replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.


--


--
posted from
http://www.polytechforum.com/metalwo...es-577784-.htm
using PolytechForum's Web, RSS and Social Media Interface to
rec.crafts.metalworking and other engineering groups

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:18:02 +0000, passerby
wrote:

replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

Eisenstein, the reporter of that article Jon quoted, just says
"industry analysts say." Although Eisenstein knows what he's talking
about, you can do the accounting on this kind of thing in a variety of
ways.

In this case, the "analysts" appear to be Sandy Munro, who was quoted
in a Reuters article from which Eisenstein likely got his "analyst"
quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88904J20120910

You can't do accounting that way and get a result that makes any
sense. It's good for producing a corporate balance sheet or P&L, but
it doesn't tell you anything about the cost of manufacturing a car.

Bob Lutz says the story is nonsense:

"The statement that GM “loses” over $40K per Volt is preposterous.
What the “analyst” in whom poor Ben Klayman [one of the authors of the
Reuter's piece] placed his faith has done is to divide the total
development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced
thus far. That’s like saying that a real estate company that puts up a
$10 million building and has rental income of one million the first
year is “losing” 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per
renter."

GM also released a statement saying something close to that, but it's
corporate PR, so take it with a grain of salt.

Doing accounting in the car business is difficult, especially for a
new type of vehicle that encountered huge research and development
costs. The only reliable thing you can work with is the marginal cost
of building the last car, or the next one -- they should be the same.
I'm sure that Lutz is well aware of that marginal cost.

Then you have to decide how you're going to amortize the R&D. And that
could be something you do over years for tax and stockholder purposes,
or a decade or more if you're doing corporate planning.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:18:02 +0000, passerby
wrote:

replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

Eisenstein, the reporter of that article Jon quoted, just says
"industry analysts say." Although Eisenstein knows what he's talking
about, you can do the accounting on this kind of thing in a variety of
ways.

In this case, the "analysts" appear to be Sandy Munro, who was quoted
in a Reuters article from which Eisenstein likely got his "analyst"
quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88904J20120910

You can't do accounting that way and get a result that makes any
sense. It's good for producing a corporate balance sheet or P&L, but
it doesn't tell you anything about the cost of manufacturing a car.

Bob Lutz says the story is nonsense:

"The statement that GM "loses" over $40K per Volt is preposterous.
What the "analyst" in whom poor Ben Klayman [one of the authors of the
Reuter's piece] placed his faith has done is to divide the total
development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced
thus far. That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a
$10 million building and has rental income of one million the first
year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per
renter."

Good point. What a lot of bull****.


GM also released a statement saying something close to that, but it's
corporate PR, so take it with a grain of salt.

Doing accounting in the car business is difficult, especially for a
new type of vehicle that encountered huge research and development
costs. The only reliable thing you can work with is the marginal cost
of building the last car, or the next one -- they should be the same.
I'm sure that Lutz is well aware of that marginal cost.

Then you have to decide how you're going to amortize the R&D. And that
could be something you do over years for tax and stockholder purposes,
or a decade or more if you're doing corporate planning.

Economics: the mystery science, where perpetual motion is allowed.
Economics gives mathematics a bad name.
Hey, why bother with fukn math, when you can just handwave??

Economics is little more than game theory with a generous sprinkling of The
Mind****, where one side can read the cards of the other side, but the side
getting their cards read don't know it. Cuz, well, they're too busy
getting mind****ed, and, well, too busy ****ing each other -- crabs in a
barrel, donchaknow.

Still, even with one-sided game theory, you still gotta have players. GM
somehow lost their players. Cuz, well, even mind****ed assholes getting
their cards read have enough functioning brain cells to know enough to buy a
Prius, which is 1/2 the price of a Volt, and gets 20-30% better overall gas
mileage.

All Hail the AngstMobile:
A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send **** to
them unless you have a twitter account?? WTF????
--
EA




--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 13, 9:38*am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...









On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:18:02 +0000, passerby
wrote:

replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer *wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

Eisenstein, the reporter of that article Jon quoted, just says
"industry analysts say." Although Eisenstein knows what he's talking
about, you can do the accounting on this kind of thing in a variety of
ways.

In this case, the "analysts" appear to be Sandy Munro, who was quoted
in a Reuters article from which Eisenstein likely got his "analyst"
quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...ors-autos-volt...

You can't do accounting that way and get a result that makes any
sense. It's good for producing a corporate balance sheet or P&L, but
it doesn't tell you anything about the cost of manufacturing a car.

Bob Lutz says the story is nonsense:

"The statement that GM "loses" over $40K per Volt is preposterous.
What the "analyst" in whom poor Ben Klayman [one of the authors of the
Reuter's piece] placed his faith has done is to divide the total
development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced
thus far. That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a
$10 million building and has rental income of one million the first
year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per
renter."

Good point. *What a lot of bull****.



GM also released a statement saying something close to that, but it's
corporate PR, so take it with a grain of salt.

Doing accounting in the car business is difficult, especially for a
new type of vehicle that encountered huge research and development
costs. The only reliable thing you can work with is the marginal cost
of building the last car, or the next one -- they should be the same.
I'm sure that Lutz is well aware of that marginal cost.

Then you have to decide how you're going to amortize the R&D. And that
could be something you do over years for tax and stockholder purposes,
or a decade or more if you're doing corporate planning.

Economics: *the mystery science, where perpetual motion is allowed.
Economics gives mathematics a bad name.
Hey, why bother with fukn math, when you can just handwave??

Economics is little more than game theory with a generous sprinkling of The
Mind****, where one side can read the cards of the other side, but the side
getting their cards read don't know it. * Cuz, well, they're too busy
getting mind****ed, and, well, too busy ****ing each other -- crabs in a
barrel, donchaknow.

Still, even with one-sided game theory, you still gotta have players. *GM
somehow lost their players. *Cuz, well, even mind****ed assholes getting
their cards read have enough functioning brain cells to know enough to buy a
Prius, which is 1/2 the price of a Volt, and gets 20-30% better overall gas
mileage.

All Hail the AngstMobile:
* *A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send **** to
them unless you have a twitter account?? *WTF????
--
EA


Either get a Twitter account and learn to use LinkedIn or be left far
behind. Not doing so is already limiting the amount of CADCAM
information you need.

There is a reason many people here like "slow Eddy" and KiddingNoOne
are stuck on Usenet.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:38:19 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:18:02 +0000, passerby
wrote:

replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

Eisenstein, the reporter of that article Jon quoted, just says
"industry analysts say." Although Eisenstein knows what he's talking
about, you can do the accounting on this kind of thing in a variety of
ways.

In this case, the "analysts" appear to be Sandy Munro, who was quoted
in a Reuters article from which Eisenstein likely got his "analyst"
quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88904J20120910

You can't do accounting that way and get a result that makes any
sense. It's good for producing a corporate balance sheet or P&L, but
it doesn't tell you anything about the cost of manufacturing a car.

Bob Lutz says the story is nonsense:

"The statement that GM "loses" over $40K per Volt is preposterous.
What the "analyst" in whom poor Ben Klayman [one of the authors of the
Reuter's piece] placed his faith has done is to divide the total
development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced
thus far. That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a
$10 million building and has rental income of one million the first
year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per
renter."

Good point. What a lot of bull****.


GM also released a statement saying something close to that, but it's
corporate PR, so take it with a grain of salt.

Doing accounting in the car business is difficult, especially for a
new type of vehicle that encountered huge research and development
costs. The only reliable thing you can work with is the marginal cost
of building the last car, or the next one -- they should be the same.
I'm sure that Lutz is well aware of that marginal cost.

