SV reX said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
Annual production volume of a million plus requires annual sales of a million plus. That's 3X as many Camrys as are sold annually.
Perfect recipe for bankruptcy. That will cut production to ZERO.
Right. I'm trying to work within the bounds of the original problem. Sales were not a concern. Most of it is feasible at $7k, the EV part would likely need to be more like $10k.
In reply to alfadriver :
It's not expensive if it's their own labor. It's free. Even if it takes 5X as much labor.
That's what Habitat for Humanity does with housing.
In reply to SV reX :
I get, and like, your idea, unfortunately I don't think it's practical. The only companies that could pull this off today are the massive OEM's that already have the facilities, Engineering and research staff, other products to amortize parts with etc. etc. and they already know there's no market for this so it's not going to happen. The start ups out there (Tesla, Rivian, Lucid, Nio, Faraday, Nikola, Canoo) etc. all have billions of $'s of venture capitol behind them. They are still struggling to launch cars even three years after their promised dates. Hell even Tesla, who delivered their first car in 2009 after being launched in 2003 are still over three years late with their 6th product. Even when they launch cars with $50-100-150K price tags, they are still losing money years and years after start up. Even for your self assembly maker space idea, you will require $billions in start up to engineer the parts, test, pass whatever regulations are needed, set up parts distribution etc. etc. No venture capitol is going to be given to a non profit start up to enter a proven non existent market.
Edit. I should have said no venture capitol would be given to a for profit trying to do the same thing. Proven lack of market is proven lack of funding.
In reply to ProDarwin :
Fair enough.
The original problem is an impossibility. You and I are both working within the bounds of the original problem. I'm just showing that it's an impossibility.
So, we can theoretically build a car for $7-10,000, but we can't build a car for $7-10,000.
In reply to ProDarwin :
The trouble with cheap ICE engines is you are ignoring the major cost.
Gas. Gas comes out of the same pocket that pays for the car.
Assume todays prices last for 20 years and you're average driver.
that's $28,000 worth of gas. Maintenance would add to that. Oil changes , brake jobs.
Electric doesn't change oil every 5,000 miles and won't go through brakes the same way due to regenerative braking
That $28,000 would pay for solar panels on your roof and leave you enough for a nice vacation.
Oh the monthly savings of not having an electric bill for 20 years. I don't know what you spend but that would be around $50-60,000 in my neighborhood. ( not adjusting for inflation).
I'm a serious gear head I'm always going to have an ICE engine or two to play with. But I like saving money so I can buy stuff for the cars. EV's makes sense even to me.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
We agree.
But no venture capitol is going to be given to a FOR PROFIT start up to enter a proven non existent market either.
We are trying to solve a silly problem that can't be solved. It's like saying "Assume the earth didn't revolve around the sun..."
In reply to frenchyd :
Saving gas money is not the business's problem. Producing a car they can sell and make money is.
SV reX said:In reply to ProDarwin :
Fair enough.
The original problem is an impossibility. You and I are both working within the bounds of the original problem. I'm just showing that it's an impossibility.
So, we can theoretically build a car for $7-10,000, but we can't build a car for $7-10,000.
Eh. I work in new product development. I'm an engineer. If the business assures me they can sell product X at 1 Million/year and asks me 'how cheap can you produce it at that volume', that's the problem I solve. The assessment of whether or not it can actually be sold at that volume is their problem :)
Generally their requests are 1 million times more researched than Frenchy's request :P
I enjoy the mental exercise though.
In reply to frenchyd :
You are forgetting how people think.
Gas is NOT $28,000. It's $100 per month. Or perhaps $25 per week.
ProDarwin said:Remember, we are to "Assume annual production of a million plus" Thats more than the F150 sells, by a large margin.
Those are big numbers. Last year the spark MSRP was $14xxx. What's the production cost for that? $10k? $8k?
There are lots of opportunities for cost cutting there. It still has 2 side mirrors, A/C, heat, radio, complex headlight and taillight assembles, etc.
I don't know how the powertrain costs compare ICE vs EV. If you kept that ICE I'm sure the costs be be crazy low mated to a 4spd manual.
Random google shows battery costs of $100/kwhr on the low end, so thats going to end up too expensive no matter what.
I guess given a production of a million a year $7k may be doable but I still think it would need to be from a major manufacturer in order to achieve that as it would allow carry over parts, having production facilities and existing logistics setup. Finding suppliers, creating facilities, buying tooling etc is going increase the cost quickly.
In reply to ProDarwin :
And I am an entrepreneur.
I also enjoy the mental exercise, and recognize the business side of the equation is never non-existent. If it was, you wouldn't get a paycheck. 
SV reX said:In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
We agree.
But no venture capitol is going to be given to a FOR PROFIT start up to enter a proven non existent market either.
We are trying to solve a silly problem that can't be solved. It's like saying "Assume the earth didn't revolve around the sun..."
Precisely why all I did was share the cheapest car for sale in America today. Call it $16k + fees/taxes.
In fairy tale land, I just charge the Loch Ness Monster $3.50.
SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
It's not expensive if it's their own labor. It's free. Even if it takes 5X as much labor.
That's what Habitat for Humanity does with housing.
Well, I guess I'm not sure how much personal labor your are asking for.
It's one thing to build a house when the components are pretty easy to make lumber parts. Where do you draw the line for vehicle parts? Hand hammering body panels? Or welding pre-made panels?
I get your HforH example, but cars are quite a bit more complex than a home. Depending on what stage you are expecting labor for, rebuilding a used car is a much better spend of a person's time for transportation.
Let alone HforH does rely a lot on volunteers, right? And for a handful of homes at a time. What would a car look like when it was designed for volunteer labor to put it together? Aren't HforH homes designed around that?
In reply to alfadriver :
It would look like E36 M3. Just like Frenchy's imaginary car.
You and I agree.
...although, it's not completely impossible. The viable version would be some form of kit car with readily available off-the-shelf parts that could be mostly bolted together.
SV reX said:In reply to frenchyd :
You are forgetting how people think.
Gas is NOT $28,000. It's $100 per month. Or perhaps $25 per week.
And for Frenchy's target market and use case probably much less than $25 a week. Most of the young people I know are doing 5,000 or less miles a year. 5000/30mpg is 167gals Let's use a worst, but real world, price of $5/gal and that's $16 a week. Frenchy's car isn't going to get them 1-200 miles to Uni with all their stuff anyway. That's for mom and dads car, or train, or ride share, or rental.
ProDarwin said:SV reX said:In reply to ProDarwin :
Fair enough.
The original problem is an impossibility. You and I are both working within the bounds of the original problem. I'm just showing that it's an impossibility.
So, we can theoretically build a car for $7-10,000, but we can't build a car for $7-10,000.
Eh. I work in new product development. I'm an engineer. If the business assures me they can sell product X at 1 Million/year and asks me 'how cheap can you produce it at that volume', that's the problem I solve. The assessment of whether or not it can actually be sold at that volume is their problem :)
Generally their requests are 1 million times more researched than Frenchy's request :P
I enjoy the mental exercise though.
Question for you- at what point is mass production at it's limit? Where you don't get any more volume discount? Kind of related to this thread- but it's a question I've often wondered. (and I've questioned about batteries, since they are used for so many millions and millions products already)
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
Yep. I was just using his same $28,000 number (divided by the number of months in 20 years)
In reply to alfadriver :
"We lose money building that, but we will make it up on volume"
SV reX said:...although, it's not completely impossible. The viable version would be some form of kit car with readily available off-the-shelf parts that could be mostly bolted together.
That's how Lotus, Ginetta, TVR, etc. etc. got their start. In post war Britain tax on new cars was 50%, yup really, we had to pay for saving the continent from the baddies again. So the small volume people started selling kit cars. The difference between kit cars today and back then, is Lotus and co sold you the full car including new engine etc. in a box because as a kit it was considered parts and avoided the tax. Even then with a massive discount, it was still a niche market. No way the average young person today is going to spend even $5k on a 'kit car' then find space and time to build it. And if they are it's going to be a GRM type who builds a Se7en type car, not a dorky impractical trike that's going to be laughed off campus.
SV reX said:...although, it's not completely impossible. The viable version would be some form of kit car with readily available off-the-shelf parts that could be mostly bolted together.
Locost is what it would look like. Then add the cost of a powertrain. Possible for sure.
Then again, the illustration on how to do that has been available for a long time- I have Ron Chapman's first edition that was published in 2000.
alfadriver said:ProDarwin said:SV reX said:In reply to ProDarwin :
Fair enough.
The original problem is an impossibility. You and I are both working within the bounds of the original problem. I'm just showing that it's an impossibility.
So, we can theoretically build a car for $7-10,000, but we can't build a car for $7-10,000.
Eh. I work in new product development. I'm an engineer. If the business assures me they can sell product X at 1 Million/year and asks me 'how cheap can you produce it at that volume', that's the problem I solve. The assessment of whether or not it can actually be sold at that volume is their problem :)
Generally their requests are 1 million times more researched than Frenchy's request :P
I enjoy the mental exercise though.
Question for you- at what point is mass production at it's limit? Where you don't get any more volume discount? Kind of related to this thread- but it's a question I've often wondered. (and I've questioned about batteries, since they are used for so many millions and millions products already)
My experience at a previous company with making electronic devices in the millions was it depends. For off the shelf, electronic parts there seemed to be a limit to volume discount. However if tooling costs are involved and they are being amortized into the parts cost, higher volume certainly helps.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
So, the cost of tooling can be minimized, but not the cost of actual production.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
For cars, tooling costs have to be balanced with maintenance costs, as far as I know. Like a body stamping tool will wear out over time, making it less likely that the weld lines line up. Or casting dies.
In reply to 93EXCivic :
Excellent points. Well explained.
You'll need to log in to post.
