I guess there is a bug in the simulation. Not a joke. This is not how Bob Lutz talks.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
I guess there is a bug in the simulation. Not a joke. This is not how Bob Lutz talks.
Tesla’s own website even quotes $2.75/watt before tax credits in CA for an 8kW system with their reduced pricing. Anyone know what wattage panels they’re using or what the margins are at this price schedule? Back to my point of the solar roof likely being too expensive compared to traditional combo.
What a battle in the stock price front! those sharp edges! Wonder how many block sells they have to do to keep the price down.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
interest is not based on the number of floating shares. Conventional wisdom is, as @ihors3 says, that the interest is set by the market. While in principle the number of floating shares would be one input for the market to consider, another one to consider is the desire to have a low interest.
A simplistic supply/demand model will tell you that high supply gives low rates and that high demand will increase rates. But, unsurprisingly, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If rates are low then a share can be lent out repeatedly which has the effect of increased interest without the risk of overshooting the rate and driving short sellers to another supplier.
@ihors3 was drastically off in predictions of short interest which he credits to internal rehypothecation of shares as that would be invisible to him. So would naked shorting, but he doesn't believe that actually happens. Either way, it doesn't really matter: the point is the "house" is getting their interest regardless and they don't care how large the float is as either through rehypothecation or with naked shorting they can supply as many shorts as they want.
But if so, why would this phenomena be observed with $TSLA, but not generally? If the re-shorting of shares was that trivial and made it easier to manage the interest why wouldn't this be seen elsewhere? That suggests an intent, a purpose, a desire for $TSLA to be depressed.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
senility, its the only explanation.
Maybe he closed his short position and went long?
In other news, the Pope having a go at Big Oil: Pope warns oil bosses of climate threat
Unfortunately, I don’t have any connections to Oregon besides a few friends who work in Intel and Warner Pacific U up there
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Lutz is like Trump. Sometimes what he says makes sense - we don't know whether it is by mistake or he is acting out rest of the time.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
There's connectors with high wear tolerance. The wear characteristics are usually on the datasheet.
This is true of the board, but swapping it in a car depends on how easy it was made in the design stage: normally swapping a car ECU is not easy, as all the easily accessible storage space is utilized for passengers: glove box, leg space, etc.
So the ECU is usually deep behind some existing volume and requires multiple interior components to be carefully removed before it can be accessed. The connector swap then takes seconds, after which the removed panels/covers have to be (carefully...) installed again. Mess up and you might add a rattle that results in an annoyed owner and warranty repair.
Total work time of 20-30 minutes is more typical, even for trained technicians with plenty of practice.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
What if you can't even get to the ecu in 10 minutes?
It's interesting to look back at the Charlie Rose interview with Elon Musk and Bob Lutz...
Bob Lutz and Elon Musk
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Don't know how valid this is but the author claims to have information from Panasonic that they will be providing cells for China GF3
Tesla To Use Panasonic Cells In China: A Costly And Risky Option - Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
Tesla To Use Panasonic Cells In China: A Costly And Risky Option - Tesla, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
I guess you are fired then.
Shoot it probably takes more than 10 minutes to program it once you get it in the car with the correct VIN and options, then you have to do a FW flash to get it on the correct version. And purge the air out of the coolant loop and replace any coolant that was lost during the swap. (Of course that requires R&R of the frunk tub, which is probably at least 10 minutes, but you would need to do that anyhow to connect the battery, because surely you aren't working on the car hot right?)
These are business deals where the supercharger host receives payment from Tesla, and the host anticipates Tesla customers will come in the store and buy their overpriced goods like everyone else.
anthonyj
Stonks
Stretch2727
Engineer and Car Nut
Wow. Just shows you how much he is flying by the seat of the pants or the FUD he reads on Tesla.
See's his first Model 3 and now he is blown away. He's probably never even driven one based on this article.
I'd say not very valid because of him stating Tesla still owes Panasonic for unused inventory. That flat out doesn't make any sense. if there was extra cell inventory in Q4, Tesla would have used it for Q1. There is no logical sense to that statement. If there was unused inventory, it would have had to have been faulty or bad inventory for Tesla to not use it when production ramped.
While it's a cool product, I'm not at all convinced that Tesla's solar roof is going to make sense for average American homes in the near future. Over the next few years, the market for this product is probably going to remain higher-end homes.
That article is using a high starting price for electricity, $0.19/kWh. Largely due to the increase in utility scale solar, residential solar energy is not going to be valued that richly in the coming years. By 2022 or so, Southern California Edison's TOU (time of use) plans are going to treat the midday hours, when most solar generation occurs, as "super off peak" just like late night electricity. Under TOU-D-PRIME, as I recall, most residential solar generation will be valued at about $0.12 - $0.13 / kWh.
I think the primary reason to go with a solar roof is aesthetics. If the aesthetics of a solar roof increase the value of a given house by enough, then it may make financial sense relative to "retrofit" solar. This, of course, depends greatly on the house and neighborhood. We live in a modest neighborhood and our roof is not very visible from the street below, so it would be tough for us to justify a solar roof even if we needed a new roof and didn't already have solar panels. For someone who might otherwise consider a slate roof or metal roof, the solar roof will be easier to justify.
Another potential selling point, particularly in areas of the West prone to wildfires, is that a solar roof will likely be more fire resistant than a composite roof by itself or a composite roof with solar panels. On this note, it recently became clear to me that we need to be going on our roof from time to time with a blower in order to remove leaves and pine needles that accumulate underneath our solar panels. (Perhaps a "low profile" panel installation would have mitigated this issue, but at the expense of some solar production due to less favorable ventilation and cooling of the panels.)
He's old. He might have forgotten what he was supposed to say. Like when PA's Democratic U.S. Senator Schweiker ranted on the Senate floor about something the Democrats wanted to do, forgetting that he had recently changed parties.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
