Electric cars

zeupater

almillar wrote: »

...
(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.

Hi

- "shares lots of parts and literally shares the production line" ... this is where they have the ability to cross-subsidise the EV production and therefore not show a bottom line loss on vehicle production.

- "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." .. no, the previous quotation attributed to Renault themselves explains that "Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs."" therefore the Zoe as a vehicle is almost certainly sold below it's total build cost when fixed costs are accounted for and therefore not actually profitable. If EV production was operated as a separate division and accounting was ring-fenced (ie - without reliance on cross-subsidy from ICEV build in the same plant & other plants within the group) they would currently show an operating loss for that division and would likely continue to do so until the cost of battery storage falls significantly, or they raise their prices without having a serious effect on sales volumes ...

- "Thank you" ... Fine, but it must be noted that in not being untruthful, they effectively said that they were making a loss on the Zoe build, but at least they were covering the prime costs - material, purchased components, direct labour & variable works overheads - therefore any revenue above this baseline is making a contribution towards the fixed costs associated with running the business.

- "they switch between models monthly I think." ... It would be more usual for modern assembly lines to run multiple platforms & variants down a single line at the same time and as Renault & Nissan share innovation & methodology, it would be odd to operate the line on a batch production basis ... if there's more complexity in a particular model or the company is conducting a running change between models it's normally a case of either slowing the line (increasing the TACT) or leaving gaps in the line to allow operators more time to complete tasks at bottleneck stations ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

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).

There are about 290 Tesla superchargers in the UK, and they can deliver up to 120kW per car. About 11,000 worldwide.

[I know the question wasn't about Tesla's, but I thought the answer was fun(ny).]

Martyn1981

NBLondon wrote: »

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.

Question for the physics/maths boys and girls, but does the mass matter quite as much if you have regenerative brakes?

Obviously with an ICE to get a greater mass up to speed takes more energy, and if you have to brake, then that energy is wasted.

But with re-gen braking, the greater mass will mean greater momentum (energy) and more energy that can be reclaimed.

Obviously more mass will be less efficient, especially with rubber shoe'd vehicles (as opposed to steel wheeled trains etc) but am I right in thinking that it becomes a bit less of an issue in the case of cars with re-gen?

zeupater

NBLondon wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Hi

On the £5k vs £1k ... If £1k represents a cost differential between a 300 & 150mile range power pack option, the Lithium battery capacity (~40kWh) would need to be sold to the customer at around £25/kWh (~$35) which would be optimistic by any measure considering that current medium-term forecasts suggest cost to the manufacturer of $100/kWh possibly eventually reducing to $75/kWh as EVs become mainstream!

Performance ... Well young(er) idiots will always be an issue, but when you have an everyday EV that accelerates faster than most current 'Hot Hatches' there'll either be ways of moderating the performance, or fewer young(er) idiots on the road! ... regarding the motors, the difference in weight wouldn't be proportional to power so it's not likely to be an issue - it's likely that some manufacturers will build with standard motors and detune with software, thus allowing customers to buy a downloadable 'upgrade' at a later date, there are plenty of revenue related options that will be explored as the sector matures.

- "some people would stay mostly in one setting anyway" ... agree, but it's likely that it would apply to most as opposed to some - MrsZ uses ECO mode in hers in all but exceptional circumstances.

HTH
Z

almillar

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.

You've proved nothing sitting at your keyboard. Neither have I, Adrian, or anyone else in this thread.
You're doing fine with car54 on your own, but since you brought it up, you've had 'pushback' from me about facts, predictions, the present and the future, from me before.

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'm claiming nothing of the sort. I'm still not sure if I understand what 'against variable costs means'. But I've taken YOUR claim about Model s, X and 3 being profitable to be true, no problem there.

so what on earth is your issue - it looks more and more like you object to my pushing back on FUD

I've explained several times. You brush over it, and you attack attack attack when it's pointed out. It's also true, so it's not FUD. The article doesn't help you. It's a pro Tesla story, telling us WHY they're making losses, and how they will stop. I believe it. I think Tesla will succeed. But don't accuse me of FUD when I say they're not in profit, without an explaining paragraph.

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

Mine aren't, as I've explained already. AdrianC has been clear that HE sees the losses as a bad thing, and thinks they will fail. Adrian has repeated lots of anti-EV FUD and I've pushed back on plenty of it, because it can be shown to be wrong by people who actually drive the cars.
You can't prove him wrong on Tesla though (whether they will ever turn a profit or not) - and he can't do the same to you - the information you both seek, is in the future. You're both speculating.

You want to have a go at my 'where's Ade' joke?

My comment was a joke too, 90 mins seems like a short time.

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).

There's that over-defensiveness again - you say 'They're not, but maybe they will'. Using the most up to date info, they're not. As of THIS Q. End of. The kind of fact you would bash Adrian over the head with if he made that kind of claim. And yeah, he'd do the same to you.

