Electric cars

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

Do excuse me a moment, I'm not sure I can type straight while laughing this hard.

OK, so what do you think the European market price line is, if it's lower than a straight "new-Focus-list" equivalence to that US $20k?

Recently you were questioning the profitability of the Zoe, now you are claiming it is profitable?

DrEskimo

AdrianC wrote: »

$20k in the US is roughly entry-level Ford Focus money -- $18k there, £18k here - so we'll go with £1=$1, and £20k for this.


There are already electric cars on the UK market <£20k... Renault Zoe, from £18,500 list, for a start... Although that is with battery leasing. Then there's the iOn/C-Zero/i-MiEV. The Smart ForTwo is pocket change above that line.

A brand new i-Dynamique with the 42kWh battery, which is battery owned, can be had for <18k with no options. With metallic paint and the rear camera it can be had for £18,280. I know because I had on order, but ended up cancelling due to spontaneously deciding to move house...

Furthermore, I picked up a 24kWh i-Dynamique (again battery owned) that was a 16plate with 88 miles (basically brand new) for £8k for my mother-in-law just a few weeks back.

almillar

(zeupdater)

if the concept of past & present creates so much debate, why on earth introduce a comparison based on the future?

Oh no!! Didn't intend that. Thanks for the insight No - I wasn't really referring to the future 440 figure in the article, let's ignore that, but the present 220. I'm trying to simplify!

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 aren't out there on their own, and some of the old guard are doing just fine, with the transition to EVs, is my point.

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 ....

As ever, I stand to be corrected on figures, but I'm not, and have not, been talking about 'planned production' - I'm talking about units actually built. I'm not reading into Renault's future either.

(Martyn)

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

No, I haven't. You know that. You want to speculate about Q3, I want to stick with the most recent figures, from Q2. We've both given our reasons why, we're not going to get any further with this.

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

I could claim you took this out of context, or lied as you would put it, but I won't. I stand over this statement. It's a negative. It looks bad. No rowback - you can retract that accusation. A company is there to make profit. Not making a profit is bad. It can be done for a while, with good reason - heavy startup investment in this example, but it is still, on a basic level, bad. Not sustainable, negative, unwelcome, undersirable. But you can't call it good, as a single piece of information, on its own.

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.

And I've agreed with this all along. Much loss, but that's fine by me. I believe their plan, so do you. But not everyone has to! How many startup companies, of whatever size, have run at a loss, with a plan for profit, that never came good?!

So the question remains, is Renault building more Zoes per day/week/month than Tesla is building TM3's

No, we've bashed out the figures, and they are not. Tesla are aiming for 500,000 TM3 per year, Renault are aiming for 100,000 Zoe/EV) per year.


(Martyn to Car54)

Perhaps you would have preferred Tesla stay small, at around 2,000 vehicles per month, and making profits ...... though I'm not sure how stopping forward progress furthers the goal of EV expansion.

See, this IS an option - maybe it would be slower, maybe it would fail, but you talk like it's WRONG, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Staying in profit is an admirable aim!

(zeupdater to AdrianC)

Interesting ...... so which of the above best meets your range requirements & importantly, have you bought one yet ?

He's already established that none of them do. I wouldn't wish an EV on him. I think it's because he does very long journeys, and lives in/near Wales, about the worst place in the UK for chargers. EVs are NOT for everyone yet.
Towing (at a price!), no charger at home, no/poor rapid charging nearby, no suitable car shape/size. All good reasons for now, but nothing that can't be overcome.

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Recently you were questioning the profitability of the Zoe

<raises eyebrows> That ding-dong was between you and Al...


I have absolutely no idea if the Zoe is profitable for Renault, or even if there's any way of breaking that down into a meaningful answer, given the various shared elements of design and production. It is, we're told, profitable with certain caveats and qualifications. Renault themselves declared a €5.2bn profit last year, but you declared that wasn't a relevant metric. <stereotypically gallic shrug>

DrEskimo wrote: »

A brand new i-Dynamique with the 42kWh battery, which is battery owned, can be had for <18k with no options.

Yes, if we go on attainable discounts, rather than published list, then that £20k line is even easier to cross - which makes the speculation odder.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

<raises eyebrows> That ding-dong was between you and Al...


I have absolutely no idea if the Zoe is profitable for Renault, or even if there's any way of breaking that down into a meaningful answer, given the various shared elements of design and production. It is, we're told, profitable with certain caveats and qualifications. Renault themselves declared a €5.2bn profit last year, but you declared that wasn't a relevant metric. <stereotypically gallic shrug>

You seemed skeptical before, so an interesting change of tune in order to disagree as usual with any item or article posted.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

When the question asked is whether a <£20k EV is "hopefully ... possible/reasonable", and <100 mile range is being proposed as a solution, you'd think the current availability of several that have more range than that would be considered, wouldn't you?

And, no, I haven't bought one, because I choose not to buy new £20k cars, and because they do not meet my range requirements, as I think we've discussed a few times before...

Hi

But, as you probably already know, the entry level 2018 Focus in the USA lists at far less than $20k .. current Ford site shows $14825 for a Focus S - at a zip code I just tried & that's without dealership negotiation or searching for a on-line quotes ... then again there is a 33kWh (/115mile) EV version available for a shade under double the price if that floats your boat (probably not then!) ...