Then you have to decide how you're going to amortize the R&D. And that
could be something you do over years for tax and stockholder purposes,
or a decade or more if you're doing corporate planning.

Economics: the mystery science, where perpetual motion is allowed.
Economics gives mathematics a bad name.
Hey, why bother with fukn math, when you can just handwave??

Economics is little more than game theory with a generous sprinkling of The
Mind****, where one side can read the cards of the other side, but the side
getting their cards read don't know it. Cuz, well, they're too busy
getting mind****ed, and, well, too busy ****ing each other -- crabs in a
barrel, donchaknow.

Still, even with one-sided game theory, you still gotta have players. GM
somehow lost their players. Cuz, well, even mind****ed assholes getting
their cards read have enough functioning brain cells to know enough to buy a
Prius, which is 1/2 the price of a Volt, and gets 20-30% better overall gas
mileage.

You're looking at the wrong market segment. That isn't where GM is
with the Volt.

Neither are they in the Tesla S segment, where a typical model costs
$100,000 (with 300-mile battery pack and other options -- they've
dropped the low-end version recently) and weighs a half-ton more than
a Volt. It's nearly 2-1/2 tons. Jesus. And they're selling more than
they planned for.

As I said, the Volt, in terms of price-point and market segment, is
between a rock and a hard place. They've got to change something, but
it isn't clear what. Going downmarket may look attractive in the short
run but it sounds like they could wind up identified with a category
they don't want to be in.


All Hail the AngstMobile:
A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send **** to
them unless you have a twitter account?? WTF????

I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your idea, when you reach them.
d8-)

Why don't you just start building aftermarket trailers with packaged
gensets, and sell them to existing Leaf owners? BTW, the Leaf's sales
are sucking wind, too. 'You know where their biggest market share is?
In Norway. You could offer a trailer option on skis...

Maybe they think it's named after that Ericson guy. g

--
Ed Huntress

http://green.autoblog.com/2013/05/16...t-25000-in-us/

"We'll forgive Nissan for gloating a bit, now that the Japanese
automaker has surpassed the 25,000- sales threshold for the Leaf EV in
the US.

Coming off two of its best months domestically, the all-electric Leaf
has complemented its sales on the West Coast with more recent demand
increases in markets such as Atlanta, Dallas and Chicago. All told,
Nissan, which recently started producing US Leafs at its Tennessee
plant, has sold 62,000 Leafs globally.

With production moving stateside, Nissan was able to cut the price of
the 2013 Leaf by $6,400 to a base of $28,800, and that's before the
$7,500 federal tax credit kicks in. Through April, Nissan more than
doubled year-earlier Leaf sales to 5,476 units. And the model recently
received an additional boost when the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) confirmed its new fuel economy rating for the Leaf at 115
miles per gallon equivalent, up from 99 MPGe."


http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...ales-jolt.html

"Nissan is getting a lot of mileage out of its decision to move
production of the 2013 Leaf to the U.S. from Japan — not just in terms
of fuel economy improvements but in sales figures as well. The EPA has
given the electric vehicle's 2013 version a 16-mpg bump in its mileage
ratings thanks to enhancements made following the move stateside.
Meanwhile, a price reduction helped propel the Leaf to its best sales
month ever in March, bringing total U.S. sales to 25,000 since the car
debuted.

The EPA now rates the Leaf at 129/102/115 MPGe city/highway/combined
compared with its previous rating of 106/92/99; that amounts to a
combined-mileage increase of 16 mpg. According to Left Lane News, a
more aerodynamic front fascia and a 129-pound weight savings thanks to
a new charging unit made the mileage boost possible.

The move from Japan also assisted in the sales increase by allowing
Nissan to lower the price. Kicking Tires reported earlier this year
that the automaker in part made the move to avoid currency
fluctuations that wreaked havoc on Leaf pricing for 2011 and 2012
models imported from Japan. Nissan subsequently introduced a new base
model, the Leaf S, and reduced the starting price by $6,400. The
result has been a more than 423% year-over-year sales increase, taking
the Leaf past the 25,000 milestone and reinforcing its position as the
best-selling EV in the world, according to Nissan.

