Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[wdolson]

This isn't quite correct. BYD is also in a position to make a mass market EV by 2018. I think there's one other Chinese company which has an outside chance of doing so. The established international auto companies don't have a chance, however. Which means there is no *existential* threat to Tesla IMHO, because BYD will have delays getting approved internationally (and they're making a somewhat worse product anyway). But BYD could be selling 100K/year in China by 2018; this is a real possibility.

I stand corrected, though it will probably be a while before BYD is any kind of significant player outside of China. I believe they are focusing their efforts outside of China mostly in the commercial market. I could be wrong though.

Yes, other car companies are making noises but it hasn't been widely or repetitively reported yet. A US-based executive from Audi was recently quoted as saying he has been tasked with building at least 175 high-power DC chargers along highways Tesla-style before Audi's BEV comes out in 2018.

In addition, VW is signing a court-filed consent agreement requiring it to spend $200 million a year for 10 years on zero emission infrastructure and public education. A large fraction of that is expected to go towards purchasing, installing, and maintaining EV charging equipment. Of that money, $80 million a year will be spent in California where almost half of plugin cars are sold and where VW sells many of its US cars. The spending and infrastructure plans will be designed under the guidance of EPA and CARB.

That kind of money can buy a lot of DC charging locations. VW (of which Audi is a subdivision) is motivated to build a Supercharger-like network so they can compete with Tesla on long-range BEVs. These DC stations will also be usable by Owners of Bolt EVs and other non-VW CCS cars.

Note, that Tesla had no Supercharger sites when they first began selling the Model S in 2012.

I guess I missed that story. I know VW is planning their own Gigafactory, but they don't expect full production until 2025. From what I've seen the Audi and Porsche EVs are going to be very expensive. Possible competition for the PxxD S/X cars from Tesla, but probably ignored by even the mid-range S/X buyers.

VW is positioning themselves to draft on Tesla's success, but I expect they will be playing catch up for a long time. Hopefully VW's dealers will actually want to sell the EVs. When the shake up in the auto business comes, at least VW will be a couple of steps ahead of most of the rest of the ICE makers.

 

[Electroman]

apologies to any offended, my keyboard slips letters sometimes. it s "montana sKeptic" aain, apologies to any ofended.

Not sure what is that you are apologizing for ? I thought it was a fair characterization

 

[winfield100]

Not sure what is that you are apologizing for ? I thought it was a fair characterization

Montana sKeptic and/or his minions monitor TMC. Montana took me to task SA for accidentally mispelling his name. since he claims to be a lawyer and asked me to stop slandering him (i found this odd as the phrase "potemkins all the way down" is the same as saying someone is else lying about everything but it's been awhile and confusion may ensue). and used the phrase to another user "actionable slander" discretion may require discretion because of my occasionally flaky keyboard, (even tho he hides behind an avatar). i suspect he drives a viper in texas, but merely suspect.He does/did use 'keef' whompy wheelz as 1/3 of a recent article. The Australian guy who files the NTSB reports
hope this answers your question.

 

[neroden]

OK, this is a strictly short-term (no fundamentals) analysis from someone moderately competent at technicals (though I think he's an idiot about fundamentals), despite being on the sewage platform of Seeking Alpha:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/4003687-tesla-sminus-4-relative-strength-will-lead-selling

He says that institutions with diversified portfolios which don't analyze fundamentals are likely to be dumping TSLA.

(Personally, I expect the major concentrated holders like Bailie Gifford and Fidelity OTC and Fidelity Contrafund will just use this as an entry point to buy more, but what do I know.)

 

[winfield100]

there is a new article on SA http://seekingalpha.com/article/4004206-teslas-extravaganza-fraud-risk-indicators commenting on Tesla sales being down overall (actually model S, how they are in violation of SEC "Known history of violations of securities laws" new battery technologies coming etc etc.

(anyone here going to National Drive electric week events?) lots around the Washington DC area

 

[Electroman]

Unless you are pandering to that click bait site, please don't post Seeking Lies URLs here.

