Thanks. Sorry if it seemed like I was dumping on the Fools site which maybe I was. I'm sure there is a lot to learn there and people who really know what they are doing. My only exposure is from articles like that though so a slanted view I guess. That and JP's articles on SeekingAlpha. Nick, I think that's his name, on SeekingAlpha wrote some excellent rebuttals to JP's posts so there are good people to follow on those sites. My main point was, like everything I guess, to question the source since it doesn't go through the same journalistic review process something from a major newspaper or magazine would.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anti-Tesla Gibberish
- Thread starter bonnie
- Start date
Thanks. Sorry if it seemed like I was dumping on the Fools site which maybe I was. I'm sure there is a lot to learn there and people who really know what they are doing. My only exposure is from articles like that though so a slanted view I guess. That and JP's articles on SeekingAlpha. Nick, I think that's his name, on SeekingAlpha wrote some excellent rebuttals to JP's posts so there are good people to follow on those sites. My main point was, like everything I guess, to question the source since it doesn't go through the same journalistic review process something from a major newspaper or magazine would.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Fools are a lot different now than the way they used to be. Some good stuff but a lot of hyping their own products, and pretty much anyone can join up and post an article.
Not all of the 'Fools' are negative...
Does Tesla Motors have a Competitive Advantage? - F, GM, TSLA, TM - Foolish Blogging Network
Does Tesla Motors have a Competitive Advantage? - F, GM, TSLA, TM - Foolish Blogging Network
mitch672
Active Member
The article is a little bit negative, they only give Tesla a 4/12 for competitive advantage, they actually gave them a -1 in the cost category:
Pencils down! Let's see how TSLA stacks up in their Competitive Advantage
Category Points Awarded/Possible
Intangibles 3/3
Stickiness 0/4
Experience 2/3
Cost (1)/2
Total 4/12
Here is a better article on why "Tesla has it right, and everyone else has it wrong", its one of the few Tesla positive articles I've ever seen on "SeekingAlpha"
Why Tesla Has It Right And GM, Ford And Nissan Have It Wrong - Seeking Alpha
final summary is nice too:
So, it's Tesla: right car, right market, right battery. Competitors: wrong car, wrong market, wrong battery. And, this is why Tesla is going to win - if only they can keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down until they cross the finish line...
Yeah, but remember what they were saying...
"We can consider a company that scores at least 3 points to have a competitive advantage, and at least 5 points to have a strong competitive advantage."
So in that aspect, I think that they were not being negative.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
True, as I posted in the investor thread: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/10/09/the-most-misunderstood-stock-on-the-nasdaq.aspx
John Petersen, give it a break already....
New JP article. Funny timing with the stock rallying and Obama win :wink:. Its just getting old. He sites studies saying Electric vehicles are worse for the environment then ICEs. I cant imagine these are correct as they are often refuted. But again he misses that even if they were correct, "eco friendly" is only a minor part of tesla's value proposition. Also, he says Tesla "just entered the valley of death". I think its clear from increased production, long accelerating waiting list, and blowout reviews, it just passed "success as a new product" and is approaching "success as a business" with positive cash flow a month away.
Thoughts?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11759628/1/tesla-motors-pollutes-today-for-a-greener-tomorrow.html
New JP article. Funny timing with the stock rallying and Obama win :wink:. Its just getting old. He sites studies saying Electric vehicles are worse for the environment then ICEs. I cant imagine these are correct as they are often refuted. But again he misses that even if they were correct, "eco friendly" is only a minor part of tesla's value proposition. Also, he says Tesla "just entered the valley of death". I think its clear from increased production, long accelerating waiting list, and blowout reviews, it just passed "success as a new product" and is approaching "success as a business" with positive cash flow a month away.
Thoughts?
