📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Electric cars

1240241243245246439

Comments

  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,410 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    AdrianC wrote: »
    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 wrote: »
    Originally Posted by almillar View Post
    'Normand said that Renault is making a profit on each Zoe "measured on variable costs."

    Now there's a qualification that speaks volumes...

    Perhaps now that you've had nearly 22 days to think about it, you've changed your mind, or you are just being difficult.

    Can you also provide proof that all of the other cars you mentioned are profitable:
    AdrianC wrote: »
    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.

    though I appreciate you have already changed your mind again today:
    AdrianC wrote: »
    I have absolutely no idea if the Zoe is profitable for Renault,
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    That doesn't really say what you think it says, y'know, no matter how much you may wish it to say something else.
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,390 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 24 September 2018 at 3:15PM
    AdrianC wrote: »
    https://www.ford.com/cars/focus/
    is showing "Starting at $17,950" for me.

    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.
    Hi

    As in the UK it's pretty much standard for manufacturers to run incentives, from experience over there it just seems to be far more frequent .... this is the current manufacturer page on the Focus which (as of today) details entry at $14825 ($17950List+$875OTR-$4000Program #13310 Discount) ...

    https://www.ford.com/cars/focus/pricing-and-incentives/

    ... you'll also note the ability to access on-line dealer quotes applicable to zip-codes, but it's almost certain that someone would be running a '... we'll show you the invoice ...' special deal on forecourt inventory to meet targets ... I can't remember the last time I've been over there when manufacturer and/or dealership special offers weren't available!

    Regarding mileage ... Okay, say you're doing 12k miles/year ... you'll need to do the maths, but IF 6k of that was everyday motoring in an EV from home charging, 3k required roadside or destination charging, then the fuel(/energy) saving over an ICE vehicle would be ~£1000/year ... the remaining other 3k miles could represent a 500 mile round-trip every second month which could be accomplished with 6 days of car-hire probably costing ~£200-£300(including insurance etc) +fuel, so still several £hundreds better off over a year whilst being able to smugly tell the offspring (/grand-offspring) you're doing your part for their future! ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    zeupater wrote: »
    Regarding mileage ... Okay, say you're doing 12k miles/year ... you'll need to do the maths, but IF 6k of that was everyday motoring in an EV from home charging, 3k required roadside or destination charging, then the saving over an ICE vehicle would be ~£1000/year ... the remaining other 3k miles could represent a 500 mile round-trip every second month which could be accomplished with 6 days of car-hire probably costing ~£200-£300(including insurance etc) +fuel, so still several £hundreds better off over a year whilst being able to smugly tell the offspring (/grand-offspring) you're doing your part for their future! ...
    Which is all lovely, but doesn't take into account the the 40 mile round trip to the nearest city to collect the hire car, or a single day trip inevitably being a two-day hire because of opening hours.

    So at their website rate of £42 for a similar sized car for a day, that's £84 x 6= £504 in rental. Compare that to the saving of 6,000 miles at 50mpg on diesel at £1.35/litre, £730 in fuel. So, yes, there's a saving there - just over £200/year.

    D'you know what? In return for that ballache factor, I can live with that.

    And that's before any of the usual car-rental shenanigans. I had a stone through the headlight on the last trip to Derbyshire, a couple of weekends ago. I'd already got a good used headlight in the garage - I paid £40 for a pair a couple of years ago, after the other side got one. Wonder what it'd have cost me on a hire car?

    It also ignores the cost of ownership increase in changing from my current fully-depreciated daily to a new car depreciating by thousands each year.

    Oh, and when it comes to "doing my bit", one way in which I do that is by avoiding rampant consumerism, extending the life of products wherever possible, rather than constantly buying/leasing/financing new every few years.
  • almillar
    almillar Posts: 8,621 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    (Martyn)
    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.

    No. And we're both repeating ourselves. I want you to stick with facts, and go backwards slightly. You want to speculate on as yet unreported Q3. I haven't persuaded you. You haven't persuaded me, neither of us are wrong here.
    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.

    I can differentiate. Tesla is NOT in profit AS OF their MOST RECENT report. They're 'potentially profitable'. I believe they WILL BE profitable. Not making a profit is bad. I do stand by that. Making profit is a fundamental requirement in business LONG TERM. Take a step back, think a bit less, and just be a simpleton, like me, and market traders. Profit is good, Loss is bad. Lose the excuses, lose the changing the world and be a hard nosed businessman. That's all I'm saying.
    We are not simply guessing, we are making reasoned guesses. Do I really have to explain all of that to you again.

    You keep explaining and not listening, that's the problem. Other people can reason a different way, and come to a different conclusion. And when that reasoned guess comes down to 'they may or may not be in profit' it doesn't really mean much, IMO.
    So you retract your claim that Renault are building Zoe's at a higher rate?

