Could EVs Become Cheaper than ICE Cars by 2023?

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

I saw this somewhere today while getting my daily dose of news. It wasn't supported by any figures, though. What are the chances and the stats?

[Guillaume Albasini + 851]

The falling price of batteries is the main factor getting the EV's cheaper. Batteries will be produced in huge qantities in the new gigafactories being built around the globe and the economy of scale will drastically reduce their price. Until recently the batteries accounted for half the price of an EV. But in 2025 it could be only 25% of the price.

And there is also another aspect. EV's have less parts than ICE's and are easier and cheaper to built.

 

Cost Competitiveness With ICE Vehicles: Many EV observers like to point to the lower cost of ownership of electric vehicles as making them currently comparable in cost to ICE vehicles. Fleet managers purchase vehicles based on TCO, but most consumers buy a vehicle based on purchase price and the monthly loan or lease payments they can afford or are willing to pay. When EVs have comparable driving range and are priced the same or at least very close to ICE vehicles – and without government incentives – then and only then will a huge adoption hurdle be eliminated.

This is from an article listing 24 factors that will affect the rate of EV adoption .

http://evadoption.com/24-factors-that-will-affect-the-rate-of-ev-adoption-part-1/

http://evadoption.com/24-factors-that-will-affect-the-rate-of-ev-adoption-part-2/

http://evadoption.com/24-factors-that-will-affect-the-rate-of-ev-adoption-part-3/

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

You know, I'm beginning to doubt the "fewer parts" argument. If it was so strong, EVs should have been cheaper and faster to produce already. I know the batteries are the main challenge and I'm not sure how much economies of scale will help solve it. They certainly would but when?

When EVs have comparable driving range and are priced the same or at least very close to ICE vehicles – and without government incentives – then and only then will a huge adoption hurdle be eliminated.

Very good observation.

[DA? + 301]

It's hard to compare an ICE with a EV without looking at total cost of ownership (including "refuelling", maintenance, lifetime of vehicle and so on. Heres one go at it, outcome is against a Toyota Camry basic model and a Tesla model 3 of course the camry wins (not by much, a loaded camry is more expensive). But if we look at a BMW 3 series (more like for like) the Tesla is considerably cheaper.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/07/tesla-model-3-total-cost-of-ownership-estimate-crushing-it/

Even forecourt price the Model 3 is similar to a BMW 3 series. We can see by sales figures of the Model 3 that people seem to prefer the Tesla over BMW's.

EV's are expensive due mainly to small amounts produced, often just as compliance cars limiting supply even though demand is high. The fewer parts argument makes sense as long as those parts are manufactured in bulk. Whats it called the Swanson "law" or something for every doubling of an item manufactured it's costs fall by a given amount. Although the cost on the market for batteries has recently gone up, even as cost for manufacturing has gone down due to such an over demand. With the massive amounts of investments being poured into R&D and manufacturing of batteries this will reverse soon. One of Tesla's strengths is it's in house manufacturing (in partnership) has sheltered it from these market forces raising costs. In fact it looks like Tesla should be making a kilowatt hour of battery cells for $100 soon and on the complete battery pack at that cost in a couple of years. Making a 75 kilowatt hour battery car (which is more than enough range for most people) a cost of $7,500. Monroe put the cost of the battery pack of the Model 3 at around 40% of the cars cost I think, so that makes a BMW competitive cars for a fraction of the price of the BMW.

The Model 3 is being ramped up to large numbers now (last quarter I think it was the USA's 4 or  5th best selling car) so those economy of scale cost decreases really kick in. Tesla can keep a high margin on these cars as the competition is nowhere to be seen yet, so paying off debt and investing in new products. As long as the other companies are only dipping their toes in the EV world the prices will stay similar to ICE vehicles but then after they catch up prices fall.

Although again I expect around 2025 for this to occur that's probably about the time self driving becomes ready for the big time and that again changes everything. Can't wait to get rid of my car, it's just an expensive trouble in my life.

[Refman + 207]

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You know, I'm beginning to doubt the "fewer parts" argument. If it was so strong, EVs should have been cheaper and faster to produce already. I know the batteries are the main challenge and I'm not sure how much economies of scale will help solve it. They certainly would but when?

Internal Combustion engines are pretty complex devices, especially the newer ones with 4 valves per cylinder, turbo charging and fuel injection. Then you have all the plumbing for the fuel system, and the exhaust system. A modern automatic transmission is also pretty darn complex as well.

