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

[TheTalkingMule]

The 10yr is a full half point lower than last Thursday.

 

[KarenRei]

"Tesla Model 3, the car NHTSA doesn't want you to see."

"NHTSA doesn't want you to own this car, and you won't believe why."

"NHTSA is apparently afraid this car is 'too safe' for the road m"

Old news rehashed as new. NHTSA complaining about Tesla mentioning their own VSS score was public news in October. This is just rehashing it because Plainsite published a letter written by the NHTSA in October.

 

[Krugerrand]

"Tesla Model 3, the car NHTSA doesn't want you to see."

"NHTSA doesn't want you to own this car, and you won't believe why."

"NHTSA is apparently afraid this car is 'too safe' for the road m"

So, what happened is that one or more OEMs complained to the NHTSA.

 

[LJS22]

Squawk Box on Twitter

CNBC trying to act like it’s another nail in the coffin of Musk. When your car continues to achieve five star ratings across the world then you can have some nice safety claims.

 

[ReflexFunds]

This is great advertising for Tesla.

Tesla Scrutinized by U.S. Agency Over Model 3 Safety Claims

I think NHTSA’a approach to this is extremely bad and is in fact decreasing vehicle safety.

It is not that difficult to get a 5* safety rating, but 5* still leaves a high probability of injury in an accident. Auto manufacturers engineer their cars to game the safety test to achieve a 5* star rating while minimising manufacturing costs.
It is possible to make a car 2x, 3x safer than than the minimum required to get 5*, but NHTSA is defining 5* as the maximum possible level of safety (despite quantitative evidence to the contrary published in their own reports) and saying there is no point building cars safer than the minimum. I can only imagine this approach is yet again a result of auto maker lobbying in an attempt to minimise manufacturing costs at the expense of customer’s lives.

 

[Christine69420]

If the low priced leaf could charge at 100kw I would have bought one. Finally the plus versions can charge as almost as fast as a 2012 Tesla.

A Norwegian Tech Magazine published by the Union of Engineers concluded the charging still is not optimal:

Test: Vi fikk så vidt over halvparten av oppgitt ladehastighet på nye Nissan Leaf

S, like Roadster, was a means to an end. That end being the 3 (and future more affordable cars). If Tesla will forevermore be defined by the S (or the X which was not in the original plan) then they fail in a way.

Not so sure. Many people including myself will not be satisfied with a M3. The original Roadster may be obsolete - but we need a variety of electric cars. Or many will keep buying fossils.

If not we could have been satisfied by the Norwegian Think car from years back and never needed any Teslas.

Think Global - Wikipedia

 

[KarenRei]

I think NHTSA’a approach to this extremely bad and is in fact decreasing vehicle safety.

It is not that difficult to get a 5* safety rating, but 5* still leaves a high probability of injury in an accident. Auto manufacturers engineer their cars to game the safety test to achieve a 5* star rating while minimising manufacturing costs.
It is possible to make a car 2x, 3x safer than than the minimum required to get 5*, but NHTSA is defining 5* as the maximum possible level of safety and saying there is no point building cars safer than the minimum. I can only imagine this approach is yet again a result of auto maker lobbying in an attempt to minimise manufacturing costs at the expanse of customer’s lives.

Exact same discussion we had back in October when this was actually news. :Þ

 

[ReflexFunds]

Exact same discussion we had back in October when this was actually news. :Þ

The sad thing is this news will almost certainly go through the entire auto journalist regurgitation cycle again without a single journalist raising the real question as to why the auto safety regulator is trying to disincentivize vehicle safety.

It’s either the result of extremely thoughtless and clumsy internal policy, or it is the result of auto lobbying. But either way it should be extremely obvious to anyone with capacity for rational thought that it is a dangerous policy and there should be scrutiny and pressure on NHTSA to change it.

 

[Intl Professor]

In light of recent mass shootings there will inevitably be discussion of rights in conflict and the role of social media in life. As originally stated there is nothing wrong in either of the first two amendments to the US Constitution. What is troublesome is the certainty people and the courts have in interpreting them as absolute rights. That likens their defense into a religious war which the founders were fleeing, along with most immigrants at the time. Hence "no establishment of religion" by government.

I don't want to and wish to discourage comment on the Second Amendment. On the other hand, it is quite clear there are many legitimate reasons for restricting speech—principally slander and libel. The courts have also held out at least by analogy instances where speech can be limited in the case of a dangerous impact such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. In response to David Hilliard, then chief of staff of the black Panther Party advocating assassination of the US President, there is now a federal law prohibiting such speech whether leading to action or not.

