Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2014

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like NASDAQ is going up on really good consumer confidence data. People bought more crap in February (Personal Spending up .3%), and the market likes that.

I forgot to mention the obvious, but this news literally guarantees that NHTSA found NO MATERIAL DEFECT that would necessitate a mandatory recall. No matter what language the statement comes in, Elon would not legally have been allowed to take the action he did without full NHTSA clearance. So hang on to your hats, boys and girls, and watch as the market figures this out.
 
Here's a post showing the cost of titanium as 8-10x the cost of aluminum. Assuming the aluminum bottom costs in the hundreds, that means a cost of several thousand dollars for the titanium shield. Then there's the added cost of the new aluminum shields and labor involved in replacing and installing.

Given the cost of the model S to start with, it can absorb the cost better than other cars would. The effect will be more serious if they need to do this on the Model E.

Interesting that last year the market drove the stock down to $120 on fears, and now with a very expensive solution the stock is rallying. Why did the stock ever go down last year? What was the market scared of?
 
Here's a post showing the cost of titanium as 8-10x the cost of aluminum. Assuming the aluminum bottom costs in the hundreds, that means a cost of several thousand dollars for the titanium shield. Then there's the added cost of the new aluminum shields and labor involved in replacing and installing.
The shield doesn't cover the battery, it covers a small area under the frunk, where it grinds any obstacle to dust before it reaches the battery. No way a factory installation costs over $200.
 
So does that mean the "amplification factor" only works when NASDAQ is down?

No, it only means it was a statistical observation fully justified by the data:

tsla_nasdaq.png


As can be seen, practically all lows and highs were almost perfectly in sync for the last month.


Statistics doesn't work the way you are implying (but you already knew that.)
 
Here's a post showing the cost of titanium as 8-10x the cost of aluminum. Assuming the aluminum bottom costs in the hundreds, that means a cost of several thousand dollars for the titanium shield. Then there's the added cost of the new aluminum shields and labor involved in replacing and installing.


This is a sheet of titanium at the front of the pack and two aluminium bars - it is trivial. The effect on buyer confidence I suspect is enormous.

Expect Elon to come out grinning with some choice words for the media that trashed Tesla over this federally-certified non-event.
 
What ever the case, what's needed to give TSLA 5%+ gain today instead of a 0.05% gain?
I know, I was wondering the same thing.

To me, the news is absolutely positive, but I am assuming the cost increase is not that significant, and it is fully compensated for by the added safety appeal of the car. This is currently the absolutely safest car on the road, by a large margin. Anyone seeing the videos in Elon's post will arrive at the same conclusion.

Maybe it takes a while for this to sink in for the investors at large.
 
I know, I was wondering the same thing.

To me, the news is absolutely positive, but I am assuming the cost increase is not that significant, and it is fully compensated for by the added safety appeal of the car. This is currently the absolutely safest car on the road, by a large margin. Anyone seeing the videos in Elon's post will arrive at the same conclusion.

Maybe it takes a while for this to sink in for the investors at large.


Exactly, there are three positive catalysts today: NASDAQ up, NHTSA gives the "all clear", and new battery armor on a voluntary basis. After the last month's selloff, 5% is the least the market can give back to us.

- - - Updated - - -

NHTSA statement? I suspect we will close at either 220-ish or 195-ish, but I've been very wrong recently as well.


As have I. I held much longer than I should have and lost over 50% of my [unrealized] gains since ER.
 
Exactly, there are three positive catalysts today: NASDAQ up, NHTSA gives the "all clear", and new battery armor on a voluntary basis. After the last month's selloff, 5% is the least the market can give back to us.

I think the biggest cloud right now is the uncertainty surrounding the GF. Until there is a big announcement with all the details, I don't see a break-out happening.

- - - Updated - - -

Feds close investigation of Tesla battery fires - The Washington Post

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/tesla-to-install-shields-to-prevent-car-fires/2014/03/28/67923d02-b67b-11e3-9eb3-c254bdb4414d_story.html
They make it sound as if Tesla caved to NHTSA's demands. Most people will just hear this from the large news orgs, and very few will read Elon's post or see the videos. Maybe that's why the reaction is muted.

