BEVs deals and information

1961Nick

GreatApe wrote: »

Sounds good for you given the current rules and regs

Of course a lot of this saving is tax saving so while it saves you money it wouldn't be possible on a large scale

I'm under no illusion that the BIK reduction will last beyond 3-4 years. After all these years of being shafted by the treasury, it's nice to get something back - even if it's only temporary.

[For full disclosure, I own Tesla shares, but I'm not saying any of this because I own shares, I own shares as a hedge against demand for the TM3 being so strong that the price goes back up before I get mine.]

joefizz

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ahh, the mythical 'Tesla killers'.
Well, as one car engineer said, nobody has yet managed to match the 2012 Tesla S yet, but if the Germans work really hard over the next 2-3yrs then they should be able to, and then they will only be

A year behind Tesla, and with more money, profit, dealer networks and brand loyalty..
Besides which I wouldnt worry too much about the Germans, its the japanese and koreans that will make the most inroads.
Every single manufacturer got their hands on a Tesla 3, stripped it down, x-rayd it, coming up with a cost analysis and seeing what they could do better/cheaper/more robustly. Once something goes out into the wild then your commercial advantage is down to less than a full development lifecycle (2-3 years).



As Ive mentioned, go sit in the different Tesla models and see the similarities, once the drivetrain and batteries (3rd party panasonic) are refined thats pretty much it, the rest is styling and software.
Get the rolling chassis sorted then its knock the models out as you wish.
Its not really a coincidence that a lot of the 2020 evs have Tesla 3 like specs because thats probably the limit of what you can do with that form factor of batteries and drivetrains. A lot of the hard work has been done and its out there.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The main problem for these companies is that they lose money on BEV's. Tesla had to produce $100k BEV's to make a profit in the past, and produce/sell ~300k TM3's pa to make the 'cheap' BEV profitable.

And so do Tesla, cheap financing makes the 'profit' realisable. Compare that 'profit' to 10 years of losses, where did they go? Magic'd off into the distance?
Nobody can make money from BEVs.
How much dividend have Tesla paid you in the time you have owned the shares?

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The other companies lose money on BEV's, and will lose all the remaining CAPEX value in dedicated ICE production as they reduce/end those sales.

But Tesla is not only profitable, they've done it whilst spending CAPEX in Shanghai, and the TMY pre-production*, and this quarter reduced their OPEX despite producing more cars.

Jam tomorrow. They have made operating profits. They arent profitable.
The more cars on the road, using their superchargers, then the more profit that will make, hence why I said next year will be crucial.
They need to start making real money across the whole venture. Normal car makers dont, they dont need to worry about making money from petrol sales or having enough petrol stations as other people take care of that.
This is where Tesla may be limited in its roll out.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Also bear in mind, as ABrass points out, they have their own in house battery production with Panasonic, and look to be about to start producing their own batts.

As you both pointed out Panasonic have a battery factory in a Tesla facility. Tesla are trying to replace Panansonic but again jam tomorrow. Theory and supposition.

I dont deal in hypothethicals but if Panasonic and Tesla fall out within the next year (someone else pays more for Panasonics battery line) then Tesla are dead. Like properly dead. Until Tesla get their own in house batteries made by them with their own supply chains then they are just repackaging someone elses IP.
That IP is easily transferrable and Tesla know it and have recently started buying their own battery IP and trying to secure supply chains. Until that is done the rest is just Panasonic/LG. People throw out the figures about the shorts on Tesla but this is one of the main reasons given, that they dont actually own their underlying IP and its easily transferable. Until they do own their own IP and can get the costs down doing it themselves (again another reason to short) then they are effectively rebadging batteries.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It's a very old concept now to consider Tesla the new kid, and the other companies the 'establishment', as Tesla is already the leading BEV producer both in technology and numbers, so the other companies will be the 'new' guys, and I suspect it is Tesla that now holds the brand loyalty trump card, not them.

Really? I thought Nissan had made more leafs than Tesla has cars in total...

I really do think you are confusing brand loyalty to adoption of EVs, people are getting really stoked about EVs and the driving experience (which they should), at the minute the only decent car available is the Tesla 3 albeit at a price point most people cant afford.

Teslas real problem is that they have proved the concept and proved theres a market. People with more car experience, deeper pockets and more recognisability will step in.