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11759628/1/tesla-motors-pollutes-today-for-a-greener-tomorrow.html
PureAmps
Model S P85 (#2817)
I took a look at the study (http://www.cmu.edu/me/ddl/publications/2011-PNAS-Michalek-etal-PHEV-Valuation.pdf) so I could "follow the money". The study concludes that Hybrids and Plug-In Hybrids with smaller batteries are better for the environment than ICEs or BEVs with large batteries (i.e. the Tesla Model S). The ICEs are worse because of tail pipe emissions and the pure BEVs are worse because of the environmental impact of manufacturing the large battery pack. So this study would favor the Toyota Prius or Chevy Volt over ICEs or pure BEVs with large battery packs.
I won't even get into a number of bad assumptions that seem to be built into the study. Instead, I'll just quote the "conflict of interest" statement from the study:
So big surprise that Toyota is funding the author of this study and he ended up favoring hybrids and plug-in hybrids.
kevincwelch
Active Member
I'm not going to debate the merits of the study or the conclusions stated there. Nor is this an assessment of your conclusions.
However, I will address this conflict of interest statement and my opinion on funded research from a physician's standpoint.
While the best studies are those that are independently funded and overseen by individuals or organizations that have nothing to do with the outcomes of such studies, a sad fact of life is that studies cost money. With increasing restrictions placed on researchers by internal review boards, pressure to disclose financial relationships, dwindling federal dollars used to support research and decreased interest (as expressed by pharma and equipment companies) in financially supporting national meetings where research is discussed in an open forum, physicians and physician groups have to turn to those who have the money to support research. As time moves forward, especially in this climate, that money will come from pharmaceutical as well as medical device manufacturing companies.
While I have no personal financial investments in any pharmaceutical or equipment company, I have reached out to these companies for grant money when other monies have not been available. It's a fact of life that companies are going to be the ones funding an increasing amount of research. Therefore, it is important for researchers to be able to maintain complete control over how the research is performed and how it is reported. COI statements are important to note, but they don't necessarily mean anything.
Disclaimers such as this are only going to be more common. One can take it or leave it, but it's going to be more common and a way of life. Otherwise, less and less research is going to be done.
Can't say whether Petersen's disclaimer is actually true, but it certainly could be.
sublimaze1
8Dec2012 / Leeroy Jenkins
@kevincwelch
as a physician myself, I would agree about studies and money. but I would also venture to take it a bit further (outside the box, whatever term you wish): This Petersen is not a physician, and does not intend his research for medications or therapeutics to help ill persons. his goal is to produce literature. this literature is what he will (or will not) be known by. i cannot see him taking money from ford or toyota and using it to help ill persons. this falls into his wallet. I lecture around the US and receive monies from private entities. this money pays for my room and travel and per deim (food), etc. I get an honorarium and that helps me justify the time I spend preparing lectures on molecules and petri dishes and muscle spindles and receptors.
I will say the honorarium is nice, but it is the pleasure of teaching and traveling that keep me in this game.
Petersen must enjoy something. whether it is Tesla bashing or fame or publications, you can be assured that the benjamins in his pocket are not painful to carry.
as a physician myself, I would agree about studies and money. but I would also venture to take it a bit further (outside the box, whatever term you wish): This Petersen is not a physician, and does not intend his research for medications or therapeutics to help ill persons. his goal is to produce literature. this literature is what he will (or will not) be known by. i cannot see him taking money from ford or toyota and using it to help ill persons. this falls into his wallet. I lecture around the US and receive monies from private entities. this money pays for my room and travel and per deim (food), etc. I get an honorarium and that helps me justify the time I spend preparing lectures on molecules and petri dishes and muscle spindles and receptors.
I will say the honorarium is nice, but it is the pleasure of teaching and traveling that keep me in this game.
Petersen must enjoy something. whether it is Tesla bashing or fame or publications, you can be assured that the benjamins in his pocket are not painful to carry.
I think Tesla will succeed as a company because they have a product I want to buy. I don't think it's been shown that from an emissions viewpoint, Tesla is the best solution forward. Electric cars aren't going to be the savior that saves us from global warming. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is truly our only hope.