"With more than 25,000 Leafs in the U.S. and 62,000 around the world,
we're seeing the adoption curve for EVs accelerate," Erik Gottfried,
Nissan director of EV marketing and sales, said in a statement. "And
there is tremendous interest not only on the West Coast but in a
number of new strongholds like Atlanta, Raleigh, Denver, Dallas,
Chicago, St. Louis and many more."

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:38:19 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

All Hail the AngstMobile:
A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send **** to
them unless you have a twitter account?? WTF????

I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your idea, when you reach them.
d8-)

Why don't you just start building aftermarket trailers with packaged
gensets, and sell them to existing Leaf owners?

Yeah, he could have done that in less time than he's wasted here. But
build something rather than obsess about others being too stupid to
build what he wants? LOL What are you going to suggest next, that
Bonkers get a job doing CAD CAM?

Ironic math: 3300 pound Leaf + 400 pound genset trailer = how much
more than 2000 pounds?

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:38:19 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

All Hail the AngstMobile:
A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send ****
to
them unless you have a twitter account?? WTF????

I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your idea, when you reach them.
d8-)

Why don't you just start building aftermarket trailers with packaged
gensets, and sell them to existing Leaf owners?

Yeah, he could have done that in less time than he's wasted here. But
build something rather than obsess about others being too stupid to
build what he wants? LOL

You are such a strawman meet-me-in-the-parking-lot dumb****.


What are you going to suggest next, that
Bonkers get a job doing CAD CAM?

Ironic math: 3300 pound Leaf + 400 pound genset trailer = how much
more than 2000 pounds?

No, 30# roof rack. Pay attention, please..
--
EA

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:38:19 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:18:02 +0000, passerby
wrote:

replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K
more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not
take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota
started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

Eisenstein, the reporter of that article Jon quoted, just says
"industry analysts say." Although Eisenstein knows what he's talking
about, you can do the accounting on this kind of thing in a variety of
ways.

In this case, the "analysts" appear to be Sandy Munro, who was quoted
in a Reuters article from which Eisenstein likely got his "analyst"
quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88904J20120910

You can't do accounting that way and get a result that makes any
sense. It's good for producing a corporate balance sheet or P&L, but
it doesn't tell you anything about the cost of manufacturing a car.

Bob Lutz says the story is nonsense:

"The statement that GM "loses" over $40K per Volt is preposterous.
What the "analyst" in whom poor Ben Klayman [one of the authors of the
Reuter's piece] placed his faith has done is to divide the total
development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced
thus far. That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a
$10 million building and has rental income of one million the first
year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per
renter."

Good point. What a lot of bull****.


GM also released a statement saying something close to that, but it's
corporate PR, so take it with a grain of salt.

Doing accounting in the car business is difficult, especially for a
new type of vehicle that encountered huge research and development
costs. The only reliable thing you can work with is the marginal cost
of building the last car, or the next one -- they should be the same.
I'm sure that Lutz is well aware of that marginal cost.

Then you have to decide how you're going to amortize the R&D. And that
could be something you do over years for tax and stockholder purposes,
or a decade or more if you're doing corporate planning.

Economics: the mystery science, where perpetual motion is allowed.
Economics gives mathematics a bad name.
Hey, why bother with fukn math, when you can just handwave??

Economics is little more than game theory with a generous sprinkling of
The
Mind****, where one side can read the cards of the other side, but the
side
getting their cards read don't know it. Cuz, well, they're too busy
getting mind****ed, and, well, too busy ****ing each other -- crabs in a
barrel, donchaknow.

Still, even with one-sided game theory, you still gotta have players. GM
somehow lost their players. Cuz, well, even mind****ed assholes getting
their cards read have enough functioning brain cells to know enough to buy
a
Prius, which is 1/2 the price of a Volt, and gets 20-30% better overall
gas
mileage.

