PaulRocket
Member
Elon basically said, that unless the car is a CPO or loaner, employees should stop with the discounts.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I am not a first hand observer (waiting for Model 3), but obviously, when the price goes up, that will lower sales as compared to the price staying the same. On the other hand, the more Teslas on the road, the more people (friends and family of owners) will experience them first hand which lead to new sales. In this way the discounts would aid future demand. Impossible to model this though. Think this effect is more of a long term one, while the price increase/removal of discounts takes effect immediately. So my guess (not just for Germany/Europe) is that Q4 will be below Q3 in sales.
Elbilsalget måned for måned
It looks like 601 MX and 247 MS.
The official numbers will be out early next week...
Key issue of Norway is a registration is not always a sale. I saw Vin #s show up on the registration page - then a few weeks later, pulled down from the web as seen in the ev-cpo.com history (ie. came off Tesla web site). Meaning the sale would have been week(s) later than the registration line item. I would cut the Norway registration number by 3-5% to get the actual sales number in September.
That is true. Every car that gets a license plate is counted in the registration statistic for Norway, and that is the same for all car makers here. And here all cars that is driven on public roads has to have license plates. And that includes loners and demo cars - as long as they are not only displayed in a showroom. But most cars are registered the same day or one/two day(s) before delivery.
What probably have happed in that example you gave was probably that the customer had to cancel the car late, and Tesla would sell it on their website. I think it is an exaggeration to think this is as much as 3-5%, but it is definitely some cars.
Keep nitpicking Bonaire...20-30 is not material, and will likely be somewhat balanced by CPO, but keep trying to sow doubt and discontent - well played.
I always thought accuracy was the primary issue. precision is important, but in engineering there is always a margin for errors, changing conditions, etc so accuracy is a much more important criterion, with one exception. once all the calculations are made an engineer never wants anybody else failing to precisely follow instructions and specifications for fear of losing the margin added to the initial estimates.
In this case there is no way precision can help us much because our information makes precision nan impossibility. We should be rounding to the last significant digit, should we not?
Well said, we'll be very, very lucky to guess within 10%.
Calling an issue which you assess to be 3-5% of total, while all others consider this 3-5% an exaggeration, a "key issue" does not qualify as a attempt to be precise in my book. Bringing "engineering staff" into the statement to firm it up rings hollow to this engineer.
Gerardf
Active Member
Of course you are right, and it is good to try to be precise. And you have a valid point with your remark and correction about the Norway numbers.
Truth is also a form of precision.
You do not seem to mind when Niedermeyer, Schmitt, Montana Skeptic and Spiegel are not precise. Their 'unprecise' articles are actually often based on your input, for Montana Skeptic's articles you are often even a contributor.
You support and even encourage them when they spread incorrect info.
Why don't you correct them as well when they spread incorrect information ?
I will be. I have seen some words by them that are off the mark and this week, will be hunting for blatant made-up junk. Those guys are like all of us - human. We all have a desire to be right. But it starts to break down when we "make wild assumptions" and try to sway large audiences because of either a form of "I'm right because who I am" or "hold my beer, listen to this doozy, they'll believe anything...!" type attitudes. That goes for both Neidermeyer or Musk - nobody is above equality.
Gerardf
Active Member
Do you think Niedermeyer was paid to spend a month on writing that article (on the paint shop) ?
Or was it unpaid reseach & writing by him ?
Maybe someone should ask him in. I tried, but doubt he will answer.
Last edited:
I don't know any of these guys personally, really. I just learned about Neidermeyer recently. He seems either someone who is interested in revealing the truth and is just a crazyperson like I am - where we believe the truth is worth far more than misrepresentation for the sake of looking good temporarily - or he is paid. But how does someone get paid? Imagine if I got paid to write online or do such stuff? I'd have a whole new career going. Where does one sign-up to be a pundit?