I am pretty sure that EV's will be price competitive (without subsidies) with the average car by 2023. When you take into account maintenance and fuel prices they are probably pretty close already.

 

I'm also 99% sure my next vehicle will either be an EV or PHEV

Edited November 6, 2018 by Refman

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

You know, I'm beginning to doubt the "fewer parts" argument. If it was so strong, EVs should have been cheaper and faster to produce already. I know the batteries are the main challenge and I'm not sure how much economies of scale will help solve it. They certainly would but when?

When EVs have comparable driving range and are priced the same or at least very close to ICE vehicles – and without government incentives – then and only then will a huge adoption hurdle be eliminated.

Very good observation.

The proof is in that chart. Look at 2016 - without the battery cost the Ev is several thousand $ cheaper.

[PeterfromCalgary + 60]

In 1954 when nuclear power was at the stage that electric vehicles are at today Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss said electric power would be "too cheap to meter."  I am still eagerly waiting for the electric company to come and take away my meter.  

Edited November 6, 2018 by PeterfromCalgary

[markslawson + 1,042]

11 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

I saw this somewhere today while getting my daily dose of news. It wasn't supported by any figures, though. What are the chances and the stats?

I don't disagree with the other posters but there is no reason for consumers to buy these cars. If EV sale prices were comparable with petrol cars to begin with you may be able to construct a case that it cost far less, overall. But at the moment they cost far more upfront - a huge barrier. The Tesla 3 basic model is priced at something like double the price of a bottom end petrol car. Then there is the range problem. All that means is that the vast bulk of EV sales to date are the result of massive government subsidies or intervention in the market. Its not like the original Model T Ford which was sold at a price that people could afford so they bought them because they had distinct advantages over the horse-drawn alternatives of the time, and got better. There was a substantial market in cars before the Model T, please note, again totally without government intervention. EVs are in  a different category in that in order to get production volumes to any level they have to be subsidised and yet more infrastructure built. The demand has to be created. So the question should be just how long can we keep pumping money into this sector before it become self-sustaining, if it ever does? 

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

18 hours ago, Refman said:

Internal Combustion engines are pretty complex devices, especially the newer ones with 4 valves per cylinder, turbo charging and fuel injection. Then you have all the plumbing for the fuel system, and the exhaust system. A modern automatic transmission is also pretty darn complex as well.

I am pretty sure that EV's will be price competitive (without subsidies) with the average car by 2023. When you take into account maintenance and fuel prices they are probably pretty close already.

 

I'm also 99% sure my next vehicle will either be an EV or PHEV

I'll take your word for it. Fingers crossed for those batteries. I'm sick of breathing exhaust fumes.

[DA? + 301]

10 hours ago, markslawson said:

I don't disagree with the other posters but there is no reason for consumers to buy these cars. If EV sale prices were comparable with petrol cars to begin with you may be able to construct a case that it cost far less, overall. But at the moment they cost far more upfront - a huge barrier. The Tesla 3 basic model is priced at something like double the price of a bottom end petrol car. Then there is the range problem. All that means is that the vast bulk of EV sales to date are the result of massive government subsidies or intervention in the market. Its not like the original Model T Ford which was sold at a price that people could afford so they bought them because they had distinct advantages over the horse-drawn alternatives of the time, and got better. There was a substantial market in cars before the Model T, please note, again totally without government intervention. EVs are in  a different category in that in order to get production volumes to any level they have to be subsidised and yet more infrastructure built. The demand has to be created. So the question should be just how long can we keep pumping money into this sector before it become self-sustaining, if it ever does? 

Yes at present the cost up front for EV's is a huge barrier as people are terrible at taking long term economics into account. Why are you comparing a Tesla Model 3 to a bottom end ICE? They are aimed at the higher end market such as BMW and costs are about them same. It's all about taking the highly profitable market first then moving down. Range of modern EV's are absolutely fine for most people and with quick charging and charge points becoming wide spread that one trip in the year that's long range is doable. After a couple hours of driving you should be stopping for a brake, no matter how good a driver a person thinks themselves their attention rapidly fades. As for subsidises and government intervention, yes this is required to get the technology established taking over from an in trench market. How long does this intervention have to last before it becomes self-sustaining that's quite easy to see. Take those costs off a EV and that's the price it has to sell at to be competitive, that's not far off. Although I'd like to point out that in fact it pays governments to encourage people to buy EV's on economic grounds. Pollution from ICE vehicles creates massive costs to human health that have to be absorbed by those individuals but also has a large cost to the country. EV's can also be considerably safer it seems, look at Tesla's, they are the safest cars to crash in, so independent data shows. They also due to their advanced technology are much less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place.