I will repeat again, they dont have to be a tesla killer, they just have to take less than 5% of the sales away from them to kill Tesla. Just make a comparable car 20% cheaper and that will do it.



As for owning shares, well Ive mentioned in other threads punting money on eco schemes on p2p networks. Its a punt but I do get a return but overall its about the return of the money, not the return on the money.


We can park this here and revisit again later next year and see what happens. As I said next year, particularly past january will be crucial for Tesla. Theres a lot of ifs ands maybes and buts to go through before then.


You wont be surprised to know I dont own Tesla shares, Im not adverse to owning Tesla shares but until they own their own IP and their share price isnt affected by Elon taking a draw with Joe Rogan then...
FWIW IIRC they have a global pricing strategy in USD so cable will dictate the vagaries of UK pricing, so brexit might have more of an effect on model 3 on the road costs than ingestion of weed..

1961Nick

You make some valid points Joe although some of them are now a little dated. I've been guilty of doubting Tesla over the past few years - even to the point of shorting the stock on a couple of occasions during the TM3 gestation period.

My view is now that Tesla have enough critical mass to be successful in the long term & will no-longer have to rely on shareholders to support them.

The difference between Tesla & traditional auto manufacturers is one of vision. Rather than 'electrifying' an existing business model, Tesla take the 'Bezos' approach & take fresh pathways even if the up front costs are prohibitive. A traditional car maker can't do that because their shareholders expect a profit every year ... as do their Bankers under the terms of their covenants.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ahh, the mythical 'Tesla killers'.

Well, as one car engineer said, nobody has yet managed to match the 2012 Tesla S yet, but if the Germans work really hard over the next 2-3yrs then they should be able to, and then they will only be a decade behind Tesla.

The main problem for these companies is that they lose money on BEV's. Tesla had to produce $100k BEV's to make a profit in the past, and produce/sell ~300k TM3's pa to make the 'cheap' BEV profitable.

The other companies lose money on BEV's, and will lose all the remaining CAPEX value in dedicated ICE production as they reduce/end those sales.

But Tesla is not only profitable, they've done it whilst spending CAPEX in Shanghai, and the TMY pre-production*, and this quarter reduced their OPEX despite producing more cars.

*Actually there are now quite a lot of early production TMY's being spotted out and about in the US.

Also bear in mind, as ABrass points out, they have their own in house battery production with Panasonic, and look to be about to start producing their own batts.

It's a very old concept now to consider Tesla the new kid, and the other companies the 'establishment', as Tesla is already the leading BEV producer both in technology and numbers, so the other companies will be the 'new' guys, and I suspect it is Tesla that now holds the brand loyalty trump card, not them.

[For full disclosure, I own Tesla shares, but I'm not saying any of this because I own shares, I own shares because of what I'm saying. M]

If you'd only put your shares down for a moment you'd maybe think for yourself

The other car companies can make a model s competitor that is a given the question is why would they want to? Model s type car demand is tiny by the fact that Tesla sells so few. About 50,000 units a year worldwide and they have capacity to produce more but there isn't the demand

If you are a car company selling 10 million units a year do you care about a segment that is 50,000 units a year and that's if you get 100% market share. If you have 50% market share it's just 25,000 units a year. And you have to deal with sales globally for that.

It's not a mass market car Tesla has proven there isn't big demand for such a car so other auto manufacturers don't care about the model s segment


The model 3 is more popular but we have yet to see what the full demand is for such a car
So far the total demand for all Tesla cars is just a run rate of 400,000 annually
The other car companies aren't crying into their coffee for not having what amounts to 0.45% of the market especially seeing as to date Tesla has burnt many billions. In fact how much have they raised and how much have they paid out to share holders to date? Well they've paid out zero and I know they've raised many billions. What is it $10 billion?

The only reason Tesla is seen as a success are because of their stock valuation
Which is more about future assumptions than historic or current reality

joefizz

1961Nick wrote: »

My view is now that Tesla have enough critical mass to be successful in the long term & will no-longer have to rely on shareholders to support them.

The difference between Tesla & traditional auto manufacturers is one of vision. Rather than 'electrifying' an existing business model, Tesla take the 'Bezos' approach & take fresh pathways even if the up front costs are prohibitive. A traditional car maker can't do that because their shareholders expect a profit every year ... as do their Bankers under the terms of their covenants.

