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

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
From the 2020 Tesla impact report

This shows Tesla's have about a 1/8th to 1/4th the accident rate (measured as Vehicular Accidents per Million Miles driven) compared to the US average.
Considering that Subarus are often considered in the same class as Telsa's (in my short non-scientific sampling survey) in their security ratings, does anyone know how Subarus (or a specific model) compares in that same metric?
I would imagine it has to be worse than Tesla's but hard numbers would be better.

TESLA.accidents.jpg
 
SMR surely does. Check out his 2031 valuation video, holy cow:


His predictions for growth seem to match my own EXCEPT I expect lower valuations due to:

1) Tesla lowering hardware margins to keep demand high
2) Production ramping slower later in the decade than Tesla hopes it will
3) Lower share prices than SMR due to lower PE ratios by 2031

Still, a very interesting video and it strongly coincides with many of us who will HODL no matter what for the next ten years or longer.
Doesn't really make sense (and I'm a huge bull hoping to x5 in less than a decade.

You can't sum auto (including vehicles sales and FSD) *and* robotaxis as if Tesla could make cars for both markets. One must choose where to put the batteries (private cars or Tesla fleet) and customers will either buy a Tesla with FSD or subscribe to a robotaxis network for daily use.

You can't also use Powerwall demand at 1M and state +55% growth without explaining why 55% instead of 50% (might prove that this figure is derived from the 1T extra market cap he's trying to hit); but also why Tesla could sustain such growth for a decade (what's the TAM?) otherwise, we could extend this to a century and transform Earth into one giant cell. Also, with such demand, maybe the $6K per powerwall makes little sense (we know the current bulk price from https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design already)
 
From the 2020 Tesla impact report

This shows Tesla's have about a 1/8th to 1/4th the accident rate (measured as Vehicular Accidents per Million Miles driven) compared to the US average.


There's already been a ton of discussion, going back a long time (tesla has published the accident data quarterly for a while now) on why that 10x accident rate isn't really apples to apples.

I've no doubt AP prevents accidents-but those stats present a less than accurate picture of by how much because they're comparing "All cars on all roads" to "Cars on AP" and that second group is not only much newer/safer cars REGARDLESS of AP, it's self-selection of driving on safer roads (with AP being intended for highway use only, which has a much lower accident rate in general than other roads).

Even the comparison of "with and without AP" among Teslas has the same not-apples-to-apples by roads issue.

Tesla knows what kind of road all their cars are driving on- so they COULD publish the data broken down that way too- the fact they don't suggests it wouldn't be as impressive if they did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyler34
Wouldn't it be more efficient to capture and passively filter rain water on the roofs for use in the GF? (a la Bermuda)
Tesla's latest impact report (page 29, released today) states that they are planning to capture at least 25% of the rainwater off the roof of Giga Texas and store it in an underground central storage volume for reuse on site (likely as make-up water for cooling tower heat rejection). The storage volume is probably the large precast concrete sections that recently got covered over by the southern gap infill steel.

While Giga Texas is a huge roof, imho 25% would be a bit low (we normally target 70-90% when designing commercial rainwater retention systems). The impact report notes that Tesla are investigating using another local source for recycled water supply at Giga Texas (and Berlin) but no further details or commitment for now. I suspect that Giga Berlin may do a bit better with water capture and recycling given what's on the plans, the scale of tanks etc currently being installed and the amount of public attention given to water issues.
 
Ummm, sorry nice positive thought but that's not how it works. Tesla is simply building a massive facility that will increase flooding and reduce the normal hydrological functions of area. Necessary but nothing good about it. It will not help farmers downstream, just hurt them. The industrial use of the river will also negatively impact farmers and towns downstream, just how this works. Necessary but not helpful.
Oh, so you live nearby as well and have a good understanding of the area's water management?

Then, you will already know about the Lower Colorado River Authority, their system of dams, power plants, and their long history of managing the Colorado river for the rice (and other) farms downstream. As well as providing drinking water, recreational lakes, parks, oh, and electrical power to this part of the state.

All I was saying is that the water usage of Giga Texas, which will come from the nearby lakes on the Colorado, will be mitigated somewhat by the fact that the runoff from the facility will put back into the river some of what was taken. Do you disagree with this statement?

