-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Reciprocity
Active Member
Having asparitional goals is not fraud. If Elon said he was going to produce 200,000 cars to get investment money, then left the country with the money on a new yatch, then maybe. All he has to do is try really hard while spending all the money on the final goal and it's not fraud.
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
It’s a proof of concept but it is a proof that a lot of people (Volvo) still believe is impossible. In other words they have completed one of most difficult parts of the problem. The biggest remaining task is to complete scaling the Gigafactory. Megachargers are relatively easy and the software being completed is mouse nuts. How many of the companies reserving have mentioned the software as a motivating factor.I don’t think I’ll convince anyone here. It’s obvious to me that the timelines Elon set are aspirational timelines and further it’s in he best interests of Tesla to ramp slowly. Think about Tesla Energy, almost everyone here thought it would ramp fast. Tesla solar roof as well. New tech like this takes time. There’s a lot of moving parts. Same goes for the Tesla Semi. I don’t think most here appreciate or understand the complexity involved in launching and ramping the Semi. It’s not just about battery packs. But it’s also about achieving the costs. And it’s about new platform architecture. And it’s about the software that brings all the logisitics together for the driver and logistics companies. And it’s about testing and developing the Megachargers. What you saw at the Tesla Semi was largely a proof of concept. Now Tesla has to buckle down and start developing it and executing. This takes a lot of time. Further, Tesla Semi isn’t even in the top 3 priorities of Tesla in my opinion over the next few years. First priority, ramping Model 3 from N America base. Second priority, launching China factory. Third priority, developing and launching Model Y. Fourth priority, launching European factory. After that it becomes less clear. But you could argue even Autopilot/autonomous driving as a higher priority for Tesla than Semi. It I see Tesla Semi as 5th priority at best over next few years. This means things get pushed back. Think about the original Roadster battery upgrade and how long it took to get out. There are numerous other examples. Even when it’s the top priority it’s tough for Tesla to meet their super aggressive aspirational timelines. But when it’s priority #3 or lower, chances are super super low.
It sounds like you are saying that Tesla will never evolve or grow.
I think that as they grow and solve problems that the number of employees capable of implementing and solving production problems will increase and that they will become capable of taking on more projects with less problems simultaneously.
Comparing the Roadster battery upgrade with the semi seems like an invalid comparison to me. Of course that was a low priority. If you consider in terms of importance to Tesla that the semi is a number five on that same scale the Roadster pack upgrade might have been a thirty.
Do you believe that Tesla will learn from the past and improve over time or do you think that they will always be subject to the same problems?
I believe that the main obstacle that Tesla has faced with TE was battery pack production. I believe that will be the main obstacle to semi production. Except for solar cells that’s essential for everything that they produce. So that’s their highest priority item.
Last edited:
dc_h
Active Member
And when you say the targets are probably impossible...but we think it is too important not to try. I think the fraud of optimism and it would not have been possible to start a rocket and car company without being irrationally optimistic. Or a boring company or an AI company or a neural link company. I’m ok with this kind of fraud, especially when compared to the fraud of negativity.
dc_h
Active Member
Norway streak continues. Crazy Elon, everything must go, another 112 sold in Norway and over 900 for December already.
Re Semi timeline there are many factors so it is hard to guesstimate without guidance from Tesla, which we may not get for a while. In addition to the factors mentioned by @DaveT:
Taking into account all of these factors, I would expect production to get into the six figures by roughly the 2022-23 timeframe.
That is 5-6 years from the reveal, which is a lifetime by Tesla standards. In comparison, it will likely take Tesla about 2 years from reveal to ramp production of the Model 3 (presumably an easier task). While Powerwall, Powerpack and Solar Roof have been slower than predicted, it is useful to keep in mind that the Powerwall and Powerpack were only announced 2.5 years ago and Solar Roof only a little more than a year ago. We are only 5 years after the Model S began production and 2 years after Model X began production and they are now roughly at 60K and 40K/year, even without the benefit of highly automated production lines.
Also, it seems clear that once Tesla has orders in place and production kinks worked out, it should have a massive advantage over other trucking companies along with the ability to create a durable competitive advantage by rapidly building out the Megacharger network. I think Tesla will seek to aggressively take advantage of that, taking into account all the constraints that have been mentioned.
- Pre-production orders will probably only be a fraction of orders a few years later
- Companies will want to test out the truck before going "all in"
- Long distance haulers will likely want to see tangible evidence that the Megacharger network, service and support are in place and reliable
- Release initially in North America only with modifications needed at least for Europe (not sure about Asia)
Taking into account all of these factors, I would expect production to get into the six figures by roughly the 2022-23 timeframe.
That is 5-6 years from the reveal, which is a lifetime by Tesla standards. In comparison, it will likely take Tesla about 2 years from reveal to ramp production of the Model 3 (presumably an easier task). While Powerwall, Powerpack and Solar Roof have been slower than predicted, it is useful to keep in mind that the Powerwall and Powerpack were only announced 2.5 years ago and Solar Roof only a little more than a year ago. We are only 5 years after the Model S began production and 2 years after Model X began production and they are now roughly at 60K and 40K/year, even without the benefit of highly automated production lines.
Also, it seems clear that once Tesla has orders in place and production kinks worked out, it should have a massive advantage over other trucking companies along with the ability to create a durable competitive advantage by rapidly building out the Megacharger network. I think Tesla will seek to aggressively take advantage of that, taking into account all the constraints that have been mentioned.
Intentionally picking the point on the s-curve that fits your narrative is what? Or are the model S and X also nonexistent because of initial ramp issues?
Funny how we have a glut and a shortage at the same time
This really belongs in the macro thread, along with the posts it's replying to... so please move any further responses over there.
You can have mild-inflationary policies with a shrinking population, no problem. Easily, actually...
I'll give you a crib sheet:
(1) Deflation encourages hoarding of worthless tokens (gold, paper money, electronic records) which causes actual trade in real goods and services (food, construction, health care) to drop, lowering everyone's standard of living. There is debate as to how important this effect is.
(2) Deflation makes it progressively harder to pay off debts. A debt of $100 requires more and more hours of work to pay each year and becomes harder and harder to pay. This makes the minority who are the creditors (the rich) richer on paper, but it makes the rest of the population poorer and poorer and prevents debtors from ever getting ahead in the world. The debtors stop buying essentials and revert to barter; the money economy starts to collapse.
Eventually there is no possibility of the debts *ever* being paid off. Then there are two options. Either there is a jubilee and a mass bankruptcy, which does fix things, but wipes out most preexisting property rights. Or the creditors convert the money debts into *serfdom or chattel slavery*, which has happened repeatedly throughout history, including during the fall of the Roman Empire -- in that case the money economy was also wiped out and barter returned.
Almost every economic historian believes that debt deflation is a major mechanism by which deflation destroys economies.
(3) Even if you don't believe either mechanism, go look back at history. Every deflationary period, *anywhere*, is an unmitigated disaster, with homelessness soaring, starvation, etc. etc. *The rise of the Nazis* was caused by Bruenig's deflation policy, according to the most accurate historical records. (If deflation destroys the economy and the government's credibility badly enough, hyperinflation may follow...)
Deflation is bad. Really, really, really bad. If you only learn one thing from economic history, you should learn this: it is the most important thing ever discovered in economics. It is grotesque that it isn't usually taught in Econ 101 (or 102, or 103) and I had to learn it from talking independently to economic history professors, but that mostly says something about how screwed up economics teaching is.
I used to think deflation was OK but then I mentioned this to my economics professor and she reacted with horror -- I got an independent study in the topic pretty quickly. I did ask her why this wasn't in the standard curriculum, for which she did not have a good answer (basically "we haven't had deflation since the 19th century, so nobody bothers to talk about it")
(I guess if you like starvation, slavery, serfdom, and Nazis, you might like deflation.)
You seem nice, so I'll give you a primer. You don't know what you're talking about.
Wrong. Hyperinflation is a different thing from normal, healthy low levels of inflation. (It's very interesting, and the evidence I've read shows that hyperinflation is generally caused by *distrust of the government* for *non-economic* reasons. Stuff like invading Iraq based on lies is, IMO, what risks hyperinflation.)
Every economic system is prone to cycles, even the barter-based centrally-planned economy of ancient Egypt. It would take a while to explain why -- short version is that there are inherent positive feedback loops in human psychology related to any system of trading.
Or does it promote necessary and desirable consumption? Answer: both. You need a different set of policies in order to direct consumption to the preferred *type* of consumption; you can't do that with a blunt instrument like the money supply. A shrinking money supply will cause people to stay away from the doctor's office, not fix their leaking roof... it works out badly.
Absolutely false. Expanding the money supply acts on the *demand side* to get people to spend their money; whether they spend it on things produced by workers or by robots makes no difference in this regard.
You can have mild-inflationary policies with a shrinking population, no problem. Easily, actually...
You're just 100% wrong about this -- it's not even a matter of opinion. You're simply wrong. Please go study some economic history, dating back to the beginning of civilization, and find out what deflation does to an economy.
I'll give you a crib sheet:
(1) Deflation encourages hoarding of worthless tokens (gold, paper money, electronic records) which causes actual trade in real goods and services (food, construction, health care) to drop, lowering everyone's standard of living. There is debate as to how important this effect is.
