Delay in model X launch?

[AnxietyRanger]

Sorry AR, now you're just making stuff up.

1. Eds did not say he expected a launch in a few months from mid-July; he said that "Tesla are committing to launch Tesla X in a few/couple months".
2. Eds never mentioned Founders or Sigs. He said there would be no deliveries in Q3 and less than 100 cars year end.

Friendly tip: if you want folks to stop making jokes and have a serious dialogue then perhaps it's a good idea to get verifiable facts right and also to cease this never-ending recall of someone who clearly had an agenda regardless of whether he said anything factual or not.

1. I refer to that exact quote, where Eds acknowledged plans to launch a couple of months from mid-July when he/she made the post. A late September launch would fit the bill.

2. It is true Eds didn't talk of Founders or Signatures, he talked of customers. I'm just not sure his/her rhetoric really counted Founders as customers. I find it plausible Eds wasn't referring to Founders when talking of no Q3 deliveries.

Of course it is possible Eds meant Founders too. Anyway, I'm fairly confident Eds will fail on the less than 100 deliveries in 2015, be it Founders included or not. That was his/her conjecture and it seems unlikely to me.

I'm recalling leaksters because of relevance or usefulness to discussions, not to spite anyone. Just like I recall other posters that said something of interest - they provide food for thought, not necessarily verifiable facts. Eds talking of hydraulic vs. electric was food for thought for pondering the misaligned doors. I have no idea if it is accurate at all, but that wasn't my point either. It crossed my mind and I thought mentioning it might serve the door alignment conversation.

Of course now it all was dumped here without any chance of a real discussion about that.

- - - Updated - - -

Your statement in itself attempts to put credence in the door opening mechanism change.
You come across here and attempt to show yourself as someone with integrity, with experience and knowledge. And then you want to go and want to add more credence to your self and your arguments by asking "if arguments would actually be considered as they have been presented". I waited a WHOLE LOT of pages to see if anyone else would pick up on the absolute false rumor. Not enough engineers on the forum to have done that. When you perpetuated the rumor, I popped. So my vent comes to this.....

Let me say this very clearly.... This has been rewritten several times to make it less personal but your voluminous analysis not analysis but pure guess and would have never started or continued (I am not going back XX pages on this to find where) the thought of a hydraulic opening system if you had anything more than a wild a_ _ guess. I suggest that you do some homework and talk to a mechanical engineer and learn what a hydraulic motor is and how it works. I can and will emphatically state that no engineer REGARDLESS of experience, would push forward a hydraulic system for opening and closing any doors of ANY automobile, let alone a Tesla model



Yea.... looks like that is a false statement too.

Oh... and YES I AM trolling for rep points.
And I need to pop a Xanax.

Hey, your opinion on Eds hydraulic to electric claim would have been appreciated even without the personal attack. I've owned several cars with (partially) hydraulic trunks. It did not strike me as impossible that at some point in development Model X falcon wings too had some hydraulic element that is now changed to electric.

I ask again: anyone recall if Model X prototype 2012-2013 used hydraulics in any way in that falcon wing? And does Model S trunk use hydraulics in any way?

I have no problem believing the industry is moving away for hydraulic. Heck, even Eds claim was in that direction.

I never claimed the car would use a hydraulic motor. Don't be absurd. It just seemed possible-enough that some hydraulics might have been involved and a change to full electrics could have been related to some alignment issues.

Once again a case where I refuse to make definitive statements from so limited data.

Too many people said there would never be a spoiler, either. Just keeping an open mind. No need for the hostility.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's separate alleged fact from speculation as you cannot apply equal weight to both.

Allegedly, at the time of his posting there were supplier issues. Allegedly, the issue was large enough (machines not ready, supplier contracts not signed) that would cause volume production to start December or January.

Rest of what was he written was speculation most of which (I deduce) was borne due to Tesla's perceived double face regarding what is going on (suppliers not ready while Tesla promising Q3 deliveries and some analysts expecting thousands of cars produced).