You're looking at the wrong market segment. That isn't where GM is
with the Volt.

Neither are they in the Tesla S segment, where a typical model costs
$100,000 (with 300-mile battery pack and other options -- they've
dropped the low-end version recently) and weighs a half-ton more than
a Volt. It's nearly 2-1/2 tons. Jesus. And they're selling more than
they planned for.

As I said, the Volt, in terms of price-point and market segment, is
between a rock and a hard place. They've got to change something, but
it isn't clear what. Going downmarket may look attractive in the short
run but it sounds like they could wind up identified with a category
they don't want to be in.

When you buy a car to save effing gas, it's a reasonable expectation to save
money, as well.
I think the dichotomy/irony of the Volt is a bit hard for most people to
swallow.
But not for Kidding, who can apparently swallow anything.

Toyoter don't have that dichotomous fence to jump.
Neither will a properly-strategized AngstMobile.

And yer right, Tesla has a whole nother mind**** going, and they did it
right, as you astutely observed, with the Roadster.
High-priced high performance (decent range) stuff for assholes *already*
willing to spend gobs of money for that stuff..
So really, this is just the same ole same ole conspicuous consumption, but
greener and on the flipside.
By assholes just like Kidding, except more successful.



All Hail the AngstMobile:
A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send **** to
them unless you have a twitter account?? WTF????

I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your idea, when you reach them.
d8-)

I wonder what my cut is going to be..... LOL
Fuuuuck, they could at least send me a free car....


Why don't you just start building aftermarket trailers with packaged
gensets, and sell them to existing Leaf owners? BTW, the Leaf's sales
are sucking wind, too. 'You know where their biggest market share is?
In Norway. You could offer a trailer option on skis...

That's silly. Roof rack, roof rack. With a swing-arm wench.


Maybe they think it's named after that Ericson guy. g

LOL!

For domestic sales, I should call it the TaoMaoDaoMobile, after that PBS
dumb**** who can't even remember the names of his own kids.
You ever see fuknDyer pontificating his bull**** BAREFOOT on stage??? In a
Ninja suit??
If you haven't, and don't believe me, I swear to god it's true....
goodgawd....
There is so much ejaculate flying out toward the audience during those
semenars, you need a rainsuit AND an umbrella.
But most of the audience is slack-jawed and gap-mouthed..... the rain suit
is just to protect their hair.....

Dat li'l fagit Dr. Dan Amen lost weight, pumped up his glams, wears a black
*short-sleeved* ninja suit now, for his PBS stumping....
Which is why Mensa peeple are assholes, falling for all this bull****.
Altho earlier on, Amen had some good nutritional info -- above and beyond
his semen.

I've emailed PBS: Hmmm, you have the ultra-great Bill Moyers, and then you
have the incoherent dumb**** Wayne Dyer for 3-hour gigs....
Is your effing programming dept on schizophrenic meds, and not taking
them???

Which ties right in with my TaoMaoDaoMobile..... It oughtta be a big hit!
--
EA



--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:59:17 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:


I've emailed PBS: Hmmm, you have the ultra-great Bill Moyers, and then you
have the incoherent dumb**** Wayne Dyer for 3-hour gigs....
Is your effing programming dept on schizophrenic meds, and not taking
them???

Crackpot 101: Never waste time trying to communicate manifestos or
brain surges to minions. Go straight to the top. E.g. email the Queen
of England and Justin Bieber, they're the ones running everything.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:59:17 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:38:19 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:18:02 +0000, passerby
wrote:

replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:
jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K
more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not
take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota
started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

Eisenstein, the reporter of that article Jon quoted, just says
"industry analysts say." Although Eisenstein knows what he's talking
about, you can do the accounting on this kind of thing in a variety of
ways.