    I answered 'yes' to the word 'better' - I should have said they're 'in the ballpark - yes, I retract that.
    Again, you miss the point and jump in with more nonsense.

    Got it. You say it, reasoned guess, genius. I say it, nonsense. You've really nailed it home with us that Tesla has been high return, in terms of share price, so far, in terms of share price. Can you acknowledge that it's also high risk? Do you prefer to brush over that? Would a small profit instead of massive growth, be 'safer'?
    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?

    Tell me what you want me to do, i asked but you didn't answer. 'Advanced Edit' instead of 'Quick Reply' like I do now...
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    almillar wrote: »
    Tell me what you want me to do, i asked but you didn't answer. 'Advanced Edit' instead of 'Quick Reply' like I do now...
    There's always the Quote and Multi-Quote buttons.
  • DrEskimo
    DrEskimo Posts: 2,446 Forumite
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Which is all lovely, but doesn't take into account the the 40 mile round trip to the nearest city to collect the hire car, or a single day trip inevitably being a two-day hire because of opening hours.

    So at their website rate of £42 for a similar sized car for a day, that's £84 x 6= £504 in rental. Compare that to the saving of 6,000 miles at 50mpg on diesel at £1.35/litre, £730 in fuel. So, yes, there's a saving there - just over £200/year.

    D'you know what? In return for that ballache factor, I can live with that.

    And that's before any of the usual car-rental shenanigans. I had a stone through the headlight on the last trip to Derbyshire, a couple of weekends ago. I'd already got a good used headlight in the garage - I paid £40 for a pair a couple of years ago, after the other side got one. Wonder what it'd have cost me on a hire car?

    It also ignores the cost of ownership increase in changing from my current fully-depreciated daily to a new car depreciating by thousands each year.

    Oh, and when it comes to "doing my bit", one way in which I do that is by avoiding rampant consumerism, extending the life of products wherever possible, rather than constantly buying/leasing/financing new every few years.

    I'll caveat this with saying first of all, I completely agree with a couple of your points. Switching rarely works out cheaper due to depreciation, and I agree with your final paragraph.

    That said, some economics to contemplate....

    As stated a new Renault Zoe i-Dynamique R110 can be had for £18,280. This is actually cheaper than nearly new, although some 17plates have come up around £16k mark.

    Now 12k miles pa, would be 60k miles over 5yrs, which at an average of 180miles per charge is 333 charges. Full charge is 40kWh, so 13,320kWh over 5yrs, which at 12p kW is about £1,600.

    I fully expect the car to be worth around £8k at 5yrs old and 60k. It will still have 3yr battery warranty left and represents around 30% of it's RRP value.

    So, a diesel at 50MPG costing £1.30p/lt would be around £7k in fuel over 60k miles. That's a 5-yr fuel saving of £5,400.

    The diesel would therefore have to depreciate <£1k a year to be cost effective....a fairly big ask (with the exception of extremely old diesels).

    This is all before we factor in potential VED savings, servicing cost savings (only £89 a year on the Zoe), reduction in maintenance costs (only have to replace tyres, and maybe the 12v battery in year 3) and out of warranty repair costs, given that the Zoe will have a warranty for the entire 5-years, with just a £295 payment at the end of year 4 to extend the warranty.

    Of course if you don't like the Zoe, it's not practical, prefer the diesel or 180miles for your 500mile round trip every so often doesn't work (imagine a 30mins charge towards the 120mile mark would be fine, but that's me...), then these points are moot, but the economics are interesting...
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,390 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 24 September 2018 at 5:15PM
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Which is all lovely, but doesn't take into account the the 40 mile round trip to the nearest city to collect the hire car, or a single day trip inevitably being a two-day hire because of opening hours.

    So at their website rate of £42 for a similar sized car for a day, that's £84 x 6= £504 in rental. Compare that to the saving of 6,000 miles at 50mpg on diesel at £1.35/litre, £730 in fuel. So, yes, there's a saving there - just over £200/year.

    D'you know what? In return for that ballache factor, I can live with that.

    And that's before any of the usual car-rental shenanigans. I had a stone through the headlight on the last trip to Derbyshire, a couple of weekends ago. I'd already got a good used headlight in the garage - I paid £40 for a pair a couple of years ago, after the other side got one. Wonder what it'd have cost me on a hire car?

    It also ignores the cost of ownership increase in changing from my current fully-depreciated daily to a new car depreciating by thousands each year.

    Oh, and when it comes to "doing my bit", one way in which I do that is by avoiding rampant consumerism, extending the life of products wherever possible, rather than constantly buying/leasing/financing new every few years.
    Hi

    Possibly, however, although it confirms that even a limited range EV could show a saving for your requirements, consider the following ....

