Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

Grumpy_chap

QrizB said:

Grumpy_chap said:

But £800 now is much cheaper than £500 then.

Per the Bank of England, £500 in 2007 is worth £709.45 today.

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator

Yes, it turns out the first i-Phone was 2007.
I thought it was 1997, so added 10 years to the inflation calculation.

JKenH

CKhalvashi said:

JKenH said:

CKhalvashi said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

For those of us who don't remember events from 1908,  a more useful example might be colour TVs.  When first available in the 1960s, buying one would cost the average person several month's pay;  nowadays it's just a couple of days earnings.  

So why does Tesla keep putting its prices up?

They charge what people are willing to pay.

As I pointed out earlier and as others have said, Tesla are not into profiteering so maybe they are putting prices up as the cars are costing more to make. 

In principle, though, I agree that is how the market works. 

If EVs are more in demand than ICEVs then which will go up in price and which will fall?

Tesla's Chief Executive is a full Jack Ma ahead of Jeff Bezos in wealth rankings.

Being worth $250bn (that's 1,1% of the entire US economy), apart from just being greed, doesn't go with not making serious profit long term. I invest for returns, not for fun, as I'm sure do many others.

As EV technology grows, we will of course find more demand. The ID4 is arguably a better value car than the TM3, the EQS is almost certainly more competitive than the TMS, both are aimed at similar markets, although the ID4 is significantly cheaper, the EQS outranges the TMS at a slightly higher price point. There therefore must be a profit for Tesla here somewhere, likely a gross one much higher than other manufacturers. If there isn't, Tesla has absolutely ridiculous costs somewhere in its supply/capital chain which need to be addressed.

Elon Musk in 2018 said “ What drives us is our mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable, clean energy, but we will never achieve that mission unless we eventually demonstrate that we can be sustainably profitable,”

Tesla are now consistently making profit but that is not the same as profiteering. Charging £3 a litre for petrol is profiteering. Putting your prices up 5-10% to cover increased production costs is not.

Elon Musk’s wealth is purely a function of the Tesla share price which does not conform to standard metrics of profitability/value.

EVandPV

Spies said:

Would it be feasible to trade in a Clio for a Zoe? As I have a vehicle to trade in, used prices won't affect me? 

When I bought mine in 2019, a new 40kwh battery leased Zoe was the same price as a new Clio. Apparently they're even built in the same factory.

Renault are now keen to do away with the leases and are issuing quotes to buy the batteries out. I'm still undecided as there are quite a few benefits to renting, not least of which is the lifetime warranty versus 8 years/100,000 miles if you own the battery.
They ended the leasing model with the new 50kwh Zoe.

Used 40kwh battery leased Zoes start around £11k and battery owned from around £17k.
So given that the quote to buy out the battery lease on a 2 year old Zoe is around £4500, if you don't want to lease, it could potentially be beneficial to buy one with a lease first then buy the battery.

Martyn1981

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

Martyn1981 said:

shinytop said:

ABrass said:

shinytop said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0010ntb

Interesting article on batteries.  They also discuss EVs and the estimates for how much emissions we (the UK) will be saving by 2050 are a bit underwhelming at about 1% of the total.  The assumption is that 25% of miles will be EV by then.  Obviously that will go up afterwards.

 I know it has to happen but it seems like a lot of effort and cost for not a lot of gain. 

That doesn't sound right.

If we are banning new Petrol cars by 2035 (diesel will be dead well before that anyway) then we're supposed to believe that 75% of miles will be done in cars at least 15 years old?

But don't worry, the EV pain will be over by 2025. Then they will be cheaper to buy than petrol cars as well as cheaper to own. Everyone is happy.

The numbers included commercial vehicles, not just cars.

I'm not worrying, but EVs won't be cheaper to run in the long term than ICE cars.  There might be a short time when it is made such to encourage the switch. They are cheaper to run now because their 'fuel' is hugely subsidised compared to petrol and diesel.  That won't last.  And the biggest downward pressure on EV purchase prices is the fact that ICE cars are much cheaper.  Once ICE cars are gone then so is that competition.   

I can't follow any of that. Shirley the biggest downward pressure on EV's is the falling cost of batteries, and the economies of scale from ramping up production.

I can't see all the car companies in the World suddenly raising their prices when ICEV's go, you'd only need one to be cheaper and it would take the market. I don't think ICEV's are the competition for each manufacturer, I think the other manufacturers are the competition.

