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

[neroden]

I DO, however, assume that they don't understand EVs, don't understand the market, and have illogical personal biases against EVs & Tesla that they can't or won't recognize. How to tackle that is the most important question, imho.

Having such an illogical personal bias that the editor puts up a faked-up headline about "5 hours charging" when the person who actually does LA-LV trips in a Bolt regularly speaks of taking half an hour in each direction to charge & eat...

That editor is someone with precisely zero objectivity, obviously. It's someone who is either flat-out delusional (always a possibility) or is deliberately lying. I don't really care which at this point, I just think that it disqualifies them to be a newspaper editor.

 

[neroden]

Unfortunately scientists and climate activists used this approach for 40 years to try to get people to recognize and respond to the threat of anthropogenic climate change. Their mistake was assuming that the folks on the other side of the table were arguing in good faith. It was an understandable but naïve mistake made by idealists in a fight against Machiavellian opponents, but it cost us valuable time. No reason to make the same mistake again. We don't need to help news organizations do a better job of covering EVs - we need to make them irrelevant if they do a bad job.

This.

It's possible to tell the difference between incompetence and malice, and between different sorts of malice, with enough information.

I can't tell you which sort of malice the NYT article is, but it's malice. Incompetence alone could not make an article like that; it required wilfully failing to report the typical experiences of electric car drivers, and there were plenty of electric car drivers to talk to.

Incompetence has particular patterns, and I've sure seen a lot of it. In American journalism it most typically has repetitions of "common wisdom" with question marks after them, followed by "He said this was a problem, she said it wasn't". This NYT article is missing the sort of stuff (including the typical Tesla driver talking about how great his car is, or a positive mention of Tesla's Supercharger network) which shows up even in the average incompetent EV article, and it can't be missing this by accident.

-----

We already know there are dishonest, not-in-good-faith opponents.

We already know thanks to overwhelming evidence that a lot of anti-EV comments on websites are from the infamous Russian Troll Factory; they've been tracked to Russian troll addresses, and stamped out by Google, who is making an aggressive effort to remove the paid Russian trolls.

I don't think the NYT malice comes from the same source as that, but it's malice, and it has a source. The only solution is to delegitimize the organization which is putting out hit pieces. Dean Baquet and Arthur Sulzberger have a lot to answer for -- there are other areas of reporting they've been just as awful in.

----
A contrast: take a look at the various electric vehicle or Tesla articles published on vox.com. ( Tesla ) There's a fair amount of ignorance and there are mistakes and commonly-repeated falsehoods, but they're clearly honest attempts to do reporting.

The NYT article reads like an attempt to disparage electric cars.

 

[Singuy]

Both boosters coming down from my back yard. Go spaceX!

Whoa, just got a notification for an update for my car. I already got the buggy update..what is this? Advanced summon?

 

[neroden]

It's gonna be beginning of July. End of the quarter, everyone is trying to help delivery again I suppose.

If I can get a quick response start of July, that would be lovely. We shall see!

 

[Artful Dodger]

"Missed it by that much" -- Maxwell Smart

"It" being Of Course I Still Love You. Looks like the center core grazed the stern.

 

[Fact Checking]

I think Max does a great job of polite but sharp. But any further suggestions for what we can do at CleanTechnica are welcome from everyone who has an opinion.

The CleanTechnica Tesla Myths & FAQ page is fantastic!

A couple of feature requests:

Please make the individual entries easier to link to, to make the browser scroll to a specific entry when clicked.

For example if I want to counter panel gap disinformation in a reply and want to link to "Tesla quality matches or exceeds competitors", currently the link lands at the top of the page, and the car quality entry is way down.

I.e. effective FUD busting requires a collection of deep, fine grained links on various topics that are easy to click to. They are the best counter to the collection of smear attacks and innuendo that trolls are copy & pasting. The audience of a reply to FUD is rarely the troll, but the readers of his comment - and making credible backing information easy to link to is key.

Another possible improvement would be a clear Fact/Myth tagging of topics. Right now it says:

Tesla quality matches or exceeds competitors
Tesla Myth: Tesla has inferior quality versus competitors​

It might be even more effective to word it this way:

Tesla Fact: Tesla quality matches or exceeds competitors
Tesla Myth: Tesla has inferior quality versus competitors​

This could be linked to verbatim, as factual replies to particular disinformation variants. The Fact/Myth contrast and language is easier to quote, especially on Twitter.

