racer26
Active Member
The running speculation is end of March, exactly 1 year after its initial reveal.
Could Elon announce a date for it during the 4Q16 ER, though?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
The running speculation is end of March, exactly 1 year after its initial reveal.
Could Elon announce a date for it during the 4Q16 ER, though?
sundaymorning
Active Member
If it's a good ER, the rise will likely continue, he could then save the ammo of the release a couple weeks after ER to drag it out.
If M3 turns out to be on time, how many longs here will hold or buy more?
larmor
Active Member
May be, but internally Tesla (Motors) will do what is needed to make the M3 in a timely fashion, and we won't know it d/t testing etc. While the car itself is compelling, the M3 is really about the machine that makes it, and not the car per se.
somewhat OT, when looking up Ferrari stats yesterday, I saw this photo
Ferrari - Wikipedia
front end look familiar?
this article asserts that Tesla opened a Dubai regional office (even put it in the article title). this may well simply be a mistaken description of their pop-up store. I'll shoot an email to IR, but if anyone has better access to IR, perhaps you could check.
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-Motors-launch-regional-office-in-Dubai-.html
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...-Motors-launch-regional-office-in-Dubai-.html
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I agree with that, and that might the main schedule risk as well (Elon said the press), but in the big picture that's excellent news, because initially he was most worried about all of the parts suppliers being on time.
I believe that a substantial portion of the last few days of the bump is the obviously inaccurate Reuter's article stating that Tesla is going to be building M3's to test the production line. I think that is impossible. But it is possible and not unlikely that they will start building cars using parts from suppliers which, assuming that means all of the suppliers are on time or early, is great news.
@SBenson your question about is Tesla's current price too high isn't possible to answer without a time frame. If you mean by mid 2018, or by 2022 the current price is definitely not too high!
Edit Addition:
The reason I say definitely not by 2018 is that I believe that a lot of the bump was caused by the rumor about M3 production. How much higher will it go when the actual production starts? The only way you should even in your wildest dreams consider that the current SP is too high is if you don't believe that the M3 will ever go into production. The absolute worst case is (which I personally think is impossible) is that the M3 is as slow to get into production as the MX.
If you want to know if it's too high on a shorter time frame then nobody on this forum can answer that question.
Last edited:
racer26
Active Member
Haque v. Tesla Motors, Inc., DEFAX Case No. D67623 (Del.Ch. Nov. 23, 2016), Slights, V.C. (34 pages).
This just popped up in my Google news feed for TSLA.
Looks like one of the SCTY merger lawsuits? Decided in TSLA's favour from the sound of it.
This just popped up in my Google news feed for TSLA.
Looks like one of the SCTY merger lawsuits? Decided in TSLA's favour from the sound of it.
mmd
Active Member
I'm really curious, why people are so obsessed with multiple Gigafactories. What does "buy a Gigafactory" even mean? Panasonic won't be happy setting up equipment at so many places while they still need to sell 700 million of the 18650 cells to Tesla under the 2013 purchase contract.
Can you please explain the benefits of setting up another GF in the middle of a desert, while the largest mines and markets for Tesla's cars are all quite far away from there? Tesla may get some incentives to build a GF there, UAE encourages foreign direct investment. But how is it good for the shareholders? Is it really better to build a GF there vs. some other place?
Most of the electricity generated from solar can be consumed right away, or stored in electric cars by demand shifting. There is no reason to first store everything into batteries, then extract that energy back. EVs are a nice grid stabilizing agents if they can charge when supply is excess. V2G can even supply power if needed.
It is no wonder that storage is a tiny sliver of the total solar generation market. For example, India now has 50 GW solar production, but is only considering a 10 MWh pilot storage project in New Delhi. Battery storage is still expensive and often unnecessary.
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
70% profit is derived from full sized trucks and full sized truck based SUV.
This does not include crossovers like Explorer, Escape,Edge and Flex. Or Lincoln MKC,MKK or MKT. These are based on front wheel drive car platforms and are the segment with highest sales growth. Most of the utility of a truck based SUV but drives like a car and gets the fuel economy closer to a car than a truck.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
The tape I listened to was full of wind noise, but what I heard was "{in this region} ____X______" who invented algebra; globally: Newton...", etc.
