-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
EV Market Share
- Thread starter jhm
- Start date
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Fiat could manufacture Model 3 glyders in Italy, Tesla ships powertrains for the Model 3 to Italy from Nevada and later maybe China.
Tesla could sell 200k Model 3s per year in the EU starting in 2020 and FCA could use the credits and gloat about bringing jobs to Italy.
Fremont would ship direct to Norway,Iceland, and maybe the UK depending on Brexit outcome.
Tesla could have "Made in Italy" Model 3s without contracts with Italian unions.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I don't think Tesla is interested in acquiring a bunch of sleazebag dealers who have no incentive to sell EVs.
STARR X
Member
I agree but Tesla does need to do something to get its cars in all 50 states and service them too.
STARR X
Member
I’m with you on that. Tesla will never sell cars like a dealership. They are online only. But dealerships offer a place for inventory, delivery and maybe service.
Gosh, I really don't like the framing here or policy recommendations.
This seems really backwards to me. First it is an insult to developmental pathway that Tesla has taken, the only pathway that has been self-motivated and successful in producing truly competitive EVs. Second, it penalizes EVs with larger batteries. For example, Model 3 SR without options just barely qualifies for $7500 level, while Model 3 LR plus a few options risks getting pushed down to $2500 level. Third, it kills of profit creating options for EVs as this example shows. I fear the end result of this would be to focus EV efforts almost exclusively on cheap, low range compliance cars leaving the rest of the automotive market untouched by EVs, dominated by gas guzzlers.
As an alternative a scheme provides a graduated subsidy for battery electric range would motivate EV battery tech, EV battery production, efficient motor and power electronic tech, and overall energy efficient design. This I think puts the focus on the things that really need to be advanced. It will advance the EV tech and lower its cost of production, and that will make EVs competitive across all vehicle segments.
So what frustrates me about the framing is that the author fails to recognize the very unique role Tesla is playing here and globally in advancing EVs. He want's to say that the US is lagging, so he can say the solution is government policies. But Tesla is by no means lagging in this EV industry. The rest of automakers may be, but not Tesla. To have good policy, you need to begin by understanding what already works, then build from there. What Tesla is doing already works! The question should be, how do we encourage other automakers to be more like Tesla, to compete at Tesla's level and to build on Tesla's success. Critically important is that every would be EV maker needs to get serious about developing its own battery supply. Just throwing subsidies at finished EVs does very little to assure that the EV supply chain is actually cultivated in the US. Suppose all non-Tesla OEMs just imported battery packs from China. Would this be a policy success? One key thing that Tesla is doing right is that it is building batteries in the US next to where it build the rest of the vehicle. We really need local production of batteries to be normative for the EV industry for multiple reasons. So a very different slate of policy recommendations would focus on cultivation domestic EV battery supply chain. Another thing Tesla gets right is it focuses on doing its own R&D for EV tech. What policy support would encourage that? To go beyond Tesla, what kinds of vehicles are currently lacking in competitive EV products? For example, Tesla lacks in having a pickup truck or commercial van. What sorts of policy recommendations would make sure that such critical segments are not overlooked? Are there ways to have policy incentives that encourage a broad range of product offerings? Every kind of motor vehicle must be electrified. We need a whole lot more than a bunch of $25k small sedan compliance cars on the road. We actually need a very strong focus on commercial vehicles especially.
did you communicate this to the author of the article? you are preaching to the choir here
i'm not so sure how old you are, but i remember the slow, underpowered, essentially 2 seater deathtraps from the 1970's and 80's. Bob Beaumonts cheese wedge shaped "CitiCar" 48v, 10kw flooded lead acid batteries, hot in summer, cold in winter, 30mph was hair raising, voltage to the motor controlled by ==>mehcanical relays that chose 3 levels of voltage, (I owned one), the Danish Kewet, similarly underpowered, 2 seat, 4, lead acid batteries (two under the seat so impossible to check water levels) and also 2 seater, grossly underpowered, hot in summer, cold in winter, tiny tiny tires (i owned one) the 70's ElCar, based on a fiat 500 chassis, even slower, 36 volts, little plastic cubes, same problem, dont even think about range, there was little (almost bought one in Roanoke Virginia to commute with in mid 70's)
the guy wants underpowered, low range, slow EV's because he needs educations (He also advocated fuel cells!!!) there will be a vast "no way in freaking hell will i buy an underpowered slow rollerskate with no range"
he just needs educating if he is in a position to influence policy
Last edited:
He is an "energy fellow and strategic advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute, professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy, and president of Bledsoe & Associates, an energy and climate change consultancy." So he appears to making a career for himself pushing policy. I'm not sure who's paying him to push this stuff. Basically is seems right in line with the ICE industry and oil industry. Both have a vested interest in limiting EVs to small compliance cars that do not threaten the more profitable gas guzzlers. I am also suspicious of the "progressive" angle here. Giving bigger incentives to less affluent auto buyers runs contrary to mobilizing public transport. Buying up clunkers actually deprives low income used car buyers of affordable used cars. So if you really care about lower income communities you want electric buses for clean air and low cost fares and you want used EVs and other used vehicles to be affordable. His policies are really aimed at pushing lower income communities into NEW PRIVATE EVs. He is likely well enough informed to understand all these objections, but it pushing policy that favors the interest Detroit automakers. It does not strike me as genuinely progressive. Rather it uses progressive sheep's clothing to drive a political wedge between Tesla and other automakers.
no, just no
EU is not a ZEV quota system like China or CARB states, its merely a CAFE type system.
