Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Jonamora
    • By Jonamora 24th Jan 17, 5:11 PM
    • 1Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Jonamora
    Electric cars
    • #1
    • 24th Jan 17, 5:11 PM
    Electric cars 24th Jan 17 at 5:11 PM
    Just wanted people's opinions on buying an electric car?

    Before long all cars will be electric and therfore is it best to sell petrol car at full value and invest in electric car.

    I don't want to start a new finance deals for 4 years and be complete but then left with and cat nobody wants or has resale value because all are electric.....thoughts

    Jonathan
Page 117
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Sep 18, 6:00 PM
    • 4,300 Posts
    • 5,716 Thanks
    zeupater
    Hiya and thanks.

    Do you think the reduction in cost to 1/3 means the process of making the packs, and not the whole cost of the pack, as that seems like one hell of a price reduction?

    Am I wrong to read it as a massive cost reduction, or do you think the para is badly written/misleading?
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hi

    On the grounds that the manufacture of the cells themselves would be on an automated flow-line anyway and that Panasonic would have had plenty of experience & time to tweak efficiency to pretty high levels, combined with the engineering company concerned specialising in automotive sector automation, my thoughts would steer towards the automation of assembly of the battery pack itself on some kind of transfer-line as opposed to battery manufacture so it's likely that the reduction mentioned would either exclude the cost of all materials & components or just the batteries ... leaving the considerable cost of the cells aside, there's probably relatively little material cost involved, so it probably doesn't make all that much difference!

    HTH
    Z
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 13th Sep 18, 6:09 PM
    • 18,357 Posts
    • 16,587 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Probably not the case when you look at the detail - see previous post above.
    Originally posted by zeupater
    Yes, you're right.

    So 6k/wk now - which means they're still well within capacity, since production has dropped from a one-week peak of just over 6k cars and five consecutive weeks over 5k, back to <4k, probably as they try to reintroduce some of the automation they swapped out to release the bottleneck.


    Add 2k/week with each of the three new machines, so that's a total of 12k/week, double current.



    But how does that square with "Tesla expects that these machines will enable battery production at 3 times the current rate"?


    But I think someone could also make a 'calculated guess' that they won't make a profit - they haven't so far
    by almillar
    They have in the past. Twice! $22m in Q3 2016, and $11m in Q1 2013.
    by AdrianC
    So I'm not telling you that your opinion is wrong, I'm telling you straight - that you are wrong and have been everytime you've made this false claim.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    <shrug> You can call Tesla's official financial reporting "false" and "wrong" if you like... No skin off my nose. The SEC might be interested in your allegations...
    • zeupater
    • By zeupater 13th Sep 18, 9:34 PM
    • 4,300 Posts
    • 5,716 Thanks
    zeupater
    Yes, you're right.

    So 6k/wk now - which means they're still well within capacity, since production has dropped from a one-week peak of just over 6k cars and five consecutive weeks over 5k, back to <4k, probably as they try to reintroduce some of the automation they swapped out to release the bottleneck.

    Add 2k/week with each of the three new machines, so that's a total of 12k/week, double current.

    But how does that square with "Tesla expects that these machines will enable battery production at 3 times the current rate"?
    ...
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Hi

    "at 3 times the current rate" .. Build 3x as many units in a given time using the same power & services, the same (or less) labour and using the same manufacturing cell footprint and the cost of operating the cell reduces by 3x per unit throughput & that's what's described

    Effectively the article didn't say they could build 3x the volume of batteries when the new machines are all in production, it's just that you interpreted it that way!

    HTH
    Z
    Last edited by zeupater; 13-09-2018 at 9:37 PM.
    "We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 14th Sep 18, 6:49 AM
    • 7,429 Posts
    • 11,909 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    <shrug> You can call Tesla's official financial reporting "false" and "wrong" if you like... No skin off my nose. The SEC might be interested in your allegations...
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    I think you've 'done an Al' and misunderstood. Or your comment should have been directed at Al, and not at my response to him?