In this case, the "analysts" appear to be Sandy Munro, who was quoted
in a Reuters article from which Eisenstein likely got his "analyst"
quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88904J20120910

You can't do accounting that way and get a result that makes any
sense. It's good for producing a corporate balance sheet or P&L, but
it doesn't tell you anything about the cost of manufacturing a car.

Bob Lutz says the story is nonsense:

"The statement that GM "loses" over $40K per Volt is preposterous.
What the "analyst" in whom poor Ben Klayman [one of the authors of the
Reuter's piece] placed his faith has done is to divide the total
development cost and plant investment by the number of Volts produced
thus far. That's like saying that a real estate company that puts up a
$10 million building and has rental income of one million the first
year is "losing" 9 million dollars, or several hundred thousand per
renter."

Good point. What a lot of bull****.


GM also released a statement saying something close to that, but it's
corporate PR, so take it with a grain of salt.

Doing accounting in the car business is difficult, especially for a
new type of vehicle that encountered huge research and development
costs. The only reliable thing you can work with is the marginal cost
of building the last car, or the next one -- they should be the same.
I'm sure that Lutz is well aware of that marginal cost.

Then you have to decide how you're going to amortize the R&D. And that
could be something you do over years for tax and stockholder purposes,
or a decade or more if you're doing corporate planning.

Economics: the mystery science, where perpetual motion is allowed.
Economics gives mathematics a bad name.
Hey, why bother with fukn math, when you can just handwave??

Economics is little more than game theory with a generous sprinkling of
The
Mind****, where one side can read the cards of the other side, but the
side
getting their cards read don't know it. Cuz, well, they're too busy
getting mind****ed, and, well, too busy ****ing each other -- crabs in a
barrel, donchaknow.

Still, even with one-sided game theory, you still gotta have players. GM
somehow lost their players. Cuz, well, even mind****ed assholes getting
their cards read have enough functioning brain cells to know enough to buy
a
Prius, which is 1/2 the price of a Volt, and gets 20-30% better overall
gas
mileage.

You're looking at the wrong market segment. That isn't where GM is
with the Volt.

Neither are they in the Tesla S segment, where a typical model costs
$100,000 (with 300-mile battery pack and other options -- they've
dropped the low-end version recently) and weighs a half-ton more than
a Volt. It's nearly 2-1/2 tons. Jesus. And they're selling more than
they planned for.

As I said, the Volt, in terms of price-point and market segment, is
between a rock and a hard place. They've got to change something, but
it isn't clear what. Going downmarket may look attractive in the short
run but it sounds like they could wind up identified with a category
they don't want to be in.

When you buy a car to save effing gas, it's a reasonable expectation to save
money, as well.

That's not why people are buying Teslas, which sold something over
4700 in the first quarter. It may be why they're buying Leafs. But
even there, it's an enthusiast market as much as anything.

I think the dichotomy/irony of the Volt is a bit hard for most people to
swallow.
But not for Kidding, who can apparently swallow anything.

g Not having followed most of the antagonistic arguments between you
two, I can't comment. But the Volt is the best effort by anyone to
satisfy *several* of those market segments you described in your
e-mails.

It appears to me that the Volt is the best cross-segment effort anyone
has made, or probably *can* make, given the state of the technology.
People who want a family sedan, with all of the bells and whistles,
and who want unlimited range plus all-electric operation for the large
majority of typical car trips, want something like a Volt. It's just
that it's overpriced. The weight is a non-issue, based on its reported
performance, plus the fact that the 2-1/2-ton, $100,000 Tesla is
selling just great.

And the price resistance shows how the high-volume market is sliced.
When you're after that market, you'd better be under $30,000 for
volume, and under $40,000 for reasonable competitiveness. Otherwise,
you're competing with M-B, Audi, and BMW. To do that, you need more
panache than Chevrolet can muster.


Toyoter don't have that dichotomous fence to jump.
Neither will a properly-strategized AngstMobile.

Toyota has an econocar that has very little all-electric capability,
at a mid-size price.