Considering how the property was a mosquito farm prior to Tesla acquiring it, with many, many pools of stagnant water in the mining excavations from the prior owner's use, I'd say that Tesla will be a much better steward of the property as well as their having a positive effect upon the local ecology. For instance, in the plan for the site is the description of an Ecological Paradise that will include public trails and other uses which indicates to me some awareness and intent in this regard. Does it not?

As far as flooding is concerned, the upstream dams have done a good job of preventing flooding in this immediate area. The dams on Lake Travis, Lake Austin, and Lady Bird Lake are all immediately upstream from Tesla within fifteen or twenty miles. Then, there are the several dams for the Highland Lakes above those. These dams take the brunt of the massive amount of water that feeds into the Colorado.

If you were to go downstream ten or fifteen miles and on toward the coast there are occasional flooding issues, as there are no more dams downstream. The runoff from Giga Texas will be insignificant as a contributor to that flooding compared to the streams and creeks that feed into the river.

The purpose of the water topic in the investment thread stemmed from speculation upon how a negative ecological perception might affect Tesla's image, and, the stock price. As many of those bringing eco-arguments seem to be either clueless about the Tesla mission, or, perhaps are being funded by entities waiting in the queue to be disrupted by Tesla's mission.
 
Last edited:
I'll try to answer: we also need to understand that switching from ICE to EV will not be enough. We must favor walking, biking or public EV transportation over cars (ICE or not), we must choose a vegetarian diet, we must reduce travel and stop flying especially, stop urban sprawling now (live in the most dense but also clean and green cities as possible, and leave nature alone), etc.
Years ago I was thinking somewhat along these lines. As I looked into it, the saying "If wishes were fishes, no one would starve" began to come into my mind.

There are numerous challenges to getting any large numbers of people to actually modify their lifestyle. For the record, I spent maybe half my years as a bicycle commuter while working in Silicon Valley (for many commutes there is no safe path despite the relative bicycle friendliness of the area).

Let me just mention a couple of the challenges:

1) Us. Human nature and the sheer number of us.

2) There is a lot of money being made by nudging consumers to go in the opposite direction of what you propose.

That is why I admire Elon. He is making doing the right thing vis-a-vis vehicles more desirable than the alternatives. That is why I said in an earlier post—to which you disagreed, iirc—"We cannot go back. We must power our way forward."

If I may, I offer you an alternative approach. Look for solutions that make people’s lives easier and better as well as more sustainable.

For example, a few strategically placed Boring Company tunnels for bicyclists would make many cities much more bike friendly. Better yet put in networks of tunnels for the cars and give over some surface streets to pedestrians and bicycles so you would encourage both densification and EV’s. You can help promote these tunnels in your city.

For example, brew up some synthetic Mastodon meat and take a swing at lowering the demand for beef. The paleo folks would rave—you have your early adopters right there (Yes, I framed this in a humorous way, but the point is serious). At a minimum, you can be a consistent buyer of the artificial meat products coming out these days to help promote a virtuous cycle of innovation and improvement in that market.

It’s good but insufficient to know what direction humans should go, there is also the "how" of making it attractive to move that way. Scolding is usually ineffective and often counterproductive. Better if we each put our shoulders to the wheel where we think we can make a positive difference.
 
I'll try to answer: we also need to understand that switching from ICE to EV will not be enough. We must favor walking, biking or public EV transportation over cars (ICE or not), we must choose a vegetarian diet, we must reduce travel and stop flying especially, stop urban sprawling now (live in the most dense but also clean and green cities as possible, and leave nature alone), etc.
The problem with this is that you push more people to nothing then something in my experience. If you tell people that you have to all of these things to start you end up causing them to throw hands up and say it is pointless. Yes a more walking culture is needed, more biking, public transportation, telecommuting, etc. all needed. Yet dont shame people that dont do all of those things. Hell I see people that have gone EV and done other things being told that EVs suck as well. Its like nothing sort of being 100% perfect will do and damn what that does to the rest of society.
 
Wouldn't it be more efficient to capture and passively filter rain water on the roofs for use in the GF? (a la Bermuda)
I've been following the build videos and every indication is that they are doing exactly that. It seems like there are at least three large vaults for water built in, so far.
 