If you go back up the thread Nick, I mentioned the very same myself and why I changed my mind about them this summer seeing the infrastructure and the way their cars were used in the US. I still think they are way off being sustainable and would only look at the data myself once the full rollout of the model 3 is complete and given a good year or two across the board usage.
The shareholder debt thing is only a small part of it, they have other bonds, notes debts which will become due over time and as other companies are finding its becoming increasingly harder to refinance so they will have to be paid down (or new share issues and so on). Tesla arent alone in keeping the plates spinning but for me at least its a concern.



However, the thing stopping traditional makers making EVs was that it was unprofitable, more unprofitable than making ICE cars (a point again I made earlier in the thread about traditional companies making more from the finance than making the cars in the first place), but legislation will force them to do so and thats the game changer. Any previous advantage will disappear. (the op was about a hyundai ioniq on PCP ;-))



One of the things that does concern me about the UK rollout of Model 3s is the corner cutting. Yes I made a joke about the build quality of the model 3s being akin to 90s ladas at times but most of the teslarati see this as not important and quirky. I liken it to the apple genius guy trying to explain to me why my one and only macbook packed in in the rainforest all due to it not having a built in fan and no published highest temperature rating. Why didnt you bring it indoors into a/c? I was in the rainforest. You should have brought it indoors. I was in the jungle. Its meant to work in an office environment. Its a !!!!ing laptop!
Anyway I digress. My point about that is the unintended effects of cost cutting/dressing it up as a feature. Last night/this morning I was out on the roads here, they were gritted as it was bloody cold.
If they cost cut/rush painting the door shuts and fixing panel gaps, did they cost cut the underseal as well...
Id be waxoyling mine asap.. most of the teslarati wont know what waxoyl is. We might find some rotting chassis in 3 years time (electricity, water, salt, that sort of thing). We may not, we probably would not but I wouldnt gamble 45k on it.


It would be stupid things like that that will damage them, things they didnt think about because they arent a car manufacturer but trying to reach car manufacturer levels and funding deadlines.
If I went out and checked my paint levels today and found a problem Id need to book my tesla 3 on a ferry and drive it over to edinburgh... Same if the door handle started sticking (first ever new car, warranty so I didnt bother fixing, car stuck door handle, loose internal trim panel, paint too thin on spoiler - all trips to dealer in first year).. Its not like my previous cars where I could drop it into the dealer in town or down the road on my lunchbreak. Most new cars have some sort of teething problems, its to be expected. Most are easily fixable but if its under warranty you get the dealer to do it.



Again why bring this up? Well if you order on the internet you can have people order from anywhere (NI with no dealers or superchargers for instance) whereas traditional car manufacturers, people mostly ordered from local dealers (forgetting car supermarkets and imports). There will be ramifications from that decision and they will only become apparent through time, through usage and through exposure.


Like the cost argument about FF etc, well look on the tesla forums and people are tracking the ships their model 3s are coming in across the atlantic. Those ships arent electric. Neither were the trains/transporters that delivered the model 3s to the docks. Neither were the machines which transported all the raw materials. So whats my point? These are all input costs, these are costs regardless of whats made and if the oil prices go up the end product prices go up. Yes, maybe in the future all boats will go back to sail power (and yes you can look that up on the net) and yes maybe all trains will be maglev high speed or boring under the ground transport but thats not happening now (and may never happen).



No point using ifs ands buts and maybes because the proof will be in the pudding as they say, not the ingredients.

GreatApe

joefizz wrote: »

A year behind Tesla, and with more money, profit, dealer networks and brand loyalty..
Besides which I wouldnt worry too much about the Germans, its the japanese and koreans that will make the most inroads.
Every single manufacturer got their hands on a Tesla 3, stripped it down, x-rayd it, coming up with a cost analysis and seeing what they could do better/cheaper/more robustly. Once something goes out into the wild then your commercial advantage is down to less than a full development lifecycle (2-3 years).