They have a much better price point, however, and they have enough of
a track record to appeal, marginally, to a different class of buyers.


And yer right, Tesla has a whole nother mind**** going, and they did it
right, as you astutely observed, with the Roadster.
High-priced high performance (decent range) stuff for assholes *already*
willing to spend gobs of money for that stuff..

I don't think there are *any* EV buyers now who aren't buying the idea
as much as the economics.

But that's the automobile market in general, in the US as well as in
most advanced economies. When people buy a car, they're buying an
image with which they feel comfortable. It applies to econoboxes,
sports cars, SUVs, and even pickup trucks. We haven't just bought
"transportation" for over 60 years.

Thus, I drive a Ford Focus -- with two doors, leather seats, stiff
suspension, and the widest tires and biggest engine they made. All I'm
missing is the SCCA sticker, tyre mark on my Pirellis, and
flamethrower headlamps, which I avoid in deference to my son, who
wouldn't be caught dead with any of them. g

Other people want to be out front with other things, like a series
hybrid.

So really, this is just the same ole same ole conspicuous consumption, but
greener and on the flipside.

Absolutely. As are probably 80% or more of all car sales, of all
types.

How many pickup owners do you know among your neighbors, in
Westchester, who really haul manure or roofing shingles? How many 4wd
Land Rover owners in Yonkers actually drive up logging trails to hunt
deer or fish for brook trout, or who have a beach permit to surf the
point breaks on Fire Island or surf fish for striped bass? They're
just going for the outdoorsy image.

By assholes just like Kidding, except more successful.



All Hail the AngstMobile:
A (cheaper) Leaf with a ****ty li'l genset -- no transmission, no
planetary gears, no multiple clutches, nuthin ceptin batts, a genset, 4
wheels, and a cupla small motors.
And A/C, of course.

You know, I tried to submit this to fuknNissan, but you can't send **** to
them unless you have a twitter account?? WTF????

I'm sure they'll be fascinated with your idea, when you reach them.
d8-)

I wonder what my cut is going to be..... LOL
Fuuuuck, they could at least send me a free car....


Why don't you just start building aftermarket trailers with packaged
gensets, and sell them to existing Leaf owners? BTW, the Leaf's sales
are sucking wind, too. 'You know where their biggest market share is?
In Norway. You could offer a trailer option on skis...

That's silly. Roof rack, roof rack. With a swing-arm wench.


Maybe they think it's named after that Ericson guy. g

LOL!

For domestic sales, I should call it the TaoMaoDaoMobile, after that PBS
dumb**** who can't even remember the names of his own kids.
You ever see fuknDyer pontificating his bull**** BAREFOOT on stage??? In a
Ninja suit??

I don't think so. I haven't watched PBS for a while.

If you haven't, and don't believe me, I swear to god it's true....
goodgawd....

I believe you. g

There is so much ejaculate flying out toward the audience during those
semenars, you need a rainsuit AND an umbrella.
But most of the audience is slack-jawed and gap-mouthed..... the rain suit
is just to protect their hair.....

Dat li'l fagit Dr. Dan Amen lost weight, pumped up his glams, wears a black
*short-sleeved* ninja suit now, for his PBS stumping....
Which is why Mensa peeple are assholes, falling for all this bull****.
Altho earlier on, Amen had some good nutritional info -- above and beyond
his semen.

I've emailed PBS: Hmmm, you have the ultra-great Bill Moyers, and then you
have the incoherent dumb**** Wayne Dyer for 3-hour gigs....
Is your effing programming dept on schizophrenic meds, and not taking
them???

Which ties right in with my TaoMaoDaoMobile..... It oughtta be a big hit!

Good luck to you in your future endeavors. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:59:17 -0400, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Why don't you just start building aftermarket trailers with packaged
gensets, and sell them to existing Leaf owners? BTW, the Leaf's sales
are sucking wind, too. 'You know where their biggest market share is?
In Norway. You could offer a trailer option on skis...