In my active mod days I caught some speculation similar to Hilliard's statement and summarily deleted it while informing the poster of the law passed 30 to 50 years ago. It was also standard procedure for me to delete anything smacking of a down-putting post attacking the person of another member.

The first rule of civilization, and thus civility on these fora, is moderation. When deliberate and shared decisions to ostracize a citizen those procedures must remain in place when self-censorship fails us as both here and perhaps for elected leaders of the polity. It doesn't apply here just as the First Amendment applies only to government action.

William Shockley caused a riot on our campus when he spoke about the inferiority of black iqs. Last night Rachel Maddow pointed out that despite deliberate planning for violence by white supremacists at Charlottesville, the ACLU intervened earlier to invalidate the refusal of the city to grant permission for the public meeting.

Americans are confused, including some here: the First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to an audience.

I was never more than a half-assed, some would say quarter-assed, moderator when active and without endorsing specific moderators' language, I am offended by misuse of the free speech argument in criticism of mod action.

American's need to stop racist rants, for example. It's getting somewhat dangerous out there.

Admittedly off topic, but timely and related to TMC discontent with active moderators here. Responses should be on the Market Politics sub-thread.

 

[Fact Checking]

The sad thing is this news will almost certainly go through the entire auto journalist regurgitation cycle again without a single journalist raising the real question as to why the auto safety regulator is trying to disincentivize vehicle safety.

It’s either the result of extremely thoughtless and clumsy internal policy, or it is the result of auto lobbying. But either way it should be extremely obvious to anyone with capacity for rational thought that it is a dangerous policy and there should be scrutiny and pressure on NHTSA to change it.

Also note the answer of Tesla's counsel to the NHTSA request: "go pound sand", in a more polite form.

If the NHTSA thinks Tesla's claims were deceptive they could have sued but didn't, precisely because Tesla's claims are true. Even today Tesla is truthfully claiming that the NHTSA testing found Tesla cars to have the lowest probability of injury - which true statement no NHTSA policy can keep Tesla from making.

So reporting of the NHTSA request is basically not just misleading, but it's the exact opposite of the truth - and this includes Electrek, also known as "lying'Fred".

 

[Antares Nebula]

It is only a mistake if Tesla had free resources to do something major to Model S/X, and elected not to do it.

More likely their short term priorities are Model 3, Model Y, FSD and Cells.

Within the available budget they did what they could with Model S/X, and that is the Raven refresh..

I think further improved versions of Model S/X are coming it is just taking longer than people would like.

Yes, demand has dropped a but probably more than they are happy with, but there are lots of reasons for that.
If you step back there only reason there is a problem with Model S is they did such a good job on the Model 3.

They were also a larger company with more resources to expend when developing the Model 3, and that shows in the end result..
Eventually a lot of Model 3 improvements, or more likely improved versions of those improvements, with be in Model S/X.

I have little doubt the plan is to eventually make Model S/X a lot better, but that is the last thing Elon can say publicly now..

It is also likely the budget for improvements is not unlimited and the likely future revenue stream is a consideration. IMO there is no need to change the exterior shape of the cars at all.

I largely agree with this comment. It's like the Tesla service issue. Tesla has a lot on their plate. Trying to grow at their rate is very hard, and mgmt has to prioritize given finite resourses. BUT, this doesn't take away from the fact that any bad service may be affecting sales, and that a relatively Inferior Model S,X to the 3 (not in all, but in certain important aspects) is affecting S,X sales. Hopefully they are moving to fix these issues quickly. Maybe in early 2020 we will see upgraded S,Xs. Hardcore bulls may not see it, but there are many, many folks waiting on an upgraded S,X to pull the trigger. And I bet when Tesla does finally release these more robust upgrades, there won't be any FUSC promos. Demand will be hardy.

 

[LN1_Casey]

Ugh, stocks are so low and I don't have spare cash! I don't want to mess with calls or puts or margin, so I'm sitting here glowering. What's worse is I'll have a, for me, larger than typical pay check this coming one, and so can buy more stocks. But that's in the future around the 15th, not now.

 

[AlexS]

anyone have idea when M3 SR+ will hit Norway delivery centers?

 

[TheTalkingMule]

In light of recent mass shootings there will inevitably be discussion of rights in conflict and the role of social media in life. As originally stated there is nothing wrong in either of the first two amendments to the US Constitution. What is troublesome is the certainty people and the courts have in interpreting them as absolute rights. That likens their defense into a religious war which the founders were fleeing, along with most immigrants at the time. Hence "no establishment of religion."

I don't want to and wish to discourage comment on the Second Amendment. On the other hand, it is quite clear there are many legitimate reasons for restricting speech—principally slander and libel. The courts have also held out at least by analogy instances where speech can be limited in the case of a dangerous impact such as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. In response to David Hilliard, then chief of staff of the black Panther Party advocating assassination of the US President, there is now a federal law prohibiting such speech whether leading to action or not.