(2) Deflation makes it progressively harder to pay off debts. A debt of $100 requires more and more hours of work to pay each year and becomes harder and harder to pay. This makes the minority who are the creditors (the rich) richer on paper, but it makes the rest of the population poorer and poorer and prevents debtors from ever getting ahead in the world. The debtors stop buying essentials and revert to barter; the money economy starts to collapse.
Eventually there is no possibility of the debts *ever* being paid off. Then there are two options. Either there is a jubilee and a mass bankruptcy, which does fix things, but wipes out most preexisting property rights. Or the creditors convert the money debts into *serfdom or chattel slavery*, which has happened repeatedly throughout history, including during the fall of the Roman Empire -- in that case the money economy was also wiped out and barter returned.
Almost every economic historian believes that debt deflation is a major mechanism by which deflation destroys economies.
(3) Even if you don't believe either mechanism, go look back at history. Every deflationary period, *anywhere*, is an unmitigated disaster, with homelessness soaring, starvation, etc. etc. *The rise of the Nazis* was caused by Bruenig's deflation policy, according to the most accurate historical records. (If deflation destroys the economy and the government's credibility badly enough, hyperinflation may follow...)
Deflation is bad. Really, really, really bad. If you only learn one thing from economic history, you should learn this: it is the most important thing ever discovered in economics. It is grotesque that it isn't usually taught in Econ 101 (or 102, or 103) and I had to learn it from talking independently to economic history professors, but that mostly says something about how screwed up economics teaching is.
I used to think deflation was OK but then I mentioned this to my economics professor and she reacted with horror -- I got an independent study in the topic pretty quickly. I did ask her why this wasn't in the standard curriculum, for which she did not have a good answer (basically "we haven't had deflation since the 19th century, so nobody bothers to talk about it")
(I guess if you like starvation, slavery, serfdom, and Nazis, you might like deflation.)
Last edited:
To repeat what "sub" said... if anyone claims that they know why a particular short-term move in a stock happened, they're almost always just making it up. Nobody really knows. It's the interaction of many traders producing emergent behavior.
Our economy is *currently* structured this way, with people buying cheap plastic junk.
But it *could* be kept going by having people buy things of genuine value: services which improve people's health, things which genuinely improve people's quality of life, things which clean up environmental damage. If people are spending to buy extra solar panels and get more massages and produce more art and music and develop organic farms and remove lead contamination from the soil, this works just as well for keeping the economy going as having people buy the latest iPhone every year.
This is a question of *what* we spend our money on, not how to handle the supply of money. It has to be addressed through a different sort of policy. (I'm personally very fond of the European RoHS law where manufacturers are obligated to take back and recycle any products with potentially hazardous substances in them, and they have to price the cost of doing that into the initial product price.)
Unless that anyone has deep pockets...
(although if they were working on organizing a squeeze through acquisition of available stock along with others so as to avoid needing to report such holdings, they probably wouldn't say why the move happened).
Mike Smith
Active Member
2 hours ago Elon tweeted the number 35,000 for no reason? Could that be the number of roadster pre-orders?
Xenius
Active Member
I don't know a great deal about Norway but the numbers coming out of there are fantastic. Hopefully someone with local knowledge can help me out with the following question.
It seems like the transition to EV's is continuing to increase in speed. Do you think it is only due to economic incentives or are there social factors at play? as an example, have you seen people who feel guilty for having/driving an ICE car? Is anyone being criticised for polluting the environment for driving an ICE car?
I could imagine many scenarios where social stigma becomes a factor in purchasing decisions once EVs hit a certain critical mass but have noting to base it on.
Haven't seen that, but I have seen the more positive version...
... what I've seen is people without EVs wishing they had an EV. EVs are aspirational, "cool". People with EVs brag about how much more fun they are than gasmobiles, and the people without EVs... agree.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Boring hats sold.. come on guys keep up.
Reciprocity
Active Member
You dont realize how much a gas car stinks until you drive an EV for a while then go back. Its really crazy that I never noticed it before.
We Norwegians like to think of ourselves as enviromentally friendly (yes I know considering it's based on oil earnings), so that is part of it. The practical and economic incentives were and still are pretty huge. Earlier around Oslo an EV saved you almost 90 min off your commute each day into Oslo coming from the west of town.
Our only original car manufacturer was Think the electric car manufacturer so that is the historical background.
Many places seeing your neighbour be happy with his Tesla S, Leaf, MiEV or whatever means you also consider an electrical car, and for many that turns into a sale.
This latest boom I think is the concieved scare of car taxes will propably increase soon and 0,99% interest rate for the entirety of the loan (that's unusual even for ICE dealers). Not to mention our average saleries are very high and in 2013 the dollar was almost 25% cheaper than now, which gave us the early critical mass.
Cobos
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
