Factory is shut for the week of July 27 for retooling for model X?

[dsm363]

I don't see it quite like that. Employees and contractors certainly receive instructions and reasons from upper management - and where not, deduct them themselves (accurately or inaccurately). Thus I'd agree what he/she says of Elon certainly is likely to be hearsay or conjecture, but not unlike the kind any real employee or contractor of any organization could have of upper management. His/her story certainly *could* be a real account from someone in Tesla's supply chain. It could also be a reasonable(ish)-sounding trolling attempt.

I agree with ohhman this being quite futile, though, at this point as nothing can be verified - so consider my ponderings merely theoretical musings on sources and leaks. I mean, as far as Model X news go, that's the best we've got until Tesla spills the beans.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course, that is part of the risk with anonymous sources. That said, it is the same with real anonymous sources. To consider the latter, one has to live with the risk of former. Ignoring both is an easy road some like to take and that's fine, but sometimes the harder road can bear some fruit.

Do I think the multitude of analyzing and speculating have provided us with a more accurate pre-release view of Model X and its release timeline? Absolutely. Do I think it could have been achieved without considering anonymous sources? Not really.

The likes of Eds are just a part of a puzzle. In isolation a risky unknown, but overall as a whole part of something useful.

An anonymous source implies some credibility. He has none. A reporter has some way of verifying at least some of what an anonymous source is telling them on the internet prior to going to print. This is some random person on the Internet for all we know. Not everything needs 'balance' and two equal sides to everything.

 

[NigelM]

An anonymous source implies some credibility. He has none. A reporter has some way of verifying at least some of what an anonymous source is telling them on the internet prior to going to print. This is some random person on the Internet for all we know. Not everything needs 'balance' and two equal sides to everything.

True. It didn't take me long to figure out with 99% certainty who Eds is (and it adds absolutely nothing to post details here), but even if he wasn't anonymous he has/had an agenda for whatever reason and there's no knowing to what degree his posts reflect an actual situation or not, realistically or not.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

An anonymous source implies some credibility. He has none. A reporter has some way of verifying at least some of what an anonymous source is telling them on the internet prior to going to print. This is some random person on the Internet for all we know. Not everything needs 'balance' and two equal sides to everything.

I was considering anonymous Internet sources, not press sources. I am well aware they can be anyone and anything. Yet, sometimes they know stuff. The trick is to take it all in together and come out with a reasonable interpretation - not blindly believe any one source or to believe everything is equal and needs to be balanced.

I don't believe Eds. I merely consider his/her claims together with claims like that of OP, Twiddler, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

True. It didn't take me long to figure out with 99% certainty who Eds is (and it adds absolutely nothing to post details here), but even if he wasn't anonymous he has/had an agenda for whatever reason and there's no knowing to what degree his posts reflect an actual situation or not, realistically or not.

If you know Eds, why not let us know - at least in general terms (no need for personal info)? That would seem more fair than trying to discredit him/her so vaguely.

Eds having an agenda is one real possibility of course. Even Eds kind of admitted as much, being annoyed and all. A real source with an agenda can still be better than a mere troll. Many anonymous sources have some reason for posting, of course.

So it would be useful to know if Eds is a real source with an agenda or a mere Internet troll without real info. The latter is way different from the former.

 

[NigelM]

If you know Eds, why not let us know - at least in general terms (no need for personal info)? That would seem more fair than trying to discredit him/her so vaguely.

Because doxing just isn't cool. Note that I wasn't discrediting him, merely pointing out that he clearly has/had an agenda; in straightforward terms that's neither good nor bad, you have to figure out what it's worth for yourself. His posts indicating delays/unreadyness are contradictory to those in recent days suggesting production is going into high gear this week. Both sides of the argument can't be true.

 

[bonnie]

Because doxing just isn't cool. Note that I wasn't discrediting him, merely pointing out that he clearly has/had an agenda; in straightforward terms that's neither good nor bad, you have to figure out what it's worth for yourself. His posts indicating delays/unreadyness are contradictory to those in recent days suggesting production is going into high gear this week. Both sides of the argument can't be true.

Wait a darn minute! This isn't okay! It's okay to believe HIM, just not YOU. Good god, Nigel. Knock it off! (And yes, easy to figure out. And double yes to 'doxxing not cool'. And triple yes to an agenda ... bitter, party of one.)

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Because doxing just isn't cool. Note that I wasn't discrediting him, merely pointing out that he clearly has/had an agenda; in straightforward terms that's neither good nor bad, you have to figure out what it's worth for yourself. His posts indicating delays/unreadyness are contradictory to those in recent days suggesting production is going into high gear this week. Both sides of the argument can't be true.

Pointing out an agenda without giving us anything to work out ourselves if true or not is not that nice either. If you truly do know more, why not elaborate in general terms (no need for personal details), since you already came out with the claim of likely agenda?

