Electric cars

Martyn1981

buglawton wrote: »

To me the clue will be the all-in cost of leasing a non hybrid EV. Leasing companies will factor in the cost of purchase, depreciation/resaleability, battery age etc vs ICE. That'll be the acid test.

Yeah that'll be the acid test as you say. Hopefully if batt degradation is low, then the vehicles coming off lease will have a good residual value, which will in turn help with the lease price.

We could see a serious problem for the ICE leases if pressure against FF cars going forward, pushes down residuals. They'll then have to up the lease price which will help EV's.

I'm sure there are lots of problems to overcome for the small profitable EV, but I'd guess the two biggest are small profit margins requiring high production, and relatively large batts, around the same size (say 50kWh) as the mid size market EV's.

If Tesla eventually sell the base TM3 at $35k, and profitable, then I suppose falling batts over 5yrs could cut $5k, plus another $5k for a smaller and simpler car ...... so $25k base for a 50kWh small(ish) EV that's profitable. And Renault / Nissan will most likely achieve quite a lot in 5yrs too.

Is that a reasonable case for a profitable $25k/£20k small 200+mile EV by 2023?

If that car can save owners £1k to £1.5k pa in running costs, and is good for 10yrs+, then game over?

buglawton

Don't forget that you can only factor in fuel savings during the introductory period while charging points remain hard to find.

As soon as EV goes mainstream, defined perhaps as 40% penetration or sooner, taxation will kick in to make up every penny of fossil fuel tax for the government. Almost certainly based on onboard GPS system with ANPR added for verification, so there'll be congestion charging/road usage fees.

It'll be interesting what the motorist taxpayer makes of exposed per-mile road charging compare to FF taxation which is a bit 'hidden'.

Did your savings figure of £1,000-1,500 pa imagine any electricity vs FF cost savings?

ElefantEd

Electricity will still be cheaper than fossil fuels. Even if the govt did introduce a road usage fee (which I doubt) they would unquestionably also increase fossil fuel duty by at least the same amount.

gzoom

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yep, that could then suggest that the package they ordered wasn't up to the job, so as soon as the batteries lost a bit of capacity they could no longer do the job well.

Perhaps rude to suggest it, but this may have been a mistake in the procurement process, failing to take into account all the issues, or build in enough overcapacity at the start to allow for expected (unexpected(?)) losses.

Wait a minute I thought building EVs was easy. After all if an idiotic fool like Elon Musk can build an 7 seater EV which can out accelerate 600bhp+ supercars surely building a bus is child's work, especially as some have suggested Musk just buys his batteries cells off the shelf from Panasonic .

gzoom

buglawton wrote: »

Don't forget that you can only factor in fuel savings during the introductory period while charging points remain hard to find.

As soon as EV goes mainstream, defined perhaps as 40% penetration or sooner, taxation will kick in to make up every penny of fossil fuel tax for the government. Almost certainly based on onboard GPS system with ANPR added for verification, so there'll be congestion charging/road usage fees.

It'll be interesting what the motorist taxpayer makes of exposed per-mile road charging compare to FF taxation which is a bit 'hidden'.

Did your savings figure of £1,000-1,500 pa imagine any electricity vs FF cost savings?

All the more reason to get on board the EV wagon sooner rather than later.


Same story with the solar FIT tariff, whilst we are getting paid 14p per kWh of solar energy we generate regardless how we use it, those installing solar PV systems are getting 3p per kWh and soon it'll be 0p.


I've now done 38K miles at an average fuel cost of 3p per mile, plus £0 road tax since 2015. It'll be a long time till I start paying the 10p+ per mile in fuel my old combustion car was costing me.

AdrianC

gzoom wrote: »

especially as some have suggested Musk just buys his batteries cells off the shelf from Panasonic .

All down to how many cells get bought off the shelf...


Still, since they never deteriorate...

Martyn1981

buglawton wrote: »

Did your savings figure of £1,000-1,500 pa imagine any electricity vs FF cost savings?

