Battery tech and range

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Is this larger than Tesla insisting on doing everything their own way and not trying to learn from a century of automotive experience?

Three hundred miles of range starts getting into gas territory. While the 2018 Jaguar XF 20d should be able to go 731 miles with a 42 mpg highway rating, and a 17.4-gallon tank.

The EPA says the 2010 smrt car has 313 miles of range, the 2012 Scion IQ has 314 miles, the 2013 Fiat 500 iBarf has 315, and the 2016 Honda CRZ has 382 miles.

Elon Musk's premise for Tesla Motors is,to produce electric cars.They can run on all-American energy.And zero-carbon potential,which grows on a daily basis.The overall cost of ownership,over the life of the vehicle is lower than ICE.People who buy them are good at arithmetic.
I believe that it was Ed Begley Jr. who said that the EV1 was only good for 90% of motorists.That was with an 80-mile range or so.There are already Tesla Model X owners getting more range towing trailers than F-150s.It's all about the trailer,not the tow vehicle.And if you still have a working bladder,it's not a bad idea to stay hydrated on a road trip,stopping periodically to 'rest',and catch some kWh's while your at it.Walk the dog.Let the wife out of the car.Smell the coffee.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Munro & Associates spent 6,600 hours disassembling a Model 3 and concluded they spent "$2,000 more to produce a Model 3 than BMW spends building a similarly-priced i3."

Are you about to point out that the i3 costs more than the 3, but is the size of my Accord, and only has 126 - 153 miles of range?

Too late!

Sandy Munro says that Tesla is inexperienced with manufacturing. The body’s design is too complicated and more expensive to build. “They’re just learning all the old mistakes everyone else made years ago,” Munro told Bloomberg. The steel and aluminum frame Tesla incorporates to enhance safety is unnecessary because the battery pack already lies in the floor and stiffens the vehicle, making the added stampings redundant.



Tesla currently employs 10,000 people at its Fremont plant and targets 5,000 Model 3s per week. At peak production, Toyota and GM build 450,000 cars a year with 4,400 workers--9,000 a week. Tesla may do more work in-house, but do they really need four times as many employees per car made? The Tesla Model 3 Is ‘Needlessly’ Complicated to Assemble, According to Analysts

Let's see what they say in 2025,when price parity is achieved,and Tesla still has a superior product.Aston Martin has never made a profit.Why don't analysts attack them.The spineless b..............s.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Let's see what they say in 2025,when price parity is achieved,and Tesla still has a superior product.Aston Martin has never made a profit.Why don't analysts attack them.The spineless b..............s.

I expect price parity to be achieved eventually, but not in the oft-quoted 2025 timeframe. That would mean something being designed now incorporates the technology needed to hit price parity.

EVs don't just need to get a little more affordable, but $7,500+ more affordable. They already are barely selling with a $7,500+ tax advantage. Given this, pricing would need to come down about $10k for them to sell well. I don't know where manufacturers are going to find $10k in savings in 5 years. That's $2k per year.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I expect price parity to be achieved eventually, but not in the oft-quoted 2025 timeframe. That would mean something being designed now incorporates the technology needed to hit price parity.

EVs don't just need to get a little more affordable, but $7,500+ more affordable. They already are barely selling with a $7,500+ tax advantage. Given this, pricing would need to come down about $10k for them to sell well. I don't know where manufacturers are going to find $10k in savings in 5 years. That's $2k per year.

I can't become an analyst,just to be able to vet what other voices in the industry are saying,so I'm at a disadvantage.
Historically,some products went on the market,selling at a loss,and over time,manufacturing efficiencies improved such that,in the long run,the product ended up profitable.
Good design can mean long product cycles between a refresh,or body-in-white.All R&D is recovered,all tooling,factory is paid off.Ford is famous for it.Back in the day,investors made all their money back in a matter of months,and went on to become fabulously wealthy.That's with a 1908-to-1923 production run,with only small,iterative,modular modifications added throughout the time frame of manufacturing.
In 1992,Chrysler Corp.needed $750/unit on a 48-month product cycle to be profitable.Volkswagen only made around $48/car,but they sold millions.
With thousands of fewer parts/vehicle,EVs may be in excellent position for profitability.Advertising would help the legacy carmakers,as with the Super- Bowl HUMMER ad.Charging infrastructure would help.Tesla has gone on without any help to provide a complete infrastructure for their customer.
Tesla's also young.It will be a while before retirement pension/healthcare fees will have to be factored into their fixed-cost pricing calculus.
Software improvements.Hardware improvements.Manufacturing improvements.Global platform and component sharing.C.Edward Deming,'get it right the first time out.' Hiccups instead of wheels in the ditch.

