Musk endeavours

[Howard]

Why is the range of a Kia substantially more than a Tesla?

I mentioned above that “Which” have carried out a lot of thorough tests on BEVs. As well as comparative energy consumption in real-world driving conditions Which carry out a survey of their members to check their experiences. They literally get tens of thousands of replies every year and their members tend to be early adopters of cars like BEVs.

They have published a lot of data and some of the findings are not behind their paywall. Link to their site below.

For obvious copyright reasons I can’t quote all the data. (And I don’t want to repeat some of the issues we have discussed before). But the difference in battery and electric motor performance of a Kia and a Tesla is fascinating.

In real driving conditions, a mix of motorway and town, the range of a Standard Range Tesla Model 3 is around 190 miles and a 64 kWh Kia Niro is 245 miles.

Which say that the Niro is the most efficient electric car they have ever tested. In an urban situation it achieves a power usage better than 13 kWh per 100 km and thus a potential range of over 300 miles.

Reading their reports, the key question for me comes back to batteries.

How is it that a car like a Kia (with an extra door at the back) has nearly a 30% better range than a much more expensive Tesla?

regards

Howard

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/new-and ... hcm1q3xkwX

[JamesMuenchen]

I think all this analysis of cars and batteries and whatnot is missing the point now.

TSLA has a market cap of $1/2 trillion.

Looking at it as an investment, its advantage is capital. This became clear to me last time TSLA did an easy capital raise, just as all the bears were celebrating that it would run out of funds.

And they could simply buy any number of competing car makers for stock.

[odysseus2000]

Why is the range of a Kia substantially more than a Tesla?

I mentioned above that “Which” have carried out a lot of thorough tests on BEVs. As well as comparative energy consumption in real-world driving conditions Which carry out a survey of their members to check their experiences. They literally get tens of thousands of replies every year and their members tend to be early adopters of cars like BEVs.

They have published a lot of data and some of the findings are not behind their paywall. Link to their site below.

For obvious copyright reasons I can’t quote all the data. (And I don’t want to repeat some of the issues we have discussed before). But the difference in battery and electric motor performance of a Kia and a Tesla is fascinating.

In real driving conditions, a mix of motorway and town, the range of a Standard Range Tesla Model 3 is around 190 miles and a 64 kWh Kia Niro is 245 miles.

Which say that the Niro is the most efficient electric car they have ever tested. In an urban situation it achieves a power usage better than 13 kWh per 100 km and thus a potential range of over 300 miles.

Reading their reports, the key question for me comes back to batteries.

How is it that a car like a Kia (with an extra door at the back) has nearly a 30% better range than a much more expensive Tesla?

regards

Howard

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/new-and ... hcm1q3xkwX

Who do you believe for range? The Tesla 3 and 3-niro have similar weights and have epa ranges of
239 miles (e-niro)
250 miles (Tesla standard)

In terms of performance, 0-60
e-niro 9.5 seconds
Tesla standard 5.5 seconds.

All links below.

One can say I only believe Which or I only believe EPA, but both can not be true at the same moment and it all comes down to what a car buyer wants. The KIA will appeal to someone who knows or cares little about cars and just wants a shopping trolley, the 3 to those who want status, performance, self driving and safety.

As I keep noting, in our prosperous times, people prefer to buy iPhones than much cheaper Chinese or Indian clones. We will see how the sales figures go.

Regards,

kia e-niro 1812 kg
https://www.google.com/search?q=weight+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

https://www.whatcar.com/kia/e-niro/esta ... n-the-road
0-60 9.5 s

https://www.google.com/search?q=epa+ran ... e&ie=UTF-8
spa e-niro 239 miles



Model 3 1726 1847 kg


https://www.google.com/search?q=weight+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

long range 0-60 5.1 s
performance 3.1 s

https://www.google.com/search?q=weight+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Model 3 epa:
250 miles, (tesla saying it can do 263 miles, but not EPA tested till next yearP

https://insideevs.com/news/381227/tesla ... a-numbers/

[odysseus2000]

I think all this analysis of cars and batteries and whatnot is missing the point now.

TSLA has a market cap of $1/2 trillion.