That's silly. Roof rack, roof rack. With a swing-arm wench.

They'd need a new name. With that lump on top, it's not a "Leaf." How
about, "Toyota Dung Beetle"?

--
Ed Huntress

On Jun 13, 8:18*am, passerby
wrote:
replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:

jonbanquer *wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

--

--
posted fromhttp://www.polytechforum.com/metalworking/gm-slashes-chevy-volt-price...
using *PolytechForum's *Web, RSS and Social Media Interface to
rec.crafts.metalworking and other *engineering *groups

GM understands how to use the US government to **** the US taxpayer.

The Chevy Volt will never achieve economy of scale without a total
redesign / a major breakthrough in battery technology.

The Chevy Volt is much too heavy and it's way overpriced.

US consumers have rejected the Chevy Volt for damn good reasons and
they will continue to reject it.

"jon_banquer" wrote in message
...
On Jun 13, 8:18 am, passerby
wrote:
replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:

jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

--

--
posted
fromhttp://www.polytechforum.com/metalworking/gm-slashes-chevy-volt-price...
using PolytechForum's Web, RSS and Social Media Interface to
rec.crafts.metalworking and other engineering groups

GM understands how to use the US government to **** the US taxpayer.

The Chevy Volt will never achieve economy of scale without a total
redesign / a major breakthrough in battery technology.

The Chevy Volt is much too heavy and it's way overpriced.

US consumers have rejected the Chevy Volt for damn good reasons and
they will continue to reject it.
=============================================

Unless GM sells it for $15K..... which it could, the same way inkjet
printers are cheaper than the fukn ink.... you are ****ed forever with an
inkjet.
GM will just make it up on repairs, parts, batteries.... lol
And, of course, if GM finds a lodestone of Kidding's, they could actually do
pretty well -- assholes are usually pretty oblivious, ergo free with their
money.
--
EA

On Jun 13, 9:23*am, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"jon_banquer" wrote in message

...
On Jun 13, 8:18 am, passerby









wrote:
replying to jon_banquer , passerby wrote:

jonbanquer wrote:
"Industry analysts have estimated it actually costs GM as much as
$75,000 to build each Volt, or nearly twice the base price."

Find the right analyst and s/he will estimate you anything all the way
right up to the point that *you* want to make. What is so incredibly
different in Volt from, say, Prius which costs $25,000 (to the customer)
and Toyota is making profit on it? Volt has a larger and different
technology battery, so it probably costs $3K more. OK, let it be $5K more,
but still, what would explain the incredible $50K difference in the
alleged estimate?

If the estimate has any relation to reality, it most likely does not take
into account economy of scale that hasn't yet started to show since the
sales are not very high and the model is relatively recent. Toyota started
selling Prius in 1997 and announced making first profit in 2001 after
75,000+ were sold. Gotta give it time, I'm sure GM understands that.

--

--
posted
fromhttp://www.polytechforum.com/metalworking/gm-slashes-chevy-volt-price...
using PolytechForum's Web, RSS and Social Media Interface to
rec.crafts.metalworking and other engineering groups

GM understands how to use the US government to **** the US taxpayer.

The Chevy Volt will never achieve economy of scale without a total
redesign / a major breakthrough in battery technology.

The Chevy Volt is much too heavy and it's way overpriced.

US consumers have rejected the Chevy Volt for damn good reasons and
they will continue to reject it.
=============================================

Unless GM sells it for $15K..... *which it could, the same way inkjet
printers are cheaper than the fukn ink.... *you are ****ed forever with an
inkjet.
GM will just make it up on repairs, parts, batteries.... * lol
And, of course, if GM finds a lodestone of Kidding's, they could actually do
pretty well -- assholes are usually pretty oblivious, ergo free with their
money.
--
EA

I agree that GM should dramatically lower the price on the Chevy Volt
to increase market share. GM has nothing to lose by doing so and
everything to gain.