The western manufactures (apart from a few companies) have totally ignored EV's as much as they could, they are now panicking as they see the writing on the wall. China on the other hand has pushed ford on this technology, now they are set to take a massive chunk of the western markets. Ignoring the changes in technology and trying to hold them back is only self destructive in the end.    

[markslawson + 1,042]

12 hours ago, DA? said:

Yes at present the cost up front for EV's is a huge barrier as people are terrible at taking long term economics into account. Why are you comparing a Tesla Model 3 to a bottom end ICE? They are aimed at the higher end market such as BMW and costs are about them same.

That's true to some extent but, sorry, you totally missed my point. Go look at the rest of your post. You are giving reasons why consumers should buy EVs and, really, how they would become use to them after a while and the range issue shouldn't be a problem and its good for the environment and so on. Where is the compelling personal reason to buy an EV over a petrol car, when EVs force choices about stopping and staying until the car is recharged (if a recharge point can be found)? There isn't one. As a result sales are either to the concerned rich (most of Tesla's customers to date), or the result of subsidies/market interference (Norway, Denmark, China some US states). There is no real chance of EVs threatening the petrol car's dominance of the market unless governments pay out big time in subsidies/market interference. Thanks for the discussion  but I think we've covered this ground before. EVs ain't the future. Leave it with you.

[DA? + 301]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

That's true to some extent but, sorry, you totally missed my point. Go look at the rest of your post. You are giving reasons why consumers should buy EVs and, really, how they would become use to them after a while and the range issue shouldn't be a problem and its good for the environment and so on. Where is the compelling personal reason to buy an EV over a petrol car, when EVs force choices about stopping and staying until the car is recharged (if a recharge point can be found)? There isn't one. As a result sales are either to the concerned rich (most of Tesla's customers to date), or the result of subsidies/market interference (Norway, Denmark, China some US states). There is no real chance of EVs threatening the petrol car's dominance of the market unless governments pay out big time in subsidies/market interference. Thanks for the discussion  but I think we've covered this ground before. EVs ain't the future. Leave it with you.

Compelling arguments on why someone should buy an EV when they don't really care about the environment or the health of others.

1)"Refueling"- with an ICE vehicle it is necessary every time to go to a gas station to refill (I often have to make a special trip to town to refill my ICE living in a rural area). Charge points are rapidly increasing for EV's, I suggest you go and see the map of just Tesla charge points in the USA. Even here in rural France my local town has a number of charge points. The rapid chargers that are coming in can charge your car up to 80% very quickly. Then many people if they have parking at their house can just plug in at home. The amount of gas stations is actually dropping at present making it less convenient and as more EV's come on line so will more gas stations close. 

2)Driving Experience- nice and quite with no explosions going on in front of you. No gears so smoother ride. Better handling with the biggest mass of the car low down and spread evenly.

3)Safety- an EV built especially to be such can be built to be far safer in the event of an accident. Look how well Tesla cars are in their crash ratings, nothing else bets them and they are getting increasingly good with every software update at avoiding accidents.

4)Cost- historically EV's have been more expensive and still almost always are upfront cost wise. But when looked at over the life time of the car become cheaper. Although this is changing even with out the tax incentives on EV's in the USA the Model3 comes in around the same price as other similar ICE cars. Then comes China and the ultra small EV's that are actually selling massive amounts and are dirt cheap.

5)Space- as the battery pack and running gear are normally built as the "skate board" design in EV's this means a EV with the same external size as an ICE has more internal space. 

6)Acceleration- did you see that advert for the new ford muscle car boasting about being the fastest accelerating mass produced car? Underneath was a little disclaimer saying this was only for ICE cars as EV's kick their arse. You can buy a family EV that out accelerates hypercars for a fraction of the price.