Looking at it as an investment, its advantage is capital. This became clear to me last time TSLA did an easy capital raise, just as all the bears were celebrating that it would run out of funds.

And they could simply buy any number of competing car makers for stock.

Yes, and it has been that way for several years now.

Tesla have been able to raise capital as needed and could raise now if they wanted to, but also have the potential to follow Carnegie and use the profits from the last factory to build the next.

Legacy auto have in the most part done a Kodak and are now in very serious trouble.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Autominous KFC food trucks:

https://twitter.com/simonsugar/status/1 ... 33415?s=20

Regards,

[BobbyD]

One can say I only believe Which or I only believe EPA, but both can not be true at the same moment and it all comes down to what a car buyer wants.

Tesla optimises for the EPA tests while other manufacturers pay more attention to customer's intended usage, with the result that Tesla is a paper champion once again whilst cars which it should leave dead at the road side are often found to have comparable ranges in real world tests. It also means Tesla is the only manufacturer who ends up with WLTP rating lower than their EPA ratings.



Source: https://insideevs.com/news/414786/compa ... e-ratings/

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
Tesla optimises for the EPA tests while other manufacturers pay more attention to customer's intended usage, with the result that Tesla is a paper champion once again whilst cars which it should leave dead at the road side are often found to have comparable ranges in real world tests. It also means Tesla is the only manufacturer who ends up with WLTP rating lower than their EPA ratings.

Looking at the table, some Tesla have a ratio of waltp/epa of up to +10% while others have the same ratio of -10% and a range in between.

Also according to the table, Tesla have the best overall range of 391 (epa) or 379 miles.

The table is clear, if you want the longest range possible, buy a Tesla.

Regards,

[Howard]

I think all this analysis of cars and batteries and whatnot is missing the point now.

TSLA has a market cap of $1/2 trillion.

Looking at it as an investment, its advantage is capital. This became clear to me last time TSLA did an easy capital raise, just as all the bears were celebrating that it would run out of funds.

And they could simply buy any number of competing car makers for stock.

So is this a forecast? And are you a holder or a buyer of the stock?

(I hold a small stake).

regards

Howard

[dspp]

The Kia and the Hyundai are both known to be pretty good BEV cars. They are also not made in anywhere near the volume necessary for their respective manufacturers to come out as top dog in the BEV-world unless the trajectories change significantly.

As models one of them is at BEV global #4 (39,935) and the other at #14 (25,095) vs the #1 of Tesla 3 (238,170). As manufacturers they are at #9 and #10. This for Sep-2020 YTD.
http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/search/label/World

Unless Kia and Hyundai can get cell supply at the relevant volume, all they are really doing is showing Tesla some interesting info in what makes for a Tesla model 2. Which is nice of them to do, and may get them a place in the runner-up slots.

Even if they can get cell supply at the relevant volume then they have the small matter of overcoming all the other points of competitive advantage that Tesla have - which of course opinions will vary on (but it is a darned sight more than just cost of capital).

Regarding the EPA vs WLTP ratios at worst it indicates that Tesla weight towards EPA at present. (At best it may indicate that they reflect driving in different use-case environments). However when I listen to a lot of BEV anecdotals out there I never hear of people being disappointed with their Tesla range, but I often do with people being disappointed with their non-Tesla range. As longer range non-Teslas start to appear that may change, though the new normal baseline does seem to be ~300-miles EPA and WLTP, which few achieve except for Tesla. Manufacturers rationing batteries has consequences for product attractiveness to buyers ..........

regards, dspp

[Howard]

Why is the range of a Kia substantially more than a Tesla?

How is it that a car like a Kia (with an extra door at the back) has nearly a 30% better range than a much more expensive Tesla?

regards

Howard

https://www.which.co.uk/reviews/new-and ... hcm1q3xkwX

Who do you believe for range?
Regards,


https://www.whatcar.com/kia/e-niro/esta ... n-the-road
0-60 9.5 s

Ody

Thank you for the link you gave to "What Car". That helps me give a straight answer to your question - I believe their tests for range. You will see that they confirm the Which results.

They call their testing regime: Real Range: which electric car can go farthest in the real world?