As for contradictions, I don't agree there is any meaningful contradiction between the three. Production of demo cars starting is not contradictory with any of the three allleged sources - it would fit with Eds claims of mostly press cars initially, if what Twiddler claims is true and OP's note of production going into high-gear could well just mean starting the production of those production demo cars (opposed to earlier production of release candidates). Every one of these sources can have heard and or reported a little inaccurately as well (broken telephone), so sticking too much to single words seems unwise.

The true test of Eds claims, of course, comes when Model X deliveries begin. If there is no sign of prototype parts or missing features in initial customer deliveries and if Tesla ships a lot more than 100 to customers in 2015, then Eds is clearly wrong. We shall see. I have no opinion on the credibility of Eds one way or the other, as I simply don't know.

 

[NigelM]

As for contradictions, I don't agree there is any meaningful contradiction between the three. Production of demo cars starting is not contradictory with any of the three allleged sources - it would fit with Eds claims of mostly press cars initially, if what Twiddler claims is true and OP's note of production going into high-gear could well just mean starting the production of those production demo cars (opposed to earlier production of release candidates).

Cherry picking; and there's not much point in going round in circles. I know you like to have the last word so I'm signing off.

 

[bonnie]

Enough already. I've tried REALLY hard to stay out of the whole 'ohhh maybe we know and maybe we don't, but ...' conversation that leads to exactly nowhere. But this whole speculation that some early vehicles might be 'less than' later vehicles because some anonymous poster with an agenda isn't fun, but is potentially harmful to the company's reputation.

People can take me at my word or not. But I have permission from a very highly-placed Tesla executive to state unequivocally that the first Signature cars produced will be equivalent to the last Signature cars produced. And I have it in writing. And with Tesla's permission, one other early Signature reservation holder has the same information.

No, I am not going to share that publicly. Nor am I going to name the exec. And yes, some of you will scream 'Tesla DEFENDER!!!'. But some of you will know that I ask a LOT of hard questions of Tesla and I get answers (well, okay, not all the time ). (I didn't make the money to buy these cars by being naive - I shouldn't have to point that out, but some people seem to think I'm not capable of critical thought).

Speculating about something like this, where there is no knowledge other than claims from an obviously bitter anonymous source is potentially harmful. We should be more responsible than that.

 

[Paul Carter]

Enough already. I've tried REALLY hard to stay out of the whole 'ohhh maybe we know and maybe we don't, but ...' conversation that leads to exactly nowhere. But this whole speculation that some early vehicles might be 'less than' later vehicles because some anonymous poster with an agenda isn't fun, but is potentially harmful to the company's reputation.

People can take me at my word or not. But I have permission from a very highly-placed Tesla executive to state unequivocally that the first Signature cars produced will be equivalent to the last Signature cars produced. And I have it in writing. And with Tesla's permission, one other early Signature reservation holder has the same information.

No, I am not going to share that publicly. Nor am I going to name the exec. And yes, some of you will scream 'Tesla DEFENDER!!!'. But some of you will know that I ask a LOT of hard questions of Tesla and I get answers (well, okay, not all the time ). (I didn't make the money to buy these cars by being naive - I shouldn't have to point that out, but some people seem to think I'm not capable of critical thought).

Speculating about something like this, where there is no knowledge other than claims from an obviously bitter anonymous source is potentially harmful. We should be more responsible than that.

Thank-you so much Bonnie for this really hard work on getting that validated and in writing. So impressed.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Enough already. I've tried REALLY hard to stay out of the whole 'ohhh maybe we know and maybe we don't, but ...' conversation that leads to exactly nowhere. But this whole speculation that some early vehicles might be 'less than' later vehicles because some anonymous poster with an agenda isn't fun, but is potentially harmful to the company's reputation.

People can take me at my word or not. But I have permission from a very highly-placed Tesla executive to state unequivocally that the first Signature cars produced will be equivalent to the last Signature cars produced. And I have it in writing. And with Tesla's permission, one other early Signature reservation holder has the same information.

No, I am not going to share that publicly. Nor am I going to name the exec. And yes, some of you will scream 'Tesla DEFENDER!!!'. But some of you will know that I ask a LOT of hard questions of Tesla and I get answers (well, okay, not all the time ). (I didn't make the money to buy these cars by being naive - I shouldn't have to point that out, but some people seem to think I'm not capable of critical thought).

Speculating about something like this, where there is no knowledge other than claims from an obviously bitter anonymous source is potentially harmful. We should be more responsible than that.

Hmm. Did they also define their equivalence rule? Because mathematics.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Enough already. I've tried REALLY hard to stay out of the whole 'ohhh maybe we know and maybe we don't, but ...' conversation that leads to exactly nowhere. But this whole speculation that some early vehicles might be 'less than' later vehicles because some anonymous poster with an agenda isn't fun, but is potentially harmful to the company's reputation.

People can take me at my word or not. But I have permission from a very highly-placed Tesla executive to state unequivocally that the first Signature cars produced will be equivalent to the last Signature cars produced. And I have it in writing. And with Tesla's permission, one other early Signature reservation holder has the same information.

No, I am not going to share that publicly. Nor am I going to name the exec. And yes, some of you will scream 'Tesla DEFENDER!!!'. But some of you will know that I ask a LOT of hard questions of Tesla and I get answers (well, okay, not all the time ). (I didn't make the money to buy these cars by being naive - I shouldn't have to point that out, but some people seem to think I'm not capable of critical thought).

Speculating about something like this, where there is no knowledge other than claims from an obviously bitter anonymous source is potentially harmful. We should be more responsible than that.

Your data point is appreciated and I have no doubt you received such information from Tesla. It will obviously be factored into the on-going conversation.

As for Tesla's reputation, I know we disagree in that I believe our first and foremost "duty" as a community is towards the fellow Tesla car owner and community member. Tesla's interest might not always align with that, hence we must consider more sources than just Tesla in everything we talk. I do think the tendency to place Tesla the company's interest so high on the agenda can and does lead to unfortunate excesses at times. That doesn't mean we should be unfair towards to Tesla either. Just my opinion.

 

[dsm363]

Your data point is appreciated and I have no doubt you received such information from Tesla. It will obviously be factored into the on-going conversation.

As for Tesla's reputation, I know we disagree in that I believe our first and foremost "duty" as a community is towards the fellow Tesla car owner and community member. Tesla's interest might not always align with that, hence we must consider more sources than just Tesla in everything we talk. I do think the tendency to place Tesla the company's interest so high on the agenda can and does lead to unfortunate excesses at times. That doesn't mean we should be unfair towards to Tesla either. Just my opinion.

So Bonnie who we know and trust with a very high level exec is on the same level as and anonymous internet poster with his information and is just 'factored into' the equation? Got it.

 

[bonnie]

Hmm. Did they also define their equivalence rule? Because mathematics.

Seriously? You're going to parse my statement now? (Updated: "Equivalent" was my shorthand for "much longer text in the doc, but I'm summarizing for brevity" - and as stated earlier, not going to share it.)

As an early Sig holder, obviously I have a high interest in this. And as someone who, as part of their job, has reviewed countless business contracts, supplied contractual language to cover certain conditions, etc., I am satisfied.

You can choose not to be. But I'm the one living with the result .

- - - Updated - - -

So Bonnie who we know and trust with a very high level exec is on the same level as and anonymous internet poster with his information and is just 'factored into' the equation? Got it.

Don't argue with the non-logical. I presented a fact. Others want to disregard that, so they make it into something that is about defending the company. Whatever.

It's my Sig that will be impacted. It really doesn't matter what the future speculation is on this topic. As far as I am concerned, the facts are the facts. People can 'factor them in' however they want.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

So Bonnie who we know and trust with a very high level exec is on the same level as and anonymous internet poster with his information and is just 'factored into' the equation? Got it.

Obviously not. I believe bonnie is honest. I have no way of knowing if Eds is honest, let alone accurate.

My answer to bonnie was an attempt to explain why speculation is often necessary and why it feels useful to at least consider the likes of Eds. Companies have different interests than consumers and sometimes the latter must use unofficial channels to gather information. Pre-launch secrecy is obviously one area where company's interest and that of the consumer do not always align. I am for the interests of the TMC community member first, so I consider even sources uncomfortable to Tesla.

Now, we have a comment from Tesla refuting Eds and thus duly acknowledged. We also know some TMC members get more info from Tesla than others, if that ever was in doubt.

 

[vandacca]

Cherry picking; and there's not much point in going round in circles. I know you like to have the last word so I'm signing off.

Can I have the last word???

Eds must be loving all this attention. He hasn't even posted in this thread as far as I can see. :smile:

 

[NigelM]

Can I have the last word???

Sure.

 

[Zaxxon]

Wednesday's conference call is coming.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Eds must be loving all this attention. He hasn't even posted in this thread as far as I can see. :smile:

I guess that depends on his/her agenda... No?

Trolls breed on attention, that is true. One of the (big) caveats of considering unofficial sources.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Don't argue with the non-logical. I presented a fact. Others want to disregard that, so they make it into something that is about defending the company. Whatever.

It's my Sig that will be impacted. It really doesn't matter what the future speculation is on this topic. As far as I am concerned, the facts are the facts. People can 'factor them in' however they want.

My speculation of Eds predates this statement from Tesla - as does my reasoning thus offered. Nothing "non-logical" about that. When we get new data like we now did, it adds up and improves the picture.

It is not just your Sig that would have been affected if Eds were right. Eds claim applied to cars made prior to early 2016. Plenty more than you would have interest in knowing what changes to Model X might come soon after initial launch. It might not be in Tesla's interest to tell us of such changes if they were coming, which is logical (Osborne). Hence considering Eds was worth a talk.

So, given that, good to hear of a statement from Tesla via you.

 

[1208]

Am I the only person whose been browsing this thread getting confused thinking who or what is ed?