Agreed. So far all Tesla have done is spend $10 billion to become a company which is still loss making annually

Their model s is such a small volume seller (about 50,000 units a year) and that's with 100% of that segment that it isn't really worth fighting for

As Ive mentioned, go sit in the different Tesla models and see the similarities, once the drivetrain and batteries (3rd party panasonic) are refined thats pretty much it, the rest is styling and software.
Get the rolling chassis sorted then its knock the models out as you wish.
Its not really a coincidence that a lot of the 2020 evs have Tesla 3 like specs because thats probably the limit of what you can do with that form factor of batteries and drivetrains. A lot of the hard work has been done and its out there.

The other car companies don't have the American investor to plow in $10 billions of losses
They conclude that so far there isn't demand for the higher price point BEVs
Which is mostly true. The golf outsells the e golf by lots.

And so do Tesla, cheap financing makes the 'profit' realisable. Compare that 'profit' to 10 years of losses, where did they go? Magic'd off into the distance?
Nobody can make money from BEVs.
How much dividend have Tesla paid you in the time you have owned the shares?

Exactly Tesla is still in the red by around $10 billion they need to make that much profit just to get back to square one. They also got a huge huge amount of public subsidy. For a time the USA was giving $7,500 tax credit per Tesla. The UK was £4.5k per car down to £3.5k per car. Norway is huge direct and indirect subsidies

Jam tomorrow. They have made operating profits. They arent profitable.
The more cars on the road, using their superchargers, then the more profit that will make, hence why I said next year will be crucial.
They need to start making real money across the whole venture. Normal car makers dont, they dont need to worry about making money from petrol sales or having enough petrol stations as other people take care of that.
This is where Tesla may be limited in its roll out.

Tesla is a bet on self drive software
Their EVs aren't profitable yet and subsidies will be reduced and removed
Their biggest market the USA is removing the $1,875 subsidy January 2020 so either consumers have to pay more or Tesla needs to reduce prices

As you both pointed out Panasonic have a battery factory in a Tesla facility. Tesla are trying to replace Panansonic but again jam tomorrow. Theory and supposition.

Yep

I dont deal in hypothethicals but if Panasonic and Tesla fall out within the next year (someone else pays more for Panasonics battery line) then Tesla are dead. Like properly dead. Until Tesla get their own in house batteries made by them with their own supply chains then they are just repackaging someone elses IP.
That IP is easily transferrable and Tesla know it and have recently started buying their own battery IP and trying to secure supply chains. Until that is done the rest is just Panasonic/LG. People throw out the figures about the shorts on Tesla but this is one of the main reasons given, that they dont actually own their underlying IP and its easily transferable. Until they do own their own IP and can get the costs down doing it themselves (again another reason to short) then they are effectively rebadging batteries.

This isn't a big risk but it shows that anyone has the ability to buy batteries like Tesla does
The packaging for Tesla batteries is the best but they are just one generation ahead and the cycle for packaging isn't 2-3 years like cars anyone can develop packaging probably iterating on a timescale of one month

really do think you are confusing brand loyalty to adoption of EVs, people are getting really stoked about EVs and the driving experience (which they should), at the minute the only decent car available is the Tesla 3 albeit at a price point most people cant afford.

Teslas real problem is that they have proved the concept and proved theres a market. People with more car experience, deeper pockets and more recognisability will step in.

Tesla main achievement was probably to convince regulators to set dates to ban ICE sales
This will accelerate the ICE manufacturers to make EV models and ramp as and when demand is there

I will repeat again, they dont have to be a tesla killer, they just have to take less than 5% of the sales away from them to kill Tesla. Just make a comparable car 20% cheaper and that will do it.

Tesla won't die they are a brand now
Worse case Tesla can cut back production to match demand and cut down on non core spending
Tesla can become a car company the size and scale of BMW over the next 7-10 years. That would be a good achievement. Despite the gloom the auto segment will grow. India will become a 25 million a year market as China is but it will take 20 years to get there. Africa will become a 25 million a year market but it will take 40 years to get there.

We can park this here and revisit again later next year and see what happens. As I said next year, particularly past january will be crucial for Tesla. Theres a lot of ifs ands maybes and buts to go through before then.

Tesla will be fine they aren't at risk of bankruptcy if that was at all a fear Elon should just go back to the market during times share prices are high and raise another $3-4 billion of cash as a buffer

FWIW IIRC they have a global pricing strategy in USD so cable will dictate the vagaries of UK pricing, so brexit might have more of an effect on model 3 on the road costs than ingestion of weed..

