Model 3 set to dominate it's category as early as next month

[Electroman]

If I could "waive" 10% of my salary until after I retire when my taxes are less and get interest to boot, that would be a great deal. Potentially better than my 401k.

I understand the first statement. But lost on the 2nd one. How would that scenario be better than 401K?

 

[ℬête Noire]

I understand the first statement. But lost on the 2nd one. How would that scenario be better than 401K?

There are a few tax code things that are based on your income rather than income adjusted after deducting your 401K contributions. It's mostly an edge case though, and assumes the future amount you receive in place of the wage is adjusted with a rate of return similar as the 401K sees. I don't know if that's the case as described above about foregoing the raises?

 

[Rockster]

I believe this is on-topic, forgive me if it's not...

I've just read about the EPA loosening emissions requirements at the behest of the oil and auto industry lobbyists. At first, this seemed to me like it might negatively impact Tesla, because it reduces the overall feeling of urgency in the U.S. for transitioning to EV's; however, thinking about it further, I think it's a boost for Tesla because Tesla isn't going to slow down their EV efforts while Tesla's competitors may now be compelled to do so. Especially if these loosened emissions standards give greater voice to those within the U.S. auto makers who already believe EV's are a niche or an unworthy pursuit.

 

[Swampgator]

I believe this is on-topic, forgive me if it's not...

I've just read about the EPA loosening emissions requirements at the behest of the oil and auto industry lobbyists. At first, this seemed to me like it might negatively impact Tesla, because it reduces the overall feeling of urgency in the U.S. for transitioning to EV's; however, thinking about it further, I think it's a boost for Tesla because Tesla isn't going to slow down their EV efforts while Tesla's competitors may now be compelled to do so. Especially if these loosened emissions standards give greater voice to those within the U.S. auto makers who already believe EV's are a niche or an unworthy pursuit.

I really don't think it matters. I'm not buying a Tesla because of emissions or economy. I suspect the majority of Tesla buyers going forward would not put low emissions as one of the top 3 reasons they are buying. I'm buying it for performance, looks, cool factor, etc. The fact that it does not output stinky smoke from a tailpipe is a bonus. But if they had an ICE car that was as cool as a Tesla I might buy one. They just don't

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The following quote by Nicholas Peter disproves your last sentence. They do know how to make BEVs profitably, but the want to increase profitability even more, difficult though it might be for them in the beginning. Quite different to not knowing how make BEVs profitably.

And the i-Pace is certainly not the only compelling BEV right now.
Zoe, Leaf II, e-Golf, Ioniq, Bolt, those are all very compelling BEVs that are available right now. Granted, to Americans they might not seem as compelling as to Europeans, but the reasons for that are obvious.

The Volt isn't even a BEV, it's a PHEV.
But I give it to you that the Bolt, as mentioned above, is indeed a great effort. The problem is that GM doesn't seem to want to sell it though. That's what I meant by half-hearted. I have tried for months to get my hands on one for a test drive, I didn't have any luck. Plus they almost can't deliver any, at least here in Germany. That's one of the reasons I went with the e-Golf instead, that and the fact that the Bolt interior is such a cheap looking mess of ugly plastic and far too tiny seats.

The Volt was released at the end of 2010. It had a 16kWh battery (now 18.3kWh), and when driving in EV mode could drive up to a maximum speed of 101mph (now 100mph) and accelerate from 0-60 in 8.9s (now 7.5s), and had 35 miles of range (now 53 miles). The battery was (and is) liquid cooled. The engine would remain off above 25*F/-4*C (MY 2019+ -13*F/-25*C).

The Volt was (and is) a PHEV that was focused on electric driving. I have no doubt that development of the Volt helped when GM began the Bolt project.

True, I forgot about Honda. That's because I come from a German perspective (obviously), and Honda has been basically non-existant (0.7% new vehicle market share in 2018 so far) over here for many years now, hence they weren't on my radar.

It's similar to the many Americans who judge BEV (particularly the Leaf) from an American perspective.

 

[Rockster]

I really don't think it matters. I'm not buying a Tesla because of emissions or economy. I suspect the majority of Tesla buyers going forward would not put low emissions as one of the top 3 reasons they are buying. I'm buying it for performance, looks, cool factor, etc. The fact that it does not output stinky smoke from a tailpipe is a bonus. But if they had an ICE car that was as cool as a Tesla I might buy one. They just don't

My point is that the EPA changes won't likely affect Tesla or potential Tesla buyers very much. Those who buy Tesla's just because they're amazing cars will still buy Teslas and those who care about emissions will still buy Teslas. What will happen, possibly, is that these EPA changes will cause Tesla's competition to slow down their deployment of EVs because it's now cheaper for them to make ICE vehicles that comply. The net of this is that Tesla's lead in the EV market will widen even further.

 

[ℬête Noire]

I believe this is on-topic, forgive me if it's not...

I've just read about the EPA loosening emissions requirements at the behest of the oil and auto industry lobbyists. At first, this seemed to me like it might negatively impact Tesla, because it reduces the overall feeling of urgency in the U.S. for transitioning to EV's; however, thinking about it further, I think it's a boost for Tesla because Tesla isn't going to slow down their EV efforts while Tesla's competitors may now be compelled to do so. Especially if these loosened emissions standards give greater voice to those within the U.S. auto makers who already believe EV's are a niche or an unworthy pursuit.

