[N & M]

Nothing worse than pioneering an idea to lose momentum behind it and see your initiative be stolen by others.

Sony used to do this Philips back in the day. BMW don't turn into Kodak please.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by N & M

Nothing worse than pioneering an idea to lose momentum behind it and see your initiative be stolen by others.

Alas, this doesn't apply to anything BMW has produced since mid-80s...
Even i-cars were a late tepid response to Tesla, yet not daring to directly compete with Model S...

They still make good enough cars for us to buy, but these days, so do plenty of other sub-brands (AMG, S's, Jag Type-R, Lexus, ATS, etc).

Originally Posted by X3paul

I will keep my i3 (2017 september delivery in Munchen hopefully) as a reminder of better days.

Nope - BMW "i" cars are not eligible for ED.
Germany, and much of Europe, lag pathetically behind in EV charging infrastructure. You wont make it very far from Munich in an EV.


Same will likely hold for iNext, or iWhenever, or iOopsTooLate...

a

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by adc

Beauty is subjective. I find the i3 not offensive or even cute in an utilitarian kind of way. That's not what stopped me from taking the $150 per month lease from my dealer, it's the limited range. It simply doesn't work for my needs and lifestyle.

You can get one with a gasoline engine.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

You can get one with a gasoline engine.

I have one of those, but would not recommend it to anyone who actually needs to rely to that extra scooter engine range on regular basis.

Even when coded to full 2.5G capacity (BMW restricts it to 1.9G for US market), it still only gets you ~55 extra miles at highway speeds (~80 miles on back roads - i3 consumption sky-rockets on the highway).

Then, you either run out of gas and there are gas stations conveniently spaced 45 minutes /55 miles apart ... or you stop even sooner and more frequently ... or you carry a 2.5G spare gas canister with you.

None of the above alternatives are either convenient or desirable. And REX is unpleasantly noisy when it kicks in.
As a one-off "emergency range extender", or insurance to max out full battery range, it works well. Beyond that, it's not very practical.

a

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by afadeev

I have one of those, but would not recommend it to anyone who actually needs to rely to that extra scooter engine range on regular basis.

Even when coded to full 2.5G capacity (BMW restricts it to 1.9G for US market), it still only gets you ~55 extra miles at highway speeds (~80 miles on back roads - i3 consumption sky-rockets on the highway).

Then, you either run out of gas and there are gas stations conveniently spaced 45 minutes /55 miles apart ... or you stop even sooner and more frequently ... or you carry a 2.5G spare gas canister with you. And it's unpleasantly noisy when it kicks in.

None of the above alternatives are either convenient or desirable.
As a one-off "emergency range extender", or insurance to max out full battery range, it works well. Beyond that, it's not very practical.

a

Ah so it's strictly meant for the city then.

[clbmw]

Originally Posted by gtron

Why do they have to put "i" in front of everything? Oh yea.... iPhone. My bad, everybody! My bad.

I think you mean iBad yes?

[clbmw]

2021 is a long way off

If I were BMW I would very quickly bring to market a 3 series size EV and call it the i3 and renamed the existing car an i1city. Makes no sense having i3 and 3 series worlds apart.

I'd also focus hard on making several much faster versions of the i8 with proper engines in. If it's a problem calling it an i8 call it i10v8 whatever. The i8 is beautiful but I can think of 10 cars I'd buy before an i8 in that category, despite none of them as pretty.

iNext is a pants name IMO. Stick to numbers call it the i7

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by clbmw

If I were BMW I would very quickly bring to market a 3 series size EV

Alas, they can't.
In the worst possible way.

BMW hasn't invested into lithium-ion battery supply chain, like Tesla did (doubling world's existing capacity for batteries, no less!), so they have to rely on Samsung's (or LG's, or Panasonic's) largess to provide adequate supply of batteries for mass production cars. Which they can't.

Instead, BMW invested and committed to CF shell design, which works well for cross-pollination across entire BMW car range (lighter components for future M3, 7-series, etc), but is relatively expensive.

So now it has cool, but expensive, CF body on aluminum rails. That works well for small runs, but not mass production.
They rely on suppliers for batteries, which works well for small experiments, but not mass production.

And they have Tesla Model 3 and Chevy Bolt, that are moving the EV price point into mid-30K range, where BMW can't compete and remain profitable.

Originally Posted by clbmw

I'd also focus hard on making several much faster versions of the i8 with proper engines in. If it's a problem calling it an i8 call it i10v8 whatever. The i8 is beautiful but I can think of 10 cars I'd buy before an i8 in that category, despite none of them as pretty.