Yep, I was thinking for us, about £1,700pa in petrol, v's £100pa for E7 (six months of the year), and free the other 6 months from PV and a battery, such as the Powerwall II. I've already worked out that we have an average of 10kWh spare per day late Mch to early Sept - or to be more exact, around 8kWh rising to 12kWh dropping back to 8kWh.

Martyn1981

gzoom wrote: »

Wait a minute I thought building EVs was easy. After all if an idiotic fool like Elon Musk can build an 7 seater EV which can out accelerate 600bhp+ supercars surely building a bus is child's work, especially as some have suggested Musk just buys his batteries cells off the shelf from Panasonic .

Yep, apparently it's dead easy to just build an EV.
Though not everyone agrees:

Your editorial (13 September) accuses motor manufacturers of inaction on electric cars. This is based neither on evidence nor on understanding of the decades it takes to develop such technologies.

Mike Hawes
Chief executive, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

almillar

(sorry folks)

(Martyn)

The present is Q3, not Q2. Please don't try to deny the date in order to re-write the narrative. That's silly even for you.

OK, fundamentally, we disagree here. The latest, current quarter, reported on, is Q2. Q3 report is in the future. I haven't changed 'current'. You haven't changed 'current', but we haven't moved on our definitions. You're right of course, they MAY or MAY NOT be in profit in Q3. My point all along, and I have not changed this, is that they DEFINITELY WERE NOT in profit in Q2 2018. That's my definition of 'not currently in profit'. It's a fact, it's not FUD, yet you have gone on fighting this with maybe/maybe not.

I don't think we can make any further progress with the above.

I have never said they are currently in profit. That is you, yet again, making up false claims.

And I never said you did! You've said they're a profitable company. No. They're POTENTIALLY profitable (excepting 2 Qs)(I agree with you that they will some time fulfil this potential). Read my para you quoted again:

See above. You nor Tesla can't say otherwise until the Q3 results are out. You can say cars are profitable, lines are profitable, there's a plan (I agree with all of that) but you can not state as fact that they're in profit. You've now made a bet with Adrian C, and you've bet that Q3 will be a loss! Whilst arguing they're in profit!

Back to your old tricks (and capitals I see).

We've never disagreed on this, have we?

We disagree on what's current. No narrative changing here.

Secondly - You say you were not aware that they had made profits before, but I've mentioned it several times, as has Z, and even Ade is aware. There have been multiple conversations/comments*.

Yes. I reserve the right to not watch stocks, and even to not remember every single word in this thread.


I said:

'they've made 'x' quarters of loss, and 2 of profit, therefore they're likely to make a loss. Not as detailed an analysis as yours, but still REASONABLE.

You reply:

Therefore it's a reasonable guess to say that profits may be reached this quarter. It would be an unreasonable guess to rule out the possibility completely.

I say 'likely to make a loss' which you take as 'rule out the possibility completely'. This was just for a hypothetical reasoning, but surely you can't accuse me of twisting things whilst failing comprehension so comprehensively?! Read it again.

I'd suggest that that is the next step. Tesla have plans (eventually?) to develop the $25k EV. And as per previous discussions we can see that Renault (and I suspect Nissan) are closing in, so their next car, or next major revision of current cars might do just what you want if production is large enough.

Yep. Tesla are approaching it from the top down, Renault from a bit sideways, BMW from the ground up, sort of, and some other manufacturers in various levels of begruding.


(buglawton)

whether EVs are going to be more affordable than ICE to run.

They already are, with 20,000 EV miles under my belt.

To me the clue will be the all-in cost of leasing a non hybrid EV. Leasing companies will factor in the cost of purchase, depreciation/resaleability, battery age etc vs ICE. That'll be the acid test.

£241 per month for me, £241 deposit, 36 months, 6,000 miles. Kia Soul EV. Maintenance included. What are you looking for?

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

OK, fundamentally, we disagree here. The latest, current quarter, reported on, is Q2. Q3 report is in the future. I haven't changed 'current'. You haven't changed 'current', but we haven't moved on our definitions. You're right of course, they MAY or MAY NOT be in profit in Q3. My point all along, and I have not changed this, is that they DEFINITELY WERE NOT in profit in Q2 2018. That's my definition of 'not currently in profit'. It's a fact, it's not FUD, yet you have gone on fighting this with maybe/maybe not.