 

[winfield100]

Unless you are pandering to that click bait site, please don't post Seeking Lies URLs here.

no, i'm pissed off about the amount of FUD they spew. "dropping sales" {false}, etc. and that i see their "hoohah" occasionally on other places as 'gospel' truth. if you cannot counter half truths and falsehoods quickly, they become accepted as true. when i have ben too vigorous countering, i get dropped on like a ton of bricks "you post has been dleted as a personal attack" etc or just 'vanished' and SA minions seem to lurk on TMC

 

[neroden]

The problem is that there are a few people worth reading on Seeking Alpha, such as Randy Carlson. Even though most articles on Seeking Alpha are garbage. (And "Montana Skeptic" is not writing investment analysis, he's writing actual libels which will probably get Seeking Alpha in legal trouble if they don't get rid of him.)

There was recently one which looked at the divergence between SCTY and TSLA stock, and said that although the *obvious* analysis would suggest that people thought the merger wouldn't go through, it seemed *more likely* that short-sellers were shorting SCTY because it was easier to borrow than TSLA. This actually seems correct based on our tracking of short-selling rates and availability (though it's bizarre and I wonder who put the big block of SCTY into the lending market).

 

[winfield100]

The problem is that there are a few people worth reading on Seeking Alpha, such as Randy Carlson. Even though most articles on Seeking Alpha are garbage.

I started reading Randy's articles 2-3 years or more ago and agree. (he is also the reason i looked at and have a small stake in ALB) and he has a dry humor and experience with 100% autonomous vehicles.

I do find Montana occasionally useful as he coined the phrase "potemkins all the way down" the equivalent of everything is lies and it seems to irk folks a bit when i respond to comments with "thats 1/2 a potemkin, thnx and a tip 'o the hat to MS" and similar. lies and 1/2 truths need challenging as do blanket statements with "please give specific example or thats a "potemkin"".
I do expect to get kicked off sometime and will miss Randy's articles

 

[Electroman]

I used to lurk around in SA and also occasionally known to comment to challenges lies and FUD. But then SA became an echo chamber for not just bears, but also for those who are genuinely interested in seeing Tesla go bankrupt.

And the last straw was when I had reason to believe that the editors and owners of that site themselves, actively encourage these FUD articles and have expressed their derision to all things Tesla in the comment sections. Either they are invested in Tesla's failure, or they have realized that only articles espousing those lies and exaggerations get them the needed clicks. I don't want to patronize a site that is institutionally anti-Tesla

 

[neroden]

I used to lurk around in SA and also occasionally known to comment to challenges lies and FUD. But then SA became an echo chamber for not just bears, but also for those who are genuinely interested in seeing Tesla go bankrupt.

And the last straw was when I had reason to believe that the editors and owners of that site themselves, actively encourage these FUD articles and have expressed their derision to all things Tesla in the comment sections. Either they are invested in Tesla's failure, or they have realized that only articles espousing those lies and exaggerations get them the needed clicks. I don't want to patronize a site that is institutionally anti-Tesla

I don't give them money and I've got them adblocked. I've actually already told them that they're courting legal trouble if they leave Montana Skeptic's proven libels up; they don't care, so I expect them to go under from lawsuits sooner or later. It may not be over Tesla; people who behave that way are probably doing the same with other companies which are more litigious.

I do occasionally go through to a specific article if it isn't by one of the usual suspects. Same reason I read Russia Today articles occasionally, despite the fact that it's known to be Putin's mouthpiece -- sometimes they do have stuff which is well worth reading, and it's not worth avoiding it if I'm not really giving them any money.

 

[JRP3]

I do expect to get kicked off sometime and will miss Randy's articles

Even Randy has been off his game lately. His last 2 or 3 articles speculating about Tesla's battery tech, i.e. 44kWh Model 3 pack, air cooled Model 3 pack, high cell voltage 60/75 packs, cell aging in assembled modules, etc., are so divorced from reality it's mind boggling from someone who should know better. It's not anti-Tesla but it's certainly anti-basic engineering and common sense.

 

[winfield100]

Even Randy has been off his game lately. high cell voltage 60/75 packs, cell aging in assembled modules,

how do you "flip the switch" between 60 and 75kWh packs?
do the cells need pre-aging? (conditioning)

 

[JRP3]

Randy assumes the new 75 pack is using the same number of cells as the old 60 pack, which means per cell voltage would need to be at unheard of levels to achieve 75kWh. Much more likely is the 75 pack is using a greater number of cells, still charged to 4.2V, while the 60 simply limits per cell voltage to a lower number.
After production cells need to be aged, which helps sort out any potentially bad ones. That's why the GF has huge rooms with racks for cell aging. The idea that Tesla would put new cells into modules/packs before aging, and then pull out any bad ones after aging in the modules/packs, is ridiculous.

