[JD6]

So our Brexit supporting friend, who was so optimistic about the UK's prospects post-Brexit that he chose to manufacture in Singapore over Cheltenham (Singapore having a free trade deal with the EU) has now given up his plans for an EV.

I can't say I'm too disappointed - if it was anything like his other products, it would have been 90% hype, uncomfortably noisy, cheaply made and over-priced...

The billionaire inventor Sir James Dyson has scrapped plans to build an electric car after deciding the project was not commercially viable.

Dyson, who is one of the most prominent business figures to back Brexit, unveiled plans in 2016 to invest £2.5bn in building a “radically different” electric vehicle, which was due to roll off production lines in 2021.


https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...d-electric-car

[Wills2]

When you look at the cash Elon has burned to get where he is, Dyson was never going to go in balls deep like the Muskmeister.

Regardless of the fanboys that ruin the Tesla brand for me, what he has done is quite remarkable.

Although I do rate Dyson vacs and he is a guy that also laid it on the line whilst getting that started, it's not the same as building a car as he no doubt found out.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Wills2

When you look at the cash Elon has burned to get where he is, Dyson was never going to go in balls deep like the Muskmeister.

Regardless of the fanboys that ruin the Tesla brand for me, what he has done is quite remarkable.

Yes Musk is clearly very talented, just a shame that he's such a dickhead with it!

[Broncho]

I’m typing this from the hospital, the doctor said I’ll take a while to recover, I must warn you all that the Dyson Ball Cleaner has a very misleading name

[Eddamoo]

Dyson was never a good inventor, he was just good at marketing like Apple was. Might as well have called it an I-Vac

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Eddamoo

Dyson was never a good inventor, he was just good at marketing like Apple was. Might as well have called it an I-Vac

I'd say that was a strong statement unless of course you're Edison or Marconi? I wish I could be a not very good billionaire inventor...

[robbiep]

So, Dyson looks at the maths, is completely honest and says that the numbers don't add up and they just can't see a way to turn a profit (and thus build an ongoing business, pay taxes on that profit, etc), and gets slated for it ?

Whereas Elon Musk's Tesla sold 92,500 cars in Q2, and still managed to lose $408m, a loss of $4,300 per car, and only continues to survive because he has managed to 'persuade' shareholders that one day, eventually, there will be a profit.

I know which one of those two people I'd believe.

[JD6]

Originally Posted by robbiep

So, Dyson looks at the maths, is completely honest and says that the numbers don't add up and they just can't see a way to turn a profit (and thus build an ongoing business, pay taxes on that profit, etc), and gets slated for it ?

My reason for slating Dyson is his blatant hypocrisy - promoting Brexit as a golden opportunity for the UK to prosper, and then when people are foolish enough to vote for it, moving EV production to a country which has a free trade deal with the EU. So I won't shed too many tears that this venture has failed...

[OneExtra]

Originally Posted by robbiep

So, Dyson looks at the maths, is completely honest and says that the numbers don't add up and they just can't see a way to turn a profit (and thus build an ongoing business, pay taxes on that profit, etc), and gets slated for it ?

Whereas Elon Musk's Tesla sold 92,500 cars in Q2, and still managed to lose $408m, a loss of $4,300 per car, and only continues to survive because he has managed to 'persuade' shareholders that one day, eventually, there will be a profit.

I know which one of those two people I'd believe.

Maybe he should just increase the cost of each car by $4,300 and break even, given how expensive they already are I am sure owners wouldn't notice or care

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by OneExtra

Maybe he should just increase the cost of each car by $4,300 and break even, given how expensive they already are I am sure owners wouldn't notice or care

I think he's yoyo'd the pricing over the last 12 months, the price elasticity of the product is easily overcome, I think they need to create volume to rise above the fixed costs to achieve the dollar return per vehicle.

It's fine to suggest they just make more per unit but if that plunges sales below the fixed cost threshold you're back to square one, and they now have to reach beyond the early adopters so it's a more competitive landscape.

[robbiep]

Originally Posted by OneExtra

Maybe he should just increase the cost of each car by $4,300 and break even, given how expensive they already are I am sure owners wouldn't notice or care

First, there are very few 'owners', it's all people leasing.

Second, for a 4 year lease, if the bill went up by $100 a month I'm sure virtually everyone would notice - and care, and that would lead to a lot fewer customers.

They can't make a profit now, and there doesn't look to be any way in which they can realistically and reliably make a profit in the future. Yes, I'm aware that there have been one or two quarters where a profit has been declared, but that's been due to them shifting numbers around to make things look pretty, allowing certain write-downs, etc. rather than any genuine profit. The following and/or preceding quarters have always looked really ugly, which tells you everything you need to know about where they've shifted money and numbers around

The only reason BMW, VAG, etc are in the EV market is because they basically have to be in it, through public pressure and/or regulatory systems.
They can write off the losses from their EV divisions against the profits made from the 'normal / hybrid' cars. Tesla can't.

[OneExtra]

Originally Posted by robbiep

First, there are very few 'owners', it's all people leasing.