You have changed the narrative. I included a statement that I could not say they are currently loss making as our discussion is in Q3 and they may make a profit. You took offence to that statement.

So we were not talking about Q2. We were not talking about past reporting periods. You are lying. The discussion was specifically about Q3 and the possibility of profitability.

You were wrong. So please stop.

almillar wrote: »

And I never said you did! You've said they're a profitable company. No. They're POTENTIALLY profitable (excepting 2 Qs)(I agree with you that they will some time fulfil this potential). Read my para you quoted again:

Just like your lie that you hadn't repeated that Tesla have never made a profit (I see you've accidentally not responded to my showing you saying it more than once), this new claim of yours can also be shown to be a lie through the magic of referencing, here's what I replied too:

almillar wrote: »

See above. You nor Tesla can't say otherwise until the Q3 results are out. You can say cars are profitable, lines are profitable, there's a plan (I agree with all of that) but you can not state as fact that they're in profit. You've now made a bet with Adrian C, and you've bet that Q3 will be a loss! Whilst arguing they're in profit!

Nope, I've pointed out that they could be in profit. So please stop lying about what I've said, then going on to lie that you didn't say it!

almillar wrote: »

We disagree on what's current. No narrative changing here.

You can disagree all you like, but discussions in September are not in Q2. Pointing out that a profit may be made in Q3, can not be denied on the grounds that a profit was not shown in Q2.

You lie about changing the narrative. As explained before, the discussion was about the possibility of Tesla currently being in profit (Q3), only in your last post did you lie that we were discussing Q2 accounts. You changed the narrative, and in this post lie that you didn't.

You might, but calendars don't lie.

almillar wrote: »

Yes. I reserve the right to not watch stocks, and even to not remember every single word in this thread.

Now there's a comment and a half!

You spend weeks chasing me around, making false claims about what I've said, false claims about what you've said, declaring yourself the thread's middleman, and that you are balanced.

BUT you then admit that you aren't following the thread properly, and didn't notice the many posts about past profitability, even though I've shown that I directed you to the issue? So we both agree that you are not qualified to sit in judgement of my comments.

On this occasion I'll accept that you don't know what we are all talking about, but I have to say this barely passes the sniff test for lying, and certainly makes you ineligible to judge and pass sentence on other posters.

almillar wrote: »

I said:

You reply:


I say 'likely to make a loss' which you take as 'rule out the possibility completely'. This was just for a hypothetical reasoning, but surely you can't accuse me of twisting things whilst failing comprehension so comprehensively?! Read it again.

No, this is not true. You have lied again.

My response to your statement was:

Nope. That would be an unreasonable guess, as it's simply based on the misuse of maths and statistics and fails to take into account that the company has evolved significantly this last year with production having ramped up more than 100%. So relying on past data here would be a very poor way to predict the present and future.

What you claimed was my response to your statement was actually five paragraphs later, and part of a fuller response. It was the summing up of why stating that a profit might be made is more reasonable than stating one won't be made.

I think you've proven all of my suggestions correct with this little trick, as you are clearly trying to mislead and change the narrative.

Please don't lie by misrepresenting the information given. And please learn to reference properly (like everyone else) so it's quick and easy for folk to check on what you are up to.

almillar wrote: »

I say 'likely to make a loss' which you take as 'rule out the possibility completely'. This was just for a hypothetical reasoning, but surely you can't accuse me of twisting things whilst failing comprehension so comprehensively?! Read it again.

I have, you have tried to deceive by changing the narrative. The only other explanation is that you simply don't have any understanding of comprehension, perhaps.


It seems that all of your comments to me can be answered by one of the following:

No, I never said that.

No, you did say that.

No, you've changed the narrative.

No, you don't understand the issue.

No, you haven't read what was previously discussed.

Yet again I need to point out, that everything I have said has been fair, correct, or my honest opinion, whilst you have spent weeks chasing me around with endless false claims, and now appear to be lying to keep it going.

I suspect we are now done. But if you do feel the need to come back again, perhaps you could check your facts first, as that should mean no response from you. Thank you.