This is now but the technology is changing at such a rapid speed. In not too many years the upfront cost EV's will start to compete with ICE's across the board with no help from the government. The range of the cars are rapidly getting to the point they can go as far as an ICE on one charge. Peoples perception of ICE drivers will become that of people smoking in public areas. The cost of fuel will go up for ICE's as demand drops, as gas stations will have to increase prices to stay a float. Why would you want to buy an ICE car it will make no sense.

I suggest looking into how thing have and are changing in the EV world, cleantechnica and Eltrek are to good places to start and to see whats being developed try sciencedaily. It's changing so fast you need to look every day to keep up. ICE are the past, was fun for a while but something better has come along.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

A few points I would make to the posters above.   You will see a dramatic increase in EV sales when the Administrative State decrees that certain dense and congested cities cannot be entered by a gasoline auto.  I predict that cities such as New York - Manhattan will go first; when the City puts a ban on gasoline autos, which it inevitably will, then the entire population of New York goes out and buys an EV, or it goes without a private auto. When you look at New York and how both sides of every street are clogged with parked autos belonging to the local dwellers, in effect having the city administration provide a private parking place in the street at no cost for the owner, you see what an immense subsidy is being paid by the Administration to the auto owner.  That will end, and when it does, the big shift to the EV gets fired up.

The other factor that has been discussed is the cost of manufacture of the Tesla (specifically, the Model 3).  An interesting study was done by an auto expert team, which bought a retail Tesla 3 and dismantled it.  They found that the bottom frame pan was built up of 19 individual parts - something that Detroit would do in one large stamping.  The costs of carefully assembling the 19 parts, to ensure a proper fit for the other parts that are built onto it, is what drives up the price and drives down the overall fit and finish quality.  I suspect the reason for the 19 small parts is the tooling costs for a large stamping the way Detroit would do it. Those giant stamping presses are expensive.  The tooling for such a press is also enormously expensive. So the Tesla guys adopted a "make it work" strategy using lots of small parts, and trying to align them all so a welder can spot-weld them together.  That last part is not quite there yet.

the other thing the team found was that Tesla had developed the absolute best power-management electronics, a system that far surpassed anything the other builders had developed. So once again, great engineering outpaced what large companies could come up with.  That is an interesting institutional limit; the "not invented here" syndrome that keeps large companies from being innovative in new technology - to their peril.  To see just how graphic that can get, take a look at what has been unfolding over at General Electric Corp, where the stock value has slid from $65 a share down to nine bucks.  Ugh. 

The argument that costs drop as a function of longer production runs is only partly true.  It has been supplanted by the invention of the CNC machine.  The parts maker designs the part on an CAD-CAM computer in three dimensions, and the software translates that into machine instructions.  The operator loads the blank slab, typically a metal such as aluminum, onto the machine platen, loads the instructions via a flash stick, and hits the Start button.  Then he can go to the bar; the entire part is automatically machined. You change production runs by changing the flash stick.  With this technology you can build just one part just as cheaply as 100,000.  Rather nice.

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

That's true to some extent but, sorry, you totally missed my point. Go look at the rest of your post. You are giving reasons why consumers should buy EVs and, really, how they would become use to them after a while and the range issue shouldn't be a problem and its good for the environment and so on. Where is the compelling personal reason to buy an EV over a petrol car, when EVs force choices about stopping and staying until the car is recharged (if a recharge point can be found)? There isn't one. As a result sales are either to the concerned rich (most of Tesla's customers to date), or the result of subsidies/market interference (Norway, Denmark, China some US states). There is no real chance of EVs threatening the petrol car's dominance of the market unless governments pay out big time in subsidies/market interference. Thanks for the discussion  but I think we've covered this ground before. EVs ain't the future. Leave it with you.

99% of the time people will charge at home overnight on off peak if available

On the odd occasion you wish to do a journey that exceeds your EV range a midway stop at a fast charger and a cup of coffee while you wait  is a good idea and probably benefits road safety aswell. 

[DA? + 301]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

 

The argument that costs drop as a function of longer production runs is only partly true.  It has been supplanted by the invention of the CNC machine.  The parts maker designs the part on an CAD-CAM computer in three dimensions, and the software translates that into machine instructions.  The operator loads the blank slab, typically a metal such as aluminum, onto the machine platen, loads the instructions via a flash stick, and hits the Start button.  Then he can go to the bar; the entire part is automatically machined. You change production runs by changing the flash stick.  With this technology you can build just one part just as cheaply as 100,000.  Rather nice.