    Don't know which hire company you're looking at, but £42/day for multi-day hire excluding waivers etc looks pretty steep to me ... I used £200-£300 to represent £33-£50 on a single day basis which should be enough to cover waiver additions etc

    On single day hire running over into multiple days or opening hrs etc .... for business meetings we regularly used to have a vehicle dropped off on the drive in the evening for an early 450mile round trip start the next morning (~5am) & they'd pick it up again sometime in the morning after usage and this was billed as a single 24Hr hire at rates well below those used in the working example ,.. it's also noteworthy that it's possible to hire over weekends for little over a weekday daily rate (apart from insurance etc) ...so I don't know why every long day-trip would require two days of rental ..

    Additionally, the example was 12000 miles (6000+3000+3000) allowing mileage at ~1k/month to match your 10-13k annual mileage, yet the referenced calculation bases the short-trip diesel savings on 6000miles at 50mpg, however, although this kind of average performance may be possible if longer trips are included, in this case that's the entire reason for the exercise ... the short trips would be in the EV, likely displacing cold engine mileage at well below the combined average, so likely closer to 40mpg would be expected for these trips for a vehicle currently averaging 50mpg including occasional 500mile extra-urban trips ...

    An option not yet considered for the occasional longer journey would include an overnight destination stop to replace the vehicle hire ... £30-£40(ish) for a room seems to be a reasonable alternative to as opposed to 2 days vehicle hire & you're also gaining additional savings by displacing 500miles of ICEV fuel with electricity ... it's possible to be more relaxed by splitting the driving load between a couple of days whilst the overall EV savings over an ICE become even greater ...

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • zeupater
    zeupater Posts: 5,390 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 24 September 2018 at 6:09PM
    almillar wrote: »
    ... I can differentiate. Tesla is NOT in profit AS OF their MOST RECENT report. They're 'potentially profitable'. I believe they WILL BE profitable. Not making a profit is bad. I do stand by that. Making profit is a fundamental requirement in business LONG TERM. Take a step back, think a bit less, and just be a simpleton, like me, and market traders. Profit is good, Loss is bad. Lose the excuses, lose the changing the world and be a hard nosed businessman. That's all I'm saying ...
    Hi

    I take it that what you're attempting to say is that ...

    - Tesla was NOT in profit AS OF their MOST RECENT report ... Time has passed, Q2 results are historical, not current.

    - They're 'potentially profitable'. I believe they WILL BE profitable. ... there's a tense issue here - If the company shows a profit at the end of a fiscal reporting period, say Q3/2018, then they must have been profitable during that period - therefore it stands that they would be profitable during Q3 and as of the current date, we're in Q3 ... in which case, to show a profit at the end of the quarter would suggest that they are currently profitable.

    - Not making a profit is bad. I do stand by that. Making profit is a fundamental requirement in business LONG TERM ... This is really an issue for investors & their belief in the business model employed. As previously explained, the business model employed is designed for rapid growth of a relatively small concern in order to maximise market position & share at a time where there is both international governmental pressure to end pure ICE sales and lack of momentum from the majority of the major automotive manufacturers to react and seriously address their own EV strategies, although there are signs from a few that this may be starting to happen ... Tesla have a limited window where then can grow their business volumes to a level where they can compete in the mass-market on an economy-of-scale basis ... that's why they're doing what they're doing & why they're compelled to do it both rapidly & now.

    - and market traders ... many of the issues with investors & investor relations are related to the short-term view that there traders need to make returns through share-price fluctuations. If the share price is stable or only moves in one direction then it's not something that a short-term 'bet' can be placed on, therefore there's bound to be strategies employed to create fluctuations. In a start-up or rapidly expanding organisation, in order to access capital markets a degree of stability in capitalisation is more important than it would be in organisations with relatively little debt established track-records ... the traders don't consider this and have little regard to what happens to the company as long as they've cleared their positions before anything they've done goes awry - it's the majority of 'real' investors that always lose out & that's probably the reason behind the possibility of Tesla moving over into private ownership where there's little possibility of trading desks utilising market manipulation for short term gain ...

    - be a hard nosed businessman ... the above would likely be the views of most hard-nosed businessmen (&women!) looking at taking advantage of a rare time-limited window to build a significant market presence from almost nowhere. Profit in this case isn't a priority, but rapid growth is ... if all hints at profit are ploughed back to fuel organic growth then that's the accepted solution to any businessman or investor looking at the whole picture as opposed to a single week page in the calendar ..

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    B)
  • Martyn1981
    Martyn1981 Posts: 15,410 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    almillar wrote: »
    No. And we're both repeating ourselves. I want you to stick with facts, and go backwards slightly. You want to speculate on as yet unreported Q3. I haven't persuaded you. You haven't persuaded me, neither of us are wrong here.

    Still don't know how to reference .... really?

