# Tesla (TSLA)



## Causalien

This is the thread for Tesla motors headed by Elon Musk


----------



## andrewf

This isn't even the most interesting thing Musk is working on. SpaceX is way more important, if he succeeds. Plenty of other people are working on electric cars, but only Musk seems to be getting anywhere with reducing cost to orbit.


----------



## ddkay

I'll be tuning in later tonight to see what they unveil. I read Model X will be an SUV and cost around $60K.

I really hope all electric takes off this time, this will change the world in a huge good way.


----------



## ddkay

There's a leaked video too it seems. I wonder what they have saved for the official release. :S


----------



## ddkay

I can't get to it either.


----------



## andrewf

I think Tesla is interesting enough. It will take many years for them to make much of a dent in the huge car industry. SpaceX is well positioned to run away with the space launch industry. The Space Shuttle was enormously expensive, costing $10,000 / lb of payload to low earth orbit. SpaceX is on track to reduce that to $1400. Musk even talks about being able to get it down to $500 or eventually $100/lb. Big things happen when you can improve the economics of an activity by orders of magnitude.


----------



## ddkay

Colour me impressed on the Model X:

"Model X is offered with optional Dual Motor All-Wheel Drive. The second motor enables more than all-weather, all-road capabilities: it increases torque by 50%. When outfitted with AWD, Model X Performance accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 5 seconds, outperforming the fastest SUVs and many sports cars"

"Production begins late 2013 with significant delivers in early 2014"

Whenever 2nd gen of Model S is out, I think I'll be shopping for one.


----------



## andrewf

The Model S is pretty cool. If I were rich(er), I would consider one. Using electricity rather than gasoline lowers the total cost of ownership by a good $20k over the life of a car.


----------



## avrex

Lots of people are shorting this stock. I agree with that position.
Earning announcement is Tues after market close.


----------



## andrewf

I don't think Musk cares about short term stock performance. This seems like more of a hobby for him.


----------



## andrewf

I don't understand. If he believed it would fail, why would he invest in it? Tesla isn't his whole fortune either. His stake in SpaceX is worth nearly $1 billion.


----------



## andrewf

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112472934/spacex-could-go-public-in-2013/



> “He owns a 26 percent stake in Tesla valued at more than $650 million, after adjusting for collateralized shares. His 25 percent stake in SolarCity would be valued at $375 million at the valuation the company is seeking,” Ohnsman said. “Musk owns more than 70 million shares of closely held rocket maker SpaceX. *Recent transactions in the private market have pegged his stake in SpaceX at about $875 million*.”


----------



## gibor365

Causalien said:


> The timing of this article is too perfect:
> http://theunderstatement.com/post/18030062041/its-a-brick-tesla-motors-devastating-design
> 
> Someone who has the bankroll to pay journalist is manipulating this stock. I am glad he agrees with my TA levels. Here's to TSLA dropping tomorrow.


and maybe the same guys buying dip


----------



## gibor365

Causalien said:


> Not falling as much as I wanted. I guess article from crappy source only gives you a 5%. I wish it started from WSJ, so I can get a 10% or 15%.
> 
> *edit: At the bottom channel. I am happy now. Please break through that support.


Even better on Google Finance 
IMHO this "game" will be until July 
Causalien , in your opinion WTI price gonna impact TSLA price? I mean higher crude oil , higher TSLA?


----------



## andrewf

Interesting about Tesla's bricking problem. Insurance seems like a reasonable way to address this problem for now, (with a high enough deductible so that it still stings). It would seem to me that Tesla ought to be able to make some changes to address these problems, perhaps a panic mode where the car shuts off its subsystems to conserve power. After all, many other Li-Ion devices survive for long periods without bricking. One would hope the company was clever enough to address this problem before selling tens of thousands of cars.


----------



## ddkay

Tesla just responded to that bricking issue, the computer does seem to have alerts and self-preservation features, so they insinuate those bricking incidents are a case of neglect http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/plug-it



> Model S battery parked with 50 percent charge would approach full discharge only after about 12 months. Model S batteries also have the ability to protect themselves as they approach very low charge levels by going into a “deep sleep” mode that lowers the loss even further. A Model S will not allow its battery to fall below about 5 percent charge. At that point the car can still sit for many months. Of course you can drive a Model S to 0 percent charge, but even in that circumstance, if you plug it in within 30 days, the battery will recover normally.
> 
> All cars require a certain amount of attention to perform properly. If you drive a gasoline engine with no oil it will fail completely and need to be replaced. The same happens if you drive without sufficient coolant or a broken fan belt and don’t heed the warning signs displayed by the car. At Tesla, we provide many redundant visual and audible warnings if your battery ever needs attention. And from Roadster 2.0 and beyond, your Tesla can even let us know it needs your attention. If that happens, we simply contact you and suggest you charge your car.


----------



## andrewf

Well, that does sound like they have the problem sorted. For PR purposes, they should probably offer the replacement battery packs at a subsidized rate. Stories about spending $40k to replace a battery, no matter how rare or how much a result of negligence, will scare the bejesus out of potential buyers, which might keep them from the the dealer where Tesla can get a chance to clarify the situation.


----------



## ddkay

Panic buying after a Wunderlich upgrade? P/T raised 63% from $30 to $49


----------



## zylon

*A commercial-like presentation unlike any car ads I've ever seen.*

http://goldsilver.com/article/mike-maloney-in-horrible-car-crash-with-tesla/

- via Twitter @mike_maloney


----------



## Spudd

They're opening a Tesla dealership in Yorkdale mall in Toronto soon. Also, when I was on vacation in Copenhagen I saw a Tesla dealership there. Copenhagen is really an ideal place for them, because there are plug-in parking spots provided by the city on the streets, reserved for electric cars only. It made me think of buying the stock, but it seems above my usual risk tolerance.


----------



## AnimeEd

Here are some numbers I've been crunching.

Sales Target in 2013: 20,000
Average Sell price: $60,000USD (est. by me)
Profit Margin: 20% (conservative)
Profit: $240 Mil

P/E ratio of 12.5 at the current market cap of 3B

The 20k sales figure seems very possible to me. Buying a electric car from Tesla has so much more sex appeal than buying a electric from Ford or Chevrolet.


----------



## AnimeEd

Causalien said:


> The current FPE of 24 is for the worst case scenario. Accounting only for what's already sold. i.e. 16k reservation. 5k for 2012 and 10k for 2013. Which means that we are assuming Tesla make no more sale from now on.


I wonder why the short interest is so high. I can understand short interest for overvalued stocks such as LinkedIn but a stock such as Tesla has so much potential.


----------



## andrewf

I wish them well. Hopefully they can secure more deals to provide their powertrain to other makers, like their deals with Toyota and Daimler.


----------



## physik3r

Lot's of movement with this stock overnight with the surprise earnings report. We're now looking at 300% gain for the year. 

Personally not an owner of this stock but I believe in the company and in Elon so I'm seriously considering a position for the long term. This guy has the vision and the balls to pull it off!


----------



## KrissyFair

Nothing to do with the stock, but I was behind a Tesla at a red light the other week and its plate was "NO CO2"


----------



## HaroldCrump

KrissyFair said:


> but I was behind a Tesla at a red light the other week and its plate was "NO CO2"


I suppose electricity is generated from pixie dust.


----------



## KrissyFair

Sigh. No and the metals are dug out of the ground with oil-burning machines and the shipping and the manufacturing... But I honestly didn't notice it was a Tesla until I read the plate, which I'm guessing was the point of it.


----------



## andrewf

How about no fine particulates and ground level ozone? Doesn't fit on a plate, though.


----------



## KrissyFair

"smognot"?


----------



## physik3r

So nobody is interested in discussing this company as an investment? :victorious:


----------



## 1sImage

Wish I bought this stock, its mega


----------



## KrissyFair

Ya sorry about the tangent there 

Back to business: up 17% today?? Just on an earnings report?


----------



## none

1sImage said:


> Wish I bought this stock, its mega


A friend urged me to get in at $39. I declined. He is now very wealthy. Oh well, good for him.


----------



## andrewf

I really like what Elon has done with Tesla. As far as an investment, Tesla is trading at a very rich multiple. At this point, I think TSLA is a momentum play, and somewhat disconnected from the fundamentals. I like the company, I don't know about the price it's trading at.


----------



## doctrine

They have a market cap that is 27% that of Ford's. Ford sold 5.5 million vehicles last year... how many did Tesla sell? Yes, I would say there is a disconnect with fundamentals. They are trading at nearly 10 times revenue.


----------



## TheMoneyGuide

Hi everyone

Has anyone been trading TSLA options these last few months?

I've been having some nice success with credit spreads given the high volatility.

I did miss the big run last few weeks being on holidays which may have been good luck as I would have probably been short.

John


----------



## sylyconvalley

TheMoneyGuide said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> Has anyone been trading TSLA options these last few months?
> 
> I've been having some nice success with credit spreads given the high volatility.
> 
> I did miss the big run last few weeks being on holidays which may have been good luck as I would have probably been short.
> 
> John


what do ya think of some cal 15 puts with a strike price of 30 bux?

would it rattle some cages if someone buys above present OI?


----------



## Addy

I debated starting a new thread on this but then wondered if the background of the thread may be helpful to some.

Is anyone else here keeping an eye on this stock with the announcement of the inexpensive Tesla car coming out in the near future?


----------



## Nemo2

Addy said:


> Is anyone else here keeping an eye on this stock with the announcement of the inexpensive Tesla car coming out in the near future?


As soon as I unload my Bricklin shares I'm right in there!


----------



## RBull

Nemo2 said:


> As soon as I unload my Bricklin shares I'm right in there!


Sounds like a plan. 

It's not expensive enough for me to jump in yet, and it's not losing enough money either. :biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## Addy

It's interesting reading the first few pages of this thread, people complaining the stock price of $39, then $60 was too high, and now it's over $200.


----------



## kcowan

Momentum is a wonderful thing while it lasts.


----------



## Addy

Ah Oui! Touché!



kcowan said:


> Momentum is a wonderful thing while it lasts.


----------



## derp

I'm a big fan of this company and I have considered purchasing a Model S, but I just can't bring myself to buy any shares though. Seems to me that the next 3+ years need to be perfectly executed for the fundamentals to catch up to today's price.


----------



## RBull

^ maybe even the next 20 years.


----------



## cashinstinct

Reminds me a little of Apple, when couple of years ago I thought the stock was "too high" (it was around $200 back then, before the split so around $20-25?) because the price rose a lot.

Seems like I should have bought even if the price rose.

It's tough to buy a stock when the price increased a lot, you always think about the price it "was"...

I have no opinion about fundamentals of Tesla long term or whatever, but reading this thread reminded me of my thoughts about Apple.


----------



## Just a Guy

This would be the same apple which went from $200 all the way up to $700, only to come tumbling down to about $300 where it sat for a few years before recovering back to close to $700 (split adjusted) while dominating several mass markets right and reporting record profits while sitting on more cash than the national debt...

With a ride like that in a good company, I can't imagine what kind of a ride you'd get with the "comparable" Tesla which sells a few cars to a small market...


----------



## m3s

I can see Tesla & Elon Musk in a whole other league above Apple & Steve Jobs in due time.. I can remember people not believing smartphones and tablets would be a big deal less than 5 years ago. Vehicles are a much bigger industry.. which is _long_ overdue for any kind of revolution.

Tesla has been installing a lot of superchargers across Europe and even into western Canada lately. Meanwhile they are branding themselves brilliantly. Once the infrastructure is in place (free charging stations) and they are established as a brand, I can see them releasing a more mainstream model.

Now go read The Oatmeal/Tesla saga


----------



## bds

m3s said:


> Vehicles are a much bigger industry.. which is _long_ overdue for any kind of revolution.


Agreed. The auto industry is so dated and inefficient, it's mind boggling.

I'm a huge fan of Tesla and have a small position. I'll likely buy more closer to when they release their more affordable model.


----------



## bgc_fan

For another viewpoint, Tesla is setting the foundation for a change in domestic electricity. While I don't think that it'll kill off power companies, the solar fast charge systems that are being set up could be used for homes.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wh...tting-that-tesla-will-kill-your-power-company


----------



## Nemo2

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2400125-tesla-will-become-the-victim-of-its-own-success?ifp=0



> Summary
> 
> Tesla is currently priced as if it is selling hundreds of thousands of vehicles per year, while in fact sales will be only 35,000 units for 2014.
> To justify current stock price, it will need to achieve its 2020 goal of selling at least 500,000 units per year.
> Increasing competition as well as likely loss of Federal EV subsidy long before many competitors, are great impediments to coming close to such a high sales volume.





> There is a provision in the US federal government subsidy policy for EVs, which states that subsidies will be phased out once the manufacturer sells 200,000 EV vehicles on the US market (link). Tesla will most likely be one of the first EV makers to surpass that mark, which will then trigger the phase out of the subsidies, leaving the competition to benefit on pricing by as much as $7,500 per car. Given Tesla's current US sales trend, it is most likely that the loss of the Federal Government subsidy will occur at the worst possible time, which is very soon after the more affordable Model 3 will hit the market.


----------



## Nemo2

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2435105-tesla-the-short-of-the-decade?ifp=0


----------



## Pluto

I have nothing against Tesla the company or the cars. What kills me is the stock. Price/book is 51x's, Price sales is 17x's, no earnings to speak of yet. Five year average p/e is 1092. 

I'm considering buying some puts. Maybe the 280 Jan 15 - 2016 contract. Hmmmm. I think I'll just hold off until the momentum looks like it is out of gas.

Any thoughts?


----------



## cashinstinct

When your CEO thinks his stock is overvalued (for now), it might be a sign 

Both in 2013 and 2014, Elon Musk tried to tell the stock is too high (short term):

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/25/investing/tesla-netflix-momentum-stocks/

Last year, when price was $160-170 in October 2013:



> Tesla investors may be all smiles for now, but CEO Elon Musk is warning them that the stock is overvalued.
> "The stock price that we have is more than we have any right to deserve," he said in London Thursday at the opening of a Tesla showroom in London. And he's got a point. Shares are up 400% this year and are trading a nearly 100 times 2014 earnings estimates.
> It's not the first time Musk has said that Tesla (TSLA) shares are flying too high, but investors haven't really bothered to pay attention. He used almost the same language about the stock's valuation during an interview with CNBC in August. But the stock has climbed 10% since then.


______

This year again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/05/elon-musk-tesla-stock_n_5771826.html



> You don't often hear these words from a CEO.
> 
> Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk publicly admitted Thursday that his company's stock may be overvalued. "I do think people sometimes get carried away with our stock," Musk said in Carson City, Nevada, at a press conference, according to CNBC. "I think our stock price is kind of high right now, to be totally honest."
> 
> Tesla's stock, which was valued at about $279 a share on Friday morning, is up from around $30 a share in September 2012. It hit an all time high on Tuesday after receiving praise from an influential analyst and striking a deal to expand in China.
> 
> Predictably, the company's stock dropped on Friday after Musk's overly candid remarks.


....

He said the obligatory words about the long-term :


> Despite his moment of modesty, Musk remained optimistic about his long game. "If you care about the long-term Tesla, I think the stock is a good price. If you look at the short term, it is less clear," he said.


----------



## Nemo2

http://seekingalpha.com/article/248...ted-shares-could-prove-to-be-fools-gold?ifp=0



> Tesla shares may in fact be just that, fool's gold. Although it has gone largely unremarked on in the popular financial press, the company has many of the hallmarks typically associated with stock promotion schemes.


----------



## Pluto

Thanks for the negative article links guys. Sure looks like pump and dump to me after reading the articles. It doesn't even seem to be worth the $19 ipo price. This is a no brainer for a short, or a put candidate, with the emphasis on candidate because there is no guarantee it won't go higher. 
However, it looks like the latest run up is fading. Hmmmm. Pros and cons...


----------



## andrewf

It's a real business that got taken over as a momentum play. Even Musk agree that the valuation is excessive. It's not really in his interests for there to be a huge run up in the share price for it to crash.


----------



## Pluto

TSLA down 21 today, -7.5%. selected put up +19%.


----------



## uptoolate

Beautiful cars!


----------



## Pluto

Love the cars. If the trade works out, I can afford to buy one with the proceeds.


----------



## uptoolate

Hope the trade works for you. Not only are they gorgeous but Consumer Reports has never rated a car so high. I think previous was something like 93. Tesla 100.


----------



## m3s

Dual motors


----------



## Pluto

from the perspective of a put holder, it was a tense week. Thank goodness the surprise announcement was a dud with the momentum players. stock down 20, puts up 40%+ Oh death where is thy sting?


----------



## Pluto

It looks like tsla stock is gradually setting up for a new break out to new highs, working on the right side of a cup presently. so I bailed on my puts for about a 18% profit. If I was smarter I would have sold them Nov 10. Darn.


----------



## CPA Candidate

Tesla is must be praying that oil prices go back up. If the new normal oil price is $70-something dollars, where is the demand for electric vehicles beyond the ultra rich making a statement? At current fuel prices justifying even a hybrid purchase economically is hard to do.


----------



## jwilliams

Tesla is a very interesting stock for long term investments.


----------



## Pluto

Yes, CPA, I think they do like high gas prices. However, I read some claims that to charge one of these cars fully cost about $8 in Calif. So the longs on tsla don't seem to care too much about gas prices.

The demand for these cars is huge, way more than current supply, regardless of gas prices. That is essentially the bull case. The bear case is essentially the stock is over valued, and it really is. But I don't think the stock will tank until the overall market weakens. 
So I'll be looking to get more puts at a later date. Maybe December or January. Going to wait until the major indexes weaken and TSLA weakens at the same time. Then hop on the bobsled.


----------



## Addy

Game changer for Tesla. Their car production will go to the highest bidder, the powerball and powerpack is where it's at!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k


----------



## gardner

The solar system forum guys don't seem overly impressed. The established technology for stationary battery storage is flooded lead acid which runs around $150/KWh. The Tesla thing is in the $400/KWh ballpark. But it does come in cool colours, so the price premium totally makes sense -- or something.

What I can't understand is why this is such widely reported news. I guess its a sponsored news item.


----------



## hboy43

gardner said:


> The solar system forum guys don't seem overly impressed. The established technology for stationary battery storage is flooded lead acid which runs around $150/KWh. The Tesla thing is in the $400/KWh ballpark. But it does come in cool colours, so the price premium totally makes sense -- or something.
> 
> What I can't understand is why this is such widely reported news. I guess its a sponsored news item.


I have been following the solar industry, and waiting for it to be cost competitive with the grid for about 30 years now. I am still waiting. Some people will claim that it is cost competitive now. Maybe there is some jurisdiction somewhere with really high grid costs and lots of sunshine 12 months a year where it makes sense, but I doubt it. 

Part of the equation is the discount rate. I sure helps if one wants to use 2%, but frankly A solar installation is not a bond it is an equity, or at least a hybrid in some sense. A bond will never require you to crawl up on the roof and fix a broken wire.

My situation is: energy costs about $500 fixed and $1000 variable for about 18kWh/day average.

So what capital cost would be required to substitute for the annual variable $1000 expenditure? Or if you prefer take me off the grid and use $1500, but then you are into buying more battery capacity and a backup generator. I leave that as an exercise for the reader, but any time I make the calculations, it comes in at $20K to $40K depending on assumptions and that does not address the fact that we are overcast pretty much continuously between October 1 and March 1 - it isn't the annual cycle that kills things in the winter here in Ontario, it is the blasted clouds.

hboy43


----------



## avrex

TSLA is on a run.
It's up 32% since Mar 27, 2015.


----------



## avrex

More good news for TSLA as they announced a big increase in deliveries during the second quarter of 2015. 

I'll now jump in and take a contrarian view and short the underlying. I've bought a put. #gamblingmoney


----------



## besmartrich

avrex said:


> TSLA is on a run.
> It's up 32% since Mar 27, 2015.


Of course, I missed the timing. My wife loves the company and wants to buy it but I told her not to as I feel investing in TSLA is like gambling.


----------



## Addy

My whole family got on board about a month or so ago and already up over 20%. I've put a lowball bid in for another 20 shares, I doubt it will go through but never say never.


----------



## avrex

besmartrich said:


> My wife loves the company and wants to buy....





Addy said:


> My whole family got on board about a month or so ago....


Yep, *everyone is talking* about TSLA.

That's one reason that I've take the contrarian stance and shorted this stock on Thursday. 
The valuation of this stock is ridiculously high.

I know it's early, but with today's drop, so far my directional guess looks good.


----------



## LBCfan

avrex said:


> Yep, *everyone is talking* about TSLA.
> 
> That's one reason that I've take the contrarian stance and shorted this stock on Thursday.
> The valuation of this stock is ridiculously high.
> 
> I know it's early, but with today's drop, so far my directional guess looks good.


One good thing about shorting TSLA is you don't have to worry about covering a dividend.


----------



## FrugalTrader

Avrex, I was looking for this thread to congratulate you on shorting TSLA. Do you have a plan on when you will cover?


----------



## avrex

FrugalTrader said:


> Avrex, I was looking for this thread to congratulate you on shorting TSLA.


Hey @FrugalTrader, thanks.

On Thursday, I thought the news for TSLA couldn't get any better ..... so I took the contrarian position. 
I will admit that my timing (so far) is very lucky.

Just to be clear, I bought an in-the-money put option (Jan 2016 $300), which is almost equivalent to shorting the actual stock.
I bought at 43.80 and four days later it has moved up to 56.30. I can't get too exited, because I could still lose my full investment.

Like most investors, I hold mostly long positions in my portfolio.
However, I also like to sprinkle in the odd short position (like this TSLA position, for example) to smooth out the ups-and-downs of the stock market (And to hopefully make some additional money.)



FrugalTrader said:


> Do you have a plan on when you will cover?


I hold this position in my TFSA and will need to close it before Jan 2016. (i.e. when the option expires)
I'll continue to monitor the valuation of TSLA. I'll close it if it reaches a more reasonable valuation, or I find another 'short investment idea' to replace this with.


----------



## FrugalTrader

TSLA is certainly a momentum/news based company. I trade this one in my "fun money" account. Sold my position during what appeared to be the "exhaustion gap" a few days ago, but will jump back in again when it finds support.


----------



## avrex

TSLA *down 10%* this morning on sales target cut.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

*Tesla's New Car Is So Good, It Literally Broke the Consumer Reports Scale*
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/tesla-with-insane-mode-busts-curve-on-consumer-reports-ratings-idu1hfk0
Saw a new Tesla charging station in Hope a few weeks ago as well.

Added this link from BNN as well (Tesla opening two dealerships in downtown Calgary within the next year):
http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/8/28/Tesla-to-open-2-dealerships-at-the-heart-of-Canadas-energy-crisis.aspx


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

If you study the Tesla chart it has regular up down cycles within the larger up down trend. I sold some OTM calls today expecting it to drop by 20 points in the next week or 10 days. We shall see what we shall see. Ready to bail or adjust if necessary.


----------



## avrex

I'm with you on this move. 

Others might not agree with us, and state that TSLA can only go up. 
Like this recent CMF poster who is positioning 75% of his whole portfolio (about 375k) into TSLA.


----------



## Cal

I saw there was an app for locations of the charging stations, I think one gets included in the car too.


----------



## avrex

I made a nice little profit in Jan 2016, as I unwound my options position in TSLA.
My timing was a bit lucky, as now TSLA stock is up significantly from it's Feb low, due to the success of it's Model 3 pre-orders.

However, at some point in 2016, I will once again look to enter a short position, as the valuation of Tesla stock starts to become unwarranted.

Here's an interesting article of this overvaluation.

Tesla's real disruption (Eric Reguly, Globe & Mail)


----------



## pwm

Tesla losses money on every car they sell, so their solution is to ramp up production. How can that business model possibly succeed? I wouldn't touch this stock unless to short it.


----------



## bgc_fan

pwm said:


> Tesla losses money on every car they sell, so their solution is to ramp up production. How can that business model possibly succeed? I wouldn't touch this stock unless to short it.


Hmm, and you base this fact on this article? Yeah, it doesn't mean what you think it means. 

Just because the company posted a loss mainly due to expansion, and construction costs (new facilities), or research development, you can't divide that loss by the number of cars sold and say that each car is sold at a $X loss. The fact of the matter is that the public doesn't know what is the actual manufacturing cost per car. When you account only for parts, and labour, I suspect Tesla probably makes money on each car. Of course, the company itself may be burning cash as it expands/builds plants, or develop new models, but that does not mean the component costs of the car is more than what it is being sold for.


----------



## andrewf

I don't disagree that Tesla is probably overvalued, as they will have a hard time growing into their current valuation. But that article with comments from Marchionne seems to not really get it. The claim that hydrogen is going to come and eat battery electric's lunch? Right... There is absolutely zero distribution infrastructure for hydrogen cars. That is not going to spring up overnight. Tesla has a pretty big head start in charging stations. And given the low margins of the auto industry, I think Tesla's sales and service infrastructure likely makes a lot of sense. Avoiding dealers and pressures to provide them margins to work with means Tesla captures more of the total cost of ownership pie. The biggest risk to Tesla now is low oil prices, not hydrogen. And even if we are wrong about hydrogen, Tesla already has a lot of experience with electric drivetrains, which you could bolt a hydrogen fuel cell onto as the power source rather than batteries.


----------



## mreconomic

Tesla is expanding rapidly through out the world, their shares should keep rising for the next couple of years due to a competitive advantage they have over the rest of electric car producers... selling online, cars with longer authonomy, etc... offering a better product for a lower cost is always a good way to present an annual report

recommend a STRONG BUY (and HOLD for at least 1 year, maybe 2)


----------



## pwm

What happens after governments stop paying people to buy them?


----------



## cheech10

In Ontario you get $3000 back on a $100,000 Model S. Not a huge percentage, and they are selling them as fast as they can build them.


----------



## andrewf

The tax incentive does still play a non-trivial role in creating demand. Being in a high fuel tax jurisdiction probably would make a bigger difference, though.


----------



## mreconomic

This company is the future... Im sure about it, competitive advantage among all competitors.


----------



## james4beach

Thoughts on TSLA ? It's now about the same price as when the last posts were made.

Do you think it will hit new all time highs soon?


----------



## gardner

james4beach said:


> Thoughts on TSLA ?


I am skeptical about their ability to execute against all their claims and I am frustrated by the presses uncritical acceptance of whatever crazy thing they claim to be able to do. I believe the market cap is grossly inflated. At 43B, they are about the same cap as Nissan, but Nissan produced more electric cars in more markets at greater profit and with, in my opinion, more advanced battery technology. And they ran a huge conventional motor vehicle company besides.



> Do you think it will hit new all time highs soon?


I have no real doubt. People clearly aren't buying value here, they are buying marketing sizzle. Musk is great at keeping Tesla in the news and on people's minds and the media accepts without question everything he claims. People lap that stuff up and will buy the stock at any price because they perceive that "it is the future" in some sense.


----------



## james4beach

Well, it's not true that people will buy the stock at any price. It's been a very poor performer: the share price has gone nowhere for 3 years -- totally flat


----------



## gardner

Well, it's up 4% this morning and cracked $280.


----------



## james4beach

Sure, it's up today but has basically been sideways for 3 years -- dead money so far
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=TSLA&p=D&st=2014-02-01&en=today&id=p96326623113

But really it must break above $300 and demonstrate a new all time high. Otherwise there's the possibility you're buying a risky hype stock on the top end of its sideways motion.


----------



## TomB19

I love Tesla and not just because I bought at $183 a few months ago. Lol

They have the best battery technology and they are going to revolutionize the grid energy storage world.

A few batteries will make such a positive impact, there is 100% chance of success in the energy storage field. As for high ratios of storage, that is less obvious. We don't know how much energy storage will be optimal but there is a lot of room to grow before we even consider slowing down in that sector.

Electric cars are less exciting but still a strong growth sector.


----------



## TomB16

Did anyone else notice the Tesla installation in Kauai was not a sale. It's a power purchase agreement. Tesla now owns it's first state scale power production with 13MW of solar generation and 52MW of storage.

I wish Tesla would stay focused.


----------



## Eder

Tesla CEO told shareholders not happy to go buy Ford stock. Not the management I want using my money.


----------



## agent99

TomB16 said:


> Did anyone else notice the Tesla installation in Kauai was not a sale. It's a power purchase agreement. Tesla now owns it's first state scale power production with 13MW of solar generation and 52MW of storage.
> 
> I wish Tesla would stay focused.


I don't think its a bad thing. It's a way to get traction for their technology. 

It's hard to get funding for large projects, especially ones using unproven technology. Tesla has the money to fund these, so it's a win-win situation. 

I do agree that on it's own, this will not likely be a money maker for Tesla. More of a demonstration facility that may boost revenue down the road.


----------



## TomB16

More losses than expected and double the revenue from a year ago. I'm not sure what to make if it but I can't imagine anything too remunerative could be going on while they ramp up major production capacity for the model 3.

I'm not sure what to make of the earnings call this afternoon. All seems OK and as expected. Anyone care to opine?


----------



## gardner

It's up 3% today and sitting at a new all time high. The Elon Musk reality distortion field is in top form.


----------



## internalaudit

Wait until the onslaught of 200+ mile BEVs (Hyundai/Kia, Germans, eventually Toyota who makes really good hybrid vehicles and only require removal of the engine and placing a much bigger battery pack) and let's see if the Super charger network is really a competitive advantage.

I want Tesla to survive but I think the stock price is just too frothy for me to invest in. I don't seen any competitive advantage to the SCN really for 90-95% of my driving usage. I hold a reservation for a Model 3 (because I don't dig the Bolt and will see what the final M3 looks like and reassessing my household's drivingneeds) but I read quite a few times that liking a product doesn't mean liking the company stock that makes the product.


----------



## TomB16

internalaudit said:


> Wait until the onslaught of 200+ mile BEVs (Hyundai/Kia, Germans, eventually Toyota who makes really good hybrid vehicles and only require removal of the engine and placing a much bigger battery pack)


Anyone can build an electric car. Motor... battery... perhaps a switch to turn it on... done! lol!

I don't want to stop anyone from having a nice time hating Elon but the Tesla ecosystem may be just a tiny bit more complicated than many seem to think.

You may have slightly over-looked Tesla's lead in the ability to fast charge, battery longevity with their own custom chemistry (if true, they have double the life of other companies), and their lead in creating an electric car ecosystem.

Teslas can charge anywhere. Other cars can charge anywhere except the supercharger network. Tesla has no issue letting anyone using the supercharger network but they have said the cars must be able to take the current, as they don't want somebody consuming a network port all day while they soak up current at a fraction of what a Tesla can.

The Bolt has a fast charge option available at a few locations that allow the car to drive 90 miles on 30 minutes of charge. On the Interstate at 75mph, that's about 1:15 of driving for every 30 minutes of charge. Help yourself to that.

The Bolt is only a commuter car.

Electric cars are not all the same and there is worlds more engineering to them than putting a motor and battery into a car that used to be a gas car or hybrid.

Does anyone remember the battery longevity issues with the original Leaf?

If Tesla's anode design is as good as claimed, or even close, they will be the Toyota of electric cars.


----------



## andrewf

Crowd-sourced battery longevity data for Model S indicates that Tesla seems to have battery management down. It seems likely that few battery packs will need to be replaced before the car is retired. If anything, it sounds like motor longevity is a bigger problem (though it may be that Tesla has already solved this).

I'm optimistic about Tesla as a business. It's valuation is very hard to swallow, though.


----------



## peterk

I'm wondering if Tesla is a good short candidate. Sky-high valuation, no dividend to worry about... the Model 3 has convinced smart, urban nerds with money to burn (on cars and popular stocks) that this "inexpensive" $50,000 battery on wheels is going to make quick work of the gasoline engine in a few year's time.

I have a feeling we are at or nearing peak environmental hysteria, peak green-energy optimism, peak Saudi-must-be-unloading-their-oil-before-it-becomes-worthless delusions.


----------



## andrewf

Go ahead and short. I think that might be a crazy idea. Might as well short Amazon.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

A few years ago I made some money on Tesla, using options, long and short. For a while it ran up and down in regular cycles. It still seems to trend and reverse although not as predictably as it used to.

If you are nimble and catch the turning points you can make some fast coin.


----------



## gardner

peterk said:


> I'm wondering if Tesla is a good short candidate.


The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Tesla, in my opinion, has never been worth more than a couple $B. I do not believe they've ever made a cent and to sustain the current cap they have to grow to the size of Nissan. That's a lot of ground to cover. But people still believe in them and will irrationally support gargantuan valuations on the strength of a few press releases and a few speaches by Mr. Musk. There's a tremendous reservoir of irrationality on tap.


----------



## peterk

andrewf said:


> Go ahead and short. I think that might be a crazy idea. Might as well short Amazon.





gardner said:


> The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent. Tesla, in my opinion, has never been worth more than a couple $B. I do not believe they've ever made a cent and to sustain the current cap they have to grow to the size of Nissan. That's a lot of ground to cover. But people still believe in them and will irrationally support gargantuan valuations on the strength of a few press releases and a few speaches by Mr. Musk. There's a tremendous reservoir of irrationality on tap.


Yeap, I probably wouldn't seriously consider it. I am buying lots of Ford, though.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Tesla perhaps the only ride that improves with age like fine wine. Improvements to the ride can be down loaded


----------



## zylon

lonewolf :) said:


> Tesla perhaps the only ride that improves with age ...


You're not married, are you? [many smilies]

(apologies for the trump-like out of context butchery)


----------



## TomB16

Any opinions on how a potential $9B contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's energy grid might affect Tesla?


----------



## Pluto

Nope. 
But clearly tesla is more than a car company and it is fascinating watching the tesla drama unfold. Its like a nail biting si - fi novel.


----------



## steve41

or an imminent train wreck.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

TomB16 said:


> Any opinions on how a potential $9B contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's energy grid might affect Tesla?


Interesting (odd?) question.

Interesting relationship with cars as well it would seem. 
_Puerto Rico has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world.
Only five months ago, Puerto Rico claimed the Guinness world record for the longest parade of classic cars: 2,491._
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-02/puerto-rico-s-very-american-love-of-cars-is-jamming-its-recovery

One issue is cost of electricity. Apparently most power is currently from petroleum (51%), nat gas (31%) and current cost of residential electricity is 50% higher than mainland US. Another issue is the avg income of ~$19k/yr. They suggest to me that Tesla is a non-starter there.


----------



## nobleea

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> One issue is cost of electricity. Apparently most power is currently from petroleum (51%), nat gas (31%) and current cost of residential electricity is 50% higher than mainland US. Another issue is the avg income of ~$19k/yr. They suggest to me that Tesla is a non-starter there.


Really? The main drawback to solar and Tesla powerwalls and the like is their high upfront cost. If you remove the capex, they would be very comparable if not cheaper than the imported alternatives in Puerto Rico. Given the fact that their electrical system and grid is completely decimated and they have to start from scratch, it's going to be a large capital cost regardless. The small scale generation and powerbanks are far more scaleable than a large powerplant or two, which is important given the large change in Puerto Rico's population.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that everyone in Puerto Rico is going to be driving Tesla's. This would just be a discussion on a power generation/storage and distribution system.

Tesla is trying to get in with one of the Australian states who also has high cost of power and frequent brown/black outs.

The stock is still massively overpriced.


----------



## doctrine

Really, I don't think Puerto Rico should be in the solar power / Tesla battery business. See below for recent photos of pre-existing Puerto Rico solar arrays.

https://www.facebook.com/nukepowerg...3002781137014/362633244173966/?type=3&theater

Maybe Puerto Rico should solve their economic and debt problems, before borrowing $9 billion more dollars for something that will be destroyed in the next hurricane. Sheesh.


----------



## nobleea

doctrine said:


> Really, I don't think Puerto Rico should be in the solar power / Tesla battery business. See below for recent photos of pre-existing Puerto Rico solar arrays.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/nukepowerg...3002781137014/362633244173966/?type=3&theater
> 
> Maybe Puerto Rico should solve their economic and debt problems, before borrowing $9 billion more dollars for something that will be destroyed in the next hurricane. Sheesh.


By that logic, they shouldn't borrow X dollars to rebuild their existing power infrastructure as it too will be destroyed in the new hurricane.

http://www.theweatherjunkies.com/si...olar-Farms-Heavily-Damaged-By-Hurricane-Maria

"The giant solar field built by Canadian Solar (below) came out relatively unscathed after facing harsh winds from Irma and Maria. These panels are specifically designed to outlast hurricanes. Each panel is built several meters off the ground to avoid floods and reinforced to withstand winds of category 5 hurricanes (156mph)"

Anything is possible.


----------



## doctrine

Anything is possible. Solar is bad enough for a poorer place. You can absolutely build cheaper power that will also be hurricane proof. Gold plating with borrowed money is hardly a long term solution.


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB16 said:


> Any opinions on how a potential $9B contract to rebuild Puerto Rico's energy grid might affect Tesla?


Tesla is interesting as it is essentially a vertically integrated company. Imagine if a car company owned oil companies.
It would be worth looking at the gigafactory capacity for battery production. They use the same batteries for the cars as they do for the Powerwall. Maybe this would distract Tesla from car production? It would provide a fairly steady stream of income and be a test case on what is possible. 

That being said, the stock is probably overpriced.


----------



## bgc_fan

doctrine said:


> Anything is possible. Solar is bad enough for a poorer place. You can absolutely build cheaper power that will also be hurricane proof. Gold plating with borrowed money is hardly a long term solution.


You have to keep in mind that they are starting from scratch. Obviously the status quo didn't work, or they wouldn't have to rebuild. The $9B estimate isn't the gold plated solution cost, but to return it to its original state. A rethink is required, i.e. forget centralized electricity production and think about microgrids. The weak points of the energy grid are all those powerlines and transmission towers from a centralized power generator. The only way to deal with that is to bury the lines which will cost a premium over overhead lines.

Then you have to consider the fuel costs. Everything is imported and thanks to the Jones Act, they pay a premium on anything being shipped in.

So in this case, solar microgrids may be the best choice.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> Anything is possible. Solar is bad enough for a poorer place. You can absolutely build cheaper power that will also be hurricane proof. Gold plating with borrowed money is hardly a long term solution.


Explain.

PR and many other island states rely on costly imported diesel or fuel oil. It's an ideal application for solar. And solar can absolutely be made to endure severe winds. Notwithstanding a single facebook photo (fake news).


----------



## TomB19

It's interesting how passionate people are about Tesla, both for and against. It seems to generally divide along political lines.

Those of you against, have any of you gone short?


----------



## andrewf

Indeed, that is the litmus test.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Good article reviewing the challenges of time, distance and plug standards. None are insurmountable but the road is not without bumps. They remain best suited to around-town commuters imo. 

Interesting 'lifestyle' comments, 
_it’s wrong to think about charging electric cars in the way they envision filling up a gasoline or diesel vehicle... customers will have to stick to charging an electric vehicle whenever it’s not being used, much as they already do with smartphones and tablets. According to ChargePoint, 90 per cent of vehicle charging is currently done at home...
Electric vehicles are more like horses than gasoline cars... They are like a horse that eats whenever you’re not riding it, you refuel them when you’re doing something else._

http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/features/electric-car-makers-need-to-resolve-one-future-anxiety-1.2103475


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Good article reviewing the challenges of time, distance and plug standards. None are insurmountable but the road is not without bumps. They remain best suited to around-town commuters imo.
> 
> Interesting 'lifestyle' comments,
> _it’s wrong to think about charging electric cars in the way they envision filling up a gasoline or diesel vehicle... customers will have to stick to charging an electric vehicle whenever it’s not being used, much as they already do with smartphones and tablets. According to ChargePoint, 90 per cent of vehicle charging is currently done at home...
> Electric vehicles are more like horses than gasoline cars... They are like a horse that eats whenever you’re not riding it, you refuel them when you’re doing something else._
> 
> http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/features/electric-car-makers-need-to-resolve-one-future-anxiety-1.2103475


Well, maybe. A Tesla Model S with 300 miles of range could be charged overnight one night in 7-14 if you do little daily driving. It's not quite as dramatic as is suggested here. It's not like a smartphone in that you won't be screwed the next day if you forget to plug it in.


----------



## TomB16

That's an interesting perspective. It may even be accurate for non-Tesla electric vehicles.

Tesla is the only EV that can be comfortably used for most touring. These cars are both enabled and limited by the supercharger network. Crossing the US would be no big deal. Driving to Alaska would be a big deal. By the time you get to small towns in remote places, a Tesla is the same as an Leaf or similar vehicle. That is: plug in and wait for several hours.

I drive a VW TDI wagon. I can drive 1000km on a 55l tank. We drive on the highway all the time. I've timed our fuelling stops. They are all about 15 minutes in total.

We could run a 3 with a reasonable impact to our travel pace, as long as we remain within the domain of the supercharger network. Charge stops would be 20 minutes and they would take place every 4 hours, or so.

The real problem is going to northern Manitoba or any remote location.

I don't think electric is ideal for a highway car but for a city car that occasionally goes on the highway (the most common use profile), a Tesla could do a good job for the majority of North Americans.

Take a look at other EVs. They don't have 20 minute fast charging. They are city cars.

There is an endless stream of people who analyze Tesla as the same as other EV makers because they have a battery, motor, seats,... These analyses are laughable.


----------



## andrewf

Where BEVs start to look appealing for high mileage highway cars is the fact that electricity is considerably cheaper than diesel per km. There are companies that shuttle teslas between LA & Vegas and already have 400k kms on them.


----------



## MrMatt

TomB19 said:


> It's interesting how passionate people are about Tesla, both for and against. It seems to generally divide along political lines.
> 
> Those of you against, have any of you gone short?


Going short is a lot different than not investing.
I don't invest in thousands of companies.


I don't think Tesla has a sustainable competitive advantage, they have Elons persona, and that's it.

Over promise-work like crazy, under deliver to promises, but still deliver more than anyone expected.
Nice trick, but on electric cars the competition is right there with Tesla, they're not all that far behind.


----------



## Pluto

^
Yep. What is he, and investors thinking? Tesla will end up being one among many more or less equivilant EV's.


----------



## gardner

MrMatt said:


> the competition is right there with Tesla, they're not all that far behind.


Arguably some are ahead. The Leaf still outsells the S and arguably has a more advanced battery technology. Nissan is also profitable into the bargain.


----------



## bgc_fan

gardner said:


> Arguably some are ahead. The Leaf still outsells the S and arguably has a more advanced battery technology. Nissan is also profitable into the bargain.


Well, Tesla has the advantage of being first out of the gate to install a supercharger network. That helps to deal with some of the range anxiety. No other company offers a similar product at the moment.


----------



## TomB19

... and the stock keeps going up.

I sold when it last hit $380 and re-bought at 330. In retrospect, I should not have. The reward was small and the risk was great. Fortunately, it worked out.

I'm aware of the infinite number of problems that can negatively influence this stock, from politics to suppliers. The only thing that will move this stock forward is hard work and good decisions.

I'm literally betting these guys will operate with hard work and few mistakes for years, well beyond what other car companies have ever done, and I'm comfortable with it.

I'd never make this bet on gm, although gm appears to have excellent management at this moment in time.


----------



## TomB19

Congratulations to the short investors.

With another round of bulk firings, the downside investors should be in good shape


----------



## doctrine

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-earnings-model-3-delays-1.4382893

Tesla is not a very good mass manufacturing company. 260 model 3's produced, against a target of 1500. More delays. They are redesigning the production process on the fly they are trying to expand so fast. Biggest quarterly loss ever. Yet the stock is still priced for perfection. Well, maybe 20% less than perfection, but 80% of a crazy valuation is still a pretty crazy valuation. We don't even know that they will be able to produce the Model 3 profitably, whether off the shelf or from a lifecycle/support/liability perspective. But, Musk. People will still give him their money almost unconditionally.


----------



## steve41

I got one word.... "SCHADENFREUDE"


----------



## andrewf

Not going to defend the valuation, but I give Tesla credit for moving so fast. Traditional automakers cannot get new models out this quickly. People have underestimated Tesla in the past and been wrong, and I think they will be wrong now. A couple month delay in getting volume production going is just a speedbump. How many automakers have a 400k waiting list to sell a product?


----------



## TomB16

There are two things happening here.

First, there is a production ramp problem with a new model. How many delays do you suppose Ford had in bringing their first vehicles to market? How many new model delays have there been in the auto industry over time? The delay is momentarily significant, at best.

A bigger obstacle is the anti-Tesla campaign (there is also an anti-SpaceX campaign). Do a Google search on "breitbart tesla". You will see the tap has been turned on for anti-Tesla news. Conservative news has abruptly begun to smear Tesla. It came online recently. Obviously, someone started funding it.

Tesla comments reinforce the need for independent thought. That includes streams of negativity as well as the declarations of the stock surpassing $1000 by Christmas.

This company could fail. They have a near infinite number of opportunities for failure but only a few opportunities to succeed. I believe they will succeed because they pass the three most important investment criteria: Honest, hard working, smart Always bet on these three metrics.

For those who follow the theory of finding an honest, hard working, and smart company, then wait for that company to be impacted by a negative event to buy, this is a clear buy signal.

As for valuing the company, I don't think anyone can do that. It's guesswork, at this point. I went in heavy (for me) well below $200 so I'm still comfortable. That price could turn out to be an amazing bargain or it could turn out I have over paid. We'll all find out in ten years.

Anyone who claims to be able to value Tesla is claiming to be able to predict the political future of the United States. Everyone that I know, who has claimed this, has been wrong over time so I see no need to pay attention to their current predictions.


----------



## TomB16

I bought Tesla and plan to hold it long term based on the adage of looking for teams that are honest, hard working, and smart (in that order of priority). I'm going to call this situation, HHWS.

I've never seen so much smoke obscuring a company before. The Elon is a fraud and a failure folks, combined with the group who think the stock will be $1000/shr by Christmas, it seems that 90% of the opinion on Tesla is irrational.

Is anyone staying away from Tesla due to the hysteria?

Also, would anyone care to share an opinion on what will happen when Elon leaves Tesla?

I assume, at some point in the not too distant future, Elon will leave Tesla and spend 100% of his time at SpaceX. JB Straubel is plenty competent to handle Tesla without Elon but Tesla will have a more difficult time raising money in the capital markets and that's a pretty big factor with such a huge company.


----------



## Koogie

I've always assumed TSLA is an eventual takeover/merger target. Especially considering their close friendships with a couple of the large auto manufacturers.


----------



## gardner

TomB16 said:


> Is anyone staying away from Tesla due to the hysteria?


I am definitely giving it a wide berth. I have been skeptical of their business since the beginning. It is 80% hype. The actual business is comparable to Nissan's EV business, which is a small part of Nissan. Yet TSLA has a larger market cap than all of Nissan.



> what will happen when Elon leaves Tesla?


Total collapse. But I do not believe he is likely to leave. Tesla exists mostly because of his ability to sell the sizzle. Without Musk, folks would notice that the model 3 is not getting shipped. With Musk all they notice is the promise of new trucks and whether *anything* ships is irrelevant. He *is* Tesla.


----------



## nobleea

I would not be an investor, but I think Tesla is great. Even if they can't deliver, they are pushing the industry, and even creating new industries. I don't care if Musk bankrolls the losses himself for the rest of his life. Maybe the stock is more like a crowdfunding of cool ideas which benefit society as a whole.


----------



## andrewf

Koogie said:


> I've always assumed TSLA is an eventual takeover/merger target. Especially considering their close friendships with a couple of the large auto manufacturers.


I'm not sure any automaker would be willing to buy TSLA at anything like current valuations.


----------



## Koogie

andrewf said:


> I'm not sure any automaker would be willing to buy TSLA at anything like current valuations.


Hence the "eventual" part


----------



## AltaRed

Koogie said:


> Hence the "eventual" part


I agree it might make sense at $50 or so, depending on what parts come with it. 

There is nothing stopping VW (Audi/Porsche), BMW, MB, Volvo, Toyota, etc. marketing EVs of equal quality and performance at competitive prices with Tesla and know how to actually assemble them. There is nothing Tesla has that cannot be repeated by even Magna for most of the major components for a number of quality OEMs.

I'd rather buy from someone who is going to be around long term to service and support the vehicle.

Added: http://mashable.com/2017/10/03/electric-car-development-plans-ford-gm/#Qcnmlic88iqD


----------



## fatcat

a bigger and more immediate problem than elon leaving is the fact that the new tax bill kills electric vehicle subsidies


----------



## AltaRed

fatcat said:


> a bigger and more immediate problem than elon leaving is the fact that the new tax bill kills electric vehicle subsidies


If the tax bill continues in its current form. There may be more of an impact to the Tesla 3 than the two luxury models that are bought by those more interested in status and can probably afford them anyway. In any event, in perhaps as little as 5 years, the USA is likely going to find itself well behind the curve on EVs. Americans in general are not nearly as progressive in their thinking as are many parts of the world.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I agree it might make sense at $50 or so, depending on what parts come with it.
> 
> There is nothing stopping VW (Audi/Porsche), BMW, MB, Volvo, Toyota, etc. marketing EVs of equal quality and performance at competitive prices with Tesla and know how to actually assemble them. There is nothing Tesla has that cannot be repeated by even Magna for most of the major components for a number of quality OEMs.
> 
> I'd rather buy from someone who is going to be around long term to service and support the vehicle.
> 
> Added: http://mashable.com/2017/10/03/electric-car-development-plans-ford-gm/#Qcnmlic88iqD


I think this is perhaps overstated. Why has no one seriously challenged Tesla?


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> If the tax bill continues in its current form. There may be more of an impact to the Tesla 3 than the two luxury models that are bought by those more interested in status and can probably afford them anyway. In any event, in perhaps as little as 5 years, the USA is likely going to find itself well behind the curve on EVs. Americans in general are not nearly as progressive in their thinking as are many parts of the world.


The impact is transitory anyway, since Tesla has already extracted the most value out of the credit, since it will start phasing out after Q1 2018 anyway. All of Tesla's competitors will have gotten less out of it.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> I think this is perhaps overstated. Why has no one seriously challenged Tesla?


The competitors are just getting traction with their EV offerings and have both the experience and tooling to make it a profitable venture. They will pounce on to the market in a big way by about 2020. Tesla has yet to show a profit... Burning through $5 Billion or so in cash per year in not profitable for shareholders. IOW, show me earnings. If they don't get that fixed by the end of 2019, they've lost the lead.


----------



## TomB16

Let's take a road trip. Who is down for driving a Bolt or a Leaf from the Pacific to the Atlantic?

We can dock our Sony Walkman to the stereo and enjoy some music on the trip.

Let's go. lol!


----------



## gardner

andrewf said:


> Why has no one seriously challenged Tesla?


I very much agree with AltaRed here. Nissan, as just one example, is about even with Tesla in terms of units shipped, and their battery technology is significantly advanced. I don't know if the EV business at Nissan is profitable, but Nissan as a whole is. Tesla still buys truckloads of laptop batteries from Matsushita, makes no money at all, and survives entirely on the strength of Elon Musk's reality distortion field.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> The competitors are just getting traction with their EV offerings and have both the experience and tooling to make it a profitable venture. They will pounce on to the market in a big way by about 2020. Tesla has yet to show a profit... Burning through $5 Billion or so in cash per year in not profitable for shareholders. IOW, show me earnings. If they don't get that fixed by the end of 2019, they've lost the lead.


Tesla has good gross margins. Their losses are driven by investment.

Tesla has built a service infrastructure (charging and retail stores) that will be difficult for competitors to match. Other automakers are years behind on charging (ie, nowhere at all; waiting for 3rd party). The direct ownership model for stores and service is beneficial for margins and loyalty, and the legacy automakers have a dealer network that they cannot exit cheaply or easily.

The arguments you're raising remind me of arguments that legacy retailers would crush an early Amazon in the 2000s.


----------



## andrewf

I should add that if you are an automaker that has a 2 year backlog on a new model, the correct move is to invest heavily to bring it to market. Tesla will be able to sell all the model 3s they can produce for the next several years. Their valuation has significant growth baked in, so if Tesla were not investing heavily to drive that growth, the valuation would be called into question even more.


----------



## AltaRed

Maybe. Sounds more like Apple to me with their original visionary, almost going bankrupt, and now relying on a proprietary fanboy base to stay in business. A niche player overtaken by the likes of Google, Android, Microsoft, Samsung.

Telsa has to prove they can actually mass produce the Tesla 3 like a BMW or MB or Audi could (and eventually will). My opinion is Elon is too busy visioning electric heavy haul trucks and space rockets to pay enough attention to the mechanics and balance sheet of the auto business. Does that now sound more like the Apple story than Amazon? Only time will tell.


----------



## TomB19

Red, am I misunderstanding your post? I must be.

At over a half trillion market cap... With a "t"... Apple is a pretty large niche player. They aren't that far behind microsoft.


----------



## kcowan

No Tom. AR was just expressing his opinions. You are right to question how Apple and Tesla could even be mentioned in the same paragraph. Buffett bought Apple because it is a consumer product company, not a tech company. Google, Android, Microsoft, Samsung is a weird collection of examples.

Google is probably the closest to a consumer products company. Android is an open source OS. Microsoft is a has-been like the IBM of the current generation of tech companies. Samsung is a leader in smartphone shipments by using Android and losing money on every sale, subsidized by its other business lines. Now they might be getting smart by pricing their latest at market prices and they seem to have finally caught up to Apple.


----------



## TomB16

kcowan said:


> No Tom. AR was just expressing his opinions.


I'm pretty sure I don't understand what he was telling us. I missed something. I know him to be an intelligent and rational person. I'd like to enjoy the benefit of understanding his opinion.


----------



## Oldroe

Elon one of the riches men in the world.

Company never turned a profit? Now that's ego. Must be the most in debt company in the world.


----------



## TomB16

I don't know anything about the semi tractor but that little roadster is too small to have 200KWh of energy storage in the floor pan between the wheels. At least, with the last generation of batteries.

I knew those batteries in the new roadster were better than the current generation but talk is starting to circulate that both vehicles must have roughly double the energy density of current cars to meet the specs that Elon cited at the launch.

Meanwhile, there is a global battery shortage that is impacting all manufacturers, except Tesla. I seem to recall Elon mentioning they had to build the gigafactory or the whole EV movement would come to a halt.

As Tesla ramps battery production, their cost is going down. As EVs become more popular, battery supply is becoming short and prices for other manufacturers are going up. Throw in some climate data to scare governments into moving ahead carbon reduction target dates and Tesla could explode.

... or, Tesla might go bankrupt. I don't take anyone seriously who claims to be able to predict the price of Tesla stock. It's a wild ride.


----------



## Pluto

I was thinking of shorting a stock for no reason other than to say I did it. Never shorted a stock before, and its on my to do for fun list. Every time I think about shorting something, Tesla comes to mind. think I'll wait till the bull market gets tired, however.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> Red, am I misunderstanding your post? I must be.
> 
> At over a half trillion market cap... With a "t"... Apple is a pretty large niche player. They aren't that far behind microsoft.


I was referring to Apple's early history when a visionary Steve Jobs just about killed the company. Seems strikingly familiar today with Elon Musk who is full of vision and a good marketer, but has negligible acumen for actually running a business. Jobs had to be tossed to rescue the company, after which time, of course, he came back to 'invent' the smartphone and take Apple to the next level. I do wonder though that had Jobs not died, he might have ultimately derailed the company again. We will never know because business people finally took control of the company paying attention to the bottom line. Apple is primarily still a one trick pony, only as good as its iPhone product. Competitors have passed Apple in its other businesses, and it is questionable whether the iPhone has any lead over other smartphone competitors. 

I see the same parallels in Elon Musk. I think Tesla has a good chance of imploding IF it cannot start to make substantial earnings before its competitors catch up. The Tesla fan base will only take it so far and that will only buy so many equity offerings before starry eyes pick up their marbles and go home. I do see Tesla (auto portion) as a niche player long term, but if it falters as MB, BMW and others take the mass market EV away, that division may not be owned by Tesla in 5 years. Perhaps MB will take it over like they did AMG years ago. Meanwhile, Elon will take the cash and be playing with electric tractor trailers, SpaceX, and maybe even solar tiles will actually catch on if they ever become cost competitive.

Added: Just saying owning Tesla stock will not be for the faint of heart. There are clouds on the horizon.


----------



## fatcat

AltaRed said:


> I was referring to Apple's early history when a visionary Steve Jobs just about killed the company. Seems strikingly familiar today with Elon Musk who is full of vision and a good marketer, but has negligible acumen for actually running a business. Jobs had to be tossed to rescue the company, after which time, of course, he came back to 'invent' the smartphone and take Apple to the next level. I do wonder though that had Jobs not died, he might have ultimately derailed the company again. We will never know because business people finally took control of the company paying attention to the bottom line. Apple is primarily still a one trick pony, only as good as its iPhone product. Competitors have passed Apple in its other businesses, and it is questionable whether the iPhone has any lead over other smartphone competitors.
> 
> I see the same parallels in Elon Musk. I think Tesla has a good chance of imploding IF it cannot start to make substantial earnings before its competitors catch up. The Tesla fan base will only take it so far and that will only buy so many equity offerings before starry eyes pick up their marbles and go home. I do see Tesla (auto portion) as a niche player long term, but if it falters as MB, BMW and others take the mass market EV away, that division may not be owned by Tesla in 5 years. Perhaps MB will take it over like they did AMG years ago. Meanwhile, Elon will take the cash and be playing with electric tractor trailers, SpaceX, and maybe even solar tiles will actually catch on if they ever become cost competitive.
> 
> Added: Just saying owning Tesla stock will not be for the faint of heart. There are clouds on the horizon.


i think the apple - tesla analogy is a good one

tesla isn't doing anything that the big automakers can't ultimately do except innovate exactly like apple who have grown their market share on innovation ... this may be changing as they get more mature and they are diversifying since they see the diminishing of smartphone profits in sight

musk must continue to innovate and catch the public's eye and that is always the hardest thing to do ... innovation i mean

i wonder what people feel about tesla's lead in charging stations, how much is that worth ?


----------



## AltaRed

fatcat said:


> i wonder what people feel about tesla's lead in charging stations, how much is that worth ?


It has helped to get Teslas on the road with name recognition and the cachet of privilege, but that is going to be lost as municipalities and electric utilities flood the roadways with their own offerings, never mind builders and developers. Tesla simply will not be able to fund exclusivity for long without breaking the bank. 

Same issue as Apple faced when having to concede to allowing Skype, Google Photos, Chrome, etc on to the Apple platform, all of which I use rather than the Apple offerings due to portability across platforms. Exclusivity only works until someone else has a 'more' competitive product.

Added: Just have to spend some time at https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/electric-vehicles.html https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/electric-vehicles/charging/charging-stations.html and https://www.plugshare.com/ etc, etc to get an idea where this is going.... with nair a mention of Tesla.


----------



## olivaw

This lighthearted video suggests that Tesla is doing exactly what it needs to do.


----------



## AltaRed

All of that is known and understood. It's Elon's distractions (and money drain) into those other things that could hobble his car business. Eye off the ball and all that could squander Tesla's head start.

Added: FWIW, everyone will ultimately have their own views on Tesla's 'success', i.e. technical, innovation, or business. I just know I wouldn't touch the stock myself. IMO, it is set up for perfection plus.


----------



## olivaw

I wouldn't touch any automobile company nowadays. Too much upheaval in that industry. If I had to choose between GM and TSLA, I'd probably choose TSLA. 

The concern about Elon Musk's distractions seems reasonable but the man has a habit of getting things done. SpaceX was initially dismissed as a Musk pipe dream but it has since flown ten supply missions to the ISS. The Aussies just installed a 100MW/129MWh Tesla Powerpak battery farm. Demand for the solar roofing tiles appears to be high. 

Whether or not Tesla is going to make any money is uncertain. If I were ever to invest in TSLA, it would be less than 1% of my portfolio and I would have to prepare myself for the possibility that it could go to zero.


----------



## TomB16

Thank you for the perspective, Red.


----------



## doctrine

If the Model 3 doesn't work, then Tesla is probably in bankruptcy/bailout territory. Even if it works out, I would say that stock price is not justified. If you buy Tesla today, it is because you believe in their next product, because the Model 3 is not what will either save the world or be a big seller much beyond what I would expect are the first 1-2 million buyers. Maybe within 3-4 years they double the mileage at the same price for the Model 4. That might be an interesting product; in my opinion, that is the true bet with Tesla stock.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> If the Model 3 doesn't work, then Tesla is probably in bankruptcy/bailout territory. Even if it works out, I would say that stock price is not justified. If you buy Tesla today, it is because you believe in their next product, because the Model 3 is not what will either save the world or be a big seller much beyond what I would expect are the first 1-2 million buyers. Maybe within 3-4 years they double the mileage at the same price for the Model 4. That might be an interesting product; in my opinion, that is the true bet with Tesla stock.


Next car is not Model 4 (that is not how Tesla is building out their range). They are going to make Model Y, a smaller and more affordable SUV. I think you underestimate the appeal of Tesla. They are mostly constrained by their ability to make cars (and the batteries to go in them). Tesla has decimated Mercedes, BMW, etc. share in large luxury cars. Tesla won't be competing with Camry or Corolla in the short term, but they are going after BMW 3 series, etc.


----------



## gardner

andrewf said:


> They are mostly constrained by their ability to make cars (and the batteries to go in them).


Tesla still buys all their batteries from Panasonic/Matsushita. They have an agreement that Panasonic makes some of them in a Tesla building, but it's all Panasonic research science, expertise, patents and technology. Tesla's ability to execute on actual auto manufacturing is the key thing at this stage, and they are up against businesses that really know what they're doing.

Nissan DOES make their own batteries, with their own technology, and DOES know how to make autos in bulk, at a profit. They make the same amount of electric cars as Tesla in more markets. Tesla is not out of the woods.

Some of us can remember the dot-com/internet bubble and the silly, and ultimately wrong, thinking that went into the absurd valuations of companies. I don't really understand where folks thought money was going to come from to make Yahoo really more valuable that Boeing. But I know it never came. Where the money will come from to make Tesla really more valuable than GM, Ford or Honda, I am similarly challenged to imagine. Never mind though -- this time it will be different -- us old folks just don't "get it".


----------



## andrewf

gardner said:


> Tesla still buys all their batteries from Panasonic/Matsushita. They have an agreement that Panasonic makes some of them in a Tesla building, but it's all Panasonic research science, expertise, patents and technology. Tesla's ability to execute on actual auto manufacturing is the key thing at this stage, and they are up against businesses that really know what they're doing.
> 
> Nissan DOES make their own batteries, with their own technology, and DOES know how to make autos in bulk, at a profit. They make the same amount of electric cars as Tesla in more markets. Tesla is not out of the woods.
> 
> Some of us can remember the dot-com/internet bubble and the silly, and ultimately wrong, thinking that went into the absurd valuations of companies. I don't really understand where folks thought money was going to come from to make Yahoo really more valuable that Boeing. But I know it never came. Where the money will come from to make Tesla really more valuable than GM, Ford or Honda, I am similarly challenged to imagine. Never mind though -- this time it will be different -- us old folks just don't "get it".


Panasonic makes the batteries, Tesla integrates them and makes the battery management system. Tesla has made a strategic partnership with Panasonic to build them at scale. And Tesla has been constrained by the ability of get batteries at the right cost, which is what the whole Gigafactory exercise is about, as well as the new battery format.

Nissan sells maybe same # of units, but not same $ value. Nissan's Leaf is a pretty meagre product when stacked up against even Model 3, which is more up-market.

As I have said numerous times in this thread, I don't defend Tesla's valuation. I just don't doubt it as a business. You can't deny that Tesla has lit a fire under the whole auto industry to start delivering compelling electric cars.


----------



## TomB16

gardner said:


> Never mind though -- this time it will be different -- us old folks just don't "get it".


From reading your text, it appears you don't get it.

There are several posts in here from people who project a great deal of confidence in their bear position. You are one of them.

Suffice to say, I don't share your view on their outlook. There is nothing interesting about that. The interest lies in what appears to be missing from your view.

- Tesla has been leasing solar and storage. They didn't sell the solar/storage facility to the Island of Kauai; they are selling power. They are building a power company, among other things.
- Their energy storage division has, at least, as much potential as the car division. They are quickly gaining traction in the commercial energy space.
- The SuperCharger network dominates all others. What if Ford had also created and built out Exxon Mobil, when they started producing cars? Imagine what they would be worth today.
- The SuperCharger network is now going to include stores, restaurants, and activities. These are extreme value adds, both in terms of making Tesla a more attractive vehicle platform and also for producing revenue.
- The SuperCharger stations are all going to have solar panels. You will be able to drive across the country on light.
- Tesla cars can take a bulk charge in 20 minutes. That makes their vehicles viable for long distance travel.

The lamest comments cite the money Tesla is bleeding as proof they will go out of business soon. They seem wilfully ignorant of the idea that buying a manufacturing machine worth billions is probably going to cause some red ink for a while. The question is, what is the amortization of the machine and can the machine be kept busy with vehicle sales of sufficient margin.

Tesla market cap contains a significant component of speculation. I believe this is agreed by anyone who has the tiniest clue. Where points of view seem to vary is how much of speculation is justified and how much is hysteria.

Tesla certainly has more opportunities for failure than it has for success. Talk of the stock breaking $1000 by Christmas is absolutely ridiculous but this equity is being driven by pure speculation so I shouldn't pretend to be able to predict the price. I don't believe anyone who claims to know, with certainty, what the stock price is going to do.

They are definitely going to need to dilute their issue to raise a lot more capital. It will be interesting to see how that impacts the existing share holders.


----------



## kcowan

gardner said:


> Nissan DOES make their own batteries, with their own technology, and DOES know how to make autos in bulk, at a profit. They make the same amount of electric cars as Tesla in more markets. Tesla is not out of the woods.


I also believe that the Nissan Leaf is a better bet than the low-end Tesla. 

I like the high-end Tesla as an alternative to a BMW but I worry about maintenance availability in 10 years. I agree with the comments about focus. Tesla reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s. Too many irons in the fire!


----------



## AltaRed

Which is why I think the auto division of Tesla will be expendable at some point, better in the hands of other companies that really know how to manufacture cost effectively, and how to distribute/service them. I wouldn't buy a Tesla myself for those reasons. 

Besides, Elon will likely need the cash out of the auto division to fund all those other irons, some of which are certainly innovative and likely to succeed.


----------



## Pluto

Tesla bulls seem to overlook the fact that it has no enduring competitive advantage. They talk as if only Tesla can do what Tesla is doing. There are plenty of competing car and power companies with solar and storage capabilities.


----------



## andrewf

Sure, but then Apple has no enduring competitive advantage, either. Plenty of people can make cell phones. 

I don't see any automaker working toward setting up the kind of ecosystem Tesla is. They are mostly 3-5 years behind, if you believe their promises.

kcowan, have you experienced a Nissan Leaf and compared to Model 3?


----------



## TomB19

In terms of enduring competitive advantage, there is the small matter of Tesla having the largest battery factory in the world.

On the solar side, I'd like to know what happened with the silevo acquisition. They seem to have cast this new bobble aside and have gone with a joint agreement for Panasonic cell manufacture/sourcing.

I believe Panasonic has some cool new Kung Fu in the solar space. I look forward to taking a nice windfall when it is announced. It must be pretty good for Tesla to disregard their own silevo which have been in small scale production and netting over 20% efficiency for a long time.


----------



## olivaw

Re: The Microsoft analogy upthread. I don't think it was a mistake for Microsoft to diversify. Indeed, I would say that diversification kept that company profitable. The biggest mistake that Microsoft made was in not recognizing the smart phone revolution. The Windows phone was alright but it was late to market and it never gained any traction.


----------



## kcowan

olivaw said:


> Re: The Microsoft analogy upthread. I don't think it was a mistake for Microsoft to diversify. Indeed, I would say that diversification kept that company profitable. The biggest mistake that Microsoft made was in not recognizing the smart phone revolution. The Windows phone was alright but it was late to market and it never gained any traction.


They made some mistakes. They got into hardware that had to use their software. Nokia anyone? Their biggest success in hardware was the gaming platform. They tried valiantly with the Surface.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> Sure, but then Apple has no enduring competitive advantage, either. Plenty of people can make cell phones.


Yup there are at least 24 manufacturers of smartphones. What was your point again?


andrewf said:


> I don't see any automaker working toward setting up the kind of ecosystem Tesla is. They are mostly 3-5 years behind, if you believe their promises.


They had a brilliant strategy to build out their own servicing infrastructure for the batteries. But had to abandon that for the Model 3 due to costs.


andrewf said:


> kcowan, have you experienced a Nissan Leaf and compared to Model 3?


No I will never own another car that is leading edge. We simply do not drive enough to justify an plug-in or even a new car. I would be willing to bet that the Model 3 would be better.


----------



## TomB19

The leaf has been around a bit. They are known to be a good car.

Early models had a battery degradation problem but I understand they have that sorted.

Tesla has always had excellent battery longevity and I understand they have improved it even more recently.

Tesla has had two slightly major issues. One is drive gear wear. About 10% of their drives were dieing way early. The rest seemed to go forever. They extended their drivetrain warranty in response to that issue.

The other major issue was a battery safety disconnect problem of the auxiliary battery. Apparently, if it gets too low it will simply disconnect itself, despite the main battery having plenty of juice. This was from the early days. I believe this was fixed with a software update.

Tesla has had some other random soft trim problems, also. Nothing significant, that I'm aware of, and probably less than you would expect for a startup automobile builder, but more than Toyota for the first couple of years.

Elon said his goal was Toyota fit and finish. To that end, he hired Toyotas top manufacturing engineer to run the Fremont factory.


----------



## AltaRed

For what it is worth, I looked at Tesla solar shingles briefly this spring when our house had to be re-shingled. They are not ready for prime time by Tesla's own admission on their shingle website. It will probably take another 5 years to iron out first generation problems. Also, they are focused on geographic regions, such as US Southwest, as the most economically justifiable places to push their initial program. Virtually impossible to see a way to make it economic in BC with inexpensive hydro and winter grey periods. Besides, being on the bleeding edge of technology can be painful and costly.


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> kcowan, have you experienced a Nissan Leaf and compared to Model 3?


One of these two cars will be a little easier to test than the other, although the new Bolt is a better comparison. After all, it has more range.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Yup there are at least 24 manufacturers of smartphones. What was your point again?


Apple is profitable despite the me-toos.



> They had a brilliant strategy to build out their own servicing infrastructure for the batteries. But had to abandon that for the Model 3 due to costs.


No idea what you mean by 'servicing for batteries'. What did they abandon?




> No I will never own another car that is leading edge. We simply do not drive enough to justify an plug-in or even a new car. I would be willing to bet that the Model 3 would be better.


Indeed. Model 3 outclasses Leaf by a good margin. They are not really competing products. However, Model 3 with extended range beats Leaf on cost per mile of range by a good amount, packaged with better performance and finishes and access to a superior charging network. Leaf is probably being saved mostly by the fact that Model 3 is not readily available. It won't be for another 2 years unless you plunk down a deposit while Tesla grinds through the backlog. Not many car companies can create a 2 year production backlog to fund development of car models.


----------



## TomB16

andrewf said:


> No idea what you mean by 'servicing for batteries'. What did they abandon?


He may be referring to a program Tesla was working on which involved being able to drive into a "car wash" type shed and having the battery pack robotically swapped out for a freshly charged pack. It was pretty slick and happened in about 90 seconds. They designed that capability into the model S.

The program was discontinued due to lack of interest. With the battery pack being a significant portion of the cost of a vehicle, people didn't seem all that keen to swap them around. Tesla had an idea that would have allowed the owner to swap back to their original pack at some point in the future but the interest just wasn't there.


----------



## TomB16

andrewf said:


> Model 3 outclasses Leaf by a good margin. They are not really competing products.


I've only been in a model S and that was at a Tesla dealer. I've been in a 1st generation Leaf, though. The Leaf was a delightful little car. It would be a terrific second vehicle for around town.

As you point out, the Leaf and Tesla do not compete. The Tesla is a viable replacement for a gas vehicle where the Leaf is not. People living in LA can drive to Vegas for the weekend. That's not a good example. A 3LR can do it without recharging. A better example would be people with a 3 driving from LA to Denver to pick up their glaucoma medicine. People with a Leaf either need to spend most of their trip charging or take the train/plane where their bags will be searched.

Nissan has a version of the Leaf that is said to be able to take quite a bit of charge in 30 minutes, if the right charger can be found. This isn't the current only Tesla advantage but it's a pretty big one. I hope other vendors can get their act together.

Without Tesla, EVs would be ridiculously bad.


----------



## fatcat

we have an active little leaf owners club here in victoria who evangelize for the leaf

you can buy a used leaf in good condition for about 15K last i looked

if i could get past the looks of the car, which i find just really odd, and if i had a place to plug it for charging i might give it a go as victoria is a perfect place for electric cars

the kia soul is nice little ev as well but i just don't want to drop 35K on a new car, i simply don't drive enough to justify it


----------



## bgc_fan

kcowan said:


> They made some mistakes. They got into hardware that had to use their software. Nokia anyone? Their biggest success in hardware was the gaming platform. They tried valiantly with the Surface.


The thing about Microsoft is that they really only had two products driving the company: Windows and Office, everything else has been a failure. I believe the gaming division has recently become profitable after pouring billions of dollars into it. The only reason why they are trying to expand out of their golden eggs is that with the advent of the internet and open source software, there is a possibility that their core business shrinks, hence their change to subscription based licenses.

They are trying to avoid the big blue (IBM) irrelevancy where they were locked into mainframes and ignored the PC sector. Though, it seems we have come full circle with MS focus on cloud computing. Something that big iron does very well.


----------



## andrewf

Microsoft's cloud business is non-trivial.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> Microsoft's cloud business is non-trivial.


Non-trivial, but irrelevant when discussing commercial products for end users. It is similar to discussing AWS when discussing what Amazon provides to consumers, even though AWS drives a lot of Amazon's profits.


----------



## olivaw

^ Quarterly revenue from Microsoft Cloud was 6.92 billion. Total revenue from all divisions was 24.54 bn. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...es-on-gains-from-cloud-services-idUSKBN1CV3AZ


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> No idea what you mean by 'servicing for batteries'. What did they abandon?


Unlimited free recharging, a sweet deal for their more expensive models.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Unlimited free recharging, a sweet deal for their more expensive models.


I don't think it was a matter of abandoning anything. I think it was part of the plan to build the brand and eliminate concerns about range to bundle charging with the cars. Now that consumers understand, and Tesla will begin building charging stations in cities (rather than between them), they are unbundling and making charging infrastructure into a profit centre.


----------



## dotnet_nerd

Jim Chanos, a well known short, thinks TSLA will go to $0

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/14/jim-chanos-we-think-tesla-is-worth-zero.html


----------



## TomB16

bgc_fan said:


> Non-trivial, but irrelevant when discussing commercial products for end users.


I don't understand what this means. Microsoft's cloud based products are huge earners. Isn't that what business is all about?

If Tesla is as mismanaged as Apple and Microsoft, numbers one and three on the most valuable companies list, I will be very pleased indeed.


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB16 said:


> I don't understand what this means. Microsoft's cloud based products are huge earners. Isn't that what business is all about?
> 
> If Tesla is as mismanaged as Apple and Microsoft, numbers one and three on the most valuable companies list, I will be very pleased indeed.


The point is that for consumer products, Microsoft has had limited success. If you look back at the link that olivaw posted, you would notice that Office365 is counted as a Cloud product and there was no breakdown to separate how successful Azure really is. In other words, Microsoft could still be dependent on its mainstays of Office and Windows.


----------



## dotnet_nerd

What you're not understanding about Azure is, and only a .NET nerd like myself would understand, is how enormous this potential is.

They're are thousands of teams working with projects in development stage using Azure. There is no revenue for MS at this point. But once these systems go live and scale up it will generate billions.

MS recently acquired Xamarin which opens they way to build cross-platform apps. One codebase allows to deploy your app to web/desktop/iOS/Android. These Microsoft shops will naturally gravitate to Azure as the cloud platform, making it far more successful than Amazon's AWS has been


----------



## andrewf

Isn't Microsoft already #2 in cloud marketshare after AWS?


----------



## olivaw

Microsoft is no slouch. It may have appeared to the public the the company was losing technology battles in the consumer space, but it was winning the battles in the highly profitable commercial space. It is #1 in server software, #2 in cloud and it controls numerous industry standards. 

Technology companies that declined to diversify include Lotus, Wordperfect, Novell and RIM. 

Xerox invented Ethernet networking, the mouse, the graphical user interface and much of today's personal computing technology. Management decided that the big money was in photocopiers. 

The head of IBM decided that the company should focus on mainframe computers, not those toys that were developed by the personal computing division. 

If I were a TSLA investor, I'd want Musk to pursue multiple revenue streams. Most of them are long shots but Elon Musk is one of those rare individuals who can deliver through sheer force of will.


----------



## TomB16

olivaw said:


> If I were a TSLA investor, I'd want Musk to pursue multiple revenue streams. Most of them are long shots but Elon Musk is one of those rare individuals who can deliver through sheer force of will.


That's what he's doing. They have several PPAs and storage agreements in place. They are selling services, not hardware. I'm not even 100% sure they sell the grid scale hardware.

Going by forum chatter about degradation numbers on current battery packs with over 100 cycles on them, it appears Tesla made a significant gain about two years ago, when they increased the cycle life more than double. The numbers have been corroborated by a few forum members. If the numbers turn out to be reality, and I suspect they are, there will be no problem driving a Tesla 500K miles and still having the large majority of the initial capacity.

That has even better implications on grid storage. It is a magic bullet.

Tesla stock took a hit on Wednesday when Panasonic announced it was forming a partnership with Toyota/Mazda to create a different type of battery for EVs. Those batteries could be the next big thing but, for now, Tesla is walking the talk today while other manufacturers speak of the future.

Any hockey fans here? How many players were clearly going to be way better than Gretzky during the 80s and 90s? None were. It's all part of the "toughest guy in the bar" syndrome.

I'm fully aware Tesla may not succeed and that my stock will be worthless, if they fail. Tesla will have significant value, regardless of what happens, but the over valuation and being at the back of the creditor line gives me zero bankruptcy security.

On the other hand, as we see alarming trends in global climate and it appears everyone except Donald Trump and the coal industry are beginning to panic, Tesla is brilliantly positioned to profit from the panic.

Regardless of what happens, I like the taste of cat food sandwiches so I'm not worried about our retirement.


----------



## TomB16

By the way, I think Elon is increasingly becoming less significant at Tesla. JB Straubel is running that show. Elon is the front man and major share holder but JB is on top of operations.

I'd like to know more about JB. As I understand it, he was one of the first people who formed Tesla, before Elon came on board.

JB seems to be highly competent and certainly intelligent but I'd like to learn more about him since he is piloting a tiny portion of my portfolio.


----------



## bgc_fan

.NET programmer huh? Should have guessed by your username. Hadn't really given much thought to .NET ever since it came out as Microsoft's answer to Java almost 20 years ago. Xamarian aka Ximian huh? Quick wiki search reminded me why the name was so familiar. de Icaza was a Microsoft fanboy who thought to bring .NET to Linux almost 20 years ago through MONO. I guess he finally got his wish to work for Microsoft. And it only took 16 years.

Thing is, cloud computing is a nice buzz word to hide the fact that we are reversing back to the 70s computing paradigm of centralized processing accessed through dumb terminals. The only difference is that we are using 90s technology to cluster individual servers to act as one mainframe.

As for being number 2, Microsoft mobile OS is probably number 3 for phone OS. How is that working out? My guess is that there are 4 main players: Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, and Google. IBM is probably dealing with institutional clients so they probably aren't offering their services to Joe Blow. Google is most likely using cloud services internally to improve their business, so again services aren't being offered to general public. Leaving Microsoft as number 2 out of 2.


----------



## blin10

bgc_fan said:


> The point is that for consumer products, Microsoft has had limited success. If you look back at the link that olivaw posted, you would notice that Office365 is counted as a Cloud product and there was no breakdown to separate how successful Azure really is. In other words, Microsoft could still be dependent on its mainstays of Office and Windows.


you're wrong, Azure is a huge hit for MS... I know that by simply using it, they're also recently updated Azure interface which is way better than what AWS has... AWS is still #1 but Azure is not far behind


----------



## olivaw

A little off topic for this thread about Tesla, but Elon Musk continues to deliver. There was another successful SpaceX launch and satellite deployment to low Earth orbit yesterday. SpaceX charges an average of $57 million per launch. The United Launch Alliance, the consortium of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, charges about $380 million. http://www.airspacemag.com/space/is...ocket-equation-132285884/#AHCUTIC6xBLXjdTl.99 Even the Chinese are unable to compete with SpaceX pricing due to the reusability of his rockets. 

The fun starts at 6:26


----------



## TomB19

For the couple of followers who may be curious, as I was,what's going on at gigafactory 2, it would seem production started a few months ago but solar product is prioritized for the Puerto Rico relief effort.

I expect it will be some months before Tesla/Panasonic solar panels are brought to market on the mainland.


----------



## Oldroe

Elon delivers you are kidding. Never has the company made money.

I don't view them much better than weed stocks.


----------



## olivaw

It is true that profitability has been elusive for Elon's two big plays - SpaceX and Tesla. We don't really know the story over at SpaceX but it seems that the company just about breaks even. Tesla is a money losing operation that is struggling to scale production. 

You do have to admit that the products are amazing - reusable rockets, ludicrous and plaid mode electric cars etc. 

A lot of articles suggest that Tesla is breaking new ground and the big boys like GM will move in to take over after Tesla figures it all out. Possible, I guess, but I am not sure that is how it will work out. Often the dinosaurs are pushed aside by the upstarts.

I don't hold TSLA, because it is a long shot and I am a conservative investor. If I was the type to play with a few spare dollars, I might invest some of them into Tesla. I'd be paying for the experience of investing in one of the most exciting companies to come along in decades. To me, a bet on TSLA is like a bet on a favourite sports team - it adds to the excitement of watching the game and I might just make a buck or two.

ETA: Despite what it sounds like, I am no TSLA fanboy - I don't own a Tesla. I am more interested in Elon's achievements. He does things that many experts say cannot be done.


----------



## TomB19

I will admit that posts categorizing Tesla as a car company of no match to traditional builders are all but invisible to me, at this point. I don't know if Tesla will succeed or fail but I know the "just a car company" guys do not get it.

I have a substantial amount invested in Tesla. It wasn't my intention but my initial, low cost, trance has shot up like a falcon 9 rocket.


----------



## olivaw

TomB19 said:


> I have a substantial amount invested in Tesla. It wasn't my intention but my initial, low cost, trance has shot up like a falcon 9 rocket.


Ha - says it all right there. Congratulations.


----------



## TomB19

I'm a member of StockTwits. For some reason, I like it. It's been a revealing experience.

Some stock feeds have extreme little posting. One of mine has a feed with four posts in 2018. All of the posts are interesting and considered.

The Tesla feed is a total zoo.

There are countless Tesla cultists and fanboys who post once or twice per day. These are always something inane like, "$400 by Feb 1" or "$1000 this year".

There are also a few who post technical analysis every week. I like these guys, even though I don't follow the technical analysis methodology.

This brings me to the bears. When I first joined, I noticed a couple of posters hammering the feed with negative, jingoistic, posts. Sometimes they would repeat the same posts a couple of times within a minute. Sometimes they would vary the wording a bit but post essentially the same thing. Drilling into their post history, I found hundreds of posts per hour, all similar and all just negative bs. "Elon total fraud. Cars don't work.". Basically, brietbart news posts from the smear machine.

There was so much activity by these two posters, they made up about half the feed. Also, they were posting so much, they were clearly bots. So, I blocked them.

The two bots were responsible for 99% of the bear comments. All of a sudden, the Tesla feed was totally positive with inane posts that championed the Tesla cause.

There are too many fanboys to filter them all so I left them.

From there, new accounts would spring up on a daily basis. These accounts would post exclusively bear Tesla comments with brietbart styling and they would post frenetically. Typically, they post 40 to 300 brietbart posts per hour.

I have blocked them one at a time.

There seems to be some correlation between short volume and the brietbart bot activity. Perhaps this is coincidental but I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks.

I've been using algowins for short volume information.

https://algowins.com/?filter_2=TSLA&mode=any

Any opinions on what might be pump and dump attempts to short and then manipulate the market downward? Has anyone attempted to correlate short volume to negative activity from other media like brietbart news?


----------



## TomB19

Back to the stock...

It appears we are on the cusp of real battery breakthroughs, not just announcements of promising ideas like we've had for the last 20 years. In the case of the latter, none have bared fruit.

In the case former, the Tesla v2 roadster is specified to have 1000 km range and it is smaller than a model S. The battery has been estimated to be 200KWh in a form factor smaller than a model 3. That suggests a significant breakthrough.

The Tesla semi also seems to be made possible by a battery breakthrough.

At the detroit auto show, Samsung sdi showed lithium batteries with 2x the capacity.

There has also been a published breakthrough that quadruples the ion cycle, quadrupling the energy density of a lithium ion cell.

Several months ago, the lead battery physicist left Tesla. That seemed like a dark event, at the time, but it could be they are going in a new battery direction.

So far, I continue to be bullish on this stock.


----------



## gardner

TomB19 said:


> the Tesla v2 roadster is specified to have 1000 km range and it is smaller than a model S. The battery has been estimated to be 200KWh in a form factor smaller than a model 3. That suggests a significant breakthrough.
> 
> The Tesla semi also seems to be made possible by a battery breakthrough.


Yet neither Panasonic nor Telsa has announced any actual new battery technology. Tesla relies totally on Panasonic for its batteries, even the ones manufactured on site for it by Panasonic. Panasonic has a large battery business outside of auto and owns all of the actual battery technology. I would be very surprised that a huge advance in capacity would be developed by Panasonic or even a Tesla/Panasonic joint venture and not make it into the general Panasonic lineup. In fact a capacity breakthrough would likely be more valuable to Panasonic in the consumer electronics space than in automotive since the premium on capacity is higher and the bar for durability and environmental performance is lower.

In my view, a more plausible explanation for the announced capabilities of the new cars is optimistic speculation. Model 3 production and sales is where it's at right now. This is something they have to get right to remain a viable business. In my view announcing new roadsters and semi-trucks is a calculated distraction and not a positive sign.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla does not rely on Panasonic for their batteries.

Tesla has supplier agreements with LG Chem and Samsung. Tesla has indicated that gigafactory 1 at full capacity will not be sufficient to handle their needs.

Tesla has a pretty good array of battery patents. Their relationship with Panasonic is that of partner, not just customer.

Model X is selling extremely well. Model S is selling well, although not a big increase in production this year over last. Model 3 seems to be about 60 days behind the production ramp schedule. That doesn't seem too bad for a startup automobile manufacturer. Lol.

... And they have demonstrated exciting new products are in the pipeline. The semis are running on public roads, as part of a beta test phase. The second generation roadsters have been running at public events, demonstrating some of the capabilities of the vehicle to countless members of the press and public.

Meanwhile, model 3 has arrived in some showrooms and has created lineups. Literally. Lineups. It is being well received by the press and public.

When is the last time you heard of an actual dealership lineup for a non-tesla vehicle?

... Or, as Breitbart news would describe the company, Tesla is a total failure with no chance for success.

Forgive me for disregarding the lies.

Tesla is heavily leveraged and they are trying to ramp up to a global scale business. They could make a major misstep or two and find themselves in significant trouble. I don't know if they will succeed or not but I'm blown away by what they have accomplished. In fact, I would not have thought it possible for them to get this far, if I had been asked when they started the company.


----------



## bgc_fan

Too be honest, before Tesla, who would have thought 500k people would place a $1k deposit on a car they wouldn't expect to see for 4 years?


----------



## TomB19

As i understand it, Model 3 is 18-24 months out. They show end of 2018 but that seems unrealistic.

Roadster v2 is a 2020 model year vehicle of limited production so there will be no backlog, other than the 1000 cars built.

I wonder if they will build 1001 so they can replace elon's roadster that he sent to Mars.


----------



## cainvest

TomB19 said:


> Roadster v2 is a 2020 model year vehicle of limited production so there will be no backlog, other than the 1000 cars built.
> 
> I wonder if they will build 1001 so they can replace elon's roadster that he sent to Mars.


Make it 1002 is they let Richard Hammond test drive one on their Grand Tour show.


----------



## bgc_fan

They started taking deposits 2016. At the time they were expecting 5k production capacity by first quarter of 2018. Assuming that was to be consistent for the next 2 years, you would expect the reservations to be cleared by 2020. But, realistically, they are sitting at 1000 weekly production capacity. 

I got that you are really upbeat about Tesla, but you do have to be somewhat realistic.


----------



## TomB19

The first reservations get some of the first production (minus some employee only initial cars for shake down)


----------



## TomB19

Ok. Three new StockTwits accounts come online today. Total smear jobs. "Total failure. Elon fraud. Have never delivered a car that works.". That type of thing.

All three accounts have a similar posting style. Post something wildly ignorant, followed by an image of some sort.

JustinBateman1
AmazonPharmaceuticals
Bigmayun

These accounts just started posting heavily today, as best I can tell. Perhaps their posting history is just truncated, for some reason.

Anyway, I go to short volumes.com and, sure enough, Tesla was heavily shorted on the 19th (yesterday). Tesla volume was 62% short yesterday.

http://shortvolumes.com/?t=TSLA


----------



## TomB19

I've been trying to direct message StockTwit accounts which I believe to be bots, based on the number of bear posts and similarity of large number of posts. I'm doing this by directly messaging the accounts and posting directly to them in the tesla thread.

So far, I've received no responses but another poster that is obviously human tells me AmazonPharmaceuticals is a real person who just happens to be passionate in his hatred of Tesla.


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB19 said:


> The first reservations get some of the first production (minus some employee only initial cars for shake down)


You still haven't provided a counter argument that reservation number 300001 isn't going to see their car in the next 1.5 years.


----------



## doctrine

Going to be a lot of electric car development in the next year. Any bets on the best selling electric car in 2018? Tesla Model.. or..? What about 2019?


----------



## bgc_fan

doctrine said:


> Going to be a lot of electric car development in the next year. Any bets on the best selling electric car in 2018? Tesla Model.. or..? What about 2019?


If you are talking about worldwide numbers, then it will be a Chinese manufacturer. If NA, possibly Nissan.


----------



## TomB19

The best selling electric car in the us is the Tesla model S. The Tesla model x came extremely close in second place.

In the month of December, the model x beat the model S, but that was because Tesla pulled people from the model S production line to work on the model 3 ramp.

More interestingly, the chevy bolt beat the Tesla model x for top sales spot in december of last year.

Tesla is production constrained. If they had a half million cars, they could sell them.

In terms of Chinese manufacturers, is that really a number anyone cares about? Tesla model S/x versus an egg roll carton with a motor and battery? Even the model 3 is way up scale compared to the bulk of byd sales and up scale compared to the best byd vehicle.

These sort of comparisons are only useful in attempt to smear Tesla. It would be like criticizing brietling watches for selling less watches than timex.

Think about the number of amp hours Tesla is selling, compared to everyone else. They hold their own in this category. None of those Chinese cars can do 300 miles on a charge. Leaf has a version that is said to equal the model 3 long range in range but it has tested inferior to the model 3.

Personally, I still like the leaf but it's a city car.


----------



## bgc_fan

It is obvious that you aren't being rational. Who cares about China? I am sure with the growth of car ownership being greater there than anywhere else is reason enough to care. Add on the fact that the government is pushing towards electric cars make it an untapped market for EV cars. If Tesla is going to give up on that market, they are missing out on a golden opportunity. If they allow domestic cars to soak up that market, then they will simply be a niche manufacturer, and not the car for the masses. Not only that, with sheer numbers alone we will start seeing China made cars under brands such as Volvo which still have a decent reputation coming to NA.

As for production constraints, that is the crux of the matter and the fact that you brush that aside just means that you don't even understand why people are down on Tesla. Unless Tesla is able to ramp up production, you'll see people losing interest, particularly if competing manufacturers can provide the 80% solution right now.


----------



## TomB19

Nissan has announced they are getting into energy storage with a consumer battery made from life cycled car batteries.

It will be interesting to see how they price the product and if it puts any downward pressure on tesla's consumer storage product to reduce margin.

The market seems unaffected by this news.


----------



## TomB19

In case anyone doubts there is money in trading power.

https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/


----------



## kcowan

TomB19 said:


> In case anyone doubts there is money in trading power.
> 
> https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/


From the comments:


> This is not scalable, though, but only works for this first battery and only as long as there are no others. The huge incentive to buy excess energy is because the energy needs to go somewhere and there is nowhere for the energy to go. But once there is enough capacity installed to stabilize the grid by definition the excess energy is already being taken care of. So once this happens, there will be no more millions of earnings in a few days.


----------



## olivaw

There will be competition on the electric car front but I wonder how many of these companies will actually be able to compete with Tesla in terms of prestige and desirability. 


The Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt are available now. They are nice enough cars but nobody appears to be lining up for them. 
Subaru promises something by 2021. 
Volkswagen promises to deliver an electric car in 2020. 
BMW promises to release the BMW Mini E in 2025. It might be a nice vehicle little but that's a long time to wait. 
Volvo says it will produce an electric car in China for release 2019. 

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/electric-cars-challenging-tesla-model-3-2018-1/ 

Volvo and BMW may be able to compete for prestige customers. The other companies usually appeal to utility customers like me, people who buy an unremarkable vehicle to get the job done.


----------



## TomB19

The leaf hasn't been competition for Tesla. No fast charging and limited range make it a second car for city only.

These things are changing they now have a long range version with decent range and they have just introduced a fast charging option. Of course, it won't charge to 80% in 20 minutes but to the folks in this thread it will be exactly the same as the Tesla super charger system. Lol

The point is, Nissan is positioning the leaf to have primary vehicle functionality. I'm sure they will eat some of tesla's lunch with it.

As for the comment on the battery pack not operable with multiple packs, I hope that commenter and those who believe his line short the stock so I can take money from them.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> From the comments:


On the flip side, when there are more batteries and you see less extremes, peaker plants are put out of business.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> On the flip side, when there are more batteries and you see less extremes, peaker plants are put out of business.


Ideally that is what would happen in Ontario. Right now we have a bunch of peaker plants that sit idle for the most part and there are times when there is oversupply. Using battery facilities would deal with that issue with minimal maintenance and operating costs compared to running a gas plant. Only problem is that they are on long term supply contracts so we wouldn't see savings until the contracts are over.


----------



## gardner

Ontario has 55 MW of battery storage scheduled to go into service next year or 2020. 
http://www.ieso.ca/en/corporate-ies...d-to-provide-essential-grid-balancing-service

The larger Hecate Energy one is a 30 MW "Zinc-Iron Redox Flow Battery". I can't see what technology Saturn Power proposed for their 25 MW piece.


----------



## olivaw

Further delays at the Gigafactory may slow deliveries of the Model 3 and other solutions. 

*Tesla stock falls on report of Gigafactory issues with Model 3 batteries*



> Tesla Inc. TSLA, -2.39% shares declined in Thursday trading after a report said employees expected more issues with Model 3 production amid difficulties at the company's new battery factory. CNBC spoke with several employees and former workers who reported difficulties at the "Gigafactory," Tesla's Nevada battery factory that launched last year.


Also:

*Tesla employees say to expect more Model 3 delays, citing inexperienced workers, manual assembly of batteries*. 

*Tesla Model 3 delays persist, reportedly due to Gigafactory problems
*


----------



## olivaw

Tesla has denied the reports of Gigafactory delays so the share price seems to have recovered. 

I don't own this stock, but I find this to be a company that is interesting enough to follow due to the disruptive nature of the technology. 

As a lifetime nerd, I also follow SpaceX and Falcon Heavy. (Successful test fire recently).


----------



## TomB19

Tesla brought in an expensive system of robotics that was to automate the production of battery packs. This system did not work so they took over and are currently programming it themselves.

I'm very impressed with Tesla but Elon musk indicated they rewrote the software for the battery production line in one month with more to do. Maybe so but he gave the impression the problem was well in hand. Also maybe so but we know that some aspects of battery pack production are being taken care of manually.

We also know production is way up but not enough to keep model 3 production lines operating at capacity.

I'm a long term investor so I'm hanging in there. Long term, delays of weeks or months aren't going to matter. Short term, the earnings report will not be stellar.


----------



## nobleea

olivaw said:


> As a lifetime nerd, I also follow SpaceX and Falcon Heavy. (Successful test fire recently).


That was f-ing unreal. So cool to watch.


----------



## cainvest

nobleea said:


> That was f-ing unreal. So cool to watch.


Yup, very cool, watched the launch today. 
I guess Tesla also has the fastest car in the world (ok, around the world) now?

You can see it here http://www.spacex.com/webcast


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Kudos to advancing our technology. 
Mission control certainly never sounded like that when NASA had a launch underway. 

I'm conflicted though seeing a car floating in space with a mannequin in it. It seems like one small step for mankind (oops-I mean personkind) and one large leap for commercialization. I wonder how long it will be before we see a crass Tesla billboard shining at us from space?


----------



## like_to_retire

Yeah, watching the launch was cool. 

The neat part is that it costs at least a tenth of NASA's expensive Space Launch System scheduled to launch in 2020, and it does it by returning the rockets to land back on earth. 

And just to tweak their noses, Musk sends his own car up there to orbit Mars. Hard not to notice that.

Cool animation of the mission to orbit the car.
https://youtu.be/Tk338VXcb24

ltr


----------



## TomB19

I'd love see a Tesla billboard shining down from space.


----------



## m3s

nobleea said:


> That was f-ing unreal. So cool to watch.


The synchronized landing of the side boosters was beautiful.. as if it was easy.. we just witnessed history in the making

I've been studying space operations and happen to start training next week for a kind of career transition into space surveillance

It's all a bit overwhelming at the moment


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

TomB19 said:


> I'd love see a Tesla billboard shining down from space.


Hmm, I've always loved those cold mountain evenings, or dark prairie nights, far from the city lights, where you can practically reach up and touch the constellations and planets. I'd hate for a billboard to ruin that. We have more than enough consumerism on earth without exporting it.


----------



## kcowan

m3s said:


> It's all a bit overwhelming at the moment


I agree. But don't forget that they lost the third booster. Had that one landed at sea, it would have been a 100% hit.


----------



## cainvest

kcowan said:


> I agree. But don't forget that they lost the third booster. Had that one landed at sea, it would have been a 100% hit.


I'm sure they'll get a better landing them all over time.

Seeing the other two boosters land was like watching science fiction movie.


----------



## jargey3000

....fake news people, fake news....
just like the "moon landing" in '69. 
Did not happen!


----------



## paigej

It's funny that this is such a hot topic of discussion in this forum, because I read an article recently that briefly mentioned how the launch of the Roadster into space affected consumers view of Tesla as a company. Turns out no one really cared about the launch, and some people didn't even know it happened. If you go to the bottom of the article (https://www.autolist.com/tesla/poll-finds-consumers-want-no-delays-for-Tesla-Model-3#s=a) you can see the results of the survey. Pretty funny if you ask me :glee:


----------



## andrewf

Then again, most people don't know much of anything. Most Americans don't know who their vice president is.


----------



## TomB16

StockTwits is buzzing like a freshly hammered thumb after the SpaceX launch. My view seems quite contrary to both the general public view and the investment community's view.

Here are some thoughts

- People are not able to distinguish between SpaceX and Tesla. There is a lot of irrationality surrounding the Tesla stock, despite the tremendous potential of the business.

- People don't seem to realize Elon Musk isn't building Tesla cars. Elon is merely the most important person at Tesla when it comes to raising capital from the markets.

- It seems clear there are people trying to manipulate the stock but it seems comfortable around $350, regardless of any news.

- I believe there are people who would eat a lock of Elon's hair, **** it out, and eat it again.


----------



## Oldroe

It's not business if you don't make money.


----------



## TomB16

You don't seem to understand the definition of business, roe.

I'll tell you what, why don't you pool your money with a few of your "business" friends and start an electric car company. You'll need need a massive battery plant or else you'll always have thinner margins than larger companies that will be in a position to squeeze you out of the market, if they take notice of your company. In order to be viable, you'll need to scale to produce over 100k cars per year, or you will have no chance of being financially viable. Obviously, you're going to need some pretty massive factory space. Do you suppose auto dealerships will represent your car well? If not, you're going to need to build an international dealership network. Throw in 10,000 of the most powerful charging stations on the planet to keep the endless critics from explaining how your car isn't practical for daily life or takes too long to charge.

... and, just to show us how it's done, do it all in a couple of years while making a profit. You have my most sincere best wishes in the endeavour.


----------



## humble_pie

TomB16 said:


> StockTwits is buzzing ...




here's a great way for cmffers to pick up a few extra $$ on the side

look for a controversial yet wildly popular stock with a gigantic following. Then look to see which reliable, intelligent, articulate cmffers are crazy for the stock. Whose posts are not only enthusiastic but also tempered with accuracy, since they already own shares & they've paid for skin in the game.

next, find a put option with big open interest that's fairly far below the money. The premium will be rich because the shares are so volatile. Sell those puts.

that's it. Nothing else to do except coast along collecting the $$. Me i'm a recidivist seller of AAPL & GOOGL puts. I've just added 2 short tesla puts to the bunch. Thanks tomB!

.


----------



## Oldroe

Tom you sound like the 6 months before the tech crash.

Every ceo said we don't need to make money we have the technology.


----------



## gardner

Oldroe said:


> we don't need to make money we have the technology.


"... you just don't 'get it'."


Still, it is wise to remember that Google and Amazon emerged out of that mess and although neither seems 100% assured of long term stability, they are definitely on the right side of the chasm these days. The kind of chutzpah that enabled Jobs to pull Apple out of the flames certainly lives on in Musk, and he has enough worshipers to keep things going for a while yet. TSLA is fishy enough to keep me away from a long position, but it doesn't feel like a safe bet as a short either.


----------



## Oldroe

O I get The Tech.

And how bad business is that never profits.


----------



## TomB16

Oldroe said:


> Every ceo said we don't need to make money we have the technology.


Did every CEO actually say that or is this a bias you have projected on them?




Oldroe said:


> Tom you sound like the 6 months before the tech crash.


No, I don't. You just keep spewing some fictional nonsense.


I haven't said Tesla doesn't ever need to make money.

I haven't said Tesla will go up in value or resist downward market pressure.

I haven't even said Tesla will succeed as a business.


My contention is this: The only viable trajectory for building electric cars is one similar to what Tesla is doing. ie; Scale up massively. Huge leverage. Remove as many of the criticisms of electric cars as possible (Not exciting, poor range, no where to charge, impractical). Anything else is a non-starter.


I've tried to come up with a real, quantified value of Tesla as a business at this moment in time. It isn't actually all that difficult. Future value and ability to scale isn't impossible to predict, either (best case, likely case).


For moronic socialists, who are so stupid they believe climate science is real, and who have seen the NASA 32 year time lapse imaging of the northern ice cap, it is obvious the northern ice cap will be completely gone during summer within the next decade.

Caution: this page includes information and time lapse imaging that is rooted in evil, communism, and Hitler.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2510/...s-losing-its-bulwark-against-warming-summers/


If the northern ice cap should entirely disappear, even if it reappears during winter, imagine the panic. What sort of reaction (some will say over-reaction) might take place?

- mandated transition to electrified transport

- accelerated push toward sustainable energy

- accelerated tightening of pollution regulation in power production


What company has best positioned itself to handle this environment? Tesla

There will be a massive shortage of batteries: Tesla has the largest battery factory in the world with plans to more than double it's size and also build additional factories. They are way ahead, in battery scale.

There will be a shortage of solar panels (there already is): Tesla has a second gigafactory in New York where partner Panasonic is currently well into a production ramp of the most efficient solar cells/panels on the market. They are focusing initial production volume 80% to their fancy solar roof, 20% solar panels. As production ramps further, excess capacity will all go into panels.


If climate science turns out to be fictional work of the devil and there is no forcing function toward sustainable energy and transport, the outlook for Tesla is far less bright. Tesla could still do well, as their products are viable and attractive right now, but it will be a lot of years before they catch up to the current valuation.

It's a company only a stupid socialist, corrupted by science, could believe in. My average price is $191/share.


----------



## TomB16

Speaking of pipe dreams... solar. You know how solar panel power production degrades over time?

The Panasonic warranty specifies a guarantee of 91% power production after 25 years of service.

http://shop.panasonic.com/about-us-latest-news-press-releases/05092017-photovoltaic.html

Efficiency is well up, also. The next generation of panels will be in the 400 Watt range. Imagine 10 panels producing 4K Watts?

Meanwhile, battery evolution is pretty amazing. State of the art batteries recently doubled in energy density (actual shipping batteries) with another doubling on the horizon. Cycle life has improved, also.


----------



## TomB16

So, yeah... the Tesla story is pretty good. Whether it will succeed is open to debate.

If climate becomes a global crisis, synthetic meat will become the most important component in the battle against CO2. We have synthetic meat today but it is not yet productized. Suffice to say, I will strongly consider participation in any IMOs that come forth.

While I believe we have climate problems with so much inertia, minor variations are worth serious response, I also believe planetary climate can be managed sufficiently to sustain life at a reasonable level of comfort. In my opinion, the biggest crisis humans face as a species continues to be war and over population.


----------



## TomB16

Lastly, I feel really weird to think someone may have considered buying a company based on anything I've written. I need to put less wear on my keyboard.

Please don't put much faith in my point of view. I'm not that smart.


----------



## humble_pie

TomB16 said:


> Speaking of pipe dreams... solar. You know how solar panel power production degrades over time?



so far i think i'm the only one who worries about disposal of used solar panels. I bet they cannot be recycled. They must be difficult to pick apart in an effort to isolate individual plastics & metals. They might be toxic to bury in land fills.

in a worst case scenario the 21st century could see the problem of solar panel disposal to be as big an issue as the disposal of spent radioactive rods from nuclear reactors.


.


----------



## TomB16

humble_pie said:


> so far i think i'm the only one who worries about disposal of used solar panels. I bet they cannot be recycled. They must be difficult to pick apart in an effort to isolate individual plastics & metals. They might be toxic to bury in land fills.


Indeed. There is a huge difference in disposal. To that end, you will be pleased to notice that organic panel efficiency is on the verge of taking a 6% efficiency gain, putting it close to multi-junction silicone based solar and probably obliterating it in terms of cost per power production. I have no idea as to organic cell longevity, though. It hasn't been as good but I'm not aware of any data on the longevity of the latest organic solar developments.

Also consider the idea that a panel which lasts twice as long will produce half the waste. It's interesting to note that Panasonic (Tesla's partner) has recently been focusing on cell longevity.




humble_pie said:


> in a worst case scenario the 21st century could see the problem of solar panel disposal to be as big an issue as the disposal of spent radioactive rods from nuclear reactors.


Indeed. I expect nuclear to make a come back. Particularly in Canada, we are far more suited to nuclear power production than solar.

Imagine trying to live off solar in the Yukon where the sun only shines half the year. It would require enough battery storage to last 6 months. That isn't going to be practical, any time soon.

Imagine solar at the 49th parallel, where we have 4 hours of sunlight at Christmas time when skies are most often cloudy. Again, batteries are helpful in this area but not to smooth solar power transmission.

Canada is better suited to wind and nuclear, IMO. Solar definitely has it's place but not like Mexico where they can count on 9 hours of quality sunlight every day of the year.


----------



## Oldroe

So my investment is hinged of the depletion of the ice cap and the ability of tesla to keep borrowing money and servicing there debt until they make something profitable.


----------



## andrewf

'Until'? All of their cars are profitable. Tesla is expecting an operating profit later this year with Model 3 ramping up. They will continue to invest heavily to fuel growth; they will need to add manufacturing capacity for Model Y, which should be a very compelling and profitable vehicle segment. Tesla may be priced for perfection, but the underlying business is pretty sound. It's definitely not vapourware.


----------



## gardner

humble_pie said:


> who worries about disposal of used solar panels. I bet they cannot be recycled.


Putting "recycle solar panels" in the gargler gets a bunch of hits. There are businesses specializing in this now. The consensus amongst the sources I looked at seems to be that panels are highly recycleable into the current downstream markets. Given that they are generally made of aluminium, glass and vinyl plastics, this is hardly surprising. They all comply with RoHS due to the manufacturing requirements, so no heavy metals or anything scary.


----------



## humble_pie

gardner said:


> Putting "recycle solar panels" in the gargler gets a bunch of hits. There are businesses specializing in this now. The consensus amongst the sources I looked at seems to be that panels are highly recycleable into the current downstream markets. Given that they are generally made of aluminium, glass and vinyl plastics, this is hardly surprising. They all comply with RoHS due to the manufacturing requirements, so no heavy metals or anything scary.



thankx for the info, i didn't know. I'd been imagining dumps filled with gigantic blocks of used solar panels, all made from stews of non-separable composite materials that would not break down for 5000 years.

nuclear waste is an issue though. We can't go bury it here & there in marked graves all over the arctic & the sub-arctic; so where we going to put the stuff? i've heard that pickering houses a waste pool now that's filled with spent rods, while the debate goes on about what to do with em.

in europe i've heard they're tunnelling deep into the Alps to bury radioactive reactor waste.


----------



## TomB16

Oldroe said:


> So my investment is hinged of the depletion of the ice cap and the ability of tesla to keep borrowing money and servicing there debt until they make something profitable.


Yes. It's a long shot but the shot gets shorter with every passing month.

In a couple of years, the people who are saying Tesla has zero chance are just as likely to be saying they always knew it would succeed. I give the company a 75% chance of a decent level of success.


----------



## TomB16

humble_pie said:


> nuclear waste is an issue though.


It's an issue with current generation reactors. Next generation reactors will be far safer and consume a lot more of the fuel, creating safer waste. In fact, next gen reactors will probably be fuelled by last gen waste.

Two generations out, it starts looking really good to the point that solar may not be necessary on the extreme long term. If current generation Panasonic solar panels are good for 100 years, that will be more than necessary.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB16 said:


> In a couple of years, the people who are saying Tesla has zero chance are just as likely to be saying they always knew it would succeed. I give the company a 75% chance of a decent level of success.


I, too, think Tesla has a decent chance of success in some form, but that is different than agreeing with the current valuation of the stock. I think most people are actually saying the stock is priced to perfection like 'weed' stocks rather than the company will fail. Certain products, such as battery production, can/should be a huge economic success. However, whether Tesla can actually build enough cars to make a profit is something else. 

They may ultimately become the new 'Magna' being a supplier of batteries, solar panels and rockets to makers of end products instead, and current R&D could fall right into that (including EV/driverless trucks). Maybe it is better that Tesla be a supplier of major EV components to Kenworth (as an example) than an actual builder of EV trucks.


----------



## TomB16

OK, AR. From the negative vitriol, I was under the impression large numbers of old and grumpy folks feel Tesla is about to go bankrupt. Of course, they might but some of those same folks don't seem to understand the potential of the business or even the business model.

Tesla doesn't make rockets. That's Elon's other company: SpaceX.

So... a few folks seem to think the stock price is irrational... What's irrational about Elon's rocket company flying a rocket today and Tesla gaining $14.20?


----------



## TomB16

By the way, SpaceX is doing very well.

I expect it will go public, at some point, simply to raise capital for Elon to go to Mars. While I find the idea amusing, I'm not joking about that.

SpaceX had a bunch of extra cash laying around and Solar City needed capital so Solar City released a bond issue the vast majority of which was purchased by SpaceX. That was before the merger but I'm sure SpaceX still carries the same bonds that are now backed by Tesla.

SpaceX is really doing a tremendous job.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB16 said:


> OK, AR. From the negative vitriol, I was under the impression large numbers of old and grumpy folks feel Tesla is about to go bankrupt. Of course, they might but some of those same folks don't seem to understand the potential of the business or even the business model.


Just so I am not understood, I don't think Tesla will survive in its current form, i.e. as an auto assembler. They don't yet know how to run an assembly line at a profit like the mainstream auto manufacturers can, and may not get there in time. They might spin that off IF the cash flow bleed continues for too long (and shareholders get edgy) and use the funds to be more like a Magna. How that would actually occur I don't know but a major might buy the Tesla stock and the spin off becomes a new stock name altogether. The point really is that I feel the company is unlikely to continue in its current form. Just a WAG on my part. FWIW, I own Tesla anyway in my holding of VTI.


----------



## andrewf

TomB16 said:


> By the way, SpaceX is doing very well.
> 
> I expect it will go public, at some point, simply to raise capital for Elon to go to Mars. While I find the idea amusing, I'm not joking about that.
> 
> SpaceX had a bunch of extra cash laying around and Solar City needed capital so Solar City released a bond issue the vast majority of which was purchased by SpaceX. That was before the merger but I'm sure SpaceX still carries the same bonds that are now backed by Tesla.
> 
> SpaceX is really doing a tremendous job.


I don't think Spacex will go public any time soon. The internet satellite constellation might be the killer app for the near term, as it will be a license to print money and could seriously disrupt telcos around the world, but especially in the US. I suspect that Musk may raise capital from existing shareholders, like Google, who would be on board with this mission. But essentially Spacex can just fill out any underutilized polar orbit missions to launch Starlink satellites, like they did today. Musk doesn't want Spacex to go public and have a duty to the market until he's comfortable his Martian dream is going to be realized.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Just so I am not understood, I don't think Tesla will survive in its current form, i.e. as an auto assembler. They don't yet know how to run an assembly line at a profit like the mainstream auto manufacturers can, and may not get there in time. They might spin that off IF the cash flow bleed continues for too long (and shareholders get edgy) and use the funds to be more like a Magna. How that would actually occur I don't know but a major might buy the Tesla stock and the spin off becomes a new stock name altogether. The point really is that I feel the company is unlikely to continue in its current form. Just a WAG on my part. FWIW, I own Tesla anyway in my holding of VTI.


I think this is a fundamental misreading. I think the market will give Tesla a long leash. Maybe not as long as Amazon, but as long as they can make good cars reasonably profitably (which they can), Musk can sell them. He is a brilliant marketer, and he has already disrupted the luxury vehicle segment as well as the sales & distribution model in the US. I would be worried about Tesla becoming another Apple if Musk had more evil inclinations.


----------



## Jaberwock

andrewf said:


> I think this is a fundamental misreading. I think the market will give Tesla a long leash. Maybe not as long as Amazon, but as long as they can make good cars reasonably profitably (which they can), Musk can sell them. He is a brilliant marketer, and he has already disrupted the luxury vehicle segment as well as the sales & distribution model in the US. I would be worried about Tesla becoming another Apple if Musk had more evil inclinations.


Do you define a loss of about $20,000 per vehicle as making cars "reasonably profitably" ?


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> I think this is a fundamental misreading. I think the market will give Tesla a long leash. Maybe not as long as Amazon, but as long as they can make good cars reasonably profitably (which they can), Musk can sell them. He is a brilliant marketer, and he has already disrupted the luxury vehicle segment as well as the sales & distribution model in the US. I would be worried about Tesla becoming another Apple if Musk had more evil inclinations.


Even though I agree with you that Elon is a brilliant marketer, we will have to agree to disagree on a number of other things. I'd seriously consider a Model S or X (likely the coupe) for my next car (likely on the horizon in 1-2 years) if I believed the manufacturer and service/parts organization was going to be around for the next 10 years to support it. But until they can get their act together, OR someone else with deep pockets comes along to take at least a significant part of the auto production organization, I am unlikely to bet my marbles on longevity for now.

The real test is if production of the Model 3 can really take off, and be profitable. Teething pains are normal, but the delays are getting long in the tooth. They need to get their act together in 2018, just in time for me to maybe decide in 2019 or 2020 (a Porsche 911 is my default option at the moment).

https://carbuzz.com/news/check-out-these-seriously-bad-tesla-model-3-quality-control-issues
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/25/16933802/tesla-model-3-battery-gigafactory-production-delays
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-earning-model-3-1.4525397
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/25/tesla-employees-say-gigafactory-problems-worse-than-known.html


----------



## TomB19

Jaberwock said:


> [Do you define a loss of about $20,000 per vehicle as making cars "reasonably profitably" ?


Is this flame bait?

They just onboarded about $2.5b worth of factories and equipment to scale to 500k cars per year. They bought Grohmann Engineering for $135M to automate their expensive new factories. They probably won't be swimming in an ocean of cash for a while.

ROI shouldn't be too difficult to understand for cmfers.

Big leverage. Big risk. Big potential reward.

I find it odd that Tesla is such a polarizing stock. They are doing nothing to hurt anyone, although their mission statement is based on climate change which seems to elicit some really strong reactions.


----------



## AltaRed

It is important to differentiate between EBITDA and income after tax (true earnings or profits). The former has to come soon. The latter can lag for years due to amortization of huge investments.


----------



## TomB16

andrewf said:


> I don't think Spacex will go public any time soon. The internet satellite constellation might be the killer app for the near term, as it will be a license to print money and could seriously disrupt telcos around the world, but especially in the US.


I'm with you on the lack of will for a SpaceX IPO. Musk has said it sucks to run a public company. I still think it will probably happen one day, if he needs a cash boost to get to Mars.

As for Elon disrupting telcos with Starlink, it's interesting to note SpaceX has walked back some of Musk's previous bravado. They now say they are focused on remote areas that are underserved by telcos.


***** Nerdfest below. Read with caution. *****

I believe Starlink will be a spine and leaf network architecture, designed to increase bandwidth as the number of nodes increases. This is likely why they are speaking in terms of limited bandwidth at the outset of the project. I have every expectation bandwidth will expand with the constellation.

I've also considered the idea of white box, carrier grade, routers. It's possible. The network will undoubtedly be based on MPLS. There are open source MPLS kernel modules available for linux that showed up a few years ago. It is evolving quickly. This could very easily be the foundation of their platform. It wouldn't surprise me if SpaceX is behind the open source MPLS development. There are a number of decent open management platforms so they could use carrier grade management software on their white box network. It wouldn't be that difficult at the SpaceX level to accomplish all of these things.

I assume they will use radio frequencies, as light frequencies would require too much power and would be subject to the wear and fallibility of robotics to track targets.


Lastly, I've thought about how they might power such a network.

I guestimate the amount of power required will be about 3500 Watts per satellite. These things are going to orbit the earth in a super short period, so they won't need a ton of storage. Two hours of storage is only 7000 Watt hours. They could use one module from a Tesla PowerPack or a Model 3 and it would be more power than they would need.

They might be able to get by with considerably less power. I'm basing my power estimate on a Nokia 7750 SR router.

Panasonic is creating some 25% efficient solar cells so Tesla could cherry pick the top bin cells. The problem here is they would be heavy but I think it's doable. 18 x 450 Watt panels ought to do the trick.

If the entire satellite comes in at or below 600 pounds, I approximate they could boost 100 into the extreme low altitude with a Falcon 9. That's 60K pounds but they are only boosting to 1200km above the earth surface.

The whole thing looks pretty amazing. I question why it is not being done by a SpaceX, Tesla partnership. How sweet would it be if Tesla had their own communication network with their cars?


----------



## andrewf

Jaberwock said:


> Do you define a loss of about $20,000 per vehicle as making cars "reasonably profitably" ?


I'm talking operating margins. Go ahead and short Tesla if you think they are losing $20k per car. They can't last long if you have a correct mental model.


----------



## m3s

TomB16 said:


> ***** Nerdfest below. Read with caution. *****
> 
> I believe Starlink will be a spine and leaf network architecture, designed to increase bandwidth as the number of nodes increases. This is likely why they are speaking in terms of limited bandwidth at the outset of the project. I have every expectation bandwidth will expand with the constellation.


I haven't seen many specifics, but the game changer of Starlink seems to be the sheer number of microsats in the thousands rather than dozens. The rest sounds like adopting military technology already used for decades

A mesh network between thousands of microsats using optical cross links becomes better and better with the increase of nodes. There is already an internet sub-culture building ground mesh networks, basically decentralize peer-to-peer networks (darknetplan, hocnet, hyperboria etc) rather than networks controlled by centralized ISPs (used for government censorship in some countries) This is far more advanced than the military's original internet protocol used today which hasn't changed much since the 80s, patch solutions like IPv6, LISP, DNSSEC are not really gaining much traction because money and ignorance. The military already developed robust mesh data link architecture decades ago to remove vulnerable nodes and improve security for critical information. Musk is very much in tune with internet sub-cultures and he is marketing directly to them online.



TomB16 said:


> I assume they will use radio frequencies, as light frequencies would require too much power and would be subject to the wear and fallibility of robotics to track targets.


Sounds like visible spectrum for the cross links between microsats, but RF is pretty much the standard down/uplink if you don't want to be blocked out by cloud cover etc. Certain bands are better for bandwidth and therefore expensive but another military tech CDMA lets us spread a lot of data across an RF band. That's already used for cellular data, GPS etc so nothing revolutionary. Starlink will apparently use directional beams to consumers to increase bandwidth. We use this in the military for high bandwidth video streams, point to point data transfer, or focused jam resistance like in GPS III. The end user who has the directional antenna could build their own ground wireless mesh network, but still I think any network will be controlled by finite ground station gateway nodes to link back into the archaic internet protocol. I see no mention of where these nodes will be or who controls them..



TomB16 said:


> If the entire satellite comes in at or below 600 pounds, I approximate they could boost 100 into the extreme low altitude with a Falcon 9. That's 60K pounds but they are only boosting to 1200km above the earth surface.



Apparently the test sats are only going like 500km out. With thousands of microsats you can get global coverage much lower as well as higher bandwidth with less power, time lag, interference etc. We're currently using a lot of older gen satellites from decades ago well beyond their life expectancy but there's a lot of new constellations going up. A lot has changed and newer gen satellites have more efficient technology. Older satellites were limited by the fuel required to maintain orbit or maneuver, but newer micro, cubesats, smallsats etc should be able to use simpler propulsion like electric, compressed gas, vaporizable liquid etc. I believe today's microsats will be limited by the degradation of their batteries, like our smartphones. It's not easy or cheap to to replace batteries in orbit and by then we probably rather launch a new sat with the latest tech. So Tesla tech very much matters

I hope to see a Falcon 9 launch in April. Spending a few months in the Vandenberg area

*owns VSAT, satellite internet provider, among other high tech thingies


----------



## TomB19

Interesting that Tesla has started installing the solar roof on gigafactory 1. This, shortly after gigafactory 2 has been ramping panel production.

Perhaps the long delay on solar power at gf1 will allow them to use their own panels.


----------



## TomB16

Check this out. Elon's initial cattle drive recruitment drive. At 11:34, there is an awkward edit that cuts into Elon talking about operating StarLink as a public business. It looks like there will be a StarLink ISO.


----------



## andrewf

Wonder if there is an uncut/better version of that video. Sounded to me like he was referring to Spacex itself.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Wow, that's a lot of space junk in orbit.


----------



## m3s

TomB16 said:


> Check this out. Elon's initial cattle drive recruitment drive. At 11:34, there is an awkward edit that cuts into Elon talking about operating StarLink as a public business. It looks like there will be a StarLink ISO


Seems like the questions are edited out to shorten the video

8:00 Explains the need for directional antennas. It's because the good RF bands are rare and claimed.. for US drone strikes. I can't catch the accent after that. "There's not high _scarcity?_ for space to earth bandwidth"

9:27 Propulsed by Hall-Effect Thruster. "It's basically like a large speaker. A magnetic field accelerating ions.. Pretty easy to make" That's some sci fi movie stuff right there

9:50 Country by country basis. Yea the countries who like to control their ISPs won't agree with this but if it's directional antenna people won't be able to just smuggle in a receiver to bypass local ISPs either

10:30 He's being conscious of how Iridium went bankrupt when mobile phones came while they launched. 5G is also coming soon with low latency, 100Mbps-1GBps and up to 10 GBps over short distances, probably more in 5 years. He has to look 10 years out at least



OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Wow, that's a lot of space junk in orbit.


They'll be required to have a de-orbit plan. The current problem is junked satellites left orbiting that have no propulsion planned for de-orbit. There's a lot more planes flying in less space and they're a lot less predictable than orbiting junk


----------



## TomB16

I have some thoughts that are loosely connected to the Trump thread from the Investing forum.

Tesla is, by far, the most political stock of which I'm aware. I'm surprised at the quantity and passion of haters this stock has. Arguments are presented that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Tesla has leveraged itself heavily to construct a great machine. They are in the final throws of bringing that machine online. It's not difficult to predict the approximate impact of the great machine, once fully operational, but a precise prediction is not possible. Point being, there is an element of speculation to Tesla investing.

Criticizing Tesla for not making money literally causes me to note the critics and disregard future comments from them. If this line of reasoning were valid, every CEO that ever expanded his operation should be fired.

Not that Tesla is guaranteed success. It isn't. Leverage is risk. Plus, there are myriad problems along the way.

So, you might think they will make it or may think their leverage is beyond what future success may overcome. But. Watching the StockTwits feed hurts my head. A minor pull back in value, even as it follows a market wide correction, floods the StockTwits feed with promises of failure and bankruptcy in the extreme near future. All of this nay saying comes from a small handful of individuals. When the stock increases in value, often due to unrelated activity, the feed floods with guarantees of $1000/share valuations in the short term.

Most confounding is how absolutely sure posters are that they are correct. How long can the average person cling to their gut instinct while the market valuation fluctuates within reasonable trend levels for a volatile stock? Is this how the average individual thinks or is this a case of the ignorant being more vocal than the less confident majority?

Tesla is a great study in market dynamics. It's a good control with extreme market influences and minor business influences on it's valuation.


----------



## TomB16

By the way, for those who contend that Tesla will become irrelevant once the old giants take notice of electric vehicles, might want to have a look at the GM Bolt as a case study. GM started sooner than Tesla on the Model 3 and yet produced less vehicles as of the end of 2017.

Meanwhile, Tesla's production ramp on the model 3 is putting GM pretty far in the rear view camera.

In terms of total global sales of electric vehicles, Tesla leads for 2017. Number 2 is BYD of China.

In the luxury car segment in the US, all fuel types, the leader is.... Tesla.


----------



## olivaw

Random thoughts, FWIW

Anecdotal, but I know nobody who dreams of owning a Chevy nowadays. Lots of my buddies dream of a Tesla. To me, that suggests that Tesla enjoys the type of goodwill that GM (Chevy) lost decades ago. 

Tesla is in a class with Audi and BMW. Chevy is not. 

Spacex is a different Elon company but the successful launch of Falcon Heavy may prove to be great marketing for Tesla. I am guessing here, I have seen nothing to indicate an uptick in orders following the launch. Maybe it makes no difference because Tesla has more orders than it can handle.

As has been said in this thread, this is a speculative investment but I think it is also a “fun” investment.


----------



## accord1999

TomB16 said:


> In the luxury car segment in the US, all fuel types, the leader is.... Tesla.


In the luxury large sedan segment, which has been in decline for over a decade in the US as it gets eaten away by luxury mid-sized sedans and luxury crossovers.



olivaw said:


> Random thoughts, FWIW
> 
> Anecdotal, but I know nobody who dreams of owning a Chevy nowadays. Lots of my buddies dream of a Tesla. To me, that suggests that Tesla enjoys the type of goodwill that GM (Chevy) lost decades ago.


Other than perhaps the Corvette and some variants of the Camaro, few people dream about buying a Chevy family sedan or crossover. Chevy is GM's mainline brand and isn't meant to compete with Germany luxury marques.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

olivaw said:


> ... Tesla is in a class with Audi and BMW...


Well then I'll never own a tesla, since it's never occurred to me to want or need an audi or bmw.
Far too many other things to piss money away on outside of a car.


----------



## TomB16

Has anyone else browsed the glossy circular Tesla mailed out regarding Elon's compensation?

Check out page 33.

Why did Deepak Ahuja (CFO) receive $15M in stocks and options in 2017? Is he really worth $15M while JB Straubel is only worth $250K?

The whole deal seems out of whack to me.


----------



## olivaw

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Well then I'll never own a tesla, since it's never occurred to me to want or need an audi or bmw.
> Far too many other things to piss money away on outside of a car.


Sounds sensible. The Tesla Model S competes at the price point occupied by luxury BMW and Audi models and that is a fairly exclusive club. I'm not a member either. 

The Tesla Model 3 comes in at a far lower price point but I sense that people view it as a bit of a prestige purchase. That's entirely anecdotal evidence gleaned from chatting with my car-guy friends.

The Chevy Bolt is just another Chevy. Most people haven't even heard of it and many of those who have don't know the difference between the Bolt and the Volt.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Electric? I expect to go to the grave using guzzoline in my vehicle. Guess it'll be Mad Max and I running the refinery in the future.


----------



## TomB19

Good for you, omo. Resist change.

Meanwhile, the model 3 is now pulling a sales lead with 50% more sales than Toyotas Prius phev in February. The model S&x also selling about as much as the Prius phev.

For me, the model S figures are most significant. They shut down one of their model S battery production lines to bolster the 3 battery line. Once they get the automation for 3 battery pack production sorted, they will be pretty tough to compete with by anybody.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Change for the sake of change?
Are consumer electric vehicles really about stewardship of the earth? So why do all the stewards have 2, sometimes 3 cars in their driveway? (less commonly in the garage because it's full of crap that they drove to the mall to buy).
But as good stewards (oops, consumers) they will buy an electric car when available - or when the government forces them to.

The status early-adopters (same ones buying the newest apple product because its there - not because they actually need it) are of course a different breed of consumer.


----------



## TomB19

Many of them have multiple cars because they think, like others in this thread, that any car with batteries and electric motor is comparable.

The infrastructure is not in place yet but Tesla is getting close. I could drive a Tesla from my house to key West Florida with a similar, but not quite as good, drive to fuel ratio as a gas vehicle.

Nissan has a quick charge option for the leaf. As I understand, that option isn't very popular yet. It's great to see another manufacturer sees this as an important capability.

Looking at the least evolved electric vehicles and making decisions based on that profile may not be the most wise move, although I will support some myopic ideas.


----------



## TomB19

I'm more interested in the potential of Tesla taking over for prepa in Puerto Rico. It's a medium shot but it would cause Tesla to be a power company for 3m people (or perhaps a subset of the population)

Puerto Rico news has been extremely quiet. All we know is that pr has said they are interested in selling off prepa and moving to a modern electrical system.

Apparently, they have a couple of dozen proposals, including from sonnen. Sonnen is a very capable company but they have less experience than Tesla, as far as I can tell, and they are a foreign company.

If Tesla could gain a foothold into power production and distribution, that would cause a reevaluation of their valuation in a major way.

Tesla is a bit light in experience of being a power company but it isn't entirely out of the realm of possibilities. 

We also have a gigafactory 2 production ramp announcement in the near future. I don't think many understand how important gf2 is in the Tesla puzzle for the energy side.

$60B market cap doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore.


----------



## olivaw

More mostly irrelevant and random thoughts: 

I am still driving the Japanese built gasoline automobile that I purchased new in 2007. I'll stick with that for another five to ten years. Then I hope to buy a Tesla, electric/self driving vehicle. If not Tesla, I will probably go for a Korean or Japanese electric/self driving model. It will probably be my last ever automobile purchase. I want it to be a vehicle that I love. 

But who knows? Self driving vehicles may change the paradigm. By then it might be cheaper to call up a self driving Uber to take me from place to place. Tesla is working to be at the forefront of this technology too.


----------



## m3s

I think the Tesla self-driving shuttles could be the next big disruption

Intercity hyperloops and self driving shuttles around town would revolutionize transportation 

Then you combine hyperloop cargo with self driving Tesla delivery trucks

I'm all for self driving cars/trucks as long as motorbikes remain. Cagers are horrible drivers.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla energy now in consultations regarding 25MW battery in Arizona, along with a power company sponsored subsidy for residential power walls.


----------



## AltaRed

Let's hope it does not explode like Fukushima. :cower:


----------



## TomB19

Breitbart news might be well advised to hold off on reporting a battery explosion in Arizona until a battery exists there.

I've noticed cnbc is also extremely hostile to Tesla.

Anyone with a passing interest in objectivity can Google "breitbart Tesla" and find a shopping list of negativity. They keep cranking these fabricated negative articles, out while Tesla continues to ramp production, build out the charging fleet, develop new products, and aggressively expand into the energy space.

We crossed the "Mulligan" threshold long ago. This isn't a few articles that are ""a little off". There is no reasonable explanation for the negative body of Tesla news coming from the alt-right, other than straight up business warefare.

It's little wonder conservatives have such a negative view of Tesla while liberals think the company is without flaw.


----------



## AltaRed

Maybe the truth is somewhere down the middle?


----------



## TomB19

I've been spamming my views all over this thread but perhaps this will sum up my perspective....

Tesla is ramping production at gigafactory 2 in partnership with Panasonic to produce industry leading efficiency solar panels and roofs that also have industry leading longevity guarantees.

This gf2 ramp seems to be connected to Tesla rolling out solar arrays to charging stations. "Seems" ... The last I heard, Tesla wasn't implementing solar at their facilities because of their credit rating. Now they will be able to implement at production cost and some labour.

Tesla has also said their charging network will be energy positive. In other words, the solar panels will out produce the charging load. This is already in place at a small minority of charging stations.


Compared to a luxury drive across the country powered by nothing but light, a few month delayed production ramp on one of three models isn't that big of a deal. it's a concern, particularly given the horrendous leverage the company is using. Ultimately, it could take the company down if they don't produce. ... But they have a brand new factory, massive backorders, world beating designs, and the infrastructure in place to sell cars.


----------



## TomB19

Two Tesla electric semis making their first loaded run from gigafactory 1 to the Fremont Street factory this afternoon.

440km


----------



## andrewf

On the semi, at work we are chomping on the bit for electrified trucks as well as autonomy. Was speaking to a rep from Volvo at an industry event who seemed ambivalent or annoyed about their own electric truck initiatives. Would not be surprised to see incumbents get creamed if for no other reason than that Tesla will be the only company willing to build out rapid charging network. This is going to become a major problem in cars for all the vendors who are going to start making cars capable of level 3 charging but have zero infrastructure to support it. Tesla is so far ahead on this.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> ...This is going to become a major problem in cars for all the vendors who are going to start making cars capable of level 3 charging but have zero infrastructure to support it.


Ahh yes, the grossly inefficient, efficient electric car future. All the more reason to keep the gas guzzler isn't it.


----------



## TomB19

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Ahh yes, the grossly inefficient, efficient electric car future. All the more reason to keep the gas guzzler isn't it.


How does this make sense to you? Really?

That's like saying you will never buy an iPod because there are digital music players aren't well thought out or compatible with the music you like.

I plan to drive my diesel 2006 Jetta Wagon for several more years, maybe 10, but I'm aware that I will be forced into electric at some point in the future and I'm glad some smart people are doing a good job of creating a viable future for people who enjoy driving long distances.

Of course, this is only my opinion.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

TomB19 said:


> ...That's like saying you will never buy an iPod...


Exactly. I won't ever buy an ipod, or an iphone or any other apple product. Clearly there are a lot of people who do drink the apple cool-aid and I'm sure there will be many who drink tesla. And both will become hugely successful companies. I won't be one of their customers.

I do hope that the day never comes when you are "forced into electric".


----------



## m3s

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I do hope that the day never comes when you are "forced into electric".


Not sure who the you is you refer, but whether or not this day comes probably depends on ones lifespan.

Reminiscent of the early days of CMF when the majority laughed at iPhones


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Exactly. I won't ever buy an ipod, or an iphone or any other apple product. Clearly there are a lot of people who do drink the apple cool-aid and I'm sure there will be many who drink tesla. And both will become hugely successful companies. I won't be one of their customers.
> 
> I do hope that the day never comes when you are "forced into electric".


You will be 'forced' into electric when they become superior on every key performance metric and internal combustion car production collapses, along with the infrastructure to fuel them. How long that takes is open for debate, but I suspect driving a gas car is going to be pretty quaint in about 20 years.


----------



## TomB19

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I do hope that the day never comes when you are "forced into electric".


Me too but I expect it will.

The northern ice cap will be gone one summer in the next few years and that's when things will get ridiculous. At that point, diesel driving goons like me will probably be lynched. lol!


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Let's hope it does not explode like Fukushima. :cower:



i don't believe fukushima "exploded"

fukushima was a complex of nuclear reactors that were badly damaged by the 2011 earthquake. Two reactors immediately commenced meltdown although the japanese power authority continued to deny the facts for several days. It was the US that rapidly determined what was happening & offered assistance, iirc.

to the best of my knowledge, radioactivity from one of the reactors is still not yet under control & radioactive water is still leaking into the ocean.

does this have something to do with Elon Musk or a power wall? 


.


----------



## nathan79

There will remain a niche for internal combustion vehicles under existing "collector" car rules. You will probably need to have an electric vehicle as a daily driver, and special collector plates and insurance for your gasoline or diesel vehicle. Of course, there might only be one gas station in a medium size city by then.


----------



## AltaRed

Humble, at least one of the two reactors had an explosion due to I believe hydrogen buildup. I'd have to look up the details. What this has to do with Musk is the overheating of a X Megawatt battery bank. We do have lithium battery fires, etc. To me, the jury is still out on huge electrical storage systems. ..... Hence my liberal use of the term 'explode'.


----------



## AltaRed

nathan79 said:


> There will remain a niche for internal combustion vehicles under existing "collector" car rules. You will probably need to have an electric vehicle as a daily driver, and special collector plates and insurance for your gasoline or diesel vehicle. Of course, there might only be one gas station in a medium size city by then.


There will be IC engines in a whole lot of other places too. Out in forestry, and backwoods recreation hunting and fishing. There is a lot more to this country than urban centres. We can have this conversation again in 20 years if I am still here and/or coherent.


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Humble, at least one of the two reactors had an explosion due to I believe hydrogen buildup. I'd have to look up the details. What this has to do with Musk is the overheating of a X Megawatt battery bank. We do have lithium battery fires, etc. To me, the jury is still out on huge electrical storage systems. ..... Hence my liberal use of the term 'explode'.



ah, i see, thanx

altaRed you weren't here in 2009 but who was laughing - m3s says people were laughing - at iPhones in cmf forum in 2009? what i remember is that kcowan was already making a killing in AAPL. Then the Gobster showed up & he remained loyally committed even when AAPL plunged from $700 pre-split to $400.

i seem to recall one cmffer whose name i shall not mention, who scoffed at Apple incessantly though


----------



## nathan79

AltaRed said:


> There will be IC engines in a whole lot of other places too. Out in forestry, and backwoods recreation hunting and fishing. There is a lot more to this country than urban centres. We can have this conversation again in 20 years if I am still here and/or coherent.


Yes, I agree with you. I just think it will be more regulated than it is now. There will be special cases, where there will be exemptions. I was thinking more like 25-30 years, but it's near impossible to time technological shifts.

But let's say most new cars made in 2030 are electric. The used market for gas powered vehicles would pretty much dry up after about 15-20 years, so there would no longer be a reason for most people to buy one. This would put us at around 2045 to 2050.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Humble, at least one of the two reactors had an explosion due to I believe hydrogen buildup. I'd have to look up the details. What this has to do with Musk is the overheating of a X Megawatt battery bank. We do have lithium battery fires, etc. To me, the jury is still out on huge electrical storage systems. ..... Hence my liberal use of the term 'explode'.


Frankly, this is just FUD. A 25 MW battery installation is not a gigantic battery cell. It is just many standard cells that are made into packs and modules, and modules combined together. There is a safety system in each pack to manage and contain the failure of individual cells. For this reason, these battery packs are much safer laptop or cell phone batteries which tend to skimp on battery management for the sake of performance, cost and weight. So, it is no scarier than having 2500 x 100 kWh Teslas in a parking lot. Or, say, a gas station. Much less scary than trains full of volatile petroleum that are liable to explode and flatten small towns like in Lac Megantic.

Nuclear reactors and battery storage arrays have almost nothing to do with each other. The greatest commonality is that they concentrate a lot of energy in a small area, and that always poses some risk when that energy is released suddenly or uncontrollably. Battery arrays are actually fairly spread out and won't suffer a runaway failure like a 74 car oil train or a nuclear reactor.


----------



## andrewf

nathan79 said:


> Yes, I agree with you. I just think it will be more regulated than it is now. There will be special cases, where there will be exemptions. I was thinking more like 25-30 years, but it's near impossible to time technological shifts.
> 
> But let's say most new cars made in 2030 are electric. The used market for gas powered vehicles would pretty much dry up after about 15-20 years, so there would no longer be a reason for most people to buy one. This would put us at around 2045 to 2050.


Not to mention all the small engines that contribute massively to poor air quality. It can't come soon enough. In 50 years people will look back on this time like we look back on people smoking and drunk driving in the 50's.


----------



## TomB19

I lust the idea of not having to "see if the car will start" on 40 below days but I'll be living somewhere that doesn't have 40 below days, long before I have an electric vehicle.


----------



## andrewf

humble_pie said:


> ah, i see, thanx
> 
> altaRed you weren't here in 2009 but who was laughing - m3s says people were laughing - at iPhones in cmf forum in 2009? what i remember is that kcowan was already making a killing in AAPL. Then the Gobster showed up & he remained loyally committed even when AAPL plunged from $700 pre-split to $400.
> 
> i seem to recall one cmffer whose name i shall not mention, who scoffed at Apple incessantly though


Unnamed cmffer preferred GOOGL and expressed doubt AAPL would crack 1 trillion market cap imminently. GOOGL has outperformed in the intervening years. AAPL still has the same structural problem of only having 1 product worth talking about and has become a follower on design and software.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Frankly, this is just FUD.


Maybe, but i am a mechanical guy and things do go wrong. Nothing is perfected yet.


----------



## m3s

Speaking of apples and alphabets, amazon's The Grand Tour recent Canadian episode also features Jeremy Clarkson's take on the Tesla model X, full of lawyers. His first review of a Tesla vehicle since all the lawsuits following his review of the original Tesla roadster/Lotus Elise. It's probably the best thing on TV in years and it's not even on TV.



AltaRed said:


> There will be IC engines in a whole lot of other places too. Out in forestry, and backwoods recreation hunting and fishing. There is a lot more to this country than urban centres. We can have this conversation again in 20 years if I am still here and/or coherent.


I don't know I've been watching youtuber solar power installs and they're getting better and better all the time. Real off grid, legit backwoods types are the early adopters of this tech for obvious reason. I don't see why it won't trickle down to recreation backwoods poser types as prices come down.

The economics seem to be about 5 years to break even in places with access to the grid. Off grid it's a lot more expensive to source and deliver gas and energy. Another big shift people don't see coming is DC. Many of our electronics are already DC but we haul around heavy power brick adapters wasting significant energy for nothing.


----------



## olivaw

TomB19 said:


> It's little wonder conservatives have such a negative view of Tesla while liberals think the company is without flaw.


I suspect that most science and tech people have a positive view of Tesla’s technological innovation. They tend to lean liberal because the conservative movement doesn’t appear to have much love for science and tech lately.


----------



## olivaw

According to this Elon watcher, Tesla is falling behind on self driving vehicles.






I hold INTC so I hope Elon makes a deal with Intel to regain access to the Mobileye technology.


----------



## andrewf

olivaw said:


> According to this Elon watcher, Tesla is falling behind on self driving vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hold INTC so I hope Elon makes a deal with Intel to regain access to the Mobileye technology.


I think this analysis misses the mark. Musk has said on the last earnings call that the first self-driving cross country trip will happen in the first half of 2018. That doesn't sound like a claim that a self-driving program that is in trouble would make. Elon makes a good argument for why LIDAR is a bad approach:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/41...-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single


> Yes. Well, first of all, I should say there's actually three sensor systems. There are cameras, (22:25) redundant forward cameras, there's the forward radar, and there are the ultrasonics for near field. So, the third is also – the third set is also important for near-field stuff, just as it is for human.
> 
> But I think it's pretty obvious that the road system is geared towards passive optical. We have to solve passive optical image recognition, extremely well in order to be able to drive in any given environment and the changing environment. We must solve passive optical image recognition. We must solve it extremely well.
> 
> At the point at which you have solved it extremely well, what is the point in having active optical, meaning lidar, which does not – which cannot read signs; it's just giving you – in my view, it is a crutch that will drive companies to a local maximum that they will find very difficult to get out of.
> 
> If you take the hard path of a sophisticated neural net that's capable of advanced image recognition, then I think you achieve the goal maximum. And you combine that with increasingly sophisticated radar and if you're going to pick active proton generator, doing so in 400 nanometer to 700 nanometer wavelength is pretty silly, since you're getting that passively.
> 
> You would want to do active photon generation in the radar frequencies of approximately around 4 millimeters because that is occlusion penetrating. And you can essentially see through snow, rain, dust, fog, anything. So, it's just I find it quite puzzling that companies would choose to do an active proton system in the wrong wavelength. They're going to have a whole bunch of expensive equipment, most of which makes the car expensive, ugly and unnecessary. And I think they will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
> 
> Now perhaps I am wrong. In which case, I'll look like a fool. But I am quite certain that I am not.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> I think this analysis misses the mark. Musk has said on the last earnings call that the first self-driving cross country trip will happen in the first half of 2018.


But he promised it for the end of last year.

https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/19/m...ive-of-fully-self-driving-tesla-by-late-2017/

Even for Tesla fans, his predictions for self-driving have become a bit of a joke and this particular prediction (which has yet to happen) has become a meme used whenever Tesla has a delay.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823727035088416768?lang=en


----------



## olivaw

I believed that Tesla led the way in self driving until I watched the video and learned about the study by Navigate Research that put Tesla dead last in the self-driving race. 
https://www.navigantresearch.com/research/navigant-research-leaderboard-automated-driving-vehicles

Teslerati writes: 



> Navigant’s analysis points the blame to Tesla and its eventual split with Mobileye, which was involved in the development and release of the first generation Autopilot system. Since its separation from the Israeli-based tech company, Tesla has spent significant effort in developing its own in-house self-driving suite – Autopilot 2. So far, however, the Elon Musk-led firm has encountered challenge after challenge, with improvements to EAP and new features trickling down in a rather slow stream.
> 
> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-finishes-last-navigant-research-self-driving-tech/


IMHO, the report is not a blow to Tesla. It probably won't hurt sales of Tesla models in the short term. Tesla leads in batteries, charging stations and goodwill. 

In the long run, I am not so sure that Tesla can maintain their competitive advantages if they lag on such an important feature. Self driving technology is probably far more disruptive than electric cars. Tesla needs to get it right and deliver on the promise of global self driving technology before their competitors do.


----------



## TomB19

It seems to me, Tesla is all-in on climate change. I can't imagine a purpose for Tesla in the absence of climate change.

I'm curious to know if there is anyone in here who does not believe in climate change but feels Tesla is a worthwhile company. If so, it would be great to read some comments.


----------



## Koogie

Tesla is absolutely a worthwhile company doing amazing and innovative work. A worthwhile investment though ? God no.

My interest in and enthusiasm for electrified vehicles has little to do with the Global Warming Tax Cult, though. It is just a great technology. 
Maybe it'll save the polar bears, maybe not. Al Gores tears do seem like a renewable resource though. Maybe we can run something off them too.


