Business Insider reporting that only ~60 of the reservations for the FF91 are of the paid variety.
I'm actually quite surprised, there are as many as 60 morons in this world!
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.
Business Insider reporting that only ~60 of the reservations for the FF91 are of the paid variety.
I'm actually quite surprised, there are as many as 60 morons in this world!
Can you link any of these articles? I didn't see anything negative in main line media about this.So many paid shills.
Several of the articles reporting on the NHTSA investigation closing are saying that there is evidence of some defect that would have required a recall or something, but NHTSA didn't force one for a mysterious reason. If you read the actual NHTSA report, there is no such information there.
NHTSA conducted a series of test track-based AEB performance evaluations shortly after the May crash using a 2015 Tesla Model S 85D and a 2015 Mercedes C300 4Matic peer vehicle. The vehicles were tested in the three rear-end collision crash modes (LVS, LVM, and LVD) and three different vehicle operating modes: manual driving; adaptive cruise control (ACC) systems activated; and ACC and Lane Centering Control (LCC) systems activated. This testing confirmed that the AEB systems in the Tesla and peer vehicle were able to achieve crash avoidance in a majority of the rear-end scenarios tested; that ACC generally provided enough braking to achieve crash avoidance without also requiring CIB to intervene; and that neither vehicle effectively responded to a realistic appearing artifical “target” vehicle in the SCP or LTAP scenarios.
IIHS research shows that AEB systems meeting the commitment would reduce rear-end crashes [emphasis added] by 40 percent. IIHS estimates that by 2025 – the earliest NHTSA believes it could realistically implement a regulatory requirement for AEB – the commitment will prevent 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries.
Business Insider reporting that only ~60 of the reservations for the FF91 are of the paid variety.
People for whom money is both no object, and also $5,000 is an acceptable loss to take.I'm actually quite surprised, there are as many as 60 morons in this world!
Agreed. Potemkin village, cash burn with no profits to show for it, smoke and mirrors show, ponzi scheme, falsified (or at least disingenuous) performance specs (ok, Tesla's fairly guilty on that one too).I think Faraday Future is exactly the kind of company bears are trying to find in Tesla.
No, I'm one of the several that laments the obvious decrease in quality of this thread over the last few years. Many of the best posters have left for this very reason.
This is the TSLA investors section of the forums, not the circle jerk section. Most of the people that defend the echo chamber that this place becomes lose money well and fine enough on their own. I'm just here clinging to some hope that this thread returns to even a fraction of it's former glory.
As to b). Someone who gives a *sugar* and would like to keep making enormous returns in TSLA that doesn't want to skip through 4 pages a week about people calling any potential negative argument idiotic and assuming everyone who disagrees with them are paid shills.
Voltage most certainly does.I don't think the finishing voltage of a cell has anything to do with it's C rate.
Boy, we are jaded. ~$400K in revenue from one sale. "Won't add much revenue". What would investors have thought of that in the days of the Roadster.Another 1MWh Tesla Powerpack Installation. This is great but it won't add much revenue and I was hoping for more utility sized installations.
Tesla found an energy storage market in breweries and wineries, installs new Powerpack project at Sierra Nevada
Continuing on the theme of "not an echo chamber" here is an article on the Tesla/SolarCity/Silevo/Panasonic Buffalo fab from an experienced solar industry reporter:
Tesla/SolarCity/Silevo/Panasonic 1GW Buffalo fab’s known unknowns
It doesn't provide new information, but it does frame things a bit, including the difficulties of combining Panasonic and Silevo technology and how little we know about what is going on there amidst some delays (not all Solarcity or Tesla).
My Roth is slightly more than 100% TSLA (there are some calls which are effectively leverage), but then *it's not my only account*. I figured since TSLA has such high upside potential I should concentrate the TSLA in the account where gains are tax-free and put the other investments in other accounts.Just sold some TSLA in my ROTH account so now it's not 100% of the account value. Definitely a high risk move or some may say dumb .
Fact vs Fiction; True vs False, etc. I am a back door rocket scientist; a retired Field Artillery Officer.
Business Insider reporting that only ~60 of the reservations for the FF91 are of the paid variety.
How do you all think about those execution risks?
This article is written by Bertel Schmitt, the same guy who recently predicted Tesla will need to spend $28bln on showrooms and service centers by 2020.
I think everyone is missing a huge part in the 40% statistic, this footnote:
The 40% reduction is for total crashes of all miles driven before AP1 installation, compared to all miles driven after AP1 installation. This has a huge influence on how much safer AP1 actually is if we can make the following assumption:
Assumption: Cars without AP1 installed have the same crash rate as cars with AP1 installed but turned off.
If you buy that, then the reduction in crashes while actually using AP1 is higher than 40% depending on the percentage of miles that people drive with AP1 turned on once they have installed it. Potentially much higher.
To illustrate this assume group A is all the cars without AP1 installed. Group B is all the cars with AP1 installed. If both groups drive 100 million miles, we would expect ~130 crashes from group A and ~80 crashes from group B. But now consider that group B only had AP1 active for 50% of those miles. Assuming the 50 million manually driven miles have the same crash rate as the manually driven miles in group A we would see ~65 crashes for manually driven miles from group B. This would mean only 15 of the crashes in group B happened for the 50 million miles with AP1 active compared to 65 for group A. In this scenario that would be a reduction of 77% from AP use!
It is important to appreciate that the actual reduction is highly influenced by the percentage of miles you assume are driven with AP1 on. As far as I know Tesla has not divulged this information. If you accept the assumption above then the number cannot be below ~39%.
You can't see it on your post, but I totally pushed the 'maniacal laughter' button, which of course represents several magnitude funnier than just the 'funny' button.
Boy, we are jaded. ~$400K in revenue from one sale. "Won't add much revenue". What would investors have thought of that in the days of the Roadster.