Attn all US manufacturers that are way behind on technology (that means you Chrysler). Listen up, opportunity knocks.

I thought I'd read that Smith was going to be working with Ford in the U.S.

Mick - yes, Smith are still working closely with Ford, in both US and Europe.

Does that mean that I'll be able to order and electric F150 some day?

What is that smell, oh it's that line of BS that Smith just laid down. You are canceling your expantion into the US and backing out on a production facility because. UH, you can't find someone to build you a box to put the batteries (you already have) in..... ARE YOU KIDDING ME, that's your story, I'm just supposed to swallow this and say OK.

We are so scr**d

I don't see any good news here. But it looks like a normal adjustment to me.

With difficult business conditions and the US dollar level it makes sense to look for a partner and not build your own plant.

The tea leaves are hard to read. Is this an economic adjustment or are technical problems behind it? Valence seems in denial.

Battery packaging and containment for EVs is apparently a killer problem. I don't understand but mine not to reason why.

United States has been beaten nearly into recession by high oil prices. Smith is cutting back business just as everyone else is doing. Even Starbucks stores are closing.

Bush held back 8 years of green energy development, and now we have hell to pay.

The weak US dollar makes it cheaper for a British truck maker to build in the US jerky. This country is still the largest market by far and Smith has no presence. Not giid news

Well, I'm convinced. This is EVs second death knell. Finally I have got something firm to moan about beside ice cap meltings. I'm dumping all my electric car investments and switching to the Bakken formation where the real money is. All those EV announcements from the world's automakers? - pure hokum. Smith proves it.

It sounds like someone or something is spooking Smith out of the USA.

Why do I think that Oil interests might be lurking deep in the Smith supply chain? (Because they have done other underhanded dirty tricks is why).

Supposedly they are using iron phospate lithium ion cells, very safe chemistry.. so I dont think the battery container is much of an issue.. but I could be wrong.

Perhaps these trucks are really not yet economically competitive with diesel trucks.. but companies were buying them for Green marketing reasons anyway.. but now that the economy is slowing down companies are cutting back on non-essentials.

Maybe they are telling the truth and suppliers are not tooling up to meet the demand fast enough. They are also saying "EV margins are coming under pressure"

Does anyone have details on cost and payback periods for these trucks?

what problem with battery box lots of zebra batteries makers black and decker ,symbol mc,saft batteries etc got a bad smell to it

Duh: A weak dollar may make it cheaper to build here but it doesn't mean you should.

First, building the factory is not getting cheaper. But it will lower your labor costs once the factory is running.

There is a reason why that dollar is weak. A weak dollar isn't bringing factories to Zimbabwe.

Tanfield may think the dollar will get even weaker. They have cut their sales forecasts, have supply chain problems,, and uncertainty about the batteries.

Given that, do you bet the farm on "a major production facility in the US with the capacity to produce up to 10,000 electric trucks per year from 2010"?????

Apparently they chose to reduce risk by looking for good partners in the US. Or perhaps buy one. Our stock market is down in dollar terms and the dollar itself is down against British currency. Tanfield gets double the clout taking over an American company.

When Tanfield issued its 2007 annual report, it claimed to have shipped 60 EV's in the first 6 months of 2007, and 200 in the second half. But somehow, despite the claim of more than a 3-fold increase in EV shipments, revenue to the Smith EV Division of Tanfield decreased in the second half. It doesn't add up. Analysts in the UK suspect that Tanfield was reporting vehicle as "shipped" that hadn't actually been sold.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/article4245176.ece

Further, Tanfield said (in April 2008) when announcing their year-end 2007 results that they had shipped 143 EV's in the first quarter of 2008, and no mention was made of any "supply chain problems." Then, suddenly in the second quarter, EV shipments were reduced by 112 vehicles due to these sudden supply chain problems? And they want people to believe that it is because they can't manage to build a simple metal box to enclose the batteries? It doesn't add up. The London Stock Exchange is launching an investigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/money/2008/07/02/cntan102.xml

Tanfield's stock price has declined from 120 pence in April to 6 pence today.