And you will see they get the following results:

Tesla Model 3 Standard range plus - 181 miles (less than the “Which” result)

Tesla Model 3 Long range - 211 miles

Tesla Model 3 Performance - 239 miles

Kia e-Niro 64kWh 253 miles

Hyundai Kona Electric 64kWh - 259 miles.

So pretty conclusive evidence that two UK respected car testing organisations find that in real driving situations the Tesla Model 3 has a shorter range than a Kia/Hyundai.

I accept dspp's point that Hyundai haven't got the battery supplies in volume yet. But they are taking sales from Tesla in European markets and they appear to be setting the pace in designing BEVs with longer range.

regards

Howard

[dspp]

Howard,
I figured this total cost of ownership thing was going to keep coming up so I wrote a quick spreadsheet. I'm sure I am missing out on something as I cannot get your total lease costs to come out where you say they are without adding in random upfront payments. Please can you either correct me and/or use a consistent format when you give them (I suspect you are using a consistent format but I am being stoopid - you can see I don't lease cars). I'll take your word on BIK taxes, or feel free to correct me.
regards,
dspp

[odysseus2000]

They call their testing regime: Real Range: which electric car can go farthest in the real world?


So pretty conclusive evidence that two UK respected car testing organisations find that in real driving situations the Tesla Model 3 has a shorter range than a Kia/Hyundai.

I accept dspp's point that Hyundai haven't got the battery supplies in volume yet. But they are taking sales from Tesla in European markets and they appear to be setting the pace in designing BEVs with longer range.

regards

Howard

I have zero respect for Which or What Car, both of whom have made howlers in the past suggesting they are subject to "influence"s. I appreciate that to many who love Which this will come as heresy to Which subscribers, but that is how I view them. I much prefer to trust the EPA.

Regarding Hyundai taking sales, a neighbour wanted to lease a Kia BEV and was told he would have wait over 2 years. He went with a BMW hybrid which we know to be far from the clean machine that hybrid enthusiasts have promoted. The neighbour finds the gasoline engine to be a waste of space and a source of weight and would much prefer a full BEV.

Regards,

[Howard]

The Kia and the Hyundai are both known to be pretty good BEV cars. They are also not made in anywhere near the volume necessary for their respective manufacturers to come out as top dog in the BEV-world unless the trajectories change significantly.

As models one of them is at BEV global #4 (39,935) and the other at #14 (25,095) vs the #1 of Tesla 3 (238,170). As manufacturers they are at #9 and #10. This for Sep-2020 YTD.
http://ev-sales.blogspot.com/search/label/World

Unless Kia and Hyundai can get cell supply at the relevant volume, all they are really doing is showing Tesla some interesting info in what makes for a Tesla model 2. Which is nice of them to do, and may get them a place in the runner-up slots.

Even if they can get cell supply at the relevant volume then they have the small matter of overcoming all the other points of competitive advantage that Tesla have - which of course opinions will vary on (but it is a darned sight more than just cost of capital).

Regarding the EPA vs WLTP ratios at worst it indicates that Tesla weight towards EPA at present. (At best it may indicate that they reflect driving in different use-case environments). However when I listen to a lot of BEV anecdotals out there I never hear of people being disappointed with their Tesla range, but I often do with people being disappointed with their non-Tesla range. As longer range non-Teslas start to appear that may change, though the new normal baseline does seem to be ~300-miles EPA and WLTP, which few achieve except for Tesla. Manufacturers rationing batteries has consequences for product attractiveness to buyers ..........

regards, dspp

Yes, I take your point about Hyundai’s battery supply. And there is no arguing with the fact that Tesla are dominant in the BEV market in the USA. But the interesting thing about Tesla’s meteoric share price rise and global reach is that they have spread themselves very thinly in the rest of the world.

I’m fascinated to see how this all pans out. It’s a business case which will almost certainly be written about in ten or twenty years time. And as an investor, one has a front seat!

Hyundai/Kia are really significant, in my view, because, if one accepts the real ranges achieved by BEVs, their cars are demonstrating that a lower cost car with a smaller battery can deliver a longer range. Hopefully no one is going to disagree with the fact that the average motorist, in considering a BEV, thinks that range is extremely important.