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

No of course they won't and I didn't say that but ICE cars are a benchmark for price and range that BEVs need to aim for currently.  Or rather, ICE price + whatever grant is available.   People who want to buy EVs compare them with ICE cars and if the difference is too much they won't buy them.    

If you want to continue the Model T analogy, some people might say that what we are doing now is replacing horses with donkeys    
 

Sorry I still don't understand that, you said:

And the biggest downward pressure on EV purchase prices is the fact that ICE cars are much cheaper.  Once ICE cars are gone then so is that competition.   

Which at the very least suggests that BEV prices won't keep reducing when ICEV sales fall (but they are already falling). As I mentioned, the biggest drivers of BEV cost reductions are falling battery prices and the ramping up towards mass production on a scale similar to ICEV production. I don't understand why you think BEV prices will be tied to ICEV prices, when BEV's will have to compete with BEV's. The Chinese in particular seem able to produce quality BEV's at reasonable prices.

That's why I mentioned the Ford Model T, which was the 'new' and disruptive vehicle of its time due to mass production, and costs kept falling. As Eric points out, colour tellies kept getting cheaper, I don't believe their price reductions stalled when B&W sales dropped. History will provide you with no end of examples where a better product comes along and disrupts the established technology, then costs fall as production ramps. [Typically a technology related percentage cost reduction with each doubling of production, known as Wright's Law. In the case of Wright Aeronautical the cost reduction was ~15%, so the 2,000th aircraft cost 15% less to build than the 1,000th, and then the 4,000th would cost 15% less than the 2,000th. Wright's law can be applied both to BEV's and batteries.]

Regarding your 'donkey' comment, I'm at a bit of a loss concerning that one. Are you suggesting that BEV's are an inferior product, or that 'some people' think they are an inferior product? I hadn't heard that. Could it be that those people haven't tried a BEV yet, and are simply assuming it's inferior, in which case they are in for a pleasant shock?


TBH, whilst I still can't really follow your logic, I would say it's actually pretty positive - if the main fears are that the product is inferior, or that costs won't fall (as ICEV sales drop), or perhaps are just a mix of unknowns due to fear of change - then things will be fine, we just need folk to try out a BEV, and then enjoy ownership once costs and availability (new or SH) improve.

I am quite positive about BEVs and I think they have a significant place in personal transport in the future.

Donkeys?  Maybe the wrong animal but the new horse can't go as far as the old one, it eats special food that is sometimes hard to find (although you can get it delivered to your house quite cheaply for now), takes ages to eat its dinner, can't pull a cart and is much more expensive to buy.  Also, it's bigger, heavier, has a reputation for getting injured and nobody is sure how long it's going to live. It does look very like the old horse though, it can sprint quite fast and some people think they can be taught to ride themselves. It also doesn't cr4p in the street like the old horse, which seems to be its main advantage.    

Cheers, I was wondering if the donkey reference related to real issues or not.

So, plenty of food, and available at home, no need to go to a special outlet.
Eats very quickly, say 30s at home (15s to plug in, and 15s to unplug), and when out and about can eat whilst you take a short break.
Not only can it pull a cart, but it can dragrace a sports car, whilst towing another sports car on a trailer, or pull a boat, or a train, or a jetliner. Watch from 35s mark.
No bigger than comparable vehicles, but typically more available space inside, no transmission tunnel.
Heavier, yep, but not as much as folk may think, my Ioniq weighs ~50kg more than the ICEV version (50kg less than the PHEV version), plus regen braking means that some of the energy to reach speed can be claimed back, and once at speed, energy consumption is a function of drag and not impacted by weight.
No reputation for getting injured? Less to insure, and lower incidence of fires v's an ICEV (cough** Bolt aside **cough).
Much longer life expectancy than ICEV due to long lasting components v's wear of mechanicals in an ICEV. Battery degradation so far looking to be excellent.
Yep doesn't carp in the street, and is also helping to reduce the impact of the climate crisis.

As I said previously:

TBH, whilst I still can't really follow your logic, I would say it's actually pretty positive - if the main fears are that the product is inferior, or that costs won't fall (as ICEV sales drop), or perhaps are just a mix of unknowns due to fear of change - then things will be fine, we just need folk to try out a BEV, and then enjoy ownership once costs and availability (new or SH) improve.

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

CKhalvashi said:

JKenH said:

CKhalvashi said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

For those of us who don't remember events from 1908,  a more useful example might be colour TVs.  When first available in the 1960s, buying one would cost the average person several month's pay;  nowadays it's just a couple of days earnings.  