Yep.
"i" brand should not be just pretty and environmentally friendly
It should have the same sports DNA as the rest of BMW!

Give us i3-s, and i8-s (with S55 engine, instead of whatever MINI engine is in there).
If you can't make them cheap, make them awesome!

a

[Teutonic]

mmm.... Tesla Who?

[antzcrashing]

A 7 series? Looks like the commonfolk are going to have to wait until 2030 to get something for them (i5 as promised a decade ago)

[louielouie]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Through math? If it cost $2 billion to develop the Veyron and you sell each one for $1.7mm, you'd need to sell 1,176 Veyrons to break even. This doesn't even include the fixed and variable costs nor does it include overhead (cost of the workers who actually build the car, cost of the facility, etc).

In truth no one really knows if Bugatti loses money on every car it sells, most estimates are calculated by third party analysts, not until you get info from first party analysts (which will likely never happen) we'll never know. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost money on each car sold.




That's not true.

Now if I recall correctly, your "reputable financial analyst" were actually the guys who wrote this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...0QE0DC20150809

So it's actually two people claiming they lose $4,000 on every car sold. These two individuals are actually idiots. The Model S has a profit margin of around 25%, which is fucking INSANE for a car company (average is single digits). So they make money on every Model S, why those two writers are dipshits is how they got to their metric. They took 100% of of their operational cost and spread it evenly amongst all the cars sold.

This is mindnumbingly retarded, because the metric implies that Tesla has an unsustainable business model, which isn't true. Most of their losses and cash burn comes from their aggressive expansion. Factory expansion and what not are extremely expensive but must be done if you're going from building one model car to three. The $4,000 loss per car sold doesn't control for investment spending meant to drive revenue growth in the future. The old adage "you gotta spend money to make money" applies here.

Let's say you want to open your own brick and mortar store to sell bikes. You take a $250,000 loan to get yourself started and open your first store. After one year you had $500,000 in revenue and from that, had $50,000 in profit. However since you borrowed and spent $250,000, you lost $200,000 (for the sake of simplicity, let's ignore amortization and depreciation).

Would I say for every bike you sell you lose money? Nope, but those two retards would.

I am curious where this single digit GM expectation is coming from? It is pretty standard for cogs to be 80%~ of revenue in a financially sound company.

[N & M]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Alas, this doesn't apply to anything BMW has produced since mid-80s...
Even i-cars were a late tepid response to Tesla, yet not daring to directly compete with Model S...

They still make good enough cars for us to buy, but these days, so do plenty of other sub-brands (AMG, S's, Jag Type-R, Lexus, ATS, etc).



Nope - BMW "i" cars are not eligible for ED.
Germany, and much of Europe, lag pathetically behind in EV charging infrastructure. You wont make it very far from Munich in an EV.


Same will likely hold for iNext, or iWhenever, or iOopsTooLate...

a

Alas, you have missed many great things my dear fellow. BMW has given the automotive world many inspirations and firsts. Relevent to the topic was the i3 and i8; both of which showed innovation and lifted the bar of standards.

My concern is that they have developed niche products of outstanding concept and ignored commercialy viable segments where they could have had a bigger return on their investment and now as thier competition respond they are late to arrive at the very destination they pointed to when they conceived of i.

[atg4]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Through math? If it cost $2 billion to develop the Veyron and you sell each one for $1.7mm, you'd need to sell 1,176 Veyrons to break even. This doesn't even include the fixed and variable costs nor does it include overhead (cost of the workers who actually build the car, cost of the facility, etc).

In truth no one really knows if Bugatti loses money on every car it sells, most estimates are calculated by third party analysts, not until you get info from first party analysts (which will likely never happen) we'll never know. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they lost money on each car sold.




That's not true.

Now if I recall correctly, your "reputable financial analyst" were actually the guys who wrote this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-te...0QE0DC20150809

So it's actually two people claiming they lose $4,000 on every car sold. These two individuals are actually idiots. The Model S has a profit margin of around 25%, which is fucking INSANE for a car company (average is single digits). So they make money on every Model S, why those two writers are dipshits is how they got to their metric. They took 100% of of their operational cost and spread it evenly amongst all the cars sold.

This is mindnumbingly retarded, because the metric implies that Tesla has an unsustainable business model, which isn't true. Most of their losses and cash burn comes from their aggressive expansion. Factory expansion and what not are extremely expensive but must be done if you're going from building one model car to three. The $4,000 loss per car sold doesn't control for investment spending meant to drive revenue growth in the future. The old adage "you gotta spend money to make money" applies here.