----------



## andrewf

TomB19 said:


> It seems to me, Tesla is all-in on climate change. I can't imagine a purpose for Tesla in the absence of climate change.
> 
> I'm curious to know if there is anyone in here who does not believe in climate change but feels Tesla is a worthwhile company. If so, it would be great to read some comments.


Solar will inevitably be cheaper than fossil fuel (coal). Already is in sunny areas. 

Electric drive train will inevitably be cheaper than ICE. Higher energy efficiency, fewer moving parts. Never mind that ICE kills thousands due to poor air quality, smog, etc.

So even in the absence of concerns about CO2 emissions, Tesla still has a very valid mission.


----------



## humble_pie

olivaw said:


> I believed that Tesla led the way in self driving until I watched the video and learned about the study by Navigate Research that put Tesla dead last in the self-driving race.
> https://www.navigantresearch.com/research/navigant-research-leaderboard-automated-driving-vehicles
> 
> Teslerati writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navigant’s analysis points the blame to Tesla and its eventual split with Mobileye, which was involved in the development and release of the first generation Autopilot system. Since its separation from the Israeli-based tech company, Tesla has spent significant effort in developing its own in-house self-driving suite – Autopilot 2. So far, however, the Elon Musk-led firm has encountered challenge after challenge, with improvements to EAP and new features trickling down in a rather slow stream.
> 
> https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-fini...-driving-tech/
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, the report is not a blow to Tesla. It probably won't hurt sales of Tesla models in the short term. Tesla leads in batteries, charging stations and goodwill.
> 
> In the long run, I am not so sure that Tesla can maintain their competitive advantages if they lag on such an important feature [Mobileye cameras]
Click to expand...



but subsequent news says that Intel has recently bought Mobileye. It's true that tesla & mobilEye disagreed enough to split up, but now that the Eye has a new owner - an american owner at that - it's thought that perhaps the 2 companies can get back together again.


----------



## olivaw

humble_pie said:


> but subsequent news says that Intel has recently bought Mobileye. It's true that tesla & mobilEye disagreed enough to split up, but now that the Eye has a new owner - an american owner at that - it's thought that perhaps the 2 companies can get back together again.


I hope so, but my motive is not entirely pure. II am a bit of an Elon fan but I don't hold TSLA. I do hold INTC and want to see Mobileye technology succeed. 

I can't see Tesla maintaining its reputation as the market leader if it's automated driving technology lags. IMHO, key success factors will be: 
- Charging stations. Tesla has a healthy lead. 
- Range. Tesla gets the nod here too. 
- Self driving. Tesla appears to be lagging. 
- Production capacity. Tesla is still struggling to ramp up production. 
- Quality control. Tesla is still struggling. 

Early days yet. Tesla is an amazing company but Kia, Hyundai, BMW and Nissan may give Tesla a run for its money. 

As an aside: Elon Musk is not the founder of Tesla. It was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Trapanning. Elon came later and ousted the company's founders. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but Elon needs to be careful about having too many public spats like the one he had with mobileEye.


----------



## andrewf

I would say Tesla is innovating on service as well. No one likes the dealer model besides dealers. Legacy automakers have a lot of work to do to disassemble their dealer networks or figure out how to support them when cars need much less paid service.


----------



## TomB19

I don't understand how Tesla is innovating on service. Can you be more specific, Andrew?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

And if people won't buy electric cars of their own volition, pay out millions in taxpayer dollars to distort the market and 'incentivize' them:

*Ontario cuts off rebates for electric vehicles costing more than $75K*
_The Liberal government has been encouraging electric vehicle sales by doling out tens of millions of dollars in rebates to vehicle owners, offering various other incentives and programs, installing a network of charging stations and spending $1 million to open an electric vehicle education centre in North York. 

in 2016 taxpayers shelled out nearly $800,000 in rebates for cars with six-figure price tags. That figure includes five payouts, at an average of more than $5,000, for one of the most expensive cars ever manufactured — the $1.1-million Porsche 918 Spyder... cars with price tags between $75,000 to $150,000 were eligible for rebates of up to $14,000._

I don't suppose any of these cars contribute to Ontario's manufacturing base either.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-cuts-off-rebates-for-electric-vehicles-costing-more-than-75k-1.4571548


----------



## TomB19

olivaw said:


> I believed that Tesla led the way in self driving until I watched the video and learned about the study by Navigate Research that put Tesla dead last in the self-driving race.
> https://www.navigantresearch.com/research/navigant-research-leaderboard-automated-driving-vehicles


If I posted a graph showing Tesla in front, would you believe that?

Who lead's the race of machine comprehension of driving? The key threat to Tesla on that front is Google. In fact, I would speculate Google will have fully autonomous driving before Tesla. I have no idea when GM will achieve fully autonomous driving but I don't see them as a front runner, to say the least.

Now, in terms of driver assistance, that's a different story. I expect Navigant is classifying based on this.

So, what does "automated driving" mean?

I take automated driving to mean having a car drive itself, with no human input, from one geographic location to another with no prior knowledge of detail or road conditions. In that context, I'll take Tesla over GM with 10:1 odds in favor of Tesla and GM is the leader of Navigant's "automated driving" chart with Tesla at the very back.

How come a "think tank" can either be incorrect or corrupt with a history of incorrect predictions and their new predictions make the news headlines with no mention of what bozos they've been? This thought isn't specific to Navigant but I see this all the time. I've watched the Moller Sky Car being hyped as just around the corner for 40 years and Paul Moller has been developing it for 50. Science magazine after science magazine hyped it as the next big thing.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Remind me again why I'm supposed to be excited about the prospect of not having any sense of how to get from A to B on my own, or of having to drive myself anymore?


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Remind me again why I'm supposed to be excited about the prospect of not having any sense of how to get from A to B on my own, or of having to drive myself anymore?


I assume you still wash your clothes by beating them against rocks in the river?


----------



## andrewf

TomB19 said:


> I don't understand how Tesla is innovating on service. Can you be more specific, Andrew?


Direct sales model for cars. There are no dealers. Tesla is aiming to have the Apple Store for cars.

Car buyers and owners universally revile dealers. Tesla has sky-high customer satisfaction with their sales, delivery and after sale support services. When you buy a car, after you have made a decision it's 10 minutes of paperwork, no hauling you into a financing office for the high-pressure upsell. Then for repairs, Tesla is innovating with their mobile repair service where a high percentage of repairs/service are done by Tesla coming to you and performing the service on the spot. And all of this is actually _lower_ cost, for superior levels of service. All of this helps their margins and customer satisfaction.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> I assume you still wash your clothes by beating them against rocks in the river?


So the answer is that not knowing how to get from A to B myself or driving myself is more efficient and time-saving - comparable to a modern washing machine rather that washing my clothes in a stream? Got it. Now I'm really looking forward to a Wall-e like utopia.


----------



## olivaw

TomB19 said:


> If I posted a graph showing Tesla in front, would you believe that?


If the graph was credible, I would believe it. 

Tesla had a reputation as the leader in this technology until the Navigate report came out. That report might prove to be wrong but its the only independent report we have and it appears credible. 

I am a fan of Elon's work (though I would not call myself a fanboy). I believe that Tesla has the chops to overcome this challenge and implement state of the art self driving technology in their vehicles. However, it is taking far longer than expected and other companies have not stood still. 

I view Nissan, BMW and Kia/Hyundai as much more credible challengers than GM. 

To OMO, electric is incredible technology. Self driving is even more disruptive. Why own a car when you can cheaply hire a self driving vehicle to take you wherever you want to go, door to door. Self driving vehicles are expected to reduce accidents, eliminate congestion, make vehicular transportation accessible to everyone (including the sick, elderly and handicapped), eliminate the need for giant downtown parking lots, move us more efficiently and save us all a bunch of money.


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So the answer is that not knowing how to get from A to B myself or driving myself is more efficient and time-saving - comparable to a modern washing machine rather that washing my clothes in a stream? Got it. Now I'm really looking forward to a Wall-e like utopia.


It's going to be cheaper, faster, safer and easier. I know there will be those that resist, or at least claim they will, but in reality I doubt many people relish the idea of controlling the crawl of their car on the 401. I would rather work or consume media.


----------



## TomB19

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So the answer is that not knowing how to get from A to B myself or driving myself is more efficient and time-saving - comparable to a modern washing machine rather that washing my clothes in a stream?


Yes.

You don't have to like it. I don't have to like it. It's the future.

I recall back in the 1980s when fuel injection was coming in. The complaining and misery were tremendous. "They are deliberately making it so complicated the average guy can't fix it."

OMO, I can't help but notice you aren't asking if it is still possible to manually drive the car, you have made your opinion clear the existence of self-driving cars is disagreeable to you. That puts you pretty solid in the grumpy old man category. There's nothing wrong with that but the world is moving forward. The people who wish we were riding horses, instead of driving cars, are long gone just as you and I will be one day. Younger generations will probably think driving is a fun thing, just as we think of riding, but not in traffic and on their way to work; they've got **** to do.


----------



## TomB19

olivaw said:


> If the graph was credible, I would believe it.


Give me a few minutes with LibraCalc....

As Elon pointed out in the earning's call, Tesla isn't working on driver assist. They are working on full autonomy. That will require full cognition in the visual spectrum. Full autonomy cannot be achieved with lidar which cannot read signs. lidar won't hurt anything and may even help but full autonomy will require AI and visual spectrum cognition.

If Elon is correct, the race is down to AI. I would put Google out front, in that race. I don't know where Tesla is but I suspect they are well ahead of GM who leads all categories in the posted graphic.

I don't dismiss the work GM is doing. It's great. I dismiss the graph, as it is clearly built on a subjective idea.


----------



## olivaw

andrewf said:


> Direct sales model for cars. There are no dealers. Tesla is aiming to have the Apple Store for cars.


In my city, the Tesla store is a few steps from the Apple Store in a mall. It's not as busy as the Apple Store but there always seems to be a few smiling customers sitting in the cars - and they don't even have the Model 3 yet. I can only imagine what it will be like when they bring that car into the store. 

Some car dealers have stepped up their game but many still cling to the old model of fast talking salesmen and manipulative processes. My wife and I went through it last year. The North American auto dealerships were all bad. The import dealership were a mixed bag. Even the good ones seemed to push pointless rustproofing and tinting packages at 3X retail.


----------



## olivaw

TomB19 said:


> Give me a few minutes with LibraCalc....
> 
> As Elon pointed out in the earning's call, Tesla isn't working on driver assist. They are working on full autonomy. That will require full cognition in the visual spectrum. Full autonomy cannot be achieved with lidar which cannot read signs. lidar won't hurt anything and may even help but full autonomy will require AI and visual spectrum cognition.
> 
> If Elon is correct, the race is down to AI. I would put Google out front, in that race. I don't know where Tesla is but I suspect they are well ahead of GM who leads all categories in the posted graphic.
> 
> I don't dismiss the work GM is doing. It's great. I dismiss the graph, as it is clearly built on a subjective idea.


It's true that Tesla is working on fully autonomy but is hardware in the Model S and Model 3 as good as Elon claims? I suppose we won't know the answer until Tesla delivers the promised Autopilot software update. That update is taking a long time and the people are starting to question the technology. 

FWIW: The Verge:https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/24/16504038/tesla-autopilot-self-driving-update-elon-musk



> Given the lag in Autopilot updates, some Tesla owners now question whether the company can deliver on what’s ultimately been promised: full self-driving. “It just leaves you with no faith that they are anywhere on that path,” said Ian Jordan, an electrical engineer from Seattle who owns a Model S. “Today they can’t reliably detect a speed limit sign, so it just seems like an enormous gap.”


and



> Internally, Tesla has experienced a lot of upheaval as it relates to Autopilot. The company’s team of engineers working on Autopilot reacted with dismay to Musk’s announcement last year, believing Autopilot lacked the capability to deliver full self-driving, according to the Wall Street Journal. In addition, CNN reported that Musk reportedly brushed aside certain concerns as negligible compared to Autopilot's overall lifesaving potential, but employees who worked on Autopilot struggled to make the same leap.


Again, my intent is not to downplay Tesla's excellence. It is an incredible company with amazing products. Elon proves naysayers wrong time after time. Still, I would like to see Elon deliver on the Autopilot promise for the Model S and Model 3. If he fails, there may be a lot of pissed off Tesla customers out there.


----------



## agent99

olivaw said:


> Still, I would like to see Elon deliver on the Autopilot promise for the Model S and Model 3. If he fails, there may be a lot of pissed off Tesla customers out there.


I doubt too many Tesla buyers buy them for the self driving capability. It's one of those "features" that many are skeptical about and that will take decades to come to full fruition. (Probably more to due to bureaucratic than technical reasons ). 

Personally, I would love to own a Tesla, but I would not want it to drive itself!


----------



## m3s

olivaw said:


> In my city, the Tesla store is a few steps from the Apple Store in a mall. It's not as busy as the Apple Store but there always seems to be a few smiling customers sitting in the cars - and they don't even have the Model 3 yet. I can only imagine what it will be like when they bring that car into the store.
> 
> Some car dealers have stepped up their game but many still cling to the old model of fast talking salesmen and manipulative processes. My wife and I went through it last year. The North American auto dealerships were all bad. The import dealership were a mixed bag. Even the good ones seemed to push pointless rustproofing and tinting packages at 3X retail.


I avoid such areas, but I've noticed a few Tesla stores near Apple stores. I hope the mainstream auto brands take influences from Tesla the way electronic brands took influences from Apple. Tesla's are designed to be as sleek as possible whereas cars today seem to try to add more pointless lines, flairs, wings, vents to look "newer" every few years. As a hobby detailer, the Tesla bodywork and interior looks so much easier to protect and maintain.

As for dealerships, the last time I was interested in a used sports car they tried the old "let me pretend to fight with the boss" routine and I told them thanks for the entertainment and to call me if they actually want to sell the car. The entire industry needs a major modernization to the internet age. I can get most basic car parts on amazon for a fraction of the price and I can lookup invoice prices online (hence all the add-on "gotcha" fees)


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> what i remember is that kcowan was already making a killing in AAPL.


Good memory! We sold them all in 2005 for a gain of US$61K. Then we waited for them to drop from $70 to $50 and bought back in for half as many (because we were following an asset allocation technique). With subsequent splits, we now hold 2100 shares and will hang in until the bubble bursts!

Re Musk, I worry about SpaceX taking too much of his attention. The battery business will probably be successful. But whether he can master high volume vehicle production is a concern to me. Remember Bricklin? And Tucker? I suspect he might be successful with a charging station network for all branded vehicles and use Tesla as a loss leader like amazon does? It could be a good stock but I no longer need to take such risks.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> AAPL still has the same structural problem of only having 1 product worth talking about and has become a follower on design and software.


You do not get it. Buffett invested as his number one holding because he thinks that AAPL is a consumer brand and not a product company. Like Coke.

Do you remember all the cola companies that offered the same product for less money? Neither do I!


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> We sold them all [AAPL shares] in 2005 for a gain of US$61K. Then we waited for them to drop from $70 to $50 and bought back in for half as many (because we were following an asset allocation technique). With subsequent splits, we now hold 2100 shares and will hang in until the bubble bursts!
> 
> Re Musk, I worry about SpaceX taking too much of his attention. The battery business will probably be successful. But whether he can master high volume vehicle production is a concern to me. Remember Bricklin? And Tucker? I suspect he might be successful with a charging station network for all branded vehicles and use Tesla as a loss leader like amazon does? It could be a good stock but I no longer need to take such risks.




re AAPL, what wonderful news! i am really happy for you, thankx for inspiring investors who otherwise might get steamrollered by the ETF financial salesmen oops i meant financial planners.


re TSLA, the only thing i'm sure about is that this is a great thread. Some really smart minds on here. What we're kibbitzing over is a seminal event in the evolution of western civilization. The cars, i mean, since i can't even begin to deal with the idea of regular human space travel.

onlyMO says he's sticking with his stick shift? me i'm thinking i might regress back to pedicabs, rickshaws & donkey carts ...


.


.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> You do not get it. Buffett invested as his number one holding because he thinks that AAPL is a consumer brand and not a product company. Like Coke.
> 
> Do you remember all the cola companies that offered the same product for less money? Neither do I!


I am aware. Coke existed in more or less the same form 100 years ago, and in all likelihood will exist in another 100. The smartphone format will not exist forever, and AAPL is built on smartphone. Consumers are looking for consistency in food staples, but in consumer electronics they seek the next big thing.

Same argument could be made for buying Sony in the 1980s because of their strength in consumer electronics.


----------



## TomB19

kcowan said:


> You do not get it. Buffett invested as his number one holding because he thinks that AAPL is a consumer brand and not a product company. Like Coke.


For sure. Do you think Tesla is on the same trajectory?


----------



## TomB19

agent99 said:


> Personally, I would love to own a Tesla, but I would not want it to drive itself!


Have you test driven a Model S?

We went to a dealer one evening and I was surprised by a couple of things. First, the car swept us off our feet. People came in grumping about how no electric car could replace gasoline and they left saying they will call their bank in the morning.

The other thing that surprised me was how huge the service area was. That huge area was full. This was a couple of years ago. It's tough to imagine there are that many Teslas in Las Vegas and there was 15 of them in the service area.


----------



## m3s

+1 hr interview with Elon Musk uploaded yesterday. I haven't watched it all but saw clips about war, dark ages, the dangers of AI, and self driving cars


----------



## TomB19

That was some seriously dark ****. lol!

I don't know whether to adjust my life for the worst possible outcome or crawl under my bed and slit my wrists.


----------



## olivaw

Hyundai took a good natured poke at Tesla and Elon in Geneva last week. 










No mention of GM. Tesla is the company to beat.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/03/07/hyundai-elon-musk-geneva-motor-show/403840002/

ETA: Initial impressions of the Kona Electric https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkWlzuJRrjg IMHO, Hyundai may be a worthy competitor to Tesla but we need to know pricing and performance first. It won't be available in North America for at least a year or two so Tesla has plenty of time to ramp up production.

ETA2: IMHO, this is great news for Tesla. Elon welcomes competition because he knows it will help propel electric vehicles into the mainstream. Personally, I would not even consider buying an ICE vehicle over the next two years or so. I want to wait and see how electrics develop. I'll be in the market to replace my old 2006 ICE at some point in the next decade. I hope to buy electric. Bonus points if it has automated driving.


----------



## TomB19

A self-driving Uber just hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona.

This will probably cool the wheels of self driving cars for a bit.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

And hopefully Uber too.


----------



## doctrine

TomB19 said:


> A self-driving Uber just hit and killed a pedestrian in Arizona.
> 
> This will probably cool the wheels of self driving cars for a bit.


I would say not. It doesn't really matter if you walk out in front of an autonomous car, or a regular car, momentum doesn't care.

There are more autonomous cars on the road, and more people will be run over after walking onto a road. You can't fix stupid, but most data suggests deaths will drop by 95%. Not 99% or 100%. And therefore, development will certainly continue.

It might be more accurate to say that a woman hit herself on the Uber car with her stupidity or inattention. Anyone want to bet there was a smartphone involved, and not on the driver?


----------



## gardner

doctrine said:


> if you walk out in front of an autonomous car


While it would not surprise me that this might be the nature of the incident, I can't see any details reported indicating that there is fault with the pedestrian vs. the driver. For all I know at this stage, the car really could have been at fault. Certainly self-drivers have been caught running red lights, for example.


----------



## AltaRed

gardner said:


> While it would not surprise me that this might be the nature of the incident, I can't see any details reported indicating that there is fault with the pedestrian vs. the driver. For all I know at this stage, the car really could have been at fault. Certainly self-drivers have been caught running red lights, for example.


News reports simply say the woman was walking her bicycle across the street late Sunday night...but not on a crosswalk. The human behind the wheel obviously didn't intervene either.


----------



## m3s

When a fatality is involved most information will be pending investigation if not withheld in respect of the family. But to speculate, I personally wouldn't get in the path of any moving vehicle at 10pm that isn't clearly aware of me

Tesla autopilot was partially to blame for a fatal accident already but statistically autonomous cars are safer so far


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> News reports simply say the woman was walking her bicycle across the street late Sunday night...but not on a crosswalk. The human behind the wheel obviously didn't intervene either.


Yes it does not appear to be the car that is at fault. Plenty of blame to spread around...


----------



## AlwaysLearning

I have been watching this recent TSLA stock tumble with interest.

I have not invested in Tesla stock to date but I am a model 3 reservation holder holding out for the dual motor version.

I am thinking of taking $6600 to invest in Tesla at this time. The $6600 represents the cost of enhanced Autopilot option purchased at the time of ordering (it is $7900 if purchased after). 

If the launch goes well the stock will go back up more than 17% and by investing instead of prepaying for the options I will be ahead.
If Tesla has further issues I likely do not want to play for this feature and will take my stock losses (doubtful it would go to zero).

Anyway, my Tesla (car) buying plan is one that deviates from my usual frugal self. 
I struggle with the whether or not to go ahead with the purchase regularly.

We will see when the time comes what will be done.


----------



## TomB19

It's been a rough ride for the leveraged folks, although I'm sure some Tesla shorts have made quite a bit of money recently.

- second autopilot death (first was found to not be Tesla's fault, second is under investigation)
- downgraded credit rating
- power steering bolt corrosion recall (3 bolts that corrode in northern areas that use seasonal salt on the roads but they are recalling all model S in all locations)

Meanwhile, there is an apparent "leaked" email from Elon to production staff indicating they just hit 2K model 3 per week and 2K S/X per week, for 4K total.

Even if the email is true, it's not going to be the best earning call news this quarter. These production levels were hit at the end of the quarter so the number of shipped vehicles will be much improved but it is still going to disappoint.

On the other hand, we know the 3 production line is now far more automated. We can be pretty confident the battery pack automation issues are all or mostly behind us. We also know Tesla took down S/X production lines for two days for automation improvements, also.

I'll be really happy when they redesign the S to take advantage of the 2170 battery format, although I doubt they have enough battery production to supply all models. The X is less important, as it's such a low volume vehicle, but I expect it will follow whatever the S does. I'm sure they're working on it but I doubt we'll see an evolution this year and I doubt it's a priority.

Still, I'm happy with where the company is and where it's going. They are doing exactly the right things.


----------



## TomB19

He does have a point.

Swapping 3 bolts on a power steering pump is far from the most serious or expensive recall in history and yet it is making headlines.











It's fashionable to criticize Tesla and think the big automakers will "wake up" at some point. They are trying. They are spending billions to attempt to take the lead from Tesla. They haven't. VW has a decent shot.

The problem will be batteries. Tesla has a partnership with Panasonic and they have largest battery factory in the world.

So,...... we'll see.


----------



## doctrine

Tesla's stock is coming back to reality. 

What happens if they start producing more Model 3's than they can actually sell? And how many 100,000+ recalls can they support? How many more Autopilot deaths? The lawsuits are coming as well.

The truth is that none of that matters if the stock remains overpriced, because they can just issue shares to solve their problems. 

The problem is their stock is falling at a time when they may need to raise up to $4B in new capital. More shares are required. Shareholders better hope this is the last capital raise. I doubt it, though. The stock is down 35% from its high. That is a big drop. It may be quite a while before it sees $389 again.


----------



## TomB19

Ok, so when all the made up garbage is peeled away the talk shifts to oversupply?

This is the most anticipated, pre-ordered, automobile in the history of the world by an incomprehensible amount.

Time to make up some new bs to comfort the old guard that they will never lose to a newcomer. Internal combustian forever!

I'm sure when the half million back orders are fulfilled, they will never get another order. It was just random chance that brought those in.

Maybe we should go back to discussing what a failure Tesla is for not turning a profit on a billion dollar investment in the first 6 months of production?

The stock is still way over valued. We agree on that. It comes down to an estimate of potential.

There are some stocks that I don't like anymore. I studied them. I held them. I gave up on them. Others still believe in them and write positively about them. I wouldn't dream of rolling into those threads and crapping on the company for all the reasons I sold them. In my case, it wouldn't be bullshit. It would be just as obnoxious, though. It's like a hand full of folks can't stand the thought of some fresh faces taking a turn at the microphone. I'm becoming pretty confident Tesla is here to stay but time will tell.


----------



## kcowan

I think their biggest challenge now is raising the capital needed to finance production. With a declining stock price, the dilution will be ugly. No likely white knight which is what they really need. Sure love the Model S though.


----------



## bgc_fan

I am sure you will see my post as more unfounded criticism, but have you considered the effects of reduced or discontinued EV incentives on future sales?

Ontario has now limited EV rebates to cars less than $75k, so the Tesla X and S no longer qualify.

In the USA, they are reaching close to 200k of delivered EV cars at which point their incentive decreases from $7.5k. However, other car manufacturers who haven't started selling will have that going for them. By the time the Model 3 starts delivering in earnest, people will essentially be paying more for the same car because of the lack of incentives.


----------



## TomB19

kcowan said:


> I think their biggest challenge now is raising the capital needed to finance production.


I don't.




bgc_fan said:


> .... have you considered the effects of reduced or discontinued EV incentives on future sales?


Yes. Considered it.

Removing incentives will benefit ICE production while hurting Tesla's competition more than Tesla.


----------



## Jaberwock

AlwaysLearning said:


> I have been watching this recent TSLA stock tumble with interest.
> 
> I have not invested in Tesla stock to date but I am a model 3 reservation holder holding out for the dual motor version.
> 
> I am thinking of taking $6600 to invest in Tesla at this time. The $6600 represents the cost of enhanced Autopilot option purchased at the time of ordering (it is $7900 if purchased after).
> 
> If the launch goes well the stock will go back up more than 17% and by investing instead of prepaying for the options I will be ahead.
> If Tesla has further issues I likely do not want to play for this feature and will take my stock losses (doubtful it would go to zero).
> 
> Anyway, my Tesla (car) buying plan is one that deviates from my usual frugal self.
> I struggle with the whether or not to go ahead with the purchase regularly.
> 
> We will see when the time comes what will be done.


You are debating whether to buy a useless autopilot option or invest the money in worthless Tesla shares. I would go with the shares, the worst that can happen is that you lose your money, the autopilot on the other hand could kill you.


----------



## Jaberwock

TomB19 said:


> He does have a point.
> 
> Swapping 3 bolts on a power steering pump is far from the most serious or expensive recall in history and yet it is making headlines.
> 
> 
> View attachment 18402
> 
> 
> 
> It's fashionable to criticize Tesla and think the big automakers will "wake up" at some point. They are trying. They are spending billions to attempt to take the lead from Tesla. They haven't. VW has a decent shot.
> 
> The problem will be batteries. Tesla has a partnership with Panasonic and they have largest battery factory in the world.
> 
> So,...... we'll see.


Tesla is currently number five in the world for electric car sales, its gigafactory is not the largest battery factory in the world, and it does not even produce batteries from raw materials, it only assembles semi finished batteries. The gigafactory is already outdated and is a burden, not an asset


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB19 said:


> Yes. Considered it.
> 
> Removing incentives will benefit ICE production while hurting Tesla's competition more than Tesla.


I think you missed the point. Tesla competitors are still eligible for the full USA incentives at this point in time and for a while, where Tesla cars will soon not be. I am not sure how you interpret that as hurting Tesla competitors.


----------



## Pluto

I'd be surprised if Tesla makes it. Its heading for bankruptcy. At this stage, its very bad investment.


----------



## AltaRed

Pluto said:


> I'd be surprised if Tesla makes it. Its heading for bankruptcy. At this stage, its very bad investment.


It is not going bankrupt, but I wouldn't be buying the stock for sure (if I was into buying individual ex-Canada stocks). It has become a 'show me' stock after some years of shareholder neglect. Elon now knows that given his renewed attention to his car business. It will take awhile for this thing to sort itself out.


----------



## AlwaysLearning

Personally I would rather bet with Elon Musk than against him. 

Tesla and SpaceX both have faced near bankruptcy and not only survived but prospered. 

There is a lot of speculation baked into the share price. I don't think anyone would argue that point.

With that said some of the great minds of our time (Elon Musk, Larry Page) have been willing to put massive sums of money toward the success of this company. In the case of Musk his compensation is purely tied to the growth in share price.

http://fortune.com/2018/03/21/elon-musk-tesla-pay-package/

I have not invested so far in TSLA but have been following them from the time the initial roadster was being tested (pre-production). Also I did put my $1000 down for a Model 3 the day after the announcement as myself like half a million other people are interested in owning a Model 3. _ For those interested I am waiting on the dual motor version slated for Mid-2018_ _(and yes I do expect it will be later...)_

I do believe they will succeed. Not on the timeline Musk has proposed but still much sooner than other companies. 
Even if other auto makers make electric cars as good or better than Tesla in the future I do believe Tesla will survive through the Energy side of the business as well as the supercharging network. 

I do thank everyone though for sharing the alternative viewpoint. One problem with Google news etc. today is once you show your interests the news you read is normally aligned with that viewpoint. Reading other viewpoints help me to play devils advocate.


----------



## AltaRed

A 30something (maybe now 40something) relative of ours put down a deposit on the 3 as well the day after the announcement. Think he is getting just a little tired of waiting. Hopefully, Tesla will get the QC problems out of the way in these early production runs before he ponies up for "his" 3. Fit and finish has been an ongoing issue. Just hope the 'bones' don't hide similar problems.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Elon Musk may be a great guy who has done some fantastic things but from an investment standpoint Tesla is a big zero and it's only a matter of time till the market wises up.

You could say the same thing about Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and a lot of other tech favorites.


----------



## TomB19

A few details for those interested in Tesla.

- current production rate is right at 2000 vehicles per week
- production just hit 2K per week the last week of 1Q so volume of vehicles produced remains low (will be low for the 1Q18 report)
- bottleneck was battery module production
- Tesla has 4 lines producing model 3 battery modules (3 automated lines, 1 line human... the 3 automated lines did not work initially... zero production)
- 2 of the 3 battery lines have now been automated
- car production lines have been built out to support 5K units per week
- the next bottleneck will be supply distribution within the plant (expected to be a problem between 5K and 10K per week production ramp)
- To go beyond 600K cars per year, they will have to assemble more completed assemblies which can only be possible with redesigned material flow into the plant

- model Y will need to be produced elsewhere (location to be announced in 2018)
- model Y production anticipated to ramp to 1M vehicles per year (they see double the demand so, I presume this will be primarily for non North American markets)

I find it interesting to see the Tesla product pipeline arranged to produce a stream of nicely spaced PR events. It's the ultimate PR campaign designed to keep Tesla enthusiasts excited about the company, products, and future.

I expect a poor 1Q earnings call, the price will sag, and then (a week or two later) Tesla will provide an update on Gigafactory 2 and the solar roof and it will be back as high or higher than previous.

It's brilliant that Tesla hasn't played the G2 card yet, despite having ramped production pretty high already.


----------



## kcowan

Does anyone know of construction projects for condos that provide recharging at the parking space? That is a constraint for us in Vancouver (not allowed). There are special stations but then you have to move the car once charged.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla has a slick system for this. They know they have to crack condo and street level charging if they are to penetrate the Asian market.

This is slightly more complicated than it sounds because you can't just give everyone a 40KW charge point; the grid would melt down. Someone needs to develop a system that prioritizes charging based on need and keeps the total load below an acceptable level. Tesla has developed a pretty sophisticated system.

What would happen if everyone had an electric car? There would be a blackout the first night we all drove home and plugged in. How do you prioritize the guy who is repowering on a long haul to a guy who plugged his car in with no plans to use it until the next day?

It's going to be a bit like the phone system. Developing a handset will be easy. Developing a network that is affordable, flexible, and scales to the necessary level is hard.

I'm sure other car makers will be able to make good cars but to dismiss Tesla in favor of GM/Ford/Toyota is ridiculous. They aren't in the same game. To some extent, I dismiss GM/Ford/Toyota in favor of Tesla.

Tesla is on top of the charging problem. They are getting closer to the grid with load leveling, peak mitigation, frequency stabilization, solar generation, etc. All of that stuff is going to be necessary to support electrified transport.


----------



## andrewf

Think less about condo charging for the next ten or fifteen years. Think the mall or grocery store. Building codes will get changed to require at least rough in for charging in parking stalls. Longer term, urban people won't own cars--it will be autonomous ride hailing.


----------



## bgc_fan

You realize that electricity is agnostic right? Just because Tesla provides tools like a system to load balance the electrical grid, it doesn't mean that people have to buy Tesla cars. All this means is that the Solarcity component of Tesla has good potential, but has no real influence on buyers buying Tesla cars, except it may be detrimental. Why is that? Because the same Gigafactory that provides batteries for the cars is providing the batteries for the Powerwalls. Assuming production rate is finite, an increase in Powerwall construction may mean fewer batteries for the vehicles.

The best ace that Tesla has is the Supercharger network.


----------



## TomB19

bgc_fan said:


> You realize that electricity is agnostic right?


That's the problem.

You can't have 200 cars in a parkade plug into charging ports, all pulling 40KW, without a massive and impractical back-end electrical system. What about a family that has 2,3,4 Teslas? Not many homes have 200A service, around here. Most are 140A but upgradable to 200A.

That's why Evercharge, Chargepoint, Tesla, etc. have developed power sharing technology to split the power and keep the load under control.

Even just the Tesla wall charger that people install in their garage can load share up to four charge points. The older Tesla SuperChargers load share between two charge points. At those stations, people look for SuperChargers that are empty, over being the second car at that charge point. Most of the newer stations can charge all points at maximum rate because Tesla has positioned their equipment close to major power conduits.


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB19 said:


> You can't have 200 cars in a parkade plug into charging ports, all pulling 40KW, without a massive and impractical back-end electrical system. What about a family that has 2,3,4 Teslas? Not many homes have 200A service, around here. Most are 140A but upgradable to 200A.


I think you are overestimating the problem. The average household has less than 2 cars. There may be the odd exception, but I highly doubt that there are many families that are going to spend $160k on 4 cars, assuming the low end Model 3.

Second of all, most people adjust for limitations, i.e. I doubt many would purchase multiple charging points at home. More than likely, the family would rotate between nightly charging between the cars. Given that most people's daily commute probably average around 50km or so, charging every other night isn't out of the question.


----------



## TomB19

There is a rumor that VW is going to change leadership on Friday.

VW has committed to a massive investment in automobile electrification. Perhaps the shake-up will cause them to pull back from that position? If so, that will have an impact on Tesla.


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB19 said:


> There is a rumor that VW is going to change leadership on Friday.
> 
> VW has committed to a massive investment in automobile electrification. Perhaps the shake-up will cause them to pull back from that position? If so, that will have an impact on Tesla.


Given their recent announcement to invest 24 billion in battery partnerships and retooling 16 factories, I would say they are keeping the course.

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/03/13/vw-24-billion-ev-battery-orders/


----------



## kcowan

A couple of articles on further challenges to Tesla cashflow:
Production delays
Cash demand from Solar sub


----------



## TomB19

Bloomberg. lol!

Let me guess... they have some negative news on Tesla. I'm going to enjoy time efficiency and improve my investing information by not reading it.

I'm sure they are predicting disaster for solar and wind, also.

As a Tesla stockholder, I'm interested in reality. That's difficult with Tesla because 98% of news is based on a politically controlled faux news cycle. Online discussions are split between Tesla dreamers who have a fantasy the company will hit infinity within the hour and perma bears.

By the way, just because there is a smattering of truth or near truth in perma bear's negative musings doesn't justify the gross misrepresentation. Their incorrectitude has been complete and yet they continue to be cited while perma bears shout at Tesla advocates to get off their lawn.

Actual information is pretty thin.

- We know the solar gigafactory has substantially scaled and product is rolling out in a significant way
- We know that model 3 production is up substantially with reports between 2400 and 3000 per week
- Reports of the second, short term, production line shut down are probably true and not relevant
- Tesla Energy is scaling nicely with PowerWall 2 now being shipped in quantities in the last few weeks


How credible is Elon's prediction of profitability in Q3/Q4 of 2018?

This is likely optimistic but I think it's possible for Tesla to turn a profit in 2018. Bloomberg parroters don't understand the margin advantage Tesla has positioned itself to have. I estimate the chance of Tesla earning money in 2018 at 65%.


----------



## TomB19

For anyone who holds this stock and wishes to get off this emotional roller coaster, here is something to consider.

Short volume is up so there will be an onslaught of negative articles for the rest of the week. Next week, the news will be more rational again. Dump and pump. It's not rocket science. This pattern has been in place for the two years I've been following the stock.

I expect Tesla to lose a little value in the next two months. Tesla is a boring company (pun intended). Stocks swing widely on hopes, fears, hunches. Tesla has been rife with these influences. Now we are in a phase where the factories are in place and the product is being built. The present is always less glamorous than the future.

Shortly before the next earnings call in early May, there will be stories of great new things coming out of Tesla. I suspect the next Tesla buzz item will be solar and/or energy.


----------



## bgc_fan

TomB19 said:


> Let me guess... they have some negative news on Tesla. I'm going to enjoy time efficiency and improve my investing information by not reading it.


Too bad you didn't read the first article, because it mentions Musk's CBS This Morning tour of the factory where he states that the company should be able to sustain production of 2000 Model 3 per week. So, unless you think he is lying, Tesla is not producing 2,400 to 3,000 per week. Maybe they did that once, but considering they produced a total of 9766 Model 3 sedans in the first quarter, I would highly doubt it was the norm.



> As a Tesla stockholder, I'm interested in reality. That's difficult with Tesla because 98% of news is based on a politically controlled faux news cycle. Online discussions are split between Tesla dreamers who have a fantasy the company will hit infinity within the hour and perma bears.


Honestly, it only seems like you are interested in your reality when it comes to Tesla. You only highlight positive news and discount any reasonable bad news or things that may have negative impact on Tesla. 



> By the way, just because there is a smattering of truth or near truth in perma bear's negative musings doesn't justify the gross misrepresentation. Their incorrectitude has been complete and yet they continue to be cited while perma bears shout at Tesla advocates to get off their lawn..


What gross misrepresentation are you referring to? High cash burn rate? Concerns about running out of cash? Relatively low production rate, which is less than half of what was originally projected last year? For some strange reason you don't seem worried about these issues. If they can quickly ramp up to their original target of 5000 per week, maybe they'll have the cash flow to slow the burn rate and start turning a profit, but right now that seems to be slipping to the right.


----------



## AltaRed

Positive cash flow (margin) is likely a make or break this year. Positive earnings are not even on the radar screen I think. 

FWIW, I hope Tesla succeeds, if for no other reason than one can say Tesla innovated and caused many others to scramble to compete to make the world a better place. I just won't own Tesla stock nor a Tesla car...at least until I know they won't be another Studebaker.


----------



## gardner

AltaRed said:


> Positive cash flow (margin) is likely a make or break this year.


I think you are being too conservative. There are enough true believers to keep things rolling for at least another couple of years of losses. As long as there is $3G of taxpayer money on hand to subsidize every unit in Ontario, and similar amounts in other jurisdictions, it can lose nearly 10% and make it up on volume.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

For those so inclined, this article discusses some sector etf alternatives to holding only Tesla:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/18/skip-elon-musks-tesla-hell-theres-an-easier-way-to-buy-car-future.html

Note: I know nothing about the funds discussed.


----------



## twa2w

So rumour has it, Tesla has suspended production again at their model 3 factory. 
Issues with production and safety.
Any guesses as to how long? Reports say only a week.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4621265


----------



## TomB19

It's the second scheduled, 4 day, shutdown to upgrade various parts of the production process. In the long term, these shut-downs will be scheduled quarterly, or so.

Remember last year when GM shut down multiple North American production lines for a total of 10 weeks to retool? ... when the forum was buzzing with people saying GM was failing and about to go bankrupt? Me, either.


----------



## kcowan

The implication from his CBS interview was that he would introduce manual steps into the production process. That may impact his production forecasts. The resulting uncertainty is hitting the stock price.

(What about GM? A standard political deflection technique!)


----------



## TomB19

I watched the CBS interview. I didn't learn anything from it but it was an interesting view into this moment in time.

Regarding GM: All major production facilities require down time for service and optimization. GM, Ford, and every factory has scheduled down time. This is being presented with a negative spin, in the case of Tesla, but it is not a negative situation. The downtime is positive.

In the case of Tesla, they scheduled the first 5 day outage and worked around the clock to complete the work in just over 2 days. This is because production numbers were so far behind, they hustled to minimize down time. They were pushing hard to produce every car possible to dress up their stats.

It was a new line, back in January. It needs more optimization than a line that has been producing for a long period.

This current outage, also scheduled for 5 days, is another optimization step. The thought is the work will be completed in 4 days.

They have 5 production lines. Last month, they successfully tested each line (not all at the same time) to confirm it could produce 1000 cars per week. I trust this optimization will further bump the maximum capacity, as will the third shift which will have them producing 24 hours. Even just the third shift should put them at 1500 cars per week per production line.

Meanwhile, back at GF1, the situation is less clear but here's what I know.

- The plan is to have 4 automated battery production lines (currently have 2).
- They started with 2 automated production lines and 1 manual line
- Almost all of the early production came from the manual line
- Automated production has only been working for about the last month
- I understand the thought to be burning in the current automated production for a length of time and then adding two more automated lines

They are now producing between 2000 and 3000 cars per week consistently (serial # tracker suggests 3000 per week while grumpmedia outlets like forbes/Bloomberg/CNBC suggest closer to 2000 per week). Now that automated battery production is working, and with doubling of the automated capability, the thought of producing 6000 cars per week sounds entirely reasonable.

Keep in mind, the limit is battery module production. They can take a 4~5 day outage with zero impact on the total number of cars produced 2 weeks from now. The lines are literally waiting around for batteries so this is an excellent time to buff and polish the chassis side of production.

Once these bottlenecks are surmounted, the next bottle neck will be distribution within the plant. It's not easy to keep keep five lines that produce 6000 cars per week stocked with materials. Tesla knows this and is working on an automated system to deal with it.

Once distribution within the plant is under control, the bottle neck after that will be getting supplies into the facility at Freemont. At 10,000 cars per week, that's 60 cars per hour. That means, 60 disassembled cars have to come through the loading dock every hour, 24 hours per day, to keep the production machine fed. Those parts then need to be inventoried and distributed such that they arrive just in time to be consumed at the production lines.

The thing that I find most interesting is the thought that GM, Ford, Toyota, et al. have this all figured out. The approach varies somewhat at each company but it is not correct to assume that GM or Ford can out produce Tesla if they want to but they just haven't bothered, yet. It's a big deal to get this all set up. Tesla has a huge jump on everyone except Nissan, when it comes to producing electric cars and Tesla is in the process of taking their game up several notches.


----------



## twa2w

With all due respect, I am not a big Tesla follower, but..
it was Musk himself who said they were only hitting 2000 cars so I assume this to be accurate. And further said this was due to problems in the car production line itself. Shortage of batteries was never mentioned in this although I heard this previously.

When GM and Ford shut down for retooling, they are generally retooling for a new model.
This appears to be trying to fix issues with the line itself. When Musk is sleeping at the plant because he is so worried about the issues, it seems to me to be more than a simple refit of some line parts.
Good on Musk for stepping in personally to solve the issues, whatever they may be.


----------



## TomB19

twa2w said:


> With all due respect, I am not a big Tesla follower, but..
> it was Musk himself who said they were only hitting 2000 cars so I assume this to be accurate.


That was the last week of Q1. The number of cars shipped in the last 4 weeks is what is in dispute.


----------



## TomB19

twa2w said:


> When GM and Ford shut down for retooling, they are generally retooling for a new model.


Incorrect.

Production lines, all production lines, are comprised machines which require inspection, service, calibration, upgrades, etc.


----------



## doctrine

The CEOs of every other car manufacturer are NOT sleeping in their factories. This is a serious problem that would have rational investors selling first and asking questions later, not a reason to be encouraged. 

Tesla better be valued as a "technology" company, because if it was as a car manufacturer, the company would be bankrupt, because the stock would be worthless and they wouldn't be able to raise billions for the CEO's new housing arrangements.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> The CEOs of every other car manufacturer are NOT sleeping in their factories. This is a serious problem that would have rational investors selling first and asking questions later, not a reason to be encouraged.
> 
> Tesla better be valued as a "technology" company, because if it was as a car manufacturer, the company would be bankrupt, because the stock would be worthless and they wouldn't be able to raise billions for the CEO's new housing arrangements.


Not new, though. Musk was sleeping at the factory at various points in the past as well (like when Model X was going through its teething problems). It's his management style. I would not interpret it as unprecedented levels of concern for how the operation is performing.


----------



## twa2w

TomB19 said:


> That was the last week of Q1. The number of cars shipped in the last 4 weeks is what is in dispute.


This was an interview from last week.


----------



## twa2w

TomB19 said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Production lines, all production lines, are comprised machines which require inspection, service, calibration, upgrades, etc.


True enough but AFAIK, retooling has a specific term in the auto industry. On going maintenance and upgrading, calibration is a different thing. 
But I haven't been in a car plant for a while. 

I will be very interested to see what production is like when the plant gets running again. And if the worker complaints decrease.
I suspect we may see a union sooner than later unless these get resolved.


----------



## RBull

AltaRed said:


> Positive cash flow (margin) is likely a make or break this year. Positive earnings are not even on the radar screen I think.
> 
> FWIW, I hope Tesla succeeds, if for no other reason than one can say Tesla innovated and caused many others to scramble to compete to make the world a better place. I just won't own Tesla stock nor a Tesla car...at least until I know they won't be another Studebaker.


Ditto here. 

I don't follow this stock closely but it sure seems like a long shot, and priced for perfection.


----------



## TomB19

twa2w said:


> This was an interview from last week.


Numbers from April did not come from Tesla. They are speculative.


----------



## Eclectic12

twa2w said:


> ... I will be very interested to see what production is like when the plant gets running again. And if the worker complaints decrease ...


As of April 18th, in addition to the retooling, maintenance or whatever else reasons for the line shutdown - Tesla now has to deal with California's investigation into reports of under reporting legally required injuries.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-factory-safety-20180418-story.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk


Cheers


----------



## TomB19

There has been a surge in short interest in Tesla, the last few weeks. This has had a negative impact on the stock price but it will also cause a positive price influence when the shorts are covered.


----------



## kcowan

Early adopters are balking at taking their delivery position for their Model 3 because they think the finish, while OK for a $35k car is below standard for a $50k car. (Heard on the street!)


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Early adopters are balking at taking their delivery position for their Model 3 because they think the finish, while OK for a $35k car is below standard for a $50k car. (Heard on the street!)


Sounds anecdotal. I've heard some people are delaying taking delivery because they either want higher end options (dual motor/AWD, air suspension) or are waiting for the cheaper options. I haven't heard of a significant pattern of people worried about fit/finish. If anything, people are anxious to take advantage of the rebate.


----------



## TomB19

I've read several anecdotes the exterior fit and finish of the Model 3 are average, at best. I'll give these allegations the benefit of the doubt and assume they are referring exclusively to fit, as Tesla has one of the best paint processes in the business. Given it's an aluminum bodied car, this is reasonable.



Elon Musk said:


> Most of the design tolerances of the Model 3 are already better than any other car in the world. Soon, they will all be better. This is not enough. We will keep going until the Model 3 build precision is a factor of ten better than any other car in the world. I am not kidding.
> 
> Our car needs to be designed and built with such accuracy and precision that, if an owner measures dimensions, panel gaps, and flushness, and their measurements don't match the Model 3 specs, it just means that their measuring tape is wrong.


There is something about getting into a car with a top rated interior, world beating electronics, massive mind share in the gluten free mind set, that has the same exterior panel fit as a Ford Focus. It may not be bad but you expect more. That's not to say it's an undesirable car, though.


----------



## TomB19

I think the main question on people's mind is market valuation. How ridiculous is it?

Ford makes about 2.5M cars per year and they recorded a net income last year of 7.6B.

People seem focused on margin but I don't see how that number is particularly relevant. Tesla has more profit opportunity than Ford, by a substantial margin, but they also have way more overhead. Particularly right now before production of the 3 has ramped, that's a big deal.

I estimate Tesla will produce 250K cars in 2018 (this is lower than Elon's prediction but target dates have slipped so it is safe to assume Elon's numbers are extremely unlikely). *If* they can break even by the end of this year at 250K cars delivered, they will steamroll the entire industry as they ramp.

So, let's assume they produce about 1/10 the number of cars as Ford does this year. Ford's market cap is 43B. That would value Tesla's car division at about 4.3B, at the end of the this year (9 month future value). Throw in 1.5B for their energy division and 1B for their charging infrastructure. That brings them to 6.8B of guestimated, 9 month future, corporate value.

Unknown additional value:

- Gigafactory 1 battery production is a huge advantage over every other manufacturer.
- Solar roof is an interesting product that may gain some traction. While unlikely to gain mass acceptance, it should have a positive impact on the bottom line.
- Gigafactory 2 solar products production is well into it's ramp. This could significantly add to Tesla's solar reach this summer.

Tesla is valued at roughly 48B, at the time of this post. That's about 7x higher than this guestimate future valuation for the end of 2018.

Markets anticipate much longer than 9 months, particularly with growth stocks. Tesla is on a trajectory to be worth their market capitalization in 3~5 years.

This brings me to the conclusion that Tesla is not nearly as overvalued as many have suggested. It is, however, overvalued.

So, why don't I sell? I'm well up on this stock.

I think the up side of this stock will be a legislated forcing function to move away from fossil fuels. If that happens, Tesla is brilliantly positioned to dominate and disrupt multiple industries. The upside remains strong. If the migration away from fossil fuels slows or stops, it will take a lot of years for Tesla to earn it's market valuation.


----------



## kcowan

TomB19 said:


> I think the up side of this stock will be a legislated forcing function to move away from fossil fuels. If that happens, Tesla is brilliantly positioned to dominate and disrupt multiple industries. The upside remains strong. If the migration away from fossil fuels slows or stops, it will take a lot of years for Tesla to earn it's market valuation.


Yes we can only hope that the pressure stays on to find alternatives. We know that hydrogen fuel cells are not the answer. Nuclear is a bad compromise.

With the Model 3, I worry about the lack of home charging stations, especially with the shift to condos. Hydro rates in Ontario and BC are also questionable. But with our family usage of 20 km of driving over the last 6 years (i.e. 3.5 km/yr), we are viewing this purely as an investment alternative. We are already heavily into walking/transit.


----------



## kcowan

Another Tesla exec running for the hills....

Not good when so many exec's are departing, they know more than we do... And then consider that the competition is readying EV's to compete.

The Model S is now 7 years old, the style is now dated.... Post in ER forum


----------



## TomB19

Ford mostly exiting the car business.

VW wanting to move more quickly to electrification.

Nissan working on a lower price car, perhaps motivated by the Tesla Model Y.

As I understand it, the current Model S has two more years to go. The current Model S has 3000 meters of wire. The Model 3 has 1500 meters of wire. The model Y is said to have 100 meters.

At some point, the model S will be redesigned to include massive optimizations in the battery pack and wiring. I'm sure it has started by now but I have no idea how far along it is. They are scaling 2170 battery production so the plan will be to move away from anything based on 18650 cells. Tesla will use 2170 cells exclusively, at some point in the future. As far as I know, the S/X use 18650 cells.

PowerPack, PowerWall, Model 3 all use 2170 cells.

Redesigning the Model S with 1/3 of the batteries and a small fraction of the wiring should do great things to margins and reliability.


----------



## TomB19

By the way, Jim Keller was at Tesla from January 2016 to April 2018. I doubt the company will crumble with his departure.

Jim Keller has a ton of cool stuff on his resume. I've followed his projects for years, although I have no way to know how directly connected he was to the projects on his resume. He could have been a tremendous Mentor to staff or a total figure head.

Whatever the case, it will be interesting to see what he can cook up at Intel.


----------



## RBull

These links might be useful for what seems increasingly your thread TomB. 

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/elon-musks-vision-future-of-tesla/

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/tesla-journey-ipo-passing-ford-7-years/

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/elon-musks-vision-future-of-tesla/


----------



## AltaRed

What I don't see is where/when Tesla is going to take some responsibility for mining all that lithium and there is no mention at all on the costs of recycling/disposal of spent batteries. Kind of like when CFLs came out... They were the best thing since sliced bread... until they were not. Costly to recycle and toxic as well.

Also, who is going to pay for the huge investments in electrical generation, transmission and distribution (and storage in the case of wind and solar power)? I can see government jurisdictions slapping on a heavy enviro fee on EV registrations just to help pay for infrastructure.


----------



## RBull

Some good points AR. 

I also wonder about gasoline taxes that EV owners won't pay. It is my understanding these are the backbone of road construction and maintenance costs provincially. Governments are subsidizing EVs heavily and will also lose revenue on gasoline taxes while EVs use the infrastructure other CE vehicle owners pay for. Maybe an additional registration fee for this and cut out subsidies?


----------



## AltaRed

The issue has not even begun to be addressed, i.e. both the loss of gasoline taxes and the huge infrastructure investments in electrical supply. True, many houses could have solar panels and battery packs but that doesn't work very well in many places. Gov'ts are out of touch, e.g. the debate that the BC NDP/Greens had over BC Hydro's Site C hydro-electric dam on the Peace River. Where in the hell do they think all that electricity is going to come from to power "green" Vancouver? The disconnect is unfathomable.


----------



## TomB19

As I understand it, BC went completely green by shutting down their coal fired power production and buying power from Washington state. A healthy portion of the Washington power, as I understand it, is generated by coal. lol!

Fortunately, most BC power comes from renewables so no big deal.

RBull, I don't wish to dominate the thread. Thanks for posting.


----------



## humble_pie

kcowan said:


> But with our family usage of 20 km of driving over the last 6 years (i.e. 3.5 km/yr), we are viewing this purely as an investment alternative. We are already heavily into walking/transit.



this sounds like a wonderful accomplishment. Although perhaps 3 zeros are missing? ie 20,000 km driving over last 6 years to average 3,500 km/yr


even at 3,500 km/yr, still a wonderful accomplishment in getting past gas powered vehicles.

as for "heavily into walking/transit," mega gold star. I've done that for years. My kids bike everywhere.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> What I don't see is where/when Tesla is going to take some responsibility for mining all that lithium and there is no mention at all on the costs of recycling/disposal of spent batteries. Kind of like when CFLs came out... They were the best thing since sliced bread... until they were not. Costly to recycle and toxic as well.
> 
> Also, who is going to pay for the huge investments in electrical generation, transmission and distribution (and storage in the case of wind and solar power)? I can see government jurisdictions slapping on a heavy enviro fee on EV registrations just to help pay for infrastructure.


I think there is a second life for the batteries as stationary utility grid stabilization.


----------



## TomB19

andrewf said:


> I think there is a second life for the batteries as stationary utility grid stabilization.


... and then the batteries themselves can be mined, with the ore being used in new batteries, as the lithium isn't consumed.

Much different than CFLs with mercury.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> As I understand it, BC went completely green by shutting down their coal fired power production and buying power from Washington state. A healthy portion of the Washington power, as I understand it, is generated by coal. lol!
> 
> Fortunately, most BC power comes from renewables so no big deal.
> 
> RBull, I don't wish to dominate the thread. Thanks for posting.


I don't know BC's history entirely, but I would have thought virtually all of their electricity was hydro-electic for a very long time, except maybe remote locations along the coast and perhaps the southeast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generating_stations_in_British_Columbia


----------



## doctrine

BC has vast hydroelectric capacity and a relatively low population, so it is pretty easy to go green. With Site C, they are set for at least a couple more decades.


----------



## AltaRed

At extreme cost perhaps. The idiots in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island who think they can all be electrified have not even discussed the massive infrastructure that will be required to bring those electrons to every doorstep.


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> this sounds like a wonderful accomplishment. Although perhaps 3 zeros are missing? ie 20,000 km driving over last 6 years to average 3,500 km/yr
> 
> 
> even at 3,500 km/yr, still a wonderful accomplishment in getting past gas powered vehicles.
> 
> as for "heavily into walking/transit," mega gold star. I've done that for years. My kids bike everywhere.


Yes thanks for noticing and correcting. I often think of 3.5k km and must force myself to correct.

OTOH we are ready for a new car, not because it is justified or needed, but because we can! We specialize in buying a high mileage lightly used car and turn it into a low mileage one.

I got over the need for a car by being 25 miles from home without wheels using the GO or TTC. In BC we are well-served by transit, and with the help of google, can get almost anywhere with one transfer. The savings in parking and gas costs are amazing. Plus the time in transit is well-used with a smart phone.


----------



## Spudd

Ford getting out of the car business is a misleading headline. If you click through, you'll see that they plan to stop making so many "cars" but will continue making lots of SUVs and trucks, as the North American marketplace is trending heavily toward SUVs lately and away from traditional sedan type cars.


----------



## TomB19

Bc gets more power from nuclear than hydro. They had coal until a few years ago.

As for Ford, I think we haven't heard the last of their strategy. Surely there is more to it. Cafe wouldn't let them build just trucks and SUVs.


----------



## AltaRed

I think you mean ON, not BC...?


----------



## twa2w

TomB19 said:


> Bc gets more power from nuclear than hydro. They had coal until a few years ago.
> 
> As for Ford, I think we haven't heard the last of their strategy. Surely there is more to it. Cafe wouldn't let them build just trucks and SUVs.


AFAIK, CAFE standards are separate for non passenger vehicles ( light trucks) and for passenger cars.
Depending on how their SUVs are built, they can have the CAFE standard under light trucks whivh is much more lenient.


----------



## WGZ

TomB19 said:


> Bc gets more power from nuclear than hydro. They had coal until a few years ago.
> 
> As for Ford, I think we haven't heard the last of their strategy. Surely there is more to it. Cafe wouldn't let them build just trucks and SUVs.


Their fall-back will probably be electrification/hybridization of their bigger vehicles.

EcoSport (lifted Fiesta) and Escape already get great fuel mileage. The Focus stays as a lifted "Focus Active" CUV. Maybe a new CMAX? They did say they'll be bringing out new stuff like that by 2022. They also did say a year ago they were going to come out with a bunch of new Ford Performance vehicles by 2020. It may still hold true, just not how I imagined: EcoSport ST, Edge ST, Explorer ST, Bronco-Raptor, Ranger-Raptor ... at least they'll still have a new Shelby GT500 with well over 700hp coming out. With the next gen Mustang to see hybridization.


----------



## TomB19

Consider this:. If Tesla we're to go bankrupt, what would happen?


----------



## RBull

^A lot of people would lose a lot of money?


----------



## RBull

Recent article on Tesla.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/...wsletter&utm_term=180430&utm_campaign=markets


----------



## Eclectic12

TomB19 said:


> andrewf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think there is a second life for the batteries as stationary utility grid stabilization.
> 
> 
> 
> ... and then the batteries themselves can be mined, with the ore being used in new batteries, as the lithium isn't consumed.
Click to expand...

Trouble is lithium is reported as being among the least valuable of the materials being recycled out of the old battery. 

That's without considering that according to Nissan, while the cost of recycling is falling toward one Euro a Kilo, the reclaimed materials fetch only one third. Hence why the focus on home energy storage instead of recycling.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...s-big-battery-waste-problem-lithium-recycling
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lithium-ion-batteries-hybrid-electric-vehicle-recycling/


Cheers


----------



## TomB19

Earnings call today. The most interesting metrics will be deliveries and earnings.

Deliveries 18Q1	29980
Model S	11730
Model X	10070
Model 3	8180

That projects to 120,000 cars per year. It's a really low number, about the same as 17Q4. In 2017, Tesla delivered just over 100,000 model S/X vehicles so 120K total deliveries is not a reasonable projection.

Current production will be heavily under scrutiny. 3000 Model 3 deliveries per week projects to 150,000 Model 3 cars per year. Add in 100,000 Model S/X deliveries and that comes to 250,000 annual deliveries.

This makes it clear, Model 3 production has had a negative impact on Model S/X production.

As for earnings, 17Q4 earnings were -3.04/shr. I think earnings are likely to be in the -3.20/shr range with the first improvement showing in 18Q2. I base this on 18Q1 production being roughly identical to 17Q4 production but Tesla overhead has increased sleightly. Tesla has had some energy sector wins that will help but I don't think they will be significant compared to the vehicle side just yet.

If Tesla announce current weekly Model 3 deliveries of 3000 units per week or more, I expect upward pressure on this equity price on Wednesday.


----------



## AltaRed

Not a Tesla thing, but this article is interesting for locals https://www.bchydro.com/news/press_...ric-vehicle-adoption.html?WT.mc_id=c-18-05_ev A bit of bias of course since there is no comment on the cost of infrastructure that will have to happen for large scale adoption.

Maybe if I can wait a few more years with my ICE Infiniti, there might be Volvo, BMW, Audi and Jag competitive EV alternatives to the Model S to consider. Tesla isn't going to have the bulk of the market for long.


----------



## TomB19

Nikola is suing Tesla over the semi which they claim is "substantially similar" to the Nikola One semi. "Substantially similar." Nikola... suing... Tesla... No irony there. lmao!

It will be interesting to read if Forbes/Bloomberg/CNBC report the suit as a slam dunk and the clear end to Tesla.


----------



## TomB19

AltaRed said:


> Maybe if I can wait a few more years with my ICE Infiniti, there might be Volvo, BMW, Audi and Jag competitive EV alternatives to the Model S to consider. Tesla isn't going to have the bulk of the market for long.


I'm sure the legacy brands will blow Tesla out of the water, once they take notice of the EV markets. lol!

The only competition for Tesla is Nissan. They are hoping to ramp to 100K Leafs per year. They aren't there, yet. Assuming Tesla is shipping 3000 cars per week, they are producing the Model 3 at a rate of 150K cars per year and they are early in a production ramp.

Body panels and wheels are the easy part of producing an EV. I'm sure VW could crank out Golfs like jelly beans, compared to what Tesla has to do to produce a Model 3. The Model 3 has a crazy component count and many of those components are themselves complex sub-assemblies. Tesla is currently at about 250K vehicle per year production rate and ramping. I doubt they are all that scared by the legacy makers.


----------



## AltaRed

I wouldn't be so cocky. When the big boys get focused, they have the resources and experience to make things happen quickly. Magna clearly is headed in that direction https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/08/magna-gives-tesla-model-s-three-motors/ and https://www.magna.com/investors/pre...power-to-wheels-with-etelligentdrive--systems

Jaguar will have their I Pace soon https://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-2018-jaguar-i-pace-ev-is-a-car-worth-waiting-for-feature and https://www.jaguar.ca/en/all-models/i-pace/index.html

Still too far out other than to say 'wait and see', BMW has plans for 2021 introduction https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/revealed-bmws-grand-plan-dominate-electric-cars

The point being... there is going to be lots of competition. If Tesla can meet production demands soon and get rid of lingering quality concerns, it obviously has a head start. But Tesla will only be one of the many offerings in a few years. I will wait.


----------



## TomB19

Wall street expects -3.58/shr earnings. Should be released any moment.


Now, Red.... VW voted to invest $40B into electric vehicles, 6 months ago. That's nearly Tesla's market cap. The $40B will buy things like charging and autonomous driving. They hope to have their infrastructure in place by 2022. Tesla has that stuff today, and they are a couple of generations into development. Tesla is also building the world's biggest battery factory with substantial production in already in place, and three more such factories planned. That's why I'm cocky.

Now... please bring us up to speed on what makes you cocky.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> Now... please bring us up to speed on what makes you cocky.


Father time is the key ingredient..... and in most cases, almost unlimited resources. There really is no moat longer term.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla reported EPS is -4.19/shr.

It's not ideal. lol!


----------



## TomB19

AltaRed said:


> Father time is the key ingredient..... and in most cases, almost unlimited resources.


I get what you're saying. Tesla can't make too many mistakes. The others have proven they can make an endless stream of mistakes, although I believe Nissan is well on the road to success.

No question, GM or Ford could bring a ton of money to bear on the issue but they are resistant to risk which is causing them to be stooge like when it comes to such a dramatic change in technology.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

TomB19 said:


> ... No question, GM or Ford could bring a ton of money to bear on the issue but they are resistant to risk which is causing them to be stooge like when it comes to such a dramatic change in technology.


You know that companies choose to be second or third in line as part of a successful strategy right? They let the upstart spend money to prove the concept, move to development, and create demand. Now its no longer 'risky'. Now they move in with their considerable resources and compete successfully. Any earlier moat shrinks away. 
Sometimes the upstart get's themselves bought out to the benefit of shareholders, sometimes they continue to exist and compete, sometimes they fall to the side.
I'm not saying this will be the outcome here, but I doubt that you are smarter than some of the heads involved in this sector.


----------



## AltaRed

I think Tesla will do okay but it will just be 'another player' within 5 years. Tom has made a good point that Nissan-Renault-Mitsubishi with its various alliances (especially in China) is a force to be reckoned with. They have a hugely ambitious plan through 2022 but their strategy is to mostly fly under the radar rather than over-market and under-deliver. Nissan sees the issue as affordability, i.e. get the costs down and consumers will buy.

Other automakers are making a lot of media splashes about electrifying their lineup but they have nothing much to show for it yet.


----------



## kcowan

I want Tesla to make it but Musk needs a rabbit to pull out of his hat! He can do it!


----------



## agent99

I doubt Tesla will ever be mainstream. Perhaps Musk will sell it to a bigger player and then concentrate on supplying batteries and perhaps other technology. 

These all-electric cars are not practical. The Volt has the best concept. All electric drive, but an on-board generator to keep batteries topped up so that range is only determined by fuel tank size. If the generator could be made to run on a clean fuel so much the better. Natural gas, propane or even hydrogen. Generators are a much more efficient way of burning fossil fuels in that, unlike conventional engines, they can be designed to always run at a constant optimal speed.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> I doubt Tesla will ever be mainstream. Perhaps Musk will sell it to a bigger player and then concentrate on supplying batteries and perhaps other technology.
> 
> These all-electric cars are not practical. The Volt has the best concept. All electric drive, but an on-board generator to keep batteries topped up so that range is only determined by fuel tank size. If the generator could be made to run on a clean fuel so much the better. Natural gas, propane or even hydrogen. Generators are a much more efficient way of burning fossil fuels in that, unlike conventional engines, they can be designed to always run at a constant optimal speed.


Electric cars are totally practical. As battery technology improves in performance and cost, it is only going to get better.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> Electric cars are totally practical...


For some yes, for others no. It depends entirely on your transportation requirements.


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> For some yes, for others no. It depends entirely on your transportation requirements.


Certainly. I do think hydrogen may eventually displace gasoline/diesel for the use cases where pure BEVs don't make sense.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Certainly. I do think hydrogen may eventually displace gasoline/diesel for the use cases where pure BEVs don't make sense.


I don't think hydrogen cells will ever be applicable to consumer vehicles. Costly pressure containers, potentially serious safety issues with idiots fueling them, and the infrastructure needed to make and supply it. We will still have a significant segment of gasoline fueled cars way beyond my best before date.... and beyond. Oil demand is still increasing on a global scale and not appearing to want to roll over any time soon. It is inevitable oil demand will roll over but am not holding my breath as to when.


----------



## TomB19

I just read from a trusted source that current Model 3 production is at 2250 units per week. lol!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Memorable earnings call apparently. 
Really, Musk has a capable CFO, he should let him answer the questions that he finds "boring, bonehead, and dry." 
Burning your analyst and capital market bridges is not a good idea. He better hope he is right when he says he won't need to go back to the markets this year.

Musk is a visionary, he doesn't do 'boring, bonehead, and dry'' well. But there comes a point in a company's life cycle when it needs a head who does focus on details. Maybe Tesla has reached that point.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-03/elon-musk-s-most-dumbfounding-moments-on-tesla-s-earnings-call 

Disclosure: I have no stake in Tesla except through an etf. They can survive or fail and I don't give a rat's ***. It is the ongoing story that I find entertaining.


----------



## TomB19

TomB19 said:


> Tesla reported EPS is -4.19/shr.
> 
> It's not ideal. lol!


Correction: Q1 EPS is -3.35.

I'm happy with that EPS. Production is short of what I had hoped. I've been hard on Forbes for the relentless bashing and projecting the worst possible interpretation, to the point of slander, but it turns out Forbes was correct in this case. They were reporting 1500~2000 when actual production was 2000~2200. That's close enough.

Reports of 3000 cars per week were not correct but reports of Tesla requesting blocks of 5000 serial numbers could still be factual.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Short sellers were pretty pleased with the day too.


----------



## gardner

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Short sellers were pretty pleased


I was a bit surprised how little the stock moved. Even off 5% it is still pretty gravity-defying.


----------



## andrewf

I think Elon's petulant attitude on the conference call was not helpful for the company. Like it or not, Tesla needs capital markets to help it finance its growth.


----------



## TomB19

I think we were listening to a sleep deprived, stressed, Elon. His conduct was not appropriate for a CEO on an earnings call.

We need Elon to be composed and dignified because his biggest contribution to Tesla is as a front man.


----------



## kcowan

I think Elon realizes that he is in trouble...I hope he pulls it out.


----------



## andrewf

TomB19 said:


> I think we were listening to a sleep deprived, stressed, Elon. His conduct was not appropriate for a CEO on an earnings call.
> 
> We need Elon to be composed and dignified because his biggest contribution to Tesla is as a front man.


That was my overriding concern... if Elon has lost his composure, it makes me wonder if things are worse than they seem (which is not great but hardly devastating).


----------



## bgc_fan

It can simply be a sign that Musk should step aside and allow someone else to deal with the day to day issues with Tesla. Musk can then be free to look at other ideas/projects. I would say that would be similar to Richard Branson.


----------



## TomB19

kcowan said:


> I think Elon realizes that he is in trouble...I hope he pulls it out.


I think he doesn't. I also think "pulls it out" is a bit hyperbolic, given the companies position. They may be under a lot of pressure and in a bit of a hole but they are not struggling for their existence, just yet.



ElonMusk19 said:


> The “dry” questions were not asked by investors, but rather by two sell-side analysts who were trying to justify their Tesla short thesis. They are actually on the *opposite* side of investors. HyperChange represented actual investors, so I switched to them.





ElonMusk19 said:


> Oh and uh short burn of the century coming soon. Flamethrowers should arrive just in time. It will be next level. These are really big numbers.


----------



## kcowan

TomB19 said:


> I think he doesn't. I also think "pulls it out" is a bit hyperbolic, given the companies position. They may be under a lot of pressure and in a bit of a hole but they are not struggling for their existence, just yet.


The "pulls it out" comment was because he was acting like it. Blaming the shorts? Give me a break!

What I worry about is that his assumptions regarding vehicle production have been proven wrong. He needs to erode margins in order to achieve his production targets. That does not bode well for his product for the masses.


----------



## bgc_fan

kcowan said:


> The "pulls it out" comment was because he was acting like it. Blaming the shorts? Give me a break!
> 
> What I worry about is that his assumptions regarding vehicle production have been proven wrong. He needs to erode margins in order to achieve his production targets. That does not bode well for his product for the masses.


There is a knock on effect with the delays in ramping up production, and may lead to a chicken and the egg problem. Right now they are not delivering the low end Model 3, or the dual motor version until they get production ramped up with the current long range model. The problem is that there are a number of people who put in their deposits based on the promise of a $35k EV, but that doesn't seem to be coming along any time soon. Again, there is going to be some anxiety with the approach of the 200k EV delivery from Tesla and the $7.5k EV incentive starts to get phased out. So right now on paper the $35k EV costs $27.5k, but within the year, it will have a net cost of $32.5k (gradual phase out), and then $35k. At which point, people may start looking at other manufacturers whose cars are comparable to the low end Model 3, but are still eligible for the full EV incentive.


----------



## TomB19

kcowan said:


> The "pulls it out" comment was because he was acting like it. Blaming the shorts? Give me a break!
> 
> What I worry about is that his assumptions regarding vehicle production have been proven wrong. He needs to erode margins in order to achieve his production targets. That does not bode well for his product for the masses.


I don't think Elon's position has anything to do with blame. I think he didn't want to spend time on short sellers. Given the extraordinary volume of short selling of Tesla's issue, that's a bit of a corner to be painted into.

I've worked for two listed companies. In both cases, I was blown away by how much CEOs knew about who owned the stock, how much, where they live, etc. In one case, they literally flew to about 100 of the top holders to personally campaign for a merger with another listed company.

As for the rest of your comments, I share your point of view.

We've learned that someone producing 100K units of something probably knows a lot less about producing 500K units of that same thing than you would expect.

I've noticed that Elon has said the level of automation they started Model 3 production with was a mistake, but he hasn't said that level of automation was a mistake. Specifically, he has only said they should have started with less. A staged approach to automation would have increased early production and decreased capital spend so I assume he's indicating could have been more efficient.


----------



## AltaRed

But you then have to halt the assembly line for days or weeks to then insert automation. I suspect Elon knew that as well and took the risk of being heavy on automation to start with. 

I toured an Audi assembly plant in Germany 3 years ago and it is pretty apparent it takes an awful lot of work to get the bots installed and operating and calibrated to the precision necessary for quality control of each of the multiple operations each bot does. Most stations have 3-4 bots performing multiple tasks and the arms often pass by each other within a cm or so.


----------



## TomB19

There are all kinds of ways to analyze a listed company. All are complex. The efficacy of any of these methods varies, to say the least.

I bought Tesla for one reason.

Tesla had been having drive train issues for the first few years of model S production. Bearings were getting noisy. Most cars with high mileage didn't have it at all. Cars with as little as 40K miles had the problem, were repaired, the problem recurred. It affected about 30% of vehicles.

Tesla's response was to extend drive train warranty and replace all defective units.

The problem turned out to be magnetic flux within the inverter/motor being so high, it caused arcing in the steel bearings. The arcing pitted bearings which caused noise.

I bought a bit of Tesla in 2016 after following this issue for quite a while. Tesla's response was additional proof to me that Tesla were honest and had integrity. After following Ford's response to the PSD 6.0, 6.4, transmission problems, etc. and GM's response to various issues (not as bad as Ford's issues), it was refreshing. It would have been easy for Tesla deny warranty based on over aggressive driving. That would have been within car company behaviour profiles.

Tesla is behaving similar to an early Honda or Toyota. They are thinking long term. They are building brand.

I have no idea what's going to happen to Tesla today, tomorrow, or next week but I believe they will do well over time.


----------



## TomB19

AltaRed said:


> But you then have to halt the assembly line for days or weeks to then insert automation. I suspect Elon knew that as well and took the risk of being heavy on automation to start with.
> 
> I toured an Audi assembly plant in Germany 3 years ago and it is pretty apparent it takes an awful lot of work to get the bots installed and operating and calibrated to the precision necessary for quality control of each of the multiple operations each bot does. Most stations have 3-4 bots performing multiple tasks and the arms often pass by each other within a cm or so.


For sure.

The Audi group has amazing manufacturing power. It's easy to see why they are so cocky. I don't own any VW shares but, if I did, I'd sell them and not re-buy until they divert their energy into producing electric cars from the current task of explaining to everyone why they're better than Tesla. They need to explain it in the form of vehicles and charging infrastructure. A PowerPoint presentation doesn't cut it, at this point in the evolution of EVs. Tesla is already doing it.

Perhaps in the interest of disclosure I should mention that I drive a VW TDI Jetta wagon. Before this car, I drove a Golf TDI. I'm a big fan of VW/Audi/Porsche. I suspect my next car will be another VW. After that, it will be something electric and it won't be from GM or Ford.


----------



## andrewf

TomB19 said:


> I don't think Elon's position has anything to do with blame. I think he didn't want to spend time on short sellers. Given the extraordinary volume of short selling of Tesla's issue, that's a bit of a corner to be painted into.
> 
> I've worked for two listed companies. In both cases, I was blown away by how much CEOs knew about who owned the stock, how much, where they live, etc. In one case, they literally flew to about 100 of the top holders to personally campaign for a merger with another listed company.
> 
> As for the rest of your comments, I share your point of view.
> 
> We've learned that someone producing 100K units of something probably knows a lot less about producing 500K units of that same thing than you would expect.
> 
> I've noticed that Elon has said the level of automation they started Model 3 production with was a mistake, but he hasn't said that level of automation was a mistake. Specifically, he has only said they should have started with less. A staged approach to automation would have increased early production and decreased capital spend so I assume he's indicating could have been more efficient.


In the line of work I am in right now, it is often the case that you are better off creating the business, then applying capital to it at scale to make it more efficient. Build it and they will come is a good way to make a lot of bad capital allocation decisions. Only reason to do it is when you are very sure about the size of the business you are applying the capital to (building too small can be as bad as too big), can bake in enough flexibility to be able to pivot, or when you are making a strategic move to dissuade competitors.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Your steadfast support of Elon is admirable Tom. Maybe you are his Sask. uncle?
My understanding is that the analysts he blew off were not short sellers or even sell-side. At worst they have a 'hold' recommendation on tsla.
Catering to analyst's quarterly questions comes with the territory when you are a publically traded company.
Elon may not be up to the task. The proposal for a new Board Chairman may not be a bad idea.


----------



## TomB19

The stock is up this morning in with no obvious reason.

Last week, Elon warned of an epic short burn. That always pumps the stock a little but I've read two scathing reports on Tesla this morning which ought to more than balance elons swagger.

I think a plausible explanation for the upward pressure is the stock is so heavily shorted, there aren't a lot of shares left to short.

It would be great if someone more familiar with this mechanism could chime in but I think it's not possible to borrow shares from some of the huge, institutional investors. Short shares are borrowed from little guys like me. As the short volume approaches 40%, I think we're hitting a cap.


----------



## TomB19

Someone I know drove by the Fremont factory this morning. He texted me and said the new production parking lot is full with cars being removed and added at a faster rate than he has ever seen.

This could mean a number of things. My friend doesn't drive by the Fremont factory very often so not a lot of reference. Also, we know Tesla has been testing their burst capacity so this isn't necessarily a baseline.

Still, it sounds impressive.


----------



## kcowan

> While Buffett said it does seem like more moats have become susceptible to invasion recently, he still observes plenty of companies, such as the See’s Candies unit that Berkshire owns, where they’re holding firm.
> 
> “Elon may turn things upside down in some areas, I don’t think he’d want to take us on in candy,” Buffett quipped. “There are some pretty good moats around.”
> 
> Musk didn’t stay silent. “I’m starting a candy company & it’s going to be amazing,” he wrote in a Twitter post ..
> 
> Read more at:
> //economictimes.indiatimes.com/arti...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst


Sounds like the hubris of DJT...


----------



## TomB19

Situation update.

- Battery modules are no longer the production bottleneck. Battery module production is now capable of 3000 modules per week. This is before the production line upgrades which are said to bring the capacity to 5000 modules per week.

- Additional hardware is coming from Germany to further increase battery pack production. Wording is a bit vague in Elon's statements so I don't know if it's going to be in the form of another production line (2 more are coming, apparently), or in the form of improvements to present lines.

- Nissan/Renault/Mitsubishi has sold somewhere in the range of 575,000 electric vehicles

- Tesla has sold somewhere in the range of 325,000 electric vehicles

- The next production stoppage and subsequent efficiency improvements should bring chassis production well beyond 3000 vehicles per week. Keep in mind, that's over 250,000 electric cars per year which is well beyond what Nissan produces

- Elon just purchased 9.85M worth of additional stock


----------



## humble_pie

jumpin jodphurs! this is the best thread in the forum

i have these 2 short puts in TSLA. They've gone deep into the red. On paper they look like walking, shocking disasters.

of course their exercise prices are so far below the money that only bankruptcy of the underlying will destroy em. If Co does not BK, mah putz will be fine


----------



## TomB19

I expect the price to increase in volatility, over the next few weeks.

I base this on reports of cars pouring out of the Freemont factory, someone posted a video of cars leaving the Freemont lot on Reddit yesterday, but Tesla doesn't report weekly statistics anymore. Elon said he has no interest in helping day traders and speculators. Plus, I am expecting a couple of nice non-automotive treats this quarter.

Please keep in mind, my knowledge of price fluctuations is almost zero. I am speculating on the price in the thread but I'm not speculating on the company. All I know is that Tesla is working hard and I believe in that ethic as an investor. I'll come back in 10 years and see if the shares are worth anything.


----------



## TomB19

This isn't a court of law so I will mention one of the treats I'm expecting this quarter is a huge grid storage project, substantially larger than the somewhat large South Dakota BP storage farm that was announced a couple of weeks ago.

Meanwhile, Mercedes-Benz Energy has exited the home based energy storage business. No money in it, apparently.

Mercedes has also commented that Tesla's semi truck must not have the range Tesla has indicated.

It's almost as though Tesla has some sort of edge when it comes to cost and performance of batteries. I wonder what that could be.....


----------



## kcowan

One of the very real risks that Elon is taking is making optimistic projections that never come true. This is known on the Street as pumping the stock and can be the kiss of death if it becomes a habit. For example, if his transport has an embedded undisclosed assumption about battery performance that does not materialize.

I do not hold Tesla or any other speculative stock but these are the risks. Just ask Jones of Jones soda.


----------



## FI40

kcowan said:


> One of the very real risks that Elon is taking is making optimistic projections that never come true. This is known on the Street as pumping the stock and can be the kiss of death if it becomes a habit. For example, if his transport has an embedded undisclosed assumption about battery performance that does not materialize.
> 
> I do not hold Tesla or any other speculative stock but these are the risks. Just ask Jones of Jones soda.


Not that I have a horse in this race but I do read the earnings call transcripts out of interest. They did address this in the last call. They were talking about the MB Energy claim and basically they said even with current tech they are able to achieve the performance they stated, but they expect to be able to do even better by the time they start delivering the transport trucks. Could be more bravado or could include some additional assumptions or maybe they don't understand the MB Energy claim, of course. But they do apparently have better tech than their competitors, I remember reading about an independent analysis that confirmed that.


----------



## TomB19

There is also the small matter of the two trucks Tesla has on the road, making runs from gf1 to Fremont and visiting pre-order customers.

I don't think the ignorance surrounding Tesla is any stronger than the ignorance surrounding every other stock. People hear something, disregard it, and parrot out their ignorance.

What will happen in 6-8 weeks time if Tesla achieves their goal of 5000 cars per week, announces a storage project of a gigawatt hour, and opens the komono regarding solar production at gf2?

I suspect that will cause a handful of people to become quiet until the next anti-tesla, misinformed, news article is released.

I care about one thing. I care about Tesla working hard. If the goals slip, I can deal with that. As long as I know they are working hard, I will hang in there as an investor.


----------



## kcowan

TomB19 said:


> What will happen in 6-8 weeks time if Tesla achieves their goal of 5000 cars per week, announces a storage project of a gigawatt hour, and opens the komono regarding solar production at gf2?


Other than the caveat regarding margin squeeze, I know I will be cheering. Guys like Musk only come along every so often and those that bet on him deserve their rewards.

(Check Jones Soda. I got out in time. Also Lulu got rid of founder Chip Wilson and I held on! So far so good!)


----------



## FI40

TomB19 said:


> What will happen in 6-8 weeks time if Tesla achieves their goal of 5000 cars per week, announces a storage project of a gigawatt hour, and *opens the komono regarding solar production at gf2*?


Coffee all over my screen now thanks Tom 



TomB19 said:


> I care about one thing. I care about Tesla working hard. If the goals slip, I can deal with that. As long as I know they are working hard, I will hang in there as an investor.


Indeed there seem to be a lot of anecdotes out there of the crazy work culture they have, and their ability to attract top talent. It's a tempting investment for sure.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla has an announcement pipeline that keeps the stock jacked up. I have no doubt, this is by design.

Last year, it was the semi and new roadster announcement, followed by the start of Model 3 production, followed by exciting ramp numbers... which never happened. According to plan, we were to have already surpassed the point at which the Model 3 was the highest production volume electric car.

This year, we've got the solar roof shipping in volume, solar panel production is ramping heavily (hasn't been discussed, yet), the Model 3 dual motor variant isn't far ahead, there are several Tesla energy initiatives that should bare fruit this summer, that will take us into fall and the Model Y announcement, followed by breaking ground on the next GigaFactory (will be in Asia) .....

I fully expect a Model S redesign will be rolled out by mid 2019 for the 2020 model year.

Meanwhile SpaceX has a ton of stuff going on and a lot of people seem to conflate SpaceX with Tesla.

This stock is more pumped up than a Donald Trump sex toy.

I understand all of that. To understand Tesla, you have to look beyond the hype but also avoid the endless grumpy anti-Tesla arguments from people who don't understand Tesla.

Tesla is a software company, far more than a car company. They have more software engineers than vehicle assemblers. They are building an automotive ecosystem.

In order to understand what Tesla has that other manufacturers don't, you have to understand why the Apple iPod wasn't just another music player.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

We'll have to put this one into the _"anti-Tesla people who don't understand Tesla"_ bucket:
_"Tesla is worth twice as much as Ford, yet Ford made 6 million cars last year at a $7.6 billion profit while Tesla made 100,000 cars at a $2 billion loss"_


----------



## AltaRed

Perhaps another tech market crash aka the dotcom 2000 bust is in the works. I remember the euphoria of the late '90s that defied gravity until it fell out of the stratosphere. Something like 20-30% of the US stock market is supposedly filled with a range of techo-wonders, some of them sound, but many of them who may come down like Wile E Coyote off the precipice.


----------



## TomB19

Maybe electrons will cling to their atoms and never flow again.


----------



## AltaRed

Worthy of a read.... The proof will be in the physical evidence.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/aut...-e-machines/ar-AAwYFc6?ocid=spartandhp#page=1


----------



## gardner

TomB19 said:


> Mercedes has also commented that Tesla's semi truck must not have the range Tesla has indicated.
> It's almost as though Tesla has some sort of edge when it comes to cost and performance of batteries.


I hadn't previously done any numbers on their truck and this comment got me thinking...

An average loaded semi runs around 36L of diesel/100km. Diesel contains about 10 kWh/L and current diesel semis are about 50% efficient so that's 180 kWh/100km or 1,460 kWh for the 800 km range the tesla truck is meant to have. Tesla's newest batteries have a claimed capacity of 0.25 kWh/kg (though the specs on the new powerwall work out to closer to 0.1 kWh/kg) and using this optimistic figure gives us about 5,800 kg of batteries. This is not a preposterous number, but given a semi tractor is around 13,000 kg and only 1,200 kg is engine, that is a good deal of extra weight to be carrying around.

Recharging a 1,460 kWh pack by 50% in 30 minutes requires 1,500 kVA of power. A 1,500 kVA transformer is one of those jobs the size of a van generally sized to supply about 1,200 homes. A facility that could charge more than one of these semis would be a pretty big deal. Not every industrial installation would have this sort of capacity on site.

Maybe Tesla can make a go of it, but I am a bit skeptical. If I were an investor, I would want them to priorize model 3 delivery and profitability above this truck business. Daimler/Fuso/Mitsubishi is ahead of them already and trying to close ground on them would be a substantial distraction.


----------



## TomB19

Let me help you out with a couple of items, Gardener.

- Diesel trucks waste energy when they hit the brakes. Electric trucks waste very little while braking. That makes a very significant difference.
- Vehicle batteries are not the same as the energy storage business batteries. They are both 20700 format but the formulations are not the same and they aren't made on the same production lines (although the lines can be converted to do either).
- Early on in Model 3 production, a few of the auto battery lines were converted to storage lines to support the Puerto Rico effort.

As for anyone being ahead of Tesla in the semi space, I don't see a lot of electric semis on the road. The only running all electric semis, of which I'm aware, are the two Tesla prototypes that Tesla is using to move components from GF1 to Fremont. So, that puts Tesla well out in front.


----------



## andrewf

BYD has an all electric truck, but the range is disappointing.


----------



## TomB19

Thanks, Andrew. I worded my response poorly.

My thought was regarding class 8, long haul, trucks.

There is a plethora of electric and PEHV trucks I wasn't familiar with. This is a nice outline of what is available and what is coming.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/12/1...-duty-trucks-available-models-planned-models/

The E-Force One from Switzerland is a pretty large truck (not class 8, though) with a range of 300km. That's almost 200 miles.

Daimler's E-Fuso medium haul truck and is said to have a capability of 220 miles on a 300KWh battery. It is in prototype now, although I don't know how closely it performs to the specification.

BTW, a heavy haul truck with a pair of 150 gallon diesel saddle tanks is said to have a range of 1200~1300 miles. If Tesla can achieve 600 mile range, that will only be half the range of an average diesel truck.


----------



## andrewf

I'm not sure how important it really is to have very long ranges. Drivers can't drive that far continuously, anyway. Electric trucks have plenty of room to be disruptive on short-haul. Electric becomes disruptive on long-haul with -70% energy cost. Who cares if you have to stop twice as often when your fuel bill is cut by two thirds? 

The math in Ontario is pretty striking with something like a Model 3 vs a comparable (or even slightly worse) ICE car. I figure fuel at $1.35/L vs electricity at ~9 cents per kwh (all-in variable cost using off-peak rates) is an 80%+ savings.


----------



## Big Kahuna

andrewf said:


> I'm not sure how important it really is to have very long ranges. Drivers can't drive that far continuously, anyway. Electric trucks have plenty of room to be disruptive on short-haul. Electric becomes disruptive on long-haul with -70% energy cost. Who cares if you have to stop twice as often when your fuel bill is cut by two thirds?
> 
> The math in Ontario is pretty striking with something like a Model 3 vs a comparable (or even slightly worse) ICE car. I figure fuel at $1.35/L vs electricity at ~9 cents per kwh (all-in variable cost using off-peak rates) is an 80%+ savings.


What you are missing is that electric vehicles are still just a novelty-a switch from internal combustion to electric for the whole fleet would send hydro rates sky high.


----------



## RBull

gardner said:


> I hadn't previously done any numbers on their truck and this comment got me thinking...
> 
> An average loaded semi runs around 36L of diesel/100km. Diesel contains about 10 kWh/L and current diesel semis are about 50% efficient so that's 180 kWh/100km or 1,460 kWh for the 800 km range the tesla truck is meant to have. Tesla's newest batteries have a claimed capacity of 0.25 kWh/kg (though the specs on the new powerwall work out to closer to 0.1 kWh/kg) and using this optimistic figure gives us about 5,800 kg of batteries. This is not a preposterous number, but given a semi tractor is around 13,000 kg and only 1,200 kg is engine, that is a good deal of extra weight to be carrying around.
> 
> Recharging a 1,460 kWh pack by 50% in 30 minutes requires 1,500 kVA of power. A 1,500 kVA transformer is one of those jobs the size of a van generally sized to supply about 1,200 homes. A facility that could charge more than one of these semis would be a pretty big deal. Not every industrial installation would have this sort of capacity on site.
> 
> Maybe Tesla can make a go of it, but I am a bit skeptical. If I were an investor, I would want them to priorize model 3 delivery and profitability above this truck business. Daimler/Fuso/Mitsubishi is ahead of them already and trying to close ground on them would be a substantial distraction.


Great points. 

I read about the weight problem a year or two ago in Car & Driver. The huge weight electric truck disadvantage makes it a near non starter. The truck charging demand is another enormous challenge. Trucks- forget about it for now. Cars- maybe but Telsa is bleeding money badly and will need much more soon, and ongoing, with the competition now and the tsunami of models coming soon from many manufacturers.


----------



## RBull

AltaRed said:


> Worthy of a read.... The proof will be in the physical evidence.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/autos/aut...-e-machines/ar-AAwYFc6?ocid=spartandhp#page=1


Great read. No real surprise though. I'd say Tesla has it tough now and the road ahead will be even more challenging.


----------



## gardner

TomB19 said:


> - Diesel trucks waste energy when they hit the brakes. Electric trucks waste very little while braking.


The fuel figure I used was a highway driving one -- there would be comparatively little other than simply cruising in that. Semi-trucks generally spend 99% of the time cruising at a constant speed. Sure regenerative braking could help, but it's going to be a 1% thing, not a factor of 4 thing.



> - Vehicle batteries are not the same as the energy storage business batteries.


The 0.25 kWh/kg is what they claim for the current custom 18650 battery cells produced by Panasonic. Maybe the ones they would use will have a higher density. I can't find any specific claims from Tesla, but commercial 21700s that are available seem to run around 280 Wh/kg -- a bit better, but not a night/day thing.



> As for anyone being ahead of Tesla in the semi space


I never said semi tractor -- I said truck. The Daimler/Fuso/Mitsubishi truck is a smaller 5t panel van style truck, not a 36t semi rig. It has ~1/4 the range and ~1/8 the weight and consequently a much smaller battery requirement. They claim to have them in commercial service -- seems mostly in Germany. They are building real experience in this space and I would not want to discount it.


----------



## andrewf

Big Kahuna said:


> What you are missing is that electric vehicles are still just a novelty-a switch from internal combustion to electric for the whole fleet would send hydro rates sky high.


Would it, though? I think you should think a bit harder on that one.


----------



## FI40

gardner said:


> I hadn't previously done any numbers on their truck and this comment got me thinking...
> 
> An average loaded semi runs around 36L of diesel/100km. Diesel contains about 10 kWh/L and current diesel semis are about 50% efficient so that's 180 kWh/100km or 1,460 kWh for the 800 km range the tesla truck is meant to have. Tesla's newest batteries have a claimed capacity of 0.25 kWh/kg (though the specs on the new powerwall work out to closer to 0.1 kWh/kg) and using this optimistic figure gives us about 5,800 kg of batteries. This is not a preposterous number, but given a semi tractor is around 13,000 kg and only 1,200 kg is engine, that is a good deal of extra weight to be carrying around.
> 
> Recharging a 1,460 kWh pack by 50% in 30 minutes requires 1,500 kVA of power. A 1,500 kVA transformer is one of those jobs the size of a van generally sized to supply about 1,200 homes. A facility that could charge more than one of these semis would be a pretty big deal. Not every industrial installation would have this sort of capacity on site.
> 
> Maybe Tesla can make a go of it, but I am a bit skeptical. If I were an investor, I would want them to priorize model 3 delivery and profitability above this truck business. Daimler/Fuso/Mitsubishi is ahead of them already and trying to close ground on them would be a substantial distraction.


So, I'm not too sure about how charging will work, but for the first part of your analysis you may want to take a look at this article:
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/27/tesla-semi-break-laws-physics/

I think essentially they are arguing that due to aerodynamics they can beat 2kWh/mile (~120kWh/100km instead of 180) in terms of efficiency. If that is true, and that seems a big IF to me, that would make a pretty substantial difference. Their other point is yes the battery is heavy but electric trucks don't need a transmission, fuel, or a driveshaft and those are all heavy. So I guess they argue that it won't be that much heavier than a diesel truck. Numbers are all in the article, maybe take a look and let us know what you think.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> I'm not sure how important it really is to have very long ranges. Drivers can't drive that far continuously, anyway ...


Not sure about the importance either. 

While the second part is technically correct - this is why drivers that are going continuously have teams with a bunk in the back of the cab. For a couple of years, my friend's job was as a driver making runs from K-W to Texas. I have difficulty recalling runs where he was on his own, stopping for the mandated hours of rest.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

Time is money especially in company owned (as compared to owner operator) semis....hence the bunking concept. The wheels need to be turning except as required for food/pit stop breaks.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla semi makes the most sense on runs that are within it's range. An analysis of national truck routes shows the Tesla semi is capable of non-stop service on 70% of all routes in the USA.

Tesla has designed the system to charge during load/unload. This eliminates charge stops and is a direct advantage to the electric truck, as diesel trucks don't fill their tanks while at the loading docks.

Anyone who has read the Tesla semi design prospectus or watched the unveiling would know these things.

Throw in rig platooning and Tesla claims to have efficiency levels that are better than rail.


----------



## TomB19

California Energy Commission just passed a set of standards requiring all homes built after 2020 to have solar energy production. This is the kind of legislated forcing function that Tesla is positioning itself to take advantage of.

Meanwhile at Fishkill, NY, Tesla and Panasonic are well into a solar production ramp on what will be one of the largest solar cell production facilities in the world. They have adjusted the goal upward to 2GW per year of production. That comes to 20,000 panels per day.

Or, as some of the folks in this thread would say, "Tesla has completely dropped the ball on solar. Total failure. It's just down to the forensic accounting now." lol!


----------



## andrewf

TomB19 said:


> Tesla semi makes the most sense on runs that are within it's range. An analysis of national truck routes shows the Tesla semi is capable of non-stop service on 70% of all routes in the USA.
> 
> Tesla has designed the system to charge during load/unload. This eliminates charge stops and is a direct advantage to the electric truck, as diesel trucks don't fill their tanks while at the loading docks.
> 
> Anyone who has read the Tesla semi design prospectus or watched the unveiling would know these things.
> 
> Throw in rig platooning and Tesla claims to have efficiency levels that are better than rail.


There are plenty of huge fleet operators out there that move vast amounts of freight over short distances out of big centers that would be ideal to establish charging infrastructure. Think courier companies, manufacturers, retailers, etc. Worrying about whether electric trucks can conquer long haul is totally missing the point. 'Oh noes, the first gen of electric trucks may only be able to address 70% of a trillion $ market'. Let's worry about that after short haul has been converted, which will be the first step. If I'm not mistaken, Pepsi has already signed up for 100 trucks. That's not just a pilot folks. People who have done the math know how disruptive this is.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla is opening up orders for dual motor and performance options for the model 3, next week.

Musk has said Tesla will start taking orders for the dual motor version of the Model 3 when production hits 5000 cars per week.

If Tesla has achieved 5K cars per week, that would put their production at a rate of 350,000 vehicles annually. If that is the case, Tesla will have grown significantly into their market valuation.

For me, the primary question is where will they build the model Y. I don't see how it can happen at Fremont, although that was discussed in a news article. Once demand for the Model 3 is quenched, they should regain some capacity at Fremont but I don't see how that can happen by 2020.

I can't imagine the Chinese Gigafactory being ready by 2020 but maybe they do things faster over there.

Meanwhile, Gigafactory 1 expansion is progressing.


----------



## gardner

TomB19 said:


> maybe they do things faster over there.


Indeed. When the Chinese decide to build a factory or do some similar project, they can move at lightning speed.


----------



## TomB19

A little gloat and a little humility....

So, Ford is now shutting down it's truck factories. A fire at a supplier's factory has caused a total manufacturing disruption. One factory has been shut down and workers laid off last week. The second is shutting down this week. They are scrambling to second source the parts.

Unlike Tesla, this isn't a planned shutdown to improve manufacturing efficiency. This is a real world problem. It happens with regularity. We live in global entropy on a daily basis.

I don't hear anyone indicating Ford is going to go bankrupt. If I owned Ford stock, I wouldn't be selling because of this. Ford has some smart people who will sort this. The fundamentals of the company have not changed.

I think the hysterics surrounding Tesla are pure politics. 500 people die in automobile accidents every day but reports only hit the national papers when it's a Tesla.

So, I dare say Tesla is going to sort out their manufacturing effort and get production into a really great place. The delay does not significantly change the fundamental value in Tesla.

Back to Ford....

I can't help but notice, Ford produces about 70K trucks per week. They have 250K trucks in inventory, across the United States.

Assuming they are at 5K Model 3s per week, Tesla's spot manufacturing rate of the Model 3 is currently 250K vehicles per year. They are cranking out this slick new car and it would take them a year to produce the same number of cars as Ford has Trucks in inventory right now. Tesla has a long way to go to catch up with the top producers and Fremont is absolutely bursting at the seams.


----------



## kcowan

It is ironic that Ford shuts down truck production a week after announcing that they will ONLY produce trucks.


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> It is ironic that Ford shuts down truck production a week after announcing that they will ONLY produce trucks.


It is an unfortunate Murphy's Law outcome. That said, these kinds of things are relatively temporary. FWIW, I think Ford's decision not to produce sedans/coupes (other than the Mustang) for North America is sound. They will still produce sedans for global markets (Fiesta for example). Fiat Chrysler needs to dump their remaining sedan car lines as well (cannot compete with the Asians or the other Europeans) and even GM needs to thin out their sedan lines. I've never rented an 'American' sedan yet (certain specialties excepted) when traveling that I would consider buying.

P.S. Ford is simply getting out of traditional ICE sedans. They will be in the domestic market with e-cars of various forms, albeit probably hybrids of current sedans and crossovers.


----------



## TomB19

I just read an article suggesting current Tesla production rate of the Model 3 was 4300 last week.

Musk has said he has no interest in publishing spot production numbers, as it just feeds day traders. Meanwhile, the serial number tracker is ticking over at a rate faster than 4300 per week.

All we can do is speculate on the actual production rate.


----------



## andrewf

More importantly, it looks like Tesla is getting through their bottlenecks. Whether they are hitting 5k now or in a couple months is not really that material.


----------



## TomB19

Hyundai has stopped taking orders for their electric car. Apparently, the global battery shortage is cooling their heels.

I wonder why Tesla is still cranking out product at an accelerating pace? It will always be a mystery.....


----------



## TomB19

Goldman Sachs just announced that Tesla will have to raise more than $10B through 2020. This has sent the stock down to the $275 range.

It's amazing how wrong they can be, so frequently, and still carry sway with the market. I've literally built an investment strategy around it.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla just adjusted the delivery advisory on the long range Model 3 RWD to 4~6 months, if ordered today.


----------



## TomB19

andrewf said:


> More importantly, it looks like Tesla is getting through their bottlenecks.


They take on production issues with a brainstorming process they call a "hackathon".


----------



## Pluto

Good luck to the longs. Next recession this will drop to $20.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Pluto said:


> Good luck to the longs. Next recession this will drop to $20.


Maybe-as of today's prices Tesla has a market cap 24% of Toyota's-which does seem logically absurd IMO.


----------



## TomB19

CR reports a brake issue with the Model 3. They reported the car as worst in class. They also reported braking performance as extremely variable.

There is no way this is a problem with the brakes themselves. If it can stop well sometimes, it can be made to stop great all the time. People are dumping the stock but this is going to turn out to be an easy fix.

I expect a firmware update in the very near future.

If I was a day trader, I'd trade this tiny bump on the Tesla highway. Tesla has plenty of problems, fortunately brakes aren't a significant issue.


----------



## TomB19

I'm kind of astonished at how fickle the market is.

In two weeks, this brake problem will be fixed and the stock will bounce back up to $290-300.

Then, of course, there will be another problem.

The model S has 30,000 parts. I think the model 3 has something like 8000. Throw in a few million lines of code and you have a situation where there will always be a bug or two.

Oddly, it's just like gm or Ford...


----------



## kcowan

I saw my first Model 3 on the road here in Vancouver. It is a coupe and looks smaller than I expected. Very distinctive though.


----------



## TomB19

The reason Tesla's Australian virtual power plant matters so much is because this is the model that will change the world. They will have 250MW of solar generation and 650MWh of storage with zero footprint and almost zero transmission loss.

http://ourenergyplan.sa.gov.au/virtual-power-plant

Best of all, it will provide cost relief from power barons who are draining money from the economy with higher efficiency than Trump Republicans.


----------



## TomB19

Follow on...

Tesla will be producing gigawatts of energy storage this year. This is now a significant business.

Elon mentioned a gigawatt energy storage project. Now I think it could easily be a virtual power plant. They have the panels, storage, and software. They are ready to go.


----------



## TomB19

A quick word on power.

I suspect that a vast majority of people think we are going to slowly replace coal and natural gas generation with solar and wind. Maybe so.

Electrification of transport is going to put so much pressure on the grid with added demand that we are going to need significant additional generation.

At some point, I suspect the pressure to replace base generation with cleaner alternatives will be eased, as we will need all the capacity we can get.

Further, there are limitations to how much power can be transferred over the grid. The solution will be distributed generation. For a distributed power plant to work, we will need solar collection and battery storage. Curiously, Tesla is positioned amazingly for both.

Even if we run electric cars with power from coal generation, it will be a more sustainable situation. With natural gas generation, it will be significantly more sustainable. With nuclear, wind, and solar, it will be ideal but Tesla is going to have to build a lot of solar collection for a lot of decades to make much of an impact on that dream.


----------



## TomB19

To provide an idea of why so much new capacity, consider this:

A family of four will typically use about 12 Kilowatt hours per day.

12 KWh will drive someone about 60 miles in a model 3.

So,a household with two or three cars is going to burn a lot of power. Electrification is going to cause consumption to multiply by a factor of two or three.


----------



## AltaRed

I predict the transition to electric ground transportation will ultimately be constrained by our ability to generate, distribute and store electricity where we need it when we need it. Mobile transportation will make it extremely difficult to manage electrical distribution. 

I believe it will be very costly (think about at least doubling what you pay for electricity today) and there will be grid instability and increasing unreliability of power to our homes and businesses. Time of day pricing will become mandatory. I doubt any of this will come to pass in my 20 years left (of conscious caring) but the craziness of electrical supply will make home battery storage economic at some tipping point. 2050 is likely to look quite different than we can even imagine today.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

And we'd better hope we get the global warming that's being advertised - the batteries of two or three cars parked outside of Tom and everyone else's homes when it is minus 20deg c in the winter ain't going to cut it. 
Could it be that people will be forced to clean out their garages and begin using them for cars? Don't have a garage, too bad.


----------



## kcowan

Not to mention condos and apartments that have no way to charge cars AND make the users pay for the electricity. And they are located where the electrics make the most sense. Nothing that can't be solved but it takes time and money.


----------



## AltaRed

An opinion on 'bully' Musk http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/technology/pacific-newsletter/index.html


----------



## RBull

TomB19, not sure where you got your number for electricity consumption but it's way low according to what I find, and what I've personally experienced even with less people in household. 30-50 kilowatts is more realistic.

http://www.green-energy-efficient-homes.com/average-electricity-consumption.html

However I agree EVs would increase electric consumption and create huge infrastructure costs.


----------



## RBull

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> And we'd better hope we get the global warming that's being advertised - the batteries of two or three cars parked outside of Tom and everyone else's homes when it is minus 20deg c in the winter ain't going to cut it.
> Could it be that people will be forced to clean out their garages and begin using them for cars? Don't have a garage, too bad.


-20 is even a milder winter night in some areas like where Tom is. 

Yes, use the garage and don't forget costs to make sure it's insulated and heated.


----------



## TomB19

For those who may be interested in tesla minutia...


www.buildingtesla.com


----------



## TomB19

I hessitate to engage in whatever is being thrown down here but I've spent plenty of time in 40 below temperatures and I find myself wondering what you are smoking.

When it's -40 and you have a model 3 in the driveway next to a Honda Civic, which car do you think is more likely to get you to work?


----------



## kcowan

I assume they are both plugged in. So the Honda will start and its oil will be warm. The Tesla will start with a full charge. So I would guess that it will just amount to battery efficiency at low temperatures and presumably you would have sufficient reserve capacity to get to work and back with power to spare?

If there were no plugins, my money would be on the Tesla.


----------



## RBull

^I'll take the civic. Pretty sure it's going to start and get me both ways. 

Since I'm rural the Tesla may need a recharge or full to start so that I can get home from work, with heaters, defrosters, lights, wipers etc running, especially if I get stuck in messy weather and slow traffic.


----------



## TomB19

Well, you won't take my Civic. Even if I leave the keys in it...


----------



## RBull

TomB19 said:


> Well, you won't take my Civic. Even if I leave the keys in it...


LOL, no it's a little too far away and with 3 cars now I don't need it. 

The more complete answer re Tesla and me is I used to use my vehicle on the job seeing customers. Too many kms along with commute. But the biggest issue is I can't charge it anywhere but at home for now and there's issues around what type of charge stations are being allowed here. Oh wait, I don't have enough capacity on my electrical panel here either and its 200amp. Possibly more challenges for Tesla? 
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasc...canada-supercharger-stations-for-its-vehicles


----------



## kcowan

RBull said:


> Oh wait, I don't have enough capacity on my electrical panel here either and its 200amp. Possibly more challenges for Tesla?
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novasc...canada-supercharger-stations-for-its-vehicles


I thought 200 amp service was the most common in homes?


----------



## TomB19

Around here, 140 is the most common with 200 being an upgraded service. 140A service is sufficient to put a good charging port in most homes.

Many of the folks commenting don't understand what they are posting. The whole idea of power being agnostic so electrons just flow to wherever they are needed was a particularly good one. No need for power management. lol! The idea that 200A isn't enough service to charge a Tesla is another.

The Tesla charger is smart. It can be configured to provide a specific level of current. They are also stackable so you can have up to 4 chargers for multiple cars and they will intelligently share a circuit (a single car charging will get the full current from the mains so when car 1 finishes charge, car 2 gets the full current).

You could literally plug a Tesla into a regular wall outlet and it would charge just fine, albeit very slowly.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default...bile_connector_owners_manual_32_amp_en_US.pdf

You might also notice the charger monitors heat in the connectors and throttles the current if they get hot. They are pretty clever.


Examples:

The largest battery Tesla sells is 100 KWh. This battery will normally charge to 80KWh (will only charge to 80%, unless in trip mode).

Plugging this battery into a regular 115V/15A wall outlet, when it has 0% charge, will result in 48h to charge to 80%.

Plugging this battery into a 230V/30A dryer outlet, when it has 0% charge, will result in 12h to charge to 80%.

Let's go back to the regular 115V outlet. A Model S 100KWh can go about 300 miles on a 48h charge. If all you can supply is 8h of charge from a regular wall outlet, you can go 50 miles on that power.

Perhaps the conclusion is that Teslas are only good for people who sleep.


----------



## humble_pie

it's bedlam on my street, located in an older part of an old city. Street dates back to the 1870s. Small row houses that were originally built for factory workers. No garages of course. Nobody has an exterior electrical outlet on the street side.

they're rebuilding the road & sidewalks from the foundations up. While they're at it they're replacing the fresh water distribution system & also the sewer mains.

there'll be no streetlights for weeks. One would think this would attract break-in thieves & robbers but the hope seems to be that they'll fall into the excavations in the pitch dark, break their necks or otherwise kill themselves. Meanwhile it seems to be expected that we who live on the street wlll know the terrain well enough to be able to make our way along at night like goats on cliff paths.

already concerned neighhbours are asking Where is the Infrastructure for Charging Stations going to be Located? folks are writing to the local newspaper to ask Why is there no Plan for Community Charging Stations?


----------



## TomB19

I'm not aware of a clear vision on community charging. Tesla has a street level charging solution but I think it's pretty much a beta test idea.

There is also the idea that the problem will go away in a few years, when we achieve full automation. Your car will simply go find a charger and charge itself so you will never again have to stand beside a stinky pump inhaling fumes from dead dinosaurs. When that day comes, it will be magic.

Also, I wouldn't disregard the idea of destination charging. Shopping malls and restaurants are increasingly installing chargers. In some places, you can shop for groceries while your car charges.

This is why Tesla owns the electric car market. It's theirs to lose. They have been experimenting with all sort of ideas, including swapping out battery packs for fully charged packs, like you would do with a cordless power tool. They also have lots of charging ideas, destination ideas, and power management ideas. They are more on top of the problem than anyone else, by a huge margin.

Electrified transport is not just about installing a motor and battery into a car, as so many dismiss the problem as being. That is straight up ignorance.

Lastly, let's not ignore the reality that electrified transport is in it's infancy and hydrocarbons are still the correct fuel for the majority of vehicle owners. The group of people who will benefit from electrified transport is growing with each passing innovation. We will get there but we are only mostly there, at this point in time.


----------



## RBull

kcowan said:


> I thought 200 amp service was the most common in homes?


Depends. Around here 100amp is although if house is electrically heated 200 amp is. 

Some larger homes with all electric have 400 amp service.


----------



## RBull

TomB19 said:


> Around here, 140 is the most common with 200 being an upgraded service. 140A service is sufficient to put a good charging port in most homes.
> 
> Many of the folks commenting don't understand what they are posting. The whole idea of power being agnostic so electrons just flow to wherever they are needed was a particularly good one. No need for power management. lol! The idea that 200A isn't enough service to charge a Tesla is another.


Have another read. That's not what was said. 40 amps is loads to charge a Tesla but the more the better. The question is does a person have a circuit and other electrical demands that can handle adding that for one EV let alone 2. My 200 amp panel is pretty heavily utilized now with all electric home. 

The info I read on Tesla site said standard 240 connector was for a 50 AMP circuit breaker and operating current of 32 amps. 

"Every Tesla vehicle is delivered with a Mobile Connector and adapter to plug into a 240 volt NEMA 14-50 outlet. This is a standardized receptacle, commonly used for electric ranges and other large appliances.
Installed with a 50-amp circuit breaker, the NEMA 14-50 enables a recharge rate of about 32 kilometers per hour for Model X and 37 kilometers per hour for Model S.
This guide provides technical details for a NEMA 14-50 outlet intended for use with a Tesla vehicle. Every installation is custom to its location, so all hardware will be sourced by the hired electrician.
We recommend plugging in every day to top off the battery of your Tesla.
 Voltage: Single phase, 208-250 volt AC supply, 60 hertz
 Circuit Breaker: 50 amp
 Operating Current: 32 amps
 Conductors: 6 AWG, Copper Wire Only. Upsize wiring for installations over 150 feet
 Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter: Not required
 Service Disconnect: Not required
 Receptacle Recommendation: High quality, industrial grade receptacle
Examples: Hubbell part # HBL9450A, Cooper part #5754N
 Ventilation: Not required
 Outdoors: Install with NEMA 3R rainproof enclosure"


----------



## like_to_retire

RBull said:


> Have another read. That's not what was said. 40 amps is loads to charge a Tesla but the more the better. The question is does a person have a circuit and other electrical demands that can handle adding that for one EV let alone 2. My 200 amp panel is pretty heavily utilized now with all electric home.
> 
> The info I read on Tesla site said standard 240 connector was for a 50 AMP circuit breaker and operating current of 32 amps.
> 
> "Every Tesla vehicle is delivered with a Mobile Connector and adapter to plug into a 240 volt NEMA 14-50 outlet. This is a standardized receptacle, commonly used for electric ranges and other large appliances.
> Installed with a 50-amp circuit breaker, the NEMA 14-50 enables a recharge rate of about 32 kilometers per hour for Model X and 37 kilometers per hour for Model S.
> This guide provides technical details for a NEMA 14-50 outlet intended for use with a Tesla vehicle. Every installation is custom to its location, so all hardware will be sourced by the hired electrician.
> We recommend plugging in every day to top off the battery of your Tesla.
>  Voltage: Single phase, 208-250 volt AC supply, 60 hertz
>  Circuit Breaker: 50 amp
>  Operating Current: 32 amps
>  Conductors: 6 AWG, Copper Wire Only. Upsize wiring for installations over 150 feet
>  Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter: Not required
>  Service Disconnect: Not required
>  Receptacle Recommendation: High quality, industrial grade receptacle
> Examples: Hubbell part # HBL9450A, Cooper part #5754N
>  Ventilation: Not required
>  Outdoors: Install with NEMA 3R rainproof enclosure"


That's a lot of power. Interesting. Most single family homes in older neighborhoods such as mine are all 100 amps. I know overnight that the demand for power is a lot less in your home and likewise in your neighborhood, but I can see everyone arriving home from work and plugging in their vehicles that require the 32 amps (as outlined in RBull's post above). That's just about the time that most homes and neighborhoods demand for power ramps up for dinner and other activities, now that everyone is home. The neighborhood transformers on the grid may need to be replaced, along with the service capacity of many homes. hehe, maybe we'll have to fire up a few of those shut down coal fired generating plants. Who knows. I'm sure someone has this all worked out.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

200 amp service should work except for maybe 'electrically heated' homes. We have 200 amp service in a house that is NG heated, NG water heater, NG cook top, and NG pool heater. 200 amps would suffice since the highest concurrent load is likely to be a dryer, oven, A/C compressor, pool pump plus maybe 50 amps in lighting and small kitchen appliances (mircro, kettle, cofffee maker). Only need one EV plugged in at a time as well.


----------



## TomB19

RBull said:


> Have another read. That's not what was said. 40 amps is loads to charge a Tesla but the more the better. The question is does a person have a circuit and other electrical demands that can handle adding that for one EV let alone 2. My 200 amp panel is pretty heavily utilized now with all electric home.
> 
> The info I read on Tesla site said standard 240 connector was for a 50 AMP circuit breaker and operating current of 32 amps.
> 
> "Every Tesla vehicle is delivered with a Mobile Connector and adapter to plug into a 240 volt NEMA 14-50 outlet. This is a standardized receptacle, commonly used for electric ranges and other large appliances.
> Installed with a 50-amp circuit breaker, the NEMA 14-50 enables a recharge rate of about 32 kilometers per hour for Model X and 37 kilometers per hour for Model S.
> This guide provides technical details for a NEMA 14-50 outlet intended for use with a Tesla vehicle. Every installation is custom to its location, so all hardware will be sourced by the hired electrician.
> We recommend plugging in every day to top off the battery of your Tesla.
>  Voltage: Single phase, 208-250 volt AC supply, 60 hertz
>  Circuit Breaker: 50 amp
>  Operating Current: 32 amps
>  Conductors: 6 AWG, Copper Wire Only. Upsize wiring for installations over 150 feet
>  Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter: Not required
>  Service Disconnect: Not required
>  Receptacle Recommendation: High quality, industrial grade receptacle
> Examples: Hubbell part # HBL9450A, Cooper part #5754N
>  Ventilation: Not required
>  Outdoors: Install with NEMA 3R rainproof enclosure"


Every Tesla also ships with a 5-15 connector. Why didn't you cite that?

I'm not against high charge current but you are misstating that high charge current is necessary. You are specing the required panel rating incorrectly. Why the negative spin?

I have a tiny inner city house with a 100A panel that could reasonably host a Model 3 charging station. If I had you specify the electrical system, I'd end up spending $25K to upgrade to 200A service, etc, etc.

When I spoke with Tesla, they outlined several reasonable options that would work in the vast majority of house situations. It's a lot tougher in an apartment situation.


----------



## kcowan

> Most Tesla drivers choose to charge their Tesla vehicles at home overnight. To charge at home, Tesla recommends installing a Wall Connector near your parking space. Alternatively, a 240 volt outlet can be used for home charging with the included Mobile Connector.


From the Tesla Canada site.
Installing power for your Tesla
It seems that the Model S buyer was less price-sensitive to ancillary requirements.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla is currently in a 2nd 5 day manufacturing shut-down this quarter to install a bunch of new production equipment from their German automation subsidiary and to effect other various improvements.

This is the last planned shut down this quarter, as far as I'm aware. Apparently, these improvements will give them the ability to produce 6K cars per week peak, with a sustained production rate of 5K cars per week.


----------



## AltaRed

So much for an affordable car http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/25/technology/tesla-model-3-pricing/index.html A cheap base one will be about $50k and a well equipped one, e.g. the high performance model, in Canada will be in the range of $100k.

Added: Wonder how many potential customers will want their deposits back given the base versions won't be built for awhile. Depends on what they expected to pay I presume.


----------



## Pluto

^^could be too little too late. suspensful.


----------



## TomB19

I wouldn't count on premium upgrades being given away, any time soon. If that comes to pass, I will sell my stock.

It has been interesting to watch the short players being brutalized. The more they lose, the more adamant they become. As they have lost their shirts, they go away for a while and new shorts crop up. I have a standing sell order for my shares at a ridiculous price, just to block the shorts from using my shares.

Most of the day traders have been brutalized, although a few have done well. I shutter to think how much money has been lost day trading Tesla.

Meanwhile, longs like me have been on a roller coaster ride of production problems, autopilot problems, and a negative biased news cycle.

Tesla is not for the impatient or faint of heart.


----------



## like_to_retire

TomB19 said:


> It has been interesting to watch the short players being brutalized. The more they lose, the more adamant they become. As they have lost their shirts, they go away for a while and new shorts crop up. I have a standing sell order for my shares at a ridiculous price, just to block the shorts from using my shares.


Interesting that you would go to the trouble, as I suspect reducing your free shares by placing them on order would be a drop in the bucket, but hey, if everyone did it, there'd be no shares to short. Every little bit helps I guess. Being long Tesla takes courage.

ltr


----------



## kcowan

like_to_retire said:


> Being long Tesla takes courage.


I think of it as conviction. As long as you have conviction, courage is not needed. Of course, you could argue about having the courage of your convictions!


----------



## TomB19

It is coming to light that Tesla uses substantially different battery chemistry than the rest of the industry and they use a fraction of the Cobalt others use in their cathodes.

Musk has said this and suggested they are more than a generation ahead but there wasn't a significant uptake by media coverage. Also, it's not particularly objective to take a CEOs word for claims of competitive advantage. It has been verified now, though.

This is huge and shines some light into Tesla's cost advantage. Mercedes and other car manufacturers have gotten out of the energy storage market while Tesla is thriving as they scale.


----------



## kcowan

It seems amazing to me that a CEO can claim a competitive advantage on technology. Is it not patented? If it is then it is known and if not then it is at risk. I call BS.


----------



## gardner

kcowan said:


> I call BS.


I agree. Possibly Panasonic has some new pixie-dust that they are giving exclusivity to Tesla on via a JV or something.

My mood is to entirely discount and ignore anything that comes out of Musk's mouth, though, unless it has to do with actually earning or spending money in a very direct and immediate way. I am not his target audience though.


----------



## TomB19

From the very beginning, Tesla was handling the battery chemistry. Panasonic handles the production.


----------



## TomB19

It appears Tesla produced about 16k model 3s in May. If you consider the 5 day shutdown, that's about 5k cars per week.

If this is real, June should be a really solid month with 20-24K cars shipped. Estimates are that Tesla has produced just over 30K Model 3s to date, so that's a pretty massive production step.


----------



## TomB19

TomB prediction time.

I expect this summer to be about the model 3 ramp, power wall, new roof styles, and a new high efficient panasonic panel in the 24% efficiency range.

On the negative side, I expect going to market for another round capital if they get significant storage orders. This seems likely to me. I doubt they will raise capital unless they can tie it to a significant project but a gigawatt storage order would more than justify another round of shares or bonds.

Towards the end of the year, I expect a redesigned model S. The new model will be far less complex to build, use 20700 format batteries like the 3, and they might bump the max pack size to 120 or 125. This should improve the margin on this product substantially. I expect it to be substantially higher margin than the 3.

I doubt we will hear a lot about the model Y until 2019 and maybe not even then. We could see a minor redesign of the X before the Y is revealed.

If they can continue to execute, albeit more slowly than elon's timeline, they should start to hit their stride in 2019 and really become a force in the auto biz by 2020.


----------



## TomB19

I suspect (and hope) this will generate some discussion.

In 2017, 60 Minutes Australia confronted Elon on the cost of power in some areas.







The Tesla response was to donate 1100 solar/battery systems to low income families and pitch a project which was to provide 50K low income/subsidized housing homes with a virtual power plant using distributed solar and batteries. That program has now expanded to 100K homes and roll-out has begun.

https://www.ecowatch.com/tesla-australia-power-plant-2572035489.html


Since announcing the PowerWall 2 in late 2016, nearly all of the units were being shipped to Puerto Rico and Australia. Meanwhile, Tesla had an announced product that had generated consumer interest with low availability because of the needs of PR and South Australia.

One of the reasons I'm comfortable owning a bit more Tesla than I should is because Elon's mantra is to always do something useful. I wonder how other investors feel about it.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Most companies engage in philanthropic activity as part of being responsible corporate citizens, maintaining social licence, whatever you want to call it. There's a line beyond which activity can be perceived as crass advertising, buying influence, etc.
Shirts for the local ball team, right up to multi-million dollar commitments or donations to those in need are standard.

Companies have policies and a transparent process for deciding how company funds are expended. 
Not saying this was the case with Musk here, but the CEO should not have 'carte blanche' to choose the beneficiaries or amounts involved.


----------



## kcowan

What surprises me is that the Board would approve a freebie when they are not making a profit. It must be considered a marketing expense. Nothing wrong with that and Musk seems to be a logical thinker.


----------



## TomB19

Shareholder meeting about to start. 2:30pm PT.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/shareholdermeeting


----------



## TomB19

I had to step away for part of the call but I got most of it. Bullets....

- Elon still chairman and CEO
- Model Y design to be released in mid 2019, production to start in early to mid 2020
- Gigafactory 1 currently built out to 30%
- Energy storage division passed 1GWh of storage in the field, making Tesla the largest energy storage vendor
- Model 3 the best selling mid size sedan in the United States in May
- solar roof looking very good and important product but they are being careful about scaling too soon, as they are concerned about placing too much faith in accelerated longevity testing
- Giogafactory 3 to be in Shanghai in 2020, deal not announced but looking confident
- 30% battery improvement to come to market in 18 months (already the highest energy density batteries)
- battery price breakthrough of under $100/KWh expected later this year


----------



## TomB19

I'd like to have a look at the current situation, from an investor's perspective.

I look for companies that are honest, hard working, and smart. In that order of importance.

Tesla has made some mistakes. The model 3 production ramp has struggled. I hung in there because I knew they were working hard to troubleshoot and move forward. Not only were they doing so but they were visibly doing so.

At this time, it seems extremely likely they have caught up to the production projections made in 2017. Those projections called for 5k cars per month at the end of 2q18 and 10k cars per month at the end of 4q18.

On the call, JB Straubel addressed some of the misinformation regarding material wastage that has been circulating in the media. Those articles are straight up incorrect.

Like anything new that someone tries to do, there is an endless stream of Grand Torino nay Sayers who have a bottomless well of negative comments and predictions of doom. Traditionally, these nay Sayers are the first to declare they knew all along the company would succeed, once it's obvious to them the company is going to succeed.

To be a good investor requires disconnection from group think. Investing requires skepticism and caution but this needs to be mixed with optimism and trust that honesty, hard work, and intellect can overcome any problem. This isn't just an investing lesson; it's a life lesson.

Meanwhile, the shares I purchased a couple of years ago continue to perform well. I am not getting rich quickly off Tesla but they are performing nicely and I am very pleased with that.

I suspect that in 10 years, Tesla will have performed well, not been my best performer by a long shot, but done reasonably well and that is all I need to be happy.

#InvestorPerspective


----------



## TomB19

TSLA has shot up in price since closing at $289 on Tuesday. It's currently at $329.

I wonder how much of that price jump was caused by the Tuesday shareholder meeting during which Tesla executives made statements in direct conflict of a negative Tesla news cycle (ie: no capital raise expected, no massive battery waste, etc.) and how much those gains are accelerated by traders who have shorted the stock and are now being squeezed to cover their sales.

There seems to be a closed loop between short traders and the negative news cycle. If you look at the last 3 Bloomberg headlines regarding Tesla (all posted since the shareholder meeting):

"Musk Fails to Quell Safety Doubts With Head-Scratching Data"

"Tesla's Surprising Surge Looks Like a Short Squeeze to Analysts"

"Musk Delivers $1.1 Billion ‘Short Burn’ Touting Model 3 Progress"


Here you have a young car company (15 years old as an auto manufacturer is a toddler) that was struggling with a mass production ramp, the ramp problems were frequent headlines at Bloomberg, now the company has the ramp under control and has gotten themselves back to the originally predicted production level for this time period and they don't mention it?

Tesla has more installed energy storage than any other company. Not mentioned by Bloomberg.

A Google search on "bloomberg tesla" yields a sea of negativity. This is not objective reporting. Musk is right to criticize the media.

Meanwhile, it appears short sellers are in a $1.1B negative position. Consider how many times have short traders been burned on this stock and yet the negative news keeps rolling in and Tesla remains a top short sold stock. Something is happening at Bloomberg that should not be happening. On the bright side, the misinformation is hurting a specific political segment which chooses to follow their lead.

[Edit: Now back down to $323]


----------



## Pluto

despite all the cheerleading over Tesla, I doubt it will make it through the next recession on its own two feet. good luck.


----------



## kcowan

TomB19 said:


> There seems to be a closed loop between short traders and the negative news cycle. If you look at the last 3 Bloomberg headlines regarding Tesla (all posted since the shareholder meeting):
> 
> "Musk Fails to Quell Safety Doubts With Head-Scratching Data"
> 
> "Tesla's Surprising Surge Looks Like a Short Squeeze to Analysts"
> 
> "Musk Delivers $1.1 Billion ‘Short Burn’ Touting Model 3 Progress"


Bloomberg News relies on such articles. A strictly news focus would probably have one article:
"Tesla board supports Musk as the continuing leader"
but you can get that one from MSM. Bloomberg has to pander to traders. And Tesla is a stock for traders.


----------



## andrewf

We're getting close to a tipping point with electric vehicles. I think people will be shocked at how quickly things tip over to electric transport as a service. There will be stranded assets in terms of ICE vehicle fleet, manufacturing capacity, service, sales and oil production.

Here is a one hour talk breaking down why this is happening now and why it will be a more dramatic shift than people are expecting.

https://youtu.be/ox5LtxqQNHw


----------



## nobleea

For those saying that the grid and capacity wouldn't be able to handle the influx of EVs, that's entirely possible. I read a bit about this company and it seems promising. I know a bit about power factors and such, but didn't know so much power was essentially wasted in the grid.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...ity-technology-efficiency-software-waste-3dfs

https://3dfs.com/


----------



## TomB19

I can tell you straight out, North American power systems do not have the generation and grid capacity to supply the demand of full electrification of transportation.

As people migrate from natural gas to electric heat for home and water heating, that's probably another doubling of the problem.

The answer will be micro generation and distributed storage. Even if pocket nukes could be designed that are reliable, safe, and affordable, we will still need micro generation and distributed storage. If only there was a company working on solving that problem, they might be a stock to watch....

By the way, I hope we do sort out the nuclear problem. We desperately need it in places like Saskatchewan where we're lucky to have 3 hours of decent sun in December and even that is likely to be heavily obscured by clouds during the darkest season.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

TomB19 said:


> ... As people migrate from natural gas to electric heat for home and water heating, that's probably another doubling of the problem...


?? Why would a person ever switch from natgas to electrical for heating and water??


----------



## AltaRed

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> ?? Why would a person ever switch from natgas to electrical for heating and water??


I don't ever see that happening myself. A bizarre proposition in my opinion especially in western canada. Out here, it is not uncommon to have NG space heating, water heating, BBQ, gas dryer and gas cooktop/oven. They would have to kill me to get rid of gas.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

AltaRed said:


> I don't ever see that happening myself. A bizarre proposition in my opinion especially in western canada. Out here, it is not uncommon to have NG space heating, water heating, BBQ, gas dryer and gas cooktop/oven. They would have to kill me to get rid of gas.


First thing I did with the house we bought (and sold) in Ont was switch out an electric furnace and water heater for gas. Well warranted over the past 8 years. I'd never seen the insides of an electric furnace (we burnt fuel oil when I grew up). They're like putting the cooking elements of an electric stove into a tin box (furnace) and circulating the plenum air past them. Yikes. And they banned incandescent bulbs?


----------



## TomB19

It will probably take a decade for you guys to learn why migrating away from natural gas will be an important step. So, carry on and leave your cars continually idling in the driveway. lol!


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

So enlighten me. An important step? 
This thread could use a break from ceaseless telsa puppy love anyway.


----------



## humble_pie

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> This thread could use a break from ceaseless telsa puppy love anyway.



they used to say things like that to the Gobster on here but he ended up a rich young man from Apple


.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> It will probably take a decade for you guys to learn why migrating away from natural gas will be an important step. So, carry on and leave your cars continually idling in the driveway. lol!


Who is talking cars? We are talking about one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels on this planet heating our homes and cooking our meals wth 95+% efficiency for perhaps the next 50 years. Perhaps the most energy efficient fuel to produce, process and transport as well. I believe North America will be long natural gas for perhaps another century or two.


----------



## TomB19

In my reality, the carbon cycle is real.

Let's talk cars. I understand Chevy shipped 1125 Bolts in May 2018. Tesla ships quadruple that number of model 3s in a week. The model 3 units shipped blew by Bolt numbers months ago, despite the 3 being on sale for about half the amount of time.

I haven't seen a Bolt. They are pretty rare but some reviewers I trust have indicated the bolt is a pretty nice little car with some quality engineering behind it. This is extremely plausible.

If EVs were all the same, as has been presented in this thread, Bolt sales wouldn't be lagging so badly. After all, the bolt is a nice little car. Once again, the ecosystem is everything and Tesla has one. Gm does not.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Who is talking cars? We are talking about one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels on this planet heating our homes and cooking our meals wth 95+% efficiency for perhaps the next 50 years. Perhaps the most energy efficient fuel to produce, process and transport as well. I believe North America will be long natural gas for perhaps another century or two.


I don't know about centuries. But, I do agree that natural gas heating will be late in the transition from fossil fuels. Transportation and electrical generation will be much earlier, and sufficient to disrupt the energy market (collapsing energy prices). The risk for nat gas is carbon pricing, or steady improvements in solar making electric heat less expensive.


----------



## AltaRed

Solar will always be challenged in northern climates. I don't imagine anyone in places like Fort St. John or Edmonton will ever rely on solar at -40 and horizontal snow. Try asking that to anyone in places like Flin Flon, etc. as well. Who is going to clear the snow off the panels every day? I can assure you that I won't be relying on electricity for heating my house ever.


----------



## TomB19

Pretty much any NetZero house is not going to use natural gas. It's going to be on-grid, super-insulated, passive-gain plus solar. It's not that difficult to do. We have NetZero houses in Saskatchewan. The houses I've seen over-generate a significant amount of power during summer so they can ride on the grid during winter for an annual NetZero or slight energy positive balance.

The two houses I've seen in SK have had their roofs full with solar panels. There was no room for additional panels. In BC, NetZero is achievable with roof space to spare.

In SK, a NetZero house with a couple of electric cars in the driveway is going to need grid power or a large garage or other solar array in addition to the solar array on the house.

Solar breakthroughs will help. While the absolute efficiency record isn't going up quickly, it's a lot easier and cheaper now to make 23% efficient panels. That will be a huge upgrade over the 15% efficient panels almost everyone is using these days, due to cost. Panasonic is doing amazing things with solar.

Let's see... who has a massive factory and is currently ramping production of 23% efficient panels .....


----------



## TomB19

AltaRed said:


> I don't imagine anyone in places like Fort St. John or Edmonton will ever rely on solar at -40 and horizontal snow.


It's time to expand your imagination.

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...00000-have-arrived-in-edmonton-616626364.html


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

TomB19 said:


> In my reality, the carbon cycle is real.


So is innovation and technology. Fortunately it is diverse and is not all directed at electrical vehicles by distorting government policies or incentives.

For example: *Cost plunges for capturing carbon dioxide from the air* - The company (Carbon Engineering) has also built a pilot operation to turn captured CO2 into a variety of liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. A renewable energy–powered electrolyzer first splits water into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen. The H2 is then combined with CO2 to make liquid hydrocarbons using conventional chemical engineering technology. If the CO2 is captured at the low end of the cost range, the company says can produce its synthetic fuels for about $1 per liter, says Steve Oldham, Carbon Engineering’s CEO.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/cost-plunges-capturing-carbon-dioxide-air

Nice mix of new technology, renewables, and conventional being applied. Maybe you should put that tesla order on hold and keep the old ford pickup for a few more years. You can't haul much of a load in the back of a tesla.


----------



## AltaRed

Sorry, Tom. It isn't going to happen. Okanagan Valley houses use more energy in the summer with A/C than we use in winter with gas heating. Solar generation in the Valley will also be close to zero for at least 3 months in the winter. NetZero in the Okanagan Valley is pure fantasy. Wish it all you want.

I am not being obstinate. I spent a few days seriously looking at waiting to replace my roof with Tesla's new solar shingles but it's 5 years premature...at a minimum for Canada, and then most likely a 25-30 year payout at a minimum. I'll be long gone from this house before then. I don't buy anything for which I don't get the benefit of the economic payout.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> It's time to expand your imagination.
> 
> https://www.newswire.ca/news-releas...00000-have-arrived-in-edmonton-616626364.html


Sorry. Not a believer of fluff pieces, nor in anything less than a full cycle economic analysis. I am encouraged by such efforts but builders like Landmark have distorted things in the past. Why should we believe them now? Where happened with R2000 homes? LEEP homes? If all these things were/are so wonderful, why are people not buying these by the thousands?


----------



## TomB19

Carbon capture is probably going to play a small role in the future but it's not cost efficient or terribly effective today.

Grade 10 science deniers don't understand that trillions of tons of carbon are being added to the carbon cycle annually. Capturing carbon is extremely expensive and makes natural gas and coal noncompetitive with solar and wind. Even if you could capture carbon remotely affordably, which you cannot, what are you going to do with trillions of tons of carbon each year?

Right now, the primary use of captured carbon is as carbon dioxide which is sold to the drilling industry for the purpose of pressuring oil out of underground reservoirs. As of today, captured carbon is a great way add even more carbon to the carbon cycle.

As usual, the sound bite talking points are pretty much deliberate misdirection with no thought behind them but very enticing talking points for those who desperately want to believe them.


----------



## TomB19

AltaRed said:


> Sorry. Not a believer of fluff pieces, nor in anything less than a full cycle economic analysis. I am encouraged by such efforts but builders like Landmark have distorted things in the past. Why should we believe them now? Where happened with R2000 homes? LEEP homes? If all these things were/are so wonderful, why are people not buying these by the thousands?


If dozens of NetZero homes without NG being built in Edmonton doesn't make any impression on you after you wrote, "I don't imagine anyone in places like Fort St. John or Edmonton will ever rely on solar at -40 and horizontal snow.", how do you expect anyone to associate your written word with any credibility?

I encourage you to tour a NetZero home in Edmonton or Saskatoon. It is more interesting than NetZero homes in Calgary where it is far easier.


----------



## AltaRed

NetZero really only works with new construction. 30+ million people live and work in existing infrastructure of varying vintage. Do you think a significant portion of existing dwellings would eventually convert to NetZero, even if possible? 

I think these initiatives are indeed laudable and should be pursued, but from a practical point pretty idealist and utopian. I don't dismiss them outright. But I doubt anyone has looked at the bigger picture. 

Let's optimistically assume every new building gets built to NetZero standards from this day forward. What do you think happens some 30-40 years from from now when electricity has to reverse out of a neighourhood on nice sunny days and be stepped back to to higher voltage at a substation? Who pays for that? What happens when soooo much electricity is put back into the grid that hydroelectric plants (let's assume all thermal plants have been wiped out by then due to red ink - uneconomic) whose economics are based on 99% utilization would otherwise have to shut down in the summer, or only operate at 50% capacity? Who pays the hydro-electric generator to shut off its TG sets? What happens when a NetZero home is actually charged a cost to put electricity back into the grid rather than getting paid for it. There is an inflection point somewhere, sometime where electricity back into the grid is worth zero, and indeed, that hydro-electric plant will be willing to sell its electricity at perhaps 0.5 cents per kwh just to keep a revenue stream going. That NetZero building will have to compete with that.

Tom, no one has thought this through. No one has done long term forecasts. I will speculate that anyone doing a NetZero analysis today is assuming electricity can be sold back into the grid at some, most likely, unrealistic value. That value will decrease each and every year as more and more NetZero buildings are trying to do the same thing at the same time. Are you willing to 'give' your generated electricity to the grid?

Added: I recognize long term forecasting is a mug's game. I spent years in a corporate setting trying to visualize scenarios 10-20-30 years in the future since many or our project opportunities had 30+ years life cycle. None ot the scenarios actually come to pass explicitly but some come close implicitly. Any corporate planner and CFO today that builds an electrical plant will demand a 'take or pay' contract of some sort from the system operator and regulators, e.g. PUCs, will have to penalize high cycle users like NetZero folks to maintain system stability. It is just how it is going to be.


----------



## nobleea

TomB19 said:


> If dozens of NetZero homes without NG being built in Edmonton doesn't make any impression on you after you wrote, "I don't imagine anyone in places like Fort St. John or Edmonton will ever rely on solar at -40 and horizontal snow.", how do you expect anyone to associate your written word with any credibility?
> 
> I encourage you to tour a NetZero home in Edmonton or Saskatoon. It is more interesting than NetZero homes in Calgary where it is far easier.


Edmonton and Calgary are far better locations for solar generation than pretty much anywhere else in Canada (aside from southern Sask.). Yes, it's heavily lopsided with most of the solar insolation falling between May and Oct, but there is generation in the winter months due to our sunny (but cold) winter days.
For sure net-zero will not take up more than a small percentage of the built inventory.

Electrical baseboard heating is old technology and not the most efficient way to heat in colder climes. Air source heat pumps are what most net zero homes around here use now. It's like an air conditioner and works in reverse in the winter. They have way better efficiencies than baseboard heating. Some have CoP's above 3 (that is 1 unit of electricity creates 3 units of heat).


----------



## kcowan

The Mexican electric utility, CFE, has stopped giving credit for generation to home installations. So sales of rooftop solar panels have dropped as a result. Basically they were paying subsidy in the winter when all the snowbirds arrived and only making money off AC usage in the summer from full-time residents.


----------



## agent99

I just shake my head reading your comments Alta. We have to move ahead and those Net zero homes are a positive step. Those Edmonton homes are just a blip. There are many more new home initiatives across the country as well as a whole industry around "greening" of existing homes. 

BY the way - we cut our own old home's energy consumption by 50% by converting to air source heat pump and doing an insulation and air leakage upgrade. 10 year payback based on power costs back then, now likely 5-7 years. Would have liked to add solar panels, but too many trees and roof access for cleaning not good for aging home owners.

Fortunately, there are people in government and business who do understand the need and who are taking action to reduce our energy consumption. 

More energy efficient homes! https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/...uce-as-much-power-as-they-consume_a_23393847/


----------



## agent99

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So is innovation and technology. Fortunately it is diverse and is not all directed at electrical vehicles by distorting government policies or incentives.
> 
> For example: *Cost plunges for capturing carbon dioxide from the air* - The company (Carbon Engineering) has also built a pilot operation to turn captured CO2 into a variety of liquid fuels, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel..


I listened to the interview with them on CBC. Really nonsense. My neck is getting sore with all the head shaking 
They have to locate in sunny places like Arizona where they can get cheap electricity to electrolize water to make hydrogen. Then they use the hydrogen to help convert the CO2 that they have collected from the air into liquid fuels. It can be done using existing technology. But why? It is so inefficient to use such a dilute resource as CO2 in air as a feed to any process. If the CO2 source was gas from gas or coal fired boilers, that would make more sense. But then soon we won't have any of those, will we  Growing trees and then burning the wood might make more sense. In all cases, CO2 is not reduced. It is just collected, converted into a fuel that is burned which then produces more CO2.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> We have to move ahead and those Net zero homes are a positive step. Those Edmonton homes are just a blip. There are many more new home initiatives across the country as well as a whole industry around "greening" of existing homes.


True, but it is not a panacea and it will take decades, if not a century, to make wholesale changes to the bulk of infrastructure, never mind the cost and resistance to make major grid and generation changes. My original point was that natural gas heating will still be around 100 years from now. It will likely remain the least costly source of energy indefinitely.


----------



## nobleea

AltaRed said:


> My original point was that natural gas heating will still be around 100 years from now. It will likely remain the least costly source of energy indefinitely.


Least costly source of heat, for sure. Of electricity? Well that might not be true in the future.

Of course it will take decades and require lots of changes. Reliable energy infrastructure is at the base of first world society. I've no doubt that smart people will figure it out with a variety of different options to suit local and national variances. To say 'think of all the issues and problems there will be!' is not a reason to not do it.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> , never mind the cost and resistance to make major grid and generation changes.


What we need is a distributed system, In other words, energy should be produced as much as possible, where needed. Like the old time lumber mills. If we can produce electricity on our own properties and then use it in high efficiency systems, we reduce the need for grid and generation changes and their inherent inefficiencies. It's already happening. Near us, new windmills are using existing powerlines left after a gas-fired generator closed down. 

Regarding NG lasting indefinitely. In the period 2000-2010, we had NG prices that were 3 to 4 times what they are now. NG didn't look that good then for home heating. If supplies are reduced (no more fracking!), then cost will no doubt increase and then alternatives will look better. Indefinitely is a long time 

https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.n...=NG1&v=20180608174000&d1=19180101&d2=20181231


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> I listened to the interview with them on CBC. Really nonsense. My neck is getting sore with all the head shaking
> They have to locate in sunny places like Arizona where they can get cheap electricity to electrolize water to make hydrogen. Then they use the hydrogen to help convert the CO2 that they have collected from the air into liquid fuels. It can be done using existing technology. But why? It is so inefficient to use such a dilute resource as CO2 in air as a feed to any process. If the CO2 source was gas from gas or coal fired boilers, that would make more sense. But then soon we won't have any of those, will we  Growing trees and then burning the wood might make more sense. In all cases, CO2 is not reduced. It is just collected, converted into a fuel that is burned which then produces more CO2.


Certain applications might benefit from chemical fuels, like flying (though Musk seems confident that electrically powered flight is realistic once battery performance improves).

Solar is able to deliver shockingly cheap electricity in sunny climates, so it may not be as crazy as it sounds.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

agent99 said:


> I listened to the interview with them on CBC. Really nonsense...


My point, and I've mentioned it before, is that there are other technology inititatives underway to address carbon footprint, including initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint associated with continued conventional HC use. 
Net zero housing, tesla cars, and solar/wind battery farms are fine initiatives. They may or may not form a material slice of Canada's future. But the future is not necessarily (or realistically) one of zero HC use. 
To discount comments by throwing in "_grade 10 science deniers_" as Tom did, reminds me of some grade 10 assholes I used to know.


----------



## TomB19

andrewf said:


> Solar is able to deliver shockingly cheap electricity in sunny climates, so it may not be as crazy as it sounds.


Someone should work on an integrated solar roof product with high efficiency and extreme longevity. If only someone with some vision would design such a solution...


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> Someone should work on an integrated solar roof product with high efficiency and extreme longevity. If only someone with some vision would design such a solution...


Are you not talking about Tesla's solar shingles? Assuming they will work out to be economic.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> What we need is a distributed system, In other words, energy should be produced as much as possible, where needed. Like the old time lumber mills. If we can produce electricity on our own properties and then use it in high efficiency systems, we reduce the need for grid and generation changes and their inherent inefficiencies. It's already happening. Near us, new windmills are using existing powerlines left after a gas-fired generator closed down.


Size and scale is what makes the economics work. Distributed generation will work in some select densely urbanized cases, but not many urban populations want 500MW facilities next door., e.g. Brampton or Richmond Hill in the TO area. Hydro, of course, needs to be where the terrain is. That said, as long as thermal facilities are prepared to use cooling towers instead of lakes, they theoretically could be built just about anywhere, e.g. the Enmax gas fired facility on the northern edge of Calgary. https://www.enmax.com/generation-wires/generation/natural-gas-powered/calgary-energy-centre and Shepard on the eastern side of Calgary https://www.enmax.com/generation-wires/generation/natural-gas-powered/shepard-energy-centre


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Are you not talking about Tesla's solar shingles? Assuming they will work out to be economic.


I am sure he was..... 

But why do we need shingles? Presumably just to maintain anesthetics on existing homes with sloped roofs. Perhaps that is where Musk see the initial largest market?