There really are people who I would deem "watchers" who oversee groups of humans to make sure that they stay in moral and ethical boundaries while industry progress is done, new products designed and built. Not sure if you would be on board with this idea but I think we are far more than just meat sacks looking for new planets to live on. I just don't know where they were in 1900 when oil became the new "easy fuel". Look at it in biblical terms - where many religions were instructed to "go forth and multiply". Oil was an easy fuel to refine and use for industrial "revolution" to make large equipment easier to build. I visited the Henry Ford Museum recently (when attending the EV Tech Expo). Lots of large steam engines drove early production plants, including his own. However, oil driven engines became our life blood of industry. However, now we have used that oil to grow new technology that may be a reasonable replacement for the power needed to keep things going. The big negative is how many cultures used the cheap oil to form a population explosion. I don't know that we can maintain the population level using renewables alone and that is another problem we need to solve. At least the energy burn of the 1st world.
But how does someone get paid? Imagine if I got paid to write online or do such stuff? I'd have a whole new career going. Where does one sign-up to be a pundit?
The easiest way is to write super uncritical articles for The Motley Fool and wait until Tesla hires you.
dc_h
Active Member
You seem to picture yourself as a neo-Malthusian, semi-Luddite, Caliban (read Asimov). I'm not sure if that is your self perception and I don't mean to judge, but your thesis is that rapid spurts of change or not practical and that Tesla is therefore not possible.I don't know any of these guys personally, really. I just learned about Neidermeyer recently. He seems either someone who is interested in revealing the truth and is just a crazyperson like I am - where we believe the truth is worth far more than misrepresentation for the sake of looking good temporarily - or he is paid. But how does someone get paid? Imagine if I got paid to write online or do such stuff? I'd have a whole new career going. Where does one sign-up to be a pundit?
There really are people who I would deem "watchers" who oversee groups of humans to make sure that they stay in moral and ethical boundaries while industry progress is done, new products designed and built. Not sure if you would be on board with this idea but I think we are far more than just meat sacks looking for new planets to live on. I just don't know where they were in 1900 when oil became the new "easy fuel". Look at it in biblical terms - where many religions were instructed to "go forth and multiply". Oil was an easy fuel to refine and use for industrial "revolution" to make large equipment easier to build. I visited the Henry Ford Museum recently (when attending the EV Tech Expo). Lots of large steam engines drove early production plants, including his own. However, oil driven engines became our life blood of industry. However, now we have used that oil to grow new technology that may be a reasonable replacement for the power needed to keep things going. The big negative is how many cultures used the cheap oil to form a population explosion. I don't know that we can maintain the population level using renewables alone and that is another problem we need to solve. At least the energy burn of the 1st world.
If you look at USA space policy you would be like congress. We got to the moon. Progress from here will be incremental to such a degree as to be measured in generations. Bezos and Musk have a more aggressive and linear view that progress is possible with consistent forward looking plans and objectives. I prefer progress and believe history is defined by periods of rapid change when factors converge to enable new technologies and processes. Malthus has been proven wrong every generation for 200 years and will continue to be wrong. Proof may be slowed by special interests, disemblers and other skeptics. I don't know your intent, but I believe MS and others are paid hacks for some special interests.
Malthus was actually correct about the specific point he made, which was that population expanded geometrically and arable land didn't, which meant the food supply could not, in the long run, keep up with the population growth. Intensity of agriculatural production can't be expanded geometrically either, though we got a short-term boost from oil. So the only solution is to reduce human population growth below the geometric rate.
However, we now know how to stabilize human population peacefully (google "demographic transition"). Inventing reliable artificial birth control was key (Malthus didn't know about condoms) and giving control over reproduction to women is also key (men like Ibn Saud want to have a gazillion kids, but nearly all women would prefer NOT to go through a gazillion pregnancies).
dc_h
Active Member
Poppycock on production, we've more then met needs so far, with remaining want a function of bad governance, not technical.
Regarding population declines in developed economies, you are spot on.
Could be a great thread, but OT here.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Malthus was 100% full of *sugar*.
Malthus stated "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". The first UK census revealed a population of 10.5M. Malthus stated the UK would starve at 20M. Today the UK's population is 64M with the highest standard of living it has ever been. Global population in 1800 was about 1B and today it is 7.5B. Insufficient nutrition/starvation is caused by bad political decisions not a lack of arable land, fresh water, and fertilizer.
Similar threads
- Article