No doubt that manufacturing is about to change but I think we are still a bit off where one complicated product can be produce at a cost relatively near the price of 100,000. A youtube video well worth watching is Adam Savage having a look round MIT's Bit's & Atoms labs, where they are trying to build one machine that can pretty much make anything. Hoping to get to see it myself as I've been promised a tour of MIT when I can get out there.

Hopefully I'll be proved wrong and we get to a point of being able to manufacture small runs at cheap prices. Maybe the space industry is showing us the way with 3D printing the rocket motors.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, DA? said:

No doubt that manufacturing is about to change but I think we are still a bit off where one complicated product can be produce at a cost relatively near the price of 100,000.

I do that right now in my factories.  The only real cost is to write the cutting and milling programs.  Once written, you can make one part just as cheaply as one million.  Place the workpiece on the machine, insert the flash stick, hit the "GO" button, and you are done.  Amazing stuff. 

[DA? + 301]

7 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I do that right now in my factories.  The only real cost is to write the cutting and milling programs.  Once written, you can make one part just as cheaply as one million.  Place the workpiece on the machine, insert the flash stick, hit the "GO" button, and you are done.  Amazing stuff. 

That's only one part of a complicated system.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, DA? said:

That's only one part of a complicated system.

Alltrue.  But you use the same arrangement for all the other parts. 

In my case, I only sell the finished part, not assembled to other parts.  It is a process termed "mass customization" by the MBA crowd. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Alltrue.  But you use the same arrangement for all the other parts. 

In my case, I only sell the finished part, not assembled to other parts.  It is a process termed "mass customization" by the MBA crowd. 

So, just make lots of CNC machines using CNC machines (Only partly sarcastic).

[DA? + 301]

3 hours ago, ronwagn said:

So, just make lots of CNC machines using CNC machines (Only partly sarcastic).

CNC machines are great at specific jobs. Really go see Adam Savages video on youtube at the Bits & Atom lab MIT, it's a bit old now (a couple of years I think) they are trying to put CNC, 3D printing, laser cutting, folding, electric circuit integration and so on into one machine.  

[Justin Thyme + 24]

Many answers here are so American-centric myopic viewpoints.

America is no longer the market that drives auto manufacturing. It is a piddling small market.

It will be the Chinese, Indian, and European markets that drive price points and thus manufacturing volume.

And all three markets have made decisions to heavily tax or tariff or otherwise add enormous dis-incentives on both diesel and gasoline cars. As manufacturers convert their mass production to electrics in response, the price of ICEs goes way up. Economics of scale. It will be too expensive to make ICEs in limited production. Eventually, ICEs will be custom made, at premium prices not supportable by the mass market. Think specialty manufacturers like Jaguar, but even they are going electric.

So the turning point between the price of ICEs and EVs will not necessarily be the declining price of batteries, but on the cost of government dis-incentive costs added to the price of ICEs in the major markets. That is, the cost of ICEs will go up well beyond current pricing, while the costs of EVs will decline. As the sales volume of ICEs goes down, in response to government dis-incentives (think a 20% environmental tax on ICEs, for example, in European and Chinese markets), the advantages of mass production decline as well. 

Even California, a major American auto market, is looking to add dis-incentive costs onto ICE's, instead of subsidizing EVs,

And tariffs will also impact the price of ICEs. Because they involve so many sub-assemblies (transmissions, starting motors, main engine, cooling system, pumps, pollution control, injectors, brakes, etc.) these parts are manufactured all over the world. To bring them together, they have to cross borders. EVs are much simpler. A battery, an engine, a generator/braking system, a charging system, a control module. Fewer parts crossing borders, fewer international trade problems. 

There are just so many factors that effect the price of ICEs vs EVs, that have been completely overlooked in these over-simplistic analyses.

[Justin Thyme + 24]

On 11/8/2018 at 6:12 AM, DA? said:

No doubt that manufacturing is about to change but I think we are still a bit off where one complicated product can be produce at a cost relatively near the price of 100,000. A youtube video well worth watching is Adam Savage having a look round MIT's Bit's & Atoms labs, where they are trying to build one machine that can pretty much make anything. Hoping to get to see it myself as I've been promised a tour of MIT when I can get out there.

Hopefully I'll be proved wrong and we get to a point of being able to manufacture small runs at cheap prices. Maybe the space industry is showing us the way with 3D printing the rocket motors.