Will the model Y sell in large enough volumes to be significant in world markets? Is it delaying the production of a more competitive,lower cost, longer range family car from Tesla?

Looking at BEV sales in Norway, Holland and Spain, from a dominant position last year, Tesla have now been relegated to sixth position up to end October. So far, their sales are one third of Hyundai/Kia’s. It is a similar situation in the UK and Germany.

Will Tesla change this in the next four weeks by selling 40,000+ cars which are on the way to Europe from the USA and China? Two ships with around 12,000 cars arrived in the last two weeks and should be showing up in this month’s sales.

The Chinese market is critical for Tesla. Every day the BEV and battery situation is changing and growing so (for me) it’s difficult to keep up. Will the competition there dwarf Tesla sales and force them to reduce their margins? Apparently some BEV batteries can be changed in 20 seconds. Aulton (Energy Services) claim to have 276 battery change stations now and plans for 5,000 by 2025 and CATL are said to be onboard. I know Tesla investigated this and rejected it but will BEVs with smaller, quick-change, batteries offer a cure for range anxiety?

If you believe the media, Tesla is having to invest in literally hundreds of sales centres (wholly owned distributors?) across China to promote sales. Their sales have plateaued over the last few months. Again, the next four weeks will be critical. Forecasters are suggesting sales of 20 million cars in China this year, hardly any reduction from 2019 and the BEV market is booming.

Your hated PHEVs are selling in large numbers in 2020 and, like them or not, they address the range issue for consumers and attract subsidies at the moment. They are still a massive market for legacy manufacturers.

In summary, it could be argued that logistics may be as important as battery supplies. Tesla may succeed in making their sales forecast this year but it is going to be tough and they are priced for growth!

regards

Howard

[BobbyD]

Will Tesla change this in the next four weeks by selling 40,000+ cars which are on the way to Europe from the USA and China? Two ships with around 12,000 cars arrived in the last two weeks and should be showing up in this month’s sales.

It seems unlikely that they are going to supply Europe from Germany, China and the US so it's rather unlikely to be a sustainable long term operation.

If Tesla are making a one off statement delivery to prevent their European numbers for 2020 being dwarfed then frankly, what of it?

Robbing Peter to publicise Paul's circus may gain them favourable coverage in the usual hagiographic publications but it's not actually a business plan. And what of poor Peter, or is he spending more time sampling other options from the BEV buffet being spread in China?

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
It seems unlikely that they are going to supply Europe from Germany, China and the US so it's rather unlikely to be a sustainable long term operation.

Tesla Berlin is not scheduled to start production till mid 2021, but plenty of Europeans want a Tesla car, so Tesla are providing some.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Howard
Your hated PHEVs are selling in large numbers in 2020 and, like them or not, they address the range issue for consumers and attract subsidies at the moment. They are still a massive market for legacy manufacturers.

What happens as folk and politicians learn that PHEV are dirty?

Likely politicians take away any favourable treatments and punters stop buying them and so what happens to all the investment Legacy have put into PHEV?

Regards,

[JamesMuenchen]

I think all this analysis of cars and batteries and whatnot is missing the point now.

TSLA has a market cap of $1/2 trillion.

Looking at it as an investment, its advantage is capital. This became clear to me last time TSLA did an easy capital raise, just as all the bears were celebrating that it would run out of funds.

And they could simply buy any number of competing car makers for stock.

So is this a forecast? And are you a holder or a buyer of the stock?

(I hold a small stake).

regards

Howard

No, it's just an observation.

I hold and plan to keep adding.

[Howard]

Howard,
I figured this total cost of ownership thing was going to keep coming up so I wrote a quick spreadsheet. I'm sure I am missing out on something as I cannot get your total lease costs to come out where you say they are without adding in random upfront payments. Please can you either correct me and/or use a consistent format when you give them (I suspect you are using a consistent format but I am being stoopid - you can see I don't lease cars). I'll take your word on BIK taxes, or feel free to correct me.
regards,
dspp

If it is ok with you, rather than changing the model and starting again can I stick with the figures I used for the BMW 320i rather than the 320d in your heading. If there’s time, I’ll comment on the cost differences, but virtually every figure will change slightly.