    Tesla has reported profits twice, you've said that, I've said, Z has said that.

    My comment was to Al who has repeatedly stated that they haven't made a profit, and the last time he did that, you posted the comment, which I referenced, also pointing out that he was again wrong.

    12th Sept #2301 Al said Tesla hadn't made a profit.
    12th Sept #2302 You said that they had, twice.
    13th Sept #2318 I said that they had made a profit twice and referenced your post to show that we both agreed.

    On this issue, we both agree.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 14-09-2018 at 6:54 AM.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Sep 18, 7:52 AM
    • 18,357 Posts
    • 16,587 Thanks
    AdrianC
    I think you've 'done an Al' and misunderstood. Or your comment should have been directed at Al, and not at my response to him?
    ...
    My comment was to Al
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Then your quoting was broken, since you quoted me pointing out Al's error.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 14th Sep 18, 10:45 AM
    • 7,429 Posts
    • 11,909 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Then your quoting was broken, since you quoted me pointing out Al's error.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Correct, I quoted you pointing out Al's error. That was the intention. Here is the lead up to the quote:

    I've told you this numerous times, as has Z, and I think you'll notice that in response to the same part of your post that I was responding too, this is what Ade said:
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Edit - the whole post is to Al, I was referencing you, I didn't respond to you.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 14-09-2018 at 10:49 AM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • almillar
    • By almillar 14th Sep 18, 1:50 PM
    • 7,535 Posts
    • 3,099 Thanks
    almillar
    You even used capitals to emphasise the present tense. Your rude (because you don't understand) response actually brings up the issue of 'present' and future. We are currently in the present, yes? The present is Q3, yes? Tesla might (just might) be in profit in Q3 ....... the present.
    No. We're diametrically opposed on this issue. I've been talking about the present all along. The most present information we have is Q2. That was a loss. That's current for 3 months. It's no more complicated than that.

    again, 'Tesla aren't in profit', you didn't say 'weren't' nor 'won't', you said aren't, which is present.
    See above. You nor Tesla can't say otherwise until the Q3 results are out. You can say cars are profitable, lines are profitable, there's a plan (I agree with all of that) but you can not state as fact that they're in profit. You've now made a bet with Adrian C, and you've bet that Q3 will be a loss! Whilst arguing they're in profit!

    Nothing is idiot proof, as idiot's are too ingenious.
    Rogue apostrophe. And I'm the one trying to keep it simple.
    So I can't correctly say that they may, or may not be in profit, but you can say that they are not when you don't know. Please stop spinning and wiggling and give it up now.
    They may or may not be. As of their LATEST REPORT, they're not. Can we agree that line?

    Nope. They can come to a different result, I explained all of this to you, but my result is based on past results and information, so is a fair and reasoned guess, whereas their result would be despite the past results and information, so an unreasonable guess - it may well turn out to be correct, but that doesn't mean it's fair and reasonable.
    Disagree. I think it would be reasonable to say 'they've made 'x' quarters of loss, and 2 of profit, therefore they're likely to make a loss. Not as detailed an analysis as yours, but still REASONABLE.

    they haven't so far
    This is the only time I made that claim. I wasn't aware they had made a profit 2 quarters in the past. Not a repeated claim. The repeated claim is 'they're not currently in profit' and we're arguing about the meaning of 'current'.


    (AdrianC)

    You can call Tesla's official financial reporting "false" and "wrong" if you like... No skin off my nose. The SEC might be interested in your allegations...
    No, apologies to both AdrianC and Martyn. I admit I've caused confusion here. I said, once, long into the conversation, that Tesla had NEVER been in profit, you corrected me, and Martyn thinks I've repeatedly claimed this - not the case.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Sep 18, 1:55 PM
    • 18,357 Posts
    • 16,587 Thanks
    AdrianC
    You've now made a bet with Adrian C, and you've bet that Q3 will be a loss! Whilst arguing they're in profit!
    Originally posted by almillar
    Ah, but only by a very tiny number.


    The $50m number Martyn is going with is less than 7%, 1/15th of their Q2 loss. OK, so it'd also be 50% bigger than the total cumulative profit to date...
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 14th Sep 18, 5:41 PM
    • 7,429 Posts
    • 11,909 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    No. We're diametrically opposed on this issue. I've been talking about the present all along. The most present information we have is Q2. That was a loss. That's current for 3 months. It's no more complicated than that.
    Originally posted by almillar
    The present is Q3, not Q2. Please don't try to deny the date in order to re-write the narrative. That's silly even for you.

    My statement remains true that they may (or may not) currently be in profit, but we won't know for a month.


    See above. You nor Tesla can't say otherwise until the Q3 results are out. You can say cars are profitable, lines are profitable, there's a plan (I agree with all of that) but you can not state as fact that they're in profit. You've now made a bet with Adrian C, and you've bet that Q3 will be a loss! Whilst arguing they're in profit!
    Originally posted by almillar
    I have never said they are currently in profit. That is you, yet again, making up false claims.

    I've said, for thoroughness, that at present they may (or may not) be in profit.

    Please stop changing the narrative in order to lie about what I've said.


    Rogue apostrophe. And I'm the one trying to keep it simple.
    Originally posted by almillar
    Nope. You are the one, as I've now shown multiple times, trying to complicate the issue by making false claims and changing the narrative each time you are shown to be wrong.


    They may or may not be. As of their LATEST REPORT, they're not. Can we agree that line?
    Originally posted by almillar
    Back to your old tricks (and capitals I see).

    We've never disagreed on this, have we?


    Disagree. I think it would be reasonable to say 'they've made 'x' quarters of loss, and 2 of profit, therefore they're likely to make a loss. Not as detailed an analysis as yours, but still REASONABLE.
    Originally posted by almillar
    Nope. That would be an unreasonable guess, as it's simply based on the misuse of maths and statistics and fails to take into account that the company has evolved significantly this last year with production having ramped up more than 100%. So relying on past data here would be a very poor way to predict the present and future.

    It seems you are again trying to overcomplicate the matter. What is simple is this:-

    Elon / Tesla have said that profitability might be reached in Q3.

    In the past when production has reached a high enough level, Tesla has become profitable.

    Production numbers have ramped up significantly this quarter.

    Therefore it's a reasonable guess to say that profits may be reached this quarter. It would be an unreasonable guess to rule out the possibility completely.


    This is the only time I made that claim. I wasn't aware they had made a profit 2 quarters in the past. Not a repeated claim. The repeated claim is 'they're not currently in profit' and we're arguing about the meaning of 'current'.
    Originally posted by almillar
    Firstly - it's not the first time, you've done it before, I've quickly scrolled back and found another time (BTW my proper use of referencing makes it easy for you to check, your (deliberate?) poor use makes checking harder.):-

    Well... If you can argue that they CAN make a profit in the future, DESPITE not making one now, because they have a plan, why can't someone else argue that they CAN'T make a profit in the future because they haven't done yet?
    Originally posted by almillar
    so once again, your arguments rely on you making false claims and re-writing the narrative. If you kept your comments honest, then our discussion would have ended a week ago.

    Secondly - You say you were not aware that they had made profits before, but I've mentioned it several times, as has Z, and even Ade is aware. There have been multiple conversations/comments*.

    So your continued false statements rely on you ignoring facts that are posted on here, whilst you attempt to make multiple false claims against me.


    (AdrianC)

    No, apologies to both AdrianC and Martyn. I admit I've caused confusion here. I said, once, long into the conversation, that Tesla had NEVER been in profit, you corrected me, and Martyn thinks I've repeatedly claimed this - not the case.
    Originally posted by almillar
    It is the case, please see above*. Please stop posting false claims and statements.

    Each day I have to point out that everything you are saying, claiming and referring back to, is false, yet every day you come back with more of the same. Are we finally done now?