 

[winfield100]

Randy assumes the new 75 pack is using the same number of cells as the old 60 pack, which means per cell voltage would need to be at unheard of levels to achieve 75kWh. Much more likely is the 75 pack is using a greater number of cells, still charged to 4.2V, while the 60 simply limits per cell voltage to a lower number.
After production cells need to be aged, which helps sort out any potentially bad ones. That's why the GF has huge rooms with racks for cell aging. The idea that Tesla would put new cells into modules/packs before aging, and then pull out any bad ones after aging in the modules/packs, is ridiculous.

fair enough, but Randy does propose technical arguments that can be debated using technical information from engineers. What If ??conjectures with responses of "no, you forgot this or that " and why and intelligent rebuttals.
technical articles that can be intelligently debated.
(i may have created a kerfluffle quite accidentally on SA)

 

[winfield100]

there is a fact free, opinion only article about how Wozniak maybe/is/might be ditching his model S for a Bolt.
I have never seen quite so much derision towards the author, Antoon W, in a long time.
kinda nice, couldnt happen to a nicer, more deserving guy
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4004694-apple-co-founder-woz-sez-tesla-chevy-bolt
(especially when Sal gets articles rejected)

 

[JRP3]

fair enough, but Randy does propose technical arguments that can be debated using technical information from engineers. What If ??conjectures with responses of "no, you forgot this or that " and why and intelligent rebuttals.
technical articles that can be intelligently debated.

My issue is he creates unrealistic expectations of "advanced" technology from Tesla, the general reading public are dazzled by his his seeming technical expertise and don't take the time to dive deep into the comments. Then when none of what he speculates is actually implemented it looks as if Tesla has "fallen short". I don't like positive "FUD" any more than negative FUD.

 

[wdolson]

Randy assumes the new 75 pack is using the same number of cells as the old 60 pack, which means per cell voltage would need to be at unheard of levels to achieve 75kWh. Much more likely is the 75 pack is using a greater number of cells, still charged to 4.2V, while the 60 simply limits per cell voltage to a lower number.
After production cells need to be aged, which helps sort out any potentially bad ones. That's why the GF has huge rooms with racks for cell aging. The idea that Tesla would put new cells into modules/packs before aging, and then pull out any bad ones after aging in the modules/packs, is ridiculous.

The cell voltage is fixed by cell chemistry. Any battery cell's voltage is determined by the eletropotential of the materials used. In this case lithium is used for the cathode and the particular cell chemistry Tesla uses nickel-cobalt-aluminum for the anode. That gets you 3.7V nominal voltage (about 4.2V max at 100% charge). There is no indication Tesla has moved away from that combination since the first Model Ss.

The original 60 and 85 pack used the 1st generation cells with had a graphite matrix to hold the lithium ions. The 2nd generation cells added silicon to the graphite and boosted the current capacity (Ah). The voltage is unchanged.

The first 2nd generation packs appear to use the same number of cells as the 1st generation packs. These were the 70 and 90 KWh packs. The 75 and 100 packs use the same batteries as the 2nd generation packs, but with more cells used. Elon has confirmed the 100 pack is the same cell as the 90 with more in the pack.

The 1st and 2nd gen packs had 384 cells per module in the small pack and 444 per module in the large. I estimate the small pack now has 420 per module and the last 492.

The 4th generation pack will most likely have the larger cells from the Gigafactory and will have fewer cells per module.

 

[winfield100]

leading seeking Alpha bullet point yesterday afternoon, by an SA editor

"Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) and Dutch authorities are investigating the fatal crash of one of the company’s vehicles near Amsterdam, raising the possibility that the car’s self-driving system might have played a role in the driver’s death."

lots of crap about fire and whompywheelz and autocrash

 

[wdolson]

The latest on the crash is AP was not engaged and the car was going 96mph when it hit the tree. The media loves to jump to the conclusion that AP is causing accidents all over the place.