Let's say you want to open your own brick and mortar store to sell bikes. You take a $250,000 loan to get yourself started and open your first store. After one year you had $500,000 in revenue and from that, had $50,000 in profit. However since you borrowed and spent $250,000, you lost $200,000 (for the sake of simplicity, let's ignore amortization and depreciation).

Would I say for every bike you sell you lose money? Nope, but those two retards would.

There's a couple points missed here. Bugatti is a halo company for VW. Bugatti's losses can be covered by the bigger parent company. This sort of profit/loss sharing is common in large umbrella corporations.

In regards to Tesla losing money are cars sold, those figures are typically also based on the fact that Tesla took a ton of government subsidies and the fact that Elon has been reporting lower ROI to investors quarter over quarter. The Tesla business model is an interesting one as nobody is pointing out that this company is essentially a "Crowd funded" company. The model 3 took $1000 deposits from over 400,000 people. That money, sitting in a hedge fund with even a mediocre manager will make buckets of interest and he promised the car in 8 quarters. So much free money. Genius.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by N & M

Alas, you have missed many great things my dear fellow. BMW has given the automotive world many inspirations and firsts. Relevent to the topic was the i3 and i8; both of which showed innovation and lifted the bar of standards.

I'm not entirely sure what "standards" BMW may have lifted with i3 and i8: design? quality? EV innovation? hybrid innovation? semi-affordable CF shells?

I would agree on the last count (and skip the others), alas, i-series CF frame on aluminum rails production approach doesn't scale for mass production runs, nor allow BMW to leap ahead of the competition in either EV or hybrid space.
More here:

Originally Posted by alexandertg21

In regards to Tesla losing money are cars sold, those figures are typically also based on the fact that Tesla took a ton of government subsidies

I see the above claim repeated religiously, but never substantiated with data. Only hearsay.

Tesla has always had positive gross profit margins, as reported in 10Q's.
Last quarter (ending 3/31/16), it was 22% positive.
For comparison, GM's was 12.8%, Ford's 17.9%, Diamler's 19.8%, BMW's 18.9%.

All of the above must be loosing money on cars sold, following your logic?

On the subsidies - pray tell me, that you realize that every S&P500 company is buying political favors and milking the tax code for all it worth, right?

Originally Posted by alexandertg21

The Tesla business model is an interesting one as nobody is pointing out that this company is essentially a "Crowd funded" company.

Really?
I though TSLA was a publicly (NASDAQ) listed and traded company, but do continue...

Originally Posted by alexandertg21

The model 3 took $1000 deposits from over 400,000 people. That money, sitting in a hedge fund with even a mediocre manager will make buckets of interest and he promised the car in 8 quarters. So much free money. Genius.

You think $400 Mil makes or brakes a $~30 Bil public company?
Really?

s

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by louielouie

I am curious where this single digit GM expectation is coming from? It is pretty standard for cogs to be 80%~ of revenue in a financially sound company.

Turns out I was mistaken. For some reason I thought they were at around 9% but they're actually 11%-12% so I stand corrected, should've verified that before I typed it.

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by afadeev

Tesla has always had positive gross profit margins, as reported in 10Q's.
Last quarter (ending 3/31/16), it was 22% positive.
For comparison, GM's was 12.8%, Ford's 17.9%, Diamler's 19.8%, BMW's 18.9%.

All of the above must be loosing money on cars sold, following your logic?

-------------

Really?
I though TSLA was a publicly (NASDAQ) listed and traded company, but do continue...

-------------

You think $400 Mil makes or brakes a $~30 Bil public company?
Really?

Have to look at the special accounting. Tesla needs to shave another 30% on battery manufacturing costs.

-------------

Yes it's public and uses "Crowd Sourcing" to raise cash without issuing more stock. It's a risky maneuver that the market sees and investors don't like.

-------------

Yes it can actually. Especially when these liabilities account for more than half of the cash/cash equivalents on hand, and still more significant capital injection is needed.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by miamiten

Have to look at the special accounting.

What special accounting are you talking about?
Cite source, and data points, if you have them.

Originally Posted by miamiten

Tesla needs to shave another 30% on battery manufacturing costs.

It does not need to shave anything.

Tesla figured out that it could lower battery cost by building its own lithium-ion batteries. So they are investing into the Gigafactory to double world's supply of lithium-ion batteries.