Second, for a 4 year lease, if the bill went up by $100 a month I'm sure virtually everyone would notice - and care, and that would lead to a lot fewer customers.

They can't make a profit now, and there doesn't look to be any way in which they can realistically and reliably make a profit in the future. Yes, I'm aware that there have been one or two quarters where a profit has been declared, but that's been due to them shifting numbers around to make things look pretty, allowing certain write-downs, etc. rather than any genuine profit. The following and/or preceding quarters have always looked really ugly, which tells you everything you need to know about where they've shifted money and numbers around

The only reason BMW, VAG, etc are in the EV market is because they basically have to be in it, through public pressure and/or regulatory systems.
They can write off the losses from their EV divisions against the profits made from the 'normal / hybrid' cars. Tesla can't.

A 4 year lease on a Model S doing only 10,000 miles a year with 3 months up front is from £1000 to £1250 a month so I doubt £75 extra a month would even be a consideration over 48 months

[Lincoln61]

I have to say Dyson vacs are shit these days.

He is nothing more than a roaming profetere. He has drained the UK market so off to new Asian shores to pedal his snake oil.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by robbiep

First, there are very few 'owners', it's all people leasing.

That is the majority of the car market regardless of brand.

[robbiep]

Originally Posted by OneExtra

A 4 year lease on a Model S doing only 10,000 miles a year with 3 months up front is from £1000 to £1250 a month so I doubt £75 extra a month would even be a consideration over 48 months

OK, I'll try to explain it a bit better.

The model S figures you quote are for a car that has a list price starting at £78k. Conveniently, that's almost exactly double the starting list price of the model 3.

So you can probably (roughly) halve the monthly payments for a model 3, compared to the model S.

If they're quoting £500 to £600 per month for the model 3, then adding £75 per month onto those prices does make a considerable difference.

Just looked at the figures on the Tesla site. They're actually quoting a bare minimum of : £3949 deposit, followed by £518 per month for 48 months (10k miles per annum), APR 4.9%

If your £518 per month suddenly became more like £590 per month, I suggest it'd make a material difference as to whether the Tesla was a potential car or not.

[Wills2]

I covered price elasticity earlier....

[dhpjones]

The issue with EV cars is who is going to want to buy a secondhand one that’s 4+ years old and potentially get a huge bill for a new battery.... estimates vary but last one I saw was that a new battery for a leaf was around £5k - unless the dealers are going to either do it as part of prep or warranty them then it’s a big ask. Battery tech just still isn’t good enough for mass market either in terms of range or life.

[TimMcC]

Originally Posted by dhpjones

The issue with EV cars is who is going to want to buy a secondhand one that’s 4+ years old and potentially get a huge bill for a new battery.... estimates vary but last one I saw was that a new battery for a leaf was around £5k - unless the dealers are going to either do it as part of prep or warranty them then it’s a big ask. Battery tech just still isn’t good enough for mass market either in terms of range or life.

Can't talk to the Leaf, but the battery in the i3 is reported to last around 500k miles until it suffers degradation to 80% of original capacity. So it'll outlast the car.

EVs do have their problems, but this isn't one of them.

[335dX]

Originally Posted by Wills2

That is the majority of the car market regardless of brand.

No it’s not.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by 335dX

No it’s not.

The vast majority of new cars are leased or PCP'd either by business or privately.

[robbiep]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The vast majority of new cars are leased or PCP'd either by business or privately.

Actually, it appears not.

First : I'm going off incomplete figures here, so they may be wrong.

But, go off this, from April 2017 (figures covering 12 months to end March 2017) : https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1882AX

The total number of new cars sold using finance rose 4 percent to 1.05 million vehicles with an 8 percent increase in used car sales on credit to 1.27 million.

So according to that, 1.05 million new cars 'sold using finance' (which includes leasing).

Compare that to this, total new car sales for 2017 : https://www.smmt.co.uk/2018/01/uk-ne...hest-10-years/

Which states that, for the actual calendar year of 2017, there were 2.54 million new cars registered (yes, I know some will have been pre-reg'd to make up numbers)

So going from that, approximately 40% of new car sales are on finance / lease.

If anyone has more accurate figures, feel free. I'll be happy being corrected, the numbers have come as a surprise to me too.

[Broncho]

Originally Posted by robbiep

Actually, it appears not.

First : I'm going off incomplete figures here, so they may be wrong.

But, go off this, from April 2017 (figures covering 12 months to end March 2017) : https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1882AX

The total number of new cars sold using finance rose 4 percent to 1.05 million vehicles with an 8 percent increase in used car sales on credit to 1.27 million.

So according to that, 1.05 million new cars 'sold using finance' (which includes leasing).

Compare that to this, total new car sales for 2017 : https://www.smmt.co.uk/2018/01/uk-ne...hest-10-years/

Which states that, for the actual calendar year of 2017, there were 2.54 million new cars registered (yes, I know some will have been pre-reg'd to make up numbers)

So going from that, approximately 40% of new car sales are on finance / lease.

If anyone has more accurate figures, feel free. I'll be happy being corrected, the numbers have come as a surprise to me too.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/uk.motor1.com/news/353737/91-percent-cars-financed-year/amp/