 

On 11/8/2018 at 4:51 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The argument that costs drop as a function of longer production runs is only partly true.  It has been supplanted by the invention of the CNC machine.  The parts maker designs the part on an CAD-CAM computer in three dimensions, and the software translates that into machine instructions.  The operator loads the blank slab, typically a metal such as aluminum, onto the machine platen, loads the instructions via a flash stick, and hits the Start button.  Then he can go to the bar; the entire part is automatically machined. You change production runs by changing the flash stick.  With this technology you can build just one part just as cheaply as 100,000.  Rather nice.

Let's see you CNC a bottom pan for a Tesla on a CNC machine from one solid slab, Methinks you are looking at an awful lot of waste. Using a CNC is a subtractive process. 3D printing is an additive process. Metal stamping is a neutral process. No material added OR subtracted. The die are expensive, but the production is cheap. Mass production is economic because it spreads the costs of the die over a larger volume. So the die will be made on a CNC or a 3D printer to lower the cost, but the mass production will still be stamping.

Tesla made the mistake of not out-sourcing, intending everything to be made in-house. That is not economic. The European and Chinese manufacturers are under no such restrictions, and neither will Chrysler, Ford or GM. They will source their parts from the cheapest producer. But Tesla could not out-source until they got volumes high enough to merit a volume contract.

[DA? + 301]

3 hours ago, Justin Thyme said:

Tesla made the mistake of not out-sourcing, intending everything to be made in-house. That is not economic. The European and Chinese manufacturers are under no such restrictions, and neither will Chrysler, Ford or GM. They will source their parts from the cheapest producer. But Tesla could not out-source until they got volumes high enough to merit a volume contract.

Tesla does still out source for parts, but seems to make more in house than normal car manufactures. This does seem to be profitable when looking at their last quarter profits. The problem with suppliers has been their lack of innovation and cost. When Monroe (not sure if spelt correctly) took a Model 3 apart they said the electronics weren't something found in a car but a fighter plane. This would have cost a fortune if brought out of house. It also allows tesla to continually update their vehicles unlike conventional manufactures that do it normally yearly.

The other manufactures also seem to be finding it difficult to build anything competitive with tesla. This maybe be because they rely on their suppliers to do the innovation. Tesla is pushing the boundaries of manufacturing, which means some times they fail at some point in the chain. But they fix it, learn from their mistake and improve considerably faster than in organisations that punish any failure. As SpaceX has shown the technique works and massive strides in development are made.  

I can't remember the name of the French scientist that said "I succeeded because I failed so much". In other words don't be afraid of failing if you can learn and move on.

[Justin Thyme + 24]

1 hour ago, DA? said:

The problem with suppliers has been their lack of innovation and cost. When Monroe (not sure if spelt correctly) took a Model 3 apart they said the electronics weren't something found in a car but a fighter plane. This would have cost a fortune if brought out of house. It also allows tesla to continually update their vehicles unlike conventional manufactures that do it normally yearly.

...

Tesla is pushing the boundaries of manufacturing, which means some times they fail at some point in the chain. But they fix it, learn from their mistake and improve considerably faster than in organisations that punish any failure.

Some very good points. Musk wanted to control the entire design process, and he did not want to be restricted by the profit motive. He was absolutely correct when he said his problems were the stockholders and the board. Their push for immediate profits over a solid product hampered him at every turn. Musk wanted to get it 'right', not leave it 'make do'. I have read that a lot of the problems with production was that he wanted most of it to be robotic, but current robots had a difficult time with precise, complex tasks like threading wires through multiple openings. He had to revert to much more manual labor than he intended.

Foxcon is apparently having the same problems with their American start up. They can't get good American engineers at the same level of innovative competence that Foxcon has in their Asian operations.

There is no doubt that the American facility was a beta operation, and the Chinese operation will be manufacturing plant 2.0. I really think that he intends to personally completely abandon the American operation and concentrate on the European and Chinese operation. He is fed up with the American way. The Chinese are much better at implementing robotics and new technology in general than America seems to be (except for perhaps MIT, but they are pretty much foreign personnel anyway). Frankly, American manufacturing in general was just too archaic for him to do what he wanted and needed.

Musk never did get the level of innovation support that he needed. American manufacturing tends to be hung up on preserving the status quo, as it does not require expensive R&D. The 'same old same old' methods are cheap to implement, meaning higher profits.