If designing an energy efficient house from scratch, there is no need to stick with the traditional home designs. Flat roofs are quite common in Tesla's geographic area. There are other options such as shed roofs. Panels could also be made to look more appealing. Some homes here are now switching from asphalt shingles to metal roofing. Takes some getting used to, but presumably solar panels could be better designed if residential roof uses was addressed. (Musk has made a good attempt for existing homes)


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Size and scale is what makes the economics work. Distributed generation will work in some select densely urbanized cases, but not many urban populations want 500MW facilities next door., e.g. Brampton or Richmond Hill in the TO area. Hydro, of course, needs to be where the terrain is. That said, as long as thermal facilities are prepared to use cooling towers instead of lakes, they theoretically could be built just about anywhere, e.g. the Enmax gas fired facility on the northern edge of Calgary. https://www.enmax.com/generation-wires/generation/natural-gas-powered/calgary-energy-centre and Shepard on the eastern side of Calgary https://www.enmax.com/generation-wires/generation/natural-gas-powered/shepard-energy-centre


You may have missed my point. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, air is almost everywhere. If every home used some of those in combination with heat pumps, there would be no need for the expanded grid or generation capacity that you mentioned earlier.

Completely different topic. Cooling Towers. They are of course used widely. However, they require a purge because of the build up of dissolved solids caused by evaporation and treatment chemicals. The purge is not insignificant and you need a fair size stream or river in order to get permission to discharge.



> A typical cooling tower (500 ton, running 24 hrs day. 365 days per year) will flush over 3.9 Million gallons of water down the drain each year. This breaks down to approximately 10,800 gallons of waste per day, 450 gallons per hour, or 7.5 gallons per minute being flushed down the drain from the cooling tower system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That’s a lot of water!


You can't run that down a municipal sewer!

There are also atmospheric emissions that must be addressed - These originate from the water treatment chemicals used. 

There are dry cooling systems that do not use water cooling and they are used in arid areas. But they have their own set of negatives.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> You may have missed my point. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, air is almost everywhere. If every home used some of those in combination with heat pumps, there would be no need for the expanded grid or generation capacity that you mentioned earlier.


Actually I didn't. I believe there will be even larger amounts of peaking power required regardless of how much we believe technology can improve battery storage. Electricity will get more expensive as overall aggregate generation capacity will become more inefficient and underutilized. After all, the sun doesn't shine and the wind does not blow all the time. IOW, reserve capacity will have to go way up and overall utilization of capacity will go down. That has already occurred in AB where the grid has had to limit wind power from Southern Alberta at times. I suspect we will see more and more expensive peaking facilities like Enmax Crossfield https://www.enmax.com/generation-wires/generation/natural-gas-powered/crossfield-energy-centre

There is no panacea with highly variable sources of generation and it does not come cheap.

P.S. I like heat pumps but they have limitations. They could barely keep my house warm some winter days in Washington DC the two winters I was there. We wore coats in the house a few days. The one I had in ON had to be supplemented by the NG furnace when temperature dropped below 10F.


----------



## nobleea

AltaRed said:


> P.S. I like heat pumps but they have limitations. They could barely keep my house warm some winter days in Washington DC the two winters I was there. We wore coats in the house a few days. The one I had in ON had to be supplemented by the NG furnace when temperature dropped below 10F.


There was a step change in heat pump performance about 5 years ago. The Mitsubishi Zuba for example, was made specifically for Canadian winters. The COP gets closer to 1 the lower the temperature is, so it's just a matter of designing the required heat load of the building with what the heat pump can put out on the coldest, windiest day you might reasonably expect.
http://www.mitsubishielectric.ca/en/hvac/professionals/zuba-family/Zuba-Central


----------



## nobleea

AltaRed said:


> There is no panacea with highly variable sources of generation and it does not come cheap.


I've wondered whether a large drone type plane could be built and stuffed with high capacity batteries. Sun and wind can be forecast relatively easily 1-2 days in advance. Have a network of planes moving stored power around the continent. Even across continents if necessary. Lots of solar potential in the sahara. Gets over the transmission losses. Obviously a safety concern. If an airport is open, it might be useful in disaster relief in getting high quality power on the ground, quickly.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Actually I didn't.


Sorry I must have misunderstood when you said "True, but it is not a panacea and it will take decades, if not a century, to make wholesale changes to the bulk of infrastructure, _never mind the cost and resistance to make major grid and generation changes._"



AltaRed said:


> P.S. I like heat pumps but they have limitations. They could barely keep my house warm some winter days in Washington DC the two winters I was there. We wore coats in the house a few days. The one I had in ON had to be supplemented by the NG furnace when temperature dropped below 10F.


The heat pumps they had in the US and the one you had here must have been the old technology. They are fine for milder climates. The high efficiency air source pumps that are currently being used in Canada and other cold climates are quite different. 

Our heat pump serves 1650 sq.ft of our home. It has no auxiliary heating (we do have our old baseboard heaters, but the breakers are turned off). At times when the outside temperature dropped to -23C, the heat pump still kept that section of our home at the set temperature (20C). If you would like to get up to date, have a look at the Mitsubishi Zuba Central system. It will operate at a COP of better than 1.0 even down to -30C. In fringe seasons, over 3.0. We have averaged better than 2.0 over the entire heating season for seven winters now. http://www.mitsubishieng.ca/en/hvac/zuba-central/zuba_central_vs_traditional_furnaces.html


----------



## agent99

nobleea said:


> I've wondered whether a large drone type plane could be built and stuffed with high capacity batteries. Sun and wind can be forecast relatively easily 1-2 days in advance. Have a network of planes moving stored power around the continent. Even across continents if necessary. Lots of solar potential in the sahara. Gets over the transmission losses. Obviously a safety concern. If an airport is open, it might be useful in disaster relief in getting high quality power on the ground, quickly.


Did you ever watch the TV film of the solar powered flight around the world. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/07/flying-around-the-world-in-a-solar-powered-plane/493085/

Mind you, they had trouble carrying enough battery power for themselves, never mind any extra!


----------



## agent99

nobleea said:


> There was a step change in heat pump performance about 5 years ago. The Mitsubishi Zuba for example, was made specifically for Canadian winters. The COP gets closer to 1 the lower the temperature is, so it's just a matter of designing the required heat load of the building with what the heat pump can put out on the coldest, windiest day you might reasonably expect.
> http://www.mitsubishielectric.ca/en/hvac/professionals/zuba-family/Zuba-Central


We must have been an early adopter! We had our Zuba installed in 2011. I did the heat loss calculations myself and was pleasantly surprised when the unit performed as designed. We had also considered a Carrier Greenspeed. They are more efficient than the Zuba at higher temperatures, but performance drops off rapidly as temperatures drop.

Enough!! Have a good weekend all!


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> Sorry I must have misunderstood when you said "True, but it is not a panacea and it will take decades, if not a century, to make wholesale changes to the bulk of infrastructure, _never mind the cost and resistance to make major grid and generation changes._"


Because we are talking different shades of grey. I saw your comment as suggesting a large level of smaller distributed generation, e.g. single windmills in one's back yard type of thing, or 10 windmills in what used to be a city park, whereas I think more regional like the Enmax NG facilities surrounding Calgary and recognizing big hydro-electric dams are not are not re-distributing themselves any time soon. Major transmission grids are currently set up based on current generator locations and where the loads are. Changing to more distributed power generation requires major changes in transmission and distribution. The grid system that was built up to connect all the windmills in southern Alberta is significant in cost, size and encroachment on the land. None of it is pretty. Neither are the wind power systems along I-10 near Palm Springs.


----------



## TomB19

Distributed generation makes the most sense. Most roofs should have solar.

Transmission losses aren't crazy but they are enough to be significant. Generating at the point of use will pretty much eliminate that.

One thing nobody has addressed yet is a switch to DC. The first gen of PowerWall had AC and DC out. The second gen PowerWall has AC only. Inverter efficiency is in the low 90% range so it makes sense to eliminate that loss and run some appliances off DC. It would make sense to run fridges, heat, and some lighting off DC. Someone will need to figure out a standard voltage. Perhaps it will be 48v but it will be some years before there is any push for that.

The thing about rooftop solar is that, right now, you can install a decent solar system with PowerWall for a pretty solid price in the US. The ROI is pretty decent in many areas. It doesn't make as much sense in Canada where we pay substantially more and have a lower solar fraction.


----------



## agent99

TomB19 said:


> One thing nobody has addressed yet is a switch to DC. The first gen of PowerWall had AC and DC out. The second gen PowerWall has AC only. Inverter efficiency is in the low 90% range so it makes sense to eliminate that loss and run some appliances off DC. It would make sense to run fridges, heat, and some lighting off DC. Someone will need to figure out a standard voltage. Perhaps it will be 48v but it will be some years before there is any push for that.


DC is used in some off-grid installations. In those cases, there were large battery banks, so it made sense to use DC appliances. With the advent of the FIT programs, it made more sense to feed the solar generated power directly into the grid and then use AC from the grid in the usual way. Boats use DC. Smaller craft 12V, but larger ones 24V or 48V. Problem with DC, is that current is higher for same load compared with 110/230V AC and this then requires larger cables. Can be done, but probably better to maintain standard house wiring.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> I saw your comment as suggesting a large level of smaller distributed generation,


That is what I meant. Not likely windmills, but solar panels on roofs. This would provide power back into grid. Then electric homes should have ground or air source heat pumps to reduce the power used during the heating season by a factor of 2 or 3. Overall, I can't see changes required in the grid. It would works as it does now, except demand would be lower. In new developments, this would mean no need to pipe natural gas in. Gas could still be used to generate power in regional plants (if and when needed)

I realize that none of this will happen overnight. Hopefully though, we will move in this direction.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> The one I had in ON had to be supplemented by the NG furnace when temperature dropped below 10F.


In ON, we found that we had to set the heat pump to only operate above 40 degrees F in order to avoid it freezing up.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> That is what I meant. Not likely windmills, but solar panels on roofs. This would provide power back into grid. Then electric homes should have ground or air source heat pumps to reduce the power used during the heating season by a factor of 2 or 3. Overall, I can't see changes required in the grid. It would works as it does now, except demand would be lower. In new developments, this would mean no need to pipe natural gas in. Gas could still be used to generate power in regional plants (if and when needed)
> 
> I realize that none of this will happen overnight. Hopefully though, we will move in this direction.


I don't really disagree with what you or Tom have been advocating, except in time and scale. I see a whole lot more disruption in terms of grid instability and the soaring price of electricity for reserve/peaking purposes AND major investment in infrastructure re-alignment. I believe nat gas will have a major role for a lot longer than anyone can imagine. Hence my comment about a century. Obviously the pace of change will depend a lot on continued advancements in the relative cost of electricity versus existing natural gas infrastructure.

P.S. The house I had in Washington DC had no natural gas piped to it. After the 'freeze in the dark' crisis in the '70s of a shortage of nat gas deliveries to the US Northeast, developers and consumers were loathe to ever rely on nat gas again. It took decades for that experience to fade. AFAIK, nat gas has gone into all new development in the last 20 years or so. Hence partially a reason for Altagas to buy Washington Gas.


----------



## TomB19

It is not my wish to advocate anything. I'm trying to figure out where the world is going and bet on the horse that is pointed in that direction.

The current trajectory would have the northern ice cap completely melted within a decade during summer. It will re-freeze in winter but 100% of the old ice will be gone. If that happens, it will be more difficult for the Fox News crowd to pretend global warming isn't real. That will set in motion legislation most of us will not like and companies in the battery, solar power, electric transportation, synthetic meat industries will explode.


----------



## AltaRed

We all have different visions/views of that obviously. It is my opinion that when perceived needed actions affect/depress growth, i.e. affect one's pocket book, global nations will not be aligned and action will be muted. They will spend more time positioning for advantage. Thus I am not really betting on any 'new' industries during the remaining 20 years of my investing life span. The only 'unique' thing I own in this space is AQN.


----------



## like_to_retire

TomB19 said:


> Distributed generation makes the most sense. Most roofs should have solar.


I have difficulty envisioning all those solar panels bolted to my roof. There must be a lot of trouble with leaks?

Then when it's time to re-shingle the roof, the costs must be astronomical?

And who removes and puts the panels all back when the roof is re-shingled. Most roofers I've dealt with have trouble even with simple flashing. I can't imagine a couple score of bolts drilled into my new roof.

ltr


----------



## Big Kahuna

TomB19 said:


> It is not my wish to advocate anything. I'm trying to figure out where the world is going and bet on the horse that is pointed in that direction.
> 
> The current trajectory would have the northern ice cap completely melted within a decade during summer. It will re-freeze in winter but 100% of the old ice will be gone. If that happens, it will be more difficult for the Fox News crowd to pretend global warming isn't real. That will set in motion legislation most of us will not like and companies in the battery, solar power, electric transportation, synthetic meat industries will explode.


You just make up this nonsense over your corn flakes-hopefully no one is ignorant enough to actually believe the northern ice cap will be completely melted during summer with 10 years-LOL.


----------



## AltaRed

Big Kahuna said:


> You just make up this nonsense over your corn flakes-hopefully no one is ignorant enough to actually believe the northern ice cap will be completely melted during summer with 10 years-LOL.


All the best scientific evidence suggests sometime this century, likely by mid-century. http://sciencenordic.com/when-will-arctic-be-ice-free Also https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-2-0-what-happens-after-all-the-ice-goes/


----------



## TomB19

No, we don't all have different visions of climate change. That is a talking point propagated by climate deniers. A significant portion of the population believe climate science.

Those of us brave enough to look at NASA's time lapse satellite images of the north pole can see that 90+% of the old Arctic sea ice has disappeared between 1984 and 2016. The issue isn't just the melting, it's the acceleration of the melting. The last 5 years look like they sped up the time-lapse.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4510

It's no mystery why this information ends in 2016. It's also no mystery why the news cycle is decidedly negative toward Tesla.

I see Tesla as one component in a changing of the political power base. Other car manufacturers have made electric cars as part of a PR campaign to present the idea they care about the environment. They haven't really cared about the environment, nor have they hated the environment. They were just doing business.

Tesla cares about the environment substantially more than any other car manufacturer. Audi talks about crushing Tesla but they are on their back foot and they talk about dominating the car industry, they don't talk about providing a path away from the expanding carbon cycle.

Tesla is an experiment and there is no question it might not work. I suspect it will work because Tesla is the first company that seems to understand they have to be a viable business and provide a compelling product, as well as being a positive influence on the environment.


It should come as no surprise one Australian political party and the traditional Australian energy generators are now on a relentless negative propaganda campaign against the Tesla energy storage project. They used to make huge money selling power at $10,000~20,000 MWh during grid brownouts. They were holding back power during periods of under supply so they could trigger the brownouts. Neoen is making more money than expected with the battery installation. Curiously, there was a blackout the day the Tesla battery came online. Producers probably knew it would be the last time they could milk the system for a while.

On a side note, I wonder how many people realize the power frequency reductions are caused by synchronized generators losing angular momentum. They are literally grinding down in speed because the generators are removing more power than is being put into the turbines. During these periods, they need to either reduce the load from the generators or increase the power (typically steam) going into the turbines. During periods of over production, steam is vented to keep the grid frequency from going too quickly; that is pure waste. The ability to soak up excess power during over generation periods and feed it back in during surge demand is a silver bullet for grid stability and it is a tremendous increase in efficiency. Watch this space. Tesla is the largest player in energy storage and they cannot ramp quickly enough.


----------



## TomB19

like_to_retire said:


> I have difficulty envisioning all those solar panels bolted to my roof. There must be a lot of trouble with leaks?


I've literally never heard a single complaint of solar mounting systems causing leaks but I don't see how it's possible to avoid the odd leak. Contractors are not that conscientious.

I've seen the solar roof compared to the price of shingles, a page or two back in this thread, but that is moronic and deliberately misleading. Shingles are a 10~15 year solution. Cedar is a 40 year solution. Metal is a 50~100 year solution. Slate is a 250 year solution.

How many of you have shingled a roof? How many of you have taken a load of shingles to the landfill? Our city has a shingle mountain that is a multiple in size of the rest of the landfill. At some point, shingles will be made illegal to keep municipalities from drowning in old shingles. At least cedar is organic and breaks down.

Anyone who has been quoted on slate knows the Tesla roof is cheap as chips. It's a 50+ year roof so it should be compared to Cedar or metal. It's also gorgeous, so that has to be factored in.

The Tesla roof is similar in cost to a cedar roof plus a separate solar installation. The Tesla roof that is frequently cited cost $50K installed but it's on a huge house, has 12KW of solar production, and has 3 PowerWalls for 45KWh of storage. It's like 2.5 average sized solar systems and two average sized roofs.

The Tesla roof is reinforced glass, so I suspect it will last for centuries but I doubt the solar generation aspect of it will have near the same longevity.

The Tesla roof won't be the best solution for every roof but it will be a great solution for a significant percentage. Apparently, the silver bullet of their roof technology is a flexible, conductive, glue they use to install the roof. I look forward to learning more Tesla roof details, as they become more popular.

In the mean time, back to shingle roofs and coal generated power.... the way the good lord meant it to be.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> I've literally never heard a single complaint of solar mounting systems causing leaks but I don't see how it's possible to avoid the odd leak. Contractors are not that conscientious.
> 
> I've seen the solar roof compared to the price of shingles, a page or two back in this thread, but that is moronic and deliberately misleading. Shingles are a 10~15 year solution. Cedar is a 40 year solution. Metal is a 50~100 year solution. Slate is a 250 year solution.


Don't know where you get your information but asphalt shingles here are 20-25 years, 30 years tops. Cedar shakes here are ~20 years - too dry. Just replaced the 17 year old shakes on our house with asphalt because they were falling apart and curling and was having to replace individual shakes from year to year.


----------



## TomB19

Those 30 year shingles last 12~15 years.

Apparently, architectural style shingles are expected to last longer due to their physical shape. I hope so but it's too early to know. I see quite a few architectural style shingles at the landfill and they haven't been popular for that many years but we really need more data.


----------



## TomB19

Cedar lasts 40 years here with shakes out-lasting shingles.


----------



## TomB19

I own a lot of roofs and I've probably shingled 50 roofs in my life. I have a large dump trailer, a bunch of shingle nail guns, and portable compressors to outfit a crew.

The last few years, I've converted all but one roof to metal. As houses require shingling, they will be converted to metal for longevity but mostly to save my body. Shingling is murder.


----------



## TomB19

Ok, let's head off some of the ankle biting at the pass.

30 year asphalt shingles on a 6/12 pitch roof with some shade on the sunny pitch will undoubtedly last their rated lifetime. If the 6/12 pitch roof is unshaded, they will probably last close to their lifetime (20+ years), unless one pitch faces south.

30 year asphalt shingles on a 4/12 pitch roof (by far, the most common pitch here) do not last their rated lifetime in any circumstances. If one pitch is facing south, they will probably last 10~12 years. With shading and non-south facing, the shingles might last 15~20 years.

Asphalt shingles are not rated for 3/12 pitch installations, although they are frequently used on these roofs because of price. 3/12 and lower pitch slopes need a continuous roofing product like metal.

I've seen concrete tiles used on 3/12 pitch roofs but have never worked on a tile roof. I can only assume they work OK, because we have quite a few low pitch, tile roofs in my city. All of these roofs are on higher end houses that can justify an attractive and expensive tile roof, exactly the sort of homes that would be candidates for a Tesla roof.


----------



## Big Kahuna

AltaRed said:


> All the best scientific evidence suggests sometime this century, likely by mid-century. http://sciencenordic.com/when-will-arctic-be-ice-free Also https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-2-0-what-happens-after-all-the-ice-goes/


These guys say no https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/40-sea-ice-ice-gain-over-the-past-five-years/


----------



## AltaRed

I am no CC advocate but there are limits to the credibility of the fringe element (both extremes).


----------



## TomB19

But it has "real" right in the URL.

I look for a doctor who makes great overtures that he's a real doctor and not just someone who looks good in a lab coat.

Gotta laugh. Some of this stuff is really amusing. Lol!

Meanwhile, there is a legitimate, negative Tesla story. Auto body repairs on Tesla's have been horrendously expensive and astonishingly slow. I assume it's the porshe phenomenon. A friend of mine drove a Porsche for a few years and a door scrape cost him $3200. It was brutal.

Anyway, Tesla is going to open their own auto body shops and Elon has suggested repairs between same day and one week.


----------



## AltaRed

TomB19 said:


> Meanwhile, there is a legitimate, negative Tesla story. Auto body repairs on Tesla's have been horrendously expensive and astonishingly slow. I assume it's the porshe phenomenon. A friend of mine drove a Porsche for a few years and a door scrape cost him $3200. It was brutal.


That is discouraging. I have to relay that to my neighbour who has 2 Porsches, a Carrera 911 4S and a Macan SUV. A Porsche Panamera 4S has been on my short list of options to replace my Infiniti, but maybe I'll move on.


----------



## TomB19

I'd be curious to know if anyone is long on Tesla and believes in the company while not believing in science. I'd be curious to know if even a single climate denier owns the stock.

I think that's why Tesla discussions are so polarizing.


----------



## agent99

kcowan said:


> In ON, we found that we had to set the heat pump to only operate above 40 degrees F in order to avoid it freezing up.


As I mentioned to Alta, we are not talking about grandad's Heat pumps. Read the links on Zuba like one below. They have a cycle that reverses refrigerant flow for short period, and this melts any ice on the exterior unit.

https://cozycomfortplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Brochure-Zuba-Central.pdf

After 7 heating seasons, no maintenance needed (other than duct filter changes). Works as designed summer and winter.


----------



## AltaRed

Tom, I don't think those 2 things are correlated that well. One can be long Tesla based on a momentum opportunity while still believing CC advocacy is way overblown. IOW, and being a little obnoxious, take advantage of all those suckers, I mean, lemmings.

Example: I don't own a single O&G stock but believe the planet will be consuming 100+ million barrels of oil per day for the indefinite future. I own AQN but think most CC'ers are off the charts in their advocacy and mostly conflicted as well.


----------



## AltaRed

agent99 said:


> As I mentioned to Alta, we are not talking about grandad's Heat pumps. Read the links on Zuba posted earlier. They have a cycle that reverses refrigerant flow for short period, and this melts any ice on the exterior unit.


The old technology unit we had in Washington DC had heating elements to defrost it for perhaps 10-15 minutes before starting again.


----------



## Big Kahuna

TomB19 said:


> I'd be curious to know if anyone is long on Tesla and believes in the company while not believing in science. I'd be curious to know if even a single climate denier owns the stock.
> 
> I think that's why Tesla discussions are so polarizing.


Google Psychological Projection-your irrationality isn't shared by that many equity investors-if I was a climate change zombie I would buy up oceanfront real estate like my hero Al Gore.


----------



## TomB19

I'll tell you what, red. I can see the climate changing, I'm looking for climate opportunities, and I owned an oil field services company until about two years ago.

I'd own them again too, if I could find a great deal again. I doubled my money in about 18 months. One of my best investments in the last decade. I bought them when the industry was in free all, knowing it would recover. Sold them when the value returned to about what I thought it should be, after a CEO change I didn't want to hang around for. If the CEO hadn't changed, I'd still own them.

Oil and gas are going away eventually but it isn't going to happen any time soon. We couldnt achieve the transition to a new energy source without the old source.


----------



## AltaRed

Then we agree the correlation about what one owns is more about seizing an economic opportunity than it is about belief in CC (or not).


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> The old technology unit we had in Washington DC had heating elements to defrost it for perhaps 10-15 minutes before starting again.


Even some of the modern high efficiency units would have trouble in our cold climate. I talked to an engineer at Carrier and he suggested that their Greenspeed high efficiency unit not be used at sub zero temperatures because they could stall on restarts. Their major markets are in the USA and they are designed for those. The Mitsubishi Zuba units are designed for our climate. No problem running and starting in all winter temperatures. No defrost heating elements.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> That is discouraging. I have to relay that to my neighbour who has 2 Porsches, a Carrera 911 4S and a Macan SUV. A Porsche Panamera 4S has been on my short list of options to replace my Infiniti, but maybe I'll move on.


There shouldn't really be any additional costs for straight body work on some of those cars. Where costs can escalate, is when replacement panels and other parts like lights and lenses are required. No aftermarket panels for Teslas, I suspect! And, hydraulic straightening/pulling is not allowed because of it's affect on the metal strength (On model 3 at least) . Interesting article on this.

Provided car is insured for collision, any inflated costs should be included in the premium!


----------



## TomB19

AltaRed said:


> Then we agree the correlation about what one owns is more about seizing an economic opportunity than it is about belief in CC (or not).


I buy companies for one reason:. To make money.

I own Tesla because I believe they will dominate in energy and transport. I say dominate, in part, because of what I see happen in with respect to climate. The planet doesn't need to burst into flames to have a global panic.

Every other manufacturer is having trouble with battery supply. Mercedes just pulled out of energy storage. They can't compete. Meanwhile, Tesla has sold over a gigawatt hour of storage. The margin has been extremely low but now they have driven down their cell cost and are poised to steamroll the industry. I would hate to compete against tesla in either storage or cars. I don't know what's going to happen with solar panels. I don't see Tesla having much competitive advantage with panels but it appears Panasonic is starting to dominate so they certainly won't be playing catch up on technology. Now I understand why they bought silevo and then cast it aside.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Then we agree the correlation about what one owns is more about seizing an economic opportunity than it is about belief in CC (or not).


I think you said you owned some AQN. I do too. Looking at their portfolio of business activities, they cover all the bases. Wind, Solar, Natural gas, power generation, pipelines, transmission lines. Whatever our beliefs, we should be covered 

BTW - They have installed huge windturbines just across from us that we look at every day. They don't bother me, but there are many who just hate them and don't believe they should have been built. However, once running, they will help to pay our dividends


----------



## TomB19

We own some AQN, also. I bought it because I had been looking for a utility for several years and it was the closest to being an OK value. We've actually done OK with it but not great. It's not a big position and we certainly won't be buying more but I expect we'll hold it for several years.

We might enjoy owning it more if we had some nice windmills to look at and think about the portion we own.

If I had to chose between putting all of our money on either AQN or TSLA, my money would be on TSLA.


----------



## TomB19

Changing topics again.



AltaRed said:


> One can be long Tesla based on a momentum opportunity while still believing CC advocacy is way overblown. IOW, and being a little obnoxious, take advantage of all those suckers, I mean, lemmings.


I'm aware there are legions of Tesla day traders. Everyone I know is trading Tesla.  I'm the only investor I'm aware of, in my peer group. Perhaps some of these day traders don't believe in climate change and maybe don't even like the company.

Here's what I find curious. Let's say you are a flat earther who thinks Elon is a criminal but you want to take advantage of the suckers, so you buy Tesla. What happens if it goes down? Now you're stuck with a company you don't like that has products to solve a problem you don't believe exists. How can that be a good thing?

I like Tesla so I didn't give it a second thought when it was down at $258 for a bit. It was irrelevant to me, other than my spreadsheet showing my net worth down a noticeable amount.

To me, it's like trading oil futures. You can buy them but if you aren't able to sell it, you end up getting a phone call asking where you want the oil delivered. Not an ideal situation.


----------



## AltaRed

If you are trading such a stock, i.e. for momentum purposes only, simply put a stop loss on it. Then you aren't stuck with a turkey you don't like in so many ways.... I've never bought for the purpose of buying into momentum, so have never done that in practice......but that IS what I would do.

Added: If people had done that with Valeant et al, they would not have gotten stuck with a vile, vicious company with no social conscience.


----------



## kcowan

agent99 said:


> As I mentioned to Alta, we are not talking about grandad's Heat pumps. Read the links on Zuba like one below. They have a cycle that reverses refrigerant flow for short period, and this melts any ice on the exterior unit.
> 
> https://cozycomfortplus.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Brochure-Zuba-Central.pdf
> 
> After 7 heating seasons, no maintenance needed (other than duct filter changes). Works as designed summer and winter.


Yes ours would be heating the outdoors to melt the ice. We had no need for AC those days. But we just had to set it higher to avoid the inefficiency of that system. Believe me I saw it in the hydro bill. Part of the problem was that it was installed on the east side of the house so got no sun after noon. Great in the summer. Not so great in the winter.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> If you are trading such a stock, i.e. for momentum purposes only, simply put a stop loss on it. Then you aren't stuck with a turkey you don't like in so many ways.... I've never bought for the purpose of buying into momentum, so have never done that in practice......but that IS what I would do.


When I was trading, stop losses never worked for me. I had to develop a system showing sustained downward momentum. Today such tools are commonplace.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Now the corrupt MSM is claiming that Elon Musk is "alt-right" for daring to call them out on their lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKqMNQdo6Kw


----------



## TomB19

I'm looking forward to Tim Pool's Anthony Bourdain tribute show.


----------



## Big Kahuna

TomB19 said:


> I'm looking forward to Tim Pool's Anthony Bourdain tribute show.


You gotta admit it is ironic that one of your heroes has turned to the dark side according to your beloved MSM.


----------



## TomB19

Tesla up $15, at this moment.

It would appear the stock was being held down by people shorting it. I wonder how long the shorts can keep losing money on this one? Perhaps as long as conservative media continue to propagandize that we can pump trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere without consequence.


----------



## TomB19

I expect Tesla will have plenty more down swings as the tiniest bit of negative news will be broadcast like an air raid siren but this upswing is burning a lot of short sold climate deniers.

There seems to be something predatorial about selling short, vs long buying companies that match someone's future vision. I'm good with it but it's pretty Savage.


----------



## like_to_retire

No question that Tesla is a volatile stock. 

Elon Musk is an interesting character for sure, but he has so many irons in the fire, I don't know how he can concentrate on anything.

_Shares of Tesla (TSLA) rose as much as 6% Tuesday__ after KeyBanc analyst Brad Erickson said in a report that he expects Tesla to deliver 30,000 Model 3 cars in the second quarter, and nearly 120,000 for the full year._

ltr


----------



## andrewf

120k for the year seems conservative. That assumes 80k in the back half, which is only 3100 cars per week.


----------



## TomB19

Agreed, Andrew. They are well past that now. They are expected to produce 20k in July and 40k in December. It's hard to say what the numbers will be but the 20k in July is a dead lock. That's 120k for the second half alone, if the production ramp completely stops.


----------



## kcowan

Tesla cuts 9% of staff count and promises not to affect production in an attempt to get profitable sooner.


----------



## TomB19

kcowan said:


> Tesla cuts 9% of staff count[/Url] and promises not to affect production in an attempt to get profitable sooner.


Portions of the email were leaked and published in a way as to make Tesla look as bad as possible so Elon tweeted the entire email, unfiltered, this afternoon.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1006597562156003328

Gotta say, the bulk of the media are straight up misrepresenting, lying assholes.


Meanwhile, this has been out for a while and Teslarati hasn't reported on it. I know the guys who run the site well enough to know they've known about this with loads of time to post an article. Suffice to say, they are filtering their content with a positive spin filter, as opposed to much of the media industry's negative spin.

To invest in Tesla, you need to be able to filter the news effectively because the levels of honesty are pretty brutal. In cases like this, if Elon hadn't have stepped in, it would have been another big price dip for the stock and an opportunity for shorts to take money from people who still trust the news.

As far as I'm concerned, the hire/layoff cycle is part of a standard, healthy, corporate timeline. Sometimes you can lay people off and get more done. I've seen it. When you get over staffed and over managed, people start looking at what others are doing and they stick their noses in it and it ends up being a bunch of petty fighting for control. When staff is right sized to the work load, nobody has time to tell others how to do their job correctly.


----------



## kcowan

Thanks for posting the tweet. I think the move is good for the company. I do wonder how it got to 9%?

As CEO, I did a 15% "right-sizing" because my predecessor was not paying attention to the bottom line. It would be good for shareholders if Musk had a strong CFO who can stand up to his dominant personality. 

BTW getting 100 people to pursue alternative futures is a daunting task. It was done in one day. I participated, handling the toughest cases. If the CEO hides in his corner office that day, it is a bad sign. Of course, my experience was before it was possible to manage by tweet!


----------



## like_to_retire

I can't figure out what material they could have in a Tesla that could cause this fire.

If you watch the video it's as if there's something under pressure feeding the flame.

Would a battery burn like that?

ltr


----------



## TomB19

Yes. A lithium ion battery will burn like that.

These batteries have a failure mode that is described by engineers as, "rapid vent with flame."


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> I can't figure out what material they could have in a Tesla that could cause this fire.
> 
> If you watch the video it's as if there's something under pressure feeding the flame.





agree, that fire looks like it's being force-fed by a high-pressure canister of fuel that had been strapped underneath the vehicle

note that the flames are shooting out horizontally, indicating the pressure source was attached laterally beneath the vehicle. In a regular fire flames would shoot up vertically, they would not shoot out horizontally as in the video.

note also that the rest of the car does not catch on fire. The explosion appears to be separate from the vehicle.

foul play immediately comes to mind. Totally scary that enemies of TSLA (hedge fund shorts?) or enemies of Musk himself might have tried a stunt like this. Although it's remotely possible that the intended victim was the TV director driving the car. 

if deliberate sabotage, there would have had to have been a timer. Beyond scary.


ADD: just read Tom's post. Had no idea a lithium battery could burn like a WW I flame-thrower. 

but why the lateral pressure? is the battery itself under so much pressure? could it explode in any direction, ie towards the passenger side of the vehicle, forward, backward, even upward, in addition to leftward out the driver side?

judging from the source of that fire, an upward-exploding battery would burn a tesla driver to death, right there in his car seat


.


----------



## TomB19

I think I have presented an answer that misrepresents the basics of Li-Ion batteries.

A burning battery is a sign of two things:

1) a good battery
2) a systems failure

A weak or dead battery will not burn. "Rapid vent with flame" is indeed a failure mode of Li-Ion cells but it does not happen spontaneously. They don't just go exothermic and melt down.

Something happened to cause that Tesla battery to overheat. Once one cell catches fire, it will cause a chain reaction. The higher the charge, the stronger the reaction.

Tesla goes to great lengths to manage battery temperature. Batteries are both heated and cooled. Not only that, if the active systems are unable to remove enough heat from the pack, output current is reduced. As a last line of defence, each cell is connected with a fusible link which will blow if more than a specific amount of current is drawn from that cell. Once the fuse is blown, that cell is offline until it is physically repaired.

In the case of the Samsung Note 7, the problem is that Samsung designed the device too close to the battery specifications. If the cell phone is in a pocket or slightly insulated during a period of maximum power draw, the battery is pushed beyond it's safety envelope and someone is going to get a hot bum. They tried to do too much with that battery.

Samsung's response was to switch to a different battery vendor (Chinese, instead of in-house) but the problem continued with no change. Anyone should have predicted that. The batteries weren't faulty. They would have operated fine within their limits.

When a can of gasoline explodes, you don't assume the gasoline was faulty. In fact, to the contrary; you know the gasoline was in good shape.

Something was wrong with that Tesla. Either the pack was repaired with non-spec fusible links or, more likely, one or more of the thermal sensors was faulty. It definitely wasn't a battery cell problem, although it was definitely a pack problem.


----------



## humble_pie

tomB please bear with a poor pie who hardly knows a battery from a crispy deep-fried banana smothered in fresh strawberries & whipped cream (madagascar vanllla whipped cream of course) (heaven on earth)

but could a Tesla battery throw its flames straight upward? wouldn't those flames engulf a driver & deep-fry him to a banana crisp?

there were the dell laptop batteries that kept bursting into flames a number of years ago. Those were defective batteries. They all came from one factory in china. Me i know because i had one. Dell sent for it & replaced it.

i suppose TSLA could plummet on monday. dang it, recently my short puts were doing so well after their bad spell when the stock drooped into the 280s ... but alas i failed to buy to close my put position when stock soared north of 350 last week ...

.


----------



## TomB19

You can disregard what I wrote. To the layman, that Tesla had a bad battery. You can disregard the rest of this post, also.

A battery module is made of cells, charge management, and load control. There was nothing wrong with the Li-Ion cells in that Tesla, just as there wasn't anything wrong with the Li-Ion cells in your Dell laptop.

A Li-Ion battery will create a fire if it is super-heated (perhaps from a short, extreme current drain, or over charging) or if the current reverses across one or more cells. The current will reverse if a cell is in series with stronger cells, but only if the battery management system is faulty. The BMS should shut the battery down to prevent individual cells from dropping below about 3 volts.

The point being, a battery fire is almost certainly an electronic failure, and very unlikely to be a battery cell failure.

To answer your question, yes, the battery can throw flames straight upward. The cells in those modules are oriented vertically. The cathodes probably caught fire. They turn into a small scale fire-work.


----------



## humble_pie

TomB19 said:


> yes, the battery can throw flames straight upward. The cells in those modules are oriented vertically. The cathodes probably caught fire. They turn into a small scale fire-work.



yikes, flames can shoot upwards. One does not want to think of a driver trapped in his driver's seat in a firestorm of towering flames like those we saw shooting out horizontally under immense force.

that driver was lucky. Evidently another driver warned him when the fire was only at the smoking stage. He was able to pull over, stop & escape from the car. Next time, another driver maybe not so lucky.

who cares if the fault is the battery or the electronic battery management system. Who wants to drive around in a comet.


.


----------



## andrewf

Any time you have a lot of energy stored in a small space, this kind of thing is possible. It is a regular occurrence with gas cars.


----------



## TomB19

Yeah. Tesla fires are a fraction of gasoline fires.

In the case of the latest fire, it was described as an inferno but the images and story on electrek show the driver wasn't aware of it until someone waved at the driver to point out the smoke. The driver pulled over and stepped out.

If you watch the video, there are flames but the driver is long out of the car and it's worth noting he pulled over and the car is parked properly.

Tesla claims their cars burn with 1/10 the frequency of gasoline cars.

I have a lot of friends in Southern California and it's mind blowing how frequently you see a burned out car by the side of the road. It happens.


----------



## humble_pie

i've never seen a burned-out car where the fire was caused by its battery although i've driven across the continent several times

i've never heard anybody even talk about such a thing


ADD: TSLA up nearly $3 on the day, tomB rules the day :biggrin:


----------



## TomB19

Why does it matter that a car fire be caused by a battery?

The primary energy source of an electric car is the battery. The primary energy source of an ICE car is gas or diesel. Either will cause the same result but, according to Tesla, the result occurs far less frequently with their cars.

As best I can tell, a major battery fire will total a Tesla but there are multiple modules and a single burned module will not total a Tesla. A gasoline fire will total a gas car.

You've obviously not driven much in Southern California (where most of the Teslas are located) because car fires are common. No kidding. Cars occasionally burst into flames, particularly in the stopped/slow traffic.

I do not predict that Tesla will go up on the short term. I simply think they will do reasonably well in the next 10 years.

The thing to pay attention to is a rail car build on the Model X platform which will be used by the Boring Company in their Chicago Ohare/Metro transport service. For my part, I'm confused why they wouldn't build it on the Model 3 with 21700 batteries and brushless motors for efficiency. It's not like they need the neck snapping acceleration of the Model X for a train.


----------



## TomB19

Speaking of going up in the short term....

Elon just bought $25M of TSLA and, apparently, he thinks there will be a major short squeeze in the next three weeks, followed by a major bump in stock price. I haven't seen or read an interview, only second/third hand info posted online. Perhaps he tweeted it (I don't follow all of his tweets).

It's not implausible but I'm always skeptical about short term price predictions by anybody.


----------



## TomB19

If Elon can get a couple of successful projects under his belt, I think the Boring Company will IPO in the next couple of years. Certainly, it will IPO way before SpaceX.

A year ago, I thought his Boring Company idea was misguided but now I'd buy into that IPO, as long as the price was somewhat reasonable.


----------



## humble_pie

re driving in soCal u are right, i've never gone much further south than big sur

re your battery fire info thanks for opening our eyes, who knew we were driving around on comets

re short term predictions on tsla or any stock i was not predicting. I might have a few long or short putz or callz but me i am a rare kind of oxymoron, i am a long-term option trader. My tsla position runs until january 2019.  I had figured that, for an initial dipping-toe-in-water startup position, if there would be zero performance in 9 months then i would not be interested anyhow.

.


----------



## TomB19

There were 175000 vehicle fires in 2015 in the USA.


----------



## humble_pie

TomB19 said:


> There were 175000 vehicle fires in 2015 in the USA.


but you'd have to compare that number to all the uncountable zillion bazillions of road journeys by every vehicle whose driver turned on the ignition during 2015 ...


----------



## TomB19

It's not necessary to break it down on a per trip basis. If you do that, would you further break down by length of trip?

We know the number of vehicle fires in 2016 was 173000. We know the number of vehicles on the road was 269M.

There were about 260k Teslas on the road in 2016. If someone knows the number of Tesla fires in 2016, we could do some long division and have this sorted.

Tsla is currently above $370. That seems a bit optimistic to me and I think the company is great but I'm not complaining.


----------



## kcowan

Musk sues former employee for espionage
Not particularly uniques to Tesla but it seems that a few people are gunning for them.


----------



## like_to_retire

Tesla hits Model 3 manufacturing milestone, hours after deadline

_"I think we just became a real car company," Musk wrote. The company hit the Model 3 mark while also achieving its production goal of 7,000 Model S and Model X vehicles in a week, Musk said in the email._

_The company regularly engages in so-called "burst builds," temporary periods of fast-as-possible production, which it uses to estimate how many cars it is capable of building over longer periods of time._

ltr


----------



## kcowan

Comprehensive article in the weekend NYT
Lots of duplication of info in this thread but a good summary.


----------



## andrewf

I'm thinking more about Model 3 pricing. The Standard battery model has a 50 kwh pack, and the long range upgrade increases this to 75 kwh for USD$9k. That's $360/kwh for the upgrade which is much higher than the cost per kwh for the pack. It makes me wonder if we might see Tesla reduce the price of this upgrade. It is currently very profitable for them to sell it. I expect they might wait until the backlog is cleared before considering this, by which time the cost for pack will be sub USD$100/kwh.


----------



## AltaRed

Is a bit of tarnish starting to show? https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/23/investing/tesla-elon-musk-cash-debt/index.html

FWIW, a relative who had nothing but praise to say about Tesla, owns (or did own) stock, and has a deposit on a performance Model 3 is now having second thoughts and has vocalized 'throwing in the towel'. Pricing is a key issue.


----------



## AlwaysLearning

I have unfortunately decided to cancel my model 3 reservation. The cancellation of the Ontario EVIP increased the effective price I would pay by ~14k..

Still waiting on the refund of the $1000.... And the phone lines consistently have over a 1 hour wait...

I was previously waiting on the AWD model to be on the EVIP list... It is much worse for those in Ontario who ordered before the cancellation but did not receive the vehicle yet. 
The wording specifically calls out dealers which does not apply to Tesla...


----------



## andrewf

Tesla has said that anyone who has ordered before the EVIP was ended can cancel.

On cash, Tesla cash flow should improve dramatically in Q3 now that they have gotten Model 3 deliveries rolling. Of course, I do think Tesla will need to raise more capital to fund the Shanghai factory.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

AlwaysLearning said:


> I have unfortunately decided to cancel my model 3 reservation. The cancellation of the Ontario EVIP increased the effective price I would pay by ~14k..


Not unfortunate. I never fancied helping people buy an overpriced car in the first place.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla seemed to announce fairly positive results. Elon doubled down on claim to not plan any additional equity raises and to be GAAP profitable and cash flow positive in all future quarters moving forward, starting with Q3. He did say that they would fund new factory construction with debt (Shanghai factory funded with local debt).

Gross margins improved, with Model 3 breaking into positive gross margins. Expectation and production continues to increase to hit 25% margins next year. And I guess the trade-in stats they shared are viewed as positive news, with many people trading in more mass market cars like Civic and Accord to buy high end model 3s. Thinking is that this indicates the addressable market is larger than the mid-sized premium sedan segment.

I am still a bit skeptical about no additional capital raises. I don't know if Tesla is constrained in their ability to deploy capital well/efficiently, but they are definitely constrained in the production capability and they need to move quickly to secure their place in the market. They have a decent lead in battery availability, but other auto makers are starting to get wise to the need to secure their own supply of batteries on a large scale.


----------



## doctrine

Well, given they're only producing the highest margin, most expensive Model 3's, it's nice to see the line is nudging into a positive gross margin </sarcasm>. How are $50-75k USD Model 3's realizing Musk's vision of an electric car for the masses, again? I guess we'll see, but I think to make it happen, they have to sell more electric cars than I think people are willing to buy, at least with gas prices where they are.


----------



## AltaRed

IOW, where is a $30k intermediate sedan/CUV/SUV for the masses? Until that happens, EVs just won't become mainstream high volume production models.


----------



## andrewf

Does Leaf not count? Starts at $30k. Hyundai Kona is going to market with a price in the high $30k range. Given that EVs cost 80% less to fuel than ICE vehicles, I don't think price parity is needed to reach an inflection point, though some think price parity will be reached in the not too distant future. 

And over the next ten years, autonomous ridesharing is going to become huge. Alphabet is buying 60k PHEV minivans or full EVs (Chrysler Pacifica PHEVs and Jaguar I-Pace) for their Waymo rollout later this year and next year starting in Phoenix and rolling out to California. At that point, the lower running cost per km is going to overwhelmingly dominate any $5k-10k price premium for EVs. The auto industry is going to be turned on its head. I think most automakers see it coming, hence their frantic scramble to catch up in autonomy and EV. I would not want to own a lot of legacy manufacturing and distribution assets (dealer and service network). Would also not want to be betting on high prices for oil in the long term. 

I mean, you can pretend that this might not happen but it is already in motion and inevitable at this point.


----------



## AltaRed

An intermediate sized vehicle suitable for the masses is not the Leaf (which is a compact at best). Until the EV market can deliver Camry and CR-V type vehicles for not more than $30k in Canada is when mainstream use is more likely. 

FWIW, I agree the auto industry is undergoing a major transformation but it has to be cost effective and cost efficient upfront for the mainstream consumer to buy. That said, I wouldn't buy the stock of any vehicle manufacturer or dealer network either. There is likely no real growth there though the likes of ICE vehicle service will be around with significant presence for at least another 20+ years. Even Norway with huge subsidization is only getting a 50% take up on EV at the current time.


----------



## andrewf

A lot of the existing ice fleet is going to be retired early. With rife sharing, even a relatively small percentage of electric cars will drive a disproportionate share of miles.


----------



## AltaRed

Unbridled optimism?


----------



## Big Kahuna

Looks like Hitler has a huge short on Tesla https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-05/elon-musk-turns-out-even-hitler-was-shorting-tesla


----------



## humble_pie

Big Kahuna said:


> Looks like Hitler has a huge short on Tesla https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-05/elon-musk-turns-out-even-hitler-was-shorting-tesla



historically - in its brief life here in cmf forum - the TSLA thread has been a gem. Knowledgeable, insightful posts from a range of serious participants. Everything from pro to con.

there are not many threads left in cmf forum that still offer this quality. Forum is, in fact, on a slippery downhill slide, as m3s keeps reminding us. Let's not eff this thread up with trolls posting trash from zerohedge.



.


----------



## Eder

I have seen the future and its not Tesla...try Toyota. (hint: H on the period table)


----------



## dotnet_nerd

Big Kahuna said:


> Looks like Hitler has a huge short on Tesla https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-05/elon-musk-turns-out-even-hitler-was-shorting-tesla


Godwin's Law at play here.

I just won chatroom 'Bingo'.


----------



## Big Kahuna

dotnet_nerd said:


> Godwin's Law at play here.
> 
> I just won chatroom 'Bingo'.


Not really-I have seen about 50 of these Hitler videos-this one is OK but some are hilarious-I think my favorite was years ago when the Buffalo Bills signed Terrell Owens-Hitler as a huge Bills fan wasn't too happy with that one.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I have seen the future and its not Tesla...try Toyota. (hint: H on the period table)


Hydrogen will never be widely used in ground transportation. Synthesizing, compressing, transporting and using hydrogen is far less energy efficient than batteries. It costs three to four times more per km than battery. Different story for air travel.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Unbridled optimism?


Existing coal plants are going to be retired early in many areas because they can't compete with renewables. It'll be a very similar story with ICE vehicles, especially with shared autonomous cars driving many more kms than the average car. Many people with light car usage will stop owning. Used car prices are going to be depressed.


----------



## AltaRed

I don't believe in a material decrease in the absolute number of ICE vehicles on the road globally in my remaining 20 year lifetime, albeit I do see a significant shift towards new registrations being EV starting in the next few years (assuming inexpensive electricity). I believe penetration will most likely be first and foremost in the big cities. 

Rural towns (e.g. under 10k population) full of quad cab pickups will more likely laugh these things out of town for many years to come. I tend to think my home town will see more than a token EV for another decade or more. They all like their pickup trucks, RVs, ATVs, horse trailers, snowmobiles and boats way too much.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I don't believe in a material decrease in the absolute number of ICE vehicles on the road globally in my remaining 20 year lifetime, albeit I do see a significant shift towards new registrations being EV starting in the next few years (assuming inexpensive electricity). I believe penetration will most likely be first and foremost in the big cities.
> 
> Rural towns (e.g. under 10k population) full of quad cab pickups will more likely laugh these things out of town for many years to come. I tend to think my home town will see more than a token EV for another decade or more. They all like their pickup trucks, RVs, ATVs, horse trailers, snowmobiles and boats way too much.


I think the market you are referring to is a lot smaller than you think.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> I think the market you are referring to is a lot smaller than you think.


I guess we shall see. From my vantage point outside of a major urban area, I see a long road ahead.


----------



## andrewf

Canada is over 82% urbanized and rising. A slice of rural residents is a small and shrinking market.


----------



## AltaRed

I am talking about smaller urban centers too. The 'up yours' population is a lot bigger than you think. Sudbury, Brandon, Pince George, etc. Regardless, think as you wish. We will not convince each other. We shall see what happens in real time.


----------



## Big Kahuna

andrewf said:


> Canada is over 82% urbanized and rising. A slice of rural residents is a small and shrinking market.


What is the electric market share in Canada right now-under 1% I assume-obviously alta is right when he says this is a ways off-you aren't going from under 1% to 100% overnight-assuming you can ever get there.


----------



## raptor235

Sooo holy crap what a day today... IF Tesla goes private... what would happen to all investors who hold the company in their Tax free accounts? Tesla said they would allow people to continue to hold the company in private but can we do that in our RRSP / 401k portfolios? 

Other companies like Dell have done this so there ha to be some precedent for this.


----------



## james4beach

Did you guys watch the crazy action on TSLA today? Without filing anything with the SEC, Elon Musk made just an off the cuff remark that the company may go private at $82 billion valuation. The shares jumped and finished up 11% with partial trading halts. If this does in fact happen, it would be the largest leveraged buyout in history.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-82-billion-gambit-to-silence-telsa-s-critics

What a mockery of the public markets. If I see it rally a bit more, I may try shorting some TSLA as it seems to have a $420 ceiling, limited upside, and much more downside.

I have not taken a position in TSLA yet. By the way, remember when BCE was trying to pull off the largest leveraged buyout in history right at the last market top?


----------



## KaeJS

This whole thing is fucked.

I may have made a mistake, but I went short at $370.40.

But is this for real? Have you guys seen a chart? Like 2 weeks ago this stock was $300.

This company burns cash at an insane rate and they have nothing to show for it except for some fugly cars and a couple deaths. It shouldn't even have been $300 two weeks ago let alone like $380 today.

Musk is doing this just to burn the short sellers. He's a little baby that's upset his company is the most shorted company in America and possibly the world.

I hope he gets hit with securities fraud. What he did was not right, regardless of my position or I profit from it, what he did was wrong.

I can't understand these valuations. Who is paying $380/share for a company that loses $3 a quarter? This is crazy.


----------



## Big Kahuna

KaeJS said:


> This whole thing is fucked.
> 
> I may have made a mistake, but I went short at $370.40.
> 
> But is this for real? Have you guys seen a chart? Like 2 weeks ago this stock was $300.
> 
> This company burns cash at an insane rate and they have nothing to show for it except for some fugly cars and a couple deaths. It shouldn't even have been $300 two weeks ago let alone like $380 today.
> 
> Musk is doing this just to burn the short sellers. He's a little baby that's upset his company is the most shorted company in America and possibly the world.
> 
> I hope he gets hit with securities fraud. What he did was not right, regardless of my position or I profit from it, what he did was wrong.
> 
> I can't understand these valuations. Who is paying $380/share for a company that loses $3 a quarter? This is crazy.


I am not a lawyer, but I cannot understand how it is legal and not securities fraud for any CEO to state publicly that they have the financing in place and will possibly/likely take their company private at $420 a share-and then not do it.


----------



## andrewf

KaeJS said:


> This whole thing is fucked.
> 
> I may have made a mistake, but I went short at $370.40.
> 
> But is this for real? Have you guys seen a chart? Like 2 weeks ago this stock was $300.
> 
> This company burns cash at an insane rate and they have nothing to show for it except for some fugly cars and a couple deaths. It shouldn't even have been $300 two weeks ago let alone like $380 today.
> 
> Musk is doing this just to burn the short sellers. He's a little baby that's upset his company is the most shorted company in America and possibly the world.
> 
> I hope he gets hit with securities fraud. What he did was not right, regardless of my position or I profit from it, what he did was wrong.
> 
> I can't understand these valuations. Who is paying $380/share for a company that loses $3 a quarter? This is crazy.


Sounds like you are the one being a bit petulant. Shorting is for big boys who can afford to be wrong. No one owes you a return on a bet that a company will fail, let alone the CEO and largest shareholder. It seems to me Musk wants to take Tesla private now that he no longer needs the public markets and sees positive cash flows and profits in future quarters. I don't have sympathy for shorts here, but then I never do.


----------



## Big Kahuna

andrewf said:


> Sounds like you are the one being a bit petulant. Shorting is for big boys who can afford to be wrong. No one owes you a return on a bet that a company will fail, let alone the CEO and largest shareholder. It seems to me Musk wants to take Tesla private now that he no longer needs the public markets and sees positive cash flows and profits in future quarters. I don't have sympathy for shorts here, but then I never do.


I can always count on you to deliver your typical ignorant comment that adds nothing to the discussion. Kudos.


----------



## andrewf

Kahuna, you didn't manage to add any irrelevant Trump or Ford boosterism. Are you feeling okay?


----------



## Big Kahuna

andrewf said:


> Kahuna, you didn't manage to add any irrelevant Trump or Ford boosterism. Are you feeling okay?


If you are depressed now just wait until Selfie Boy gets the boot next year.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Did you guys watch the crazy action on TSLA today? Without filing anything with the SEC, Elon Musk made just an off the cuff remark that the company may go private at $82 billion valuation. The shares jumped and finished up 11% with partial trading halts. If this does in fact happen, it would be the largest leveraged buyout in history.


All I can say is good luck with that......


----------



## Eder

I'm waiting for a picture of Tesla's being delivered by Toyota semi trucks running on hydrogen fuel cells.
https://www.fleetowner.com/running-...d-generation-class-8-hydrogen-fuel-cell-truck


----------



## andrewf

Why would Tesla use a truck that had lower range and costs more to operate than their own product, or a diesel truck for that matter?


----------



## Eder

Because fuel cell technology is greener than charging batteries from coal plants,,they can bring fuel cells with them...change out is 3 minutes Also Toyota is an actual manufacturer..(it makes a profit...no public tit to live on), not a shade tree assembly line. Oh...and the Toyota truck is actually one that truck drivers would use...I wont elaborate that point,ask any trucker.


----------



## KaeJS

andrewf said:


> Sounds like you are the one being a bit petulant. Shorting is for big boys who can afford to be wrong. No one owes you a return on a bet that a company will fail, let alone the CEO and largest shareholder. It seems to me Musk wants to take Tesla private now that he no longer needs the public markets and sees positive cash flows and profits in future quarters. I don't have sympathy for shorts here, but then I never do.


Did you read what I wrote?

I said regardless if I profit, what he did was wrong. How is this being petulant?

I'm not new to markets, this forum, or shorting. You should know this by now. I am a big boy and I capped any potential loss by purchasing OTM Calls. I know how to play the game. No sympathy is needed.


----------



## peterk

Dangit, just bought a few shares 2 weeks ago at $300, then sold em after a quick turnaround at $335. Usually when I get greedy I get burned, not this time lol.


----------



## james4beach

I think it's about 50/50 chance that Elon's claim of private buyout is totally fake, no basis at all.

He's been very emotional in the last few weeks and more wacky than usual. He made bizarre comments calling a Thai cave rescuer a pedophile. Then he entered into a weirdly emotional and childish argument with perceived enemy "short sellers", occupying lots of his time and energy. The "going private" comment came directly on the heels of that.

So I give 50% chance there's no solid basis for a deal, and it was an emotional remark from a man who's losing it. I don't think this is tradeable though, as the stock is so incredibly volatile and random that you wouldn't want to short or take any kind of option position. I wouldn't want to, anyway.


----------



## james4beach

TomB19 said:


> If Elon can get a couple of successful projects under his belt, I think the Boring Company will IPO in the next couple of years. Certainly, it will IPO way before SpaceX.


Not any more he won't. Elon will not IPO anything ever again, not Boring, not SpaceX. No investment bank, no underwriter, no analyst will ever trust him with a public company ever again after that stunt he pulled on August 7.


----------



## andrewf

Is the only issue that he didn't announce the buyout after hours?

I think you are being a bit melodramatic. And I think you overstate wall street's willingness to stand on principle and forego profit.


----------



## KaeJS

The issue is that he didn't say much of anything. He just said a bunch of non-descript filler to pump the stock price because he's pissed at the shorts.

If he tweeted and filed documents that were bold and definitive, it would be a different story. Right now, nobody has any idea what is happening and that is misleading investors and employees.


----------



## AltaRed

I suspect Elon is a less polished, immature version of Richard Branson. Some visionaries succeed while others don't. Does he actually have the ability to keep it all together long term? Only time will tell, but I think this 'take private' musing is either immaturity or a calculated stock pump. I don't actually care since my holding is just whatever VTI holds in the index.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Has there been any speculation that he was just trying to screw short sellers? He's known to have a hate on for them. Is he perhaps impulsive enough to post a flippant remark?
I'm sure he would love to be private though, since his 2nd most hated group seems to be analyists/reporters or shareholders who have 'negative thoughts' of Tesla.


----------



## Koogie

AltaRed said:


> I don't actually care since my holding is just whatever VTI holds in the index.


Made me look....

Tesla 3,186,567 shares $1,092,833,153 value

about 3% of the outstanding shares.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Is the only issue that he didn't announce the buyout after hours?


He didn't make an SEC filing and he didn't provide documentation backing up his claim of a major, material event. There should have been an SEC filing.

He could be making it all up. We haven't seen anything yet that validates the claim. See the articles on Bloomberg for explanations of what the issue was, with the way he tweeted this.



> I think you are being a bit melodramatic. And I think you overstate wall street's willingness to stand on principle and forego profit.


You could be right. Regulators and prosecutors have certainly let far worse offenses slip by with no penalties whatsoever.


----------



## james4beach

By the way, my firm does work for one of Elon Musks's companies and I may even do consulting work for them directly myself. I still don't trust Elon, and I would never buy shares in any of his public companies.


----------



## raptor235

Question remains... if I hold Tesla in RRSP and it goes private... what happens.


----------



## andrewf

Sounds like you may need to be an accredited investor to continue to be a Tesla shareholder through the special purpose vehicle.


----------



## gardner

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Has there been any speculation that he was just trying to screw short sellers?


That was my thought -- purposely tweeting "news" that would pump up the stock price and trigger some margin calls and maybe a shot squeeze. Although the SEC may not go after him, I think could still be sued.


----------



## Spudd

raptor235 said:


> Question remains... if I hold Tesla in RRSP and it goes private... what happens.


Normally, you just get paid cash for the stocks. e.g. if Tesla is $300 now, the buyout to private will probably be at $350 or something, you will be given $350 per share on the date the buyout is complete. This will show up in your RRSP and you can invest it in something else.


----------



## Eder

paperboy101 said:


> TESLA is our future


You mean our future is being broke?


----------



## Big Kahuna

Eder said:


> You mean our future is being broke?


We are all going to be driving Tesla cars-powered by windmills and solar panels.


----------



## AltaRed

Elon and Telsa is being investigated by the SEC for potential stock manipulation with his 'go private' musing. And both are being sued by at least one short seller. The guy seems oblivious to regulatory matters.


----------



## andrewf

He does seem needlessly rebellious, but maybe that is one of the reasons he has been successful.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> He does seem needlessly rebellious, but maybe that is one of the reasons he has been successful.


Perhaps, but it can also 'do him in'. He needs a much thicker skin.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Perhaps, but it can also 'do him in'. He needs a much thicker skin.


Well it does not do T any harm, does it? I think the board will be forced to remove him when the SEC charges him with pumping the stock.


----------



## andrewf

wrong thread


----------



## KaeJS

What people don't seem to understand is that this is potentially good news for anyone who wants to go short NOW.

Elon basically capped the price/losses at $420.
I mean...

If you wanted to short, you could all just do a vertical call spread and sell the $400 and buy the $420.

I'm out of my previous short at $370.40, but I might jump back in with a vertical spread.

Because why not? Probability is in favour of shorts right now. Company is a steaming pile of poo.


----------



## james4beach

And what if Elon is strategically baiting the bears with the supposed $420, when something higher might be announced later? I wouldn't put it past him.

Also notice that the 'private deal' announcement didn't actually move the stock that much to begin with. This thing is so volatile anyway (50% swing within 12 months) that the 10% jump on the tweet wasn't really that big a move. The August 2 gap up of 16% was a bigger response.

IOW, I'm not sure the stock went very high due to the tweet. If it was a +25% jump due to the questionable tweet, that might present a nice trade.


----------



## Scalpini

james4beach said:


> By the way, my firm does work for one of Elon Musks's companies and I may even do consulting work for them directly myself. I still don't trust Elon, and I would never buy shares in any of his public companies.


I would agree wholeheartedly... I would add that I truly believe that any investor that holds TESLA to the long side is asking for trouble. Elon's a thin-skinned wildcard and once the subsidies are all gone (the reason he is now suing in Canada), TESLA is even MORE of a non-viable entity. I would likely play the day, but no way could I sleep well holding any of that stock overnight..


----------



## cheech10

He's not suing because the subsidy is gone. He's suing because the subsidy for Tesla specifically was cut off earlier than for other makes, because an exception was made for dealers buying stock for their inventory effectively delaying the loss of subsidy for them. The government can certainly cut off the subsidy, but here it put Tesla at a disadvantage to other makers, which is the basis for the suit.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree the rationale is the direct sales model (Tesla) isn't suffering like the dealer model with inventory would be. My take is I don't think Tesla has a leg to stand on because in the end, all manufacturers are being treated the same, i.e. delivery of vehicles to the first point of sale (whether that be a dealer or an end consumer).


----------



## kcowan

and even if the dealer has inventory, it must be sold by the end of September. Musk wants Ontario to compensate for his inability to deliver as promised. He just needs to get those vehicles into customer hands in the next 6 weeks.


----------



## james4beach

The market doesn't seem to believe Elon's claims of an acquisition at $420. Now trading at $309, down nearly 8% today. The moment Elon tweeted that, I said (on here) there's only about 50% chance he's telling the truth.

TSLA is now 26% below the alleged acquisition price.


----------



## cheech10

I think Elon was high when he tweeted that. Hence the $420 acquisition price.


----------



## andrewf

Scalpini said:


> I would agree wholeheartedly... I would add that I truly believe that any investor that holds TESLA to the long side is asking for trouble. Elon's a thin-skinned wildcard and once the subsidies are all gone (the reason he is now suing in Canada), TESLA is even MORE of a non-viable entity. I would likely play the day, but no way could I sleep well holding any of that stock overnight..


Re: Tesla suing Ontario, it is not about removing subsidies, it is about discriminatory treatment vs other vehicle sellers. Bone-headed Ford govt admitted to singling out Tesla.


----------



## Eder

I wonder if JT will slap a 20% tariff on Tesla if DT goes ahead with his next round against Canada.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Re: Tesla suing Ontario, it is not about removing subsidies, it is about discriminatory treatment vs other vehicle sellers. Bone-headed Ford govt admitted to singling out Tesla.


There are a number of things that don't appear fair in the retail vs direct selling business models on a number of products. Just like going into stores to check out a product and then ordering online elsewhere doesn't do anything for the local tax base, jobs, etc. Or CMFers having a discount brokerage account taking away the livelihood of the local Nesbitt Burns investment advisors. Inequality is everywhere.

Plus auto dealers may have contributed to Ford's campaign. Elon just has to get a thicker skin.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> I wonder if JT will slap a 20% tariff on Tesla if DT goes ahead with his next round against Canada.


If Trump puts auto tariffs on Canadian autos, you better believe JT will whack Tesla with maybe double tariffs. It's a slam dunk.


----------



## james4beach

james4beach said:


> I think it's about 50/50 chance that Elon's claim of private buyout is totally fake, no basis at all.
> 
> He's been very emotional in the last few weeks and more wacky than usual. He made bizarre comments calling a Thai cave rescuer a pedophile. Then he entered into a weirdly emotional and childish argument with perceived enemy "short sellers", occupying lots of his time and energy. The "going private" comment came directly on the heels of that.
> 
> So I give 50% chance there's no solid basis for a deal, and it was an emotional remark from a man who's losing it. I don't think this is tradeable though, as the stock is so incredibly volatile and random that you wouldn't want to short or take any kind of option position. I wouldn't want to, anyway.


I was right, he was stressed out and acting emotionally: Elon Musk is defending his go-private tweet, and emotionally describing the turmoil he’s been under.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

There has to be mounting pressure on the Board to 'relieve' Musk of his CEO position. If he is smart he will accept the wisdom of getting someone else in. I suppose that would be seen favourably by the market. It will remain a highly speculative investment though.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-musk-stressed-1.4788960


----------



## andrewf

Disagree, Tesla without Musk would be in more trouble than Tesla with Musk. It would have failed several times over in the past ten years without him.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> Disagree, Tesla without Musk would be in more trouble than Tesla with Musk. It would have failed several times over in the past ten years without him.


Could be. I'm not sure the Board can afford to take that perspective these days though.


----------



## andrewf

The board of Tesla is not terribly independent. I would be surprised if Musk left unless he is on board with the idea.


----------



## Big Kahuna

Who knows how accurate this is-Musk tweeting on acid-he is an interesting guy for sure https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...azealea-banks-unclear-if-he-was-tweeting-acid


----------



## humble_pie

Big Kahuna said:


> Who knows how accurate this is-Musk tweeting on acid-he is an interesting guy for sure https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...azealea-banks-unclear-if-he-was-tweeting-acid



this thread was outstanding once upon a time. Please can we have a litter-free zone here. No zerohedge.


.


----------



## humble_pie

i miss tomB

please tomB if you're reading this, come back. You were such an expert on tesla, even if an unabashed enthusiast.

in real life tomB was something of an expert on ultra-hi-speed earth-based engines. There was a shadowy connection with the original james bond speedboat in Live and Let Die.

tomB was one among that small cadre of cmffers whose real lives are a thousand times more glamourous than the relatively sedate characters they play here in the forum .each:


----------



## kcowan

humble_pie said:


> tomB was one among that small cadre of cmffers whose real lives are a thousand times more glamourous than the relatively sedate characters they play here in the forum .each:


Yes and it that that life that has him not participating here. He hopes to return when things cool down.


----------



## james4beach

TSLA is plummeting more pre-market today, around $290 now ... down about 24% since his tweet where he pretended there was a buyout


----------



## james4beach

More recently, Elon has announced that a private deal is not being pursued and the company will stay public.


----------



## AltaRed

I suspect there are better sources but Tesla won against Doug Ford on the rebate issue... https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/08/tesla-just-won-its-lawsuit-against-ontario-government/

Added: Direct link to CBC article https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toro...ntario-government-electric-vehicles-1.4801295


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Wow, this story just keeps getting grimmer. Musk smoking dope on camera, two senior officers leaving.
I still think the board must be under great pressure to 'give Musk a break'. And if I was a speculator (I'm not), I'd be wondering if we're at an entry point for this stock.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-musk-marijuana-youtube-20180907-story.html


----------



## Koogie

It is tough to watch this. I am a huge Elon Musk fan. The things he has managed to accomplish in a short period of time are extraordinary. But, he is obviously cracking under the pressure. He has never had a stable home life (often a result of his own actions) and that can certainly exacerbate other problems.

I have always thought, selfishly, that the best thing that could happen is that one of the major manufacturers buys Tesla and makes it one of their premium brands. It becomes like an Acura or Infiniti. If he continues to implode and the stock continues to decline, it might reach a reasonable enough price point to make that a possibility.

Then Musk can focus on SpaceX and do some truly amazing things.


----------



## AltaRed

Koogie said:


> I have always thought, selfishly, that the best thing that could happen is that one of the major manufacturers buys Tesla and makes it one of their premium brands. It becomes like an Acura or Infiniti. If he continues to implode and the stock continues to decline, it might reach a reasonable enough price point to make that a possibility.


Price would have to drop a lot more I think for an outright purchase, but a joint venture arrangement aka the history of Mercedes-AMG could be quite workable. AMG started on its own modifying Mercedes vehicles, then eventually MB bought an interest, and ultimately bought it out completely, but keeps it as a separate subsidiary to this day.


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Wow, this story just keeps getting grimmer. Musk smoking dope on camera, two senior officers leaving.
> I still think the board must be under great pressure to 'give Musk a break'. And if I was a speculator (I'm not), I'd be wondering if we're at an entry point for this stock.
> http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-musk-marijuana-youtube-20180907-story.html


Taking a puff of a joint is a total non-story. I'd rather that than the reality of a lot of CEOs, politicians using cocaine, etc...


----------



## andrewf

Koogie said:


> It is tough to watch this. I am a huge Elon Musk fan. The things he has managed to accomplish in a short period of time are extraordinary. But, he is obviously cracking under the pressure. He has never had a stable home life (often a result of his own actions) and that can certainly exacerbate other problems.
> 
> I have always thought, selfishly, that the best thing that could happen is that one of the major manufacturers buys Tesla and makes it one of their premium brands. It becomes like an Acura or Infiniti. If he continues to implode and the stock continues to decline, it might reach a reasonable enough price point to make that a possibility.
> 
> Then Musk can focus on SpaceX and do some truly amazing things.


I'm pretty sure if any other manufacturer were to buy Tesla they would destroy it. Maybe not willingly, but under the weight of their orthodoxy and bureaucracy. This is why we need the process of creative destruction and should curb incumbents from buying up challengers. The incumbents usually ossify and even when they buy innovators with a sincere desire to leverage them the acquisitions turn to ash and the value is destroyed.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> Taking a puff of a joint is a total non-story. I'd rather that than the reality of a lot of CEOs, politicians using cocaine, etc...


It isn't the joint that is the issue. It is the judgement of the CEO that is brought into question when they exhibit multiple, recent instances of reckless behaviour/comments. Rightly or wrongly, cannabis remains an illegal drug at the federal level in the US. Investors have good reason to be concerned.

I can't speak to the prevalence of cocaine use, but CEO's I have known must maintain the confidence of their Board and shareholders. If that confidence goes, the CEO follows shortly after. That's the reality of business.


----------



## AltaRed

Elon may have executed "A Bridge Too Far" now that the SEC is suing him https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/27/technology/elon-musk-sec/index.html His days at the helm of Tesla may be numbered regardless of the outcome of this litigation.


----------



## Pluto

TSLA stock down big in pre market. The expected crash in Tesla could be upon us. Be interesting to watch this and see what vultures may circle this car-cass.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> His days at the helm of Tesla may be numbered regardless of the outcome of this litigation.


Interesting that they are seeking his removal. I suppose that is the most the facts can support. His "funding secured" tweet could be defended by claiming a misunderstanding. But the impact on the stock can't be underestimated.


----------



## gardner

I suspect that Musk will wiggle out of it. I'd like to think he would also be chastened and begin to stick to his knitting -- but that is not in his nature, nor what has led TSLA to this point.


----------



## AltaRed

Being barred from being an officer, etc of any publicly traded company is very severe for an entrepreneur especially. No way he could be at the helm of an IPO of a new venture for example. 

The financial penalties would mostly come from successful shareholder civil suits, e.g. purchases at inflated stock prices. It is a very unfortunate lapse of judgement on Elon's part but he did set himself up for that risk with his frenzied (over committed) daily involvement in company operations. The next few months could be telling with a very large debt repayment due in November that analysts are saying cannot be repaid without another equity injection....now at very reduced prices. 

Tesla needs to survive but it seems more and more certain it is likely going to need a white knight at this point to take on (potentially) a controlling interest.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Being barred from being an officer, etc of any publicly traded company is very severe for an entrepreneur especially. No way he could be at the helm of an IPO of a new venture for example.


Yes. That's what I observed earlier too:



james4beach said:


> Not any more he won't. Elon will not IPO anything ever again, not Boring, not SpaceX. No investment bank, no underwriter, no analyst will ever trust him with a public company ever again after that stunt he pulled on August 7.


Elon will have a really tough time playing in public markets going forward. Securities fraud.


----------



## doctrine

His "Funding Secured" tweet was a disaster and pretty clear securities fraud given his frustration with short sellers and intent to push the price to $420 a share. Someone like that should not be at the head of a multi-billion dollar company. He is becoming unhinged.


----------



## gardner

doctrine said:


> His "Funding Secured" tweet was a disaster and pretty clear securities fraud


Maybe. The SEC has only just begun their action -- it has not succeeded nor been appealed. It is entirely possible that Musk could prevail, or lose, or negotiate a settlement but with only fines. It is not a done-deal that Musk is banned from being an officer of any public company -- that is still a worst-case (for him) outcome. My personal bet is that he walks and the upshot is that the board is forced to rein him in and the cost of capital to his companies gets even higher. And we will be discussing something even stupider that he will have done in 6 months time.


----------



## AltaRed

Agree this is all speculative at this time until/if the SEC 'wins'. That said, it is a pretty blatant egregious example that the SEC (and the courts) cannot let go.


----------



## kcowan

I wonder if the SEC will get many of the departed executives to testify under oath?


----------



## robfordlives

Well it's all over already

$20Mil fine to him and $20 to Tesla. Must step down as chairman and elect two independents to the board. So you can reject a deal with the SEC and change your mind a day later? What a slap on the wrist.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree it is a slap on the wrist (should have been demoted out of the CEO chair as well) but I suspect SEC didn't want to necessarily make Tesla any more precarious (dumping Elon entirely) than it already is.


----------



## jargey3000

i think we need the FBI to step in.....do a 1 week investigation...


----------



## andrewf

The SEC has jurisdiction.


----------



## gardner

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...d-elon-musk-some-adult-supervision-2018-09-29



> The key question is if Musk will learn his lesson and take the advice of outsiders, or continue to act recklessly on Twitter and needlessly endanger Tesla investors.


I predict the latter will prevail. He will not be chastened, but rather emboldened. I think TSLA is dodging a bullet by stepping into the path of a vehicle.


----------



## AltaRed

Hard to know what impact this will have on the buying volume of Tesla cars. I wouldn't be buying one if I felt the company was unstable and might not be around in 5 years (not the same thing, but remember Bricklin?). I'd wait to see what there will be for alternatives, e.g. what Jaguar and Audi now have on the market. I've been torn between buying another ICE within the next year or so to replace my Infiniti, or trying to stretch it out another 2-3 years for potentially 2nd generation EVs (or at least a better selection from soundly funded corporations).


----------



## kcowan

I think the Board will consider the next tweet to influence his girlfriend before paying another $40 million in penalties. For a company that is strapped for cash, $40 million is significant.

Meanwhile, China is intent on becoming self-sufficient in EVs. Forget SEA for Tesla?

Could make China self-sufficient in EVs and reduce dependence on foreign oil imports


----------



## leoc2

Here are names of less expensive, fully electric vehicles that are here now (in limited quantity) or will be available soon (2019). Bear in mind "less expensive" is still pricey as the market is in its infancy and needs the early adopters to debug the new vehicles.

Hyundai Ioniq
Hyundai Kona
Chevy Bolt
Nissan Leaf
Kia Soul EV
Ford Focus Electric
Volkswagen e-Golf


----------



## AltaRed

Add the Audi eTron, and the Jaguar I-PACE with the all electric E-type coming in 2020. I expect to see Porsche, MB, BMW and Volvo soon. 

IOW, there are a host of players coming in the market Tesla is in and I'd count on them being around more so than Tesla in its current form.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla has a pretty strong proposition that the competition are going to have to run to catch up to. It's great that a lot of other brands are bringing EVs to market. It will expand the pool of customers who are willing to consider EVs and provide more social proof that EVs are ready for consideration. Other EVs have not challenged Tesla at all. Model 3 is crushing the competition in marketshare, even models that have been around for a couple of years. It is essentially supply constrained. They also haven't even started selling in Europe or China. At the end of the day, demand for EVs is going to grow faster than manufacturing capability.

In terms of the ecosystem, the supercharger network is a big advantage. There are other charging networks, but they have major flaws, like most charging stations being at car dealerships with no nearby amenities that are closed after hours. Also, there is no data available on how busy the stations are before you arrive, like with Tesla. Worse, the stations may be offline without good prior warning. Incumbent automakers are going to have major problems selling through their dealer networks and providing good customer support.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> The SEC has jurisdiction.


Both do (DOJ), Elizabeth Holmes got penalized by the SEC first before the DOJ indicted her.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Hard to know what impact this will have on the buying volume of Tesla cars. I wouldn't be buying one if I felt the company was unstable and might not be around in 5 years (not the same thing, but remember Bricklin?). I'd wait to see what there will be for alternatives, e.g. what Jaguar and Audi now have on the market. I've been torn between buying another ICE within the next year or so to replace my Infiniti, or trying to stretch it out another 2-3 years for potentially 2nd generation EVs (or at least a better selection from soundly funded corporations).


I'm curious, earlier when it came to EVs you seemed to be very negative on the subject. Now you are talking about possibly purchasing one in the near future. Is there something that changed your mind?

For the record, I have a relatively new ICE car (2013 model), but I plan on stretching it out for another 5-10 years before looking at an EV replacement. By that time, I figure the market and offerings will be pretty mature given the increased interest by other car manufacturers.


----------



## AltaRed

bgc_fan said:


> I'm curious, earlier when it came to EVs you seemed to be very negative on the subject. Now you are talking about possibly purchasing one in the near future. Is there something that changed your mind?


I was (still am) negative on EVs for certain specific reasons: 1) current range limitations, 2) ready availability* of superchargers when I need one, 3) extra weight and capital cost, and 4) competitive options relative to ICEs. I happen to be negative on Tesla specifically because I don't like crap shoots when it comes to longevity of the company, newness of its products and availability of service (none within 400km of my location). It was also tempered by my desire to purchase a new vehicle for my 3rd childhood which officially arrives in 2019 when I turn 70, and a belief that alternative EVs in the luxury sport category were not going to be available for perhaps 5 more years.

My mood is changing a bit over the course of several months (year) with the arrival of Audi and Jaguar EV options (with dealers locally) and suddenly it doesn't look like I may have to wait 5 years. Plus I am no longer adamant on having that shiny new vehicle for my 70th birthday necessarily. Perhaps 2 more years will: 1) give me more options from the likes of MB, Porsche and BMW, 2) battery technology may improve range allowing 700 km of range (or at least 500 km) not requiring me to stop in 'boon dock' locations/towns for a re-charge. Time will tell and I am tempted to give them a chance to 'show me' they are worth me waiting.

* It is going to take more concerted government effort to increase numbers of re-charging locations plus numbers of charging stations per location. The last thing I am prepared to do is wait in line for a charger, and especially if it is in some forlorn location where I have nothing to do but play with my smart phone while I wait. If I can go 700 km in my current ICE through the mountains of BC with nothing but a 10 minute pit stop to slow me down, I expect the same ability from an EV.


----------



## the_apprentice

leoc2 said:


> Here are names of less expensive, fully electric vehicles that are here now (in limited quantity) or will be available soon (2019). Bear in mind "less expensive" is still pricey as the market is in its infancy and needs the early adopters to debug the new vehicles.
> 
> Hyundai Ioniq
> Hyundai Kona
> Chevy Bolt
> Nissan Leaf
> Kia Soul EV
> Ford Focus Electric
> Volkswagen e-Golf


None of them compare to the Tesla, yet. I just cancelled my reservation and will wait for what the future has to offer.


----------



## AltaRed

the_apprentice said:


> None of them compare to the Tesla, yet. I just cancelled my reservation and will wait for what the future has to offer.


Agreed. There is not one vehicle in that list that I would permit in my driveway, never mind my garage.


----------



## kcowan

OK so let me see if I have this right?
- Tesla makes great EVs (Model 3 yet to be proven?)
- Tesla has interesting strategies such as free charging stations, better battery technologies
- Tesla has negotiated government subsidies for EVs (soon to end)
- there are issues with Tesla repairs out of warranty (skills, parts availability, costs)
- there are severe issues with management (high turnover, unstable CEO)
- Tesla has problems with managing the public market (SEC investigation)
- Tesla will run out of money within a year needing billions (at what price)
- there is a growing need for a facelift of existing models
- the resale market for Tesla models (residual values) is largely unknown
- the battery life/replacement cost/availability is not well-known
- does the software driven auto suffer inevitable issues as it matures
- there is growing competition from traditional vendors in hybrids
- the existing electrical grid has known limitations for widespread EV acceptance


----------



## leoc2

AltaRed said:


> Agreed. There is not one vehicle in that list that I would permit in my driveway, never mind my garage.


hmmm... must be nice to only consider vehicles like BMW, Jaguar, or Audi as bare minimum requirements.


----------



## kcowan

leoc2 said:


> hmmm... must be nice to only consider vehicles like BMW, Jaguar, or Audi as bare minimum requirements.


I think AR made it clear that this would be exceptional:


> It was also tempered by my desire to purchase a new vehicle for my 3rd childhood which officially arrives in 2019 when I turn 70


----------



## AltaRed

leoc2 said:


> hmmm... must be nice to only consider vehicles like BMW, Jaguar, or Audi as bare minimum requirements.


For what could be my last vehicle to enjoy before I potentially lose my driving abilities, absolutely without a second thought. It has to be as good, or better, than my current 2007 Infiniti that I bought as a retirement gift to myself.


----------



## leoc2

AltaRed said:


> For what could be my last vehicle to enjoy before I potentially lose my driving abilities, absolutely without a second thought. It has to be as good, or better, than my current 2007 Infiniti that I bought as a retirement gift to myself.


 :encouragement::congratulatory:


----------



## yousufj56

How are the steel tarrifs going to impact Tesla? Had a negative impact on Ford.


----------



## AltaRed

Not sure if this link will work (may be subscribers only), but seems Tesla continues to have problems getting cars delivered. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/...7595367emc=edit_ws_20181012&ref=headline&te=1 Are they matching production with what people actually want to buy?


----------



## yousufj56

AltaRed said:


> Not sure if this link will work (may be subscribers only), but seems Tesla continues to have problems getting cars delivered. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/...7595367emc=edit_ws_20181012&ref=headline&te=1 Are they matching production with what people actually want to buy?


According to early reports, they exceeded the expectations in terms of deliveries. 

I'm just worried about a lower than expected forecast or even a hit to earnings due to tarrifs. But shouldn't that already be priced in by the market??


----------



## AltaRed

There are no earnings and never have been to my knowledge. Not even positive cash flow yet though it might happen this quarter. Don't think steel and aluminum tariffs rate very high on the list of major issues.

P.S. On the other hand, they did ramp up production on the Model 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/...ls&nlid=87595367edit_ws_20181012&ref=img&te=1 Deliveries did go up too.

Added: From that last link, this point on tariffs


> In its production update, Tesla also noted “the headwinds we have been facing” as a result of the trade tensions between China and the Trump administration. Tesla vehicles shipped to China are now hit with a tariff of 40 percent, the company said.
> 
> China is the world’s largest market for electric vehicles.
> 
> “Taking ocean transport costs and import tariffs into account, Tesla is now operating at a 55 percent to 60 percent cost disadvantage compared to the exact same car locally produced in China,” the company said.


Forget steel tariffs. How about Chinese import tariffs, all a result Trump's tariff policy. How's that working out for America?


----------



## yousufj56

AltaRed said:


> There are no earnings and never have been to my knowledge. Not even positive cash flow yet though it might happen this quarter. Don't think steel and aluminum tariffs rate very high on the list of major issues.
> 
> P.S. On the other hand, they did ramp up production on the Model 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/...ls&nlid=87595367edit_ws_20181012&ref=img&te=1 Deliveries did go up too.
> 
> Added: From that last link, this point on tariffs
> 
> 
> 
> In its production update, Tesla also noted “the headwinds we have been facing” as a result of the trade tensions between China and the Trump administration. Tesla vehicles shipped to China are now hit with a tariff of 40 percent, the company said.
> 
> China is the world’s largest market for electric vehicles.
> 
> “Taking ocean transport costs and import tariffs into account, Tesla is now operating at a 55 percent to 60 percent cost disadvantage compared to the exact same car locally produced in China,” the company said.
> 
> 
> 
> Forget steel tariffs. How about Chinese import tariffs, all a result Trump's tariff policy. How's that working out for America?
Click to expand...

Good news though is that Tesla is opening a manufacturing plant in China. So this will curb the disadvantage


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> There are no earnings and never have been to my knowledge. Not even positive cash flow yet though it might happen this quarter. Don't think steel and aluminum tariffs rate very high on the list of major issues.
> 
> P.S. On the other hand, they did ramp up production on the Model 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/...ls&nlid=87595367edit_ws_20181012&ref=img&te=1 Deliveries did go up too.
> 
> Added: From that last link, this point on tariffs
> 
> Forget steel tariffs. How about Chinese import tariffs, all a result Trump's tariff policy. How's that working out for America?


I think GM tariff impact was in the hundreds of millions $ this quarter, so not insignificant.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> I think GM tariff impact was in the hundreds of millions $ this quarter, so not insignificant.


Well, yes.. but we were talking about low volume Tesla. Ford is talking about a $1B impact (per year I believe).

Re: post #812, Tesla is NOT opening a manufacturing plant in China... They are merely planning one in Shanghai (I believe) which is a far cry from opening one. Jumping to premature conclusions is hazardous to one's health.


----------



## robfordlives

AltaRed said:


> Well, yes.. but we were talking about low volume Tesla. Ford is talking about a $1B impact (per year I believe).
> 
> Re: post #812, Tesla is NOT opening a manufacturing plant in China... They are merely planning one in Shanghai (I believe) which is a far cry from opening one. Jumping to premature conclusions is hazardous to one's health.


This is part of the Musk obfuscation plan. Claim a capital raise is for X when really it is for Y and at the same time plant a seed about a future Z. At some point they won't be able to raise capital any more or at such egregious terms it will be the final nail in the coffin.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Well, yes.. but we were talking about low volume Tesla. Ford is talking about a $1B impact (per year I believe).
> 
> Re: post #812, Tesla is NOT opening a manufacturing plant in China... They are merely planning one in Shanghai (I believe) which is a far cry from opening one. Jumping to premature conclusions is hazardous to one's health.


Margin impact is not insignificant, regardless of volume.

They are in the process of securing a site. Obviously it will be years before production might start.


----------



## andrewf

robfordlives said:


> This is part of the Musk obfuscation plan. Claim a capital raise is for X when really it is for Y and at the same time plant a seed about a future Z. At some point they won't be able to raise capital any more or at such egregious terms it will be the final nail in the coffin.


Go ahead and short...

I don't expect Tesla to have a smooth path forward, but the company certainly isn't worthless and it isn't going to simply fold.


----------



## kcowan

Musk needs to review the history of Jones Soda to see what happened when the founder promoted the stock with optimism (and lies) once it was publicly listed in the US. The stock went from $0.88 to $39+ before tanking. A pump and dump special. We got in at $0.88 and got off while there was still a 10+ bagger return.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Tesla is screwed for so many reasons I can't go into them here but there are plenty of financial web sites that will give you the gory details. But, they have loans coming due in a few months that they can't pay back, their only hope is if the stock goes up substantially (fat chance) or if the mugs come across with billions in new loans (unlikely).

In the long run there are 2 ways for Tesla to go, one way they go bankrupt and the stock goes to 0. The other way is they get bought out and taken over by a bigger company that wants the Tesla name to put on a prestige luxury electric car.


----------



## AltaRed

Tesla will never go to zero. There will be a buyout, if and when, Tesla goes into Chapter 11, and probably a takeover would come well before that crisis. The technology, production models and infrastructure, and battery plant are all highly valuable to a number of other auto (or related) manufacturers. My view is the product is sound. I'd buy a Model S if I knew there was a solid company like MB or BMW or similar behind the vehicle.


----------



## yousufj56

andrewf said:


> AltaRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes.. but we were talking about low volume Tesla. Ford is talking about a $1B impact (per year I believe).
> 
> Re: post #812, Tesla is NOT opening a manufacturing plant in China... They are merely planning one in Shanghai (I believe) which is a far cry from opening one. Jumping to premature conclusions is hazardous to one's health.
> 
> 
> 
> Margin impact is not insignificant, regardless of volume.
> 
> They are in the process of securing a site. Obviously it will be years before production might start.
Click to expand...

They have the site now. Bought it for 140m dollars


----------



## robfordlives

yousufj56 said:


> They have the site now. Bought it for 140m dollars


The land is the cheap part. 

They need $ and fast. This is a waiver from the SEC allowing them to raise privately....I wonder why they are not going to market what with $1B of convertible bonds coming due by March of next year??? VP of Engineering just left making 42 exec departures in the last year. 

https://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/2018/tesla-inc-101618-506d.pdf


----------



## AltaRed

Maybe because they would be below investment grade AND convertible only into potentially penny stock. I laugh at improbable dreams like building a production facility in China when they have an accounts payable 'boat anchor' that would stagger most companies right in America. If business operations were to stop 'dead in their tracks' today, I suspect they would be insolvent.

From the NY Times


> The automaker needs more revenue because it uses up nearly $1 billion in cash almost every quarter. At the start of the third quarter, Tesla had $2.2 billion in cash, but it owed suppliers $3 billion. It also had about $11 billion in debt on its balance sheet.


----------



## nobleea

"Andrew Left of Citron Research reversed his negative view of Tesla and offered some glowing words about the company in a blog post Tuesday. He wrote that Tesla is "destroying the competition.""

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/23/tech/tesla-stock/index.html

Weird.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

The guy makes his money making bets on share movement - up or down. He was short and suing, now he's long and full of praises.
Seems simple.


----------



## SixesAndSevens

something smells fishy....i think Left has been bought off...err...i mean wined & dined.

this is part of Musk's "crush-the-shorts" 13 point program....


----------



## nobleea

A Q3 profit of 2.90/share vs a wall street expected loss of 19c per share.

Seems like a big win and Musk goes out with a bang.


----------



## AltaRed

Highly encouraging http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/725970e6-eda5-47ab-96e1-422d4045f799


----------



## doctrine

Let's hope they don't scale so fast that they run out of people to sell $50k electric cars.


----------



## yousufj56

Very pleased with the e.r


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> Highly encouraging http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/725970e6-eda5-47ab-96e1-422d4045f799


and even Bloomberg was positive
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tesla-s...kely-a-positive-morgan-stanley-says-1.1156835
but why have so many executives left? Did some not go along with the party line just published? i.e. no mention of the impending cash crunch?


----------



## andrewf

^ I've seen other summaries that indicate that despite media attention (amped by short sellers), the rate of executive turn-over was not particularly high. That said, Musk is a demanding boss and I'm sure some people aren't good fits.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> ^ I've seen other summaries that indicate that despite media attention (amped by short sellers), the rate of executive turn-over was not particularly high. That said, Musk is a demanding boss and I'm sure some people aren't good fits.


I would agree working for Elon would be a nightmare. I wouldn't stay with someone as erratic and off the richter scale as he is.


----------



## andrewf

They generated 750M in cash this quarter. Should be able to repeat that and perhaps more next quarter. Upcoming debt maturity is 900M next year. Seems to me that they could cover it out of cash flows.

Now, what I expect will happen and what they should do is repeat the profit and cash flow performance next quarter as a demonstration of the viability of their business, then resume investing for growth. A factory in China, Model Y development, Tesla Semi development, likely a factory in Europe are all worthy areas to allocate capital. As it stands, there is more demand than supply for electric cars. Tesla has done a fantastic job of capturing substantially all of it in the US (they are 80%+ of EV sales) and they are leaving money on the table in Europe. They are going to need to invest in a service infrastructure to support that fleet as well. The ride-sharing model is pretty interesting as well if they can get autonomy to work well enough, as Tesla has the best electric cars and a monopoly on their use in ride-sharing.


----------



## SixesAndSevens

andrewf said:


> They generated 750M in cash this quarter.


FBI investigation intensifying on overstating Model 3 production going back to 2017.
at some point DOJ and SEC will jointly expand investigation into the whole financial statements going back years...

btw, citron is already out of the swing trade...


----------



## kcowan

Here is a family fun game. Guess what the free cashflow will be in the next several months:







Special points if you properly identify the months when the Solar City debt is due.


----------



## andrewf

SixesAndSevens said:


> FBI investigation intensifying on overstating Model 3 production going back to 2017.
> at some point DOJ and SEC will jointly expand investigation into the whole financial statements going back years...
> 
> btw, citron is already out of the swing trade...


The shorts and fudsters must be getting quite desperate when they are down to claiming that the company is lying about how many cars it is delivering to customers.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Here is a family fun game. Guess what the free cashflow will be in the next several months:
> View attachment 19070
> 
> Special points if you properly identify the months when the Solar City debt is due.


Cash crunch will be a real problem if Tesla can't demonstrate they have a profitable underlying business. I don't think they will have any problems refinancing after racking up a few quarters of strong cash flow and income. Biggest risk would be a global recession that tightened credit.


----------



## kcowan

Agree andrew. A companion risk is that the bubble of demand evaporates when they can produce to demand. They are working their way through the backlog, and when that is accomplished, they will need to ramp up a marketing effort with associated expenses.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

kcowan said:


> Agree andrew. A companion risk is that the bubble of demand evaporates when they can produce to demand. They are working their way through the backlog, and when that is accomplished, they will need to ramp up a marketing effort with associated expenses.


Yes. Related to this, I wondered how representative their industry-beating quarterly revenue and car volume numbers really are. Other companies aren't burning off a backlog of car orders. So perhaps a case of comparing electric apples with gasoline oranges? (I'm not interested enough in Tesla's fortunes to chase it down).


----------



## SixesAndSevens

andrewf said:


> The shorts and fudsters must be getting quite desperate when they are down to claiming that the company is lying about how many cars it is delivering to customers.


i am not saying this...the FBI & DOJ are investigating.
they don't waste their time unless there is some credible evidence.
nothing may come of it who knows...time will tell.


----------



## kcowan

Tesla break-even price for model 3: $38k
 Article


----------



## Onagoth

*Tesla*

Anyone else betting against Tesla?

Been a pretty interesting year for them....and Elon.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Hope you don't mind, I've asked that your post be added to the existing Tesla thread and that this duplicate thread be removed.
https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...-(TSLA)?p=1986808&highlight=Tesla#post1986808


----------



## AltaRed

Elon Musk is an absolute loose cannon with no concept of regulatory (and shareholder) responsibilities https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/tech/elon-musk-sec-settlement-contempt/index.html


----------



## kcowan

Unlike their other midnight tweeter, I think Musk knows exactly what he is doing. The problem is that he desperately needs to support the stock price or risk default IMHO. I really hope Tesla survives. The emerging competition from China, Germany, Japan and Korea is real. I would hate to see them have the same fate as the Palm Pilot or the Osborne portable computer!


----------



## gardner

kcowan said:


> The problem is that he desperately needs to support the stock price


Would getting himself thrown out of the company altogether by the SEC help more than hurt?


----------



## twa2w

Musk should have kept his company smaller initially and concentrated on quality and let the cachet drive the demand. Eventually he would be as big or bigger.
Consumer Reports has pulled their support and no longer recommend any Teslas.
Perhaps he should concentrate on the technology and leave the running of the business, the tweeting and marketing to others.

I think they have captured the low hanging fruit, now they are starting to lose momentum and the mystique they had.


----------



## kcowan

gardner said:


> Would getting himself thrown out of the company altogether by the SEC help more than hurt?


I think he does not believe that will happen. He is playing the Trump game of setting up the SEC as the fall guys.


----------



## bgc_fan

Anyway, back to Tesla, any thoughts with the effects of Volvo getting into the model 3 space with their Polestar 2?


----------



## AltaRed

Read about that today. I will be at least looking with some interest over the next 18-24 months. IF I buy an EV, it will be from an established auto company which will be around to back its product.


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> Anyway, back to Tesla, any thoughts with the effects of Volvo getting into the model 3 space with their Polestar 2?


More the merrier. Demand is going to outstrip supply. And the trick will be getting batteries. All the Tesla killers are battery constrained.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> More the merrier. Demand is going to outstrip supply. And the trick will be getting batteries. All the Tesla killers are battery constrained.


Maybe in BC and Quebec where the government pays you to buy one. Elsewhere, not so much at the current price point.


----------



## kcowan

Does anyone want a black one stripped down with low range battery, no cruise control for US$35000 plus destination charges? Maybe a fleet purchase?


----------



## AltaRed

True that price points are not there yet. There has to be a step change in something, either range, or lower price, or subsidy to truly make EVs mainstream. The latter (subsidies) is not sustainable for very long. More Class 3 charging stations too along highways before I'd commit.


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Maybe in BC and Quebec where the government pays you to buy one. Elsewhere, not so much at the current price point.


There is a whole wide world outside of Canada. I'll believe you when Tesla starts having a glut of cars it can't sell.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Does anyone want a black one stripped down with low range battery, no cruise control for US$35000 plus destination charges? Maybe a fleet purchase?


Will be a favourite for Uber drivers.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> Will be a favourite for Uber drivers.


If it were white, it would be a slam-dunk. Black will relegate it to a niche.


----------



## andrewf

You can get white for a small premium. However, I do think Tesla is steering consumers to the next option with extra range and premium interior for a few thousand. It will sell well.


----------



## robfordlives

I continue to think the end story is bankruptcy. They have now cut prices 3-4 times in the last several months, this at the very least is not what a growth company does. The February delivery numbers were dreadful and China/Europe sales will not offset that. In Q4 conference call they stated they wanted to sell SolarCity panels at the Tesla stores and now they are closing most of them? They have a severe working capital deficit and how will they refresh their models, finance China, finance the pickup truck, finance Model Y, etc?

I also don't understand why people are willing to pay for autopilot now when there is no state or province where it is legally permissible.


----------



## AltaRed

Nor would I buy a vehicle I cannot test drive first. It is one thing ordering pool supplies online, not so much a $35k+ vehicle.


----------



## doctrine

It looks to me like Tesla overbuilt capacity for an electric car revolution which has yet to occur. 

They are shutting down dealerships and slashing prices, not a sign of a company that has so many orders that it can't meet the demand. More like a fire sale. Not a lot of free supercharging offers these days either.

However the stock price is still pricing in total success, so if you believe Tesla will be selling millions of electric cars per year in the next few years, then the stock reflects that reality. 

Even with lofty expectations built into the stock price, since it hit its high in 2017, it has been downhill about -25%. Meanwhile the S&P 500 is up 17-18% and even GM is up nearly 20% including dividends. You always have the $30 a share in book value to fall back on though.


----------



## andrewf

Many people have lost a lot of money betting on bankruptcy. I don't think it is likely. Whatever else is wrong with the company, they have a strong brand and pretty compelling products. Even if they do need capital, they will be able to raise it. The base model 3 with premium upgrade at 37k USD is a pretty good deal when accounting for fuel savings.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Many people have lost a lot of money betting on bankruptcy. I don't think it is likely. Whatever else is wrong with the company, they have a strong brand and pretty compelling products. Even if they do need capital, they will be able to raise it. The base model 3 with premium upgrade at 37k USD is a pretty good deal when accounting for fuel savings.


I suspect Tesla will muddle through, either with additional market equity or via a white knight partial ownership position, but outside of the major cities where Tesla maintains a presence, I don't understand anyone taking a flyer on their vehicles. Look at all the downsides:
- May, or may not, be viable 10 years from now due to cash flow problems and an erratic, eccentric, and possibly unstable chief executive. Who will service vehicles on the road?
- Most non-large urban potential customers have no way to touch, or even test drive, one of their vehicles
- QC and reliability concerns are mounting, e.g. Consumer Reports having dropped all Tesla vehicles

The only pro right now is their current dominant position in the marketplace. That can disappear in a mere few years. Tesla has also set the bar from which all others will compete. That will be a good thing.

WADR, I will wait for an Audi, Jaguar, BMW, MB, Volvo alternative EV from an auto company that has dealer and repair facilities in my area, and will most likely be around for decades to come.

Added: I expect my vehicles to run 10-15 years without significant repair. I would expect my EV, if I buy one, to do the same.


----------



## bgc_fan

Too be honest, I would expect an EV to last longer and have lower maintenance cost. EVs are inherently simpler and when you think about running a car to the ground, it is usually the engine that goes.


----------



## AltaRed

Powertrains outlast accessory components, at least with Japanese vehicles. My main concern with EVs would be longevity and capacity retention of the battery pack. 

An EV still has many of the same/similar mechanical accessories as an ICE. It is my experience that it is those components that ultimately need replacement/repair, not powertrains.


----------



## bgc_fan

An old article, but it points out the difference in powertrain components, 18 vs thousands.
https://www.businessinsider.com/credit-suisse-on-tesla-2014-8?IR=T
Of course there is another side effect of regenerative braking so that break pads don't wear out anywhere as quickly as a conventional car.
As far as battery life goes, anecdotally, the packs retain at least 90 percent after 8 or so years.


----------



## AltaRed

As I said, I have never had an issue with powertrain components in any Japanese ICE vehicle. So whether there are 10,000 components or 100,000 components is not relevant. I understand it can be quite a different story with other brands.

It is more likely to have to deal with accessories than powertrains. Things like brake rotors and calipers, power steering, power brakes, shocks, electronics, etc on vehicles. EV proponents overstate the differences.

Added: ICEs need fluid changes so there is more regular maintenance, along with a drive belt and spark plugs every 100 000 km or so. That clearly is an advantage of EVs, but it is nonsense to argue against ICE reliability and longevity in most cases.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> As I said, I have never had an issue with powertrain components in any Japanese ICE vehicle. So whether there are 10,000 components or 100,000 components is not relevant. I understand it can be quite a different story with other brands.
> 
> It is more likely to have to deal with accessories than powertrains. Things like brake rotors and calipers, power steering, power brakes, shocks, electronics, etc on vehicles. EV proponents overstate the differences.
> 
> Added: ICEs need fluid changes so there is more regular maintenance, along with a drive belt and spark plugs every 100 000 km or so. That clearly is an advantage of EVs, but it is nonsense to argue against ICE reliability and longevity in most cases.


Actually it does make a difference. The more parts there are, the increased likelihood of issues, it's just basic probability. Those type of parts do wear over time and would normally have more of a cost associated with it. Even something like the starter battery and alternator is something to consider. Since those don't exist in an EV, assuming your battery isn't drained, you have no issue with starting up in the cold (range is another issue). Whereas I'm sure you would have experienced with any ICE car parked in the cold with extended period of time some trepidation when it takes some time to turn over.


----------



## AltaRed

Philosophically, I agree with you, but as I said, just buy a proper ICE brand and model to eliminate the vast majority of issues with all those extra parts. There is no reason for any of those 'extra' parts to fail if one purchases the right ICE. Anecdotally, I am 13 years in on a Japanese vehicle with 195,000 km. Not one ICE associated element has yet failed, nor do I anticipate it failing any time soon. I wouldn't hesitate to drive it anywhere in North America. 

Will a Tesla battery, or drive motor, perform like new with that age and mileage on it? Don't know because we are not there yet, but I think most manufacturers are offering 8 year, 100,000 mile (or 10 year, 150,000 mile) warranties on their batteries. That will be pretty good if that proves to be the case.


----------



## andrewf

Alta, I don't expect you to be in the first 50%ile of EV adoption. That is fine. But you should take care not to project your concerns on the market as a whole. Tesla makes cars profitably, so there is no danger of it during down suddenly or of support evaporating.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

The bottom line is that there are already less expensive, equally reliable vehicles available that are economic to run & maintain. They happen to use gasoline. There is no need to consider a Tesla unless you are an early adopter of new technologies type, or have green religious values.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> As I said, I have never had an issue with powertrain components in any Japanese ICE vehicle.


You have been lucky. There have been a multitude of problems with ICE engines of all makes including Japanese. A few:

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-repair-maintenance/honda-cr-v-affected-by-engine-trouble/

http://www.toyotaproblems.com/oil-sludge/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jan/28/nissan-qashqai-engine-failure-mechanical-oil-problems

http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/mazda-car-recall-engine-rear-door/

and so on.......

Could show same for German cars and almost any make that uses ICE engines. Diesel or gas. 

But I do agree, that our modern car power trains are very reliable. Some more so than others. But one big fault they all have, is that they spew out very large amounts of CO2.


----------



## AltaRed

I do remember the Toyota sludge issue of 15-20 years ago. Seem to recall that was partly a result of stretching oil changes too far. I am not familiar with the others, but point acknowledged.

CO2 reduction is a laudable goal but in my opinion not worth falling on our sword to do so. Advocates have supercharged the issue to the point of no longer being credible.

I will just muddle along somewhere in the middle of all that chaos. But one thing for sure, I will never buy a Tesla for reasons I have already articulated. I tend to not like being up front.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> But one thing for sure, I will never buy a Tesla for reasons I have already articulated. I tend to not like being up front.


I won't be buying one either. Firstly, I couldn't afford to. Secondly, our gov no longer gives us a rebate  If they did, I think our next car could be an EV. Or maybe a hybrid. We just bought a new car and it wasn't either of those!

I like the simplicity of an EV. 
I don't like the complexity of most hybrids that have both mechanical and electric drives. 
A hybrid where the engine is only used to charge the battery, would be best compromise, I feel.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> There is no reason for any of those 'extra' parts to fail if one purchases the right ICE. Anecdotally, I am 13 years in on a Japanese vehicle with 195,000 km. Not one ICE associated element has yet failed, nor do I anticipate it failing any time soon. I wouldn't hesitate to drive it anywhere in North America.


I drive my daily drivers into the ground, current is 17 years old with 332,000 kms and the engine is still running like a champ. Previous was 18 years old with 440,000kms and the engine was still good. 

I like the idea of electrics but the range issue is a non-starter for me.


----------



## gardner

AltaRed said:


> It is my experience that it is those components that ultimately need replacement/repair, not powertrains.


I've never had a powertrain problem, per se. But I have had PLENTY of emission control system problems -- O2 sensors, dampers, valves, heaters -- those things are super complicated and a nest of problems. That said, 75% of the expensive car problems I've had have been on systems any electric car would also have -- ABS/brakes, AC, power steering, locks/windows, corrosion, tires/wheels/wheel bearings, struts and so forth.

Someone considering a Tesla would do well to look at some of the Tesla repair blogs and YouTube channels. There are many stories about people unable to get their Teslas fixed due to parts being unavailable or total lack of service facilities. The electronic systems are super-duper complex and unlike conventional cars, some hiccup in the infotainment system will entirely brick your car, not just force you to drive around without tunes.

Nissan, Volvo, Toyota, VW and so forth, all have a service network and sell parts via channels that support repairs by independent shops that exist all over the place. With Tesla, it would be like looking for the nearest Lancia or Opel dealer. You'd mostly just get dumb looks.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Alta, I don't expect you to be in the first 50%ile of EV adoption. That is fine. But you should take care not to project your concerns on the market as a whole. Tesla makes cars profitably, so there is no danger of it during down suddenly or of support evaporating.


Yet they're already guiding to a Q1 loss; and its seems like two of the seven service centres in Canada (Calgary, Quebec City) have closed.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/findus/list/services/canada

vs https://web.archive.org/web/20181213073256/https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/findus/list/services/Canada

With the chaotic closure of stores (several of which opened just in December) and service centres, we might very well be seeing an ongoing liquidity event.


----------



## kcowan

*Do build errors indicate future quality problems*

What does this suggest in future quality:


----------



## AltaRed

Looks like Tesla is backing off how many stores it closes and will raise prices instead on most models. Tesla only had about 10 stores in Canada to begin with, in 5 cities, so regardless, it makes little difference to their Canadian market either way. They may still close a few of the multiples they have in TO and Vancouver. Of no interest to us in the BC Interior anyway - might as well be on Mars.


----------



## gardner

kcowan said:


> What does this suggest


The thing that amazes me in these figures is that Hyundai makes more cars with a FIFTH of the people. Even BMW is about twice as efficient on a cars/person/year basis.

Arguably the Tesla is more complex in some ways, but one of the selling points is the lower overall complexity and parts count. Were't they trying to go super-automated, upping the anti on traditional automotive manufacturing automation?


----------



## bgc_fan

gardner said:


> The thing that amazes me in these figures is that Hyundai makes more cars with a FIFTH of the people. Even BMW is about twice as efficient on a cars/person/year basis.
> 
> Arguably the Tesla is more complex in some ways, but one of the selling points is the lower overall complexity and parts count. Were't they trying to go super-automated, upping the anti on traditional automotive manufacturing automation?


They tried and apparently they failed. Supposedly there are certain tasks that are difficult to use robots, most related to the installation of the battery packs I believe. The article talks about the fiberglass mat, but I think there talk about how the batteries themselves need to be installed. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/...tomation-robots-manufacturing-delay-1.4734829


----------



## gardner

It's been a tough week for TSLA. 11% drop so far on the week. I think Musk has been tamed now -- no big grandiose announcements about trucks or rocket packs. No new models. The SEC has taken away his reality distortion field.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

Musk is still a liability though. 
His claims to have a self-driving taxi fleet by next year, without 'inferior' lidar, and with his 'superior' chips and navigation database was skeptically received by analysts and investors. Kind of like the boy who cried wolf, his pronouncements are heavily discounted.


----------



## doctrine

This is more about a demonstrated drop in sales in the first quarter. He might build 500,000 cars in the next 12 months, but will they sell? Without new subsidies, maybe not. Deliveries in North America have fallen off a cliff.


----------



## kcowan

Musk has been successful in space by appointing a competent executive to run it. When will the board insist on the same thing for Tesla?


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> Musk has been successful in space by appointing a competent executive to run it. When will the board insist on the same thing for Tesla?


They probably will not act until it is well too late. Another 2 years of this roller coaster and Tesla's competition will have gathered enough momentum to squeeze Tesla's sales considerably. The likes of Porsche, Jag, BMW, MB can loss lead their EVs to capture market share, and they will.


----------



## kcowan

Why would anyone spend $50k+ on a car that has such an uncertain future?


----------



## Sagetology

AltaRed said:


> They probably will not act until it is well too late. Another 2 years of this roller coaster and Tesla's competition will have gathered enough momentum to squeeze Tesla's sales considerably. The likes of Porsche, Jag, BMW, MB can loss lead their EVs to capture market share, and they will.


The problem is they have been saying that for years now. Audi is having problems manufacturing the e-tron, Jaguar is producing the i-pace at incredibly low levels. Meanwhile, the Model 3 is the best selling premium mid-size vehicle in the US.


----------



## Sagetology

kcowan said:


> Why would anyone spend $50k+ on a car that has such an uncertain future?


Are you talking about BMW or Mercedes? :chuncky:


----------



## AltaRed

Sagetology said:


> The problem is they have been saying that for years now. Audi is having problems manufacturing the e-tron, Jaguar is producing the i-pace at incredibly low levels. Meanwhile, the Model 3 is the best selling premium mid-size vehicle in the US.


They haven't. It's only been the last ~2 years that the big manufacturers have gotten serious about EVs with a seismic shift in development priorities. Within the next 2 years, the big automakers, with their significant resources, including real cash flow and real earnings, will be a force to be reckoned with, and that will squeeze Tesla into a niche market. There simply isn't a big enough EV market for all players any time in the near future.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> They probably will not act until it is well too late. Another 2 years of this roller coaster and Tesla's competition will have gathered enough momentum to squeeze Tesla's sales considerably. The likes of Porsche, Jag, BMW, MB can loss lead their EVs to capture market share, and they will.


No, they won't. Legacy automakers have dealer networks to keep happy, and dealers hate EVs. And they will struggle with battery supply. 

The latest Tesla killer, Audi Etron, is a flop.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> They haven't. It's only been the last ~2 years that the big manufacturers have gotten serious about EVs with a seismic shift in development priorities. Within the next 2 years, the big automakers, with their significant resources, including real cash flow and real earnings, will be a force to be reckoned with, and that will squeeze Tesla into a niche market. There simply isn't a big enough EV market for all players any time in the near future.


Tesla has by far the best technology wrt powertrain, battery management, efficiency per km. Efficiency is key, as Etron has far less range for same size battery pack, which seriously hampers the value prop. Other manufacturers will struggle to produce profitably. Tesla just upgraded model s range to 370 miles.

Tesla is far from perfect, but I think people fail to appreciate the technology lead that they have amassed. I think their self driving strategy is promising as well. Robotaxi business is further out than they are suggesting, but enhanced driver assist will be a very attractive and high margin feature.


----------



## AltaRed

Andrew, it doesn't matter how good the technology is if the company may not be around in 5-10 years, or if I cannot service it cost effectively and efficiently locally in the Okanagan, e.g. 5-8 hour turnaround. 

I think Tesla advocates don't recognize that early adopters do not represent the mainstream. If/when EVs become mainstream they most likely won't be Teslas. I see them as a niche player long term, if they remain independent.


----------



## Eder

Which of us bought a Sony BetaMax? I bought it for the superior technology.


----------



## andrewf

Maybe you have it flipped. Okanagan is not representative of "mainstream". Big cars markets are cities. As Tesla grows production, the service infrastructure will fill out.

There will definitely be people who buy jaguar or Audi because they are loyal to the brand, but the products are not very compelling. Tesla is only going to have a slice of the market, but I don't think it will be as boutique as perhaps you do. They will be producing two million vehicles per year in 3-4 years. That will put them in the same range as BMW and Mazda. Considering that they are growing their share of the EV market, as the EV market grows they stand to do well.


----------



## Sagetology

Eder said:


> Which of us bought a Sony BetaMax? I bought it for the superior technology.


Yeah and people also bought iPhones and Androids for the better technology over Blackberry...

Tesla has a giant competitive advantage with its battery efficiency, technology (over-the-air updates, Autopilot) and use of stores over dealers. Tesla is a growth company. The are focused on growth right now, not profits - similar to how Amazon expanded. Tesla could be very profitable now if they were not investing in their business.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Which of us bought a Sony BetaMax? I bought it for the superior technology.


VHS won because it sold more units. Who sells the most EVs, despite being years behind Prius and Leaf?


----------



## Eder

Betamax sold more units at the start as well. I have no horse in this game but Telsa setting money on fire doesn't bode well for future competition. I hope they succeed and don't end up like the Bricklen. I do think they need a process guy to take over as CEO.


----------



## Eder

At any rate heres a blurb that I read about Tesla that makes sense ()

https://thereformedbroker.com/2019/04/26/why-tesla-is-a-better-short-at-lower-prices/


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

At least if you are in a bad Teslsa crash the cremation is included https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-cars-catch-on-fire-2019-4


----------



## andrewf

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> At least if you are in a bad Teslsa crash the cremation is included https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-cars-catch-on-fire-2019-4


Gas cars never catch fire? It's almost as if high energy density has some inherent risk. Tesla fires get press, but gas cars do at a 10x higher rate.


----------



## Borat

Teslas also have electric door handles that fail during crash so the occupant can't get out.


----------



## doctrine

Tesla is following the Uber model of technology companies, as opposed to the Facebook and Google model. FB/Google both IPOd profitable and debt free. Tesla is neither and will require yet again more capital to fund its growth. Q1 is pretty clear that Model 3 torpedoed the sales of higher margin Model S and X. Who would buy a $140,000 Tesla when you can buy one for $50,000? Apparently about 1/2 of Model S/X buyers.


----------



## kcowan

When we got back from PV this morning, the taxi stand had a Prius up next. We had two full-size pieces, 2 medium, 2 small and a humongous duffel bag on wheels. We offered to take the minivan in second place. The driver said no problem, his was the new large Prius and sure enough, it easily took all the bags and the rear seat had good legroom. He expects it to turn 200k km per year and will keep it for 5 years. Pretty impressive.

If the model Y can compete with that, it should be a contender.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Gas cars never catch fire? It's almost as if high energy density has some inherent risk. Tesla fires get press, but gas cars do at a 10x higher rate.


They do? Citation please.... cause while there are more fires in ICE vehicles, there are a hell of a lot more of them on the road. Accidents puncturing tanks or fuel lines would be the leading cause in any event.... well, maybe the latest Hyundai/Kia engine fire fiasco will bust the stats out of the water.


----------



## andrewf

Borat said:


> Teslas also have electric door handles that fail during crash so the occupant can't get out.


Evidence?


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> Tesla is following the Uber model of technology companies, as opposed to the Facebook and Google model. FB/Google both IPOd profitable and debt free. Tesla is neither and will require yet again more capital to fund its growth. Q1 is pretty clear that Model 3 torpedoed the sales of higher margin Model S and X. Who would buy a $140,000 Tesla when you can buy one for $50,000? Apparently about 1/2 of Model S/X buyers.


It seems it was some overhang of demand being pulled forward by the Q4 end of the full tax credit, and the phase out of the lower cost model s temporarily. Tesla completed an update to the drivetrain that added 10% range for same battery pack and reintroduced the lower cost model, so demand should rebound. Also should expect a refresh that would bring other aspects of the car in line with model 3, such as peak charge rate.


----------



## Eder

At any rate this group of German scientists claim when the CO2 emissions from battery production is included, electric cars, like Teslas, are “in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher.
Also that natural gas combustion engines are the ideal technology for transitioning to vehicles powered by hydrogen or “green” methane in the long term. 

http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/...iv/2019/Q2/pm_20190417_sd08-Elektroautos.html (its in English for the most part for us plebs)


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> At any rate this group of German scientists claim when the CO2 emissions from battery production is included, electric cars, like Teslas, are “in the best case, slightly higher than those of a diesel engine, and are otherwise much higher.
> Also that natural gas combustion engines are the ideal technology for transitioning to vehicles powered by hydrogen or “green” methane in the long term.
> 
> http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/...iv/2019/Q2/pm_20190417_sd08-Elektroautos.html (its in English for the most part for us plebs)


Misleading quote. They specifically said for Germany's current energy mix, which includes a lot of coal. You are welcome to buy one of those wimpy natural gas airport town cars. Hydrogen is DOA. It will never work--it is inherently expensive/inefficient. Roundtrip efficiency is too low.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> They do? Citation please.... cause while there are more fires in ICE vehicles, there are a hell of a lot more of them on the road. Accidents puncturing tanks or fuel lines would be the leading cause in any event.... well, maybe the latest Hyundai/Kia engine fire fiasco will bust the stats out of the water.


90 vehicle fires per billion miles driven:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents#Frequency_of_vehicle_fires

Tesla reported 5 fires per billion miles:

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/companies/electric-car-fire-risk/index.html

https://insideevs.com/news/341441/a...y-to-catch-fire-than-combustion-engined-cars/


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> Evidence?


http/lmgtfy.com/tesla door handles not opening


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> http/lmgtfy.com/tesla door handles not opening


http://bfy.tw/495C

I heard of one incident of a guy who felt trapped inside a Model X due to an apparently dead battery, but it wasn't a crash. They all have manual/mechanical door releases. The Falcon wing door release on Model X is, I think, rather unfortunately hidden behind a speaker cover. This strikes me as FUD though--you complaining about the Ford Explorers that are exposing occupants to exhaust fumes while idling as well?


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> [you complaining about the Ford Explorers that are exposing occupants to exhaust fumes while idling as well?


I heard that was because of modifications done by the police who were driving them. They had drilled holes through the firewall to install special equipment i.e. user error.


----------



## AltaRed

Well, are you? Huh? https://www.moneysense.ca/save/are-you-a-masochist-for-investing-in-tesla/

Not only that, Elon is going (may go) on trial this Fall for his stupid 'pedo' comment. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/10/elon-musk-trial-pedophile-comment/1172020001/

The guy is unstable.


----------



## Kabanga

Have you watched spaceX launches.... wondering how could such an idea come in Elon's head...


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Well, are you? Huh? https://www.moneysense.ca/save/are-you-a-masochist-for-investing-in-tesla/
> 
> Not only that, Elon is going (may go) on trial this Fall for his stupid 'pedo' comment. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/10/elon-musk-trial-pedophile-comment/1172020001/
> 
> The guy is unstable.


Yes, but he is a bit of a genius in making things happen that people said were impossible. I struggle to think of any other entrepreneurs to build 3 completely unrelated billion dollar businesses that each shook up an industry.


----------



## doctrine

Solar City certainly wasn't one of them. This $2.6 billion dollar acquisition has a grand total of 21 Solar Roof systems in the entire state of California and few anywhere else. That's $100 million per Solar Roof installation. When your company's market cap is based on high expectations and thin air, it really doesn't matter what tangible value is. What is the dollar value of charm and vision? Nice of him to bail out his cousin though who was CEO and about to roll under.


----------



## andrewf

No, I don't count solar city--he wasn't a founder, for one.

I'm thinking paypal, tesla, and spacex.

Solar City has way more installs then you are referring to. I think you must have some garbled facts. Maybe you are thinking the solar roof tiles that they are still developing/testing? Solar City has a largish conventional PV manufacturing and installation business.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> No, I don't count solar city--he wasn't a founder, for one.
> 
> I'm thinking paypal, tesla, and spacex.


Found on the internet:


> Founded as Tesla Motors, Tesla Inc. was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning who financed the company until the Series A round of funding. The founders were influenced to start the company after GM recalled all its EV1 electric cars in 2003 and then destroyed them.


I think he has been a cofounder much more than a founder. Like Paul Allan and Steve Wosniak.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> 90 vehicle fires per billion miles driven ...
> Tesla reported 5 fires per billion miles ...


The 90 vehicle fires number is problematic for a couple of reasons.
The first is that it is an average across 2003-2007, where the detail chart says the last year that was 90 was 2004 with 75 for 2007, the most recent year.
The second is that the average number includes intentionally set vehicle fires (8%).


It seems more sensible to use the 2018 article that gives 5 fires per billion miles for Tesla and 55 fires per billion miles for gasoline engines.
There's no detail so it is hard to say if the numbers in the more recent article include intentional fires.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12

kcowan said:


> ... I think he has been a cofounder much more than a founder. Like Paul Allan and Steve Wosniak.


In the case of Paypal, more of an outsider who saw the potential.


> PayPal was established in December 1998 as Confinity, a company that developed security software for handheld devices founded by Max Levchin, Peter Thiel, Luke Nosek, and Ken Howery.
> PayPal was developed and *launched as a money transfer service at Confinity in 1999, funded by John Malloy from BlueRun Ventures.*
> 
> In March 2000, Confinity merged with X.com, an online banking company founded by Elon Musk. Musk was optimistic about the future success of the money transfer business Confinity was developing


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Early_history


Cheers


----------



## agent99

Eclectic12 said:


> In the case of Paypal, more of an outsider who saw the potential.


Musk was the founder of X.com which eventually was renamed Paypal. Along the way X.com had merged with Confinity who were developing the on-line payment system. As the founder of X.Com which became Paypal, Musk was hardly an outsider! And he was the major shareholder collecting a good part of the $1.5billion when they sold to eBay. Have you read Musk's biography? It explains what went on and is quite interesting.


----------



## kcowan

agent99 said:


> And he was the major shareholder collecting a good part of the $1.5billion when they sold to eBay. Have you read Musk's biography? It explains what went on and is quite interesting.


At nearly 2800 reviews, the source material and writing style must be superb!


----------



## gardner

Not new, new, but more awkward problems for Tesla...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/walmart-sues-tesla-solar-panel-fires-1.5254145



> Walmart sues Tesla for negligence after solar panels catch fire at 7 stores


----------



## AltaRed

It is another example of vision and idealism not being in touch with realism on the ground.


----------



## kcowan

AltaRed said:


> It is another example of vision and idealism not being in touch with realism on the ground.


True but I think Solar City was incompetent in not knowing how conditions on the roves could cause such problems! They are the experts!


----------



## AltaRed

kcowan said:


> True but I think Solar City was incompetent in not knowing how conditions on the roves could cause such problems! They are the experts!


That is the point. Implementation and execution failed due to inability to translate from the lab to the real world. 

It happens* with technologies all the time, but for the most part, companies don't go flat out on commercial production until they have built full scale demonstrations to iron out upscaling issues.

* I've been party to many technology innovations during my career. The idea is tested in the lab, then it is tested in a partial scale up, and then tested for some 'years' in a full scale model to iron out the problems. Technologies often 'fail' transitioning between one of those phases, or need to be re-modeled/re-configured for commercial success.


----------



## gardner

An interesting analysis of the fire thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i0looHbgXk


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Latest rumor, from German business magazine Manager, is that VW is considering a takeover of Tesla. It seems to be no more than a rumor but caused a brief flurry in Tesla stock.
https://www.manager-magazin.de/prem...n-musk-a-00000000-0002-0001-0000-000165527063


----------



## andrewf

The problem with it is that VW would promptly run Tesla into the ground, which wouldn't be very accretive for their shareholders. And the premium VW would have to offer would be as a 'merger of equals'. I think Tesla is too big for any of the auto OEMs to digest right now. The only acquirers I could think of are Apple, maybe Amazon. But Musk would be out in that event, and a good amount of Tesla's success is due to Musk's leadership.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

_Musk’s greatest skill is in raising capital, but in the past five years that new capital—in excess of $20 billion—has led to greater losses and a much, much more levered balance sheet for Tesla. No value is being created for Tesla shareholders_


----------



## AltaRed

I can't imagine any mainstream automaker paying up for Tesla where it is. It would remind me of the AOL Time Warner fiasco with totally different financials of the 2 companies at time of 'merger'.

Would likely be better to see if Tesla crashes and burns first, but of course, always an issue who comes calling first.


----------



## andrewf

Well, that is why Tesla is the most shorted listed company. It just stubbornly refuses to collapse. The same logic applied to Amazon.


----------



## AltaRed

Tesla is no Amazon, and not remotely similar as a capital intensive business. Regardless it eventually has to spin off positive cash flow rather than sucking it up like a sponge. That is why we are saying it has been destroying shareholder value so far.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla is producing free cash flow. So there you have it. Net positive for the last 4 quarters.

https://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/free_cash_flow

They are also growing at a rapid clip. The capex to sustain that is justified.

There was a time when Amazon was no Amazon. That is, hindsight is 20/20. Feel free to short Tesla, you are in numerous if not good company. But the company stubbornly refuses to collapse like bears have been predicting. I wouldn't bet against it, personally.


----------



## AltaRed

FWIW, that cash flow chart is scary indeed. Not what I'd buy into. That said, I already own it in my US ETFs. Not going to short against myself, but no, I wouldn't short anyway since I don't play that game.

I still say the comparison with Amazon is not applicable but I am sure we'd argue forever on that. One or more of the major auto manufacturers will likely eat Tesla for lunch someday. The issue today is Tesla's stock is still way too high for an accretive acquisition.


----------



## andrewf

Scary in what way? It is a start-up automaker. It is a capital intensive business, but if you are skeptical that it can produce cash flow, the last four quarters should disabuse you of that notion. They produced $1.3B in cash, or 5.4% of revenues. Amazon produced $22B in free cash flow in the same period or 8.7% of revenues. Looking at enterprise value, Amazon FCF as % of EV is 2.4%, vs 2.66% of EV for Tesla. I think you might be using an old narrative, and one that no longer applies. Tesla is producing cash at a respectable rate, and it is on a rapid growth trajectory. I won't argue it isn't over valued, but it is a real company that makes money. I don't think shorting it is prudent.

Easy to say that other auto OEMs will eat Tesla for lunch. But Tesla has decent moats. No one else has been able to make a comparable electric car. No one else is securing battery capacity like Tesla. And Tesla is the only auto OEM who has a credible plan to enable autonomous operation in production cars--they have a proprietary chip that even Nvidia can't match, nevermind the software, and one that works within the power and cooling budget an electric car can support. Waymo may be leading in autonomy (depends on who you listen to), but their approach is dependent on expensive LIDAR retrofits, whereas Tesla's plan is to enable every production model. Tesla is the only company who has been able to convincingly demonstrate they can make a profit on EVs. I doubt Taycan or etron are. Perhaps the Leaf and Zoey are profitable.

I don't doubt that other OEMs will start to get their act together, but how much further ahead will Tesla be in 5 years when that starts to happen? Meanwhile, luxury car brand sales are cratering. The EV market is going to reach a tipping point. Tesla will likely lose marketshare in EVs while substantially growing its share of the overall auto market.


----------



## AltaRed

Thanks Andrew for the thoughtful response. I am not convinced of the sustainability of Tesla but you do make good points that no doubt helps keep the stock where it is at.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Scary in what way? It is a start-up automaker. It is a capital intensive business, but if you are skeptical that it can produce cash flow, the last four quarters should disabuse you of that notion. They produced $1.3B in cash, or 5.4% of revenues. Amazon produced $22B in free cash flow in the same period or 8.7% of revenues. Looking at enterprise value, Amazon FCF as % of EV is 2.4%, vs 2.66% of EV for Tesla. I think you might be using an old narrative, and one that no longer applies. Tesla is producing cash at a respectable rate, and it is on a rapid growth trajectory. I won't argue it isn't over valued, but it is a real company that makes money. I don't think shorting it is prudent.
> 
> Easy to say that other auto OEMs will eat Tesla for lunch. But Tesla has decent moats. No one else has been able to make a comparable electric car. No one else is securing battery capacity like Tesla. And Tesla is the only auto OEM who has a credible plan to enable autonomous operation in production cars--they have a proprietary chip that even Nvidia can't match, nevermind the software, and one that works within the power and cooling budget an electric car can support. Waymo may be leading in autonomy (depends on who you listen to), but their approach is dependent on expensive LIDAR retrofits, whereas Tesla's plan is to enable every production model. Tesla is the only company who has been able to convincingly demonstrate they can make a profit on EVs. I doubt Taycan or etron are. Perhaps the Leaf and Zoey are profitable.
> 
> I don't doubt that other OEMs will start to get their act together, but how much further ahead will Tesla be in 5 years when that starts to happen? Meanwhile, luxury car brand sales are cratering. The EV market is going to reach a tipping point. Tesla will likely lose marketshare in EVs while substantially growing its share of the overall auto market.


The thing is as transportion cars are commodities.

Tesla is in the premium or fashion end of the market, which is good. A Tesla isn't a Ford.

But Ford spins off billions in free cashflow and is planning to have 16 full electrics and another 24 hybrids in 3 years.
However the traditional automakers know how to make lots of cars a lot cheaper, sure battery capacity might be an issue, but they'll ramp it up.

I'm glad Tesla is bouncing towards profitability, Elon is an arrogant jerk who pushes the envelope, which is good for competition, but I don't think it's sustainable.

I don't think self driving will be much of a differentiator, I actually think self driving will just make Uber/Lyft/whatever more of a commodity, why even bother with a car, or worry about a brand. You just pull out your phone and go.
I don't care about the brand of the car when I take an Uber and I don't think anyone else will care either. That will be a pure commodity market, or even an infrastructure (city owned taxi fleets), both of which I think Tesla is unsuitable for.

I think the commodity market will be taken by the traditional automakers. They understand fleet sales, and low cost manufacturing.


----------



## andrewf

I do expect Tesla to remain more 'upmarket' than say Nissan Leaf. But $40k USD for the Model 3 is pretty competitive pricing. A lot of people are trading in Camrys and Fusions for Model 3. A lot of automakers have made a lot of promises about EVs, most of which so far have slipped or not come to pass. Of the touted 'Tesla killers' that have actually made it to market, many of them have met with rather lukewarm reception. Case in point, Tesla has been steadily _increasing_ EV marketshare in the US. See below for sales figures. Tesla sold 100 Model 3s for every Jaguar I Pace. 

https://insideevs.com/news/357565/ev-sales-scorecard-june-2019/


Battery capacity is not a trivial concern. Tesla built a plant that effectively doubled world Lithium ion battery production. You can't just RFQ enough cells to build hundreds of thousands of cars a year. This is where a lot of automakers are running into trouble. Kia/Hyundai have a decent EV, but they blew through their cell supply and are putting customers on a waiting list. VW at least is talking a bit game about investing billions into battery cell capacity. I haven't heard anything from Ford. Another dynamic you should keep in mind is that when many OEMs promise EVs, they are specifically made as compliance cars that the OEMs are not interested in producing at scale. They exist to satisfy zero emission vehicle mandates in certain jurisdictions.

Maybe you need to reflect more on the impact/value of self-driving. If Tesla wins self-driving, they could wipe out Lyft and Uber. Why do you think so many players are spending billions and billions on R&D toward this end? It is a big deal, and the first mover will enjoy significant network effects. Tesla won't just be supplying the cars, they will be running the platform. Tesla's end user agreement stipulates that self-driving operation can only be used for ridesharing services through Tesla's platform. So Uber and Lyft will not have access to self-driving Teslas, but rather competing against them.

Traditional OEMs understand low cost ICE vehicle manufacturing. They have been failing at producing low-cost EV powertrains. They mostly have been price-takers from LG Chem, who is providing cells and powertrains to many of the players. Just look at a head-to-head comparison of Jaguar i-Pace to Tesla Model 3. Higher cost to manufacture, higher weight, worse performance, lower range. Tesla has many other tech advantages other OEMs have been slow to adopt, such as over the air software updates, proprietary and massive charging network, bypassing of dealer network. Legacy OEMs will have a huge headache managing their dealers, as EVs represent a massive threat to their business model, given low maintenance requirements.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree battery supply and performance could be the Achilles heel for commodity OEMs but few would expect EV sales to exceed ICE sales for many years to come. 

There will still be millions of ICEs on the road needing repair 20 or more years from now. ICEs are not going away quietly. Pragmatism and practicality will be a drag on idealism for a long time.

My next vehicle in circa 2 years will most likely still be an ICE and our 2nd vehicle due for replacement circa 2025 or later may also be an ICE.


----------



## doctrine

Tesla's biggest risk is simply miscalculating market demand. It's not unlimited, but they are building capacity like it is. They did a good job demonstrating poor marketing strategy when the Model 3 torpedoed the sales of their higher priced and higher margin Model S (not that anyone cares, but other car manufacturers have done the same thing, its very predictable and demonstrates Tesla's inexperience). Europe was a big win for them this year and bought them some time. But if they mis-time demand and overproduce, Tesla can absolutely easily go bankrupt, as many dozens of auto manufacturers have done before. Imagine a global recession where sales of all vehicles, but especially $40k+ ones, drops off a cliff, leaving Tesla with billions of writedowns that would wipe them out. It wouldn't even take that much of a slow down. That is a risk for all auto manufacturers, but Tesla hasn't exactly demonstrated stellar predictive capabilities.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I do expect Tesla to remain more 'upmarket' than say Nissan Leaf. But $40k USD for the Model 3 is pretty competitive pricing. A lot of people are trading in Camrys and Fusions for Model 3. A lot of automakers have made a lot of promises about EVs, most of which so far have slipped or not come to pass. Of the touted 'Tesla killers' that have actually made it to market, many of them have met with rather lukewarm reception. Case in point, Tesla has been steadily _increasing_ EV marketshare in the US. See below for sales figures. Tesla sold 100 Model 3s for every Jaguar I Pace.
> 
> https://insideevs.com/news/357565/ev-sales-scorecard-june-2019/
> 
> 
> Battery capacity is not a trivial concern. Tesla built a plant that effectively doubled world Lithium ion battery production. You can't just RFQ enough cells to build hundreds of thousands of cars a year. This is where a lot of automakers are running into trouble. Kia/Hyundai have a decent EV, but they blew through their cell supply and are putting customers on a waiting list. VW at least is talking a bit game about investing billions into battery cell capacity. I haven't heard anything from Ford. Another dynamic you should keep in mind is that when many OEMs promise EVs, they are specifically made as compliance cars that the OEMs are not interested in producing at scale. They exist to satisfy zero emission vehicle mandates in certain jurisdictions.
> 
> Maybe you need to reflect more on the impact/value of self-driving. If Tesla wins self-driving, they could wipe out Lyft and Uber. Why do you think so many players are spending billions and billions on R&D toward this end? It is a big deal, and the first mover will enjoy significant network effects. Tesla won't just be supplying the cars, they will be running the platform. Tesla's end user agreement stipulates that self-driving operation can only be used for ridesharing services through Tesla's platform. So Uber and Lyft will not have access to self-driving Teslas, but rather competing against them.
> 
> Traditional OEMs understand low cost ICE vehicle manufacturing. They have been failing at producing low-cost EV powertrains. They mostly have been price-takers from LG Chem, who is providing cells and powertrains to many of the players. Just look at a head-to-head comparison of Jaguar i-Pace to Tesla Model 3. Higher cost to manufacture, higher weight, worse performance, lower range. Tesla has many other tech advantages other OEMs have been slow to adopt, such as over the air software updates, proprietary and massive charging network, bypassing of dealer network. Legacy OEMs will have a huge headache managing their dealers, as EVs represent a massive threat to their business model, given low maintenance requirements.


I see cheap shorter range self driving cars to handle burst traffic as the volume winner here.

I think self driving technology is closer than people think, they all see the potential and they're spending like crazy. I don't follow it close enough to know who's winning, but it seems like they are close.

I think that the cultural/regulatory acceptance lags the technology. Arguably the technology today is better than a statistically average human driver in many circumstances.
The remaining challenge isn't really the tech.

Quite honestly if I could call a self driver and commute to work (15km) for less than $15/day, it would make sense to sell my commuter car. 
I don't see Tesla making that fleet, because they're not even trying to.


----------



## andrewf

What makes you say Tesla isn't trying to build that fleet? Do you think a car that you want to put a million miles on needs to be cheap? Tesla is putting resources in making high durability powertrains. Nevermind that Tesla is miles ahead on low cost sensors (by not using Lidar) and compute (by designing and producing at mass scale their own chips). No one else has or is on the path to a cheaper self-driving car. What would you decontent from a Tesla to make it cheaper for this application? Could go for cheaper seats, but they would likely just need to be replaced more often.


----------



## kcowan

Any similarity tomBricklin and DeLorian is purely coincidental!


----------



## the_apprentice

AltaRed said:


> My next vehicle in circa 2 years will most likely still be an ICE and our 2nd vehicle due for replacement circa 2025 or later may also be an ICE.


I understand everyone has different necessities and priorities, but this makes me sad...


----------



## AltaRed

I think it will be the practicality for most vehicle owners. Except for urban commuter cars in the bigger cities, EVs just won't be ready for prime time. Hope I am wrong come 2025 but don't think adoption will be nearly as quick as many suggest.


----------



## Spudd

AltaRed said:


> I think it will be the practicality for most vehicle owners. Except for urban commuter cars in the bigger cities, EVs just won't be ready for prime time. Hope I am wrong come 2025 but don't think adoption will be nearly as quick as many suggest.


Plug-in hybrids are always an option. We recently got one that has a 50km electric range, which in our small town is enough for almost a week of driving without having to recharge. When we go out of town (more than 25km away), we switch to the hybrid engine which allows us to use a combo of gas and electric. Our combined mileage is 3L/100km.


----------



## AltaRed

Spudd said:


> Plug-in hybrids are always an option. We recently got one that has a 50km electric range, which in our small town is enough for almost a week of driving without having to recharge. When we go out of town (more than 25km away), we switch to the hybrid engine which allows us to use a combo of gas and electric. Our combined mileage is 3L/100km.


WADR, while that is a decent solution for mostly short term driving and may work for you, it is something* I would NEVER own... well, maybe it if was given to me free. Why have an ICE powerplant PLUS an electric drive? Almost twice as many things to go wrong. I also doubt combined mileage is 3l/100km.... One has to include electrical equivalent energy GJ or Btu or Kwh into the total energy used. 

* A friend of mine had a Toyota Prius. I absolutely hated riding in it and driving it. He got rid of it after 5 years and bought an ICE.


----------



## andrewf

Electricity is so cheap, the equivalent is probably not far off 3 L/100km.


----------



## doctrine

AltaRed said:


> WADR, while that is a decent solution for mostly short term driving and may work for you, it is something* I would NEVER own... well, maybe it if was given to me free. Why have an ICE powerplant PLUS an electric drive? Almost twice as many things to go wrong. I also doubt combined mileage is 3l/100km.... One has to include electrical equivalent energy GJ or Btu or Kwh into the total energy used.
> 
> * A friend of mine had a Toyota Prius. I absolutely hated riding in it and driving it. He got rid of it after 5 years and bought an ICE.


These hybrid plugins with range are extremely cheap to operate. They are definitely operating at 3L/100km equivalency or less, especially if you drive less than 50 km a day. The new Pacifica minivan hybrid w/55km range is advertising 2.6L/100km. The operating cost varies by province of course, but generally you are looking at 80-75% cost savings for the electric portion.

Now you do have to pay more for these cars, so somewhat ironically if you are only driving say 25 km a day in the city, you may burn virtually no gasoline whatsoever. But on a $ basis, it still might be quite a bit cheaper to save $10k or more on a regular ICE. That could be 10 years of gasoline.


----------



## AltaRed

Another fine example of Tesla engineering https://www.castanet.net/news/World/265015/Autopilot-Tesla-hits-firetruck It is not ready for prime time. Neither is any other self-driving technology that I know of. I think I will continue to operate my vehicles for many years to come.


----------



## andrewf

Your prerogative. The world can pass you by just fine.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion

andrewf said:


> Your prerogative. The world can pass you by just fine.


Not a self-driving world. For some time.


----------



## Eder

My bud drove his Tesla to Rock Creek from Vancouver to visit for the weekend. Amazing! Hope he makes it back OK.


----------



## AltaRed

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Not a self-driving world. For some time.


That is indeed the point...not for some time. The cheerleaders are way ahead of practicality, both in technology and EV penetration. We will most likely still be talking about these issues 5 years from now.


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Another fine example of Tesla engineering https://www.castanet.net/news/World/265015/Autopilot-Tesla-hits-firetruck It is not ready for prime time. Neither is any other self-driving technology that I know of. I think I will continue to operate my vehicles for many years to come.


It might be worth waiting for the whole investigation and analysis. From the circumstances, it sounds like the car in front of the Tesla turned lanes at the last minute so quite possibly the Tesla sensors didn't pick up on the firetruck quickly enough. It would raise the question why. Is it that the Tesla didn't react fast enough, either because it didn't detect the firetruck earlier, or was traveling too fast and couldn't stop in time. As for the driver, it sounds like distracted driving, but we'll see.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> That is indeed the point...not for some time. The cheerleaders are way ahead of practicality, both in technology and EV penetration. We will most likely still be talking about these issues 5 years from now.


We are 2% EV penetration of new car sales. In five years it will probably be around 20%.


----------



## Eder

AltaRed said:


> That is indeed the point...not for some time. The cheerleaders are way ahead of practicality, both in technology and EV penetration. We will most likely still be talking about these issues 5 years from now.



Self driving needs 5G to be fully deployed and a new iteration of vehicles to be on the road before it becomes truly hands free.


----------



## jargey3000

....people who live in glass houses......[video]https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/11/22/tesla-cybertruck-orig-gr.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/[/video]

d'oh!


----------



## AltaRed

Never mind that is the ugliest vehicle that has ever hit the roads. Either Elon must think there is a segment of potential pick up buyers out there that have never owned a pick up and don't know what they actually want, or he doesn't have a clue what a pick up truck buyer really is.


----------



## andrewf

They took preorders for 200k units in the first 24h. I'm a bit shocked.


----------



## agent99

Eder said:


> Self driving needs 5G to be fully deployed and a new iteration of vehicles to be on the road before it becomes truly hands free.


Hopefully, the self-drive will only be allowed to be used in special lanes. Something like the HOV lanes in GTA. Could see that working.


----------



## dotnet_nerd

jargey3000 said:


> ....people who live in glass houses......[video]https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/11/22/tesla-cybertruck-orig-gr.cnn/video/playlists/top-news-videos/[/video]
> 
> d'oh!


Brilliant marketing. That video has gone viral because of the windows breaking. Everyone will be talking about this truck, so TSLA gets the last laugh. 

As they say in Hollywood "There's no such thing as bad publicity"


----------



## AltaRed

I agree that has turned out to be brilliant 'by accident'. Still the ugliest thing that will ever be on the road.


----------



## gardner

My suspicion is that they did it intentionally. I have no idea what value "bullet-proofness" is expected to add to a general duty pickup truck. It is a spurious and inconsequential claim and the attempted demonstration of it was pointless, except as a publicity stunt.

The truck itself is truly bizarre looking and from the look of it, quite impractical as a utility vehicle. I actually think the whole "truck" thing is a publicity stunt.


----------



## AltaRed

Indeed, it could have been intentional, both the window and esthetics of the vehicle. Of no practical use.


----------



## jargey3000

I kinda like the look of the thing. reminds me of the old DeLorean


----------



## jessc

While the truck looks strange, it will be as useful as any other truck. 6.5' box, 3500lb payload, 16" of ground clearance is impressive! I admire Musk for taking the effort to move beyond the 100+ year old basic principle of the internal combustion engine.


----------



## agent99

jessc said:


> While the truck looks strange, it will be as useful as any other truck. 6.5' box, 3500lb payload, 16" of ground clearance is impressive! I admire Musk for taking the effort to move beyond the 100+ year old basic principle of the internal combustion engine.


I agree. I admire his ability to think outside the box. He certainly did it this time


----------



## AltaRed

A perspective on EVs from the Pres of GM https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/perspectives/gm-electric-cars/index.html


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> A perspective on EVs from the Pres of GM https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/perspectives/gm-electric-cars/index.html


One thing he didn't mention, is the desirability of on-board auxiliary charging. The Chev Volt has/had this, I believe, but not sure if any others do. 

Eliminates concerns of getting stuck somewhere because batteries ran out of juice. No additional complex drive systems like the hybrids have. Just a fuel powered gen set (later fuel could be hydrogen)


----------



## like_to_retire

agent99 said:


> One thing he didn't mention, is the desirability of on-board auxiliary charging. The Chev Volt has this, I believe, but not sure if any others do.


I always thought the Volt was nice, but I see that it's been cancelled as they're focusing on “trucks, crossovers and SUVs.”

ltr


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Indeed, it could have been intentional, both the window and esthetics of the vehicle. Of no practical use.


How are aesthetics practical? It's function over form.. definition of practical - of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something rather than with theory and ideas

Today's vehicles are designed for planned obsolescence, marketing, resale of parts, accessories and maintenance etc. It's very liberating to not have to keep a vehicle looking shiny (I pity H-D riders w all their chrome parts) For some reason vehicles today keep traditional headlight form even though LEDs can be placed in a line across the vehicle. This is clearly because old folks can't handle too much change like this truck. They called the first automobile a horseless carriage for the same reason.