​

Of course. I agree and have said as much, as has ohhman and AnOutsider. Reading any leak must separate potential knowledge from conjecture/opinion.

 

[MikeC]

Fair enough, your quote is accurate from another thread. Ironically *I* haven't been discussing Eds in every single thread, since I double checked Eds only in the Delay in Model X launch? thread.

That said, in the original thread Eds did say he/she expected the original launch in "couple" or "few" months from mid-July onwards. Launch, we expect, includes Founders deliveries - and his/her main opinion lingered around RC2's being sellable vehicles and that the launch would go ahead in appearance successfully, just not in volumes.

If Tesla delivers Signatures in Q3 (and not just Founders), then clearly Eds was wrong on that. If Tesla delivers only Founders in Q3, it is a bit more iffy in my books since Eds didn't say the launch wouldn't be in Q3.

Edit: Speaking of quotes, returning to that Delay in Model X launch thread?, just some choice quotes on how TMC receives leaksters from the very first thread page.







Maybe, just maybe, no matter what we think of Eds and where we discuss him/her, we could start better than that next time.

Not sure why you quoted me saying that he should cover his short. When someone posts highly negative unsubstantiated info for their first post on TMC in the investor section, I consider them to be short until proven otherwise. I have not yet been proven otherwise. I thought you were the one who insists on considering all possibilities in the quest for greater overall understanding, so I'm not sure why you would dismiss the very real possibility that the post was financially motivated.

That being said, he would have been better off not covering his short the way the market has been.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

FWIW, Tesla's old patent application talks of hydraulic struts on the falcon wings:

Patent Filing Confirms Production Tesla Model X Will Have Falcon Doors | Inside EVs

Any comments - could a hydraulic strut be something that Tesla could be doing away with?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I've retired my voluminous threads pending Model X launch, due to lack of interest from other members and to give everyone a breather.

Yea.... looks like that is a false statement too.

What the heck did you mean by that, by the way.

I have not updated my Model X threads since cgiGuy bullied/asked me.

I post in like three threads of TMC and even that seems to be too much to some of you. Sure it is not you, instead of me?

- - - Updated - - -

This thread seems to have lost several of my replies, at least momentarily, so sorry if my replies seem incomplete.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure why you quoted me saying he should cover his short. When someone posts damaging, unsubstantiated info in the investor section for their first ever TMC post, I consider them to be short until proven otherwise. I have yet to be proven otherwise. I thought you were the one who was all about considering all possibilities in a never ending quest for greater understanding? That should include obvious financial motivations as well.

That being said, I will concede that he would have been better off not covering his short, the way the market has been.

I think you were too quick to judge and that is detrimental to us getting good leaks and being able to weigh them properly. I'd rather be welcoming so we can see what they have to say. The beefiest of Eds stuff was in Model X, not investor forums.

What if you were wrong? I guess you'll consider yourself right unless proven otherwise. That is hard to argue with. I take an opposite approach often.

Not saying your judgement couldn't be right. Just saying such quick judgement isn't helpful IMO to information gathering and hearing people out on TMC.

 

[schonelucht]

2. Eds never mentioned Founders or Sigs. He said there would be no deliveries in Q3 and less than 100 cars year end.

And he's more right/less wrong on his claims with every day that passes without progress on real deliveries...

 

[dsm363]

Eds Eds Eds! Why don't we move on from this.

The entire 'there must be balance ' act between rumor and fact is getting a little stale too.

 

[mzpolo]

FWIW, Tesla's old patent application talks of hydraulic struts on the falcon wings:

Patent Filing Confirms Production Tesla Model X Will Have Falcon Doors | Inside EVs

Any comments - could a hydraulic strut be something that Tesla could be doing away with?

Did out the actual patent application and we will talk. The abstract is nothing more than the concept in terms that anyone can understand. The word "MAY" and the acronym "e.g" are very key in that abstract. Because... early on the abstract is open to all. You don't give away your secrets. I have no connections to Tesla other than a Model X reservation. I stand firm on my statement that at no point in the design of the Falcon wing doors was a hydraulic motor or other hydraulic methods ever get by the first level of review.

 

[MikeC]

What the heck did you mean by that, by the way.

I have not updated my Model X threads since cgiGuy bullied/asked me.

I post in like three threads of TMC and even that seems to be too much to some of you. Sure it is not you, instead of me?

- - - Updated - - -

This thread seems to have lost several of my replies, at least momentarily, so sorry if my replies seem incomplete.

- - - Updated - - -



I think you were too quick to judge and that is detrimental to us getting good leaks and being able to weigh them properly. I'd rather be welcoming so we can see what they have to say. The beefiest of Eds stuff was in Model X, not investor forums.

What if you were wrong? I guess you'll consider yourself right unless proven otherwise. That is hard to argue with. I take an opposite approach often.

Not saying your judgement couldn't be right. Just saying such quick judgement isn't helpful IMO to information gathering and hearing people out on TMC.

Actually, this thread here was originally posted in the investor section and that's where I replied to it. Nothing wrong with being welcoming to new members, but when there is a fairly obvious agenda, it can be detrimental to give too much weight to it and waste time that could be used to process more legitimate information. It's about separating out the noise from the signal, and this forum sure has gotten noisy recently, lots of voluminous posts that aren't really saying anything at all except to judge how other people should be posting.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Actually, this thread here was originally posted in the investor section and that's where I replied to it. Nothing wrong with being welcoming to new members, but when there is a fairly obvious agenda, it can be detrimental to give too much weight to it and waste time that could be used to process more legitimate information. It's about separating out the noise from the signal, and this forum sure has gotten noisy recently, lots of voluminous posts that aren't really saying anything at all except to judge how other people should be posting.

Fair enough on the thread move, the moderators here make following things hard sometimes.

I disagree on the obvious agenda. Too often on TMC anything critical or embarrassing to Tesla is attacked on similar grounds. Too much collateral damage to my taste. Eds got more right than many expected based on the CC, so hearing such alleged sources out it useful. Asking to close threads etc. (as some did), not so much.

 

[NigelM]

I ask again: ....And does Model S trunk use hydraulics in any way?

The easiest way to find out would be to take a look at your car.

 

[bonnie]

I have not updated my Model X threads since cgiGuy bullied/asked me.

This wasn't necessary. cgiGuy made a joke, you took offense, and he explained himself & apologized. I know it fits your story of being a victim of sorts, but that is simply not what happened. Why would you keep portraying him that way? You could have left out the 'bullied' word and gotten exactly the same sentiment across.

Classic gaslighting. Say it long enough and people start to believe it.

 

[dsm363]

Fair enough on the thread move, the moderators here make following things hard sometimes.

I disagree on the obvious agenda. Too often on TMC anything critical or embarrassing to Tesla is attacked on similar grounds. Too much collateral damage to my taste. Eds got more right than many expected based on the CC, so hearing such alleged sources out it useful. Asking to close threads etc. (as some did), not so much.

Is the moderation on the official Tesla forum more to your liking? They might have a style that suits you better.

 

[mzpolo]

Today, 05:26 PM This message is hidden because AnxietyRanger is on your ignore list.


Ah...... better than Xanax.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Not sure why you quoted me saying that he should cover his short. When someone posts highly negative unsubstantiated info for their first post on TMC in the investor section, I consider them to be short until proven otherwise. I have not yet been proven otherwise. I thought you were the one who insists on considering all possibilities in the quest for greater overall understanding, so I'm not sure why you would dismiss the very real possibility that the post was financially motivated.

That being said, he would have been better off not covering his short the way the market has been.

"All suspects are guilty, period! Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"

Eds Eds Eds! Why don't we move on from this.

The entire 'there must be balance ' act between rumor and fact is getting a little stale too.

Because people like me intend to harp on this until we learn the truth! (Though honestly, I'm not expecting to learn anything close to the truth until Ashlee Vance writes a followup to his book on Elon Musk).

 

[pvogel]

1. I refer to that exact quote, where Eds acknowledged plans to launch a couple of months from mid-July when he/she made the post. A late September launch would fit the bill.

2. It is true Eds didn't talk of Founders or Signatures, he talked of customers. I'm just not sure his/her rhetoric really counted Founders as customers. I find it plausible Eds wasn't referring to Founders when talking of no Q3 deliveries.

Of course it is possible Eds meant Founders too. Anyway, I'm fairly confident Eds will fail on the less than 100 deliveries in 2015, be it Founders included or not. That was his/her conjecture and it seems unlikely to me.

I'm recalling leaksters because of relevance or usefulness to discussions, not to spite anyone. Just like I recall other posters that said something of interest - they provide food for thought, not necessarily verifiable facts. Eds talking of hydraulic vs. electric was food for thought for pondering the misaligned doors. I have no idea if it is accurate at all, but that wasn't my point either. It crossed my mind and I thought mentioning it might serve the door alignment conversation.

Of course now it all was dumped here without any chance of a real discussion about that.

- - - Updated - - -



Hey, your opinion on Eds hydraulic to electric claim would have been appreciated even without the personal attack. I've owned several cars with (partially) hydraulic trunks. It did not strike me as impossible that at some point in development Model X falcon wings too had some hydraulic element that is now changed to electric.

I ask again: anyone recall if Model X prototype 2012-2013 used hydraulics in any way in that falcon wing? And does Model S trunk use hydraulics in any way?

I have no problem believing the industry is moving away for hydraulic. Heck, even Eds claim was in that direction.

I never claimed the car would use a hydraulic motor. Don't be absurd. It just seemed possible-enough that some hydraulics might have been involved and a change to full electrics could have been related to some alignment issues.

Once again a case where I refuse to make definitive statements from so limited data.

Too many people said there would never be a spoiler, either. Just keeping an open mind. No need for the hostility.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course. I agree and have said as much, as has ohhman and AnOutsider. Reading any leak must separate potential knowledge from conjecture/opinion.

Hydraulics, no. Pneumatics, yes

Peter+

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This wasn't necessary. cgiGuy made a joke, you took offense, and he explained himself & apologized. I know it fits your story of being a victim of sorts, but that is simply not what happened. Why would you keep portraying him that way? You could have left out the 'bullied' word and gotten exactly the same sentiment across.

Classic gaslighting. Say it long enough and people start to believe it.

I merely disagree with you. It is true cgiGuy make a joke at my expense and that was his sole contribution in that conversation. Since I have no real conversation history with cgiGuy, coming out of the woodwork to make fun of me, I consider bullying. People even cheered for cgiGuy who made no effort to stop that, if it was merely meant as a harmless joke.

Classic bullying, then. It is true later he apologized.

Now, I don't think everyone making jokes on me is a bully. When there is a conversation history between people, some tit-for-tat comes with the territory. NigelM can make more jokes on me because it is part of a history, without any offence taken (or at least not be bullying IMO). But when the only contribution from someone in a conversation and between ourselves is that, it is bullying IMO.

I'm fine disagreeing. As for using the word, I hope people think about it. Bullying in any community is not cool - and not always does the bully even realize what they are doing.

 

[bonnie]

I merely disagree with you. It is true cgiGuy make a joke at my expense and that was his sole contribution in that conversation. Since I have no real conversation history with cgiGuy, coming out of the woodwork to make fun of me, I consider bullying. People even cheered for cgiGuy who made no effort to stop that, if it was merely meant as a harmless joke.

Classic bullying, then. It is true later he apologized.

Now, I don't think everyone making jokes on me is a bully. When there is a conversation history between people, some tit-for-tat comes with the territory. NigelM can make more jokes on me because it is part of a history, without any offence taken (or at least not be bullying IMO). But when the only contribution from someone in a conversation and between ourselves is that, it is bullying IMO.

