That isn't the point at all. They could take all their revenue and pour it only into electric vehicles and nothing else. Not energy, not charging infrastructure, not software none of that. And they'd be just like the rest of the players in the market. Short term they'd likely be selling more cars.

 

 

you guys are typing past one another.

tesla is producing at scale so those investments IN THE PAST are paying off now, but that doesn't mean tesla is not still investing vast sums in new things to come.

certainly it's true if you have to spend $2 to make $1 of revenue things aren't going so great.

ford and tesla are utterly different beasts. ford still has an ice business to run, headaches from uaw strikes, headaches from dealers, vast debt load, it's just hugely complex and difficult.

tesla by comparison is MUCH simpler. no ice, no uaw, no dealers, manageable debt, huge demand.

comparing the two is kind of pointless, no matter where ford is as an ev provider. to me the mach-e mustang isn't that great, although it's not terrible. i just don't like the looks or the interior. the lightning is great, a friend has one, but pricey. since most trucks are used somewhat for work, the lightning is too expensive, and doesn't deliver benefits worth paying for, with some drawbacks (tow range being the most obvious). my friend who has one is the company owner, so never needs to actually use his truck as a truck, he just wanted one.

tesla on the other hand, produced the 3 and Y with broad mainstream appeal. the cybertruck remains to be seen but certainly there's huge buzz for it, it's cheaper than a lightning and it has some unique features. who knows, it may just eat the lightning's lunch entirely.

 

What's the average price of a Ford F-150? (not the lightning).

As for comparing Tesla to legacy auto we've seen that horse beaten to death this last decade that's all the media did. They only stopped when the competition didn't arrive like they predicted.

 

This is my point, thank you. As other carmakers (legacy and startups) start to see a return and can increase revenue without having it reinvest all of it back into R&D their EVs will become profitable also. Thats why the charge that EVs from anybody other than Tesla aren't profitable doesn't make any sense. They will be, they're not trying to be profitable with EVs yet.

 

That's only half the picture, legacy auto still have to pour R&D into their legacy business.

 

they won't all be, lol. i don't see fisker making it, or lucid or most of the chinese brands. can't see how vinfast makes it either.

 

Most of their R&D money at this point is focused on EVs. Their ICE cars are very profitable because they can re-use old designs that have long since paid for themselves.

I dunno, you might be surprised. The Legacy carmakers will all get there though, thats really what I was talking about.

 

Unless legacy auto plans on increasing overall sales and not replacing ICE with BEV, they are in a tough spot. As ICE sales go down so do profits. And they still have to spend R&D to keep ICE models contemporary.

 

No, over time EV profitability will improve, so the hope is as more ICE models are replaced with EV they will be replaced with profitable EVs

They don’t have to spend nearly as much in R&D to keep ICE models contemporary as they do to develop all new EV platforms and models.

 

Let's say this is true (maybe) any idea what the % of R&D is needed ICE vs BEV?

 

It’s way less, just think about it logically.

 

Yet you can't provide any data, not even ballpark figures.

 

if you can’t simply just provide contrary data (or a source in many other instances) if there is one, please drop these badgering challenge posts.

It’s antagonistic towards other members and a detriment to the sense of community and conversation.