The WSJ article on the subject is free of any slant.
 
I think the biggest cloud right now is the uncertainty surrounding the GF. Until there is a big announcement with all the details, I don't see a break-out happening.

- - - Updated - - -


They make it sound as if Tesla caved to NHTSA's demands. Most people will just hear this from the large news orgs, and very few will read Elon's post or see the videos. Maybe that's why the reaction is muted.

The WSJ article on the subject is free of any slant.

I think NHTSA 'all clear' was built into the price to a certain extent. After so many 'red' days, I am just happy to have what looks like a green one with more potential positive catalyst coming in the next few weeks.
 
Manufacturer: Tesla Motors, Inc.

SUMMARY:
The subject vehicles (SV), model years 2012-2013 Tesla Model S, are emerging technology electric vehicles using a high voltage battery (HVB) to provide propulsion energy. The HVB uses lithium-ion cells combined in 60 or 85 kWh capacities, and a control system that monitors the HVB and its liquid cooling system. The HVB is positioned across the width of the vehicle between the front and rear wheels and lies above a flat aluminum pan that forms the bottom of the SV's chassis. About two thirds of the SVs were manufactured with an air-assisted suspension system that actively controls ride height, including automatically lowering the vehicle at higher speeds. Two separate incidents in 2013 resulted in significant fires involving the SVs, one in Washington (Oct. 13) and one in Tennessee (Nov. 13). Both incidents involved active suspension equipped vehicles operating at highway speeds and reduced ride height running over debris in the roadway. In both incidents, the struck objects penetrated the aluminum pan at the forward area of the battery, damaging the lithium ion cells of the HVB. The SV's information display notified the driver of decreased battery performance and ultimately instructed the driver to stop the vehicle. The SVs were able to travel ~.8 and 1.8 miles after impact respectively. In both cases, smoke appeared shortly after the vehicle stopped and a fire developed in the HVB. Thermal runaway occurred in the HVB cells. The fires destroyed the vehicles but did not result in injuries. In the Tennessee incident, the object struck by the SV was determined to be a three-ball hitch that apparently fell from another vehicle. Tesla performed a series of tests reconstructing this incident and determined that a similar shaped object contacting the forward edge of the HVB could be "tripped" and potentially penetrate the HVB case. As the object's opposite end digs into the pavement, vehicle momentum causes the object to impart upward force into the case, described by Tesla as a "piking effect". Tesla?s testing reproduced damage similar to that seen in the Tennessee incident, and also showed that a change in ride height strategy, which was implemented in Nov. 2013 via a telematic software update to prevent the SVs lowering at legal roadway speeds, mitigates the risk of battery compartment penetration when a three-ball hitch is struck. The object struck in the Washington incident was not identified. More severe damage to the incident vehicle and the unknown shape of the object raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of raising the ride height for objects other than a three-ball hitch. In a Mar. 10, 2014 meeting with ODI, Tesla stated it would conduct a free-of-charge service campaign to modify the SVs by adding three new components to the vehicle's undercarriage to protect the HVB. A low-hanging transverse member and an additional underbody plate would be mounted forward of the HVB case and a third plate would overlap the leading edge of the case. Testing conducted by Tesla demonstrated that these modifications improved protection from debris impacts. ODI was aware of two fires stemming from road debris impacts when the investigation began. According to Tesla, the SV fleet had accumulated ~90M miles of service at the time it revised the ride height strategy. No further incidents have been identified, and Tesla reports the Model S fleet has traveled an additional ~90M miles. ODI believes impacts with road debris are normal and foreseeable. In this case, Tesla's revision of vehicle ride height and addition of increased underbody protection should reduce both the frequency of underbody strikes and the resultant fire risk. A defect trend has not been identified. Accordingly, the investigation is closed. The closing of the investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist, and the agency reserves the right to take further action if warranted by new circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.