 

[Tslynk67]

I think you are being far too naive.

There are huge "paper would fail without them" dollar amounts going into papers from car companies.

There are even huger dollar amounts going into the "Tesla must fail" global mission from oil, auto, dealers, shorts.

Maybe "hate" is too strong, but a very active super strong dislike is needed against all skewed/wrong/fake information... or it will definitely win.

I find that just rebutting the BS with the facts is the easiest approach and occasionally, I will question some on social media as to why they're constantly spreading negative Tesla news, but never seen to report on the positives.

I don't see this as hating or even disliking, it's a father objective approach and leads to less emotional discussions.

That's not to say that I don't sometimes lose my rag, but I try to avoid it.

 

[Antares Nebula]

Has this been discussed yet?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-government-reduces-ev-rebates-1.5186429

"
Starting June 22, the provincial rebate will be worth $3,000 for battery, fuel-cell and longer-range plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and $1,500 for shorter-range plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

This is a reduction from the previous incentives which ranged between $2,500 to $6,000, depending on the kind of car.

Vehicles that were bought or reserved during the previous incentive programs will still qualify for the higher rebates.

Now, only vehicles sold for under $55,000 qualify for the rebates.

Previously, the maximum price was $77,000 to qualify.

The federal rebate of $5,000 for qualifying vehicles, introduced on May 1, is still available.
"

 

[Antares Nebula]

Also saw this (I somehow ended up on a TSLAQ twitter feed. )

fly4dat on Twitter
"Has just confirmed, was contacted by Tesla (at least that) and informed that all SR + deliveries in Switzerland will be canceled again, since the approval of the CH authority is still missing."

 

[Antares Nebula]

My new ad:

Cause:

Daimler to recall 60,000 Mercedes diesels in Germany over emissions - Reuters

BMW, Daimler and VW charged with collusion over emissions

& Effect:

Children are exposed to a third more toxic car fume than their parents | This is Money

Restoring Force:

When are we going to learn? If the auto executives are not going to take responsibility, then conscientious consumers need to. It makes zero sense to buy any ICE car over $30k, when you can buy the world's most advanced production car, with zero emissions, for under $40k (before tax incentives and fuel and maintenance savings).

Equilibrium
The Model 3

Think before you buy. EVs are here and Tesla is the future.​

 

[Christine69420]

It won’t be a tragedy, but obviously they are not delivering Raven or SR’s to Norway and apparently the rest of Europe.

Atleast one TMS Raven has been delivered in Norway:

Model S Standard Range (raven) utlevering !

This forum user is getting his Raven TMX today:

Noen som har fått utlevert ny X (raven)

 

[Tslynk67]

Here’s the lyrics. If it’s good for Tesla, then it’s a case of “all publicity is good”.

King Louie – Tesla Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

Well he's a real charmer, isn't he?

 

[Fact Checking]

Same goes for Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of LA Times: he is not dictating what Russ Mitchell or other LA Times reporters should write. These [conspiracy] theories are not going to move things forward constructively. Time to retire them.

Wait a minute, do you mean the Russ Mitchell of LA Times who in a recent emotional moment declared that he cannot imagine blocking any of the TSLAQ ringleaders ever, while he is blocking hundreds of Tesla fans?

Umm.. No.

S Padival on Twitter

S Padival on Twitter

To highlight that tweet by Russ Mitchell @ LA Times again, in full context - Mark B. Spiegel, head TSLAQ ringleader, was incoherently ranting about Tesla bankwuptcy once again:

Mark B. Spiegel on Twitter

"Lol, yes once $TSLA files 11 we'll all be blocking each other... Kind of like when the warring nations of Earth get together to fight the space aliens, then once we've kicked their asses we go back to fighting each other, lol."
​

And Russ Mitchell @ LA Times replied to Mark B. Spiegel with a passionate message:

Russ Mitchell on Twitter

"I can’t imagine ever blocking any of you."​

Where the 'you' must refer to Mark B. Spiegel and the TSLAQ cult, because numerous Tesla supporters are still blocked by Russ Mitchell today, because he is using the TSLAQ Twitter censorship block-list ...

In what world is it OK for a reporter of the LA Times to use the TSLAQ Twitter "enemies list" to block Tesla supporters, and to tweet supportive messages to a deranged, serial misogynistic TSLAQ propagandist??

While I agree with you, based on your conversation with Ivan Penn @ NYT that he was probably caught up in a storm he didn't intend to get caught up in, and I also believe that he is a good guy at heart and has only the best intentions, as @neroden said it was his name on the article, and the "it wasn't me but my [anonymous] editors" defense sounds hollow and is even more damning if true.

I also agree with you that the NYT editorial board and Broder in particular does not have direct influence over anything a NYT reporter writes, and that Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the LA Times, probably doesn't have to tell any LA Times reporter that they should not bite the hand that is feeding them, and that ... harsh criticism of a business competitor is not a career ending move either.

I also agree with you that unjustified, over the top criticism of successful reporters is counterproductive, and that the tone of our criticism should always be civilized and should always be rooted in facts, is it your suggestion that we should just sit together and sing Kumbaya, while the TSLAQ terrorists and the many reporters and editors in the mass media aiding and abetting them are pushing a burning world towards the abyss?

Here’s what global warming looks like month by month for 137 years​

I don't expect fair Tesla and green technology coverage from Fox News or redstate.com, but The New York Times and the LA Times are both bastions of the liberal political Zeitgeist, they should be at the front line to inform the public about global warming and the ways to most effectively fight it, such as the electrification of transportation.

Also, we are not asking for much, we are not asking them to (gasp) support Tesla's mission although it would be the morally right thing to do considering their political affiliation - we simply expect these major newspapers to report neutrally and factually about Tesla and EVs in general and not hinder them unfairly.

The negative skew in Tesla and EV reporting is astounding, at the same time the NY Times is misleading readers about nonexistent 5+ hour charge times on a single-recharge road trip to Las Vegas, a Model 3 owner on a Tesla v3 Supercharger demonstrated a charging speed from 10% to 60% (160 miles, 250 kilometers) of around ~12 minutes:

Tesla Model 3 On SuperCharger V3 — Adds 50% Range In Under 12 Minutes! (Charts!) | CleanTechnica​

Instead the New York Times and the LA Times are de facto protecting the status quo, disinforming the part of the public that is ready to do something, sometimes in the most horrible ways, and our criticism is not nearly as harsh as the crime that is being committed deserves.

 

[Tslynk67]

Troy’s new update for Q2: 89,619

Sorry, but he's totally wrong, it's definitely 89,657

 

[LN1_Casey]

Sorry, but he's totally wrong, it's definitely 89,657

Pft; Definitely 89,765.

 

[Tslynk67]

Also saw this (I somehow ended up on a TSLAQ twitter feed. )

fly4dat on Twitter
"Has just confirmed, was contacted by Tesla (at least that) and informed that all SR + deliveries in Switzerland will be canceled again, since the approval of the CH authority is still missing."

At least it's just Suisse, can't be huge numbers. SR+ delivered in NO, so EFTA ok and I think Elizabeth S's car is an SR+ and she took delivery, so EU is OK.

 

[Fact Checking]

Troy’s new update for Q2: 89,619

Here's my VIN-ology "85% method" production estimates (which missed spectacularly in Q1) update for Q2:

• Method 1: 99,445 Model 3 VIN's registered up to today, 85% of which is Q2 production of 84,528 Model 3's.
• Method 2: if we also add the 5,390 VINs registered in the final week of Q1 (which might have been allocated for Q2 already), we get 104,835 VINs and a Q2 production of 89,109 Model 3's. This definitely looks too high, but wanted to mention it for completeness. Probably 'Method 1' is overestimating production already.

Estimating Model S/X production and mapping it to global deliveries is even more difficult and uncertain:

• Model S/X production was possibly hindered in Q2 as well:
  • by the Raven refresh,
  • by the (reportedly) ongoing Model Y retooling,
  • by Tesla's attempts to flush pre-Raven inventory by slow-walking Raven availability,
  • by any homologation delays of Raven.
• While the Q1'19 low point of 14k S+X units made will probably be exceeded, a pessimistic range of 15k to the high marks of Q2'18 of 24.7k and Q2'17 of 25.7k are not out of question. My (random) guess for a Q2 is a more conservative 19k of Model S+X produced.
• Some Model 3's will probably be stuck in transit - such as SR+ deliveries in Switzerland. Tesla will probably try to put on a good face and call any increase over the Q1'19 in-transit 10.6k units the "unwinding of the wave".
• China is a black box, as usual.