Air suspension has a lot of practical features such as lowering for loading, leveling, raising for obstacles for off-roading etc. The box has modular rails like the military uses, built in loading ramp and tunneau cover.. all very practical features that have never been implemented on other trucks because show room aesthetics and aftermarket profits. Porches and BMW are better for their weight balancing/center of gravity and this truck should destroy mainstream truck in that department too

I'd love to camp with this up north in the summer. I figure with a solar roof and/or portable panels you could camp for a few days and then move a few hundred km at a time for free. Put a dirt bike on the back and you have a fun way to get around in the meanwhile. A van format more like the euro style Ford Transit or Merc Sprinter would be even more practical with even more storage space and roof space. I think a van would look better too with this style. Trucks are mostly for tough guy aesthetics people just don't know their own silly bias

Given time for the early adopters to work out the kinks, I'd buy one at current specs.


----------



## agent99

One thing about the truck - Room for a gen set and spare batteries in the back.


----------



## AltaRed

Sales volume is what matters at the end of the day, not what 'bleeding edge' progressives think. The mainstream pick up buyer (who are not old folks) isn't likely to go there. Heck, it is hard enough to get a pick up buyer to convert from a Ford/Chev/Ram to a Toyota Tundra or a Nissan Titan. They wouldn't even buy a Chev Avalanche or Honda Ridgeline unibody in significant numbers.

Maybe Elon knows his niche market, but it is limited.


----------



## m3s

Chev Avalanche and Honda Ridgeline I perceive as watered down trucks though. I'm not a truck guy at all but I think that is safe to say

This truck probably will be as niche as the other Tesla's, but I see a lot more of them here south of the border where winter temps aren't so extreme.

Going for all function over form I think they should have went euro style van. Those are booming in NA now (Merc recently started to build Sprinter in US)

I've been considering buying a truck for towing but as a newbie to the market I don't like what I see to be honest.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> (Merc recently started to build Sprinter in US)


It's interesting that they are doing that. At present Sprinters are all diesels and use the Bluetec emission system for which there are existing class action suits in US and Canada. Amazon are buying a large fleet of these vans. Hope they realize how unreliable the Bluetec system is and have spare vans to get us our parcels on time . I see that a gas version will be available next year. Hedging their bets, I guess.


----------



## m3s

Amazon is advertising an uber-like flex delivery service here now "be your own boss" and I imagine bring your own van

Fedex uses them as a fleet van as well. I read that fleet mechanics hate them. It's interesting if they announced gas while I read Ford has a new diesel coming for F-150 and Transit. Ford really needs to put F-150 4x4 parts on the Transit. 

I think a Tesla cybervan would compete in that space but for urban contractors/delivery services and live in your cybervan down by the river types


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Sales volume is what matters at the end of the day, not what 'bleeding edge' progressives think. The mainstream pick up buyer (who are not old folks) isn't likely to go there. Heck, it is hard enough to get a pick up buyer to convert from a Ford/Chev/Ram to a Toyota Tundra or a Nissan Titan. They wouldn't even buy a Chev Avalanche or Honda Ridgeline unibody in significant numbers.
> 
> Maybe Elon knows his niche market, but it is limited.


Avg truck buyer is 55 y/o male. So, depending on your definition...



AltaRed said:


> A perspective on EVs from the Pres of GM https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/25/perspectives/gm-electric-cars/index.html


GM is getting crushed in EVs by Tesla, with Model 3 outselling Bolt 8 to 1. Ford at least has a reasonable response with Mach E, though it will be outclassed by Model Y, it will appeal to a different buyer (vroom vroom vs actual performance). And Tesla is turning a profit while doing this, all while investing heavily. What else is GM President supposed to say but "EVs are great and all but not yet guys--we'll get serious later". Is that 'later' after the pickup market that is keeping the US big 3 alive is under full attack?

https://insideevs.com/news/373812/ev-sales-scorecard-september-2019/


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> Amazon is advertising an uber-like flex delivery service here now "be your own boss" and I imagine bring your own van
> 
> Fedex uses them as a fleet van as well. I read that fleet mechanics hate them. It's interesting if they announced gas while I read Ford has a new diesel coming for F-150 and Transit. Ford really needs to put F-150 4x4 parts on the Transit.
> 
> I think a Tesla cybervan would compete in that space but for urban contractors/delivery services and live in your cybervan down by the river types


Amazon has a wide range of delivery services that they contract from uber-style avg joes in their camry, to medium-sized courier outfits with rented vans, to a leased- and branded Amazon van operated by contract couriers. I think the latter service is where they intend to use the 100k vans they committed to from Rivian after they took a stake, and where they currently use Sprinters.

A family friend has a Sprinter diesel he bought for stealth camping and it has been a complete disaster for him.


----------



## Eder

Tesla has their fan boys just like Apple. That truck thing would make a great April Fools joke but apparently 200k devoted sent Elon a hundred bucks...I don't get it?


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> Tesla has their fan boys just like Apple. That truck thing would make a great April Fools joke but apparently 200k devoted sent Elon a hundred bucks...I don't get it?


Early adopters? Need to be seen by others? There is a lot of 'look at me' shite out there. $80k pick ups with additional lift and big wheels for example. Same thing. 

Going slightly off-topic. Saw an ad on a Facebook Buy & Sell group a few days ago. Really fancy pickup in the Okanagan with bi-weekly payments of $749 and the owner was looking for someone to take over the lease. Holy F already. $749x26 > $19k/yr in payments. Really now?


----------



## nobleea

AltaRed said:


> Early adopters? Need to be seen by others? There is a lot of 'look at me' shite out there. $80k pick ups with additional lift and big wheels for example. Same thing.
> 
> Going slightly off-topic. Saw an ad on a Facebook Buy & Sell group a few days ago. Really fancy pickup in the Okanagan with bi-weekly payments of $749 and the owner was looking for someone to take over the lease. Holy F already. $749x26 > $19k/yr in payments. Really now?


Absolutely. There are many new car dealerships around here that specialize in lifting and customizing new trucks right off the bat. There's Raptors and F350s that would sell for well over 100K new. Even unmodified 1 ton trucks can list for up to 110K. Then add on 30K of lifts, tuning, tires, etc. There's a GMC sierra 3/4 ton all rig-pig'd up at a new GMC dealer in town. List price is *$199,980*. You read that correctly. bi weekly payments of only $1,166. Plus GST.


----------



## andrewf

I guess a sign confirming that Alberta is deeply economically depressed when dealers are flogging trucks that cost more than a house.


----------



## Eder

Heres a EV truck that goes 60 in 3 seconds as well as out tows and out ranges Tesla's truck. I think it looks better as well as does Amazon & Ford (major investors in Rivian). Cost $1000 to pre order.


----------



## nobleea

^ Base price is quite a bit higher, but I agree, looks way better and will certainly sell more. Until Ford won't let them.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Heres a EV truck that goes 60 in 3 seconds as well as out tows and out ranges Tesla's truck. I think it looks better as well as does Amazon & Ford (major investors in Rivian). Cost $1000 to pre order.


How much is it? (here's a hint: it starts at $70k, the model that competes with Tesla on performance is much, much more)

There will be buyers for this vehicle, too. But the price tag indicates they are not looking for mass market. It is more meant as an outdoor activity toy than a functional vehicle.

https://insideevs.com/reviews/365670/rivian-pickup-truck-price-range-production/

The Rivian R1T base model @ $70K will have ~230 mi range v 500 for Tesla, 4.9 second 0-60 vs 3. 800 kg cargo capacity vs 1600kg, and a 4.5 ft long bed vs 6.5 ft. Their top end model will likely be pushing $100k, but that is a different buyer.


----------



## m3s

Rivian is horseless carriage thinking. Try to make something new be close enough to what people are conditioned to like. Most people can't handle too much change at once.

The hood looks just like a truck with an ICE even though this is unnecessarily less aerodynamic, less vision, and worse weight distribution just to look more like an ICE truck. The headlights somewhat mimic bulb headlights because people are used to seeing headlights designed for bulbs. The box is standard even though it's less functional and less aerodynamic.

It's a start though. In 10 years our eyes will have adjusted to electric vehicles that don't need engine compartments, grills, mirrors etc


----------



## the_apprentice

Eder said:


> Tesla has their fan boys just like Apple. That truck thing would make a great April Fools joke but apparently 200k devoted sent Elon a hundred bucks...I don't get it?


These companies have their fan boys for a reason. Tesla is forcing the competition to change and it will take years for other companies to catch up in terms of pricing, range, features, etc.

Have you ever driven a Tesla? Surely, that will make you understand... Driving a Tesla is comparable to switching to an iPhone from a Blackberry.


----------



## Eclectic12

m3s said:


> Rivian is horseless carriage thinking ...
> It's a start though. In 10 years our eyes will have adjusted to electric vehicles that don't need engine compartments, grills, mirrors etc


No need for mirrors based on being electric?
How does that work?

I can understand not needing grills, no need for engine compartments but the driver still has to be aware of what's going on around them.


Cheers


----------



## agent99

Eclectic12 said:


> No need for mirrors based on being electric?
> How does that work?
> 
> Cheers


Cameras???


----------



## Eclectic12

With the way my backup camera has gotten fogged up - there's no way I'd go with a vehicle that had no mirrors.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

Eclectic12 said:


> With the way my backup camera has gotten fogged up - there's no way I'd go with a vehicle that had no mirrors.


Because mirrors don't fog? The only reason modern vehicles need mirrors is to comply DOT regulations

You can prevent fog the same way we do with everything else


----------



## Eder

the_apprentice said:


> Have you ever driven a Tesla? Surely, that will make you understand... Driving a Tesla is comparable to switching to an iPhone from a Blackberry.


I have experience with a Model S. I like the power & handling, fit & finish I would put equal to a high end Toyota. Didn't like the limitations but perhaps as others state, another 10 years a lot can change.
I prefer the Mercedes S class for fit/finish ride experience as an example of a luxury vehicle.


----------



## gardner

m3s said:


> The only reason modern vehicles need mirrors is to comply DOT regulations


I could not reverse my truck without mirrors, even though it has a backup camera. They are handy even pulling forward in/out of a tight spot, to view the side clearance. You can't see the bicycle that you might otherwise car-door after parking without a side mirror. Even electronic blind spot warning won't let you SEE the bicycle moving into your blind spot the way the mirror will. I don't think mirrors are in any way outdated or unnecessary.


----------



## m3s

I prefer mirrors as well for reversing but that's because I learned to reverse with mirrors.

"A backup camera" =/= HD cameras that display all angles on a large HD monitor, with far better vision than your typical side mirrors do.

Look at the new military armoured vehicles that are shooting and driving with cameras. The military has many boomers too but after some famil training they too saw the light.

Besides not having to stick your head out the window in the line of fire or adjust your archaic optical mirrors, cameras also do this:


----------



## agent99

gardner said:


> I could not reverse my truck without mirrors, even though it has a backup camera. They are handy even pulling forward in/out of a tight spot, to view the side clearance.


Problem with side mirrors, is that they require more side clearance. I look at that them when backing out of garage just to be sure they don't hit into something hanging on garage wall or the door frame on way out  On the Subaru with backup camera and rear collision sensors, I can back out of double length garage without using mirrors or turning around. 

Can't wait for them to eliminate the windscreen. That glass is such a safety hazard


----------



## Eclectic12

m3s said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the way my backup camera has gotten fogged up - there's no way I'd go with a vehicle that had no mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> Because mirrors don't fog?
> 
> The only reason modern vehicles need mirrors is to comply DOT regulations
> You can prevent fog the same way we do with everything else
Click to expand...

It isn't what it used to be but fog still forms and has to be removed. Freezing rain more so.

Maybe if the cameras are within easy reach to clear them off, it might not matter to me.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

A number of vehicles have heated side mirrors so that becomes a moot point. 

Side vision of some sort is still necessary to see vehicles coming up either side. May be hard for cameras to cover that. Our Nissan has 'birds eye' view meaning cameras front and back and on the bottom of the side mirrors, but the 'all directional view' is limited to use at a very slow speed, mostly for parking....which is an awesome aide for parking. I imagine they could be re-configured to do what side mirrors but may be an ongoing distraction on the screen (would need to default to being ON for immediate use).


----------



## m3s

Ugh

A Camera lens can be mounted on the side of a car just like a mirror, except they don't have to stick out causing drag and noise and an "aesthetic" that you are conditioned to expect. Camera lens can also be heated just like a mirror, probably much easier than a mirror.

"When Audi unveiled its electric e-tron SUV in San Francisco last year, much of the talk was about the car's side-view cameras. The feature, which replaced the traditional passive side-view mirrors, *is an option in Europe and elsewhere, but here in the US, such a system is banned. *But now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is considering how to bring federal motor vehicle regulations into the 21st century to allow for side-view cameras

Car designers have played with the idea of replacing side mirrors with a camera system for decades, but it's taken until now for camera and display technology to catch up to the idea. *The appeal for an electric vehicle is obvious—side-view mirrors add frontal area, drag, and contribute plenty to wind noise while driving, so an EV with no side mirrors will cover more miles per kWh and be even quieter to ride in.* In addition to the Audi e-tron and its side cameras, Lexus offers a similar system on its ES sedan, although, again, not in the US. Honda is developing a camera side-view system for the Honda E, a production version of the Urban EV concept from 2017, and Lotus has done away with traditional reflecting glass mirrors for its Evija hypercar."

Now go check how the F-35 helmet display works with cameras.. and get back in your horseless carriages


----------



## the_apprentice

Eder said:


> I have experience with a Model S. I like the power & handling, fit & finish I would put equal to a high end Toyota. Didn't like the limitations but perhaps as others state, another 10 years a lot can change.
> I prefer the Mercedes S class for fit/finish ride experience as an example of a luxury vehicle.


Glad you have experience with the Tesla Model S. As a Tesla fanboy, I agree about the quality of an S class being superior.


----------



## Eclectic12

AltaRed said:


> A number of vehicles have heated side mirrors so that becomes a moot point ...


It's a nice reduction in the issues with outside mirrors but it has yet to eliminate the issues.

I suppose if I was willing to wait long enough instead of wiping off the mirrors or not drive when there's freezing rain, it would become moot.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed

Camera lenses would still need to be wiped off too. Driving mountain highways with sand/salt slush in winter can result in all 4 cameras for 'birds eye view' on our Nissan becoming near useless until wiped off. The techies haven't come up with magic cameras yet either. So far, my side mirrors don't become totally useless in such conditions. Bottom line: Nothing works all that well in inclement weather.


----------



## m3s

The cameras don't have any different environment than the windshield so it is moot. Clean them off or design a feature to prevent it. Condensation/ice is not rocket science

The real problem is the batteries in the winter. The root cause is the fools who live where the environment gets so cold we spend a fortune heating everything instead of just migrating south for the winter

If elon can land boosters and stream the entire thing live HD online I trust he can manage to get some decent cameras and camera wipers on a car


----------



## kcowan

m3s said:


> If elon can land boosters and stream the entire thing live HD online I trust he can manage to get some decent cameras and camera wipers on a car


I think the whole automated driving industry has ignored winter driving. It is surprising since Detroit gets its share of slushy winter weather. The lidar needs to be weather proof too.

In Mexico, the costs of keeping the batteries cool will also be an issue. Right now, it is 89 degrees and 85 % humidity here in PV. Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## AltaRed

I think it has been overlooked for the most part as well. Too many gadgets needed to keep sensors functional. Ugh!


----------



## agent99

I can't see the benefit of the cameras if they still need almost as large an external support as a mirror. One advantage might be that the cameras would presumably always be set correctly. No need for re-adjustment for each driver? How many drivers even know how to adjust their mirrors? Many of us might benefit from some instruction. Maybe this link: https://seniordriving.aaa.com/improve-your-driving-skills/prepare-drive/how-use-adjust-your-mirrors/


----------



## m3s

Why put the camera exactly where the mirror had to be for the reflection when it could be mounted further ahead to eliminate blind spots

Also no need for them to be the that large when they fit in a smart phone and could be wide lens angled outward.


----------



## Eder

Kinda like spending 100k to develop a pen suitable for zero gravity while just a pencil would do..


----------



## bgc_fan

Eder said:


> Kinda like spending 100k to develop a pen suitable for zero gravity while just a pencil would do..


Except for the graphite and shavings that will end up floating around and get embedded in sensitive equipment.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Also no need for them to be the that large when they fit in a smart phone and could be wide lens angled outward.


Seeing we are talking about electric cars with electric cameras, surely the cameras could fold in flush with the body and only move out when needed. Anyone remember the turn signals cars used to have?


----------



## m3s

Eder said:


> Kinda like spending 100k to develop a pen suitable for zero gravity while just a pencil would do..


Self driving cars need a good sensor suite in all directions anyways and already have screens and cost $50-100k as is (HD cameras are a dime a dozen nowadays)

I've been in buses that had side cameras display when the driver used the turn signals. Much better visibility than mirrors


----------



## Eder

Lol...heres why Tesla doesn't quite work yet.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> Lol...heres why Tesla doesn't quite work yet.


lmao ... Any people think waiting in a gas line is bad, would have been good to see a time lapse of how long they waited.

I guess Tesla owners have to be very selective on where they do big group meetings ... close to nuclear reactors or something.


----------



## AltaRed

Day 2


----------



## agent99

cainvest said:


> lmao ... Any people think waiting in a gas line is bad, would have been good to see a time lapse of how long they waited.
> 
> I guess Tesla owners have to be very selective on where they do big group meetings ... close to nuclear reactors or something.


Or, EVs should have on-board gen-sets. CNG/Propane/Gasoline initially - Hydrogen later.


----------



## cainvest

agent99 said:


> Or, EVs should have on-board gen-sets. CNG/Propane/Gasoline initially - Hydrogen later.


No need for that, just call 1-888-low-volt and Tesla delivers one of these to you!


----------



## Eder

To charge a Tesla faster than 3 days requires about 7kw so towing a large trailer mounted diesel generator would shorten charge time to about 10 hours. (Of course towing reduces EV range by over 50% )


----------



## m3s

Trucks/trains/pipelines transport crude oil to a refinery and then gas is transported by tanker truck to gas stations on every corner/intersection. Without this massive logistical infrastructure already in place you would also need a tanker truck to fill up like this.

Electricity can be distributed by high voltage lines although I am sure there are similar inefficiencies over great distances and transformations etc. We already have an electrical distribution infrastructure it's a matter of having fast chargers at homes/stores/parking. Then it's more efficient because you'd charge while parked rather then make a stop just to refuel

It's a lot easier to produce electricity closer to where it's needed to reduce the distribution logistics. If both infrastructure systems were to collapse, it would probably be easier today to produce your own electricity than to find and refine your own gasoline.

If we started over from scratch electricity is so much more versatile to both produce and use that it would probably be silly to waste time building gas stations and refineries everywhere. Of course it depends on the supplies/demand etc


----------



## AltaRed

Of course it is an infrastructure issue and I agree fully that EV infrastructure will come. It's just not ready for prime time yet and that is the price early adopters pay. All the power to them but I don't plan to sacrifice to be among them. 

As an example, those who waited until 2015 or so to commit to smartphones didn't have to suffer the pain of early adoptees.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> We already have an electrical distribution infrastructure it's a matter of having fast chargers at homes/stores/parking. Then it's more efficient because you'd charge while parked rather then make a stop just to refuel


Don't know about being more efficient but it certainly needs more infrastructure than it has now to narrow the gap.


----------



## gardner

xxxxxx


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> It's a lot easier to produce electricity closer to where it's needed to reduce the distribution logistics.


That's why producing it right in the car makes the most sense. And eventually do it using a clean fuel. Just enough to extend range a practical amount so that time for recharge is not a factor.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Lol...heres why Tesla doesn't quite work yet.


This is exceptional (really high Tesla market penetration market on a holiday weekend). I have personally experienced on many occasions gas stations selling out of gas.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Of course it is an infrastructure issue and I agree fully that EV infrastructure will come. It's just not ready for prime time yet and that is the price early adopters pay. All the power to them but I don't plan to sacrifice to be among them.
> 
> As an example, those who waited until 2015 or so to commit to smartphones didn't have to suffer the pain of early adoptees.


Agreed that we are still in the 'early adopter' stage. All the snickers are going to be short-lived as EVs steamroll the ICE market.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> All the snickers are going to be short-lived as EVs steamroll the ICE market.


I don't think I'd call 20 to 30 years is short-lived ....


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> Agreed that we are still in the 'early adopter' stage. All the snickers are going to be short-lived as EVs steamroll the ICE market.


Electric Steamrollers? Amazing!


----------



## doctrine

EV charging takes 5 times longer than gasoline charging. So EV charging infrastructure has to be 5 times bigger. Bigger stations with bigger parking lots. That supercharging station looks like about the size of an average gas station. Situations like road closures or other issues can easily overwhelm infrastructure. 

True, this can happen with gas, but because of the time factors involved, it has potential to be much bigger, unless EV charging stations grow to the size of small shopping centers.


----------



## m3s

You have to rethink the problem rather than constraining EVs to the corner gas station world

EVs can be recharged at home while you sleep, at work while you work, at the store while you shop, at the restaurant while you eat etc. The problem is road trips where you can't bear to take a break and eat/relax during a recharge.

Batteries could be designed to be swapped like we do with many electronics, the vehicle itself could be swapped, batteries could be recharged on the move (say in a hyperloop or tunnel perhaps) If you dare to imagine


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Batteries could be designed to be swapped like we do with many electronics, the vehicle itself could be swapped, batteries could be recharged on the move (say in a hyperloop or tunnel perhaps) If you dare to imagine


I can just imagine how swapping out a car in 5 minutes would work with a vehicle full of personal gear, child car seats, etc, or flipping the car for a quick disconnect battery swap. I also can imagine the snow sheds/ of Roger's Pass becoming hyper loops. Pigs will fly someday too.


----------



## doctrine

m3s said:


> You have to rethink the problem rather than constraining EVs to the corner gas station world
> 
> EVs can be recharged at home while you sleep, at work while you work, at the store while you shop, at the restaurant while you eat etc. The problem is road trips where you can't bear to take a break and eat/relax during a recharge.
> 
> Batteries could be designed to be swapped like we do with many electronics, the vehicle itself could be swapped, batteries could be recharged on the move (say in a hyperloop or tunnel perhaps) If you dare to imagine


They could be designed to be swapped, but that is not currently happening in any of the major manufacturers. The world of long distance EV travel will require investment of very, very large recharging centers. The fact that many will recharge at home means that in times of unusual events, such as mass power outages, storms, or road closures, there may be even less infrastructure available to do such charging, and you may be more likely to be stuck in one of those lines.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> EVs can be recharged at home while you sleep, at work while you work, at the store while you shop, at the restaurant while you eat etc. The problem is road trips where you can't bear to take a break and eat/relax during a recharge.


That's assuming companies (stores, malls, restaurants, etc) and work places want to get into the EV charging game. If they are larger chains (or big companies) they might if they can siphon money from the charging. Would be interesting to see the average business model ROI for installing a supercharging station.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> That's assuming companies (stores, malls, restaurants, etc) and work places want to get into the EV charging game. If they are larger chains (or big companies) they might if they can siphon money from the charging. Would be interesting to see the average business model ROI for installing a supercharging station.


It is what the market will bear. Local Level 2? charging stations are 35 cents/kwh, just a tad steeper than my 9.5-14 cents residential tiered rates.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> That's assuming companies (stores, malls, restaurants, etc) and work places want to get into the EV charging game. If they are larger chains (or big companies) they might if they can siphon money from the charging. Would be interesting to see the average business model ROI for installing a supercharging station.


Eh there's already hotels/malls/parking with EV chargers in the US. If I'm driving my gas car I'll go to a store/restaurant/hotel that provides parking before one that doesn't, I'll carefully filter out hotels that don't. What kind of business wouldn't want to sell something else on the side



doctrine said:


> The fact that many will recharge at home means that in times of unusual events, such as mass power outages, storms, or road closures, there may be even less infrastructure available to do such charging, and you may be more likely to be stuck in one of those lines.


In times of unusual events such as storms there is always a line up for gas lol. You can store gas at home. You can store electricity at home as well. As I said before in terms of a collapse of either logistical chains it's probably easier today to generate your own power than to refine your own gas


----------



## agent99

M3s - I am with you on this. There are all sorts of possibilities. 

Problem is, so many have closed minds and can't think outside the box.

Just in and around our small city, there about 3 dozen EV charging stations, some with multiple outlets. More and more are popping up. Same in US when we are travelling. Major hotels already have them.

There is already battery swapping infrastructure in parts of the world. This one in Europe. Others in Asia. These are for scooters, but in time cars could see something similar.

Problem is, so many have closed minds and can't think outside the box.


----------



## Eder

I wonder what the cost will be once EV's start paying taxes like on gasoline?


----------



## off.by.10

m3s said:


> As I said before in terms of a collapse of either logistical chains it's probably easier today to generate your own power than to refine your own gas


Quite true. And having your own power source is something which is useful all the time instead of being a capital drain like storing gas.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> They could be designed to be swapped, but that is not currently happening in any of the major manufacturers. The world of long distance EV travel will require investment of very, very large recharging centers. The fact that many will recharge at home means that in times of unusual events, such as mass power outages, storms, or road closures, there may be even less infrastructure available to do such charging, and you may be more likely to be stuck in one of those lines.


Gas pumps don't work without power. And road closures tend to be bad news for gas availability. If you have solar panels on the roof of your house, you might have better ability to power your vehicle in an emergency than if you had a ICE car.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I wonder what the cost will be once EV's start paying taxes like on gasoline?


It might become relevant, but only after we start taxing gasoline for smog contributions as well.


----------



## Eder

I guess my point is that anyone thinking costs to operate EV's wont rise to match taxes paid by ICE vehicles is delusional. Governments want & need those billions. No different than when I was paid $800 subsidy to convert my vehicle to propane...within 2 years vehicle propane costs almost quintupled.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> They could be designed to be swapped, but that is not currently happening in any of the major manufacturers. The world of long distance EV travel will require investment of very, very large recharging centers. The fact that many will recharge at home means that in times of unusual events, such as mass power outages, storms, or road closures, there may be even less infrastructure available to do such charging, and you may be more likely to be stuck in one of those lines.


I don't know if they need to be especially large, or just more numerous. A charging stall is relatively inexpensive compared to a gas station pump and associated infrastructure. A Tesla Supercharger costs a few hundred thousand dollars vs $1-2M for a gas station. The land can be almost free, as many retailers will gladly host charging stations that bring a stream of customers with a bit of time to kill.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I guess my point is that anyone thinking costs to operate EV's wont rise to match taxes paid by ICE vehicles is delusional. Governments want & need those billions. No different than when I was paid $800 subsidy to convert my vehicle to propane...within 2 years vehicle propane costs almost quintupled.


There are two ideas here: equalizing taxes (maybe) vs equalizing cost (gasoline is structurally higher cost).

In Ontario, electricity is already subject to HST. There are excise taxes of about 25 cents per litre of gasoline. Apparently cars in Canada average 9L/100km, which would face excise tax of $0.0225/km. That works out to about 10-12 cents per kWh for excise tax, or $450 per year.


----------



## AltaRed

Governments will want the same absolute tax revenue, however it is calculated.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> It might become relevant, but only after we start taxing gasoline for smog contributions as well.


That is what carbon taxes cover.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Gas pumps don't work without power. And road closures tend to be bad news for gas availability. If you have solar panels on the roof of your house, you might have better ability to power your vehicle in an emergency than if you had a ICE car.


And of course gas can easily and cheaply be used to create electricity in emergency situations. Solar, like EVs, still has a way to go before it can be a mainstream. I would definitely be more interested in getting a solar setup if I get a PHEV.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my point is that anyone thinking costs to operate EV's wont rise to match taxes paid by ICE vehicles is delusional. Governments want & need those billions ...
> 
> 
> 
> There are two ideas here: equalizing taxes (maybe) vs equalizing cost (gasoline is structurally higher cost).
Click to expand...

With HST being tied to cost where EVs are supposed to be so much cheaper, under the current setup - it seems clear that a drop in tax revenue will need to be dealt with by some combination of being efficient to no longer need it and finding other tax sources.




andrewf said:


> ... In Ontario, electricity is already subject to HST. There are excise taxes of about 25 cents per litre of gasoline. Apparently cars in Canada average 9L/100km, which would face excise tax of $0.0225/km. That works out to about 10-12 cents per kWh for excise tax, or $450 per year.


This seems low, if one uses the Ontario gov't estimates.

At $1.20 a litre, they estimate $2500 a year for a gas car which works out to about 2083 litre. The gas excise taxes are 24 cents a litre plus HST on the total. This works out to $520 + $325 for $845 total.

Electric is estimated at $520 a year so HST works out to $68. 

It seems that today, the gov't loses out on about $777 per vehicle. If your replacement gas excise tax is added to the electricity bill is taken off then $327 a vehicle is lost out on. I have seen gas prices around $1.32 in town, bumping up the loss and likely there are assumptions that may be reducing the electrical costs.


Of course the other question is how to tie the replacement gas tax amounts to people using EVs as I doubt those who don't use them will happily pay an $450 a year on their electrical bill for something they don't use. Unless maybe the carbon tax could cover it?


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> That is what carbon taxes cover.


Carbon taxes are to limit global warming (leaving that topic aside for now).. Smog/air pollution is another matter. Tens of thousands die every year due to poor air quality.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> And of course gas can easily and cheaply be used to create electricity in emergency situations. Solar, like EVs, still has a way to go before it can be a mainstream. I would definitely be more interested in getting a solar setup if I get a PHEV.


Is that why you can never buy a generator when there is an emergency (shelves get cleaned out).


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Is that why you can never buy a generator when there is an emergency (shelves get cleaned out).


Exactly, that's why buying one before the emergency is a good idea!


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic12 said:


> With HST being tied to cost where EVs are supposed to be so much cheaper, under the current setup - it seems clear that a drop in tax revenue will need to be dealt with by some combination of being efficient to no longer need it and finding other tax sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This seems low, if one uses the Ontario gov't estimates.
> 
> At $1.20 a litre, they estimate $2500 a year for a gas car which works out to about 2083 litre. The gas excise taxes are 24 cents a litre plus HST on the total. This works out to $520 + $325 for $845 total.
> 
> Electric is estimated at $520 a year so HST works out to $68.
> 
> It seems that today, the gov't loses out on about $777 per vehicle. If your replacement gas excise tax is added to the electricity bill is taken off then $327 a vehicle is lost out on. I have seen gas prices around $1.32 in town, bumping up the loss and likely there are assumptions that may be reducing the electrical costs.
> 
> 
> Of course the other question is how to tie the replacement gas tax amounts to people using EVs as I doubt those who don't use them will happily pay an $450 a year on their electrical bill for something they don't use. Unless maybe the carbon tax could cover it?
> 
> 
> Cheers


The road tax should be on plate renewal. Or, better yet, we should just start tolling highways with ToU rates to help manage congestion.


----------



## Eder

At any rate in the long run cost to own an EV will rise to match the contribution ICE vehicles are providing to our governments. One thing I like about our gasoline tax model is those that drive more pay more as it should be. A tax on a per vehicle basis is unfair, especially those trying to minimize their travel to save our planet.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> At any rate in the long run cost to own an EV will rise to match the contribution ICE vehicles are providing to our governments. One thing I like about our gasoline tax model is those that drive more pay more as it should be. A tax on a per vehicle basis is unfair, especially those trying to minimize their travel to save our planet.


Maybe they could get your odometer reading on each insurance renewal? So they charge you a fixed amount at first then charge/credit you at the next renewal for the difference.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> At any rate in the long run cost to own an EV will rise to match the contribution ICE vehicles are providing to our governments. One thing I like about our gasoline tax model is those that drive more pay more as it should be. A tax on a per vehicle basis is unfair, especially those trying to minimize their travel to save our planet.


It could be per km on plate renewal. You can't really cheat it if you have to settle up the mileage when you transfer ownership.


----------



## Eder

A nightmare when you consider hybrids. What about inter provincial travel? Somehow there needs to be an electrical signature to ensure taxes have been paid on usage in the area that power was purchased. Kind of like purple gas/diesel. Maybe a sim card type of signature that verifies power being used to charge the car is in fact legal taxed power, while regular power to run the home stead remains at reasonable rates.

Home chargers would need to be licensed with their own meters. Gonna get complicated.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> A nightmare when you consider hybrids. What about inter provincial travel? Somehow there needs to be an electrical signature to ensure taxes have been paid on usage in the area that power was purchased. Kind of like purple gas/diesel. Maybe a sim card type of signature that verifies power being used to charge the car is in fact legal taxed power, while regular power to run the home stead remains at reasonable rates.
> 
> Home chargers would need to be licensed with their own meters. Gonna get complicated.


I think you're just making it too complicated, simple mileage works in general.

Travel to other provinces with a gas vehicle doesn't guarantee you've bought fuel there. In fact, many times I've filled up just before crossing because it is cheaper where I am.

P.S. Hybrids can show the mileage used on electric only.


----------



## Eclectic12

cainvest said:


> Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... A tax on a per vehicle basis is unfair, especially those trying to minimize their travel to save our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they could get your odometer reading on each insurance renewal?
> 
> So they charge you a fixed amount at first then charge/credit you at the next renewal for the difference.
Click to expand...

Mileage is self reported for Ontario license plate renewals now so other than having a method of being sure it is accurate - not much would be needed. 

Alberta OTOH doesn't seem to collect the mileage so they'd have to change.




andrewf said:


> ... You can't really cheat it if you have to settle up the mileage when you transfer ownership.


Where it remains self-reported - cheating is easy.

Where the fees become significant then there may be a rise in hacking the mileage.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

I think road tolls make a lot more sense in many cases, at least in cities. There needs to be time of use pricing to manage congestion and encourage traffic to shift to off-peak times.

The 407/ETR system in Ontario works great, except that the tolls are set insanely high (not a function of the technology). We could extend that tolling infrastructure to all the highways in the city. I think that would more than offset any excise taxes on gasoline in Ontario, while reducing congestion.


----------



## off.by.10

andrewf said:


> I think road tolls make a lot more sense in many cases, at least in cities. There needs to be time of use pricing to manage congestion and encourage traffic to shift to off-peak times.


They make the most sense but are unfortunately also the most expensive to manage. And seem to generate the most opposition because they are the most visible. I suspect a blanket tax on gas is cheapest and a kilometric tax somewhere in between.

We'll probably end up with the kilometric tax because there is no way any politician will be able to put up tolls everywhere and stay alive. Replacing the gas tax with a kilometric tax would be an easier sell. Especially under the pretense of making the eletric car owners pay their "fair share", assuming it is done while they are about 5-10% of all cars on the road. You want a high enough % so the tax shortfall makes an impressive large number. But low enough that you don't get too much political backlash.


----------



## Eclectic12

andrewf said:


> I think road tolls make a lot more sense in many cases, at least in cities. There needs to be time of use pricing to manage congestion and encourage traffic to shift to off-peak times ...


Maybe ... but I suspect there would be a lot of push back.



andrewf said:


> ... The 407/ETR system in Ontario works great, except that the tolls are set insanely high (not a function of the technology) ...


LoL ... you begrudge CPP, a Spanish company and SNC-Lavalin maximising their earnings?
Isn't that what's happening ... capitalism?


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan

More than likely, we would see an increased car registration fee for EVs. Something a lot easier to manage and goes to the province to upkeep provincial roads.


----------



## gardner

bgc_fan said:


> increased car registration fee for EVs [ ... ] goes to the province to upkeep provincial roads


Aside from sales taxes, in Ontario motor fuel is taxed at 14.7c/L in "motor fuel" tax. Ostensibly this is "road tax". Based on the stats of 16k/year average per vehicle and 10.5L/100k efficiency, that would be in the $250 area and could be built-in to the registration, I guess. But I would be happier to see the amount made proportional to the actual use of roads somehow -- and maybe also proportional to the vehicle size/weight. These are things that the fuel tax takes into account but a flat-rate registration fee would not necessarily. Maybe a registration fee proportional to the GVW and prior year's mileage or something.

Setting aside carbon tax, a lot of fuel taxes are not "road tax" but HST/PST/GST and the government would need to replace those revenues as well. You could reason that if people don't spend money on GST taxable gas, they will spend it on some other GST taxable thing instead.


----------



## Eclectic12

Considering the Federal excise tax on gas funds the Feds gas tax fund that can go towards local roads, bridges and transit - the $250 likely is low.

As for the "one has extra cash so one will spend the same amount on other things that are equally taxed", I doubt the gov't should depend on it.
After all, one can just as easily save the money or spend on something that no or less of a tax component.


Cheers


----------



## agent99

ICING and Teslas

https://electrek.co/2019/12/11/tesla-electric-cars-block-gas-station-protest/


----------



## bgc_fan

Keep in mind that EVs do require electricity, so the governments are getting some tax revenue from that purchase.


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic12 said:


> Maybe ... but I suspect there would be a lot of push back.
> 
> 
> LoL ... you begrudge CPP, a Spanish company and SNC-Lavalin maximising their earnings?
> Isn't that what's happening ... capitalism?
> 
> 
> Cheers


There will be a lot of pushback on road tolls. However, Ontarians and especially GTA residents are realizing that congestion is getting out of control. We can and will spend money upgrading highways, but it will not be enough. All new highways will be toll highways (the province collects tolls for extended highways like 412 using the ETR system). If the GTA adds another 2-3 million residents over the next couple of decades, the city will grind to a halt, heavy investment in transit will just hold the line on congestion. Tolls, especially those that meaningfully vary by time of day (could be nearly free in the late evening/early morning) will help to pay for that heavy investment in infrastructure and allocate peak road capacity to those that really need it & are willing to pay.

Highways are a bit of a natural monopoly. You can't really expect market mechanisms in isolation to set the socially optimal price for their use. Pretty much all natural monopolies end up with regulated pricing.


----------



## james4beach

TSLA price has gone parabolic on very high volume: http://schrts.co/MagdAabp

More than tripled in just a few months.


----------



## AlwaysLearning

I sold after over doubling my initial investment at just over $460. 

Very painful to watch... I believe in the company long term but thought it was overvalued at the time and likely to pull back... Now here we sit at $750 less than 30 days later...

I am happy to see the result but kicking myself at the same time... 

AlwaysLearning


----------



## agent99

I went to the golf practice range today. The guy I get range balls from told me Tesla was up over $100. When guys like that or taxi driver or barbers start following a stock, it may be a good time to be out of it. That $460 might look good in a while.


----------



## m3s

Isn't this what they call a short squeeze?

Things are going reasonably well for Tesla so the shorts are pressured to get out of their short and buy? I don't short sell so not sure

It's like a reverse crash when people panic sell, no?


----------



## AlwaysLearning

I still can't stop calculating the potential gains I would be looking at if didn't sell when I did...

Although each day I likely would have sold again. Not sure the lesson to learn here. 
Maybe not to cash in full position on companies you believe in long term even if you can't wrap your head around the valuation.. Take some profits off the table...

Tough one.. 
AlwaysLearning


----------



## doctrine

Look at the drop off in the last 15 minutes - $75 a share, or 9%, poof. At this price, it's just a game of chicken, being played with billions, to see who gets out first.

33% of Tesla shares traded today. Almost $54 billion of transactions. Pretty crazy.


----------



## doctrine

In the last 3 days, over 155M (86% of shares) traded on the NASDAQ for TSLA. And the stock is down a whopping 25% from its high just over 30 hours ago. Fascinating from a market mechanics point of view - algorithms vs momentum, plus the ESG/technology side and plenty of FOMO.


----------



## agent99

AlwaysLearning said:


> I still can't stop calculating the potential gains I would be looking at if didn't sell when I did...
> 
> Although each day I likely would have sold again. Not sure the lesson to learn here.
> Maybe not to cash in full position on companies you believe in long term even if you can't wrap your head around the valuation.. Take some profits off the table...
> 
> Tough one..
> AlwaysLearning


I haven't had the luxury of a share like this very often. But when I have, I have sold 1/2 of my shares when the stock doubled. That way, the shares still owned cost nothing and overall you can't lose a thing. The profit can be put into something less risky. If stock continues upward, you can repeat this.


----------



## m3s

TSLA is on a tear again

13% today, about 60% in 15 days.. 100% in 30 days

I just missed a limit buy in March *sigh


----------



## AlwaysLearning

Over $1200 now...


----------



## james4beach

Hard to tell whether SHOP or TSLA is the better bubble/momentum stock.

Bloomberg: Ten Thousand Day Traders an Hour Are Buying Tesla Shares



> Robinhood users can’t get enough of Tesla Inc.
> 
> Almost 40,000 Robinhood accounts added shares of the automaker during a single four-hour span on Monday


----------



## andrewf

Tesla is definitely running pretty far ahead of performance. I can see them becoming big and quite profitable due to structural advantages they have, but they are getting to valuations that require things like their autonomous ridesharing network, which is a high reward but uncertain outcome. 

Starting to remind me of Amazon.


----------



## doctrine

BMW announced a new electric SUV to be delivered next year. It's a year behind Tesla's Model Y. And it costs 10%+ more. And it has 10% less range. But it's not bad. That is closer than competition has been in a while. If it's a quality SUV it may actually eat into a few sales - some people like BMWs. If every big company starts releasing cars that are only a little behind Tesla, that will definitely hurt. Making cars is capital expensive and every company risks billions by making cars that don't sell. Tesla seems to have only world domination priced in. They have been so far ahead for so long, it's easy to see why they are #1, but will they stay there? 10,000 Robinhood investors an hour say..yes.


----------



## james4beach

Those 10,000 Robinhood "investors" an hour have virtually no experience in capital markets.

I put investors in quotes because I think most of them are gamblers.


----------



## andrewf

Charging infrastructure and distribution are big problems. Dealers will not sell EVs except under extreme duress.


----------



## bgc_fan

I would say that Polestar 2 is an interesting competitor that I'm more interested in: Pure progressive performance | Polestar

Pricewise it is more expensive; however, keep in mind that the equivalent Model 3 is the top end Long range AWD version, so the price difference isn't as pronounced as what critics would state.

Distribution is pretty much online with some showcase dealerships. I think one in Montreal and Toronto. Not sure if they plan on providing support at Volvo dealerships.

From what I understand, unlike the Model 3 whose interior feels cheap, the Polestar 2 has been getting some good reviews.

As for charging infrastructure, there are starting to get more 3rd party involvement. I mean Petro-Can has started building its network and in Quebec, Hydro-Quebec is building a network as well. It may just be a matter of time.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla's charging infrastructure is unmatched in usability, ubiquity and cost. Anything else is a compromise for the foreseeable future. Volvo dealers will not sell EVs, so Volvo will sell few (my bold prediction). 

You can buy what you like, but it's going to take some doing to really challenge Tesla.


----------



## bgc_fan

Considering that Volvo's goal is to have half their sales be electric and the other half is hybrid, I don't think dealers are going to have a choice.
Volvo CEO outlines strategy to electrify lineup, become climate neutral


----------



## james4beach

This might be a dumb question, but can someone remind me why fully electric vehicles are so attractive?

I might buy a car one day. In fact I started car shopping just before COVID. Why would I buy Tesla electric ($50,000) and not a regular gas car ($20,000 new)?

I don't dispute that the have nice charging infrastructure, but these Tesla cars are very expensive. Even the Toyota Prius hybrid is only about $22,000 and these are extremely good on fuel.

Not only that, but gas prices have been depressed for a long time and never seem to increase. This isn't like 2007-2008 when gas prices were soaring... instead, gas prices across Canada tody are the same as they were 10 years ago. Even in BC, where people seem to like complaining about 'expensive gas', the price just _has not_ gone up over time.


----------



## doctrine

I think there is some attraction to an electric car. Some may argue the $50k Tesla Model 3 is a better quality overall car than a $20k gas version, so is that the comparison? Most relatively nice sedans are more like $30-35k all-in at least.

There is some novelty. There are a lot of high income families in the world, let alone Canada, that can afford a $50k second car. Some of the more affluent are already buying the Model S for 3 times that price.

The subsidies are nice, depending on where you live, you might get it for $40k instead of $50k.

So $40k vs $30-35k, and for a car with 500 km range that you can charge in your driveway? Not too bad. If I had to commute an hour each way every day, it would probably be a lot cheaper than a gas car.

Not that I'm about to buy a Tesla or would even dream of buying the stock, it's just that they are selling a lot of vehicles, so there is some compelling value proposition at play here.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> This might be a dumb question, but can someone remind me why fully electric vehicles are so attractive?
> 
> I might buy a car one day. In fact I started car shopping just before COVID. Why would I buy Tesla electric ($50,000) and not a regular gas car ($20,000 new)?
> 
> I don't dispute that the have nice charging infrastructure, but these Tesla cars are very expensive. Even the Toyota Prius hybrid is only about $22,000 and these are extremely good on fuel.
> 
> Not only that, but gas prices have been depressed for a long time and never seem to increase. This isn't like 2007-2008 when gas prices were soaring... instead, gas prices across Canada tody are the same as they were 10 years ago. Even in BC, where people seem to like complaining about 'expensive gas', the price just _has not_ gone up over time.


Why does anyone buy BMW when Hyundai sells similar vehicles for less? 

Main benefits of EVs over ICE vehicles:
-better performance. More responsive and faster acceleration. 
-much less costly to power. At least half the cost of a Prius or less, and even less compared to equivalent vehicles (sport sedans). Worth $1.5k per year for typical drivers. 
-low maintenance
-charge at home means always having a full 'tank' in the morning and not needing to visit gas stations 
-quiet

Model 3 beats popular mainstream cars like Camry in 5 year TCO analyses, never mind BMW 3 series etc.


----------



## bgc_fan

james4beach said:


> This might be a dumb question, but can someone remind me why fully electric vehicles are so attractive?
> 
> I might buy a car one day. In fact I started car shopping just before COVID. Why would I buy Tesla electric ($50,000) and not a regular gas car ($20,000 new)?
> 
> I don't dispute that the have nice charging infrastructure, but these Tesla cars are very expensive. Even the Toyota Prius hybrid is only about $22,000 and these are extremely good on fuel.
> 
> Not only that, but gas prices have been depressed for a long time and never seem to increase. This isn't like 2007-2008 when gas prices were soaring... instead, gas prices across Canada tody are the same as they were 10 years ago. Even in BC, where people seem to like complaining about 'expensive gas', the price just _has not_ gone up over time.


Here's a year old TCO comparison between the base Tesla Model 3 model against Toyota Camry where the Model 3 wins out. Tesla Model 3 vs. Toyota Camry — 5 Year Cost of Ownership Comparisons

Obviously electrical and gas costs are the main variables, but in the long run, the Model 3 wins out.

You can't really predict gas prices, I mean did anyone predict the recent oil crash?


----------



## m3s

Tesla model 3 is like iPhone 3g. Hybrids are like Blackberry. ICE are like those wall phones with the fancy call display screen..

Tesla's get over the air software upgrades like smartphones. Autopilot is improving all the time and Tesla says its price will increase. Teslas may well have much better resale while people catch on, supply is limited, price is increasing etc. iPhone 3 and 4 had insane resale values. Depreciation is a bigger cost factor than gas unless you drive a lot.

Electric vehicles have instantaneous torque, individual motors at the wheel, much lower center of gravity = destroys ICE performance at fraction of the cost. Electric vehicles can slow down by recharging, have much less wasted heat and mechanical wear = more efficiency, longer brake life, less maint etc. Electric vehicles can do many smart things like warm up in advance

We are just seeing Model Y now which is like iPhone 4 imo. I remember when people still thought Blackberry was better and hated touch screens. While some people could envision what would soon come with the apps and software, others held on to the familiar past. I remember how hard it was for many people to see at first. And then they all had smartphones

Gas is artificially low to delay the inevitable switch to more electric imo


----------



## nobleea

Most people who get a full electric never go back to ICE. Especially the more performance minded electrics, like Tesla. It's a step change.
If you just want to see what it's like, many Model 3's and S's are available for rent on TURO, which is like Airbnb but for your car. 100-150/day. Try it out and see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## doctrine

I really think we are on the cusp of an electric transformation. The infrastructure has to be better though. If I could fast charge my electric car at even half as many places as I can get gasoline, at least on a pump/connector availability basis, then I believe victory of electric over gas is at hand. I would think in 10+ years that the majority of consumer passenger cars sold could be electric.I think its a long way from heavy transport though, probably another 5-10 years past that.

The trigger may be an upcoming oil price spike. There are predictions of $150 oil within 5 years. And even if oil does spike, why would anyone, even oil companies, invest long term capital in new projects? More likely they will just harvest the profits and return them to shareholders, or get into electrification themselves. A massive spike in oil prices could justify the private capital investment necessary to electrify our network. Governments will be too broke to do it themselves.


----------



## Spudd

I love my plug-in hybrid. I charge it at a free public charging station that has a solar panel roof, so presumably at least some of the power is coming from solar. When I just drive around town, I don't pay anything for fuel. When I need to go farther, I have the gas engine as backup, but even with an "empty" battery I still get around 4L/100km in summer and 5 in winter. (I put empty in quotes because it never really fully empties out, but empty is the point where it refuses to be in EV-only mode any more.)


----------



## james4beach

These are all good arguments for why electric cars are the future, but I still don't think that translates into "TSLA is a good buy".

In my view, Tesla is a luxury car maker at a very high valuation, possibly at the start of an economic depression. I just don't see who is going to be buying their very expensive cars.


----------



## bgc_fan

james4beach said:


> These are all good arguments for why electric cars are the future, but I still don't think that translates into "TSLA is a good buy".
> 
> In my view, Tesla is a luxury car maker at a very high valuation, possibly at the start of an economic depression. I just don't see who is going to be buying their very expensive cars.


I agree with you. I don't agree that TSLA is a good buy. However, the markets are saying otherwise.

Tesla does have another ace up its sleeve. Besides the charging infrastructure, they are working on new battery technology which is cheaper (no cobalt required) and undergo more charging cycles. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/30/tes...ow-cost-next-gen-ev-million-mile-battery.html

I assume that other companies can adopt the technology, but Tesla is going to be at the forefront.


----------



## doctrine

james4beach said:


> These are all good arguments for why electric cars are the future, but I still don't think that translates into "TSLA is a good buy".
> 
> In my view, Tesla is a luxury car maker at a very high valuation, possibly at the start of an economic depression. I just don't see who is going to be buying their very expensive cars.


I still agree Tesla is not a buy, even if dreams come true. Nissan is now releasing a Model Y SUV competitor; similar range to Tesla, and similar price. Nissan has been making the Leaf for a decade and is not unfamiliar with electric cars. There are going to be a lot of credible Tesla competitors in the next 12-24 months on the lots at dealerships.


----------



## andrewf

There are some rumblings about Tesla getting into the utility space with distributed power plants made up of customer solar roofs and grid connected EVs (V2G) enabled by high endurance (1M mile) batteries. This let's the car earn good income as a peak shaving/grid regulation service and significantly improve the economics of ownership. I think Tesla has potential to take significant revenue share of this at very low capex. Tesla is looking very frothy at this valuations.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

If the rumours and claims from Teslas about the Cyber truck are true, Tesla is setup to make a killing provided they can keep up with demand. They claim the cost to build a production line for the Cyber truck will be around 1/6th that of traditional trucks produced today.

Sure the truck is ugly, but I bet once you see it in person cruising down the street it will look pretty cool.

If the truck lives up to Tesla's claims I would buy one. The claimed prices are on par with most traditional trucks and the savings in fuel and maintenance (trucks are maintenance pigs) would make ownership of the truck cheaper overall, unless you're the type to upgrade every year.

As for Tesla's stock, I don't think Ill be buying.


----------



## m3s

doctrine said:


> I still agree Tesla is not a buy, even if dreams come true. Nissan is now releasing a Model Y SUV competitor; similar range to Tesla, and similar price. Nissan has been making the Leaf for a decade and is not unfamiliar with electric cars. There are going to be a lot of credible Tesla competitors in the next 12-24 months on the lots at dealerships.


Not a safe bet at these prices but I would have liked if my limit order filled back in March.

TSLA is rethinking transportation from the ground up. They are looking to optimize anything from production to sales to driving to public transport. Cutting out everything from shitty 3rd party suppliers, sleazy marketing and sales departments, and over-engineering everything for the sake of fake marketing. It takes a long time to build momentum and I'm not keen to be an early adopter, but I can see massive potential for disruptions and so can many others. TSLA is laying the ground work for an entire energy and transportation empire that could make amazon disruption of malls look like child's play.

Nissan building a few econo electric vehicles completely misses the mark I'm afraid.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Tesla jumped today. I guess on the announcement of a 5-for-1 stock split.

I'm not buying a stock that surged +600% in less than a year, though. And when looking at financials and valuation, I'm not reassured.


----------



## doctrine

Competition is coming for Tesla. Starting in 2021, the world will see close to 100 electric vehicle models being introduced in the next few years, including by all main car manufacturers. And they are being introduced at similar capabilities and price as Tesla are today. Tesla will still be successful but they go from being the only show in town to defending their crown against newcomers who are investing as much as $250B over the next 5 years in electric cars. That will build a hundred gigafactories.

This will crush margins and bring Tesla's P/B ratio of 30 back to reality. Tesla traded below $300 for much of 2019. Not that much has changed, except competition is closer and is looking more legitimate.


----------



## m3s

I agree the price is insane

However just throwing a bunch of money doesn't mean anything. Boeing has far more resources than SpaceX and yet they won't catch up. Corporate dinosaurs in all industries just can't pivot no matter how much money they throw down. Fuji never caught up with digital cameras and Nokia never caught up to Apple etc

It's a whole different industry now and it was long overdue for disruption


----------



## doctrine

That's true, but car manufacturers have been known to pivot to whatever sells. From small cars to muscle cars, station wagons, mini-vans, and SUVs - they build what people want. Car manufacturers aren't building muscle cars anymore, stuck in the past. If people want electric cars, they will get electric cars. They aren't more complicated than a ICE car. They are arguably less complicated. Battery technology isn't rocket science, and if it was, Tesla's patents are public anyway. And they have more than enough time to pull those cars apart and look at them themselves. No, I think Tesla does not have something that cannot be replicated. They did have it for a while though, and still do today, but it will be a different story in 18-24 months, way different. It's not just money - the full engineering and design effort of every major car manufacturer in the world is pivoting to electric vehicles. Will they all get it right? Maybe not, but it's incredibly unlikely they will all get it wrong.

I was skeptical, but the cars that are coming available for purchase and delivery within 12 months are starting to be impressive, and from multiple manufacturers, at a variety of price points.


----------



## MrBlackhill

There are already more than 10 direct competitors to Tesla Model 3 in Canada and Tesla definitely cannot cover the full market of EVs. I know 4 people owning EVs and only one of them has the Tesla Model 3 and it's basically because he's part of the tech-trendy thrill. It's a tech hype, I remember him showing us its Tesla self-driving in the parking to come and get him where he stood, but I personally totally don't care about such a feature. The 3 other people I know all bought different types of EV according to their personal needs and taste. And if I were to buy an EV at the moment it wouldn't be Tesla because I'm more into small SUVs or hatchback cars, so maybe something like Kia Niro or Hyundai Kona. I'm currently pretty happy with my Hyundai Accent Hatchback which is sleeping in my garage because I do less than 5000 km per year, but in 5-10 years I may buy another car which will be an EV and certainly not a Tesla because it doesn't fit my needs and requirements.

It's more likely caused by Tesla Model S "going viral", we see them everywhere. The first Tesla car that got my attention was the Roadster 2008, but no one recalls that car. They just know that car because it was launched into orbit in 2018. Tesla Model S was launched in 2012. The stock then made a big jump and flatlined into volatility afterwards.

Now, what caused the stock recent surge? The Tesla Model 3 launched around 2017-2018? I don't think so. And many people haven't even heard of models X and Y launched inbetween. The Tesla Semi? I don't think so. Maybe it's the viral video about the Tesla Cybertruck or the recent SpaceX launch which may have drawn attention to everything Elon Musk is doing. I mean, I guess if a spacecraft company were to launch a dishwasher, people would buy it because they'd be confident about the quality and tech?


----------



## m3s

You haven't scratched the surface though. I've been working in the US off and on and Elon has been a constant topic of discussion in the US for a long time. It's ramped up a lot more past few years even before the TSLA stock broke out. There is far more going on than is being discussed on a Cdn forum with like 6 active posters! For a start they are building factories on multiple continents and completely streamlining production from the ground up without 1000s of 3rd party junk per vehicle

The traditional automakers are behemoth dinosaurs that consolidated hundreds of fragmented brands with thousands of 3rd party suppliers around the world. They have a business model that involves over complication, deception, and erecting barriers to any competition or just buying them out. They want as many junk components as possible for the sake of planned obsolescence and greasy sales tactics. Then came a billionaire who just wanted a modern car without all the boomer bs.


----------



## bgc_fan

While there is hype and what not, I always thought the vertical integration of power production, storage and EV would lead to the idea that for a capital investment (solar panels, storage battery, EV), you would end up with minimal operating cost while you get the electricity from solar produced at your home. Tesla is looking to pitch that more as a package in the EU (maybe not the solar panels).
Could Tesla Be the next Home Energy Provider? Powerwall and EV Charger 'Home Package' Is Surveying EU Market | Brinkwire


----------



## m3s

Ideally you also charge your EV while out shopping/working. The vehicle battery is additional energy storage for morning/cloudy days etc. In the US electricity costs are much higher while they also have more sun

Now bundle in Starlink internet and you can cut out another dinosaur business model. I have 2 options for internet here and both leave things to be desired. Like Boeing government contracts that fail and then raise the price


----------



## bgc_fan

m3s said:


> Starlink internet


A bit off-topic, but isn't there a latency issue with satellite Internet? At least, that's what I remember from before.


----------



## m3s

Starlink is designed to be low latency high bandwidth. Thousands of autonomous small-sats in low earth orbit

Current satellite internet providers rely on dinosaurs way out there in geostationary orbit. Complete opposite design.

Iridium is kind of a hybrid in between 66 satellites. Has its use for communication


----------



## andrewf

Everything has to go right. Musk does seem to have an uncanny ability to prove doubters wrong, maybe just not on time. 

The current valuation requires them to either become the biggest automaker in the world by 2030 or reliably crack self driving and build a big rideshare network or probably both. Maybe they will do it.


----------



## MrBlackhill

The more uncertainty there is, the more speculative it is. I would've bought TSLA as a speculative bet when its valuation was decent, but now it's more about a full-decade bet to justify its valuation. All of the FAANG never ever jumped that much in such a short period of time.

Stocks such as TSLA and SHOP were good buys at the end of 2018. Their recent share price growth is beyond total craziness. Since these stocks are already 3-5 times too expensive, how can one buy now and hope for a 20%+ share price growth in the next years? Earnings would have to double every single year for at least 5 years.


----------



## m3s

People doubted every FAANG stock just as much if not more. You could find some good quotes on this forum

The industry TSLA is in has much larger potential for disruption. I mean Google started out as a search engine and expended into revenue people never understood. Search engines and social media are small by comparison

TSLA is touching several big industries and things people don't even see coming like the Vegas and LA tunnels


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> People doubted every FAANG stock just as much if not more. You could find some good quotes on this forum


When AAPL or NFLX grew by +100% CAGR over 3-5 years period, it was backed up by strong fundamentals. And right after these short-term hyper-growth, they dropped by at least -20% which then took 1-3 years to recover.

In 2015, NFLX had a +100% growth in less than 1 year and then dropped by -35%. In 2018 had again a +100% growth in less than 1 year then dropped by -35%.
From 2009 to 2012, AAPL had a +65% CAGR then dropped by -35%.
From 2004 to 2008, AAPL had a +100% CAGR then dropped by -40% and that's before the 2008 crash.

TSLA jumped by +600% in less than 2 years.
SHOP also jumped by +600% in less than 2 years.
That's nothing to be compared to FAANG. And they will drop hard in less than 3 years, to levels lower than what you can buy today.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> That's true, but car manufacturers have been known to pivot to whatever sells. From small cars to muscle cars, station wagons, mini-vans, and SUVs - they build what people want. Car manufacturers aren't building muscle cars anymore, stuck in the past. If people want electric cars, they will get electric cars. They aren't more complicated than a ICE car. They are arguably less complicated. Battery technology isn't rocket science, and if it was, Tesla's patents are public anyway. And they have more than enough time to pull those cars apart and look at them themselves. No, I think Tesla does not have something that cannot be replicated. They did have it for a while though, and still do today, but it will be a different story in 18-24 months, way different. It's not just money - the full engineering and design effort of every major car manufacturer in the world is pivoting to electric vehicles. Will they all get it right? Maybe not, but it's incredibly unlikely they will all get it wrong.
> 
> I was skeptical, but the cars that are coming available for purchase and delivery within 12 months are starting to be impressive, and from multiple manufacturers, at a variety of price points.


Dealers don't want to sell EVs because they don't need service. This is a fundamental problem for all the incumbent automakers.

Lots of 'Tesla killers' have been available and most of them are struggling to sell. Those that sell, automakers can't find enough batteries to produce.

It's like saying Apple doesn't have anything that no one else can't replicate. Google has in part and Samsung has in part but most others have failed, and Apple is disproportionately profitable.


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> Dealers don't want to sell EVs because they don't need service. This is a fundamental problem for all the incumbent automakers.
> 
> Lots of 'Tesla killers' have been available and most of them are struggling to sell. Those that sell, automakers can't find enough batteries to produce.
> 
> It's like saying Apple doesn't have anything that no one else can't replicate. Google has in part and Samsung has in part but most others have failed, and Apple is disproportionately profitable.


Wait, which Tesla killer can I buy today that is relatively on par?


----------



## hboy54

andrewf said:


> Dealers don't want to sell EVs because they don't need service.


This no maintenance thing I don't understand. Most of my maintenance dollars have gone into brakes, suspension parts, annual inspections, tires, rust abatement etc. Maybe 1/3 or 1/5 of maintenance dollars have gone into the ICE and related stuff like muffler, gas tank. Maybe I am just unlucky. Plus I am sure batteries and electric motors and wires have 0 failures.


----------



## MrBlackhill

EV don't need oil changes.
EV don't have multi-gear transmission nor automatic transmission fluid.
EV don't have spark plugs.
EV don't have timing belts.
EV don't have muffler.
EV have much less mechanical parts.
EV brakes last about twice longer due to regenerative braking.
EV battery warranty is at least 8 years or 160 00 km BUT batteries will loose range (recharge efficiency) over time, which may be a drawback.
Most electrical failures are due to some extra tech and sensors which are present on both EV and ICE cars.

You said about 1/5 to 1/3 of your maintenance money went into ICE-related maintenance. That's already 20% to 33% of your maintenance money that you will save. Seems a lot to me.

Maintenance on an EV is not where you save the most money, but you will save decent money. Obviously, most money is saved on fuel.


----------



## off.by.10

hboy54 said:


> This no maintenance thing I don't understand. Most of my maintenance dollars have gone into brakes, suspension parts, annual inspections, tires, rust abatement etc. Maybe 1/3 or 1/5 of maintenance dollars have gone into the ICE and related stuff like muffler, gas tank. Maybe I am just unlucky. Plus I am sure batteries and electric motors and wires have 0 failures.


Dealerships will find a way. Our (older model) leaf has an annual "battery inspection" maintenance item. About the cost of an oil change lol And you still need to service brakes or the rust will make them fail within a few years.

The maintenance savings compared to a reliable ICE are not that much. If you compare to some cheap crap which needs to be fed parts as often as fuel, then it's a different story. It may also be more significant for older cars, assuming good reliability of the EV systems. Not a given at all for what is mostly new technology but I suspect they will eventually be much more reliable on average.


----------



## MrBlackhill

off.by.10 said:


> And you still need to service brakes or the rust will make them fail within a few years.


Because we have winters with salted roads, we need to clean and lubricate them, but the braking pads will last longer from regenerative braking.


----------



## andrewf

hboy54 said:


> This no maintenance thing I don't understand. Most of my maintenance dollars have gone into brakes, suspension parts, annual inspections, tires, rust abatement etc. Maybe 1/3 or 1/5 of maintenance dollars have gone into the ICE and related stuff like muffler, gas tank. Maybe I am just unlucky. Plus I am sure batteries and electric motors and wires have 0 failures.


EVs have regenerative braking, so need very little service (they tend to rust out before wearing). No oil changes, which is how dealers get customers in the door and "discover" revenue opportunities.

People can and will buy tires, etc. at other places, particularly when they don't go to the dealer regularly for oil changes.


----------



## agent99

hboy54 said:


> This no maintenance thing I don't understand. Most of my maintenance dollars have gone into brakes, suspension parts, annual inspections, tires, rust abatement etc. Maybe 1/3 or 1/5 of maintenance dollars have gone into the ICE and related stuff like muffler, gas tank. Maybe I am just unlucky. Plus I am sure batteries and electric motors and wires have 0 failures.


You are right. Modern ICE cars need very little in way of repairs to the drive train. That is why manufacturers offer extended drive train warranty. It is all the other stuff that you mentioned along with connecting the power source to the wheels that are common regardless of the source. Most cars these days are relatively maintenance free for the first 5 years or so anyway. If you want maintenance free, just trade every 5 years or when warranty runs out.

Batteries, electric motors and their associated control systems are not maintenance free. I believe it is a misconception that EVs will be trouble free because they have electric drives. 

By the way, one of my cars is currently in a local shop for repair. Needs a new electric starter motor. Just that little motor replacement is going to cost me over $700. And that is with a re-manufactured motor


----------



## m3s

Depreciation is a major factor to the real cost of a vehicle besides fuel and insurance.

Tesla resale value should be a major advantage in foreseeable future. There is the brand hype/novelty/scarcity, the easy software upgrades and computer modability (already starting there are Tesla's destroying on the tracks) then unlike many older used cars you don't need to do all the typical timing belt/water pump/spark plugs/fluid maint

They also package their own insurance directly (cut out archaic commissioned sales peeps again) based on their own stats that Tesla's are cheaper to repair after collision (cut out middle peeps yet again) and safer with auto-pilot. This forces the typical disliked insurance oligopoly undercut/compete with those who drink Tesla's koolaid

Lots of Tesla status symbols in my hood. These people wouldn't be caught dead in a Hummer nowadays. Maserati and Porsche are still acceptable


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Most cars these days are relatively maintenance free for the first 5 years or so anyway. If you want maintenance free, just trade every 5 years or when warranty runs out.
> 
> Batteries, electric motors and their associated control systems are not maintenance free. I believe it is a misconception that EVs will be trouble free because they have electric drives.


How do you think trade in value on the 5 year old ICE that needs scheduled preventative maintenance (timing belt, water pump, spark plugs etc) vs EV will compare?



agent99 said:


> By the way, one of my cars is currently in a local shop for repair. Needs a new electric starter motor. Just that little motor replacement is going to cost me over $700. And that is with a re-manufactured motor


3rd party supplier junk and predatory stealership strikes again? The business model is to replace such cheap parts at exorbitant profit


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Modern ICE cars need very little in way of repairs to the drive train. That is why manufacturers offer extended drive train warranty. It is all the other stuff that you mentioned along with connecting the power source to the wheels that are common regardless of the source. Most cars these days are relatively maintenance free for the first 5 years or so anyway. If you want maintenance free, just trade every 5 years or when warranty runs out.


Oil changes? Transmission fluid?

What are those? They are opportunities for dealers to upsell. Tesla has stopped recommending periodic service, other than checking brake fluid every 2 years, air conditioning service every 6 years on Model 3, replacing air filters, and lubricating brake calipers annually.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Most cars these days are relatively maintenance free for the first 5 years or so anyway. If you want maintenance free, just trade every 5 years or when warranty runs out.


Trading in every 5 years is just a losing proposing, which is why leasing is probably a better option. Or, you go with Volvo's new subscription service: Care by Volvo Volvo car subscription I FAQ I Frequently Asked Questions which wraps up most of the expenses together in a monthly payment, with an option to change vehicles yearly as long as you sign another 2 year subscription.



m3s said:


> Depreciation is a major factor to the real cost of a vehicle besides fuel and insurance.


I drive my car into the ground after 10-15 years, so depreciation is never a factor I consider.


----------



## m3s

bgc_fan said:


> I drive my car into the ground after 10-15 years, so depreciation is never a factor I consider.


I play the resale game. Current car bought low miles 2 years old 1/2 off MSRP is worth the same 6 years later (grew cult following and no longer available) Worth more than paid if I sell in USD

My previous car is on a very short list of cars that appreciate. I actually made money after 3 years and I should have kept it (it's worth far more now, extremely strong cult following because the new models are all marketing junk)

My first 2 cars also sold for more than I paid but that was mostly knowing good deals when I see them. I prefer cars in their mid-life vs new-to-dead extremes both as a driver and financially


----------



## bgc_fan

m3s said:


> I play the resale game. Current car bought low miles 2 years old 1/2 off MSRP is worth the same 6 years later (grew cult following and no longer available) Worth more than paid if I sell in USD
> 
> My previous car is on a very short list of cars that appreciate. I actually made money after 3 years and I should have kept it (it's worth far more now, extremely strong cult following because the new models are all marketing junk)
> 
> My first 2 cars also sold for more than I paid but that was mostly knowing good deals when I see them. I prefer cars in their mid-life vs new-to-dead extremes both as a driver and financially


That's certainly one approach to take. Me, I take the other approach as I'm not interesting in buying and selling cars on a regular basis. For me, the car is a tool to make my life easier, not something to occupy my time and energy.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> How do you think trade in value on the 5 year old ICE that needs scheduled preventative maintenance (timing belt, water pump, spark plugs etc) vs EV will compare?


That is something nobody will really know until more EVs are in daily use and driving equivalent annual km to ICEs.

I traded my 2014 SUV after 5 years for 51% of its price when new. Using Prius as close toan EV, they seems to be going for less than 50% of purchase price after 5 years. Nissan Leaf similar. Saw a 2015 listed for $15395 asking price.

From this small sample, it looks like depreciation might be similar for both types.


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> Oil changes? Transmission fluid?
> 
> What are those? They are opportunities for dealers to upsell.


Have you had that sort of experience? I have not. I can't recall a dealer ever trying to sell me anything when car has gone in for service. Maybe once a windshield wiper blade, but I always tell them to only do the service. Report anything else. The service costs are published up front. No surprises. Anything else that has been done has been covered by the warranty. And not much of that either. 

Frequency of service for an EV? Nissan Leaf maintenance schedule. (every 12000 km) . If Tesla are not doing those services, why not?


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> From this small sample, it looks like depreciation might be similar for both types.


Look at the current resale on Tesla. Nobody who did their homework wants a used Prius or Leaf

I'd be interested in a 2 or 3 year old Tesla but not at these prices. I wouldn't touch a Prius or Leaf

When Tesla loses its scarcity surplus it's the kind of car I see as something I can buy/sell in 4-6 years


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> Trading in every 5 years is just a losing proposing, which is why leasing is probably a better option. Or, you go with Volvo's new subscription service: Care by Volvo Volvo car subscription I FAQ I Frequently Asked Questions which wraps up most of the expenses together in a monthly payment, with an option to change vehicles yearly as long as you sign another 2 year subscription.
> 
> I drive my car into the ground after 10-15 years, so depreciation is never a factor I consider.


If you drive cars into ground in only 10-15 years, you probably should do better maintenance or buy better cars  

Trading every 4-7 yearswhile under warranty eliminates possibility of major unexpected repair costs. There is a cost, but peace of mind especially isn't free. I have never found leasing to be less expensive. 

Not everyone buys new cars, so trading in this way doesn't apply if you buy a used car. If you buy a 2 or 3 yr old car, you may save say 1/3 on new car price - at least you then have that saving to cover repairs later. Those repairs are to be expected for a 7-8 yr old modern car and could be expensive. So in the end it is a wash. 

We have one newer car that is mainly used for long distance travel, often to USA. That one has warranty coverage here and in USA. Plus CAA/AAA/Car Roadside repair and towing. We don't want to be stuck in some godforsaken place waiting for parts. An EV would not work for this type of use. 

Our other cars are 22, 35 and 48 years old  No warranty! They don't venture too far from home base!


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> If you drive cars into ground in only 10-15 years, you probably should do better maintenance or buy better cars


I actually haven't driven one completely into the ground yet. I bought the current one 7 years ago and probably will keep it for a long while. The previous one was involved in an accident and needed to be replaced. It was a second hand, but had it for about 10 years.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Frequency of service for an EV? Nissan Leaf maintenance schedule. (every 12000 km) . If Tesla are not doing those services, why not?


Nissan has dealers to placate, Tesla does not. It really is that simple.


----------



## MrBlackhill

agent99 said:


> Frequency of service for an EV? Nissan Leaf maintenance schedule. (every 12000 km) . If Tesla are not doing those services, why not?


Maintenance schedule and recommendations can be overly exaggerated. What's important about EV are facts like they don't need oil changes, they have braking regeneration and such. Give it a few years so that more people owns EV and figure out the reasonable maintenance and it'll prove it's better than ICE.

I mean, I have a sports bike and in the owner's manual it's recommended to shift up to the 6th gear when you are around 60 km/h. It's ridiculous. It's basically telling to shift up every +10 km/h of speed. I would be riding the sports bike at 1 200 RPM when it can go up to 13 000 RPM with red line at 11 500 RPM and its fuel efficiency range is around 4 000 - 6 000 RPM. On the 2nd gear, you can ride at 60 km/h without even hearing the motor and being super fuel efficient at 4 000 RPM (<5L/100km) because... it's a sports bike, not a car. But, according to the owner's manual I should be on the 6th gear...

I know this example is not about maintenance, but it's just how ridiculous a owner's manual can be. I guess it should have 10 gears so I can ride 100 km/h on the highway?


----------



## m3s

My car has an "intelligent" mode that flashes the dash when you "should" shift. Might help a beginner but it completely negates the point of having a turbo..

Few of my colleagues/friends own Tesla's and they both over analyse the running costs being engineers. Looks very promising so far. Early adoption is still risky imo

Tesla still needs to establish its reputation. Eventually they will let the marketing department manipulate us but for now they are at war with the competition


----------



## agent99

I have nothing against EVs. In fact, I would probably enjoy having one for use around town. 
I am just amused by the cult following that is apparent here and elsewhere.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> I have nothing against EVs. In fact, I would probably enjoy having one for use around town.
> I am just amused by the cult following that is apparent here and elsewhere.


I think your belief that they are suitable only for 'around town' kind of says it all.


----------



## m3s

I don't know it seems more like a cult to loyally pay dealership rates and defend them. I don't have any stake in Tesla, not defending my own choices etc

A starter probably costs a 3rd party supplier $20 to produce and they're probably all made by the same 3rd parties so you can get the same thing from rockauto for $200 etc. The dealer or independent mechanic gets parts at discount and charges by the job even if it takes them half the time to complete. It's a racket and people seem to have stockholm syndrome or brand loyalty?

EVs don't even have starters. How long an electric motors will last depends how much planned obsolescence they are designed with


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> I think your belief that they are suitable only for 'around town' kind of says it all.


Glad to know that you agree.


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> Nissan has dealers to placate, Tesla does not. It really is that simple.


So because Tesla doesn't have dealers, basic maintenance is not neccessary? Hmm.


----------



## MrBlackhill

TSLA is again what's _*driving*_ NASDAQ up. I like Tesla and I like to take risks. But when such a big company surges +700% in a year... I would not buy at this moment, unless if I were a day trader or if I thought I had a sense for timing the market.

Anyways, we'll see. My personal no-go are SHOP and TSLA at the moment. But for those who bought pre-2019, congratulations and keep holding. And keep watching closely...


----------



## hboy54

MrBlackhill said:


> Anyways, we'll see. My personal no-go are SHOP and TSLA at the moment. But for those who bought pre-2019, congratulations and keep holding. And keep watching closely...


If you are unwilling to buy at current levels, it is logically inconsistent to advise others to continue holding.


----------



## MrBlackhill

hboy54 said:


> If you are unwilling to buy at current levels, it is logically inconsistent to advise others to continue holding.


Well, good point, but I think there's a nuance.

If people don't buy, the price will stop going up like a skyrocket and it will reduce the momentum and stabilise the upward surge.
If current holders continue holding, the price will not go down and it will avoid a downward move (a crash).

But if people continue buying while holders continue holding, then the price will continue its crazy bull run until people are tempted to sell to take all those crazy profits and make the price crash or extremely volatile on both directions.
And if people stop buying while holders start selling, then the price will crash.

Basically, when I'm saying don't buy while saying hold, I'm telling people to stabilise the price to avoid a potential crazy volatility in either directions. It's currently a high upside volatility, but holders don't want a high downside volatility either. Therefore, buyers - don't buy, holders - don't sell. It's the only way to get out of this situation. Slowly and carefully reduce the momentum.

I'm just saying... reduce the pace of this d*mn bull !


----------



## MrBlackhill

Well... TSLA is not stopping, it touched the 2000$ today. Just a reminder, TSLA was at 220$ one year ago. That's +800% in a year. Congratulations and good luck momentum trading...


----------



## 5Lgreenback

It seems investors are now realizing that Tesla is a lot more than just an auto manufacturer. They going after the worlds energy generation, storage and transportation and doing a good job of it. 

They are also leading the way to fully autonomous driving and robo taxis. As well as many other avenues that have game changing potential. 

Is the stock is overpriced? Who knows but I'm rooting for them. They are shaking up the status quo in a positive way.

Just my take from a petrol loving gear-head perspective.


----------



## MrBlackhill

About a year ago, people were talking about companies reaching 1T$ market cap. Now, AAPL reached 2T$, doubling in a year, unjustified. Yup, doubling means +1T$ in a year.

TSLA went from about 40B$ to now about 370B$ in a year.

AMZN jumped +900% in 2 years (+200% CAGR), but that was after the 2000 crash.
TSLA jumped +800% in 1 year including a crash in-between...

But, anyways, in 2013, TSLA managed to jump +500% in 2 years (+145% CAGR) and held that new level.
Now can TSLA repeat with a +800% in only a year and hold that new level? That'd be a first.

Don't get me wrong, I like what Tesla is doing and I like hyper-growth stocks, but there's a difference between hyper-growth a vertical growth... You guys are good to be holding still, I guess I would have sold at 1500$.


----------



## Eder

Volkswagen generates $9202 revenue every second of the year....in comparison Tesla generates just $780....yet Tesla market cap is higher lol.


----------



## SixesAndSevens

Can anyone explain the TSLA stock split...according to the press release, the stock split is being implemented as a share dividend.
Record date is tomorrow (21st Aug).
What does this mean?
For normal cash dividends, if you buy 3 days before record date (called the X-date), you get the dividend.
If you buy after X, you don't.
But this is not like that, right?
What happens if you buy after 21st Aug, but before 31st Aug (split date)?
If you buy on 24th Aug, you are past the record date...but your shares still get split, right?
So, what is the difference?

second question...is there any tax implications for Canadian holder of TSLA stock in a non reg. account?

Thanks.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Eder said:


> Volkswagen generates $9202 revenue every second of the year....in comparison Tesla generates just $780....yet Tesla market cap is higher lol.



Since the start of Tesla, all the "experts" have doubted him and cast theories of how it will never succeed. Elon has proven everyone wrong, so far. You're just comparing Tesla to other auto makers, they have a lot more potential in their other business ventures than auto sales. Their energy sector disruption is just getting started. 

Tesla is now getting into the insurance business as well.


----------



## m3s

The Volkswagen CEO on Tesla (translated from deutsche)

"Elon Musk delivers results that many thought was impossible. They show that you can be profitable with electric cars. Tesla will drive through the coronavirus crisis without a loss quarter. It confirms me: in five to ten years the most valuable company in the world will be a mobility company—Tesla, Apple or Volkswagen.

It's similar to AAPL fundamentals being judged on past and present situation with little understanding of the future. Meanwhile it beats most security analysts entire portfolios year after year for a decade


----------



## 5Lgreenback

TSLA is being added to the S&P 500. Which means index managers have to purchase shares. TSLA has 147 million shares approximately. To keep things weighted correctly index fund managers will have to purchase at least 26 million TSLA shares. 

That is a massive purchase (18% of Tesla market cap when the stock is red hot) and I can't help but feel this has contributed to the crazy price ramp up over the past few weeks. 

Does this not point to a flaw in index style investing having unforeseen effects on the market or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## MrBlackhill

TSLA now at +900% in 1 year, which means x10.


----------



## doctrine

5Lgreenback said:


> TSLA is being added to the S&P 500. Which means index managers have to purchase shares. TSLA has 147 million shares approximately. To keep things weighted correctly index fund managers will have to purchase at least 26 million TSLA shares.
> 
> That is a massive purchase (18% of Tesla market cap when the stock is red hot) and I can't help but feel this has contributed to the crazy price ramp up over the past few weeks.
> 
> Does this not point to a flaw in index style investing having unforeseen effects on the market or am I misunderstanding?


Tesla is not yet added to the S&P 500, although it is eligible but they don't have to add it. The S&P committee may not add it because of earnings quality - the P/E is 1000+, and most of the profit is attributable to selling credits to other manufacturers, which will drop dramatically as more EV models are introduced. It is definitely being played on speculation of being added. It is part of the problem with indexing, and there is not much that can be done, except there is no rule that any stock must be added. They may just wait a few more quarters or years. There are enough hype tech stocks in the S&P 500 already that it is not dependent on Tesla.


----------



## james4beach

I'm often criticized for being a boring, overly cautious investor. So I'll make a bolder claim this time 

I think Tesla may be a fraud. So I'm now watching it with the thesis that there is an underlying fraud, and I'm watching for technical signs (price action) that might give me a chance to bet on the short side. To be clear... you can't short anything this strong and _I have no position_. But I'm watching the price action with the intent to go short. However, my short selling skills are a bit rusty, so I'll have to wait for the pricing to cooperate. I don't intend to short it for the foreseeable future and I definitely do not recommend betting against the stock - that would be suicide, with this chart, at this time.

If the prices start cooperating with my thesis, and if I'm able to time a good entry point, I would likely buy deep in the money put options to get a high delta and mimic a pure short position, with minimal premium so that time decay doesn't hurt me so much.

*Here are the reasons I suspect that Tesla may be a fraud:*

1. Musk is an erratic man who demonstrates bad judgement and behavioural problems. He strikes me as untrustworthy. He behaves a bit like a con man and a bit like someone who is off his meds.

2. The company's accounting processes are suspect, a somewhat recurring issue. They have had high turnover of people responsible for accounting. I believe that these recurring issues are a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire"

3. Financial regulators have started looking into their accounting practices and are still watching it. This part of the story is not over, and federal cases can take years to build up. The government builds solid cases before pressing charges, and they have a very high success rate. My sense is that the government is quite suspicious, and building a case. This is just intuition on my part.

4. Many people are not very critical of him because of the halo of being a tech genius, a sort of deification. Bizarre, and it means people aren't challenging him or calling him out.

5. Musk seems to dominate all aspects of the company. He has his thumb on everything, which really disrupts checks and balances, including systems that ensure honesty and accountability.

6. Musk bullies the company & executives into doing whatever he wants. For example when he made erratic tweets and illegal claims (private buyout), the rest of the company cooperated with him instead of calling him out, or punishing him. The company does not have checks or limits on Musk.

7. Musk and company make a lot of grand claims, and use it to drive the stock price higher.

8. Musk is an egomaniac who taunts the SEC, and I bet he thinks he can get away with fraud, and get away with doing whatever he wants. This part is interesting because I'll bet this motivates regulators and prosecutors to look at him even more closely.

9. Musk and company try to excite investors -- especially novice (i.e. unsophisticated) investors.

10. Musk has a cult following (again meaning uncritical investors), especially among younger investors who don't have much experience with frauds


----------



## 5Lgreenback

doctrine said:


> Tesla is not yet added to the S&P 500, although it is eligible but they don't have to add it. The S&P committee may not add it because of earnings quality - the P/E is 1000+, and most of the profit is attributable to selling credits to other manufacturers, which will drop dramatically as more EV models are introduced. It is definitely being played on speculation of being added. It is part of the problem with indexing, and there is not much that can be done, except there is no rule that any stock must be added. They may just wait a few more quarters or years. There are enough hype tech stocks in the S&P 500 already that it is not dependent on Tesla.



Interesting thanks. I have read reports that mention certain funds have already purchased several hundred thousand shares each, adding up to millions of shares being purchased recently. The formula in this case seems like its forced the funds to buy high by design.


----------



## kcowan

james4beach said:


> I'm often criticized for being a boring, overly cautious investor. So I'll make a bolder claim this time
> 
> I think Tesla may be a fraud. So I'm now watching it with the thesis that there is an underlying fraud, and I'm watching for technical signs (price action) that might give me a chance to bet on the short side. To be clear... you can't short anything this strong and _I have no position_. But I'm watching the price action with the intent to go short. However, my short selling skills are a bit rusty, so I'll have to wait for the pricing to cooperate. I don't intend to short it for the foreseeable future and I definitely do not recommend betting against the stock - that would be suicide, with this chart, at this time.
> 
> If the prices start cooperating with my thesis, and if I'm able to time a good entry point, I would likely buy deep in the money put options to get a high delta and mimic a pure short position, with minimal premium so that time decay doesn't hurt me so much.
> 
> *Here are the reasons I suspect that Tesla may be a fraud:*
> 
> 1. Musk is an erratic man who demonstrates bad judgement and behavioural problems. He strikes me as untrustworthy. He behaves a bit like a con man and a bit like someone who is off his meds.
> 
> 2. The company's accounting processes are suspect, a somewhat recurring issue. They have had high turnover of people responsible for accounting. I believe that these recurring issues are a case of "where there's smoke, there's fire"
> 
> 3. Financial regulators have started looking into their accounting practices and are still watching it. This part of the story is not over, and federal cases can take years to build up. The government builds solid cases before pressing charges, and they have a very high success rate. My sense is that the government is quite suspicious, and building a case. This is just intuition on my part.
> 
> 4. Many people are not very critical of him because of the halo of being a tech genius, a sort of deification. Bizarre, and it means people aren't challenging him or calling him out.
> 
> 5. Musk seems to dominate all aspects of the company. He has his thumb on everything, which really disrupts checks and balances, including systems that ensure honesty and accountability.
> 
> 6. Musk bullies the company & executives into doing whatever he wants. For example when he made erratic tweets and illegal claims (private buyout), the rest of the company cooperated with him instead of calling him out, or punishing him. The company does not have checks or limits on Musk.
> 
> 7. Musk and company make a lot of grand claims, and use it to drive the stock price higher.
> 
> 8. Musk is an egomaniac who taunts the SEC, and I bet he thinks he can get away with fraud, and get away with doing whatever he wants. This part is interesting because I'll bet this motivates regulators and prosecutors to look at him even more closely.
> 
> 9. Musk and company try to excite investors -- especially novice (i.e. unsophisticated) investors.
> 
> 10. Musk has a cult following (again meaning uncritical investors), especially among younger investors who don't have much experience with frauds


You could have been describing Trump. And yes I agree with everything you say!


----------



## andrewf

Quite an elaborate fraud if they are making cars that have among the highest user satisfaction ratings. Usually fraudulent companies have no product or one that is severely lacking.

I would strongly advise against betting against Tesla. I would also advise against buying the hype. But Musk doesn't just talk a good game, he gets things done. Is SpaceX another fraud?


----------



## MrBlackhill

Yet does it make sense for Tesla to rise its market cap 10x in a year to become amongst US top 10 biggest market cap?

How much people in the world uses Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Visa products? A lot! And they are the biggest caps. Sounds fair.

Tesla is now amongst them. Tesla is valued twice the valuation of Intel or Pepsico and it should make sense?

Tesla is taking over the world? In 5 years most of the world will own Tesla products? Not so sure about that. I'm not saying Tesla is not a good product.

In 5-10 years, I'll certainly change car and buy an EV. If I were to buy an EV today, would it be Tesla? No, their offering doesn't fit my needs, I'd buy a Hyundai Kona EV. See, there's competition already and Tesla doesn't cover the entire market. Whereas, yes, I do use Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Visa products and I don't know what else I'd use.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla can be overvalued (and likely is) without being a fraud. Saying it is a fraud is a very strong accusation. And many people have been beating that drum, predicting that Tesla would collapse for years. They have lost themselves and their clients many billions.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Tesla can be overvalued (and likely is) without being a fraud. Saying it is a fraud is a very strong accusation. And many people have been beating that drum, predicting that Tesla would collapse for years. They have lost themselves and their clients many billions.


Yes I'm making the strong accusation. The cars and tech aren't fake. I suspect that the accounting is crooked.

Just like Enron: the energy trading was real. The accounting was fake.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> How much people in the world uses Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Visa products? A lot! And they are the biggest caps. Sounds fair.
> 
> Tesla is now amongst them. Tesla is valued twice the valuation of Intel or Pepsico and it should make sense?
> 
> Tesla is taking over the world? In 5 years most of the world will own Tesla products? Not so sure about that. I'm not saying Tesla is not a good product.


Sure.. but it wasn't that long about people said the same about Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook.

People seem to vastly misunderstand the value of data. Amazon, Google and Facebook make most of their revenue on data alone. Tesla is gathering valuable data on driving that no one else can match

The Tesla self driving is $8k and the price increases and it improves (and you get the updates if you bought early) You have to sell a lot of sugar water or ads to match 1 auto-pilot sale..


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Sure.. but it wasn't that long about people said the same about Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook.
> 
> People seem to vastly misunderstand the value of data. Amazon, Google and Facebook make most of their revenue on data alone. Tesla is gathering valuable data on driving that no one else can match
> 
> The Tesla self driving is $8k and the price increases and it improves (and you get the updates if you bought early) You have to sell a lot of sugar water or ads to match 1 auto-pilot sale..


TSLA may be gathering valuable data on driving, I understand that perfectly, but AMZN, GOOG and FB are gathering data on everything else based on everything you do with your computer, your cellphone, where you go, what you say, what you buy, etc. What does TSLA gather that AMZN, GOOG and FB doesn't? Nothing except what is niched to EV-focused and their sensors. That data is much less valuable than what you do in your everyday life when you search the internet, buy on the internet, post on the internet, etc.

Last year, there were 75 million cars sold globally. TSLA will certainly not have 100% of the market, obviously. TSLA sold less than 500 000 cars last year.

FB has 2 billion active users.
AMZN has 150 million prime members and that's only a tiny part of their business. AMZN is the world's largest provider of cloud services.
GOOG processes 2 trillion searches per year.

How can you compare TSLA's data gathering to FB, AMZN and GOOG?

TSLA managed to move up +344% in 2013 then keep that level. This year, it's currently at +414% YTD. And it's not a crash recovery.. so if it's not a crash recovery, it is a...

AAPL? +211% in 1998 during the dot-com bubble. Then +201% post-crash in 2004 and +147% post-crash in 2009.
AMZN? +966% in 1998 during the dot-com bubble. Then +178% post-crash in 2004 and +162% post-crash in 2009.
NFLX? +397% post-crash in 2003, then +218% post-crash in 2010, then +298% in 2013 and kept that level.
GOOG? Only had 2 years doubling : In 2005 and in 2009.
FB? Doubled once in 2013.
MSFT? Doubled once in 1998.

So, let me try to find a year where AAPL, AMZN, NFLX, FB or MSFT had hyper-growth which was not the dot-com bubble and not after a crash... Hmm, yes, NFLX did that in 2013, otherwise FB doubled in 2013, but that's nothing to be compared to TSLA +344% in 2013. (Yup 2013 was a nice year for some tech stocks!)

But +414% YTD including a -50% crash and still moving up at a rate of +50% per month in the last two months AND being amongst the top 10 largest caps?


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> And many people have been beating that drum, predicting that Tesla would collapse for years. They have lost themselves and their clients many billions.


I was also pretty clear above when I said: don't short it. You can't bet against something with this kind of technical strength. I said that betting against it right now would be suicide.

I'm just going to wait and see what happens, and might enter a trade later on. Of course I could also be wrong entirely, in which case technical analysis will prevent me from doing something stupid. You should not short a strong stock.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> TSLA may be gathering valuable data on driving, I understand that perfectly, but AMZN, GOOG and FB are gathering data on everything else based on everything you do with your computer, your cellphone, where you go, what you say, what you buy, etc. What does TSLA gather that AMZN, GOOG and FB doesn't? Nothing except what is niched to EV-focused and their sensors. That data is much less valuable than what you do in your everyday life when you search the internet, buy on the internet, post on the internet, etc.


I don't disagree at all that it's overpriced. Then again I liked all the tech stocks you listed but listened to the experienced investors saying social media, search engines and online shopping stocks were overpriced that just keep going up

TSLA is gathering data on self-driving. If self-driving becomes a thing the data on self-driving will be worth far more than data that sells ads imho. The leader of a new tech will have a distinct advantage just like GOOG, AMZN, FB, APPL etc

Self-driving is just 1 major component of their tech. Everyone including people here said data and ads weren't worth as much as it turned out to be worth. Self-driving is a far larger disruption than online ads...


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> will be worth far more than data that sells ads imho


FB, AMZN, GOOG aren't just selling ads... That's under-evaluating the power of the data they are gathering. Their are basically gathering your entire life. Ok, that sentence may seem too much. They are gathering your profile - your persona. They get to know your habits, your desires, your needs, your problems, your photos, your calendar schedule, your travels, your commute, your health, your heartbeat, your sleep habits, your sports & activities habits, everywhere you went and everything your bought, etc. more than what you even know of yourself. They get to influence your life. It's not just an "ads" thing.

I've been working with a Data Scientist at my job and he was restricting himself for all those FB, AMZN, GOOG products and if he had one, he was disabling all of what he could.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> TSLA may be gathering valuable data on driving, I understand that perfectly, but AMZN, GOOG and FB are gathering data on everything else based on everything you do with your computer, your cellphone, where you go, what you say, what you buy, etc. What does TSLA gather that AMZN, GOOG and FB doesn't? Nothing except what is niched to EV-focused and their sensors. That data is much less valuable than what you do in your everyday life when you search the internet, buy on the internet, post on the internet, etc.


This is wrong. The data is real world driving and training data for self-driving vehicles. Tesla has a massive advantage. They have a million drivers training their AI and funneling all the interventions back to Tesla. The first outfit to crack self-driving will be disproportionately able to monetize.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> This is wrong. The data is real world driving and training data for self-driving vehicles. Tesla has a massive advantage. They have a million drivers training their AI and funneling all the interventions back to Tesla. The first outfit to crack self-driving will be disproportionately able to monetize.


It's still a niche. There's AI everywhere in all sectors. Self-driving is just one of them. Do you know how much AI is being developed by FB, AMZN, GOOG and such? And how big is AMZN & MSFT cloud technology and servers? And how big is their presence in our everyday life?

Most people cannot see or understand how big is all that data gathering and profiling, all the AI being developed by the big tech with all the gigantic amount of data they have and how big is the cloud transformation.

But people can understand how cool self-driving cars are. Yet it's not that big of a deal compared to all the AI being developed for thousands of applications as cool as self-driving or even more.

And you don't "crack" self-driving, you just improve the tech & algorithms with what's already existing, it's not that big of a deal, it just requires improvements over time. Things you crack are such as the MOSFET and how the invention of transistors revolutionized the miniaturization of electronics when people were laughing at how big computers were. Things you "crack" are such as quantum computing. That is creating a new tech.


----------



## andrewf

Cracking self-driving means passing the gate to actually allow automatic operation on public roads without a human present. This will be very disruptive technology, and it isn't obvious that followers are going to be able to replicate quickly, especially given most are following a different approach with LiDAR and detailed mapping.


----------



## kcowan

Here is an article on the future of self-driving carsr and how they have fallen short of forecasts.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> Cracking self-driving means passing the gate to actually allow automatic operation on public roads without a human present. This will be very disruptive technology, and it isn't obvious that followers are going to be able to replicate quickly, especially given most are following a different approach with LiDAR and detailed mapping.


I'm not saying it's not disruptive, I can't wait to see self-driving vehicles (though I will certainly not see a self-driving car during winter conditions). I'm just saying it's not an invention that you crack, so it's not that big of a deal and many will come up with solutions. It's just an assembly of technologies and an evolution of their optimisation. It's R&D as usual.

I used to work for a company where I developed a technology which significantly improved the automated inspection of airplane turbine blades, which are critical parts. I didn't invent anything, I didn't crack anything, it just took me some time of research, tests and development to come up with an optimal assembly of technologies and algorithms. Every engineering team can come up with great solutions for such problems.

The most disruptive technologies were inventions, like the light bulb, the telephone, the transistor, the electric battery, the computer, the refrigerator, the internet, etc.


----------



## andrewf

Hey, you can have your own opinion on what the term 'cracked' means when it comes to technological advancement. I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion. I mean, Google was founded on the 'invention'/discovery of the pagerank algorithm. They didn't invent search. They found (and patented) a superior approach... Tesla also has patents. And data. Lots of data.


----------



## doctrine

Google's patents made money from day 1. Tesla is still not really making money 10 years after going public and 17 years after founding, if it wasn't for carbon credits they wouldn't have had 4 quarters of net profit. And those credits will find other homes as more EV models are delivered. Competition is coming fast. Tesla's market cap is 40% of the top 12 combined with only 1-2% of the production. It's eventually coming down. And it could fall crazy fast. They are not really that further ahead on anything other than battery capacity, and that is rapidly diminishing.

The current market run is starting to smell more like a bubble. Apple trades at almost 40 times earnings. Same with Microsoft. Electric vehicle startups are getting multi-billion valuations with no production. It's not going to end well.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> Hey, you can have your own opinion on what the term 'cracked' means when it comes to technological advancement. I don't see how it is relevant to this discussion.


Yes, sorry about the terminology, I didn't want to focus on that.



andrewf said:


> And data. Lots of data.


TSLA's data is still just a drop in the ocean when compared to GOOG, FB, AMZN, MSFT and such.

GOOG stores more than 10 exabytes of data. That's more than 10 million terabytes. It processes more than 20 petabytes of data on a daily basis. That's 20 000 terabytes *daily*.

TSLA is just gathering data on a fleet of less than 1 million cars sold since 2012.


----------



## andrewf

TSLA has a user-labelled training set that would be very costly for anyone else to compile. Tesla has orders of magnitude more real world training miles (something like 98% of global total) than anyone else. And they have users paying for the privilege of providing it. Everyone else (Alphabet, etc.) is paying 1-2 engineers to sit in the car to gather that data. It really was a stroke of genius.

No doubt google is storing lots of data, but it is not the kind of data others would find especially difficult to collect as well (perhaps not at the same scale or breadth). No one else is even close to catching Tesla in their approach of capturing real world driving experience.


----------



## MrBlackhill

I'm not disagreeing to that.

Many other companies are collecting lots of data that others don't. In their niche. Like TSLA is doing in its niche. Yet no one is talking about companies gathering a huge amount of data about airplanes for instance, just to take an example in the transportation industry.


----------



## andrewf

A driver costs ~$0.35/mi. Vehicle miles traveled in the US alone is around 3 trillion miles per year. So that is a $1 trillion opportunity! How many jets are there in the world?


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Self driving cars is just the tip of the ice berg of Teslas plans. 

Bears seem to be looking at Tesla as an automotive company, which indicates they are just getting their information from analysts who have been proven wrong for the last 15 years.


----------



## andrewf

Yes, there is the whole energy side of the business that seems to be totally ignored. Tesla hasn't really fully tipped their hand on that.


----------



## MrBlackhill

TSLA sells

Electric vehicles
Solar panels
Battery home energy storage
My comments are only about the current valuation which makes no sense in my opinion. I'd definitely buy TSLA otherwise. I'd buy many growth stocks which we "buy high, sell higher". But TSLA is already way too high. But that's only my own opinion.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> TSLA sells
> 
> Electric vehicles
> Solar panels
> Battery home energy storage
> My comments are only about the current valuation which makes no sense in my opinion. I'd definitely buy TSLA otherwise. I'd buy many growth stocks which we "buy high, sell higher". But TSLA is already way too high. But that's only my own opinion.


I can totally get behind the argument that Tesla is overvalued. But this argument has been used in the past for other companies that grew into their valuations (Amazon, FB, etc.). I am more pushing back on the idea that Tesla is an Enron-like fraud. I think this is frankly crazy, if you are using it as a thesis to conclude that Tesla is worth nothing. There are lots of people who seem to have gotten stuck in this rut, and they refuse to see the light. Tesla has been on deathwatch for a decade, waiting for the next 'Tesla killer' or the inevitable financial collapse of the company after everyone wises up to it. Meanwhile, the company is generating cash and growing rapidly. I'm sure there are people who think SpaceX is a fraud too and that landing rocket boosters is a crazy idea that will never work.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> I can totally get behind the argument that Tesla is overvalued. But this argument has been used in the past for other companies that grew into their valuations (Amazon, FB, etc.). I am more pushing back on the idea that Tesla is an Enron-like fraud.


Well, about the fraud opinion, I just liked the shared opinion because I like to see how TSLA is the hot subject and that comes with people over-excited about it and also people talking about controversy... and yet all of that people is helping TSLA because "talk about it in good, talk about it in bad, but as long as you talk about it" (I'm not sure about this expression in English, it's a classic polarising marketing quote).

As I said, I personally really like TSLA since I first saw its 2012 Roadster and then when Model S came out.

But about how FAANG also experienced such a rapid share price growth, that's where I must disagree.

I'll try to be rational :

As I said previously, FAANG never really experienced such a rapid share price growth except during the dot-com and during a post-crash (2001 & 2008 crashes and also 2011, 2015 & 2018)
NFLX already experienced a very rapid share price growth in 2013, but, again, that was after crashing in 2011
TSLA recent surge is not after any crash, it started at the end of 2019
TSLA recent surge is significantly higher than even FAANG post-crash recoveries, it's also much higher than AAPL & MSFT during dot-com, though much lower than AMZN, at least...
Based on this, no, TSLA recent surge is definitely no where near to be compared to FAANG.

Though, I said I wanted to try to be as rational as possible, so here's what's working against my argument :

When compared to FAANG, TSLA has been underperforming from September 2013 to September 2019, which may explain its catch-up
When using a 5-year rolling return, TSLA (+55% CAGR at the moment) is currently comparable to AMZN (+46%) and MSFT (+42%)
When using a 5-year rolling return, NFLX already managed a +85% CAGR, but, again, that was after crashing a -75% in 2011, though NFLX managed a few +45% CAGR in recent years
My conclusions

TSLA recent 1-year growth cannot be compared to FAANG, it's totally outperforming them through all of their history when removing outlier situations like dot-com and post-crash, or even without removing those outliers...
TSLA recent 1-year growth could be justified by its 6 years underperforming FAANG
So... is it a bubble or a catch-up?

(I made these graphs forward-looking, which means it's showing the future returns you experienced if you started the investment at that date)


----------



## james4beach

Again about my fraud belief, this does not have anything to do with the share performance or the great technology they make. The technology is real.

I just suspect they are cooking the books. In fact, many companies tend that way unless they have strong checks and balances and a healthy fear of regulators. One of my main points was that Tesla's organization lacks those kinds of checks and balances, and Musk does not fear regulators (in fact he taunts them) -- which heightens the risk of fraud.

Shareholders should be demanding better checks and balances, and better compliance. But instead they've been giving Musk a free pass, which is also dangerous and possibly harmful to their future equity value.


----------



## andrewf

What are you suggesting is materially fraudulent about Tesla's accounting practices? Are they lying about vehicles sold? Are they lying about software revenue? Are they aggressive in their definition of gross margins? Lying about cash flow? I am only aware of some complaints about their definition of gross margin excluding certain things included by other manufacturers. 

There are a lot of cranks who were convinced that Tesla was lying about deliveries with 'proof' in the form of vehicles staged in lots. Those people were essentially conspiracy theorists using anecdotes and lack of understanding of logistics. I just don't see where we think the company-destroying accounting fraud is coming from.


----------



## kcowan

Some financial views indicating some irregularities in governance.


----------



## kcowan

Other accounting irregularities make it hard to compare Tesla to other companies.


----------



## MrBlackhill

About a world with self-driving vehicles... There may be an issue much bigger than the technology, it's the ethics.

In a world of self-driving vehicles, there will be situation where an AI will be taking decisions about human life & death. Imagine a situation where a self-driving vehicle has 5 passengers and suddenly a kid jumps on the street. How should the self-driving vehicle react? And imagine the situation where a self-driving vehicle has 1 young passenger and suddenly 2 adults appear on the street. In each situation, any decision would lead to casualties. How should the self-driving vehicle react? And if it's a deer or a moose? And since humans are selfish about their lives, would you like to be in a self-driving vehicle knowing it may decide to not spare your life in a situation of life & death?

And how about insurance? Who's responsible for the self-driving accidents? Sure, there should be fewer accidents, but will TSLA cover for all of the accidents which may occur because of its self-driving vehicles?

I was thinking about this because I've heard there are small devices which can take blood sugar measures continuously for diabetics and there are also small devices which can inject insulin as required, but I've heard that there's no integrated device doing both because it would be too dangerous to let such a device take decisions on its own. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I've just heard about this because we have a diabetic dog) So.. if such an integrated device is not allowed, what about a self-driving vehicle?


----------



## andrewf

^ The so called Trolley problem is interesting in theory/philosophy, but will be solved quite readily in practice. There will be legal guidelines. It also presupposes that self-driving cars will have exceptional abilities to choose which people to kill. In nearly all cases, the collisions that happen are unavoidable. The idea of choosing granny over the mother with stroller to die is purely academic. We don't hold human drivers to this standard.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> ^ The so called Trolley problem is interesting in theory/philosophy, but will be solved quite readily in practice. There will be legal guidelines. It also presupposes that self-driving cars will have exceptional abilities to choose which people to kill. In nearly all cases, the collisions that happen are unavoidable. The idea of choosing granny over the mother with stroller to die is purely academic. We don't hold human drivers to this standard.


I agree, but I think since humans are humans, they don't want their lives to be rationalised by an AI decision of who should live and die.

I am working in an AI field and we constantly hear about that debate about human vs machine, but what we expect as a future trend is machine & humans working in collaboration using their own strengths instead of always opposing humans to machines. But a self-driving vehicle is pure AI, no human decision...


----------



## MrBlackhill

So... TSLA is currently at +1000% from a year ago. The split hype will certainly continue for a bit.



https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-now-richer-mark-160737138.html





> Elon Musk is now the *third-richest* person in the world.





> Last week, Musk joined Zuckerberg, Bezos and Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates in the rarefied *centibillionaire* club as tech stocks rose.





> Musk still has *a long way* to become the world’s richest person. Bezos is worth more than $200 billion.


Yes, a long way... maybe 6 months away, at this pace? I guess TSLA will have to do another split by the end of the year...

Ok, I'm done with my bad jokes!

More seriously, I'm happy to witness something like this (crash, hype, splits, etc.). Made me forgot about SHOP. Since I'm a beginner, I prefer to watch & learn when it comes to stocks like SHOP & TSLA.

I don't feel safe yet about hyper-growth investing "buy very high, sell even higher", at the moment I prefer going for value "buy low, sell high".


----------



## doctrine

Tesla is going to end poorly. Even if they are successful as a company, that is the crazy part. Investors today now could lose two decades of capital appreciation. Many of the major profitable tech companies of the 1990's only recently overcame those highs after 15-20 years. Some, like Cisco, a highly profitable tech company throughout the boom and with 500% more revenue and profits now and high margins, growth, technology and scale advantage, everything, and at one point the largest company in the world, is still 50%+ below its 2000 peak! Big negative returns for 20 years! Even Microsoft took 16 years of negative returns and it took a massive monopoly position with zero competitors to do so! This is the future for a Tesla investor, even if the company is successful. That's how ludicrous the stock price is. Big fat bubble full of people that, even worse than panicking, will probably be convinced to buy more rather than flee with profits.


----------



## james4beach

kcowan said:


> Some financial views indicating some irregularities in governance.


I suspect there is, but I'm just guessing. I do think there is a problem with governance, and too much control by Musk... which is very unhealthy for a public corporation.

In any case, I have my suspicions. Doesn't make much of a difference as I would never bet against this as long as it's so strong.

As an aside, I see it was up 13% today and up 25% over the last few days. Certainly a lot of money being made by momentum traders.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> What are you suggesting is materially fraudulent about Tesla's accounting practices? Are they lying about vehicles sold? Are they lying about software revenue? Are they aggressive in their definition of gross margins? Lying about cash flow? I am only aware of some complaints about their definition of gross margin excluding certain things included by other manufacturers.
> 
> There are a lot of cranks who were convinced that Tesla was lying about deliveries with 'proof' in the form of vehicles staged in lots. Those people were essentially conspiracy theorists using anecdotes and lack of understanding of logistics. I just don't see where we think the company-destroying accounting fraud is coming from.


Well I wrote out my thesis and the various reasons I am suspicious about the whole story. I have no proof, it just smells funny.

I don't trust Musk.

I don't need proof of material fraud to have a theory about a security. Just as I don't need proof of, say, Brazil's upcoming greatness if I want to go long Brazil. It's just a speculative belief. The world is full of beliefs, and I have one. I could be wrong.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> I agree, but I think since humans are humans, they don't want their lives to be rationalised by an AI decision of who should live and die.


Uh, tough about their luck? It is not a good reason to leave people to the slaughter that is currently happening on the roads.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Well I wrote out my thesis and the various reasons I am suspicious about the whole story. I have no proof, it just smells funny.
> 
> I don't trust Musk.
> 
> I don't need proof of material fraud to have a theory about a security. Just as I don't need proof of, say, Brazil's upcoming greatness if I want to go long Brazil. It's just a speculative belief. The world is full of beliefs, and I have one. I could be wrong.


You're definitely entitled to do so. I would just caution against making investment decisions on the basis on that hunch about fraud. I think there is a much stronger case to be made that even if everything goes right, it is hard to justify Tesla's valuation. The same could often be said about AMZN, much to the chagrin of people who stayed on the sidelines (or even more so those that shorted).


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> Uh, tough about their luck? It is not a good reason to leave people to the slaughter that is currently happening on the roads.


I'm saying that as the general opinion, not my personal opinion on what's best. You know the greatest dilemmas always split half of the world for and the other half against - that's why they are the greatest dilemmas (death penalty, abortion, etc.).

Once a self-driving vehicle can take such decisions, there's no limit to what's coming next. To me, it's nor good nor bad, it's a change and I embrace changes.

If the connected world continues growing and if the autonomous devices continue growing, I will definitely invest in... cybersecurity.

Do you know the story about Jeep Cherokee being hacked? Hackers remotely disabling the transmission, the brakes and taking over the steering wheel?


----------



## andrewf

You're moving the goalposts to cybersecurity vs the self-driving algorithm itself. I can tell you that it will be very unclear what bias if any such an algorithm would have to kill grannies vs mothers in strollers. It is a fun philosophical problem but it will be a barely perceptible speedbump in adoption of the technology. It is quite difficult to explain why machine learning algorithms make the decisions they do.


----------



## kcowan

My hunch is that self-driving cars will have major hurdles in regulation once they become popular. All it will take is a few more deaths.

(Musk is a narcissist so many of his executive departures can be attributed to that. CFO here is what I forecast will happen. Musk here is what we will say will happen!)


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> My hunch is that self-driving cars will have major hurdles in regulation once they become popular. All it will take is a few more deaths.


My hunch is that overly cautious western regulators will be made to look foolish by more pragmatic Chinese regulators. How long will in be tenable to have SDCs buzzing around Chinese cities while we have 50k people dying on North American roads every year? The lobbying $ will also be intense, as there are vast sums at play.

That said, some jurisdictions in the west seem clear eyed about SDCs, at least for testing. Arizona allows Waymo to operate on a pilot basis without human supervision in the car.


----------



## james4beach

Tesla is offering more shares (it's free money after all)

Tesla takes advantage of stock’s best month in 7 years with $5 billion offering


----------



## andrewf

I think they are wise to do so, at current valuations. They are in the process of building 3 new plants in parallel, and plan to announce more.

I think if you are interested in a fraudulent EV company that is unjustifiably valued, you should look at Nikola. It doesn't get as much press as Tesla, but they are riding the Tesla hype train. The company seems to be vapourware, and the CEO is even shiftier than Musk. Honestly, I think Musk is more overoptimistic and doesn't seem to seek to mislead the public. Musk seems to be learning how to underpromise and surprise on the positive side, as with the timeline for Model Y production (started a couple quarters ahead of guidance). Others would call that sandbagging. The market seems to prefer things that way.


----------



## kcowan

Agreed. However sandbagging does require cash reserves. Maybe that is the difference. Musk senses some wiggle room now?


----------



## james4beach

TSLA down over 9% pre market. Maybe Softbank's call option issue (aggressive bullish positions this summer) really will turn out be noteworthy.

Should be an interesting week in TSLA and QQQ!


----------



## MrBlackhill

Competition news. TSLA down -16% pre-market and NKLA up +30% pre-market.

NKLA partners with GM to launch some real-world truck, not a futurist-looking Cybertruck like what TSLA did.



https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/nikola-and-gm-team-up-to-make-this-900-horsepower-super-electric-truck-113011979.html











And if that's not enough, TSLA failed to enter S&P 500.



https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-shares-fall-fails-p-123954310.html





https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-shares-slump-p-500-085850903.html


----------



## Topo

TSLA has completed a secondary offering. It was also recently rejected by the S&P 500. 

Looks like many factors are working together to crash the stock.


----------



## MrMatt

I just don't see the business case for Tesla.
People don't care about cars like they used to.

I'm going to buy a new car, talking to people they're all saying they are the same, buy the one you like, it really doesn't matter.
This includes modifiers who had show cars. People just don't care too much. 

I really think once we get more self driving ubers, the whole idea of car ownership will fade out.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> I just don't see the business case for Tesla.
> 
> I really think once we get more self driving ubers, the whole idea of car ownership will fade out.


So you can see a future of self-driving cars and yet don't see a business case for Tesla

Lol


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> So you can see a future of self-driving cars and yet don't see a business case for Tesla
> 
> Lol


Why is that "funny".
If nobody cares what brand the car is, why pay the Tesla premium?

There are other electric vehicles available at lower prices.
There are other self driving technologies, some of which are arguably more advanced.

Since Tesla doesn't have a sustainable advantage, I don't see how to justify the price premium.

By market cap, you could buy all the other automakers, with money left over, for the price of Tesla.
VW is very capable of surpassing Tesla, and Ford sells an large number of Hybrid vehicles, at very compelling prices.
I'm looking, and you can get a Ford Hybrid at the same price as the plain gas version for several vehicles.

For Tesla to make sense, they basically have to dominate the auto market, like 3x everyone elses profits, and I just don't see that happening.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Since Tesla doesn't have a sustainable advantage, I don't see how to justify the price premium.


Same as people said about apple and yet


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Same as people said about apple and yet


I'm sure someone did.

But it's different, you're buying a device you own and use, and you get the Apple system, and the device brand/OS matters. That being said, I think Apple will have trouble justifying their price premium to the next generation who grew up on Chromebooks. iPads are nice, but if all you're doing is using Gmail and google Chrome... why pay the Apple premium.

With self driving uber, you're buying transport, the brand stamped on the wheels doesn't matter.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> iPads are nice, but if all you're doing is using Gmail and google Chrome... why pay the Apple premium.


Lots of people are doing far more



MrMatt said:


> With self driving uber, you're buying transport, the brand stamped on the wheels doesn't matter.


The brand matters just in different ways than boomers judge traditional cars on flashy styling.

People always evaluate new tech based on old concepts and I don't know why I bother trying to open their minds. They'll get it when it's here


----------



## MrBlackhill

You know, TSLA is not alone in the self-driving vehicle industry.

We keep saying TSLA is gathering so much data for their self-driving cars, yet have you heard of Waymo taxis? That's from GOOG, not TSLA.



> In October 2018, Waymo announced that its test vehicles had traveled in automated mode for over 10,000,000 miles (16,000,000 km), increasing by about 1,000,000 miles (1,600,000 kilometres) per month. In December 2018, Waymo was the first to commercialize a fully autonomous taxi service in the US, in Phoenix, Arizona.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Lots of people are doing far more
> 
> 
> 
> The brand matters just in different ways than boomers judge traditional cars on flashy styling.
> 
> People always evaluate new tech based on old concepts and I don't know why I bother trying to open their minds. They'll get it when it's here


I know lots of people are doing more, but for most people, email and a web browser is all they really want.
Those people don't see the value of the Apple premium.

Yes, I agree, you're evaluating Tesla tech based on the old concept of "vehicle ownership".

When I want to get somewhere, I put the address in Google maps, then walk, drive, take transit or call an uber as required.
Tesla doesn't fit into the way people move today.

Young people aren't getting drivers licenses as much, they're not buying cars. Why buy a car when you can simply "buy" the transportation service?

You don't buy a cordless drill because you want a cordless drill.
You buy it because you want to easily make holes (or drive screws) in different places.

I'll switch to rental tools once that makes sense too.


----------



## m3s

So where are all the Waymo giga factories being built?

Palm pilot also built smart phones lol


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> So where are all the Waymo giga factories being built?
> 
> Palm pilot also built smart phones lol


I am talking about the tech, not the car. The self-driving tech is worth much more than giga factories of TSLA cars.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> You know, TSLA is not alone in the self-driving vehicle industry.
> 
> We keep saying TSLA is gathering so much data for their self-driving cars, yet have you heard of Waymo taxis? That's from GOOG, not TSLA.


TSLA has +1 billion miles of public self-driving data vs Waymo 20 million miles of beta tester taxis

TSLA is gathering data from all its cars and I don't see how Waymo can compete with that unless they start building factories and selling cars. Waymo is considered the closest competitor but in terms of deep neural networks there is no indication that they are ahead. Lots of companies build rockets for decades before SapceX and yet none of them can keep up

Either way competition is a good sign imo. It shows just how big these accomplishments are


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> I am talking about the tech, not the car. The self-driving tech is worth much more than giga factories of TSLA cars.


I agree, the tech is the differentiator.

The traditional automakers have more factories.
Self Driving tech is being worked on by a lot, you don't need a gigafactory for that. Just drop in a few sensors and a Processing unit.
Electric Tech, Tesla markets it well, but everyone has this technology, and they're all deploying it in actual consumer vehicles.

The value I see in Tesla is really the brand.
The self driving, not sure that is a sustainable advantage, the competition is very close here.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> TSLA has +1 billion miles of public self-driving data vs Waymo 20 million miles of beta tester taxis
> 
> TSLA is gathering data from all its cars and I don't see how Waymo can compete with that unless they start building factories and selling cars. Waymo is considered the closest competitor but in terms of deep neural networks there is no indication that they are ahead. Lots of companies build rockets for decades before SapceX and yet none of them can keep up


TSLA made a big bet though, Musk said they don't need LIDAR while the whole industry said it needed LIDAR. That means TSLA is gathering billions of miles of data but none is LIDAR data while Waymo is gathering less miles, but with a LIDAR.

And even if TSLA makes it without LIDAR, which would be awesome, the simple fact that Waymo has LIDAR data provides much more detailed information. Therefore, it may be considered less in terms of "driving miles", but more data in terms of precision and details.

But if (big "if") TSLA manages to deliver safe self-driving tech without LIDAR, they could then just send an update to all of their TSLA vehicles fleet. But to me this feels as much speculative as pharmaceutical stocks about to find a new cancer treatment.


----------



## james4beach

TSLA might simply be bouncing off its 50 day moving average before it rallies towards $1,000


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> TSLA made a big bet though, Musk said they don't need LIDAR while the whole industry said it needed LIDAR. That means TSLA is gathering billions of miles of data but none is LIDAR data while Waymo is gathering less miles, but with a LIDAR.


TSLA claims to have a major update to self-driving this year and that it is backwards compatible with 2016 models. Optical sensors improved drastically for military applications combined with modern processors. SpaceX is the first with autonomous satellites and they also use optical rather than laser.

LIDAR would be nice to have but you drive around today without LIDAR and it adds significant complexity and cost. Combine all the TSLA sensors and you already have far more information (optical, radar, ultrasonic, GPS) Sensors don't seem to be the limitation compared to the software imo

And both Waymo and Cruise admit themselves they are far behind if you look at the latest sources. LIDAR was the question in years ago before so much progress was made with deep neural networks and AI. Data and software is king now


----------



## james4beach

Down 19% so far today. What a volatile sucker.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I'm sure someone did.
> 
> But it's different, you're buying a device you own and use, and you get the Apple system, and the device brand/OS matters. That being said, I think Apple will have trouble justifying their price premium to the next generation who grew up on Chromebooks. iPads are nice, but if all you're doing is using Gmail and google Chrome... why pay the Apple premium.
> 
> With self driving uber, you're buying transport, the brand stamped on the wheels doesn't matter.


Only Uber doesn't have a self-driving program anymore, and Tesla can only be used in their own ride-share network.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Down 19% so far today. What a volatile sucker.


It had crazy momentum. I am not at all surprised.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> so much progress was made with deep neural networks and AI


DNN, ML, GA and AI are the hot keywords of the decade, but as I worked in that industry we know it's oversold. There's no intelligence, there's no learning, there's no abstracting, it's just an algorithm like many others and we've put fancy names to what has inspired those algorithms. Computers are good at one thing : computation. Computers are bad at one thing : understanding the world.

A paper revealed in October 2019 how they could fool a DNN analysis about picture categorisation by modifying only a single pixel in that image.

Humans can be fooled with many documented optical illusions but DNN can be fooled a lot easier. "Deep Neural Network" is a cool sci-fi name and it does a lot of great things, but it's not the solution to everything. It was the same with the dot-com bubble where people would throw their money at anything with ".com", but now everybody say "it's easy, just use AI", which is a very generic concept.

We have studied for centuries how humans can be fooled, how we take decisions, how we are biased, how bad we are at some tasks and then only a few decades of algorithm development and we're good to go? Automated driving will have better reflexes to avoid an accident, better skills to keep control of the car but it's still a car driving in an environment it doesn't understand at all.

This is how bad DNN can be while there's no doubt for humans :










And this is how bad humans can be when there's no doubt for any basic algorithm :


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> And even if TSLA makes it without LIDAR, which would be awesome, the simple fact that Waymo has LIDAR data provides much more detailed information. Therefore, it may be considered less in terms of "driving miles", but more data in terms of precision and details.


LIDAR approach only works in areas with HD mapping. It's going to be difficult to scale, even if they get it to work.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> You know, TSLA is not alone in the self-driving vehicle industry.
> 
> We keep saying TSLA is gathering so much data for their self-driving cars, yet have you heard of Waymo taxis? That's from GOOG, not TSLA.


Tesla has over 3 Billion miles logged, and nicely labeled with user interventions.









Tesla drops a bunch of new Autopilot data, 3 billion miles and more


Tesla’s head of AI, Andrej Karpathy, released a bunch of new data about Autopilot and its features in a new presentation. Unlike most automakers and tech companies working on autonomous driving, Tesla doesn’t only rely on an internal test fleet or simulations to collect data. The automaker is...




electrek.co


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> Competition news. TSLA down -16% pre-market and NKLA up +30% pre-market.
> 
> NKLA partners with GM to launch some real-world truck, not a futurist-looking Cybertruck like what TSLA did.
> 
> 
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/nikola-and-gm-team-up-to-make-this-900-horsepower-super-electric-truck-113011979.html
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 20604
> 
> 
> And if that's not enough, TSLA failed to enter S&P 500.
> 
> 
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-shares-fall-fails-p-123954310.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-shares-slump-p-500-085850903.html


Badger _starts_ at $60k, Cybertruck starts at $40k. I'm sure Tesla is quaking in its boots. Of course, these vehicles are addressing different markets. Cybertruck has polarizing style that will not appeal to everyone, while Badger still has somewhat unconventional styling (still flashes 'EV") but more like a traditional truck styling. 900hp is kind of irrelevant. We need to see real world performance.

Then there is a small matter of rapid charging infrastructure. All the Tesla road-trip naysayers would have a fit if they saw what non-Tesla owners have to put up with.


----------



## off.by.10

andrewf said:


> LIDAR approach only works in areas with HD mapping. It's going to be difficult to scale, even if they get it to work.


No, a LIDAR is just plain better input. It gives information even our eyes can't get. And better input makes the self driving software easier to write.

A simply analogy is that you can drive with an eye closed. But it's a lot easier and safer to drive with both eyes open.


----------



## doctrine

Tesla down 35% from its high in a week. A moderately inflated price for Tesla would be $100 a share. That would leave them a $100B company, one of the largest in the world, and maybe a P/E of 50 based on 2021-2022 earnings - maybe. It would also be up 20% from the year start. 

Probably it will never reach there, but you never know. I don't own any shares, but it is useful to follow hype stocks as a learning experience.


----------



## m3s

off.by.10 said:


> No, a LIDAR is just plain better input. It gives information even our eyes can't get. And better input makes the self driving software easier to write.


I think of it as LIDAR being more precise

Optical provides far more information but it also can be obstructed. That's what the forward facing RADAR and surround ultrasound sensors are for..

Basically you could get closer to an obstacle using LIDAR. But unless your goal is stunt driving within a hair of obstacles what is the advantage


----------



## andrewf

off.by.10 said:


> No, a LIDAR is just plain better input. It gives information even our eyes can't get. And better input makes the self driving software easier to write.
> 
> A simply analogy is that you can drive with an eye closed. But it's a lot easier and safer to drive with both eyes open.


Either Lidar is unnecessary and you can do it with cameras, or you need to map the domain.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> DNN, ML, GA and AI are the hot keywords of the decade, but as I worked in that industry we know it's oversold. There's no intelligence, there's no learning, there's no abstracting, it's just an algorithm like many others and we've put fancy names to what has inspired those algorithms. Computers are good at one thing : computation. Computers are bad at one thing : understanding the world.


The vast majority of industries and business is just marketing flash rehashing buzz with little actual substance

Where is your self-driving car? Your disruptive online map database and payment systems? Your reusable rocket boosters, autonomous satellites and orbital refueling system?

Where is your neural linked computer?


----------



## andrewf

Some thoughts on the Nikola + GM partnership. Kind of what I felt. Interesting that Nikola is contributing zero technology to the truck, it is all GM tech for battery and hydrogen. I don't see how they will be able to compete... this honestly smacks of a pump and dump type situation by the CEO. Wonder if he is unloading his stake.


----------



## bgc_fan

Looks like there is a Model S competitor: Lucid Air. CEO is the Model S's lead engineer.








The Lucid Air is a luxury electric sedan with the speed and power to rival Tesla


More range and faster acceleration than the Telsa Model S




www.theverge.com





I'd point out the interesting fact that Saudi Arabia has a 67% stake in the company. Looks like they are looking at opportunities outside of oil.


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrBlackhill said:


> FB, AMZN, GOOG aren't just selling ads... That's under-evaluating the power of the data they are gathering. Their are basically gathering your entire life. Ok, that sentence may seem too much. They are gathering your profile - your persona. They get to know your habits, your desires, your needs, your problems, your photos, your calendar schedule, your travels, your commute, your health, your heartbeat, your sleep habits, your sports & activities habits, everywhere you went and everything your bought, etc. more than what you even know of yourself. They get to influence your life. It's not just an "ads" thing.


How convenient of a coincidence. Netflix just released a documentary called "The Social Dilemma". I started a thread here : The Social Dilemma


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> CEO is the Model S's lead engineer.


Musk disputes this.


> Rawlinson didn’t design Model S. Prototype was done before he joined & he left us in the lurch just as things got tough, which was not cool. He did make some contributions to body/chassis engineering, but not to powertrain, battery, electronics or software.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1303495330223198208
ETA:
Lucid may have a decent product. It is no Tesla killer. It doesn't compete with Tesla's core product, which is Model 3/Y. Probably more competition for likes of Porsche Taycan, etc.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> Musk disputes this.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1303495330223198208


You realize that Musk was twitting a non-sequitur. Unless there is some article where Rawlinson claimed to design the Model S, all that is claimed is that he was the lead engineer and worked on the Model S. That's not in dispute. Musk even acknowledged that he worked on it.
"Elon Musk, however, admitted that Rawlins did have a contribution towards the Model S' body/chassis engineering, but certainly not to the battery, powertrain, electronics, or even software."
[Fact Check] Elon Musk Clarifies that Rawlinson Did Not Design the Tesla Model S and Left When Things Got Tough

In fact this is what Rawlinson said in an interview:
"Additionally, during the interview, Rawlinson says his influence is the reason for the Model S’ success in the electric industry. “Model S was actually styled before I joined Tesla. My task was to retrospectively fit all the bits into it. It was a pretty interesting intellectual puzzle to design a car from the inside out,” he says."








Lucid CEO and former Model S designer throws shade at Tesla fans, likens group to 'old petrol fanboys'


When Peter Rawlinson left Tesla in 2012 just before the Model S launched, he probably did not think that his former employer would one day end up becoming the leading force in the electric vehicle industry. Now the CEO and CTO of Lucid Motors, Rawlinson is gunning for Tesla’s title as the...




www.teslarati.com





So basically what Musk is saying is that a prototype was done, but one that probably isn't similar to the final form as Musk even states that Rawlinson contributed to the body/chassis engineering which would include as Rawlinson stated, how to fit all the pieces together effectively.

Maybe it was this interview that Musk took offense to?

"Rawlinson says that,after his first few days at the company, the fiery Tesla chief asked him what he thought of the Model S.

“Elon says, How bad is it?’ I say, Look, you’re going to have to cancel it,’” Rawlinson recalls. “He says, What! It’s that bad?’ It really is,’ I say.”

Rawlinson completely reconfigured that first Tesla prototype,and then some. The production model debuted in 2012. Eleven years after he joined Tesla, Rawlinson boasts that his name is still on more than 70 patents associated with the car."









How Lucid Motors plans to spin Tesla-killing strategy out of air


The brains behind the electric car company, engineer Peter Rawlinson, shares a peek at the new showrooms that will sell its Air sedan



www.detroitnews.com


----------



## off.by.10

Looks like both of them have large egos and like to make inflated claims.

At this stage, several manufacturers have shown it's possible to build decent electric cars. And it's not too difficult to make a nice one if your budget is nearly unlimited, all the required pieces are fairly well known by now. Lucid has nothing special until they can show a great _and_ affordable car. They have a long way to go to get there.


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> Lucid has nothing special until they can show a great _and_ affordable car. They have a long way to go to get there.


It is comparable to the Model S which is the market that it is targeting and cheaper than the Porche Taycan.








2023 BMW i7 vs. Audi, Lucid, Mercedes, Porsche and Tesla: Luxury EVs Compared


Here's how BMW's new i7 stacks up against a growing crop of luxury EVs.




www.cnet.com





Yes, they don't start delivery until next spring, but given their deep pockets, I'm sure that there's no reason to doubt that delivery will happen.


----------



## AltaRed

The more the merrier. Hope the Lucid makes it though ownership from one of the most repressive regimes on earth gives me pause (not that they do not already own a boatload of other big names).


----------



## andrewf

Model S is USD$85k - 120k. Lucid Air is launching at $170k, which is Taycan territory.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> Model S is USD$85k - 120k. Lucid Air is launching at $170k, which is Taycan territory.


You want to look again, you didn't even look at the link I provided. This type of misinformation isn't useful and really ruins your credibility, meaning we can't take your posts regarding Tesla seriously.










Edit: Now if your issue is that it isn't available at launch, that's a different point altogether. If you recall, Tesla started off with their high-end models first, and was praised for that.


----------



## Eder

Oh Oh lol

...and (b) the President of the battery company was indicted months earlier over allegations that he conned NASA by using his expense account to procure numerous prostitutes.











Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America


(NASDAQ:NKLA) Today, we reveal why we believe Nikola is an intricate fraud built on dozens of lies over the course of its Founder and Executive Chairman Trevor Milton’s career.We have gathered exte…




hindenburgresearch.com


----------



## andrewf

bgc_fan said:


> You want to look again, you didn't even look at the link I provided. This type of misinformation isn't useful and really ruins your credibility, meaning we can't take your posts regarding Tesla seriously.
> 
> View attachment 20617
> 
> 
> Edit: Now if your issue is that it isn't available at launch, that's a different point altogether. If you recall, Tesla started off with their high-end models first, and was praised for that.


Who knows what the pricing for Model S will be in three or four years when Lucid gets around (if ever) to the base model. I imagine Model S will be refreshed in that time (Musk has also mulled discontinuing, as it isn't a profit driver) which could incorporate manufacturing improvements that would lower the cost further.

I'm not faulting Lucid for the launch price. I'm just saying it is not directly competitive with Model S and is not going to be a 'Tesla killer', which is the media narrative.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> Who knows what the pricing for Model S will be in three or four years when Lucid gets around (if ever) to the base model. I imagine Model S will be refreshed in that time (Musk has also mulled discontinuing, as it isn't a profit driver) which could incorporate manufacturing improvements that would lower the cost further.


The base model is aimed for 2022, so not 3 or 4 years. Musk has already been on record that the Model S won't be refreshed, but nothing about discontinuing. Elon Musk Says No To Refreshing The Tesla Model S And Model X - Is This A Big Mistake? @ Top Speed

Considering that the models are are pretty much the same chassis, there wouldn't be much difference in design. It's no different than all the different Model S versions.

As for directly competitive, I'd say the base model has similar specifications, as well as a more luxurious interior which is easier for a slight price premium.


----------



## AltaRed

A bit too much rhetoric in both directions. We know Andrew is a Tesla cheerleader of great passion so his comments need to be taken in context. It will be good to have Lucid as a competitor whenever it appears. There is eventually room for many in this space so let's cheer on the entrants. I will stand on the sidelines for a long time as we no longer drive enough to justify the EV premium to begin with.... strictly on a value basis. Time will tell.


----------



## MrMatt

The Ford Mach E is targetting a 300 mile (500km) range, and is starting in the low $40k US range.
Chevy bolt has similar range and lower pricing.

Tesla has a lot of competition in both their self driving tech, and the EV Tech.

I don't understand the sky-high valuation.


----------



## AltaRed

In all fairness, a Chevy Bolt is not remotely a Tesla of any kind but your point about valuation is spot on. Investors have gotten drunk on euphoria.... We will just have to watch this play out.

P.S. I was relieved Tesla never made the S&P500 this round. That would have really put a dampener on S&P500 valuations, albeit I accept it is part of VTI.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> A bit too much rhetoric in both directions. We know Andrew is a Tesla cheerleader of great passion so his comments need to be taken in context. It will be good to have Lucid as a competitor whenever it appears. There is eventually room for many in this space so let's cheer on the entrants. I will stand on the sidelines for a long time as we no longer drive enough to justify the EV premium to begin with.... strictly on a value basis. Time will tell.


All I know is that it won't have a material impact on Tesla's financials. Model S is not a very important product to Tesla's business. And if the market for premium EVs is growing, it's okay if Tesla's share shrinks--they basically ate Merc, Audi and BMWs lunch.


----------



## AltaRed

Of course it won't have a material impact. Nuff said. Everything else is superfluous.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> In all fairness, a Chevy Bolt is not remotely a Tesla of any kind but your point about valuation is spot on. Investors have gotten drunk on euphoria.... We will just have to watch this play out.
> 
> P.S. I was relieved Tesla never made the S&P500 this round. That would have really put a dampener on S&P500 valuations, albeit I accept it is part of VTI.


They're competitors in price and range.
The Chevy Bolt has a insignificantly longer range than the standard range Model 3, at a lower price.


----------



## AltaRed

Driving a Bolt vs a Model 3 is like having KD as sustenance vs dining at Winston's in TO. Not that I am a fan of Tesla vehicles at all. A family member has a Model S


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> They're competitors in price and range.
> The Chevy Bolt has a insignificantly longer range than the standard range Model 3, at a lower price.


I think you'll find that less important than the experience when you come to charge it. There's a reason Model 3 is outselling Bolt 5 to 1.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Driving a Bolt vs a Model 3 is like having KD as sustenance vs dining at Winston's in TO. Not that I am a fan of Tesla vehicles at all. A family member has a Model S


I wouldn't know, never drove an electric car, they don't fit my use case, though most likely my 2023 purchase will be electric.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> P.S. I was relieved Tesla never made the S&P500 this round. That would have really put a dampener on S&P500 valuations, albeit I accept it is part of VTI.


It's also a demonstration of how indexes are actually _actively_ managed, contrary to popular belief. For the S&P (both S&P 500 and TSX Composite) there is a committee which makes decisions, so there's human discretion involved.

We can all probably agree that Mawer have proven themselves to be good portfolio managers. Well over the last few years, I also realized that the S&P 500 committee have proven themselves to be good portfolio managers.









Is index investing truly passive? | Advisor's Edge


An academic paper questions conventional wisdom




www.advisor.ca


----------



## AltaRed

I don't worry about that much. "Actve" is semantics in broad based indices, akin to looking for moss in a forest.


----------



## Eder

MrMatt said:


> I wouldn't know, never drove an electric car, they don't fit my use case, though most likely my 2023 purchase will be electric.


I drove my friends Tesla model S...fit & finish a bit less than a Toyota and not in Mercedes league but has lots of get up & go. Handles very good but driver sits very low...of course I drive a Wrangler so take my opinion fwiw.


----------



## AltaRed

FWIW, EVs have lots of torque (for acceleration) across the rpm curve which is the nature of electric motors anyway. But they also seem to stress the batteries under heavy load for sustained lengths of time. For example, our family member's Model S really is diminished coming up the Coquihalla from Hope to the summit. He has to re-charge in Merritt or on the Okanagan Connector to make it over the Pennask summit and into the valley. I call it just not being ready for prime time.....yet.


----------



## andrewf

It just takes a lot of energy to drive up a mountain. Your fuel economy in a ICE vehicle is also terrible. EVs do much better going down mountains--they don't overheat their brakes.

If there is a charging station en route, is it really a disaster? I could see the point if your daily commute included massive elevation changes. But for occasional trips? Meh...


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> It's also a demonstration of how indexes are actually _actively_ managed, contrary to popular belief. For the S&P (both S&P 500 and TSX Composite) there is a committee which makes decisions, so there's human discretion involved.
> 
> We can all probably agree that Mawer have proven themselves to be good portfolio managers. Well over the last few years, I also realized that the S&P 500 committee have proven themselves to be good portfolio managers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is index investing truly passive? | Advisor's Edge
> 
> 
> An academic paper questions conventional wisdom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.advisor.ca


Some indexes are actively managed, some are not.
The funds themselves are passively managed though.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> It just takes a lot of energy to drive up a mountain. Your fuel economy in a ICE vehicle is also terrible. EVs do much better going down mountains--they don't overheat their brakes.
> 
> If there is a charging station en route, is it really a disaster? I could see the point if your daily commute included massive elevation changes. But for occasional trips? Meh...


I know it takes more gas to climb a mountain but I still have 1/4-1/2 tank of gas left over for an Okanagan-Vancouver run. Why in the world would I want to stop somewhere for a 20-30 minute charge on a 380 km trip? I agree it is not relevant for commuter EVs, but some EVs will need considerably longer range for at least some uses. I will need to get similar range out of an EV to consider one for touring 

EVs do have the benefit of regenerative braking on down slopes but that is assuming one needs to brake at all. Not usually the case on the Coq but I do get that it has plenty of application in many situations. We know you are an unwavering fan of EVs. I assume that is all you have in your driveway.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I know it takes more gas to climb a mountain but I still have 1/4-1/2 tank of gas left over for an Okanagan-Vancouver run. Why in the world would I want to stop somewhere for a 20-30 minute charge on a 380 km trip? I agree it is not relevant for commuter EVs, but some EVs will need considerably longer range for at least some uses. I will need to get similar range out of an EV to consider one for touring
> 
> EVs do have the benefit of regenerative braking on down slopes but that is assuming one needs to brake at all. Not usually the case on the Coq but I do get that it has plenty of application in many situations. We know you are an unwavering fan of EVs. I assume that is all you have in your driveway.


I think that's the use case for a Hybrid, or plug in Hybrid.
That's why Ford for example has gone all in on Hybrids, they solve the range anxiety problem today.


----------



## AltaRed

I recognize the advantage of PHEV, but that is not for me either. Why do I want two propulsion systems? Even if the ICE portion is nothing more than a portable generator for the main EV. To each their own of course.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I recognize the advantage of PHEV, but that is not for me either. Why do I want two propulsion systems? Even if the ICE portion is nothing more than a portable generator for the main EV. To each their own of course.


Well it matters what technology is being employed.
Most consumer Hybrids drive taking power from both.

As far as a ICE powering a generator to power electric drives, it's a proven technology that's got a LOT of advantages.
It actually makes a lot of sense, run a standard ICE engine at the most efficient power, and let the electrical system replace the transmission.

That's why many are are Atkinson instead of Otto engines.
Layman difference is Atkinson is more efficient, but Otto has better power characteristics for consumer vehicles.

The electric system compensates for the inherent disadvantages of the Atkinson cycle.

Locomotives and Electrohauls are one rather common use case. Of Generator -> electric drive systems


----------



## AltaRed

I was thinking perhaps 1 litre or less ICE run at constant optimum speed. Size would depend on EV size and draw too.


----------



## agent99

Keep watching, it gets to the Tesla later on!

<iframe width="660" height="371" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I was thinking perhaps 1 litre or less ICE run at constant optimum speed. Size would depend on EV size and draw too.


That's exactly the idea, however with the mass proliferation of Turbos, you end up in a weird situation like the Ford Escape where the hybrid has the biggest engine (2.5L), vs the 1.5T & 2.0T. But it does have better fuel economy.


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> As far as a ICE powering a generator to power electric drives, it's a proven technology that's got a LOT of advantages.
> It actually makes a lot of sense, run a standard ICE engine at the most efficient power, and let the electrical system replace the transmission.


To me, this still makes the most sense. Provide low emission electric only city driving and extended range for highway travel. Also avoids need for added electrical infrastructure for home and commercial charging stations.

There was an experimental Jaguar C-X75- It used small efficient gas turbines to drive the generators to charge the batteries. The turbines were fueled with diesel (more or less same as jet fuel or kerosene which I would think would be preferable) Jaguar C-X75 - Wikipedia. The project was abandoned. Maybe someone will resurrect on a smaller scale.


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> To me, this still makes the most sense. Provide low emission electric only city driving and extended range for highway travel. Also avoids need for added electrical infrastructure for home and commercial charging stations.
> 
> There was an experimental Jaguar C-X75- It used small efficient gas turbines to drive the generators to charge the batteries. The turbines were fueled with diesel (more or less same as jet fuel or kerosene which I would think would be preferable) Jaguar C-X75 - Wikipedia. The project was abandoned. Maybe someone will resurrect on a smaller scale.


Turbines would be nice, but atkinson engines are pretty decent, and again, no changes to infrastructure.


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> Turbines would be nice, but atkinson engines are pretty decent, and again, no changes to infrastructure.


The electronic valve timing on Atkinson and other modern engines adds another level of complexity. Cars are overly complicated these days with all the fuel saving and emission systems. I like the practicality of a hybrid, but not the increased complexity. That is one place where EVs should win out. 

My dream car is the one in the picture in post 1265 above  Maybe running on hydrogen instead of diesel!


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> My dream car is the one in the picture in post 1265 above  Maybe running on hydrogen instead of diesel!


They're all in africa now


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> The electronic valve timing on Atkinson and other modern engines adds another level of complexity. Cars are overly complicated these days with all the fuel saving and emission systems. I like the practicality of a hybrid, but not the increased complexity. That is one place where EVs should win out.
> 
> My dream car is the one in the picture in post 1265 above  Maybe running on hydrogen instead of diesel!


Overly complicated, but massively cleaner. Though the claims in the quote don't quite add up, it's crazy.
I remember back in 2000, the improvements in car efficiency were so good they were saying things like "this car pollutes less driving, than a 20year old car sitting in the driveway".
That actually isnt' too crazy considering how bad evaporated gasoline is.







Grass Lawns are an Ecological Catastrophe – ONE Only Natural Energy







www.onlynaturalenergy.com




.

The EPA estimates that hour-for-hour, gasoline powered lawn mowers produce 11 times as much pollution as a new car. According to the EPA, each gas-powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new automobiles driven 12,000 per year – lawn care produces 13 billion pounds of toxic pollutants per year.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> They're all in africa now


Did you take that picture? Looking at all the tech on the bike, that was my guess 

BTW, there are still quite a few around here! More in USA where rust is less a factor.


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> The EPA estimates that hour-for-hour, gasoline powered lawn mowers produce 11 times as much pollution as a new car. According to the EPA, each gas-powered lawn mower produces as much air pollution as 43 new automobiles driven 12,000 per year – lawn care produces 13 billion pounds of toxic pollutants per year.


Hour for hour? Our lawncare guys spend about an hour here (3/4 acres) every two weeks. Run 4 different machines, but not simultaneously. This for about 4 months of the year. Lawns and other plants remove CO2 from the air, so some payback. Driving 12000 miles on asphalt highways no payback.


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> Hour for hour? Our lawncare guys spend about an hour here (3/4 acres) every two weeks. Run 4 different machines, but not simultaneously. This for about 4 months of the year. Lawns and other plants remove CO2 from the air, so some payback. Driving 12000 miles on asphalt highways no payback.


I think this was before they effectively banned 2 stroke engines for most applications.
2 stroke small engines are HORRIBLE polluters.


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Did you take that picture? Looking at all the tech on the bike, that was my guess


Over 7 years ago now. I would say +90% of cars and vans in that country were old Mercedes. They can still be repaired unlike the newer planned obsolescence models



MrMatt said:


> I think this was before they effectively banned 2 stroke engines for most applications.
> 2 stroke small engines are HORRIBLE polluters.


Ski-Doo has done very well with 2 stroke direct injection. Not sure if that tech has translated to any other applications


----------



## kcowan

m3s said:


> <snip>Ski-Doo has done very well with 2 stroke direct injection. Not sure if that tech has translated to any other applications


I believe it is the new Evinrude outboards that have embraced the technology.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Over 7 years ago now. I would say +90% of cars and vans in that country were old Mercedes. They can still be repaired unlike the newer planned obsolescence models


Believe me I know! I still have one. Baby though - only done 460k km  It will probably outlast me.

What country was that?

There is apparently also demand for the diesel engines in 3rd world countries. Once the cars have fallen apart, they take the engines out and use them to drive water pumps.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Hour for hour? Our lawncare guys spend about an hour here (3/4 acres) every two weeks. Run 4 different machines, but not simultaneously. This for about 4 months of the year. Lawns and other plants remove CO2 from the air, so some payback. Driving 12000 miles on asphalt highways no payback.


Lawns don't sequester any CO2. The clippings get composted and the CO2 largely is released into the atmosphere/


----------



## Eder

Actually lawns are a carbon sink, especially if grass clippings are mulched back into the grass.


----------



## MrMatt

Back to Tesla, anyone have a valuation that makes sense at this level?


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> What country was that?


Morocco. Albania had a lot of old Mercs as well but Morocco was like 9/10


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> Lawns don't sequester any CO2. The clippings get composted and the CO2 largely is released into the atmosphere/


That may be true if sequester means very long term capture and storage of CO2. Even the Amazon and other forests don't sequester CO2, if that is the definition.

If a lawn is over maintained by cutting, watering and fertilizing, it can be a carbon _source _rather than _sink_. Natural grassland and forests less so. There are no plant based *total *carbon _sinks_. But some are better than others at capturing CO2.

Our clippings are mulched - no composting. As a result, we don't fertilize. And, we don't water the lawns - just the flower gardens.

Driving a Tesla is a carbon _source_. Maybe less of one than a car with an IC engine, but still a _carbon source._ Better to not drive at all if CO2 sequetration is the main concern.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Morocco. Albania had a lot of old Mercs as well but Morocco was like 9/10


That was my guess based on your picture - short hop across from Europe.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Actually lawns are a carbon sink, especially if grass clippings are mulched back into the grass.


Well, it's a mixed bag. I doubt there is any net increase in carbon in the soil in most cases. Most agriculture leads to depletion of organic matter in the soil, which essentially ends up in the atmosphere.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> That may be true if sequester means very long term capture and storage of CO2. Even the Amazon and other forests don't sequester CO2, if that is the definition.
> 
> If a lawn is over maintained by cutting, watering and fertilizing, it can be a carbon _source _rather than _sink_. Natural grassland and forests less so. There are no plant based *total *carbon _sinks_. But some are better than others at capturing CO2.
> 
> Our clippings are mulched - no composting. As a result, we don't fertilize. And, we don't water the lawns - just the flower gardens.
> 
> Driving a Tesla is a carbon _source_. Maybe less of one than a car with an IC engine, but still a _carbon source._ Better to not drive at all if CO2 sequetration is the main concern.


Not to belabour the point, it's about steady-state net carbon impact. You could consider something a sequestered if you reforest a grassland for instance, but that's mostly a one-time increase in biomass. I think peat bogs are probably the only real continuous carbon sinks.

And yes, consuming less is better than consuming more. A bicycle is better than a Tesla for GHG emissions (though bikes result in them too). I guess the point is we should avoid greenwashing.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Morocco. Albania had a lot of old Mercs as well but Morocco was like 9/10


By the way, what business did you have in Ketama 









Ketama: Morocco's Hash Capital


A journey into kif country




www.rollingstone.com


----------



## james4beach

Nobody posted this yet? A Tesla was going 140 km/hr on an Alberta highway, with the driver fully reclined and sleeping. When the RCMP cruiser turned on its lights & sirens, the Tesla increased speed to 150 km/hr.









Alberta RCMP charge Tesla driver for speeding and sleeping


A 20-year-old British Columbia man faces several charges after Alberta Mounties received complaints about a self-driving Telsa speeding while the occupants…




edmontonjournal.com





The driver was charged with speeding and dangerous driving, for not being in control of his vehicle. Very dangerous! Thankfully nobody was hurt.

The driver is supposed to be paying attention so that they can take control, even when autopilot is on.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Wow, Tesla auto-pilot allows speeding?!


----------



## 5Lgreenback

As far as I know the autopilot feature doesn't have rear facing radar, just a rear facing camera. Something suspicious about this story I can't see autopilot being designed to speed up if someone is on your tail.


----------



## andrewf

It's possible that it was in autopilot. The driver can override speed on highways (streets it is capped to 5 mph over posted). I am doubtful it would have sped up for police car. Even in autopilot, the driver can override the acceleration without disengaging.

I'm doubtful he could have been sleeping long. The car has nags to confirm driver attention and requires a slight torque to be applied to the steering periodically. And undoubtedly, his would have ended much worse if he had fallen asleep without a lane keeping system. You can unclutch your pearls.


----------



## MrBlackhill

5Lgreenback said:


> As far as I know the autopilot feature doesn't have rear facing radar, just a rear facing camera. Something suspicious about this story I can't see autopilot being designed to speed up if someone is on your tail.





andrewf said:


> I am doubtful it would have sped up for police car. Even in autopilot, the driver can override the acceleration without disengaging.


I think the driver "woke up" when he noticed the police and then he accelerated and finally pulled over, but it's not clear. The story is confusing :



> Police said when an officer turned on the cruiser’s emergency lights, the Tesla accelerated to 150 km/h.





> “He gets up closer to the vehicle and hits the siren, and it’s at that point he can see the driver pop up and pull over,” Turnbull said.


----------



## nobleea

No, that's not what happened. The cruise control was set to 150k. There were cars in front of him, which limited his speed to 140. When those cars saw the flashing lights, they got out of the way, which indicated to the tesla that there was no traffic ahead and it could resume its preset speed of 150. When the police car got close enough, the tesla rear facing camera saw it, and pulled over automatically, as it was designed to. Then the driver woke up.
If the driver had set a speed limit closer to what everyone else does (122-125) this wouldn't have been a story. Honestly, the Tesla performed flawlessly, aside from allowing cruise control to be set so much over the speed limit (it's a 110 zone)


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> I'm doubtful he could have been sleeping long. The car has nags to confirm driver attention and requires a slight torque to be applied to the steering periodically.


I was wondering about that. The cars are supposed to have sensors on the wheel with a nag screen to ensure that the person is holding onto it to continue to engage autopilot. It is supposed to lock out the autopilot feature if it doesn't detect someone holding the steering wheel. So if the person was completely reclined, they either have arms like gorillas, they bypassed the function, or the autopilot no longer works as before.


----------



## andrewf

nobleea said:


> No, that's not what happened. The cruise control was set to 150k. There were cars in front of him, which limited his speed to 140. When those cars saw the flashing lights, they got out of the way, which indicated to the tesla that there was no traffic ahead and it could resume its preset speed of 150. When the police car got close enough, the tesla rear facing camera saw it, and pulled over automatically, as it was designed to. Then the driver woke up.
> If the driver had set a speed limit closer to what everyone else does (122-125) this wouldn't have been a story. Honestly, the Tesla performed flawlessly, aside from allowing cruise control to be set so much over the speed limit (it's a 110 zone)


As I understand it, autopilot is not designed to react to emergency vehicle lights, much less pull over. Police in California figured out how to stop a Tesla previously by pulling in front of it and slowing down (adaptive cruise control slowing down as well). So, the driver must have been awake and aware enough to pull the vehicle over.


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> I think if you are interested in a fraudulent EV company that is unjustifiably valued, you should look at Nikola. It doesn't get as much press as Tesla, but they are riding the Tesla hype train. The company seems to be vapourware, and the CEO is even shiftier than Musk.


The Nikola founder resigned and the shares are down 25% to 30% premarket.

I'm still more fascinated by TSLA, though.


----------



## MrBlackhill

I guess GM also took a hit on its credibility. GM is down -4.25% pre-market.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> The Nikola founder resigned and the shares are down 25% to 30% premarket.
> 
> I'm still more fascinated by TSLA, though.


TSLA is a real company, Nikola was a fraud.


----------



## james4beach

NKLA down another 20% today, so that's now -35% from a week ago.

TSLA down 11% today

Can you imagine the people gambling in TSLA options? Holy cow, these people must have a death wish.


----------



## nobleea

Net quarterly income of 874M.
That's a big number. Small compared to market cap.


----------



## MrBlackhill

For those who own TSLA, if you are wondering why it's at +10% after hours...

Tesla Will Join S&P 500 in December as Largest-Ever New Member


----------



## MrBlackhill

No comments on how TSLA is out of control since then? It's about to reach $600... A market cap of more than half a trillion about to join S&P 500.

I'm not being bearish, I was just wondering if anyone would comment.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> No comments on how TSLA is out of control since then? It's about to reach $600...


Of course not @MrBlackhill 

Look back on the comments here most are very bearish on EVs


----------



## MrBlackhill

I could say I'm jealous of those who bought TSLA a year ago. But I'm not the jealous type. Never been. So I could say I'm envious, but that's not positive either. So I'll just say I'm glad. And I'm learning as an observer. I'm very curious of the next 6-12 months for TSLA.


----------



## m3s

A young colleague of mine just starting out bought in over a year ago on Robinhood. I'm genuinely happy for him. He asked me for advice back then and I said go for it - there's always risk but you'd just blow that money on something stupid otherwise. Now all the other youngins seeing his success are asking more about investing now...


----------



## doctrine

Tesla still seems to have something in terms of market lead. But at nearly $600B market cap, they still have to basically sell 90% of electric cars around the world for the next decade at probably 5 times their current net profit margin to even remotely justify getting even a small portion of your capital back if you bought shares today. Reality has come back to bite a lot of crazy valuations lately, but not yet Tesla. It will happen eventually, unless no one else sells an electric car other than them. Recently Tesla was rated 25th out of 26 for car quality by Consumer Reports. Nice.

I saw a lot of people getting into stocks in the 90's as well, and Tesla is definitely at a valuation similar to that. It's good to see people involved, but hopefully they don't get burned like I have already been seeing on a lot of COVID meme stocks. Tesla won't go bankrupt, but a lot of companies in the 90s took 20 years to get back to their valuation even with profitable and rapidly growing businesses.

Given they are still hitting new all time highs, the party probably isn't ending for a while yet.


----------



## m3s

I agree the valuation is insane. I completely disagree with the closed thinking that they are an electric car company

I remember when people said google was insanely valued. People didn't yet understand the value of data or the internet

Electric cars are just the tip of the iceberg. Crazy people think after all the innovation last century it just stops now


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> I agree the valuation is insane. I completely disagree with the closed thinking that they are an electric car company
> 
> I remember when people said google was insanely valued. People didn't yet understand the value of data or the internet
> 
> Electric cars are just the tip of the iceberg. Crazy people think after all the innovation last century it just stops now


Sure, but even considering that Tesla is more than just an EV company (and that's totally true), is Tesla truly worth 1/3 of Amazon? 1/3 of Microsoft? 1/2 of Google? More than 1/4 of Apple?

Think about all those big names, all their profits, all their products, all their services, all their techs, all their presence in the everyday life of so many people all around the round...

That's why I agree with people saying that Tesla is currently priced for 5-10 years in the future and that's considering a perfect growth and delivery of the promises.

And what has changed so much about Tesla to justify a sudden 10-fold in one year? Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google did have insane growth, but in their best years they 3-fold (and that was during the Dotcom bubble and during the recovery of the Dotcom bubble, otherwise they would 2-fold at best). Large caps don't 10-fold in a year.

The best that could happen at the moment for Tesla is to drift sideways through the next years instead of crashing, but that means no gains for an investor jumping in at this point.

And I don't want to be bearish, I genuinely hope for all the investors that jumped in recently that I'm totally wrong and I'm happy for all the investors who bought pre-2020 and did 10-fold. But at the moment, I'm just very curious of what will happen with Tesla through 2021.

At this point, Tesla is not an investment, but a momentum play and that means timing the market. But that's my two cents as an observer and a beginner.


----------



## andrewf

^ I don't disagree. But I thought something very similar about Amazon.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> ^ I don't disagree. But I thought something very similar about Amazon.


But my question is... did Amazon 10-fold at any given year? The answer is no. At most +178% in a year, which was... in 2003, during the post-Dotcom recovery. Otherwise +162%, which was... in 2009, during the recovery of the financial crisis crash. I can continue. It also did +134% in 2007, after a -16% in 2006. It also did a +117% in 2015, after a -22% in 2014.

Now, what about Tesla? Well, it did +344% in 2013 and it kept that level, which is already pretty impressive, but I can believe that kind of soar because 2013 was pretty bullish on that kind of stocks like NFLX also did a +297% that year. And now it's currently at +600% YTD, and that's not post-crash.

That would mean a 60% CAGR on a 10-year window. The best 10-year window I can find in the FAANG stocks is about 50% CAGR. But I'll give you one thing : MNST's best 10-year window was 70% CAGR, from 1998 to end of 2007 due to one of the most amazing 4-year bull run from 2003 to end of 2006 at 182% CAGR. The next 4-5 years were then a rollercoaster ride averaging about 18% CAGR.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla had unprecedented levels of short interest. Maybe the huge run-up is a bit of a short squeeze.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> I agree the valuation is insane. I completely disagree with the closed thinking that they are an electric car company
> Electric cars are just the tip of the iceberg. Crazy people think after all the innovation last century it just stops now


What else are they actually? Tesla IS cars and batteries. And solar panels. 

They have done a great job in improving batteries (in conjunction with Panasonic). But how long will it be before others equal or surpass their battery technology. Not much else of note in the cars themselves. Maybe more efficient motors, but anyone should be able to equal those. 

Solar panels have their place and the market will grow. But neither these nor car sales are likely to see exponential growth as seen with Google/Amazon/Apple.

Tesla will need something more. Musk and is company are smart and maybe have something sensible up their sleeves? A change in the way we live and work? Hyperloop and Boring? Likely limited implementation so no big profits there? 

So what will their next big thing be? They need something that every person or at least every city in the world absolutely must have! 

Or maybe they will just become another Boring large global car manufacturer?


----------



## Money172375

agent99 said:


> What else are they actually? Tesla IS cars and batteries. And solar panels.
> 
> They have done a great job in improving batteries (in conjunction with Panasonic). But how long will it be before others equal or surpass their battery technology. Not much else of note in the cars themselves. Maybe more efficient motors, but anyone should be able to equal those.
> 
> Solar panels have their place and the market will grow. But neither these nor car sales are likely to see exponential growth as seen with Google/Amazon/Apple.
> 
> Tesla will need something more. Musk and is company are smart and maybe have something sensible up their sleeves? A change in the way we live and work? Hyperloop and Boring? Likely limited implementation so no big profits there?
> 
> So what will their next big thing be? They need something that every person or at least every city in the world absolutely must have!
> 
> Or maybe they will just become another Boring large global car manufacturer?


I recall seeing a story (or theory) that Tesla is just a test project for his batteries. I’m a “car guy” and haven’t yet figured out the appeal of the cars. Are battery powered buses, trains, homes next?.....eventually I suppose?


----------



## 5Lgreenback

The biggest auto maker in the world VW just had a 3 day meeting with 31 of its top executives. The purpose of the meeting was apparently "how to catch up to Tesla by 2024". Herbert Diess (CEO of VW) was quoted saying 'this is going to be the biggest challenge of his career and the biggest transition VW has ever taken on.

Can't wait for more tax payers dollars to bail out all the auto companies in North America because they've dug they're heads in the sand and now barely stand a chance of catching up.

As for whats Tesla's next big thing? Probably disrupting the domestic pick up truck market and hopefully full self driving. FSD alone would more than justify their current valuation.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Money172375 said:


> I recall seeing a story (or theory) that Tesla is just a test project for his batteries.


If Tesla develops some revolutionary battery technology which lasts significantly longer than ever seen before, that could be one very disruptive innovation that every people in this world would use in their daily life.

Imagine cars that could travel 5000 km on a single charge and fully recharged in a few hours. Then trucks traveling 1000 km on a single charge. Then cellphones and laptops lasting a month.

But there's no decent clue that Tesla would deliver such technology. It's only speculations and dreams. As when we are talking about quantum computers with unprecedented computation power. (It already exists, but nothing game-changing yet)

Fully autonomous vehicles can also be a game-changer.


----------



## andrewf

Money172375 said:


> I recall seeing a story (or theory) that Tesla is just a test project for his batteries. I’m a “car guy” and haven’t yet figured out the appeal of the cars. Are battery powered buses, trains, homes next?.....eventually I suppose?


What's not to appeal? If you like performance, Tesla's are much better value than many options out there.

I don't really care that much about performance, so it is not a big selling point to me (<5-6s 0-100kph is plenty for me).


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> Imagine cars that could travel 5000 km on a single charge


This is basically physically impossible with chemical batteries (regardless of improvements, there are physical limits), for anything you would recognize as an appealing car. Batteries are less dense than gasoline from an energy density perspective and will always be. How much fuel would a car need to carry to have a 5k km range? 500L? You'd need multiples of this much space to get enough batteries for this range. No one wants this anyway. You can do it with internal combustion cars (it is physically possible) and yet no one does.


----------



## doctrine

m3s said:


> I agree the valuation is insane. I completely disagree with the closed thinking that they are an electric car company
> 
> I remember when people said google was insanely valued. People didn't yet understand the value of data or the internet
> 
> Electric cars are just the tip of the iceberg. Crazy people think after all the innovation last century it just stops now


This is silly to slap a $600B valuation on literally nothing that exists today. This is what we call 'dangerous talk' in the investing world - "this time it's different, people just don't understand, etc etc".

Google has never been insanely valued, sorry. I speak as someone who has followed it since before it went public. Google was profitable from pretty much day 1 as a private company, and had $1 billion of net profits after taxes without subsidies in the 12 months 'BEFORE' they went public. And Google rarely traded above a P/E of 25 until recently. Tesla is 500+ P/E.

No, Tesla is an insanely overvalued hype stock on top of a pretty good company, and there are not that many rationale people, including Tesla fans, who disagree with that assessment.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> Sure, but even considering that Tesla is more than just an EV company (and that's totally true), is Tesla truly worth 1/3 of Amazon? 1/3 of Microsoft? 1/2 of Google? More than 1/4 of Apple?
> 
> Think about all those big names, all their profits, all their products, all their services, all their techs, all their presence in the everyday life of so many people all around the round...


Hah I remember when people said exactly the same about amazon, google and apple. Just think back 15-20 years

Tesla has potential to change the world far more than a search engine, web site or device in the next 15-20 years. We're talking about disrupting the entire transportation industry, and its fuel delivery system. I couldn't define all the things google and apple would do 15 years ago but I could tell they would do big things. The vast majority just can't fathom incoming change.. as if we will just suddenly freeze innovation in time..

The only thing I see coming with more disruptive potential is blockchain


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Hah I remember when people said exactly the same about amazon, google and apple. Just think back 15-20 years


I agree with the argument, but where I disagree is that Tesla's share price is growing *much faster* than FAANG. Do you have an example of any large cap stock which suddenly soared over 600% in a year and kept that level? I would like to understand why it soared that much *this year.* What's different in terms of potential? Tesla didn't have that potential back in 2019?

Also, the only example of a stock that soared 70% CAGR in a 10-year window is MNST, which is more than TSLA's current 60% CAGR in 10 years or FAANG 50% CAGR in 10 years. Yet, MNST never soared 600% at any given year. It did soar over 300% on two consecutive years though, which is even more impressive, I'll give you that.

So, yes, I've did exactly that. I looked at FAANG in their early days and their growth was never even close to Tesla. Think about that. 50% CAGR is the best 10-year performance for FAANG. Tesla is at 60% CAGR. In total return, that's 57x vs 110x. Yet, there's MNST which did more than 200x in 10 years, I'll give you that.



andrewf said:


> This is basically physically impossible with chemical batteries (regardless of improvements, there are physical limits)


That's what we said about computers which were the size of a room until someone invented the transistor. But that's why I believe that Tesla doesn't have any real edge over its competitors for its battery technology because the next big disruptive innovation in battery technology is only speculation at the moment and it doesn't mean it's Tesla that will find out that new tech.



5Lgreenback said:


> FSD alone would more than justify their current valuation.


I believe that's the only tech where Tesla has a significant edge over its competitors. But as an engineer who has worked and developed visual technologies in my past life, I believe there's still a lot of work to do before we have truly fully self-driving vehicles. And I'm still not sure about their non-LIDAR move, even though I also made a similar move in a previous job where I developed a 3D tech using cameras instead of 3D scanners. They may be gathering a lot of data, if they don't have any LIDAR data to work on while a competitor makes a big move using LIDAR, they'll be left behind. But no matter the tech, there's also a huge work to do to interpret the data correctly and safely. And I know they already have hundreds of thousands of self-driving km. And Tesla is not alone. There's Waymo.


----------



## Gotime

Here's a bull case for tesla for y'all (from Catherine Wood, ARK), looking back pre-covid and today: 



I still have that natural fear of a big correction, and I don't own huge amount of tesla (some exposure through ARKK etf).
I'll take a share in my stocking though.

Her more recent talks are still big on tesla, and she includes talk of them potentially competing with uber in the next year or two (using their leased vehicles!), and even insuring their own vehicles, especially at autonomous vehicles start to come into play (since they have all the data on safety, etc, on their vehicles, and insurance companies are a bit slow to the game)

"Tesla is riding the convergence of 3 major innovation platforms". Battery, robotics, AI.
Good luck valuing this stock as a normal investor or even an expert! I know I can't.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> I agree with the argument, but where I disagree is that Tesla's share price is growing *much faster* than FAANG. Do you have an example of any large cap stock which suddenly soared over 600% in a year and kept that level? I would like to understand why it soared that much *this year.* What's different in terms of potential? Tesla didn't have that potential back in 2019?


First comparing FAANG to TSLA seems wrong to me. Step back and see you are comparing social media and search engines to something entirely different. Yes we know it's valuable now but it's not the transportation industry. Second % change is also a weird way to compare when so many rich boomers are vehemently anti EV and shorting whereas there was over enthusiasm for investing in internet tech. % is all relative!



MrBlackhill said:


> But as an engineer who has worked and developed visual technologies in my past life, I believe there's still a lot of work to do before we have truly fully self-driving vehicles. And I'm still not sure about their non-LIDAR move, even though I also made a similar move in a previous job where I developed a 3D tech using cameras instead of 3D scanners.


I don't claim to be the Telsa expert but what I read around here sounds dusty compared to what my colleagues are teaching me everyday (current US engineers in space industry) I'm afraid Canadians are distanced from this innovation and especially older/retired folks because things are changing so fast right now. A lot of innovation is kept quiet and what details happen to get out is misunderstood or out of context


----------



## MrMatt

The thing is Tesla is just one competitor in a crowded, competative market.

They're just a luxury car maker, they have some marginally better technology, but so did every other luxury carmaker at some time.

I think Tesla is a good company, and they'll likely make it, I just don't see.
A good case for their valuation, their market cap is somewhere around the rest of the automakers combined. I don't see it.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

MrBlackhill said:


> And Tesla is not alone. There's Waymo.


Waymo is currently in the fight but their LIDAR systems are significantly more expensive, bulky, ugly and require require massive computing power to run. We currently have no production cars being sold with the hardware necessary to use the Waymo system.

Tesla released a full self driving beta a few weeks back, the initial videos released were quite scary and left me thinking, "wow we're looong way out from this happening". Fast forward just a few weeks and 1-2 software updates and the self driving videos are now "hoy crap we're almost there!"

As for the market and rapidly changing Tesla pricing, theres all kinds of possible explanations for this. Especially given how polarizing the stock seems to be. In the long term I don't think it matters provided the fundamentals of the company haven't changed.


----------



## agent99

doctrine said:


> Google has never been insanely valued, sorry. I speak as someone who has followed it since before it went public. Google was profitable from pretty much day 1 as a private company, and had $1 billion of net profits after taxes without subsidies in the 12 months 'BEFORE' they went public.


Maybe Tesla should follow Google & Apples lead?

Give away the cars and make their money by selling advertising on the infotainment screens and perhaps the cars themselves, like Nascar!
Require them to fill up at recharge stations that have Tesla compatible software/hardware in order to get a discounted rate per kw.
Come out with a new model every 'x' years and stop supporting the old ones every 'y' years.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> First comparing FAANG to TSLA seems wrong to me.


I agree I'm not comparing the same kind of things, but let's just say it was a comparison of "tech innovation" stocks.

What I was actually trying to compare stocks with the highest long term growth we've ever seen. That's why I also compared MNST even though TSLA is obviously not an energy drink, haha.

The main question in asking myself is : what does a company need to skyrocket?

I believe it's exposure in the daily life of their customers and scaling worldwide. It has to be a must-have, something we almost can't live without it on a daily basis. It must have a huge moat, almost a monopoly. It must become something so anchored that people barely know any competitors, they don't even think of alternatives. That's why people are now "googling" instead of searching the web. And all that scaled worldwide and very lucrative. I guess that's why FAANG skyrocketed, MNST skyrocketed, etc.

And yes, maybe Tesla has all that. But is it currently - at this exact moment - more disruptive than FAANG without any doubt?

And I'll ask again this one specific question : why this specific year? Why a 600% surge in 2020?

I prefer a stock that grows 40% every year than a stock that suddenly soar 600% with no reason. What did Tesla prove this year?

I'm asking all those questions not because I'm bearish, but because I'm confused and I'm trying to understand.


----------



## off.by.10

m3s said:


> Tesla has potential to change the world far more than a search engine, web site or device in the next 15-20 years. We're talking about disrupting the entire transportation industry, and its fuel delivery system.


Sure, we could even argue that they already have changed the world. Like Ford changed the world with the model T. Does that mean we all drive Fords today? Nope.

Also, Google, Amazon and Apple helped create and grow markets (resp. online advertising, online sales, smartphones). Tesla will not magically grow the car market. Nor are they likely to take over all transportation; others are already building electric heavy vehicles. At least garbage trucks and buses that I'm aware of.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Tesla has potential to change the world far more than a search engine, web site or device in the next 15-20 years.


Many of the FAANG stocks, or at the least let's talk about Facebook, Google and Amazon have disrupted the world of marketing. Ads.

For reference, a 30-second commercial costs about $5 millions during the Super Bowl because hundreds of millions of people will see it.

Now imagine an algorithm which increases significantly consumerism using targeted ads and strategies to keep people overwhelmed by even more ads, unconsciously. Ads displayed to the billions of people owning a cellphone and using their cellphones for hours every day.

That's much, much more valuable than just self-driving vehicles and EVs. In my opinion.

What will self-driving and EVs impact? Ok, individuals will buy such vehicles with the little money they have, that's cool, done. Taxi industry will be hit hard, ok. Transportation industry won't need drivers and will significantly reduce their oil costs, moving to electricity costs. And then what?

Meanwhile, disrupting the marketing industry means taking a small part of profit on every single ad. And ads are everywhere in every industry. And large organizations are ready to pay a lot of money for successful ads and a lot of exposure.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> What will self-driving and EVs impact?


Hell of a lot more than ads! Are you kidding

People couldn't see any value in social media until it had value. Just go look at the discussions here 10 years ago. The majority view the world in the rear view mirror.

It's already happening in the US. There are superchargers at random rural corners already. That's a lot of gas station logistic chains to impact, to give you a small taste


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Hell of a lot more than ads!


We've got the whole world influenced by AI algorithms which main purpose is to keep people on their cellphones/computers for hours every day to unconsciously watch hundreds of ads, which unconsciously influence their behaviour to increase global consumerism, driving the world economy. How can something be more disruptive and more lucrative than that? People watch ads and contents influencing their behaviour unconsciously and then they can just say out loud "Alexa, buy this", as easy as that and one or two days later it's at their door. Consumerism is on the highway. There are now even documentaries like Social Dilemma and movements against what's currently happening because it's so much disruptive and influencing consumerism. A lot more than the introduction of TVs in homes, it's not even comparable. We now have a device following us and always available to us every single minute of our life, ready to influence us with advanced AI learning from us, spying every single thing we do on internet, logging where we are located and where we've been and which main goal is to increase consumerism.

It's much, much more disruptive and lucrative than EVs and self-driving vehicles which will impact everything related to transportation, but it will certainly not be a vicious tool present in every minute of our life to increase consumerism. That's what Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon are doing.

Unless the self-driving cars suddenly starts picking on specific detours so that the passengers pass by to see specific stores which could influence their desire to buy there. But that's still not like being able to navigate a list of millions of products available online from the comfort of our home and delivered within two days.



m3s said:


> People couldn't see any value in social media until it had value.


That's exactly my point, it's still true. We're still not aware to see the extent of how disruptive social media is. How can something be more disruptive than a tool connecting people instantly, influencing their biases, influencing their behaviour, sneaking in their everyday life?

Oh, and let's not forget FAANG are not only sneaky ads. They are also into could services, which means they'll be holding all of the world's data.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for Tesla to launch batteries for the Newark-Singapore direct flight.


----------



## Pluto

MrBlackhill said:


> The main question in asking myself is : what does a company need to skyrocket?
> 
> It has to be a must-have, something we almost can't live without it on a daily basis. It must have a huge moat, almost a monopoly. It must become something so anchored that people barely know any competitors, they don't even think of alternatives.


I agree. TESLA is not doing anything that other car companies can't do. No moat. Very precarious and ridiculous stock price.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> It's much, much more disruptive and lucrative than EVs and self-driving vehicles which will impact everything related to transportation, but it will certainly not be a vicious tool present in every minute of our life to increase consumerism. That's what Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon are doing.
> 
> Unless the self-driving cars suddenly starts picking on specific detours so that the passengers pass by to see specific stores which could influence their desire to buy there. But that's still not like being able to navigate a list of millions of products available online from the comfort of our home and delivered within two days.


Transportation and logistics delivers all that stuff. After housing/food, transportation is a major expense that everyone needs until we all go self-sustainable off grid.

I recently saw a comic of boomers with garages packed full of junk. I have to watch cable tv at work and if boomers fall for all those ridiculous tv ads - social media must make a killing off them. The upcoming generation tend to be far less consumerist.

They tend to spend on experiences rather than large houses and self storage rentals to hoard cheap crap from infomercials and social media ads.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

m3s said:


> Transportation and logistics delivers all that stuff. After housing/food, transportation is a major expense that everyone needs *until we all go self-sustainable off grid.*


Tesla is also laying the foundation for this, at least for the energy independent side of off-grid possibilities.

To help determine the value of Tesla I guess one needs to ask what the value of a company is that has the laid the ground work to disrupt traditional auto, energy, energy distribution and storage, taxis (+uber lyft etc) and manufacturing.

Maybe none of this will happen, maybe all of it will. But for now it seems the market is betting on Musks track record of delivering on his outlandish sounding promises.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Transportation and logistics delivers all that stuff.


Sure, but Tesla will not have the monopoly of the transportation worldwide.

Boats, cars, trucks, trains, airplanes and drones were invented and none took over the world.

What about Amazon with drone delivery? And major transportation is made by boat, train and airplane. Then it's delivered to the house and facilities by ground.


----------



## m3s

5Lgreenback said:


> To help determine the value of Tesla I guess one needs to ask what the value of a company is that has the laid the ground work to disrupt traditional auto, energy, energy distribution and storage, taxis (+uber lyft etc) and manufacturing.


Don't forget auto insurance

Tesla already resells auto insurance to its owners at discounted rates. As auto pilot improves, they have far more data than any insurance provider. They can increase the price of auto-pilot while using the data to get discounted auto insurance if it's statistically safer. People will pay for auto-pilot for safety especially if they see auto insurance is also cheaper

Data and software has value. Auto-pilot costs +10x more than MSFT windows and datamines more than GOOG ever dreamed. In 2010s we had a modernization of media and communications thanks to smartphones. In 2020s it's looking like we will have disruptions coming in space, transportation, finance, energy.. Makes FAANG look like child's play imo

One man seems to be involved in a lot of it (and is also a huge proponent of cryptocurrency)


----------



## james4beach

Some comments from Larry Berman regarding Tesla, transcript from what he says in the video:

​Why would you buy Tesla? It's trading at $1 million per car they sell. Never mind profit, never mind anything; they don't make any money. All the money that Tesla is currently showing as earnings are "green" credits issued by the government that they pulled forward into earnings. *It's complete financial engineering nonsense*. A typical car company (GM, Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota) sell for about $8,000 - $10,000 per car sold.​​So they're on a different stratosphere. And I get they're ahead of the curve, and I get that by 2035 every car will be all-battery and all that ... but what do you pay for that today? And there's competition coming from all these other companies. So it's completely only about getting into the index, and it's a massive massive bubble. But I think at a minimum once it's in the index, it will get cut in half. So we'll see.​​


----------



## m3s

james4beach said:


> Never mind profit, never mind anything; they don't make any money.


Sounds like amazon for the first 20 or so years, eh


----------



## MrBlackhill

I still have one simple unanswered question.

What did Tesla prove during this exact year of 2020 that Tesla didn't have back in 2019 and that's justifying a soar of more than +600% YTD? What's the trigger? A sudden wake-up call to all investors?

A stock acting like an ON-OFF switch scares me.

2019 : Tesla has no potential (OFF), therefore stock not soaring (OFF)
2020 : Tesla has suddenly a huge potential (ON), therefore stock soaring big time (ON). Lights ON! Let the show begin!
2021 : Switch back to OFF? Lights OFF, show's over?
I trust stocks following an exponential function, not a Dirac delta function.

I'm definitely not against Tesla. I like their vision of the future. I'm genuinely just trying to understand what's going on and rationalize it with facts.


----------



## Machu Picchu

It’s about the computer network. All Tesla are connected so the data collected in whole is invaluable for computer learning and self driving programs.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Machu Picchu said:


> It’s about the computer network. All Tesla are connected so the data collected in whole is invaluable for computer learning and self driving programs.


And that's new from 2020 for Tesla? (I mean, I doubt it's new?)

Everything in this world is now connected to a data collection network to feed machine learning algorithms. That's nothing new.


----------



## andrewf

2020, Tesla proved they could grow quickly and in a capital efficient manner by delivering their Shanghai plant extremely quickly. They also proved that the existing business is profitable, and scaling it will only help. They also showed good progress on autonomy.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> 2020, Tesla proved they could grow quickly and in a capital efficient manner by delivering their Shanghai plant extremely quickly. They also proved that the existing business is profitable, and scaling it will only help. They also showed good progress on autonomy.


Thanks for the answer, I appreciate.

And all those things proven this year are unprecedented compared to what they've proved in the past? I mean, it's been a while that we've seen some Tesla with "self-driving" features and that could have been bullish but it didn't. The launch of the affordable Model 3 with about half a million reservations could have been bullish too.

I understand though that the first moments of profitability are pretty bullish for some stocks. And first steps in scaling activities also are bullish.


----------



## m3s

Yesterday I had to get a money order to pay the UPS man (after waiting on hold only to find out they only accepts checks and money orders)

So I drove to the local TD branch, walked up to the door to find out it was another casualty of the coronavirus. The parking lot is now Tesla superchargers

Maybe they should turn the branch into some kind of Tesla lounge. Although there's already lots of stores around there


----------



## robfordlives

Why on Earth does such a profitable (allegedly) company need to raise capital yet again. Third time in 9 months


----------



## MrMatt

robfordlives said:


> Why on Earth does such a profitable (allegedly) company need to raise capital yet again. Third time in 9 months


Who says they're very profitable?

Also they're massively investing, Amazon was investing like crazy for years.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Amazon was founded in 1994 and profitable in 2003.

Tesla was founded in 2003. Musk became its CEO in 2008. We're in 2020, becoming profitable.

Not sure we can simply to such a comparison about when it became profitable, though.


----------



## m3s

amazon profits more in a single quarter now than it did in its first 20 years combined. Nobody here was talking about amazon even 5 years ago. I started a thread it and the consensus was about as negative as this thread

growth companies with such disruptive visions can take a long time to be profitable.


----------



## andrewf

robfordlives said:


> Why on Earth does such a profitable (allegedly) company need to raise capital yet again. Third time in 9 months


They are not profitable now, but they have the recipe to make a large, profitable company. Automakers, alas, are quite capital intensive. Tesla could grow quite quickly even if they only funded capex from their operating cash flow as they have been lately. But they can grow faster with more capital. Also, improving the capitalization of the company should lead to rating upgrades on their debt and lower their borrowing cost.

If you can raise $5B with <1% dilution, why not?


----------



## MrBlackhill

I've just thought about this...

Elon Musk just went from being the 30th richest man as of the end of 2019, with a net worth of about $28B, to being the 2nd richest man one year later, with a net worth of about $147B, an increase of +119B in a year.

In one year, Elon Musk's net worth has been increased by the equivalent of Bill Gates total net worth as of 2019. The current 2nd richest man increased his net worth by the equivalent of the 3rd richest man.

Seems fair.










Bloomberg Billionaires

(Some lists differ : Real Time Billionaires)


----------



## andrewf

Just wait till Musk's compensation plan kicks in. He needs to hit some revenue and EBITDA targets, not just market cap.

Beyond that, SpaceX is likely to be doing quite well from a valuation standpoint with their new ISP business which might be quite lucrative.


----------



## agent99

Just read that Toyota will be introducing a new solid state battery next year. Apparently a game changer in that it will provide 500km range and be able to be charged in 10. Minutes.apparently Japanese government are partnering with Toyoto. Wonder how this might affect Tesla?


----------



## andrewf

^ Source? Toyota doesn't even make EVs.

I doubt solid state batteries will hit the market at scale until 2030.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Toyota's Solid-State Battery Prototype Is a Potential EV Game Changer


New technology brings electric cars closer to the convenience of their gas-powered counterparts.




www.motortrend.com


----------



## off.by.10

Prototype sounds like they built one battery in a lab. It's likely a long way from making them by the thousands at reasonable prices. Still, it's nice to see there is so much active research being done. 

It's also a good reminder that new battery technology could overturn the electric car market overnight, turning those large battery factories into liabilities designed for obsolete technology. Making electric cars is fairly easy. The powertrain is vastly simpler than an ICE. The battery is where the real difficulty currently lies.


----------



## MrMatt

off.by.10 said:


> Prototype sounds like they built one battery in a lab. It's likely a long way from making them by the thousands at reasonable prices. Still, it's nice to see there is so much active research being done.
> 
> It's also a good reminder that new battery technology could overturn the electric car market overnight, turning those large battery factories into liabilities designed for obsolete technology. Making electric cars is fairly easy. The powertrain is vastly simpler than an ICE. The battery is where the real difficulty currently lies.


That's what I don't get.

Tesla leads in only 2 areas of interest.
1. Cachet. They're clearly positioned as a luxury brand, and people see them as the premier EV.
2. Good battery technology.

If someone gets a better battery, they're going to have problems.

That brings me back to the valuation case, the battery tech advantage will be overcome long before they pacy back shareholders.


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> ^ Source? Toyota doesn't even make EVs.
> 
> I doubt solid state batteries will hit the market at scale until 2030.


Toyota don't produce EVs yet. May their hybrids make more sense at present? They do plan on producing and EV along with their partner Subaru by mid 20s: Subaru Gives First Look at Electric Crossover It Will Build with Toyota

All kinds of work going on on solid state batteries, including by Toyota who made the announcement recently. To quote from link below: _"Toyota stands at the top of the global heap with over 1,000 patents involving solid-state batteries." _









Toyota's game-changing solid-state battery en route for 2021 debut


Japan's government to join forces with industry to supercharge development




asia.nikkei.com


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> That's what I don't get.
> 
> Tesla leads in only 2 areas of interest.
> 1. Cachet. They're clearly positioned as a luxury brand, and people see them as the premier EV.
> 2. Good battery technology.
> 
> If someone gets a better battery, they're going to have problems.
> 
> That brings me back to the valuation case, the battery tech advantage will be overcome long before they pacy back shareholders.


What does Apple lead in?


Absolutely none of the incumbent automakers are making an ecosystem like Tesla is from a sales-service-software perspective. No one has anything comparable to Tesla's charging network.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Toyota don't produce EVs yet. May their hybrids make more sense at present? They do plan on producing and EV along with their partner Subaru by mid 20s: Subaru Gives First Look at Electric Crossover It Will Build with Toyota
> 
> All kinds of work going on on solid state batteries, including by Toyota who made the announcement recently. To quote from link below: _"Toyota stands at the top of the global heap with over 1,000 patents involving solid-state batteries." _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota's game-changing solid-state battery en route for 2021 debut
> 
> 
> Japan's government to join forces with industry to supercharge development
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asia.nikkei.com


I stand by it being a highly misleading statement. You won't see solid state batteries in mass market vehicles for the better part of a decade. There are already prototypes of SS batteries. The trick is making them perform as well as Li ion batteries in all important respects, and making them at scale and cost effectively. Quantumscape announced their SS battery tech, but only boasts about volumetric energy density (small, but not necessarily light) and underwhelming cycle life (800 cycles, vs thousands Tesla is developing).


----------



## andrewf

Also should add that 'charging in ten minutes' can mean different things. If they mean adding 80 kwh to a battery in ten minutes, that requires an average of 500 kW for charging. What charging network performs at that level? Or in the foreseeable future?

It is irrelevant for the 95% of charging that happens at home.


----------



## agent99

off.by.10 said:


> It's also a good reminder that new battery technology could overturn the electric car market overnight, turning those large battery factories into liabilities designed for obsolete technology. Making electric cars is fairly easy. The powertrain is vastly simpler than an ICE. The battery is where the real difficulty currently lies.


True. 10 yrs is quite a long time in development of technology, especially when we don't hear about it until it is getting close to commercialization. Toyota has apparently been at it since 2017, which admittedly isn't very long. If they will have a working system demonstrate next year, that will be quite an accomplishment. Presumably they will have been helped by Japanese partners like Panasonic & others who started much earlier.

But, we are spinning our wheels. All I know is that what we will see in 5 or 10 years will be quite different from what we see today! And Tesla may no longer be in the lead.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> What does Apple lead in?



Continuous innovation
Luxury, quality and design
Adaptation to customer needs
Customer service
Customer values
Marketing
Examples

Siri was the first voice assistant to enable interaction with smartphones
Touch ID was the first fingerprint unlock feature on smartphones
AirPods were the first wireless earbuds
Marketing starts with _why_, focusing on values, purpose and goal. (You may have seen this example on the web)

Instead of saying : _We make great computers. They're user friendly, beautifully designed, and easy to use. Want to buy one?_
They say : _With everything we do, we aim to challenge the status quo. We aim to think differently. Our products are user-friendly, beautifully designed, and easy to use. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?"_


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> If they will have a working system demonstrate next year, that will be quite an accomplishment. Presumably they will have been helped by Japanese partners like Panasonic & others who started much earlier.
> 
> But, we are spinning our wheels. All I know is that what we will see in 5 or 10 years will be quite different from what we see today! And Tesla may no longer be in the lead.


Apple buys components from Samsung which is a direct competitor. This reduces manufacturing costs for Samsung and increases sales. Seems to be win win

So what makes you think Tesla wouldn't buy or develop the same battery tech. Any time a car manufacture develops something they all develop similar tech


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> Continuous innovation
> Luxury, quality and design
> Adaptation to customer needs
> Customer service
> Customer values
> Marketing
> Examples
> 
> Siri was the first voice assistant to enable interaction with smartphones
> Touch ID was the first fingerprint unlock feature on smartphones
> AirPods were the first wireless earbuds
> Marketing starts with _why_, focusing on values, purpose and goal. (You may have seen this example on the web)
> 
> Instead of saying : _We make great computers. They're user friendly, beautifully designed, and easy to use. Want to buy one?_
> They say : _With everything we do, we aim to challenge the status quo. We aim to think differently. Our products are user-friendly, beautifully designed, and easy to use. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?"_


Tesla made the first mass market electric car with respectable range? The first 'sexy'/non-weirdo bug-eyes enviro-box electric car.

Being first is not enough. My point was that Apple sells devices that are much like any other when you boil it down to specifications and features. Apple commands higher profits and valuation due to their vertical integration and ecosystem. Why could something similar not happen with cars?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> What does Apple lead in?
> 
> 
> Absolutely none of the incumbent automakers are making an ecosystem like Tesla is from a sales-service-software perspective. No one has anything comparable to Tesla's charging network.


Brand & Profit.
They've got great profit margins and good system lock in.
They have limited competition, who also has great profit margins.

Tesla has virtually no profit, and they're selling almost a commodity.
I think the network has some value to users, but I'm not sure that's a sustainable competitive advantage.
There are companies building networks that will charge all vehicles.


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> Continuous innovation
> Luxury, quality and design
> Adaptation to customer needs
> Customer service
> Customer values
> Marketing
> Examples
> 
> Siri was the first voice assistant to enable interaction with smartphones
> Touch ID was the first fingerprint unlock feature on smartphones
> AirPods were the first wireless earbuds
> Marketing starts with _why_, focusing on values, purpose and goal. (You may have seen this example on the web)
> 
> Instead of saying : _We make great computers. They're user friendly, beautifully designed, and easy to use. Want to buy one?_
> They say : _With everything we do, we aim to challenge the status quo. We aim to think differently. Our products are user-friendly, beautifully designed, and easy to use. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?"_


Ahh you're an Apple fan.
The innovation is IMO overrated.

Phones had voice recognition years before Siri existed. 
Siri was just an evolution of spoken commands into a specialized search engine.
That was arguably an innovation, but I don't think putting voice recognition into a search engine


Apple wasn't first on either phone fingerprint scanners, or wireless earbuds.

So I reject point 1 as they're typically just copying existing features. They do tend to make a good implementation because they charge very high prices for what you're getting.

2. Yeah they have good design. I'd like it if they improved the UI and usability. I've always found Apple products confusing, hard to use and unstable, the most obvious example is who puts disks in garbage cans to eject them?
3. I don't know what that means.
4. They have great service, though they're heavily attacking third party service providers.
5. Not sure about values, they're hugely left leaning, which IMO is immoral.
6. Absolute winners here. They really know how to put on a show and convince people they're wonderful. People often think they're first or the best, even if they aren't (see airpods and touchID claims above).

Apple is really a company built on superfans, who are willing to pay more. Then they justify overpaying with Tribalism, they see themselves as Apple people.
Apple IMO makes good products, but there are many products that are better.
If Tesla can cultivate enough of this, they could make it. However I'm not sure that Tesla can get away overcharging when they're making second rate product. 

I do agree Tesla makes (arguably) the best product on the market at this time. But only a very few companies can manage to maintain their image when they make second rate product (Apple).


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> Also should add that 'charging in ten minutes' can mean different things. If they mean adding 80 kwh to a battery in ten minutes, that requires an average of 500 kW for charging. What charging network performs at that level? Or in the foreseeable future?
> 
> It is irrelevant for the 95% of charging that happens at home.


Those Tesla charging stations with say 6 stations - what would their overall kw rating be? Many of the evs that are in the pipeline have relatively small batteries - maybe 48kwh capacity. Charging would need to add say 40kwh. Or 240kw per hour. Probably high voltage DC.
I need to read more...
Apparently there are already fast charging networks installed and expanding in Europe. One by Inonity who had 400 such stations when this link was produced. This is a name plate from one of their chargers. Interestingly made in Australia by Tritium. And built for the future - Pretty close to 80kw in 10min? They claim 350km or range in 10min with current battery technology.










This link is a bit old, but at the time Tesla announced their V3 Supercharging. They claim up to 1000miles range per hour (or 150miles 240km) in 10min.) Not quite as good, but getting there! They do have a lot of charging stations.








Introducing V3 Supercharging


Tesla has more than 12,000 Superchargers across North America, Europe, and Asia and our network continues to grow daily: more than 99% of the U.S. population is covered by the network, and we anticipate similar coverage in Europe by the end of 2019. Recently, we passed 90% population coverage in...




www.tesla.com





Enough - I presume the solid state batteries will allow faster charging. Seems the batteries are the bottleneck at present, not the power grid!


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrMatt said:


> Ahh you're an Apple fan.
> The innovation is IMO overrated.


I've never owned any Apple products except my Beats headphones, which is a far stretch (Beats was bought by Apple). Apple is too expensive for my needs, I enjoy my Android phone.

I simply stated how marketing people explain Apple's success and I agree. And I guess Tesla is onto something similar (challenging status quo, innovation, luxury, marketing, reaching out to people [fans]). They are creating an emotional connection to a brand, as we can see with Apple. When a brand has _fans_, you're in for success.

That being said, I'm personally not sure it justifies a +700% in a year.



MrMatt said:


> Phones had voice recognition years before Siri existed.
> Siri was just an evolution of spoken commands into a specialized search engine.
> That was arguably an innovation, but I don't think putting voice recognition into a search engine
> 
> 
> Apple wasn't first on either phone fingerprint scanners, or wireless earbuds.


I mentioned fingerprint recognition, but it's too broad - They were the first to implement it as a Touch ID which is more user-friendly.
I mentioned voice recognition, but it's too broad - They were the first to implement the modern virtual assistant on a phone
Wireless earbuds - They were the first to make it work properly, because Onkyo's earbuds weren't

The thing is, sometimes other companies lay the ground to something new but are unable to improve their concept to make it user-friendly. Apple does that, they innovate to make it a success.

That's like with music when a cover or a remix is better than the original.


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> I've never owned any Apple products except my Beats headphones, which is a far stretch (Beats was bought by Apple). Apple is too expensive for my needs, I enjoy my Android phone.
> 
> I simply stated how marketing people explain Apple's success and I agree. And I guess Tesla is onto something similar (challenging status quo, innovation, luxury, marketing, reaching out to people [fans]). They are creating an emotional connection to a brand, as we can see with Apple. When a brand has _fans_, you're in for success.


I do own Apple products.
I agree that is how people explain Apples success.

I think they're technically wrong, but the fans believe this.

As long as the fans are happy...

Sega had fans, but was beaten by Nintendo, Blackberry had fans, but was beaten by Android/iOS.

If BB didn't stop making products, I wouldn't have switched, I can't explain how in love I was with the usability of my Blackberry.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Tesla has virtually no profit,


They have an automotive gross margin, excluding regulatory credits, of nearly 24%. Try again. Furthermore, Amazon had zero profits for decades and still commanded high valuations. If Tesla manages to deliver on their growth story and maintain or improve 25% gross margin, they will be delivering $6B in EBIT next year, possibly doubling again in 2022.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> Furthermore, Amazon had zero profits for decades


For decades? Amazon was founded in 1994 and had its first profitable year in 2003. It had a loss only once since then, in 2014.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> For decades? Amazon was founded in 1994 and had its first profitable year in 2003. It had a loss only once since then, in 2014.







__





Amazon Net Profit Margin 2010-2022 | AMZN


Current and historical net profit margin for Amazon (AMZN) from 2010 to 2022. Net profit margin can be defined as net Income as a portion of total sales revenue. Amazon net profit margin for the three months ending June 30, 2022 was <strong></strong>.




www.macrotrends.net





Net income margin didn't break 2% for decades, up to 2018. This was largely by design/financial engineering due to reinvestment in the business. 

Tesla has positive net income this year (enabling it to be added to S&P500), so if you want to take a stickler's approach to defining 'zero profit', it is not accurate to say Tesla is unprofitable.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon Net Profit Margin 2010-2022 | AMZN
> 
> 
> Current and historical net profit margin for Amazon (AMZN) from 2010 to 2022. Net profit margin can be defined as net Income as a portion of total sales revenue. Amazon net profit margin for the three months ending June 30, 2022 was <strong></strong>.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macrotrends.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net income margin didn't break 2% for decades, up to 2018. This was largely by design/financial engineering due to reinvestment in the business.
> 
> Tesla has positive net income this year (enabling it to be added to S&P500), so if you want to take a stickler's approach to defining 'zero profit', it is not accurate to say Tesla is unprofitable.


It was above your 2% from 2005 to 2011. Then it went below from 2012 to 2018, and it's back up. I don't see the "decades".

Tesla is still below your 2%.





__





Tesla Net Profit Margin 2010-2022 | TSLA


Current and historical net profit margin for Tesla (TSLA) from 2010 to 2022. Net profit margin can be defined as net Income as a portion of total sales revenue. Tesla net profit margin for the three months ending September 30, 2022 was <strong></strong>.




www.macrotrends.net





I agree that Tesla is profitable this year for the first time. I just didn't agree that Amazon was "unprofitable for decades".


----------



## andrewf

You can split hairs. 2% is darn close to 0% when you consider AAPL above 20%.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> You can split hairs. 2% is darn close to 0% when you consider AAPL above 20%.


Anyways, different sectors and industries have different margins, so it's not really worth comparing from an industry to another.


----------



## andrewf

Maybe the point is that companies with low profits can support high valuations, provided they have high growth and reasonable gross margin. Operating leverage eventually drives significant bottom line performance. Low current profitability is often a side effect of investing for growth.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> They have an automotive gross margin, excluding regulatory credits, of nearly 24%. Try again. Furthermore, Amazon had zero profits for decades and still commanded high valuations. If Tesla manages to deliver on their growth story and maintain or improve 25% gross margin, they will be delivering $6B in EBIT next year, possibly doubling again in 2022.



But lets say $100k average TSLA, resulting in $10k net profit. Which is basically their current gross, SG&A, no R&D 
Which would still be outstanding for the auto industry.

When they sell 4 million cars, that's $40billion/yr and would make sense.
Maybe it's not quite as crazy

More realistically they still need to pay R&D, so maybe 8 million cars, at which point they're half the US market.
I think that will be tough.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Friday, we witnessed the biggest inclusion to S&P500. Many were speculating about what would happen.

This is what happened to TSLA. There was a huge volume at market open and then it all played during the last minutes. Now what will happen on Monday?


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> But lets say $100k average TSLA, resulting in $10k net profit. Which is basically their current gross, SG&A, no R&D
> Which would still be outstanding for the auto industry.
> 
> When they sell 4 million cars, that's $40billion/yr and would make sense.
> Maybe it's not quite as crazy
> 
> More realistically they still need to pay R&D, so maybe 8 million cars, at which point they're half the US market.
> I think that will be tough.


ASP is around $52k. They are currently selling a software add-on for $10k which has fantastic gross margin. As it performs better the take rate should improve. All that leave aside the potential to run a fantastically profitable ride-sharing service using AVs (I think it's at best 50/50 by 2025). They are installing capacity now to build 4 or 5 million cars per year and they are not stopping there. Next year production should be 1M, 2022 will likely be approaching 2M.

Global auto market is around 95M units per year.


----------



## kcowan

I hope Tesla thrives. Musk certainly turned the auto industry on its ear. I don't see what other breakthoughs are available to him. But then that is why he is there and I am not.

I also loved my palmpilot and blackberry and wondered why no one had put them together. Then i saw my granddaughter talking to her friend on her ipod touch with facetime, and i knew i was in for good times! That was 15 years ago.


----------



## afulldeck

kcowan said:


> I also loved my palmpilot and blackberry and wondered why no one had put them together. Then i saw my granddaughter talking to her friend on her ipod touch with facetime, and i knew i was in for good times! That was 15 years ago.


BB thought it was a secure hardware telephony/messaging company rather than an "all" IT service/app delivery company. If they had been listening and observing customers they might have been able to dominate the market rather than to be extinguished. All they needed to do was to incorporate the Android apps much sooner which would have lended support to reinforce their corporate environment/clientele. Unfortunately Lazaridis and Balsillie just couldn't let go of the past. They couldn't understand that corporate types needed apps (financial, calendaring, maps etc) like everyone else. Between 2005 (Google bought Android) and 2007 there was ample noise and suggestions from the engineering teams for BB to expand into this space. Even outside developers who where making apps for BB began to pile on. Unfortunately by 2010 the writing was on the wall....executives started to walk away by 2012. Its sad since they could have been a very dominating force.


----------



## agent99

Don't disagree with comments on BB. I actually bought some stock when it first completely tanked. Then sold enough to buy two Blackberry Playbooks. Still have the rest. Not worth much, but enough to maintain an interest.

Funnily enough, BB did have it's own variant of Android apps that would run on the Playbook and some phones. Their QNX operating system, like Android and Linux all have ties back to UNIX. It is actually possible to side-load Android apps onto our Playbooks. But not much point at this stage. 

My wife and I still use our Playbooks every day. They work fine as book-readers and email still works on them. Web browsing no longer works effectively. A number of other apps apparently still work, but they are all well past due date!

Now just interested to see how John Chen makes out in re-inventing the company.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> They are currently selling a software add-on for $10k which has fantastic gross margin. As it performs better the take rate should improve.


Yea auto-pilot could be the cash cow. Musk even says the price will increase as it improves

Bill Gates is still one if the richest in the world by selling software for hundreds let alone thousands. People who don't care about security upgrades have ways around paying him. It would be a lot riskier to try to pirate or open source something like auto-pilot and obviously that would void your auto insurance and probably open you to liability in any accident etc

Again the momentum Tesla has allows them to gather data that no other company has


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> ASP is around $52k. They are currently selling a software add-on for $10k which has fantastic gross margin. As it performs better the take rate should improve. All that leave aside the potential to run a fantastically profitable ride-sharing service using AVs (I think it's at best 50/50 by 2025). They are installing capacity now to build 4 or 5 million cars per year and they are not stopping there. Next year production should be 1M, 2022 will likely be approaching 2M.
> 
> Global auto market is around 95M units per year.


I saw an old number, so at ASP for $52k, a $10k gross margin means their net margin is quite a bit lower.


Global auto market is 65M units/yr.








2019 (Full Year) International: Worldwide Car Sales - Car Sales Statistics


In 2019, worldwide new car sales were lower. Sales increased in Brazil and Europe but were weaker in India, China, Japan, Russia and the USA.




www.best-selling-cars.com




.

I think with increased ride sharing demand will drop, not increase.
Also Tesla isn't the standout leader in self driving technology. Several companies have approval to operate with safety drivers.
They're a leader in the headlines, but the real technology, it's too close to call IMO.

I can see a few years of massive growth and Tesla might be fairly valued. But I don't see them having the network and lock in potential of
Amazon, Apple etc.

For them to be fairly valued I think this is only somewhat likley.
It is possible that Tesla will manage to maintain their current massive growth and gain 10-20% global market share in the next 10 years
Assuming they can do this and preserve profit for vehicle, I'm not sure
They'll be a player, I don't think they'll be a market leader going forward.


----------



## agent99

Just watched part of this link. Tesla still leads in China, but their competitors are growing fast. One of them has backing from Berkshire Hathaway. Once they satisfy their domestic market, Tesla may see some serious competition?


----------



## andrewf

You mean after Tesla satisfied the China market?  

There will be all kinds of electric cars, including some like Leaf and e-Golf. Tesla killers they are not. North American consumers will be very suspicious of Chinese cars for quite some time. Even Hyundai is still looked down upon even after decades of making reasonably good cars with significant warranties.

I think the more electric cars become mainstream, the more normal people will talk about things like the charging network. For Tesla, (to quote Apple) it jus works. No cards, no accounts--just plug-in. Un-matched station coverage, and stations have many stalls. Yes, there are other networks being built out (Teslas can use them too), but ones like Electrify America are compliance exercises for bad behaviour, namely VW diesel-gate. They are expensive and less convenient than they could be. After all, it is just a compliance exercise--they don't care if people actually use them.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> You mean after Tesla satisfied the China market?
> 
> There will be all kinds of electric cars, including some like Leaf and e-Golf. Tesla killers they are not. North American consumers will be very suspicious of Chinese cars for quite some time. Even Hyundai is still looked down upon even after decades of making reasonably good cars with significant warranties.
> 
> I think the more electric cars become mainstream, the more normal people will talk about things like the charging network. For Tesla, (to quote Apple) it jus works. No cards, no accounts--just plug-in. Un-matched station coverage, and stations have many stalls. Yes, there are other networks being built out (Teslas can use them too), but ones like Electrify America are compliance exercises for bad behaviour, namely VW diesel-gate. They are expensive and less convenient than they could be. After all, it is just a compliance exercise--they don't care if people actually use them.


What "no card, no accounts -- just plug in". They started cutting this years ago.








Tesla cuts prices across EV lineup, ends free supercharging for Model S, Model X – TechCrunch


Tesla slashed prices across its electric vehicle portfolio overnight as the automaker aims to boost sales in an economy beaten down by the COVID-19 pandemic. Reuters and Electrek were the first to report the changes. The base price of Model 3 standard range plus is now $37,990, a $2,000 reduction. …




techcrunch.com




.

Myself I honestly see my next vehicle as an e-Golf. I have a Golf now, it's nice and great around town. 

My large/out of town vehicle will be likely be Gas or Hybrid. It's not worth the electric premium for a vehicle that will sit in the driveway.


----------



## andrewf

I meant you just park & plug, no fiddling with apps, RFID tags, etc. like you do with other networks. Of course you get charged.


----------



## MrBlackhill

So... is Apple threatening Tesla?









Apple’s Rumored EV Project Is A True Threat To Tesla’s Hype Machine


That figure divided by the trailing revenue rate of $28 billion gives an astonishing 21x EV/revenues on a trailing basis.




www.forbes.com


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I meant you just park & plug, no fiddling with apps, RFID tags, etc. like you do with other networks. Of course you get charged.


So you still need an account.

What charging networks do not use ISO 15118 for vehicle ID?
At least for new stations being built, existing stations might need a retrofit.

I understand that if you don't have an account you might have to fiddle with apps and things, but those are expected glitches with a new system.


----------



## Pluto

My view is TESLA will end up like RCA in the 1920's. Competition will eat away at it.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Toyota don't produce EVs yet. May their hybrids make more sense at present? They do plan on producing and EV along with their partner Subaru by mid 20s: Subaru Gives First Look at Electric Crossover It Will Build with Toyota


FWIW Toyota did produce one of the earliest BEVs back in the early 2000s: RAV 4 EV. 

The only thing is that they dropped development into EVs and went into the hydrogen powered vehicle direction. There's nothing to say they can't go back towards developing BEVs.


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> FWIW Toyota did produce one of the earliest BEVs back in the early 2000s: RAV 4 EV.
> 
> The only thing is that they dropped development into EVs and went into the hydrogen powered vehicle direction. There's nothing to say they can't go back towards developing BEVs.


I was wrong when I said "Toyota don't produce EVs yet. " I mistakenly repeated what Andrew had said earlier. As this article confirms, Toyota (with partners) are producing EVs in China.









Toyota releases first all-electric vehicle in China


China-Japan joint venture FAW Toyota Auto has released its first all-electric vehicle Izoa in the Chinese market, which uses nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) batteries produced by Japanese technology firm Panasonic.




www.argusmedia.com




.
Hydrogen will no doubt be part of our zero carbon future so perhaps Toyota will be a leader there too. I see Germany has initiated National Hydrogen Strategy. This article provides a hint of how hydrogen may become more important before long. Even Saudi Arabia are into Hydrogen. World's largest solar hydrogen plant planned there. GOC claims that Canada is one the largest producers of hydrogen in the world. But it seems a large part of that is made from fossil fuels. More here. Not sure if we have a national hydrogen strategy, but perhaps we should?

It's hard to keep up with this stuff!


----------



## agent99

Pluto said:


> My view is TESLA will end up like RCA in the 1920's. Competition will eat away at it.


I too think this may happen. More recent example may be IBM . I am very happy with my China made Lenovo laptop! Even GM today - not sure I would buy any of their cars.

It will probably be the Chinese that take over. They have the battery technology and the ability to produce at low costs. Sure, there may be resistance to their cars at first. But probably few here will remember when the same thing was true of Japanese cars.


> J_apan started to export cars in the late 1950s, but only a few hundred each year. In 1961 annual exports exceeded 10,000 for the first time. In the early 1970s Japan exported more than one million cars to other countries, primarily to the United States. When car exports began, the reputation of Japanese cars was poor. But their low price based on the low value of the Japanese yen against the US dollar increased the number of Japanese car buyers in the US._


Example - The Chinese cars will be a LOT better than these were!










This 1970 Datsun 510 two-door (chassis PL510154787) is offered as a very rusty project that last ran 30 years ago, although its original L16 engine and 4-speed manual transmission are included. These cars are famous for rusting, but even among vintage Datsuns this one looks particularly bad, showing rot of varying degrees nearly anywhere the camera has been pointed.


----------



## bgc_fan

agent99 said:


> Not sure if we have a national hydrogen strategy, but perhaps we should?


Maybe not a national strategy yet, but at least Alberta should lead the way as a way to transition from the oil industry. Too bad the people in charge don't seem that inclined. However, the Alberta NDP certainly bring it up. #ABFuture Hydrogen Proposal

The thing is that hydrogen is a drop in replacement for ICE, which is why Toyota bet on hydrogen rather than EVs. In California, I think you'll find most of the Toyota Miras and hydrogen stations. So for applications where battery storage is an issue (I'm thinking planes, ships, maybe long-haul trucks), hydrogen would be the way to go. Similarly, you need energy to process and refine to get hydrogen, so unless you have a green source of energy for the process, it doesn't help much with the climate change. It could be a role where a national strategy could play, i.e. promote mini-nuclear reactors, or wind/solar farms to provide the clean energy to generate hydrogen.


----------



## Pluto

Hydrogen: its not clear to me what the strategy is here. To get large quantities of H, it has to come from water, by separating the H from the oxygen. That process takes more energy than is obtained from the hydrogen. 

What energy source could be used to separate H from O? Nat gas? oil? coal? Why not just use those fossil fuels directly?


----------



## bgc_fan

Pluto said:


> Hydrogen: its not clear to me what the strategy is here. To get large quantities of H, it has to come from water, by separating the H from the oxygen. That process takes more energy than is obtained from the hydrogen.


Hydrolysis is one method. There are various methods that involve reforming hydrocarbons. Wikipedia has an overview of a few of the chemical equations. 
University of Calgary has been working a process for the past 6 years and are going for a pilot project next year: Unlocking clean hydrogen from heavy oil reservoirs

I already mentioned clean energy sources like solar, wind or nuclear. Though that's up to you if you view nuclear as clean. As for not using the fossil fuels directly, the idea is to reduce CO2 emissions. And don't think that there isn't an energy cost in refining petroleum products.


----------



## off.by.10

bgc_fan said:


> Hydrolysis is one method. There are various methods that involve reforming hydrocarbons.


If I remember correctly, hydrolysis has awful efficiency/economics. Which you have to pile on top of the large transporation and storage costs of hydrogen. It can't even complete against yesterday's BEVs, let alone tomorrow's.

Reforming does not fix the other issues with hydrogen. And since you'll be emitting carbon anyway, you might as well just burn the hydrocarbons directly. Unless you're in the business of getting government subsidies.

Hydrogen lives on in the public mind because of the "water out of the tailpipe" fallacy. It is called clean when it really isn't. It might have made sense 30-40 years ago when the main goal was to reduce urban pollution, CO2 was not an issue and battery tech was more primitive. It makes no sense today.


----------



## MrMatt

off.by.10 said:


> If I remember correctly, hydrolysis has awful efficiency/economics. Which you have to pile on top of the large transporation and storage costs of hydrogen. It can't even complete against yesterday's BEVs, let alone tomorrow's.
> 
> Reforming does not fix the other issues with hydrogen. And since you'll be emitting carbon anyway, you might as well just burn the hydrocarbons directly. Unless you're in the business of getting government subsidies.
> 
> Hydrogen lives on in the public mind because of the "water out of the tailpipe" fallacy. It is called clean when it really isn't. It might have made sense 30-40 years ago when the main goal was to reduce urban pollution, CO2 was not an issue and battery tech was more primitive. It makes no sense today.


Fuel cells aren't great








Battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell? VW lays out why one is the winner


Even outside of the fueling infrastructure concerns, VW maps out why battery-electric is simply more efficient for personal vehicles.




www.greencarreports.com





The big advantage of hydrogen is that it doesn't need battery material for storage, plus it is fast to refill.
Hydrogen doesn't have nearly the toxic impacts of battery construction.

That being said, I think for most applications battery type tech is going to win. (Supercapacitors are "battery like" IMO"

Battery technology has been holding back electric vehicles for almost 200 years.
But looking at model aircraft, they went electric several years ago, once the battery technology caught up.


----------



## agent99

Pluto said:


> What energy source could be used to separate H from O? Nat gas? oil? coal? Why not just use those fossil fuels directly?


You are right that energy required to separate hydrogen from water exceeds the energy you can get out of the separated hydrogen. But, if you use a low cost source of electricity to separate the hydrogen, then you turn it into a more valuable fuel that is portable. In cars, it would most likely be used in fuel cells powering electric motor drives. These would be more efficient that an internal combustion engine and of course would not emit CO2. Getting enough solar/wind power is a challenge so presumably nuclear would have to be used. Not a great solution!

A similar concept is installed at Niagara Falls. The Adam Beck Pump Generating Station. Instead of diverting water, they can use "free" hydro power to pump water up to a water storage reservoir overnight, then let the water back down through turbines to produce power when needed. They don't actually use it much, but like electrolyzing water using sunlight or wind power, it is a way of capturing and storing "free" energy.


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> If I remember correctly, hydrolysis has awful efficiency/economics. Which you have to pile on top of the large transporation and storage costs of hydrogen. It can't even complete against yesterday's BEVs, let alone tomorrow's.
> 
> Reforming does not fix the other issues with hydrogen. And since you'll be emitting carbon anyway, you might as well just burn the hydrocarbons directly. Unless you're in the business of getting government subsidies.
> 
> Hydrogen lives on in the public mind because of the "water out of the tailpipe" fallacy. It is called clean when it really isn't. It might have made sense 30-40 years ago when the main goal was to reduce urban pollution, CO2 was not an issue and battery tech was more primitive. It makes no sense today.


Hydrolysis is highly energy intensive, but that's not the route that Canada would take if we are going to transition to a hydrogen-based economy vs. oil based. As for transportation and storage, I couldn't imagine it being that much more different than using the pipelines we have to transport natural gas. 

If you take a look at the links I posted before, you'll notice that under certain processes, carbon remains in the ground and isn't emitted.


----------



## agent99

off.by.10 said:


> If I remember correctly, hydrolysis has awful efficiency/economics.


Using present day technology, the efficiency of water electrolysis cells is about 80%. In other words, you get 80% back of the energy you put in. There is a lot of research going on on electro-catalysts and other innovations. The economics can be pretty good if the electricity used is of very low cost (solar/wind/hydro). Even the Saudis are about to do it! Besides oil, they have a lot of sunlight! I read somewhere that in rough terms, if the power cost is 4c/kwh, that would be equivalent to $4/gal gasoline. This would include other losses of efficiency such as compression and storage. Lower of course if electricity costs are lower.


----------



## off.by.10

bgc_fan said:


> As for transportation and storage, I couldn't imagine it being that much more different than using the pipelines we have to transport natural gas.


Oh it's very different allright. Just ask rocket people... the tanks need to be huge because density is poor. And the pressure needs to be insane or you have to keep it cryogenic (good luck with that on a large scale). Look up the Mirai's tanks.... 10 000 psi (not a typo!) and nearly 200 lbs of tank material. Also, H2 is such a small molecule that it leaks through the tiniest gaps. It will even leak straight through the tank walls (slowly, so not the biggest issue). Sure, we can engineer around the problems... with money. Lots and lots of it. Which is part of why hydrogen has been "the future" for several decades now. I remember touring a hydrogen storage research lab last century. They're still searching for solutions.

Of course, proponents of hydrogen only ever talk about "water out the tailpipe" and "making it from water". All the above and more is glossed over.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> I was wrong when I said "Toyota don't produce EVs yet. " I mistakenly repeated what Andrew had said earlier. As this article confirms, Toyota (with partners) are producing EVs in China.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toyota releases first all-electric vehicle in China
> 
> 
> China-Japan joint venture FAW Toyota Auto has released its first all-electric vehicle Izoa in the Chinese market, which uses nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM) batteries produced by Japanese technology firm Panasonic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.argusmedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Hydrogen will no doubt be part of our zero carbon future so perhaps Toyota will be a leader there too. I see Germany has initiated National Hydrogen Strategy. This article provides a hint of how hydrogen may become more important before long. Even Saudi Arabia are into Hydrogen. World's largest solar hydrogen plant planned there. GOC claims that Canada is one the largest producers of hydrogen in the world. But it seems a large part of that is made from fossil fuels. More here. Not sure if we have a national hydrogen strategy, but perhaps we should?
> 
> It's hard to keep up with this stuff!


BYD is making that vehicle. BYD is an electric car maker.

Regardless, that car is not going to be sold in the global market. Toyota is not serious about EVs, and is still talking them down at a senior level.









Toyota Boss Warns That The Electric Vehicle Shift May Cause Big Problems


“When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?”




observer.com





But by all means, believe that Toyota is a massive threat to Tesla in the EV space. From my perspective they don't even rank (as compared to VW, Rivian, Lucid, Nissan, etc.)


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Toyota is not serious about EVs, and is still talking them down at a senior level.


Fujifilm was very well aware of digital cameras long before the masses. They know their business and its potential threats. They led their blind followers down the established path as long as they possibly could. It was calculated.

If Toyota were to make such a huge shift to EV they could lose a lot of loyal fans to something like Tesla. It would force their fanatics to consider whether Toyota makes their choice EV. Like Fujifilm, the chance of Toyota making such drastic changes are slim


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> Oh it's very different allright. Just ask rocket people... the tanks need to be huge because density is poor. And the pressure needs to be insane or you have to keep it cryogenic (good luck with that on a large scale). Look up the Mirai's tanks.... 10 000 psi (not a typo!) and nearly 200 lbs of tank material. Also, H2 is such a small molecule that it leaks through the tiniest gaps. It will even leak straight through the tank walls (slowly, so not the biggest issue). Sure, we can engineer around the problems... with money. Lots and lots of it. Which is part of why hydrogen has been "the future" for several decades now. I remember touring a hydrogen storage research lab last century. They're still searching for solutions.
> 
> Of course, proponents of hydrogen only ever talk about "water out the tailpipe" and "making it from water". All the above and more is glossed over.


So, I take it you didn't bother reading the link where they talk about refitting existing pipelines for hydrogen transport?
They also talk about blending with natural gas for the transport, which is what was already posted about the Mississauga hydrogen plant.
Sure things take upfront costs for research and design, but that's normal for starting out. You can take a look at EV battery technology, and see how costs have dropped over the past decade: $156/kWh vs $1,100/kWh in 2010. Were you one of those people in 2010 who said, EV batteries are too expensive, no point in pursuing?

At any case, it's still being researched and would give Alberta options if hydrogen does take off: https://www.cesarnet.ca/blog/albert...t-zero-canada-while-re-energising-its-economy


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Using present day technology, the efficiency of water electrolysis cells is about 80%. In other words, you get 80% back of the energy you put in. There is a lot of research going on on electro-catalysts and other innovations. The economics can be pretty good if the electricity used is of very low cost (solar/wind/hydro). Even the Saudis are about to do it! Besides oil, they have a lot of sunlight! I read somewhere that in rough terms, if the power cost is 4c/kwh, that would be equivalent to $4/gal gasoline. This would include other losses of efficiency such as compression and storage. Lower of course if electricity costs are lower.


KWh in to kWh out, hydrolysis to fuell cell is around 35% efficient, vs 90% or so for battery. Hydrogen will always cost 2.5x battery. Most applications won't be worth it. Hydrogen or other synthetic fuels (ammonia, etc) will be usable for long distance flight or shipping where batteries will struggle to ever be practical. As it stands now, hydrogen vehicles cost more to fuel than gasoline in addition to the high cost of the drivetrain. DOA.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> KWh in to kWh out, hydrolysis to fuell cell is around 35% efficient, vs 90% or so for battery. Hydrogen will always cost 2.5x battery. Most applications won't be worth it. Hydrogen or other synthetic fuels (ammonia, etc) will be usable for long distance flight or shipping where batteries will struggle to ever be practical. As it stands now, hydrogen vehicles cost more to fuel than gasoline in addition to the high cost of the drivetrain. DOA.


What "high cost" of the drivetrain? It can be as cheap as a minor upgrade to a conventional gas vehicle.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> So, I take it you didn't bother reading the link where they talk about refitting existing pipelines for hydrogen transport?
> They also talk about blending with natural gas for the transport, which is what was already posted about the Mississauga hydrogen plant.
> Sure things take upfront costs for research and design, but that's normal for starting out. You can take a look at EV battery technology, and see how costs have dropped over the past decade: $156/kWh vs $1,100/kWh in 2010. Were you one of those people in 2010 who said, EV batteries are too expensive, no point in pursuing?
> 
> At any case, it's still being researched and would give Alberta options if hydrogen does take off: https://www.cesarnet.ca/blog/albert...t-zero-canada-while-re-energising-its-economy


At that time, batteries weren't competitive.
The cost dropped by an order of magnitude, and now they are.


----------



## off.by.10

MrMatt said:


> What "high cost" of the drivetrain? It can be as cheap as a minor upgrade to a conventional gas vehicle.


For hydrogen? Never heard of anything cheap or simple about it. Perhaps you are confusing with CNG conversions?



bgc_fan said:


> So, I take it you didn't bother reading the link where they talk about refitting existing pipelines for hydrogen transport?
> They also talk about blending with natural gas for the transport, which is what was already posted about the Mississauga hydrogen plant.


You mean all the links to greenwashing projects from the oil industry? No, I usually don't bother. Most of it is quickly filed into the "look, we're doing green stuff, so please let us go on with our dirty business" category.


----------



## bgc_fan

off.by.10 said:


> You mean all the links to greenwashing projects from the oil industry? No, I usually don't bother. Most of it is quickly filed into the "look, we're doing green stuff, so please let us go on with our dirty business" category.


I see, you're a fanatic. The links were to government and academic websites, but I guess there's no point in continuing the conversation because you obviously don't care to expand your mind.


----------



## MrMatt

off.by.10 said:


> For hydrogen? Never heard of anything cheap or simple about it. Perhaps you are confusing with CNG conversions?


You know you can burn hydrogen in a modified ICE engine right?


----------



## off.by.10

bgc_fan said:


> I see, you're a fanatic. The links were to government and academic websites, but I guess there's no point in continuing the conversation because you obviously don't care to expand your mind.


Not the least bit. I don't mind Alberta's oil industry as long as we're honest about it: we extract the oil because we need the energy and the jobs. I would be happy if we had useful hydrogen tech to replace oil in cars and reduce pollution. But we don't. And it's almost certain that we won't have it 5 years from now either. Or even 10.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> You know you can burn hydrogen in a modified ICE engine right?


Not effeciently. Still need to add a 10k psi tank. And the fueling infrastructure.


----------



## agent99

andrewf said:


> KWh in to kWh out, hydrolysis to fuell cell is around 35% efficient


Wrong. But it's not much point discussing with such avid Tesla fanboys.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Wrong. But it's not much point discussing with such avid Tesla fanboys.


Prove me wrong. Fuel cells are only 60% efficient. Electrolysis is around 80% efficient. That's already down to 48%,and we're not counting the compression losses or transportation yet. Calling me a fan boy is just admitting defeat.


----------



## MrBlackhill

With Bezos who was worth as much as 30% more than even the second wealthiest person in 2019, who thought it would need only one year for another billionaire to rise from the 30th position in the list to the 1st place? That's Musk.

Not sure if that makes any sense.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Sure, TSLA will do +5% every day from the start of the year to the end. Makes sense. +25% in a week, right after a +743% in 2020.

Bubble alert.

If I do my maths correctly, Cathie Wood, one of the most bullish TSLA investor, was forcasting $7000 for TSLA in 5 years. She was forcasting over a market cap of over $1T in 5 years, but we're almost already there. Nothing wrong with a bullish forecast. But that forecast was prior to stock split, so that would mean $1400. Since TSLA is already at $875, that would mean only 12% CAGR from this point (the forecast was done 1 year ago, so there's 4 years remaining). And that's from the most bullish forecast. Is it worth the risk at this point? Certainly not.

If I were holding TSLA, I'd be watching its behavior closely every single day to sell and secure my profits when things turn South.


----------



## agent99

One thing I read recently, was that in USA, buyers can get a $7500 credit on their federal taxes on new EVs. But only on the first 200,000 vehicles from any one manufacturer. Apparently Tesla and GM are past that point. This will make them less competitive in short term than others like Ford, Asian manufacturers, VW etc



https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/how-does-the-electric-car-tax-credit-work#:~:text=Federal%20EV%20Tax%20Credit,-Advertisement&text=The%20federal%20electric%20vehicle%20tax%20credit%20program%20provides%20a%20tax,and%20your%20individual%20tax%20circumstances


.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> Sure, TSLA will do +5% every day from the start of the year to the end. Makes sense. +25% in a week, right after a +743% in 2020.
> 
> Bubble alert.
> 
> If I do my maths correctly, Cathie Wood, one of the most bullish TSLA investor, was forcasting $7000 for TSLA in 5 years. She was forcasting over a market cap of over $1T in 5 years, but we're almost already there. Nothing wrong with a bullish forecast. But that forecast was prior to stock split, so that would mean $1400. Since TSLA is already at $875, that would mean only 12% CAGR from this point (the forecast was done 1 year ago, so there's 4 years remaining). And that's from the most bullish forecast. Is it worth the risk at this point? Certainly not.
> 
> If I were holding TSLA, I'd be watching its behavior closely every single day to sell and secure my profits when things turn South.


Yeah, this is definitely the place where you should be dialing back your position. Maybe TSLA doubles from here, in time. But they need to grow a lot to earn that valuation and that growth takes time. People seeing 10x last year and hoping for the same again are going to be sorely disappointed.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> One thing I read recently, was that in USA, buyers can get a $7500 credit on their federal taxes on new EVs. But only on the first 200,000 vehicles from any one manufacturer. Apparently Tesla and GM are past that point. This will make them less competitive in short term than others like Ford, Asian manufacturers, VW etc
> 
> 
> 
> https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/how-does-the-electric-car-tax-credit-work#:~:text=Federal%20EV%20Tax%20Credit,-Advertisement&text=The%20federal%20electric%20vehicle%20tax%20credit%20program%20provides%20a%20tax,and%20your%20individual%20tax%20circumstances
> 
> 
> .


Tesla has lost the benefit of the US federal tax credit for some time now, and maintained a strong position in the market. It should be helpful for companies like Ford (just launching their Mach E) but I don't expect it to present a big challenge for Tesla. As EV market grows, that 200k per manufacturer becomes a smaller slice and will tend to go quickly on early, underwhelming models.


----------



## Money172375

Tesla is a brand in the same vein as Apple. Those that love them, think they are revolutionary and the only “option”. Most others just see a phone or a car. Not sure what that means long term.

I don’t follow Tesla. Is their technology truly unique or will the competition soon replicate it?


----------



## m3s

Money172375 said:


> Tesla is a brand in the same vein as Apple. Those that love them, think they are revolutionary and the only “option”. Most others just see a phone or a car. Not sure what that means long term.
> 
> I don’t follow Tesla. Is their technology truly unique or will the competition soon replicate it?


That completely ignores things like ecosystem, service, reputation

People who just compare hardware specs of a phone and take the cheaper one are penny wise. Good software will even make a phone run more efficiently on the same hardware

Boomers analyze Tesla like an ICE vehicle instead of electronic tech


----------



## fireseeker

m3s said:


> Boomers analyze Tesla like an ICE vehicle instead of electronic tech


Analyzing Tesla as a vehicle builder could be more favourable than as an electronic tech pioneer.
Few advances are less durable than electronic tech.*

*Sent from my Blackberry handset


----------



## Pluto

Looks like TSLA stock is preparing to flop big time. 

A couple of years ago I bought some puts on TSLA due to its ridiculous market valuation and weakening chart. It wasn't a serious money making proposition as I am not an options specialist by any means. It was a small position for fun as I was bored. 

currently I am bored. Anyone here have some ideas on what puts would be plausible?


----------



## Pluto

Apparently my TSLA stock is poised to flop theme went over like a lead balloon.


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> Apparently my TSLA stock is poised to flop theme went over like a lead balloon.


I think TSLA is hugely overvalued at this time.
It is possible, though unlikely to grow to justify it's price.
I would honestly feel much better with their prospects if they simply bought one of the big automakers.


That being said APPL is hugely overvalued at this time, but I think it is likley to eventually grow to justify it's price.
That's also why their fight with Epic is so critically important


----------



## andrewf

Shorting is risky. The market can stay irrational much longer than you can stay solvent.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I would honestly feel much better with their prospects if they simply bought one of the big automakers.


Why would this be a good idea? They don't want the dealer network, and they don't want the legacy plant and equipment. What could Tesla gain by buying a legacy OEM?

They can build new factories in 12-18 months. Tesla is installing capacity right now to be able to produce several million cars a year by 2022, for only a few billion in capex. Rather than buying an OEM and still having to spend billions retrofitting, just build new production facilities.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Shorting is risky. The market can stay irrational much longer than you can stay solvent.


True. That's why I wait for confirmation in the charts before committing. Presently I don't see confirmation, only setting up for a probable implosion.


----------



## KaeJS

Pluto said:


> Apparently my TSLA stock is poised to flop theme went over like a lead balloon.


What about the $600 March 2021 Puts?

They cost $20.


----------



## andrewf

KaeJS said:


> What about the $600 March 2021 Puts?
> 
> They cost $20.


Highly speculative. Might as well bet on sports.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Highly speculative. Might as well bet on sports.


The chance that Tesla plummets below $600 is near zero.
Biden wants big checks sent out.
Interest rates will remain low.
I expect they'll want to put out a bunch of Green Subisdies.

Betting against Tesla is just reckless.

That being said, I still don't get the valuation, but I wouldn't bet against the coolest green company on the market.


----------



## Pluto

KaeJS said:


> What about the $600 March 2021 Puts?
> 
> They cost $20.


Thank you for the idea. After some thought I thought some longer option, maybe a year, would be safer. My problem is I don't know how to price these things. I don't know if they are asking too much.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Seems like most shorts capitulated.


















Tesla Bears: A Short Short Story


Tesla has gained infamy for the sheer depth of short seller activity on its stock. After years of 20% of shares short, the 2020 rally has led to capitulation for Tesla bears.




www.visualcapitalist.com


----------



## Pluto

^shorts capitulated. that's very interesting. Suggests that anyone going long is already long. Fits my thesis. 
I shall from time to time check the chart and look for a down trend confirmation. don't see it yet.


----------



## bgc_fan

Telsa is extending their partnership with Dalhousie University for battery research. Just an interesting story, nothing more than that. Tesla and Dalhousie University ink new research partnership deal


----------



## agent99

Anybody see this? Model Y delivery started in China. 

AND Musk puts on a show!









Tesla has started deliveries of the Chinese-made Model Y


Tesla has begun rolling out locally made Model Y crossover vehicles in China, reaching an important milestone in the world's largest auto market.




www.cnn.com


----------



## Pluto

^ Yep. And despite my pessimism longer term, the chart looks bullish.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Musk twitted he will be donating $100M for the "best" carbon capture technology.

When you have so much money that you can afford to offer such a price...

At least it's for a good cause, so I can't criticize it.


----------



## james4beach

Jeremy Grantham has a longish interview on Bloomberg (I think that's where I saw it) and talks about how the market has entered a speculative mania / bubble stage.

Tesla is one indicator of that, he says. Absolutely ridiculous enthusiasm and FOMO.

I agree, obviously. A list of these mania-bubble stocks I've been watching are TSLA, PLUG, FCEL, BLDP, and Bitcoin


----------



## Pluto

MrBlackhill said:


> Musk twitted he will be donating $100M for the "best" carbon capture technology.
> 
> When you have so much money that you can afford to offer such a price...
> 
> At least it's for a good cause, so I can't criticize it.


The best carbon capture tech is plants.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Pluto said:


> The best carbon capture tech is plants.


Nice reply! I'll try to sell my plants to Musk for that $100M hehe.


----------



## KaeJS

andrewf said:


> Highly speculative. Might as well bet on sports.


Sure, speculative. But they are cheap and TSLA has jumped a lot. There is potential here without betting the farm. The delta is low but one trading day in this stock could change that delta drastically and start to print.

I don't need to tell you that x % of a higher number falls faster and people take the elevator down. You know that.

But yes, it carries risk. Of course. Most buyers of options are technically at a disadvantage. Selling options is better.



MrMatt said:


> The chance that Tesla plummets below $600 is near zero.
> Biden wants big checks sent out.
> Interest rates will remain low.
> I expect they'll want to put out a bunch of Green Subisdies.
> 
> Betting against Tesla is just reckless.
> 
> That being said, I still don't get the valuation, but I wouldn't bet against the coolest green company on the market.


I don't agree with anything you've said.

TSLA doesn't need to go below 600 for these options to make money.

Interest rates probably aren't going to remain low and will likely start to increase a small bit, which actually goes along with what you said for the whole "Biden wants to send out cheques".

Betting against TSLA at this valuation is not reckless. It is actually the logical, fundamental, fact-based thing to do. It is much less reckless than going long at this valuation. Especially when Musk is a basketcase.



Pluto said:


> Thank you for the idea. After some thought I thought some longer option, maybe a year, would be safer. My problem is I don't know how to price these things. I don't know if they are asking too much.


I tried.

You can go further out, but of course, it costs more capital. You have to put more on the line the further you go.

If you want my opinion, I do think the market is asking way too much. But this is exactly why I suggested 600 instead of a closer strike. A closer strike is going to cost wayyyy more. And the reality is that if you're wrong, the stock is likely to continue soaring. So why spend more on a call at a closer strike?

Might as well spend less up front on a further strike and hope that the Delta comes and catches up with you. The payout would be less, but it is not less safe. In fact, it is safer because you are risking less up front.


----------



## MrMatt

KaeJS said:


> Betting against TSLA at this valuation is not reckless. It is actually the logical, fundamental, fact-based thing to do. It is much less reckless than going long at this valuation. Especially when Musk is a basketcase.


*"the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent*.” 

Musk is an arrogant jerk sure.
But as I say, you can argue with success, you'd just be wrong.

There is simply too much enthusiasm in Tesla.


----------



## m3s

Canadians are distanced from how much adoption Tesla has in the US

Tesla's and Tesla chargers are a common sight in the US. Police forces are testing them with pretty good results. Insane performance, better for sitting around most of the time (idling), comes with factory 360 sentry cameras, collision avoidance, extra storage, made in USA etc

Cybertruck will probably do even better for police forces


----------



## Pluto

KaeJS said:


> Sure, speculative. But they are cheap and TSLA has jumped a lot. There is potential here without betting the farm. The delta is low but one trading day in this stock could change that delta drastically and start to print.
> 
> I don't need to tell you that x % of a higher number falls faster and people take the elevator down. You know that.
> 
> But yes, it carries risk. Of course. Most buyers of options are technically at a disadvantage. Selling options is better.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with anything you've said.
> 
> TSLA doesn't need to go below 600 for these options to make money.
> 
> Interest rates probably aren't going to remain low and will likely start to increase a small bit, which actually goes along with what you said for the whole "Biden wants to send out cheques".
> 
> Betting against TSLA at this valuation is not reckless. It is actually the logical, fundamental, fact-based thing to do. It is much less reckless than going long at this valuation. Especially when Musk is a basketcase.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried.
> 
> You can go further out, but of course, it costs more capital. You have to put more on the line the further you go.
> 
> If you want my opinion, I do think the market is asking way too much. But this is exactly why I suggested 600 instead of a closer strike. A closer strike is going to cost wayyyy more. And the reality is that if you're wrong, the stock is likely to continue soaring. So why spend more on a call at a closer strike?
> 
> Might as well spend less up front on a further strike and hope that the Delta comes and catches up with you. The payout would be less, but it is not less safe. In fact, it is safer because you are risking less up front.


Why spend more on a call? I'm thinking strictly puts when the chart shows things are imploding. Currently, the chart - one year chart - looks bullish so its a no go. the 5 year and longer chart looks way way overbought. I want to see evidence of a serious implosion, however, and I don't see it yet. I believe something of a fundamental nature will trigger it. One obvious item that might trigger it would be competition. So in that case I would watch how the chart reacts to news of similar cars made by other companies. Currently the chart does not even flinch. 

This is an interesting intellectual exercise and I appreciate your thoughts. 

Its at least a two part problem. One part, over valuation is not enough to trigger a short type position. The second part is the chart showing actual weakness. The final part if I get that far, is which put at what price.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Canadians are distanced from how much adoption Tesla has in the US


m3s - maybe you can answer a question that came to mind. In Canada, other than 4 or five largely populated areas, many of us live in smaller towns. Would it make any sense for us to own a Tesla? There are a few Tesla charging stations, but what about service from Tesla? For example, if I lived in Belleville or Kingston, would I have to drive all the way to Toronto or Ottawa for a service? Or even some small thing that could be fixed quickly? Would they send a service vehicle here? Other EV manufacturers have local service - like Nissan, Kia, GM, Mercedes etc.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> m3s - maybe you can answer a question that came to mind. In Canada, other than 4 or five largely populated areas, many of us live in smaller towns. Would it make any sense for us to own a Tesla? There are a few Tesla charging stations, but what about service from Tesla? For example, if I lived in Belleville or Kingston, would I have to drive all the way to Toronto or Ottawa for a service? Or even some small thing that could be fixed quickly? Would they send a service vehicle here? Other EV manufacturers have local service - like Nissan, Kia, GM, Mercedes etc.


This is definitely an important consideration as a buyer. Tesla has mobile service for many repair tasks (a guy with a van comes to you to make repairs), but some repairs would require going to a service centre, and those are mainly in large cities. Presently on 7 in Ontario. I would definitely consider that when buying a Tesla if I lived in smaller city. Of course, Tesla's fleet is going to be growing rapidly, and the need for service centres will also grow. I would expect to start to see service centres is mid size cities to provide reasonable access to service, but it will take time to approach the network you see with legacy OEMs with massive fleets. Bright side is that they don't require many trips to the dealer. Last I heard, there is no preventative maintenance that would require you to go to a dealer for service (brakes, tires, etc. can be done at any automotive repair shop).

For Tesla, I don't see this being a huge problem, as the big cities represent the vast majority of the market. I would expect the number of service locations to 3x by 2025, which would likely mean infill locations in places like Kingston, Windsor, Barrie, North Bay, etc. Tesla has only made to date around 1.3M cars. Their 2020Q4 production rate was annualized 0.72M. I think they will likely make 1M cars in 2021, 1.7M in 2022. Pretty soon, Tesla's fleet is going to be 10M cars. They will be spending heavily on service centres and charging stations, even as the fleet per service centre or charging stall grows.









Tesla Service Centers in Canada | Tesla


Schedule a Tesla test drive at a time and date that is convenient for you.




www.tesla.com


----------



## KaeJS

Pluto said:


> Why spend more on a call? I'm thinking strictly puts when the chart shows things are imploding. Currently, the chart - one year chart - looks bullish so its a no go. the 5 year and longer chart looks way way overbought. I want to see evidence of a serious implosion, however, and I don't see it yet. I believe something of a fundamental nature will trigger it. One obvious item that might trigger it would be competition. So in that case I would watch how the chart reacts to news of similar cars made by other companies. Currently the chart does not even flinch.
> 
> This is an interesting intellectual exercise and I appreciate your thoughts.
> 
> Its at least a two part problem. One part, over valuation is not enough to trigger a short type position. The second part is the chart showing actual weakness. The final part if I get that far, is which put at what price.


Sorry, I didn't mean to write Call.
I meant to write Put.

We are both talking about puts. My mistake.


----------



## andrewf

Isn't put writing bullish?


----------



## MrBlackhill

I'm late on that news. Michael Burry, who is well-known for shorting the housing market in 2008 (and now also for his position in GME), shorted TSLA in December 2020.


----------



## doctrine

Just everyone buy Tesla, and put limit sell orders in for $10,000 a share so the shorts have to buy it when they cover. $10T transfer of wealth from hedge funds to the little guy.


----------



## sags

I heard that Tesla actually lost money when accounting for the cash they received buying carbon credits from other auto makers.

They have also used up their allotment of the $7500 vehicle customer credit, which will make them less competitive.

GM is jumping into EV in a big way. Not only will they be providing competition for Tesla for vehicles. Other manufacturers will follow.

They won't be paying Tesla for carbon credits in the future.They also have a $7500 EV rebate for customers.

Tesla's market cap is more than all the profitable manufacturers combined. Tesla is losing money while the others are earning billions.

The Tesla advantage is fading quickly.

PS. Elon Musk added a bitcoin symbol to his biography on Twitter, and bitcoin price rose 20% immediately.

Is Musk really that interested in bitcoins or did he want to change the focus to bitcoins from shorting Tesla stock ?

Musk does have 44.4 million Twitter followers to influence.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla is losing money while the others are earning billions.
> 
> The Tesla advantage is fading quickly.


Umm GM just retired the Chevy Volt in 2019 after 10 years!

GM is known as an ICE company not an EV company. They can try but it would probably be easier to start from the ground up with a new brand than to transition

BB tried to transition touch screen smartphone. Fujifilm tried to transition to digital cameras. BB and Fujifilm and the post office etc all still exist and so will GM..


----------



## sags

GM is going all in on EV vehicles. Their goal is for all their vehicles to be EV by 2035. The game is on........

_“We are doing this to build a sustainable business,” Mr. Parker, the company’s chief sustainability officer, said in an interview on Friday. “We want to have a business in 15 years that’s a thriving business.”

*G.M. has already committed to spending $27 billion to introduce 30 electric vehicle models by 2025*, and is building a plant in Ohio to make batteries for those cars and trucks. Mr. Parker said the company was looking at sites for more battery plants and working on future electric models.

“To be ready for 2035, I need to build battery plants, I need to do battery development, I need to develop electric vehicles,” he said.









G.M. Announcement Shakes Up U.S. Automakers’ Transition to Electric Cars


Every carmaker is trying to figure out how to make the leap before governments force it and Tesla and other start-ups lure away drivers.




www.nytimes.com




_


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Umm GM just retired the Chevy Volt in 2019 after 10 years!


I always thought that car had the best concept for the time. More or less an EV with on-board ICE gen-set rather than dual drive like the Japanese hybrids. Made sense with batteries at the time only suitable for short range.

GM did a poor job of marketing and building the Volt. I once inquired at our local GM dealer. Sales people knew nothing about it and said they didn't sell that model. I agree that GM will have trouble transitioning from ICEs to EVs. They probably need to create a whole new separate company with a new culture. I think they tried that once with the Saturn


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM is going all in on EV vehicles. Their goal is for all their vehicles to be EV by 2035. The game is on........


So in 15 years GM will be where Tesla is today?

GM had the Chevy Volt 10 years ago.....


----------



## sags

GM has come a long ways from the Volt concept. How about an 800 hp Corvette that can hit 212 kms per hour ?

I could see celebrities, athletes, and wealthy people lining up tor these at $750,000 each.

Check out the video............whoosh.









Pushing an electric Corvette to 212 mph isn’t easy without causing a meltdown


The Veep would love this 'Vette.




www.popsci.com


----------



## m3s

Tesla Roadster will be like $200k and Tesla brand is currently perceived in style especially for EVs

Corvette makes me think of a gas guzzling mid-life crisis. They should have chosen a new name/brand


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> GM has come a long ways from the Volt concept. How about an 800 hp Corvette that can hit 212 kms per hour ?


Why would they consider a vehicle like that? Can't be driven legally anywhere but on a track or maybe in some mid-east sheikdom?
Instead of wasting time, money and resources in developing a car like that, why not produce something useful. Sounds to me like just a Tesla copycat. It worked for Musk, so why not try it???????? How about some fresh ideas?


----------



## MrBlackhill

agent99 said:


> Instead of wasting time, money and resources in developing a car like that


What is Tesla doing with the Roadster and the Cybertruck if it's not wasting time, money and resources?


----------



## andrewf

I think it is going to become obvious to even the most clueless investor that the legacy OEMs are doomed in the next 2 years or so. Tesla is going to go from producing 500k cars in 2020 to 1.7-2M in 2022. The legacy OEMs can't change fast enough.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> What is Tesla doing with the Roadster and the Cybertruck if it's not wasting time, money and resources?


Roadster is a 'value' hypercar. It will sell well, as hypercars go. 

Cybertruck is going to sell like crazy and be very profitable.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> Roadster is a 'value' hypercar. It will sell well, as hypercars go.
> 
> Cybertruck is going to sell like crazy and be very profitable.


And Corvettes don't sell well? An icon that goes back to 1953?









Man who paid $3M for 2020 Corvette Stingray says he'll never drive it


Rick Hendrick spent $3 million for the first mid-engine Corvette. Here is the story of the dramatic sale and the man who waited 50 years to buy it.



www.freep.com


----------



## m3s

Harley Davidson's used to sell well

They forgot about the younger generations and now they're screwed


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> And Corvettes don't sell well? An icon that goes back to 1953?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man who paid $3M for 2020 Corvette Stingray says he'll never drive it
> 
> 
> Rick Hendrick spent $3 million for the first mid-engine Corvette. Here is the story of the dramatic sale and the man who waited 50 years to buy it.
> 
> 
> 
> www.freep.com


Frankly, I don't care about Corvette. GM is toast. Or, they have the narrowest of paths to walk to save the business. They are going to shrink by 50-80% and get gobbled in a merger at some point.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> They are going to shrink by 50-80% and get gobbled in a merger at some point.


We'll see. At the moment, they are still the 7th biggest market cap, their Q3 2020 was pretty amazing, they've beat estimates every time, they are trading at P/S 0.63, P/B 1.64, Trailing P/E 22.73 and Forward P/E 8.60. And they've been trading at their all-time high.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> I heard that Tesla actually lost money when accounting for the cash they received buying carbon credits from other auto makers.
> 
> They have also used up their allotment of the $7500 vehicle customer credit, which will make them less competitive.
> 
> GM is jumping into EV in a big way. Not only will they be providing competition for Tesla for vehicles. Other manufacturers will follow.
> 
> They won't be paying Tesla for carbon credits in the future.They also have a $7500 EV rebate for customers.
> 
> Tesla's market cap is more than all the profitable manufacturers combined. Tesla is losing money while the others are earning billions.
> 
> The Tesla advantage is fading quickly.
> 
> PS. Elon Musk added a bitcoin symbol to his biography on Twitter, and bitcoin price rose 20% immediately.
> 
> Is Musk really that interested in bitcoins or did he want to change the focus to bitcoins from shorting Tesla stock ?
> 
> Musk does have 44.4 million Twitter followers to influence.


Yep. Keep an eye on it. The chart still looks strong, but that is meaningless if the fundamentals are cracking.


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> Frankly, I don't care about Corvette. GM is toast. Or, they have the narrowest of paths to walk to save the business. They are going to shrink by 50-80% and get gobbled in a merger at some point.


Well, lots of people disagree with you. GM's stock is basically at an all time high post 2008 bankruptcy. I feel like your prediction they are going to shrink by 80% means you should get shorty on GM, because you can make a lot of money. If so many people can push Tesla to all time highs, why are so many people wrong on GM pushing it to all time highs? What is everyone missing that you see?


----------



## sags

All the vehicle manufacturers are going to build their own EV models to compete in the market.

GM alone will have more than 30 different models for sale.

It is likely there will be 100 or more new models of EV vehicles in the market, from companies that already have extensive dealership and parts networks.

If each of those models captures a tiny share of the market....it squeezes out Tesla's future growth.

If Tesla wants to compete at all, they best get busy building a global network of dealers, and national and regional parts warehouses .


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> If Tesla wants to compete at all, they best get busy building a global network of dealers, and national and regional parts warehouses .


Dealership model is dead


----------



## sags

Not for us.

We buy vehicles there. Get service and maintenance there. Get our tires changed spring and fall there. Get warranty work there. Get a free car wash there.

And we get free coffee and cookies..........and a ride home and pick up by the dealer if we want it.

Plus.....I get to go into the dealership showroom, sit in the seat of a new Corvette and pretend I own one.........


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> All the vehicle manufacturers are going to build their own EV models to compete in the market.
> 
> GM alone will have more than 30 different models for sale.
> 
> It is likely there will be 100 or more new models of EV vehicles in the market, from companies that already have extensive dealership and parts networks.
> 
> If each of those models captures a tiny share of the market....it squeezes out Tesla's future growth.
> 
> If Tesla wants to compete at all, they best get busy building a global network of dealers, and national and regional parts warehouses .


They need to make the batteries to be able to sell any number of them. They are all set to fail on that front. And 30 models that no one wants isn't going to save the company. They have to be competitive. I expect something like Volt vs Model 3 as a sense of how competitive they will be. Terrible infotainment, performance, etc. And if they manage to be competitive on quality/performance and price, they will be losing money. Doomed I say! 

Tesla is committed to making enough batteries in 2022 to make 3M vehicles. How many is GM making?

I mean, even Ford Mach E, which seems to be a decent product, is capped at 50k units per year. And who knows if Ford is making any money...


----------



## MrBlackhill

Norway will be the first to ban ICE vehicles. So in 2025, Norway becomes a Tesla-only country?


----------



## andrewf

No, there are other players. VW, Nio, etc. Are they making money? Who knows.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Not for us.


People still go to the bank branch even though there's online banking. I suppose they give cookies and coffee when people sign up for mutual funds?


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> No, there are other players. VW, Nio, etc. Are they making money? Who knows.


Norway car sales were 60% EV.

Tesla was first in 2019, but it's already falling in 2020.


----------



## bgc_fan

I know lots of people are making hay of the fact that Tesla is profitable, but we have to be clear that it's not all from selling cars. The profit is from selling emission credits to other car manufacturers.








Tesla sets revenue record, makes profit thanks to pollution credit sales to rivals


Tesla Inc on Wednesday reported its fifth consecutive quarterly profit on record revenue of $8.8 billion, boosted by an uptick in vehicle deliveries and sales of environmental regulatory credits to other automakers.




www.reuters.com




Eventually, the selling of emission credits will disappear as a revenue source, but by then Tesla may be profitable from its car sales operation.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla had automotive gross margin of 24.1%. Net income is kind of moot when they are spending heavily to grow revenues >50% CAGR. Tesla is already profitable from cars if you strip out investing for growth.


----------



## AltaRed

Quality Control Problems and Elon agrees.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla updated Model Y delivery timeline in Europe to 'mid 2021', suggesting production will be starting at the Berlin factory by that time. That should represent significant incremental production capacity for 2021 (above 'installed capacity' of 1.05M at end of 2020).


----------



## agent99

bgc_fan said:


> I know lots of people are making hay of the fact that Tesla is profitable, but we have to be clear that it's not all from selling cars. The profit is from selling emission credits to other car manufacturers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla sets revenue record, makes profit thanks to pollution credit sales to rivals
> 
> 
> Tesla Inc on Wednesday reported its fifth consecutive quarterly profit on record revenue of $8.8 billion, boosted by an uptick in vehicle deliveries and sales of environmental regulatory credits to other automakers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eventually, the selling of emission credits will disappear as a revenue source, but by then Tesla may be profitable from its car sales operation.


I read those reports and wondered how many of those who jumped on the Tesla stock bandwagon know that they are losing money building cars. 

Full out dealerships may not be needed, but Tesla will need a presence in almost every mid sized town for maintenance and repairs. As discussed before, it would make no sense for me to buy a Tesla in Kingston. Would have to be a Kia or Nissan? Soon GM, VW etc.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> I read those reports and wondered how many of those who jumped on the Tesla stock bandwagon know that they are losing money building cars.


They aren't. They have automotive gross margin of 24%.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> They aren't. They have automotive gross margin of 24%.


What's their gross margin once you exclude the regulatory credits?



> The $1.6 billion in regulatory credits it received last year far outweighed Tesla's net income of $721 million -- meaning Tesla would have otherwise posted a net loss in 2020.








How Do Regulatory Credits Impact Tesla's Gross Margins? | Trefis


TSLA regulatory credits




dashboards.trefis.com


----------



## sags

GM announced a massive second order for their new all electric commercial delivery vehicles to be built in Ingersoll, Ontario.

It is estimated to provide 20 years of additional production at the manufacturing plant.









Second electric vehicle contract helps cement future of CAMI plant


GM’s CAMI plant in Ingersoll has landed its second contract to build electric fleet vehicles.



london.ctvnews.ca





It is reported that Apple is joining with Hyundai and Kia to manufacture autonomous electric vehicles in a factory the US.









Apple car to be made in America by Kia, report says


This would be a part of a larger deal that could see Apple investing over a billion dollars in Hyundai/Kia.




www.cnet.com





The other vehicle manufacturer's won't be purchasing regulatory credits from Tesla for much longer.

The "moat" around the Tesla castle is being filled in.

The Tesla "bubble" will be challenged.


----------



## sags

MrBlackhill said:


> What's their gross margin once you exclude the regulatory credits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Do Regulatory Credits Impact Tesla's Gross Margins? | Trefis
> 
> 
> TSLA regulatory credits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dashboards.trefis.com


I read that Tesla has also lost the entire $7500 government credit. They cut prices by $2,000 so it cuts into their bottom line.









Tesla's $7,500 Tax Credit Goes Poof, but Buyers May Benefit


To offset the phase-out of a federal tax credit, Tesla cut the price of its cars by $2,000—which might be better for some buyers.




www.wired.com


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Teslas technology is 5-10 years ahead of the legacy auto manufactures, and Tesla has proven to be a much faster mover when it comes to staying in the forefront with innovation and technology as well as the ability to expand rapidly.

If your in a race, your 5 years ahead of the slower moving competition, who would you bet on?

The MSM loves to hate on Tesla and publishes all kinds of false and misleading information on them. Its strange one of the few companies out there trying to make positive change on a large scale, and succeeding at it, is so polarizing.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

sags said:


> I read that Tesla has also lost the entire $7500 government credit. They cut prices by $2,000 so it cuts into their bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla's $7,500 Tax Credit Goes Poof, but Buyers May Benefit
> 
> 
> To offset the phase-out of a federal tax credit, Tesla cut the price of its cars by $2,000—which might be better for some buyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wired.com


If you look a little beyond the poor track record of MSM and their analysts, you will see that Tesla is well aware of loss of many of its regulatory credits. Lowering their prices is a good thing, and is in fact part of their business model.


----------



## MrBlackhill

They are aware of loss of regulatory credits. They are aware of quality issues. They are aware of many other things. But it doesn't seem to affect investors bullish sentiment.

To me, buying TSLA is as good as buying any other speculative stock.

See, some people did more than 10-fold in a year with Acuity Ads due to the expectations of the disruptive Illumin. That's more SP growth than Tesla. It was still just a bet and those still holding are still in that bet.

There are handfuls of examples of stocks soaring more than +500% in a year based on expectations. There are also handfuls of small/micro/nano caps that could soar on expectations.

That makes value investors uncomfortable because they simply can't be valued, it's more a gut feeling, a momentum and a speculative bet.

To me, TSLA just feel like a speculative bet like any other, but on a mega cap stock.

I don't think there's any argument that could truely add weigh on the balance for the forecast of this stock.

That being said, I like to invest on gut feeling, that's why I'm a stock picker. I look at the stock on so many different angles. Fundamentals, technicals, trend, momentum, value, gut feeling, expectations, etc.


----------



## sags

GM partnered with Microsoft and Hyundai/Kia partnered with Apple. I think they have the technological expertise to compete with Tesla.


----------



## MrMatt

5Lgreenback said:


> Teslas technology is 5-10 years ahead of the legacy auto manufactures,


People keep saying that, but there is no evidence of it.
The 2015 Tesla S had a range of around 250miles.
The 2020 Chevy Bolt (an economy electric car) has a range of 250 miles, at half the price.

Sorry, Tesla might be marginally ahead, but not 5 years, and definately not 10 years.

Also the quality reports are that Teslas have a lot of build and consistency issues.

They have a stronger brand than mass market manufacturers. 
They have some moderate advantages in some areas, and are quite behind in others.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree the technology is easily replicated in speedy fashion. The challenge is to apply that technology on a massive scale, cost effectively, with quality control. That takes awhile but that is what the legacy automakers are supposedly good at. 

Time will tell but my view is Tesla will just be one of the several EV brands in the marketplace and down the list in terms of both volume and profitability. The lack of an extensive dealer network will be telling. 

I thus doubt we will be discussing Tesla specifically as a stand out company in 5 years.


----------



## gardner

MrBlackhill said:


> What's their gross margin once you exclude the regulatory credits?


In 2020 Tesla made $721 million in profit. That year they received $1,600 million in regulatory credits from other manufacturers. Absent those credits, it would have been a comparable loss.

Having other manufacturers find it economical to pay Tesla (or other manufacturers) for cars they do not make themselves is a line of business that is likely to dry up rapidly.


----------



## 5Lgreenback

MrMatt said:


> People keep saying that, but there is no evidence of it.
> The 2015 Tesla S had a range of around 250miles.
> The 2020 Chevy Bolt (an economy electric car) has a range of 250 miles, at half the price.
> 
> Sorry, Tesla might be marginally ahead, but not 5 years, and definately not 10 years.
> 
> Also the quality reports are that Teslas have a lot of build and consistency issues.
> 
> They have a stronger brand than mass market manufacturers.
> They have some moderate advantages in some areas, and are quite behind in others.



There is plenty evidence of it. Getting 20% greater drivetrain efficiency and range per given battery size is a major one and a huge financial advantage. Sandy Munro at Munro engineering (automotive engineer specializing in machine tools and manufacturing) has taken apart all the available electric vehicles for analysis and stated that the technology AND the way the Tesla model Y is manufactured is pushing the 10 year mark before legacy auto makers will be able to duplicate it at scale. Not to mention new battery technology at scale coming online in Berlin this year and after that in Austin TX. unmatched and rapidly expanding supercharging network? Charge for free at home with Tesla solar and power wall systems, battery grid storage systems? Tesla vehicle insurance? FSD beta already released, looking promising and having a fleet of vehicles with the hardware already installed to utilize this technology? I'd say they are well ahead, and they aren't slowing down.

There are some minor issues with body panel gaps and other minor issues that Tesla has admitted to and is currently working hard on fixing, while still ramping up production. Despite this they have the highest customer satisfaction rating. My 2018 Ford truck had panel gap issues as well and a seat belt buckle not fully tightened. If it was a Tesla vehicle this would have made headlines.

The Model S and the Chevy Bolt aren't even in the same category for comparison. 

Say what you will about the current stock price it very well could be overpriced, but if full self driving gets released this year as planned its going to look cheap.

GM is making good moves partnering with tech giants, its probably the only way they stand a chance. I hope they succeed because in the end the its better for everyone.


----------



## MrBlackhill

5Lgreenback said:


> full self driving


Don't get me wrong, I've worked in AI and automation and I find the FSD very cool, but from what I've seen while working in AI field, Tesla just did the 20% work needed to make self-driving work 80% of the time. There's still a big 80% of the work left to do to deliver the remaining 20% so we can truly call this *full* self-driving.

I've watched quite a few FDS Beta videos to see the successes and fails and I can tell you that I would *not* buy a Tesla for FSD because I would *not* be able to turn that feature on other than on highways. Winter, rain, unmarked roads, unknown speed limits, unconventional markings, unconventional roads, construction zones, etc. are all part of my travel when I need to take my car to get me somewhere. Even though the AI will be learning from all the disengagements and reporting, it'll take some time. It'll take at least another 5 years before we can call this a reliable *full* self-driving, meanwhile competition will catch up and provide other solutions.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> What's their gross margin once you exclude the regulatory credits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Do Regulatory Credits Impact Tesla's Gross Margins? | Trefis
> 
> 
> TSLA regulatory credits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dashboards.trefis.com





https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/1LRLZK_2020_Q4_Quarterly_Update_Deck_-_Searchable_LVA2GL.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22TSLA-Q4-2020-Update.pdf%22



Regulatory credits were 3.4% of automotive revenues, so excluding them decreases automotive gross profit to 20.7%. Slide 31.

Stock-based compensation outweighed credit revenue. 

Seems like people are making a similar mistake as with Amazon. The underlying business is profitable, and beyond that they are investing heavily for growth. Yes, as management says, they expect credit revenue to go to zero over time and they are not the least bit concerned about it.


----------



## MrMatt

5Lgreenback said:


> The Model S and the Chevy Bolt aren't even in the same category for comparison.


That's precisely my point.
You claim that Tesla Model S is five years ahead, and their 5 year old premium vehicle is where a cheap mass market vehicle is today.
They're not 5 years ahead.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The 2015 Tesla S had a range of around 250miles.
> The 2020 Chevy Bolt (an economy electric car) has a range of 250 miles, at half the price.


An economy compact car is cheaper than a luxury performance car?


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> That's precisely my point.
> You claim that Tesla Model S is five years ahead, and their 5 year old premium vehicle is where a cheap mass market vehicle is today.
> They're not 5 years ahead.


Are you arguing that there is feature parity between that 2015 Model S and the Bolt?


----------



## 5Lgreenback

Somehow the fact that 5 years later, chevy made a car rated to get the same range as Tesla did 5 years ago, with far less capability, space, and comfort and performance is proof that Tesla is not ahead.

595 kilometres per charge is the standard now on Model S, with the top of the line plaid model getting over 800km.

What all electric range has Chevy increased to now, in any mass produced model? The Chevy Bolt is the model three competition, still waiting for it to put Tesla out of business.


----------



## m3s

5Lgreenback said:


> The Chevy Bolt is the model three competition, still waiting for it to put Tesla out of business.


Nobody wants to be seen in a chevy bolt though


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Are you arguing that there is feature parity between that 2015 Model S and the Bolt?


Yes.
The S is "better", but the Bolt is substantially cheaper.
But by performance metrics of the technology, they're roughly equivalent.


My point isn't that "Tesla is not ahead"
My point is that they are not the claimed 5-10 years ahead.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> I thus doubt we will be discussing Tesla specifically as a stand out company in 5 years.


Anyone care to take a guess as to which company will pass Tesla first in sales of EVs? Doesn't look like Japanese are in the running. Koreans perhaps. My guess would be the VW group. They have brands in most auto sectors, so should be able to sell EVs from luxury down to basic models.

The VW Group comprises twelve brands from seven European countries: Volkswagen, Audi, SEAT, ŠKODA, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Ducati, Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles, Scania and MAN. This is their plan:



> With its “TOGETHER – Strategy 2025” future program, the Volkswagen Group is paving the way for the biggest change process in its history: the realignment of one of the best carmakers to become a globally leading provider of sustainable mobility. To achieve that, the Group will be transforming its automotive core business, and will among other things be launching a further 30-plus fully electric cars by 2025, as well as expanding battery technology and autonomous driving as new core competences.


----------



## AltaRed

I would also suggest VW Group on a global basis as most likely if we ignore the Chinese domestic scene. 2020 data by model plus the growth in EV sales here. China is the elephant in the room.


----------



## MrMatt

I'd bet GM will surpass Tesla first.
They have good Chinese exposure. They play the partnership game really well.

I also think that Ford is very strong, they have a great Hybrid system, which hides their experience in electric powertrains.

VW is huge, the Golf is one of the top selling vehicle platforms in the world.


----------



## andrewf

Surpass in EVs sold? Tesla is going to make 1M this year, and will make probably 1.7M in 2022. GM only makes 6.3M vehicles per year. I don't see GM moving fast enough to convert their entire business to overtake Tesla in production. I mean, where are their battery factories sized to produce the needed 160 TWh per year? Ford is making 50k Mach Es because they can't source the cells for more.

I only see VW making the kinds of investments to be competitive.

Maybe the most likely way for legacy OEMs to overtake Tesla in EV production is to start merging as they are shedding legacy ICE capacity, as FCA, now Stellantis are doing. The writedowns are going to be enormous.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> I would also suggest VW Group on a global basis as most likely if we ignore the Chinese domestic scene. 2020 data by model plus the growth in EV sales here. China is the elephant in the room.


Had a look at their ADR. They of course got hit in 2015 with dieselgate. Since then, they have more ore less flat-lined except for Covid drop. It could be a time to buy. I wouldn't expect much for a while, but they do pay a dividend. 

I was about to check how much cash I had in US$ when I got locked out by BMOIL


----------



## 5Lgreenback

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210209/de963d953dec1fff37fd39cfabc041e1.jpg



The competition is coming....


----------



## m3s

5Lgreenback said:


> The competition is coming....


The EV named "turbo s" to boost the what exactly? 😂


----------



## agent99

Looks like VW are surging already. Electric cars hit record 54% of sales in Norway as VW overtakes Tesla

Not sure if that article mentions it, but I saw a report that VW sales of EVs were now ahead of Tesla in Europe as well as Norway. 

The EV race is on, with Tesla out in front - For now!


----------



## Money172375

GM is going after Norway.....or is it Sweden?


----------



## MrBlackhill

Money172375 said:


> GM is going after Norway.....or is it Sweden?









I love Norway. Best place to live.


----------



## m3s

Makes sense that VW outsells Tesla in Europe

Europeans view American vehicles as oversized and poor quality/handling for their small twisty roads. You don't see as many Japanese vehicles in Europe either

GM should really use a new brand for their EVs. Cadillac and Hummer?..


----------



## james4beach

Tesla should get it over with and buy another $10 billion to $50 billion of BTC, so that this can truly be a EV + crypto stock.

If they liked BTC at $55,000 then surely they like it even more at $46,000. Easy enough to do the transaction. Just issue more TSLA equity, investors will buy a few billion $, then the company can immediately buy BTC and maybe some Dogecoin too.


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> Had a look at their ADR. They of course got hit in 2015 with dieselgate. Since then, they have more ore less flat-lined except for Covid drop. It could be a time to buy. I wouldn't expect much for a while, but they do pay a dividend.
> 
> I was about to check how much cash I had in US$ when I got locked out by BMOIL


I have some Ford, because they're a cash machine, and I think they have good product.
VW if the pricing makes sense would also be a good bet.
Don't forget Toyota and GM

That being said, unless they're spitting out cash I don't think the auto market has a lot of profit in it.
Once they solve self-driving Uber, transportation will be a commodity. I _LOVE_ driving, but really if I could solve all my daily transportation problems for <$500/month in an uber like service, I wouldn't buy another car. (Car payment, maintenance, gas, repairs, etc)


----------



## doctrine

james4beach said:


> Tesla should get it over with and buy another $10 billion to $50 billion of BTC, so that this can truly be a EV + crypto stock.
> 
> If they liked BTC at $55,000 then surely they like it even more at $46,000. Easy enough to do the transaction. Just issue more TSLA equity, investors will buy a few billion $, then the company can immediately buy BTC and maybe some Dogecoin too.


Tesla have made more profit with Bitcoin in 2 weeks than in 18 years of making vehicles.


----------



## robfordlives

14 price cuts this year but unlimited demand they say....oh wait Prince Cathy here to save the day again saying BUY BUY BUY after its recent 30% drop.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> Makes sense that VW outsells Tesla in Europe
> 
> Europeans view American vehicles as oversized and poor quality/handling for their small twisty roads. You don't see as many Japanese vehicles in Europe either
> 
> GM should really use a new brand for their EVs. Cadillac and Hummer?..


Apparently VW is engaging in some funny business in counting cars delivered to dealer lots as 'sold' even though they have not been delivered to consumers. Perhaps to game regulatory requirements for ZEV.

Once Tesla has domestic production in Europe, it should help them improve profitability and cut prices. Model Y should sell well in Europe compared to Model 3, as hatchbacks are quite popular. Tesla has said they won't start selling in Europe until they can produce at Berlin factory.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> Tesla have made more profit with Bitcoin in 2 weeks than in 18 years of making vehicles.


Tesla doesn't recognize gains on BTC as income unless realized (sold).

I'm sure this sounds fun, but I'm not sure it's quite true.


----------



## doctrine

andrewf said:


> Tesla doesn't recognize gains on BTC as income unless realized (sold).
> 
> I'm sure this sounds fun, but I'm not sure it's quite true.


Tesla has a $5.4B accumulated deficit on their balance sheet, which reflects a long corporate history of net operating losses. They have been making a little money recently thanks to being one of the only shows in town for substantial carbon credits. Of course, they are being valued on potential future earnings, and I give them credit for having good vehicles, but put the value closer to some reasonable multiple (3-5) of their lifetime invested capital of $22-24 billion, not $700 billion.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> Tesla has a $5.4B accumulated deficit on their balance sheet, which reflects a long corporate history of net operating losses. They have been making a little money recently thanks to being one of the only shows in town for substantial carbon credits. Of course, they are being valued on potential future earnings, and I give them credit for having good vehicles, but put the value closer to some reasonable multiple (3-5) of their lifetime invested capital of $22-24 billion, not $700 billion.


That's what makes a market. If you believe there is that kind of discrepancy between true value and market cap, it would be the short of the century.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Any opinion on Porsche's synthetic fuel?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> That's what makes a market. If you believe there is that kind of discrepancy between true value and market cap, it would be the short of the century.


Shorting Tesla is dumber than shorting Gamestop.

Teslas valuation has never made sense, however it seems to be somewhat less crazy than previously.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> Any opinion on Porsche's synthetic fuel?


If you're going to ask a question like that and expect an answer, it would be helpful to link to background.









Porsche Working on Synthetic Fuel with EV-Level Clean Emissions


The hydrogen-based fuel will be ready for testing in 2022, including in the new Porsche 911 GT3 Cup race car.




www.caranddriver.com





Now, my thoughts: Porsche did not invent the idea of synthetic fuels. I think this is just an attempt to muddy the waters on whether ICE vehicles are actually dirty. Doesn't matter--ICE is doomed regardless of environmental considerations for passenger vehicles. The other point is that they are claiming that 'clean' and 'carbon neutral' are equivalent. Burning stuff has other negative environmental impacts, such as soot (pm 2.5) that contributes to respiratory illness, heart disease and gets lodged in your brain and makes your kids dumb. It also produces smog-inducing compounds such as NOx. NOx is produced as a result of combustion of hydrocarbons in the presence of oxygen (needed for combustion) and nitrogen (which is 78% of the atmosphere). So, ICE vehicles are inherently dirty regardless of whether the fuel is carbon neutral.

This is all just green-washing to confuse people who don't have much of an understanding of the above factors. All that is not to say that synthetic fuels are a bad idea altogether when it comes to decarbonizing transport. They may be needed in places where energy density is critical, such as rocketry, long distance aircraft, and ocean shipping. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Porsche as a brand. Any synthetic fuel would work just as well for Ford or Toyota. Practically, I expect most synthetic fuel to be hydrogen or perhaps more likely ammonia. Ammonia is considerably easier to handle but not for the faint of heart in the event of leaks so it is better reserved for professionally maintained vehicles and fueling. Methane will be needed for rocketry and as a chemical feedstock. I can't see going all the way to gasoline for utility (as opposed to 'fun') transport. It's probably easier/more efficient to synthesize those types of fuels from biomass than hydrogen synthesis. And it doesn't make sense to be the basis on ground transportation due to the above air quality downsides of burning hydrocarbons. Gasoline will be available for a long time to serve hobbyists, but it may get much harder and/or expensive to get your hand on as gas stations start to disappear. I expect an inversion from the current situation with EV charging. Every city will have places to buy gasoline, but it might not be on the next corner, and it may not be a cut-throat commodity business with low margins. Hobbyist fuel might see hobbyist pricing.

ETA: based on the article, it sounds like they are hoping to use it for racing. For that small a scale, I think it is just marketing to use synthetic fuel over petroleum. ICE is doomed for passenger vehicles, but maybe would live on for racing (people like vroom vroom and longer races) .


----------



## AltaRed

ICEs will be around for a long time simply because EV isn't going to lend itself to all global situations. The Arctic for example where there is limited amount of green energy, other than wind power, available and in vast uninhabited areas of jungle and desert where electricity is at a premium if available at all, and in military vehicles. 

In a recent Economist podcast, in an interview with VW, VW said they won't commit to an 'aspirational' goal by 2035 like GM for that very reason. ICE will be required in limited numbers for a number of reasons for a very long time. No doubt EVs will capture the mass market over time though. 

If we replace my old Infiniti in the next 2-5 years (it is now almost 15 years old), it will probably be an EV for urban (not long distance) use. Right now, I would be putting the BMW i3 on that short list. Cheapest Electric Cars in Canada in 2021
I want a dealer nearby, not 300km away in Vancouver if I had a Tesla Model 3. Within 5 years, Tesla will simply be one of several viable options


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> ICEs will be around for a long time simply because EV isn't going to lend itself to all global situations. The Arctic for example where there is limited amount of green energy, other than wind power, available and in vast uninhabited areas of jungle and desert where electricity is at a premium if available at all, and in military vehicles.


I don't disagree, but these are all pretty niche applications. The US military is very interested in alternatives to fossil fuels as the supply lines for them are vulnerable and expensive. Small modular (nuclear) reactors (SMRs) are likely to be used for this application though. Some ocean containers can deliver reactors to power synthetic fuel production in the field at forward operating bases. And this kind of technology has civilian applications, such as at Antarctic research stations. I doubt we would bother synthetically producing gasoline/diesel to satisfy these markets.


----------



## AltaRed

I am not convinced the US military will be counting on electrically powered HMMWVs, Strykers, Bradley fighting vehicles or Abram tanks on the front lines. NFW! Nor solar panels or wind mills to power a Forward Operating Base. That is pie in the sky. 

The US Army itself has omething like 225,000 wheeled vehicles, never mind what the Navy and Air Force has as well.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I am not convinced the US military will be counting on electrically powered HMMWVs, Strykers, Bradley fighting vehicles or Abram tanks on the front lines. NFW! Nor solar panels or wind mills to power a Forward Operating Base. That is pie in the sky.


Reading comprehension issue? I did not say anything about solar or wind. I said small modular reactor. As in nuclear reactor. And a Abrams tank can run on synthetic liquid fuels as well as fuel shipped from the other side of the planet. Disbelieve all you want. The US military is providing significant funding to develop this capability. A gallon of fuel at a forward operating base costs a lot more than the same gallon at your local Mobil station. It is economic to produce it in the field, even if it costs more to do so than produce it centrally from oil. Distribution is a huge challenge in the field. There is a reason why they have nuclear powered aircraft carriers!


----------



## AltaRed

I did not mention small modular reactors in my response because it is even more far fetched to have such items at leased main bases overseas, never mind forward operating bases where they can be captured by the enemy. I also doubt whether Russia, China, Middle East, India/Pakistan et al (all the other 100 militaries in the world) will be moving to such sources of energy any time in the next several decades. It is one thing to power aircraft carriers, subs, and various other ships with nuclear power. It is quite another to put them in Abrams, Strykers, Bradleys, AWACs. Strike Fighters, etc, etc. Just plain absurd. That is just another drug enhanced trip.

Synthetic fuels are also counterproductive unless created using green power, albeit I can see the potential for making them at a base like Pearl Harbour. Fossil fuels will be with us for a very long time.


----------



## andrewf

Dunno, you can trust your gut. I will listen to the Pentagon.









Pentagon awards contracts to design mobile nuclear reactor


The Department of Defense has two parallel nuclear reactor programs underway, one for domestic use, one for use abroad.




www.defensenews.com












U.S. Military Eyes Mini Nuclear Reactors To Reduce Convoy Casualties


Liquid fuel and water comprise most of the mass transported to military forces. Resupply of fuel and drinking water for troops in-theater costs lives, half of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. To reduce these, our military wants small nuclear reactors whose resupply is once every several years.




www.forbes.com












Nuclear: Does the West’s military need Small Modular Reactors? - Energy Post


The development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), generating up to 300MW, are already getting support for civilian purposes. The military in Russia, China and the U.S. are also interested. It should reduce the reliance on long fuel supply lines, the defence of which costs lives. SMRs...




energypost.eu





I don't see how burying your head in the sand will keep the oil flowing. Seems like motivated reasoning. No amount of wishing that the oil business will last forever will make it so.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I also doubt whether Russia, China, Middle East, India/Pakistan et al (all the other 100 militaries in the world) will be moving to such sources of energy any time in the next several decades.


I'm sure they'll come to the same conclusion when they wargame what an encounter with the US military looks like when they are vulnerable to fuel supply disruption but their enemy is not.


----------



## AltaRed

I have no direct* stake in the oil business, but it will continue to be around well after even our grandchildren leave this earth. Not at a large scale, but at a meaningful scale simply because there are no real alternatives to at least some of our needs. Everyone knows that regardless of ideology.

*Added: Through ETFs only


----------



## off.by.10

The US military is constantly funding a lot of crazy research projects. They do it to make sure nobody else will stumble into the next great thing before them. You're reading too much into it if you think it means any of those thing is seen as "the future" with any degree of certainty.

At best, synthetic fuel production is something which I could see happening on an aircraft carriers, to power the aircraft. I'm not even sure there's great value there. Such production would almost certainly be slow compared to how quickly a fleet of fighter jets can burn it so you would still need huge storage capacity. Anywhere closer to the front lines is as crazy as AltaRed says.

Where I think it makes sense is as an alternate source of supply. Oil producing infrastructure if very vulnerable. Having a source you can move around and hide could be very valuable in a conflict.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I have no direct* stake in the oil business, but it will continue to be around well after even our grandchildren leave this earth. Not at a large scale, but at a meaningful scale simply because there are no real alternatives to at least some of our needs. Everyone knows that regardless of ideology.
> 
> *Added: Through ETFs only


Well, by that token I think they still make buggy whips. So the buggy whip industry is still going strong.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> I am not convinced the US military will be counting on electrically powered HMMWVs, Strykers, Bradley fighting vehicles or Abram tanks on the front lines. NFW! Nor solar panels or wind mills to power a Forward Operating Base. That is pie in the sky.
> 
> The US Army itself has omething like 225,000 wheeled vehicles, never mind what the Navy and Air Force has as well.


At $400/gallon, fossil fuel is REALLY expensive.








$400 per gallon gas to drive debate over cost of war in Afghanistan


The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft.




thehill.com


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Well, by that token I think they still make buggy whips. So the buggy whip industry is still going strong.


Not comparative and you know it. We will be using petroleum based petro-chemicals, lubricants and fuelling aircraft for a long time to come, never mind a residual tail of ICE land vehicles. Even the greenest of predictions does not forecast oil demand dropping below 40-50 million barrels per day for the next 30 years or so (about half current rates). That is still a significantly large industry that will continually attract capital to replace production where natural decline rates exceed that of reduced demand.

Natural global oil decline rate without further development capital is 5% per year which translates to 40-50 million barrels per day of remaining supply capability 15 years from now. Lots of investor reward left in the hydrocarbon industry.


----------



## andrewf

Never say never. If renewables get very cheap or have long stretches of time with curtailed power (zero or negative electricity prices), it becomes very economic to use this energy to synthesize chemical feedstocks like hydrogen, ammonia, methane, etc. The OECD has a report on this topic that you might find interesting. The 'problem' of excess energy from renewables won't be solved primarily by batteries but rather 'dispatchable demand' such as chemical synthesis that operates at a capacity factor of about 70% in exchange for low electricity prices. Produce enough renewable energy that troughs in output meet essential load and use the surplus for energy intensive commodity applications. High cost oil and gas will struggle to compete.


----------



## andrewf

User experience severely lacking in the latest "Tesla killer".


----------



## doctrine

I feel like GM is the leading credible competitor to Tesla, not VW, although the market is likely big enough for both of them for a while. Nice that VW is trying though. Needs more range for that price too.

Meanwhile, Tesla stock is down 28% from the all time high. Of course, it's wildly overvalued still, but maybe a P/E of 700 is better than 1000. But a lot of Tesla's growth and ability to deliver multi billion dollar checks to investors every 3 months is as much as 10 years out, and that is a long time to discount growth.


----------



## MrMatt

doctrine said:


> I feel like GM is the leading credible competitor to Tesla, not VW, although the market is likely big enough for both of them for a while. Nice that VW is trying though. Needs more range for that price too.
> 
> Meanwhile, Tesla stock is down 28% from the all time high. Of course, it's wildly overvalued still, but maybe a P/E of 700 is better than 1000. But a lot of Tesla's growth and ability to deliver multi billion dollar checks to investors every 3 months is as much as 10 years out, and that is a long time to discount growth.


I think Ford is the oft overlooked one. They have a LOT of hybrids out there, that's a lot of real world EV data. (warranty rates etc)

Also VW is interesting, the eGolf could potentially own the small car market. Golf is a very popular vehicle.
Also Audi/Porsche at the high end, apparently the e-tron is pretty decent.

VW isn't really an SUV company


----------



## OptsyEagle

I remember watching a clip during the gulf war. It was a clip of all the American tanks moving as fast as they could go across the desert. Once in a while you got to see, the massively HUGE NUMBER of gas refilling trucks that were only a few miles behinds them travelling just as fast to keep up. Even though those tanks were a marvel of military technology, without those gas trucks they would become very useless, very quickly.

I imagine most military leaders would be more then interested in any idea to do away with all those trucks. I mean I am not talking about 3 or 4 trucks. There had to be 1000s of these trucks, in that desert, at that time, in order to keep the battle moving forward. I doubt there are too many generals that are not aware of this problem.


----------



## bgc_fan

OptsyEagle said:


> Once in a while you got to see, the massively HUGE NUMBER of gas refilling trucks that were only a few miles behinds them travelling just as fast to keep up. Even though those tanks were a marvel of military technology, without those gas trucks they would become very useless, very quickly.


Fuel has always been one of the biggest logistical tail for military. Sure some would love to reduce it, but there are trade-offs. The Abrams are diesel guzzling tanks that have gas turbine engines... not the most efficient, but it gives what they want: power. Could the tank powertrain be replaced by electric? Probably not. However, other light vehicles could be, i.e. those for short-range patrols. 








The Electric Vehicle Revolution Is Finally Hitting the U.S. Army


The Army wants an electric JLTV rather than one reliant on gasoline.




www.popularmechanics.com


----------



## andrewf

OptsyEagle said:


> I remember watching a clip during the gulf war. It was a clip of all the American tanks moving as fast as they could go across the desert. Once in a while you got to see, the massively HUGE NUMBER of gas refilling trucks that were only a few miles behinds them travelling just as fast to keep up. Even though those tanks were a marvel of military technology, without those gas trucks they would become very useless, very quickly.
> 
> I imagine most military leaders would be more then interested in any idea to do away with all those trucks. I mean I am not talking about 3 or 4 trucks. There had to be 1000s of these trucks, in that desert, at that time, in order to keep the battle moving forward. I doubt there are too many generals that are not aware of this problem.


It is attributed to Napolean that an army marches on its stomach. These days, an army marches on its gas tank.


----------



## MrMatt

Back to electric cars, I think something like the VW id.3 is a much more interesting vehicle for a lot of Golf Drivers.

They've now got 3 battery packs, which will give a lot of range options for those who are concerned.
I really think Tesla is going to be in for quite a battle.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Back to electric cars, I think something like the VW id.3 is a much more interesting vehicle for a lot of Golf Drivers.
> 
> They've now got 3 battery packs, which will give a lot of range options for those who are concerned.
> I really think Tesla is going to be in for quite a battle.


They are still at a big disadvantage when it comes to charging networks. Watch the video I posted. The network is janky, and the car doesn't use it well. Electric cars are far more a software platform than just a piece of hardware, and Tesla is doing much better on that front than any of the OEMs. You can compensate for the appallingly bad route planning built into the car's nav by using a third party app like A Better Route Planner, but how many casual buyers know about these apps? I can see a buyer taking a VW for a road trip, being directed to a 7 kW charger as their first stop, getting a 8h charge, and bringing the car back to the dealer the next day. In a Tesla it 'just works'.

It's great that VW is honestly trying. And same for Ford. I don't think either of them are really much of a threat to Tesla as a lot of their sales will be cannibalizing OEM ICE share. We'll see how well they can scale production and whether that is hampered by battery supply. And how profitable they will be remains to be seen. Everyone but Tesla is pretty opaque on this subject. Tesla has been pretty open about the fact that they are going downmarket. The next model they are working on is a $25k compact.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> They are still at a big disadvantage when it comes to charging networks. Watch the video I posted. The network is janky, and the car doesn't use it well. Electric cars are far more a software platform than just a piece of hardware, and Tesla is doing much better on that front than any of the OEMs. You can compensate for the appallingly bad route planning built into the car's nav by using a third party app like A Better Route Planner, but how many casual buyers know about these apps? I can see a buyer taking a VW for a road trip, being directed to a 7 kW charger as their first stop, getting a 8h charge, and bringing the car back to the dealer the next day. In a Tesla it 'just works'.
> 
> It's great that VW is honestly trying. And same for Ford. I don't think either of them are really much of a threat to Tesla as a lot of their sales will be cannibalizing OEM ICE share. We'll see how well they can scale production and whether that is hampered by battery supply. And how profitable they will be remains to be seen. Everyone but Tesla is pretty opaque on this subject. Tesla has been pretty open about the fact that they are going downmarket. The next model they are working on is a $25k compact.


Well VW is building a charging network.
Also I think the cannibalization of their own sales isn't a problem.
People are going electric, better to keep them in brand.

Also I don't think the lack of profitability is as big of a concern as one might think.
I've been watching the Ford Escape closely (because i'm thinking of buying one)

it's interesting that the top trim (Titanium) is $40k, but the hybrid is 37k, and the plug in hybrid is 43k.
There are clearly "games" at play, likely fuel economy or other government incentives. 

I don't think Tesla is going to be able to compete in the $25k market, this is incredibly difficult.
GM has failed in that range for decades, which is why they partnered with companies who specialize in that price range.

One thing about Elon Musk, he's okay taking riskier bets than most. While many work out, I wouldn't suggest that anything he does falls along the correct, logical or even likely path.

That being said, winning $25k self driving vehicles, would totally change the dynamics of the ride-share industry, and public transit.


----------



## andrewf

Agreed, VW is building a charging network. It doesn't work very well. It was a penalty for dieselgate, so their commitment to it being a good experience was perhaps not absolute. They seem to be taking EVs more seriously now (I think the CEO is bought in but not all of management/board), but it may have been too late to ensure their Electrify network was any good. Tesla has a decade of experience designing high quality user experiences at charging stations that no one is even really trying to match. Tesla is also significantly expanding their capacity to deploy new charging stations, so it feels like their lead in coverage is going to grow.

For robotaxis, it is not important that the vehicle is particularly cheap.


----------



## off.by.10

MrMatt said:


> it's interesting that the top trim (Titanium) is $40k, but the hybrid is 37k, and the plug in hybrid is 43k.
> There are clearly "games" at play, likely fuel economy or other government incentives.


I remember that when MRSP restrictions were added to EV incentives, some models suddenly dropped by a few thousand $, to just $1 below the limit. Or something close to that anyway.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> For robotaxis, it is not important that the vehicle is particularly cheap.


I actually think if you can get a dirt cheap autonomous vehicle there could be a lot of opportunity.
$25k = $500/wk to pay it off in a year. We might be looking at in city (<30 min) taxi rates of $5/trip. That's getting competitive with public transit (for 2 ppl travelling together).


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I actually think if you can get a dirt cheap autonomous vehicle there could be a lot of opportunity.
> $25k = $500/wk to pay it off in a year. We might be looking at in city (<30 min) taxi rates of $5/trip. That's getting competitive with public transit (for 2 ppl travelling together).


The business model works very well whether the vehicles cost $25k or $100k. The more expensive vehicle could be a better choice if it is longer lasting, for instance, or has otherwise lower operating cost. This is why robotaxis will be EVs, because EVs have very low running cost, but higher upfront cost.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> The business model works very well whether the vehicles cost $25k or $100k. The more expensive vehicle could be a better choice *if it is longer lasting*, for instance, *or has otherwise lower operating* cost. This is why robotaxis will be EVs, because EVs have very low running cost, but higher upfront cost.


I'm not sure about the higher upfront cost of EV's.
Engine is a few thousand, transmission a few thousand more.
EV has a few motors and a battery, costing a few thousand.

If it's an in city short range vehicle (must run for the morning and afternoon commute rush of 4 hours, or lets say 300k) they don't even need the long range battery options. Driving the cost lower.


----------



## andrewf

Agreed, EVs will likely eventually be overall cheaper to manufacture (but not quite yet). Regardless, my point is that robotaxis don't need to be cheap upfront, they need to be cheap to operate.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Agreed, EVs will likely eventually be overall cheaper to manufacture (but not quite yet). Regardless, my point is that robotaxis don't need to be cheap upfront, they need to be cheap to operate.


Cheap to operate and maintain. I think if cheaper batteries come in the near future that'll really help EVs overall. So if Tesla makes them cheaper or, at least, makes them take many more charge cycles, that'll be a win.


----------



## MrBlackhill

TSLA's price movement is certainly not done surprising me...


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Cheap to operate and maintain. I think if cheaper batteries come in the near future that'll really help EVs overall. So if Tesla makes them cheaper or, at least, makes them take many more charge cycles, that'll be a win.


Most trips are really short.
I think battery capacity is a non issue for in city travel.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Most trips are really short.
> I think battery capacity is a non issue for in city travel.


Absolutely. 300 miles is plenty, and that is only to avoid having to charge during the day. Having a slightly bigger battery might have some value to reduce the depth of discharge and extend the number of useful cycles.


----------



## cliffsecord

In the winter you only get 60% of the range. Add onto the fact that you shouldn’t go down below 10% means you only get 50% range in the winter. If you stick to the supercharger route then it shouldn’t be a problem for long trips. You just have to account for the extra charging times. I’m hesitant to take my car to the ski hill. 

Still, if it’s for city driving then it’s a dream!! I can’t look an an ICE car the same again.


----------



## andrewf

cliffsecord said:


> In the winter you only get 60% of the range. Add onto the fact that you shouldn’t go down below 10% means you only get 50% range in the winter. If you stick to the supercharger route then it shouldn’t be a problem for long trips. You just have to account for the extra charging times. I’m hesitant to take my car to the ski hill.
> 
> Still, if it’s for city driving then it’s a dream!! I can’t look an an ICE car the same again.


The conversation is in relation to robotaxi, not private auto use.


----------



## Eder

Another EV charging station!!...oops should have edited out the diesel generator in the background or build a higher fence. Sunny ways!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368966612364230656


----------



## MrMatt

Honestly, for in city driving, I'd consider one of these.








Look out Tesla, SAIC's $4,500 electric car takes China by storm


Marketed as 'commuting tool,' Hong Guang Mini outsells the Model 3




asia.nikkei.com





A bus pass is $95/month here.
Add self driving, and I'd have my kids share a personal robo-taxi, instead of a bus pass.

The potential at the low end is very disruptive.


----------



## bgc_fan

Eder said:


> Another EV charging station!!...oops should have edited out the diesel generator in the background or build a higher fence. Sunny ways!
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1368966612364230656


Too bad there's no context on the location. More than likely, it's a backup generator for the building given that they are installing the EV charging stations at municipal facilities. But hey, never let facts get in the way of politics.


----------



## robfordlives

MrMatt said:


> Honestly, for in city driving, I'd consider one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look out Tesla, SAIC's $4,500 electric car takes China by storm
> 
> 
> Marketed as 'commuting tool,' Hong Guang Mini outsells the Model 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asia.nikkei.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bus pass is $95/month here.
> Add self driving, and I'd have my kids share a personal robo-taxi, instead of a bus pass.
> 
> The potential at the low end is very disruptive.



So you TSLA bulls honestly believe the robotaxi thing? Do you know TSLA isn't even at level 3 of autonomous driving? Meanwhile Waymo owned by Google offers full FSD in Arizona as we speak.


----------



## cainvest

robfordlives said:


> So you TSLA bulls honestly believe the robotaxi thing? Do you know TSLA isn't even at level 3 of autonomous driving? Meanwhile Waymo owned by Google offers full FSD in Arizona as we speak.


Musk says they'll be at level 5 by the end of 2021 ... not sure I'd buy into that though.


----------



## MrMatt

robfordlives said:


> So you TSLA bulls honestly believe the robotaxi thing? Do you know TSLA isn't even at level 3 of autonomous driving? Meanwhile Waymo owned by Google offers full FSD in Arizona as we speak.


Do you realize that I'm a Tesla "bear" right?
The holdup with self driving is
1. Regulators
2. The liability problem

The technology is already better than most human drivers, and it's a commodity anyway.
Nobody is going to really care which self driving technology is in their car.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> The technology is already better than most human drivers


Really? I haven't seen data to support the statement "better than most human drivers".


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrMatt said:


> The technology is already better than most human drivers


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Really? I haven't seen data to support the statement "better than most human drivers".











Autonomous Cars Don't have to be Perfect, They Just Have to Be Better than Humans' Terrible Driving Record


As autonomous and self-driving cars are becoming more commonplace, there's still a heated debate about allowing the technology fully onto our roadways. Are autonomous cars even safe?




interestingengineering.com





Sorry, I thought that was relatively well known in the autonomous driving field.

