Electric cars

NBLondon

zeupater wrote: »

Why would a 300 mile range be the 'rule not the exception'? ... surely there's a market for vehicles with a selection of optional power packs offering different ranges as a cost-related choice to the buyer.

Because it's currently the rule rather then the exception for ICE and many people will look for a straight equivalent... If the price differential is significant and people stop and think about their actual regular needs over their "once a year" needs then you're right - a specific model with 2 or 3 power pack options will be sort of the equivalent of an ICE model coming in 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 options. How many people (not MSE'rs - ordinary people) really work out the savings in fuel consumption between two ICE options? How many will go for the larger engine, saying they want more performance when the reality is that the difference they perceive and can actually use is minimal?

Come to think of it - at that future point - when EVs are more common than ICE - how? (will?) the companies try to compete on performance... Just shoving in a bigger motor might increase power at the expense of faster battery drain and thus reduce range but adding a bigger battery pack to compensate increases weight. Power/weight ratio calculations will be somewhat different. BMW must have already done this with the i8... and decided to go hybrid to get the 300 mile range; the electric-only range is noticeably less! Even if they removed the ICE components for more battery space/weight - it would probably still be pretty poor for range (just like most ICE supercars are).

AdrianC

NBLondon wrote: »

Come to think of it - at that future point - when EVs are more common than ICE - how? (will?) the companies try to compete on performance...

As far as fuel efficiency goes, simple - once range stops being an issue, the relevant figure will be quoted as distance/fuel unit - miles/kWh or kWh/100km.

Just shoving in a bigger motor might increase power at the expense of faster battery drain and thus reduce range but adding a bigger battery pack to compensate increases weight. Power/weight ratio calculations will be somewhat different.

Power to weight will still be relevant.

Herzlos

NBLondon wrote: »

Because it's currently the rule rather then the exception for ICE and many people will look for a straight equivalent...

I don't think it'll be a like-for-like comparison for many though. Sure, an ICE with a 600 mile range* may mean visiting a petrol station once a month, but for those that can charge at home/work/Asda, do they need to wait a month before recharging?




*Newer diesels / small petrol turbos can certainly manage about 600 miles on a single tank of fuel, but there are still a lot of cars on the roads with much, much shorter ranges.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

OK, so the figure of 4m is just plug-in.

Any guesses as to the number of non-plugin hybrids extant?


I do apologise for taking the article you posted at face value, given that it includes the line...

(My emphasis)


The "4m" figure did sound like a low number, and it doesn't take much to find...
https://newsroom.toyota.eu/global-sales-of-toyota-hybrids-reach-10-million/





So I stand by the comment - and I think we can now agree that it's proven? - that of the total pool of "electrified" vehicles, the vast majority are indeed non-plugin hybrids.

My apologies for not questioning the figures you posted.

Thank you for the apology, and finally admitting that your claim was not true. It's a shame that you couldn't have done that sooner, since your rude and obstructive posts yesterday, will probably attract Al's ire on me again now!

AdrianC wrote: »

My apologies for not questioning the figures you posted.

LOL, that's funny. Now it's my fault you are always wrong.


Now, are you ready to admit that your 22x claim is a complete lie?

How's about the Tesla semi 'facts' you made?

zeupater

NBLondon wrote: »

Because it's currently the rule rather then the exception for ICE and many people will look for a straight equivalent... If the price differential is significant and people stop and think about their actual regular needs over their "once a year" needs then you're right - a specific model with 2 or 3 power pack options will be sort of the equivalent of an ICE model coming in 1.0, 1.2 and 1.5 options. How many people (not MSE'rs - ordinary people) really work out the savings in fuel consumption between two ICE options? How many will go for the larger engine, saying they want more performance when the reality is that the difference they perceive and can actually use is minimal?