What seems to be happening is that there simply is not enough (actually negative) profit from selling efficient vehicles like Fiat 500 and other small cars, so they can not meet their targets.
Daimler has for decades subsidized the existence of Smart cars simply as a way to allow them to sell profitable large vehicles. FCA historically existed because of Fiats, but now the market wants larger SUVs not near kei class tin cans.
Automotive product execution is slow, 6-7 years lookahead predication, who thought EU would dump lil' diesel back in 2012?
You may be missing the enormity of the situation.
Automakers risk massive fines for CO2 target miss, analysts say
The aggregate impact on EU auto sales could be 34B euro. Specifically on Fiat Chrysler, upwards of 3B euro.
Two issues are exacerbating the compliance cost. 1) Automakers were banking on diesel vehicle sales to achieve compliance. However, the diesel emissions fraud has killed diesel sales. Sales switching to gasoline is driving up the average carbon emissions. 2) There is a consumer preference trend toward more SUVs, also driving up average emissions.
So automakers are caught off guard with how difficult compliance could be. So the compliance burden has ballooned to 34B euro. This will force the whole industry to more deeply cut prices on compliance vehicles as they compete for a limited number of buyers of small gasoline powered cars as buyer preference shifts to larger SUVs. Jumping into EVs will not be easy either, the more desperate the industry is to build out compliance EVs, the more they will pay for batteries. We've already seen reports of eV battery makers jacking up prices. They know the game too. With the EU sitting on a 34B euro compliance bill, battery makers including Tesla will cash in.
Longer term, the carbon emission regulation will cut emission limits by 40% by 2030. It starts the decade at 95g/km but drops 40% by end of decade. So the compliance pressure will not be letting up anytime soon. Right now vehicles in the 70 to 90 CO2 g/km range are helping to relieve the compliance burden, but in ten years they will be the compliance burden. For reference, gasoline emits 2310 g/l, so a gasoline powered car with just 65 g/km must have fuel efficiency of 2.81 l/100km or 84 mpg. So virtually any gasoline powered vehicle even hybrids becomes a compliance burden by 2030.
But even now a compliance neutral gasoline car with 95 g/km needs to get 4.11 l/100km or 57 mpg. So just about any conventional ICE vehicle is a compliance burden. EVs look to be the only meaningful compliance vehicle. But to get the compliance credit, they will have to compete with Tesla and sell it cheaper.
"n 2018, Fiat brand’s CO2 emissions were 119.2g/km, according to JATO, therefore analyst firm Evercore ISI calculates that the brand would need to reduce emissions to less than 89g/km to comply with the targets. Assuming the 30g/km gap and applying the 95 euro fine for noncompliance, the potential fine at current levels would be roughly 3 billion euros, Evercore ISI estimates."
ouch, trying to knock from 120g/km to 90g/km requires a 25% reduction over 2 years, possible with a petrol to diesel transition, impossible with a diesel to petrol transition.
context FIAT : green cars with CO2 emissions under 120g/km
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I'm with you. My last dealership experience was my girlfriend buying a Mustang. The extended warranty guy had her in tears telling her how the new Mustang she was buying would cost her a fortune if she didn't buy the extended warranty. He only relented when I said we were done and cancelling the purchase. Mt Tesla experience was far form perfect but it was nothing close to having dealers lie to me. Tesla never pressured me on anything. Mostly they just had trouble knowing when I would get my car and processing paperwork changes.
Ha! If it's such a great product, tell me why I need to pay so much for an extended warranty.
Toyota sees new business opportunity in leveraging hybrid tech
This is a very interesting development. Taking a page from Tesla, Toyota has decided to make all their EV related patents royalty free. They can then sell parts and engineering services to other OEMs. They know that if an OEM uses some of their patents, it will likely be more cost effective for them to source some of the parts from Toyota than to build everything from scratch. So this increases the scale Toyota will have in this technology space and offsets the cost of developing the technology.
This seems very smart to me. It has the potential to help drive down the cost of hybrids and EVs across the industry. It will also give Toyota a way to grow sustainably, even if they lose market share in terms of vehicles sold. That is, they can be a components supplier within the EV supply chain. So in a way, Toyota stands to gain a greater share of the EV market, but at the level of EV components.
This is a very interesting development. Taking a page from Tesla, Toyota has decided to make all their EV related patents royalty free. They can then sell parts and engineering services to other OEMs. They know that if an OEM uses some of their patents, it will likely be more cost effective for them to source some of the parts from Toyota than to build everything from scratch. So this increases the scale Toyota will have in this technology space and offsets the cost of developing the technology.
This seems very smart to me. It has the potential to help drive down the cost of hybrids and EVs across the industry. It will also give Toyota a way to grow sustainably, even if they lose market share in terms of vehicles sold. That is, they can be a components supplier within the EV supply chain. So in a way, Toyota stands to gain a greater share of the EV market, but at the level of EV components.
Similar threads
