed, but I'm not going to let FUD nor fanboi claims prevent excellent EV news, so here goes.

Tesla now have the top 3 best selling EV's in the US, even the S & X are outselling the next nearest competitor the Chevy Bolt, and appear to be outselling BMW, Audi and Mercedes in the US (individually, not cumulative) on total car sales, not just EV's.

And the TM3 continues to creep up the best selling car chart, which is excellent news for EV's in general when you compare the price of the TM3 to the other top selling cars:-

Tesla Model 3 = 5th Best Selling Car In United States


Edit - Interesting comment just posted, pointing out that total expenditure (sales times base price) puts the TM3 in first place. For fairness we'd need to know the ASP, but a good point made I think.

almillar

(Martyn)

Some corrections. Myself and Z explained to you why they were not in profit, but that that wasn't a negative.

I already knew why, and that it's not a negative. I just didn't want it brushed over.

but want to push the 'Tesla makes no profits' FUD

It's not FUD, it's true, as a standalone fact. Many of us have agreed on the reasons, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing. AdrianC thinks it's not sustainable and they will fail. Once again, I disagree with that. I think we can leave this subject now?

You're assuming that the negative info posted by Ade is true, that's a false assumption. I'm allowed to challenge false negatives, and I do

Absolutely. I'm taking BOTH OF YOU and OTHER POSTERS at face value. If I've got half an idea something isn't right, I'll challenge it, or ask questions.

I see little balance. You equate my calling you and Ade PSA fanbois to show why calling me it (not you, Ade) is a nonsense

It's just name calling on both sides. Happy to drop this though and get onto the more important actual EV issues.

No balance. You refused to see any reasonableness in my PSA comments

We've done the PSA thing already. I saw making actual cars for 8 years as support, you saw an recent article crying about the Chinese as non support. We're not going to agree on this. I side with Adrian on this. We can still be friends!

and seem to allow Ade to post false statements about me, but criticise (day after day) my rebuttals.

I can't stop him. I challenge you when I think you're wrong, and I challenge him when I think he's wrong. I treat you both the same. It's just my opinion, and I'm no authority.

Nope, I was called it beforehand,

OK, I stand corrected, and I apologise.

That also means that my suggestion was fair and reasonable, not fanboi, certainly not astroturfing then?

**So the question remains why you would spend so much time nit picking at every word I say, but leave his wild claims unchecked?

No. You say (I paraphrase) 'It would be nice if Tesla took over the world' - I agree. Stating that they are currently taking over the world is wrong. They have done great things, they have grown massively, but they are still a tiny section of the car market. Don't confuse a hopeful future with current reality. Adrian COULD BE right, Tesla could implode. You COULD BE right, they could be greatly successful. Neither of these are matters of fact. And you're just about to write about me NOT leaving his wild claims unchecked...

**You seem to have no end of time for nit picking, but can't take the information given, by both us, then divide 500,000 by (20,000 x 12)?

Yes, the answer is 2, not 35, nor 22. Might I also point out that you will have seen Ade avoid this issue multiple times, even today - you will be aware by now, that when he won't come back, he knows he's wrong.

What you are calling *ME* nitpicking, is actually *ME* bashing your two heads together to sort this statistic out. I'm showing my working, and either you or Adrian can tell me I'm wrong. I'm laying it out simply. So you claim it's 2, he claims it's 22. Either he comes back on this, or it's done, and I'll believe it's 2. What more can you or I do?

how do you explain your failure to take the issue up with Ade

I'm literally questioning his numbers, just like you have. You really aren't reading a negative word I write about/to Adrian, are you?!

You seem to have no issue pushing back at me. Just my opinion.

Perfectly fair comment, yes.

But I haven't said they are profitable. I've challenged the negative spin.

If you're entitled to positive spin, is no-one else (not me, BTW, remember) not entitled to negative spin?

The FUD here is the constant use of the 'Tesla isn't profitable' claim, which you well know is being used to suggest that they are not a profitable company.

Oh dear. Read that sentence again. They. Are. Not. Profitable. That's a fact, not a claim, not a suggestion, not FUD and not spin. Tesla ISN'T profitable. I think they will be, you think they will be, they think they will be, Adrian thinks they won't be, but they ARE NOT. RIGHT NOW.

Fair enough, but as long as you are aware that Ade will continue to post FUD and straight false claims when needed (2 v's 22 v's 35).

And I will push back.
Both you and I pushing back against the 2, 22, 35 numbers.

Did you miss the critical words in the quote you gave?

Tesla too will be profitable now, and probably all this year on the TM3 when it comes to variable costs.

So you call that profitable for Renault, but in the exact same position, you demand I state that Tesla isn't profitable

You really do have trouble with the present and the future, don't you? Renault ARE profitable, the Zoe IS profitable, according to Renault. Tesla ARE NOT profitable. The Model S and X (off the top of my head) ARE profitable, according to Tesla. I take them both at their word. There sure was a huge qualifier in the Renault statement, but you can't say they're outright lying. I'm trying to establish the CURRENT position, whilst you get carried away in the future.

So I suspect Renault and Tesla are in the same position, however Tesla has the production numbers to go fully profitable, whereas Renault might not, but cross subsidisation is also fine at this stage.

Renault (the company) are already fully profitable, remember?

(zeupdater)

That's not really the case though ... what you're comparing is a margin on the build of one EV model which is manufactured by a group of companies to the statutory reported profitability of another company ...

We were never comparing companies. The whole claim I made was about Renault making a profit on EVs, and therefore actually wanting to SELL their EVs, unlike some of the rest of the 'old guard'. Tesla also make a profit on their EVs, for the same reasons - they want to SELL their EVs, because they don't have the legacy issues.

Tesla's profitability is hindered through rapid expansion and development of volume product where none existed before, therefore the line between profit & loss (ie break-even) is relatively high

I know. I've got no problem with this.

Despite this, the reported statement that ... "Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs." ... suggests that the Zoe is manufactured & sold at a per-vehicle profit loss (ie at contribution only levels) ...

I'm pretty sure mine was at a loss, at £151 per month! But they're charging more for them now that they've become established. So are they lying? Is the production of Zoes not profitable, on the whole? I just don't understand how they can make these kind of claims, being a step ahead of the traditional manufacturers, if it's just not true.