Moderator's Note: a couple of posts were moved to Alternative Energy Investor Discussions (formerly SCTY thread))
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Making sense of TSLA at $121.58
Today TSLA dropped over 10% and closed at $121.58 (hitting a $119.61 intraday low).
Recap of how we got here
First, here’s a quick recap of how TSLA went from $193 down to $121 in a month and a half time. At $193, TSLA was fueled by overly high expectations of 700 cars/week produced, a figure derived from misused VIN analysis. TSLA dropped from $193 largely because of lowered expectations and the first debris fire. The second major catalyst was a weak Q3 Earnings Report. It actually was a good Q3 but TSLA refused to give clear FY 2014 guidance and this spooked already nervous investors who were concerned of production constraints. Then, right after Q3 ER there was another debris fire. This was the catalyst that brought TSLA down to test the $132-133 resistance level it held for the past week.
Tesla’s response to the 2nd debris fire
Last week I was expecting Tesla to release Elon Musk’s blog post about the second debris fire (something that was promised in an email sent to their email list). However, as the week passed I become increasingly concerned. And this past weekend I felt that if Tesla didn’t come out with a strong blog post from Elon, then there could be further downward pressure as investors focus greater on execution risks related to future debris fires.
When I wrote Why Tesla’s 3rd fire is not the end of the world on Nov 7, I was expecting Tesla to come out with a strong stance and defense of the second debris fire. However, this has not been the case. Elon spoke at a DealBook interview early last week and an CNBC interview about the second debris fire, but it wasn’t strong enough of a defense in my opinion. I thought Tesla needed to take a clear stance, explain that stance, and defend that stance. Even if they weren’t going to do a recall, they could have still come out strong against the “safety” of ICE cars compared to Tesla’s design. Elon mentioned in the interviews how the Model S was still far safer than an ICE car, but I felt like those interviews weren’t enough. I was expecting more from Tesla during last week and the latest over the weekend. When that didn’t come, I was somewhat expecting TSLA to break the $132-133 resistance level this week.
The $132-133 resistance level was a very strong resistance level dating back to pre-Q2 ER times. And when that resistance broke, investors got spooked even further and selling continued down until $120.
Fire debris risk
The main risk investors are largely focused on is the risk of more debris fires in the future and its effect in drying up demand over the long-term. Fires happen and thankfully the Tesla debris fires weren’t spontaneous and the drivers were not injured in any way. In fact, the car warned the drivers to pull over to the side of the road and exit the vehicle. The debris fire issue can be mitigated if Tesla comes out strong with a clear, rational and compelling defense of the Model S, even if that means bashing on the safety of ICE vehicles while doing so. However, when/if Tesla’s response appears weak, hesitant, unclear, or uncompelling, then the debris fire issue becomes a greater risk in the eyes of investors and this is reflected in the stock price.
Another effect of the debris fire issue is that is zaps the exuberance out behind of TSLA’s stock. Investors are reassessing their estimates and expectations of the stock performance in the near future as well as longer term.
Investors are scared that there will be another debris fire (or more than one) in the near future and that will cause the stock to drop further. Again this is understandable in light of Tesla’s relatively weak response toward to second debris fire. A stock price is built on confidence, namely the confidence investors have in the execution of the company and its eventual realization of future earnings. However, when a company faces a major hurdle/roadblock and comes out hesitant/weak, this could shake the confidence of investors since investors speculate/reason that the company is coming out hesitant/weak because the problem is too big to be solved. With shaken confidence investors will give a lower multiple for the stock as the risks appear higher.
Short-term risk
I’m not going to spend much time highlighting the short-term risks with TSLA because with the current pessimistic mood of investors most of those risks are already highlighted and emphasized. I will say though that TSLA has already dropped over 38% from it’s ATHs of $194 and is valued at under $15b market cap. I will also say that it held (barely) the $120 resistance level and if it breaks that then I see a very strong $108 resistance level (from the Goldman dip and before, as well as the 200 day moving average).