Come to think of it - at that future point - when EVs are more common than ICE - how? (will?) the companies try to compete on performance... Just shoving in a bigger motor might increase power at the expense of faster battery drain and thus reduce range but adding a bigger battery pack to compensate increases weight. Power/weight ratio calculations will be somewhat different. BMW must have already done this with the i8... and decided to go hybrid to get the 300 mile range; the electric-only range is noticeably less! Even if they removed the ICE components for more battery space/weight - it would probably still be pretty poor for range (just like most ICE supercars are).

Hi

- "Because it's currently the rule rather then the exception for ICE and many people will look for a straight equivalent" ... Possibly, but you'd need to consider what proportion of motorists currently run their tank to empty before filling it up to the brim once a month vs those that buy to a budget each time they buy fuel.

- "If the price differential is significant and people stop and think about their actual regular needs over their "once a year" needs then you're right" ... The consideration here is that a multi-layer plastic formed fuel tank adding £tens to the cost of an ICEV is replaced by a battery pack which adds £thousands to the cost of a BEV - on higher range BEVs that's currently probably somewhere between £10k & £20k, so the differential is significant. If there was an option for a reduced range battery version, of say 150 miles vs 300miles, which resulted in a price reduction of £5k-£10k and the only consumer downside was a need to charge fortnightly as opposed to monthly then that's enough of an incentive for people to think, after-all the £10k saved can certainly still buy a lot of useful goods & services such as extended range car hire for that "once a year" need.

- "Just shoving in a bigger motor might increase power at the expense of faster battery drain and thus reduce range" ... If the bigger motor operates at what is effectively the same efficiency as the smaller one, the only real difference is the motor dimensions & weight. Unless the additional motive power is used to accelerate the vehicle more aggressively, the amount of energy used should be very similar - it's also extremely likely that manufacturers will use software to limit the electric motor performance in order to improve range, similar to the ECO, Normal & Power modes available in various current vehicle models.

HTH
Z

NigeWick

zeupater wrote: »

surely there's a market for vehicles with a selection of optional power packs offering different ranges as a cost-related choice to the buyer.

I would have been happy with my 2018 40kWh Nissan Leaf, if, it could rapid charge a number of times consecutively without the charge slowing down to almost nonexistant. #rapidgate

almillar

(Martyn)

I'm unable to do this with your comments as they are not properly referenced.

I'll look into this. I'm not used to making such big posts.

2. You have an issue with me pushing back too hard,

I think this is even too far. I make slight corrections/comments and get jumped on for daring to defend my good friend/some stranger on the internet, AdrianC.

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.

Not true whatsover. I kept out of that completely for many pages/weeks whilst you two argued over it, then you mentioned it to him every time he posted. I was trying to get it knocked on the head and draw a line under it. He still hasn't come back on it I'm sure you've noticed. At this point in time, I believe your 2x claim.

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).

Again, complete blindness in relation to the many, many times, in this thread, that I've pushed back on Adrian.

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,

Keep it simple. The company, as a whole IS NOT a profitable company, full stop. That's one line. You write paragraphs explaining it away, but it's a fact. Stop calling it FUD.

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

I think you said Model X and S, and I'm not sure if the Model 3 is profitable yet, but yes, I'll go with that.

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

Nope. I've clearly stated, after I asked you to state that Tesla aren't in profit (which you did, thank you), that you are brushing over it, and anyone that points it out, is anti Tesla, lying, and spreading FUD. It just looks overly defensive to me. You've said MODELS are in profit, you've said the company WILL BE in profit, you've said WHY they're not in profit, exhaustively - I agree with all that substance! We've been over the reasons and clarifications, but a mere statement of the fact is not lying.

Whilst you are merrily stating that the Zoe is profitable, when so far that doesn't appear to be true

Come on, I've given you an article with a qualified statement in it - that's where I got my information from. You take it from 'might be a bit true' to 'false'. How can Renault say these things? What do they actually mean? Simply?

They haven't made the claim, you have.

I'd heard it, you asked me to go fetch evidence, I've given you that article.

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

We are talking about both EVs (Zoe, Models S, X and 3) and companies - Tesla, and Renault.

(zeupdater) (but Martyn, please also read)

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 ...