Then there is Valence Technology. When it announced its supply agreement with Tanfield, its CEO claimed the agreement was worth "$70 million in the first year." In a subsequent SEC filing, Valence said the supply agreement did not require Tanfield to purchase any minimum amount of batteries. Nevertheless, the Tanfield "order" was described by many publications as a "$70 million order." Further, just a few weeks ago, the Valence CEO was touting a 500% revenue increase, largely attributed to the Tanfield order.

http://energytechstocks.com.previewmysite.com/wp/?cat=64

This touting by the CEO prompted the company to issue an SEC filing for the sole purpose of disclaiming everything the CEO had said. This filing included the amazing statement that the CEO's claims were not the company's view.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885551/000110465908037018/a08-15682_18k.htm

Moral to the story? Take anything either of these companies say with a big grain of salt.

Thanks stepahnie: I read the statement as a valid business announcement. It was obvious they had problems and had to adjust.

All companies try to smile through pain but from what you say Tanfield, Smith, and Valence seem to have gone too far.

Do they still misspell 'jail' as 'gaol' in the UK?

Do posters still mis-spell their own names on blogs?
(sorry Stephanie!)

Here in the UK, stockmarket investors and traders are watching the Tanfield story very closely as it unfolds - some piling into buying stock this morning - others just gawping.

Even the most committed fans and followers of Tanfield Group have repeatedly queried some of the past statements regarding orders recieved/shipped/booked or whatever. There is no doubt that the vehicles work OK, and enough hardheaded fleet managers have accepted that the economic case stacks up compared with diesel trucks. But what happens next depends on what happens next(!). And whether whatever is now being hammered out behind closed doors involves bringing in credible new leadership, to what is a company with huge potential on the EV front. Unfortunately the EV side is only a minority part of what they do - about 80% of their revnue is from production and sale of powered access platforms. We may yet see the two divisions go their separate ways.

I think all the conspiracy theoriststs can chill a bit. Tanfield as a group that is having problems outside its US plans and EV production unit (Smiths).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/02/profitwarnings.manufacturing
It is not that Tanfield have taken a dislike to the US but more to do with a downturn in their cherry picker business which is sapping their finacial strength and ability to invest.

Tanfield may think the dollar will get even weaker...

Given that, do you bet the farm on "a major production facility in the US with the capacity to produce up to 10,000 electric trucks per year from 2010"?????

There are a number of US truck plants which are idle or about to be. East coast for European markets, west coast for Asian markets, either for N. American markets.

Because of the absence of large scale, automated production the motor, electronic drive and batteries represent much higher costs than diesel and gasoline engines. Only in London with congestion charges and places with high carbon taxes can electic service vehicles justify the initial costs. Hybrid vehicles can substantially reduce the cost of batteries. Hydraulic hybrids with the proposed new motors may eliminate the need for expensive high-power elctronic motor drives. A standard air tank replaces a large number of ultra capacitors and its electronics. What about steam trucks. Parry People Movers has sold two hydraulic flywheel rail trolleys into revenue service after a succesful trial with a prototype. ...HG...

Great post Stephanie.

Smith Electric - supplier of the iconic delivery vehicle for the dairy industry. This is sad news. I can see that it's difficult to drive down costs and improve profitability with these low production numbers. Besides established businesses like this, there have always been startups for the manufacture of medium size delivery vans. The difficulty is obtaining the necessary skill sets concentrated within a small group in order to contain costs.