I think at this stage, hybrids will do more to reduce the emissions of America than Tesla could do in the foreseeable future. The logic behind this is pretty straightforward: Toyota can replace more gas guzzlers with hybrids than Tesla will with fully electric cars.
Pointing at COI statements is a lazy way to attack a scientific paper. If you don't want to engage the arguments of an academic paper, then you don't have to, but don't look for a shortcut to pull out an ad hominem attack. It's like saying that our data and opinions aren't valid because we want an electric car, or own stock in the company.
I think at this stage, hybrids will do more to reduce the emissions of America than Tesla could do in the foreseeable future. The logic behind this is pretty straightforward: Toyota can replace more gas guzzlers with hybrids than Tesla will with fully electric cars.
Pointing at COI statements is a lazy way to attack a scientific paper. If you don't want to engage the arguments of an academic paper, then you don't have to, but don't look for a shortcut to pull out an ad hominem attack. It's like saying that our data and opinions aren't valid because we want an electric car, or own stock in the company.
If they're comparing the environmental cost of a $100k Model S to a $15k Fiat 500, then sure, I'd expect the overall cost of the Model S is worse. If they're comparing it to a $100k BMW M5, I'd be shocked if the environmental cost of the Tesla was worse.
Their environmental cost due to operational electricity seemed high to me in their plots. Power generated at a large, efficient, stationary power plant is usually much better for the environment than power generated in a small, mobile, gasoline-only engine. The chart showed the environmental cost of operating a Tesla as over half of the environmental cost of operating an ICE.
As for his point about reservation numbers, he starts by saying that the cancellation rate is 1/3rd because new reservations were only 3 times cancellations. but the size of the queue is large and cancellations were less than 1/10th of the size of the queue. Peterson says this is "not encouraging". I think the fact that less than 10% of us are cancelling now that we get to really see the car and are forced to make a purchase decision is actually quite encouraging.
I do agree with his numbers showing that Tesla's reservation queue should approach zero after a year. I'm not sure how this is important, however. Isn't it desirable for a manufacturer to promptly produce what the customer wants? Long lead times inherently create more cancellations (people lose their job, lose interest, lose patience, whatever) and they create lower order rates (I need to wait how long?!). More interesting to me is that reservations are still coming in at a good rate. They show that the market for expensive electric cars is not getting saturated: not everyone who might buy a Model S has already reserved a Model S.
Personally, I would be afraid to buy TSLA stock because too many things need to go right for the company to justify its current market cap. but Peterson's environmental data seems quite suspect, and his reservation data seems to me to only confirm that TSLA is doing well.
Their environmental cost due to operational electricity seemed high to me in their plots. Power generated at a large, efficient, stationary power plant is usually much better for the environment than power generated in a small, mobile, gasoline-only engine. The chart showed the environmental cost of operating a Tesla as over half of the environmental cost of operating an ICE.
As for his point about reservation numbers, he starts by saying that the cancellation rate is 1/3rd because new reservations were only 3 times cancellations. but the size of the queue is large and cancellations were less than 1/10th of the size of the queue. Peterson says this is "not encouraging". I think the fact that less than 10% of us are cancelling now that we get to really see the car and are forced to make a purchase decision is actually quite encouraging.
I do agree with his numbers showing that Tesla's reservation queue should approach zero after a year. I'm not sure how this is important, however. Isn't it desirable for a manufacturer to promptly produce what the customer wants? Long lead times inherently create more cancellations (people lose their job, lose interest, lose patience, whatever) and they create lower order rates (I need to wait how long?!). More interesting to me is that reservations are still coming in at a good rate. They show that the market for expensive electric cars is not getting saturated: not everyone who might buy a Model S has already reserved a Model S.
Personally, I would be afraid to buy TSLA stock because too many things need to go right for the company to justify its current market cap. but Peterson's environmental data seems quite suspect, and his reservation data seems to me to only confirm that TSLA is doing well.
Remember thought that up until about 6 weeks ago Tesla didn't have their product in the market. They have spent 0 on advertising. There is almost no word of mouth. In 6 months that will change.
And anecdotally my mom doesn't want to get into a really long line, and have greater uncertainty in her delivery time. As the line gets shorter more people will be willing to get into the line.
It's not "his" data, it's Tesla's. And his conclusions from that data are something called "spin". You would expect a higher dropout rate for the very early reservations, yet they're still pretty low. Those numbers are, in fact, excellent.
I've yet to see a study running the environmental numbers that didn't have obvious errors or bad assumptions.
PureAmps
Model S P85 (#2817)
A quick clarification: Peterson referenced a study that was done by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University. Toyota and Ford have funded those researchers at CMU, not Peterson. Peterson was just referencing the study for further Tesla bashing.
They are important to note because they are an indication of bias. And all scientific research has bias, which is the researcher's point of view or approach to investigating or solving a problem. So when I see a researcher has funding from a particular source, it is usually because their interests are aligned.
Researchers often seek out funding sources that align with their point of view. For example, if a doctor were researching a new drug-free treatment approach to a particular disease, she probably wouldn't receive funding from a pharma company for that type of research. Whereas drug-related research would almost certainly be funded by a pharma company. That doesn't mean that the pharma company somehow corrupted the results of the research, but it does indicate to me that the researcher was focused on a pharmaceutical solution to the problem.
strider
Active Member
I haven't RTFA'd but I would agree that Tesla is in the valley of death. I don't believe there are enough EV fanatics out there to sustain the company. Tesla needs to appeal to people who are otherwise shopping a 5-series, A7, etc and are not shopping to "buy an EV". Right now I contend that Tesla's reservations are effectively all "EV shoppers". We won't know until mid next year when the backlog is cleared and they exhaust the initial fanatics if they are attracting "regular" car buyers. If they can then they will succeed. If they can't it doesn't look good for them. I'm not being negative, just sticking to the facts. They are "in the chasm" and have yet to make the jump from early adopters to early majority.
I disagree with strider on the valley of death comment. I think it's a very easy sell to people with the means. I have been on the wait list for about 2 years and now that it's getting closer and closer to actually getting the car, people are coming out of the woodwork wanting to talk to me about it and are genuinely interested in purchasing the car. So far, 3 people have put down reservations and they are by no means EV fanatics, One person trading in his maserati for it, they just want to save money on gas and others appreciate fast cars, about 10 others have expressed interest but are waiting to see what one looks like, besides pictures.
I think the early adopter phase was the roadster, (innovators were EV1, RAV4 EV etc) and I think the Model S is the early majority
I think the early adopter phase was the roadster, (innovators were EV1, RAV4 EV etc) and I think the Model S is the early majority
Just for fun, strider's words co-opted for a trip back in time.
For the record, I agree and believe it's happening organically as we speak. Talking to a neighbor, they had no interest in an EV but are very attracted the articles they have read about the car's features.
For the record, I agree and believe it's happening organically as we speak. Talking to a neighbor, they had no interest in an EV but are very attracted the articles they have read about the car's features.
Well, there are other studies that come to about the same conclusion. This one for example. I dont see any car makers behind it:
Green Car Congress: New full LCA highlights complexity of environmental advantages and disadvantages of EVs relative to ICE vehicles; the importance of life cycle thinking
"The EV production phase is more environmentally intensive than that of ICEVs for all impact categories with the exception of terrestrial acidification potential (TAP).
The supply chains involved in the production of electric powertrains and traction batteries add significantly to the environmental impacts of vehicle production. For some environmental impact categories, lower emissions during the use phase compensate for the additional burden caused during the production phase of EVs, depending on the electricity mix. However, this is not always the case."
Similar threads
