Electric cars

AdrianC

Herzlos wrote: »

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.

En-route, the only public charging is one town with 2 x 7kW and <fanfare> 1 x 43kW and 2 x 50kW fast chargers, and a second town with 2 x 22kW in a multistory car park.

No motorways or services anywhere near.

ElefantEd

AdrianC wrote: »

En-route, the only public charging is one town with 2 x 7kW and <fanfare> 1 x 43kW and 2 x 50kW fast chargers, and a second town with 2 x 22kW in a multistory car park.

No motorways or services anywhere near.

Now I'm intrigued! A 300 mile journey in the UK, nowhere near a motorway or a rapid charger? I'm guessing either Mid-Wales or perhaps NE Scotland enlighten me!



It's an interesting question to find out where currently one could be furthest from a decent charger and how far it is.

AdrianC

ElefantEd wrote: »

I'm guessing either Mid-Wales

Correct. Home (Welsh borders) to St Davids, then around St Brides Bay.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

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.

Right I've had a read through and something stands out - gradually (as per all our previous discussions like this) you have steadily withdrawn claim after claim after claim.

I do appreciate this, but I simply don't understand why you don't therefore stop!

It seems to me that you have 3 main areas of complaint with my postings.

1. Such as your 'fanboi' issue - are based on your mis-remembering the facts, so I have to painstakingly take you through each one, before you remove them as an issue - though I do of course appreciate you walking them back, and admitting your error, I don't understand why you keep walking them forward in the first place. Why won't you learn from your mistakes.

As an addendum on this point, you will see from my helpful referencing of the 'fanboi' posts that you can simply click on the comment and jump back to the discussion for context - I'm unable to do this with your comments as they are not properly referenced.

2. You have an issue with me pushing back too hard, especially against Ade's false and misleading claims/statements - but, you yourself admit that you don't have the time to fact check his posts, which hardly seems true given the large portion of your life you appear to devote to nit picking all of my comments.

The 35x issue is an excellent point, you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the real world to check his claims, and to find out that all of my statements and suggestions were fair and reasonable. So your claims that I pushback too hard are based on you not bothering to check the background to the 'argument' each time.

Might I suggest you spend less time pushing back on me pushing back, and instead push back on those that deserve a push back, or if you prefer, push back on your push back of my push backs (and yes, this sentence was deliberately silly, but some levity is needed for me to remain sane in the face of your comments).

3. Your misunderstanding, or lack of understanding about what I've said. You demanded I state that Tesla is not making a profit at this point in time, because you have chosen to question the meaning behind my comments. You could have asked me nicely and had a pleasant chat about profitability v's profits etc etc. the exact same would have saved us both a week of nonsense in the case of my correct and fair commentary on PSA. Instead you played the 'no buts' card to insinuate I'd said something I hadn't, or to take an extremely narrow view regarding my wording.

Addendum, it's interesting that you take such a narrow approach to my statements, but repeatedly advise me on what Ade 'actually meant' when he says something totally false and misleading.

Now, going back to your comment above, the fun thing here is that you've implied I said (or that I was saying) that Tesla had made a profit (currently) - I had not, I was pointing out that they had made profits previously, and that their business model appears profitable. I made these comments to counter the FUD that you can not deny is designed to imply that the company, as a whole, is not a profitable company full stop, which is highly misleading (see the article I posted today). [Also a good example as to why your 'no if's no but's' demand(s) is normally used to prevent clarification and fuller understanding.]

So, you've suggested I said something that I never said.

However, you have now repeatedly stated that the Renault Zoe is profitable (not Renault, but the Renault Zoe), when the comment you have used does not say that, it says profitable against variable costs.

So, let's sum up, the TM3 and Renault Zoe are both profitable against variable costs.

You've stated or implied that I've said Tesla is currently profitable, when I haven't.

Whilst you are merrily stating that the Zoe is profitable, when so far that doesn't appear to be true. I'm not being picky, on this occassion neither is Ade, and Z has been very thorough in running through the whole issue with you, yet whilst attacking me for something I haven't said, you are more than happy to make the false claim yourself.

almillar wrote: »

You really do have trouble with the present and the future, don't you? Renault ARE profitable, the Zoe IS profitable, according to Renault.

You literally couldn't make all of this up!

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

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.

They haven't made the claim, you have.

almillar wrote: »

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

On EV's? That is what we were talking about, yes?

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

I thought you had hybrids flagged as not-really-counting? The vast, vast majority of those 4m are hybrids, and only a small proportion of those are plug-in.

I. Nothing wrong with hybrids, but of course the future is BEV's, with the technology proven by hybrids, so no need to say silly things.

2. You say that the vast, vast majority of those 4m are hybrids with only a small proportion being plug-in. Is that true? Do you have a break down?

3. Still sticking with 22x?

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

2. You say that the vast, vast majority of those 4m are hybrids with only a small proportion being plug-in. Is that true? Do you have a break down?

Did you not even bother to glance briefly at the graphic within the post you quoted?

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Did you not even bother to glance briefly at the graphic within the post you quoted?

The graphic is for California, did you not even bother to glance briefly at the title?

zeupater

almillar wrote: »

.
..
(zeupdater)

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.
.....

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.

Hi

The issue is that the statement referenced was so carefully worded that it stands out like a sore thumb ... the term "measured on variable costs." would indicate that they do not make an overall profit on production & sales of the EV as the fixed costs aren't fully recovered ... they are likely contributing to the running costs of the facility they're built in but it's likely that if they only built that model and didn't cross-subsidise the EV build with ICE models, the whole plant would be making a loss ...

So to your question - did Renault lie about profit?, well no they were just using product costing terms & technicalities. For various reasons many companies improve their position on profitability by selling goods at an overall loss as long as there's a level of contribution towards the fixed cost element - it could be a case of ramping up production, raising plant & machinery utilisation levels, planning to buy market share or plenty of other major reasons, but it happens ... so is the Zoe profitable?, from the statement made likely not - but if the plant or production line is unable to run at full capacity without building the EV, all of the remaining ICE vehicles built that do make a profit would be less profitable - that's how product costing & management accounting works!

HTH
Z

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The graphic is for California, did you not even bother to glance briefly at the title?

Do you think California is likely to be more of an early-adopter, as far as electric vehicles, than the rest of the world?



Are you suggesting that the rest of the world has seen a considerably higher proportion of pure EV/PHEV to "plain" hybrid sales than California?


The link you posted originally, with the total 4m vehicle figure, includes this line, just above that graphic:

"BNEF expects California to continue leading the way in the US market. EVs — again, that means including hybrids in this analysis — are already about 10% of sales in the Golden State, but the data shows an interesting change in buying habits. Where once the hybrids led the way, plug-in hybrids and battery electric cars are now outselling hybrids."
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/03/4-million-electrified-vehicles-sold-globally-5-million-expected-in-6-months-bnef/


I'm really quite surprised that you're questioning the statement than "plain" hybrids are the vast majority of "electrified" vehicles. It would seem to me to be a basic truism, given the market start they've had, and given the current market availability.