So if we take the Model 3 VINology range of 84k-89k and combine it with the gut-estimated S/X production of 15k-24k, we get a broad range for production of 99k-113k - which is quite possibly too high.

If in-transit units increase from Q1'19 levels of 10.6k to say 20.6k, then we get a Q2 deliveries range of 89k-103k.

if we take Troy's estimate of 89.6k global deliveries, that's at the low end of the VINology range, assuming a healthy bump in in-transit vehicles.

Note that it's also possible that Tesla will miss their guided range by a few thousand units (the TSLAQ cult is predicting 85k and lower deliveries), and that they'll have to lower their FY2019 lower guidance of 360k deliveries as well: they did 63k deliveries in Q1 and if they do 85k deliveries in Q2 then the H1'2019 total is 148 and they'd have to deliver 212k in H2 - or Q3 would have to be 25% over Q2 deliveries, which does not seem probable considering the tax cliff effect.

Warning: big error bars, questionable and historically unreliable methodology, not advice.

 

[Right_Said_Fred]

Quick update on the situation in The Netherlands. SR+ deliveries started a few days ago, so no homologation issues in the EU.

Q1 saw 2707 Model 3 registrations, of which an astounding 1469 were registered during the last 5 days of March. Q2 so far saw 2278 Model 3 registrations. We need just 429 more during the last 5 days of June to break the registration record.

 

[Fact Checking]

Tesla used inventory is a bit weird, but my current belief is that they are doing their best to avoid acquiring used inventory. They only do it when someone insists on a trade-in, IMO.

I suspect the biggest influx of used vehicles into Tesla's inventory is when Model S/X units sold in 2016 go off the ~3 years lease?

Their lease percentage is around 10%, so that would be ~2.5k units per quarter - 1k-2k if some of the owners decide to keep pre-HW2 units or sell it privately at a premium which I suspect some would if it has free Supercharging.

 

[Fact Checking]

I thought everyone knew that ad-supported media are in the business of selling audiences to advertisers. Auto majors advertise; Tesla doesn't. What kind of theorizing is required here?

Note that the corrupting effect of advertising on the quality and bias of news reporting has also been quantified, the fact that automotive advertising reduces coverage of car safety recalls from the advertising car manufacturer has been documented scientifically in two independent studies:

And because you wanted direct evidence, here's two scientific studies done on the link between advertisement spending and favorable media coverage:

"Advertising Spending and Media Bias: Evidence from News Coverage of Car Safety Recalls"

https://www.eui.eu/Documents/DepartmentsCentres/Economics/Seminarsevents/Durante-paper.pdf

"Consistent with the predictions of our theoretical model, we find that recalls involving a given manufacturer receive significantly less coverage on newspapers in which that manufacturer advertised more over the previous two years."
​

I.e. media outlets will cover car safety recalls "significantly less", which might fail to inform their readers and might get them into accidents and might harm them (!), if only the affected car company advertised with them for the last two years...

Different studies came to a similar conclusion:

"Does Advertising Spending Influence Media Coverage of the Advertiser?"

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/60fe/78db913870798674fa38ee59df23aaef2605.pdf

"Controlling for firm heterogeneity, endogeneity, and the simultaneity of advertising and coverage,the authors find that, overall, (1) there is evidence of a strong positive influence of advertising on coverage, (2) publishers that depend more on a specific industry for their advertising revenues are prone to a higher degree of influence from their corporate advertisers than others, (3) peer pressures from competing publishers affect coverage decisions, (4) larger and more innovative companies are at an advantage for obtaining coverage for their products, and (5) the effects of corporate advertising influence exist in both Europe and the United States. These findings raise concerns about the independence of editorial content and coverage of magazines."​

So considering the negative Tesla headlines in evidence at pretty much every major publisher (tracked by CleanTechnica's PravDuh effort), while traditional carmakers receive more favorable treatment because they do advertise, will you admit to the obvious conclusion that the media is net biased against Tesla, for the reasons outlined in numerous studies that examined the link of corruption between advertising revenue and coverage?

The study's findings are unambiguous: the supposedly click-bait hungry, if-it-bleeds-it-leads mass media suddenly loses interest in negative stories that involve their own advertisers...

This has an automatic effect on Tesla coverage: if the media is covering VW's and Mercedes's recalls and poison gas emission 'problems' sympathetically, because those carmakers are spending tens of billions of dollars per year on advertisements:

... then by definition Tesla is getting comparatively biased coverage.