It’s probably helpful to remind us of the leasing process - as far as I understand it from personally leasing three cars. (And, of course it's not the same as getting a car from a dealer on a PCP or similar, even if the finance is provided by the same company.)

The consumer wanting to rent a car will go to a “broker” like Select Car Leasing to get a quote. The broker may actually be the commercial side of a dealership or a stand alone company. A price will be agreed and the actual leasing agreement will be signed with a separate finance company. This company might be for example, Alphabet UK (wholly owned subsidiary of BMW), VW Financial Services or Arval, owned by BP Paribas,the French bank.

The car will always be owned by the finance company who will, if a maintenance contract is agreed, arrange servicing, puncture repair, new tyre etc. The car driver will handle any accident repairs through his/her insurance cover. As far as I can tell, an insurance company won’t charge any extra for a leased car.

In Tesla’s case, I believe the same brokers will negotiate with Tesla to buy cars and arrange leasing deals with companies like Arval.

In the case of the broker I used to lease a couple of BMWs, I know that they negotiated directly with BMW to purchase cars. Most of their business is supplying companies with cars for their employees. I actually collected the cars from a main dealer. Interestingly the Sales Director told me that the price paid to BMW by the broker I used was lower than he paid! The reason was that the broker bought more than a thousand cars a year.

I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that some brokers are specialising in purchasing Teslas direct in the same way. And this was the case in Holland last year. They may have contracts to supply, for example, NHS employees and will buy in volume. I believe I'm correct in suggesting that more than 70% of new cars in the UK are supplied and managed through finance companies, hence my comments that they ought to know a lot about motoring costs.

To the figures: The consumer who gets a 6 + 35 lease will pay 6 months up front after the car is handed over. Plus an admin fee. So in the case of the Tesla I multiplied the monthly cost £582 by 41 months to get £23,862. Then added the £195 admin fee to arrive at £24,057. You can work it out as a 6 months fee and then 35 subsequent monthly payments but it gets the same answer. For the BMW I did the same, 41 x 406 = £16,646 plus £195 comes to £16,841.

You have worked out the fuel costs slightly differently from “Which”. I’d just comment that a 320d will now get around 50 mpg when driven 10,000k miles a year. And a 320i will get around 40 mpg (I’m sad enough to record all my petrol costs on a spreadsheet and my 5 Series consumption is 40 mpg for an annual mileage less than 10k).

My understanding of the BIK figures which I quoted are that they are added to an employee’s salary. So the extra tax paid by the BMW driver will be £7,000 x 20% per year. Thus £1,400 goes in as a cost in your spreadsheet. However, I am not a tax expert and retired, so am willing to be corrected. For a 40% taxpayer the cost is more eye watering!

Hope these figures are helpful. It’s late, so I’ll investigate the costs of leasing a 320d tomorrow. I doubt if they will be much different.

regards

Howard

[odysseus2000]

Musk says cost per battery aiming for 50 to 55 cents for a 10 Wh cell. If we take the battery at nominal voltage of 3.7 volts, this requires 10/3.7 = 2.7 amps for 1 hour which seems plausible given what I have experimentally measured with 18650 second use cells. (NB, in practice the cell voltage range is something like 4.2 to 3 volts, 3.7 is just the nominal voltage)

At 50 cents per 10 Wh, this implies 0.5x1000/10 = $50 at the cell level for 1 kWh.

This is incredibly low cost. For example a 1.5 v AA alkaline cell has a capacity of about 2500 mAh or a wattage of 1.5x2.5 = 3.75 Wh. At pound land I can currently buy 6 Alkaline AA cells for £1, so the total wattage if connected in parallel is 6x3.75 = 22.5 Wh, or 100/22.5 = 4.4p Wh
This is use once then discard. (Actual wattage will be less as aa cell will not maintain 1.5 volts during its life.)

If the 50 cents per 10 Wh is reached then the manufacturing cost is 37p, assume 100% margin, so 74p for 10 Wh, or 7.4p Wh.
This can be used many times. If charged from solar panels on ones house there is no additional cost for the fuel.

Amazing that a rechargeable battery can be made for less than twice the cost of a very well established disposable technology.