The long-term view
While I’m not going to focus on the short-term risks in this post (though there are many), the longer-term view is that the debris fires do not mean the end of Tesla and IMO Tesla will recover eventually. I still think the Model S is safer than any comparable ICE car and I think Tesla can do things in the future to stir demand when they reach a place where they need to.
The debris fires coupled with Tesla’s relatively weak response do give me concern to lower my previous expectations on TSLA’s stock price performance over the next year. Previously I had a price target of $350 by Jan 2015, but now that is lowered to $250-275 (and if Tesla doesn’t give a strong response to the second debris fire, that price target might be lowered further).
Today TSLA dropped over 10% and closed at $121.58 (hitting a $119.61 intraday low).
Recap of how we got here
First, here’s a quick recap of how TSLA went from $193 down to $121 in a month and a half time. At $193, TSLA was fueled by overly high expectations of 700 cars/week produced, a figure derived from misused VIN analysis. TSLA dropped from $193 largely because of lowered expectations and the first debris fire. The second major catalyst was a weak Q3 Earnings Report. It actually was a good Q3 but TSLA refused to give clear FY 2014 guidance and this spooked already nervous investors who were concerned of production constraints. Then, right after Q3 ER there was another debris fire. This was the catalyst that brought TSLA down to test the $132-133 resistance level it held for the past week.
Tesla’s response to the 2nd debris fire
Last week I was expecting Tesla to release Elon Musk’s blog post about the second debris fire (something that was promised in an email sent to their email list). However, as the week passed I become increasingly concerned. And this past weekend I felt that if Tesla didn’t come out with a strong blog post from Elon, then there could be further downward pressure as investors focus greater on execution risks related to future debris fires.
When I wrote Why Tesla’s 3rd fire is not the end of the world on Nov 7, I was expecting Tesla to come out with a strong stance and defense of the second debris fire. However, this has not been the case. Elon spoke at a DealBook interview early last week and an CNBC interview about the second debris fire, but it wasn’t strong enough of a defense in my opinion. I thought Tesla needed to take a clear stance, explain that stance, and defend that stance. Even if they weren’t going to do a recall, they could have still come out strong against the “safety” of ICE cars compared to Tesla’s design. Elon mentioned in the interviews how the Model S was still far safer than an ICE car, but I felt like those interviews weren’t enough. I was expecting more from Tesla during last week and the latest over the weekend. When that didn’t come, I was somewhat expecting TSLA to break the $132-133 resistance level this week.
The $132-133 resistance level was a very strong resistance level dating back to pre-Q2 ER times. And when that resistance broke, investors got spooked even further and selling continued down until $120.
Fire debris risk
The main risk investors are largely focused on is the risk of more debris fires in the future and its effect in drying up demand over the long-term. Fires happen and thankfully the Tesla debris fires weren’t spontaneous and the drivers were not injured in any way. In fact, the car warned the drivers to pull over to the side of the road and exit the vehicle. The debris fire issue can be mitigated if Tesla comes out strong with a clear, rational and compelling defense of the Model S, even if that means bashing on the safety of ICE vehicles while doing so. However, when/if Tesla’s response appears weak, hesitant, unclear, or uncompelling, then the debris fire issue becomes a greater risk in the eyes of investors and this is reflected in the stock price.
Another effect of the debris fire issue is that is zaps the exuberance out behind of TSLA’s stock. Investors are reassessing their estimates and expectations of the stock performance in the near future as well as longer term.
Investors are scared that there will be another debris fire (or more than one) in the near future and that will cause the stock to drop further. Again this is understandable in light of Tesla’s relatively weak response toward to second debris fire. A stock price is built on confidence, namely the confidence investors have in the execution of the company and its eventual realization of future earnings. However, when a company faces a major hurdle/roadblock and comes out hesitant/weak, this could shake the confidence of investors since investors speculate/reason that the company is coming out hesitant/weak because the problem is too big to be solved. With shaken confidence investors will give a lower multiple for the stock as the risks appear higher.
Short-term risk
I’m not going to spend much time highlighting the short-term risks with TSLA because with the current pessimistic mood of investors most of those risks are already highlighted and emphasized. I will say though that TSLA has already dropped over 38% from it’s ATHs of $194 and is valued at under $15b market cap. I will also say that it held (barely) the $120 resistance level and if it breaks that then I see a very strong $108 resistance level (from the Goldman dip and before, as well as the 200 day moving average).
The long-term view
While I’m not going to focus on the short-term risks in this post (though there are many), the longer-term view is that the debris fires do not mean the end of Tesla and IMO Tesla will recover eventually. I still think the Model S is safer than any comparable ICE car and I think Tesla can do things in the future to stir demand when they reach a place where they need to.
The debris fires coupled with Tesla’s relatively weak response do give me concern to lower my previous expectations on TSLA’s stock price performance over the next year. Previously I had a price target of $350 by Jan 2015, but now that is lowered to $250-275 (and if Tesla doesn’t give a strong response to the second debris fire, that price target might be lowered further).
Last edited:
Norse
Active Member
Thanks Dave! We really cannot expect Elon to come out every time the stock tanks, cause then we would expect him to do so in the future aswell. However he did point out alot of times that the model S never caught fire, so when it did so 3 times, we were in for some trouble.
Since Tesla doesnt do commercial they will get nothing free from the media. He therefor needs to build a great organisation and that takes time. Right now it does not work to well. Here in Norway I am really annoyed by the fact that if I ask a local Tesla employee something he might answear the exact opposite of what I already know, and what Tesla USA says. They have several issues in Norway, like adding the price on winter tires after they were ordered and charge the new price. Some people even have to park their cars cause they have not got their winter tires yet. And they also seemed surprised we had a different grid here in Norway, I am very surprised that they were surprised by that.
However I am 100 times more satisfied with Tesla then with my previous salesman from Audi, and the model S is 1000 times better. I think Tesla will strike back and be the biggest company in the world, but it aint easy building a tech/car company at the same time as you are building spaceships and saving mandkind.
Since Tesla doesnt do commercial they will get nothing free from the media. He therefor needs to build a great organisation and that takes time. Right now it does not work to well. Here in Norway I am really annoyed by the fact that if I ask a local Tesla employee something he might answear the exact opposite of what I already know, and what Tesla USA says. They have several issues in Norway, like adding the price on winter tires after they were ordered and charge the new price. Some people even have to park their cars cause they have not got their winter tires yet. And they also seemed surprised we had a different grid here in Norway, I am very surprised that they were surprised by that.
However I am 100 times more satisfied with Tesla then with my previous salesman from Audi, and the model S is 1000 times better. I think Tesla will strike back and be the biggest company in the world, but it aint easy building a tech/car company at the same time as you are building spaceships and saving mandkind.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Dave, I'm not sure what response from Elon you were expecting. Either he says the same thing as after the first fire, that there is nothing wrong with the car and it's still safer than an ICE, which is what he did say, or he says there is a problem and they are going to have to fix it. I can see how either statement could cause the stock to drop, which it has.
I am anxiously awaiting Elon's personal recount of this predicament in "Revenge of the Electric Car II"
Was fascinating to view his personal handling of the Roadster crises, and it was my first impression of him as a CEO.
I would imagine that the issues of the past several weeks began as an annoyance/distraction to him, however now that the snowball is rolling with some momentum, I am sure that some Elon-style resolution is forthcoming.
On Nov 9th, Tesla sent an email "From a Model S Owner in Tennessee". At the end of the email, Tesla writes "An additional blog from Elon will follow shortly."
It's almost 10 days later and Elon's blog post has yet to follow.
I have been expecting at least Elon's blog post and more media interviews regarding the second debris fire. That would be a good starting place.
Interestingly, the blog post also said in a footnote "An additional blog from Elon will follow shortly." This footnote has been removed from the post, not sure when that happened.
Elon, hire me and I'll help you reinforce your messaging and public communications. Or hire DaveT and he'll help you reinforce your company. Or hire both of us and get a discount!
Thanks DaveT for your thoughts about the drop on Monday. I forgot about Elon's blog post that was supposed to come out. I think once it comes out, it might stop TSLA bleeding for a bit before going further down if Elon's blog post is anything like his recent interviews. Other than that, we may have to look forward to the low $100's soon enough.
- - - Updated - - -
You're right. I remember seeing a footnote referencing to a blog post that would be posted soon. Looks like no more consideration regarding the blog post. Here's looking to more bad days for TSLA.
- - - Updated - - -
You're right. I remember seeing a footnote referencing to a blog post that would be posted soon. Looks like no more consideration regarding the blog post. Here's looking to more bad days for TSLA.
The Mission of Tesla | Blog | Tesla Motors
Well, Elon has now removed the leaf from his lips and spoken. That is most welcome; we all wish it could have happened sooner.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I prefer a measured response to a knee jerk reaction. This post was obviously well thought out, and goes beyond what probably most of us expected.
But why choose one to the exclusion of the other? Some kind of sign of life would have been beneficial sooner, preferably immediately. That could have simply been a message that Tesla was aware and in control of the situation, and would have avoided a great deal of senseless media and stock speculation. Saving us from this abrupt drop. At this moment the stock is up $12 from its pre-market low, and looks like it's still rising towards more normal levels.
I'm very glad he has responded and in detail, so that is not a complaint.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And I'm very glad he did, as I'm very glad he made his blog posts and tweeted a burst about it.
But that blog post was promised and delayed by, what - a week, ten days? That comes very close to failing on a promise. Not good for building trust.
I maintain that a more professional approach from the company - not necessarily CEO personally - would have been to proactively nip this media crisis and its corollary stock dump in the proverbial bud by owning the problem. Instead of leaving various commentators with perhaps dubious agendas a free-for-all.
Let's hope something will be learned from this all; regrettably at a very high cost, unnecessarily. This is not rocket science. It's for a different group of professionals.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Agree, but on the other hand if you still think the long term prospects of the company are good this could be seen as an incredible buying opportunity, if you have the cash on hand. There is of course the fear of the falling knife, and I suffered a few cuts on the way down, but long term they should heal quite nicely.
A key takeaway here is that Tesla needs to move public relations up several notches in importance. It's simply inexcusable to take 10 days to get the written company response to a public issue like the second debris fire. It would have taken a concerted SWAT team no more than 24 hours to develop a strong response that address public concerns. If they want to amplify the response, they can always do so.
The battle of perception (TSLA at $126.09)
Last night Tesla released Elon’s promised blog post on the second debris fire:
The Mission of Tesla | Blog | Tesla Motors
I’m glad Tesla finally published the post and overall I thought it was well-written by Elon. He framed the post with the context of Tesla’s overall mission "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.” He explains, "In order to get to that end goal, big leaps in technology are required, which naturally invites a high level of scrutiny. That is fair, as new technology should be held to a higher standard than what has come before. However, there should also be some reasonable limit to how high such a standard should be, and we believe that this has been vastly exceeded in recent media coverage.”
Fear and Paranoia
Yesterday I wrote (prior to Elon's blog post being published) that I felt that Tesla’s response to the second debris fire was hesitant and weak. The second debris fire happened on Nov 6th and I was waiting for Elon’s blog post since Nov 9th when Tesla said it would “follow shortly.” During that time a lot of fear has surrounded TSLA stock. Yesterday’s (Nov 18) drop of 10% to $121.58 felt almost like paranoia.
Fear and paranoia when left uncontrolled can cause havoc. Often it takes a strong alpha leader to poke fear in the neck (ie., like Caesar Milan does to dogs) and let fear know that it can’t do whatever it wants. Basically, a leader needs to stand fear in the face and say “stop it, fear.” Until that happens fear can breed more fear and the result is havoc.
I’m glad Elon is stepping up with the blog post and also with the several tweets he tweeted today. Elon is being that strong leader and rebuking the fear and havoc surrounding TSLA. He’s basically saying it’s got to stop. Whether or not he’s successful, we’ll have to see. But I like that Elon is trying.
Repairing the damage
When a stock drops too much like TSLA has been doing of late, it’s not good for the company. Many believers in the company have been washed out by their stop losses and are hesitant to get back into the company’s stock. I was hoping that Tesla would stand up and be more proactive last week and I think that might have prevented the stock from breaking the $132-133 resistance level. When that “floor” broke, it started to feel like the stock could drop a lot further and panic set in for a lot of people.
As long as Tesla is proactive, strong, and clear regarding the debris fires I am confident that the company can and will repair the damage done in recent weeks. There still is a lot of uncertainty surrounding TSLA. We will all be waiting for the NHSTA investigation results. Also, we’re all a bit nervous about when the next debris fire will come.
Some ideas
I’m usually not interested in sharing how I think Tesla management should approach their challenges since I think Tesla management is doing a great job and knows a lot more than I do. However, I do have some ideas that I’ll share not so much as suggestions to Tesla but more as ideas of what I think Tesla could do regarding these debris fires.
1. Perception
The switch to mass market electric cars isn’t going to happen unless Tesla and other EV manufacturers win over the hearts and minds of the consumer (albeit one by one). The debris fires have been used against Tesla to create a perception of uncertainty, danger and fear around Tesla’s cars. IMO Tesla should take this as a direct threat to their very existence and treat it as one of their top priorities. In other words, there’s a huge battle of perception focusing around the debris fires and Tesla should march to battle and debunk the FUD and go head on in the war over perception with concerted campaigns. I think it’s helpful to compare Tesla’s Model S with other ICE cars and their fire incidents. I’d love to see Tesla dig deeper into the stats and compile them in more blog posts, videos, charts, etc. When Tesla brings ICE cars into the conversation it just highlights the inherent dangers of a ICE car with its gas tank that holds a great deal more energy than a battery pack and as liquid can act like a potential bomb, while Tesla’s batteries are separated by individual battery cell cases and the modular pack design. The point being is that I'd like to see concerted ongoing campaigns to address the perception issues surrounding the debris fires and Tesla taking proactive steps to mitigate the effects of future debris fires (rather than being reactive).
2. Testing
I think it would be interesting if Tesla made 100 test cars* and ran over freakishly shaped debris objects on their test tracks. The procedure would be they would remotely drive each car over a debris object and then take a picture of the underside of the car. If the car doesn’t catch on fire, then they would run over the object (or another object) again, take a picture of the underside and repeat until the car catches on fire or can no longer be driven. When/if the car catches on fire, they could dissect it to see exactly where the puncture in the battery pack took place. Then, they could repeat this experiment with 99 more cars. If they did this kind of testing, they could probably run over debris objects thousands of times and with the underside pictures could possibly formulate the exact areas on the underside of the battery pack that are the most prone to being hit and eventually punctured. They could use this data to reinforce the battery pack if needed. Or the data might possibly show that the cars aren’t catching on fire or they are being punctured at completely random points and at such low frequency/probability that it doesn’t warrant any changes. Either way, the data can point them to the right direction. A few years ago Tesla might not have had the resources to build 100 cars to only destroy them, but now Tesla is more than able to do so (100 cars at $50k cost would be $5m and could be spaced out over a few quarters). Another possible benefit of this rigorous test would be they could share the data to consumers if they wanted to. They could also take the test to another level and buy cars from other manufacturers and run over the same debris objects, take a picture of the underside and continue to do so until something happens (of course using a remote driving device). This would prove to be quite an interesting (yet expensive) test. But since the debris fires are becoming crucial in the war over perception, I think it would be worth considering.
* Note: 100 cars is just a random number and I think the test could be helpful with even just 20 or 50 cars.
(Below are some tweets Elon tweeted this morning.)
Last night Tesla released Elon’s promised blog post on the second debris fire:
The Mission of Tesla | Blog | Tesla Motors
I’m glad Tesla finally published the post and overall I thought it was well-written by Elon. He framed the post with the context of Tesla’s overall mission "to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible.” He explains, "In order to get to that end goal, big leaps in technology are required, which naturally invites a high level of scrutiny. That is fair, as new technology should be held to a higher standard than what has come before. However, there should also be some reasonable limit to how high such a standard should be, and we believe that this has been vastly exceeded in recent media coverage.”
Fear and Paranoia
Yesterday I wrote (prior to Elon's blog post being published) that I felt that Tesla’s response to the second debris fire was hesitant and weak. The second debris fire happened on Nov 6th and I was waiting for Elon’s blog post since Nov 9th when Tesla said it would “follow shortly.” During that time a lot of fear has surrounded TSLA stock. Yesterday’s (Nov 18) drop of 10% to $121.58 felt almost like paranoia.
Fear and paranoia when left uncontrolled can cause havoc. Often it takes a strong alpha leader to poke fear in the neck (ie., like Caesar Milan does to dogs) and let fear know that it can’t do whatever it wants. Basically, a leader needs to stand fear in the face and say “stop it, fear.” Until that happens fear can breed more fear and the result is havoc.
I’m glad Elon is stepping up with the blog post and also with the several tweets he tweeted today. Elon is being that strong leader and rebuking the fear and havoc surrounding TSLA. He’s basically saying it’s got to stop. Whether or not he’s successful, we’ll have to see. But I like that Elon is trying.
Repairing the damage
When a stock drops too much like TSLA has been doing of late, it’s not good for the company. Many believers in the company have been washed out by their stop losses and are hesitant to get back into the company’s stock. I was hoping that Tesla would stand up and be more proactive last week and I think that might have prevented the stock from breaking the $132-133 resistance level. When that “floor” broke, it started to feel like the stock could drop a lot further and panic set in for a lot of people.
As long as Tesla is proactive, strong, and clear regarding the debris fires I am confident that the company can and will repair the damage done in recent weeks. There still is a lot of uncertainty surrounding TSLA. We will all be waiting for the NHSTA investigation results. Also, we’re all a bit nervous about when the next debris fire will come.
Some ideas
I’m usually not interested in sharing how I think Tesla management should approach their challenges since I think Tesla management is doing a great job and knows a lot more than I do. However, I do have some ideas that I’ll share not so much as suggestions to Tesla but more as ideas of what I think Tesla could do regarding these debris fires.
1. Perception
The switch to mass market electric cars isn’t going to happen unless Tesla and other EV manufacturers win over the hearts and minds of the consumer (albeit one by one). The debris fires have been used against Tesla to create a perception of uncertainty, danger and fear around Tesla’s cars. IMO Tesla should take this as a direct threat to their very existence and treat it as one of their top priorities. In other words, there’s a huge battle of perception focusing around the debris fires and Tesla should march to battle and debunk the FUD and go head on in the war over perception with concerted campaigns. I think it’s helpful to compare Tesla’s Model S with other ICE cars and their fire incidents. I’d love to see Tesla dig deeper into the stats and compile them in more blog posts, videos, charts, etc. When Tesla brings ICE cars into the conversation it just highlights the inherent dangers of a ICE car with its gas tank that holds a great deal more energy than a battery pack and as liquid can act like a potential bomb, while Tesla’s batteries are separated by individual battery cell cases and the modular pack design. The point being is that I'd like to see concerted ongoing campaigns to address the perception issues surrounding the debris fires and Tesla taking proactive steps to mitigate the effects of future debris fires (rather than being reactive).
2. Testing
I think it would be interesting if Tesla made 100 test cars* and ran over freakishly shaped debris objects on their test tracks. The procedure would be they would remotely drive each car over a debris object and then take a picture of the underside of the car. If the car doesn’t catch on fire, then they would run over the object (or another object) again, take a picture of the underside and repeat until the car catches on fire or can no longer be driven. When/if the car catches on fire, they could dissect it to see exactly where the puncture in the battery pack took place. Then, they could repeat this experiment with 99 more cars. If they did this kind of testing, they could probably run over debris objects thousands of times and with the underside pictures could possibly formulate the exact areas on the underside of the battery pack that are the most prone to being hit and eventually punctured. They could use this data to reinforce the battery pack if needed. Or the data might possibly show that the cars aren’t catching on fire or they are being punctured at completely random points and at such low frequency/probability that it doesn’t warrant any changes. Either way, the data can point them to the right direction. A few years ago Tesla might not have had the resources to build 100 cars to only destroy them, but now Tesla is more than able to do so (100 cars at $50k cost would be $5m and could be spaced out over a few quarters). Another possible benefit of this rigorous test would be they could share the data to consumers if they wanted to. They could also take the test to another level and buy cars from other manufacturers and run over the same debris objects, take a picture of the underside and continue to do so until something happens (of course using a remote driving device). This would prove to be quite an interesting (yet expensive) test. But since the debris fires are becoming crucial in the war over perception, I think it would be worth considering.
* Note: 100 cars is just a random number and I think the test could be helpful with even just 20 or 50 cars.
(Below are some tweets Elon tweeted this morning.)
Last edited:
DaveT,
Agree with your Perception para. Disagree with your Testing para. This is not industry practice- to conduct destructive testing on 25 to 100 cars on one failure mode is impractical. Limited destructive testing for "unknown high threat cases" together with analysis for other cases is what is done in practice. Tesla has most likely done so during the car's 10 year development program but may have made some not so perfect assumptions for certain cases during the process. The perception issue could (could have already) convert (ed) into reduced short to medium term sales and potential high costs on a recall if the NHTSA orders one. I don't think Tesla will fail as a company ( Elon has too many friends in the likes of Google in the tech arena and also in the Obama government if worse came to worst). So Elon has to just work on changing the perception problem around, which I think he can.
Dave
Thank you for your mega posts, I carefully read all of them.
I do not comment often as I seem to be out of sync with other contributors due to living in a different time zone, and that makes it difficult to engage in live discussions.
This time I just would like to expand on your idea of testing road debris impact on battery. It is possible to do that testing by using battery only, not the whole car. The debris impact on battery can be simulated in a test rig whose design allows for varying the relative speed of battery vs debris and for varying the distance between the battery and various pieces of debris. Car weight can be simulated by placing the equivalent weight load on the battery. The cost of building such test rig would not be excessive and I would be surprised if Tesla does not already have one.
Thank you for your mega posts, I carefully read all of them.
I do not comment often as I seem to be out of sync with other contributors due to living in a different time zone, and that makes it difficult to engage in live discussions.
This time I just would like to expand on your idea of testing road debris impact on battery. It is possible to do that testing by using battery only, not the whole car. The debris impact on battery can be simulated in a test rig whose design allows for varying the relative speed of battery vs debris and for varying the distance between the battery and various pieces of debris. Car weight can be simulated by placing the equivalent weight load on the battery. The cost of building such test rig would not be excessive and I would be surprised if Tesla does not already have one.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
In fact such testing is not at all needed, or practical. They can simply take a battery shell filled with the appropriate weight and tow it over objects and see how far they penetrate. If they go deep enough to project into the cell area you can assume cell shorting and fire. Force sensors would calculate the forces involved and a decision could be made as to how likely such an impact is going to be and what reinforcement would mitigate it, and if it's reasonable or not to do so. Also, they may very well already have this data and it's simply a matter of what is practical to do. They can't build a tank.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