    * Edit - Above, I asked how you could not be aware that Tesla had previously made profits, well it seems I made you aware of this, or at least tried, a while back when Ade also claimed that they had never made a profit, and I asked you for your thoughts. Since then Ade has agreed that profits were previously made. So even when you are asked to check the position, you still fail.

    Here is a reference to Ade stating it:

    They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Here is a reference to my asking you:

    Originally Posted by AdrianC View Post
    They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.
    Do you agree with/support that statement?
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    And here is a reference to you having considered it:

    They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.
    Do you agree with/support that statement?
    Absolutely not. They're in the early stages of being a car company, plus other ventures funded by a very rich man. There will be losses for 'the first few years'. I've never said that's negative. I just wanted to make sure you've got a grip on reality whilst accusing others of not.
    Originally posted by almillar
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 14-09-2018 at 6:13 PM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Sep 18, 12:42 PM
    • 18,357 Posts
    • 16,587 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Perhaps, when I said "They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.", I should actually have said "They have shown no sign of being able to report any quarterly non-trivial profit so far."
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 15th Sep 18, 4:29 PM
    • 2,084 Posts
    • 2,864 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Guys, can you get a private room please? Maybe engage a rabbi, priest and imam to help you discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

    My general interest in EVs doesn't extend as far as Tesla's accounts, significant though they may be for the progress of the sector.

    Thanks.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 15th Sep 18, 5:15 PM
    • 3,290 Posts
    • 2,047 Thanks
    Car 54
    Perhaps, when I said "They have shown no sign of being able to make a profit so far.", I should actually have said "They have shown no sign of being able to report any quarterly non-trivial profit so far."
    Originally posted by AdrianC

    Quarterly results are useful only as a guide and to encourage optimism/complacency/alarm among the shareholders. They are frequently unaudited, and if so have to be taken with a liberal dose of salt.



    The only results that really matter are the annual ones, which are audited, and subject to scrutiny by regulators. These determine whether there are any real profits to return to the investors. To date, such profits have been conspicuously absent.
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 15th Sep 18, 7:20 PM
    • 7,827 Posts
    • 7,184 Thanks
    Herzlos
    Interesting article about electric busses. They are so popular in China it's hurting their oil industry.
    http://po.st/7AZ3EW
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 15th Sep 18, 7:43 PM
    • 18,357 Posts
    • 16,587 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Interesting article about electric busses. They are so popular in China it's hurting their oil industry.
    http://po.st/7AZ3EW
    Originally posted by Herzlos
    That might be a bit of an exaggeration.


    From that article, they're only 17% of all Chinese buses, saving 233k barrels of oil per day. Sounds a lot, but China produces just under 4 million barrels/day - so that saving is about 6% of all production... And China isn't even self-sufficient in oil. They import another ~8.5m barrels/day, the world's largest crude importer.


    That saving is <2% of China's crude oil consumption, and would actually help bring their imports down.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Sep 18, 7:08 AM
    • 7,429 Posts
    • 11,909 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Interesting article about electric busses. They are so popular in China it's hurting their oil industry.
    http://po.st/7AZ3EW
    Originally posted by Herzlos
    That's cool, and they are rolling out 1% of the bus fleet in EV's every 12 weeks or so, so even if production doesn't ramp up, in 20yrs they'll be fully EV. Very impressive.

    Worldwide the oil (and other FF) industry is sensitive to market fluctuations as they are a small margin business. Some entire industries could falter if demand (and then price) falls just a bit, as they have narrow profit margins - such as Canadian tar sand oil and US shale oil.

    In the US, the leccy generators that use FF's are campaigning for the current EV rule that tax credits begin to reduce/remove when a company sells 200,000 EV cars (in the states), to be removed, as they want more EV's to make up for the loss of demand they are seeing from the roll out of RE.

    Tis a funny ole world.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Sep 18, 7:22 AM
    • 7,429 Posts
    • 11,909 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    Guys, can you get a private room please? Maybe engage a rabbi, priest and imam to help you discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.

    My general interest in EVs doesn't extend as far as Tesla's accounts, significant though they may be for the progress of the sector.

