• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode

DA60

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union... but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies.

...

Nobody was hurt more than Tesla: the company, whose sales were skyrocketing at the time, lobbied against the move, with CEO Musk warning during a visit to Copenhagen that sales would be hit. It wasn't clear if the warning was targeting the government, the people of Denmark, or his own bank account and shareholders, but he was absolutely correct: in 2015 Tesla sold a total of 2,738 cars in Denmark. In 2016 the number dropped by 94% to just 176 units.'

It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
 
DA60 said:
'According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union... but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies.

...

Nobody was hurt more than Tesla: the company, whose sales were skyrocketing at the time, lobbied against the move, with CEO Musk warning during a visit to Copenhagen that sales would be hit. It wasn't clear if the warning was targeting the government, the people of Denmark, or his own bank account and shareholders, but he was absolutely correct: in 2015 Tesla sold a total of 2,738 cars in Denmark. In 2016 the number dropped by 94% to just 176 units.'

It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

If these were more affordable to the common people, more would buy. Not sure if that's the entire reason, but it certainly contributes. The problem with many of the alternate energy technologies, such as solar, wind and electric vehicles is that it is cost prohibitive to many. IMO. The Tesla starting at $101,500 is certainly not going to be a common car on the highways. At least not here.
 
DA60 said:
'According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union... but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies.

...

Nobody was hurt more than Tesla: the company, whose sales were skyrocketing at the time, lobbied against the move, with CEO Musk warning during a visit to Copenhagen that sales would be hit. It wasn't clear if the warning was targeting the government, the people of Denmark, or his own bank account and shareholders, but he was absolutely correct: in 2015 Tesla sold a total of 2,738 cars in Denmark. In 2016 the number dropped by 94% to just 176 units.'

It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Actually, the new model announced is supposed to start at $35,000, which is much better, so I take back the original cost I stated, but it is still cost prohibitive to many.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/cost-tesla/
 
They're claiming to have a vehicle that gets a 1000 miles per charge by 2020. If so, their sales would skyrocket.
 
holbritter said:
Actually, the new model announced is supposed to start at $35,000, which is much better, so I take back the original cost I stated, but it is still cost prohibitive to many.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/loans/cost-tesla/
Click to expand...

It still way more expensive than a gas car. $35,000 gets you the base model, while a very fuel efficient gas car of the same type starts at $16,000. The only reason to buy an electric car is to show off how hip and progressive you are
 
WCH said:
They're claiming to have a vehicle that gets a 1000 miles per charge by 2020. If so, their sales would skyrocket.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is range that is the issue...but price.

The base model Tesla S gets 240 miles on a single charge...which is fine. But it starts at $70 grand.

It does not matter if the S got 1,000 miles on a single charge...if it still costs $70K, it is still almost strictly for the wealthy.
 
And let's not forget, in the entire 13-year history of Tesla Motors, they have lost money in every, single quarter but 2 or 3....that is ridiculous.

The ONLY things keeping Tesla alive are government cheap loans/EV car subsidies AND public obsession with the company through the stock price.

If this company had no help from the government and was not publicly traded....it would have died years ago.

It is not a long-term, sustainable product unless a) they find a way to make the batteries far, FAR cheaper; and/or b) the price of oil goes absolutely mad.
 
DA60 said:
'According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union... but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies.

...

Nobody was hurt more than Tesla: the company, whose sales were skyrocketing at the time, lobbied against the move, with CEO Musk warning during a visit to Copenhagen that sales would be hit. It wasn't clear if the warning was targeting the government, the people of Denmark, or his own bank account and shareholders, but he was absolutely correct: in 2015 Tesla sold a total of 2,738 cars in Denmark. In 2016 the number dropped by 94% to just 176 units.'

It's Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode | Zero Hedge


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Many people are aware that the bulk of profits Tesla reports are almost exclusively from selling Zero Emission Vehicle credits to other auto manufacturers.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4017160-teslas-zev-credits-accounting-tomfoolery-meets-regulatory-shenanigans

The long term question is whether Tesla can generate sufficient profit from selling it's vehicles without these credits. The $35k car might become more popular but the infrastructure to charge them, and the remaining concern about limited range remains an obstacle. In the $35k range, the target market would be viewing the vehicle as a primary car, rather than with the Model S being one to use around town, while also having a gasoline/diesel vehicle in the garage for longer trips.
 
Here's The Real Reason Tesla Makes No Money

'But, if Tesla is truly the lean manufacturing powerhouse that it purports itself to be then we do wonder why it continues to burn through ~$600 million of cash every single quarter, or roughly $30,000 for every car that it sells?



It's because in this temple of lean manufacturing, Tesla uses far more workers than NUMMI employed to build far fewer cars. In 1985, its first full year of production, NUMMI had 2,470 employees and produced 64,764 vehicles — about 26 vehicles per worker per year. By 1997, it had 4,844 ? workers and produced 357,809 vehicles — about 74 vehicles per worker per year.

Tesla, on the other hand, had between 6,000 and 10,000 workers in 2016 and manufactured 83,922 vehicles. That puts its vehicle-per-worker number between 8 and 14, about one-seventh the efficiency of NUMMI at its peak.'

Here's The Real Reason Tesla Makes No Money | Zero Hedge


I have said for years that Tesla is a joke and that it is doomed to failure.

They make great vehicles - but they lose huge amounts of money on each one they build.

Unless the government steps in or oil goes to $200+ a barrel...Tesla will eventually fail.
 
Crovax said:
It still way more expensive than a gas car. $35,000 gets you the base model, while a very fuel efficient gas car of the same type starts at $16,000. The only reason to buy an electric car is to show off how hip and progressive you are
Click to expand...

Hmm. I would have thought for sure that GM with their Volt would have had more aggressive pricing, being they've been in the car business for eons.

2017 Chevrolet Volt
Compact car

8.5/10U.S. News Best Cars - US News & World Report4/5Car and Driver9/10Kelley Blue Book

Range: 53 mi battery-only, 420 mi total

MSRP: From $33,220

Battery charge time: 13h at 110V, 4.5h at 220V

Battery: 18.4 kWh 300 V lithium-ion

Fuel tank capacity: 8.9 gal

Configurations

LT $33,220


Premier $37,570

Well, not so. Right in the same ballpark as the Tessla (yes, I know, not a true apples to apples, but just comparison window shopping I guess).

Cost of the batteries perhaps?

From what I've heard reported, the environmental pollution caused by the necessary mining and refining to make the batteries that in total, the electric car ends up being dirtier than gas fueled cars.
 
eohrnberger said:
Hmm. I would have thought for sure that GM with their Volt would have had more aggressive pricing, being they've been in the car business for eons.

2017 Chevrolet Volt
Compact car

8.5/10U.S. News Best Cars - US News & World Report4/5Car and Driver9/10Kelley Blue Book

Range: 53 mi battery-only, 420 mi total

MSRP: From $33,220

Battery charge time: 13h at 110V, 4.5h at 220V

Battery: 18.4 kWh 300 V lithium-ion

Fuel tank capacity: 8.9 gal

Configurations

LT $33,220


Premier $37,570

Well, not so. Right in the same ballpark as the Tessla (yes, I know, not a true apples to apples, but just comparison window shopping I guess).

Cost of the batteries perhaps?

From what I've heard reported, the environmental pollution caused by the necessary mining and refining to make the batteries that in total, the electric car ends up being dirtier than gas fueled cars.
Click to expand...

Well, the Volt is a hybrid. The true comparison would be the Bolt...which I believe is cheaper than the Volt.

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/chevrolet-bolt-range-epa-rating/

The rumour is that GM loses roughly $7-9,000 per Bolt. If true, it is obvious to me that the Bolt is nothing but a Tesla killer. ANd several other manufacturers will be coming out with EV's with long range in the next few years apparently.
I think the auto big boys were okay with Tesla so long as they stuck with low volume, expensive cars.
But as soon as they stated they would be going into the high volume, $30G territory - the big boys said 'enough of this'.

Since Tesla clearly is losing a PILE of money on each car it sells...it is only a matter of time before they go belly up. The stock price can only keep skyrocketing for so long (which is providing Tesla with much of it's income).
If they are losing money on very high priced, luxury cars - there is no way they will make money with much cheaper ones...no matter how many they build.
Tesla is eventually doomed barring something completely out of left field happening.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Well, the Volt is a hybrid. The true comparison would be the Bolt...which I believe is cheaper than the Volt.

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/chevrolet-bolt-range-epa-rating/

The rumour is that GM loses roughly $7-9,000 per Bolt. If true, it is obvious to me that the Bolt is nothing but a Tesla killer. ANd several other manufacturers will be coming out with EV's with long range in the next few years apparently.
I think the auto big boys were okay with Tesla so long as they stuck with low volume, expensive cars.
But as soon as they stated they would be going into the high volume, $30G territory - the big boys said 'enough of this'.

Since Tesla clearly is losing a PILE of money on each car it sells...it is only a matter of time before they go belly up. The stock price can only keep skyrocketing for so long (which is providing Tesla with much of it's income).
If they are losing money on very high priced, luxury cars - there is no way they will make money with much cheaper ones...no matter how many they build.
Tesla is eventually doomed barring something completely out of left field happening.
Click to expand...
True. That.

First Fiskar.
Then Tessla?

Not booking like a strong run.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
DA60 said:
I don't think it is range that is the issue...but price.

The base model Tesla S gets 240 miles on a single charge...which is fine. But it starts at $70 grand.

It does not matter if the S got 1,000 miles on a single charge...if it still costs $70K, it is still almost strictly for the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Except for liking the idea of a Tesla, I would buy something like a Hellcat if I had that much money to blow.

We shouldn't forget that Denmark probably has a huge import tax that he waved initially as well.
 
Just looked it up. I was right...

Denmark didn't apply the 180% import tax when sales were good. They recently reapplied that tax. A $60k imported car now costs the consumers there another $108k in tax, for a total of $168k. They probably have other ungodly fees for a new vehicle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom