Time To "get 'er Done"

[goofyone]

No rust. No stripping. No restoration. Engineering drawings already done. Just a simple build from plans. Supposedly all the CAD word has been done. This really isn't rocket surgery. Even granting a "complete custom fiberglass" body (as opposed to SMC), and a "completely custom dashboard", and "other interior hard moldings", once they did one set, the second set is cheap. The wiring harness is nothing. Take the Metro harness and you're done. It might need a custom harness with a modern, EFI engine, but we're talking about the existing units. As for "fully outfitting" the interior, again, not brain science. Paul Elio has claimed to have the data on all of the costs of the vehicle. The parts are numbered, and are not countless.

This is not a high-tech, whiz-bang super car. This is a simple, off-the-shelf vehicle that is supposed to be easy to work on by an owner with average mechanical skills. For a realistic assessment of the max reasonable cost to build the 2nd copy of a prototype, take a look at Factory Five Racing's 818. Hand-build chassis. Custom interior & body. Donor car parts. You'll find that my $50k figure is both realistic and extremely generous.

What the forum members might be asking themselves is whether it is reasonable to believe that EMI is capable of selling a fully-spec'd production vehicle for $7300, when they can't build an under-spec'd prototype for testing for under $0.5M. The numbers just don't work. And again, we are discussing the direct costs from the time of turning the first wrench, to driving it out of the shop.

It is very reasonable to build a production vehicle for $7300 when a one-off prototype cost $500K once you understand the reality that it is nearly impossible to make a direct comparison between the costs of building these two vehicles as they are built using completely different processes. Mass production, low volume serial production, one-off custom vehicle building, and one-off engineering prototype vehicle builds are all completely different animals with completely different labor, and even materials costs, involved in the process.

 

[06Jan2013]

With all due respect, I suspect you may have spent too much time watching Chip Foose and the "A Team" on "OverHaulin'"
Designing new front and rear suspensions is not quite like building custom cars.

Thank you for the respect. FWIW, I have never watched "OverHaulin". Sorry.

First, we are, or at least I am, discussing the cost of building the show cars, aka mules, aka prototypes. The design costs are no longer relevant once you start turning the wrenches. Just buy the parts off the shelf, fabricate the rest, and assemble.

Second, although there definitely costs involved in designing suspension systems, it's not that complicated, especially as related to the show cars. The rear suspension is basically an adaptation of a rear motorcycle suspension. The front (on the P3) was basically just pulled off a production vehicle. IIRC, the a-arms were custom fabbed. The P4 front end has some more design and engineering work, but clearly needs more real-world testing. From the reviews, the steering is heavy, and the suspension compliance is not anywhere close to optimal.

Again, I'm not discounting the need for decent engineering, but once you have spec'd the pick-up points on the various suspension pieces, the build is not all that complicated for a professional. Adjustable pieces are more expensive, but I already allowed for that in the pricing above. Had they build a test vehicle or two, they would reasonably have spend $100k+ in the last year road testing it/them.

 

[06Jan2013]

It is very reasonable to build a production vehicle for $7300 when a one-off prototype cost $500K once you understand the reality that it is nearly impossible to make a direct comparison between the costs of building these two vehicles as they are built using completely different processes. Mass production, low volume serial production, one-off custom vehicle building, and one-off engineering prototype vehicle builds are all completely different animals with completely different labor, and even materials costs, involved in the process.

Actually, I spent years as an accountant. Direct comparison of costs was one of the things that I did to earn my keep. What is impossible, is to justify an extra $490K in different labor and materials. Extra labor - of course. Different, higher cost materials - clearly. Volume discounts - obviously. But that can only account for about $40k, not $490k. The numbers simply do not work.

Also, you keep mentioning engineering prototype vehicles. The P1, which was called the P2 after the body was added, apparently was used as a test mule for a time. The P3 and P4 are simply show cars. They were not built to be tested, but to raise interest in the product. Engineering prototypes implement the design ideas so they can be tested and refined.

 

[WilliamH]

Actually, I spent years as an accountant. Direct comparison of costs was one of the things that I did to earn my keep. What is impossible, is to justify an extra $490K in different labor and materials. Extra labor - of course. Different, higher cost materials - clearly. Volume discounts - obviously. But that can only account for about $40k, not $490k. The numbers simply do not work.

Also, you keep mentioning engineering prototype vehicles. The P1, which was called the P2 after the body was added, apparently was used as a test mule for a time. The P3 and P4 are simply show cars. They were not built to be tested, but to raise interest in the product. Engineering prototypes implement the design ideas so they can be tested and refined.

Take a good look at the difference in the front suspension on the P3 and P4.
The story was that the change in P4 was done to improve mileage.

 

[06Jan2013]

Take a good look at the difference in the front suspension on the P3 and P4.
The story was that the change in P4 was done to improve mileage.

Thanks. I mentioned the front suspension changes to the P4 in my reply to you above. Again, an engineering cost, not a build cost. I have seen no evidence of any road testing of the P4 or comparison testing between the handling and ride of the P3 and the P4.

Perhaps a different way to express the point that I was trying to make would be: If Elio Motors were to build a duplicate of the P4, how much would/should it cost? I believe only gross incompetence would have them spending more than $50k to replace it. I believe the figure would more accurately be estimated at $20-25k max.

I'd like to address your comment on the changes to the P4 to "improve mileage". Maybe I can take some time tomorrow for that one. Cheers.

 

[goofyone]

Thanks. I mentioned the front suspension changes to the P4 in my reply to you above. Again, an engineering cost, not a build cost. I have seen no evidence of any road testing of the P4 or comparison testing between the handling and ride of the P3 and the P4.

Perhaps a different way to express the point that I was trying to make would be: If Elio Motors were to build a duplicate of the P4, how much would/should it cost? I believe only gross incompetence would have them spending more than $50k to replace it. I believe the figure would more accurately be estimated at $20-25k max.

I'd like to address your comment on the changes to the P4 to "improve mileage". Maybe I can take some time tomorrow for that one. Cheers.

As you refuse to acknowledge when others have pointed out quite a number of ways your supposed cost estimates are way off base, and instead wish to continue pushing your obviously incorrect estimates, you are making it plainly obvious you have no clue what you are talking about and/or you simply do not care and wish to continue presenting obviously incorrect information as fact as an attempt at trolling. I really do not care which one it is however understand that the members of this forum see this all the time and you are simply making a fool of yourself if you continue in this way.

As you obviously also could use more research if you wish to bother with you can easily find out that the P3 and P4 are not simply show cars. They are in fact engineering chassis mules with chassis and suspensions which were representative of the engineers designs for production models at the time. We even know that over time the suspension on the P4 has been refined and upgraded as part of EM's vehicle development efforts.

 

[RUCRAYZE]

As you refuse to acknowledge when others have pointed out quite a number of ways your supposed cost estimates are way off base, and instead wish to continue pushing your obviously incorrect estimates, you are making it plainly obvious you have no clue what you are talking about and/or you simply do not care and wish to continue presenting obviously incorrect information as fact as an attempt at trolling. I really do not care which one it is however understand that the members of this forum see this all the time and you are simply making a fool of yourself if you continue in this way.

As you obviously also could use more research if you wish to bother with you can easily find out that the P3 and P4 are not simply show cars. They are in fact engineering chassis mules with chassis and suspensions which were representative of the engineers designs for production models at the time. We even know that over time the suspension on the P4 has been refined and upgraded as part of EM's vehicle development efforts.

Hummmm, I think it's the first time I've seen a small crack in that stoic demeaner you are best known for- Good for you!!!

 

[jetpack54]

Simply put, I think what 06Jan2013 was trying to imply is EM is not making parts for the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION where they spent 19 million US dollars to develop the space toilet, one million US dollars alone for the seat cover! It's academic of course that it's not cheap to develop the first P4 but the 2nd clone should be much cheaper- nothing more to develop there, just use the same jigs and copy the darn thing! I'm not even going that far, EM is really strapped for cash at the moment, so like I said, go ahead and do all the testing on the engine, install it on the current P4 and continue w/ the needed tours showing the completed prototype + the new engine! Granted, they don't want to crash this so on none tour days or weeks, bring the darn thing to a test track and run it to get some real figures for them to validate and report it to us investors.

 

[WilliamH]

Simply put, I think what 06Jan2013 was trying to imply is EM is not making parts for the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION where they spent 19 million US dollars to develop the space toilet, one million US dollars alone for the seat cover! It's academic of course that it's not cheap to develop the first P4 but the 2nd clone should be much cheaper- nothing more to develop there, just use the same jigs and copy the darn thing! I'm not even going that far, EM is really strapped for cash at the moment, so like I said, go ahead and do all the testing on the engine, install it on the current P4 and continue w/ the needed tours showing the completed prototype + the new engine! Granted, they don't want to crash this so on none tour days or weeks, bring the darn thing to a test track and run it to get some real figures for them to validate and report it to us investors.

Respectfully speaking, you are not an investor. You did not buy stock in the company. You read an agreement online which said that you understood that the product you were paying money for might never be built and that you might never receive the product. Somehow that does not sound like the description of an investor. You decided to put up money with no guarantee of any return and now you are complaining that you have no voice. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. We will either get our new Elios or we won't. Taking your only engine and your only chassis and beating around the track while not on display is not a sensible strategy.

 

[Thomas Maule]

Simply put, I think what 06Jan2013 was trying to imply is EM is not making parts for the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION where they spent 19 million US dollars to develop the space toilet, one million US dollars alone for the seat cover! It's academic of course that it's not cheap to develop the first P4 but the 2nd clone should be much cheaper- nothing more to develop there, just use the same jigs and copy the darn thing! I'm not even going that far, EM is really strapped for cash at the moment, so like I said, go ahead and do all the testing on the engine, install it on the current P4 and continue w/ the needed tours showing the completed prototype + the new engine! Granted, they don't want to crash this so on none tour days or weeks, bring the darn thing to a test track and run it to get some real figures for them to validate and report it to us investors.

The P4 is being tweaked here and there... throwing the engine in the current p4 would not produce accurate information.