I'm fine disagreeing. As for using the word, I hope people think about it. Bullying in any community is not cool - and not always does the bully even realize what they are doing.

No. Sorry. 'Classic bullying' is aggressive behavior that is repeated. By your own admission, you've had one interaction. He expressed regret that you chose to take offense, fully explained why, and apologized.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I ask again: ....And does Model S trunk use hydraulics in any way?

The easiest way to find out would be to take a look at your car.

Obviously I have done that. Aside from the obvious pneumatics, there isn't the obvious tell-tale signs of hydraulics on some competing trunks. Merely based on that I'd guess negatively, but I would prefer if someone who really knows what is under there would chime in.

Same with the Model X prototype, more insight would be welcome. The way the Model X prototype door operates on video seems reminiscent of those trunks with hydraulics, unlike the Model S trunk which don't exhibit that behavior.

But I'm asking if someone has better info on Model S and better experiences on Model X prototype, to put the Tesla precedent into better context.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Sorry. 'Classic bullying' is aggressive behavior that is repeated. By your own admission, you've had one interaction. He expressed regret that you chose to take offense, fully explained why, and apologized.

He expressed regret when confronted. It is true it was not repeated afterwards. Had it been if not confronted, though, who knows.

My concern is that messages of understanding like you might add fuel to the fire of others continuing the behavior.

I see no reason to "understand" even one-of bullying for that reason.

But we just disagree, no need to make it any bigger of course.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough on the thread move, the moderators here make following things hard sometimes.

I disagree on the obvious agenda. Too often on TMC anything critical or embarrassing to Tesla is attacked on similar grounds. Too much collateral damage to my taste. Eds got more right than many expected based on the CC, so hearing such alleged sources out it useful. Asking to close threads etc. (as some did), not so much.

Is the moderation on the official Tesla forum more to your liking? They might have a style that suits you better.

Aside from offering no real explanations of the Eds removals, the moderation in this thread was fine overall. My concern was with the community response Eds got, being too quickly and harshly dismissed. One moderator, AnOutsider, even tried to advocate the same as me, so I'm not alone in that view nor do I think TMC moderation in general would be to blame.

Aa a community, influential active voices helping to let people be heard out better would help, though. Everyone of us can help make people with information and/or concerns feel more welcome than they nowadays do. That's an end-goal I'd like to contribute towards, rather than seeking your suggestion of other forums.

 

[bonnie]

He expressed regret when confronted. It is true it was not repeated afterwards. Had it been if not confronted, though, who knows.

My concern is that messages of understanding like you might add fuel to the fire of others continuing the behavior.

I see no reason to "understand" even one-of bullying for that reason.

But we just disagree, no need to make it any bigger of course.

Yes, no need to make it any bigger, which is why I have been surprised at 1) your gratuitous need to continue to characterize him as a bully (when it made absolutely no difference to your post), and 2) making it sound like he only apologized because 'confronted'.

He apologized when he realized that was was meant as a joke clearly upset you. That was a classy move on his part.

But yes, let's move on. Enough time on this topic.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Yes, no need to make it any bigger, which is why I have been surprised at 1) your gratuitous need to continue to characterize him as a bully (when it made absolutely no difference to your post), and 2) making it sound like he only apologized because 'confronted'.

He apologized when he realized that was was meant as a joke clearly upset you. That was a classy move on his part.

But yes, let's move on. Enough time on this topic.

To be clear, I didn't characterize cgiGuy as a bully in the message you replied. I said cgiGuy bullied, a past tense.

As for using that word, I hope people think about it. That's all. On relatively anonymous Internet group-think and cheap-shots can easily overpower and make forget there is an actual human on the other end of the line.

I have no problem with people discussing my contributions critically. That is part of the game. Buy some guy I don't even converse with coming out to simply make fun of me and getting others to join in... Yes, that is bullying in my books.

I am not the only one it happens to, of course. Some critical posters (and leaksters!) get even worse.