OK. The Zoe is built alongside the Clio Mk4, shares lots of parts and literally shares the production line, this is one of the reasons they're able to make them so cheap.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that IF they didn't do this, taking advantage of pre-existing ICE car manufacture, the Zoe wouldn't be profitable. IF they had built an EV factory just for EVs? Sure, OK. But they did. If that's the qualification, it's irrelevant, as it doesn't happen. I've referred to the manufacturing techniques of the Zoe plenty before, again, Renault seem quite proud of it.

So to your question - did Renault lie about profit?, well no they were just using product costing terms & technicalities

Thank you.

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

Yes - the Zoe uses the spare capacity in the Clio factory - they switch between models monthly I think.


(Martyn!)

Firstly calm down and be polite, or else Almillar will tell you me off again.

Actually yes, I will tell you off Martyn - every word of that post was calm and polite!

Where'd Ade go?

Less than a 90 minute gap after your quoted post!


(AdrianC)

How many 100kWh chargers are there in the wild? That's some pretty heavy-duty power - do you know what voltage it's charging at?

There's 1 in the UK AFAIK, unless more have been added. Are Shell installing 100kW? All EVs I know of run at around 400v - somebody, Land Rover maybe, is looking at doing 800v, mostly to theoretically halve charging time (still needs faster chargers of course).

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

(Martyn)

Firstly I'm shocked that you are back. I'd assumed your latest little crusade against me was now over since you have to keep withdrawing your claims when I prove them wrong, and you are happy to make a false claim about Renault.

So let's see. You have no issue with car 54's dig at me, but you do with me pushing back. This would be another example of your self-declared balanced approach I see.

Again it's interesting that you also find Ade's 'facts' to be wrong, if forced to devote a smidge of your crusade time to fact checking, but still want to criticise me for pushing back - sorry lord and master.

I (and others) keep explaining profits, profitability and FUD to you as you clearly don't have any understanding (back with Renault in a bit).

Are you claiming the TM3 isn't profitable against variable costs? I'm going to go out on a limb and repeat what I said previously, that it has probably been profitable all this year - again, I'm not sure you understand your mistake - that 3 people have pointed out to you (back with Renault in a bit).

I simply don't understand your issue with my Tesla pushback on the losses FUD. You are now saying that I didn't state they are currently in profit, so what on earth is your issue - it looks more and more like you object to my pushing back on FUD. It's not just me, did you see the article I posted:

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.

Tell me, with a straight face, that the posts about Tesla losses from the regular anti-EV guys on here are not deliberate FUD?

You want to have a go at my 'where's Ade' joke? Is this you being balanced again, or back to your lord and master role. Ade was still on-line and as you will note he's very, very fast to respond to me with spin, negativity and false claims, but when asked to evidence his claims he goes quiet. If the anti-EV guys want to take cheap shots at me, then I'm going to pushback - you don't have to stick your nose in all the time you know?

[Edit - You may wish to note that when I posted the original article about there now being 4m EV's, Ade responded just 5 minutes later with his claim against me (regarding hybrids) and his false claim about the make up of the 4m cars.

You might also wish to note that when I challenged his claim yesterday, asking for evidence about the global 4m cars, he responded 4 minutes later with his insult, an insult based on his miss understanding what the graphic he'd previously posted represented. So perhaps you are not as balanced as you keep claiming to be. M.]


Now for the biggie - conclusion first:

You have been suggesting that my comments about Tesla and profits aren't clear that they are not currently making a profit (assuming they aren't, we'll have to see Q end results).

So you lecture me day after day for saying or suggesting something, that I simply haven't said nor suggested. The fault lies with your lack of understanding, since you are, day after day, falsely claiming the Renault Zoe is profitable, when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that.

In fact I'd say there is glaring evidence that it isn't yet profitable, the evidence was supplied by you.

The statement was qualified, and said they were profitable against variable costs, that's good news for Renault, but obviously Tesla have achieved that already on all their EV's.

But ask yourself, if it was profitable (against variable and fixed costs) then would they have included the qualification? Of course not.

