

GM's Volt: The ugly math of low sales, high costs - greenyoda
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/10/us-generalmotors-autos-volt-idUSBRE88904J20120910

======
vannevar
The article seems to confuse the development costs and the marginal costs of
production, which are two very different things. The marginal costs are
estimated at $20K-32K per unit for a car with a base price of $40K, so the
idea that GM is losing money on each Volt is simply wrong. The way they get
there is to burden the first model year with the entire development cost,
which of course is absurd even for a normal car. It's even more absurd for the
Volt, which represents a strategic investment in an entirely new automotive
platform, an investment that GM absolutely had to make if it wants to be
around 20 years from now.

Rest assured, every Volt GM sells is a positive for the company.

------
lutusp
I don't know if there's a name for this, but a company can be in the position
of clinging to the past to its detriment (as many U.S. car companies are
famous for doing), or be so far ahead of the technology curve that they have a
hard time building and selling what in 20 years will be commonplace, to its
detriment (in the present).

Electric cars are an obvious evolutionary step in car design -- I think
there's general agreement about that. But they won't seriously eat into the
market for internal combustion cars until a handful of problems is solved --
battery performance and lifetime, charging issues, infrastructure.

For those ahead of the technology curve, the advice is to be patient --
technology will catch up. For those behind, the advice is to rely on a
shrinking pool of loyalists for your outdated technology. Only one of these
actually makes sense.

~~~
001sky
"Outdated technology" is a hard thing to say.

Focus on energy/mass ratio.

That is the main constraint.

Petrol is not "outdated" on that metric.

For good or bad.

~~~
lutusp
> "Outdated technology" is a hard thing to say.

On the contrary, it's very easy to say, and sometimes even to identify.

> Focus on energy/mass ratio. That is the main constraint.

If that were the only issue (and you're not saying this), we would drive cars
with little nuclear reactors in them. Reactors like the one powering Curiosity
on Mars right now, but a little bigger. That would give "hot rod" a whole new
meaning.

> Petrol is not "outdated" on that metric.

True. It is in every other way. I agree that electric cars have an uphill
struggle against the petroleum economy, and it will be a while before
electrics offer the performance we're accustomed to from gas-powered cars --
assuming that ever happens.

~~~
001sky
And by say, I imply of course "truthfully".

While you merely do so _Trivially._

But sleight-of-hand aside:

You're talking about an N dimensional problem

Without reference to N or which dimensions are most important.

Extending one dimension: energy/mass, threshold cost,... N

That that N2 fails your nuclear reactor. Electric still silly. etc, but now on
2 dimensions.

I'm not a schill for dino power.

But "It is in every other way..." is vastly comical.

Recall, Churchill _created_ the petroleum economy.

Why did he do it? Energy to Mass.

He replaced coal with diesel oil to power the entire British navy.

This was ca 1910.

Only then, was the petrol infrastructure built in EMEA.

It follows, that this is a real problem.

And the petrol economy holding-you-back is a red herring.

And, sadly Energy/mass cuts the "envinonmental argument" deeply too.