    So let's see again, since you suggested a backwards glance, what did I say that has upset you so much you have spent weeks trying to spin something out of nothing:

    here is my original crime, the offence being the part in brackets:
    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).

    That caveat is 100% fair, honest, correct and reasonable.

    When you got upset, I explained it further, since you were struggling with what quarter the conversation was taking place in:
    Martyn1981 wrote: »
    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.

    That seems clear and of course 100% correct.

    But weeks later you are still trying to argue some nonsense about Q2. It has nothing to do with Q2, Please read and think. Unless you can explain what is wrong with those statements, then you need to retract your obsessive complaining.

    almillar wrote: »
    I can differentiate. Tesla is NOT in profit AS OF their MOST RECENT report. They're 'potentially profitable'. I believe they WILL BE profitable. Not making a profit is bad. I do stand by that. Making profit is a fundamental requirement in business LONG TERM. Take a step back, think a bit less, and just be a simpleton, like me, and market traders. Profit is good, Loss is bad. Lose the excuses, lose the changing the world and be a hard nosed businessman. That's all I'm saying.

    Nope, you've done it again, you've used a broad 'bad' brush for a company not in profit. In the case of Tesla (which also happens to be the case under discussion) we know that they aren't in profit due to large scale expansion, so it's not bad, at all, in context. You need to apply context.

    For the hard nosed businessman, this is all obvious, they would not apply 'bad' with a big thick brush, especially if they knew the context ..... which you should by now.

    BTW, you do realise, I hope, how much you undermine your (false) claims by using so many capitals. You can shout (virtually) but that doesn't make you right.

    almillar wrote: »
    You keep explaining and not listening, that's the problem. Other people can reason a different way, and come to a different conclusion. And when that reasoned guess comes down to 'they may or may not be in profit' it doesn't really mean much, IMO.

    Still not listening are you. The statement that they may (or may not) be in profit, was because we were having a discussion in Q3, where we were happily talking about Tesla not currently being in profit, but I made a small caveat (covering the possibility, or not, for Q3) because there are some pedants on here who might try to use my words against me later on.

    The interesting thing though, is that to avoid pedantry, I opened a whole can of Al, who doesn't seem to understand a simple sentence.

    If the guess of 'may, or may not' is so meaningless, then why have you spent weeks trying to find fault with it. Perhaps your crusading 'skills' could be better spent elsewhere.

    almillar wrote: »
    I answered 'yes' to the word 'better' - I should have said they're 'in the ballpark - yes, I retract that.

    Thank you - see what I mean about your skill in adding false claims as fast as you retract them. So far you've spent weeks coming up empty, but simply won't go away!

    almillar wrote: »
    Got it. You say it, reasoned guess, genius. I say it, nonsense. You've really nailed it home with us that Tesla has been high return, in terms of share price, so far, in terms of share price. Can you acknowledge that it's also high risk? Do you prefer to brush over that? Would a small profit instead of massive growth, be 'safer'?

    Yes, Tesla has been high risk, did that need acknowledging? It's strange how you like to throw in the odd fact and ask me to confirm it, as if it's in dispute. I think I've commented on this silly debating tactic before.

    Now, going forward, Elon has said that the TM3 was the last time Tesla will need to 'bet the company', so hopefully the risk will come down. If they make a profit this quarter, or a small loss, then with the still expanding production of the TM3, they will look pretty safe.

    Bare in mind that the MY is expected to have 10 times less cabling (I don't fully understand that, but it's intriguing) and the 1m pa production line should be about the same CAPEX as the TM3 0.5m pa CAPEX.

    Demand for the MY will probably also be higher as the 'SUV' market is now so big.

    Also, if the semi does what it says on the tin, then it'll be a cash cow.

    Going back to the original issue here, it was stated that investors might not be patient, but market cap growth like this, on an investment that is most likely a long term bet, would more than likely keep them happy, especially at this point in time when things are going well.

    almillar wrote: »
    Tell me what you want me to do, i asked but you didn't answer. 'Advanced Edit' instead of 'Quick Reply' like I do now...

    You are starting and maintaining discussions over a long period. You also try to change the narrative. You also make false claims about what I've said. You also make false denials about what you have said.

    So I'd suggest you reference your posts properly so that the audit trail is easier. It's also a bit daft to throw in sentences from several folk, expecting them to have to find their post and read in context, to see if you have a point, or are once again a bit confused.

    If I quote you, you can click on the little white (in blue) chevron, and jump to the post. This is how 99% of people manage to reply.
    Mart. Cardiff. 8.72 kWp PV systems (2.12 SSW 4.6 ESE & 2.0 WNW). 20kWh battery storage. Two A2A units for cleaner heating. Two BEV's for cleaner driving.

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.1K Life & Family
  • 257.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.