Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[ggr]

NIO Reports Solid Q4 Deliveries: Already Outperforming Tesla?
The article never mentions Tesla, but the headline is complete fiction. They shipped a few thousand cars.

 

[Curt Renz]

NIO Reports Solid Q4 Deliveries: Already Outperforming Tesla?
The article never mentions Tesla, but the headline is complete fiction. They shipped a few thousand cars.

Whenever a headline ends with a question mark, the answer is almost invariably "No".

 

[AudubonB]

When I get back home, I’m going to try to find the photo that appropriately goes with the preceding story:

“#1 Rated* B&B in Town”

*by selected family members

 

[ggr]

I guess this is sort of off-topic, even for this thread, but I had to vent somewhere.

This morning while exercising I caught an ad for some humungous ICE SUV (Lincoln? GM? Can't remember). The series with Matthew McConaughey doing irrelevant things. Anyway, it shows a screen with checkboxes for things like "lane keeping" (off by default). At the end of the ad, they call it "co-pilot".

Now lots of people give Tesla grief over calling their thing "autopilot". I'm a (real) pilot. There is a big difference between an autopilot and a co-pilot. When I'm flying, I can engage the autopilot, and my job becomes more about monitoring the overall situation and less about making minor adjustments to lanekeeping and speed. When there are two of us in the plane, me and my copilot (or maybe I'm the copilot) we can share tasks, partition tasks, catch each other's mistakes, but unless the autopilot is also engaged, someone is still doing all that minor stuff. And either of us is perfectly capable of taking over the entire operation of the plane.

So, autopilot is a much more correct term than copilot.

/vent

 

[winfield100]

sometimes articles on other sites are positive
" .......A reason given for Tesla's design success with the Model 3 cooling system is the company's ability to engineer the entire car as a whole, unencumbered by internal engineering fiefdoms found within legacy carmakers. Similar integrated engineering is seen in other aspects of the Model 3 design that enhance performance and range while reducing Tesla's costs.


The challenge and excitement of working in Tesla's wide-ranging engineering environment has attracted top engineering talent to Tesla, and the culture at Tesla has allowed the engineering team to deliver exceptional performance and lower costs on Model 3 systems (except the BIW).

The component and system fiefdoms at legacy carmakers constrain or prevent whole vehicle design optimizations. These fiefdoms are inherent to legacy carmakers and result from the dealer business model and associated need to standardize components across a wide variety of vehicles. Absent dramatic changes to legacy carmaker business models, the imperative to standardize components and resulting internal engineering fiefdoms will limit the ability of these companies to match Tesla designs.

Tesla is able to focus engineering effort across the entire vehicle, unencumbered by internal fiefdoms. This situation is the result of the company's focus on electric vehicles, and it makes Tesla both different from competing legacy companies and very special.

Tesla enjoys a significant competitive advantage in the ability to optimize their car designs absent the impediments posed by internal engineering fiefdoms. This advantage both results in better car designs and creates an engineering environment that attracts top engineering talent. Because legacy competitors have internal engineering fiefdoms that result naturally from their business models Tesla's advantage is likely to be durable for the foreseeable future. And this makes Tesla special and provides a strong moat against competition....."

and

".....By considering the whole of the car rather than fiefdom isolated components Tesla achieves simplicity and elegance that translate into more performance, better range and lower costs......"

sometimes SA has a decent article, just avoid the comments (we enter the swamp so you don't have to)
Is Tesla Special? - Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
conclusion, yes for the forseeable future

 

[AudubonB]

By gum, I found it. From Mar 10, 2013.

And so, as promised:


If it weren't such an execrable photo, it certainly could be a hit in the Meme-World

 

[ggr]

Fudsters are resorting to outright lying again with this article.
See what the IHS Markit Score report has to say about Tesla Inc.

It understates the number of shares short as being 10-15% (currently about 21%), and calls this "moderately high" when it is proportionally the most shorted stock on the market.

"ETF activity is negative" followed by "net inflows of $1.52 ... into ETFs that hold TSLA". Directly contradictory.

 

[winfield100]

how to make a Lithium Prismatic battery. You roll it up like a cylindrical cell, then "smoosh it flat" in a press, hoping you don't mess up the "jelly roll"

 

[Sudre]

how to make a Lithium Prismatic battery. You roll it up like a cylindrical cell, then "smoosh it flat" in a press, hoping you don't mess up the "jelly roll"

That seems like a rather difficult cell to temperature control. Lots of air space inside that nice square container.

 

[winfield100]

That seems like a rather difficult cell to temperature control. Lots of air space inside that nice square container.

its from this article
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4237881-heads-tesla-wins?v=1549304412&comments=show
Randy Carlson, quite positive for Tesla/TSLA

 

[EinSV]

I found this article surpassing strange. Tesla reduced the price of its cars by $1100. Oddly enough, Daniel Sparks of the Motley Fool seemed to think it was a GOOD thing that Tesla did this, as he says it brought Tesla a step closer to its goal of a $35,000 Model 3. A puzzling perspective, to be sure.

Well-meaning but misguided soul that he is, he did not raise any fears that this price reduction might mean demand for Model 3 is crumbling; nor did he predict the imminent demise of the company. He did not even lambast its CEO for suggesting that the new price for the lowest cost model, with incentives and gas savings, could be had for that mythical $35,000 figure.

This poor creature obviously has not been properly schooled by the masters of Tesla reporting. Pillars of the journalistic community like Linette Lopez, Russ Mitchell, Lora Kolodny and the like (I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they are discovered by the Pulitzer committee).

Nonetheless, I found reading it to be a simple pleasure. A reminder of a bygone era when you could click on an article and read about, well, facts. Tesla Moves Closer to Its Promised $35,000 Model 3 -- The Motley Fool

 

[S'toon]

CBC made it sound like the announcement was a restating that some day down the road there will be a $35K Model 3. Not one that's for sale right now.
Amid SEC troubles, Tesla promises $35K Model 3 — again | CBC News

 

[mongo]

CBC made it sound like the announcement was a restating that some day down the road there will be a $35K Model 3. Not one that's for sale right now.
Amid SEC troubles, Tesla promises $35K Model 3 — again | CBC News

Maybe they'll provide an update in 2 weeks....

 

[AndreN]

Dana Hull should win some kind of award for this Bloomberg article headline (assuming she wrote it). The actual news of course is the release of the $35k Model 3. Somehow that didn't end up in the headline.

Musk Pledges Belt-Tightening as Tesla Cuts Prices, Warns of Loss

In my mind, that beats out last year's Bloomberg headline: "Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 Will Now Cost You $78,000". They later edited the headline (maybe Tesla rightfully complained?) to "Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 Could Now Cost You $78,000". Still false but doesn't sound as bad.

 

[neroden]

Complete dishonesty from the media (apart from the BBC and the Guardian). Quite absurd.

 

[S'toon]

National Transportation Safety Board investigating Florida crash involving Tesla with ‘autopilot’ functionality

They admit in the article they don't know if it was on at the time of the crash or not. It was more important to point out that it had been equipped with autopilot for maximum FUD.

 

[PeterK]

Dana Hull should win some kind of award for this Bloomberg article headline (assuming she wrote it). The actual news of course is the release of the $35k Model 3. Somehow that didn't end up in the headline.

Musk Pledges Belt-Tightening as Tesla Cuts Prices, Warns of Loss

In my mind, that beats out last year's Bloomberg headline: "Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 Will Now Cost You $78,000". They later edited the headline (maybe Tesla rightfully complained?) to "Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 Could Now Cost You $78,000". Still false but doesn't sound as bad.

My understanding is Dana and other reporters might propose headlines, but editors tend to write them. So even an unbiased, well-reported article can be led by a slanted headline - and maybe a slanted summary blurb as well, when those exist.

 

[winfield100]

looks like Montana Septic is at it again
Montana Skeptic: Why I Can Hear The Tesla 'Death Rattle' (Podcast) - Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

 

[neroden]

looks like Montana Septic is at it again
Montana Skeptic: Why I Can Hear The Tesla 'Death Rattle' (Podcast) - Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

He hasn't been thrown in prison for deliberately spreading fraudulent articles to manipulate stock prices yet? Unacceptable.

 

[JRP3]

SEC is too busy going after Elon for innocuous tweets.