Electric cars

AdrianC

In large part, the fall in 3-series sales will be due to the current (2011-launched) F30 range being replaced imminently - the G20 is being launched at Paris next month, and will be in showrooms by the end of the year.


Add in the move from saloons to crossovers, as mentioned in your linked article, and consider the total sales of the 3- and 4- in with the X3 and X4.

Last year, BMW shifted 99k 3- and 4-series in the US, together with 41k X3 and 5k X4 - 145k cars in all.
This year, to the end of August, they've shifted 51k 3- and 4-, 36k X3, and 2.5k X4 - just under 90k in all, or 134k pro-rata'd to the full year. A drop, sure, but add in the imminent replacement, and "collapse" seems a bit strong, doesn't it?

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/bmw/

Martyn1981

Bob's back ..... again. We're all doomed!

CARB Applauds Tesla Model 3 Sales Surge. Bob Lutz Predicts Tesla’s Demise Within Two Years.

Martyn1981

Nice bonus for EV's over ICE.

Electric Cars Are Inherently Safer

The short summary: While side impacts and rollovers are scary, the most common automobile collision involves the front of a vehicle. Since electric cars by definition have no big lump of an internal combustion engine in front, design engineers have more latitude to devise more robust energy absorbing structures for electric cars than they ever could for conventional cars. Electric cars designed well, like Tesla’s are, also have a low and balanced center of gravity because the battery, which is the heaviest component of the car, is mounted low in the chassis just inches above the road. That means getting one to roll over is virtually impossible.

Tesla Model 3’s Straight 5 Stars From NHTSA Beat Competing Mercedes & BMW Models

almillar

You claimed that I had falsely stated that you'd repeated the statement, I showed that you had repeated the statement. That is what you didn't acknowledge - and still haven't - as being a lie.

I apologise for claiming I hadn't repeated the statement.

Since this whole issue is your opinion, and your opinion on this matter is so badly flawed (as per your own admissions), then I'd suggest you stop repeating it.

Sure thing. We'll all agree on your 100% correct, impossible to argue with statement:

Tesla in Q3 may, or may not be in profit.

Brilliant insight there.

I assume you now, finally agree, that Tesla might or might not make a profit this quarter

Never argued with that. There's nothing to argue with.

And I would define deliberately taking something out of context in order to give a false impression akin to lying. But if you prefer it, OK I'll say that you ignored the first five paragraphs of my answer, in order to misrepresent (on here) what I'd said, by taking comments out of context.

Didn't do it deliberately. And I respectfully suggest that you've ignored plenty of what I've said - every time I argue with AdrianC, for example.

Can't stop shooting yourself in the foot can you.
If Tesla go back into the red whilst financing their MY and semi lines, then that will be perfectly acceptable and reasonable. But if you, Ade, or the anti-Tesla community go on and on about it yet again, in order to mislead folk that it's a bad thing ...... then that's FUD.

Right, you're definitely not reading what I say. I AGREE that it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable. But if they make a loss, they make a loss, and that looks bad. To uneducated, unenlightened neanderthals, to bean counters, to 'finance people'. Some people will simply see 'loss' and look no further, into productions schedules etc. To them, it looks bad.

Really? How much power does a stationery cupboard need?

I've got a real problem with that word!

Would you like to have another think about that, are you sure that Renault are building more Zoe's per week than Tesla is building TM3's?

Article says 220 per day. TM3 numbers seem to state per month.
How many days of production per month? 20? That's 4,400 cars. Tesla hasn't done that EVERY month. Point being, they're not out there on their own making many electric cars. Nissan have sold loads, Renault have spat out 100,000 Zoes since 2014 (TM3 at 90,000?). They're not the only ones producing *around 5,000* EVs per month - can we agree on that?

Car_54

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If Tesla go back into the red whilst financing their MY and semi lines, then that will be perfectly acceptable and reasonable.

Acceptable and reasonable to whom? The only people who matter in this context are the investors, whose patience may not be inexhaustible.


In the interest of transparency, can you tell us whether you have a financial interest in Tesla?

zeupater

almillar wrote: »

... Article says 220 per day. TM3 numbers seem to state per month.
How many days of production per month? 20? That's 4,400 cars. Tesla hasn't done that EVERY month. Point being, they're not out there on their own making many electric cars. Nissan have sold loads, Renault have spat out 100,000 Zoes since 2014 (TM3 at 90,000?). They're not the only ones producing *around 5,000* EVs per month - can we agree on that?

Hi

I'll attempt to help out on the figures & logic here ....

It's pretty standard for the financials to be based on 13 week quarters and months defined within those quarters comprising a sequence of weeks based on two four week months & one 5 five week month, each before shutdowns/holidays are introduced ... effectively a 'standard' month can have 20 or 25 days.

If you really want to compare production or DPV on an annual basis, the nominally accepted way is to convert to standard working days, planned days available - holidays, so typically ((52x5)-25-8) 227 days depending on working shift patterns ... 220/day would represent just short of 50k units, so averaging around 4160/month for a product in stable production ... double that to 440/day therefore represents ~100k per year ... however if the Zoe production hasn't been ramped up in 2018, the stated build for 2017 of 30k may suggest that the 220 & 440 daily volume isn't an actual build, therefore it could represent the DPV (Daily Planning Volume), a maximum production planning volume to ensure that the production facilities and supply chain are capable of meeting demand when additional shifts and weekend work are added without creating issues, in which case 220 & 440/day could represent 30k & 60k vehicles/year respectively with a 66% contingency ...

This all brings us back to the ongoing argument ... making judgements on what's happening now on an inconsistent basis ... if the concept of past & present creates so much debate, why on earth introduce a comparison based on the future?