The EU had offered to scrap the 10% car tariff but for some reason the yanks decided they didn't want to agree to that. The model 3 would have been about 10% cheaper has they agreed to that

Also the pound if it got stronger would lower the price of almost all UK sold cars

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

You make some valid points Joe although some of them are now a little dated. I've been guilty of doubting Tesla over the past few years - even to the point of shorting the stock on a couple of occasions during the TM3 gestation period.

My view is now that Tesla have enough critical mass to be successful in the long term & will no-longer have to rely on shareholders to support them.

The difference between Tesla & traditional auto manufacturers is one of vision. Rather than 'electrifying' an existing business model, Tesla take the 'Bezos' approach & take fresh pathways even if the up front costs are prohibitive. A traditional car maker can't do that because their shareholders expect a profit every year ... as do their Bankers under the terms of their covenants.

The traditional auto manufacturers have not been static. Tesla was founded in 2003

2003 sales of commercial and passanger vehicles was 60.6 million
2018 sales of commercial and passanger vehicles was 95.6 million

The traditional auto manufacturers were doing what is important which is expanding ICE production by 35 million units a year

Tesla will survive for sure
Will they become an apple or Amazon with 50% market share :rotfl:


Tesla: No one can compete with the 2012 model s
ICE: buddy you sell less than 50,000 units worldwide you've proven there isn't much demand for a $100,000 premium 350 mile EV

Tesla: We have the best mass market BEV the model 3
ICE: It's an okay cat but you've taken $10 billion off shareholders to get it this point how about you hand that back first then start beating your chest

Tesla: BEVs are the future
ICE: Maybe but it makes no sense to ramp production before the technology is affordable and the market ready for it. Since your birth ICE business has grown by 35 million units a year. Tell me how many BEVs do you think you'll sell this year?

Martyn1981

joefizz wrote: »

A year behind Tesla, and with more money, profit, dealer networks and brand loyalty..

I won't quote it all to save space.

No, they are not a year behind, not even close.

Tesla is profitable on BEV's and have been for some time, ever since the TMS ramp up was complete, the loss quarters represent CAPEX investment, as shown when they again went profitable after the TMX ramp up, and again after the TM3, before the TMY CAPEX. And they just went profitable (as I've already explained) despite a CAPEX period.

They are the largest BEV producer now, the Leaf is only ahead in total sales, due to be on the market for longer, but the TM3 is already close to overtaking it.

Tesla is far ahead on technology and maintaining that lead.

Tesla has a higher brand loyalty.

Tesla are seen as the go to for BEV's, so the 'establishment' is actually chasing them, not the other way around.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No, they are not a year behind, not even close.
.

What do you think they have that others don't
Anyone can buy cells from Panasonic

It's probably true they have the best battery packs (the structure that holds the cells together in a safe useable way) but this isn't particularly difficult to do

The reality is Tesla sells a tiny number of premium S and X vehicles it's not a market worth fighting over. The model 3 is good but expensive. All the car companies can and will in time have BEVs and long range Hybrids platforms

Tesla has no motor advantage (electric motors are produced in numbers far exceeding ICEs)
Tesla has no cell advantage (anyone can buy from Panasonic)
Tesla has the best battery pack design for now but it's not magic
And almost everyone seems to be saying the actual car isn't as premium as a premium brand typical is

There is no real Tesla advantage

Tesla have the best software but this isn't complicated my tablet has equally as good software the car companies can just stick an android tablet into their cars give up on their own !!!! software

Tesla might have a software advantage in self drive but no one is looking for new cars with self drive esp if they need to pay $10k premium for the software thanks I'll drive myself. This can make Tesla a lot of money for taxi fleets but there are at least 20 serious companies working on self drive software for taxi fleets and such fleets won't kill the personal automobile

ABrass

Nissan leaf has produced about 400k units. Current build rate is supposed to be about 80k per year.

Tesla model 3 has produced about 350k so far I think and in the last quarter they build 79k. It probably won't be this year they overtake the leaf but I'd be stunned if they hadn't by half way through 2020.

The leaf is a good car. Overpriced compared to the model 3 and not built in enough volume, but a good car.

Edit:

No point using ifs ands buts and maybes because the proof will be in the pudding as they say, not the ingredients

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Sadly Nissan don't want to build as many puddings to sell to people.