So I'm pretty sure the word that Steve and Int'l Prof were trying to make into that Samarkand astronomer, or Galileo, etc., was, in fact, "globally".
RobStark
Well-Known Member
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Every automaker sells every car they produce.
Difference is Tesla does it without significant discount,incentives or paid advertising.
T3slaTulips
Member
Seems the Sheikh is impressed with Mr. Musk's ideas.
HH Sheikh Mohammed on Twitter
Perhaps he and his brother could buy a little stock too...
HH Sheikh Mohammed on Twitter
Perhaps he and his brother could buy a little stock too...
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
Ron Baron will be on CNBC Wednesday FYI.........
Booyah.
Booyah.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Lets see if they're still happy when their palace servants buy some P100Ds and dust their Bugattis
I took a skim. This isn't a SCTY lawsuit, it's the ridiculous one where the Spiegel-like creature recites a bunch of bear talking points and demands to inspect Tesla's corporate records because they claim Tesla was fabricating demand and lied in guidance and whatnot.
The court found fully in Tesla's favor, just as I predicted many months ago. I can't remember which member(s) I went back and forth on re: this case as I tried to convince them it was frivolous junk not worth giving a second thought to (might be on my list now)...but yea. You were wrong, whoever you were.
EDIT: The readable opinion is here if you want it Haque v. Tesla Motors, Inc.
They might not have to build those Ampera-E's after all.
Background to this, Opel which is considered adding losses to GM result every year is potentially bought out by Nissan/Renault alliance. Which to me looks like divesting production capacity but I don't know anything about how useful it would have been for making Bolts aka Ampera-E's. The thought 'maybe short GM' came to my mind, but then again may be a bad move if their autonomous driving fleet plans pan out.
racer26
Active Member
Man, you're stuck in the present.
Tesla and Panasonic are friends. In bed together. Model S and X still use 18650 for the foreseeable future, and even if they didn't, why do you continue to act like both Tesla and Panasonic wouldn't simply renegotiate that contract. It was intended to give Panasonic some guarantees that they would have a customer for the batteries if they dusted off some of their mothballed 18650 production for Tesla's benefit, because at the time of that agreement, Tesla was only producing around 20k cars per year, and could still easily have failed somewhere along the growth curve. Now, Panasonic would absolutely be on-board with building another GF, as the one they already have can only support 500k-1M cars, and Tesla already has more demand than that factory can meet in the next 3 years.
Currently most solar generation can be consumed right away (and the real effect is that the utilities simply run natural gas peaker plants less than they used to). This is because there is a very low amount of solar penetration into the market. Baseload power plants such as nuclear and coal cannot have their output scaled rapidly to match demand. Natural gas peaker plants are mostly used for this today. Presently, in most places solar is gaining popularity, utilities allow customers to treat the grid like a giant battery, putting power in during the day, and taking it out at night, through some sort of net metering regime. This does not reflect the reality of how the grid works, and in some places where solar has higher penetration these regimes are already starting to fall apart, and will continue to do so as more and more solar generation comes online.
As solar continues to grow, and ultimately becomes the primary energy source (as it is rapidly becoming the cheapest AND most environmentally friendly option), storage becomes imperative. The first part of bringing solar online just offsets fossil fueled generation, but as you reach a certain point, there aren't any more fossil fuel plants to shut down, and you need the batteries to be able to handle the night-time demand for power with excess generation from the daytime.
As of today, the cost of solar generation plus Tesla batteries to store it in over the lifespan of those components is VERY CLOSE to the retail price of electricity charged by the utilities. Its not that far off from breakeven for a household user to pay for 20 years of electricity vs pay for panels and batteries and go off-grid. The price of utility power rises in perpetuity, and the price of solar+storage is still falling. There will come a day very soon where the switch flips and there is an avalanche of demand for solar+storage and a vacuum of demand for utility power.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