I've been following the build videos and every indication is that they are doing exactly that. It seems like there are at least three large vaults for water built in, so far.
Mods sweep this and all the other water posts but before you do...

You almost have to be a Texan to discuss who or what owns whatever water is in TX. Period. Texas was spawned under the belief that water is worth killing for. And with growth and wealth increasing while water ain't, water is more valuable and therefore the laws of whose it is is less and less ..."lawful."
Even to the point that water falling on your land is not yours. In all probability Tesla can't use the water that falls on their roof and must either have retention ponds built so the water can slowly percolate into the water table, or they can get legal control over that water by going through the government.
 
Doesn't really make sense (and I'm a huge bull hoping to x5 in less than a decade.

You can't sum auto (including vehicles sales and FSD) *and* robotaxis as if Tesla could make cars for both markets. One must choose where to put the batteries (private cars or Tesla fleet) and customers will either buy a Tesla with FSD or subscribe to a robotaxis network for daily use.
If anyone is remotely correct as to the value proposition of RTs then a large number of owners will opt in. People talk a lot of crap about not letting strangers use their cars, but if they are handed thousands of dollars a year they will change their tune. It's not robotaxis OR private sales. The only question is what the split is.

Tesla knows what kind of road all their cars are driving on- so they COULD publish the data broken down that way too- the fact they don't suggests it wouldn't be as impressive if they did.
There is enough negative spin out there for Tesla so I'm not going to spend time debunking Tesla's positive spin. ;)
 
Mods sweep this and all the other water posts but before you do...

You almost have to be a Texan to discuss who or what owns whatever water is in TX. Period. Texas was spawned under the belief that water is worth killing for. And with growth and wealth increasing while water ain't, water is more valuable and therefore the laws of whose it is is less and less ..."lawful."
Even to the point that water falling on your land is not yours. In all probability Tesla can't use the water that falls on their roof and must either have retention ponds built so the water can slowly percolate into the water table, or they can get legal control over that water by going through the government.
 
There have been lots of calls for Tesla to split again, and coming up on the anniversary seems people really want it to happen again. Has there been any sort of news signaling the share cap is being raised and a split is even being considered?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has oddly not included an automaker since the General Motors bankruptcy in 2009.

If Tesla were to be considered for inclusion in the DJIA, it would likely need to split. Unlike most other indexes, the DJIA is share price weighted. Swings in higher priced components more greatly affect the average. Currently, the Tesla share price is far higher than any of the DJIA components.
 
There have been lots of calls for Tesla to split again, and coming up on the anniversary seems people really want it to happen again. Has there been any sort of news signaling the share cap is being raised and a split is even being considered?
We should know soon enough. Because there needs to be a vote on the shareholder meeting that should be announced any day to allow a higher number of shares than are permitted now. At least unless they want to do a split like 1.5:1
 
Doesn't work. Shortzes have money. It's trivial for them to pay any dividend on their borrowed shares. What they DON'T have is the ability to poof new shares into existance to cover a share dividend. That's what we witnessed during the Aug 2020 runup. Naked shortzes have to go to the Open Market and buy a real share. Limited supply/Large demand means SP goes up.

That's what happened in Jan 2021 as shortzes scrambled to find the ~80M-odd shares they sold naked at the Closing Cross (and After-hrs) on Dec 18, 2020. With the S&P 500 addition, large Index Funds (who are beneficial holders of their shares) WILL NOT accept counterfeits (or fails-to-deliver).

Even worse for Retail investors, their brokers are part of the large group of options market makers who are cheating the system (some don't, it appears most do). So the retail investor doesn't even know that their broker doesn't hold sufficient shares to cover their obligations to their customers.

"Rug" <> "Out-from-Under". About a dozen TMC'rs revealed in Sep 2020 that they were caught short by their borkers (sic).

This is fraud, and white-collar crime. If only their were some Government Agency charged with enforcing the law... But that's the power and the beauty of the well-timed share dividend. :D
Nominate for Moderators' Choice: Posts of Particular Merit

It is critical folks on this forum understand this process. At *some* point TSLA will split again and as soon as that is announced, buying up as many shares as possible is going to be a good thing (NOT ADVICE :cool: )