Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
At the present time Tesla has very little solar pv production.

They have even less Model 3 production...

Eventually, it may be able to build a solar roof as a cheaper output product versus the option pricing of Fisker

They could do it today. The Fisker roof was as overpriced as the rest of the vehicle.

It's a vanity add-on and surely could be put out as a profit center for a while.

Pretty much every option on a vehicle is a "vanity" option. No one "needs" any more than what a base model comes with. Even buying new instead of used is a "vanity" option.
 
It is not FUD and it is going to start to effect sales of the S and X. Unfortunately Tesla has severely over promised. This is Elon's M.O. To understand what I mean I recommend you read Ashlee Vances' book on Elon.


This is FUD. Autopilot 2 is limited to 50 mph on highways for a reason - because it is in early stages largely because Mobileye refused to cooperate with tesla to allow a smooth transition.

It may take several months to reach parity with Autopilot 1. No big deal. Appropriate warnings have been provided.
 

I've spent quite a bit of time during the past week in the various autopilot threads, getting a feel for what is going on and providing some reasonable suggestions.

In terms of weaving from side to side of the lane, there are a few unique roads with wider than normal lanes, poor markings on the right side of the lane, and constantly turning left and right (without straightaways) which can induce poor autopilot performance for either the present AP 1.0 or AP 2.0 hardware/software. The reasonable thing to do in such a case is to take over control and not give control back to the autopilot until the type of road changes back to something that can give a decent performance. The autopilot typically gives a warning by light weaving or by showing no blue line to define the right side of the lane. Allowing the autopilot to continue steering when it is obviously increasing its divergent behavior is clearly poor oversight of the autopilot and such drivers need to click it off rather than sit back and see how poorly it can behave if given enough swerves on the wrong type of road. My recommendation is to set a reasonable standard that I will allow the autopilot to operate in, and once the autopilot shows it is not operating up to my standards I click it off.

As for the braking on the highway, this issue has been seen with AP 2.0 in both full lane-keeping mode and in Traffic Aware Cruise Control (TACC) usage. Fortunately, a newer release of the software seems to have improved the situation. Additionally, users have reported that learning by the autopilot does indeed take place so that if the same route is driven several times, the autopilot does fleet learning and understands that certain overhead signs or overpasses need to be entered into the database to prevent inadvertent triggering of the heavy braking. The heavy braking issue is likely the reason for the 50 mph max speed when using lane-keeping of AP 2.0. Several AP 2.0 owners say that when they reach a point where there was previously a heavy braking event, the autopilot now does a tiny speed adjustment and then continues normally on. No doubt the underlying cause is Tesla's giving AP 2.0 the ability to recognize an obstacle such as broadside tractor-trailer that was involved in the Josh Brown accident and safely avoid hitting it but to desensitize the autopilot to existing overhead signs and overpasses that could trigger similar braking. My suggestion was to use AP or TACC on your commuter route when traffic is light and nobody is close behind so that autopilot can learn the route, so that you can later take advantage of autopilot 2.0 and TACC during your normal commutes. During initial drive events on new routes that could possibly trigger a braking event, the application of accelerator pedal pressure can neutralize the braking event. Thus, during this preliminary data-gathering stage of the AP 2.0 hardware and software, drivers would be well-advised to be very focused on the traffic around the Tesla, to be prepared to override the heavy braking if it occurs, and to not explore new routes with the current software release when traffic is heavy enough to cause a collision potential should heavy braking occur. Overall, I hear that the number of heavy braking events is way down from before.

As for the issue of the Tesla not stopping during city driving when traffic is present and a green light takes place, I have not seen any claims to support this claim. It does not seem to be a widespread problem.
 
Last edited:
Tesla is continuing to grind through the market with little to no advertisement while the clueless continue to attack the positive force of change in energy consumption. What the anti-Tesla folks fear is that someone like me that has fought for success could ever reach the point of purchasing a Tesla M3 let alone an MX. If Tesla can pull it off, I'll help drive up deliveries for the 1Q17 in my MX.
As a cross country runner for Hawthorne High (SpaceX territory to be) in the mid-sixties it was the clumps of oil on the beach sand, the polluted air, and nasty smell I endured running along the railroad tracks to the beach that converted me from fossil fuel to newer cleaner energy. BP like oil spills helped too. I know it was not man caused; the BP oil spill:) Just like the clearcut forests are not manmade; it is those pesky beavers cutting down trees without permits:) Nor are the concrete jungles called cities, they are caused/created by??? Man never does anything wrong ~ Right; just ask Adam.
Or maybe it was my granddaughter (grandpup) asking at the age of six when mom and dad were going to buy an electric car to help improve the world.
Remember now, Elon said that the MS & MX orders were strong and the M3 is just around the corner. The M3 will push sales up on the MS and MX ~ even my wife was leaning towards the MS for a bit, but logic pushed us to the MX. The fact that neither the MS or MX use fossil fuels is why we sold off our two Toyota's (Prius and Tacoma). In the case of the Prius it was not better gas mileage is was NO gas mileage that drove that train to a Tesla.
So ~ "What's in your tank or frunk?"
 