[ldjessee00]

The company making the most EVs sells all they make... how is that 'barely selling'?

Even other car companies, like Kia & Hyundai, got more orders than they can fill for their best EVs (waiting times on orders over a year)...

Now, some EVs are finding it harder to sell... but that could be due to issues with that model or the manufacturer and not EVs as a whole.

The Bolt EV would make a lot more sense at $10k less. But maybe if they didn't have to deal with their dealer network, sold direct, that would help them keep more profit for themselves? They might (but probably not) lower the cost of the car to consumers.

Unless dealers start making themselves more useful and see their business as helping car buyers instead of trying to get as much money as pssible, they will be cut out of the loop.

I am waiting for one of the traditional car companies to go 'bankrupt', get bought out by some company, and that being used to cut ties with the previous dealer network and try to sell direct to consumers... And I would not be surprised if the board of directors and stock holders look almost identical from before the bankruptcy and after... but that is complete speculation on my part.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by ldjessee00

The company making the most EVs sells all they make... how is that 'barely selling'?

If I'm a company that makes 1 unit of something, and that unit sells, does that indicate if the industry as a whole is selling a lot, a little, or no indication at all?

Even other car companies, like Kia & Hyundai, got more orders than they can fill for their best EVs (waiting times on orders over a year)...

Companies that don't want to sell any EVs and have restricted production to some minimal number have long waitlists which are exacerbated by extremely high government subsidies, for these new vehicle models. Everything else that's been out for a year is basically available in markets it's offered.

Now, some EVs are finding it harder to sell... but that could be due to issues with that model or the manufacturer and not EVs as a whole.

The entire EV industry captures 2% of sales. That doesn't indicate a problem with the a particular model. It indicates an underlying intractable problem.

The Bolt EV would make a lot more sense at $10k less. But maybe if they didn't have to deal with their dealer network, sold direct, that would help them keep more profit for themselves? They might (but probably not) lower the cost of the car to consumers.

Sure, but the same applies to ICE vehicles too. It's not that EVs are too expensive, it's that they are too expensive in relation to alternatives (ICE vehicles).

Unless dealers start making themselves more useful and see their business as helping car buyers instead of trying to get as much money as pssible, they will be cut out of the loop.

The self-interest of dealers is the only reason they still exist. If they became benevolent, they would simply go away. It's not in their interest to "help car buyers..."

I am waiting for one of the traditional car companies to go 'bankrupt', get bought out by some company, and that being used to cut ties with the previous dealer network and try to sell direct to consumers... And I would not be surprised if the board of directors and stock holders look almost identical from before the bankruptcy and after... but that is complete speculation on my part.

I expect a reconfiguration of a failing/failed company to be way more profitable to stakeholders. Dispensing with previous liabilities would give a huge advantage over the previous company.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Good design can mean long product cycles between a refresh,or body-in-white.All R&D is recovered,all tooling,factory is paid off.

There appears to be growing validity to this with the EV market directly. I found an article earlier today (don't recall where) saying that DHL has struck a deal with BMW to repackage their battery system for local delivery vehicles.

It is an interesting proposition if you are familiar with how their packs are constructed in the case of the i3, with 8 individual modules in series to make up the pack. It is a very adaptable system based upon Samsung prismatic cells which are themselves based on set design dimension. BMW did a bang up job with packaging that can relatively simply be scaled up or down as needed. Meanwhile, Samsung is continuing to increase Ah capacity of the cells themselves. So BMW isn't really having to devote massive resources to re-engineering the system as the cell tech changes.

Because of that, for the most part, an upgrade of the early 22kW capacity i3 to the new 44kW capacity is plug and play.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I can't
Good design can mean long product cycles between a refresh,or body-in-white.All R&D is recovered,all tooling,factory is paid off.Ford is famous for it.Back in the day,investors made all their money back in a matter of months,and went on to become fabulously wealthy.

If carbon fiber is ever to become cheaper than steel we would need 10year + cycles

[aerohead]

Nobel Laureate,John Goodenough,of the University of Texas at Austin,(co-inventor of the Lithium -ion battery),announced in 2018,that he'd achieved a doubling of energy density for a non-combustible,solid-state, powdered-glass,non-cobalt, Lithium-ion battery.Some controversy.We'll see.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

If carbon fiber is ever to become cheaper than steel we would need 10year + cycles

How about 100-years?
If you get the design right,there's no future design to superannuate it in the future.The DC-3 is still flying around 85-years after its debut.Cars could be the same.