The loosening isn't reversing any requirements that are already in effect, it is stalling the increasingly tight requirements in two years.

Frankly I'm not sure it matters a whole lot anymore, at least where things stand now and the trajectory. Even trying to pull California's decades old EPA exemption. That was the initial basis for ZEV and associated credit structure but it's extended to several states past that without them having that exemption (it's even extended into Canada via deals cut between CA and a few provinces). So Tesla's revenue stream there won't falter from this for some time.

Further, this is going to be tied up in courts for years. 20 States at least, which were part of the deal with the EPA that put this in place, are going to file suit. It's going to take years for the ICE manufacturers to have some sort of solid, bankable certainty on what their requirements will be in 2021 and forward. So the impact of this will be years out and by then EVs are likely to be so dominant economically that emissions requirements will be moot.

 

[SageBrush]

The loosening isn't reversing any requirements that are already in effect, it is stalling the increasingly tight requirements in two years.

Frankly I'm not sure it matters a whole lot anymore, at least where things stand now and the trajectory. Even trying to pull California's decades old EPA exemption. That was the initial basis for ZEV and associated credit structure but it's extended to several states past that without them having that exemption (it's even extended into Canada via deals cut between CA and a few provinces). So Tesla's revenue stream there won't falter from this for some time.

Further, this is going to be tied up in courts for years. 20 States at least, which were part of the deal with the EPA that put this in place, are going to file suit. It's going to take years for the ICE manufacturers to have some sort of solid, bankable certainty on what their requirements will be in 2021 and forward. So the impact of this will be years out and by then EVs are likely to be so dominant economically that emissions requirements will be moot.

Hmmm.

Tying CA up in courts is fine with the USA legacies.
As to ZEV credits (and the CARB fines that anchor them,) will ongoing court fines allow them to continue ?

 

[ℬête Noire]

As to ZEV credits (and the CARB fines that anchor them,) will ongoing court fines allow them to continue ?

My understanding of ZEV is that it’s all post-hoc assessment. Mostly it’s all business as usual until the court cases are worked out. Manufacturers that don’t meet quota will have a fine assessed. They may never pay it but if the case goes for CA they’ll be on the hook. Whether they take the risk of not purchasing extra credits to avoid the fines is up to them.

 

[Swampgator]

What will happen, possibly, is that these EPA changes will cause Tesla's competition to slow down their deployment of EVs because it's now cheaper for them to make ICE vehicles that comply. The net of this is that Tesla's lead in the EV market will widen even further.

I hadn't thought of that but you are right. As others have pointed out it really does not matter because the BEV disruption caused by Tesla is going to happen. OEMs will get crushed all over the place. The US legacy automakers probably the worst because the are trying to fight the disruption.
I love when politicians put their fingers up to the wind, and then make laws that are really not needed because the change was going to happen anyway. This is the case with all of the EU countries, and even China, banning ICE cars at some distant year.
The conversion to BEVs will be done organically by that time and they know it.
Tesla can already make a BEV that is cost competitive to ICE competition. By 2020 the OEMs will all be able to do so, and by 2022 they will all be able to make BEVs cheaper than ICE. Once we pass that point, it's game over for ICE cars.

 

[ℬête Noire]

I love when politicians put their fingers up to the wind, and then make laws that are really not needed because the change was going to happen anyway. This is the case with all of the EU countries, and even China, banning ICE cars at some distant year.

That's largely my take on it BUT there is the train of thought that the macro economy can get heavily borked by a lot of assets getting "stranded", and becoming near worthless, and causing something of a cascade effect. So the laws are less about enforcement and more about talking people through it to avoid the clusterbang.

 

[SageBrush]

That's largely my take on it BUT there is the train of thought that the macro economy can get heavily borked by a lot of assets getting "stranded", and becoming near worthless, and causing something of a cascade effect. So the laws are less about enforcement and more about talking people through it to avoid the clusterbang.

If the political transition had started 10 - 20 years ago I would have some sympathy. Instead we have all those years of FUD, lying, stupidity, propaganda, backward policy* (coal subsidies, anyone ?) and a retarded populace.

I'm not feeling sympathetic.

*How much did Obama give GM to reinvent itself ? $100 IIRC overall, and the sum effect was an ICE truck and SUV corporation that buys off politicians to keep the status quo.

 

[ℬête Noire]

If the political transition had started 10 - 20 years ago I would have some sympathy. Instead we have all those years of FUD, lying, stupidity, propaganda, backward policy* (coal subsidies, anyone ?) and a retarded populace.

It's not about sympathy. It's about not throwing away a bunch of wealth by heavily investing it right this moment on the dead-end equipment, buildings, etc. in hydrocarbon based stuff that'll become economically obsolete far before it's ROI breaks even. That enormous sinkhole left behind impacts everyone, eventually.

It's a law that suggests "Hey, that's stupid. Don't do stupid *sugar*." The beneficial effect happens long, long before enforcement ever could.

*How much did Obama give GM to reinvent itself ? $100 IIRC overall, and the sum effect was an ICE truck and SUV corporation that buys off politicians to keep the status quo.

Final cost net direct cost was about $11B, to save about $35B in tax revenue and perhaps a million people off the dole. More pertinent to this conversation GM going under wasn't going to help EVs. Nobody was ready yet for EVs to make it big time, not even Tesla.

Also pertinent to this situation was that DoE shortly thereafter underwrote a key loan to Tesla to help it live through the credit market crunch. It's been a mixed bag.

 

[SageBrush]

Nah.
That is the rationalization of the current investor.

As for the GM boondoggle, I don't even want to think about it and bother to dig up references. I will tell you that the direct bailout money was a a fraction (perhaps half ?) of the total. And those figures of saved employment and economic activity presume that it would have 100% flowed overseas. The much more likely result of letting GM eat its own stupidity would have been a strong Ford and I'll guess an independent Chrysler today.

The true political irony of the GM bailout was the calculus that it would turn the rust states Democratic for the forseeable future. I'm still amazed that the Republicans were able to spin themselves into innocence and turn those states into trumper land by the next election.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Nah.
That is the rationalization of the current investor.

What? I'm pretty sure you've lost the thread here?

As for the GM boondoggle, I don't even want to think about it and bother to dig up references. I will tell you that the direct bailout money was a a fraction (perhaps half ?) of the total. And those figures of saved employment and economic activity presume that it would have 100% flowed overseas. The much more likely result of letting GM eat its own stupidity would have been a strong Ford and I'll guess an independent Chrysler today.

We were sitting on the precipice of Depression. The jobs wouldn't have flown anywhere, they would have just disappeared for some time. It took roughly 7 years of constant, steady growth just to backfill the hole that there was. Further, the shareholders were entirely wiped out. Penance was paid. GM was coming back anyway, what was done was made the restructuring faster, much faster, so there was an actual economy for it to come back to.

As for "strong Ford"....how's that worked out? On the EV front and otherwise? You complain about GM but of the Big Three they are the only one that's been actively pursuing EVs. Even if it is in Milquetoast manner that still puts them in the top tier worldwide of not-Tesla-or-Chinese-government-directed. Their problem with selling EVs compared to the rest of that top tier is that right now is they're the only one that has to compete directly with the Model 3 on home turf, so selling into the "aiming to buy an EV" market is pretty brutal for them and, as Swampgator points out, at this point nobody but Tesla is able to go head-to-head with ICE on sticker so that's pretty much still the extent of the Bolt's market. People buying EV on principle and people willing to front the cash and make it up on the back end with Tax Credits and lower cost operations.

The true political irony of the GM bailout was the calculus that it would turn the rust states Democratic for the forseeable future. I'm still amazed that the Republicans were able to spin themselves into innocence and...

Economy further imploding with all 3 wings in Washington Team Blue? Come on.

....turn those states into trumper land by the next election.

That's based in "economic anxiety", if you haven't been paying attention. That isn't really much to do with actual economics one way or the other.

 

[StellarRat]

Report out today that says Model 3 in July was the #7 selling passenger car in US of ALL types.

 

[Brando]

Simplest way to gain profitability - volume. Yes, increase production.
Limit production and then whine about profitability?? WTF - don't these MBAs understand manufacturing??

S outsells ALL other BEV
X and Leaf battle for #2 ??
Model 3 outsells everyone now or soon?
China trending to be world leaders - PV solar, high speed trains, electric cars [already are the leader, right?]
BYD leader in electric bus.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Report out today that says Model 3 in July was the #7 selling passenger car in US of ALL types.

Link/citation? That seems very high. Like roughly 30,000 units to hit that. EDIT: Oh wait, just passenger cars. OK, that's more likely. Still needs to be >25,000 units, that's a lot. EDIT2: Unless I don't understand that categorization, and it's even narrower than I expect?

 

[gregincal]

Link/citation? That seems very high. Like roughly 30,000 units to hit that. EDIT: Oh wait, just passenger cars. OK, that's more likely. Still needs to be >25,000 units, that's a lot. EDIT2: Unless I don't understand that categorization, and it's even narrower than I expect?

July 2018 YTD U.S. Passenger Car Sales Rankings - Best-Selling Cars In America -

For the month of July, 14,000 units was enough to put them in 7th place for US passenger car sales. Here are the top 10:


Toyota Corolla Family 26,754
Toyota Camry 26,311
Honda Civic 26,311
Honda Accord 24,927
Nissan Sentra 19,362
Nissan Altima 16,015
Tesla Model 3 14,250
Hyundai Elantra 13,753
Kia Optima 10,919
Ford Fusion 10,822

 

[ℬête Noire]

Ah, so the category doesn't even include things like Honda CR-V and such, splits that into "SUV". Just call it #20 light duty vehicle in the US and call it day. 14K is good but a little lower than I expected with the back-up they had to hold off the Tax Credit trigger. Their contract software system must have been hard on them because that leaves them with about as many vehicles in their distribution channel as they had at the end of June.