RobStark
Well-Known Member
Yes.
AFAIK American BEVs face a 40% tariff in China.
BEV tariffs were reduced from 25% to 15%.
Then there was a retaliatory trade war 25% tariff added to American BEVs.
An i3 would still have a 15% tariff.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Yes.
AFAIK American BEVs face a 40% tariff in China.
BEV tariffs were reduced from 25% to 15%.
Then there was a retaliatory trade war 25% tariff added to American BEVs.
An i3 would still have a 15% tariff.
Thanks but i think these 25% are additional 25% just announced 1 week ago and set to become effective in 2 weeks. I just cant find what cars are included.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Suzuki forced out of China as buyers favor larger vehicles
Next person that asserts the Chinese prefer smaller cars like European and Japanese consumers gets a dunce cap.
Next person that asserts the Chinese prefer smaller cars like European and Japanese consumers gets a dunce cap.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
SmartElectric
Active Member
Indeed.
My first hand experience on recent travel is that China prefers similar sized cars to North America. Whereas Europe absolutely has much smaller cars which is as I would have expected.
I drive a Smart ED here in Canada and wish smaller cars would be more popular as they use the least materials in manufacture to fueling.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
China's New Rules Will Punish Automakers Who Don't Meet Electric Quota
"China has skipped its 8% New Energy Vehicle (NEV) credits quotas, but in 2019 and 2020 it will require all manufacturers that produce and sell more than 30,000 cars annually to get respectively 10% and 12% in New Energy Vehicle credits.
The new requirements don’t mean that each manufacturer needs to sell 10% plug-in cars, because from a single sale of a New Energy Vehicle a manufacturer can get from 2 to 6 credits.
Assuming that a manufacturer will sell plug-ins for 2 credits each, it will need to electrify at least 5% of its volume. If the company manages to get the maximum of 6 credits per car, then only about 1.7% of the volume will need to be electrified in 2019.
For example, for every 100,000 cars sold, the company needs to get 10,000 NEV credits in 2019, which translates to 1,700-5,000 plug-ins that fulfill the requirements."
More in depth explanation in link
"China has skipped its 8% New Energy Vehicle (NEV) credits quotas, but in 2019 and 2020 it will require all manufacturers that produce and sell more than 30,000 cars annually to get respectively 10% and 12% in New Energy Vehicle credits.
The new requirements don’t mean that each manufacturer needs to sell 10% plug-in cars, because from a single sale of a New Energy Vehicle a manufacturer can get from 2 to 6 credits.
Assuming that a manufacturer will sell plug-ins for 2 credits each, it will need to electrify at least 5% of its volume. If the company manages to get the maximum of 6 credits per car, then only about 1.7% of the volume will need to be electrified in 2019.
For example, for every 100,000 cars sold, the company needs to get 10,000 NEV credits in 2019, which translates to 1,700-5,000 plug-ins that fulfill the requirements."
More in depth explanation in link
jhm
Well-Known Member
So the point are 0.8 + 0.012*RangeKm plus some other adjustments. So the SR, MR and LR versions come in at 5.06, 5.83, 6.80 respectively subject to other adjustments. Since this is capped out at 6, there may be little incremental reg credit for Tesla to sell a LR over an MR. Indeed this cap may discourage development of vehicles with range over 433km or 269mi. This may be a bit shortsighted as longer as longer range vehicles put lighter demands on charging infrastructure and offer more flexibility to help balance the grid.
I wish countries would simply require a certain fleet average of kWh per vehicle. This average can be increase over time. What this would do is incentivize building out battery production capacity and gain manufacturing efficiencies. The batteries would tend to go where consumers will make best use of them. For example, a 100kWh pack in a bus likely gets much more use and hence generates more benefits than say two 50kWh packs in to private passenger vehicles. So a fleet average of kWh/veh target would drive much more benefit per kWh than ZEV credits in US of NEV credits in China. Over time the cost per kWh would go down while the regulator target increase. Progressively more battery packs would find their way into all kinds of vehicles. Also the transition from PHEV to BEV would be optimized. The policy implies a cross-subsidy for incremental kWh. So this impacts the design choice of whether it is better to add an ICE or more battery capacity to extend range. Another advantage of my proposal is that it locks in a clear size of the battery market. One can project vehicles in given year, look up the target kWh/veh, and compute how big the EV battery market should be in that year. This sort of regulatory clarity can give confidence to battery manufacturers to invest battery supply chain capacity.
ahh no, real world electric range is the ideal, but homologated electric range is the pragmatic.
if (say) a tesla model 4 (or renault zoe) has a efficiency advantaged over an T3, that should not be penalized.
if say a jag has an disadvantage to an T3, that should be penalized.
kWh was a pragmatic starting point, GM Volt gave us 16kWh for the credits, and with valid reason, early Volts had equivalent electric miles than early LEAFs despite the LEAF having about double the accessible battery storage.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/07/f24/vss171_carlson_2015_p.pdf
Last edited:
mblakele
FSD Beta (99)
This week The Economist published a briefing on China. They managed to avoid saying much about Tesla: no mention of the Shanghai factory. But the article has quite a bit to say about the Chinese EV market in general.
The Economist | Great wheels of China
The Economist | Great wheels of China
Shorts have two consistent sources about China deliveries in the first 4 months. here and here. The numbers are also consistent with Tesla's quarterly report. What's noteworthy are the April numbers. 2300 Model 3 and a few hunderd S/X. I am assuming nearly all of those cars were part of the in-transit number since we don't know of any cars shipping in April to China.
Doggydogworld
Active Member
I think April's 2685 is a mix of in-transit and inventory sales. The original plan stated in late October was to ship primarily to Europe in Q1, with few if any Model 3s reaching China. Tesla shifted gears (ha) when the Q1 tariff window opened in December. They had a strong incentive to ship both sold and unsold cars to China while that window was still open. The three ships sent in rapid succession in early March definitely look like an attempt to beat the clock.
Based on loading times, the eight Q1 ships carried something like 15k cars. They sold almost 11k, so inventory grew by 3-5k. The tariff situation remained murky after 4/1, and Tesla sent more boats to China in early Q2 than to Europe. I expect more inventory growth in China this quarter. Stockpiling cars there until the factory starts up is a reasonable move.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I suppose the e) stands for estimated with the number being a round 3000?
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
After a slow May, with just 2% growth, June saw the Chinese plugin market return to full charge, registering some 147,000 registrations, up 72% YoY (BEVs grew faster still, at +97%), and because the mainstream market is falling (-8%), June’s PEV share reached a record 8.5%, pulling the PEV market share to 6.3%, frankly above the 2018 result (4.2%), and on target to reach my forecast of 8% for 2019.
EV Sales: China June 2019
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The 2019 total for Tesla Model 3 didn’t get incremented between June and July...
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