Regarding your choice to not buy new £20k vehicles and have seriously bad range anxiety issues for the odd long-distance trip isn't really an issue for me as it comes down to personal choice .... however, paying around 5x more for energy is likely costing an additional ~£120/1000miles (as many have mentioned) ... as you continually tell us that you're a high mileage user but probably not in the same league as Stageshoot (from previous remarks!), at around half of her mileage that could still be £2.5k/year more just on 'fuel', so maybe a £20k EV over 5 years works out around the same as a £7.5k pre-owned ICE vehicle which effectively nullifies the argument for a medium-high mileage user ...

Of course, DrEskimo has just provided an answer that offers a perfectly acceptable solution to the sub-£20k EV requirement ... £8k with 88miles ... well there you go, for someone requiring a vehicle for short daily trips that could accumulate to ~20k miles/year (~50miles/day - well over double average UK mileage), there are already solutions well under £20k that have a reasonable ROI ... you could almost say that the fuel savings available over ~5 years could effectively render the EV purchase as being 'free' when compared on a TCO basis to an ICEV ... but then again, you probably already know that's the case, but 'choose' to continue argument against EVs because that suits what you 'choose' to achieve ...

HTH
Z

AdrianC

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to remind me of the wording I appear to have forgotten? I've had a look back, and can't find anything.


For clarity:I don't really see the specific profitability of a particular model as relevant. I do, however, see the viably sustainable financial future of a manufacturer as relevant.

AdrianC

zeupater wrote: »

But, as you probably already know, the entry level 2018 Focus in the USA lists at far less than $20k .. current Ford site shows $14825

https://www.ford.com/cars/focus/
is showing "Starting at $17,950" for me.

as you continually tell us that you're a high mileage user

I don't class myself as such, no. Looking at the MOT history for my current main daily, it's covered about 10k since last October, 10k the year before, 13k the year before that (of which almost all was in the 10 months we owned it).

It just happens that that mileage is not evenly clustered in constantly short journeys. Some weeks, it covers very little distance. A low-range electric would be ideal. Other weeks, it'll do a thousand miles. A low-range electric would be a showstopper, and I'd have to hire a car instead.

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

(Martyn)
No, I haven't. You know that. You want to speculate about Q3, I want to stick with the most recent figures, from Q2. We've both given our reasons why, we're not going to get any further with this.

My point was about Q3, it was never about Q2. You can stick with Q2 if you like, but you can't incorrectly claim my Q3 comments were anything other than Q3 comments.


I could claim you took this out of context, or lied as you would put it, but I won't. I stand over this statement. It's a negative. It looks bad. No rowback - you can retract that accusation. A company is there to make profit. Not making a profit is bad. It can be done for a while, with good reason - heavy startup investment in this example, but it is still, on a basic level, bad. Not sustainable, negative, unwelcome, undersirable. But you can't call it good, as a single piece of information, on its own.

No you can't. Firstly it's in context, and then you go on to say you stand by it. You even label it 'bad', which means you can't differentiate between a company that is fundamentally unprofitable, and one that is expanding.

And I've agreed with this all along. Much loss, but that's fine by me. I believe their plan, so do you. But not everyone has to! How many startup companies, of whatever size, have run at a loss, with a plan for profit, that never came good?!

Please stick with the narrative, or you'll be at this for another month. We were talking about Tesla, and the fact that their business plan has brought profitability in the past. We are not simply guessing, we are making reasoned guesses. Do I really have to explain all of that to you again.

No, we've bashed out the figures, and they are not. Tesla are aiming for 500,000 TM3 per year, Renault are aiming for 100,000 Zoe/EV) per year.

So you retract your claim that Renault are building Zoe's at a higher rate?

almillar wrote: »

Anyone else doing better?

Yes, Renault! I think I've mentioned the Zoe being 'successful'.

(Martyn to Car54)

See, this IS an option - maybe it would be slower, maybe it would fail, but you talk like it's WRONG, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Staying in profit is an admirable aim!

Again, you miss the point and jump in with more nonsense.

If you want Tesla to stay small, and make a small profit fine, then you might get say 10% return on your investment each year (just a made up example).

Or you can sit back whilst they re-invest and expand, and see a ten fold increase in their market value.

Since Tesla did option 2, then option one doesn't exist, and the higher value of a larger company looks like a far better return on your investment to me. Also note that Tesla is aiming for another tenfold increase in market value, around $600bn, so expect profits to remain small, or non-existent as they build out for the MY, semi, pickup, M$25k etc. But perhaps that's a discussion for 10yrs time.

Again, as I mentioned weeks ago, you start with false claims, then add new ones as fast as you withdraw old ones. You 'gone off on one' of these crusades about 3 or 4 times now with me. How many more times will you be wrong, before you stop? And why do you still not reference posts properly, is it to make it harder for folk to find the comment and check the context?

DrEskimo

zeupater wrote: »

Of course, DrEskimo has just provided an answer that offers a perfectly acceptable solution to the sub-£20k EV requirement ... £8k with 88miles ... well there you go, for someone requiring a vehicle for short daily trips that could accumulate to ~20k miles/year (~50miles/day - well over double average UK mileage),...

Just to clarify, that was how many miles the car had been driven...! It was an ex-lease that sat for the last 2yrs and never got used. Basically delivery miles. It was a particularly good find that required patience granted, but I'm struggling to think of any automatic 2016 ICE with delivery miles, that is as well equipped for £8k....

It can cover around 100miles in the summer and 80miles in the winter, but obviously heavily dependent on driving style and conditions (as with any car). I agree though. The amount it will save in fuel/VED will likely mean it pays for itself within a few years.

For those interested, it's batteries SOH is 102%.