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.
So my university's alumni magazine came in the mail yesterday. Cover was a picture of the EV Hummer. Apparently even a top university can't see through GM's BS. How did this get published?

 
So my university's alumni magazine came in the mail yesterday. Cover was a picture of the EV Hummer. Apparently even a top university can't see through GM's BS. How did this get published?

Thank you for the link. I enjoyed the article. Almost anyone who does not own a Tesla sees the world though that lens. My father always told me that Vanderbilt was a good school. If you look at the roles the graduates have in one of the biggest companies in the world, it is impressive. They are doing good work with the framework/constraint set they have. The Volt was a significant vehicle.

One thing you will see there is a lot of reactive behavior, just like the Harvard folks. Here is an example straight out the textbook.

Elon is building the best car.
GM is investing in the niches (that is why they need 20 models and preach that every customer is different).
All the places that GM is investing in have hard ceilings on market size.

Tesla is (by the book) giving new entrants into the EV space expensive to serve markets of finite size. Places from which you can hardly ever (never win). I remember some story about light bulbs... in Germany or something,,,

Key point, GM is moving into the market spaces Tesla wants them to move into - expensive to serve and growth limited. You see that in the article, but every player in the story is a good soldier.
 
So my university's alumni magazine came in the mail yesterday. Cover was a picture of the EV Hummer. Apparently even a top university can't see through GM's BS. How did this get published?


 
GM is investing in the niches (that is why they need 20 models and preach that every customer is different).
We have seen from the Plaid Model S battery and motor analysis, that the Plaid Model S unsurprisingly uses a lot of Model 3 parts...

Getting one model up to reliable high volume production helps create an ecosystem of affordable parts for other models.

Working on too many models at the sametime, means talent is diluted by spreading it across too many projects, the risk of using different parts in different models increases.

The big issue is supply of battery cells, no point in ramping the number of models beyond the point when cell volumes can support volume production of all of the models..

IMO lots of models seems like a phoney narrative, it disguises a lack of ambition on production volumes...

I'm sure we will find that the Cybertruck and the Semi also use a lot of Model 3/Y parts...

The one car that might use a lot of new parts is the Roadster, and those Roadster parts might slowly migrate down to cheaper models.

Most legacy car makers will do better if they focus on building 2-3 EV models is high volume and getting everything right... companies like Porsche are different, in their case it is 2-3 models in low volume....
 
Is your argument that IBM’s hardware and software are static and will remain so?
Not at all. I was just disappointed in the shelving of the two products due to
"marketecture" of promoting something originally designed as a quiz show
answering machine.

I understand that IBM has made great progress in language understanding
and synthesis, ala GPT-3. Perhaps medical papers could not be generalized
enough for diagnosis with high confidence.

In another arena, it was great for computer chess enthusiasts to see an IBM
machinefinally beat a world champion, but that was not via AI, but "brute force".
The real neural-net based AI produced Google AlphaGo and the AlphaZero
for chess and shoji as well.

Your point is well-taken about future AI methods eventually displacing knowledge-workers
as much as factory workers or drivers doing physical tasks. It's always great to
see robotic progress in things like shoe-tying or clothes folding, for example.
Meanwhile, presumably more intellectual things like optimal protein folding
are being conquered first.
 
Fore ref, the 'street' consensus is $1.50, with a range that doesnt get to $2.00, just look how tesla is accelerating from their consensus range.


1634261873195.png
 
So my university's alumni magazine came in the mail yesterday. Cover was a picture of the EV Hummer. Apparently even a top university can't see through GM's BS. How did this get published?

OT, but that magazine article has revisionist looking glass history at best.

“……GM’s announcement came out of nowhere in January, the company has a long history of developing EVs, starting with its attempts at building a car called the EV1 in the 1990s. When that car proved unprofitable,……….. the company tried again two decades later with the Chevrolet Volt, a hybrid vehicle that could run on battery power for !!!!50!!!!! miles or so before its combustion engine would kick in.….”(downhill mostly)


semi-hysterical laughter.
We know why EV1 was unprofitable,
you could _not_ buy it, ever, though 1-2 may have escaped the crusher, so if it wasn’t sold, it couldn’t make a profit, by definition.

The Volt was designed with a 16 kilowatt battery, of which barely 10.1 were usable, to _exactly_ take advantage of the $7,500 tax credit, with $4 left over, (the numbers multiplied to $7,504) and could go 50 miles on a charge, downhill, in warm weather, otherwise, 30-32 at best, with “genteel, non aggressive” driving.

it also did a lot of ERDTT ((gas) Engine Running Due To Temperature)
 
Last edited: