Articles/megaposts by DaveT

[tslafan123]

DaveT, As you are frantically researching this topic (and we are thankful for your info), wanted to ask you this. Why not just increase the thickness of the armor plate? 2X, 3X, or 4X or more.. What are the implications of it? Could these incidents still happen?

 

[CyberDutchie]

DaveT, As you are frantically researching this topic (and we are thankful for your info), wanted to ask you this. Why not just increase the thickness of the armor plate? 2X, 3X, or 4X or more.. What are the implications of it? Could these incidents still happen?

There will always be the risk of another freak event with enough power to penetrate the improved armor plate. People will say: see, it's the design and placement of the battery what is making the car unsafe. No-win situation here.

 

[JRP3]

I disagree somewhat, I think improvements can be made, going by the assumption that in both road debris incidents it's the front of the pack that's being compromised. I think the front bumper could have a lower lip than any other point on the vehicle so it will hit objects first, and I think some additional protection to the front of the pack might be desirable. These would be fairly cheap to implement, would give the appearance of taking action, and would make the product better even if it doesn't really need to be.

 

[Chickenlittle]

I disagree somewhat, I think improvements can be made, going by the assumption that in both road debris incidents it's the front of the pack that's being compromised. I think the front bumper could have a lower lip than any other point on the vehicle so it will hit objects first, and I think some additional protection to the front of the pack might be desirable. These would be fairly cheap to implement, would give the appearance of taking action, and would make the product better even if it doesn't really need to be.

i agree 100%. still safest car. funny its ok for severe injuries in other cars but a total by fire without hint of injury versus other cars where multiple injuries even without car totaled. really funny that a burned car without injury is somehow worse than a bent frame with deaths. but so be it. i agree with your approach, we have safest car ever made but that is not going to stop us from improving it is the right tact to take. would even set expectation that accidents like the one in mexico cannot be totally prevented but very unlikely with responsible driving.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I disagree somewhat, I think improvements can be made, going by the assumption that in both road debris incidents it's the front of the pack that's being compromised. I think the front bumper could have a lower lip than any other point on the vehicle so it will hit objects first, and I think some additional protection to the front of the pack might be desirable. These would be fairly cheap to implement, would give the appearance of taking action, and would make the product better even if it doesn't really need to be.

Agree 100%. Such a solution could also be easily retrofit to all existing Model S IMO.

 

[aznt1217]

Agree 100%. Such a solution could also be easily retrofit to all existing Model S IMO.

Problem there is drag coefficient

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Problem there is drag coefficient

You are right. Yesterday a TMC Member suggested this in another thread.

Basically, you need to assume that the battery compartment WILL get damaged, and design in safety features to cope with the damage.

IMO this means: better fire detection and suppression (not just retardant) and immediate electrical isolation of individual cells that stop working within their design parameters.

 

[JRP3]

Race cars use a low front air dam to improve aerodynamics, and the extra pack protection I'm suggesting would not add any significant drag.

 

[vfx]

There will always be the risk of another freak event with enough power to penetrate the improved armor plate. People will say: see, it's the design and placement of the battery what is making the car unsafe. No-win situation here.

Agreed. If Tesla has designed to pack to withstand a 24 ton penetration then then here is an accident of 25 tons then the accident is beyond the protection. Same goes if the ballistic shield is designed to 35 tons when a 36 ton force hits it and so on. It's called an accident because there was a beyond safety spec indecent. You have to stop chasing the inevitable somewhere.

By the way. On TMC Dr Computer, Augieko and myself have all run over SERIOUSLY large and dangerous steel road debris. No injuries, no fires, working cars and while Augie had a pack penetration it just left him with him with a reduced range Tesla.

 

[Twiddler]

Having the front air dam as the lowest point will also be a nightmare for clearance. I have occasionally scraped as it is, and it barely clears parking barriers

 

[DonPedro]

I disagree somewhat, I think improvements can be made, going by the assumption that in both road debris incidents it's the front of the pack that's being compromised. I think the front bumper could have a lower lip than any other point on the vehicle so it will hit objects first, and I think some additional protection to the front of the pack might be desirable. These would be fairly cheap to implement, would give the appearance of taking action, and would make the product better even if it doesn't really need to be.

Would also amount to an admission that there is a problem with the current design (which I think there is not).

 

[DaveT]

I'll let you guys debate about the fire while I am busy this morning buying LEAPs while the stock is in the low-130s. I've added to my long-term core position for the first time since the Goldman dip.

Update: I posted this below on the ST movement thread but wanted to post it here cause the ST thread can get a bit crowded.

I hesitated to jump on my first TSLA position at $135 in early august and have been kicking myself for the past three months... I was happy to see it come back down and jumped today at $135.50 with a modest position. I missed the boat on the massive run-up but as an owner I'm just happy to have some skin in the game.

The 130s is an excellent time to be buying stock and keep it long-term. It could drop below 130 but I see the chances as fairly low. $133 resistance is very strong (even dating back to pre-Q2).

I've been very cautious in building my long-term core position (buying stock in the 30s, LEAPs when the stock was in the low 70s, LEAPs when stock was in the low 90s, and LEAPs when the stock was $108 at Goldman). Today was my fourth major LEAP purchase for my long-term core position with the stock in the low 130s. (Note: all my other purchases have been short-term speculative plays) I don't think people realize how low the low 130s is.

We have a 30% drop from the all-time high. Believe it or not but the way I see it is now (below $135) is the safest time to buy TSLA stock since the Goldman dip to $105. People like buying when it's going up and following the crowd, but that actually poses more risk especially if you don't have tight stops. But for the long-term buy and holder investor, if you can pick up shares when a stellar company has experienced a minor bump in the road and investor mood has soured for the moment and the charts are broken and people are talking gloom and doom... then you're taking the least risk. But you've got to know and confirm it's a stellar company and the long-term fundamentals are in tact.

- - - Updated - - -

the only chance for tesla to go up in the near future is by closing short positions, i can't see a deep pocket(funds, ETF etc) buying tesla right now.

I hate to say it, but I don't think you know what you're talking about there being no buyers or deep pockets buying now. Smart buyers (including deep pockets) will buy a stellar company at a discount when sentiment has turned against it. Tesla is in sale and smart buyers are on notice. Don't think we'll be down in the low 130s for long. Sure we could go lower than 130, but I don't see the chances as that high.

Thanks for the info, are you still following your strategy of buying slightly OTM calls for the LEAPS?

I bought Jan 2015 180s and 190s. I like to be fairly conservative with my long-term holdings. Plus I've got a lot of ITM Jan 2015s from a while ago so I like to diversify a bit.

I was planning on waiting until 2016 LEAPs to come out on Monday to start buying (and converting stock held over a year). But the low 130s were/are too tempting so I started buying because I see the possibility of today being the bottom and on Monday being in the 140s. But I really do hope we trade in the 130s on Monday again so I can buy 2016 LEAPs. I'm just not counting on it. If it goes to the 140s I'll probably buy some 2016s but not as much as I would have if the stock was trading in the 130s.

Note: I also made some speculative short term plays as well with the stock under 135 but with less money (Dec and March OTM calls).

 

[MikeC]

I'm with you, Dave. Great thread you have going here.

 

[kalikgod]

first time since the Goldman dip.

I never post in the investment section here, as I bought most of my common shares Oct '12 and before and plan to hold until Elon is no longer running the ship. I don't really care about the week to week events, but read in here once in awhile for entertainment. Wanted to post and thank DaveT for all of your objective, well researched posts. They make outstanding reading.

I did add a small additional position on the Goldman (stock upgrade) dip and all the current news now reminds me of the same situation, good news masked by an emotional market. The Goldman price target that caused the drop was $84 (up from $61), their updated target post Q3 earnings is $104.

Also thanks DaveT for the tip on the 2016 LEAPs, I think I will be converting those $119 shares from the Goldman dip into '16 LEAPs next week.

 

[GravityPull]

Maybe Not So Freakishly Shaped

Evaluating the 3rd Fire

The worst thing that could have happened is a spontaneous fire that instantly exploded the car and killed the driver. And to have multiple cars experience this. However, this case is much different. What we have here is a driver who drove over a likely huge tow hitch thinking he was a goner but the car saved his life. He pulled over, got out of the car without injury, and the car experienced a contained fire to the front section of the car.

To me the logical and obvious culprit is some freakishly shaped object that was able to somehow get under the car and then shoot up into the battery pack (similar to the 1st fire). I call it “freakish” because most object will either 1) not fit under the car and thus be dragged in front of the car, or 2) be short/thin enough to fit under the car and the car passes over the object. But for the object to fit under the car but then at the same time to shoot up with enough pressure to puncture the 6mm ballistic shield protecting the battery pack, that is what I call freakish.

The unfortunate thing is that this episode of driving over a freakishly shaped object and causing a fire has happened twice in just one and a half months. This naturally leads people to think that the so-called “freakishly” shaped object maybe isn’t so freakish after all and might be common. And this is what I believe is driving a lot of fear and doubt right now.

I personally look to the most logical and objective explanation, and to me it’s difficult to see a normal-shaped object being able to fit under the car and then shoot upward to the battery pack with such force to puncture a ballistic shield. Elon Musk wrote about the first fire, "The geometry of the object caused a powerful lever action as it went under the car, punching upward and impaling the Model S with a peak force on the order of 25 tons.” (Model S Fire | Blog | Tesla Motors) To me this makes sense. The geometry of the object needs to be shaped in such a way that it actually fits under the car and when it does go under the car it punches upward with an insane amount of lever action force to cause major damage. This is not a common occurrence, and that is why I call it freakish.

Hi Dave

I tried to post this yesterday and either I didn't hit the correct buttons or you chose to not post it. If you dont want to post this can you please let me know why?

I have tremendous respect for you and all that you have provided us. Because of you and others I have made a lot of money from Tesla stock!

However it sounds to me that you believe the bottom surface of the Model S is perfectly level (or flat) underneath. That would explain why you believe an object would not get bumped by the car as the underbelly passes over even if the very front of car cleared the object. I just went out to my Model S, raised it up to its highest level from the ground, crawled under the front end of the car and can see it is not a level or flat surface. There are certain parts that hang down that could cause a Non Freakishly shaped object to suddenly become mobile and bounce up into the underbelly of the car. From looking at the underbelly it actually seems likely that an object of a certain size would start bouncing around under the car depending on its location. Away from the center of the car seems more precarious.


I am no longer holding shares, just some 2015 Leaps as I believe Tesla will in fact change the world and one day have a value well over $500/share. However I believe the stock is heading lower for a while. I am not and never have been short on any stock.

 

[Lessmog]

I disagree somewhat, I think improvements can be made, going by the assumption that in both road debris incidents it's the front of the pack that's being compromised. I think the front bumper could have a lower lip than any other point on the vehicle so it will hit objects first, and I think some additional protection to the front of the pack might be desirable. These would be fairly cheap to implement, would give the appearance of taking action, and would make the product better even if it doesn't really need to be.

Yes, a Cow-Plow for deflecting dangerous debris might perhaps be elegantly added, and it might even actually contribute to aerodynamics. But it might also require renewed testing and approval (or risk of failure). And it might imply conceding design flaws not actually present, except for the freak timing of freak accidents (one of which rather sharply impeaches the driver (who escaped unscathed to do repeat business)).

Some sort of additional protective shield, like a sheet of Kevlar, might give a sense of security to those customers who install it, but it might also imply design flaws, and might additionally impede the Quick Swap.

It's a tricky situation for sure, informing the great unwashed public is not easy; especially in the face of present media structures and the extremely powerful opposition lobbying. I have no solution so I must rely upon Team Musk (TM) (TM) to come up with one. (Hint: It might be paper rather than Kevlar.)

 

[bonnie]

Speed bumps will prove to be a challenge.

 

[AlMc]

Speed bumps will prove to be a challenge.

i would like the option of keeping my air suspension in 'regular' mode when traveling at high speed. this may prevent these types of mishaps even better than extra armor or cow catcher. also, cheap firmware fix.

 

[ggies07]

This might have been posted already, but these times remind me of a great Warren Buffett quote:

"Be greedy when others are fearful"

 

[Lessmog]

Speed bumps will prove to be a challenge.

Yes, that might also be an argument and they do pose an impediment. So designed. (Unless the Cow Plow is so ultra-hard it can cut right through. Might not be good for corporate image.) ;-)

Was there an ad on Utoob for Böse Active suspension that can make a car jump over obstacles? (Aha, so now we haff a kloo to who put those metal objects in harms way, eh?) ;-)