It is a false economy to oversize motors as an insurance to avoid a few days of testing, but it is done. I've also seen conversions with motors driving through the original clutch and gearboxes through to a conventional rear wheel drive. Probably 40% loss right there, because it's said to be too expensive to engineer a simple transverse drive to that axle. To which I would reply that "everything is expensive". The range drops quickly with aggressive driving and customers are not impressed. Next thing you know they are out of business.
T2

Ford is supplying the F-650 chassis for the Smith Newton II in America, as well as supplying the Smith Edison van. Maybe these ties will become closer? I think it'd be strategically wise.

DC- it's the Smith Faraday Mk2 that'll be based on the Ford F-650 truck. The Smith Newton range is based on Avia trucks.

The company has repeatedly hidden behind supposed NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) whenever asked who has recently bought vehicles. Even the keenest fans (such as me) have become annoyed by this, and it has cost the company much credibility. It would not be unusual for the occasional customer or two to require an NDA (for example if planning a later publicity feature themselves and wishing to unveil the purchases then), but Smith have been using the NDA excuse routinely - and nobody believes it. Most companies buying greener vehicles are very keen to crow about it immediately.

I hope they do manage to sort themselves out, soon. Ford would not allow the use of the Ford badge if the products themselves were not up to the mark. Quite a few people have suggested Fords might offer Smith some floor space within an under-utilised Ford factory somewhere in the US - and Ford have already agreed to display the Smith vehicles in certain Ford showrooms.

Smith Electric will be fine and probably the highest growth part of Tanfield. Unfortunetly it is not the only part of the business. And for Valence. Valence delivered like they promised and the "Epoch" batteries from Valence that they are ramping up production are not project specific so they will easily be able to sell them to other customers that come along.

nowaynohow: I'm wondering why you think Smith EV will be the fastest growing part of Tanfield when they actually have been, by far, the slowest-growing part? In 2007, revenue to Tanfield's Powered Access Platforms Division increased 718% while Zero Emission Vehicle Division revenue only increased 30%. Also, with Tanfield's announcement that 112 fewer electric vehicles were delivered in the second quarter, you have to wonder whether Smith revenues are decreasing, not increasing.

One top of this, you have to wonder whether Tanfield will even survive. Their cash dropped precipitously from 26 million pounds at the end of 2007 to 11 million pounds at the end of June. With a stock price of less than 6 pence, the market seems to be very skeptical that the company can even survive.

As far as Valence being able to sell the batteries to other customers, that would be great if they had some. But since their only other customer of any significance at all is a scooter manufacturer, I'm wondering how they will be able to sell truck batteries for use in scooters?

@lulu,

I could say that Mr. Bush's perspicacity and wisdom in investing and pushing the development and accredidation of GEN III+ nukes, and re-invigorating international ITER Fusion research, along with pushing IGCC clean coal technology, and some CCS experimentaion that IGCC makes practical for the first time has been excellent. His work in reforming the construction and licensing laws for generation plants has been very good, and will eventually save us with much cleaner elctricity, that we will need more than ever.

Meanwhile his foresight in creating the US ABC to make Li-Ion practical as an automotive power source has proven to be outstanding. Electric cars, that li_ion makes practical, are bing designed by every automaker and they are coming. Soon and in massive numbers.

Until the elctric car arrives, in a few years, and and the new Nuclear Renaissance plants he encouraged, and launched come on-line, a few years later, to provide their clean Juice, we must suffer for the policy mistakes of Democrats.

Only his failure in getting pig-headed, partisan, Democrats to allow domestic drilling in the short term, to tide us over, has hurt us.

Only the obstinant, persistant and permanent refusal of the leftist Democrats and their blind putative green allies to drill, has hurt us.

The Denocrats took power in January 2007 with gas at under $3.00 per gallon and promising they would NEVER ALLOW Drilling. They promised to raise the price of gas. And they have. Two years later the price is approaching $ 4.25 per gallon and they are as adament and stubborn as the Jackasses they are, as ever.

No one, not sane Democrats, nor the public, nor the president, has been able to talk sense to the obstructionist leftist Democrats.

In the short term, Oh Woe is us. We are so screwed.