So I have said nothing wrong, but you follow me around day after day implying I have, whilst you repeatedly claim that the Renault Zoe is profitable based on a statement that clearly shows it isn't.

Do you understand where you are going wrong? Do you understand fixed and variable costs (I mentioned them prior to you Renault post). First you cover variable costs, otherwise the product will NEVER be profitable, then you cover fixed costs, often the issue with fixed costs is reaching a production level high enough.

Think about Tesla, they have openly said that they need to build 5,000 pw to make the TM3 profitable, and that's on a car with a retail/wholesale price far higher than the Zoe, which has production levels around 40% of the TM3.

Your 'Renault Zoe is profitable' statement doesn't say what you think it says, please listen to all those that have pointed this out to you.

Lubrevelis

Which is the best electric car for leasing

NBLondon

AdrianC wrote: »

As far as fuel efficiency goes, simple - once range stops being an issue, the relevant figure will be quoted as distance/fuel unit - miles/kWh or kWh/100km.

Yep - that's an equivalent to miles per gallon or litres/100km. But I meant performance in the boy-racer sense as well... A 1.6 Astra out-accelerates a 1.0 Astra but at a cost in fuel consumption. Will it be the same for two different electric Astras - or is the difference mostly one of range? Will the hot-hatch concept disappear if you can get similar speed/acceleration performance from the same powerplant/body combo and only impact on range? Or will it just be a matter of visual/styling differences?

AdrianC wrote:

Power to weight will still be relevant.

Of course - but it may be used differently... Going from a 1.0 for 1.6 gives a performance benefit of X% at a weight penalty of Y% where Y is probably fairly small. To get the same performance benefit of X% by uprating the motor and battery pack may incur a weight penalty of Z%. I don't know what the actual numbers are but I'm guessing that Z is greater than Y with current technology. So there may be a point where adding more power reaches a point of diminishing returns. In the ICE world; that stop point is complexity rather than weight - or the inability of the rest of the vehicle design to use that power effectively and safely.

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

- "Because it's currently the rule rather then the exception for ICE and many people will look for a straight equivalent" ... Possibly, but you'd need to consider what proportion of motorists currently run their tank to empty before filling it up to the brim once a month vs those that buy to a budget each time they buy fuel.

- "If the price differential is significant and people stop and think about their actual regular needs over their "once a year" needs then you're right" ... The consideration here is that a multi-layer plastic formed fuel tank adding £tens to the cost of an ICEV is replaced by a battery pack which adds £thousands to the cost of a BEV - on higher range BEVs that's currently probably somewhere between £10k & £20k, so the differential is significant. If there was an option for a reduced range battery version, of say 150 miles vs 300miles, which resulted in a price reduction of £5k-£10k and the only consumer downside was a need to charge fortnightly as opposed to monthly then that's enough of an incentive for people to think, after-all the £10k saved can certainly still buy a lot of useful goods & services such as extended range car hire for that "once a year" need.

At £5K - its clearly a difference; at £1K, some might not bother. It goes back to range anxiety and how far you think you are from a recharge option when you go into the red.

Zeupater wrote:

- "Just shoving in a bigger motor might increase power at the expense of faster battery drain and thus reduce range" ... If the bigger motor operates at what is effectively the same efficiency as the smaller one, the only real difference is the motor dimensions & weight. Unless the additional motive power is used to accelerate the vehicle more aggressively, the amount of energy used should be very similar

Yeah - that's what a lot of people do with "performance" vehicles. And others want to brag about a top speed of whatever even though they seldom(never) use it. So would it make marketing sense to put a more powerful motor in to create an "e-plus" version - and charge more for it - but a smaller battery pack to keep weight down.

zeupater wrote:

- it's also extremely likely that manufacturers will use software to limit the electric motor performance in order to improve range, similar to the ECO, Normal & Power modes available in various current vehicle models.

That seems reasonable - and some people would stay mostly in one setting anyway. And there might be aftermarket hacks to override the manufacturers setting - the equivalent of chipping or tuning an ICE car.