I'm not saying there aren't incidents of self driving cars doing incredibly stupid things, or that a self driving car performs anywhere close to a competent and attentive sober driver.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Honestly, for in city driving, I'd consider one of these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look out Tesla, SAIC's $4,500 electric car takes China by storm
> 
> 
> Marketed as 'commuting tool,' Hong Guang Mini outsells the Model 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asia.nikkei.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bus pass is $95/month here.
> Add self driving, and I'd have my kids share a personal robo-taxi, instead of a bus pass.
> 
> The potential at the low end is very disruptive.





robfordlives said:


> So you TSLA bulls honestly believe the robotaxi thing? Do you know TSLA isn't even at level 3 of autonomous driving? Meanwhile Waymo owned by Google offers full FSD in Arizona as we speak.


Do I believe robotaxis will be a thing? I see it as inevitable. Do I believe Tesla will play a role in that market? Less clear. I think they are one of the favourites. I would put Waymo and Tesla as the two leading contenders. It remains to be seen how well Waymo will be able to extend their service area to new jurisdictions. I worry that their HD mapping approach may make them too slow to roll out and will let Tesla capture share and customers early. If Tesla is successful with the hardware they already have in the field, they are going to have a big fleet of vehicles that can be added to such a network very easily.

I am by no means certain that Tesla will crack this nut in the near future or become the market leader for that matter. They seem to be making good progress but it is hard to judge when it will be ready for commercial deployment. The value creation opportunity is absolutely mind-boggling though.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Do you realize that I'm a Tesla "bear" right?
> The holdup with self driving is
> 1. Regulators
> 2. The liability problem
> 
> The technology is already better than most human drivers, and it's a commodity anyway.
> Nobody is going to really care which self driving technology is in their car.


I don't think liability is a big concern. Tesla will take on the liability for both rideshare use (Tesla Network) and FSD subscription. As long as settlements remain in the same range as we see today for auto related damages, this should be fine (ie we don't start awarding $100M for people who get whiplash from a low speed collision, etc.)

Regulation I think will come in time. Some jurisdictions are already very open to robotaxi operation. Florida is an example, as well as Arizona. Nevermind China. Once the huge benefits of robotaxi are made obvious there, the pressure to update regulations elsewhere will be very high--high enough to overcome FUDsters who will try to stand in the way of progress.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


>


I think the claims of being better than human is for highway driving, which is deployed in 'production'. The video you're showing is a beta release for the city streets functionality, which I don't think anyone would argue is better than human yet. Musk seems quite confident (he's using a newer version than what is being used by the outside beta testers), but it is good to take it optimism with a pinch of salt.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Autonomous Cars Don't have to be Perfect, They Just Have to Be Better than Humans' Terrible Driving Record
> 
> 
> As autonomous and self-driving cars are becoming more commonplace, there's still a heated debate about allowing the technology fully onto our roadways. Are autonomous cars even safe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interestingengineering.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought that was relatively well known in the autonomous driving field.
> 
> I'm not saying there aren't incidents of self driving cars doing incredibly stupid things, or that a self driving car performs anywhere close to a competent and attentive sober driver.


I've watched numerous videos on youtube. They are "getting much better" but still not as good as humans IMO.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> I've watched numerous videos on youtube. They are "getting much better" but still not as good as humans IMO.


Based on what? 
Fatalities per mile is dramatically lower for autonomous vehicles.
I'm honestly not aware of a single stat that shows autonomous vehicles are more dangerous than human drivers.

Anecdotally I've been in 3 car accidents with >$1k damage.
In 2 of them an autonomous, or not-a-freaking-moron driver would not have had an accident.
The third I was driving, and again it was poor judgement (black ice parking lot slid into a parked car) I don't know how an autonomous car would have dealt with that.

So based on the data, and my experience, an autonomous vehicle would have done better.


----------



## andrewf

The caveat is there is no autonomous 'driver' that is quite that general yet.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Based on what?
> Fatalities per mile is dramatically lower for autonomous vehicles.
> I'm honestly not aware of a single stat that shows autonomous vehicles are more dangerous than human drivers.


Based on what I mentioned, watching videos of these vehicles in action. I really like this tech and hope they get to level 5 soon but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen yet.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Based on what I mentioned, watching videos of these vehicles in action. I really like this tech and hope they get to level 5 soon but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen yet.


Those videos are just anecdotes, I'm sure you could find 100x videos of people being just as bad.
Locally we had a woman decide to drive her car into a crowd of people at a Costco entrance killing several people. I've never heard of an autonomous vehicle doing that.

Also of the companies out there, I trust Tesla the least, because I trust Elon the least.
Not that he isn't a wildly successful genius, he is just willing to take risks and break laws, even if it puts lives at risk.
I'm not saying he doesn't care, I'm saying he acts far too reckless. That recklessness is a big part of why he's been able to accomplish so much.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Those videos are just anecdotes, I'm sure you could find 100x videos of people being just as bad.


Sure it's a small sample size but in my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, they still have a ways to go.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Sure it's a small sample size but in my opinion, based on what I'm seeing, they still have a ways to go.


I completely agree.

However based on what I'm seeing, human drivers also have a ways to go.

Looking at the data, human drivers have a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Looking at the data, human drivers have a lot of catching up to do.


Personally I'll use this benchmark ....

When their systems can drive as well as I can in all the regular weather conditions I drive in then they'll be ready.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Personally I'll use this benchmark ....
> 
> When their systems can drive as well as I can in all the regular weather conditions I drive in then they'll be ready.


I think that a benchmark of "must be better than the best drivers" will cost lives.

How about when the system operates better than the driver it is replacing.
I think as a group autonomous vehicles are likley better than
Anyone who's had an at fault accident, single males under 25, those with a large number of moving violations, or drunk driving convictions.

The reality is if we took every human driver off the road and replaced them with autonomous vehicles, we'd get so many really really bad drivers off the road it would save thousands of lives.
I just want someone other than Musk deciding.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> I think that a benchmark of "must be better than the best drivers" will cost lives.
> 
> How about when the system operates better than the driver it is replacing.
> I think as a group autonomous vehicles are likley better than
> Anyone who's had an at fault accident, single males under 25, those with a large number of moving violations, or drunk driving convictions.
> 
> The reality is if we took every human driver off the road and replaced them with autonomous vehicles, we'd get so many really really bad drivers off the road it would save thousands of lives.
> I just want someone other than Musk deciding.


Well let's just wait until "someone" gets to level 5 ... then you can start planning on replacing human drivers.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I think that a benchmark of "must be better than the best drivers" will cost lives.
> 
> How about when the system operates better than the driver it is replacing.
> I think as a group autonomous vehicles are likley better than
> Anyone who's had an at fault accident, single males under 25, those with a large number of moving violations, or drunk driving convictions.
> 
> The reality is if we took every human driver off the road and replaced them with autonomous vehicles, we'd get so many really really bad drivers off the road it would save thousands of lives.
> I just want someone other than Musk deciding.


I don't think it will take long after an AI driver that is better than the median driver to see one that is better than the 90th or 95th percentile driver. I mean, it would be a matter of months, if not accomplished in one step. Computers tend to go from sub-human to super-human capability pretty quickly.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I don't think it will take long after an AI driver that is better than the median driver to see one that is better than the 90th or 95th percentile driver. I mean, it would be a matter of months, if not accomplished in one step. Computers tend to go from sub-human to super-human capability pretty quickly.


I agree, and since AI drivers are already clearly better than the average driver, the question of if they're better than median driver is open. 
I honestly don't know.

I do know that the worst drivers are really really bad, and dramatically skew the data, so I would expect that the median driver could be much better than the average driver. But AI will quickly get there.

However they still have to figure out how to regulate this.
1. I don't trust Machine learning without further verification, this has been shown to have issues in a lot of areas.
2. Dumb logic, for example I recall a fatal accident, and they claim that the software recognized the person, but the "logic" said "a person shouldn't be there", so it was ignored, and they were hit.
- I think that's an oversimplification of what happened (ie bad reporting), but it also shows the problem. Someone putting that "logic" on the roads, resulting in death, should be in jail. 
3. Computer Software Engineering in some of these fields isn't held to the same standard as other engineering which affects public safety.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I agree, and since AI drivers are already clearly better than the average driver, the question of if they're better than median driver is open.


Only in specific areas or domains. I don't think we have a general driving system that is at the level of a median driver yet, but it feels close.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Only in specific areas or domains. I don't think we have a general driving system that is at the level of a median driver yet, but it feels close.


I won't argue that.

My experience is that there is a significant minority of truly horrendous drivers that should be removed as quickly as possible.

That's why I think we can both be correct that the AI is better than the "average" driver, yet not as good as the median driver. 
Most drivers don't kill anyone in their entire driving history, I'd be glad to replace all the high risk drivers for an AI that is dramatically safer. 

But again, I think we basically agree that we're pretty close to the line of autonomous driving being a reasonable step forward.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Most drivers don't kill anyone in their entire driving history, I'd be glad to replace all the high risk drivers for an AI that is dramatically safer.


Yeah well unfortunately, the bad/dangerous drivers aren't exactly going to step forward to be replaced. And who is going to pay for their luxury cars?



MrMatt said:


> 1. I don't trust Machine learning without further verification, this has been shown to have issues in a lot of areas.


Yes this is a problem. While AI systems can act correctly under tests, what's really going on "under the hood" is often a mystery. Unlike traditional software, it generally is not clear *why* an AI system came up with a specific answer. This makes it very hard to explain or model the behaviour of the AI system... which can be quite dangerous.

AI and ML systems are opaque and there aren't any good software engineering approaches, in the traditional sense that we have developed for other high reliability software.

Additionally, the "engineers" developing much of this underlying software are not actually Professional Engineers. They don't have professional liability for the things they are developing, which can lead to crappy or careless work. I am quite certain that the tech companies will lobby the government(s) to permit the software they create, but fundamentally, this kind of software is not developed to a very high standard.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Additionally, the "engineers" developing much of this underlying software are not actually Professional Engineers. They don't have professional liability for the things they are developing, which can lead to crappy or careless work. I am quite certain that the tech companies will lobby the government(s) to permit the software they create, but fundamentally, this kind of software is not developed to a very high standard.


That's why I'm particularly concerned about someone like Elon Musk deciding. 
He's an amazing person, but he's too much of a risk taker.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> That's why I'm particularly concerned about someone like Elon Musk deciding.
> He's an amazing person, but he's too much of a risk taker.


I agree. He's also unstable and has showed plenty of very poor judgement.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> I agree. He's also unstable and has showed plenty of very poor judgement.


Of course taking on crazy risks has in general worked for him, and he hasn't killed too many people yet.

But remember he did things like changing acceleration and steering ratios of vehicles over the air, without notification.
That's IMO reckless. 

The point of regulators is to balance some of that risk, Elon feels like it's holding him back, which is literally what they're trying to do.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> The point of regulators is to balance some of that risk, Elon feels like it's holding him back, which is literally what they're trying to do.


Elon also explicitly does not respect regulators, which is a huge warning sign. Imagine if there was an aircraft maker which said they don't respect aviation regulators! Is that someone you want to buy planes from?

Elon picks fights with the SEC for fun. He does it for sport, and acts like a spoiled child. He knows he can get away with it because the SEC fines are rather small (a few million $).

One of the SEC's concerns was that Elon is too erratic, and has too much direct control over this company's operations. Many employees who work at Tesla and Space-X have the same concern. I think there is a very legitimate concern that *Elon might be disrupting good engineering processes* (and good business processes) by interfering, overruling, and using an authoritarian style of managing everything.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Elon also explicitly does not respect regulators, which is a huge warning sign. Imagine if there was an aircraft maker which said they don't respect aviation regulators! Is that someone you want to buy planes from?


Do you realize that Elon is literally doing that with the FAA "right now"?








Elon Musk’s SpaceX violated its launch license in explosive Starship test, triggering an FAA probe


SpaceX’s next test Starship test launches are getting a close look from the FAA.




www.theverge.com


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Do you realize that Elon is literally doing that with the FAA "right now"?


Wow, I didn't know. Thanks! So he doesn't respect _or fear_ the SEC or the FAA.

Given his history, does anyone think that he respects accounting standards and laws? I don't.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Wow, I didn't know. Thanks! So he doesn't respect _or fear_ the SEC or the FAA.
> 
> Given his history, does anyone think that he respects accounting standards and laws? I don't.


It's his incredible disdain and willingness to disregard the standards and norms of our society which allows him to do such astonishing things, he's WAYYY on the creative/disorder side of the spectrum.


----------



## bgc_fan

james4beach said:


> Wow, I didn't know. Thanks! So he doesn't respect _or fear_ the SEC or the FAA.
> 
> Given his history, does anyone think that he respects accounting standards and laws? I don't.


There's a bit of narcissism for certain people who feel that rules don't apply to them. Especially if they are doing something "great". Elon Musk seems to fall into this type of archetype.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> There's a bit of narcissism for certain people who feel that rules don't apply to them. Especially if they are doing something "great". Elon Musk seems to fall into this type of archetype.


So does Trump, so does Trudeau.


----------



## Eder

Guess I can't use self driving to get home from the bar yet.









Tesla's "Full Self Driving" Beta Is Just Laughably Bad and Potentially Dangerous


If you think we're anywhere near fully autonomous cars, this video might convince you otherwise.




www.roadandtrack.com


----------



## Covariance

If the end game is vehicles that drive themselves the logical extension is the end of the personal automobile.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Guess I can't use self driving to get home from the bar yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla's "Full Self Driving" Beta Is Just Laughably Bad and Potentially Dangerous
> 
> 
> If you think we're anywhere near fully autonomous cars, this video might convince you otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.roadandtrack.com


No one suggested otherwise, much less Tesla.

As we're all laughing at the beta, Tesla is gathering mountains of training data for its self-driving machine learning model. That model will be worth trillions when it works well enough to be deployed widely. It really is just a matter of time.


----------



## Covariance

andrewf said:


> No one suggested otherwise, much less Tesla.
> 
> As we're all laughing at the beta, Tesla is gathering mountains of training data for its self-driving machine learning model. That model will be worth trillions when it works well enough to be deployed widely. It really is just a matter of time.


As a matter of interest how do you get to a valuation for self-driving in the trillions?


----------



## andrewf

Covariance said:


> As a matter of interest how do you get to a valuation for self-driving in the trillions?


Ten cents per km * vehicle km travelled * 80% margin * 20 P/E ratio. In Canada, there are 400B VKmTs per year. That's worth 650B for Canada alone.


----------



## james4beach

Nobody is posting anything about the Tesla near Houston that killed 2 people? There was nobody in the driver's seat. Just one guy in the passenger seat and another in the back.

The Tesla Model S hit a tree, and the two men burned to death in the flaming wreck. One was a 58 year old doctor, and I bet his life insurer isn't going to let Tesla go so easily.

Firefighters had to use 30,000 gallons of water and the battery kept reigniting, and it took 4 HOURS to extinguish the fire. These things are dangerous beyond belief!

This shows us that in a crash like this, it will be impossible to rescue people in a timely fashion. People in Teslas are going to burn & melt... it's a death trap.

Additionally, Elon is casually tweeting when he shouldn't say a word until there is a solid investigation, there is massive potential liability here. I wonder how many more people his reckless "innovation" will kill before the federal regulators put a stop to this.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Firefighters had to use 30,000 gallons of water and the battery kept reigniting, and it took 4 HOURS to extinguish the fire. These things are dangerous beyond belief!


Yeah, that's why you don't use water on a lithium fire.
This is high school chemistry.


----------



## MrBlackhill

How is that one tire almost intact?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Additionally, Elon is casually tweeting when he shouldn't say a word until there is a solid investigation, there is massive potential liability here. I wonder how many more people his reckless "innovation" will kill before the federal regulators put a stop to this.


Elon is in trouble with the SEC, he's ignoring the FAA permits for spaceX.

He is very creative and reckless, which allows him to innovate and push forward like few others.
However society put a lot of this "red tape" and restrictions in place for a reason, and he doesn't seem to care.

Iwould like to buy an electric car, and the Teslas are looking good, but I simply don't trust Elon.
He'll go and update your driving dynamics while you're out at the mall.
He may artificially lock you out of the battery you bought, or enable/disable features on a whim.

He isn't accountable to anyone, and I don't think he is particularly concerned with the consequences of his actions.
The same singular focus on specific results is what makes him dangerous.


----------



## nobleea

No one in the driver's seat, but the car was at fault. If I put a brick on the accelerator and drive my family in to lake, is it the car's fault? or the bricks? What if these two guys were totally blitzed and felt letting the car drive itself home was safer than them (also irresponsible).

For sure you should be able to accept or decline any updates that get sent out, but this is just stupid people.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Nobody is posting anything about the Tesla near Houston that killed 2 people? There was nobody in the driver's seat. Just one guy in the passenger seat and another in the back.
> 
> The Tesla Model S hit a tree, and the two men burned to death in the flaming wreck. One was a 58 year old doctor, and I bet his life insurer isn't going to let Tesla go so easily.
> 
> Firefighters had to use 30,000 gallons of water and the battery kept reigniting, and it took 4 HOURS to extinguish the fire. These things are dangerous beyond belief!
> 
> This shows us that in a crash like this, it will be impossible to rescue people in a timely fashion. People in Teslas are going to burn & melt... it's a death trap.
> 
> Additionally, Elon is casually tweeting when he shouldn't say a word until there is a solid investigation, there is massive potential liability here. I wonder how many more people his reckless "innovation" will kill before the federal regulators put a stop to this.


This is FUD.

The car did not have Self Driving software option. This accident happened on a very short cul de sac street without lane markings, which means they could not engage autopilot. How they got the car to a high rate of speed on a short street like this will come out in the investigating. But this is not different than any idiot messing around with a high performance car using cruise control.

The fire was extinguished within minutes. The fire department applied water to the battery pack for several hours, as is standard for batteries, to keep them cool and from reigniting. Any time you have a lot of energy concentrated in a vehicle, you have the potential of it getting released violently. This is true of gasoline just like batteries.









Tesla Fire in Texas Crash Was Not How It Was Reported, Says Fire Chief


Persistent news reports that the 2019 Model S burned for hours and stymied fire officials are wrong, he says.




www.caranddriver.com





Tesla's are far safer than ICE cars. Gas cars catch fire at more than 10x the rate of Teslas.









Are electric cars more likely to catch fire?


Recent fiery crashes involving Tesla are raising concerns about the safety of electric cars. But carrying a tank of gasoline poses it own risks.



money.cnn.com





People are less likely to die in Teslas than ICE cars.

James, you really should try to be a savvier consumer of media.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Elon is in trouble with the SEC, he's ignoring the FAA permits for spaceX.
> 
> He is very creative and reckless, which allows him to innovate and push forward like few others.
> However society put a lot of this "red tape" and restrictions in place for a reason, and he doesn't seem to care.
> 
> Iwould like to buy an electric car, and the Teslas are looking good, but I simply don't trust Elon.
> He'll go and update your driving dynamics while you're out at the mall.
> He may artificially lock you out of the battery you bought, or enable/disable features on a whim.
> 
> He isn't accountable to anyone, and I don't think he is particularly concerned with the consequences of his actions.
> The same singular focus on specific results is what makes him dangerous.


For all his disregard of rules, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that his bending of rules causing harm. And where is the accounting of the benefits of his pressing on red tape? Would we have a high quality global satellite internet provider making high speed internet available in rural communities (Canada has spent billions subsidizing this with poor results)? Would we have mainstream OEMs scrambling to deliver compelling, attractive zero emissions vehicles, rather than the deliberately nerdy econoboxes like the Nissan Leaf, or limited production compliance cars?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> For all his disregard of rules, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that his bending of rules causing harm. And where is the accounting of the benefits of his pressing on red tape? Would we have a high quality global satellite internet provider making high speed internet available in rural communities (Canada has spent billions subsidizing this with poor results)? Would we have mainstream OEMs scrambling to deliver compelling, attractive zero emissions vehicles, rather than the deliberately nerdy econoboxes like the Nissan Leaf, or limited production compliance cars?


There is plenty of evidence that his bending rules has resulted in some harm, and some increased risk.

I won't argue that the amount of harm and risk isn't offset by the progress. 
I think Elon is a high risk, high return. 

However I personally think that Elon is reckless in some behaviour, it's one thing to challenge rules, it's another to blantantly ignore safety regulations.

Elon is a risk taker, we all know that. I do not think it is a good idea to allow risk takers to decide what is safe enough.


also look at the electric vehicles today, they're competative, or getting competative. it's not simply compliance vehicles.
There are people who will actually choose a mustang or ID4 on it's merits.


----------



## andrewf

Would Ford or VW be making those cars if they didn't see Tesla as an existential threat and they were only competing with Nissan Leaf? Ford is likely losing money on Mach E. VW is not making their standard margins on id line. They may have a path to profitability...

Where is all this evidence that Musk has caused harm? The 'funding secured' tweet has surely cost investors dearly, now that shares are trading way above that. Teslas cars have stellar safety performance in crash tests and deaths/injuries per million km. When has SpaceX harmed someone through pushing the FAA?

He takes risks, but generally isn't reckless. Witness his utter contempt for the SEC and yet their complete impotence in doing anything about it.


----------



## andrewf

> These things are dangerous beyond belief!


If that is beyond belief, James, consider that ICE cars present 10x the risk!


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Would Ford or VW be making those cars if they didn't see Tesla as an existential threat and they were only competing with Nissan Leaf?


Well VW likely would have due to dieselgate.


----------



## andrewf

VW just had to build the Electrify America network.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Ford is likely losing money on Mach E. .


Only if you think Hacket isn't concerned with lying about financials.








Ford bets Mustang Mach-E will be the electric that actually makes a profit


Can beat a Porsche Macan SUV from zero to 60 miles per hour




financialpost.com







> He takes risks, but generally isn't reckless. Witness his utter contempt for the SEC and yet their complete impotence in doing anything about it.


Well I guess that's one way to see it. 

He is taking risks, maybe it's a bit hard to argue reckless since they generally work out.
I would have really liked to see him held accountable for SEC violations, perhaps compensating anyone who lost money due to his false statements.
Or serious penalties for violating FAA safety regulations.

Myself, his risks have typically worked out more then they haven't.
However i don't trust him. His risk level is way too high for the level of power he has. I don't think he's being particularly responsible.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Yeah, that's why you don't use water on a lithium fire.
> This is high school chemistry.


The guidelines for putting out electric car fires is to use water. The firefighters were using the correct procedure as recommended in fact, using the method found on page 23 of the official Tesla guidelines.

@andrewf it is indeed good news that the initial fireball was put out in just a few minutes, but the reality is that the fire continued to burn and occupy firefighter effort for another 4 hours, even as they used the correct procedure.

There is still an open question about what was going on with these passengers and why nobody was driving the car, but a tweet from Elon is NOT enough to settle the matter. This guy has about as much credibility tweeting as a teenager does.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Iwould like to buy an electric car, and the Teslas are looking good, but I simply don't trust Elon.


I don't trust Elon either. I think he's unstable, but probably more importantly, he's self centered and obnoxious, which results in bad management, which in turn results in bad ENGINEERING.

Highly top-down controlled environments which are one man's ego trip are bad environments for proper & safe engineering. It's also not the right way to run a public corporation, which is _accountable to the public_.

I also worry that Elon Musk might be a con man. The way he manipulates crypto currencies in his spare time and keeps informally tweeting material business info (which are sometimes lies) raises a lot of alarm bells.


----------



## KaeJS

I think it goes without saying that Elon is not someone who can be trusted.

I refuse to touch anything he touches. No Tesla, no cryptocurrency, no space stuff. No, thank you. I'm good.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> The guidelines for putting out electric car fires is to use water. The firefighters were using the correct procedure as recommended in fact, using the method found on page 23 of the official Tesla guidelines.





james4beach said:


> I don't trust Elon either. I think he's unstable, but probably more importantly, he's self centered and obnoxious, which results in bad management, which in turn results in bad ENGINEERING.


So you don't trust him, but you're willing to follow his advice. Interesting.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> So you don't trust him, but you're willing to follow his advice. Interesting.


Me personally, I'm not willing to follow ANY of Elon's advice.

I'm just saying that his company has given clear directions on using water to extinguish those fires. Maybe those instructions are terrible, I don't know. I'm sure the federal investigators will weigh in on it.


----------



## andrewf

You guys are being a bit ridiculous. Tesla products and SpaceX products are not the results of one person's efforts.

You guys can fear monger all you want based on anecdotes and your impression of his personality. We have stats. The cars are safe. 

Anecdotes are irrelevant. You never hear about the 500 gas cars that catch fire every day in the US. Why? A single incident is a tragedy, 175k vehicle fires per year is just a statistic.

The US has strong regulators when it comes to passenger vehicle safety. If there were any problems, you would see recalls.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> Me personally, I'm not willing to follow ANY of Elon's advice.
> 
> I'm just saying that his company has given clear directions on using water to extinguish those fires. Maybe those instructions are terrible, I don't know. I'm sure the federal investigators will weigh in on it.


This is just ridiculous. Given the army of FUDsters and all-round Tesla critics out there, do you not think someone would have latched onto something as simple as dangerously incorrect instructions for managing thermal runaway in batteries? The answer, unsurprisingly, is cooling. Keep applying water. It slows the reaction down to be manageable until the battery pack is rendered inert.

One battery recycling company is exploiting this by super-chilling batteries (with unknown state of charge) before passing them through a woodchipper. If you did that without cooling the battery, you'd be likely to see explosions and fires. Make them cold, you can grind them up and neutralize the electrolyte and make it safe/inert before transporting it.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Anecdotes are irrelevant. You never hear about the 500 gas cars that catch fire every day in the US. Why? A single incident is a tragedy, 175k vehicle fires per year is just a statistic.


One word ... Pinto!


----------



## james4beach

General counsel lawyers don't stay very long at Tesla. Incredibly, 4 general counsels who have quit in the last two years.

Why would the top lawyers keep quitting? An investor lawsuit alleges that the top lawyers are unable to challenge Musk's heavy-handed control. Unable to achieve independence, the general counsels quit. The board is also unable to control Elon Musk.



> The general counsel directs the company's legal and policy teams and reports directly to Musk, and is supposed to provide advice on what is in Tesla's best interest but "Musk has always sought to appoint a General Counsel that would protect his interests first and those of Tesla second," the lawsuit says.


This is an illustration of the concern I voiced above, which is that it's hard to trust the company when a single egotistical man exerts such authoritarian control. Normally, public corporations have many checks and balances which keeps the organization honest. I seriously doubt that Tesla has such checks and balances.


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> General counsel lawyers don't stay very long at Tesla. Incredibly, 4 general counsels who have quit in the last two years.
> 
> Why would the top lawyers keep quitting? An investor lawsuit alleges that the top lawyers are unable to challenge Musk's heavy-handed control. Unable to achieve independence, the general counsels quit. The board is also unable to control Elon Musk.
> 
> 
> This is an illustration of the concern I voiced above, which is that it's hard to trust the company when a single egotistical man exerts such authoritarian control. Normally, public corporations have many checks and balances which keeps the organization honest. I seriously doubt that Tesla has such checks and balances.


That's the problem with someone like Musk, he has the arrogance to upset the status quo, so far in what, 3 major industries finance, space, automotive. (Paypal, SpaceX and of course Tesla)
These aren't small industries where nobody pays attention, and he's made massive changes.
So of COURSE he isnt' going to respect the establishment, his strength is his weakness.


----------



## Eder

1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas because charging their cars is a hassle, research shows


Roughly 20% of electric vehicle owners in California replaced their cars with gas ones, a recent study shows.




www.businessinsider.com





_1 in 5 electric vehicle owners in California switched back to gas 

...well thats not supposed to happen is it?_


----------



## andrewf

It's probably not for everyone, especially if they did not look into how to charge effectively at home before buying. It will be convenient in future to charge while you're out, but for now it is better for people who can charge at home. It would be interesting to see the breakdown by brand.

If you have a way to charge at home, every day you leave home with a full 'tank'.


----------



## bgc_fan

andrewf said:


> *If* you have a way to charge at home, every day you leave home with a full 'tank'.


The if part is the issue. I suspect many of the people finding the difficulties of charging are those who live in apartment buildings, or condos and can't charge at home. Or as they stated, they didn't install a Level 2 charger to rapidly charge at home. I find it a little strange that the person reports only a 36 mile range when plugging in the regular outlet overnight, as it should be at least three times that.


----------



## andrewf

I would strongly caution anyone from buying an EV if they can't put in a level 2 charger at home (read: a dryer plug).

I suspect this is a case of an automotive journalist sensationalizing. They love to publish stories about how it took them 16 hours to drive 200km because they sought out the worst public charging options available, etc. Anyone that dumb shouldn't be allowed to leave home unchaperoned.


----------



## Eder

My buddy that has a Tesla S in Vancouver has been enjoying it for almost 2 years. He has a level 2 charger in his garage. His wife wants to get rid of it and buy a Jeep Cherokee. I guess the shine comes off just like many new things.


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrMatt said:


> That's the problem with someone like Musk, he has the arrogance to upset the status quo, so far in what, 3 major industries finance, space, automotive. (Paypal, SpaceX and of course Tesla)
> These aren't small industries where nobody pays attention, and he's made massive changes.
> So of COURSE he isnt' going to respect the establishment, his strength is his weakness.







(I like this guy's channel. First time he posts a short video and found it pretty fun.)


----------



## the_apprentice

Eder said:


> My buddy that has a Tesla S in Vancouver has been enjoying it for almost 2 years. He has a level 2 charger in his garage. His wife wants to get rid of it and buy a Jeep Cherokee. I guess the shine comes off just like many new things.


I'm sure there are other reasons to it. You don't go from a Tesla to a Jeep...

I've been enjoying mine for quite some time. In my opinion, I think it's foolish to not be considering a Tesla if you are purchasing a new car in that price range.


----------



## Eder

They went from a Ford pick up to a Tesla...many love their Tesla's no doubt.


----------



## gardner

Eder said:


> They went from a Ford pick up to a Tesla.


But that is kind of the point. The big change was going from an offroad capable utility vehicle with a range of 1,000km, towing capacity of 4,000kg and freight capacity of 1,000kg, to a sedan. Something else in the equation changed, other than just wanting to go electric.


----------



## MrMatt

gardner said:


> But that is kind of the point. The big change was going from an offroad capable utility vehicle with a range of 1,000km, towing capacity of 4,000kg and freight capacity of 1,000kg, to a sedan. Something else in the equation changed, other than just wanting to go electric.


Most people don't need 1Mm range, and all that capacity.

For a lot of people a full size truck is simply a status symbol, now Tesla is the status symbol.

Myself, I think EVs are just about able to support my outdoor activities, so I'm gonna buy one soon.


----------



## andrewf

I think Tesla just needs to scale and get the costs down a bit. Model Y with 500km range sounds just about perfect. Just that price...


----------



## Eder

Buy the extended warranty imo. They are newer though so lots of bugs I guess.


----------



## andrewf

Initial quality is not everything. Often it is superficial things like panel gaps, scratches, etc.

Tesla has been #1 is owner satisfaction in CR's survey for past three years:









Tesla Is Number One In Consumer Reports' 2020 Owner Satisfaction Survey


This is now Tesla’s fourth consecutive year as CR’s owner satisfaction king.




insideevs.com




.


----------



## AltaRed

Not a good way to win customer satisfaction Tesla faces a huge fine in Norway for throttling battery charging speeds


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Not a good way to win customer satisfaction Tesla faces a huge fine in Norway for throttling battery charging speeds


That's because Elon is an arrogant slimeball who thinks he should be allowed to do whatever he wants, break any laws, and ignore whoever he wants.
That's how he got where he is, it's his greatest strength and greatest weakness. I've said this before


----------



## bgc_fan

AltaRed said:


> Not a good way to win customer satisfaction Tesla faces a huge fine in Norway for throttling battery charging speeds


The article is missing the fact that Tesla had actually stated the reasoning for the throttling previously:

When _Electrek_ reported on the issue, Tesla told us that the goal of the update is to “protect the battery and improve battery longevity,” and it resulted in a range loss for only “a small percentage of owners.”

Now, why they didn't go to court to state that is beyond me. Unless they just wanted to jump to the appeal process directly.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I think Tesla just needs to scale and get the costs down a bit. Model Y with 500km range sounds just about perfect. Just that price...


Sounds like a Mustang Extended Range RWD (483km)

I'm a bit disappointed that the F150 has a short range, but if the range works, it's likely a good vehicle. Ford wouldn't risk the F150 name on something if it didn't measure up. 

yeah, I drive a VW, but I think Ford is shaping up to really be strong in Electric vehicles. Like I've said, the hybrid escapes are looking really nice.


----------



## AltaRed

A hybrid, i.e. being half pregnant, doesn't seem like an optimal solution to me. A straight up EV with acceptable range is the real solution.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Sounds like a Mustang Extended Range RWD (483km)
> 
> I'm a bit disappointed that the F150 has a short range, but if the range works, it's likely a good vehicle. Ford wouldn't risk the F150 name on something if it didn't measure up.
> 
> yeah, I drive a VW, but I think Ford is shaping up to really be strong in Electric vehicles. Like I've said, the hybrid escapes are looking really nice.


Charging infrastructure is a problem. Non-Tesla chargers seem to be a comedy of errors whenever you try to use them with software incompatibility, inexplicable slow charging, etc.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Charging infrastructure is a problem. Non-Tesla chargers seem to be a comedy of errors whenever you try to use them with software incompatibility, inexplicable slow charging, etc.


I agree.
If I had to buy today, I'd get a Tesla, or a Ford Escape (gas or hybrid)

Elon is just too unpredictable with what he does, things like OTA updates to driving dynamics, software disabling features (ie battery capacity/range), it seems sketchy, and he has shown he clearly doesn't care what regulators think.

FYI here's a link.








Tesla extended the range of some Florida vehicles for drivers to escape Hurricane Irma


The update unlocks the full battery capacity of 60 and 70 kWh vehicles through September 16th




www.theverge.com




I think it is unethical to physically sell a battery, but then lock you from using it, unless you pay a fee.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> FYI here's a link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla extended the range of some Florida vehicles for drivers to escape Hurricane Irma
> 
> 
> The update unlocks the full battery capacity of 60 and 70 kWh vehicles through September 16th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is unethical to physically sell a battery, but then lock you from using it, unless you pay a fee.


This is a red herring. This affects a vanishingly small number of initial Model S vehicles from when they sold very small battery pack/range as an option before starting production. They decided to deliver cars that had the hardware for longer range for the original promised price of the shorter range vehicle, and software locked the range to what was originally purchased. This was done to simplify manufacturing for the small number of vehicles sold with the low range.

Many companies do this. You should be mad at Intel for selling you a CPU with functionality disabled even though it is capable of it.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> This is a red herring. This affects a vanishingly small number of initial Model S vehicles from when they sold very small battery pack/range as an option before starting production. They decided to deliver cars that had the hardware for longer range for the original promised price of the shorter range vehicle, and software locked the range to what was originally purchased. This was done to simplify manufacturing for the small number of vehicles sold with the low range.
> 
> Many companies do this. You should be mad at Intel for selling you a CPU with functionality disabled even though it is capable of it.


I don't believe CPUs are software locking fully functional product, that they'll upgrade.

Typically they bin processors and and disable portions that don't meet QA standards for that part. 
I remember AMD releasing a series of Triple core CPUs to salvage defective quad cores.

You call it a red herring, I see it as yet another example of unethical behaviour.


----------



## andrewf

It's not something Tesla does at a large scale with battery packs. And besides, customers got what they paid for. You're picking nits.

Chipmakers 100% downbin chips. You don't seriously think they perfectly match their yield to demand for different price segments, do you?

There have been cards in the past that just required buyers to flash new firmware to unlock addition functionality. Chipmakers are more careful to hardware disable the functionality now.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> It's not something Tesla does at a large scale with battery packs. And besides, customers got what they paid for. You're picking nits.


Ok.



> Chipmakers 100% downbin chips. You don't seriously think they perfectly match their yield to demand for different price segments, do you?


Of course not.



> There have been cards in the past that just required buyers to flash new firmware to unlock addition functionality. Chipmakers are more careful to hardware disable the functionality now.


But it isn't like you're carrying around several lbs of lithium you paid for but you can't use.


----------



## bgc_fan

With Tesla removing the radar sensors, it looks like it can no longer claim to have certain advanced safety measures dependent on those sensors. Tesla loses U.S. designation for some advanced safety features. At least in the US.


----------



## MrMatt

Ford has been on quite a run lately.

But as a long time Ford holder... I know it likley won't last. The market has hated F for years.

That being said I think they have a good plan, an I think they're actually ready to mass produce the vehicles they plan to.

Remember the big deal with Aluminum F150's? They did their work, and it worked out.
Remember putting Turbos on everything?
Then hybrids on a lot.

I think Ford has a good idea where they're going on this.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> But it isn't like you're carrying around several lbs of lithium you paid for but you can't use.


They *did not *pay for it. They got it for free with their purchase of a lower capacity model.


----------



## andrewf

Tesla looks primed to benefit to revisions to US electric vehicle subsidies, as they will no longer be disadvantaged by having previously sold more than 200k vehicles in the US. This will be very good for Tesla profitability and demand in the US.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> They *did not *pay for it. They got it for free with their purchase of a lower capacity model.


Interesting argument. But that's why "right to repair" is so important.

They should be allowed to turn it on and use it. 

I think the issue is really that Elon is trying bring some bad practices back into the automotive market.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Interesting argument. But that's why "right to repair" is so important.
> 
> They should be allowed to turn it on and use it.
> 
> I think the issue is really that Elon is trying bring some bad practices back into the automotive market.


How is that fair to the buyers who paid for the higher capacity? All this would achieve is automakers incurring higher cost to maker more truly unique models or reduce consumer choice and raise prices by forcing buyers to pay for features they don't want or value.

I would think you would also be up in arms over the fact that Tesla doesn't provide free 'FSD' to all cars they sell because they are technically capable (have the hardware) to do it. At the end of the day, you want to prevent two willing parties from engaging in a mutually agreeable transaction.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> How is that fair to the buyers who paid for the higher capacity? All this would achieve is automakers incurring higher cost to maker more truly unique models or reduce consumer choice and raise prices by forcing buyers to pay for features they don't want or value.
> 
> I would think you would also be up in arms over the fact that Tesla doesn't provide free 'FSD' to all cars they sell because they are technically capable (have the hardware) to do it. At the end of the day, you want to prevent two willing parties from engaging in a mutually agreeable transaction.


I think if you buy a product, you should be able to use and modify it in any way you wish.

that does not include modifications or uses that violate the law.


----------



## andrewf

What I'm getting from you is that you would be happier if Tesla included bricks instead of the functional but disabled batteries in those cars?

I think Tesla is far from the worst offender in 'right to repair' circles. There are legitimate safety concerns when modifying anything related to the battery or power electronics of an EV, and yet Tesla does not totally prohibit it, you just void your warranty and potentially lose access to Tesla owned rapid charging. 

Apple is much worse in this regard, as they stymie repairs that are not really safety concerns.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> What I'm getting from you is that you would be happier if Tesla included bricks instead of the functional but disabled batteries in those cars?
> 
> I think Tesla is far from the worst offender in 'right to repair' circles. There are legitimate safety concerns when modifying anything related to the battery or power electronics of an EV, and yet Tesla does not totally prohibit it, you just void your warranty and potentially lose access to Tesla owned rapid charging.
> 
> Apple is much worse in this regard, as they stymie repairs that are not really safety concerns.


Oh yeah, Apple is worse, which is why I don't buy their products. Well that and they suck.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Ok so Tesla is going to make an humanoid bot to help you with your boring tasks.






He believes he'll have a prototype next year. Not sure what he expects, humanoids are still pretty limited. Boston Dynamics has been working on an humanoid for years and even though it's impressive, they are just showing off the humanoid's ability to balance its body.. And they look nowhere near the humanoid that Musk presented. They are big and heavy and have a very mechanical look for their body parts.


----------



## Covariance

I like Elon but these announcements are getting harder and harder to take seriously.


----------



## andrewf

MrBlackhill said:


> He believes he'll have a prototype next year. Not sure what he expects, humanoids are still pretty limited. Boston Dynamics has been working on an humanoid for years and even though it's impressive, they are just showing off the humanoid's ability to balance its body.. And they look nowhere near the humanoid that Musk presented. They are big and heavy and have a very mechanical look for their body parts.


This is just a toy to attract/inspire potential talent.

I would take a 'prototype next year' as a seriously 'Elon time' type promise. Even if they were to seriously pursue this market, I would expect it to take a decade before they have anything approaching a commercial product.


----------



## andrewf

Covariance said:


> I like Elon but these announcements are getting harder and harder to take seriously.


That wasn't the substance of the presentation, it was sizzle to show in media reports and maybe jazz up the work the team is doing. This was mainly a recruiting event.


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> That wasn't the substance of the presentation, it was sizzle to show in media reports and maybe jazz up the work the team is doing. This was mainly a recruiting event.


Good point, with the "Join our team!" and promoting a very futuristic world which is a great vision. I mean, my studies were in robotics engineering and it's been over a decade that I think about that kind of futuristic world. (I know that vision is older than just a decade but I mean as an engineer I was thinking about how realistic it was, what it would look like and how far we are from such a world)



andrewf said:


> I would expect it to take a decade before they have anything approaching a commercial product.


Yes, at least a decade.

It took 10 years to Boston Dynamics to "simply" master humanoid stabilisation.






PS: Some fun stuff also. A robot stuntman.


----------



## bgc_fan

I wouldn't take timelines too seriously. I didn't really watch the video, but I imagine the idea is that the robots could be sent to Mars to develop it for human habitation. 
When you look at what he is doing: solar power, space rockets/contracts with NASA, autonomous vehicles, and now robots, they all kind of lean to that direction. Even hyperloop could be put in that category if you are thinking about setting up multiple colonies and you want fast travel between them. He does seem somewhat fixated on landing people on Mars.


----------



## MrBlackhill

No one to point out how the mega cap TSLA jumped +12.66% today to a cap of over $1T... That means there's been over $100B flowing into TSLA in a single day...


----------



## KaeJS

Pure insanity.


----------



## kcowan

Hertz large order from only supplier with cars.


----------



## KaeJS

kcowan said:


> Hertz large order from only supplier with cars.


You mean the almost brankrupt company?


----------



## sags

On CNBC they said there was a 5 for 1 stock split for Tesla, so holders of original shares are now worth $5,000 US for each share.


----------



## AltaRed

MrBlackhill said:


> No one to point out how the mega cap TSLA jumped +12.66% today to a cap of over $1T... That means there's been over $100B flowing into TSLA in a single day...


No, it means the market price was bid up so that all shares increased in value by $100B of shareholder equity. Theoretically that could be someone buying 1 stock from someone else. We don't know how much new money went into the 62.85M shares traded but an equal amount of money was taken off the table by the sellers of 62.85M shares.

Example: Your company has 2 shares currently trading at $10. The market cap of your company is $20. I come along and want to buy your shares but you don't want to sell. I keep raising the price to $15 and you say okay. So I give you $30 and you walk away with $30. Market capitalization (shareholder equity) is now worth $30 but no new money entered the company.


----------



## MrBlackhill

AltaRed said:


> No, it means the market price was bid up so that all shares increased in value by $100B of shareholder equity. Theoretically that could be someone buying 1 stock from someone else. We don't know how much new money went into the 63.85M shares traded but an equal amount of money was taken off the table by the sellers of 62.85M shares.
> 
> Example: Your company has 2 shares currently trading at $10. The market cap of your company is $20. I come along and want to buy your shares but you don't want to sell. I keep raising the price to $15 and you say okay. So I give you $30 and you walk away with $30. Market capitalization (shareholder equity) is now worth $30 but no new money entered the company.


I stand corrected.

Still, people now believes that TSLA is worth $100B more than yesterday. To make it move that much, a hell lot of people or ultra wealthy people must agree.

Fun fact, less than two years ago, TSLA wasn't even worth $100B. Now it moves $100B in a single day.


----------



## AltaRed

Yes, otherwise the people buying today wouldn't have bid up the price to that level. That is, unless they have FOMO. Market prices can often be volatile not truly reflecting company value (both directions). That is what makes the market. In this particular case, no one knows for sure but a company like Hertz making that sort of commitment indicates confidence in the product.


----------



## agent99

Wasnt that 100B the value of the stock traded in one day? If so also means that same amount of stock was sold in day. Not new money into Tesla.


----------



## james4beach

Why should $1 trillion market cap be the end of this? Could easily become $1.5 trillion market cap.


----------



## nobleea

If only one share of TSLA was bought/sold on the day, but that share was 12% higher than the previous close, it's hard to say the value of the company went up 100B. I'm not saying that's what happened, it was probably pretty big volume.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Volume of 62.8M so there was about $60B+ traded.


----------



## james4beach

MrBlackhill said:


> Volume of 62.8M so there was about $60B+ traded.


The way I look at these daily movements, is a balance between buyer and seller interest -- or pressure or enthusiasm.

Imagine a stock where buyers and sellers are equally interested in buying and selling equal numbers of shares. What happens? Nobody is particularly desperate. Someone bids, and a seller accepts. The price remains more or less unchanged.

But what happens when a lot more money is on the buyers side? Call this enthusiasm to buy. The price ends up going up, because buyers *out-bid each other* and there are relatively fewer sellers. The sellers still show up of course, but there are more buyers than sellers present, or the level of enthusiasm from buyers exceeds that of sellers.

I've often heard people say things like "each trade has a buyer and seller" but I think that misses the point of the difference in enthusiasm, and money, on either side.

Here's an extreme case. Imagine that just about no buyers show up one day. Maybe there are 10 buyers that day. But 1,000 sellers show up, and they are all desperately want to sell. What happens? The price crashes, because the sellers keep under-cutting each other (lower asking price) and the buyers know that they don't have to raise their bid.

In the case of TSLA, it just seems that sellers are not particularly keen to sell. There isn't much selling enthusiasm at all. Maybe existing shareholders are just hanging on and are willing to wait. More importantly, *nobody is willing to short sell TSLA*, because (a) the whole stock market is very strong (b) TSLA keeps going up

So with an absence of sellers, and nobody willing to short, all it takes is a bunch of new buyers to keep rocketing the price higher. And IMO it's likely hedge funds which are leveraged and borrowing money. They are riding the momentum on TSLA, so more money keeps showing up on the buy side and pushing the price higher.

Yahoo Finance shows that nobody is short TSLA. It has about 3% short. With the absence of any sellers, the leveraged buyers and momentum riders can take the share price higher.

It's just speculation and runaway momentum in a very strong overall stock market. Don't overthink it... doesn't have much to do with cars.


----------



## KaeJS




----------



## MrBlackhill

LOL and yesterday wasn't enough, why is TSLA currently at +5% today after that +12.66% yesterday?!

The upcoming crash will be so brutal!


----------



## m3s

Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon are worth more that $1T

The tech prospect alone makes Tesla worth trillions. People with vision want innovation and investing in Tesla improves its chances. One of the few investments with potential to make the world better. Most people have no vision and can't imagine change. Driving is very dangerous and expensive for society (healthcare, insurance, lost wage slaves etc) The potential innovations in safety alone makes them worth more than any FAANG. 

GM is struggling to keep its head above water with a union tied to its ankle. They do everything thing they can to push Tesla down instead


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon are worth more that $1T
> 
> The tech prospect alone makes Tesla worth trillions. People with vision want innovation and investing in Tesla improves its chances. One of the few investments with potential to make the world better. Most people have no vision and can't imagine change. Driving is very dangerous and expensive for society (healthcare, insurance, lost wage slaves etc) The potential innovations in safety alone makes them worth more than any FAANG.
> 
> GM is struggling to keep its head above water with a union tied to its ankle. They do everything thing they can to push Tesla down instead


I agree with tech and innovation worth a lot, but AAPL, MSFT, GOOG and AMZN never did 16x within 2 years, not even during the dot-com bubble.

Oh, wrong, AMZN did something like that during the dot-com bubble. And it then crashed by more than -90%.
AAPL did something like 10x within 2 years. It was also during the dot-com bubble. And then crashed by more than -80%.

Vision is not priceless.

Better be right at timing the momentum.


----------



## m3s

Sure it could crash. Especially if the macro environment changes and we get raising interest rates, financial crisis or war with China. Progress would suffer

Don't bet the farm on such speculative investments if you don't want to see it crash 80%. Bezos held steady through many crashes. Nobody else did or could.

Now he reaps the rewards


----------



## agent99

MrBlackhill said:


> The upcoming crash will be so brutal!


Could be even worse than these crashes?


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Sure it could crash. Especially if the macro environment changes and we get raising interest rates, financial crisis or war with China. Progress would suffer
> 
> Don't bet the farm on such speculative investments if you don't want to see it crash 80%. Bezos held steady through many crashes. Nobody else did or could.
> 
> Now he reaps the rewards


AMZN turned out to be a very profitable investment for sure. Just not during the dot-com bubble. Anyone dumping a lump sum in AMZN during the euphoria in Jan 1999 had a very though ride. AMZN had a -12.21% CAGR over 7 years at some point. Yes, minus. Per year.

The same way you invest your money in crypto during times of cooldown and not during times of euphoria, I would invest in TSLA during times of cooldown and not during times of euphoria.

It's basic maths about probabilities and expected returns. Unless you know how to ride that kind of momentum properly.


----------



## sags

If Tesla was the only company capable or destined to build EV vehicles, the value may be understandable.

But the reality is.......the competition is coming and will be getting most of the PR in the future.

Every other EV manufacturer will be highlighted in the main media, on social media, on vehicle review sites etc.

When other manufacturers get their EV vehicles on the road where everyone can see them........it will be a game changer for Tesla.


----------



## sags

Companies like Amazon, that sell products at all consumer price points, are far removed from the reality of the price point of selling new EV vehicles.

When people are laying out $50,000 they usually look around at all the possible offerings.

Tesla may be the first choice option for most people in the future, but they are likely going to have to "up their game" on the quality of their products.

Lately I have read that Tesla owners are unhappy with some of the quality problems in their vehicle, and news travels fast in the automotive world.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> When other manufacturers get their EV vehicles on the road where everyone can see them........it will be a game changer for Tesla.


Once other manufacturers have equivalents at competitive prices, buyers will perhaps go back to their previous brand loyalty. Especially those with local dealers and service. If we compare buying a Tesla with a BMW or Mercedes or Lexus or Cadillac at the upper end it is not hard to see the other brands picking up part of Tesla's market share. However, the whole market will continue to grow and perhaps Tesla will still sell a ton of EVs. Who knows? I wouldn't buy the stock though at my age! Maybe VW!


----------



## Mechanic

What are we going to do with all the scrap cars when they start needing new batteries ? Batteries have a life cycle and even those GM Bolt battery replacements on recall look to be around $17000 each. I would imagine more powerful batteries would be even more expensive. OTOH I'm kicking myself for not buying Tesla shares, lol


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> If Tesla was the only company capable or destined to build EV vehicles, the value may be understandable.
> 
> But the reality is.......the competition is coming and will be getting most of the PR in the future.
> 
> Every other EV manufacturer will be highlighted in the main media, on social media, on vehicle review sites etc.
> 
> When other manufacturers get their EV vehicles on the road where everyone can see them........it will be a game changer for Tesla.


I'm not that into Tesla but the people who are seem to have many reasons that show Tesla is very different

Stop thinking of it as a "vehicle" company. The "vehicle" companies can not just becomes tech, AI, robotic companies etc. It's more like a computer on wheels.

GM is like a Nokia flip phone company thinking they can just electrify a dead Hummer to compete with an iPhone

Not even close. You need to remove emotions and bias and actually compare them with an open mind


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Lately I have read that Tesla owners are unhappy with some of the quality problems in their vehicle, and news travels fast in the automotive world.


I heard they have bad paint

With a $1T valuation they should be able to hire some paint experts from GM eventually to fix the paint

If GM sales are decreasing how will they poach tech talent to compete with TSLA? Tech talent is crazy competitive right now and the creme is to work for Elon..

Canadians appear distanced some years behind Americans in perception of EVs and tech awareness.

Everyone is talking about Elon and tech here


----------



## sags

Lol......auto manufacturers have been building cars for over 100 years. I think you are a little behind how tech savvy new vehicles are today.

We just bought a 2022 Chevrolet Trailblazer RS and it is loaded with "tech". I don't know what it could be missing that Tesla could put into a vehicle.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I don't know what it could be missing that Tesla could put into a vehicle.


Exactly.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> I'm not that into Tesla but the people who are seem to have many reasons that show Tesla is very different
> 
> Stop thinking of it as a "vehicle" company. The "vehicle" companies can not just becomes tech, AI, robotic companies etc. It's more like a computer on wheels.


Exactly.



> GM is like a Nokia flip phone company thinking they can just electrify a dead Hummer to compete with an iPhone


I think GM is a bit behind, I think they got a bit EV shy after the EV1. Which they sold before Tesla was even founded.
I don't think they did as much with Onstar as they could have.

Ford has been thinking past vehicles for a while.
Ford Sync was released back in 2007, and they've been talking data and such for quite a while.

I think that you're looking at Tesla in the moment, not realizing there is a lot of history here.
Elon is a master of manipulation, marketing and propaganda. But Tesla isn't the only company in this game.



Remember the iPhone was actually released in '92 as the Newton.








Retro Apple: The Apple Newton MessagePad Was Well Ahead of Its Time


The Newton MessagePad was the most highly anticipated product of the early 1990s, offering many smartphone features — without the phone — in a portable package.




eshop.macsales.com





You could argue that Palm, or handspring, or blackberry, which were the best at their times, would ensure their success. But after their stumble, Apple came back and took over the space with the iPhone.

So is Tesla Apple, or are they Blackberry?
Is GM Apple, or are they Blackberry?

I think it's silly to think that Tesla will be king and immune from a challenge from an incumbent manufacturer.


----------



## m3s

There's lots of gimmick tech features everywhere. Then there's things like Apple and Tesla that try to make better products. Big difference.

Vast majority who disagree have never even given Apple or Tesla consideration for emotionally charged reasons. The moment I used the first iPhone I tried to tell everyone BB was dead. Nobody wanted to hear it. Most of them got an iPhone years later. BB died. Tesla has the cultural momentum and the Steve Jobs. Legacy brands have aging fans. Even if they compete its hard to reverse this trend. GM will follow BB. Dinosaurs thinking they're too big to fail.

Tesla has Bitcoin and will likely accept it again soon (many other US brands already do) The growing population adores them and the declining population is declining


----------



## m3s

TSLA got to $1T with $0 marketing budget. Not even Apple could do that.

When you buy a GM you pay for marketing, dealerships, planned obsolescence, gimmicks, high pressure salesmen and free coffee. When you buy a Tesla you get free upgrades. You underestimate how powerful the upcoming culture is in the US and how much they despise the outgoing bs. Not even the rich boomer Billy Gates could short it down.

GM has strong unions, lobbyists and politicians. Tesla has a car in space.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Tesla has a car in space.


And Ford has a car down the street waiting for me to pick it up.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> There's lots of gimmick tech features everywhere. Then there's things like Apple and Tesla that try to make better products. Big difference.


In my experience Apple makes inferior products, but like Blackberry they have their rabid fans.



> Vast majority who disagree have never even given Apple or Tesla consideration for emotionally charged reasons.


As an owner of multiple Apple products, I can say that they're clearly inferior to the competition for my use case.



> Dinosaurs thinking they're too big to fail.


I agree, Apple and Tesla, despite their current success, could most certainly fail.



> Tesla has Bitcoin and will likely accept it again soon (many other US brands already do) The growing population adores them and the declining population is declining


Mastercard is working on approving cryptocurrencies through their network.
I don't think accepting bitcoin is a significant advantage.

Also a lot of young urban people aren't even buying cars anyway, they just Uber.

Electric cars are headed to commodity status, everyone makes them, and they're all getting to be pretty good. I don't need to prove how cool I am with a luxury car.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Also a lot of young urban people aren't even buying cars anyway, they just Uber.
> 
> Electric cars are headed to commodity status, everyone makes them, and they're all getting to be pretty good. I don't need to prove how cool I am with a luxury car.


TSLA long game is.. robotaxi.. You've been saying iPhones are headed to commodity status for 10 years here man. Seems like more people use Apple then ever now

Apple somehow destroys the competition in real world benchmarks. Tesla pretty much destroys sports cars the same way while being safer at the same time

There's many valid reasons to not use Apple or Tesla but thinking they are not good products is a special kind of bias. You think you need to prove you're cool for not using them lol

I couldn't care less about brand. They're just good products. No marketing for Tesla speaks volumes. Same with Apple user satisfaction surveys


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> TSLA long game is.. robotaxi..


That's the long game for the auto industry.
But taxis are a commodity business, people don't ask what brand of vehicle is coming.
That's exactly why I don't think that Teslas valuation makes sense.



> You've been saying iPhones are headed to commodity status for 10 years here man. Seems like more people use Apple then ever now


Yes, and iPhones are pretty much a commodity, as much as a car. It's just status, they have the same functionality (more or less)



> Apple somehow destroys the competition in real world benchmarks.


That really depends on your use case. 



> There's many valid reasons to not use Apple or Tesla but thinking they are not good products is a special kind of bias.


I never said that. 
I've been clear that I find Apple products inferior.

As far as Tesla, I think they're just the current cool market leader. Other companies have competitive products, and in the robotaxi market their brand cachet doesn't really bring much value.

Just like an iPhone, if all you want to do is text and talk on your phone and use a few apps, it doesn't really matter.

Robotaxis are the commodified future of transportation.



> No marketing for Tesla speaks volumes.


Tesla engages in massive amounts of marketing. Elon is an absolute genius at marketing and promotion.
I don't see how you can say Tesla doesn't do marketing, the whole Cybertruck thing is basically one large PR stunt.


----------



## MrMatt

@m3s
My basic issue with your Tesla/Apple fandom is that it looks like you're just enamoured with them being shiny cool and new.
They're only slightly different than the competition, ahead in some ways, behind in others.
I agree that being cool and new status symbols has benefits, there is a reason I own Apple stock.

However you're confusing their current market positions and public opinion into some sort of longstanding competitive advantage. I don't think it is. Sure it's an advantage, and it's clearly paid out in profit etc. But I don't think current success necessarily leads to future success, remember BB, who got complacent, and eventually overtaken.

As a personal example, I bought a Tab S6 for myself instead of the iPad Air 3, that I bought for my kids. It's a better tablet, better screen, includes pen, more storage, better speakers, better UI, better web browsers. The only place where iPad wins is in Geekbench, but both are more than fast enough for my use.

I see Apple as todays BB, maybe they'll figure out how to remain on top, maybe not.
Unlike BB in it's heyday, the iPhone has real competition.

Tesla, I think they'll remain as a status car brand for a while, but I don't see their valuation making sense. The mass market manufacturers make competitive and in some ways superior product. When we transition to robotaxis, the brand of the taxi isn't much of a consideration at all, at which point it will be a commodity business.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Yes, and iPhones are pretty much a commodity, as much as a car. It's just status, they have the same functionality (more or less)


You've said this for 10 years as a reason against investing in Apple

I can't tell if you are trying to save face here or just aren't capable of revaluating the new information. Apple has destroyed the competition year after year. Tesla is in a position to do the same and you seem to be making the exact same mistake. Your distaste for certain brands is no more objective than others preference for them

No use trying to convince people. The profits speak for themselves


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> MrMatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and iPhones are pretty much a commodity, as much as a car. It's just status, they have the same functionality (more or less)
> 
> 
> 
> You've said this for 10 years as a reason against investing in Apple
Click to expand...

No I haven't.
I think it is perfectly fine to own a company like Apple, and I HAVE owned Apple specifically for almost a decade.



> I can't tell if you are trying to save face here or just aren't capable of revaluating the new information. Apple has destroyed the competition year after year.


Doesn't mean their product is better, which it isn't.
Or that people won't switch when they find out the competitors product is better.



> Tesla is in a position to do the same and you seem to be making the exact same mistake. Your distaste for certain brands is no more objective than others preference for them


What mistake is that?
That Tesla appears too expensive?
I made that mistake with Google, and Apple, and Amazon, I'll be happy to make that mistake with Tesla too.



> No use trying to convince people. The profits speak for themselves


They do, and that's my point. Tesla doesn't have profits to justify their current price.
They have a price to sales of 20, and a price to earnings that's far worse, in a mostly commodity industry that's going to become more so in the future.

I'm perfectly fine being late to the party. It's worked quite well for me. Good long term investing is more about avoiding mistakes than hitting home runs IMO.

I've been investing in the stock market for quite a while, and I'm handily beating the respective indexes by low single digits over more than a decade.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> I see Apple as todays BB, maybe they'll figure out how to remain on top, maybe not.
> Unlike BB in it's heyday, the iPhone has real competition.


You have been saying this for 10 years. Sure some day it will come true.. I'll reevaluate whatever comes to knock Apple off its massive market cap but nothing is coming yet

Maybe next decade



MrMatt said:


> Tesla, I think they'll remain as a status car brand for a while, but I don't see their valuation making sense. The mass market manufacturers make competitive and in some ways superior product.


Yea this is the exact same thing you said about Apple for 10 years even the status thing. I don't think people buy Tesla just for status. I know lots of normal very humble everyday working Americans commuting in them here. Maybe you are envious of them or something but they don't act like they're better or trying to show off with them here

Apple is so mainstream you can't say grandma buys an iPhone for status.. No use trying to convince you since you never budged on Apple for 10 years lol. Let's come back in 5 or 10 and see how Tesla is doing. Just the early crypto adoption alone should do wonders in 5-10 years

I just made 20% today on the next streaming ad ecosystem. So much opportunity for new ideas. I like Tesla but it can't even keep up with the Dog coinz these dayz


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> No use trying to convince you since you never budged on Apple for 10 years lol.


Not even true, in the last 10 years I've bought Apple stock and several thousand in Apple products.
Since my first Apple stock and product purchases were in the last 10 years, I'd say that I did "budge".
My opinion on the product remains the same, just my analysis of the the earnings and profit potential changed, so I invested.

Part of the reason I was so slow to see the potential in Apple is at that time I was still primarily investing in products I felt offered good value. Buying Apple was a change in that I was investing in a company that made products that people see value in, yet I do not. That was a very significant change in perspective.

Tesla today is too expensive by my analysis. I might buy a Tesla vehicle, but I'm not sure it's the best value for my use case.



> I just made 20% today on the next streaming ad ecosystem. So much opportunity for new ideas. I like Tesla but it can't even keep up with the Dog coinz these dayz


What streaming ad ecosystem is that? I think that could use it's own thread.


----------



## andrewf

TSLA enterprise value to TTM EBITDA is only 140x. Given its stated growth aspiration of 50% annually (which it will beat this year), it doesn't take long to grow into that valuation. Margins are also stellar.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> If Tesla was the only company capable or destined to build EV vehicles, the value may be understandable.
> 
> But the reality is.......the competition is coming and will be getting most of the PR in the future.
> 
> Every other EV manufacturer will be highlighted in the main media, on social media, on vehicle review sites etc.
> 
> When other manufacturers get their EV vehicles on the road where everyone can see them........it will be a game changer for Tesla.


The competition came for Apple and yet it still has great margins on iPhone and a huge valuation. If Tesla can sell 20M cars per year at industry leading margins, then the valuation makes a lot of sense.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I've been investing in the stock market for quite a while, and I'm handily beating the respective indexes by low single digits over more than a decade.


Anyone who is really doing this should be working at a hedge fund managing billions. I think people manage to kid themselves quite a bit on this subject.


----------



## Mechanic

andrewf said:


> Anyone who is really doing this should be working at a hedge fund managing billions. I think people manage to kid themselves quite a bit on this subject.


I don't see many ads looking for a hedge fund manager. Besides, it would be a lot tougher, with more pressure to perform than just looking after your own investments.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Anyone who is really doing this should be working at a hedge fund managing billions. I think people manage to kid themselves quite a bit on this subject.


I might just be a monkey with a dartboard.

I've seen quite a few dotcom millionaires lose it all.

And yes, I'm very happy with my slight outperformance. (around 2%)


----------



## james4beach

andrewf said:


> Anyone who is really doing this should be working at a hedge fund managing billions. I think people manage to kid themselves quite a bit on this subject.


Yeah, I think it's very hard for people to fairly evaluate their own performance. There's pride and ego wrapped up in it.

To fairly evaluate your performance, you have to include any previous bad periods. You can't just choose to start the measurement at the time things went well.

For example, I'm currently beating the index with my stock picking. However ... and I can find the old thread at CMF ... my first attempt at stock picking ended pretty tragically and I had to abandon the strategy. So although it's kind of accurate to say I'm beating the market, to be really fair, I have to include my first attempt's performance record as well. And if I combine all of these, it's doubtful that I've beaten XIC the whole time.


----------



## hboy54

andrewf said:


> Anyone who is really doing this should be working at a hedge fund managing billions. I think people manage to kid themselves quite a bit on this subject.


Not really the same thing. An individual has considerable advantages over a fund manager. One fearless and rational investor with a 10 year time horizon vs thousands of fearful irrational investors watching by the quarter. Plus ~0 MER.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Right... So now Musk is worth almost 50% more than Bezos and more than twice as much as Gates.










https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/


----------



## MrBlackhill

And just to put things into perspective...










https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/elon-r-musk/


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> Right... So now Musk is worth almost 50% more than Bezos and more than twice as much as Gates.


Musk has stated he also holds BTC, ETH and DOGE. Those have appreciated like crazy and aren't counted

Bezos and Gates are actively trying to destroy Musk while Musk is just trying to make things better

F Bezos and Gates. Musk could even be Satoshi for all we know. They aren't even remotely close anymore


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Musk has stated he also holds BTC, ETH and DOGE. Those have appreciated like crazy and aren't counted
> 
> Bezos and Gates are actively trying to destroy Musk while Musk is just trying to make things better
> 
> F Bezos and Gates. Musk could even be Satoshi for all we know. They aren't even remotely close anymore


Musk is creating value that's for sure, but he certainly isn't suddenly creating value worth 10x more than back before 2020.

He's been creating value for over a decade or two but it's suddenly only in the past 20 months that it's been recognized to be worth 10x more?

And if $300B makes sense, then why not $1T? Maybe Musk will be the first trillionaire by 2023. Maybe I'm pessimist, by 2022. By end of year 2021, actually.


----------



## m3s

Musk is already a trillionaire.

He has openly stated he holds BTC and ETH

Starlink alone will be a money printer


----------



## m3s

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1453496212477329416


----------



## sags

Global sales of vehicles was 70 million. Tesla controlled the EV market when nobody else had EV vehicles to offer.

The EV market is 4% of the overall market. The all electric EV market is 2.6% of the market. Tesla had 74% of the 2.6% of the 70 million vehicle market, and now they have 56%.

With all the competition that is ramping up.......Tesla's day in the sun is fading fast.

As for self driving cars, I don't think it is possible. There are too many variables on the roads for computers to process for the best outcome.


----------



## m3s

Tesla has machine learning, battery, safety, energy, supply, and manufacture advantages and efficiencies. Demand outstrips supply. Same price for all no bs sales practices. Oh and free upgrades.

GM has government bailouts, a strong union, a huge marketing budget, dealerships with scam service and sales practices, plummeting sales, poor resale value, gimmick tech and joke Hummer EVs. GM reminds me of Sears when it was obviously a zombie long before most could see. Except GM already went bankrupt! We never learn

Of course the old folk like GM. They like Sears and Blockbuster too. Tesla is the future not the past.


----------



## sags

Tesla is a niche manufacturer. Their tech advantage is disappearing rapidly.

It is projected that GM sales of EV vehicles will pass Tesla by 2025 and Volkswagen sales already passed Tesla in Europe.

In China, local automotive manufacturers are already building EV vehicles for $4000. They dominate the Chinese market.

Take the Elon Musk hype with a bucket of salt. The other manufacturers are all going to chew into the Tesla share.

Tesla's current valuation has no foundation in reality. If it wasn't for billions in tax credits, they would have lost money last year.

Those credits are fading away and it will show Emporer Elon wears no clothes.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Global sales of vehicles was 70 million. Tesla controlled the EV market when nobody else had EV vehicles to offer.


GM controlled the EV market when nobody else had EV vehicles to offer.

Tesla has been very successful, but there has never been a time when Tesla was the only one offering EVs.



> With all the competition that is ramping up.......Tesla's day in the sun is fading fast.


I think their premium position is fading.



> As for self driving cars, I don't think it is possible. There are too many variables on the roads for computers to process for the best outcome.


Naw, we should be using self driving cars now for many tasks, they're already far safer than the "average" driver.
The problem is the liability issue.

Remember there was a self driving car that saw a person in the road, and didn't brake, driving into them killing them.





Death of Elaine Herzberg - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Tesla has machine learning, battery, safety, energy, supply, and manufacture advantages and efficiencies. Demand outstrips supply. Same price for all no bs sales practices. Oh and free upgrades.
> 
> GM has government bailouts, a strong union, a huge marketing budget, dealerships with scam service and sales practices, plummeting sales, poor resale value, gimmick tech and joke Hummer EVs. GM reminds me of Sears when it was obviously a zombie long before most could see. Except GM already went bankrupt! We never learn
> 
> Of course the old folk like GM. They like Sears and Blockbuster too. Tesla is the future not the past.


You keep looking at Tesla vs GM, not Tesla vs Ford/VW, who are actually competative.


----------



## sags

Experts say we're decades from fully autonomous cars. Here's why.


While many new cars are equipped to assist drivers at the wheel, experts say we're a long way from seeing cars capable of fully automated driving.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> You keep looking at Tesla vs GM, not Tesla vs Ford/VW, who are actually competative.


Well VW recently invited Elon Musk to talk to their executives and VW has acknowledged Tesla's innovation for years.

Just watch Engineering Explained videos comparing Tesla and VW. Might look similar in the showroom, but vastly different experience in the real world. You have to do a lot more than just sell EVs

Ford is OK. They somehow survived the 2008 financial crisis.. as did Tesla miraculously you have to admit. They seem to make good trucks. I really like their Focus RS made by the Germans in Germany.

Oh they don't sell those anymore for some reason?


----------



## sags

GM's Trailblazers are the fastest selling new vehicles in the US and have the lowest "time on dealer lots" numbers of a couple of days.

GM models contain the most advanced technology possible, made available by GM's partnership with Google, Microsoft and Apple.

GM is piling up billions in profits quarter after quarter, and have eliminated their management pension liabilities by selling them to insurance companies delivering annuities and their healthcare liabilities to the union Healthcare Trust Fund that currently has a surplus. The remaining hourly pension plan is also fully funded since 2019.

The government could have made a nice profit on the loan to GM, but Harper sold all the shares to balance the budget trying to win in 2015.

GM will be around for another 100 years. I don't know if Tesla can make the same claim. We will see how they handle the competition.


----------



## sags

I haven't bothered with Apple products much, but I was in the Mac store yesterday and saw the new 27 inch Mac desktop.

Wow..........I want one now.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I haven't bothered with Apple products much, but I was in the Mac store yesterday and saw the new 27 inch Mac desktop.
> 
> Wow..........I want one now.


Wait for the M1 chip. I would rather have the new M1 MBP or M1 Air connected to my own monitors though

My 2011 MBP just won't die. Travelled the world in a backpack and runs 24/7 now


----------



## sags

My android products haven't stood up well.

I have an older HP desktop in the basement.......possibly with some bitcoin fragments locked on the hard drive from the original Slush pool........but I don't know for sure.

I have an older Dell Pavilion laptop (cost $1700 brand new) with a dead battery and the power button doesn't work. It still has Microsoft Vista OS.

I have a couple of small Dell tablets that won't charge and they can't replace the battery.

Our new Trailblazer has wireless charging and wireless Android Auto, but my LG G6 smart phone will charge wirelessly but not connect with Android Auto.

LG has discontinued their cellphone business and don't provide any technical help now.

I have drawers full of old phones, from flip phones to Blackberries. The only thing I am missing is my old "bag phone".

Meh.........I am close to trashing all the junk and buying a couple of Apple products.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I have an older HP desktop in the basement.......possibly with some bitcoin fragments locked on the hard drive from the original Slush pool........but I don't know for sure.


The BTC is on the blockchain. You just need to find the seed phrase to recover your wallet. Could easily be 6-7 figures USD now

I don't know how mining worked back then but if your seed phrase is on that HDD you just need buy an external 3.5" USB hard drive enclosure. All you need is a screwdriver and a youtube video. Very easy. Whatever you do don't take it to someone and ask them to recover your keys... they could easily just take it themselves

The great thing about 2011 MBP was you could swap parts very easily. I changed the RAM, HDD, battery, fan and some keys over the years. Very easy to swap and very easy to source parts. Not so much nowadays everything is built to be as unrepairable as possible

Except for the rare brand like Beyerdynamic. The new headphones are surprisingly repairable. We need more of that


----------



## m3s

Looks like when you set up the Slush Pool you should have registered a BTC address for your mining rewards

If you gave me that BTC address I can easily see how much BTC it has today. It's probably still on the BTC blockchain safe and sound today

You need to find 12 or 24 words to control that BTC address. Maybe that seed phrase is on your HP HDD in a text file..


----------



## sags

I don't remember a phrase from that time. All I did was download the software and let the machine run. It was all new and I didn't know anything about it.

After a week or so of listening to it working away, and seeing the value of bitcoins was almost nothing, I turned it off.

The software may still be on the machine though.....now that you mention it.

I did read that Slushpool had a whole pile of dormant accounts and they took a vote and decided to keep it all for themselves.

I assume from that knowledge that Slushpool originally kept the bitcoin earnings on their database until someone requested them.

I can't log in because my old email address at Bell Sympatico no longer exists, so I think I it is "tough luck".

I did read that back at that time, bitcoins were easy to mine, the rewards were plentiful, and it was the first mining pool, so it is possible that I got some awarded as my "share" as it was so early in the game.

I am thinking of buying a cheap used monitor and get the old computer running.....just to see what is on there.


----------



## m3s

If you have a desktop or laptop you could boot the old HDD on it to see what's up

I have old HDDs that I can still boot using an external USB HDD enclosure ($25 on amazon)

Either way be careful who you tell what could be on there


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Well VW recently invited Elon Musk to talk to their executives and VW has acknowledged Tesla's innovation for years.
> 
> Just watch Engineering Explained videos comparing Tesla and VW. Might look similar in the showroom, but vastly different experience in the real world. You have to do a lot more than just sell EVs
> 
> Ford is OK. They somehow survived the 2008 financial crisis.. as did Tesla miraculously you have to admit. They seem to make good trucks. I really like their Focus RS made by the Germans in Germany.
> 
> Oh they don't sell those anymore for some reason?


It's not really a "miracle" since Tesla wasn't shipping until after the financial crisis.


----------



## m3s

Imagine if the US gave the GM bailout money to Tesla?

We'd all be streaming Squid Game and playing Caraoke in our self-driving EVs with automatic Air Suspension and Fart mode


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla is a niche manufacturer. Their tech advantage is disappearing rapidly.


Absolutely no indication that this is true. They are faster and more nimble than legacy OEMs. VW is terrified.


----------



## MrBlackhill

_Elon Musk's Wealth Has Increased So Much, He Could Buy Every MLB, NBA, NFL And NHL Team_


----------



## m3s

If he just wanted to buy all the parasocial tribal male entertainment clubs, intelligent investors wouldn't be as interested though


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Absolutely no indication that this is true. They are faster and more nimble than legacy OEMs. VW is terrified.


They are, but they also have the infrastructure and experience to make millions of vehicles around the world.

It really is a race to see if Tesla can catch up there faster than they can pivot to electric.
I actually think it's pretty much an even race, however the variable is Elon.

Musk is simultaneously the biggest asset and risk.


Assuming it's an even race, or even that Tesla has a 90% chance of being dominant, the valuations make the competition the better buy due to their much lower price.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Assuming it's an even race, or even that Tesla has a 90% chance of being dominant, the valuations make the competition the better buy due to their much lower price.


I'd say the valuation gives Tesla the edge to raise capital for growth. They are making huge deals around the world for supply and manufacturing

The legacy OEMs are still dicking around with bs like Hummer EV. Basically Fuji Film, Blockbuster, Sears all over. Corporate culture is very slow to change

When GM has declining sales it's hard to make capital expenditures for growth compared to a new company with increasing sales


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> I'd say the valuation gives Tesla the edge to raise capital for growth. They are making huge deals around the world for supply and manufacturing
> 
> The legacy OEMs are still dicking around with bs like Hummer EV. Basically Fuji Film, Blockbuster, Sears all over. Corporate culture is very slow to change


The Mach E reviews are very positive, and they've already sold out their first years production.
Electric F150 also has a lot of pre orders.

Lucid is shipping, Rivan shipping soon.

I think GM is a bit slow, but remember the Hummer is a status vehicle, Hummer Electric is a status symbol, big hulking manly, but electric.


----------



## m3s

Rivan did a bunch of demos in Colorado. That's not a legacy brand though

If available I'd consider a Rivan or Cybertruck especially with Biden's $12.5k incentive coming. It's some kind of tax credit though so probably doesn't work for me anyway. I'd sooner by an EV from an EV focused company. A lot of companies slap their brand on something new to compete using their brand loyalty but it's rare they can reinvent

No rush. I look for later models of a platform after the issues are better known. I'll wait for the Tesla electric yacht


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Meh.........I am close to trashing all the junk and buying a couple of Apple products.


My older computer stuff just keeps working. Why trash the old stuff? My Lenovo Thinkpad is about 12 yrs old and still works flawlessly. I don't see anything on the market that would be an improvement in any way.

We have two Blackberry Playbooks. We use them every day, mainly as book readers as well as for occasional emails. Unless they fail, we will likely keep using them.

Even with cars. EVs sound great if you only look at the savings in CO2 tailpipe emissions. But how about their overall global carbon footprint? From mining through production to eventual disposal. Several studies on this. Not as green as they may seem, especially from a global viewpoint. But better than ICEs IF you look at long enough life cycle.

I wonder if driving my _existing_ 85 ICE sedan (8L/100) for another 10 years (say 50k km) and then disposing of it, would have a larger carbon footprint than creating a new mid sized EV from scratch and then disposing of it at end of life? Read a couple of articles, but no real conclusions. However , it does look like keeping an 85 sedan _may_ produce less CO2e emissions over 50k km. Although, maybe not here in Ontario where power has low carbon.

Gut feeling is that replacing existing items that are still functional with new is often not good for the environment.









Elon Musk should come clean; Tesla's carbon emissions are rising


A company that thrives on the power of the sun shouldn't hide the footprint of its own operations in shadow




www.business-standard.com













Tesla's Electric Cars Aren't as Green as You Might Think


Despite their green cred, Tesla cars create pollution and carbon emissions in ways that are easily overlooked by consumers and investors.




www.wired.com







https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2019/62/e3sconf_icbte2019_01009.pdf



Above study conludes that Tesla 3 actually produces more CO2 equivalent emissions than an ICE vehicle of same size! (at least based on their power Co2e emissions) Their explanation is, I believe, that the model 3 is more powerful than
Chinese ICE vehicles of similar size and therefore results in higher CO2e equivalent emissions even during normal driving!









Study does not mention disposal stage. Presumably roughly equal if battery can be recycled.


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Gut feeling is that replacing existing items that are still functional with new is often not good for the environment.


When you replace an electronic it probably gets trashed (all my apple products are gifted, traded sold but that's not the norm) but a used car is typically resold or parted out.

Just like you looked at the complete life cycle from the start, you need to continue down the rest of its lifecycle. Maybe someone replaces an old vehicle that lacked modern emissions etc

Planned obsolescence is the real problem here. The military gets decades out of equipment. Old '80s Mercedes are still everywhere in Africa. Tesla strives to build things that last


----------



## MrBlackhill

andrewf said:


> Anyone who is really doing this should be working at a hedge fund managing billions.


Managing a hedge fund is another game, managing billions is another game. Whereas there's no limit to the opportunities when managing your own portfolio of just a few millions or less, as long as you know what you're doing.

Look at Mawer New Canada Fund. They've closed it now that they are managing $2B "_to ensure that the size of the Fund does not hinder the Fund’s strategy as large inﬂows of capital may exceed the available investment opportunities to the detriment of the performance of the Fund."_

Turns out they've averaged 14% CAGR since 1988 by investing in mid caps and small caps, quite outperforming the TSX 60, ha! And they're playing with just 45 holdings.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Rivan did a bunch of demos in Colorado. That's not a legacy brand though


Ford is about as "legacy brand" as you can get, and they're ramping up to ship thousands of pure EV's a a week, and they've already sold hundreds of thousands of Hybrids and plugin Hybrids.

I mention Rivan and Lucid to point out Tesla isn't the only game in town.



> I'd sooner by an EV from an EV focused company.


That's like not buying an iPhone because it wasn't being sold by a computer company, not a mobile phone company.

My next vehicle will be bought on if it seems to be a good vehicle.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> My next vehicle will be bought on if it seems to be a good vehicle.


People make decisions far more based on emotions than anything else

Everyone is a vaccine expert with no real knowledge, foreign policy experts having never visited the country in question, phone experts because they watched youtube etc

Your apparent superior knowledge of Apple and Tesla's market hasn't materialized in a decade


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> People make decisions far more based on emotions than anything else
> 
> Everyone is a vaccine expert with no real knowledge, foreign policy experts having never visited the country in question, phone experts because they watched youtube etc
> 
> Your apparent superior knowledge of Apple and Tesla's market hasn't materialized in a decade


I'm not sure what you mean?

I thought Apple would have better than market returns, so I bought stock, and they've had better than market returns.
What I thought would happen, did happen, so what "hasn't materialized"?


To be clear I haven't said anything about Tesla, except I don't get the stock valuation. And I don't, I might be wrong, I'm happy being wrong, but they're trading at almost 100x sales. The math just doesn't add up for me.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> I thought Apple would have better than market returns, so I bought stock, and they've had better than market returns.
> What I thought would happen, did happen, so what "hasn't materialized"?


Hard to believe if that is true. Did you ever post somewhere here when you bought Apple or just backpedaling now?

I remember you saying repeatedly since (2011? 10 years?) that smartphones would become cheap commodity. Which is what you are saying now about EVs. I disagree in both cases

Another similarity is how Canadians seem to be behind in adoption of new tech trends. I saw this with Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google etc and now Tesla. Probably Netflix as well

It's as if American culture spreads to Canada with a delay. I can see it happening again now. Teslas everywhere here and Canadians are a few years behind saying their GMs do the same thing

I remember Canadians saying the same about Blackberries for years. "I prefer keyboards, I hate touch screens" etc lol


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Hard to believe if that is true. Did you ever post somewhere here when you bought Apple or just backpedaling now?


Well I've been saying Apple was a buy for almost a decade here on this forum.








Apple Inc. (AAPL)


"Cloud" services won't result in dumb terminals. Phones, laptops, and tablets continue to use faster processors, not slower. A dumb terminal is one that receives a text interface, spits it to the screen, and sends back keypress (i.e. mainframe terminals). More and more the trend is to use a...




www.canadianmoneyforum.com







> I remember you saying repeatedly since (2011? 10 years?) that smartphones would become cheap commodity. Which is what you are saying now about EVs. I disagree in both cases


I still think smartphones will become a cheap commodity, just like cars are a relatively cheap commodity, but people will still spend a lot for status symbols.
But I think the market will start to commodify. Look at the longevity of Apple products, the need to go get the latest and greatest is diminishing.

I think you're really confused by my apparently contradictory views on companies like Apple.
I've seen the profit potential for years, I just don't think their products are generally all that great, particularly if you consider price.
I do think their new Macbook pros actually look pretty nice, but that's really the first product that's truly impressed me in many years.




> Another similarity is how Canadians seem to be behind in adoption of new tech trends. I saw this with Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google etc and now Tesla. Probably Netflix as well


That's funny Canadians were in the past early adopters, at least for the past few decades.
We were well ahead on debit cards, then pin and chip credit cards long before the US.
Also our internet usage still leads the US by a few points. (95.6% vs 90.8%) and








Topic: Internet usage in Canada


Get the latest statistics and facts on internet usage in Canada.




www.statista.com












Topic: Internet usage in the United States


Get the latest statistics and facts on internet usage in United States




www.statista.com





I'm not actually sure why you think Canadians are behind in the adoption of new tech. Though some things have been slower due to our much higher level of regulation.



> I remember Canadians saying the same about Blackberries for years. "I prefer keyboards, I hate touch screens" etc lol


Until good autocorrection the Blackberry keyboard was far superior.
I could thumb-touchtype very quickly with my BB, it was a step back to touchscreen keyboards.
I thought for serious typing the slide out keyboard would have been a winner.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I mention Rivan and Lucid to point out Tesla isn't the only game in town.


They are both at least 5 years behind Tesla. Rivian was hand crafting a vehicle a day. Scaling the supply chain for EVs is hard. Ford will also discover this. Ford is only planning to make 50k per year. Tesla will make close to 20x that many EVs this year, 30x next year, etc.


----------



## sags

GM sends us retirees emails describing what they are doing and will be doing in the near future.

They are going into EV vehicles fast and furious. My concern would be that they are spending too much time and resources too soon.

It is going to be a long time before EVs are practical for much of the population, and the market for them is still a small fraction of the overall market.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> It is going to be a long time before EVs are practical for much of the population, and the market for them is still a small fraction of the overall market.


They may be an option for those who need to buy a new car. In that case they cost a bit more, but energy cost will in time compensate.

Where it will be difficult to justify on straight economics, is for those who have perfectly good cars that still have a realistic life of 5-10yrs or more.

I did a quick comparison.
For ICE, I used 8L/100km or at current gas prices roughly 8*$1.50*10= $120/1000km.
For EV, I used an average of our own off peak cost (11-13c/kwh), EV usage of 16kwh/100km and charging efficiency of 80%. Comes to $24/1000km.
Difference of $96/1000km in fueling costs
The ICE car will likely need more maintenance. Using data from a Car&Driver article that was based on this AAA data, it seems the ICE car would incur about 1.6c/km higher maintenance costs. A used car we already own, perhaps higher. So I used 2c/km or $20/1000km for period beyond initial new car warranty.
Insurance and financing costs could affect outcome, but I ignored those.
So lets say used ICE car will cost $96+$20=$116/1000km more to operate than the new EV.

How many km do we drive? We would not do more than 10k km/yr, so our saving would be $1160/yr. Lets say the cost of the EV after trading our newest car (2019 Outback) including taxes is $30,000 and we pay cash (no financing charges) That would mean it would take $30,000/$1160 = 25.8 years to recover our cost. For those doing 20k km/yr , 1/2 that number ~13 years. If we looked at our older cars with very low trade value, things would of course look even less attractive.

If we looked at new vs new, the economics would perhaps make the EV more interesting. It would depend on which EV and which ICE to compare and what size of car to use.

A Tesla 3 may be a bit small if an only family car, but this blog used it and a VW Jetta for comparison The comparison is reasonably well done, but is a bit dated and based on his personal schedule of fill-ups or charges. It concluded about 5 yrs to recover additional cost of Tesla if driving.

The Globe & Mail posted a comparison earlier this year. They concluded that EVs end up costing more even after rebates & low energy cost in Ontario and other provinces who don't have the rebates that Quebec, for example, had.

The CAA site has an EV calculator. It says that a Tesla 3 will cost 47c/km to operate over 5 years if you drive 20k km/yr or 88c/km if you drive 10k km. Corresponding costs for a Subaru Impreza hatchback were 41c/km and 69c/km.

My conclusions:
1. An EV may be worth buying if your choice is between a new EV or new ICE _and_ you can cope with the limitations of range and charging facilities. Not because of economics, because those still seem to slightly favour the ICE. But because at same time, you can do something for the environment (at least in Ontario where we have relatively clean electricity)

2. An EV is not worthwhile switching to if you have a reliable existing vehicle that can be driven another 5 or 10 years without any unexpected expenses (our 2019 Outback would fall in that category). Building a new EV may very well result in higher emissions than us driving the iCE for a while longer


----------



## m3s

It seems like a lot of people are stuck in the present if not the past

Just look at Sears, Blockbuster, Blackberry, Fujifilm etc. It's happening again now with a lot of legacy brands. The past few decades were just laying the ground work for what is coming next.

You need to look at where things are going now more than ever


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> An EV is not worthwhile switching to if you have a reliable existing vehicle that can be driven another 5 or 10 years without any unexpected expenses (our 2019 Outback would fall in that category)


I'm in no rush to switch. I just did the mid life maintenance on my 10 year old Subaru and it can easily do another 10. This would be the sweet spot to sell though because it's somehow worth more today in USD than I paid CAD 8 years ago. If not my last ICE it will be my last manual transmission

EVs are improving so much now I would rather wait 5-10 years for many reasons. Maybe GM will pull a miracle and everyone will be driving the magical Hummer EV in 5-10 years. Who knows right. Maybe I can just get by with a motorbike and robotaxi in 10 years. That would actually be nice imo


----------



## AltaRed

We currently have a 2020 Mazda CX-5 GT Turbo. That will do us another 10 years until we are into our early/mid-80s at which time our 'last' primary vehicle will most likely be an EV. 

Our other vehicle is old and will be replaced in 2022 with another ICE (sort of a convertible roadster this time as a toy for my 3rd childhood). It will likely be a bequest eventually given it will only be 3 season driven and will not likely see much use beyond age 85 if I survive that long. 

I agree with Agent99 that the best we can do for our planet is to actually avoid consumer churn. Keep what one has for the long term minimizing this continuous manufacturing of 'stuff'.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> I agree with Agent99 that the best we can do for our planet is to actually avoid consumer churn. Keep what one has for the long term minimizing this continuous manufacturing of 'stuff'.


We need a way to discourage planned obsolescence

The "right to repair" movement has picked up a bit lately. The cost of labour here has made it cheaper to replace with new things made by cheap labour in China

I follow "buy it for life" groups online and those items are pretty rare now unfortunately


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> It seems like a lot of people are stuck in the present if not the past
> 
> Just look at Sears, Blockbuster, Blackberry, Fujifilm etc. It's happening again now with a lot of legacy brands. The past few decades were just laying the ground work for what is coming next.
> 
> You need to look at where things are going now more than ever


Yes you do.
I was honestly surprised that one of the largest mail order companies with pickup counters and service depots across the country managed to fail.
Now Amazon is spending big to recreate what Sears squandered.

But you also have to realize a lot of these things are hard.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> They are both at least 5 years behind Tesla. Rivian was hand crafting a vehicle a day. Scaling the supply chain for EVs is hard. Ford will also discover this. Ford is only planning to make 50k per year. Tesla will make close to 20x that many EVs this year, 30x next year, etc.


Ford is planning to put out 150k EV's this model year (50k Mustang, 100k F150)
I seriously doubt Tesla is going to ship 3M vehicles next year.

You also have to remember that Ford has already built a LOT of hybrids. I think they've got the institutional experience to effectively ramp up. That was (and still is) one of the major things holding Tesla back.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> But you also have to realize a lot of these things are hard.


Yes I think it's much harder for a legacy organization like GM, Sears, Fuji etc to adjust. I see it in my own organization. Lots of dinosaurs that will waste many years pondering the merit of even the slightest easiest of obvious change

It's so much easier for a company like Tesla or amazon to come in and shake things up from the ground up. I don't see how GM can compete with that especially with a history of failure. They would need to be very aggressive with change


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Ford is planning to put out 150k EV's this model year (50k Mustang, 100k F150)
> I seriously doubt Tesla is going to ship 3M vehicles next year.
> 
> You also have to remember that Ford has already built a LOT of hybrids. I think they've got the institutional experience to effectively ramp up. That was (and still is) one of the major things holding Tesla back.


Tesla will build close to 1M vehicles in 2021 out of two facilities. With Texas and Germany facilities going live next year they will likely well exceed 1.5M next year and over 2M the next. And Tesla will have all the capital it needs to pursue rapid expansion.


----------



## sags

Many of these companies are coming for their share of the EV market.

I suspect the future EV market will be just as fragmented as the ICE market is today.









Car Brands, Companies, Manufacturers


Check out the latest brands, companies, manufacturers and so much more on TopSpeed!




www.topspeed.com


----------



## m3s

Competition is good. The market share won't be equally divided though.

Some people want mohawk hairstyles and some people want Hummer EVs just to make some kind of point. Some people love Ford or GM because they grew up with it etc

I find it beneficial to have a vehicle with a strong following/market to facilitate parts, repairs, resale etc


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Tesla will build close to 1M vehicles in 2021 out of two facilities. With Texas and Germany facilities going live next year they will likely well exceed 1.5M next year and over 2M the next. And Tesla will have all the capital it needs to pursue rapid expansion.


Yes, I think Tesla will produce a lot of vehicles, looks like for this model year they'll be making about 6x what Ford is planning in their FIRST year. (roughly 900k vs 150k)
Tesla is making more, but nowhere near the 20x you claim.

Yes Tesla has a lead now, but I think that Tesla fans overstate the advantage and miss that the competition is actually quite close. Ford production is about where Tesla production was in 2017/2018, and I think they'll will be able to ramp up very quick.


But lets circle back to the central issue I have.
Teslas valuation is too high.
Like it's great to get the capital they need, but it just doesn't seem like a reasonable investment.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> But lets circle back to the central issue I have.
> Teslas valuation is too high.
> Like it's great to get the capital they need, but it just doesn't seem like a reasonable investment.


I don't have TSLA myself but I had some good short term trades on it

That massive valuation seems to be helping them grow fast. I see the pictures of massive giga factories going up around the world. They can't keep up with demand either. Ford will be ok but their fans are aging. Will their demand keep pace around the world? All I know is they canceled a lot of models

I work with young americans and they gush over Tesla news and how they can't wait to get one. Not one of the has ever mentioned Ford EVs

The boss drives a nice F-150 though. Maybe some mid-life folks will buy electric F-150s thinking it has the same appeal as any EV


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Many of these companies are coming for their share of the EV market.
> 
> I suspect the future EV market will be just as fragmented as the ICE market is today.


It certainly looks that way!

Car&Driver have a list of what is coming. Look out Tesla!!

Some in above link are way out there! However, Tesla will face some very strong competition from the fully entrenched brands including the likes of IONIQ (Hyundai) and Kia. Subaru (Solterra) and Toyota (bZ4X Concept) have combined forces and have a nice looking compact crossover coming soon that will appeal to many. So do most of the big names including VW with their Id.4&8. Many of these are mid sized and priced vehicles. 

If I was in the market, I would like to buy an EV from a company that has a local presence. They all do, except for Tesla. Tesla might be smart to buy out one of those companies with established dealer networks. Seems they could afford to!


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Seems they could afford to!


Would an online bank want to buy B&M branches? Direct sales has cost advantages. Younger generation prefer this model.

Let the legacy brands cater to the legacy generation with horseless carriage EVs and high pressure upsale tactics and unnecessary planned obsolescence wasteful maintenance that is required to feed the stealership model

My local TD Bank that closed during the pandemic is now a Tesla supercharger


----------



## andrewf

No one seems to be asking if Ford is making any money on EVs. If they aren't, that will put a damper on their scaling plans. Tesla clearly is making money as they have no legacy ICE business to hide behind.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> No one seems to be asking if Ford is making any money on EVs. If they aren't, that will put a damper on their scaling plans. Tesla clearly is making money as they have no legacy ICE business to hide behind.


The German made Focus RS was a good car. But people didn't want a good German car with a Ford logo. It failed.

The F-150 is their bread and butter in the US market. It is somewhat protected by the chicken tax that keeps the real Toyota Hilux out of NA. Even if Ford builds good EVs it doesn't mean people want a Ford EV. Ford built perfectly good German cars but people who want a good German cars will buy VW or BMW..

People who want an EV will tend to buy a Tesla imo. People who are that brand loyal to Ford are niche and/or aging me thinks


----------



## m3s

Tesla Cybertruck has scarcity appeal. The waiting list is now over 1 million. Ford Lightning has 100k waiting list

People are lined up like they used to for the latest iPhone. Except they can't make Cybertrucks fast enough to satisfy demand. Americans will get them first and it could become like a status symbol for people in other countries because it would be so rare. The F-150 EV looks exactly like the very common F-150

The Cybertruck will advertise itself. Ford will spend billions on touching save-the-union superbowl ads instead of paying the union themself.


----------



## sags

agent99 said:


> It certainly looks that way!
> 
> Car&Driver have a list of what is coming. Look out Tesla!!
> 
> Some in above link are way out there! However, Tesla will face some very strong competition from the fully entrenched brands including the likes of IONIQ (Hyundai) and Kia. Subaru (Solterra) and Toyota (bZ4X Concept) have combined forces and have a nice looking compact crossover coming soon that will appeal to many. So do most of the big names including VW with their Id.4&8. Many of these are mid sized and priced vehicles.
> 
> If I was in the market, I would like to buy an EV from a company that has a local presence. They all do, except for Tesla. Tesla might be smart to buy out one of those companies with established dealer networks. Seems they could afford to!


Wow.......looking at those models the Tesla looks a bit dowdy and dated already, and what is with the Tesla truck.......are they serious ?

It reminds me of the ill-fated stainless steel DeLorean.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Wow.......looking at those models the Tesla looks a bit dowdy and dated already, and what is with the Tesla truck.......are they serious ?


LOL

I thought the opposite. Funny how the 20-somethings like the Tesla's and the ol guys think they look dowdy and dated

Most vehicles are covered in fake vents and pointless overstyled lines for the boomer aesthetics. They love that stuff eh


----------



## m3s

There's 1000's on the waitlist for the Hummer EV

There's 1,000,000's on the waitlist of the Cybertruck and police forces can't wait to test them

Didn't the Hummer die once already? The Taliban wouldn't even take them


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> No one seems to be asking if Ford is making any money on EVs. If they aren't, that will put a damper on their scaling plans. Tesla clearly is making money as they have no legacy ICE business to hide behind.


People have been asking continuously. And the answer is yes, they're making money on EVs.
"Chief Financial Officer John Lawler noted that the Mustang Mach-E is "profitable today." "








Ford reports $1.1B in earnings before interest and taxes in second quarter of 2021


The global chip shortage has hit Ford hard, but the company said it made money in the second quarter and forecasts better days ahead.



www.freep.com













Ford's Mustang Mach-E Profits, Online Ordering Among Q2 Highlights For Blue Oval Analysts


Analysts are sizing up what Ford's latest earnings report means and what investors should look forward to from the automaker going forward.




markets.businessinsider.com





The F150 Electric backlog seems to keep increasing, I think Ford is also still supply constrained. But they're planning on ramping fast.


----------



## sags

It is the beginning of the end for Tesla......or it could be the end of their beginning.

All the news for Tesla is problematic.

An analysis of their capitalization claims they are $1 Trillion overvalued, there are questions about the "sale" to bankrupt Hertz, and there are rising recalls and quality issues.

There are a posse of auto manufacturers coming to take away Tesla's lunch.

Musk should stop tweeting about planting dogecoin on Mars and start fixing all the problems. 

People on waiting lists are getting tired of waiting year after year.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> There are a posse of auto manufacturers coming to take away Tesla's lunch.


Sounds like the posse of fake news to me

Nobody credits their success to believing the FUD sags

Quite the contrary


----------



## agent99

The drivers position on the Cybertruck seems way forward with no engine compartment for protection. Anyone seen any videos of them doing crash testing? Or does driver sit in back seat and let truck drive itself? 

No matter how you look at it, that is one weird vehicle. Looks like a 3 yr old designed it. Perhaps they did and Musk is just showing that he can do whatever he wants and some sectors of public will buy in.


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> The drivers position on the Cybertruck seems way forward with no engine compartment for protection. Anyone seen any videos of them doing crash testing? Or does driver sit in back seat and let truck drive itself?
> 
> No matter how you look at it, that is one weird vehicle. Looks like a 3 yr old designed it. Perhaps they did and Musk is just showing that he can do whatever he wants and some sectors of public will buy in.


You realize the body is stainless steel and the windshield is bullet proof? Haven't heard about safety ratings on Cybertruck but Tesla so far have top crash test ratings

The design is very functional. Elon is a first principles thinker. The Starship has a similar functional stainless steel design. Humans like to add more complexity when we should strive to remove it

Marketing trends have convinced you that more fake vents, fake exhausts, fake grills and pointless lines make a vehicle look better.


----------



## agent99

Reading these forums, I get the impression that some of the kids here think that us older folks don't know what we are talking about and are all wrong about everything. 

I have a suggestion for the Moderators. Why not create a *new sub-forum* called *"The Playpen"*. Somewhere where the kids can play to their hearts content. Discuss Teslas finer points, Cryptos, play games, Etc. Keep it closed to the rest of us. A place where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else. 

What do you think??


----------



## sags

The final design of the Cybertruck doesn't even resemble the original design.

Tesla discovered that when they bent the thick steel on the brake press, it cracked........so they had to go with cutting straight lines and welding them together.

I had experienced that before when building Armored Personal Carriers.

The armored steel plating on the floor had to be bent to accommodate the axles underneath and it cracked badly as well.

They tried filling the cracks but that would lessen the strength of the armored plate so the inspectors set them aside.

I don't know how they resolved the issue because there was a major layoff and bump backs by seniority, so I transferred to a different location and job.

I did read that at least the Cybertruck will be available in different colors, and that the production has been delayed again due to upgrades.

To me, the Cybertruck looks like an APC military unit, which GM were building back in 1978.

They were actually an older Swiss design called MOWAG.

John DeLorean also left GM to build his stainless steel car........the DeLorean.

This is not a new or revolutionary design concept deployed by Tesla. Even battery propulsion has a past history in WW2 submarines for example.

Musk deserves credit for refining the technology and vehicles, but he certainly isn't the father of the concept.


----------



## sags

Who killed the electric car.........20 years ago ?


----------



## bgc_fan

sags said:


> Who killed the electric car.........20 years ago ?
> 
> View attachment 22332


There's one significant change, and that's the replacement of lead-acid batteries with lithium-ion. That's what made EVs much more viable now than 20 years ago.
Here's a brief overview between the two and you can see why EVs are much more viable now.








Spot the Difference: Lithium Ion Versus Lead Acid Battery Electric Technology | Cummins Inc.


Here are the top 3 differences between the two battery chemistries and some examples of which technology to opt for when going electric.




www.cummins.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Musk deserves credit for refining the technology and vehicles, but he certainly isn't the father of the concept.


I don't think he ever claims stainless steel to be new

He's just looking at everything from the first principles and cutting out any unnecessary bs wherever possible

Starship is also stainless steel


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> I have a suggestion for the Moderators. Why not create a *new sub-forum* called *"The Playpen"*. Somewhere where the kids can play to their hearts content. Discuss Teslas finer points, Cryptos, play games, Etc. Keep it closed to the rest of us. A place where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.


Seems like the Tesla and crypto threads get all the views and comments lately

Do we really need age specific sub forums like a "Nursing Home" to compare bond yields, play cribs and complain about how the grandkids ESG dreams destroy their estate

You can already start threads on whatever you want but everyone seems to gravitate to the new stuff


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> It is the beginning of the end for Tesla......or it could be the end of their beginning.
> 
> All the news for Tesla is problematic.
> 
> An analysis of their capitalization claims they are $1 Trillion overvalued, there are questions about the "sale" to bankrupt Hertz, and there are rising recalls and quality issues.
> 
> There are a posse of auto manufacturers coming to take away Tesla's lunch.
> 
> Musk should stop tweeting about planting dogecoin on Mars and start fixing all the problems.
> 
> People on waiting lists are getting tired of waiting year after year.


I'm pretty sure every other automaker would love to have Tesla's "problems".


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> Reading these forums, I get the impression that some of the kids here think that us older folks don't know what we are talking about and are all wrong about everything.
> 
> I have a suggestion for the Moderators. Why not create a *new sub-forum* called *"The Playpen"*. Somewhere where the kids can play to their hearts content. Discuss Teslas finer points, Cryptos, play games, Etc. Keep it closed to the rest of us. A place where they can't hurt themselves or anyone else.
> 
> What do you think??


This is a Tesla thread. If you are not interested, you can simply not visit.


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> The drivers position on the Cybertruck seems way forward with no engine compartment for protection. Anyone seen any videos of them doing crash testing? Or does driver sit in back seat and let truck drive itself?


Cars have crumple zones. It isn't the engine that protects the driver. Indeed, a lot of engineering has to go into not having the engine land in the driver's lap in a crash. Have you seen crash test videos of Tesla's compared to ICE vehicles? Or have you not seen the data? They have the lowest probability of injury.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The final design of the Cybertruck doesn't even resemble the original design.


Didn't know you were privy to the final design. If you are going to say stuff like this, you should substantiate it or stop bloviating.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> You realize the body is stainless steel and the windshield is bullet proof? Haven't heard about safety ratings on Cybertruck but Tesla so far have top crash test ratings
> 
> The design is very functional. Elon is a first principles thinker. The Starship has a similar functional stainless steel design. Humans like to add more complexity when we should strive to remove it
> 
> Marketing trends have convinced you that more fake vents, fake exhausts, fake grills and pointless lines make a vehicle look better.


Tesla for the vehicles they tested have good ratings.
But so does the competition, the mach E looks amazing.








2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E 4-door SUV


2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E 4-door SUV - midsize SUV



www.iihs.org





Tesla Model 3 also looks pretty good.








2020 Tesla Model 3 4-door sedan


2020 Tesla Model 3 4-door sedan - midsize luxury car



www.iihs.org




But not really significantly different than the A4








2021 Audi A4 4-door sedan


2021 Audi A4 4-door sedan - midsize luxury car



www.iihs.org





Most vehicles are quicly getting "top safety ratings". If you're buying a new vehicle, they're all great, why would you buy a vehicle that is less safe.


----------



## m3s

I'm not reading those reports as I'm not in the market - but the Tesla got rated safety + and the 2 others just got no +

Why does the Mustang E need so many fake vents to make it look like a ICE with silly fake vents?










Just make it simple and easy to clean. Fake vents are only to look good but they don't. In 5 years this will look like such an outdated trend


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> To me, the Cybertruck looks like an APC military unit, which GM were building back in 1978.
> 
> They were actually an older Swiss design called MOWAG.


I thought the nearest thing to a MOWAG would be the Hummer. The Cybertruck doesn't look much like that.



> John DeLorean also left GM to build his stainless steel car........the DeLorean.
> 
> This is not a new or revolutionary design concept deployed by Tesla.


Not exactly with huge success! My guess is that the Cybertrucks too, will not be a success once the public actually sees them.

Can't image why they would use stainless steel. I presume that they have done their homework and used it because of strength and perhaps lower environmental footprint than aluminum or composites? It would have to be very thin to compete weight wise. Painting S/S is another issue. I read somewhere that they will try and temper the metal to different colors. But doubtful that will work. Probably use stick on vinyl wrap like they do on metal boats.


----------



## m3s

Elon Musk tweeted a lot about stainless steel in like 2018 when they were designing the Starship

Cybertruck seems like some kind of spin off of that design choice. What benefit is paint besides aesthetics? Lots of people even wrap painted cars now for aesthetics

Steel boats are better and safer. Fiberglass and plastic molds are great for the person who owns the mold (planned obsolescence)


----------



## m3s

Techcrunch review of Mach-E SUV sounds underwhelming

During my short time with the Mach-E, one thing became clear: The Mach-E should not be called a Mustang, and it should not be called an SUV.

By calling the Mach-E a Mustang SUV, Ford is selling buyers an experience not found in the Mach-E. This isn’t a fight over semantics. The Mach-E isn’t a sporty SUV in a traditional manner. For that, look at the Audi E-Tron Sportback or Tesla Model X. Those offer several key characteristics missing from the Mach-E SUV. They’re sturdy, stout and powerful, whereas the Mach-E feels small, loose and sloppy.

TL;DR
My first impressions of the Mach-E are poor, and I went into this short test with excited optimism. For me, this Ford Mach-E was supposed to bring the joy of electric vehicles to the masses through a familiar nameplate and *legacy manufacturer*. I’m a Ford guy who lives in Michigan and looks at the Mach-E development with local pride. I’m disappointed.

Right now, based on first impressions, I can only recommend shoppers try competitors before buying the Ford Mustang Mach-E. I don’t think this vehicle is good enough to buy over a Tesla.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Techcrunch review of Mach-E SUV sounds underwhelming


Car and Driver 

"On price, refinement, and assembly quality, Ford wins the first round. "









Comparison Test: 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E vs. 2020 Tesla Model Y


Tesla's Model Y butts heads with Ford's electric crossover.




www.caranddriver.com






Maybe it's the car guys vs the tech guys?
I think that's a good split, and shows Ford did a good job at trying to sell their vehicles to Ford buyers.


----------



## m3s

Ford needs to build a charging network and Tesla needs to improve its quality control

Paint and QC isn't exactly rocket science but doesn't seem to be a priority when demand outstrip supply

Competition is good. I wouldn't rush to be an early adopter.


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> I'm not reading those reports as I'm not in the market - but the Tesla got rated safety + and the 2 others just got no +
> 
> Why does the Mustang E need so many fake vents to make it look like a ICE with silly fake vents?
> 
> Just make it simple and easy to clean. Fake vents are only to look good but they don't. In 5 years this will look like such an outdated trend


To actually make it look like a Mustang that a regular every day Gen-Xer/Boomer typical car buyer would buy at this time. It sure is a lot more handsome to most of us than a Tesla front end that looks like Bratwurst sausage squeezed in a casing. The new Mazda MX-30 also repeats the attraction of car buyers used to the classic ICE CX-30/CX-5 albeit the EV motor and battery pack leave very much to be desired. No zoom-zoom in the MX-30 and no range. 

There is a lot of time re-shape the sheet metal and fake vents into another Bratwurst sausage as that look catches on (if it does). For now, as many Mach Es are being sold as the ICE version in Canada at least. The Mach E has not yet caught on in the USA to the same degree... but it is early days.


----------



## m3s

Yea this is basically it's a horseless carriage scenario

The automobile was a step to far for the regular everyday cowbody so they made it as close to the carriage as possible. The dashboard was originally to protect you from what the horses pulling the carriage dashed up

Besides fake vents, they also make LED headlight as if they were still bulbs for the same reason I guess


----------



## AltaRed

Companies sell what they believe buyers want to buy. Sometimes it works and sometimes they adjust/re-tool based on sales, focus groups and surveys, It is not hard for a legacy manufacturer to re-do the front end of a Mach E, etc. They will when buyers want it. Not everyone wants a Bratwurst sausage look. Some will like the Rivian look. Many won't including myself. If I want a truck (which I don't), I would want it to look like a truck.

The last thing most of us want is 15 vehicle models looking almost exactly alike. There needs to be some differentiation between makes and models. We have a Mazda CX-5 for a number of reasons, firstly due to performance and handling, and secondly for the esthetics/looks, including the LED headlights/taillights. The styling is 'our cup of tea. Just like some other distinctive vehicle models like the BMW Z4 which when they make an EV model, I hope it looks like the current Z4 model for the most part. It has been on my list as a 'toy' purchase.


----------



## m3s

Drove a colleagues Z3 and it's a special car. Sitting far back in a RWD car is very unique if you can push it.

I don't get 2 seater cars though. I can carry just as many people and stuff on my motorbike with more power to weight and better visibility etc

There's so many Tesla's here (US) that they become trendy and desirable. Your Mazda would probably look ugly in the 90s/80s because it wasn't the trend du jour etc

Lots of new things look ugly until you adjust or you see some celebrity you admire driving it etc


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Ford needs to build a charging network and Tesla needs to improve its quality control
> 
> Paint and QC isn't exactly rocket science but doesn't seem to be a priority when demand outstrip supply
> 
> Competition is good. I wouldn't rush to be an early adopter.


I think with 500km cars quickly becoming the norm, the range anxiety thing isn't as much of an issue for the vast majority of people.
Like I said my uber driver works all day on a 240km vehicle (Kia Soul)

Regarding Paint and QC, if you can't get the basics right, you have to question your ability to get other things right.
I think it would be a real waste of brand reputation to be putting out vehicles with poor QC and trivial problems.


----------



## m3s

They should be able to fix it. The ones I've seen were fixed with a polisher DIY or return

Same with your claim that range is a non-issue, as a DIY detailer 99% of people don't look after their paint anyways.

Vast majority of people go to cheap car wash that does worse and never wax paint etc


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Vast majority of people go to cheap car wash that does worse and never wax paint etc


The newest trend is brushless washing on a ceramic coated car, the ceramic acting like a 7-10 year wax job where the grunge does not stick. Traditional waxing is old school and time consuming/labour intensive.

Cars like the Z4 are not meant to be efficient. They are about a statement and if so equipped, ready for the track. Hundreds of Porsche 911 Carreras here plus all the toys of many NHL players who make the Central Okanagan their summer playground.

I agree that trends and looks change but not radical changes don't catch on that quickly with the mass market. It took the Ford Taurus quite a long time in the '90s to be accepted when they radically changed the shape to far more rounded corners. I considered it butt ugly then (still do on the ones of that generation that are still on the road today). Angular lines with some determined overall shape have proven to be far more attractive than the Bratwurst sausage that the Ford Taurus was back then.


----------



## MrBlackhill

I don't have Twitter to see the results. I'm pretty sure he won't sell 10% of his shares anyways. In what world are we living where the richest man would take decisions based on a Twitter poll, which can easily be manipulated anyways.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1457064697782489088


----------



## m3s

It's 56% yes to 44% no for now

He commented below that he will abide by the results of the poll


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1457067398712942592


----------



## sags

Tesla still has some decisions to make on the final look of the Cybertruck.

It might be ready for production in 2022......or maybe not.

Interesting that Foxconn plans to build 3 EV vehicles for other brands.


----------



## sags

agent99 said:


> I thought the nearest thing to a MOWAG would be the Hummer. The Cybertruck doesn't look much like that.


I don't know........I think it kind of looks like a Cybertruck with a turret and gun perched on top.

Maybe that is why police forces are so interested in Cybertrucks. Add some black or camo paint and they look intimidating and military-like.

I am not sure farmers or construction workers will have much use for them though.


----------



## m3s

OPP wants Cybertruck


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231259996580667392


----------



## sags

Yea, but times are tough and we can't really afford Cybertrucks. Maybe we could get them some of these out of China instead..


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Yea, but times are tough and we can't really afford Cybertrucks. Maybe we could get them some of these out of China.


Times aren't tough now that we figured out how to print free money for everyone


----------



## sags

Maybe Tesla will hire Sam Elliott to do Cybertruck commercials. He has done some popular ones for Chevy and Dodge trucks in the past.

I would love to own one of these Chevy trucks in mint condition today.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> I don't know........I think it kind of looks like a Cybertruck with a turret and gun perched on top.
> 
> Maybe that is why police forces are so interested in Cybertrucks. Add some black or camo paint and they look intimidating and military-like.
> 
> I am not sure farmers or construction workers will have much use for them though.


WE could use one of those around here at times  Mowag made a lot of different vehicles. I thought you were talking about one of these (The one GM copied  )


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Maybe Tesla will hire Sam Elliott to do Cybertruck commercials.


Tesla doesn't do commercials. They're trying to cut out the fluff


----------



## AltaRed

Through September 2021, Tesla is number 19 in auto sales by brand at some 15,600 units so far. Sales have been pretty steady on a per monthly basis. Data may be unfairly skewed depending on semi-conductor issues that have constrained production from time to time.


----------



## m3s

Tesla sells all the vehicles they can make. GM market share is in decline

Elon is gonna sell 10% of his TSLA share to buy the only thing that outperforms TSLA

More BTC


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrBlackhill said:


> I don't have Twitter to see the results. I'm pretty sure he won't sell 10% of his shares anyways. In what world are we living where the richest man would take decisions based on a Twitter poll, which can easily be manipulated anyways.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1457064697782489088
> View attachment 22335


I've just noticed that Elon Musk's brother, Kimbal, sold 15% of his shares on Friday, November 5th, worth over $100M. Right before Elon Musk tweeted that poll.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Tesla sells all the vehicles they can make. GM market share is in decline


All the EVs are supply constrained.

I think the government should cut incentives until we don't have shortages.


I think the real competition will start to happen when it is actually possible to buy an EV.


----------



## MrBlackhill

MrBlackhill said:


> I don't have Twitter to see the results. I'm pretty sure he won't sell 10% of his shares anyways. In what world are we living where the richest man would take decisions based on a Twitter poll, which can easily be manipulated anyways.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1457064697782489088
> View attachment 22335


So... This will be an interesting Monday. 58% said yes. It wasn't even a tight race.


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Tesla sells all the vehicles they can make. GM market share is in decline


That does not matter much here nor there. To date, Tesla is #19 with a 1-1.5% market share. A triple would still put them barely top 10 near VW. It would be nice to see them in that neighbourhood someday for consumer competitive reasons. There is a lot of runway space for a lot of brands in both the remaining ICE and the increasing EV market.


----------



## m3s

The old guard seem to have nostalgia for the good ol days of the legacy brands. They fiercely defend them with strawmen and refuse to hear that anything has or will ever change

All brands faced the same supply constraints so it is moot. The old school of thought is trending down with the boomer population. The decline in GM sales probably correlates with an aging fan base.

New brands and tech is emerging from the ground as a new generation comes of age. I wouldn't short the emerging meme brands nor invest in the boomer legacy brands


----------



## m3s

Been to the mall lately? Sears? Blockbuster?

Dealerships are a universally annoying experience for most people who grew up with google. They are more informed and woke to the dealership bs

Tesla is to dealerships more than amazon was to malls. Malls weren't nearly as bad a dealerships


----------



## AltaRed

I agree to some degree but not entirely. Some of the traditional players continue to lose market share but they deserve too for a variety of reasons, e.g. old school negotiations. That is more true of NA brands but even that is changing. It certainly is not the case for a number of brands which continue to build strength, so there is some (maybe a lot of) hyperbole on your part. Millenials and especially tech savvy ones still make up only a small portion of vehicle buyers.

Progressive dealerships are such that no one need enter the dealership except to deliver the funds (sometimes not even that is necessary) and to pick up the delivered product. During the pandemic, some were delivered to one's doorstep. Some brands experimented with non-negotiable fixed price (like Tesla) long before Tesla even existed. It's a mixed bag but if you don't see it, it is because you have your blinders on. While the traditional dealership model is fading and should, there is a lot of runway space for a lot of brands to flourish.

For our last vehicle in May 2020, we did the build on the internet and passed it on to the dealer to QC it and finalize. We only went in to get some thousands off MSRP since we knew the business was essentially at a standstill. Otherwise, the MSRP was well known.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Some brands experimented with non-negotiable fixed price (like Tesla) long before Tesla even existed. It's a mixed bag but if you don't see it, it is because you have your blinders on.
> 
> For our last vehicle in May 2020, we did the build on the internet and passed it on to the dealer to QC it and finalize. We only went in to get some thousands off MSRP since we knew the business was essentially at a standstill. Otherwise, the MSRP was well known.


Ok so you get direct sale from manufacturer with dealership price

The point of direct sales is to cut out the expense of the intermediary salesfolk, overhead, B&M etc. You buy a Tesla direct from Tesla online. Dealerships and ads cost $$$$ and you pay for that. They set the MSRP lol they know everyone discovered google now and just manipulate in new ways like controlling what "secret" price info is online. It's the same how nobody pays "MSRP" for clothes when it's always "50% off" hah. Who has the blinders on?

Telsa has to compete with an establishment and it's impressive they got this far. Good luck reversing the trend


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> All the EVs are supply constrained.
> I think the government should cut incentives until we don't have shortages.
> I think the real competition will start to happen when it is actually possible to buy an EV.


Actually, it seems like we need bigger incentives. EVs are just too expensive for the average Joe (Or Jill)

CBC site had article today on this subject: 


https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/electric-cars-supply-issue-1.6238116


----------



## sags

Good luck being an automotive manufacturer without a system of dealerships.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Good luck being an automotive manufacturer without a system of dealerships.


Exhibit A

Do you still go to the mall, bank, movie rental etc?

I haven't been to a dealer in decades sags. No need at all


----------



## sags

No need if you are buying used vehicles, but new vehicle sales all go through a dealer.

You also aren't paying $30K to $100K for a movie rental or a shirt at the mall.

A new vehicle from the factory needs to be inspected, have minor flaws fixed, ensure the vehicle is serviced and safe to drive.

You going to keep a new vehicle that got damaged during production or transit ?

Without dealers......who is going to perform the maintenance and warranty work ?

In the US, it is illegal in many States to order direct from an auto factory, for a lot of reasons.

Tesla gets around it with a loophole that they order vehicles from an international warehouse. That loophole is going to be closed.

The last thing legislators want is for hundreds of thousands of customers to order vehicles and have nowhere to get them fixed for problems.


----------



## m3s

There's no reason why a certified mechanic can't perform repairs

Dealerships just make you think only they can perform certain repairs, then they do it wrong anyways (I've tested them) There is nothing more sleazy than a dealership

Look up right to repair


----------



## sags

My new GM vehicle has the same tech level as many vehicles today. They concentrate on "driver assistance" technology mostly.

Pedestrian warnings front and pack, blind spot warnings, HD widescreen rear camera, auto low/high beam lights etc.etc.

But Tesla takes to up another notch to forcing you to access the central computer just to lock the doors for kids in the back seat, or climate control or just about anything else. You should be parked somewhere before you start accessing the main computer.

When I screw around with the screen.........it says........Keep your eyes on the road.

When Tesla drivers fiddle with the screen.......it could say.........which game do you want to play or pick a movie from Netflix ?


----------



## sags

m3s said:


> There's no reason why a certified mechanic can't perform repairs
> 
> Dealerships just make you think only they can perform certain repairs, then they do it wrong anyways (I've tested them) There is nothing more sleazy than a dealership
> 
> Look up right to repair


There is when the automakers are paying for the repairs, or providing the parts needed for recalls to the mechanics.

How do you think GM would send new parts out to independent mechanics to fix a warranted problem ?

Musk doesn't worry about such problems. He is busy thinking about crypto and space.


----------



## sags

I also question a world of urban traffic where all the vehicles are silent.

Already I have had a jolt when an electric scooter whizzed past without me hearing them coming.

Will every EV vehicle be getting little beepers.............beep,beep,beep,beep like a garbage truck backing up ?

I think we are way over our skis on the concept of EVs. The technology is outpacing the reality.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> When I screw around with the screen.........it says........Keep your eyes on the road.


 On our Subaru, many functions of the screen don't work if the car is in motion. Sometimes a pain because the co-pilot could operate them. But a good safety feature. Voice commands are supposed to be an alternative, but the voice recognition doesn't really work.


----------



## sags

The closest Tesla collision center to my city is in Ohio in the US.

There is a list or private collision busineses, but only one in our city is delegated as Tesla approved.

So what does an insurance company do ? Ship the vehicle to the US for repair or take it to the one body shop in the city regardless of cost ?

Little things now that become big problems later.









Collision Support | Tesla


Tesla Approved Body Shops have been factory trained and equipped to rebuild Tesla vehicles to the original vehicle specifications for structural integrity and quality of finish.




www.tesla.com


----------



## sags

agent99 said:


> On our Subaru, many functions of the screen don't work if the car is in motion. Sometimes a pain because the co-pilot could operate them. But a good safety feature. Voice commands are supposed to be an alternative, but the voice recognition doesn't really work.


Yea, my screen wont change settings either while the car is moving. They are designed to keep your eyes on the road.

Wait until someone sues Tesla because the driver who plowed into them was watching Youtube.

Maybe Tesla won't allow those functions when in motion, but then why have them.

Maybe Tesla folks like to watch a movie in their vehicle and pretend they are at the drive in ?


----------



## AltaRed

m3s said:


> Ok so you get direct sale from manufacturer with dealership price
> 
> The point of direct sales is to cut out the expense of the intermediary salesfolk, overhead, B&M etc. You buy a Tesla direct from Tesla online. Dealerships and ads cost $$$$ and you pay for that. They set the MSRP lol they know everyone discovered google now and just manipulate in new ways like controlling what "secret" price info is online. It's the same how nobody pays "MSRP" for clothes when it's always "50% off" hah. Who has the blinders on?
> 
> Telsa has to compete with an establishment and it's impressive they got this far. Good luck reversing the trend


Build prices are online, be they Telsa prices, or Mazda prices, Beemer prices, or GM prices. They are all transparent online for everyone to see and compare side by side. There is no ultimate difference to the consumer no matter how the vehicle sale is routed. Many of us no longer really care if there is an intermediary person or not nor how much or in what way any intermediary is paid. That is a manufacturer's issue if they choose to route the sale that way for now and for dealerships to hold inventory (distributed warehousing).

The sales model is changing as a number of local dealerships are promoting no-contact online sales now. It is actually the customer that is slow to change. Too many of them still want to go in and kick the tires, stroke the paint and sit in the driver's seat of the vehicle they want to actually take home. You may not realize there is no real money in new vehicle sales at most conventional dealerships other than the salesperson cut. The profit is in the parts and service center and the main reason for their existence.

Telsa has built-in overhead too to prep and ready the vehicles at the delivery point. Obviously not as much as a conventional dealership if there is no sales intermediary. I actually would not want to buy a car directly online IF there was no way for the vehicle to be QC'd and detailed before delivery. I want to be able to grab the gonads of someone if something is wrong with the vehicle and to be able to dump it on their doorstep. Tesla is opening a service center soon in our local city for precisely that purpose.

Added: An example of the move to online sales and the constraints of doing so in some jurisdictions Opportunities and Constraints and the difficulty in changing customer behaviours.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> There's no reason why a certified mechanic can't perform repairs
> 
> Dealerships just make you think only they can perform certain repairs, then they do it wrong anyways (I've tested them) There is nothing more sleazy than a dealership


Unfortunately, many cars these days require dealer diagnostics in order to diagnose faults. Independent shops just can't afford or maybe are not even able to acquire that equipment. Sometimes that equipment is connected to the manufacturer's base wherever in the world they are. Even to just replace an ignition FOB!

I can't imagine any independent with certified mechanic or not has the ability or facilities to diagnose a Tesla fault.

Independents will of course be able to do basic maintenance, such as brakes, tires, wheel alignment and the like. But not electronic problems or mechanical for straight ICEs or Hybrids. No problem getting most things done by Indy on your old Subaru !

I have been around a lot longer than you and I do agree that dealers don't always get the job done right. Best to only own new cars with full warranty these days so it is their problem, not yours.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> How do you think GM would send new parts out to independent mechanics to fix a warranted problem ?


Are you joking?

The same way parts of sent to independent mechanics everyday sags. It's not rocket science

I'm looking out ahead here.. if you can't imagine how parts could be shipped there's no use


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> Maybe Tesla folks like to watch a movie in their vehicle and pretend they are at the drive in ?


Shouldn't be a problem if they buy the self-drive option


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> Unfortunately, many cars these days require dealer diagnostics in order to diagnose faults. Independent shops just can't afford or maybe are not even able to acquire that equipment. Sometimes that equipment is connected to the manufacturer's base wherever in the world they are. Even to just replace an ignition FOB!
> 
> I have been around a lot longer than you and I do agree that dealers don't always get the job done right. Best to only own new cars with full warranty these days so it is their problem, not yours.


@agent99 that was my point..

Dealers purposely design repairs so that you have to go to them. I've owned 3 new BMWs now and technically I have to hook them up to an authorized dealer $$$ computer after every oil and tire change. I don't because I know ways around them, but most fools pay for literally nothing (I know many BMW techs) Subaru is similar but not nearly as bad in my experience

John Deere is also famous for this. It's a huge cash cow for all manufacturers now. Apple does the same thing etc. As I said above look up "right to repair" this is a known issue. There is no need for it. A diagnostic computer should just be a tablet and software nowadays. I still find ways to change my Apple batteries, fix the John Deere, BMWs myself but it can be annoying

It honestly doesn't matter how long you've been around by the way. I work with extremely intelligent kids younger than me. They grew up with access to more information than both of us


----------



## sags

m3s said:


> Are you joking?
> 
> The same way parts of sent to independent mechanics everyday sags. It's not rocket science
> 
> I'm looking out ahead here.. if you can't imagine how parts could be shipped there's no use


Independent mechanics have to source their parts from somewhere...GM, Toyota, Ford...or through a second tier vendor like Auto Pro or Canadian Tire.


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> Are you joking?
> 
> The same way parts of sent to independent mechanics everyday sags. It's not rocket science
> 
> I'm looking out ahead here.. if you can't imagine how parts could be shipped there's no use


He said for a *warranty* problem. Will manufacturer cover warranty down road if the work was done by others? Read the small print. 
Some parts have coding that requires dealer software to get the part to work on the particular car. Look up SCN coding for Mercedes. Parts get modified even during same model year. This ensures car gets the correct part. Indy just can't do this.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Independent mechanics have to source their parts from distributors....GM, Toyota, Ford..........or through a second tier vendor like Auto Pro or Canadian Tire.


I never had a problem getting BMW or Subaru parts

It's easier in the USA but not much harder in Canada.

If your brand restricts access to parts that's a huge red flag to me


----------



## agent99

m3s said:


> It honestly doesn't matter how long you've been around by the way. I work with extremely intelligent kids younger than me. They grew up with access to more information than both of us


There's your problem You kids don't have any experience. I can guaranty you 1000% that I know way more about cars and how dealerships work than you ever will. I won't tell you why. But if you are just going to be rude - Click and you are gone - again!









Will your next car be a EV (Electric Vehicle)?


Sorry, but we DO have a finite amount of fossil fuel. CO2 in the air is not a fossil fuel. It results from burning fossil fuels. Fair enough though many think all gas and oil products have to come from fossil fuels. If "they" can convert CO2 into fuels, how come they are not doing it? And why...




www.canadianmoneyforum.com


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> He said for a *warranty* problem. Will manufacturer cover warranty down road if the work was done by others? Read the small print.
> Some parts have coding that requires dealer software to get the part to work on the particular car. Look up SCN coding for Mercedes. Parts get modified even during same model year. This ensures car gets the correct part. Indy just can't do this.


What you're saying in the manufacturer forces you to go to the dealer. There is no need for this. It's crazy how conditioned we are that we can't imagine any other way

Parts just have to be tied to a VIN. I order BMW parts with my VIN and yes they changed some parts during MY (I sometimes even opt for the newer better version thanks to google)

It's really not rocket science. Check out Rock auto in the US. Their commercials even make fun of the pain of watching service reps look up parts for you like it's 1999



> *Do I have to take my vehicle to the Tesla Service Center?*
> With over-the-air software updates, *remote diagnostics* and the support of our Mobile Service technicians, the need for a Service Center visit is reduced. If your vehicle does require service, you can schedule a service appointment in the Tesla app. If you choose to take your vehicle to a non-Tesla shop for maintenance or repairs, *coverage under your warranty could be affected* if any problems occur.


Imagine that remote diagnostics. So much for $20k BMW computers that require you to physically make an appointment with BMW to change your oil or tires

Looks like Tesla still requires Tesla service centers but clearly not as much as BMW tried to make me believe


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> There's your problem You kids don't have any experience. I can guaranty you 1000% that I know way more about cars and how dealerships work than you ever will. I won't tell you why. But if you are just going to be rude - Click and you are gone - again!


1000% guaranty is not mathematically possible me thinks

Won't tell me why lol


----------



## sags

Product liability is an issue with DIY mechanics.

If you install brakes and they fail and there is a lawsuit, it won't be the auto makers problem, and your insurance company may decide it isn't their problem either.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I also question a world of urban traffic where all the vehicles are silent.
> 
> Already I have had a jolt when an electric scooter whizzed past without me hearing them coming.
> 
> Will every EV vehicle be getting little beepers.............beep,beep,beep,beep like a garbage truck backing up ?
> 
> I think we are way over our skis on the concept of EVs. The technology is outpacing the reality.


I bet the old folks yelled similar things at the sky when horseless carriages arrived, since they didn't have forums yet

We didn't have cross walks and signs because horse drawn carriages so were much slower and you could hear those hooves trotting from a mile away

People had to learn to look both ways before crossing the street. We teach this to all kids, but old dogs probably had trouble learning this new trick

Lots of people died because the horseless carriages were so fast. People were robbing banks with evil horseless carriages because only they could afford them

The old geezers cried to ban this evil new technology. Then we got seat belts and cross walks and speed limits and unionized assembly lines.

Not rocket science just different. We can adapt in time, I imagine


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Product liability is an issue with DIY mechanics.
> 
> If you install brakes and they fail and there is a lawsuit, it won't be the auto makers problem, and your insurance company may decide it isn't their problem either.


There's hundreds of authorized "Tesla Service Shops" in this state. There's like 2 dealers

Again back in the early days of horseless carriages ol folks probably cried "I can find a horse vet on every street corner but I'd have to go to timbukto to find a horseless carriage vet"

Now we have horseless carriage vets and horseless carriage gag stations on every corner. We didn't always. Imagine!


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Good luck being an automotive manufacturer without a system of dealerships.


Pretty much every other manufactured product does fine without a dealer network.

It's not like they can't get one, they just don't want one.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> No need if you are buying used vehicles, but new vehicle sales all go through a dealer.
> 
> You also aren't paying $30K to $100K for a movie rental or a shirt at the mall.


So?



> A new vehicle from the factory needs to be inspected, have minor flaws fixed, ensure the vehicle is serviced and safe to drive.


No they don't. They should leave the factor inspected serviced and safe to drive (which they do)

The PDI is typically taking off the packaging, which doesn't need a dealership network.
When I order a stove the installer will unpack if I want.



> You going to keep a new vehicle that got damaged during production or transit ?


No and I wouldn't keep anything else that got damaged during production or transit.
But production issues should be fixed before it leaves the factory.



> Without dealers......who is going to perform the maintenance and warranty work ?


A company certified technician, like every other product that is repaired.
You know, the maytag repairman?
Anyone can fix a furnace.



> In the US, it is illegal in many States to order direct from an auto factory, for a lot of reasons.


Yes, mostly because dealers bribe them to keep it.

If dealers actually did a better job, then they wouldn't need to have their role legislated.





> Tesla gets around it with a loophole that they order vehicles from an international warehouse. That loophole is going to be closed.
> 
> The last thing legislators want is for hundreds of thousands of customers to order vehicles and have nowhere to get them fixed for problems.


Right now there the opposite problem, people are fighting for right to repair, so they can take their products to others for repair, rather than relying only on the manufacturer.


----------



## AltaRed

Vehicles are not quite as simple a product as a washer or dryer so while I agree with much of what MrMatt is saying, it is not quite that simple.

I agree legislated franchise territories is an archaic concept that needs to be sent to the dust bin. Anyone should be able to provide retail service from any location, including direct online sales from the manufacturer, just like one can buy appliances through a dealer or often directly.
PDI is a necessary part of the process at delivery point but it should be baked into the delivered price, not an add-on. Filling the tank with gas or a fully EV battery charge should be part of the delivered product as well as proper tire air pressure et al. Autos are not shipped in protective packaging like a refrigerator so detailing needs to be part of the delivery process
I agree diagnostics and repair should be available from any source but that is a problem with a lot more things than autos. A lot of technology is constrained that way, e.g. Apple. Complexity is part of the issue and some mechanism may still be required to ensure responsible diagnostic and repair facilities are available. One doesn't take an aircraft to the corner independent to be repaired.

The dialog could be more productive here if obstinate and not fully credible views were not so entrenched. Sounds like a R vs D debate in the USA - take the polar opposite position just be argumentative.


----------



## sags

In the evolution of businesses, wholesale changes usually happen for a reason.

If people are old enough to remember, there was a time when there was a GM dealership in many small towns and villages that were small garages with a mechanics bay or two that sold a few cars or trucks a year.

The independent dealer "network" became so powerful they became the tail that wagged the dog. They made demands on GM while providing crappy service for GM's customers. The dealers laughed at GM's demands for better more uniform customer service.

Customers blamed the dealers, but they also blamed GM for having the incompetent dealers, so GM did a huge purge of dealerships.

Most of the small dealerships lost their franchises and larger more competent dealerships expanded and took them over. "Favored" dealers had to bid on dealerships, just as large Tim Horton franchise owners bid on any new openings.

Today, many of the dealerships look exactly alike. They are built from the same specifications and contain the same amenities. They are generally large high volume dealerships with comprehensive service capabilities. They provide a well stocked waiting room, wash the vehicle, provide free wireless, provide courtesy rides and courtesy cars.......etc.

To have a network of small independent service providers means you lose control over quality and it affects the brand of the auto maker.

We buy new GM vehicles and the focus on customer response is overkill. Surveys on "how well did we do" come by email soon after purchase or servicing.

They come from the dealership and from GM quality control. They also have independent surveys continually.

The sales and service people at the dealership will remind people to tick the "completely satisfied" boxes on the survey or they start getting questions from their own dealerships and corporate GM. The auto makers are sensitive to complaints on social media as well.

I doubt large automakers are going back to the old days of small independent service providers, because it doesn't fit their goal of bench marked service levels.

It is a very competitive market, and when a lot of customer complaints start stacking up it hurts sales.

Bottom line.........they don't need or want the hassle of unhappy customers, because of small independent service providers.


----------



## sags

When you purchase a new vehicle, it is customary to sign the contract one day and have to wait a few days for dealer delivery.

People forget the vehicle may have traveled thousands of miles to get the dealer, before they bought it.

A vehicle gets a final inspection at the factory and is driven outside and stored in a large parking lot waiting to get shipped.

A company drives the vehicle onto a transport truck for delivery to a dealer (local) or put on a ship to cross the ocean, before it is again put on a truck for delivery.

I doubt customers would want a vehicle stored for weeks or months outside and then shipped for great distances and then plopped on their driveway as it looks.

Dealers have to do a lot of touchups and repairs to vehicles before they are sold. Stone chips, bad weather, stains.......would have to be fixed.

I mean seriously, people are going to spend $50,000 on a vehicle and never sit in the seat to see if it is comfortable for them ? They aren't going to test drive the vehicle before buying it ? What if they don't like the ride feel of the vehicle or are unhappy with the leg room in the back seat ?

We originally intended to buy a Camaro convertible when I went to the dealership. They had a new "past year" model at a great price.

After a test drive I discovered all the blind spots in the vehicle and didn't want it anymore. I didn't like sitting so low that my arm was up at a 60 degree angle to rest on the door ledge, and it had no storage space or leg space in the backseat, so we looked for a more practical compact SUV.

Had we ordered direct online from the factory, I would have received the Camaro and then sent it right back.

Would that make the vehicle a used vehicle at that point, since I would have been the first owner on the registration ?

That would cost the companies a lot of money, or would they have to say.......you bought it so you keep it ?

A direct factory to customer model just isn't practical for a lot of valid reasons.


----------



## sags

As per all of the above relates to Tesla stock, the company is going to be forced to make major capital investment in a comprehensive dealer network.

Their competitors already possess their networks, built over decades. I don't think Tesla stock values reflect that cost yet.


----------



## agent99

AltaRed said:


> Vehicles are not quite as simple a product as a washer or dryer so while I agree with much of what MrMatt is saying, it is not quite that simple.


Even for our appliances, after visiting the showroom to see what was on offer, we bought ours from a local dealer who delivers, installs and takes away the old one. They also provide in-home warranty service. Can't imagine buying an appliance on-line. 

Car dealers will take trades - What do Tesla do about trade ins? For example, how would I exchange our 2019 Outback for a Tesla? Would I have to sell it myself and then pay the full tax on the Tesla?


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> I also question a world of urban traffic where all the vehicles are silent.
> 
> Already I have had a jolt when an electric scooter whizzed past without me hearing them coming.
> 
> Will every EV vehicle be getting little beepers.............beep,beep,beep,beep like a garbage truck backing up ?
> 
> I think we are way over our skis on the concept of EVs. The technology is outpacing the reality.


You are the king of FUD.

Teslas and all EVs come pre-installed with low-speed noise makers. Above minimum speed ~30 kph tire noise becomes dominant anyway. The one nice thing about EVs is that we won't get modified exhausts generating extreme noise pollution.


----------



## agent99

agent99 said:


> Car dealers will take trades - What do Tesla do about trade ins? For example, how would I exchange our 2019 Outback for a Tesla? Would I have to sell it myself and then pay the full tax on the Tesla?


To answer my own question, I looked tis up. They say they do take trades. This is what Tesla Canada comes up with:

*Trade-in*
Current delivery lead time for custom orders exceeds the validity period of our pre-order trade-in offers. You will be able to request an estimate once your order is placed and is approaching delivery. For quicker delivery, purchase an inventory vehicle.

VIEW EXISTING INVENTORY

So you have to order, wait 6 months and then they will tell you what your trade is worth?

Or you can buy from their Inventory. That Inventory link takes you to their US site and require you to input a US Zip code! Nearest ZIP to us, even if we could buy there, has no inventory.


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> You are the king of FUD.
> 
> Teslas and all EVs come pre-installed with low-speed noise makers. Above minimum speed ~30 kph tire noise becomes dominant anyway. The one nice thing about EVs is that we won't get modified exhausts generating extreme noise pollution.


Apparently, your idea of FUD is a global concern about EVs.









As electric vehicle sales surge, discussions are now turning to noise and safety


With the number of electric vehicles on the planet's roads increasing, society will need to adapt.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## andrewf

agent99 said:


> o you have to order, wait 6 months and then they will tell you what your trade is worth?
> 
> Or you can buy from their Inventory. That Inventory link takes you to their US site and require you to input a US Zip code! Nearest ZIP to us, even if we could buy there, has no inventory.


Demand for Tesla is far outstripping supply. They are raising prices repeatedly and still the backlog grows. For this reason I question the wisdom of huge EV tax credits in the US. In the short run they won't expand the supply, so manufacturers will need to raise prices to manage demand, which basically means that almost all of the EV tax credit will flow to manufacturer bottom lines, and expansion of supply will happen as it largely would have anyway. Maybe the US will redirect supply from other markets to the US market. Not really a victory for the climate/


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Apparently, your idea of FUD is a global concern about EVs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As electric vehicle sales surge, discussions are now turning to noise and safety
> 
> 
> With the number of electric vehicles on the planet's roads increasing, society will need to adapt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com







They aren't silent. I have had trouble with hybrid cars sneaking up on me in parking lots, but all new EVs will come with PWS installed.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Vehicles are not quite as simple a product as a washer or dryer so while I agree with much of what MrMatt is saying, it is not quite that simple.
> 
> I agree legislated franchise territories is an archaic concept that needs to be sent to the dust bin. Anyone should be able to provide retail service from any location, including direct online sales from the manufacturer, just like one can buy appliances through a dealer or often directly.
> PDI is a necessary part of the process at delivery point but it should be baked into the delivered price, not an add-on. Filling the tank with gas or a fully EV battery charge should be part of the delivered product as well as proper tire air pressure et al. Autos are not shipped in protective packaging like a refrigerator so detailing needs to be part of the delivery process
> I agree diagnostics and repair should be available from any source but that is a problem with a lot more things than autos. A lot of technology is constrained that way, e.g. Apple. Complexity is part of the issue and some mechanism may still be required to ensure responsible diagnostic and repair facilities are available. One doesn't take an aircraft to the corner independent to be repaired.
> 
> The dialog could be more productive here if obstinate and not fully credible views were not so entrenched. Sounds like a R vs D debate in the USA - take the polar opposite position just be argumentative.


Tesla delivers vehicles so they must do PDI. A recurring complaint is paint and it sounds like they don't properly detail the paint. Many people would never spot or know unpolished paint and it's not that hard to fix. Seems to be the price you pay and I think people should understand Tesla is trying to compete with well established giants here

I agree the dialog could be more productive. As someone with a loudish tuned turbo manual who watches Top Gear I'm probably a lot closer to the ICE camp than you'd think. Apparently I can see a lot more of the other side though. I'm in no rush to buy an EV especially for a cold climate but I can also see why many Americans like them

Tesla can do diagnostics over the air. I'd like to know how open or close that system is. I usually find a BMW tech friend to reset its annoying system (winter tire swap alone require a computer and my motorbikes require it to change anything) iPhone batteries will have a chip now just so you can't change it yourself.


----------



## AltaRed

There is obviously a lot that is different on an EV than an ICE but there are many common parts that will require similar mechanical service. Tires, brakes (though not as much), suspension, CV joints, steering, doors, wiring harnesses, accessories, etc. Repair shops will change a lot (and become fewer and farther in between) in the absence of ICEs but they can't/won't disappear. Stuff wears out and/or fails.

The repair shops will still be around for the ICE diehards who in 2050 will still be repairing their 2030 ICE new builds. I suspect a lot of Gen-Xers will be part of that crowd. I won't make it past 2040 at the latest so won't get to see how that plays out.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> Vehicles are not quite as simple a product as a washer or dryer so while I agree with much of what MrMatt is saying, it is not quite that simple.
> 
> PDI is a necessary part of the process at delivery point but it should be baked into the delivered price, not an add-on. Filling the tank with gas or a fully EV battery charge should be part of the delivered product as well as proper tire air pressure et al. Autos are not shipped in protective packaging like a refrigerator so detailing needs to be part of the delivery process.


PDI was part of the purchase price on my car that I bought new back in 2016.
The only things they added to the MSRP was freight, ac tax, tire tax, license transfer fee ($25)


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> As per all of the above relates to Tesla stock, the company is going to be forced to make major capital investment in a comprehensive dealer network.
> 
> Their competitors already possess their networks, built over decades. I don't think Tesla stock values reflect that cost yet.


You don't need a dealer network. Once my cars are out of warranty I never step back in the dealership.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> As per all of the above relates to Tesla stock, the company is going to be forced to make major capital investment in a comprehensive dealer network.
> 
> Their competitors already possess their networks, built over decades. I don't think Tesla stock values reflect that cost yet.


TSLA stock values this as a good thing

Millennials buy everything online. Mattresses, used cars, electronics. New guy at work even bought his house online sight unseen. They avoid legacy business models with unnecessary intermediaries. No dealers is a good thing. I haven't been to a bank, mall or dealership in decades sags

Legacy TV ads, sales tactics and business turn them away


----------



## m3s

When you buy a mattress online you can pay a bit extra for "white glove delivery" It takes a bit longer to deliver but they will carry it to your bed frame, open the box for you replace the old mattress. Most young people just have it delivered in a box by FedEx and carry it in themselves. Faster and cheaper

Maybe TSLA needs a "white glove delivery" where they do a demo/inspection (I imagine they already do) and give it a detail in your driveway. Lots of detailers already offer mobile service and it's quite popular now in the US. Personally I would rather just have it with the protection film intact

The auto forums recommend you tell the dealer not to touch your new vehicle. They do more damage than good with all their bs stickers and amateur detailers. You can get a better ceramic coating or wax from a professional detailer for less. Same with any other undercoating, film protection etc.

Dealer Delivery Fee Scams

Example








Should I let my dealer prep my car ??


Should I let my dealer prep my car ??



f80.bimmerpost.com







> I'd say do it yourself or have it done professionally. I opted for the latter with my last new BMW and my detailer still found swirls and scratches from the prep process.
> 
> There was a recent thread on the detailing world forum where a professional prepared a client's car in the BMW dealership and he posted a photo of BMW's wash station...ruined old cloths and worn out kit that would drag dirt all over your car. Not ideal!