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.

Is there any reality in your mind where Renault can do better than Tesla? Is there anything Renault can say (I just repeated it, remember) that would convince you?

Tell you what - I'll accept zeupdater's post #2259 as reality. That still leaves Zoe near the front of the old manufacturers, able to make EVs actually work bottom line wise. Not quite there yet, as I believed, but very close. I believe that SOME traditional manufacturers are taking EVs seriously and will do well with them. Tesla don't need to conquer them all.

There are about 290 Tesla superchargers in the UK, and they can deliver up to 120kW per car. About 11,000 worldwide.

[I know the question wasn't about Tesla's, but I thought the answer was fun(ny).]

Haha! Yes! Considering the times I've spent looking at them in envy, I really shouldn't have missed this! But 'most of us' can't use them so I'm not sure if that's a 'public' network.

Obviously more mass will be less efficient, especially with rubber shoe'd vehicles (as opposed to steel wheeled trains etc) but am I right in thinking that it becomes a bit less of an issue in the case of cars with re-gen?

ICE cars get zero energy back obviously, EVs get 'some' back, but it isn't 100% efficient, nevermind all the friction you mention. No matter what the mass, you've had to accelerate and decelerate the same mass, so you'll get back proportionately the same on a bus as on a Smart, everything else being equal.

Deastons

I'll buy an electric car when both these apply:

a) Doesn't look ugly/futuristic/different
b) Doesn't cost £50k+

When I can buy a car that happens to be electric, I'm in. I reckon it'll come in the next few years.

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Question for the physics/maths boys and girls, but does the mass matter quite as much if you have regenerative brakes?

Obviously with an ICE to get a greater mass up to speed takes more energy, and if you have to brake, then that energy is wasted.

But with re-gen braking, the greater mass will mean greater momentum (energy) and more energy that can be reclaimed.

Obviously more mass will be less efficient, especially with rubber shoe'd vehicles (as opposed to steel wheeled trains etc) but am I right in thinking that it becomes a bit less of an issue in the case of cars with re-gen?

Hi

On the basis that the round trip efficiency between the batteries and the motor(s) should be pretty consistent no matter what the vehicle mass is then there should be a pretty decent correlation as long as the additional mass doesn't result in the mechanical brakes biting more often ... you'd be surprised what a difference that smooth operation of the brake pedal makes on EV range - hit the brakes too hard and you simply convert kinetic energy into wasted heat as in any other car!

Effectively, double the mass of an object being accelerated at a given rate & you double the energy required, the fact that a similar proportion of that energy is recovered for both masses makes no real difference, as everything is proportional doubling the mass requires double the energy to accelerate, and double the energy is recovered under smooth braking ... however, when speed is constant the energy involved should be almost exactly the same, apart from some mass related road resistance.

Considering that we're really only talking about accelerating the difference in vehicle weight resulting from a larger battery whilst the rest of the vehicle essentially remains unchanged, the difference in overall energy consumption would depend more on driving pattern than anything else ... it's pretty much common sense that if the majority of miles are in short urban trips involving a lot of start/stop activity then a lighter vehicle with a smaller battery would be more energy efficient than constantly lugging around a battery pack suitable for occasional longer distance journeys.

I remain confident in the belief that as long as an EVs range covers around a week of normal motoring then that will become a major factor in the selection & buying process, anything above that simply becomes a cost burden to be weighed against convenience when purchasing, especially so whilst battery prices remain high!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

Is there any reality in your mind where Renault can do better than Tesla? Is there anything Renault can say (I just repeated it, remember) that would convince you?

Let's start (and hopefully finish) here. I have no problem with Renault making a profit, in fact their making a profit is more important than Tesla, since it would show that the old boys can also do it, not just dedicated EV companies. And to be clear you didn't repeat what they said, they didn't say the Renault Zoe was profitable, that was a mis-understanding on your part.

But ...... once again, you've started to attribute false claims to me. Now I'm somehow denying Renault can make a profit ..... no ..... I'm simply pointing out to you that the statement you keep posting actually means that the Renault Zoe is not profitable, I've tried, and so have Ade and Z.

But because I've pointed this out (whilst you've been running some sort of crusade against my Tesla profitability and FUD pushback) things have gotten insane.

You openly admit that I haven't said anything wrong, whilst you say something that is wrong. You even ask how Renault can lie, when they haven't, you don't understand that their statement says one thing whilst you are claiming it says something else.

Let's play a simple game, let's assume there is a factory and it has overheads such as rent, insurance, rates etc making up fixed costs of £100 per day.

Now let's say they make widgets, and the variable costs of the widgets are £10 each (leccy consumption, raw materials, labour etc).

They sell the widgets for £20. So the variable costs of the widget are covered.

Therefore they need to sell 10 widgets per day to also cover the fixed costs.