So why does Tesla keep putting its prices up?

They charge what people are willing to pay.

As I pointed out earlier and as others have said, Tesla are not into profiteering so maybe they are putting prices up as the cars are costing more to make. 

In principle, though, I agree that is how the market works. 

If EVs are more in demand than ICEVs then which will go up in price and which will fall?

Tesla's Chief Executive is a full Jack Ma ahead of Jeff Bezos in wealth rankings.

Being worth $250bn (that's 1,1% of the entire US economy), apart from just being greed, doesn't go with not making serious profit long term. I invest for returns, not for fun, as I'm sure do many others.

As EV technology grows, we will of course find more demand. The ID4 is arguably a better value car than the TM3, the EQS is almost certainly more competitive than the TMS, both are aimed at similar markets, although the ID4 is significantly cheaper, the EQS outranges the TMS at a slightly higher price point. There therefore must be a profit for Tesla here somewhere, likely a gross one much higher than other manufacturers. If there isn't, Tesla has absolutely ridiculous costs somewhere in its supply/capital chain which need to be addressed.

Elon Musk in 2018 said “ What drives us is our mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable, clean energy, but we will never achieve that mission unless we eventually demonstrate that we can be sustainably profitable,”

Tesla are now consistently making profit but that is not the same as profiteering. Charging £3 a litre for petrol is profiteering. Putting your prices up 5-10% to cover increased production costs is not.

Elon Musk’s wealth is purely a function of the Tesla share price which does not conform to standard metrics of profitability/value.

Here's a question for you - can Tesla, particularly in the US be accused of profiteering due to their repeated price increases probably taking them above and beyond rising supply costs?

It's a genuine question, but possibly purely pedantic, but I can't decide for myself. The issue seems to be that due to supply shortages they have not been able to build as many cars in 2020 and 2021 as they hoped, so sales and therefore total revenue would have fallen. At the same time, they have delivery dates for some models now stretching through to August, and price can be used a demand lever in such a situation.

So, based on their core goal, and the need for profits/free cash to fund expansion, does this class as profiteering, or come out neutral on a pro's v's con's basis? Personally, I lean towards it being OK, so long as demand exceeds supply, and the long term goal is greater supply and lower costs, but I'm not 100% sure on this one.

[Edit - Doh! Just realised that's a stupid question. Putting up prices in the face of high demand and long waiting lists may be iffy (or not) but profiteering takes advantage of events, often unpleasant ones, which is a different issue, I believe?  M.]


Regarding Elon's wealth, yep it's a function of Tesla, and his decision to go for a share based remuneration package linked to the performance of Tesla on several key metrics, which would appear to be 'putting your money where your mouth is', but it also reflects the rapidly rising valuation estimates for SpaceX too, and its expanding subsidiary Starlink.

Martyn1981

Speaking of 'carp in the streets', some numbers from Aus, that might help with a push towards EV's, as the take up so far has been a tad slow.

Poor EV take-up to cost Australia’s health system $1tn by 2050, modelling shows

Australia may be left with almost a $1tn health bill by 2050 if it doesn’t boost the take-up of electric vehicles, according to a new report released on Sunday.

But this could be slashed in half by setting an ambitious target to convert every car in the country to electric by 2035.

The modelling was released by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), which commissioned accounting firm Deloitte to examine the community benefit from increasing the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs).

While the goal should be for all electric vehicles to be entirely powered by renewable energy, Yin said there were still benefits even where the power was drawn from coal.

“There are advantages even if you are sourcing power from coal-fired power stations because the vehicles are more efficient,” he said. “The benefits are just multiplied when we transition to renewable energy and get rid of coal-fired power stations as well.”

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

CKhalvashi said:

JKenH said:

CKhalvashi said:

JKenH said:

EricMears said:

Martyn1981 said:

The Model T Ford (and its competitors) effectively displaced horses, and it was launched at ~$900, and fell to $360 over the following ~20yrs. Including inflation, its price fell approx 75%.

For those of us who don't remember events from 1908,  a more useful example might be colour TVs.  When first available in the 1960s, buying one would cost the average person several month's pay;  nowadays it's just a couple of days earnings.  

So why does Tesla keep putting its prices up?

They charge what people are willing to pay.

As I pointed out earlier and as others have said, Tesla are not into profiteering so maybe they are putting prices up as the cars are costing more to make. 

In principle, though, I agree that is how the market works. 

If EVs are more in demand than ICEVs then which will go up in price and which will fall?