As for monthly production, it's illogical to compare stable current build rates for one product against an average for another at a stage where volumes are ramping-up ... using that logic the 100k build for the Zoe would average ~2k/month against the Tesla average ... as a straight reality check, Tesla are well capable of surpassing the 100k total Zoe build (2014 to date) with just their M3 by the end of this year despite H1 contributing relatively little to the total due to ramping up volumes ... and that's the difference in scale that needs to be recognised.

Tesla announced that they plan to build 55000 M3s in Q3, so in answer to the question posed ... "They're not the only ones producing *around 5,000* EVs per month - can we agree on that?" I'd probably agree, because they're planning building well above that volume ... 55k in Q3 represents an average of 4230/week, not 'per month', a basic logic error that really doesn't deserve further discussion ....

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

I apologise for claiming I hadn't repeated the statement.

Great, sorted.


Sure thing. We'll all agree on your 100% correct, impossible to argue with statement:

Nope. I'm wrong loads, but on these issues you have been wrong from the start, sometimes because as you admit, you don't understand the accounting issues such as profit, variable, and fixed costs. You've also admitted that you don't fully remember the older discussions (on which you have made false claims due, it now appears to poor recollection), and you have stated that you don't read everything on this thread, which explains why you are so bad at your self imposed job of being middleman. If you want to take me on over an issue, fine, but don't get all snotty when you are shown to be wrong, please.


Brilliant insight there.

Yep, it was to show that a profit might be made. Unfortunately you couldn't see that ..... bit weird!


Never argued with that. There's nothing to argue with.

Yet you've struggled repeatedly with the issue of Q3 v's Q2 profits.


Didn't do it deliberately. And I respectfully suggest that you've ignored plenty of what I've said - every time I argue with AdrianC, for example.

That's odd. You very deliberately posted your comment, then very deliberately posted a single paragraph of mine that came much later, was only part of the reply ....... but claimed that was the reply. Looks deliberate to me, but I'll take the apology.


Right, you're definitely not reading what I say. I AGREE that it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable. But if they make a loss, they make a loss, and that looks bad. To uneducated, unenlightened neanderthals, to bean counters, to 'finance people'. Some people will simply see 'loss' and look no further, into productions schedules etc. To them, it looks bad.

Oh, I'm definitely reading what you say, and noting all your subtle changes and rowbacks, that's why you've now, piece by piece retracted all your false claims. For instance you now say that making a loss "looks bad", that's true, and a closer look is needed, however that's not what you said yesterday, yous said:

A company not being in profit, plans or no plans, is a negative.

So I challenged your claim that it is a negative, and you defend your claim, by changing it to 'looks bad'.

At least we both agree now that some losses (such as expansion investment) are not negatives, they just look bad to those that are a little myopically challenged.


I've got a real problem with that word!

Same here - try E is for envelope (and if you want, A is for ar5e (sitting on))


Article says 220 per day. TM3 numbers seem to state per month.
How many days of production per month? 20? That's 4,400 cars. Tesla hasn't done that EVERY month. Point being, they're not out there on their own making many electric cars. Nissan have sold loads, Renault have spat out 100,000 Zoes since 2014 (TM3 at 90,000?). They're not the only ones producing *around 5,000* EVs per month - can we agree on that?

Oh boy! The Tesla figures are per week not per month. TM3 production is already at approx 250,000pa, and they are aiming for 500,000.

So the question remains, is Renault building more Zoes per day/week/month than Tesla is building TM3's, or as per my original question to Ade, who was trying to 'diss' the TM3 production numbers, is anyone doing better?

Responses in red.

Weeks ago (seems like years) I whopped out my crystal ball, and said that you would keep this up for weeks, steadily retracting all of your claims, but adding new false ones just as fast.

Now, are we done?

Martyn1981

Car_54 wrote: »

Acceptable and reasonable to whom? The only people who matter in this context are the investors, whose patience may not be inexhaustible.

Wrong! Tesla is reinvesting in the business, so whilst the investors might not be seeing a profit, nor dividends, they have seen a tenfold increase in the share value.

So, what they are doing, is reflected in financial gains to the investors who are free to sell their share of the company anytime they like.

Car_54 wrote: »

In the interest of transparency, can you tell us whether you have a financial interest in Tesla?

No I won't. Simply because I find such forum tactics cheap and pathetic.

I'm free to challenge false statements made on here. If the false statements are about Tesla, then some might respond with 'fanboi', because they never had a proper argument to start with.

zeupater

Car_54 wrote: »

Acceptable and reasonable to whom? The only people who matter in this context are the investors, whose patience may not be inexhaustible.

In the interest of transparency, can you tell us whether you have a financial interest in Tesla?

Hi

I'd suggest that the current market capitalisation of the company demonstrates that the majority of investors are looking at the company on a very long term basis and are pretty happy with the way things are going ... simply looking at the level of the market capitalisation to revenue ratio compared to the norm for an established engineering concern would seem to confirm this.

I'm pretty sure that many of the more rational investors would be looking for revenue growth as opposed to substantial returns whilst there's a rush to gain market share prior to ICE vehicle sales being phased out in a decade-or-two! Much of the noise made by investors seems to be from those intending to regularly manipulate the share value to suit a strategy of repeatable marginal trading gains as opposed to real investment to grow value.

HTH
Z

Car_54

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Wrong! Tesla is reinvesting in the business, so whilst the investors might not be seeing a profit, nor dividends, they have seen a tenfold increase in the share value.

So, what they are doing, is reflected in financial gains to the investors who are free to sell their share of the company anytime they like.

Yes, but the increase in share value only brings a financial gain to the holder when the shares are eventually sold. Until that time they are vulnerable to a host of influences, some (most?) of them entirely unrelated to Tesla's performance.



Don't forget that the share price fell by 30% over a one month period recently.