Based on a wide cross section of comments and videos I have seen, AP2 appears to be learning and improving very fast. In terms of how it is currently performing, in addition to @Papafox's comments above, here is what one TMC member you may have heard of had to say about it recently (I recommend the video as well):

The OP can thank me for not ripping into the inflammatory and irresponsible title of this post; regardless, it has engendered at least some productive commentary.

The subsequent collective posts also are suggestive that, at one level, the plural of anecdotes can at least sometimes truly be data. Here is mine:

  • Yesterday our AP2 Chitty Chitty Shush Shush navigated the 45 miles of a narrow, tight-curved, and moderately steep road.
  • It traverses one of the most beautiful stretches of high Sonoran Desert on this planet (otherwise scarcely relevant to this discussion, other than that it provided the reason for performing the rest of the test)
  • In that I consider myself fairly familiar with the driving habits of central Arizona's Tesla owners, I can reasonably state it never has been "mapped" (i.e., navigated) by an AP2 vehicle. There is a fairly good likelihood no AP1 car also ever has been on it. It has been navigated, twice, by our AP0 Audiemobile.
  • The vehicle's driver was a long-time Mercedes technician who - because long since he became at least as sheltered an Alaskan troglodyte as I - never had even seen any Tesla before, let alone driven in one. I gave him the wheel once we reached this road, and showed him how to engage self-driving
  • A safety feature of importance to me (passenger, vehicle owner, reasonably responsible citizen, &c) is that this road is supremely lightly trafficked, other than at mine shift changes. We encountered three vehicles during our drive. I could find a better road than this in Alaska - longer, yet more challenging, lighter traffic - but I'm not there at present so this had to suffice
  • Speed limit on the entire length of the road is 35mph, with appropriate yellow "caution" speed reductions at the appropriate curves. Perfect for AP2 at this time.
The result of this test: the vehicle performed perfectly, with the sole exception of one moment when both fog line and center line disappeared and Chitty Chitty hesitated and wandered for a driver-required two-second or so length of time. She hugged the track; she decelerated appropriately at curves and hill crests, there was, other than the aforementioned exception, no time when she was not driving at least as well as any human could drive.


And...my Teutonic friend, who prior to this visit - and this test - had absolutely no intention ever of so doing - ordered a Model 3 last night.

Anyone who wishes to replicate these results is encouraged to traverse the Bagdad Mine Road. Prickly pear blossoms are out and the saguaros will be blooming shortly; this winter's rains have liquified its many stream channels and greened the hillsides to perfection; desert wildflowers are burgeoning daily. The drive provides superb testimony to AP2's effectiveness as of March, 2017.

Let's try this snag from YouTube....yep, this seems to work. Enjoy Sab's great German accent.

 
Sounds to me from Papafox's description and the article that the main problem is people beta testing the car's auto-pilot do not understand what it means to beta test.

When I was beta testing software it wasn't a public release. The testers requested to be a beta tester, everything was made clear to them, an NDA was signed, then testers were allowed on the game server after review. I know that is a lot more lax now days for games.

Do you think Tesla should allow everyone who can hit accept to be beta testers?
Curious what opinions are from actual investors.
I think there should be more to it than just accepting risk. It seem obvious some people didn't understand what they were accepting.

I know from beta testing software/MMORPGs that I would not want to beta test a car's autopilot unless Tesla was going to foot the bill on repairs.... altho I guess the car won't fall thru the road because a collision plane was mapped out wrong to the wireframe.
 
Beta testing; For pre AP and AP1.0 there were a group of beta testers that were selected by TM. IIRC it was reported to be about 600 worldwide.
I do not know if that program exists for AP2.0 as it seems everyone is beta testing. If that is so, I believe it is unwise. Too many 'yahoos' who push the software beyond the capabilities and do not exercise good judgement of keeping hands on the wheel. I suspect this situation exists as Tesla is trying to accumulate as much driving data asap.

Stationary objects at stop lights. My AP 1,0 detects them fine and wil brake so I am unsure if I understand the situation you are describing.
 