Tesla's Chief Executive is a full Jack Ma ahead of Jeff Bezos in wealth rankings.

Being worth $250bn (that's 1,1% of the entire US economy), apart from just being greed, doesn't go with not making serious profit long term. I invest for returns, not for fun, as I'm sure do many others.

As EV technology grows, we will of course find more demand. The ID4 is arguably a better value car than the TM3, the EQS is almost certainly more competitive than the TMS, both are aimed at similar markets, although the ID4 is significantly cheaper, the EQS outranges the TMS at a slightly higher price point. There therefore must be a profit for Tesla here somewhere, likely a gross one much higher than other manufacturers. If there isn't, Tesla has absolutely ridiculous costs somewhere in its supply/capital chain which need to be addressed.

Elon Musk in 2018 said “ What drives us is our mission to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable, clean energy, but we will never achieve that mission unless we eventually demonstrate that we can be sustainably profitable,”

Tesla are now consistently making profit but that is not the same as profiteering. Charging £3 a litre for petrol is profiteering. Putting your prices up 5-10% to cover increased production costs is not.

Elon Musk’s wealth is purely a function of the Tesla share price which does not conform to standard metrics of profitability/value.

Here's a question for you - can Tesla, particularly in the US be accused of profiteering due to their repeated price increases probably taking them above and beyond rising supply costs?

It's a genuine question, but possibly purely pedantic, but I can't decide for myself. The issue seems to be that due to supply shortages they have not been able to build as many cars in 2020 and 2021 as they hoped, so sales and therefore total revenue would have fallen. At the same time, they have delivery dates for some models now stretching through to August, and price can be used a demand lever in such a situation.

So, based on their core goal, and the need for profits/free cash to fund expansion, does this class as profiteering, or come out neutral on a pro's v's con's basis? Personally, I lean towards it being OK, so long as demand exceeds supply, and the long term goal is greater supply and lower costs, but I'm not 100% sure on this one.

[Edit - Doh! Just realised that's a stupid question. Putting up prices in the face of high demand and long waiting lists may be iffy (or not) but profiteering takes advantage of events, often unpleasant ones, which is a different issue, I believe?  M.]


Regarding Elon's wealth, yep it's a function of Tesla, and his decision to go for a share based remuneration package linked to the performance of Tesla on several key metrics, which would appear to be 'putting your money where your mouth is', but it also reflects the rapidly rising valuation estimates for SpaceX too, and its expanding subsidiary Starlink.

I presume that was a rhetorical question. I don’t know to what extent costs have risen; perhaps not much as the operating margin has increased. I did see this though:

“At its recent annual meeting, CEO Elon Musk warned that dealing with supply chain issues has been costly.

"We are seeing significant cost pressure in our supply chain," he said at that time. "I mean the sheer amount of money we're spending on flying parts around the world is just not great but hopefully temporary."

But Tesla was able to raise prices on its cars, despite increased competition from electric vehicles now being offered by traditional automakers such as Volkswagen(VLKAF), General Motors (GM) and Ford (F). The company had previous disclosed that it had record sales in the quarter, up 20% compared to the previous three months, and up 73% from the year-earlier period.”

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/20/business/tesla-earnings/index.html

Grumpy_chap

Solarchaser said:

I do keep seeing the range anxiety come up again and again from EV sceptics. And I understand it too, it can be inconvenient at times having to pull over and charge when you just want to crack on.
I've had to do it a couple of times in the model 3 when I've done long journeys back to back over a couple of days when plans have suddenly changed.
Not too dissimilar you could argue, to having to pay through the nose for petrol/diesel at motorway services when plans suddenly change, the only difference being the wait being longer to charge the car.

For me that forced half hour or hour mid journey can be frustrating, however on the other hand it can be a stress relief, time to catch up on paperwork,  or a forced stretch of the leg's, making me eat lunch etc.

Pro-EV advocates always reference the matter of range anxiety by reference to a "long" journey.
If an individual is driving a "long" journey, say London to Manchester, then most will be stopping for refreshment in any case.  If those that would not have stopped are now forced to do so, then it is probably a significant advantage in terms of safety that they've taken a break.