Balsy, smart, and just about the only way to secure enough batteries to hit mass production volumes!

Originally Posted by miamiten

Yes it's public and uses "Crowd Sourcing" to raise cash without issuing more stock. It's a risky maneuver that the market sees and investors don't like.

So, following this logic - me putting down $1K deposit on an M3 7 months in advance of delivery was ... me "crowd sourcing" BMW, right?


Actually, the phrase you are looking for is "crowd funding", but it's inapplicable as well.

I'm giving up correcting the remainder of the drivel...

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by afadeev

What special accounting are you talking about?
Cite source, and data points, if you have them.

------------------

It does not need to shave anything.

Tesla figured out that it could lower battery cost by building its own lithium-ion batteries. So they are investing into the Gigafactory to double world's supply of lithium-ion batteries.

Balsy, smart, and just about the only way to secure enough batteries to hit mass production volumes!

-------------------

So, following this logic - me putting down $1K deposit on an M3 7 months in advance of delivery was ... me "crowd sourcing" BMW, right?


Actually, the phrase you are looking for is "crowd funding", but it's inapplicable as well.

I'm giving up correcting the remainder of the drivel...

There are plenty of well respected analysts that explain, in detail, Tesla's use of GAAP vs Non-GAAP Accounting and how it impacts the earnings reports. Tesla's financial structure is totally different from every other Auto Manufacturer. These analysts also address the Deferred Lease Revenue and Costs, and deferred buy back liabilities. Roughly calculated without including warranty costs (realized or estimated), no CapEx, adjusted gross per car is less than $800 per unit delivered. I'm not going to spend more time than that on it since warranty claims will have eaten that minuscule amount away almost immediately.

------------

Yes the Giga-Factory will reduce the manufacturing costs...eventually. They're almost down to a point of break even on a per unit basis already, but not quite there yet without the use of GAAP/non-GAAP. It isn't a guarantee to success though. They're taking all the risk and other companies using partnerships may end up at a lower unit cost.

-------------

No, the deposit on your M3 was with a dealership to order a car. That money is placed in a dealer Escrow account to be applied at the time of contractual delivery. The Model 3 Pre-Reservation, is a non-binding option to possibly obtain a future purchase option. It's not an order, or a pre-order. It's buying a potential order position. The reservation agreement is with d/b/a Tesla Motor Cars (Florida Fictitious Name). The Model S and Model X reservations, which are also Florida Contracts, are between the consumer and Tesla Motors Inc/Tesla Motors of South Florida Inc. and include Exercisable Purchase Options. A Florida d/b/a was chosen for a reason with regards to the Model 3 pre-reservation-reservation. I'm 99% confident as to why, but I will not discuss it specifically as I have no interest in violating my NDA.

Musk has even stated himself that non-traditional methods of raising operating cash are necessary (they aren't necessary by any means), will continue, and accompany other more traditional methods. Tesla needs a huge amount of cash to run already. Upping production 10x's in the next 18 months is going to require even more.

[afadeev]

Originally Posted by miamiten

There are plenty of well respected analysts that explain, in detail,

Cite your sources.
If you can't site them, please quit muppeting.

Originally Posted by miamiten

Tesla's use of GAAP vs Non-GAAP Accounting and how it impacts the earnings reports.

You can't report non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) numbers in 10Qs and 10Ks.

Company can, and some do, report additional non-GAAP EPS #s, but that's not what we are discussing here.

Originally Posted by miamiten

Tesla's financial structure is totally different from every other Auto Manufacturer.

Not really.
Just another publicly traded company funded by a mix of debt and shareholder equity.


When it needs more capital for new NPV positive projects (e.g.: Gigafactory, Model 3), it issues a bit more of both:
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla...w-stock-2016-5

Tesla just announced $1.4 bill equity offering, and you argued Model 3 deposits were a big deal...


a

[matbl]

2021 for a flag ship model?
So a mass market model when? 2030?

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by matbl

2021 for a flag ship model?
So a mass market model when? 2030?

No 2021. But the first purely conceptual model rolls out in Frankfurt next September 2017.

[matbl]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

No 2021. But the first purely conceptual model rolls out in Frankfurt next September 2017.

With mass market I meant something like a 325i in price, fully electric (no hybrid) with 500+ NEDC range (which means 350+ km real world) and capable of fast charging at at least 100-120 kW (sustained).
Is that for 2021 from bmw? Where can I pre-order?

Or did you mean something priced like a 7-series in 2021?
In that case, meh, next please.