So at 1-9 widget sales per day they are profitable against variable costs, but lose money overall. At 10 widgets per day they are breakeven, and at 11+ widgets per day they are fully profitable.

For comparison, let's say 1-9 widgets is where Tesla is or was with the TM3. 10 widgets is where they need to be, and might be about now. 11+ widgets is where their business model goes, and they hope to follow.

The caveat in the statement you are using is a massive, giant, monster, Goliath sized red flag that the Renault Zoe is not yet profitable. Please don't think I'm twisting. On this occasion neither is Ade (you yourself expressed shock at us agreeing), and neither is Z who has also patiently tried to point this issue out to you.

Now, that's not a bad thing, in fact I'm impressed they are doing so well so far, but, you need to understand that Tesla was also profitable against variable costs as proven by their reaching profitability after the S, then after the X and (taking their word for it) shortly after the 3 reaches the adequate production levels.

almillar wrote: »

I'm claiming nothing of the sort. I'm still not sure if I understand what 'against variable costs means'. But I've taken YOUR claim about Model s, X and 3 being profitable to be true, no problem there.

If you don't and didn't understand it, then why on earth did you keep claiming to me and Z that they were profitable. This is real head slumped in lap stuff - you misconstrue what I'm saying and make false claims, all the time whilst not understanding the issue - how is that fair, how is that balanced, how is that any basis to launch (or maintain) your crusade? I'd have happily chatted with you about it, I find that stuff interesting (sadly).

So please stop lecturing me for not saying something wrong, whilst you continue (actually I suspect you may now have seen the light) to say something that is wrong.

[I have duplicated the point/issue here, but that's only because I feel you don't get the fixed and variable cost issue, and how important it is.]


And, to once again prove that as fast as I get you to walkback one false claim, you start yet another crusade.

I deliberately stated

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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).

This was not a dig, it was a desperate attempt (clearly failed) to prevent you or anyone else saying I'd said something untrue or misleading.

I had to include the disclaimer because we are in Q3, Elon said that they might be profitable in Q3 (I have no idea personally), and so if I say they are not now profitable, it might be untrue when the Q3 results come out some time in October - I have no crystal ball.

So even when I try to avoid any possible misunderstanding, you still start yet another attack ..... one after another after another.

Is my statement fair, honest and reasonable?

So your claims about me and Renault are false. Your claim about my statement regarding Tesla Q3 being defensive is also false.

Now do you see the problem, everything I say that is true and fair you misconstrue or twist into something else.

I'm sorry Al but I think the problem here is yours, you are not being balanced. So any chance you can now stop policing me and we can go back to facts and figures and friendly chat about EV's (plus loads of digs from the anti-EV boys)?

PS - Apologies for the Ade joke bit, I didn't realise. As I've pointed out before, you can tell when he knows he's wrong by the delay in responding, or the complete absence of a response, like the outstanding Semi claims/questions and the 22x issue. I did genuinely find his post today about the 4m EV's funny - the best I can seem to get is he's wrong, but it's still my fault. ;-)

As you said a while back, it seems that you have to take his silence as an admittance, then move on.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I remain confident in the belief that as long as an EVs range covers around a week of normal motoring then that will become a major factor in the selection & buying process, anything above that simply becomes a cost burden to be weighed against convenience when purchasing, especially so whilst battery prices remain high!

HTH
Z

Ello. I forget where I saw this, possibly Tesla Time News, and where it came from, possibly Electrek, dunno ..... but

they(?) carried out a journey time comparison between a S, X and LR TM3, and the TM3 was fastest - whilst it had the smallest batt it was more efficient and could charge faster at the superchargers, [Edit - I mean charge at a higher rate.] so overall time the finishing order was 3 then S then X.

So I suppose this kinda shows that batt size isn't everything, Cd, mass and batt technology are also important. I know that's kinda obvious, but I still found it interesting.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

You've proved nothing sitting at your keyboard. Neither have I, Adrian, or anyone else in this thread.

That's a shame, I thought I'd cleared up some of your concerns, hence why you'd retracted them, such as the fanboi issue, or any suggestion my profit comments were wrong - the challenge being downgraded to 'confusing' perhaps.

But, and this is genuine, you said a while back that I'd posted positive spin. That's not been my intention. Can you point me to these as I may need to revise/edit them if that's true.

Obviously I'm positive about EV's, and often suggest where I see them going, but if my hopes, dreams and guesses come over as fact rather than suggestions, then that's wrong.

For instance, (made up numbers alert) let's say sales of EV's represent 2% of all sales, but the sales are rising approx 40%pa, then we will see an approx doubling every two years. I might say that theoretically they could hit 64% and 100% in 10 and 12 yrs time. That's being positive. Positive spin is if I say they will hit 100% in 12yrs.

Where I'm just thinking out loud I've attempted to make that clear, but may well have failed on occasions.