Also regarding the Semi.

Musk stated 300 Wh per Kg at the cell level is enough for the Semi which they believe can trivially reach 300 miles for a semi with a 40 ton load and that 1000 miles may be possible, currently there could be a 1 ton overhead, but it is expected that this will be removed.

Musk is keen on the German plant designing its own European motor for European conditions.

Whole video here:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-battery ... -kwh-pack/

Regards,

[dspp]

Howard,
I figured this total cost of ownership thing was going to keep coming up so I wrote a quick spreadsheet. I'm sure I am missing out on something as I cannot get your total lease costs to come out where you say they are without adding in random upfront payments. Please can you either correct me and/or use a consistent format when you give them (I suspect you are using a consistent format but I am being stoopid - you can see I don't lease cars). I'll take your word on BIK taxes, or feel free to correct me.
regards,
dspp

If it is ok with you, rather than changing the model and starting again can I stick with the figures I used for the BMW 320i rather than the 320d in your heading. If there’s time, I’ll comment on the cost differences, but virtually every figure will change slightly.

It’s probably helpful to remind us of the leasing process - as far as I understand it from personally leasing three cars. (And, of course it's not the same as getting a car from a dealer on a PCP or similar, even if the finance is provided by the same company.)

The consumer wanting to rent a car will go to a “broker” like Select Car Leasing to get a quote. The broker may actually be the commercial side of a dealership or a stand alone company. A price will be agreed and the actual leasing agreement will be signed with a separate finance company. This company might be for example, Alphabet UK (wholly owned subsidiary of BMW), VW Financial Services or Arval, owned by BP Paribas,the French bank.

The car will always be owned by the finance company who will, if a maintenance contract is agreed, arrange servicing, puncture repair, new tyre etc. The car driver will handle any accident repairs through his/her insurance cover. As far as I can tell, an insurance company won’t charge any extra for a leased car.

In Tesla’s case, I believe the same brokers will negotiate with Tesla to buy cars and arrange leasing deals with companies like Arval.

In the case of the broker I used to lease a couple of BMWs, I know that they negotiated directly with BMW to purchase cars. Most of their business is supplying companies with cars for their employees. I actually collected the cars from a main dealer. Interestingly the Sales Director told me that the price paid to BMW by the broker I used was lower than he paid! The reason was that the broker bought more than a thousand cars a year.

I don’t know for sure, but my guess is that some brokers are specialising in purchasing Teslas direct in the same way. And this was the case in Holland last year. They may have contracts to supply, for example, NHS employees and will buy in volume. I believe I'm correct in suggesting that more than 70% of new cars in the UK are supplied and managed through finance companies, hence my comments that they ought to know a lot about motoring costs.

To the figures: The consumer who gets a 6 + 35 lease will pay 6 months up front after the car is handed over. Plus an admin fee. So in the case of the Tesla I multiplied the monthly cost £582 by 41 months to get £23,862. Then added the £195 admin fee to arrive at £24,057. You can work it out as a 6 months fee and then 35 subsequent monthly payments but it gets the same answer. For the BMW I did the same, 41 x 406 = £16,646 plus £195 comes to £16,841.

You have worked out the fuel costs slightly differently from “Which”. I’d just comment that a 320d will now get around 50 mpg when driven 10,000k miles a year. And a 320i will get around 40 mpg (I’m sad enough to record all my petrol costs on a spreadsheet and my 5 Series consumption is 40 mpg for an annual mileage less than 10k).

My understanding of the BIK figures which I quoted are that they are added to an employee’s salary. So the extra tax paid by the BMW driver will be £7,000 x 20% per year. Thus £1,400 goes in as a cost in your spreadsheet. However, I am not a tax expert and retired, so am willing to be corrected. For a 40% taxpayer the cost is more eye watering!

Hope these figures are helpful. It’s late, so I’ll investigate the costs of leasing a 320d tomorrow. I doubt if they will be much different.

regards

Howard

Howard - Thanks for the explanation. I'll update the spreadsheet later today. However the 320d is what you quoted last year. didn't realise that you'd changed to a 320i this year so I will also correct that. regards, dspp