> Do not let the stealership touch the paint. It's ridiculous what they do. I even asked my CA to not wash it and they still did.
> 
> Be aggressive and tell your CA you will not buy the car if they deliver it washed and with the stickers off. That will make them remember to keep it intact. Otherwise they will forget, and you will get swirls.





> 100%they will ruin the paint with scratches and swirls.
> I went to collect a brand new 997 c2s from a dealership in Manchester and the paint was so badly swirled I refused to collect and made them bring in a swisswax detailed to correct before I accepted it. He went to the dealership to do the work.


----------



## MrBlackhill

That's great. The CEO of Tesla, the world's richest man, acts like a kid. What a beautiful world we're living in.


----------



## agent99

MrMatt said:


> You don't need a dealer network. Once my cars are out of warranty I never step back in the dealership.


But you do use the dealer network to initially buy the car and to have it maintained while under warranty for 3 or 4 or 5 years? You don't NEED that?

Even after that, I find it helpful when buying vehicle specific parts. They either have them in stock or they come the next day, no freight charges.


----------



## agent99

MrBlackhill said:


> That's great. The CEO of Tesla, the world's richest man, acts like a kid. What a beautiful world we're living in.


But did he sell his shares today as he promised he would? I haven't seen anything to say he did.









Musk's Twitter poll shaves stock price and raises regulatory questions


Tesla Inc chief Elon Musk's Twitter poll proposing to sell a tenth of his holdings in the electric carmaker shaved around $60 billion off the company's market value on Monday and raised questions about whether he may have violated his settlement with the U.S. securities regulator again.




www.reuters.com





Apparently he needs the money to pay his tax bills, so he may just sell, but not to satisfy Twiterers









Taxes, not Twitter, are the real reason Elon Musk might sell some Tesla shares


If and when Elon Musk sells a large chunk of his Tesla shares, it'll probably have relatively little to do with a Twitter poll among his loyal followers — and everything to do with a looming multi-billion-dollar tax bill.




www.cnn.com


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> That's great. The CEO of Tesla, the world's richest man, acts like a kid. What a beautiful world we're living in.


The secret weapon of any successful tech company is neurodiversity

Ever read about the real Nikola Tesla?


----------



## sags

No need to wait for a Tesla.......but one today !






Used Cars, SUVs, Trucks for Sale in London | Finch Chevrolet


Shop our selection of used SUVs for sale in London. Contact us today to apply for financing or book a test drive!



www.finchchev.com


----------



## sags

Is Musk still giving $6 billion to feed the poor ?


----------



## MrMatt

agent99 said:


> But you do use the dealer network to initially buy the car and to have it maintained while under warranty for 3 or 4 or 5 years? You don't NEED that?
> 
> Even after that, I find it helpful when buying vehicle specific parts. They either have them in stock or they come the next day, no freight charges.


I don't need that, but I don't want to deal with the hassle if there are any questions of the repair quality.
If it's all at the dealership, they can't argue that mistakes were made.

Carmakers LOVE to deny warranty coverage.


If they had a network of "Brand Certified technicians" outside the dealership network.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> No need to wait for a Tesla.......but one today !


$74.900 plus tax - A real preloved bargain! Wonder if they traded it for a Bolt?


----------



## m3s

agent99 said:


> But you do use the dealer network to initially buy the car and to have it maintained while under warranty for 3 or 4 or 5 years? You don't NEED that?
> 
> Even after that, I find it helpful when buying vehicle specific parts. They either have them in stock or they come the next day, no freight charges.


The dealers need suckers not the other way around. Contrary to what the dealer will say you can maintain it yourself or go to independent mechanic without voiding warranty

I can buy parts online from rockauto or amazon for cheaper and faster and in the US it arrives in 1 or 2 days. Again the dealers need suckers not the other way around.

No wonder they are spreading Tesla FUD and propaganda


----------



## sags

A Tesla battery weighs 1200 pounds. You going to order that from Amazon ? Do you have a forklift to unload it ?

How about doors, hoods, fenders, springs, glass sunroof, or complete brake lines ?


----------



## gardner

m3s said:


> I can buy parts online from rockauto or amazon


Not for a Tesla, you can't. Parts for their cars are famously restricted by Tesla.


----------



## sags

Big news today on Rivian's IPO.

News also on Ford and GM pickup trucks coming soon.

The competition is coming hard.









EV start-up Rivian is valued at $86 billion after market debut, higher than Ford


Rivian, which is backed by Amazon and Ford, has attracted intense interest from investors looking to capitalize on the fast-growing EV market.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> News also on Ford and GM pickup trucks coming soon.
> 
> The competition is coming hard.


Yes it's called Tesla

You do realize this is GM and Ford's market to lose right? This is like Sears making a website to compete with amazon or Kodak making a digital camera. Too little too late

Are you even short TSLA? Talk is cheap sags


----------



## sags

Short Tesla....nope ?

I can't predict exactly when Tesla shares will crash, any more than I could predict when the first snowflake of 2021 will land in our courtyard.

But I can predict with a high level of confidence..........that one will.


----------



## sags

GM, Ford, Toyota, Volvo, BMW and many others have millions of die hard customers who would only consider buying an EV from their beloved auto maker.

To get anywhere near the levels that Tesla have to sell to justify their market capitalization....they will have to rip those loyal customers away.

I can't imagine a farmer in Ford country even considering driving up to the local coffee shop in a Tesla Cybertruck.

They might as well wear an asbestos space suit for the complete image makeover.


----------



## m3s

True. But their numbers will decline naturally with time. Zoom out a bit. Way out.

Tesla fans are young. Many are playing with toy Cybertrucks watching SpaceX launch Crew-3 into orbit tonight

Ford drives grandpa to the barnyard. Tesla drives astronauts to the launchpad


----------



## sags

Yup.......they are currently over the Pacific Ocean and will pass directly over my house. I have my backyard lights turned on so they can see me.









SpaceX


SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft.




www.spacex.com


----------



## m3s

Legacy American (Ford and GM) SUVs are notoriously bad at the moose test (American vehicles in general are designed for big straight american roads)






Tesla has great handling thanks to low CoG and this translates to record safety + scores.

Tesla's smart air suspension will break the safety standards. They also have smart air bags based on seat sensors coming. Fuse all this sensor data together with things like GPS and a database of the entire Tesla fleet and you have game changing safety improvements on the most dangerous part of everyday life. This data will translate into lower cost of insuring a Tesla and higher resale etc

Hummer EV is like a Nokia smartphone or a Kodak digital camera or a Sears web site. Not even close.


----------



## sags

Top auto reviewer Doug DeMuro on Youtube takes a good look at the Tesla Plaid.

Some good.......some not so good, but 0 to 60 mph in 2 seconds is insane. Impressive speed....but poor quality, not the best handling, and too much tech.

He gives it the best overall score he has given, but wonders about everyday folks driving one. It is likely not a good choice for teens or young adults.

"Make sure the wheels are straight before hitting the accelerator".....

Sags could see himself driving around town in one as a toy.

Do they have 0% financing ?

Interesting comments below the video.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Tesla has great handling thanks to low CoG and this translates to record safety + scores.
> 
> Tesla's smart air suspension will break the safety standards. They also have smart air bags based on seat sensors coming. Fuse all this sensor data together with things like GPS and a database of the entire Tesla fleet and you have game changing safety improvements on the most dangerous part of everyday life. This data will translate into lower cost of insuring a Tesla and higher resale etc


You may think all that will make a difference but the biggest problem IMO is still the driver. Until level 5 autonomy becomes a real thing we're stuck with bad drivers.

Edit: On a side note ... US is passing a law that auto makers must have all cars able to detect drunk driving starting in 2024.


----------



## sags

Bogus testing on the Moose test. There were different drivers in the vehicles.

A low centre of gravity and the battery on the bottom of the Tesla gives it good stability, but the downside is a full size SUV or truck would run right over it.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> Edit: On a side note ... US is passing a law that auto makers must have all cars able to detect drunk driving starting in 2024.


I imagine there is a lot that could be updated in DOT.

Europe had completely different requirements and far superior vehicles imo. Better headlights, better mirrors, better emissions (more efficient and more power) etc. We have to dumb our vehicles down to meet outdated DOT

Smart EVs are being held back by DOT written for horseless carriages


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Bogus testing on the Moose test. There were different drivers in the vehicles.
> 
> A low centre of gravity and the battery on the bottom of the Tesla gives it good stability, but the downside is a full size SUV or truck would run right over it.
> 
> Our Cruze RS scraped speed bumps and inclines into parking lots, but was nimble and stable.
> 
> I had it about 3 days before a garbage truck backed into me at a red light and crumpled by entire hood before they realized I was sitting behind them.
> 
> Any further and it would have run their bumper right through the windshield and into the driver compartment.
> 
> Let's see a head on collision between a Tesla and a full size SUV to see what happens.


Oh sags. You gonna run over a kid or try to avoid that?

Low CoG has many advantages. Your strawmen are exhausting and not worth addressing them all

Tesla has better safety data and ratings.


----------



## m3s

Tesla needs to poach some of Ford and GMs talent to solve some simple problems that are nothing new

Ford and GM will have a very hard time recruiting tech talent when everyone wants tech talent


----------



## sags

m3s said:


> Oh sags. You gonna run over a kid or try to avoid that?
> 
> Low CoG has many advantages. Your strawmen are exhausting and not worth addressing them all
> 
> Tesla has better safety data and ratings.


The safety board told Tesla to stop spreading misleading information regarding their safety ratings.









NHTSA to Tesla: Stop claiming your cars are the safest


Federal regulators said that the claims have "intention to mislead the public," Tesla says they're sound.




www.greencarreports.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The safety board told Tesla to stop spreading misleading information regarding their safety ratings.


So you only read the click bait title a random internet article and didn't look any further?

They did better on the tests than any other vehicles. Time to raise the standard and improve the test

GM and Ford have the stronger lobbyists and unions though


----------



## sags

Vehicle ratings are scores within their vehicle segment class. A Tesla sedan is rated against other compact sedans.

A top score is 5. There is no higher score of 5.4 possible. Tesla either doesn't know that or spread false information on purpose.

A Chevrolet Trailblazer is judged best in class for safety, but it was only judged against other compact SUVs.

To claim a small sedan or compact SUV is safer than a full size SUV like a Suburban or Navigator is just nonsense.

They drive the US President around in full size Suburbans for good reasons.


----------



## sags

At the low end of the safety scale, cheap Chinese EV vehicles are the top sellers in China but aren't allowed for sale in NA because of poor safety.

At the top end, I doubt regulators are going to ignore a Tesla that can accelerate from 0-60 mph.......that is mph not kms.......in 2 seconds.

A quarter mile time of 9 seconds is in drag racing track territory. Imagine these vehicles in the hands of novice or inexperienced drivers.

I would bet that regulation is coming to put speed limiters on these vehicles, and then they just become ordinary EV sedans.

There are already speed limitations and safety regulations on all kinds of vehicles.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Bogus testing on the Moose test. There were different drivers in the vehicles.
> 
> A low centre of gravity and the battery on the bottom of the Tesla gives it good stability, but the downside is a full size SUV or truck would run right over it.


What "moose test"
Also no full size SUV on the market would "run over" a moose. Unless it was a baby.










I know moose hunters who annoyed a moose, it trashed their Suburban and walked off.

(They were in the vehicle, so they didn't have ready access to their guns)


----------



## sags

Calling the testing a "moose test" is stupid, as it isn't recommended to swerve your vehicle to avoid wild animals, especially with oncoming traffic.

If you hit a moose with a low level vehicle it will likely come up into the windshield and perhaps into the passenger compartment.

A full size SUV will hit the moose in the legs and send it flying away from the vehicle. The moose and driver walked away unhurt.

When I went hunting with my buddies, they always had their guns ready because there were often bears out hunting as well.

I didn't carry a gun because I don't hunt and was there for the ATV riding and camping, but I didn't stray too far from my gun toting buddies.


----------



## agent99

sags said:


> They drive the US President around in full size Suburbans for good reasons.


I suspect that those Suburbans are not the ones you find at a dealer 

Regardless, they are are tough. We had a Chev Tahoe which is really just a stubby Suburban, We had a drunk driver broadside us. He came across 4 lanes of highway at speed and said he didn't see me! Anyway, he hit us on the driver side door. His minivan was totally trashed in front end. I was driving and I could see no damage on inside of door. Outside was trashed. Internal beam saved me.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Calling the testing a "moose test" is stupid, as it isn't recommended to swerve your vehicle to avoid wild animals, especially into oncoming traffic.


Would you swerve around a little kid @sags

The typical American vehicle becomes unstable and uncontrollable on the highway very easily. Having tracked cars I like having a controllable vehicle with good handling

What is the downside to a low center of gravity? Rarely is something good for off roading, racing and driving at once with no trade off. Nobody ever says they prefer a higher center of gravity. It's just good

Balanced low center of gravity is a very simple and very good design feature


----------



## KaeJS

The moose test is very important.
I'd argue it is the most important test.

I hate Tesla's. They look like ****. Musk is an idiot. And the infrastructure is just not there yet to make them worthwhile. Regardless of my feelings - they do have a great CoG and they have nice handling.

In fact, one of the appeals of them is how fast they can accelerate and how nimble they are.

These days, most cars are built like trash. They feel like a cloud. Light struts and springs, electric steering, high CoG, box-type features, horrible rotors... Etc.

You cannot deny that a Tesla is, at the very least, probably one of the safest cars (when driven by a human and not the computer).


----------



## sags

_Would you swerve around a little kid @sags_

Fortunately, my GM has forward, back and side vehicle and pedestrian warnings and would flash red lights and start to stop itself.

Would you swerve around ducks on a road and end up in a collision or hitting pedestrians on a sidewalk ?

The question was raised here a few years ago when ducks and geese were crossing in the middle of 4 lanes of very busy traffic.

The answer came from a similar case in Quebec.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/emma-czornobaj-loses-appeal-1.4152387


----------



## sags

The technology works well too.

The other night I was driving home on Highway 401 and travelling about 120 kms an hour.

There was a construction zone and the left hand land merged into a single lane up ahead.

A car went blasting past in that lane and they must have cut in up the line where that lane ended.

Everyone else was in single file, but by cutting in that driver set off a chain reaction of everyone slamming on their brakes.

My Trailblazer flashed a row of red lights on the windshield before I realized the traffic had completely stopped and was already applying the brakes before I had a chance to move my foot to the brake. Maybe a couple of seconds worth of time but that can cover a lot of ground at 120 kms per hour.

Good thing too.......because I got stopped about 3 feet behind the car ahead and then worried the guy behind me might plow into me.

I don't know how far ahead the technology can measure but it knew the traffic had stopped at least seconds before I did.

It has already proven well worth the extra cost for the drivers asssitance technology package and I highly recommend it on all vehicles.


----------



## m3s

So now you like driver assistance tech

Have you heard of Tesla?!


----------



## KaeJS

sags said:


> The technology works well too.
> 
> The other night I was driving home on Highway 401 and travelling about 120 kms an hour.
> 
> There was a construction zone and the left hand land merged into a single lane up ahead.
> 
> A car went blasting past in that lane and they must have cut in up the line where that lane ended.
> 
> Everyone else was in single file, but by cutting in that driver set off a chain reaction of everyone slamming on their brakes.
> 
> My Trailblazer flashed a row of red lights on the windshield before I realized the traffic had completely stopped and was already applying the brakes before I had a chance to move my foot to the brake. Maybe a couple of seconds worth of time but that can cover a lot of ground at 120 kms per hour.
> 
> Good thing too.......because I got stopped about 3 feet behind the car ahead and then worried the guy behind me might plow into me.
> 
> I don't know how far ahead the technology can measure but it knew the traffic had stopped at least seconds before I did.
> 
> It has already proven well worth the extra cost for the drivers asssitance technology package and I highly recommend it on all vehicles.


Sounds like maybe you should take a driving test.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> When I went hunting with my buddies, they always had their guns ready because there were often bears out hunting as well.


Well the people I hang out with comply with the applicable hunting regulations, but that's just me.
I have no tolerance for those violating firearms laws.






Preventable Hunting Violations | Ontario Hunter Education Program







www.ohep.net





*Loaded Firearm in Vehicle or Motorboat:* It is illegal to possess a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle or motorboat. This is unsafe and has resulted in accidents, including fatalities.


----------



## sags

Yet another Tesla recall regarding loose bolts on the suspension and an investigation into their autopilot software after an accident.

I read that some Tesla vehicles have 5 outstanding recalls to fix issues.

With all the other quality issues like paint, door handles, Teslas has a lot of work to do inside their assembly plants.









Tesla recalls Model 3, Y after bolts loosened, not tightened, during assembly


In Canada, some 270 vehicles will have to be checked for loose link bolts in their suspension




driving.ca













Tesla vehicle in ‘Full Self-Driving’ beta mode ‘severely damaged’ after crash in California


It is the first crash reported involving FSD beta.




www.theverge.com


----------



## sags

In stock news.....Tesla has dropped 10% in 5 days which is the biggest decline in 20 months.

It might be just a short term blip, or it could be investors becoming interested in the competition now that it is here.

In a CNBC interview, GM CEO Mary Barra said they will have 30 EV models coming to showrooms over the next 3 years.

They have the production facilities ready and are just waiting for semiconductor chips.

All of the manufacturers are coming to market with some impressive EV vehicles.

The battle for market share has only just begun.


----------



## m3s

sags TSLA is back to where it was 2 weeks ago

You've obviously drank the GM kool-aid. You said it yourself famers don't want EVs. GM fans won't buy an EV and EV fans won't buy a GM

Mary Barra who? She has less twitter followers than a teenage zit cream influencer


----------



## sags

You can have your Tesla. I want one of these. (just one of GM's 30 EV models)

That........is style. No Ipad tacked onto the dash there. Everything is integrated into the dash, and it retains all the preferred switches in place.

Apparently they are sold out until summer of 2022.

Check it out in black........awesome

One downside........no rebates available. Rebates only apply to low end EV vehicles.

Tesla...........say hello to your competition.





__





2023 Cadillac LYRIQ | Electric SUV | Model Overview


<p>Explore the new Luxury Electric SUV, the 2023 Cadillac LYRIQ, with standard Rear-Wheel Drive and available All-Wheel Drive & a plethora of luxurious amenities.</p>




www.cadillac.com


----------



## m3s

Boomers love a huge grill and huge air intakes. The bigger the better. More air to increase the electronic motor performance eh

I search the forum for GM and see several threads about GM pension buyouts, GM workers deals, GM closing plants, GM government bailouts

Do we have a TSLA thread about TSLA workers pensions, benefits? Do we have a GM thread about GM tech, GM innovation?

The TSLA thread has 100 pages and the GM thread all seem to have 1 page









GM-UAW contract hurt Canada?


This doesn't bode well for the future. GM and the UAW agreed to a tentative deal which will pay GM workers a $5,000 bonus this year, and improvements in starting wages and health benefits. The bonus is in addition to the $4,000 bonus US. employees received for 2010. Canadian autoworkers...




www.canadianmoneyforum.com


----------



## sags

Size matters.....

They are safer, easier to enter and exit, have a better view of the road, more seating space, more storage, and navigate winter weather better.

You are focused on a low center of gravity like you are driving an Indy car on a racetrack. Boomers aren't concerned about that.

Boomers want to be able to drive safely on an un-plowed road in February to load up at Costco.


----------



## sags

By the way, that isn't a steel grille or air vents on the front of the Cadillac Lyric. It is art........visually expressed by lighting to welcome the driver.

Check out this video on the features, quality and finish. From the art inspred interior to the mind blowing sound system it is top of class for luxury SUVs.

I got to have one of these as soon as our landlord puts in a charger for us.


----------



## m3s

Ok the grill is actually smooth which is better. Seems to be an innovative way to get that boomer aesthetic

Young guy at work drove a maroon Cadillac CTS maybe it was the V. Decent car but everyone called it the old man car. Just the brand and ostentatious styling means this won't be a mainstream car. It makes a statement like you took out a reverse mortgage well into retirement

The roof and door handles look a lot like Tesla. Rivian also went glass roof. Is it an EV thing now?


----------



## m3s

I suppose this means Cadillac Lyiq will be the EV hearse of the future?


----------



## sags

LOL...........It would make a nice luxury overnight camper.


----------



## agent99

OK SAGS, i seems you won't be buying a Tesla. Neither will I. Time to move on  What's your next topic?


----------



## m3s

Ok this is the TSLA thread not the Cadillac EV hearse thread and Elon is going full troll mode on twitter on a Sunday morning


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1459904966194253824
Seems like everyone is on edge lately


----------



## sags

Why is it sheer torture for the world's wealthiest to pay taxes like everyone else does ?


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Why is it sheer torture for the world's wealthiest to pay taxes like everyone else does ?


Capitalism


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Why is it sheer torture for the world's wealthiest to pay taxes like everyone else does ?


Because if they paid taxes like everyone else the governments would go bankrupt.
It's a good thing they pay so much more or we'd be SCREWED!


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Size matters.....
> 
> They are safer, easier to enter and exit, have a better view of the road, more seating space, more storage, and navigate winter weather better.
> 
> You are focused on a low center of gravity like you are driving an Indy car on a racetrack. Boomers aren't concerned about that.
> 
> Boomers want to be able to drive safely on an un-plowed road in February to load up at Costco.


Well balanced with a low center of gravity what makes the car more stable and safer to drive.

I'm not aware of any Costco that is located on unplowed roads.
If there are enough people for a Costco, they plow the roads.

If it's so bad they can't keep up, you shouldn't be driving anyway.

FWIW I've driven some really nasty weather in compact FWD cars. I've seen lots of SUV's in the ditches.
The problem with people who drive SUV's "for safety" is that they don't realize their own bad driving is what's putting them at risk.


----------



## AltaRed

Agreed, plus they think AWD/FWD gives them more traction and stopping power. Totally false. All AWD/4WD does is give more acceleration traction from 4 wheels instead of only 2.


----------



## sags

AWD and quality snow tires...........and you are ready for winter driving.

Personally, I prefer higher ground clearance in a vehicle in winter driving, to avoid plowing snow with the undercarriage.......but to each their own.


----------



## m3s

Ideally higher ground clearance and lower center of gravity

EVs can have both when you can remove the differentials that hang down and the distribute the battery weight evenly and low

Subaru achieves this with lower horizontal engine and asymmetrical drive train. Most SUVs don't have as high ground clearance as they appear

Lower center of gravity is very important to not unsettle the vehicle so easily on slippery roads


----------



## MrMatt

FWD and snow tires are just fine in most of Southern Ontario, even in the snowbelt.

You don't really need ground clearance until it's over 8" or so, and even then if it's light and fluffy it's not a problem.

If it's over a foot deep and unplowed, stay home.


----------



## m3s

Southern ontario is very different from most of Canada to be fair.

Snow tires make the biggest difference and AWD is just nice if you ever stop on steep hills or need to drive anywhere rural.

A FWD car was sketch out west crossing a ridge of snow to make a left turn in traffic but you get by or get creative


----------



## agent99

I learned something about Tesla today. I am sure the Tesla fanboys already know this.

The Tesla logo is more than a stylized T.

It actually represents the internals of an electric motor. The curved line at the top is the stator and the lower part part of the rotor. Quite clever really


----------



## sags

It is a clever logo, but I don't have fond memories of that part of electromotive power.

My first job at GM was winding the copper around traction motors for locomotives.

It wasn't a fun job. The copper was covered by fiberglass that stuck to everything, including our arms, shirts, and coats and everywhere.

We tried arm guards and protective creams, but it still stuck into us like one of those thorny burr plants that latch onto you.

My wife used to pull the fibres out of my arms with tweezers every night. They were itchy as all get out.

If I hadn't been transferred out of there, I would have quit and gone back to my old job.

I always wondered if the Tesla logo was an Elon Musk inspired meme of the Texaco logo, but a more futuristic "T".


----------



## sags

I wonder if the government will end up having to put governors on the acceleration and speed of EV vehicles at some point.

The Tesla Plaid is ridiculously fast, and the GM EV Corvette is said to be even faster. At some point, it is dangerous to have drag strip level vehicles on the road.

Back in the day......the muscle cars got faster and faster and it ended up the cops had to buy them to catch people.

We used to go the US and see the cops rumbling by in GTOs and Plymouth Roadrunners, so they could keep up with the bad guys.


----------



## m3s

So sleepy Joe who sleeps through the climate conference is declaring GM the EV king

Meanwhile GM is recalling every single Chevy Bolt for defective batteries that catch on fire. GM recommends to not fully charge the Chevy Bolt and to charge it outside away from your house and other things you don't want on fire.

Is there any evidence they know how to make a battery that doesn't catch on fire? Will the Hummer EV come with automatic fire suppression to mitigate the insurance rates? Can the Hummer even pass the moose test? Time will tell

Cathie Wood says the legacy automakers need to restructure to compete in the EV market.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Cathie Wood says the legacy automakers need to restructure to compete in the EV market.


Failed investment managers who like to pick arguments with wildly successful tech leaders aren't the kind of people worth listening to.


----------



## bgc_fan

Tesla has been setting up a few microgrids, but they've done one in a Pickering subdivision: https://electrek.co/2021/12/06/tesla-powerpacks-power-new-microgrid-pilot-project-canada/

Might be an option to explore when creating new communities and adding a microgrid to them. It would help for increased resiliency for the electrical system. Looks like it is primarily backup, but not a bad project.


----------



## m3s

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468008290240143366

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467583807234748434


----------



## MrMatt

Wow Teslas implement technology that's been mandatory since 2012?

Good for them.

"Electronic stability control (or ESC) is a crash avoidance system, mandatory on all cars, SUVs, pickups, minivans, heavy trucks and buses from 2012 model year"






Electronic stability control


Drivers may not be familiar with the advanced features in their vehicles. This page describes the functions and limitations of Electronic Stability Control.




tc.canada.ca


----------



## m3s

Not all ESC is equal. Not even close

Most vehicles just use the electronical ABS sensors/controls to apply brakes to slipping wheels. I hate those compared to mechanical differentials and true torque vectoring

With electronic motors and regenerative brakes I imagine there is much better control but hard to say without using it. It should be smoother than brakes


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> With electronic motors and regenerative brakes I imagine there is much better control but hard to say without using it. It should be smoother than brakes


I'd think the opposite, brakes would provide better control than just drag (regen) from the drivetrain system.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Not all ESC is equal. Not even close
> 
> Most vehicles just use the electronical ABS sensors/controls to apply brakes to slipping wheels. I hate those compared to mechanical differentials and true torque vectoring
> 
> With electronic motors and regenerative brakes I imagine there is much better control but hard to say without using it. It should be smoother than brakes


Well short answer, no.

The thing with using brakes and ABS is you can control each wheel independantly.
Even a dual motor EV, that motor is controlling 2 wheels at a time.

Like the braking engineering at a major automaker said about ABS vs skilled driver. Lets assume you're better than the ABS computer, you have 1 pedal for 4 tires, ABS controls all 4 tires independantly. Left tire on pavement, right tire on ice, who has better control?


Secondly you can vary the level of friction from zero to max, go drive your bike and you can see this yourself, if you apply very lightly, you'll experience very little braking force.

Remember the fictional force is proportional to the applied force.
Ff=mu*Fn (Frictional Force = coefficient of Friction * Normal Force)

This is basic high school physics.


Secondly torque vectoring sounds cool, but really what you're looking for is slip prevention, and brakes can handle that just fine.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Like the braking engineering at a major automaker said about ABS vs skilled driver. Lets assume you're better than the ABS computer, you have 1 pedal for 4 tires, ABS controls all 4 tires independantly. Left tire on pavement, right tire on ice, who has better control?


I like ABS. I never wanted to turn ABS off in any driving condition in a car. I've never even seen an ABS off button on cars

I also like ABS on motorbikes. However it is downright dangerous in many conditions. Guess what there is always an ABS off option and ideally ABS modes on motorbikes. It's nice for when you hit an unexpected situation but a professional rider would be restricted by it

I was talking about ESC that uses brakes. It's similar to the ABS on motorbikes and notice that most sports cars have the option to turn it off. My car has several ESC modes. I always turn it off on the race track and even in the winter because it restricts my abilities

Very few cars nowadays have real mechanical limited slip differentials. It costs a lot more than using brakes and the typical driver is better off with brakes. An EV with 4 individual regenerative motors could be better in theory but I haven't used them. It should be smoother than a brake pad

Writing some physics forumlas on here is a joke. If you ever applied math to anything real world you'd know that


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Writing some physics forumlas on here is a joke. If you ever applied math to anything real world you'd know that


Well as an automotive engineer.. I don't get the joke.

I'm not sure if you're joking, or if you're seriously arguing that the equation for friction doesn't actually apply to the real world.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Secondly torque vectoring sounds cool, but really what you're looking for is slip prevention, and brakes can handle that just fine.


Limited slip differential and electronics controls at the differential is better than using brakes

Not all ESC is equal at all. The poor man's version of torque vectoring is using the brakes. Big difference between driving to the mall in GTA and performance or extreme conditions

The older ESCs were trash even in a flat parking lot with an inch snow. They're all very different.

What does an automotive engineer design in Canada? I didn't know we design any vehicles


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> An EV with 4 individual regenerative motors could be better in theory but I haven't used them. It should be smoother than a brake pad


lol, that's funny ... go to 4 motors to fix a system that doesn't need fixing. Care to explain why it "should be" smoother than the nearly infinite braking force brake pads already give you?


----------



## sags

Elon Must tweeted he might be quitting Tesla.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> lol, that's funny ... go to 4 motors to fix a system that doesn't need fixing.


Like Henry Ford said “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” It always amazes me how opposed people are to innovation they never tried

Ask any performance driver and they will tell you not all ESC are created equally. Brake pads have infinite braking force?... why would race cars have performance brakes with more pistons then. Braking force isn't even the problem. You want very little force on ice or in a situation that can unsettle a vehicle. You need precision and finesse

You ride a motorcycle? You can even feel the difference in pads. Anyone who drives a real transmission knows how to use engine braking. Just ask a truck driver or a farmer


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Limited slip differential and electronics controls at the differential is better than using brakes


Not in most situations.
All you really want to do is to keep the tires from spinning, that is exerting enough torque to overcome the friction where the rubber meets the road.
With ESC this is done by reducing torque to the wheel.
it doesn't matter if it is limited slip or brakes or whatever, the only thing the contact patch cares is if the applied force is higher than the max friction or not.

Limited slip etc just distribute more power, but that's not really the problem when you're trying to maintain control, as in the above Tesla regenerative braking example you cited, in that case regenerative braking was applying a small braking force.



> Not all ESC is equal at all.


Of course not.



> The poor man's version of torque vectoring is using the brakes.


Well yes, because braking is only a subtractive effort. But on anything but clean dry roads most cars have enough power to overcome road friction anyway.
Realistically the problem in most stability situations is TOO MUCH power, not a lack of it.

The only thing that really matters is if there is more force than the contact patch can handle in static friction before you start to slide. It doesn't matter how the torque gets to the wheel, just the net impact at the contact patch.



> What does an automotive engineer design in Canada? I didn't know we design any vehicles


Didn't you know that automotive is a global industry?
Do you really think that there is just a few guys in Detroit or Wolfsburg who design "the whole car"?

Also if you look back, I was referencing a discussion with a braking/ABS/ESC Engineer, while I understand friction etc, he was the expert.


----------



## m3s

If by "most situations" you mean the soccer moms driving to the mall then I agree

Watch any video comparing "off road" SUV that uses brakes for control to real off road vehicle. Brakes are a cheap good enough solution but they don't compare in any difficult situation. In a slippery situation like the one that started this conversation I would use engine brakes never brakes

When I was 12 hauling heavy wagons downhill on dirt around a bend I knew not to even tap the brakes. This is well known by any trucker, heavy equipment operator, off roader etc. Engine braking is better for many reasons and I can imagine regenerative braking would be similar

Go compare it in the real world. To compare on paper you need more than basic physics


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> If by "most situations" you mean the soccer moms driving to the mall then I agree


By most situations I mean those where too much power from the engine/transmission is the problem.



> I knew not to even tap the brakes.


The problem that people feel here is that if you overbrake and "break friction", you have a problem. 
This happens when you overapply brakes. But the problem is overapplication of braking force, it doesn't matter if it's friction brakes, or applying too much power, it's the same problem.



> Go compare it in the real world. To compare on paper you need more than basic physics


Your argument simply boils down to it's easier to overbrake with friction brakes than with regenerative braking.
I'm not convinced that's the case, in slippery situations, like an icy road, it doesn't take much excess force (positive or negative) to break friction and start to slide, regenerative braking can easily generate that level of force.

You know if you engine brake aggressively on ice, you'll break traction as surely as hammering on the brakes.

Again, the contact patch doesn't know the technology behind it, and doesn't care, 1Nm to the wheel is 1Nm to the wheel, irrespective of the engine, transmission, braking etc.
It's a simple force calculation, and yes it does all boil down to a simple physic calculation, that's the whole point.

I appreciate that you have a lot of "real world broscience", and understand that it helps make it easier to function in the world, but even when it works, that doesn't mean it accurately describes what is going on.


----------



## m3s

I remember that formula from grade 10 and I do orbital analysis for the US nowadays so I can do basic math. Nothing in the real world works on high school math

Performance brakes let you apply them smoother with more feel. This allows you to brake smoothly without locking. I can brake harder on a motorbike without ABS and it also helps to have good pads, good fluid and adjusted controls etc

Pulsing ABS brakes is the opposite of smooth or precise and it's not designed to be. BMW has some crazy tech that moves the pads closer to the rotors in rain but still it's just a pad and a rotor that varies a lot from many real world factors

Regenerative braking has a lot more potential for control and finesse. It wouldn't pulse like ABS and shouldn't be subject to the same wear and environment conditions.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> I remember that formula from grade 10 and I do orbital analysis for the US nowadays so I can do basic math. Nothing in the real world works on high school math


Hmm, almost all my finances run on high school math just fine.
As does the computer I'm typing this on, again mostly just lots of high school math.



> Regenerative braking has a lot more potential for control and finesse. It wouldn't pulse like ABS and shouldn't be subject to the same wear and environment conditions.


It doesn't matter how you apply your braking force, 1Nm of regenerative braking or 1Nm of friction braking, once it gets to the wheel, it's all the same 1Nm.




m3s said:


> Performance brakes let you apply them smoother with more feel. This allows you to brake smoothly without locking. I can brake harder on a motorbike without ABS and it also helps to have good pads, good fluid and adjusted controls etc


If you're breaking hard without locking up, ABS isn't, or at least shouldn't be engaged anyway.


You're clearly fascinated by new fancy technology, and there is a lot to like about EV's, but the idea that 1Nm of regenerative braking is "safer" than 1Nm of friction braking is silly.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Like Henry Ford said “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” It always amazes me how opposed people are to innovation they never tried
> 
> Ask any performance driver and they will tell you not all ESC are created equally. Brake pads have infinite braking force?... why would race cars have performance brakes with more pistons then. Braking force isn't even the problem. You want very little force on ice or in a situation that can unsettle a vehicle. You need precision and finesse
> 
> You ride a motorcycle? You can even feel the difference in pads. Anyone who drives a real transmission knows how to use engine braking. Just ask a truck driver or a farmer


Congrats, you completely evaded giving me an answer why it would be smoother. Infinite means from very little braking force all the way up to locking the tire or triggering ABS. I figured you would have gotten that but I guess not.

Yes, I ride motorcycles and I also race them, both road and enduro. In other words, I'm very much in tune with precise braking use and limits on various surfaces.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> You're clearly fascinated by new fancy technology, and there is a lot to like about EV's, but the idea that 1Nm of regenerative braking is "safer" than 1Nm of friction braking is silly.


I would suggest you give up arguing with entrenchment/stubbornness. As a mechanical engineer myself, it has gotten kind of silly.


----------



## m3s

Yall are funny

The post that sparked this was about descending a slippery surface. I remembered how "off road" SUVs nowadays have "hill descent control" so I looked it up. It does use the ABS system but it was also designed as a cheap way to replicate true off road vehicles with low gears and real differentials which is what I was talking about. Just go watch some off road comparisons to see the drawbacks

I haven't used regenerative braking and I've heard bad things about it in snow, but in theory it could have the advantages of both electronic hill descent control and the smoother control of engine braking with low gears like in a tractor or off road vehicle. Assuming you have independent control of wheels and much more variability in the resistance it could be smoother than pulsing pads on metal

I've descended very steep loose rocky hills by motorbike and if I forgot ABS on it was terrifying. This was a very common complaint and the new bikes have more ways to turn it off. Locking and spinning wheels is actually useful off road or in snow to get down to the harder surface or to rotate a vehicle etc Again I can out perform an ABS system but I do like it most of the time

As for the engineers Elon is an engineer and he hires engineers now regardless if they started or completed a degree. Engineers could be designing ash tray doors for all I know. I graduated a year early without a full engineering degree because it wasn't worth the extra year for me. I can go back to school for free now but I'd rather teach myself

I code with a guy who switched from a mech eng job during the pandemic. He's a genius doing crazy things now without someone telling him what mundane thing to redesign. Some people like to try new things and others tend to resist new concepts


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> The post that sparked this was about descending a slippery surface. I remembered how "off road" SUVs nowadays have "hill descent control" so I looked it up. It does use the ABS system but it was also designed as a cheap way to replicate true off road vehicles with low gears and real differentials which is what I was talking about. Just go watch some off road comparisons to see the drawbacks


Hill descent is mostly a marketing ploy though may actually be useful to a few very novice off road drivers that'll freak out on a steep hill. It's not meant to replace vehicles with an actual low range despite what you think.



m3s said:


> I haven't used regenerative braking and I've heard bad things about it in snow, but in theory it could have the advantages of both electronic hill descent control and the smoother control of engine braking with low gears like in a tractor or off road vehicle. Assuming you have independent control of wheels and much more variability in the resistance it could be smoother than pulsing pads on metal


IMO, regenerative braking is just a system to gain more range on a battery powered vehicle, the fact is slows you down is just a secondary function of that. Regen does cause problems, such as, inconsistant interface and the inability to control it (e.g. can't adjust or shut it off). If it would have been my system I'd only apply regen when the actual brake pedal is pressed combining the two systems (regen and brake pads) so they work together.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> Hill descent is mostly a marketing ploy though may actually be useful to a few very novice off road drivers that'll freak out on a steep hill. *It's not meant to replace vehicles with an actual low range despite what you think.*


Despite what I think? This is literally what I think despite what you think or interpreted 😝 That is what I've been saying all along - hill descent uses ABS and off roaders know it does not replace actual low range. It sounded to me like Elon claims EVs act differently than ABS controlled ESC or HDC



cainvest said:


> IMO, regenerative braking is just a system to gain more range on a battery powered vehicle, the fact is slows you down is just a secondary function of that. Regen does cause problems, such as, inconsistant interface and the inability to control it (e.g. can't adjust or shut it off). If it would have been my system I'd only apply regen when the actual brake pedal is pressed combining the two systems (regen and brake pads) so they work together.


This is the single petal debate. Police around the world are testing EVs - they love them except they hate the single petal driving for performance driving. IMO it is a matter of readjusting or maybe some added features or reprogramming etc. There was a similar debate with snowmobiles back when I was into that

HDC and ESC etc are all clever uses of ABS. Maybe someday some clever automotive engineer will come up with some clever ways to employ regenerative brakes to manipulate torque. Heck we are still improving ICE cars today and we are barely scratching the surface with EVs yet imo

Rivian is a beast off road so I went to see if it has a hill descent mode. This guy had to ride the brakes down which he didn't like with a heavy vehicle. Like I was saying try descending with a tractor and heavy wagons around a bend on a loose surface.. engine braking and low range is key






Now I look back at the post that started this discussion - Notice Elon claims that Tesla *adjusts torque *to give the best traction in this situation. So why didn't he say brakes? I haven't driven a Tesla so I can't say but torque means something very different to me and I didn't need the engineering course to understand what torque is

If you can manipulate torque on a EV with a computer that is a big deal to me. Guess what they already do with Plaid mode, Ludacris mode, Sport mode, Chill mode. Just add a Hill Descent mode



m3s said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468008290240143366
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1467583807234748434


----------



## m3s

I found a quote from a Tesla firmware engineer for all you expert automotive engineers out there



> The recent research and development to integrate the powertrain and brake systems to provide better traction and stability control can only be made easier by the use of electric drive systems. One thing I learned from the traction control work I did on the frozen lake is that *traction control is a much simpler problem to solve when you have precise and instant control of torque through the AC induction motor controller. Further integration of antilock braking systems with the motor controller would allow the motor to take over more of the vehicle braking. *It’s very exciting to be working at the forefront of these possibilities.


That quote was from 2007

I've seen videos that also claimed the regenerative braking is automatically applied to warm up the battery for example on a cold morning. Maybe it could also warm up the brake pads to optimal temps. BMW does this by applying the brakes lightly


----------



## KaeJS

I'll be honest and say I haven't read all this bllshit.

But -

Anyone who has ever raced, or knows anything at all about being a real driver, knows that ABS, using brakes, etc... is trash.

"Engine braking" is much better.

If you're not using the tranny to slow you down, u dun fukt up.

Braking and ABS and all those shenanigans are for soccer moms.


----------



## cainvest

Bottom line is regen has problems and limitations, some issues could be solved while others can't. Tesla apparently removed regen selection (normal/low) on some models which is going the wrong direction IMO. I personally would want (at a minimum) a true off selection for regen, just like I do for ESS, ESC, and traction control.


----------



## MrMatt

KaeJS said:


> "Engine braking" is much better.
> 
> Braking and ABS and all those shenanigans are for soccer moms.


Engine braking isn't "better", it has a number of advantages, but they don't really apply to normal driving.

Braking is for people who want to stop, friction or magnetic, it doesn't really matter.

ABS is for a number of situations, like the braking engineer told me, you don't have 4 brake pedals.


----------



## AltaRed

KaeJS said:


> I'll be honest and say I haven't read all this bllshit.
> 
> But -
> 
> Anyone who has ever raced, or knows anything at all about being a real driver, knows that ABS, using brakes, etc... is trash.
> 
> "Engine braking" is much better.
> 
> If you're not using the tranny to slow you down, u dun fukt up.
> 
> Braking and ABS and all those shenanigans are for soccer moms.


I use engine braking a lot with my 2007 Infiniti which does a good job of it with the 3.5L V6. Much less effective in a 2L or 2.5L four banger due to displacement to weight ratios. But engine braking has its limitations. It applies braking to only the two driven wheels on non-4WD vehicles and that isn't good enough in slippery road conditions. It just makes sense that using 4 wheels to slow a vehicle down is much better than 2. 

I see regen braking as no different than engine braking and the inherent limitations.

That is where ABS comes into its own as well. Avoiding the lock up of wheels to help maintain control and better rolling friction.


----------



## cainvest

KaeJS said:


> Anyone who has ever raced, or knows anything at all about being a real driver, knows that ABS, using brakes, etc... is trash.


Such an obvious troll statement above but all real racers use brakes when needed, which is very often on tracks.


----------



## KaeJS

cainvest said:


> Such an obvious troll statement above but all real racers use brakes when needed, which is very often on tracks.


How many racers do you think use brakes without downshifting?

They use the brakes in addition to engine braking. They don't use them as a replacement.


----------



## Mechanic

Brakes are critical when you approach a bend at high speed on a racetrack.. I remember the demo at a track day years ago. I was in a van at very high speed approaching a corner for the demo. Turn into the corner and the van ran straight off the road. Same speed and apply heavy brake pressure forces weight transfer to allow tires to stay in contact and make the turn. Was surprising how many attendees had no idea


----------



## cainvest

KaeJS said:


> How many racers do you think use brakes without downshifting?
> 
> They use the brakes in addition to engine braking. They don't use them as a replacement.


So you've gone from "using brakes, etc... is trash." to using brakes with engine braking is ok now?


----------



## m3s

Heel-toe braking refers to downshifting/rev matching while braking. I do that everyday for fun but I've only ever owned manuals and grew up operating old heavy equipment that required rev matching

Nowadays race cars usually have sequential gearbox that rev match automatically. If you aren't using engine braking you have no idea what you're doing. You'd have to downshift before or after braking



cainvest said:


> Bottom line is regen has problems and limitations, some issues could be solved while others can't. Tesla apparently removed regen selection (normal/low) on some models which is going the wrong direction IMO. I personally would want (at a minimum) a true off selection for regen, just like I do for ESS, ESC, and traction control.


I agree removing that option is the wrong direction but I haven't followed what they did.

Maybe it can sense road conditions and adjust regen automatically or maybe it was to idiot proof things. There were other options people complained about (something like how some cars won't let you recirculate and defrost because why) I would still want the option and to know how regen performs in snow

I imagine the Cybertruck will have more regen settings. Saying regen has problems and limitations is just walking back statements. 4 individual motors with the ability to control torque for hill descent should be very useful. It's like a low gear but even better because you can control with computer



MrMatt said:


> Engine braking isn't "better", it has a number of advantages, but they don't really apply to normal driving.
> 
> Braking is for people who want to stop, friction or magnetic, it doesn't really matter.
> 
> ABS is for a number of situations, like the braking engineer told me, you don't have 4 brake pedals.


It does matter in the situation I posted (descending an icy hill) ABS pulse is not good in that situation. On my motorbike it makes gravel feel like ice which is not good when descending towards a hazard. See the Tesla engineer quote about precise and instant torque control.

ABS pulse is not as smooth as applying resistant to motors or low gear engine braking. Regen could work on 4 wheels independently. ESC is universally hated by anyone that likes to drive spirited. It's ok for normal driving but it's horrible for performance driving



AltaRed said:


> I use engine braking a lot with my 2007 Infiniti which does a good job of it with the 3.5L V6. Much less effective in a 2L or 2.5L four banger due to displacement to weight ratios. But engine braking has its limitations. It applies braking to only the two driven wheels on non-4WD vehicles and that isn't good enough in slippery road conditions. It just makes sense that using 4 wheels to slow a vehicle down is much better than 2.
> 
> I see regen braking as no different than engine braking and the inherent limitations.
> 
> That is where ABS comes into its own as well. Avoiding the lock up of wheels to help maintain control and better rolling friction.


Yea I was thinking 4 motors like the Rivian.

I don't see how the displacement matters as much as the gear ratios. I believe we're talking about torque not power here. I've owned RWD inline 6 and several FWD/AWD manual four bangers that could engine brake. In a manual transmission you'd look like an amateur to brake and then skip down gears (unless emergency braking) regardless of engine or drivetrain

My thinking here was regen braking could be more precise. I googled it after being gaslit by all you smarty engineers on here and found a Tesla firmware engineer saying the same thing over a decade ago. Regen braking is like engine braking but you also have multiple motors and computer control like ABS. You'd use them both together like heel-toe braking but better

Again when descending a hill in any machine, motorbike etc I will always use engine braking. Go back and reread the tweet and the Tesla engineer quote


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> It does matter in the situation I posted (descending an icy hill) ABS pulse is not good in that situation


ABS isn't "good", ABS is a tool to recover when you've already locked up your wheels.



> My thinking here was regen braking could be more precise.


Friction braking is basically infinitely variable, just like electric braking, or regenerative braking.

I don't see how it could be more precise, and honestly on my bike, with 2 wheel, analog friction braking, I've never been in a situation where I said "darn my brakes just aren't precise enough"

It's really quite simple, you want to apply up to the amount of force before you break traction, once that happens, you're in trouble, ABS and ESC are just tools to recover faster.

If you engine brake hard enough to break traction, you're in just as much trouble as if you applied too much friction brake


----------



## KaeJS

cainvest said:


> So you've gone from "using brakes, etc... is trash." to using brakes with engine braking is ok now?


I don't think the debate is really about brakes.
Obviously, we all need and use brakes.

But braking in and of itself is not superior to engine braking.

Have you ever been to a track? Have you ever raced?

Try driving an automatic around the track and use your ABS.

Then try driving a manual around the track with traction control off.

Tell me which is better, faster and has more control.

I have tracked many cars and raced many times. Engine braking is a must. If you aren't using it, you're doing something wrong.

Braking comes with it's own set of issues.
Do you need brakes? Yes. But brakes without engine braking comes nowhere near engine braking with brakes. They are not the same.


----------



## cainvest

KaeJS said:


> I don't think the debate is really about brakes.
> Obviously, we all need and use brakes.
> 
> But braking in and of itself is not superior to engine braking.


Well good to see you've changed you mind on brakes are needed and are not "trash". Sorry but engine braking is a far second (even unwanted in some situations) to actual brakes, even more so for just RWD. If you don't understand why this is we're done here.



KaeJS said:


> Have you ever been to a track? Have you ever raced?


Yes to both. Held a competition race license for a number of years and have a bucket full of trophys for podium finishes to back it up.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Friction braking is basically infinitely variable, just like electric braking, or regenerative braking.


The torque on your brakes is not adjustable. It is based on the size of your brakes. I'm not sure you engineers understand this. It is not infinitely variable. Engine braking with low gears is more variable.

The torque on electric regen seems to be adjustable (Ludiscris mode, Sport mode, Chill mode etc have different torques from what I read). Off road vehicles have low gearing for more torque which also makes the engine braking more precise.

Gears are a way to adjust torque. Electronic motor would be even more adjustable than a manual transmission



MrMatt said:


> I don't see how it could be more precise, and honestly on my bike, with 2 wheel, analog friction braking, I've never been in a situation where I said "darn my brakes just aren't precise enough"


Pulsing ABS is not precise it's clunky. I can brake more precisely with ABS off on my bike (ABS kicks in when I don't want it to)

Down hill on ice (like the tweet I posted that apparently none of you read)
Down hill on loose gravel (ABS on a motorbike will feel like you're downhill on ice)

Even soccer moms who drive automatic transmissions to the mall might need to descend an icy hill someday

Anyways I'm done trying to explain this on here. Go ride a vehicle down a slippery hill in neutral and maybe you will better see what I mean.

Go reread the tweet and Tesla engineer quote (both specified torque and regen)


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> I don't see how it could be more precise, and honestly on my bike, with 2 wheel, analog friction braking, I've never been in a situation where I said "darn my brakes just aren't precise enough"


Totally agree, precise brake control can easily be managed on a bike (or car for that matter). One dislaimer I'll add ... I do know some people who modified their braking system and had extremely grabby brake pads where they lost some precise control in favor of less lever pull ... but that was their doing.


----------



## KaeJS

cainvest said:


> Well good to see you've changed you mind on brakes are needed and are not "trash". Sorry but engine braking is a far second (even unwanted in some situations) to actual brakes, even more so for just RWD. If you don't understand why this is we're done here.
> 
> 
> Yes to both. Held a competition race license for a number of years and have a bucket full of trophys for podium finishes to back it up.


As someone who also races and drives pure RWD,

I can't understand or think of a single moment in time where engine braking was not beneficial.

In which situations when driving a RWD car would you not want to be in a lower gear and engine braking?

Not only that, but if you are racing, being in a lower gear allows you to power out of a turn. How is this not beneficial? Adding torque to the wheels in a turn is the way to win races.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> The torque on your brakes is not adjustable. It is based on the size of your brakes. I'm not sure you engineers understand this. It is not infinitely variable. Engine braking with low gears is more variable.


Yes it is, the torque on your brakes is the frictional force times the moment arm.
It varies from a little to a lot depending on how hard you apply them.

If the torque is fixed, why does your car or bike or truck react differently if you press lightly or hard on the brakes?
That's the variation in torque.



> Anyways I'm done trying to explain this on here. Go ride a vehicle down a slippery hill in neutral and maybe you will better see what I mean.


You're arguing that friction brakes aren't variable, do you just go and hammer on them full strength when you need to slow down?



> Go reread the tweet and Tesla engineer quote (both specified torque and regen)


yes I read it, that's why I responded that this was nothing new or unique.


This is pointless, you just said that brakes apply constant torque and you can't vary it.
Even a soccer Mom knows if you press hard you get a lot of braking, and if you press gently you get a little braking. That happens by varying the braking torque.
You really don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.


----------



## MrMatt

KaeJS said:


> Adding torque to the wheels in a turn is the way to win races.


What does that have to do with slowing the vehicle?


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Yes it is, the torque on your brakes is the frictional force times the moment arm.
> It varies from a little to a lot depending on how hard you apply them.
> 
> If the torque is fixed, why does your car or bike or truck react differently if you press lightly or hard on the brakes?
> That's the variation in torque.


Larger brake rotor has a larger moment arm. You can't adjust the size of your rotors like you can adjust gears (torque) with engine braking.

More torque lets you brake more precisely without locking with the engine braking (off road vehicles and heavy machinery have lower gears for higher torque) Engine braking is used going down hill to not lock the wheels when the brakes likely would. I'm not talking about having enough torque I'm talking about not locking the wheels

Again I'm talking about bad conditions



MrMatt said:


> You're arguing that friction brakes aren't variable, do you just go and hammer on them full strength when you need to slow down?
> 
> This is pointless, you just said that brakes apply constant torque and you can't vary it.
> Even a soccer Mom knows if you press hard you get a lot of braking, and if you press gently you get a little braking. That happens by varying the braking torque.
> You really don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about.


I agree this is pointless. You're gaslighting or trying to save face or something but there is far more to this than you understand

Friction brakes are variable to a degree but they are not as smooth and precise (go read the Tesla engineer's explanation or go off roading) If you don't have lower gears the engine braking is more abrupt and more likely to lock just like you are more likely to spin off road without lower gears (more torque). Same with brakes they are more abrupt and more likely to lock than low gearing engine braking.

Again this takes way more effort to explain than it should on here

I found a video of a Model 3 performance in snow. It apparently has 2 motors and open differentials so not ideal. Here's the part where he mentions the regen. Cybertruck with 4 motors and more off road settings could be very different beast


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> As does the computer I'm typing this on, again mostly just lots of high school math.


There is a lot of very sophisticated math at work to make modern computers work efficiently. It is well hidden from users, to be sure.


----------



## m3s

High school math will get you in the ball park

It's not close enough to put a satellite into orbit or to land an autonomous rocket. These EVs will improve for many years to come because there's so many more possibilities than we can calculate in a model year. So many companies and countries are trying to catch up to SpaceX and it will take time. By then they will have Starships and Cybertrucks

First mover advantage is huge for this reason. Tesla doesn't even patent their IP but I doubt the code is all open source


----------



## Eder

m3s said:


> Rivian is a beast off road so I went to see if it has a hill descent mode. This guy had to ride the brakes down which he didn't like with a heavy vehicle. Like I was saying try descending with a tractor and heavy wagons around a bend on a loose surface.. engine braking and low range is key


That pig of a truck is definitely useless off road just like every factory pick up ever made . A few atv trails and you would need a Jeep to follow & pick up the parts falling off.


----------



## m3s

Eder said:


> That pig of a truck is definitely useless off road just like every factory pick up ever made . A few atv trails and you would need a Jeep to follow & pick up the parts falling off.


Why would you compare a factory pickup to a Jeep? What factory pickup can do what the Rivian is doing in Colorado?

On paper the Cybertruck beats every factory pickup in approach/departure angles, lower center of gravity, higher ground clearance without low hanging diffs + adjustable suspension. Multiple motors and instant peak torque is also a big deal off road

EV Jeep with similar benefits would be even better off road. Nobody keeps Jeeps factory either if they want to do off roading


----------



## sags

I didn't even consider that video as "serious off roading".

We drove our ATVs up and down steep ravines, around trees and boulders, and through swamps while kneeling on the seat.

That.......was serious off roading. We wore hip waders and came home covered in mud.

The video looked like a Sunday drive down an old logging road.

I will be impressed when a Cybertruck can go deep into the bush and drag out a moose.


----------



## m3s

Let's see how well your GM Trailblazer does off road sags. Can it really blaze its own trail?

Cybertruck is meant to carry an ATV to the trail (apparently they are making one for it)

This thread is almost 10 years and 100 pages old. Why is there no Jeep or Trailblazer thread?


----------



## sags

They advertise the Trailblazer as an off road vehicle and I consider that as big a joke as the Rivian and Cybertruck.

You can do some limited "off roading" in a vehicle.....I have done it in an old Suzuki Sidekick during blackfly season, but you need an ATV to "get er done ".

A cold November morning and me and the boys are firing up the machines before the break of dawn. We gather at our camp.

The wife had made us a full breakfast and packed us a lunch. We were checking our gear.....extra gas, food, medical kits, maps,........and headed out.

The first stop was a beaver pond that crossed the trail.......not much to it, just drive through the water. The beaver keeps a wary eye on us.

And then on down the trail to the swamp area, where you stood on the seat and kept the revs up on the ATV to keep the water out of the exhaust.

Then to the ravine....straight down, across a stream, and straight up again. You eased her down and bore hogged it back up the other side.

We cross another very deep ravine, but this time we take the "bridge" over, which consists of 4 logs wired together.....always a thrill to make it across.

Then smooth sailing through birch stands and evergreens until the trail ended at the falls. A detour into the bush and off we go deep into the forest.

We see moose and bears through the leaf-less expanse of trees. One of the nice things about the late fall is that you can see a long ways.

The other nice thing about the late fall is there are no bugs pestering us every time we stop for a break.

We stop for a shore lunch alongside a lake few people have ever visited. Hotdogs, brown beans, and coffee are on the menu.

It is late afternoon and we have a long ways to return. We ramp up the speed and head on home to arrive just as dark settles in.

It was a good day.........and I wish I was eighteen again......to go where I'd never been.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> You're gaslighting or trying to save face or something but there is far more to this than you understand


You sure about that .... you do realize that you are arguing that engine braking with one wheel (single motor/open diff) is better than regular braking with 4 wheels right?


----------



## Eder

m3s said:


> Nobody keeps Jeeps factory either if they want to do off roading


I keep both my Jeeps stock as Jeep OEM parts are much higher quality than aftermarket stuff...just add a portable winch and a non EV chainsaw. Just pointing out taking any unmodified 4x4 pickup off road is lol and those pictures are BS... of course except the Cybertruck which will climb rugged mountains, pull loaded toy hauler trailers and blow 100' plumes of fire out of its ***.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> You sure about that .... you do realize that you are arguing that engine braking with one wheel (single motor/open diff) is better than regular braking with 4 wheels right?


That's not what I said or believe at all.

It's still moot because when you need to descend an icy hill in a manual transmission RWD you still want to use engine braking. You want to approach the hill in a lower gear and leave it in gear to use the drivetrain engine braking first. I owned a RWD manual and I would never go neutral to descend a slippery hill

If you brought up 2WD at the start I would have addressed that but that is not what you said. This is what you said



cainvest said:


> I'd think the opposite, brakes would provide better control than just drag (regen) from the drivetrain system.


This is not true

Brakes are better for emergency braking obviously but also too grippy for these slippery situations. When ABS kicks in that means you are already locking. ABS reacts to wheels locking to reduce brake torque but ideally you maintain control/speed without using ABS

I've looked it up some more and indeed the problem with brakes is they have too much torque to manage slippery conditions. Something like regenerative braking can indeed be very useful for slippery situations. It can provide more control than brakes because it doesn't pulse/lock you want smooth finesse

What we want is minimum brake torque in slippery situation (similar to low gear engine braking but better) Ideally AWD regen but RWD would also work the same as RWD engine braking. You wouldn't go down a hill in neutral just because you don't have AWD

But even the soccer moms have AWD nowadays come on


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> That's not what I said or believe at all.
> 
> It's still moot because when you need to descend an icy hill in a manual transmission RWD you still want to use engine braking.


Ok, so you're going down a slippy hill in a single motor RWD Tesla model 3 with an open diffferential (since this is a Testa thread) .... which will stop you better?
a) one wheel braking via regen
b) actual brakes which uses all four wheels


----------



## m3s

Obviously 4 wheel brakes. Ideally at least 2 wheels with regen and then brakes if required

Like I said I haven't driven a Tesla in snow and I don't think anyone here knows how they are engineered or what they are engineering in future models

The Rivian doesn't have any differential I didn't know the Tesla does. If they can get rid of those it would be ideal because open diffs are for soccer moms


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Obviously 4 wheel brakes.


Good, glad that was obvious to you.



m3s said:


> Ideally at least 2 wheels with regen and then brakes if required


Oh boy ... here we go again.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Larger brake rotor has a larger moment arm. You can't adjust the size of your rotors like you can adjust gears (torque) with engine braking.


Yes the moment arm is fixed, but the force is variable, sin
T=r*F
Even if you fix R, like you do in brakes, or in an electric motor, you can vary F



> I agree this is pointless. You're gaslighting or trying to save face or something but there is far more to this than you understand


yes I'm "gaslighting" you by pointing out your arguments are absurd.
And yes, retreat to the "you're not smart enough to understand", the last bastion of those who can't support their points.
I understand, it isn't that you're wrong, you just don't understand it well enough to explain it.
This isn't quantum mechanics, it's basic newtonian physics.



> Friction brakes are variable to a degree but they are not as smooth and precise (go read the Tesla engineer's explanation or go off roading)


Again I disagree, just because some guy at Tesla has an opinion doesn't mean he's right.

Friction brakes are for all effective purposes can generate infinitely variable torque from 0 to lockup
The fact that you can't seem to accept this point, shows you really don't know what you're talking about.
I suggest if you want to play engineer, go get an education.

Everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle with friction brakes knows this, and has experienced it, first hand, without all sorts of stuff in the way to see what's happening.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> I understand, it isn't that you're wrong, you just don't understand it well enough to explain it.
> This isn't quantum mechanics, it's basic newtonian physics.


It's just not worth the effort to explain on here. I'm too distracted with all the free airdrops and NFTs these days

You jumped to "I'm an automotive engineer so I'm right" which is a bunch of BS and you know it. You could be engineering mudflaps for all we know

As far as I know the major stability systems would be engineered in Germany or Japan



MrMatt said:


> Friction brakes are for all effective purposes can generate infinitely variable torque from 0 to lockup
> The fact that you can't seem to accept this point, shows you really don't know what you're talking about.
> I suggest if you want to play engineer, go get an education.
> 
> Everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle with friction brakes knows this, and has experienced it, first hand, without all sorts of stuff in the way to see what's happening.


This is not true. Perfect example of "I'm a mudflap engineer so I know exactly how everything works better than everyone who isn't a mudflap engineer"

They do not have infinitely variable torque from 0. This is where engine braking and regen can help in the low end. Again engine braking and regen also doesn't pulse in reaction to overbraking. You want to prevent that

This is something I learned from operating many different equipment besides bicycles and there are many explanations online if you know how to google:




If the caliper/brake pad assembly is too big for the rotor, the brake torque is too high. In that case,* the tires will want to lock up, and the brakes will be grabby. This causes the tires to start skidding instead of effectively rolling to a stop. Your vehicle’s advanced driving aid system may kick in and possibly make the situation worse. *If the caliper/brake pad assembly is too small for the rotor, the brake torque is too low. In that case, the brake pads can’t stop the rotor from turning or will take a long time to stop the rotor. This greatly increases the vehicle’s stopping distance, which is quite dangerous.


----------



## m3s

Here's another way that maybe even mudflap engineers can understand

Brake torque = [force exerted by the caliper] * [radius of the rotor]

You can't change the radius of the rotor like you can change the gears of the engine. In your mind the torque is infinitely variable but you ignore that it is not realistic to control. Otherwise we would not have gear ratios that make it easier to control/vary engine torque. Different situations call for different ranges

The Tesla engineer says regen has more control. You don't have a lot of control over brakes at that low end on a slippery surface because we can't just "shift down" the rotor radius from the optimal dry pavement controllable level to an optimal level for the situation

Put a heavy loaded motorbike with big powerful street brakes on a steep loose gravel slope towards a hairpin turn and a cliff. ABS is a nightmare there trust me you want it off. The newer bikes have more ABS modes exactly for that reason. ABS is reactive not proactive. ABS is a crutch

I see Tesla also has a snow mode that lets you spin the tires which is good.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> If the caliper/brake pad assembly is too big for the rotor, the brake torque is too high.


No car in production today has a caliber/brake pad assembly that is too big for the rotor.
Part weight is scrutinized to the gram, nothing is larger than it needs to be.

As far as brake torque, again, no the amount of friction times moment arm gives you torque, you give low friction, you get low torque.



> If the caliper/brake pad assembly is too small for the rotor, the brake torque is too low. In that case, the brake pads can’t stop the rotor from turning or will take a long time to stop the rotor.


Again that's not the case for any vehicle on the road today, why would they put big heavy rotors on a small caliper? 

Again you're spouting nonsense, nobody is releasing mismatched pad/rotor systems.



> This greatly increases the vehicle’s stopping distance, which is quite dangerous.


An undersize braking system would be problematic, but disc brakes are pretty cheap, and most vehicles have more than sufficient braking power to lock up the tires.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Here's another way that maybe even mudflap engineers can understand
> 
> Brake torque = [force exerted by the caliper] * [radius of the rotor]


That looks a lot like something I posted earlier. I understand it quote well.

Yes the moment arm is fixed, but the force is variable, sin
T=r*F
Even if you fix R, like you do in brakes, or in an electric motor, you can vary F



> You can't change the radius of the rotor like you can change the gears of the engine. In your mind the torque is infinitely variable but you ignore that it is not realistic.


Given that the force exerted by the caliber is infinitely variable, the Torque is also infinitely variable.



> The Tesla engineer says regen has more control.
> You don't have a lot of control over brakes at that low end on a slippery surface because we can't just "shift down" the rotor radius to a controllable level


But you can easily lower the applied force by the caliper.
You can't change the radius of the rotor in the electric motor, either, but again you can change the force applied by the motor.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Given that the force exerted by the caliber is infinitely variable, the Torque is also infinitely variable.
> 
> But you can easily lower the applied force by the caliper.
> You can't change the radius of the rotor in the electric motor, either, but again you can change the force applied by the motor.


It's not infinitely variable in practice though. I have a pedal that moves 6 inches or so and my foot is not that precise. You may think your is but it is not.

I can't change the brakes or pedal's range on the move. I mean you can ride a bicycle with 1 gear but it is not as easy to manage as having gears to change to a more optimal torque range. The brakes and pedal are setup for dry pavement at 120kmh. Now I want it setup for an icy downhill slope. The brake force and pedal feel very different in various machines setup for vastly different purposes and weights.

Go off-roading or take any heavy equipment, air brake or off-roading course. They will tell you to use engine braking. Autos are for soccer moms


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> It's not infinitely variable in practice though. I have a pedal that moves 6 inches or so and my foot is not that precise.


It is very good actually but most don't have the skills to use it. Try it sometime, roll your car down the smallest of inclines, just at tiny crawl and see how much control you really have. Then practice it 400 more times and see how much better you get.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> It is very good actually but most don't have the skills to use it. Try it sometime, roll your car down the smallest of inclines, just at tiny crawl and see how much control you really have. Then practice it 400 more times and see how much better you get.


That's nice. I'm not talking about a small incline. The tweet was about an icy slope

I'm airbrake certified and grew up operating farm and military equipment off road. ATVs are child's play but we had lots of those too. If you ever needed to descend a loose slope with low range gearing you would understand the difference and why you wouldn't want to rely on just brakes. ABS is a crutch and it means the brakes are locking. Low range gearing or low range regen can be very useful

I'm not talking about soccer moms driving to the mall I'm talking about bad situations.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> That's nice. I'm not talking about a small incline. The tweet was about an icy slope
> 
> I'm airbrake certified and grew up operating farm and military equipment off road. ATVs are child's play but we had lots of those too. If you ever needed to descend a loose slope with low range gearing you would understand the difference and why you wouldn't want to rely on just brakes. ABS is a crutch and it means the brakes are locking. Low range gearing or low range regen can be very useful
> 
> I'm not talking about soccer moms driving to the mall I'm talking about bad situations.


Guess you missed the point of the example. You can actually gently slow down even from a slow speed crawl, hense the nearly infinite braking control. Hint: works on ice as well too.

Engine braking has obvious limits, it's basically braking one wheel (or maybe two) only ... how is that better than braking with 4 wheels?

And why all the soccer Moms references ... they are drivers too and can get into bad weather situations. Could be your Tesla tweet guy is a soccer Dad, just saying.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> And why all the soccer Moms references ... they are drivers too and can get into bad weather situations. Could be your Tesla tweet guy is a soccer Dad, just saying.


Of course he could be

That is why regen braking could be very useful to anyone. It is not the same as ABS systems just like low range engine braking is not.

Even soccer moms have AWD nowadays especially in Canada


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> That is why regen braking could be very useful to anyone.


Sure it is useful to people with EVs ... it can give them more range but that's about all it's really good for.


----------



## sags

Tesla stock has been in decline, but is now joined by Rivian and the other EV manufacturers in the declines.

One exception is a Chinese EV company that Warren Buffet has invested in.

The disruptor techie types of stocks are getting whooped lately.

Cathie Wood's ARK Innovation Fund contains a bunch of companies that are down 25-75% from their ATH.

I haven't heard much of her on CNBC lately. She was last year's hot fund manager and this year they make snide remarks and chuckle about her.

Fund managers are only as good as their last good profit report.









Cathie Wood's ARK Innovation fund falls near 15-month low ahead of Fed


Star stock picker Cathie Wood's ARK Innovation ETF tumbled near a 15-month low Wednesday, leaving the best-performing U.S. equity fund of 2020 down nearly 30% for the year to date.




www.reuters.com


----------



## sags

In other news.....GM is shipping their new EV Hummer and Ford will have the F150 out soon as well.

All 2022 Hummer production is already pre-sold.

The Ultium platform, motors, and batteries were all developed by GM in-house. The rest of the vehicle was developed with partners.

The storm clouds are gathering for Tesla. The big boys are coming to take away Elon's lunch.

No wonder he is thinking about quitting. He should "git" while the "gittin" is good.









GM to start shipping $113,000 electric Hummer pickups to customers


The new truck is the first to incorporate the Detroit automaker's Ultium platform, motors and batteries, all of which GM developed in-house.




www.cnbc.com


----------



## m3s

Those who think inflation is good for GICs cheer as soon as something drops 25%

It just went up like 10x during the pandemic. TSLA stock is back to prices not seen for a bit over a month? If those CNBC analysts making snide remarks knew how to invest they wouldn't be trying to entertain boomers on TV to sell ads for meds and life insurance

GICs and bonds are bleeding purchasing power to the money printer


----------



## sags

Cathie Wood's ETFs are in big trouble.

Redemption halting looks more likely as investors flee the funds.









The ARK ETFs Continue To Bleed Assets - ETF Focus on TheStreet: ETF research and Trade Ideas


ARK owns the top 5 spots among biggest thematic ETF outflows over the past month.




www.thestreet.com


----------



## sags

GICs and bonds look pretty good after a crash.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GICs and bonds look pretty good after a crash.


GICs and bonds do not look good at all in an inflationary market sags.

I was risk off months ago with all that is going on. More to come imo but there is no need to lock in rock bottom GIC rates when we know rates have to go if anything

I wouldn't call this a crash we don't even have reversion to the mean


----------



## sags

That dumb old fossilized "doesn't get it" boomer Warren Buffet has held shares in a Chinese EV company since 2008.

_In 2008, Buffett’s company Berkshire Hathaway bought 225 million shares of BYD for US$232 million.

Berkshire’s latest shareholder letter shows it still held those shares as of Dec. 31, 2020 — except their market value had surged to roughly US$5.9 billion.

Considering that BYD has gone up another 25 per cent this year, Buffett’s company would have racked up another US$1.48 billion gain on that position, assuming he hasn’t sold any shares.

And there’s more to the company than just hype. In Q3, BYD sold 183,000 new electric vehicles (including hybrids), up 294 per cent year over year. And when it comes to pure EVs, the company sold 91,616, representing a 186 per cent increase._









Warren Buffett scored 3,000% gains in electric car stock without Rivian or Tesla


The Oracle of Omaha placed his faith in Chinese EV makers; here are some worth looking at




torontosun.com


----------



## AltaRed

Seems Tesla will stoop to almost anything these days. Tesla says it has put 2017 battery packs in brand new 2021 cars in strange warning


----------



## gardner

AltaRed said:


> Seems Tesla will stoop to almost anything these days.





> This vehicle was built with a battery pack manufactured as early as 2017. While this pack was brand new when the vehicle was built, the cells have reduced capacity due to their age and you can expect up to 12% reduction in range


This just reads like a normal "not brand new" disclaimer. "As early as 2017" is just the oldest possible battery that could technically be fitted and I am sure is not saying that a battery that old is likely to have been fitted. Whoever buys that actual car is likely to find out the actual age of the specific battery in that car.

Frankly, what is worrying about this is the apparent urgency in flogging off the demo vehicles. Is this something Tesla ususally does at year end, or is this a special effort to goose the year end numbers?


----------



## MrMatt

gardner said:


> Frankly, what is worrying about this is the apparent urgency in flogging off the demo vehicles. Is this something Tesla ususally does at year end, or is this a special effort to goose the year end numbers?


It's a normal thing.








Tesla’s Elon Musk calls for an end to TSLA’s end-of-quarter vehicle delivery blitzes


Over the years, it has practically become a tradition for Tesla to engage in a massive “end-of-quarter push” that involves the company working double time in an effort to deliver as many vehicles to as many customers as possible. This, at least according to CEO Elon Musk, must change, as Tesla...




www.teslarati.com


----------



## Eder

For all the Musk fans out there (I admit I'm a bit of one) heres a great interview


----------



## m3s

Senator Karen is too polite. Wicked witch of the east


----------



## m3s

Tesla surmounts supply chain woes with blockbuster Q4 deliveries

"Tesla's October-December deliveries were up about 70% from a year earlier and nearly 30% higher from record deliveries the preceding quarter."

Meanwhile GM makes lame excuses and begs Biden for more PR stunts. Hummer EV is a literal joke with moonboi memes. So cringe


----------



## MrBlackhill

Wait - what ?!

Did TSLA just start the year with a +13.53% today?


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> Wait - what ?!
> 
> Did TSLA just start the year with a +13.53% today?


Allegedly the biggest single day gain ever for TSLA?

Less than 3% from its all time high


----------



## MrBlackhill

Haha just read this:



> Hundreds of Quebec-subsidized Tesla Model 3 electric cars have been resold at a "handsome profit" in Ontario over the past three years, an unexpected and clearly growing phenomenon due to the scarcity of the model and the abolition of subsidies in Ontario.
> 
> These vehicles all benefited from the $8,000 Quebec grant, which was supplemented by the $5,000 federal credit. In Ontario, the $14,000 provincial grant was abolished in 2018 by the Doug Ford government.


Easy money!


----------



## m3s

In the US the used Tesla's cost more than new due to the waitlists

Maybe everyone will be driving Hummer EV soon but I don't think many boomers want a moonboi themed Hummer


----------



## m3s




----------



## sags

The other car companies are coming for Tesla.....


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The other car companies are coming for Tesla.....




Ford just lost $3.1B and they discontinued ALL their car models because "they lose money" It will only get worse for legacy brands as their fans drive off into the sunset 😿

Do you really think millennials are nostalgic for the OJ Simpson Bronco or their grandpa's dusty Stang?


----------



## andrewf

Tesla is leaving legacy OEMs in the dust. It's really quite astonishing. Tesla is actually becoming reasonably valued, and the business is substantially de-risked. It's just a matter of executing and continuous improvement at this point.


----------



## Sam Sun

Tesla fans might enjoy this story that Brooks Agnew loves to tell - takes about 10 minutes.
Segment begins 1:18:27
Tesla story 1:20:00


----------



## sags

m3s said:


> Ford just lost $3.1B and they discontinued ALL their car models because "they lose money" It will only get worse for legacy brands as their fans drive off into the sunset 😿
> 
> Do you really think millennials are nostalgic for the OJ Simpson Bronco or their grandpa's dusty Stang?


Ford made $17 billion in profit in 2021.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Ford made $17 billion in profit in 2021.


Ford and GM make about $2k per vehicle. They make more selling platinum protection packages to suckers. Tesla makes +$10k net income per vehicle

Ford and GM have +$250B debt and GM already went bankrupt once and had to be bailed out by the government. Tesla has $7B debt. Tesla even has some bitcoin

The writing is on the wall for the legacy brands. Just look at what happened to Harley Davidson when they forgot to appeal to a younger generation


----------



## sags

All the other manufacturers can easily build their popular models as EV vehicles. They all have loyal fan bases patiently waiting to gobble up market share.

Tesla may end up as a niche automaker, but they will have to upgrade their vehicles styling and offer more models.......like SUVs, trucks, roadsters etc.

Could Tesla compete with an all electric GM Corvette EV or Cadillac.....maybe.

A Mazda Miata roadster EV......maybe.

A full size Ford pickup EV.........maybe.

A Toyota Camri EV.......maybe.

EVs made by Dodge, Chrysler, Honda, Mitsibushi, Kia, Porsche, BMW, Volkswagen. Ferrari, McLaren, Fiat, and more.......

Could Tesla compete will all of them at the same time.......not a chance.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> They all have loyal fan bases patiently waiting to gobble up market share.


Have you heard of Harley Davidson? Their market share declined as their fan base aged.

Retro-fitting a "popular model" to EV shows you don't understand this situation. Tesla is leading with its gigafactories and manufacturing process. They can already yield 5x more than the legacy brands who have to spend money to retro-fit vehicles that are barely profitable as is. They will be losing money to compete and just hope the government will bail them out again to save the poor union workers

GM and Ford have political backing and that's about it. Their boomer fans and boomer politicians will decline with time


----------



## sags

Cathie Wood sells Tesla shares and buys GM shares.

She has been selling Tesla shares for each of the last 4 quarters. Apparently, she doesn't believe her own Tesla hype.



https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cathie-wood-buys-general-motors-094022537.html


----------



## sags

Harley Davidson shares are up 369,800 % all time.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Harley Davidson shares are up 369,800 % all time.


You aren't very intelligent are you

I could launch saggy coin at .000001 and trade it for $1M tomorrow

Who cares?


----------



## sags

Why is your buddy Cathie dumping Tesla shares to buy an old boomer stock like GM ?

Welcome aboard Cathie........now get out there and start hyping GM.


----------



## andrewf

Why is GM down more than Tesla?


----------



## sags

Advancing EV technology doesn't stop at Tesla's door.

The traditional auto makers are quite capable of matching or improving on the technology, and sales to consumers will likely be driven by other factors.

Dealership servicing, parts availability, consumer brand loyalty, prices, and "styling" will become the predominant factors.

Tesla has issues with servicing, quality control, and their styling is functional but uninspiring, which leaves the door open for competitors.

I was reading the other day that some auto business analysts are now projecting legacy brands like GM and Ford as the EV winners.

Those manufacturers have ramped up and are going "gas pedal to the floor" on producing EVs.

In the auto heartland of Ontario, the legacy automakers.....GM, Ford, and Stellantis have been blitzing the news with greenfield EV announcements.

I think the mature EV market will mirror the ICE market, with many different consumer choices.

Tesla will not be able to sustain their market share for much longer.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I was reading the other day that some auto business analysts are now projecting legacy brands like GM and Ford as the EV winners.


You realize the entire industry including the "business analysts" and the EPA and the politicians are against Tesla for whatever reason



sags said:


> Dealership servicing, parts availability, consumer brand loyalty, prices, and "styling" will become the predominant factors.


These are all boomer concerns and they are declining customers. It's like saying people want a phone book and TV guide for the internet.

"Styling" is all marketing. Legacy cars are all plastic flairs and fake vents because they can make them look "new" every 3-4 years. It looks ridiculous and stupid if you have the ability to stand back and forget the conditioning

Tesla is making the most aerodynamic vehicles not the most flamboyant fake plastic dodads for boomers who love big grills and shiny chrome trim


----------



## sags

I also think too many people believe the false narrative that Tesla is the only manufacturing company advanced enough to build quality EV vehicles.

Honda builds vehicles, including at their expanding assembly plant in Alliston, Ontario. They also build generators, ATVs, motorcycles, outboard marine engines, and other products.

GM builds vehicles, and they also have a long history of building other products.....coach buses, school buses, armored personal carriers, locomotives, recreational vehicles, freight hauler trucks, and Terex mining trucks. During the covid pandemic they have produced millions of protective masks.

Never underestimate the competition, especially when they have their "laser eyes" focused on you.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Never underestimate the competition, especially when they have their "laser eyes" focused on you.


Competition is good! Funny coming from the resident socialist though

Tesla just wants EVs to thrive and wants the competition to build more EVs. They offered the competition to use their charging stations and they let them use their tech instead of the fighting legacy patent wars. The legacy brands declined and this is seen as very evil by anyone who cares about the planet and just improving the world

So sags do you really prefer socialist cooperation? Seems like you blindly love GM just because they gave you a job


----------



## KaeJS

sags said:


> Harley Davidson shares are up 369,800 % all time.


Lol. I can't think of a better time to say...

"Past performance is not indicative of future performance."

Harley Davidson is a dead company. I'd be surprised to see them around in 30 years.


----------



## m3s

GM sold 100 Hummer EV in the first 6 months. I haven't seen a EV or non-EV Hummer in years. That can't be good.

I'd like to hear Cathie Wood's thesis on GM though. I'd also like to hear why she has John Deere in her space ETF. Apparently she couldn't find enough companies to put in that ETF so she included tractors because tractors use GPS....... I suppose OnStar could also get GM into the Space ETF

Maybe God spoke to her in a dream and told her the future.


----------



## gardner

m3s said:


> I'd also like to hear why she has John Deere in her space ETF.


I think I see Komatsu in there too, and they definitely don't answer to the farming GPS rationale.

I kind of expected to see some of the big satellite/launch insurers in there, but I think launch insurance is necessarily a tiny part of any of the player's overall business -- kind of like how space might be relevant to mining equipment.


----------



## Beaver101

Elon Musk’s ultimatum to Tesla execs: Return to the office or get out

_



By Katrina NicholasBloomberg Wed., June 1, 202 

The world’s richest man appears to have had it with this whole working-from-home business.

Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Tesla Inc., waded into the return-to-office debate on Twitter by elaborating on an email he apparently sent Tuesday to the electric-car maker’s executive staff.
Under the subject line “Remote work is no longer acceptble” [sic],* Musk wrote that “anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and*

Click to expand...

_


> * I mean minimum) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers.”*
> 
> _The CEO went on to specify that the office “must be a main Tesla office, not a remote branch office unrelated to the job duties, for example being responsible for Fremont factory human relations, but having your office be in another state.”
> 
> *While Musk didn’t directly address whether the email is authentic, he strongly suggested it is by responding to a follower asking him to address people who think going into work is an antiquated concept. “They should pretend to work somewhere else,” he replied. ... *_


_ ... _TESLA shareholders must love Musk as CEO. Not sure about its slaves, employees, including execs. No wonder he's the world's richest man. LMAO.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Beaver101 said:


> Elon Musk’s ultimatum to Tesla execs: Return to the office or get out
> 
> _ ... _TESLA shareholders must love Musk as CEO. Not sure about its slaves, employees, including execs. No wonder he's the world's richest man. LMAO.


Yeah, pretty funny how someone known as a tech visionary can't even envision a future with people working from home.


----------



## andrewf

Is not so much that as he doesn't believe in work life balance. If he can staff his companies with people who like to have with consume their lives, all the power to him.


----------



## james4beach

I think Tesla's sales are going to slow sharply. I'm using my intuition here and making some guesses, but given the "fan base" of Tesla / Musk / TSLA stock, I think we're dealing with a customer base which is very starry eyed about shiny new tech and quite willing to believe wild promises.

For example when Musk jokes about crypto or makes absolutely outlandish promises, there is a method to his madness. He's speaking the language of his customers, and it's part of his brand.

My intuition is that this with these traits, this customer base probably is quite heavily exposed to things like tech stocks, aggressive growth stocks, risky IPOs, SPACs, and crypto coinz.

Now that the bottom is falling out from under most of those things, I think there's going to be a *negative wealth effect* for the typical Tesla customer, and they're not going to be spending as much money as before. This is a luxury product after all... and luxury products are more susceptible during economic contractions.


----------



## m3s

My intuition is that you're completely wrong

I see lots of old wealthy people in the US driving Teslas. My young colleague just got a new Tesla and he doesn't care about crypto or memes. Mainstream media constantly paints Tesla poorly but the average american love it. 

You have to work hard to break the corrupt oligarchy. Even the EPA is against Tesla run by oil tycoons


----------



## Covariance

Why cut 10% of your work force? Over hired and the current narrative around the economy is a good excuse to optimize workforce? Or demand forecast is waning? Time will tell. One data point - I can get a full spec 3 for June delivery now...


----------



## Beaver101

james4beach said:


> I think Tesla's sales are going to slow sharply. I'm using my intuition here and making some guesses, but *given the "fan base" of Tesla / Musk / TSLA stock, I think we're dealing with a customer base which is very starry eyed about shiny new tech and quite willing to believe wild promises.*
> 
> For example when Musk jokes about crypto or makes absolutely outlandish promises, there is a method to his madness. He's speaking the language of his customers, and it's part of his brand.
> 
> My intuition is that this with these traits, this customer base probably is quite heavily exposed to things like tech stocks, aggressive growth stocks, risky IPOs, SPACs, and crypto coinz.


 ... likes share likes there.



> Now that the bottom is falling out from under most of those things, I think there's going to be a *negative wealth effect* for the typical Tesla customer, and they're not going to be spending as much money as before. *This is a luxury product after all... and luxury products are more susceptible during economic contractions.*


... Tesla is a luxury car? How's that? I thought it was designed to save on fuel costs first and foremost ... you know the EV thing vs the gas (or oil) thing? Maybe it will "appreciate" based on the Musk's name - you know the "collectors' landfill" instead of the actual geographic landfill.


----------



## sags

Strange announcement given new vehicle shortages and the other automakers are expanding and hiring to ramp up production.


----------



## sags

Musk is going to get slaughtered in the Twitter deal, regardless of what he does.

Twitter shareholders already launched a lawsuit against him for manipulating their stock.


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> Musk is going to get slaughtered in the Twitter deal, regardless of what he does.
> 
> Twitter shareholders already launched a lawsuit against him for manipulating their stock.


 .. he's fine as he can shoot-twit his way out of it. Besides, where else can shareholders find another end of the rainbow of riches?


----------



## Beaver101

Covariance said:


> Why cut 10% of your work force? Over hired and the current narrative around the economy is a good excuse to optimize workforce? Or demand forecast is waning? Time will tell. One data point - I can get a full spec 3 for June delivery now...


 ... were you referring to this latest news?

Elon Musk says Tesla needs to cut staff by 10%, pauses all hiring

I'm guessing this is to save costs - to pay for Twitter and the upcoming lawsuits. I can't imagine being a shareholder (including employees) there - pay (with your wages) to buy a share in order to sue the founder for devaluing the share price who actually uses your money to combat your lawsuit.


----------



## sags

Tesla shares are currently down 7.44% today at this point.


----------



## londoncalling

When gas prices rise astronomically people look at ways to address that cost. Previously they would opt for smaller fuel efficient cars. As the price of fuel drops the demand for EVs will decline. There will be a longer term transition but for now EV fans should enjoy the catalyst as it will result in better infrastructure and R&D funding in this area.

Added: We are not looking to an EV currently because we do not do a lot of travel by ground. The tech and cost can only get better with time as it has done in the past. One area we are looking is renewable power generation for our home. With the transition to EVs there will likely be continued cost in power generation. Rarely has my electricity bill gone down. There has been a lot of progress in solar panels. We likely won't do anything until we redo our roof. Last year was new furnace. This year AC. We are glad we made the change as energy costs and inflation continue to soar.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Strange announcement given new vehicle shortages and the other automakers are expanding and hiring to ramp up production.


They are laying off salaried roles. They will continue to hire direct hourly labour in production, installation, etc.


----------



## m3s

There is no 10-year 100-page GM thread so I'll post GM EV news here

Chevy bolt sales down 96% over the same period last year as they were catching on fire.
One of my neighbours houses burned down overnight from a Chevy bolt. No thank you

GM delivered less than 100 Hummer EVs. Hummers were cool last decade eh


----------



## sags

This isn't the first round of Tesla layoffs.

Tesla laid off employees in 2018.....7%, 2019.......9%, and now another 10%.

They have laid off sales staff and delivery employees, and salary staff apparently.

They are also freezing all hiring. With the order to return to work and lack of job security, Tesla will be losing their best people to competitors who are hiring.

Maybe they will join the GM EV teams. Lots of new models entering production and more coming.....like dozens more.

GM, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota, Honda, Lucid, Volkswagen, .......all the big guns are coming to grab EV market share.

The Ford F100 is the best selling pickup truck in North America and the EV model is getting rave reviews as the best pickup ever produced.

GM is already producing EV delivery vehicles for companies like Amazon and Fedex at their CAMI plant in Ontario.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau have been popping up everywhere making new EV announcements.

Tesla's most productive plant is in Shanghai, China, but Volkswagen dominates EV sales there.

The EV world has changed and Tesla has to compete for sales now, but they have no products to compete with SUVs, pickup trucks, and Corvettes.

The consumer is going to be neck deep in choices in the very near future.









Tesla salespeople say years of layoffs and furloughs have made them doubt their job security


"We feel like there's an axe over our head every day at Tesla," said a current salesperson who works on the West Coast.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## sags

Tesla stock down 8.9% now.

The other automakers are only down 1 -3 %.


----------



## m3s

All the best talent in the US wants to work for Elon

Tesla is one of very few $1T valued companies. SpaceX is the 2nd largest valued private owned company behind TikTok. Starlink alone is about to change the entire world and is developing a global mesh network sharing economy that will probably disrupt the legacy telcos just like the legacy automakers are being disrupted by Tesla. Neuralink already demonstrating monkeys playing pingpong with wireless signals from its brain. He's hiring the best talent and firing the dead weight.

The legacy oil, telco and tech oligarchs are all trying to short and discredit Elon with mainstream media bs. Only the boomers watch and believe that legacy misinformation


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla stock down 8.9% now.


Zoom out sags


----------



## sags

Okay........Tesla was worth $705 in 2020 and today it is worth $703.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Okay........Tesla was worth $705 in 2020 and today it is worth $703.


And $6 in 2012.

Tesla has had phenomenal returns, there is no argument to be made that it hasn't.

I say that as someone who doesn't hold Tesla stock, and doesn't see the valuation case to support the current stock price.

While I don't think it's wroth $700/share, but I don't dispute that some people have gotten quite wealthy off it.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Okay........Tesla was worth $705 in 2020 and today it is worth $703.


It was $70 in 2020 sags.

The 2020-2022 bubble was money printing frenzy thanks to the central bank boomers who get millions of speaking fees from the banks

I never held any TSLA but made just as much elsewhere by understanding this unfortunate boomer mania reality


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Okay........Tesla was worth $705 in 2020 and today it is worth $703.


I don't know what you are looking at but it was $70 in 2020

There was a split in May I think


----------



## james4beach

Beaver101 said:


> ... Tesla is a luxury car? How's that?


They are in the upper price range among electric vehicles, and have some of the most expensive ones in the market.

If someone likes electric, there are many more affordable options.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> While I don't think it's wroth $700/share, but I don't dispute that some people have gotten quite wealthy off it.


Why not? I actually think Tesla is getting to be pretty reasonable on fundamental valuation.


----------



## m3s

james4beach said:


> They are in the upper price range among electric vehicles, and have some of the most expensive ones in the market.
> 
> If someone likes electric, there are many more affordable options.


Not when you consider the full picture

Chevy Bolts catching on fire aside, resale alone makes it a no brainer to pay more for a Tesla. Not to mention the charging infrastructure and many other considerations. I'm not in the market but I see many smart logical people around me chose Tesla.

The cheapest option often isn't the cheapest in the end


----------



## james4beach

m3s said:


> I'm not in the market but I see many smart logical people around me chose Tesla.


Even the gas cars I drive have lower total cost of operation than a low end Tesla. Even if the price of gasoline doubles from here, it's still more economical for me to drive a gas-powered car.

If someone drives a ton of miles, the Tesla might make more sense for sure.

But if you're buying a Tesla, you'd better be sure that Elon Musk hasn't been running a giant fraud of a company. If the company goes broke and is dismantled, nobody is going to support your car in the future. I personally think Musk is a con man and has been orchestrating a financial fraud that he'll eventually get caught for. There's something wrong with that guy and I wouldn't want to get stuck holding a Tesla car. Remember that all of Tesla's top attorneys (chief counsels) have quit over the years. Nobody sticks with him... possibly because Musk is running a scam.

I give it ~ 4 years until Musk's financial crimes are exposed and prosecuted. Usually these things get flushed out "once the music stops", like it now appears to be.


----------



## m3s

james4beach said:


> I give it ~ 4 years until Musk's financial crimes are exposed and prosecuted. Usually these things get flushed out "once the music stops", like it now appears to be.


I don't know seems like this is all based on your feelings that are probably based on second hand information

I've been working with space operations during the proliferation of Falcon 9, Crew Dragon, Starlink and the US Space Force. Fact is Elon delivered far more space capability in less time with far less money than Boeing. You can't fake space lift capability. Many many others have been failing.

You can't fake that I have Starlink internet at work. These are not even disputable at all and I have first hand knowledge of it. If you learn about SpaceX rocket engine technology you realize how uniquely advanced they really are. Nobody comes close

So that tends to drive my intuition that Tesla will also succeed, despite the established boomer oligarchy trying to desperately to convince us all otherwise


----------



## londoncalling

james4beach said:


> I personally think Musk is a con man and has been orchestrating a financial fraud that he'll eventually get caught for. There's something wrong with that guy and I wouldn't want to get stuck holding a Tesla car. Remember that all of Tesla's top attorneys (chief counsels) have quit over the years. Nobody sticks with him... possibly because Musk is running a scam.
> 
> I give it ~ 4 years until Musk's financial crimes are exposed and prosecuted. Usually these things get flushed out "once the music stops", like it now appears to be.


Maybe they are quitting because he is difficult to work for and nothing to do with illegal activity. Also, people can be unethical and still not break the law. I really don't follow that closely but he does seem to garner a lot of attention. Some of his statements hold weight but some are very sensationalistic. Regardless, he has been very successful as a disruptor to many industries. I guess we will revisit in 4 years or sooner to see where things end up.


----------



## james4beach

londoncalling said:


> Maybe they are quitting because he is difficult to work for and nothing to do with illegal activity. Also, people can be unethical and still not break the law. I really don't follow that closely but he does seem to garner a lot of attention. Some of his statements hold weight but some are very sensationalistic. Regardless, he has been very successful as a disruptor to many industries. I guess we will revisit in 4 years or sooner to see where things end up.


No, he definitely has a history of breaking the law. He does illegal things.

The SEC has already charged him (more than once I think), and he reached a settlement. Additionally he's violated FAA rules with SpaceX.

A history of illegal activity is a predictor or indicator of other illegal activities. Criminals tend to show a history of shady behaviour or minor violations until they move on to more serious crimes. This is why a history of lawlessness should never be disregarded. For example, Bill Hwang who ran Archegos had already been nailed by the SEC, with restrictions imposed on him in the past. A few years later he defrauded several global banks out of billions of dollars. People acted surprised, but it's actually not surprising at all. He had a history of being a crook, and he continued being a crook.

I understand that people like Musk, but with his history of documented law-breaking, there are warning signs. He's a man who does not respect or obey the law.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> I don't know seems like this is all based on your feelings that are probably based on second hand information
> 
> I've been working with space operations during the proliferation of Falcon 9, Crew Dragon, Starlink and the US Space Force. Fact is Elon delivered far more space capability in less time with far less money than Boeing. You can't fake space lift capability. Many many others have been failing.
> 
> You can't fake that I have Starlink internet at work. These are not even disputable at all and I have first hand knowledge of it. If you learn about SpaceX rocket engine technology you realize how uniquely advanced they really are. Nobody comes close
> 
> So that tends to drive my intuition that Tesla will also succeed, despite the established boomer oligarchy trying to desperately to convince us all otherwise


I also don't think you can fake making a million BEVs a year that customers are very happy with.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Why not? I actually think Tesla is getting to be pretty reasonable on fundamental valuation.


I think they're getting closer, but still not quite.

As I've said before I was late to the party with Google and Amazon and Apple, but I avoided Yahoo and quite a few others. 

I'm perfectly happy to wait until the numbers make sense.


----------



## Beaver101

james4beach said:


> They are in the upper price range among electric vehicles, and have some of the most expensive ones in the market.


 ... ah, I see. The luxurious piece of crxp.



> If someone likes electric, there are many more affordable options.


 ... I'm sure there are since competition is a sweet thing.


----------



## james4beach

Beaver101 said:


> ... ah, I see. The luxurious piece of crxp.


I don't think they're junk. Neat cars for sure, though people get into trouble with that self driving stuff (yikes).


----------



## Beaver101

james4beach said:


> I don't think they're junk.


 ... not yet but with parts coming from China? Like every other piece of car junk. Do you think people are buying Tesla for their fancy cars collection? I think not. 



> Neat cars for sure, though people get into trouble with that self driving stuff (yikes).


 ... not sure how neat but I'm sure with the price one pays for it, they get auto this and that along with heated seat pads. I haven't got into the marketed self-driving auto-piloted delusioned crashes yet.


----------



## sags

Elon Musk laughed at BYD in 2011. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has made nearly 40 times its money on the Chinese EV stock.


Musk dismissed BYD as a Tesla rival, but Berkshire's $232 million bet on the automaker in 2008 has ballooned in value to over $9 billion today.




markets.businessinsider.com


----------



## sags

A Tesla charging lineup in California.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1543323009120960515


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> A Tesla charging lineup in California.


More Teslas in that lineup than the number of EVs GM sold last year 😂 

Needing to build more chargers is a problem GM could only dream of

It's like saying Apple failed because people line up for their products


----------



## sags

Tesla Expected to Report $440 Million Writedown on Its Bitcoin Holdings


Tesla reported that it held roughly $2 billion worth of Bitcoin back in November




u.today


----------



## sags

GM sold over 500,000 plug in vehicles in 2021. That is a 100% increase over 2020 sales.

Auto analysts say that both Ford and GM will surpass Tesla in sales by 2025.

Two of the "hottest" EV makers right now are Kia and Hyundai, and Volkswagen dominates in Europe. Chinese EV makers dominate in the Chinese market.

The EV world is fracturing into many small % of market shares, and Tesla will have a much smaller slice of the pie in the near future.


----------



## m3s

Kids think GM is about as cool as riding Harley Davidsons in brokeback leather chaps

TSLA taxes were structured to handle BTC losses from the start. If you didn't know what inflation, volume or liquidity is you don't know what a hedge is either

Why do you keep talking about GM in the +100 page TSLA thread anyways?


----------



## Beaver101

sags said:


> A Tesla charging lineup in California.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1543323009120960515


 ... I guess Tesla owners don't think time is money. I wonder if there's a nearby coffee/snackshop + bathroom? LMAO.


----------



## m3s

Beaver101 said:


> ... I guess Tesla owners don't think time is money. I wonder if there's a nearby coffee/snackshop + bathroom? LMAO.


It's from a Tesla conference 3 years ago 😂 

Why do boomers believe everything they see on social media

Probably because they believed everything on TV


----------



## andrewf

In reality, it is the poor sods in non Tesla EVs that are at the mercy of the far inferior third party charging networks, where many stations have only a couple of stalls and can be broken for weeks. This kind of line at a Supercharger is unusual.


----------



## Beaver101

m3s said:


> It's from a Tesla conference 3 years ago 😂
> 
> Why do boomers believe everything they see on social media
> 
> Probably because they believed everything on TV


 ... so what it's from 3 years ago. It did "happened", didn't it? Unlike those mythical BTCs with value of $100K / coiny (or add your own zeros) that goes "whooooooshhhhhh" overnight, no? And funny enough, the boomers believes in social media and the GENzeros don't? Do you want to re-read and re-think what you just said in your post. Btw, it's even more comical that you note it's from (aka happened at) a "TESLA" (aka happened at ) conference.

Hmmmm.... half hour is the "minimum" charge time - just enough for lunch before the need to head back to the conference. Better ring up Musk and tell him you need another hour or two charging time and see what he says..... LMAO.


----------



## Beaver101

andrewf said:


> In reality, it is the poor sods in non Tesla EVs that are at the mercy of the far inferior third party charging networks, where many stations have only a couple of stalls and can be broken for weeks. This kind of line at a Supercharger is unusual.


 ... hey, it happened ... at a TESLA conference ... as unusual (or it's more like the norm) as it may seem to be. 

New free slogan for TESLA "You got all the time in the world if you buy our EV!!!"


----------



## sags

_Why do you keep talking about GM in the +100 page TSLA thread anyways? _



sags said:


> GM sold over 500,000 plug in vehicles in 2021. That is a 100% increase over 2020 sales.
> 
> Auto analysts say that both *Ford* and *GM* will surpass *Tesla i*n sales by 2025.
> 
> Two of the "hottest" EV makers right now are *Kia *and* Hyunda*i*, *and* Volkswagen *dominates in Europe*. Chinese EV makers *dominate in the Chinese market.
> 
> The EV world is fracturing into many small % of market shares, and Tesla will have a much smaller slice of the pie in the near future.


----------



## the_apprentice

Other companies will definitely eat into the market share of Tesla. It will be interesting to see how the ICE competitors evolve over time. Honda's and Toyota's that were seen as reliable for so many years, will that continue to be the same?

Let's not underestimate Tesla's early advantage to being first to market. Being vertically integrated, having the largest charging network, and a cult like following.

I test drove the Chevrolet EUV this weekend. It is one of the more inexpensive Electric Vehicles you can buy on the market. It's about $20,000 cheaper than the Tesla too (starting at nearly 40K CAD). I would compare it to an ASUS computer, meanwhile the Model 3 being a Mac. Although I am not the target market for the car, they at least had a car to test drive and inventory on hand unlike the Hyundai, Ford, etc.


----------



## cliffsecord

Beaver101 said:


> ... hey, it happened ... at a TESLA conference ... as unusual (or it's more like the norm) as it may seem to be.
> 
> New free slogan for TESLA "You got all the time in the world if you buy our EV!!!"


When I had to fill up my minivan I went to my normal gas station...it was 1 cent cheaper than the one across the street and there was a 10 min wait because of the line up and people went inside for the bathroom, smokes or whatever. With my Tesla, I go home and plug in which is more than 95% of the time. Sure my trips from Ottawa to Toronto take longer, but for some weird reason it's a lot less stressful than before due to autopilot (not full self driving). I also fully acknowledge that road trips longer than 5 hours will require more planning and that an EV isn't for everyone. You won't totally understand how owning a Tesla (maybe even any EV) will change your perception of driving and gassing up until you own and drive one.

Also, during the power outage in Ottawa in May, ironically, I was stuck searching for gas stations while the supercharger was fully functional and I knew it because the car knew it's status.

EDIT: I do have fears that crappy non-Tesla chargers with not enough stalls and fragmented market will give EV charging a bad experience. Even Tesla owners sometimes get confused between a destination (L2 charger) and a Supercharger. Some think they can charge up to full in 20 min at home.

As for the stock, TSLA is more than just a car company. They make batteries, solar panels, charging network and heck they can also license out it's software.


----------



## Beaver101

^ I don't drive as I let others do which mean neither gasoline nor (super)charging costs/lineups matter to me.

HOWEVER, I do remember that years ago electrical cars would have saved a ton of money while them same electrical batteries (lithium) were a no-go given they weren't strong enough. Never mind about the "concern" about the eventual landfill batteries-pollution.

So here we are ... EVs is the future as with their positive landfills pollution. Talk about having it both ways by the same yappers.


----------



## cliffsecord

Beaver101 said:


> ^ I don't drive as I let others do which mean neither gasoline nor (super)charging costs/lineups matter to me.
> 
> HOWEVER, I do remember that years ago electrical cars would have saved a ton of money while them same electrical batteries (lithium) were a no-go given they weren't strong enough. Never mind about the "concern" about the eventual landfill batteries-pollution.
> 
> So here we are ... EVs is the future as with their positive landfills pollution. Talk about having it both ways by the same yappers.


I do have fears that EV batteries will be like CFL light bulb disposal if not handled properly. If you read the warnings on what happens when you break a CFL bulb it felt you needed to put on a hazmat suit.

Read it here:




__





Compact flourescent lamps: Everyday things that emit radiation - Canada.ca


More Canadians are using compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) lights. About their radiation, health risks and safely handling them.




www.canada.ca


----------



## andrewf

Beaver101 said:


> ... hey, it happened ... at a TESLA conference ... as unusual (or it's more like the norm) as it may seem to be.
> 
> New free slogan for TESLA "You got all the time in the world if you buy our EV!!!"


If you visit the average Supercharger station, they tend to have maybe 1 or 2 of the 8 stalls occupied. Tesla is adding more, and larger, stations in markets where they have a lot of cars in the market. California has many stations, and Tesla is regularly building more, some with 50+ stalls. Your point is like saying flying is insane because you can take one picture of a crazy security line on Christmas Eve. Unless you are trying to drive >400kms in a day you never even need to visit a charger, and even then it would have to be on a peak day. 

This photo is a several year old anecdote.


----------



## andrewf

Beaver101 said:


> HOWEVER, I do remember that years ago electrical cars would have saved a ton of money while them same electrical batteries (lithium) were a no-go given they weren't strong enough. Never mind about the "concern" about the eventual landfill batteries-pollution.
> 
> So here we are ... EVs is the future as with their positive landfills pollution. Talk about having it both ways by the same yappers.


Lithium ion was too expensive, not 'not strong enough'. They have come down by more than 10x in price over the past decade or so. In terms of waste, the battery packs have second life potential in stationary storage after they become less suitable for vehicle use (losing 20% of pack capacity due to degradation). So, most automotive battery packs could have a life of 20+ years. Those that do need to be disposed of will tend to be recycled as the components of batteries have high value. Lots of companies are innovating in the battery recycling space but the market is still very small as few EVs have reached end of life.


----------



## Beaver101

andrewf said:


> If you visit the average Supercharger station, they tend to have maybe 1 or 2 of the 8 stalls occupied.


 ... and which country may that be? I don't suppose Canada. How about Toronto? Have you seen a gas station with "8 stalls"? How about a Supercharger station, dedicated to Tesla vehicles. I don't drive but have friends/family who do and have yet to hear about such a "station". 



> Tesla is adding more, and larger, stations in markets where they have a lot of cars in the market. California has many stations, and Tesla is regularly building more, some with 50+ stalls.


 ... then it would make sense if most of the vehicles on the road are their EVs. Better yet, make the charging free (are they?)



> Your point is like saying flying is insane because you can take one picture of a crazy security line on Christmas Eve.


 ... can't make that kind of analogy. Why not try the drive-throughs over at Timmie's or McDonald every morning rush hour ... always a line up but do you wait a minimum of half an hour for your brew? And the fact that it's over at a Tesla conference is just as I said .... comical, if not stupid.



> Unless you are trying to drive >400kms in a day you never even need to visit a charger, and even then it would have to be on a peak day.


 ... are you kidding me. I know someone (in the USA though) who owned an EV (Toyota Prius?) from years ago. It was considered top of the line model then and using this vehicle for work required her to charge at least every other day, if not after 3 days at most. Think of it this way. Do you not have to constantly charge your smartphone for continuous use? Or just how long can you use your smartphone before a charge up - ie. drain the entire battery or close to it. A week? 3 days? A month?



> This photo is a several year old anecdote.


 ... and so? See above comment ...  especially at a "Tesla" conference.


----------



## Beaver101

andrewf said:


> Lithium ion was too expensive, not 'not strong enough'. They have come down by more than 10x in price over the past decade or so. In terms of waste, the battery packs have second life potential in stationary storage after they become less suitable for vehicle use (losing 20% of pack capacity due to degradation). So, most automotive battery packs could have a life of 20+ years. Those that do need to be disposed of will tend to be recycled as the components of batteries have high value. Lots of companies are innovating in the battery recycling space *but the market is still very small as few EVs have reached end of life.*


 ... okay, it was just too expensive (but I wouldn't be incorrect that it wasn't powerful enough). And just how can you determine or be sure that the battery has a 20(+) life span when the EV market is just starting? Power of persuasion or marketing?


----------



## andrewf

Beaver101 said:


> ... and which country may that be? I don't suppose Canada. How about Toronto? Have you seen a gas station with "8 stalls"? How about a Supercharger station, dedicated to Tesla vehicles. I don't drive but have friends/family who do and have yet to hear about such a "station".
> 
> ... then it would make sense if most of the vehicles on the road are their EVs. Better yet, make the charging free (are they?)











Supercharger | Tesla


Supercharger keeps you charged when you’re away from home. With a reliable global network, you can go anywhere and conveniently fast charge. Simply plug in, charge and go.




www.tesla.com




There is an interactive map there. I drive past one every day on my way to and from work. It doesn't look like a gas station and there is no big sign. The cars know where they are and guide you to them.

Why should the charging be free? Who is going to pay for it?



> ... can't make that kind of analogy. Why not try the drive-throughs over at Timmie's or McDonald every morning rush hour ... always a line up but do you wait a minimum of half an hour for your brew? And the fact that it's over at a Tesla conference is just as I said .... comical, if not stupid.
> 
> ... are you kidding me. I know someone (in the USA though) who owned an EV (Toyota Prius?) from years ago. It was considered top of the line model then and using this vehicle for work required her to charge at least every other day, if not after 3 days at most. Think of it this way. Do you not have to constantly charge your smartphone for continuous use? Or just how long can you use your smartphone before a charge up - ie. drain the entire battery or close to it. A week? 3 days? A month?


You think that Supercharger stations look like Timmies every morning. They are usually lightly used. There will be peak periods in dense areas where you will see major waits to charge. Like US Thanksgiving, a holiday where many people drive long distances all at the same time. But aside from big holidays, or in very specific areas that need more chargers, they are not busy. And you don't need to charge *away from home *very often, unless you are driving long distances in one day. Why? Tesla's mostly have a range of 500km, and typically you would have the means of charging at home. That might mean plugging it in every night to top it off so you always have a full charge every morning. Or some people only plug in every few days. But it's just a matter of plugging in a cable in your garage or driveway. A Toyota Prius is not 'top of the line'. It is a perfectly serviceable hybrid or plug in hybrid (has a small battery that you can charge up but otherwise is gas powered). Toyota doesn't make a full EV Prius. In terms of how long you can leave a Tesla without plugging it in, maybe a week or two? It's more a function of how much you drive it. Standby power is pretty long unless there are extreme temperatures. Typically if you're going to leave it for a long time you should leave it plugged in, even to a low power 110v outlet. 

The point is, typical Tesla owners do about 85% of their vehicle charging at home, and only rarely visit a charging station. It's like leaving home with a full tank every morning. Only very few days of the year would you drive so far that you need to refill the tank mid-day.



> ... and so? See above comment ...  especially at a "Tesla" conference.


Maybe Alannis Morissette type 'ironic'. Kinda makes sense that if you get a lot of Tesla owners together you might have an unusually large number of Teslas in one place.


----------



## andrewf

Beaver101 said:


> ... okay, it was just too expensive (but I wouldn't be incorrect that it wasn't powerful enough). And just how can you determine or be sure that the battery has a 20(+) life span when the EV market is just starting? Power of persuasion or marketing?


How does the shingle company know how long to warranty their shingles for? There is accelerated lifetime testing for all kinds of products. Batteries wear out in two ways. One is the number or charging cycles (depending on depth of discharge), and the second is 'calendar life', or actual age of the battery--the chemistry of the battery degrades slowly over time. The performance of batteries is well understood and there is quite a bit of data availability for how they have performed in EVs. Properly cared for batteries last a long time. Tesla actively heats and cools the battery pack to maintain ideal temperature. EVs that have shown battery durability problems have tended to have cheaper passive cooling (notably Nissan Leaf).


----------



## the_apprentice

cliffsecord said:


> You won't totally understand how owning a Tesla (maybe even any EV) will change your perception of driving and gassing up until you own and drive one.


Couldn't agree more.

I took my first road trip and I simply added the destination on the GPS/touch screen. Then I added which charging locations I wanted to stop at and it worked out better than a gas vehicle. Going for a quick washroom break allowed the car to charge enough to get to the next supercharger as it charges much quicker the lower battery available. The trip was planned very efficiently, and every charging station has a convenient shopping mall or Tim Horton's within the plaza. It was an excellent experience.

Fun fact - I did a rough estimate of how much was spent on electricity costs over 3 years of ownership. For 50,000 km's, it was about $820 (charging at home). Meanwhile, a previous gas vehicle would have been approximately $9,130 (based on regular gas at $1.75/litre).


----------



## andrewf

the_apprentice said:


> Couldn't agree more.
> 
> I took my first road trip and I simply added the destination on the GPS/touch screen. Then I added which charging locations I wanted to stop at and it worked out better than a gas vehicle. Going for a quick washroom break allowed the car to charge enough to get to the next supercharger as it charges much quicker the lower battery available. The trip was planned very efficiently, and every charging station has a convenient shopping mall or Tim Horton's within the plaza. It was an excellent experience.
> 
> Fun fact - I did a rough estimate of how much was spent on electricity costs over 3 years of ownership. For 50,000 km's, it was about $820 (charging at home). Meanwhile, a previous gas vehicle would have been approximately $9,130 (based on regular gas at $1.75/litre).


In three years of ownership, how often did you experience a Tesla charging station with a queue for charging stalls? Or even more than half the stalls occupied?


----------



## londoncalling

I think there are a lot of pluses to EVs and they will only get better with time. I have never driven one but think for the majority of driving they would work out well. Just wanting to confirm that what I read upthread was somewhat accurate. 500kms between charges? Does that change depending on season or is it the same in winter or summer temps? I don't think I would be taking an EV for long distance driving vacations if I have to stop every 5 hours for a recharge. I know in time the distance will improve, the charge time will reduce, etc. Over the next few years their should be vast improvements and greater adoption. When it comes time to replace our current vehicle we will definitely give it strong consideration.


----------



## the_apprentice

andrewf said:


> In three years of ownership, how often did you experience a Tesla charging station with a queue for charging stalls? Or even more than half the stalls occupied?


1. It happened once. There was one car waiting ahead of me. It was a quick 5 minute wait and hardly an inconvenience during a road trip.
2. The car notifies you of the amount of stalls available/occupied

The mileage changes depending on the weather and if you are running your heat/AC. The great part is that your car will tell you this information and you can also monitor the mileage on the screen. The dashboard tells you what percent will remain on the battery once you reach your destination. You just need to enter the destination on the GPS.

500 km's between charges would depend on the model/battery of your vehicle. I don't have that option myself, but it is certainly doable with the higher end models.


----------



## andrewf

londoncalling said:


> I think there are a lot of pluses to EVs and they will only get better with time. I have never driven one but think for the majority of driving they would work out well. Just wanting to confirm that what I read upthread was somewhat accurate. 500kms between charges? Does that change depending on season or is it the same in winter or summer temps? I don't think I would be taking an EV for long distance driving vacations if I have to stop every 5 hours for a recharge. I know in time the distance will improve, the charge time will reduce, etc. Over the next few years their should be vast improvements and greater adoption. When it comes time to replace our current vehicle we will definitely give it strong consideration.


Rated range is around 500 kms. Practically you would drive maybe 300-350 km between charging stops because it is much faster to charge the bottom of the battery (10% to 80% say) than to top off the battery's charge. If you're leaving for a trip, you might charge the car up to 100% before you leave and have 500 kms of range, but once you get down to 10% and go to charge, you're better off with a 15-25 minute charging stop and getting 300km of real world range. There are weather conditions where that range will be reduced (high winds, cold, precipitation) but they don't tend to be the conditions where you go on long trips. Worst case you just have to stop a bit more frequently. I could see legitimate concerns in Western Canada where there are long stretches of deep cold temps. But one benefit of EVs, or at least Teslas, is that they will start even when very cold, albeit at reduced range, whereas a gas car that wasn't plugged into a block heater or with a failing battery won't.


----------



## londoncalling

Thanks for the feedback. I have definitely seen a lot more EVs on the road this year and many I have spoke to are going that route with vehicle replacements. I am excited to see the inroads made into trucks in the upcoming years as it seems things are just getting started in that area.

Electric Vehicle Charging Station Map (Canada 2021) (energyhub.org) 
At the present time one would have to plan their trip across the prairies very carefully. Using Saskatoon to Calgary as an example it looks like Rosetown and Hannah would be quite the distance but definitely manageable. What is the likelihood of a station being out of service? I would expect it to be the same or less than any fueling station. I don't believe every charger would go down but I guess it is possible. Has this ever happened to anyone? I have run out of gas in my time and it was a PITA. How does it compare for an EV?


----------



## cainvest

londoncalling said:


> I have run out of gas in my time and it was a PITA. How does it compare for an EV?


I gather you'd need a tow to the nearest charger.


----------



## cliffsecord

I've done four road trips in early spring and summer over the last three years. I stopped off at Perth, Ajax, Belleville, Peterborough, Fairview mall, and one in Niagara somewhere and I never had to wait in line. The only time I had to wait in line was during the May 24 black out in Ottawa, but then people were waiting in line for gas during that time as well. The only crappy thing about Superchargers is that you don't have any facilities late at night since they are unattended like a gas station - ironically, I had to walk to the nearby gas station one night to go to the restroom. It can be a little scary in the middle of the night too and it's crappy when it rains because they aren't covered.

As for long trips, expect to charge 20 min every 200 to 300 km depending on where the chargers are. ISTM, right now Tesla is starting to in-fill to have chargers every 75km to 150 km allowing you to skip a station. For instance the trip from Ottawa to Toronto used to be you either go to Belleville on hwy 7 or to Kingston on the 401. Soon after I bought my car they added Perth, which reduced range anxiety during the winter for Toronto trips. Now they are planning on adding one in Madoc which is between Perth and Belleville/Peterborough along hwy7 and Kemptville between Ottawa and Kingston on the 416. Tesla also seems to have a minimum of six (?) stalls in all the ones I've seen. Unlike other chargers, Superchargers for Teslas are plug and go - no App and no card. The car also knows how many stalls are open and how many are down from what I understand. Tesla has a plan and you can actually see where they are planning their stations on their website somewhere. Newer Teslas will also be able to purchase a CCS adapter which will allow it to use other charging networks to fill in the gaps for now.

As charging infrastructure fills in, range anxiety will reduce. This however still does not solve the problem for those who like to gas and go. For those people, they will be fighting tooth and nail to the end of the ICE age. The rest of us will accept the longer drive and learn to chill and enjoy the drive a bit more on those long road trips. I hope one day charging will be as little as 10 min from 10% to 80% for a 600 km range car but I don't know if it's possible with batteries.

I'll end off by repeating that BEVs are not for everyone. For most people though it should be good enough. In fact, I've told many friends not to get a BEV because it's their only vehicle and they like to go to out of the way places. Just because BEVs don't fit your needs doesn't mean it won't fit other peoples needs. One day, ICE vehicles will have range anxiety.


----------



## andrewf

londoncalling said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I have definitely seen a lot more EVs on the road this year and many I have spoke to are going that route with vehicle replacements. I am excited to see the inroads made into trucks in the upcoming years as it seems things are just getting started in that area.
> 
> Electric Vehicle Charging Station Map (Canada 2021) (energyhub.org)
> At the present time one would have to plan their trip across the prairies very carefully. Using Saskatoon to Calgary as an example it looks like Rosetown and Hannah would be quite the distance but definitely manageable. What is the likelihood of a station being out of service? I would expect it to be the same or less than any fueling station. I don't believe every charger would go down but I guess it is possible. Has this ever happened to anyone? I have run out of gas in my time and it was a PITA. How does it compare for an EV?


Worst case you can plug into most any electrical outlet. Most EVs you have to try very hard and ignore many nags to run out of charge. If you do run out and can't find any old electric outlet, you would likely need a tow.


----------



## andrewf

Good thing this guy was driving an ICE car and not one of those highly combustible EVs.


----------



## AltaRed

cliffsecord said:


> As charging infrastructure fills in, range anxiety will reduce. This however still does not solve the problem for those who like to gas and go. For those people, they will be fighting tooth and nail to the end of the ICE age. The rest of us will accept the longer drive and learn to chill and enjoy the drive a bit more on those long road trips. I hope one day charging will be as little as 10 min from 10% to 80% for a 600 km range car but I don't know if it's possible with batteries.
> 
> I'll end off by repeating that BEVs are not for everyone. For most people though it should be good enough. In fact, I've told many friends not to get a BEV because it's their only vehicle and they like to go to out of the way places. Just because BEVs don't fit your needs doesn't mean it won't fit other peoples needs. One day, ICE vehicles will have range anxiety.


I've made it a point not to keep up with this thread, so excuse me if I am repeating something. EV and charging technology will change. I foresee 800V charging becoming more of the norm, maybe THE norm in the not so distant future, and maybe solid state batteries. I think we are only in the 2nd or 3rd inning of where EVs and infrastructure are going.

I also agree that someday it will be ICEs that will have to take time to hunt for gas stations as they disappear off the landscape. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that by 2040, there will only be a third of the ICEs currently on the road still on the road. That means at least a 2/3rds reduction in stations/pumps. I don't know if we are at ICE peak numbers now or not but if not, it is likely within a year or two if it has not happened already.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Good thing this guy was driving an ICE car and not one of those highly combustible EVs.


I wonder if some kind of autopilot/driver assist could have prevented it in the first place. Read the driver had a medical issue or something

Also thank god for the good samaritan who rushed to get this viral video from a safe distance while someone is near death


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Also thank god for the good samaritan who rushed to get this viral video from a safe distance while someone is near death


No kidding ... Otherwise we wouldn't have seen the brave actions of the other people.


----------



## Birder

m3s said:


> Also thank god for the good samaritan who rushed to get this viral video from a safe distance while someone is near death


Turns out that the videographer is the wife of one of the rescuers. She was watching as her husband and others tried to get the victim out of the car. She could not help but could not just stand by...


----------



## m3s

Birder said:


> Turns out that the videographer is the wife of one of the rescuers. She was watching as her husband and others tried to get the victim out of the car. She could not help but could not just stand by...


Is she one of those traditional women who only do something in the kitchen?

The critical moment and quick thinking appears to be whoever found the hammer. A few moments later and that person was dead. Now you're telling me a women is not capable of finding a hard object like maybe a rock

Some people just don't think


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> I also agree that someday it will be ICEs that will have to take time to hunt for gas stations as they disappear off the landscape. It is perhaps reasonable to assume that by 2040, there will only be a third of the ICEs currently on the road still on the road.


AltaRed I don't quite understand our major disagreement in another thread, where I had said that oil & gas usage is going to be phased out over the next few decades. I was saying that Canada should make a pledge to end oil production completely -- eventually. A target date is needed.

Your post here appears to agree with the notion of the phase-out, and you even give an estimate of 2/3 reduction in ICEs over the next twenty years. That isn't too far off the kind of timeline I'm thinking of, for the world shifting away from oil & gas towards other energy sources, or reducing energy use.

So it seems we're on the same page, that our economy will be shifting away from oil usage over the next few decades.

What I don't understand is why you are so opposed to Canada making a pledge to end oil production by a target date. I think it's an important stand to take. Timelines help motivate people to action.

The timeline is an urgent issue, as every additional decade of dragging our feet is going to lead to more human pain and suffering.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Also thank god for the good samaritan who rushed to get this viral video from a safe distance while someone is near death


I usually agree that people are stupid when they are just standing there taking a video instead of helping, but in this case there were already 3 men trying to get the driver out and we clearly see that more people wouldn't be of any help. I mean if there were 10 people all trying to get the driver out it may actually be less efficient.

If we are really to insult the wife of one of those men, why not insult instead the tens of vehicles that all passed by, slowed down to watch the scene and then kept going with their day.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> If we are really to insult the wife of one of those men, why not insult instead the tens of vehicles that all passed by, slowed down to watch the scene and then kept going with their day.


I've been the first responder to several accidents in Canada. Most Canadians are definitely NPCs - driving to and from their middle management jobs like drones

Most people drive by and/or video before even realizing they should rush in to help. It seems to be a combination of not knowing what to do and viewing the world as some kind of reality video game because the first world people are not used to dealing with any real adversity or danger anymore. They just repeat the same boring thing everyday like NPCs and when something weird happens they just video it for social media

Most people will talk big but they are also the first people to drive by like nothing is happening


----------



## andrewf

I don't think Canada needs to commit to end oil production. Our responsibility as a country is to reduce our domestic consumption (including emissions associated with producing oil and gas). Even Norway is continuing to produce oil and gas.


----------



## MrBlackhill

NPCs created by capitalism leading to individualism and a world of competition where work matters more than everything.

3 people living in a capitalist world wondering if they should help a dying man:
First one said "I don't have time for this, I have to get to work to do my 100h week of productivity"
Second one said "Hmm, he's not one of my good customers, it's not worth it"
Third one said "Oh! I know this guy! He's one of my colleagues and I've been waiting for so long to take over his position!"


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> AltaRed I don't quite understand our major disagreement in another thread, where I had said that oil & gas usage is going to be phased out over the next few decades. I was saying that Canada should make a pledge to end oil production completely -- eventually. A target date is needed.
> 
> Your post here appears to agree with the notion of the phase-out, and you even give an estimate of 2/3 reduction in ICEs over the next twenty years. That isn't too far off the kind of timeline I'm thinking of, for the world shifting away from oil & gas towards other energy sources, or reducing energy use.
> 
> So it seems we're on the same page, that our economy will be shifting away from oil usage over the next few decades.
> 
> What I don't understand is why you are so opposed to Canada making a pledge to end oil production by a target date. I think it's an important stand to take. Timelines help motivate people to action.
> 
> The timeline is an urgent issue, as every additional decade of dragging our feet is going to lead to more human pain and suffering.


You do not appear to be able to do math. There will be no such thing as the phase out of oil production in particular (gas is a different commodity and a different scenario) because circa 40% of current oil production has nothing to do with transportation or heating usage.You could electrify every wheeled vehicle on this planet and still have 40 million barrels per day of oil consumption. Improved technologies and recycling could reduce petro-chemical consumption more but that will take a monumental effort to get the entire planet to pivot on that.

As Andrew just said, smart countries like Norway are serving the world in the best possible way. Reduce their own oil consumption (vehicle electrification) while also approving and giving tax breaks to develop new offshore oil and gas projects to meet world demand. Many other countries are doing the exact same thing. It is only countries like Canada and a few EU countries that cannot add 2+2 to recognize that both are necessary.

I hope the top 10-20 global of producers of oil continue to support their oil industries. It would be a travesty for a country like Canada to be sitting on a producible commodity but are importing oil on a net basis to meet their own demand requirements. Oil production will never exceed demand over any lengthy period since no company produces oil that cannot be sold. The key effort is to focus on demand reduction. Supply reduction will take care of itself over time but rest assured. Canada will still be producing oil out of the oil sands in the year 2100 as long as the idiots in Ottawa don't cut off their legs in the process.

Added: James, it appears you have not opened/read any of the links I have provided on this matter. Why do you continue to persist in your argument when it is so illogical to begin with?


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> NPCs created by capitalism leading to individualism and a world of competition where work matters more than everything.
> 
> 3 people living in a capitalist world wondering if they should help a dying man:
> First one said "I don't have time for this, I have to get to work to do my 100h week of productivity"
> Second one said "Hmm, he's not one of my good customers, it's not worth it"
> Third one said "Oh! I know this guy! He's one of my colleagues and I've been waiting for so long to take over his position!"


Yup

4th turning theory argues we are in the unraveling cycle which is characterized by strong individualism as well as distrust of institutions

Next cycle is the crisis which could mean China challenging the US for dominance and influence. Fourth generation following WWII


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Added: James, it appears you have not opened/read any of the links I have provided on this matter. Why do you continue to persist in your argument when it is so illogical to begin with?


I have read your links. For a while now you have been pushing industry propaganda. You are off base in so many ways. I don't know if you really believe this stuff, and perhaps you have simply bought into the messages pushed by the industry lobby groups.

Canada's domestic consumption, like with our vehicles, is NOT a major source of emissions. Additionally this is really the O&G industry's talking point, that we should "shift to green vehicles" while the oil sands continues to increase their production and CO2 emissions as a result.

Canada's CO2 emissions are way above targets, and we've been one of the worst countries in the world for keeping up with our global obligations to reduce CO2.

And those emissions are primarily coming from O&G production.



andrewf said:


> I don't think Canada needs to commit to end oil production. Our responsibility as a country is to reduce our domestic consumption (including emissions associated with producing oil and gas). Even Norway is continuing to produce oil and gas.


Domestic consumption, ex-O&G industry, is already reducing ... so that part is going well.

However the emissions from the O&G industry *are increasing*. And this is happening because oil production is increasing.

Canada isn't making our international obligations for CO2 reduction. What we really need to do now is REDUCE our oil production. If you don't want to commit to ending it, then you at least have to commit to a large % decrease in production.

Currently we're going the wrong way, actually increasing our production --> increasing emissions.

Take a look at Canada's global standing in emissions progress. We've made just about no progress and it's pretty sad. You can buy all the Teslas and EVs you want, but the Oil Sands are increasing their production and increasing emissions.

Industry lobbyists want you believe that buying electric cars solves that, but the math is clear, even if @AltaRed doesn't understand the math. You can drive all the EVs you want, but Canada's emissions are not going to come down until we limit oil and gas production.

As I illustrated in this post with detailed sources, there are three main causes of Canada's emissions problems. In order, they are: the O&G production industry, freight trucks, and passenger trucks and SUVs.


Additionally @andrewf @AltaRed the reason I keep talking about committing to ending production, is that this is the only way you'll save Alberta. Otherwise one day Alberta is going to wake up to a world which has no demand for their product, and Alberta will become a waste land. They are peddling an outdated commodity which may be very profitable, but which has no future -- something even a past Premier has said.


----------



## AltaRed

James, I don't care much about Canada's total emissions other than in relationship to the other big 5-10 oil producers in the world. It is what happens on a global scale that matters. Reduce global demand for ICE vehicles and oil production (supply) globally will decrease. That is the simple math. Try it sometime.

Canada's production will almost certainly come down because of reduced demand (2020 is a good example on a global scale AND reductions in Canada's oil production). That global demand will come down from 100 million barrels of oil per day to perhaps 40 million barrels of oil per day. I hope Canada's production will continue to be a proportional part of that supply. Instead of 4.5-5 million barrels of oil per day, perhaps as low as 1.5-2 million barrels of oil per day in 2040-2050.

While all this is happening, the industry should do what it can to reduce its emissions per barrel produced and it is doing just that. Not fast enough, mind you, but it is happening. More efficiencies in plant operations, more electrification of equipment like boilers and mining trucks, more sequestration via CO2 capture, and if our federal and provincial governments could get their heads out of a deep dark hole, SMRs for electrical production for plant processes, etc. There are many ways to make substantial improvements in emissions per barrel. We just need some collaboration between industry and government rather than animosity from wingnuts like Jonathan Wilkinson and ostriches in the sand like Jason Kenney.

Reducing oil production in Canada over time is already in the cards. Ending oil production in Canada is a non-starter and will never be the case. North America (US, Canada and Mexico) will always want to be hydrocarbon energy self-sufficient in aggregate.

P.S. Doctrine's post is a good reference point. The 2030 goal posts will not likely be met because Canada is not about to do that much damage to its GDP and trade balances in that time frame. No government will likely survive it and they thus should be part of the solution now.

P.S.S. I have no skin in the O&G game nor do I reside in AB. I am simply being realistic about what is most likely to be the case given Canada will be desperate to have GDP growth in order to keep paying the bills from the generous cheque writing coming out of Ottawa.


----------



## hboy54

The wooly thinking by James is shared by most Canadians and is why I am about 85% oil and gas stocks. I call it the hypocrisy trade. Define the emissions to be owned by the oil and gas companies as producers of the product, but not the consumption of the product by James et al. James et al continue consuming the product guilt free because they have assigned the ownership of the emissions elsewhere instead of where it properly belongs, with themselves. James et al have the power to bankrupt me as an oil and gas investor, just stop using the product. They won't though. They like their large vehicles and their flights south in the winter, and heating their 3000 SF house to 22°C.

People over age 60 in Canada are about 26 or 27% of the voting age population according to 2021 figures. Young people already have the voting power to change things, but instead of voting to change things, and suffer the resultant decline in their standard of living, just blame boomers. "Somebody other than me, please do something". Kind of pathetic really.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> if our federal and provincial governments could get their heads out of a deep dark hole, SMRs for electrical production for plant processes, etc.


From what I gather, Canada is a leader in SMR technology.


----------



## kcowan

I think people like J4B have bought into the ridiculous notion proposed by our misdirected Liberal government, along with agreement to the unrealistic international targets. I normally avoid such discussions because of the entrenched positions of all parties.

But I am confident the O&G will continue once we get a true law-and-order government. These racist narcissists will eventually be gone even in the Liberal party.


----------



## m3s

kcowan said:


> But I am confident the O&G will continue once we get a true law-and-order government. These racist narcissists will eventually be gone even in the Liberal party.


Did you vote for the conservative leadership? They wouldn't mail a ballot outside of Canada. Waiting for a ballot now

What do you think about the port of Churchill plan?


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> I think people like J4B have bought into the ridiculous notion proposed by our misdirected Liberal government, along with agreement to the unrealistic international targets. I normally avoid such discussions because of the entrenched positions of all parties.
> 
> But I am confident the O&G will continue once we get a true law-and-order government. These racist narcissists will eventually be gone even in the Liberal party.


Demand destruction is well underway. Canadian oil is high cost and likely to be squeezed out as demand falls.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Demand destruction is well underway. Canadian oil is high cost and likely to be squeezed out as demand falls.


Demand destruction is barely underway given global oil demand is still increasing as noted in IEA's July 2022 report Oil Market Report - July 2022 – Analysis - IEA It would, however, be increasing more rapidly IF prices were not so high AND EV registrations were not nearly as high as they now are (and accelerating). We should see a roll over sometime before 2030 depending on the rate of EV penetration and a potential slowing of global GDP growth.

The IEA has been overly optimistic in its forecasts this past year and I doubt we will see demand growth of 2.1 million barrels per day in 2023 following 1.7 million barrels per day of demand growth in 2022. But even if the numbers are half of those IEA forecasts, it still means demand growth....for now.

There is little doubt Canadian oil is higher cost to produce than that in the Middle East but much of it is competitive with other sources, including Norway, South America and the USA. We need to remember most non-OECD nations siphon off a significant part of the oil revenue to fund their drug habit national budgets, so it is not just the physical operational cost, but the absolute need for national function.


----------



## kcowan

m3s said:


> Did you vote for the conservative leadership? They wouldn't mail a ballot outside of Canada. Waiting for a ballot now
> 
> What do you think about the port of Churchill plan?


It needs to be studied. I think getting it to Hudson Bay can be solved but it would be limited to ice-free months. so that is the dilemma. Cold for the road but warm enough for the tanker!


----------



## londoncalling

I did some work on some infrastructure projects in Northern Manitoba a number of years ago. Many involved were putting a lot of hope and thought into repairing the rail lines and returning that port to its former glory of centuries past. The opening of Churchill would do a lot to provide an additional port and transportation links to the global market, help develop the North and lower the cost of transportation for the West.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Lol what a joke that Tesla Optimus humanoid robot, "it will replace factory workers"...

Nothing new. Just a robot which is so far as good as humanoid robots we've already seen 10 years ago.

Does Elon Musk plan on buying Boston Dynamics? Oops, that certainly won't happen, it's mainly owned by Hyundai.

Take notes, Elon:


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> Lol what a joke that Tesla Optimus humanoid robot, "it will replace factory workers"... But it can't even walk yet!
> 
> Nothing new. Just a robot which is so far as good as humanoid robots we've already seen 10 years ago.
> 
> Does Elon Musk plan on buying Boston Dynamics? Oops, that certainly won't happen, it's mainly owned by Hyundai.


It's crazy how easily the media can control a narrative

Constantly building certain things up way bigger than they really are. Constantly tearing other things down. Do it enough and the NPC's believe it

Most people with no first hand knowledge eat it up without question


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> It's crazy how easily the media can control a narrative
> 
> Constantly building certain things up way bigger than they really are. Constantly tearing other things down. Do it enough and the NPC's believe it
> 
> Most people with no first hand knowledge eat it up without question


I mean, the first one can walk but Optimus can't, and what I've seen so far in the Tesla live presentation is nothing new to what I've seen from Boston Dynamics 10 years ago.


----------



## andrewf

This is a recruiting event. They just started this program about a year ago. I am reasonably impressed with the progress they have made in that time. More than I expected. Boston Dynamics also has done good work but have not made a lot of headway in commercialization, beyond Spot, which is more a remote sensing platform than something that can do useful work.

Robotics is a lot harder than many people give it credit for. It's also a whole other task to solve the problem within a useful power and cost budget.

Keep in mind that even if this doesn't become a marketable product for Tesla, the gee whiz factor is useful for recruiting engineers that are working on self-driving, which is a trillion $ market opportunity.


----------



## sags

GM is way ahead of Tesla on self driving systems. They are ranked as the best with the Cruise system already deployed.

Robotics in a factory do very specific jobs and require constant maintenance to maintain the required precision to perform the task.

Factories don’t need robots walking around or doing other “ human” things.

Auto factories are full of robotics.

AI combined with robotics will be interesting but not needed on factory floors.

Our local hospital is a world leader in robotic surgery, but it still requires the humans to direct and watch over it.

There are still many ethical and moral questions on what could be achieved and what should be achieved.

People still debate if nuclear power was good for mankind, which is impossible to answer without knowing the future.


----------



## andrewf

Even if GM were ahead (which I doubt), Tesla is way ahead in having vehicles capable of capitalizing on the functionality. Tesla has over 1M vehicles that are or will be capable on the road, and production capacity for millions per year. Good luck building millions of Lidar equipped self driving cars with a trunk full of compute.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM is way ahead of Tesla on self driving systems. They are ranked as the best with the Cruise system already deployed.


Ranked by who? The magazines they sponsor?

GM is only trying to stay relevant with things like the Hummer EV (barely any sales)

Every Volt ever made had to be recalled worldwide because it catches fire









U.S. urges 50,000 Chevy Bolt owners to park outside because of fire risks


U.S. auto safety regulators on Wednesday urged about 50,000 owners of General Motors electric Chevrolet Bolt vehicles that were recalled last year to park outside and away from homes and other structures after charging because of fire risks.




www.reuters.com


----------



## sags

Walmart has been using the Cruise adapted self driving vehicles to make home deliveries since 2020.

Walmart was so pleased with the vehicles they invested in the company.

The vehicles are also used as robotaxis in California and also soon in Texas and Arizona.

GM is also already building EV delivery vans for Fed Ex in Ontario.

They are moving forward rapidly with business connections without all the Elon Musk sideshow and fanfare to distract them.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> They are moving forward rapidly with business connections without all the Elon Musk sideshow and fanfare to distract them.


Recalling every single Volt worldwide because they light on fire doesn't exactly spark fanfare

GM is just following Rivian and Tesla. Fujifilm and many others tried to do that too


----------



## sags

GM builds their own batteries now.

They are also going to make their own computer chips.

Tesla also has ongoing problems with batteries catching fire, along with many other engineering issues.

Tesla has lost their advantage and many automakers are passing them.

Where is the Tesla roadster or the cyber truck ?

Ford is producing highly rated EV pickups already. GM is close and others are coming.

The news said Toyota shareholders told the CEO to step up his game because they are falling behind the increasingly crowded field of competitors.

It is game time and Musk is talking about populating Mars and battling with Twitter.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM builds their own batteries now.
> 
> They are also going to make their own computer chips.


So basically Tesla is showing GM how it's done. And now GM is playing catch up

Notice this is a +10 year and +10 page thread and it's mostly about tech, innovation and progress

When I search this forum for GM I find about 10 different threads about UAW complaints and disputes


----------



## sags

Tesla reveals a major snag in the EV transition: Fixing them


Tesla wants to eliminate the need for service. Recode obtained customer complaints to the FTC that suggest this isn’t happening — yet.




www.vox.com


----------



## Beaver101

Tesla shares fall after delivery warning sparks doubts over growth momentum

Article is behind a paywall but one can see from the title what it is about. 

Okay, today is October 20, 2022 and Telsa say its "growth momentum" is stalling on its stock. I wonder how long the stalling will continue for? After the Twitter purchase? Anyone want to take a guess?


----------



## andrewf

Tesla is at like 55x PE. Doubling earnings from here is not really hard to envision which will put it in line with the general market. Seems like a screaming buy to me.

I don't really see how they have any growth issues.


----------



## andrewf

Just a note. TSLA is currently trading at 42x forward P/E. I'm doing some buying here.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Just a note. TSLA is currently trading at 42x forward P/E. I'm doing some buying here.


Ford is at <10.. has been for years.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Ford is at <10.. has been for years.


Aren't they losing money on every vehicle besides trucks?

The only reason they are still around is the "chicken tax" 25% tariff on truck imports.

Toyota makes a far superior Hilux in the rest of the world especially the diesels

"Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruled in 2013 that Transit Connects imported by Ford as passenger wagons and later converted into cargo vans should be subject to the 25% duty rate applicable to vans and not to the 2.5% rate applicable to passenger vehicles. Ford sued and finally, in 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case which confirmed the position of CBP."


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Ford is at <10.. has been for years.


Tesla is growing at 50%. Ford is shrinking production. Tesla has zero debt, Ford is carrying a lot of debt.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Tesla is growing at 50%. Ford is shrinking production. Tesla has zero debt, Ford is carrying a lot of debt.


Ford is dramatically increasing EV production. 
Tesla is dramatically increasing EV production

They're both suffering supply chain problems.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Aren't they losing money on every vehicle besides trucks?


Ford sells only 1 car in North America, the Mustang, and I'm not sure if they sell it at a profit. I would assume so
I believe other markets have a different product/profit mix.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Ford is dramatically increasing EV production.
> Tesla is dramatically increasing EV production
> 
> They're both suffering supply chain problems.


Tesla is already at a production run-rate of close to 2M units per year, with two huge new factories just beginning to ramp. They have industry-leading margins, which means as they grow production they have room to cut prices to generate demand and maintain profitability. I'm sure Ford will continue to sell pickups for a while, and perhaps have some luck moving that market to EV, but Tesla is going to start eroding share in the pickup market. As legacy OEM share declines, it is going to be very expensive for them to shrink their infrastructure and profitability will come under significant pressure. Ford I think has a better chance surviving the transition to EV than GM or Stellantis.


----------



## MrBlackhill

My comment adds no value, but one of my neighbours had a Tesla Model S and now I haven't seen it for a while, but I see a Ford Mustang Mach-E in his driveway.

Another of my neighbours bought some crazy-looking Tesla Model Y, got its windows and lights tinted, and painted it in matte black. It also has some kind of blueish reflections. It's interestingly always parked in the streets, never plugged.


----------



## sags

Tesla will have to build a lot more manufacturing plants and service facilities to match the domestic manufacturers.

That is going to require a lot of time and capital just to reach the capacity levels of the traditional vehicle brands.

GM sells 6 million vehicles a year compared to Tesla's 1.5 million.

GM is going to offer a wide range of EV choices and Tesla only offers sedans, which are a small market segment.

Telsa has promised a roadster and a pickup truck.......but neither are available yet.

I would bet on GM more than Tesla, but I fear GM is transitioning too early and it will cause them a lot of overproduction and unsold EV inventory.

The infrastructure for massive EV adoption doesn't exist yet and I see no concrete plans to change that on the scale required.

Good luck finding a charger in our hood unless it is in someone's home garage.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Ford sells only 1 car in North America, the Mustang, and I'm not sure if they sell it at a profit. I would assume so
> I believe other markets have a different product/profit mix.


They sell 1 car.. because the rest were failures Matt

They can only compete at trucks thanks to the chicken tax 25% tariffs


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Good luck finding a charger in our hood unless it is in someone's home garage.


Said the cowboy about gas stations

And then we built gas stations on every corner saggy man. It's not rocket science.. but Elon is good at that anyways

Hard to understand if you lack any imagination


----------



## MrBlackhill

sags said:


> Tesla only offers sedans


Tesla is selling S3XY CARS. Though I feel like they are missing out on the hatchback and crossover options. Once you've owned a hatchback, you don't go back to sedan. My next car will either be a hatchback or compact crossover.

A sedan is such a bad design, that's only good for the Americans. You'll barely see sedans in Europe.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> Tesla is selling S3XY CARS. Though I feel like they are missing out on the hatchback and crossover options. Once you've owned a hatchback, you don't go back to sedan. My next car will either be a hatchback or compact crossover.
> 
> A sedan is such a bad design, that's only good for the Americans. You'll barely see sedans in Europe.


Yea I love the hatchback

No downside to it at all


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> They sell 1 car.. because the rest were failures Matt
> 
> They can only compete at trucks thanks to the chicken tax 25% tariffs


They sell 1 car, because the other vehicles are more profitable.
Look on the roads, people don't buy a lot of cars here.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> They sell 1 car, because the other vehicles are more profitable.
> Look on the roads, people don't buy a lot of cars here.


So why did they hire the Germans to design and build the Focus in Koln Germany when I was there? Because they knew cars weren't profitable in NA?

They also had a Ford Kuga in Europe while I was there that was designed and built by the Japanese at Mazda. Years later and you now know it as the Ford Escape

Let's face it Ford would not be competitive without the chicken tax protecting their beloved trucks.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> So why did they hire the Germans to design and build the Focus in Koln Germany when I was there? Because they knew cars weren't profitable in NA?


Because small cars like the Focus are popular in Europe.
So they designed a European market vehicle in .... Europe?

So what, Ford has some highly profitable vehicles that provide the bulk of their revenue.
Google has advertising, Apple has cell phones.

Lots of companies tend to have a standout portion of their business that makes up for the less profitable divisions.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Because small cars like the Focus are popular in Europe.
> So they designed a European market vehicle in .... Europe?


Nobody in Europe wants a Ford Focus. They already have superior VW, Audi, BMWs as the norm.

Ford started production of that Focus in 2018 in Germany and already killed it. They spent sh!tonnes of money on rally teams and famous drivers promoting it. We don't have good auto engineers or production in NA anymore let's face reality

So they spent all that money on German engineers to kill it off a few years later


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Nobody in Europe wants a Ford Focus. They already have superior VW, Audi, BMWs as the norm.


Half a million vehicles a year, odd definition of "nobody". Even Pre COVID it was sitting near 1/4 million.








Ford Focus European sales figures


Car sales statistics and market share for Ford Focus and all other auto models in Europe. 1990s to 2017 by year, 2014 to 2018 by month.




carsalesbase.com







> Ford started production of that Focus in 2018 in Germany and already killed it. They spent sh!tonnes of money on rally teams and famous drivers promoting it. We don't have good auto engineers or production in NA anymore let's face reality


Huh?
You're talking about stopping production of a vehicle designed and built in Europe, to support your claim of no good auto engineers in NA.
While boosting Tesla, which is primarily a NA based design & production company 

FYI, VW is also killing the NA Golf, people here don't want cars.




__





Loading…






media.vw.com





I'm disappointed as it's actually a wonderful and affordable little car.


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Nobody in Europe wants a Ford Focus. They already have superior VW, Audi, BMWs as the norm.
> 
> Ford started production of that Focus in 2018 in Germany and already killed it. They spent sh!tonnes of money on rally teams and famous drivers promoting it. We don't have good auto engineers or production in NA anymore let's face reality
> 
> So they spent all that money on German engineers to kill it off a few years later


Yeah it haven't even made the top 25 in 2021. Ford managed to have one car in the list, the Puma. Who knows the Puma in America?


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> Yeah it haven't even made the top 25 in 2021. Ford managed to have one car in the list, the Puma. Who knows the Puma in America?
> 
> View attachment 23859


Good Romanian built car that Ford Puma 

Surprised it sold as much a Fiat Panda. Maybe because Fiat Panda owners drive them for decades and don't need new ones

Why doesn't GM flex its muscles in Europe?


----------



## Gator13

MrBlackhill said:


> Yeah it haven't even made the top 25 in 2021. Ford managed to have one car in the list, the Puma. Who knows the Puma in America?
> 
> View attachment 23859


Interesting. Is the chart for all European sales?


----------



## MrBlackhill

Gator13 said:


> Interesting. Is the chart for all European sales?


Yes.


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> Nobody in Europe wants a Ford Focus. They already have superior VW, Audi, BMWs as the norm ...


For something that no one wants, it is surprising they have sales in 2022.
Ford skipping a hydrid or all electric version for the Focus is another reason for people to avoid it.

The trend for prefering an SUV seems to be gaining ground in Europe as well.
SUV's in 2016 are reported to have been 25% market share and climbed in 2021 to 46%. 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21

MrBlackhill said:


> Yeah it haven't even made the top 25 in 2021. Ford managed to have one car in the list, the Puma. Who knows the Puma in America?


With NA's preference for SUVs, why would anyone in NA know about the Puma?
Europe's market share for SUVs has close to double in five years ending in 2021, it may be a matter of consumer preference instead the vehicle itself.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

Eclectic21 said:


> For something that no one wants, it is surprising they have sales in 2022.
> Ford skipping a hydrid or all electric version for the Focus is another reason for people to avoid it.
> 
> The trend for prefering an SUV seems to be gaining ground in Europe as well.
> SUV's in 2016 are reported to have been 25% market share and climbed in 2021 to 46%.
> 
> 
> Cheers


When I think of SUVs I don't think of Ford or GM

The Japanese and Koreans make better ones. Heck the Ford is made by Mazda and the GM is made by the Koreans. GM and Ford can only compete in trucks because the chicken tax makes it uncompetitive to import better ones like the Hilux

Why did Ford waste all that money on the Focus when clearly everyone likes SUVs


----------



## MrMatt

Eclectic21 said:


> For something that no one wants, it is surprising they have sales in 2022.
> Ford skipping a hydrid or all electric version for the Focus is another reason for people to avoid it.


They have a hybrid Focus, and had a hybrid Fusion too.



> The trend for prefering an SUV seems to be gaining ground in Europe as well.
> SUV's in 2016 are reported to have been 25% market share and climbed in 2021 to 46%.


Which is why Ford is correct to focus on the SUV/CUV market.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Why did Ford waste all that money on the Focus when clearly everyone likes SUVs


They've sold several million Focuses, then as demand slowed they shifted new development to SUVs.

I don't see how designing vehicles, that sell in the millions, is a waste.
Ford has sold more Focuses than Tesla has cars


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> They've sold several million Focuses, then as demand slowed they shifted new development to SUVs.
> 
> I don't see how designing vehicles, that sell in the millions, is a waste.
> Ford has sold more Focuses than Tesla has cars


It lasted like 2 years before they decided it was a failure

My car used the same engine for like 20 years and was a huge success. It's worth more now than when I bought it 8 years ago. There are so many parts available I can easily turn it into a new car whenever I want and that's why demand/resale is so high

I would never touch a car that was cancelled that fast - not enough parts supply or aftermarket etc


----------



## andrewf

Ford Fiesta has the dubious honour of being most likely to kill their occupants per distance travelled. 

Model Y is already the top vehicle in the world by revenue. Soon to be by units as well.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> It lasted like 2 years before they decided it was a failure


uhh, 24 years and counting... but don't let facts get in the way of your position.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> uhh, 24 years and counting... but don't let facts get in the way of your position.


I mean the new Focus designed in Koln

It was actually a good car and had collaborations with some big names

Just should have put a different logo on it I guess


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> I mean the new Focus designed in Koln


So you mean the gen4 Focus, not the other ones which were also largely designed in Germany.

Also they're not killing it yet, they're just going to stop making it in 2-3 years when they replace it with an EV.
Saying that it won't be replaced with another gas vehicle isn't a mark of failure.

It's _almost_ like Ford is transitioning to an EV manufacturer, which they've been working on for years.


----------



## sags

Talk is cheap, but it has driven Tesla for quite awhile.

It now has competition and has to produce under different conditions to maintain it's premium.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Talk is cheap, but it has driven Tesla for quite awhile.
> 
> It now has competition and has to produce under different conditions to maintain it's premium.


I think 'talk is cheap' should be applied to the competition. They have been 'coming' for years and Tesla has been actually executing. Ford is struggling to make a few tens of thousands of Mach Es and F150 Lightning. The legacy OEMs are nowhere when it comes to the supply chain to grow production.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Talk is cheap, but it has driven Tesla for quite awhile.
> 
> It now has competition and has to produce under different conditions to maintain it's premium.


*its

"The all-electric GMC Hummer EV Pickup continues its ramp-up, reaching a *new quarterly sales record of 411 units (compared to 272 in Q2)."*

Pretty sure Tesla has better sales that 411 up from 272 💩 Maybe they can get to 500 per quarter next year


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> When I think of SUVs I don't think of Ford or GM
> 
> The Japanese and Koreans make better ones. Heck the Ford is made by Mazda and the GM is made by the Koreans ...


You mean like the second generation Ford Escort that was built on a Mazada body, around 1990?
Ford owned a quarter of Mazda at that time. Later when Mazda's financial problems increase because of the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Ford bought more, which is reported to saved Mazda from bankruptcy.

Odd though ... I can find references to the 1991 jointly designed Explorer (Mazda's version did not sell as well) but nothing recent.

After Ford sold twenty percent of it's Mazda shares in 2008. 

Perhaps you have a link with details of Mazda making Ford SUVs?




m3s said:


> Why did Ford waste all that money on the Focus when clearly everyone likes SUVs.


Everyone knew that Europe's taste for SUVs would double in five years?

Cheers


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Pretty sure Tesla has better sales that 411 ...


Really ... how many Tesla trucks have been delivered so far?


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> Really ... how many Tesla trucks have been delivered so far?


They have +1M pre-sales

GM can't even sell 1k  Hummers are not cool anymore

It's not 1999


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> They have +1M pre-sales
> 
> GM can't even sell 1k  Hummers are not cool anymore
> 
> It's not 1999


Ok, so *ZERO* delivered.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> Ok, so *ZERO* delivered.


How many Chevy Volts has GM recalled? 🤡

Wait how many Chevy Volts have they *NOT* recalled


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Ok, so *ZERO* delivered.


They're still building the line for it. Once the line is ready, I think they can beat a production rate of 3 per day. Tesla's Shanghai plant made >80k vehicles in October.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> They're still building the line for it.


I have no doubt they'll eventually come out since announced in 2019 and the sales figures will probably be fairly good but until they do ....


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> I have no doubt they'll eventually come out since announced in 2019 and the sales figures will probably be fairly good but until they do ....


So GM will sell even LESS Hummer EV when Cybertruck comes out

Like giving a turtle a head start


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> I have no doubt they'll eventually come out since announced in 2019 and the sales figures will probably be fairly good but until they do ....


They are in the process of shipping the 9000 kg press for casting the body of the truck to the plant. I think they are pretty well positioned to start production early next year. I know it's fun to mock Tesla for overly aggressive timelines on new product launches. And yet, they have been executing a very consistent 50% annual production growth for several years. The fact that they can support that level of growth with really 1-2 models instead of bragging about bringing dozens of sub-scale models to market is a strength, not a weakness. It's like mocking Apple for only selling a few models of iPhone when Samsung sells 80. The fact that they are amortizing R&D over millions of units of the same car is a good thing.

I'd only worry about how people feel about the brand when Model Ys are more common than Civics and Corollas.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> I'd only worry about how people feel about the brand when Model Ys are more common than Civics and Corollas.


Nothing to worry about from what I see. Just wish they'd make a compact hatchback for lower $.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Nothing to worry about from what I see. Just wish they'd make a compact hatchback for lower $.


It's coming. They're working on a lower price platform, probably in production in 2025. If they figure out FSD and get regulatory approval, probably most of the production for that vehicle will go to fleet uses but if not, it will definitely be a smaller hatch vehicle. In 2025 they'll probably be producing 4.5-5M vehicles.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> It's coming. They're working on a lower price platform, probably in production in 2025.


Hopefully they would delay that much ... I'll be interested in that EV segment in the next few years.


----------



## m3s

cainvest said:


> Hopefully they would delay that much ... I'll be interested in that EV segment in the next few years.


Just get a HUMMER EV bro

It has moonboi mode and rear-wheel steering for easy parking

Great for carrying flat-pack furniture from Ikea


----------



## sags

I get retiree emails all the time from GM on their progress and all the models they are setting up to build.

I wonder more if they are ramping up to quickly for the limited EV market considering all the competition that is coming.

The EV market is going to be very fragmented with each company grabbing a small slice of the pie.

Tesla isn’t even in the most popular segments.


----------



## sags

There is a lot of brand loyalty in the auto industry, even here on this forum.

Customers will look at their favoured brands EVs first before considering a Tesla. They will also want local dealerships to provide parts and service.

Buying a new vehicle and having no local service isn’t an option for many customers.

Poor build quality and a lack of service fuels a lot of complaints about Tesla.

They addressed it a bit by hiring some mobile techs but have a long build out yet if they expect to sell the projected units.


----------



## m3s

GM brand loyalty will die off

Their loyal fans are older generation

Custom habits and wants change


----------



## sags

When is the build out of charging stations going to start for owners and renters of townhouses, apartments, and homes with only on street parking ?

I don’t see any street chargers around this city yet , or at stores or arenas or in parking lots or workplaces or…

If you build it they will come scenario ?

Or is this the after you need it we will start to build it scenario ?


----------



## sags

You really believe farmers are going to trade in their F series Ford pickups for a cyber truck ?

People with SUVs and vans are going to buy a Tesla compact sedan ?

Where would the kids and Grandma sit ?


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> Just get a HUMMER EV bro


Nah, I might need a replacement for my VW Golf in a few years.


----------



## sags

Our son has 4 busy kids and a full size SUV with 6 seats and complains he needs a bigger van to haul them and all their equipment around.

It is obvious m3s doesn’t have experience hauling kids around.

Maybe families will buy 2 Teslas to drive everyone around everywhere.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> When is the build out of charging stations going to start for owners and renters of townhouses, apartments, and homes with only on street parking ?


As soon as owners install them for their own EV or landlords do to attract tenants with good jobs who can afford a modern car

The same way everything else gets build in a free market. Imagine the cowboys saying the same about parking lots and hitching rails for horse

You seem to lack imagination. The world changes. Always has



sags said:


> Our son has 4 busy kids and a full size SUV with 6 seats and complains he needs a bigger van to haul them and all their equipment around.
> 
> It is obvious m3s doesn’t have experience hauling kids around.
> 
> Maybe families will buy 2 Teslas to drive everyone around everywhere.


You don't think EVs can be SUVs or vans?

EVs are probably targeting the market with disposable income first. I know many parents with Teslas. They seem to manage. SUVs didn't even exist 20-30 year ago

It's not rocket science. The world changes. Always has


----------



## sags

Sure there will be SUVs and vans but they won’t be Teslas.


----------



## sags

Funny the ad in this thread is for a 2023 GM Cadillac EV Lyric.

Reserve today !


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Funny the ad in this thread is for a 2023 GM Cadillac EV Lyric.
> 
> Reserve today !


Ads are personalized nowadys. I don't get ads from the forum - I get paid BAT instead

I've seen lots of Teslas including several at work and neighbors. Never seen a Cadillac EV

Young guy at work had a maroon Cadillac CTS and everyone called it the old man car


----------



## sags

Nice SUV….excellent review but the 2023 production may be sold out already. I sure hope our landlord hooks us up with charging soon.

I want one of these bad boys.

2024 models will be out in spring of 2023. Price around $65 US for dual motor 500 hp model….0 to 60 in 3 seconds ? 









2023 Cadillac Lyriq Review, Pricing, and Specs


Cadillac's first entrant into the luxury electric-vehicle market is the Lyriq SUV, which features sleek styling, a modern cabin, and up to 312 miles of range.




www.caranddriver.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Sure there will be SUVs and vans but they won’t be Teslas.


Elon Musk already said there will be vans. I believe they already have a few SUVs



sags said:


> 2023 Cadillac Lyriq Review, Pricing, and Specs
> 
> 
> Cadillac's first entrant into the luxury electric-vehicle market is the Lyriq SUV, which features sleek styling, a modern cabin, and up to 312 miles of range.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.caranddriver.com


Ugliest grill I've seen. EVs don't even need grills


----------



## sags

Ads for GM showing up in a Tesla thread seems problematic for Tesla.

Maybe they will have to start advertising.


----------



## sags

EVs don’t need heated leather seats either but a lot of people want them. I think the grill puts out a cool light show when approaching with the key fob.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Ads for GM showing up in a Tesla thread seems problematic for Tesla.
> 
> Maybe they will have to start advertising.


Nobody under the age of boomer looks ad GM online ads. Tesla doesn't need ads anyways they are marketing geniuses



sags said:


> EVs don’t need heated leather seats either but a lot of people want them. I think the grill puts out a cool light show when approaching with the key fob.


Nobody under the age of boomer will agree. It looks like a hearse for a futuristic Daft Punk funeral


----------



## Gator13

Tesla needs to revamp of a few models. There's a couple fugly ones. That being said, massive brand attraction. People buy them even though they are fugly just to say they have a Tesla.


----------



## Money172375

m3s said:


> As soon as owners install them for their own EV or landlords do to attract tenants with good jobs who can afford a modern car
> 
> The same way everything else gets build in a free market. Imagine the cowboys saying the same about parking lots and hitching rails for horse
> 
> You seem to lack imagination. The world changes. Always has
> 
> 
> 
> You don't think EVs can be SUVs or vans?
> 
> EVs are probably targeting the market with disposable income first. I know many parents with Teslas. They seem to manage. SUVs didn't even exist 20-30 year ago
> 
> It's not rocket science. The world changes. Always has


How do you think that will work for people without driveways or garages. They currently park on the road….sometimes a few hundred metres or more away from their home. Will the city install chargers (similar to parking metres) every 6 metres? Will homeowners run extension cords to the cars? Interested to see how this will evolve.


----------



## m3s

Money172375 said:


> How do you think that will work for people without driveways or garages. They currently park on the road….sometimes a few hundred metres or more away from their home. Will the city install chargers (similar to parking metres) every 6 metres? Will homeowners run extension cords to the cars? Interested to see how this will evolve.


If someone doesn't have driveway I don't know why they have a car

In the not too distant future they probably won't need one. Elon Musk wants to build mini autonomous buses

Or you know we could install pay per use EV chargers like other countries already did. Not rocket science


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> You really believe farmers are going to trade in their F series Ford pickups for a cyber truck ?
> 
> People with SUVs and vans are going to buy a Tesla compact sedan ?
> 
> Where would the kids and Grandma sit ?


That isn't most truck buyers.

Tesla's most popular model, (Y) is an SUV. Minivan segment is shrinking rapidly. Tesla does make a 3 row SUV in Model X but it is too pricey. Would not be surprised to see them eventually make a simpler version of that car, maybe on the same platform as 3/Y with a longer wheelbase. They don't need to proliferate their product portfolio because they are selling every car they can make while growing at 50% compounding.


----------



## Money172375

m3s said:


> If someone doesn't have driveway I don't know why they have a car
> 
> In the not too distant future they probably won't need one. Elon Musk wants to build mini autonomous buses
> 
> Or you know we could install pay per use EV chargers like other countries already did. Not rocket science


Toronto is full of century homes with no driveway. I have family Who park 2 cars on the street…..sometimes up to 3/4 km away from their home.

Agreed, it’s not rocket science…..but there are millions who won’t consider a switch to EV until the infrastructure is common place.


----------



## m3s

Money172375 said:


> Toronto is full of century homes with no driveway. I have family Who park 2 cars on the street…..sometimes up to 3/4 km away from their home.
> 
> Agreed, it’s not rocket science…..but there are millions who won’t consider a switch to EV until the infrastructure is common place.


Canada will lag anyways

US is far ahead with EV adoption and that is fine. Colder extreme climate is tougher on batteries and cars. Go to the US now and you will see EV chargers everywhere from hotels to the backwoods of New Hampshire. That said I see a decent number of Teslas in Canada. Not nearly as many as US has now

I've noticed a lot of new trends in the US come to Canada 5-10 years later now


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> When I think of SUVs I don't think of Ford or GM
> The Japanese and Koreans make better ones ...


Interesting ... there are Korean SUVs that had years of engine problems and more recently, the owners have been told to park in their driveway due to the ABS system causing fires when parked or driving.

Apparently the recall done earlier this year didn't work so well as there is another recall/warning to park in the drive despite the fix being applied for one of the model years.


Not as dramatic as the Volt recall but hopefully not on your list of SUV choices.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21

MrMatt said:


> They have a hybrid Focus, and had a hybrid Fusion too ...


Must have missed on old date on the article saying the Focus didn't have a hybrid.

As for the hybrid Fusion, I looked at in 2009 so I was aware of it. The price and where most of my driving was being done made the ICE Fusion a better choice for me.




MrMatt said:


> ... Which is why Ford is correct to focus on the SUV/CUV market,


And I suspect a driver in Ford's decision on the Focus in Europe.
I am surprised at so much growth in the SUV market share in Europe.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> If someone doesn't have driveway I don't know why they have a car ...


I can remember calculating what the alternatives were versus cost of ownership/maintenance. I don't remember having or not having a driveway being a factor. 

For a neighbour, it is because there are so many living in the same townhouse with jobs that transit is multiple hours to get to or it does not go to. Or a fair number of co-workers were in apartments that didn't have enough parking spots so they park on the street.




m3s said:


> ... In the not too distant future they probably won't need one. Elon Musk wants to build mini autonomous buses


Maybe ... but unless it goes to where the neighbour works, I'd bet the neighbour will keep their car and keep parking on the street.




m3s said:


> Or you know we could install pay per use EV chargers like other countries already did. Not rocket science


You mean the city will install enough chargers for the the cars and trucks lining the street? 

I wonder when the storage places are going to add chargers as the ones I pass have more cars, pickup trucks and business trucks parked each night than I would have though.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

Eclectic21 said:


> Interesting ... there are Korean SUVs that had years of engine problems and more recently, the owners have been told to park in their driveway due to the ABS system causing fires when parked or driving.
> 
> Apparently the recall done earlier this year didn't work so well as there is another recall/warning to park in the drive despite the fix being applied for one of the model years.
> 
> Not as dramatic as the Volt recall but hopefully not on your list of SUV choices.


Good thing GM outsourced their SUVs to Korea using taxpayer money I guess

Gotta keep those Koreans employed by selling Korean SUVs to GM employees


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> ... US is far ahead with EV adoption and that is fine. Colder extreme climate is tougher on batteries and cars. Go to the US now and you will see EV chargers everywhere from hotels to the backwoods of New Hampshire ...


Canada does lag and the US is improving ... however, I haven't seen this wide adoption at US hotels yet. Along I-95 going down to Daytona Beach, all of one just built hotel had EV chargers. The rest did not.

From what I recall, none of the restaurants did either.

I'm sure it will change over time but I have seen more new EV charger installations along the 401 than in the US.


Cheers


----------



## m3s

Eclectic21 said:


> I can remember calculating what the alternatives were versus cost of ownership/maintenance. I don't remember having or not having a driveway being a factor.
> 
> For a neighbour, it is because there are so many living in the same townhouse with jobs that transit is multiple hours to get to or it does not go to. Or a fair number of co-workers were in apartments that didn't have enough parking spots so they park on the street.
> 
> Maybe ... but unless it goes to where the neighbour works, I'd bet the neighbour will keep their car and keep parking on the street.


The concept is it will take you where ever you want. You click on an app like Uber and an autonomous mini-bus dynamically routes you there

Seems this would work best for people who live in congested areas where they don't even own a place to park. If I was in that situation I wouldn't want to own a vehicle

Vehicle ownership doesn't make financial sense for a lot of people who live in congested urban areas and many would be happy to have options



Eclectic21 said:


> You mean the city will install enough chargers for the the cars and trucks lining the street?
> 
> I wonder when the storage places are going to add chargers as the ones I pass have more cars, pickup trucks and business trucks parked each night than I would have though.


Should just be privatized like gas stations

We have gas stations everywhere now to meet demand. Imagine they weren't always there. Imagine somebody had to build them one day. It's not rocket science to build gas stations or charging stations and there are many ways to do it

Just have to imagine.. change.. it happens over time


----------



## m3s

Eclectic21 said:


> Canada does lag and the US is improving ... however, I haven't seen this wide adoption at US hotels yet. Along I-95 going down to Daytona Beach, all of one just built hotel had EV chargers. The rest did not.
> 
> From what I recall, none of the restaurants did either.
> 
> I'm sure it will change over time but I have seen more new EV charger installations along the 401 than in the US.


That's because you live in Canada

I lived in US and EV chargers were everywhere. You don't always notice them at first. My local TD bank was closed and turned into a Tesla station

For I-95 I don't know but most Americans are living/working off the highway


----------



## andrewf

Money172375 said:


> Toronto is full of century homes with no driveway. I have family Who park 2 cars on the street…..sometimes up to 3/4 km away from their home.
> 
> Agreed, it’s not rocket science…..but there are millions who won’t consider a switch to EV until the infrastructure is common place.


That's a pretty small % of the housing stock.

At any rate, there are people to don't have home charging that own EVs. They may charge at work (My office recently installed dozens of charging stations), or when they go to the gym, or the grocery store. If a car has 500km range battery, you don't need to charge it daily. I average 400km per week, so in theory charging once a week could work. Regardless, while some people can't charge at home, many can.


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic21 said:


> You mean the city will install enough chargers for the the cars and trucks lining the street?


You don't need to be able to charge continuously along the street. The city can designate a charging parking location and ticket people who park there if they are not charging. The charging infra can also charge idle fees if someone leaves their car fully after its charged. This is already being done in many cities.

I think as self-driving cars gets cracked, you won't see as many 3-4 car households. I can see a lot of families wanting to keep 1 kid-carrier for long distance trips but for daily trips, it will likely be more cost effective to rideshare it. I know people who work from home and live in the inner suburbs of Toronto (like Cabbagetown). Their car might not move for 3-4 weeks at a time.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> We have gas stations everywhere now to meet demand. Imagine they weren't always there.


Early car drivers had to go to the pharmacy/chemist and buy tins of gasoline (like kerosene). Those gas-powered cars will never take off--how will you refuel them?!?


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> The concept is it will take you where ever you want. You click on an app like Uber and an autonomous mini-bus dynamically routes you there
> 
> Seems this would work best for people who live in congested areas where they don't even own a place to park. If I was in that situation I wouldn't want to own a vehicle ...


I can think of many who would go for this ... I'm doubting the neighbour will though. 
Unless these autonomous mini-bus is let to go out of town, where there is no transit. Even then, the question is whether the fees make it worthwhile dropping the car.




m3s said:


> ... Should just be privatized like gas stations ... Just have to imagine.. change.. it happens over time


Along in front of the townhouses isn't the same as converting an old gas station or bank location. There's all of maybe six feet and possibly lots of digging up of sidewalks etc. 

For some townhouse areas, there's going to be a long distance to the power source as there is no space.
Unless the charging company buys out and converts one of the homes to be a hub?

In any case, change will happen - I'm just not seeing it as fast in all areas.


Cheers


----------



## sags

Our townhouse is in a complex with parking in front of each unit.

All the utilities come in from the back and are located in the green space. There is a big hydro box for each row of units and that splits off to boxes behind each unit and then into the meter on the wall.

We don’t even have electrical outlets in the front of our units.

Chargers would require new hydro trunks on the street and into the parking area and then add chargers.

It would be expensive and there are city blocks of these near us. Add in 4 high rise apartment buildings and the cost to the landlord would be in the millions of dollars.

There are many areas with similar problems. The city wasn’t designed for EV charging and I don’t see anyone stepping up with bags of money to do the retrofit.

Nobody is even talking about doing it.

Where is the big plan on who does what, when do they do it, and who pays for it?


----------



## sags

I am thinking that a lot of the planners figuring out the charging system live in a condo in downtown Toronto and take the subway to work or ride a bike.

One suggestion I read for high density urban dwellers was to find an underground parking spot and leave your vehicle there overnight.

They didn’t say if it was in someone else parking spot or maybe a shopping mall .

Other solutions were put up solar panels or wind turbines or drive around to a public charging station and wait for a vacant one.

Hope it works because 25% are reported broken or the cables are too short.

They need to get serious if they expect mass adoption.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Hope it works because 25% are reported broken or the cables are too short.


Only the ones GM vehicles rely on. Tesla's charging stations are very reliable.

Charging will get figured out. Where there is a will, there is a way. Don't assume it will get done in the dumbest, most expensive way possible.


----------



## m3s

Eclectic21 said:


> In any case, change will happen - I'm just not seeing it as fast in all areas.


Yea I think people just have different timelines

70-80 year old think this is impossible rocket science that will never happen. It probably never will in their timeline so it's true in their world

For younger people it will happen eventually. It's really not rocket science or that complicated. Just time


----------



## AltaRed

As of Nov 2022, the USA has about 53000 public charging stations with 140,000 charging ports. Which US states have the most EV charging stations?

As of May 2022, Canada has about 6000 public charging stations with 16,000 charging ports https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ask-electric-vehicles-faq-1.6451121 Quebec and BC are known to be furthest ahead.

About even on a per capita basis given the data sources quoted have not been verified. Just scanning the last few pages of posts in this thread, it would help if actual facts were used in some of the posts here rather than anecdotes, supposition and opinion. 

Private home or business owned chargers with restricted access are another matter entirely and no one except maybe electrical utilities would have a handle/estimate on those. There will always be a number of situations where personal home chargers won't be doable due to parking issues. That will provide more incentive for certain retail/commercial businesses to install chargers, perhaps subsidized. There is a bank of Flo chargers in a local strip mall that contains a dozen retail businesses, including C Tire, Home Depot, and a few restaurants. I often see one or two vehicles parked there being charged. 

Flo is a major EV charging business, at least in BC, including the manufacture and supply of home based Level 2 charger options as well.


----------



## Eclectic21

m3s said:


> That's because you live in Canada ...


I'm curious as to why you think this comparison is tilted to Canada. IMO, it is tilted in favour of the US.

For the Canadian side, I'm counting the trips during the year on the 401 with hotel stays. My back of the envelope estimates have the highway driving coming pretty close to the US highway driving with hotel stays.

The tilt towards the US comes from excluding Canadian around town driving while including over a week's worth of around the US town driving.




m3s said:


> I lived in US and EV chargers were everywhere. You don't always notice them at first ... For I-95 I don't know but most Americans are living/working off the highway


Yes somehow, despite more locations and variation - when stopped for gas along the highway or at a hotel for the night, there were none in the US.

FWIW, I check the driving routes in the US town for chargers where according to the maps - there are no chargers on the route. I can find chargers along I-95 in clusters, at exits where I didn't need to stop for gas or food. The same as I can find additional Canadian chargers along the 401, at similar exits.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21

andrewf said:


> You don't need to be able to charge continuously along the street. The city can designate a charging parking location and ticket people who park there if they are not charging. The charging infra can also charge idle fees if someone leaves their car fully after its charged. This is already being done in many cities.


How much is the idle fee and/or ticket for parking in charging spot without charging?

My friend sees many of the cars on the street in the townhouse complex with multiple parking tickets. It seems more people that he would have expected consider the parking tickets a necessary evil.




andrewf said:


> ... I think as self-driving cars gets cracked, you won't see as many 3-4 car households ...


I expect so ... though some I would have thought would love Uber/Lyft gave up on it and bought cars.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic21 said:


> I expect so ... though some I would have thought would love Uber/Lyft gave up on it and bought cars.


Uber/Lyft is $2.5/mi. Get rid of the driver and replace the ICE with EV and the running cost drops dramatically, so can be profitably sold below the cost of keeping a private car on the road $0.6-0.70/mi. The price will decline gradually as the demand would grow exponentially as the price falls so to avoid overwhelming the fleet the prices would have to remain somewhat high. Regardless, the operating cost will be quite low, so it will be a fantastically profitable business as it is scaling. I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on this in the Tesla share price, but it is massive upside potential for profits. I think Tesla's valuation today is easily justified by growth in their conventional car business and the fact that they have better product/margins than the competition. As is shown by resale values, Teslas retain their value quite well, while competing EVs depreciate rapidly (Leaf, Bolt, mini cooper EV etc) because they are inferior products. Tesla has more pricing power.


----------



## andrewf

Eclectic21 said:


> How much is the idle fee and/or ticket for parking in charging spot without charging?
> 
> My friend sees many of the cars on the street in the townhouse complex with multiple parking tickets. It seems more people that he would have expected consider the parking tickets a necessary evil.


Some examples.













How do people with no driveway charge their electric cars?


How do people with no driveway charge their electric cars?




electricbrighton.com


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Uber/Lyft is $2.5/mi. Get rid of the driver and replace the ICE with EV and the running cost drops dramatically, so can be profitably sold below the cost of keeping a private car on the road $0.6-0.70/mi. The price will decline gradually as the demand would grow exponentially as the price falls so to avoid overwhelming the fleet the prices would have to remain somewhat high. Regardless, the operating cost will be quite low, so it will be a fantastically profitable business as it is scaling. I don't necessarily put a lot of weight on this in the Tesla share price, but it is massive upside potential for profits. I think Tesla's valuation today is easily justified by growth in their conventional car business and the fact that they have better product/margins than the competition. As is shown by resale values, Teslas retain their value quite well, while competing EVs depreciate rapidly (Leaf, Bolt, mini cooper EV etc) because they are inferior products. Tesla has more pricing power.


I'm really looking at that now.
Car ownership is $10-20/day, round trip uber to many locations is $50/trip, at least for the shorter trips.
I'm really watching the math on when it makes sense to downsize to one vehicle.

I think that electric self driving taxis (hopefully not as bad as Total Recall Johnny Cabs) will drive the cost of a taxi down, and a second POV won't make sense.


----------



## londoncalling

I think longer term driverless EVs will solve a lot of transportation issues. In the interim it will be both challenging and interesting. I would be curious as to how many people that own an EV don't have capacity to charge at home or work. I would not be on board with having to determine how I am going to charge my vehicle on a regular basis without certainty. Doesn't seem worth the bother of having to go find a charging station. Perhaps I value my time more than those that own a EV without charging capacity. In time the charging issue will not exist through better battery capacity, faster charging time and more charging infrastructure. I also believe electricity costs will rise through tax and price increases to make it more expensive than it is currently. That doesn't mean it will be more expensive to operate than ICE.


----------



## AltaRed

+1 I think it will be at least 2030, and potentially 2035, before there will be sufficient maturity in the EV industry (vehicles and infrastructure) for me to preferentially seek an EV to replace the ICEs that I have. The decision to do so really won't be about the economics. It will simply be about the practicality* of doing so and being on the right side of the movement.

* It was the same thing for me about a smartphone. I waited until about 2017? (maybe 2016) when it became evident they had matured enough, with better and cheaper connectivity, and more evidence that everyday commerce was rapidly trending to smartphone app usage that I committed. I wouldn't be without a smartphone now.


----------



## andrewf

londoncalling said:


> I think longer term driverless EVs will solve a lot of transportation issues. In the interim it will be both challenging and interesting. I would be curious as to how many people that own an EV don't have capacity to charge at home or work. I would not be on board with having to determine how I am going to charge my vehicle on a regular basis without certainty. Doesn't seem worth the bother of having to go find a charging station. Perhaps I value my time more than those that own a EV without charging capacity. In time the charging issue will not exist through better battery capacity, faster charging time and more charging infrastructure. I also believe electricity costs will rise through tax and price increases to make it more expensive than it is currently. That doesn't mean it will be more expensive to operate than ICE.


Electricity rising in cost faster than gas? Not sure about that. It won't rise due to EV demand (EVs generally help grid utilization/lower grid costs). Taxes will have to change. I would support road taxes (function of vehicle weight/kms driven annually). Taxing electricity for all uses is not practical or politically viable. It's also easy for people to escape with using roof-top solar, etc. You need to tax VMTs.


----------



## londoncalling

andrewf said:


> Electricity rising in cost faster than gas? Not sure about that.


Reread my post. I didn't say it would. I just said I expect electricity costs to be higher than they are now. I do agree with your comments on taxation. However, the revenue shortfall from reduced fuel consumption will need to be made up somehow. Also, the power generation companies will increase their rates over time. Some would argue that increased volumes would lower the need to raise rates but I expect a lot of infrastructure will be needed to increase supply and that will require money.

"I also believe electricity costs will rise through tax and price increases to make it more expensive than it is currently. That doesn't mean it will be more expensive to operate than ICE."


----------



## sags

GM is fixing Teslas









GM Has a New Business: Fixing Tesla's Cars.


GM had a surprising revelation for Tesla investors at GM's analyst event being held in New York City.




www.barrons.com


----------



## sags

Tesla recalls 30,000 Model X vehicles over airbag issues.









Tesla recalls 30,000 Model X cars, shares hit two-year low


Tesla Inc recalled nearly 30,000 Model X cars in the United States over an issue that may cause the front passenger air bag to deploy incorrectly, sending its shares down nearly 3% on Friday to their lowest in nearly two years.




www.reuters.com


----------



## andrewf

11000 repairs out of a fleet of several million is kind of underwhelming. The article is paywalled. So someone bring a Tesla to get a flat tire repaired or brakes replaced and GM bloats about it? Let's hope GM aspires to more than to just be service centre alternatives for Tesla owners.


----------



## sags

Tesla shares drop again to the lowest level since November 2020.

Elon Musk needs to tend to business.





__





Loading…






finance.yahoo.com


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla recalls 30,000 Model X vehicles over airbag issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla recalls 30,000 Model X cars, shares hit two-year low
> 
> 
> Tesla Inc recalled nearly 30,000 Model X cars in the United States over an issue that may cause the front passenger air bag to deploy incorrectly, sending its shares down nearly 3% on Friday to their lowest in nearly two years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


Airbag recalls are pretty common.

Unlike having to recall every single copy of a vehicle to replace the powertrain because it was burning people's houses down.









GM offers Chevy Bolt EV owners $6,000 if they promise not to sue over battery fire recall fiasco


General Motors has started offering Chevy Bolt EV owners a $6,000 refund as long as they promise not to sue...




electrek.co


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> 11000 repairs out of a fleet of several million is kind of underwhelming. The article is paywalled. So someone bring a Tesla to get a flat tire repaired or brakes replaced and GM bloats about it? Let's hope GM aspires to more than to just be service centre alternatives for Tesla owners.


Where are the Tesla service centres ?

While Tesla owners wait to get their vehicles serviced at GM dealerships.......they can wander the showroom and look at all the GM models.

How many Teslas were taken to dealerships for Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, and all the other manufacturers ?

Tesla is going to have to spend a lot of money building out a service network and buying media advertising in the future, if they want to compete.


----------



## sags

The battery manufacturer LG paid the lawsuits. GM developed and manufactures their own batteries now.

It does raise the question that if EV batteries are too much of a hazard, is the EV revolution just a passing fad until something better emerges ?

I think GM may be rolling out too many EV models. Toyota is wisely delaying full EV transition until consumer demand and infrastructure is in place.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Where are the Tesla service centres ?







__





Loading…






letmegooglethat.com


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The battery manufacturer LG paid the lawsuits. GM developed and manufactures their own batteries now.


LG still makes GM's batteries. GM does not make batteries.









GM has 3 new deals with suppliers to assure it hits EV production target


GM inks new deals with suppliers of lithium, nickel, cobalt and more to assure EV production and eventually localize raw material production.



www.freep.com





ETA: LG knows what they are doing and makes good batteries. GM doesn't know what they are doing and can't design a BMS.


----------



## andrewf

I'm baffled by legacy OEMs bragging about bringing 30, 40, 50 EV models to market by Y date. Tesla is outproducing them by >10x with 2-4 models.


----------



## sags

GM developed their new Ultium battery, with LG as a partner along with a lot of other companies.

They are building plants in North America and one in Quebec to supply Canadian production.









GM has 3 new deals with suppliers to assure it hits EV production target


GM inks new deals with suppliers of lithium, nickel, cobalt and more to assure EV production and eventually localize raw material production.



www.freep.com


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> I'm baffled by legacy OEMs bragging about bringing 30, 40, 50 EV models to market by Y date. Tesla is outproducing them by >10x with 2-4 models.


The OEMs have production capacity that Tesla lacks and is looking to buy or build. They also have legacy dealerships and supply chains in place already.

Tesla will be doing the "catching up" when the other manufacturers start to roll out their production in higher numbers.

The one thing the OEMs know how to do well is assembly line mass production. Toyota is the world benchmark for efficient mas production.

Tesla was among the first EV manufacturers, but that doesn't guarantee anything. Lots of ICE manufactures came and went over the years.

American Motors, Packard, Studebaker, Triumph, DeLorean, Saturn, DeSoto, Tucker.....


----------



## m3s

GM CEO doesn't know how to tweet dank memes

None of the kids even know what a GM is anymore because of that

This is bad when GM fanbase are in nursing homes


----------



## Gator13

^ If you set aside GM trucks and the very niche Corvette market, this is a very accurate statement.

The young folks sure aren't buying caddies, Malibu's or Buicks.


----------



## andrewf

Mysteriously, Tesla is already making almost as much in EBITDA as GM. TSLA had trailing 12 month EBITDA of $16B (+122% y/y) vs GM at $21B (-10% y/y). I can't wait to see what GM has to show Tesla about profitably making EVs.


----------



## sags

Young adults I know are buying SUVs, crossovers, and pickup trucks, not compact sedans.

GM earned twice the revenues as Tesla in Q3 2022 and more profit.

Tesla has had an easy ride, supported by carbon credits which are ending.

Is Elon Musk ready to take on the competition or is going to fiddle around posting silly tweets while they steal his lunch ?

That is what major shareholders in Tesla are asking. Musk can dick around with his own money but not theirs.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM earned twice the revenues as Tesla in Q3 2022 and more profit.


Yea but which way are things trending. Does GM have growth and what happens if young people don't buy as many in future as the old people used to



sags said:


> Tesla has had an easy ride, supported by carbon credits which are ending.


GM had an easier ride with the bailout. Otherwise Tesla would have far less competition. Tesla had to compete with a government bailout and EPA owned by competition


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Young adults I know are buying SUVs, crossovers, and pickup trucks, not compact sedans.
> 
> GM earned twice the revenues as Tesla in Q3 2022 and more profit.
> 
> Tesla has had an easy ride, supported by carbon credits which are ending.
> 
> Is Elon Musk ready to take on the competition or is going to fiddle around posting silly tweets while they steal his lunch ?
> 
> That is what major shareholders in Tesla are asking. Musk can dick around with his own money but not theirs.


Tesla's #1 vehicle is Model Y, a cross-over/SUV. It is bigger than RAV4.

Will you change your tune when Tesla has higher revenue and profits than GM in the next year or so?

Tesla had $1.5B in credits revenue in 2021, vs an EBITDA of $16B. So at least 90% of their earnings are not driven by credits. 

I would much prefer Musk was not wasting time with Twitter. As a Tesla shareholder, what he does or does not achieve with Twitter does not benefit me.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> I would much prefer Musk was not wasting time with Twitter. As a Tesla shareholder, what he does or does not achieve with Twitter does not benefit me.


It's free marketing for Tesla. That is very valuable for TSLA shareholders. As was the Tesla roadster launched into space on the first Falcon Heavy. That is historic

I see Elon more and a figurehead and marketing for TSLA at this point. He didn't start Tesla and I doubt he's that involved now. He seems far more involved in SpaceX

He's also selling TSLA shares and doesn't like that it's public. SpaceX and Twitter are privately owned now


----------



## AltaRed

Tesla needs a refresh (or new version) of the Model Y to make it a more functional CUV/SUV/hatchback. That goofy sloping roof line to the rear is highly inefficient. Not including more usable cargo space seems a missed opportunity. That said, Tesla may want to focus on getting its mechanical quality and usability quality up. It supposedly fell 7 spots in CR's ranking to #23 out of 32 brands in 2022. It is not a brand I would remotely consider......yet.

Source: 2022 Consumer Reports Car Brand Rankings Announced

Added later: I do not have any particular brand loyalty. Brand loyalty to me is the same as putting blinders on a horse significantly clouding judgement. One of my favourite past times is when someone I know exercises outsized brand loyalty bias and I get to harass them with why they are out of touch with reality. It often makes for lively debate and often fairly short ends to the conversation.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Tesla needs a refresh (or new version) of the Model Y to make it a more functional CUV/SUV/hatchback. That goofy sloping roof line to the rear is highly inefficient. Not including more usable cargo space seems a missed opportunity. That said, Tesla may want to focus on getting its mechanical quality and usability quality up. It supposedly fell 7 spots in CR's ranking to #23 out of 32 brands in 2022. It is not a brand I would remotely consider......yet.
> 
> Source: 2022 Consumer Reports Car Brand Rankings Announced


Tesla quality control is poor. But that's fixable and something has to give.

Can't really compare apples to oranges though. I'd consider a Tesla for the advantages of EVs such as torque, electronics and software and low center of gravity but also in no rush to buy one. They will improve drastically in coming years and Tesla knows not to canibalize current MY sales by announcing what is coming. I don't think it's fair to compare something so new to ICE vehicles that are mostly just incremental updated plastic moldings for no reason at this point

I much prefer older ICE vehicles to anything on the market today. The best ICE vehicles were sold last decade imo


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Added later: I do not have any particular brand loyalty. Brand loyalty to me is the same as putting blinders on a horse significantly clouding judgement. One of my favourite past times is when someone I know exercises outsized brand loyalty bias and I get to harass them with why they are out of touch with reality. It often makes for lively debate and often fairly short ends to the conversation.


I don't do brand loyalty either but sometimes it plays into the "devil you know" situation. For vehicles makers I may know their problems already and also the cost, time and how easy it is to fix their typical issues. Going to a new brand creates a whole new learning curve and maybe special tools are even needed which I won't have.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Tesla needs a refresh (or new version) of the Model Y to make it a more functional CUV/SUV/hatchback. That goofy sloping roof line to the rear is highly inefficient. Not including more usable cargo space seems a missed opportunity. That said, Tesla may want to focus on getting its mechanical quality and usability quality up. It supposedly fell 7 spots in CR's ranking to #23 out of 32 brands in 2022. It is not a brand I would remotely consider......yet.


Model Y has 10% more cargo space than RAV 4. Headroom is not an issue, except for the optional 3rd row (which is true of all 3rd row vehicles, except perhaps minivans).


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> It's free marketing for Tesla. That is very valuable for TSLA shareholders. As was the Tesla roadster launched into space on the first Falcon Heavy. That is historic
> 
> I see Elon more and a figurehead and marketing for TSLA at this point. He didn't start Tesla and I doubt he's that involved now. He seems far more involved in SpaceX
> 
> He's also selling TSLA shares and doesn't like that it's public. SpaceX and Twitter are privately owned now


Tesla doesn't need any marketing, as Musk is a fan of pointing out.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Tesla doesn't need any marketing, as Musk is a fan of pointing out.


He is the marketing

Twitter is his legacy


----------



## sags

Tesla is resting on it’s laurels.

Quality is bad. Service is weak.

Promised models don’t exist.

Sales are slowing.

The competition is here.

They will all siphon off sales.

New products are routinely compared to Tesla products as the benchmark and they are getting better reviews than Tesla.

That is a problem Tesla must address asap.

I think they know the Cybertruck won’t compete with Ford or GM in EV pickup sales and it may never be produced in large quantities.

Tesla could end up as a small niche market player for the sedan buyers.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla is resting on it’s laurels.


*Its

And you spelled GM wrong. They rested on their laurels and they went bankrupt

Stay in school, kids


----------



## sags

Autocorrect says it’s, so it’s it is.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Autocorrect says it’s, so it’s it is.


Trust me it's its

Pretty common mistake though I see it all the time


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Autocorrect says it’s, so it’s it is.


Autocucumber ain't alway's wright.


----------



## sags

Don’t make me no never mind.


----------



## Beaver101

Read the internal Tesla employee survey from 2018, where employees called Elon Musk an 'unapproachable tyrant' who fires people 'because of his ego'

Am I surprised at this? No and yes.

No being certain employees would always put up with tyrannical leaders to self-advance.

Yes being this kind of culture is not a concern of its shareholders. Interesting (very).

For one thing, glad I ain't a Tesla shareholder, never mind being Twitter shareholder. 

And there's no doubt the same kind of brews being served over at SpaceX - from the "visionary for Mars", hack.


----------



## sags

Unhappy employees will join unions.

Musk has been anti-unioin busting for a long time.

His edict that employees couldn't wear shirts with union insignia was tossed out by the National Labor Relations Board in August 2022.

Musk dared the UAW to try to organize his companies and the union is accepting the challenge.

Maybe Musk will move all his companies to China.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Musk dared the UAW to try to organize his companies and the union is accepting the challenge.
> 
> Maybe Musk will move all his companies to China.


Unions already destroyed American manufacturing jobs and now they want to destroy Tesla jobs as well

We already see how GM lobbying for government bailouts by promising to pay high school dropouts 6 figures in warehouses was a taxpayer scam. All those jobs ended up in Mexico and Korea after they got the taxpayer bailouts

Tesla is building good vehicles in America. Canada should have given them the bailout money instead of GM


----------



## sags

Tesla has built over a million vehicles in their Shanghai, China factory.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla has built over a million vehicles in their Shanghai, China factory.


Those aren't exported to US or Canada they are for Asia so far

Your Korean GM was designed and manufactured in Korea. Teslas are designed in Murica and were built in Murica first by Muricans for Muricans

When will the Chevy Volt get over-the-air auto-fire-extinguisher updates?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1595682322707267584
From reuters

"The Shanghai plant has been working toward an initial plan for a small-batch test run of production of vehicles in the first quarter of 2023 that would be compliant with North American standards for potential export, one of the people said.

After Reuters published its article on Friday, *Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, in a Twitter post, said "False" *without elaborating. Contacted by Reuters, representatives of Austin, Texas-based Tesla did not comment or clarify Musk's remark. A Tesla representative in China responded with a screenshot of Musk's denial."


----------



## sags

It is up to Tesla employees if they want to form a union. The NLRB has given them the green light to sign up members.

The NLRB has had enough of Musk's childish anti-worker antics.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> It is up to Tesla employees if they want to form a union. The NLRB has given them the green light to sign up members.
> 
> The NLRB has had enough of Musk's childish anti-worker antics.


We already know how that ends

GM went bankrupt because they were paying highschool dropouts 6 figures and a DB pension to work in a warehouse that could have been done by any temp worker

They got billions in bailouts and then moved all those jobs to Mexico where they can get workers that aren't dropouts for half the cost


----------



## londoncalling

sags said:


> It is up to Tesla employees if they want to form a union. The NLRB has given them the green light to sign up members.
> 
> The NLRB has had enough of Musk's childish anti-worker antics.


It is highly unlikely that Tesla employees will unionize. I would estimate the probability at somewhere around less than 0%


----------



## m3s

The only reason to build EVs in the US is for government subsidies

The liberals were mostly worried about how the trucker protestors might jeopardize US subsidies on EVs made in Canada

Otherwise EVs could all be made in Mexico and Vietnam


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla has built over a million vehicles in their Shanghai, China factory.


All for China/Europe/Australia market.


----------



## sags

The Hyundai Ionic EV sold out in 24 hours.

The competition is coming, slow and steady and soon there will be a river of choices for consumers.

Teslas first mover window is closing.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The Hyundai Ionic EV sold out in 24 hours.
> 
> The competition is coming, slow and steady and soon there will be a river of choices for consumers.
> 
> Teslas first mover window is closing.


I thought GM was the first mover?

It was Ioniq 6, as Ioniq is not just one model anymore. How many did it take to "sell out"? 

2500 units. That is about 16 hours of Tesla production, in Q3 of 2022. Of course, Tesla is growing production ~50% annually. Good luck Hyundai. The Ioniq 5 is actually by all accounts a decent, if a bit quirky vehicle. Better than any GM EV offering.









Hyundai Ioniq 6 ‘First Edition’ sells out in under 24 hours


With only weeks to go before the official launch of the Ioniq 6, the 2,500 units of the limited ‘First Edition’ sell out in under 24 hours.




thedriven.io


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The Hyundai Ionic EV sold out in 24 hours.
> 
> The competition is coming, slow and steady and soon there will be a river of choices for consumers.
> 
> Teslas first mover window is closing.


Is that why the Koreans make GMs now? GM was scared of the competition?

Teslas are made in America for Americans and Elon is popular in America. Koreans make really good vehicles though. Even the ones who didn't get hired by Hyundai can work for Korean GM

Isn't Samsung making GM EV batteries now? Why pay more for a GM badge when you could just buy the real Hyundai Ioniq?


----------



## Gumball

andrewf said:


> I thought GM was the first mover?
> 
> It was Ioniq 6, as Ioniq is not just one model anymore. How many did it take to "sell out"?
> 
> 2500 units. That is about 16 hours of Tesla production, in Q3 of 2022. Of course, Tesla is growing production ~50% annually. Good luck Hyundai. The Ioniq 5 is actually by all accounts a decent, if a bit quirky vehicle. Better than any GM EV offering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyundai Ioniq 6 ‘First Edition’ sells out in under 24 hours
> 
> 
> With only weeks to go before the official launch of the Ioniq 6, the 2,500 units of the limited ‘First Edition’ sell out in under 24 hours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thedriven.io


Im not knocking this Ioniq, I actually think it is pretty great - but dont you think this is a bit of a PR stunt? - they offer a piddly 2500 units in the USA - ofcourse it will sell out in hours just due to the sheer low volume offered...

For the record, I am all for EV's and I firmly beleive all OEM automakers are going to be offering excellent products in the very near future - what I dont have faith in is our government to ensure our grid and infrastructure can handle this coming EV onslaught.. its going to be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## andrewf

Sags doesn't believe in sourcing what he posts here. I have kind of taken to quickly checking whenever he says something that sounds like BS.


----------



## m3s

Gumball said:


> Im not knocking this Ioniq, I actually think it is pretty great - but dont you think this is a bit of a PR stunt? - they offer a piddly 2500 units in the USA - ofcourse it will sell out in hours just due to the sheer low volume offered...


Piddly?

GM could only produce 2500 Hummer EV in the last year  To be fair Hummer is a 90s platform that the US military can't even give away anymore

Even the Taliban and ISIS will take a Toyota Tacoma first.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Sags doesn't believe in sourcing what he posts here. I have kind of taken to quickly checking whenever he says something that sounds like BS.


It's not worth the mental energy to read their nonsensical posts.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> It's not worth the mental energy to read their nonsensical posts.


Do you have a source for that ?


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> Sags doesn't believe in sourcing what he posts here. I have kind of taken to quickly checking whenever he says something that sounds like BS.


Was the post factual or not ?


----------



## sags

Tesla fans believe Musk is going to ramp up production......presumably in assembly plants that don't yet exist, but the OEM manufacturers are incapable of ramping up their production in assembly plants that already exist for some undefined reason.

The OEM manufacturers are carefully testing the EV waters, before they jump in. They build some models, test them, get consumer feedback and make any changes before they mass produce them.

Tesla on the other hand is mass producing vehicles with sub par quality and scant service for customers. Their disregard for quality and their customer complaints will hurt their future sales when other options become widely available.

Anyone who believes that OEM companies building millions of ICE vehicles a year can't build a much simpler EV at scale volume, isn't paying attention.

All these OEM manufacturers already own their assembly plants, have their suppliers in place, and their service dealership networks. All they need to ramp up is consumer demand which will develop over time as infrastructure issues are solved.

These companies will continue to produce ICE vehicles at assembly plants until they decide to make the big changeover to EVs.

Before they do that......there needs to be considerably more consumer demand than there is now, and infrastructure has to be in place.

The competition is coming......from many different directions.









Every Automaker’s EV Plans Through 2035 And Beyond


Automakers plot their moves from combustion engines to hybrids (done) to plug-ins and full battery-electric or hydrogen fuel cell cars, trucks and 18-wheelers.




www.forbes.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Anyone who believes that OEM companies building millions of ICE vehicles a year can't build a much simpler EV at scale volume, isn't paying attention.
> 
> All these OEM manufacturers already own their assembly plants, have their suppliers in place, and their service dealership networks.


They suck at software

Young people all want Teslas when they can afford them

GMs were for grandpas and Cadillac is for funerals


----------



## Gumball

yes piddly, 2500 volume is peanuts.

Keep in mind - there are 2 mil new vehicles sold in canada per year, 17 mil new vehicles per year in USA, so this is a drop in the bucket if you look at this small volume... 

also regarding he GM Hummer EVs.... producing the vehicle and selling out 2500 units of thin air in terms of pre-selling ioniqs are two different things... perhaps hyundai wont build all 2500 either (supply constraints, who knows?) 
Again not knocking Ioniq, just adding some perspective.

M3s - you seem to dislike General Motors... did your parents force you to drive a Pontiac Aztec when you were younger or something? 



m3s said:


> Piddly?
> 
> GM could only produce 2500 Hummer EV in the last year  To be fair Hummer is a 90s platform that the US military can't even give away anymore
> 
> Even the Taliban and ISIS will take a Toyota Tacoma first.


----------



## sags

If Tesla vehicles were ICE vehicles......how many would they sell at their price points ?

Would consumers pay $60,000 for a compact sedan Tesla......or buy some other compact sedan for $30,000 ?

I am thinking Tesla wouldn't sell a lot of ICE vehicles at those prices, given the poor quality and lack of service dealerships.


----------



## sags

If ICE manufacturers change over to EV production too early, they could well end up with farm fields full of finished EV vehicles they can't sell.

Overproduction of EV vehicles should be a concern for all vehicle manufacturers.

It will be many years before EVs replace ICE vehicles in consumer demand.


----------



## m3s

Gumball said:


> M3s - you seem to dislike General Motors... did your parents force you to drive a Pontiac Aztec when you were younger or something?


I remember making fun of my little brother for thinking those things were cool

I dislike GM because they are a ponzi scheme to soak the NA taxpayer just like Bombardier. I don't believe the government should bail out companies in a free market. Especially when Bombardier gives it to their execs and GM moves all the jobs to Mexico and North Korea

GM builds junk and people buy them out of brand loyalty


----------



## sags

For somebody always talking about the future, you seem convinced that Tesla is the only auto company that can produce EVs for consumers in your vision of the future.

Over 100 years of auto making history will likely prove you wrong.


----------



## sags

Tesla wouldn’t still be around without government subsidies.


----------



## Gumball

Haha Thats funny your bro liked the Aztec.. 

hard to argue about the reasons you dislike GM, just remember we let the Jap and german car companies into North America while they shut us out for a long time (you could argue thats a form of subsidizing by their home governments) not to mention japanese currency manipulation keeping the Yen low... those US benjamins went a long way back in Japan for perhaps better R&D for Honda, Mitsu, Toyota, etc... im getting off track here but my point is I think all governments work in one way shape or form to try and benefit their manufacturing base so dont be so hard on GM (plus they paid back their govt loans)

At the end of the day I think all these car companies competing results in better product for the consumer so I guess we all win... im kind of enjoying the tech race going on, I like the Tesla designs, Hyundai, Jeep Wrangler 4xe, its all good stuff coming down the pipe!




m3s said:


> I remember making fun of my little brother for thinking those things were cool
> 
> I dislike GM because they are a ponzi scheme to soak the NA taxpayer just like Bombardier. I don't believe the government should bail out companies in a free market. Especially when Bombardier gives it to their execs and GM moves all the jobs to Mexico and North Korea
> 
> GM builds junk and people buy them out of brand loyalty


----------



## sags

In virtually every business sector, governments compete with each other to provide subsidies in one form or another to attract business investment.

Any government with a strict adherence to providing no financial support would most often observe industry building somewhere else.

From professional sports teams to corporate headquarters, there is global competition and it would be unwise to prohibit or inhibit participation in the process for purely ideological reasons.


----------



## m3s

The Japanese hired intelligent people. GM hired high school drop outs at parties according to insiders

The market decided Japanese cars are superior and GM went bankrupt in 2008

Luckily an African who studied in Canada decided to revive the EV by hiring intelligent people


----------



## sags

The plunge by GM from the most valuable company in the world to a forced restructuring should serve as a cautionary tale for Tesla investors.

The EV story is still being written.









Tesla Dropped After Glitches Announced In 80,000 China Vehicles


Tesla edged lower Friday after China regulators announced the news. TSLA is down around 20% in November and has fallen roughly 50% in 2022.




www.investors.com


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Was the post factual or not ?


You left out important context, namely that they sold out of a tiny number of vehicles. Less than Tesla makes in a day.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> If Tesla vehicles were ICE vehicles......how many would they sell at their price points ?
> 
> Would consumers pay $60,000 for a compact sedan Tesla......or buy some other compact sedan for $30,000 ?
> 
> I am thinking Tesla wouldn't sell a lot of ICE vehicles at those prices, given the poor quality and lack of service dealerships.


Model 3 compares to BMW, etc. It has higher performance and lower total ownership cost. How much does that ICE sedan cost to fuel over 10 years?


----------



## sags

How much do the batteries cost to replace ?


----------



## sags

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1596150194487394304


----------



## MrBlackhill

sags said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1596150194487394304


I recall seeing that first Tesla Roadster in the streets of Montreal in the early 2010s and thinking it was an amazing car and I liked the name Tesla, thinking it was the future.

I was still studying at the university in engineering in automation. If I had put only $10,000 back then in my TFSA in Tesla, I wouldn't be working today, only 10 years later. I'd be a TFSA millionaire.


----------



## m3s

MrBlackhill said:


> I recall seeing that first Tesla Roadster in the streets of Montreal in the early 2010s and thinking it was an amazing car and I liked the name Tesla, thinking it was the future.
> 
> I was still studying at the university in engineering in automation. If I had put only $10,000 back then in my TFSA in Tesla, I wouldn't be working today, only 10 years later. I'd be a TFSA millionaire.


What if you put in it GM in 2007?

Who is the founder of GM anyways? Who even runs the company now?


----------



## sags

andrewf said:


> You left out important context, namely that they sold out of a tiny number of vehicles. Less than Tesla makes in a day.


Tesla makes a big whoopla over pre-market Cybertruck orders.......but hasn't produced a single one yet.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla makes a big whoopla over pre-market Cybertruck orders.......but hasn't produced a single one yet.


Takes time to build something good

Hummer EV is hot garbage


----------



## sags

Meanwhile.......the competition is stealing the thunder.



https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/








GMC Sierra EV Denali | All-Electric Truck | GMC Canada


<p>Introducing the First Ever GMC Sierra EV Denali. It’s built to tower above everything you thought an electric truck could be. Sign up for updates now!</p>




www.gmccanada.ca













R1T - Rivian


An electric truck built for whatever you call a road. Your electric adventure awaits. Learn more about the capabilities, features and options of the R1T.




rivian.com













Confirmed: Ram 1500 Electric Pickup Coming in 2024


Ram also teased that it has a midsize truck in the works.




www.motortrend.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Meanwhile.......the competition is stealing the thunder.


By "meanwhile" you linked 2 trucks that aren't on the road yet

Rivian is pretty cool. Don't see why you'd buy an EV ram or GMC over Rivian besides brand loyalty

Fujifilm tried to make digital cameras too. Ever see anyone use a Nokia smartphone?


----------



## sags

I mean.........seriously ? This is the best design Tesla can offer to pickup owners ?

It looks like old Russian military vehicles abandoned in Ukraine.


----------



## sags

Musk is going to have to perform miracles to keep Tesla shares as overvalued as they are.

The Tesla multiples and market cap is ridiculous compared to their automotive peers.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The Tesla multiples and market cap is ridiculous compared to their automotive peers.


What automotive peers?

You mean GM that went bankrupt in 2008?

You watch too much CNBC and don't even trade stocks


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla makes a big whoopla over pre-market Cybertruck orders.......but hasn't produced a single one yet.


They have 1.5M reservations, not 2500. Regardless, Tesla doesn't talk much about Cybertruck reservations.

You make a big hoopla about GM's 30 EV models that are coming, and they haven't made any of those either!


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> By "meanwhile" you linked 2 trucks that aren't on the road yet
> 
> Rivian is pretty cool. Don't see why you'd buy an EV ram or GMC over Rivian besides brand loyalty
> 
> Fujifilm tried to make digital cameras too. Ever see anyone use a Nokia smartphone?


Apparently the F150 Lightning is a lot more useable as a work truck than the Rivian R1T, though the R1T is by all accounts a decent 'all hat and no cattle' vehicle. Rivian just struggles to produce vehicles, and are still burning a lot of cash.










We'll see what Tesla does with Cybertruck. I can see it being easy that they fall into some of the shortcomings Rivian did, but Tesla does have more experience.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Apparently the F150 Lightning is a lot more useable as a work truck than the Rivian R1T, though the R1T is by all accounts a decent 'all hat and no cattle' vehicle. Rivian just struggles to produce vehicles, and are still burning a lot of cash.
> 
> We'll see what Tesla does with Cybertruck. I can see it being easy that they fall into some of the shortcomings Rivian did, but Tesla does have more experience.


Interesting but how many people will run contractor tools off their vehicles? Even contractors don't normally do this. Seems pretty niche like building a cabin off grid - which having built some things like that as a kid we would never take those kind of heavy tools off grid anyways. Simple hammer will do

Seems like a net positive because ICE vehicles wouldn't be the best for that in the first place. You'd be better to take a Honda generator if you needed it than to idle a truck and run an invertor. Rivian and Cybertruck have pretty neat advantages for off-roading though


----------



## sags

Our son runs contractor tools off his work truck all the time, with a generator mounted on the custom stainless steel bed frame on a new Ford F250 diesel.

Cement mixer, saws, drills, hammers, lights, screwdrivers, ........


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Our son runs contractor tools off his work truck all the time,with a generator mounted on the custom stainless steel bed frame on a new Ford F250 diesel.
> 
> Cement mixer, saws, drills, hammers, lights, screwdrivers, ........


So why does your son drive a new Ford F250 instead of a GM 2500?


----------



## sags

The employer provides him with the truck and equipment.

It might be a F-350 diesel......as he often pulls trailers with heavy equipment on them (skid steer, bobcat) plus all the materials needed for the job.

Maybe his employer will lease a bunch of new Cybertrucks for the crews when they start producing them.........but, I doubt it.


----------



## sags

The Cybertruck is butt ugly and looks like a kit car fabrication in someone's garage.

I really can't imagine farmers or construction workers being interested in owning one, when better options will be available.

Maybe the same limited customer base who bought the Chevy El Camino back in the day.

Maybe GM can throw a battery in one of those and call them E- Caminos.


----------



## m3s

So contractors pick the Ford over the GM based on its looks?

Never knew they were so feminine

I don't think Cybertruck is targeting contractors


----------



## sags

People who can't wait for the Cybertruck are building their own.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> Interesting but how many people will run contractor tools off their vehicles? Even contractors don't normally do this. Seems pretty niche like building a cabin off grid - which having built some things like that as a kid we would never take those kind of heavy tools off grid anyways. Simple hammer will do
> 
> Seems like a net positive because ICE vehicles wouldn't be the best for that in the first place. You'd be better to take a Honda generator if you needed it than to idle a truck and run an invertor. Rivian and Cybertruck have pretty neat advantages for off-roading though


This replaces the generator, too.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> People who can't wait for the Cybertruck are building their own.
> 
> View attachment 23903


Is that GM's electric Silverado?


----------



## Gator13

How many people who frequent this forum own a Tesla?


----------



## cainvest

__





Loading…






ca.finance.yahoo.com


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loading…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ca.finance.yahoo.com


Tesla has great first mover advantage.
They also move really fast.

But they're slipping behind.
Other companies are shipping trucks (Pickup and Semi) 
Their products are new, and the quality and longevity issues are starting to crop up, along with the lack of repair infrastructure.

I expect they'll remain a bigger player, but I don't think they're going to own the market like some boosters think.
Eventually that will impact their margins.

Assuming they offer only slightly better vehicles, why not buy a cheaper vehicle. If I was using it for work, the business case makes sense.

Also, despite the fact that I LOVE driving (when I'm not stuck in traffic), I am constantly re-evaluating if I need to maintain 2 vehicles.
For me this is a big deal, I grew up repairing the car with my dad (hooray for Bondo!), but that time is ending.
I just don't think the auto industry is the future, and I think the transportation industry is due for a shake up.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Assuming they offer only slightly better vehicles, why not buy a cheaper vehicle. If I was using it for work, the business case makes sense.
> 
> I just don't think the auto industry is the future, and I think the transportation industry is due for a shake up.


Brand is very powerful. Older people feel connected with legacy brands because of those old bonds of repairing etc

The younger generation is much more impacted by Elon, SpaceX, Starlink, Twitter etc. They don't care one bit about legacy auto brands that went bankrupt when they were impressionable. Just like you didn't understand why people would pay more for Apple, young people will chose Tesla over GM even if it costs a bit more

I agree the transportation industry is due for a shake up. I don't see the legacy brands with the kind of vision that Steve Jobs or Elon Musk have for that kind of disruption


----------



## sags

Tesla would have a better chance of survival if they dump Elon Musk. He has become toxic to the company.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla would have a better chance of survival if they dump Elon Musk. He has become toxic to the company.


Maybe from the perspective of 80 years olds. Not in reality though

2022 Brand Intimacy Ranking

1. Disney
*2. Tesla*
3. Apple
4. Sony
5. YouTube





__





Top Brand Intimacy 2022 Rankings - Lab


Explore the performance of intimate brands, showcasing key measures like archetypes, stages, and keywords. View real-time and curated data.




mblm.com


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Maybe from the perspective of 80 years olds. Not in reality though
> 
> 2022 Brand Intimacy Ranking
> 
> 1. Disney
> *2. Tesla*
> 3. Apple
> 4. Sony
> 5. YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Brand Intimacy 2022 Rankings - Lab
> 
> 
> Explore the performance of intimate brands, showcasing key measures like archetypes, stages, and keywords. View real-time and curated data.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mblm.com


Interesting. They should build an ETF based on this, I'd be curious of its performance, really. I guess it's another way to see Buffett's "moat" factor.


----------



## Gator13

Funny Tesla doesn't rank in these???









Car Brands That Consumers Were Most Loyal To In 2022


Keep customers happy and they'll keep coming back for more. It's a business tactic that is no less effective in the automotive industry, and now we know which automakers are doing it best based on the results of the 2022 US Automotive Brand Loyalty Study by J.D. Power.




carbuzz.com










2022 U.S. Automotive Brand Loyalty Study


The majority of new-vehicle owners this past year navigated the low vehicle inventory crunch by purchasing the same brand of vehicle which in turn, kept loyalty high in both premium and mass market segments, according to the redesigned J.D. Power 2022 U.S. Automotive Brand Loyalty Study,SM...




www.jdpower.com


----------



## Gator13

The 2020 World's Most Valuable Brands


On Forbes’ annual ranking of the 100 most valuable brands, Amazon, Netflix and PayPal make big gains while Wells Fargo, GE and HP fall.




www.forbes.com


----------



## m3s

Gator13 said:


> The 2020 World's Most Valuable Brands
> 
> 
> On Forbes’ annual ranking of the 100 most valuable brands, Amazon, Netflix and PayPal make big gains while Wells Fargo, GE and HP fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


That's 2019


----------



## m3s

Gator13 said:


> Funny Tesla doesn't rank in these???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Car Brands That Consumers Were Most Loyal To In 2022
> 
> 
> Keep customers happy and they'll keep coming back for more. It's a business tactic that is no less effective in the automotive industry, and now we know which automakers are doing it best based on the results of the 2022 US Automotive Brand Loyalty Study by J.D. Power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> carbuzz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2022 U.S. Automotive Brand Loyalty Study
> 
> 
> The majority of new-vehicle owners this past year navigated the low vehicle inventory crunch by purchasing the same brand of vehicle which in turn, kept loyalty high in both premium and mass market segments, according to the redesigned J.D. Power 2022 U.S. Automotive Brand Loyalty Study,SM...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.jdpower.com


JD Power is basically bought. It's well known

Never heard of "carbuzz" but it probably bought as well just not as expensive

It's how legacy brands works - like lobbying in the US government


----------



## Gator13

Weird. It won't copy the link.

Here's another.









The Top 100 Most Valuable Brands in 2022


A strong brand is extremely lucrative when leveraged properly. Here's a look at the most valuable brands in 2022, according to Brand Finance.




www.visualcapitalist.com


----------



## m3s

Gator13 said:


> Weird. It won't copy the link.
> 
> Here's another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Top 100 Most Valuable Brands in 2022
> 
> 
> A strong brand is extremely lucrative when leveraged properly. Here's a look at the most valuable brands in 2022, according to Brand Finance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.visualcapitalist.com


That one looks more global - mine was US based

Chinese brands are starting to take over  Looks like they already have in banking


----------



## Gator13

MrBlackhill said:


> Interesting. They should build an ETF based on this, I'd be curious of its performance, really. I guess it's another way to see Buffett's "moat" factor.


Hmmmmm. Interesting idea.

Blackhill & Sons Brand Value Moat ETF


----------



## sags

I find Tik Tok the most interesting app right now. The combination of video, live streaming, and comments works well together.

Musk should sell Twitter, eat the loss, and focus on Tesla.


----------



## m3s

GM is launching a diesel electric hydrogen fuel cell semi event live on TikTok


----------



## andrewf

Impressive presentation.

Interesting to hear that Tesla's v4 supercharger (1000 kw capable) will also support Cybertruck. Could be pretty important differentiation vs competing EV pickups. And we know that Tesla will provide a superior charging experience than 3rd party providers. It will be interesting to find out what charge rate Cybertruck will be able to accept.

They didn't say how much the vehicle weighs and how that affects cargo capacity. I assume it is acceptable, but this is what skeptics will focus on. Also remains to be seen what Tesla would charge for supercharger power. In their presentation 5 years ago they talked about 7 cents per kwh, but given that in California they charge $0.40-$0.50 per kwh at peak for charging, we'll find out where they land. I expect somewhere in the middle, as fleets will tend to provide good levels of utilization (and not Thanksgiving peaks) to amortize the cost of the equipment. Of course, many large shippers will look to provide their own charging and pay wholesale rates, similar to how many also have their own fueling stations.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> They didn't say how much the vehicle weighs and how that affects cargo capacity. I assume it is acceptable, but this is what skeptics will focus on. Also remains to be seen what Tesla would charge for supercharger power. In their presentation 5 years ago they talked about 7 cents per kwh, but given that in California they charge $0.40-$0.50 per kwh at peak for charging, we'll find out where they land. I expect somewhere in the middle, as fleets will tend to provide good levels of utilization (and not Thanksgiving peaks) to amortize the cost of the equipment. Of course, many large shippers will look to provide their own charging and pay wholesale rates, similar to how many also have their own fueling stations.


What is the constraint on cargo capacity? Is it the scales? They mentioned the truck having jack knife prevention and what not. They also mentioned having to stop to check brakes when they were cold. Seems like some rules and regulations will need to be adapted. For example they have big screens for rear/side views.. does it still require mirrors because DOT says so?

Cybertruck didn't have mirrors but I think they added them now for DOT compliance. Annoying because they cause unnecessary drag to fill a outdated regulation. They also talked about power generation/storage. Clearly for EV semis to take off they need to address the entire energy infrastructure


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> What is the constraint on cargo capacity? Is it the scales? They mentioned the truck having jack knife prevention and what not. They also mentioned having to stop to check brakes when they were cold. Seems like some rules and regulations will need to be adapted. For example they have big screens for rear/side views.. does it still require mirrors because DOT says so?
> 
> Cybertruck didn't have mirrors but I think they added them now for DOT compliance. Annoying because they cause unnecessary drag to fill a outdated regulation. They also talked about power generation/storage. Clearly for EV semis to take off they need to address the entire energy infrastructure


Yes, the max gross vehicle weight is 82k lbs in the US for EV trucks (vs 80k for a regular ICE truck). So any weight of the tractor reduces the weight of the load that can be moved.

The side mirrors, at least for personal vehicles, is only required for the OEM. You can apparently remove them after-market. I imagine a fair number of owners will end up removing them, as I think Tesla has said they will make them easy to remove.


----------



## sags

The competition is coming hard and fast.

Auto makers are using the EV evolution to redesign their models to another level.

The styling is so unbelievably good across so many different makes and models that future buyers will have to choose one from many choices.

Musk needs to stop playing censorship power games on Twitter and get his designers back to the drawing board or Tesla is going to get lost in the dust.






In the new fully electric i7, you're at the centre of it all. | TikTok


4.4K Likes, 171 Comments. TikTok video from Sponsored Content (@user963868626): "In the new fully electric i7, you're at the centre of it all.". original sound - Sponsored Content.




vm.tiktok.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The styling is so unbelievably good across so many different makes and models that future buyers will have to choose one from many choices.


Styling? You gotta be kidding

GM doesn't have the charging tech or the network

They had to recall all those ugly Volts


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> The competition is coming hard and fast.
> 
> Auto makers are using the EV evolution to redesign their models to another level.
> 
> The styling is so unbelievably good across so many different makes and models that future buyers will have to choose one from many choices.
> 
> Musk needs to stop playing censorship power games on Twitter and get his designers back to the drawing board or Tesla is going to get lost in the dust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the new fully electric i7, you're at the centre of it all. | TikTok
> 
> 
> 4.4K Likes, 171 Comments. TikTok video from Sponsored Content (@user963868626): "In the new fully electric i7, you're at the centre of it all.". original sound - Sponsored Content.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vm.tiktok.com


BMW i7 starts at $150k CAD. This is not relevant.


----------



## sags

Is Tesla going to abandon the upscale brand market ?

They are already losing the pickup truck market, and don't offer anything in the full size SUV like the Navigator or Acadia or sport car markets.....like the Corvette or Mustang.

That is going to leave them competing with Toyota and Hyundai in the lowest profit, small compact sedan market, which has been in steep decline for years.

What are Tesla's overall goals for the future ? GM's well defined goal is to produce 30 different models of EVs to attract a wide range of customers.

I just don't see Tesla's business case for the future and many analysts and fund managers are starting to say they don't either.

Musk is too busy banning Nazis, and cuddling up to Trumpster politics, who would for the most part not even be Tesla customers.

The other manufactuers are busy implementing their EV goals, making announcements, advertising, and growing interest in their products.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM's goal is to produce 30 different models of EVs to attract a wide range of customers.


Spray and pray

They might sell some to hip boomers. As I said nobody thinks of Nokia for smartphones or Fujifilm for digital cameras but they try anyways

When you think EV you think Tesla. Interesting to claim they are losing the truck market when they haven't even started


----------



## sags

Maybe you used to think Tesla, but the other manufacturers are advertising all over the place and it will only increase.

They are the ones getting all the auto reviews on social media. Every time an EV manufacturer makes an announcement, Youtube lights up with reviews.

Advertising sells vehicles. That is why the manufacturers pay for it.

Tesla will be one small voice in a symphony of voices.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Maybe you used to think Tesla, but the other manufacturers are advertising all over the place and it will only increase.
> 
> They are the ones getting all the auto reviews on social media. Every time an EV manufacturer makes an announcement, Youtube lights up with reviews.
> 
> Advertising sells vehicles. That is why the manufacturers pay for it.
> 
> Tesla will be one small voice in a symphony of voices.


Nobody under the age of boomer sees those ads. They know how to use ad/tracking blockers and don't watch boomer TV or read reviews sponsored by the winners 🤡

Boomers grew up in that fake clown world but it doesn't work anymore. If you make something good you won't have to spend half the budget on advertisements

This thread is over 10 years old and hundreds of pages of real information. Young people don't care about fake emotional ads from bankrupted companies


----------



## m3s

Ford doesn't have any profitable cars let alone EVs

Ford CEO claims this is because they have to source so many components from 3rd party suppliers. Elon Musk calls this "catalogue engineering" and has kept Tesla vertically integrated (as Ford originally was) Ford is now playing catch up with Tesla with its supply chain

GM is just in denial of reality. Or banking on another bailout when the Hummer EV flops


----------



## MK7GTI

sags said:


> Is Tesla going to abandon the upscale brand market ?
> 
> They are already losing the pickup truck market, and don't offer anything in the full size SUV like the Navigator or Acadia or sport car markets.....like the Corvette or Mustang.
> 
> That is going to leave them competing with Toyota and Hyundai in the lowest profit, small compact sedan market, which has been in steep decline for years.
> 
> What are Tesla's overall goals for the future ? GM's well defined goal is to produce 30 different models of EVs to attract a wide range of customers.
> 
> I just don't see Tesla's business case for the future and many analysts and fund managers are starting to say they don't either.
> 
> Musk is too busy banning Nazis, and cuddling up to Trumpster politics, who would for the most part not even be Tesla customers.
> 
> The other manufactuers are busy implementing their EV goals, making announcements, advertising, and growing interest in their products.


You really need to get off the GM bandwagon. They don't appeal to many people younger than 40.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Ford doesn't have any profitable cars let alone EVs


Please support that claim
I'd expect that the Mustang would be profitable, as it should be a higher margin vehicle.

I understand that the MachE isn't, but that's due to material supply, maybe Tesla has an edge here due to hedging the materials market, I don't know.


----------



## sags

MK7GTI said:


> You really need to get off the GM bandwagon. They don't appeal to many people younger than 40.


Maybe that is where the new car sales and profits are. GM doesn't offer small compact cars anymore because there is no profit margin in them.

Our 14 year old grandson points out Teslas while our 36 year old son buys pickups and full size SUVs.

One of the smallest vehicles GM offers is the Chevrolet Traliblazer compact SUV with fold down rear seats.

We used it yesterday to transport a new desk chair in a box home from the Staples store. We couldn't do that in our past Chevrolet Cruze sedan (which are discontinued now)

Tesla may end up dominating the compact sedan market but it is a shrinking market. They need to make inroads in other markets.....full size SUVs, pickup trucks, sports cars. Are Tesla shares worth their multiple if the small sedan market is all they dominate ?

The other market segments are where the competition (many more than just GM) are gearing up to gain EV market share.


----------



## sags

Another way to consider it is........would Tesla share values be as high if their vehicles had an ICE engine ?

Are Tesla vehicles that much higher quality builds than Hyundai or Toyota ?


----------



## Covariance

What do we make of the market rumour of 20% production cut in China?


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Another way to consider it is........would Tesla share values be as high if their vehicles had an ICE engine ?
> 
> Are Tesla vehicles that much higher quality builds than Hyundai or Toyota ?


Their share values are high because they don't waste resources on ICE vehicles. Ford also stopped making most of their ICE models

GM is going in the opposite direction. Problem is they need a brand that young people love or else they will not have product market fit

The Hummer EV for example - who is supposed to buy that?


----------



## m3s

Covariance said:


> What do we make of the market rumour of 20% production cut in China?


For Tesla?

I'm seeing/hearing a lot of reports that production in China is down across the board

Looking like a deep recession coming


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Please support that claim
> I'd expect that the Mustang would be profitable, as it should be a higher margin vehicle.
> 
> I understand that the MachE isn't, but that's due to material supply, maybe Tesla has an edge here due to hedging the materials market, I don't know.


Ford CEO interview

He said Tesla is far ahead in the EV supply chain with better vertical integration and compared it to how Henry Ford was able to get a competitive edge nearly 100 years ago

Nowadays Ford has no profit margin on most models - they are all being cut except for a few models


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Ford CEO interview
> 
> He said Tesla is far ahead in the EV supply chain with better vertical integration and compared it to how Henry Ford was able to get a competitive edge nearly 100 years ago
> 
> Nowadays Ford has no profit margin on most models - they are all being cut except for a few models


Ahh the infamous sags-esque unreferenced "source"

Yes, Ford cut a lot of models, including all but 1 car in NA.

Massive vertical integration is a double edged sword.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Ahh the infamous sags-esque unreferenced "source"
> 
> Yes, Ford cut a lot of models, including all but 1 car in NA.
> 
> Massive vertical integration is a double edged sword.


It was a recent interview with the Ford CEO

You can just google it I didn't keep it. Sounds like both Ford and VW are very well aware of Tesla's potential growth and advantages. Tesla is producing superior components when the industry does catalogue engineering of 3rd party junk from China

GMs actions tell me they are in panic mode. Hummer EV with "moonshot" references is telling.


----------



## sags

Talk is cheap.......meanwhile back in the real world.....

_A General Motors plant in Ingersoll, Ont., has been converted into an assembly line for electric delivery vans, *making it the first full-scale electric vehicle-making facility in Canada.

The first BrightDrop Zevo 600 rolled off the line at the CAMI plant on Monday*, marking the reopening of the facility that was temporarily shuttered in May in order to retool itself from making internal combustion engines into one that builds electric vehicles.

"We are fully committed to an all-electric future," GM Canada president Marissa West told CBC News in an interview. "We're seeing a really high customer demand."_



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trudeau-ford-electric-vehicle-ingersoll-1.6674348


----------



## sags

Money talks and bullshit walks......

The CAMI assembly factory is unionized and pays good wages, pensions and benefits.........unlike the Tesla factory in the US.

_The last round of union negotiations in late 2020, however, made it clear that both sides see the industry's future is electric, and Monday's unveiling is likely the first in what's set to be a long line of Canadian-made EVs. _


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> The CAMI assembly factory is unionized and pays good wages, pensions and benefits.........unlike the Tesla factory in the US.


So why does Tesla make better EVs then?


----------



## sags

GM expanding into the delivery business.









GM’s electric delivery spinoff BrightDrop is now doing business in Canada


BrightDrop will deliver Zevo 600 EVs to DHL Express Canada early next year.




www.theverge.com


----------



## sags

m3s said:


> So why does Tesla make better EVs then?


Tesla doesn't even make these types of vehicles. They are still talking about building a pickup truck and roadster......some day........ maybe.


----------



## sags

GM's joint venture invests $275M, adds jobs to make more EV batteries


Ultium Cells LLC will be expanding production at the plant in Tennessee that will make battery cells for the Cadillac Lyriq starting next year.



www.freep.com


----------



## sags

It is pretty clear that Tesla and other EV manufacturers are struggling to keep up with GM.

GM has the luxury of selling millions of ICE vehicles for a profit to support spending billions on their EV transition.

Their self drive Cruise system is the top rated system and already in use in the US.

Tesla is still battling with US regulators over their wonky system that caused accidents and deaths.

_At a time when self-driving taxi services like Ford's Argo are calling it quits, GM's Cruise is in the autonomous vehicle business for the long haul, the automaker's president, Mark Reuss, told Insider.

*In fact, GM's self-driving outfit is now embarking on the commercialization phase of its robo-taxi service, after a successful nighttime pilot in San Francisco earlier this year. Cruise is looking to offer rides in Austin and Phoenix, with plans to expand to more cities next year. *

At the same time, Cruise continues to develop its purpose-built Origin autonomous vehicle, which executives have said opens more commercial opportunities for the business, like delivery, as well as shuttle-style ridesharing._










Why GM's happy to keep spending billions on self-driving while rivals like Ford abandon ship


GM president Mark Reuss says self-driving outfit Cruise isn't worried about a profitability timeline yet.




www.businessinsider.com


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> GM expanding into the delivery business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GM’s electric delivery spinoff BrightDrop is now doing business in Canada
> 
> 
> BrightDrop will deliver Zevo 600 EVs to DHL Express Canada early next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theverge.com


DHL already has 27k EVs and CAMI plans to "start" production soon?

Hope they make a good product so the Canadian taxpayer doesn't have to bail this out again

Luckily there are pre-emptive subsidies to force DHL's decision (stealth tax)


----------



## sags

Tesla shares still falling on the production cut news. It is down over 6% so far today. Tesla denied the Bloomberg report but the stock continued to slide.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla shares still falling on the production cut news. It is down over 6% so far today. Tesla denied the Bloomberg report but the stock continued to slide.


Adjusted for inflation GM stocks are negative over 10 years 🤡

TSLA is up 750% just during the pandemic  GM will need to sell a lot of EVs to catch up.. and they will start production "soon"

I fear the Canadian taxpayer will get caught in the GM/Bombardier money laundering bailout scheme. The unions jobs are a front


----------



## MrMatt

MrMatt said:


> Ahh the infamous sags-esque unreferenced "source"





m3s said:


> It was a recent interview with the Ford CEO
> 
> You can just google it I didn't keep it.


And yet nobody can seem to find it now.
Maybe it was on CNBC.



> Sounds like both Ford and VW are very well aware of Tesla's potential growth and advantages.


Of course they are, that's what they do.



> Tesla is producing superior components when the industry does catalogue engineering of 3rd party junk from China


You ought to know that isn't true.
That simply isn't how the auto industry works.

For most parts, they'll design/spec themselves and query suppliers, or partner with a supplier who will design the components with them.

The problem with bringing everything in house is that invariably the parts of business that are doing well end up subsidizing the parts of the business that are doing poorly.
In sufficiently large and political organizations, underperforming teams can hide for a VERY long time.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> You ought to know that isn't true.
> That simply isn't how the auto industry works.
> 
> For most parts, they'll design/spec themselves and query suppliers, or partner with a supplier who will design the components with them.
> 
> The problem with bringing everything in house is that invariably the parts of business that are doing well end up subsidizing the parts of the business that are doing poorly.
> In sufficiently large and political organizations, underperforming teams can hide for a VERY long time.


There are parts in my Subaru that are the exact same as many other brands/models or can be interchanged. Same with my motorbike

I'm not in the auto industry so I'm going by second hand info. We can see for example Tesla had a competitive advantage during the pandemic

GM and Ford had parking lots full of new vehicles waiting for "chips" while Tesla could make their own


----------



## Covariance

m3s said:


> There are parts in my Subaru that are the exact same as many other brands/models or can be interchanged. Same with my motorbike
> 
> I'm not in the auto industry so I'm going by second hand info. We can see for example Tesla had a competitive advantage during the pandemic
> 
> GM and Ford had parking lots full of new vehicles waiting for "chips" while Tesla could make their own


I recall being on a call a year ago, where Elon explained to analysts that Tesla software engineers re wrote code over a short period of time to be able to switch to a different chip and keep shipping cars. That agility is an advantage. For contrast several EV models from VW group are delayed over a year because their software dev team is so far behind.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> There are parts in my Subaru that are the exact same as many other brands/models or can be interchanged. Same with my motorbike
> 
> I'm not in the auto industry so I'm going by second hand info. We can see for example Tesla had a competitive advantage during the pandemic
> 
> GM and Ford had parking lots full of new vehicles waiting for "chips" while Tesla could make their own


I don't think Tesla has a chip fab.

I'd assume they were buying from the same factories, they might have just made firmer contracts.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> I don't think Tesla has a chip fab.
> 
> I'd assume they were buying from the same factories, they might have just made firmer contracts.


They do a lot of supply chain contracts (according to my colleague who made a fortune on TSLA)

This will become more evident if/when there is a crunch on raw materials for batteries for example

Whereas GM is banking on a few Korean companies having their back


----------



## sags

M3s doesn't understand the supply chain or how many supplier plants locate around the main assembly plants.

The majority of the future auto jobs will be located in Tier II manufacturing plants located in the local vicinity.....as they were in Woodstock and Cambridge for the Toyota assembly plants. Everything from plants receiving bulk supplies and delivering them as needed and "just it time" to the assembly plant for the immediate production to assembling or building out the parts and sub-assemblies needed to build the vehicle.

Assembly plants don't maintain large warehouses inside. Everything is located locally for a few days lead time to the actual need on the assembly floor.

M3s thinks the assembly plants sit around and wait for all the finished supplies to arrive by Air Canada igloo from South Korea.

The traditional auto makers have far more expansive supply chains than Tesla, due to their numbers of different models of vehicles.

Toyota builds cars, but they also build outboard boat engines, ATVs, generators, HINO delivery trucks, and all kinds of other products.

They know how to manage supply chains.


----------



## m3s

Supply chains and logistics is not my wheelhouse and I don't pretend it is

Tesla EVs use far less components and Elon is a big fan of removing unnecessary processes and components. Just look at how much more efficient and simplified SpaceX Dragon is compared to Boeing Starliner. SpaceX delivered space capability at a fraction of the cost of Canada's Phoenix pay system

The current JIT supply chain seemed to function on cheap Chinese child/slave labour while we turned a blind eye. This is being heavily disrupted and the west wants to get away from Chinese dependence. Ford CEO was saying they need to get back to vertical integration which is what made Ford a success in the first place

I guess we will have to wait and see if change is in fact the only constant or if we go back to pre-pandemic world as if nothing happened


----------



## sags

EV vehicles were around for decades before Tesla came onto the scene.

Every factory or warehouse has had battery powered fork lift trucks, and different equipment since propane was banned for indoor use in the 1980s.

Electric golf carts have been around for ages. Tesla arrived in time as an early adopter of the transition to EV and have benefited greatly from it.

They also benefited from carbon tax rebates and government subsidies.

How long the "early adopter" advantage gives Tesla stock a premium depends on where they go from here.

Musk needs to get back to Tesla and keep moving the company forward. Diddling around in Twitter is costing him money and valuable time.

Musk banned some Nazi guy.......and now the right doesn't love him anymore. Musk is going to be sorry he ever got involved in that hot mess of an app.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Tesla EVs use far less components


Really?
I've never heard that.

It isn't like Ford is saying "Hey we have a vehicle, lets add a few hundred unnecessary parts"

You're a Tesla fanboy, I get it, they're fancy and new. But can we stick to documented facts?


----------



## Covariance

Tesla model 3 has about 10,000 parts. Well over 50% are sourced from N.America. At least for the ones sold in N. America. The info is available as they need to produce it to get favourable duty treatment under NAFTA.

The percent breakdown of parts is on the sticker. At least in the US.

Aside, the little Gm EV was down around 25% when I last checked.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Really?
> I've never heard that.
> 
> It isn't like Ford is saying "Hey we have a vehicle, lets add a few hundred unnecessary parts"
> 
> You're a Tesla fanboy, I get it, they're fancy and new. But can we stick to documented facts?


This seems to be an emotional response to a widely agreed on fact. Just google it

You said you work in automotive I'm guessing you work for Ford and are offended? Ford, GM, VW and many others have stated that Tesla use far less components and robots than legacy productions. One only has to look at the interior of a Tesla where you see only 2 buttons, similar to a Dragon capsule vs a Boeing Starliner.

In a VW ID4 there are 77 fuses, 7 relays and 3 fuse boxes
In a Ford Mach E there are 88 fuses, 22 relays and 3 fuse boxes
In a Tesla, there are … zero

Tesla compressor is 9kg and does both a/c heat for the battery and cabin whereas MachE system is +30kg and doesn't do the cabin heat. Legacy makers just resuse what they already have instead of making things as integrated for the vehicle itself. This is the downside of having 30 models instead of a few

It's the Apple integrated system of a few optimized models vs the Android 100 models and associated inefficiencies. Tesla's are lighter when accounting for battery capacity and built faster with fewer robots thanks to this first principles design

The same philosophy is used at SpaceX


----------



## MrMatt

MrMatt said:


> Really?
> I've never heard that.
> 
> It isn't like Ford is saying "Hey we have a vehicle, lets add a few hundred unnecessary parts"
> 
> You're a Tesla fanboy, I get it, they're fancy and new. But can we stick to documented facts?





m3s said:


> This seems to be an emotional response to a widely agreed on fact. Just google it


I googled it, I didn't find it, just like your last claim.
I'm not going to play this game of your unsupported claims.



> In a VW ID4 there are 77 fuses, 7 relays and 3 fuse boxes
> In a Ford Mach E there are 88 fuses, 22 relays and 3 fuse boxes
> In a Tesla, there are … zero


Really? No relays or fuses in a Tesla?

Must be quite the engineering feat to turn things on and off without relays. But I'm not an electrical engineer.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> I googled it, I didn't find it, just like your last claim.
> I'm not going to play this game of your unsupported claims.
> 
> Really? No relays or fuses in a Tesla?
> 
> Must be quite the engineering feat to turn things on and off without relays. But I'm not an electrical engineer.


That's how many fuses and relays Tesla replaced with the touchscreen apparently. Also replaced a lot of wires and mechanical parts

That's nothing new though.. my 10 year old motorbike has a computer than replaced the old fuze box. Let's you control a lot of things much easier

Sounds like the legacy brands have so many departments of things that would just be a pain to upgrade so they just reuse what they have

But always redesign those plastics that people see every few years


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> That's how many fuses and relays Tesla replaced with the touchscreen apparently. Also replaced a lot of wires and mechanical parts


Fuses and relays have a dramatically different function than a touchscreen.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Maybe that is where the new car sales and profits are. GM doesn't offer small compact cars anymore because there is no profit margin in them.
> 
> Our 14 year old grandson points out Teslas while our 36 year old son buys pickups and full size SUVs.
> 
> One of the smallest vehicles GM offers is the Chevrolet Traliblazer compact SUV with fold down rear seats.
> 
> We used it yesterday to transport a new desk chair in a box home from the Staples store. We couldn't do that in our past Chevrolet Cruze sedan (which are discontinued now)
> 
> Tesla may end up dominating the compact sedan market but it is a shrinking market. They need to make inroads in other markets.....full size SUVs, pickup trucks, sports cars. Are Tesla shares worth their multiple if the small sedan market is all they dominate ?
> 
> The other market segments are where the competition (many more than just GM) are gearing up to gain EV market share.


You realize that they do make a two row and three row SUV, right? Model Y is right smack in the largest and growing market of compact SUVs. Rav 4 is literally the top vehicle in the US after the three pickup brands. Model Y is closer to a mid-size SUV, with a 6 inch longer body than Rav4. Model Y sold 54,000 units in 2022 Q3 in the US, putting it at #8 by units, and higher than that by revenue. It outsold Ford Explorer, Jeep Wrangler, and Chevy Equinox. And the only reason they didn't sell more is because they have only just finished building their huge new factory in Texas, and are starting to ramp production of Model Ys from that facility. 









2022 US Vehicle Sales Figures By Model


Automotive Sales Data and Statistics




www.goodcarbadcar.net


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> It is pretty clear that Tesla and other EV manufacturers are struggling to keep up with GM.


The funniest thing I read all day.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I don't think Tesla has a chip fab.
> 
> I'd assume they were buying from the same factories, they might have just made firmer contracts.


Tesla was able to redesign parts to use the components they could secure. They are a lot more agile in revising the design of the vehicle.

I think this is part of the strength of having fewer models that command more engineering attention. For better or worse, Apple has shown this to be effective. It works as long as your need morphs to fit the available product. In time, Tesla will expand to all the major segments, but I doubt we'll see the same kind of pointless model proliferation we see at legacy OEMs to microtarget various market segments.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> Fuses and relays have a dramatically different function than a touchscreen.


The screen is the interface to a computer that controls all that stuff and replaces a lot of fuses/relays

I'm more familiar with CANbus but this is even better because you have user interface, over the air updates etc

Most of the legacy brands entertainment systems are trash


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> You realize that they do make a two row and three row SUV, right? Model Y is right smack in the largest and growing market of compact SUVs. Rav 4 is literally the top vehicle in the US after the three pickup brands. Model Y is closer to a mid-size SUV, with a 6 inch longer body than Rav4. Model Y sold 54,000 units in 2022 Q3 in the US, putting it at #8 by units, and higher than that by revenue. It outsold Ford Explorer, Jeep Wrangler, and Chevy Equinox. And the only reason they didn't sell more is because they have only just finished building their huge new factory in Texas, and are starting to ramp production of Model Ys from that facility.


I considered one but the wait was too long

And the resale is crazy so it wasn't worth buying used or lease

No rush to buy an EV as I think they get better every year


----------



## MrBlackhill

m3s said:


> Elon is a big fan of removing unnecessary processes and components.


Just a note here that's nothing new or innovative as a methodology and mindset, Toyota was the precursor to Lean Manufacturing with its Toyota Production System dating back from the 1950s.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> The screen is the interface to a computer that controls all that stuff and replaces a lot of fuses/relays
> 
> I'm more familiar with CANbus but this is even better because you have user interface, over the air updates etc
> 
> Most of the legacy brands entertainment systems are trash


You realize that unless they're doing something dramatically different (and I don't know what that could be) they touchscreen controller still has to control the relays actually controlling the devices.
It isn't like the logic level outputs alone are going to be running the AC compressor.

Also fuses are there to protect components from overload, removing all the electrical protection would seem like a bad idea.

An outlandish claim like "no fuses or relays" really requires some sort of supporting evidence.
Like at the VERY least there should be a fuse or breaker on the 12V outlet


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> An outlandish claim like "no fuses or relays" really requires some sort of supporting evidence.


Not sure why you guys need to argue over things you clearly don't understand. Yes, no fuses or relays means nothing ... so they went a different route instead. Unless you've got board level schematics and wiring diagrams to compare two vehicles the point is moot. Example: A dead relay replacement might cost $30 while a board level solid state failure might be $1200 but guesses like these are again, pointless.

The auto industry is going a bad direction for many new designs, promoting higher costs and likely reduced longevity. Most likely you'll see less and less older vehicles on the road over 10 years old due to high repair costs ... that's sounds good for the environment doesn't it?


----------



## sags

Wow…this is the kind of advertising that attracts consumer attention.

All the EV manufacturers are advertising all over including social media apps.






Winged lights, 30.4-inch LCD screen, and hand-brushed trim – the @buic... | TikTok


9.9K Likes, 345 Comments. TikTok video from GM Canada (@gmcanada): "Winged lights, 30.4-inch LCD screen, and hand-brushed trim – the @buickcanada Wildcat EV Concept is simply ✨stunning✨ #electric #ev #buick #carsoftiktok #car #cars #carlover #luxurycar #electric #generalmotors". original...




vm.tiktok.com


----------



## sags

I would consider the Tesla models more of a hatchback or crossover model.

They call our Chevrolet Trailblazer a subcompact SUV but it really is just a crossover or hatchback in older terminology.

A full size SUV is more like the Ford Lincoln Navigator or Cadillac Escalade........like the US Secret Service use.

Our son's GMC Acadia has the 6 individual seats they need with 4 kids.


----------



## sags

Tesla has been having a lot of electrical issues, with their models. For some of the problems, it requires the vehicle to be towed to a Tesla service depot.

I read they have been reworking some their electrical components.


----------



## MrBlackhill

sags said:


> Wow…this is the kind of advertising that attracts consumer attention.


Sure does.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> You realize that unless they're doing something dramatically different (and I don't know what that could be) they touchscreen controller still has to control the relays actually controlling the devices.
> It isn't like the logic level outputs alone are going to be running the AC compressor.
> 
> Also fuses are there to protect components from overload, removing all the electrical protection would seem like a bad idea.
> 
> An outlandish claim like "no fuses or relays" really requires some sort of supporting evidence.
> Like at the VERY least there should be a fuse or breaker on the 12V outlet


It was just a quick example and I didn't spend enough time explaining it. Anyways the general point was they are reducing parts whereas legacy brands select 3rd party parts from China etc

From researching yachts, houses and vehicles (even tractors/machinery) this is generally the way things are going and there are 2 schools of thought. Some boat manufactures are sticking with the old fashion dumb relays/fuses while others are going with a computer like Tesla.

My 10 year old motorbike has an on board computer but they control it rather than giving over-air updates, user control, smart control via devices etc. We have 3rd party devices to control it but Tesla's model is more open. For example you can look up John Deere hacking

The compressor was a better example because Tesla reduced a lot of weight and have a better heating/cooling system. It was even found to be more efficient stranded on a winter highway for example


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla has been having a lot of electrical issues, with their models. For some of the problems, it requires the vehicle to be towed to a Tesla service depot.
> 
> I read they have been reworking some their electrical components.


You realize that all Chevy Volts had to be recalled because they catch on fire, right?


----------



## cainvest

Here is a good Tesla overview video ..


----------



## sags

m3s said:


> You realize that all Chevy Volts had to be recalled because they catch on fire, right?


So did Teslas. Check out the current recall numbers for Tesla.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> So did Teslas. Check out the current recall numbers for Tesla.


Source?

Just googled and Forbes claims all Ford Mach-E were recalled. Sounds like a software glitch though. Not like batteries exploding in a car that is literally a large battery. Not all recalls are equally severe









Recalls Show Why Tesla Runs Circles Around GM And Ford


Executives at Ford Motors (F) said Tuesday that the company is recalling almost 50,000 EVs over worries that battery overheating might cause the cars and trucks to lose power.




www.forbes.com





"The Wall Street Journal notes that the recall of 48,924 Mustang Mach-E vehicles is effectively all of the cars produced for the American market over the past two years. Even worse, the action will halt deliveries of new EVs while engineers look for a fix. A software update is expected sometime next month.

The tardy response to an EV glitch is eerily similar to the Chevy Bolt saga at General Motors GM (GM). The Volt, its fully electric subcompact, was supposed to be GM’s mass market EV. And the car showed great promise until 141,000 were recalled when some of their lithium ion batteries began to explode. Hundreds of factory workers were sent home, production lines were idled as engineers looked for a fix, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The problem was ultimately resolved, yet not before the damage was done. LG Chem, the battery manufacturer agreed to eat $1.9 billion of the price tag for the fix. *However, General Motors announced in early June that 2023 Bolts would get an 18% price cut, to only $26,595.

Even with the lower prices, General Motors will have a tough time catching Tesla, the industry leader. Tesla sold 197,517 vehicles in the United States in 2021, versus only 9,216 for Ford, and 36,325 for General Motors respectively. And, Tesla EVs are vastly more expensive on average.*

Tesla is getting the engineering right.

Its EVs are free from the legacy constraints of ancient automotive parts supply chains. The software was developed in-house, as opposed to being cobbled together from third parties. *And despite its relative youth, Tesla is the most vertically integrated company in the sector. *The result is a gross margin of 27.1%, almost 3x the industry average."


----------



## sags

Tesla recalls....19 recalls in 2022 alone.



https://www.cars.com/research/tesla/recalls/


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> You realize that unless they're doing something dramatically different (and I don't know what that could be) they touchscreen controller still has to control the relays actually controlling the devices.
> It isn't like the logic level outputs alone are going to be running the AC compressor.
> 
> Also fuses are there to protect components from overload, removing all the electrical protection would seem like a bad idea.
> 
> An outlandish claim like "no fuses or relays" really requires some sort of supporting evidence.
> Like at the VERY least there should be a fuse or breaker on the 12V outlet


Have you heard of Sandy Munro/seen his teardowns and commentary on yt? You may find it interesting if you work in automotive engineering.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla recalls....19 recalls in 2022 alone.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cars.com/research/tesla/recalls/


There are recalls and there are recalls. Every OEM has some recalls. Many of Tesla's recalls are already remotely fixed by over-the-air updates before the recall notice is issued.


----------



## andrewf

I mean, for context sags, only one of GM's brands, Chevy, has 377 recalls.



https://www.cars.com/research/chevrolet/recalls/



Another 208 for GMC:



https://www.cars.com/research/gmc/recalls/



And 121 for Cadillac:



https://www.cars.com/research/cadillac/recalls/



And 96 for Buick:



https://www.cars.com/research/buick/recalls/


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Have you heard of Sandy Munro/seen his teardowns and commentary on yt? You may find it interesting if you work in automotive engineering.


Already posted a video a few messages up from him. He shows the good and the bad side.



andrewf said:


> I mean, for context sags, only one of GM's brands, Chevy, has 377 recalls.


Yes, recalls are part of the business, of course some are worse than others.

BTW, Tesla has reported 19 U.S. recall campaigns in 2022 covering more than 3.7 million vehicles including four callbacks in November, according to NHTSA data.


----------



## sags

Tesla shares hit a 52 week low this morning. The value has fallen 58% this year.

Investors are trying to force Musk out because of his erratic management at Twitter and he keeps selling Tesla shares to fund Twitter losses.

Musk recently sold $3.58 billion worth of Tesla shares.

TSLA 147.93 -2.30 -1.53% : Tesla Inc - MSN Money


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla shares hit a 52 week low this morning. The value has fallen 58% this year.
> 
> Investors are trying to force Musk out because of his erratic management at Twitter and he keeps selling Tesla shares to fund Twitter losses.
> 
> Musk recently sold $3.58 billion worth of Tesla shares.
> 
> TSLA 147.93 -2.30 -1.53% : Tesla Inc - MSN Money


TSLA up 700% in 2 years

That flat orange line is GM on the same chart


----------



## andrewf

Musk is hinting that he will step down as Twitter CEO. This whole fiasco has been catastrophic for Musk and Tesla's brand image. Part of Tesla's advantage is all the earned media and positive brand equity that had been built up. Musk has torched a great deal of value just to own the libs and settle some personal scores.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Musk is hinting that he will step down as Twitter CEO. This whole fiasco has been catastrophic for Musk and Tesla's brand image. Part of Tesla's advantage is all the earned media and positive brand equity that had been built up. Musk has torched a great deal of value just to own the libs and settle some personal scores.


Mainstream twists everything out of context for their own narrative

I remember watching a press conference for Starship where the journalists were heard "Who is that guy?" "Oh he's just a Youtuber" Then the journalists went on to ask the most basic uneducated questions with obvious agenda and no interest in Starship itself. That YouTuber has now been selected to ride that Starship around the moon

Elon will go down in history for many reasons and exposing government manipulation of Twitter is just a small footnote - something real journalists used to to


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> Mainstream twists everything out of context for their own narrative
> 
> I remember watching a press conference for Starship where the journalists were heard "Who is that guy?" "Oh he's just a Youtuber" Then the journalists went on to ask the most basic uneducated questions with obvious agenda and no interest in Starship itself. That YouTuber has now been selected to ride that Starship around the moon
> 
> Elon will go down in history for many reasons and exposing government manipulation of Twitter is just a small footnote - something real journalists used to to


Musk's mistake was believing Twitter is more important than achieving actual change in the world. Twitter is a waste of time


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Musk's mistake was believing Twitter is more important than achieving actual change in the world. Twitter is a waste of time


It gives him direct publicity/fame

Nobody can even name the owners of Rocket Lab, ULA, Atlas, GM, Ford. They aren't household names

Mainstream media constantly references Twitter posts and has entire segments/articles on tweets


----------



## sags

Musk is helping Meta get turned around. They are openly courting the Twitter advertisers who are leaving the platform.

Musk's erratic postings on Twitter point to mental health issues or drug use. He is now being compared to Trump.

It didn't help Musk's image to be photographed at the World Cup in Qatar with the oil sheiks and Trump/s son in law Jared Kushner.

It is sending advertisers looking for a new place to put their ad money.

Photos Show Elon Musk With Jared Kushner at the World Cup Final (businessinsider.com)


----------



## m3s

Mainstream media sounds like soap opera for desperate boomer housewives


----------



## sags

More troubles for Elon.

Is he spending resources from a publicly traded company (Tesla) to support his privately owned company (Twitter) ?

That would be illegal.

The Tesla board is going to have to move him out or face their own problems of due diligence and fiduciary responsibiities.

_Senator Elizabeth Warren is raising concerns about conflicts of interest and potential legal violations for Tesla following Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter.

In a letter to Tesla (TSLA) Chair Robyn Denholm, the Massachusetts Democrat argued Tesla (TSLA) shareholders may be hurt by its CEO’s ownership of Tesla (TSLA) and questioned whether the electric car maker’s board is doing enough to address the issues it poses.

Warren posed a series of questions about how Tesla’s board is dealing with “conflicts of interest, *misappropriation of corporate assets* and other actions by Mr. Musk that appear not to be in the best interests of Tesla and its shareholders.”_



Elizabeth Warren calls out Elon Musk for 'unavoidable' conflicts of interest caused by Twitter takeover | CNN Business


----------



## andrewf

Dave Lee had a good discussion on the topic of what the heck Musk is doing with
Twitter.






A few of the points:

What the heck is the 'woke mind virus', and is it more important than Tesla, SpaceX. Elon is a fan of taking an engineering approach to problems. He does not define this problem in concrete terms.
People who take divisive positions/alienate a lot of people largely do it because they benefit from the polarization. Elon's business model is not to harvest divisiveness, but innovation
Importance of humility and feedback in the past. Examples being Model X and Model 3 ramp. Musk is firing/banning people who give feedback he dislikes.
Twitter needs a master plan. It should be creating value for users/creators in the near term, and no drastic policy changes until Twitter is on the right course from a product perspective. The best policy changes are the ones that are almost imperceptible, rather than the ad hoc approach Musk has been using.

His "my pronouns are prosecute/fauci" tweet is where it became clear to me he is off the rails. We know Musk is a Covid 'wishful thinker', since his prediction that Covid would fizzle out in the US by April 2020. Mocking trans people while at the same time adopting QAnon memes...


----------



## sags

Tesla doubled their credit on a new vehicle to $7500 as their production outstrips demand. They produced 22,000 more vehicles than they delivered and are laying off workers.

The former CEO of Ford and Hertz said Tesla is facing "demand" headwinds with increasing competition by OEM manufacturers, and higher interest rates due to the $50,000 entry level vehicle price.

It likely won't just be Tesla who are facing headwinds in 2023.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla doubled their credit on a new vehicle to $7500 as their production outstrips demand. They produced 22,000 more vehicles than they delivered and are laying off workers.
> 
> The former CEO of Ford and Hertz said Tesla is facing "demand" headwinds with increasing competition by OEM manufacturers, and higher interest rates due to the $50,000 entry level vehicle price.
> 
> It likely won't just be Tesla who are facing headwinds in 2023.


They are just bridging until the $7500 tax credit kicks in in the US in a little over a week. Notably, Tesla is only offering that incentive in the US and not Canada.

In terms of actual customer experience, the recent cold snap in the US is providing to be quite the point of differentiation. There have been lots of problems charging non-Tesla vehicles. Not because of the vehicles but because of the inferior charging network available to other OEMs. This is kind of enough of a reason for consumers not to buy other brands, and there will be horror stories coming out of this cold snap. Meanwhile, the Tesla charging network 'just works'.


----------



## cliffsecord

Scanned through the video and it was only the Electrify America chargers that weren't working . The EVgo was working just fine. Sounds to me like an EA charging station problem to me. It only looks bad because they don't have charging stations at every corner. Once stations are more plentiful then it won't be a problem at all. I've passed gas stations that are closed or, many times, you just don't notice since you can just go to the next one.

The great thing about the Tesla Superchargers is that the car and network are integrated. As a result the car will reroute you to lower usage stations or away from stations that are not working. If you want, you can also check how many stations are available through the in car map or on your phone app. In addition, the Tesla charging network has been in Canada for many years now and they've gone through some good range of weather conditions and have proven their durability.

Next year, I should be able to upgrade my Model 3 charger to CCS compatible and I'll have some more options just in case something happens.


----------



## sags

Tesla shares are down another 8% today. The down trend continues and the stock is down almost 70% this year.


----------



## sags

Tesla has to start producing EV models that don't look like an old Ford Taurus or Chevrolet Alero. Nobody wants that design anymore.

The legacy competitors are coming out with gorgeous new EV models they are advertising in the media.

It makes for a lot of combined commercial advertising for EV vehicles with the notable absence of Tesla vehicles.

The market for compact sedans is shrinking every year. The legacy companies have dropped many of those models from their lineup already.

Tesla has not made the adjustment to compete in the new EV marketplace.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Tesla has to start producing EV models that don't look like an old Ford Taurus or Chevrolet Alero. Nobody wants that design anymore.
> 
> The legacy competitors are coming out with gorgeous new EV models they are advertising in the media.


What boomers like is not the same as what young people like

The boomers seem to like crazy bold body redesign every few years to make the old pigs look "new" Also young people know that crazy modern looking EV (like the Cadillac Lyric EV disco giant grill hearse) does mean mean they are actually good EVs. Most new vehicles look ugly. I'd rather have a performance car that looks normal than a basic car that has all the performance "looks"

Tesla just goes with a simple clean design and keeps it for longer than a few years - like Porsche did. Function over form


----------



## m3s

Young people will not buy vehicles based only on looks and 30 second media promotions anymore and fake bought awards like the boomers did

They are far more informed and will go watch unsponsored reviews online. These get more in depth than talking about what car has the fanciest Lyric grill

Pretty much all the real data shows that GM is not doing well. I fear this push to sell EVs to boomers will be the nail in the coffin


----------



## gardner

sags said:


> The legacy competitors are coming out with gorgeous new EV models they are advertising in the media.


One of the things that appeals to me about Teslas is that they look fairly ordinary. Many of the EVs from the majors have weirdly distinctive looks like the Bolt or the VW Buzz. I would want a more standard familiar looking car. Ideally one where a body panel, tail-light lens or non-driveline part could be swapped with a generic part from a random car.


----------



## sags

Different strokes for different folks confirms the EV market will be carved up into little pieces with each manufacturer taking a slice.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Different strokes for different folks confirms the EV market will be carved up into little pieces with each manufacturer taking a slice.


Yes

But GMs market is a aging and that slice is in natural decline. Only so many will convert to EVs and others will downsize into long term care where they don't need a vehicle etc. Tesla has the generation with most of their vehicle purchases ahead of them.

Several of my young US colleagues bought a Tesla as their 2nd vehicle - first new vehicle


----------



## sags

They will change when they have kids.

All of the young adults in our family have full size SUVs or vans.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> They will change when they have kids.
> 
> All of the young adults in our family have full size SUVs or vans.


You realize young people delay having kids now and birth rates are down

Tesla already has an SUV and can launch trucks, SUVs, vans just like GM can launch future EVs

But GM has to convert its fans to EVs. Maybe they will bring back more failed brands like Hummer

Oldsmobile? Pontiac? Saturn? Buick? Wait Buick still exists?


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> They will change when they have kids.
> 
> All of the young adults in our family have full size SUVs or vans.


Most people I know with kids these days have mid size SUVs.


----------



## sags

You are probably right, as I get mixed up on sizes these days.......or definitions between hatchbacks, crossovers, and SUVs.

If a "full size" SUV is like a Chevy Suburban, then most people I know don't drive those. Our son has an Acadia, which I call full size because it seats 6 people in individual seats.

The problem for them is once they get their seats full of kids, there is no room for anything else, so they also bought an extended van to hold the kids and all their gear.


----------



## AltaRed

From BNN Bloomberg's daily chase this morning


> This line of work can inure one to large numbers, but the better part of a trillion dollars going up in flames is still something that makes one sit up and take notice. Which brings us to Tesla – shares fell another 11 per cent in yesterday’s trade, which has us at a market cap of US$345B, down US$891B from its Nov. 4, 2021 peak (call said peak US$1.24T). There are a few things at play here – namely, reports of reduced output from its Shanghai facility as COVID runs rampant due to China relaxing its virus response, not to mention the rising interest rate environment taking the steam out of most growth stocks. But, it’s hard to ignore the elephant in the room: concerns over Elon Musk’s Twitter obsession, and what that means for his focus on Tesla (and the loans he took out against his Tesla holdings to secure financing for the acquisition of Twitter, thus whether he will have to sell more of his holdings.) In any case, I want to go back to that US$891B money inferno for a moment – the shareholder value erased is larger than the market cap of each and every S&P 500 constituent bar Apple, Microsoft and Alphabet – Amazon.com could go up in smoke tomorrow and still not destroy an equivalent amount of shareholder value. To put it another way (and further belabour my point): US$891B is greater than the annual GDP of all but *17 countries. Boggles the mind.


----------



## andrewf

TSLA now at a forward PE of 24. Almost becoming a value stock!


----------



## Gumball

andrewf said:


> TSLA now at a forward PE of 24. Almost becoming a value stock!


Tesla PE still has a ways to go (down) before it gets in-line with Ford, Toyota, etc

The Auto industry is a capital intensive industry that BURNS CASH people outside the industry down understand this - you constantly have to be shelling out BILLIONS to re-tool and re-design your current model (because Ford, Toyota, Tesla, insert the brand you like here) just re-designed their F150, Cybertruck, etc.. You are exposed to stringent government safety/emissions standards, recalls, I can go on and on.. this is not like Apple and Google where you operate at SCALE and have 40% margings.... and this is what Tesla shareholders could finally be realizing that Tesla is an AUTO stock not a TECH stock????


----------



## AltaRed

There will eventually be a market realization that Tesla is just another auto stock as and when the differences between legacy manufacturers and Tesla narrow. There will always be some differences such as no legacy baggage (such as spare parts and support of 10-20 year old vehicles), direct sales model (franchise sales and service dealers are hard to get rid of including political protection), and proprietary batteries and EV charging networks, but the industry will ultimately continue to converge. It will be more like iPhone vs Android, and VHS vs Betamax, etc. Proprietary exclusivity can only survive if it is a superior product and/or perpetuates a cult following.


----------



## m3s

AltaRed said:


> Proprietary exclusivity can only survive if it is a superior product and/or perpetuates a cult following.


Tesla open sources all their tech. I'd like to see more of that as so much innovation is restricted by intellectual property

Tesla vehicles have lots of sensors and they're far ahead in collecting real world data. They have a network effect. Things like Apple and VHS also have a network effect but the internet and tech networks have exponential growth like we've never seen.

Most people don't want a Betamax when all the rental stores have VHS and most people don't want a niche brand when there is a massive data network advantage. Android did not come from a flip phone company and I doubt Tesla's competitor will come from a legacy brand either

Legacy brands won't be able to adapt. Flip phone and film camera companies are dead and those were far easier to adapt


----------



## gardner

m3s said:


> Tesla open sources all their tech.


Yet they are notoriously closed about parts availability, parts compatibility and repairability of their products. Mundane parts like door handles are keyed to the computer in the car and cannot be changed without permission from Tesla. Parts like window glass isn't available to body shops. They exercise an excessive degree of control on virtually everything about the vehicles -- much more than any other auto maker.


----------



## AltaRed

Which is why I would never own one, at least until there is a thriving after market. I am not interested in being held hostage.


----------



## Beaver101

gardner said:


> *Yet they are notoriously closed about parts availability, parts compatibility and repairability of their products. Mundane parts like door handles are keyed to the computer in the car and cannot be changed without permission from Tesla. Parts like window glass isn't available to body shops. * They exercise an excessive degree of control on virtually everything about the vehicles -- much more than any other auto maker.


 ... are you serious? I didn't know that ... so much for "free" enterprise, let alone free-speech.


----------



## Beaver101

AltaRed said:


> Which is why I would never own one, at least until there is a thriving after market. I am not interested in being held hostage.


 ... 1000% with ya there. By golly, say you just need your side-view mirror replaced ... sorry only Tesla approved ones ... wait til next year for that part.... LMAO. OK.


----------



## londoncalling

Elon Musk tells Tesla employees to ignore stock market craziness (cnbc.com)

Feel free to ignore the source but if Musk was serious about the message he would be buying and not selling. If the company is truly undervalued it should be announcing share buybacks. I think Tesla has done many great things to advance EV cars and tech. Often companies that are innovative do not survive indefinitely. I am not saying that will be the fate of Tesla. 

I also agree that the leading competitor in EV market may not even be a legacy automaker. It could be an APPL or AMZN or even a company we have not heard of yet. A healthy reminder that the big players may not always be around forever or have the impact they did at a certain point in time.


----------



## MrBlackhill

Musk is currently getting margin called due to Twitter.


----------



## sags

Tesla's share of the EV market fell by 5%. Ford's share of the EV market rose from 1.8% to 5%. Honda's share of the EV market rose a bit.

As a dozen other competitors each grab a slice of market share, Tesla's market dominance decreases.

In China, domestic Chinese EV manufacturers are way ahead of Tesla in market dominance.

Interesting that Warren Buffet is an investor in the top Chinese EV manufacturer BYD.

Buffett owns more of Chinese electric car maker BYD than General Motors (cnbc.com)


----------



## andrewf

Yep, I'm sure Honda is going to be the Tesla Killer. Any day now.

The legacy OEMs are going to struggle with depressed demand, distressed/stranded ICE assets, and large debt loads. Tesla is demonstrating their ability to grow in a very capital efficient way despite their high vertical integration and high margins.

The narrative about Tesla 'losing' EV marketshare misses the point that Tesla is growing rapidly, and taking total auto share from legacy OEMs. Most of the legacy OEMs have been struggling to maintain volumes. Part of the EV competitiveness story is also that in the US, Tesla (and GM) have been ineligible for the 7500 federal tax credit for years. With the modified incentive coming into effect in Jan, Tesla regains that credit which improves their competitive positioning. And it seems likely that the Korean and EU EVs that have been most compelling in NA won't be eligible in the medium term.


----------



## AltaRed

londoncalling said:


> I also agree that the leading competitor in EV market may not even be a legacy automaker. It could be an APPL or AMZN or even a company we have not heard of yet. A healthy reminder that the big players may not always be around forever or have the impact they did at a certain point in time.


I think there will be some partnerships developing in the next 5 years between one or more of the legacy manufacturers (like Hyundai/Kia) and a Tesla (type) entity. I don't think it will be a pure tech company like APPL but if could be an AMZN type. I just think there will be convergence and disruption between now and 2030.


----------



## andrewf

Whatever entrant, they are years behind Tesla in capability on engineering, services, and software. Perhaps Rivian is closest, and they have a relationship with Amazon, but they are not going to be a major threat to Tesla in the near term. Many of the 'me too' EV automakers (Lucid, etc.) are going to experience major solvency problems. Perhaps they will be acquired, or more likely be dissolved.


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Tesla open sources all their tech. I'd like to see more of that as so much innovation is restricted by intellectual property


Really, haven't seen any of their self driving tech on github.

Tesla is NOT an open source company.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Whatever entrant, they are years behind Tesla in capability on engineering, services, and software. Perhaps Rivian is closest, and they have a relationship with Amazon, but they are not going to be a major threat to Tesla in the near term. Many of the 'me too' EV automakers (Lucid, etc.) are going to experience major solvency problems. Perhaps they will be acquired, or more likely be dissolved.


People say this, but I don't see how Tesla is so far ahead in enginnering.
There are a lot more quality complaints about Teslas and the vast majority of their fleet is still new.


----------



## sags

The Tesla SUV sold a piddly 17,000 units, 0 pickup trucks, and 0 vans. They aren't competitive in the largest consumer vehicle markets.

I think Tesla will end up as a small niche company and the share price will decline to reflect that reality.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> People say this, but I don't see how Tesla is so far ahead in enginnering.
> There are a lot more quality complaints about Teslas and the vast majority of their fleet is still new.


Nor do I. I've not seen any written evidence that Tesla should be on a pedestal. The mechanicals, quality, fit and finish and serviceability seem to have a lot to be desired. Leading battery and software capabilities to date do not make a viable auto on their own. There is not a chance I would own one any time soon. Somehow Andrew appears to be smitten by anything associated with this name.

The EV industry is in its infancy. It took 20 years for the initial auto industry to come into its own. It will take 20 years (from circa 2010) for a similar evolution of the EV industry.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> The EV industry is in its infancy. It took 20 years for the initial auto industry to come into its own. It will take 20 years (from circa 2010) for a similar evolution of the EV industry.


I think we're pretty much there, we've had EV's and HEV's for over 20 years and for many use cases they're good vehicles.

I just don't think Tesla has the experience yet. I'll stick with a Ford.


----------



## AltaRed

One blogger's view of owning a Tesla. FWIW, I think they have done a generally great job of their charging network and their direct sales model but I do detest the proprietary nature of their service model (aka Apple) and the complexity of some of their operational quirks. The almost completely software based digital dash is a non-starter. Real drivers need some real switches they can operate by feel, not needing to take eyes off the road..

Off-topic and as an aside, the new S650 gen 2024 Mustang is generally being panned for its continued movement to digital controls.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Nor do I. I've not seen any written evidence that Tesla should be on a pedestal. The mechanicals, quality, fit and finish and serviceability seem to have a lot to be desired. Leading battery and software capabilities to date do not make a viable auto on their own. There is not a chance I would own one any time soon. Somehow Andrew appears to be smitten by anything associated with this name.
> 
> The EV industry is in its infancy. It took 20 years for the initial auto industry to come into its own. It will take 20 years (from circa 2010) for a similar evolution of the EV industry.


Tesla manages to eke out much more efficient drivetrains than other EV makers. That may not sound that important, but it has major cost implications in terms of battery size for a given range.


----------



## AltaRed

Not so fast......

Try Mercedes 

Also, this somewhat dated Reddit article doesn't place the 3 Teslas as anything particular noteworthy relative to some other offerings.

I would say that any early advantage Tesla had years ago is rapidly shrinking and as posted by others, I believe it is safe to assume there will be negligible difference in a few more years. Tesla may have to fight to be competitive. That would be a very good thing for all auto buyers who are in the market in the next 3-5 years.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Not so fast......
> 
> Try Mercedes
> 
> Also, this somewhat dated Reddit article doesn't place the 3 Teslas as anything particular noteworthy relative to some other offerings.
> 
> I would say that any early advantage Tesla had years ago is rapidly shrinking and as posted by others, I believe it is safe to assume there will be negligible difference in a few more years. Tesla may have to fight to be competitive. That would be a very good thing for all auto buyers who are in the market in the next 3-5 years.


WLTP is not a very reliable test for real world range. Bjorn Nyland is an auto journalist/YouTuber who does real world efficiency testing. The only cars that come close to Tesla efficiency are much smaller, less performant or short range. Think Nissan Leaf.



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1V6ucyFGKWuSQzvI8lMzvvWJHrBS82echMVJH37kwgjE/htmlview#


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Not so fast......
> 
> Try Mercedes


Hypermiling a prototype/vaporware is not very impressive.


----------



## AltaRed

You and I can argue the fine points all you like but the truth of the matter is the gap is narrowing quickly between Tesla and other auto manufacturers. I believe the gap will be gone in as little as 3 years and no more than 5 years and the buyer will become either indifferent or start to differentiate on the basis of the total experience, including styling, interior design, handling, etc, etc. Just the way they do now with ICE vehicles.


----------



## sags

_Throughout 2022, Tesla faced Covid disruptions at its Shanghai Gigafactory. But analysts also said there is concern over demand from Chinese consumers.

“Tesla will point to supply disruptions and lockdowns as the main problem in China in 2022. While these are real headwinds, it cannot hide the fact that demand has softened for a variety of reasons and *their order backlog is 70% smaller than it was *prior to the Shanghai lockdown,” Bill Russo, CEO at Shanghai-based Automobility, told CNBC.

Lockdowns in Shanghai began in late March 2022 as the megacity’s government sought to control a Covid outbreak.

Investors are also concerned that Tesla will have to cut prices to attract buyers which could pressure margins. In China, Tesla slashed the price of its Model 3 and Model Y vehicles in October, reversing some of the price rises it made earlier in the year.

But another major headwind for Tesla in China is the rising competition from domestic rivals like Nio and Li Auto as well as lower-priced competitors, which are launching new models in 2023.

*“Tesla’s models have been in the market for a while and are not as fresh to the Chinese consumer as other alternatives. What we are learning is EV product life cycles are short as they are shopped for their technology features. Buying an older EV is like buying last year’s smartphone*,” Russo said.

“They need new or refreshed models to reignite the market. Just pricing lower can damage their brand in the long run.”_

Tesla and Apple face China risks as share prices plunge (cnbc.com)


----------



## Beaver101

^ Don't we all love the "free enterprise" model ... LOL.


----------



## marina628

My Accountant just got his new Tesla after a year wait and he is impressed that he can drive from Brampton to Ottawa on a single charge .He said as for comfort it is just OK , bought it to save on fuel costs as he does quite a bit of driving through the month. I have bought Tesla for 10+ years so have significant gain .I bought some more this morning as this looks like a 2008 market and everything is 40% off .


----------



## andrewf

Meanwhile, GM can't seem to get the Bolt to stop catching fire.









GM recalls 140,000 Chevrolet Bolt EVs over fire risks


General Motors Co said Tuesday it is recalling 140,000 Chevrolet Bolt EVs in North America because the carpet could catch fire after a crash where a front seat belt pretensioner deploys.




www.reuters.com




.


----------



## sags

Fortunately, GM and the other auto manufacturers have networks of dealerships to deal with recalls of their products.

The lack of dealerships and servicing depots is an expensive and growing problem that Tesla still needs to address.


----------



## sags

Auto companies are reporting sales and it is looking pretty bleak.

The sales have declined sharply and dealers can no longer sell vehicles for above MSRP prices. It is expected the companies will start to apply discounts to move inventory.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Auto companies are reporting sales and it is looking pretty bleak.
> 
> The sales have declined sharply and dealers can no longer sell vehicles for above MSRP prices. It is expected the companies will start to apply discounts to move inventory.


This was already priced in.
They've had vehicle shortages for months, and they expect them to continue for several more months.

Low sales is due to low supply. 
Who expects discounts to move the inventory they don't even have?


----------



## Freedom2022

Recently, most stocks are going down, but BMW stock, BMWYY, is going up .
In 2022, 15% of BMW vehicles production are EV.
I will buy BMWYY, just not sure the entry point yet.


----------



## Gator13

Good news for Sags.....

Andretti Global & GM Cadillac have joined forces for a F1 entry bid. 

Given the popularity of F1, it's a good move by GM to appeal to younger buyers.


----------



## sags

What goes around comes around......I was at the Indy 500 in 1969 when Mario Andretti won it.

I watched a Youtube video of the race and tried to pick out my 18 year old self in it. We were on the front straightaway a couple rows up from the fence.......no luck there.

The father of a buddy was a police detective and was working security on the "party bus" and they had a couple of unsold seats so he let us go with him.

We didn't get much sleep on the party bus though. GM has been involved in a lot of different auto racing, but not in FI before to my knowledge.

I have owned a lot of vehicles besides GM models over the years. I don't find the Tesla models interesting or exciting.

I read an auto analyst who said Tesla needs to update their styling to keep up with the competition that is rolling out in the future.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> Not so fast......
> 
> Try Mercedes


Also ...

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/mercedes-build-own-electric-vehicle-183122815.html


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Also ...
> 
> https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/mercedes-build-own-electric-vehicle-183122815.html


So. Over the next seven years, Mercedes will add around the number of stations Tesla builds per quarter? Yep, sure sounds like they are catching up to Tesla. Tesla will be opening its charging network to non-Tesla EVs (already started in the EU). Customers will have to have Tesla app and accounts. I'm sure that won't have any effect on conversion or conquest. /S









Tesla Supercharging Expansion Accelerated In Q3 2022


During the third quarter of 2022, Tesla accelerated the expansion rate of its Supercharging network around the world.




www.google.com


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> So. Over the next seven years, Mercedes will add around the number of stations Tesla builds per quarter? Yep, sure sounds like they are catching up to Tesla. Tesla will be opening its charging network to non-Tesla EVs (already started in the EU). Customers will have to have Tesla app and accounts. I'm sure that won't have any effect on conversion or conquest.


Leading, catching up, whatever ... more are entering the market space which is a good thing.


----------



## sags

Tesla shares are getting whacked again today on news they are cutting prices in China again, due to declining demand from consumers.

The Chinese competitors are selling comparable EV vehicles for 40% less than a Tesla.

Tesla has lost over 70% of their share price and market cap in the past year.

When is the board of directors at Tesla going to step in and make a change of leadership in the company ?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> When is the board of directors at Tesla going to step in and make a change of leadership in the company ?


When they decide Elon is more trouble than he's worth.
I think a LOT of the value of the Tesla brand is the Elon brand.

However I think the appropriate cautionary tale is Jobs & Apple, Apple without Jobs floundered.

As much as Elon is problematic, he provides direction, maybe the wrong direction, maybe changing, but it's clear that he's providing some direction.
I think any replacement is likely to be less influential.


----------



## Covariance

Agree MrMatt. With out Elon, at this stage, Tesla would be in real trouble.


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> Tesla shares are getting whacked again today on news they are cutting prices in China again, due to declining demand from consumers.
> 
> The Chinese competitors are selling comparable EV vehicles for 40% less than a Tesla.
> 
> Tesla has lost over 70% of their share price and market cap in the past year.
> 
> When is the board of directors at Tesla going to step in and make a change of leadership in the company ?


How is GM making out in the Chinese EV market?

The Chinese auto market is in a lot of trouble with COVID and economic softness. Tesla continues to grow production and had 25% gross margins in China. They can absorb 10% price cuts, especially as growing production helps with fixed costs. Keep in mind that China just had some EV incentives expire, so price cuts would be a logical way to maintain demand.


----------



## sags

GM is doing very well in the Chinese market, including in the EV market where they are partners with the best selling EV models in China.

GM sells millions of vehicles globally through partnerships and joint ventures. The brands would be unknown in North America.

*General Motors*_ (NYSE:GM) is a global company committed to delivering safer, better and more sustainable ways for people to get around. General Motors, its subsidiaries and its joint venture entities sell vehicles under the Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Baojun and Wuling brands. More information on the company and its subsidiaries, including OnStar, a global leader in vehicle safety and security services, can be found at https://www.gm.com._

GM Delivers 2.9 Million Vehicles in China in 2020 | General Motors Company


----------



## sags

Tesla cut production in their Shanghai assembly plant due to lack of demand and are considering shipping excess production of vehicles to North America.

I heard today that Tesla EVs are priced 40% higher than comparable, and better quality Chinese competitors. That is a deal breaker for a lot of Chinese customers.

There is a Tesla shareholder meeting in May and the board is trying to block dissident shareholder proposals at the general meeting.

It was reported the board of directors is not returning calls from the media, while Musk is engaged in twitter wars with major shareholders of Tesla stock.

It will be an interesting annual meeting.

What if Tesla loses Elon Musk? The company's board faces pressure to prepare for the possibility | Fortune

Tesla China Shipments Slumped in December Amid Production Cuts (msn.com)


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> GM is doing very well in the Chinese market, including in the EV market where they are partners with the best selling EV models in China.
> 
> GM sells millions of vehicles globally through partnerships and joint ventures. The brands would be unknown in North America.
> 
> *General Motors*_ (NYSE:GM) is a global company committed to delivering safer, better and more sustainable ways for people to get around. General Motors, its subsidiaries and its joint venture entities sell vehicles under the Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, Cadillac, Baojun and Wuling brands. More information on the company and its subsidiaries, including OnStar, a global leader in vehicle safety and security services, can be found at https://www.gm.com._
> 
> GM Delivers 2.9 Million Vehicles in China in 2020 | General Motors Company


The correct answer is lagging Tesla.

Notable in the chart below, this includes 'electrified' ICE vehicles aka hybrids. Only about half of BYD's NEV sales are all-electric BEV, and have lower ASPs than Tesla. Tesla leads the Chinese market in BEV revenue, which is not bad considered they only really entered the market 18 months ago.









China's Nov wholesale sales of passenger NEVs hit record 732,000, CPCA estimates show


Demand in China's NEV market has held steady amid high international oil prices, the CPCA said.




cnevpost.com


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I heard today that Tesla EVs are priced 40% higher than comparable, and better quality Chinese competitors. That is a deal breaker for a lot of Chinese customers.


It's also dealbreaker for a lot of NA customers.

Take away the logos and the competition is offering better vehicles at lower prices.
Some of them even come with high end features like keyfobs, & dashboard switch & dials.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> It's also dealbreaker for a lot of NA customers.


Why would they want a Hummer EV then? Or a Cadillac with that look-at-my Daft-Punk-hearse style?



MrMatt said:


> Take away the logos and the competition is offering better vehicles at lower prices.
> Some of them even come with high end features like keyfobs, & dashboard switch & dials.


Well that's what you said about Apple for the last decade. Even BMW drivers say Teslas are a good driving experience. The detractors are usually driving something worse

Smartphone apparently works great as a keyfob but they need to bring some switches back. It's mostly a cost saving practice (make things more software definable) Tesla is years ahead where it will matter - charger network/tech, batteries, software and drivetrain efficiency.

Fixing the little things is a lot easier and the styling doesn't have to suit boomers anyways - catering to younger audience will pay off more over time


----------



## sags

Sure.......who would want one of these when they could have a nice Tesla ?












All-New 2023 Corvette Z06 | Sports Car | Chevrolet Canada


----------



## sags

I think some Tesla fans underestimate the love affair that people have developed with their personal vehicles.

That attachment is reflected in the saturation of iconic examples of vehicles from the past in movies, music, and society in general.

The Mustang chase in the Bullitt movie, the Batmobile, the muscle cars in Fast and Furious movies, the convertible in Thelma and Louise, the wild vehicles in the Mad Max movies, the DeLorean in Back to the Future, the Trans Am in Smokey and the Bandit, the exotic cars in Miami Vice, ...

Try to imagine those movies with the heroes and villains driving Teslas.

In music........Jan and Dean and the Beachboys hits about cars. All the country songs about pickup trucks, the ZZ top roadster....

In society.......the vacation road trip, drive in movies, staying in motels, cruising the drag on Saturday night, dirt track racing, NASCAR, Formula One, drag strip racing...

If there is no roar of engines, there better be dazzling lighting, superior audio sound systems, and style.....mucho style.

All things being relatively equal, the EV companies that deliver the style people desire will be the ultimate winners.


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> I think some Tesla fans underestimate the love affair that people have developed with their personal vehicles.
> 
> That attachment is reflected in the saturation of iconic examples of vehicles from the past in movies, music, and society in general.
> 
> The Mustang chase in the Bullitt movie, the Batmobile, the muscle cars in Fast and Furious movies, the convertible in Thelma and Louise, the wild vehicles in the Mad Max movies, the DeLorean in Back to the Future, the Trans Am in Smokey and the Bandit, the exotic cars in Miami Vice, ...
> 
> Try to imagine those movies with the heroes and villains driving Teslas.
> 
> In music........Jan and Dean and the Beachboys hits about cars. All the country songs about pickup trucks, the ZZ top roadster....
> 
> In society.......the vacation road trip, drive in movies, staying in motels, cruising the drag on Saturday night, dirt track racing, NASCAR, Formula One, drag strip racing...
> 
> If there is no roar of engines, there better be dazzling lighting, superior audio sound systems, and style.....mucho style.
> 
> All things being relatively equal, the EV companies that deliver the style people desire will be the ultimate winners.


You're describing the GM fans to a tee. I don't even have to read it

GM's best bet is to invest in life extension technology for their blind fans


----------



## m3s

sags said:


> Sure.......who would want one of these when they could have a nice Tesla ?
> 
> View attachment 24094


99% of Corvette drivers are gray hairs

They're also usually very poor drivers. They worked stiff white collar jobs for 30 years, got a mid life crisis and want to go hang out with the boys

Usually you see 20 Corvettes all together. All gray hairs, all barely young enough to ever use the engine


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> It's also dealbreaker for a lot of NA customers.
> 
> Take away the logos and the competition is offering better vehicles at lower prices.
> Some of them even come with high end features like keyfobs, & dashboard switch & dials.


I think it is more than just NA customers. Anyone who relies on a screen with all its failings for basic controls deserves what they get.

FWIW, I have no brand loyalty per se though I have a bias towards Japanese makes. Brand loyalty just taints good decision making.


----------



## m3s

Cowboys were very romantic about their horses. I'm sure they had all kinds of complaints about the first automobiles not smelling the same

Old muscle cars and heavy machinery, loud old tanks it's all the same. People who grew up with them loved the sounds, the vibrations between their legs and smell of cancer

But the younger generation won't care. Greta is not impressed with your dirty old gas engines or your leather chaps


----------



## MrMatt

MrMatt said:


> Take away the logos and the competition is offering better vehicles at lower prices.





m3s said:


> Well that's what you said about Apple for the last decade.


Yes, and now I think that the earnings are actually sustainable as people are locked into the Apple Ecosystem. 
Maybe Tesla the brand has enough value, but I'm not sure.



> Even BMW drivers say Teslas are a good driving experience. The detractors are usually driving something worse


If you've ever driven near BMW drivers, they are arguably some of the worst drivers out there. At least in NA.
They buy BMW's because they're status symbols.

From what I hear Teslas are polarizing, people love them and hate them, which is actually just fine, you only need a dedicated fraction of the market to be successful.
Trying to satisfy everyone is a recipe for failure.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> If you've ever driven near BMW drivers, they are arguably some of the worst drivers out there. At least in NA.
> They buy BMW's because they're status symbols.


Yea I don't mean NA BMW drivers. In Europe they have more of a driver's crowd and even some of the M fans said Tesla are a good driving experience - from a driving performance point of view. BMW were traditionally corner balanced with smooth power delivery



MrMatt said:


> From what I hear Teslas are polarizing, people love them and hate them, which is actually just fine, you only need a dedicated fraction of the market to be successful. Trying to satisfy everyone is a recipe for failure.


Like anything new it will take time to find the right recipe. There's lots of things to fix and refine. I wouldn't buy one but they have a lot of potential. Almost all the new vehicles in my hood are Tesla. Seems to be the new status symbol for white collar working from home


----------



## andrewf

sags said:


> I think some Tesla fans underestimate the love affair that people have developed with their personal vehicles.
> 
> That attachment is reflected in the saturation of iconic examples of vehicles from the past in movies, music, and society in general.
> 
> The Mustang chase in the Bullitt movie, the Batmobile, the muscle cars in Fast and Furious movies, the convertible in Thelma and Louise, the wild vehicles in the Mad Max movies, the DeLorean in Back to the Future, the Trans Am in Smokey and the Bandit, the exotic cars in Miami Vice, ...
> 
> Try to imagine those movies with the heroes and villains driving Teslas.
> 
> In music........Jan and Dean and the Beachboys hits about cars. All the country songs about pickup trucks, the ZZ top roadster....
> 
> In society.......the vacation road trip, drive in movies, staying in motels, cruising the drag on Saturday night, dirt track racing, NASCAR, Formula One, drag strip racing...
> 
> If there is no roar of engines, there better be dazzling lighting, superior audio sound systems, and style.....mucho style.
> 
> All things being relatively equal, the EV companies that deliver the style people desire will be the ultimate winners.


Have you been missing all the 'car fans' that regularly smoke hellcats in performance Teslas etc at drag strip, etc.?

Yes, there are people who get misty eyed about 70s muscle cars. They are mostly on their way to drooling in nursing homes, and not buying performance cars anymore.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Yes, and now I think that the earnings are actually sustainable as people are locked into the Apple Ecosystem.
> Maybe Tesla the brand has enough value, but I'm not sure.


I think the charging network is enough differentiation for now.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> If you've ever driven near BMW drivers, they are arguably some of the worst drivers out there. At least in NA.
> They buy BMW's because they're status symbols.


I'd say the worst are Mercedes drivers. BMW drivers at least like to pretend they are interested in driving.


----------



## m3s




----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I'd say the worst are Mercedes drivers. BMW drivers at least like to pretend they are interested in driving.


Yeah, we have a lot of karen/soccer moms in mercedes SUVs, and young men in BMWs. 
One isn't paying attention to the road, the others are driving like they're trying to impress someone


----------



## sags

The Tesla ran about 11 second runs in the 2 races and was timed at an average of 124 mph for the quarter mile.

The new 2023 Corvette Z06 was tested at 0-60 in 2.6 seconds and 10.2 seconds at 131 mph for the quarter mile.

The other vehicles were running painfully slow 13s in the quarter at a speed of 115 mph.

The Tesla Plaid from factory has a top speed of 175 mph. The Corvette from factory top speed is 195 mph.

The Corvette Z06 would easily beat all those vehicles and look good while doing it.









2023 Chevy Corvette Z06 0-60 and 1/4-Mile Tested: As Good as We Hoped?


It has 670 horsepower, you better believe it's *WICKED* quick.




www.motortrend.com


----------



## MrBlackhill

sags said:


> The Tesla ran about 11 second runs in the 2 races and was timed at an average of 124 mph for the quarter mile.
> 
> The new 2023 Corvette Z06 was tested at 0-60 in 2.6 seconds and 10.2 seconds at 131 mph for the quarter mile.
> 
> The other vehicles were running painfully slow 13s in the quarter at a speed of 115 mph.
> 
> The Tesla Plaid from factory has a top speed of 175 mph. The Corvette from factory top speed is 195 mph.
> 
> The Corvette Z06 would easily beat all those vehicles and look good while doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2023 Chevy Corvette Z06 0-60 and 1/4-Mile Tested: As Good as We Hoped?
> 
> 
> It has 670 horsepower, you better believe it's *WICKED* quick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.motortrend.com


But then, how many MPG for the Corvette? How many drives them during the winter? How many seats on the Corvette? How much cargo space?

I'm not a car guy, I wouldn't ever buy a Corvette. I wouldn't ever buy a sedan either, so no Model S or 3 for me. And anyways I wouldn't buy Musk products or American cars, so no Tesla for me.

But you certainly can't compare a Corvette to a Tesla. Value for the cost, with Tesla you get both the performance and the utility.


----------



## MrMatt

MrBlackhill said:


> But you certainly can't compare a Corvette to a Tesla. Value for the cost, with Tesla you get both the performance and the utility.


You certainly can compare them
A Tesla is cool 
A Corvette is cooler.
A McLeran is even cooler.


----------



## AltaRed

A Corvette has tremendous value for money when compared to other 2 seat roadsters, mid-engined or not. One has to compare vehicles in their own class for the class one is interested in to meet their needs (wishes). There is not a chance I'd buy a proprietary Tesla S that cannot be repaired at a local service centre but I did consider a C8 LT2 Corvette convertible back in 2021 that can be serviced at any local GM dealer..


----------



## m3s

Modified 1000hp McLaren 720S vs factory Tesla Model S Plaid

That Macleran costs more than double to start and then he changed everything and tuned it. Tesla smokes it with no prep or skill (he did take the baby seats out of the back)


----------



## MrMatt

m3s said:


> Modified 1000hp McLaren 720S vs factory Tesla Model S Plaid
> 
> That Macleran costs more than double to start and then he changed everything and tuned it. Tesla smokes it with no prep or skill (he did take the baby seats out of the back)


They get stuck in the same traffic as my 10yr old minivan.


----------



## m3s

MrMatt said:


> They get stuck in the same traffic as my 10yr old minivan.


Ok 🤷‍♂️

Some people actually go to the track and you brought up MacLaren. Crazy thing is how well a Tesla can do that also has 4 doors and passenger/cargo space. It will only get better as they develop CyberTruck and I'm sure vans eventually

Instantaneous torque is something you can actually use on the street too. And without pissing everyone off with the noise, and while carrying passengers


----------



## andrewf

Plaid is just a halo thing to win hearts and minds, as with all fast cars. That said, EVs provide much better performance even for more basic vehicles. And consumers clearly car about power/torque, because the automotive industry has been investing most of the gains from efficiency improvements in increasing performance for a given fuel economy.


----------