European electric vehicles are by far at a much more advanced level than anything American. Mainly I posit because all of the secondary suppliers are also behind the initiative pushing for it, not in front of it trying to stall it..

Incidentally, the Israelis are far ahead of the game in terms of self-driving and autonomous technology. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/20/10-israeli-start-ups-that-are-gunning-for-the-self-driving-car-market.html

America is falling behind in the technology innovation field, yet all the Americans do is to set up more and more roadblocks against developing their own innovation centers. Even Ford is looking to its Chinese partner to become its research and development center for Ev's.

And it starts with the abysmal education system in America. Americans no longer respect nor support primary and secondary education. The money just isn't there any more. America isn't producing qualified students.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Justin Thyme

[Danial Gable + 20]

On 11/7/2018 at 3:16 PM, markslawson said:

On 11/7/2018 at 2:39 AM, DA? said:

 

That's true to some extent but, sorry, you totally missed my point. Go look at the rest of your post. You are giving reasons why consumers should buy EVs and, really, how they would become use to them after a while and the range issue shouldn't be a problem and its good for the environment and so on. Where is the compelling personal reason to buy an EV over a petrol car, when EVs force choices about stopping and staying until the car is recharged (if a recharge point can be found)? There isn't one. As a result sales are either to the concerned rich (most of Tesla's customers to date), or the result of subsidies/market interference (Norway, Denmark, China some US states). There is no real chance of EVs threatening the petrol car's dominance of the market unless governments pay out big time in subsidies/market interference. Thanks for the discussion  but I think we've covered this ground before. EVs ain't the future. Leave it with you.

   Your out of the loop. If your same argument was used 100 years ago, we would all still be riding horses. Once a revolutionary technology replaces an outdated, toxic and expensive technology, there is no going back, and thats where we are with the gas vs electric. I agree however, that with over roughly 1.5 billion internal combustion engines, the transition will take time.  I have followed the electric car market since the time of the roadster. If you dont know this car, then you are out of the loop.  In the early stages, basically 10 years ago, all of the critics doubted Musk and his vision even though simultaneously Chinese companies like BYD were already exploring electric cars as well. 

Already about 5 years ago BMW was noting that the manufacturing process of electric cars was cheaper and more efficient, and more then likely they would be transiting. Early on in Fords transition,the company proclaimed they were going hydrogen,in the face of the lithium movement, well it wasn't but two years later they had transitioned to electric with lithium. Jaguar, Mercedes, Chevy volt, Toyota, VW,Audi and every other car makers are rolling out Electric cars.

Another important point,especially for someone who cant see the future of EVs, is this, and i had to pull something from the National library of medicine just to properly make my point.  In my words, because burning fuel is so brutally poisonous, the greatness of mankind will overcome this...to put it more scientifically-         "Carbon monoxide has 210 times greater affinity for haemoglobin than oxygen¹. A small environmental concentration will thus cause toxic levels of carboxyhaemoglobin. After the carbon monoxide has selectively bound to haemoglobin the oxygen-haemoglobin dissociation curve of the remaining oxyhaemoglobin shifts to the left, reducing oxygen release (Figure 1). The affinity of carbon monoxide for myoglobin is even greater than for haemoglobin¹. Binding to cardiac myoglobin causes myocardial depression, hypotension and arrhythmias. Cardiac decompensation results in further tissue hypoxia and is ultimately the cause of death".     Tu simplify this last paragraph, basically Carbon monoxide, from the exhaust of your precious petrol car, binds to your very own haemoglobin molecules in your blood, these molecules are speciffically designed to transport oxygen to every cell in your body, however, inhaled carbon monoxide, which is colorless, odorless and fu%$ing toxic, takes the spot of the oxygen, and basically inhibits your blood from distributing oxygen through out your body.

This is not an argument of what what is cheaper or what is easier to make, its basically the health of everyone and our entire planet. Just remember, when you jump into your car, and fire up the engine, and you get that nostalgic scent of toxic fumes, maybe you have kids, friends and families......just remember, carbon monoxide is odorless, colorless and tasteless. and this chemical is penetrating deep into your tissues in excessive amounts, and interfering with healthy amounts of oxygen being transported to very important tissues of your body like you heart tissues or neurons. So just remmebr this, this is not a discussion of monetary costs........but natural and bio "logical"  ones.