Sounds to me from Papafox's description and the article that the main problem is people beta testing the car's auto-pilot do not understand what it means to beta test.

When I was beta testing software it wasn't a public release. The testers requested to be a beta tester, everything was made clear to them, an NDA was signed, then testers were allowed on the game server after review. I know that is a lot more lax now days for games.

Do you think Tesla should allow everyone who can hit accept to be beta testers?
Curious what opinions are from actual investors.
I think there should be more to it than just accepting risk. It seem obvious some people didn't understand what they were accepting.

I know from beta testing software/MMORPGs that I would not want to beta test a car's autopilot unless Tesla was going to foot the bill on repairs.... altho I guess the car won't fall thru the road because a collision plane was mapped out wrong to the wireframe.

Yes, you touch upon the problem that this feature needs to clearly be considered a beta feature and that not everyone is a good candidate for testing it.

I think the AP 2.0 owners have a valid concern, though, that Tesla needed to give them a better idea of what they might encounter during the initial testing of AP 2.0. For example, the potential rapid braking issue and how to counter it is something that drivers really need to think over seriously before using AP 2.0 on the road. In my opinion, Tesla could have been more forthcoming in saying how this early release of the AP 2.0 software is not for everyone and that the possibility of heavy braking as the system matures exists. Some mention of what might happen and how to counter it would have made for a more-informed deployment of the feature. I think this is the frustration of many owners... that the level of communications from Tesla regarding a product such as AP 2.0 needs to be increased. Until Tesla chooses to increase the level of communications with the owners regarding this feature, the next best path is for forums such as TMC to share the experiences of owners so that those considering using AP 2.0 in the very early stages can see the full range of possible outcomes. For a period of time last week, the trolls were in the autopilot forums in force, trying to stoke ill feelings about Tesla, but they have been countered by more reasonable voices. I'm still hoping that Tesla opts for providing more information about what might occur in a beta software release, however, so that drivers are better informed, which would lead to some individuals sitting on the sidelines a bit longer (which would be good in many cases) and others who are using the software being better prepared to deal with any undesired characteristics of the software
 
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: MitchJi and EinSV
I'd love too see a Cap Raise announcement this week. If it happens at all, I think Wednesday after the close is most likely. Just a wild ass guess.

It's been spooky how pegged TSLA has been to $250 level last week.
Buckle Up, Bitches! Should be fun if it happens.

Question.... The assumption is the 250 pin is a result of an external force, keeping it there while the cap raise is happening? Then why the low volume? If there was an external force applying up or down pressure, wouldn't that cause more volume as opposed to less?

This feels like a general lack of interest on both the longs and the shorts to change positions.... IDK, I'm just learning as I go, a cap raise announcement won't surprise me!
 
Question.... The assumption is the 250 pin is a result of an external force, keeping it there while the cap raise is happening? Then why the low volume? If there was an external force applying up or down pressure, wouldn't that cause more volume as opposed to less?

This feels like a general lack of interest on both the longs and the shorts to change positions.... IDK, I'm just learning as I go, a cap raise announcement won't surprise me!
I was thinking about this very same thing while going for a jog after work.
My theory is that whoever is running this potential cap raise JPM, MS etc probably have the ammo to keep the price within a certain range as long as there isn't some kind of concurrent market wide sell-off going on. During this period any big institutional shorters can probably deduce pretty quickly with the aid of software/ dedicated analysts that the price is being maintained by a large institution(s).
In this case, the big dog shorts probably decide that it is not worth their time/money to try and heavily short the stock during this period hence the low volume. I believe Papafox and others have shown that up to 60 percent of TSLA day trading can be shorting activity.
Thats just my theory. Maybe some of the experts such as JesseLivenomore can chime in.
 
I remember last time we were hovering around 250, on the way up, trading was light, stock was flat, and I guessed it would continue that way until ER (and sold 270 calls, followed by a massive run up).

Trading these days feels very similar to that time.... I think 250 is a "neutral spot" at this moment. Maybe the bank(s) buying into the cap raise know this is a natural happy spot to do it.
 
I am almost tempted to start changing my short term trading strategy from that for a flat trend, to opening myself up for the possibility of a move up, due to cap raise announcement.

This is moderated by the risk of macros breaking down and the possibility of an overall downtrend until M3 production gets closer.
 
I am almost tempted to start changing my short term trading strategy from that for a flat trend, to opening myself up for the possibility of a move up, due to cap raise announcement.

This is moderated by the risk of macros breaking down and the possibility of an overall downtrend until M3 production gets closer.
Sounds like you got the 'ol "It may go up, it may go down, it may stay the same" goin' on!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.