    Thanks.
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    You are right, but as you say at the end, this is quite an important point in time. Profitability this quarter (or next), might I suggest 'The Hunt for Black October', would help to drive change across the whole car industry as EV's will have achieved the goal - good car, popular car and profitable car - after that we will know that the end is nigh for the ICE, and its long deserved retirement awaits (that'll do pig, that'll do).

    So ignore the discussions on accounts etc, but just be aware that the issue will hopefully drive the sector and allow for far more posts about new EV offerings and further company expansions into EV's particularly PEV's.

    Edit - Little financial snippet that might interest you, the TM3 was the no.1 selling car in the US last month, by revenue. That's big news because it shows that demand is not only there for EV's in numbers, but also in $'s, so more and more important boxes are getting ticked.
    Last edited by Martyn1981; 16-09-2018 at 7:28 AM. Reason: Added an edit
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • buglawton
    • By buglawton 16th Sep 18, 7:27 AM
    • 7,637 Posts
    • 4,261 Thanks
    buglawton
    I'm not interested in whether hyper-luxury brands that are concurrently experimenting with autonomous drive are making profits during these early EV days.

    Instead I'd like to confirm that the manufacturers of bread and butter school run and commuter vehicles are going to be in profit, be able to rapidly expand production and whether EVs are going to be more affordable than ICE to run.
    • Martyn1981
    • By Martyn1981 16th Sep 18, 7:46 AM
    • 7,429 Posts
    • 11,909 Thanks
    Martyn1981
    I'm not interested in whether hyper-luxury brands that are concurrently experimenting with autonomous drive are making profits during these early EV days.

    Instead I'd like to confirm that the manufacturers of bread and butter school run and commuter vehicles are going to be in profit, be able to rapidly expand production and whether EVs are going to be more affordable than ICE to run.
    Originally posted by buglawton
    I'd suggest that that is the next step. Tesla have plans (eventually?) to develop the $25k EV. And as per previous discussions we can see that Renault (and I suspect Nissan) are closing in, so their next car, or next major revision of current cars might do just what you want if production is large enough.

    Regarding affordability of EV's over ICE's to run, that seems to have been reached already with TOC's showing EV's cheaper than ICE's, with PHEV's a little higher than ICE's, though that might change if PHEV's get larger batts as standard.

    I think it's all happening, and hopefully coming to a head now(ish), as each price segment from top down, steadily falls to EV's.
    Mart. Cardiff. 5.58 kWp PV systems (3.58 ESE & 2.0 WNW)

    For general PV advice please see the PV FAQ thread on the Green & Ethical Board.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 16th Sep 18, 9:00 AM
    • 34,003 Posts
    • 28,895 Thanks
    custardy
    That's cool, and they are rolling out 1% of the bus fleet in EV's every 12 weeks or so, so even if production doesn't ramp up, in 20yrs they'll be fully EV. Very impressive.

    Worldwide the oil (and other FF) industry is sensitive to market fluctuations as they are a small margin business. Some entire industries could falter if demand (and then price) falls just a bit, as they have narrow profit margins - such as Canadian tar sand oil and US shale oil.

    In the US, the leccy generators that use FF's are campaigning for the current EV rule that tax credits begin to reduce/remove when a company sells 200,000 EV cars (in the states), to be removed, as they want more EV's to make up for the loss of demand they are seeing from the roll out of RE.

    Tis a funny ole world.
    Originally posted by Martyn1981
    Hasnt quite gone that way in Edinburgh

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/lothian-buses-ditch-eco-friendly-fleet-after-battery-issues-1-4797812

    Basically batteries have lost performance and its cheaper to convert to diesel
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 16th Sep 18, 9:17 AM
    • 18,357 Posts
    • 16,587 Thanks
    AdrianC
    TBF, that's talking about hybrids, rather than pure EVs - and "battery issues" isn't quite accurate if they're struggling to climb hills. They're simply under-powered.


    Have they sorted the hybrids in London?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,621Posts Today

8,089Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin