bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Ford loses 1.08b in the EV division.
And their stock is up on the news.
LoL, can't make this stuff up.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ford loses 1.08b in the EV division.
That was sarcasm of course but I see it's currently up 2.33% lol.How much did their stock go up?
Way sooner than anyone expected, Tesla already has an early build of FSD V12. Elon has said in the past that this would be the version with an end-to-end neural network:
... any analyst that can do simple numbers can deduce ...
Eh that's not really what I was saying.
I was simply stating the dynamic of how TSLA gets treated from Wall St. Which is unfairly.
All across the landscape of the stock market, including very much in the large market cap companies, you have stock after stock after stock where there is a complete disconnect between that company's actual earnings/YoY growth and it's PE. You might want to go and look at the true valuation metric, PEG of the other mid and mega cap names and then compare it to TSLA. Most are in the range of 2.5-3 PEG. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon (PEG of 11!), I could go and and on. TSLA PEG sits at 1.3....Ford has a higher PEG ratio. So you're argument that TSLA is fairly valued in the market today is just bogus.
Thanks, my eyes were beginning to glaze over...Mod: Here endeth the discussion about glass. It's too paneful. --ggr
MSM are like "keep up the good work guys, Elon's power is shrinking as we speak".
OK, I'm in, and I'll raise you 5.In for a whopping 10 shares, woohoo!
Over the last few weeks it seems we have seen increased amounts of fumbling (or at least acknowledgement of such) by legacy automakers with regard to EV adoption. While this is generally good for Tesla, it could have some interesting side effects. For example, if GM and Ford continue to stumble in the U.S. I am guessing the mandates for EVs by 2030 or whenever will be seriously extended. Heck, if Trump manages to get elected again, he has already indicated he will boot that out day one (blatant courting of UAW vote - unlikely, but people vote with their wallet). Yes, it gives Tesla an even bigger lead, but I could see any number of things start to be put in place to try to "level the playing field" (i.e. make it harder for Tesla and easier for Legacy). Just another headwind for Tesla which I am sure they will overcome, but it won't take long for it to start happening...heck, it likely already is.
Yep, and the headline is completely misleading. It wasn't about suppressing complaints; it was about taking care of their requests remotely and preventing the service staff from having to deal with nuance requests where there is nothing for them to service. (Customer education.)LOL...roto-reuters at it again:
Tesla’s secret team to suppress thousands of driving range complaints
About a decade ago, Tesla rigged the dashboard readouts in its electric cars to provide “rosy” projections of how far owners can drive before needing to recharge, a source told Reuters.www.reuters.com
View attachment 960120
It's known that Tesla uses a different process to determine EPA range, running additional cycles. Only Tesla and Audi use it, but it provides higher range numbers that in real world tests (typically at 70 mph) Tesla falls further behind their EPA range than many others. Also, the tests require the car to be driven at a certain speed (city/highway) until it cannot maintain that speed. Tesla has additional buffer than other manufacturers, which is to protect the car/battery, but when the average person drives they aren't going below 0...typically not even below 10%.Also, one of their big claims about Tesla having a range estimate in the car that was optimistic and mislead people was from information from 2012, and was likely about the "Ideal" rating that Tesla used to let you select. So not anything current at all.
That is true and all covered in the article as well. What I was talking about was a completely different claim in the article.It's known that Tesla uses a different process to determine EPA range, running additional cycles. Only Tesla and Audi use it, but it provides higher range numbers that in real world tests (typically at 70 mph) Tesla falls further behind their EPA range than many others. Also, the tests require the car to be driven at a certain speed (city/highway) until it cannot maintain that speed. Tesla has additional buffer than other manufacturers, which is to protect the car/battery, but when the average person drives they aren't going below 0...typically not even below 10%.
It's all legal and well within the J1634 standard, but it results in lower real world range.
The impact to the mission could definitely be significant. Sadly, I don't think the whole "make things easier for legacy and harder to Tesla" will necessarily be limited to the U.S. Any country with a significant automaker presence might do something similar...hmmm...suddenly, Tesla building a factory in paperwork challenged Germany seems to make more sense since they are now technically part of the "German Automotive Industry". If you are the German government it's a lot harder to "Help VW and punish Tesla" when Tesla is likely key to their own future. Oh wait, I forgot politicians (and stock analysts) only care about what happens this week...Such a terrible potential situation.
In a way, it wouldn't actually affect Tesla that much -- Tesla has a true global presence, so it would (hopefully) only affect the US market. And, Tesla would keep pushing hard, growing sales globally and in the US. Tesla's "EV marketshare" (I hate that misleading distinction) would rise in the US as the other manufacturers slowed down their EV attempts. A growing number of consumers would still continue to see the advantages of EVs and switch away from ICE, even in the US....as long as the opposition doesn't somehow add more subsidies and incentives to gas cars and gasoline.
But it would definitely be a headwind facing Tesla's stated purpose: to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. Tesla would keep pushing as hard as they can, while the other automakers would lose motivation, at least in the US, and the transition away from ICE would be slowed. The US transition would fall (farther) behind Europe and China by intentionally hanging onto ICE cars. In that sense, it would be a huge headwind for the US economically and for the entire world due to the pollution and climate change results..
In the worst case scenario, Tesla would ultimately shift all production to solar-panelled, Cyber-armored, quasi-amphibious, bioweapon-defense vehicles so that owners can try to survive until the Mars colony is ready. Glass roofs and AC mean you can grow a few meager crops inside, I guess.
Tesla really needs to revive its PR department.The Reuters article is actually BS.
Just watch this video from 2 years ago on how is Tesla able to achieve such good EPA scores.
This feels like a new FUD wave incoming because legacy is getting their ass kicked by Tesla in EV-sales.
I’m calling zero chance of a hatchback for Highland. Franz doesn’t design that kind of boxy (typical of hatchbacks) shaped butt end on vehicles, I don’t see Tesla shortening up the back piece of glass nor elongating the sides of the lift gate to have it hinged higher along the roof line, and I doubt hatchbacks are aesthetically appealing to Elon.Just my speculation here, but while we have no official word of a hatchback for Highland 3, I would not write it off this early in the pre-production process either.
Tesla really needs to revive its PR department.
Then it should start producing educational advertisements.