As I put a little way up the thread, range is more of an issue for a return journey that would ordinarily be two "short" legs, each driven non-stop.  Range constraints would then be forcing an extra stop and adding time to the journey that is quite a long proportion of the overall travel time.
My example is if I visit my brother, 65 miles each way.  EV with a "book" range of 200 miles, so real-world range around 150 miles as I will rarely have optimal climate conditions, I still want to drive at motorway speeds, and I still want the comfort of the radio on, heating / cooling etc.
That round trip of 130 miles is now coming perilously close to the real world range limit of 150 miles, so is quite realistically going to force a cafe-charging stop that would not otherwise have been the case. 
This has therefore added time that I would rather not spend.
An hour-or-so each way trip to see family is something that is far more common and far more frequent for most than the "long" journey where you would be taking rest breaks anyway that afford the opportunity to charge without adding extra time.

Other similar types of journeys would be the day out to the beach or a major shopping centre etc.

I an happy if reasons can be given why my explanation of when range would have a real impact is wrong.  Indeed, I'd welcome it as it would truly work to establish range as a non-issue.

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

As I pointed out earlier and as others have said, Tesla are not into profiteering so maybe they are putting prices up as the cars are costing more to make. 

I think Tesla charge what they can get people to pay - it is pretty much the same with most "consumer" products.

I always took the comments by Elon referencing that his drive was not making money to be purely a personal statement.  So, as a multi-billionaire, Elon is not driven by making more money because he is simply has enough that he'll never spend it on personal needs.

The business ventures are, therefore, driven (from Elon's perspective) by parameters outside of revenue generation.  He wants to do something that makes a difference or changes the world.  Both EV and space-rockets achieve that goal. 

What Elon has not said, however, is that these projects can simply be billionaire funded and just for fun - the businesses still need to establish a sustainable and viable operating model within a realistic time-frame as Elon is not offering to operate the businesses as charity.  The big difference is, being self-funded, Elon could start the businesses without having to satisfy the bankers / city financiers in the conventional way.  Elon could just innovate away and only had to satisfy himself that the idea was good. 

The likes of Ford, VW and other legacy car makers could only put money to invest into developing EVs once the concepts had been proven and the legacy manufacturers could raise the necessary capital through more conventional means and without shareholder revolt.

Solarchaser

Grumpy_chap said:

Solarchaser said:

I do keep seeing the range anxiety come up again and again from EV sceptics. And I understand it too, it can be inconvenient at times having to pull over and charge when you just want to crack on.
I've had to do it a couple of times in the model 3 when I've done long journeys back to back over a couple of days when plans have suddenly changed.
Not too dissimilar you could argue, to having to pay through the nose for petrol/diesel at motorway services when plans suddenly change, the only difference being the wait being longer to charge the car.

For me that forced half hour or hour mid journey can be frustrating, however on the other hand it can be a stress relief, time to catch up on paperwork,  or a forced stretch of the leg's, making me eat lunch etc.

Pro-EV advocates always reference the matter of range anxiety by reference to a "long" journey.
If an individual is driving a "long" journey, say London to Manchester, then most will be stopping for refreshment in any case.  If those that would not have stopped are now forced to do so, then it is probably a significant advantage in terms of safety that they've taken a break.

As I put a little way up the thread, range is more of an issue for a return journey that would ordinarily be two "short" legs, each driven non-stop.  Range constraints would then be forcing an extra stop and adding time to the journey that is quite a long proportion of the overall travel time.
My example is if I visit my brother, 65 miles each way.  EV with a "book" range of 200 miles, so real-world range around 150 miles as I will rarely have optimal climate conditions, I still want to drive at motorway speeds, and I still want the comfort of the radio on, heating / cooling etc.
That round trip of 130 miles is now coming perilously close to the real world range limit of 150 miles, so is quite realistically going to force a cafe-charging stop that would not otherwise have been the case. 
This has therefore added time that I would rather not spend.
An hour-or-so each way trip to see family is something that is far more common and far more frequent for most than the "long" journey where you would be taking rest breaks anyway that afford the opportunity to charge without adding extra time.

Other similar types of journeys would be the day out to the beach or a major shopping centre etc.

I an happy if reasons can be given why my explanation of when range would have a real impact is wrong.  Indeed, I'd welcome it as it would truly work to establish range as a non-issue.

I guess you call me a pro ev advocate,  and I was referencing back to back unexpected journeys, you will note I didn't state length.
See if you leave somewhere with a 1/4 tank /charge and then have to go somewhere else then you have to stop and fill/charge.

Your brother at 130 miles, id just drive personally,  but I'd assume by the point of doing the journey you would already know whether the car will do 130 miles to a charge or not.

You wouldn't head off on a 130 mile round trip in a petrol car if you didn't know if it would make it.so same deal really