In my active mod days I caught some speculation similar to Hilliard's statement and summarily deleted it while informing the poster of the law passed 30 to 50 years ago. It was also standard procedure for me to delete anything smacking of a down-putting post attacking the person of another member.

The first rule of civilization, and thus civility on these fora, is moderation. When deliberate and shared decisions to ostracize a citizen those procedures must remain in place when self-censorship fails us as both here and perhaps for elected leaders of the polity. It doesn't apply here just as the First Amendment applies only to government action.

William Shockley caused a riot on our campus when he spoke about the inferiority of black iqs. Last night Rachel Maddow pointed out that despite deliberate planning for violence by white supremacists at Charlottesville, the ACLU intervened earlier to invalidate the refusal of the city to grant permission for the public meeting.

Americans are confused, including some here: the First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to an audience.

I was never more than a half-assed, some would say quarter-assed, moderator when active and without endorsing specific moderators' language, I am offended by misuse of the free speech argument in criticism of mod action.

American's need to stop racist rants, for example. It's getting somewhat dangerous out there.

Admittedly off topic, but timely and related to TMC discontent with active moderators here. Responses should be on the Market Politics sub-thread.

This is why there will always be drama on this board. No clear rules or boundaries or enforcement. Doesn't anyone watch the Dog Whisperer?

 

[Intl Professor]

This is why there will always be drama on this board. No clear rules or boundaries or enforcement. Doesn't anyone watch the Dog Whisperer?

Obviously I don't.

 

[kbM3]

I really struggle to see how anyone with neural net experience who has spent a lot of time thinking about the nature and the difficulty of the self driving problem cannot see deep down that Tesla's Data Heavy approach is the only one that will work. The longer it takes other companies to pivot in Tesla's direction, the further ahead Tesla is going to get.

We have now seen George Hotz saying Tesla will win Level 5 and Waymo/Cruise/everyone else's approach will not work.
We've seen Anthony Levandowski admit that Elon was right about Lidar all along.
We've also seen Alex Krizhevsky (behind Alexnet which kicked off the deep learning revolution in 2012) admitting Tesla is in the lead (after working at Google and Waymo). “I think Tesla has the unique advantage of being able to collect data from a very wide variety of environments because there are Tesla owners with self-driving hardware all over the world,” “This is very important for machine learning algorithms to generalize. So I would guess that at least from the data side, if not the algorithmic side, Tesla might be ahead.”

I think the industry is finding it so hard to pivot to Tesla's approach for several reasons:

• Many of the self driving project teams are led by roboticist/Lidar experts who do not have a deep understanding of neural nets.
• Waymo etc have already invested so much time and resources into their approach it is difficult to admit they were heading in the wrong direction.
• All so called "self driving experts" consulted by corporates, investors and the media originated from the DARPA challenge and therefore have experience in the Hardware Heavy, Data Light approach, and have also invested their whole careers into it. This has convinced CEOs and investors etc to bet on the wrong strategy.
• Everyone else is so far behind Tesla in their ability to role out a mass produced self driving data filtering, processing and collection consumer fleet, now their only hope is to somehow solve self-driving without the data.
• Some people really think 10s of millions of miles of real world driving experience is enough to train the car and to verify safety. Elon is betting it will require 10s of billions of miles of real world driving.
  
• Some people really believe simulation can substitute for real data and somehow think a software developer in silicon valley has the imagination to program all possible 1 in 10 million driving scenarios, and has the ability to accurately program artificial conscious beings in the simulation.
• Some people really think it's impossible to get distance and velocity measurements from cameras alone (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

There seems to be a false narrative spun by the industry that Elon's rational for choosing the Hardware Light approach was just to save on manufacturing costs and/or an arbitrary rejection of lidar. This is completely false. There are two mutually exclusive choices for self driving strategy: 1) Hardware Light, Data Heavy or 2) Hardware Heavy, Data Light. It is impossible to choose a Hardware Heavy, Data Heavy approach because a car fleet of Tesla's size using this approach would cost the company towards $100bn capex and development costs. Elon choose his approach because he correctly understood that data is key to neural nets, solving edge cases and verifying safety. Elon knew there is a proof of concept (us) that driving can work through vision alone, but he took a gamble at how long it would take to solve distance/velocity with vision rather than lidar. Fortunately everything is suggesting Tesla (and other AI researchers) are making rapid progress on this (if not solved sufficiently already).

_————-
Attention Mods. If there is still a thread for the top informative posts, I nominate this one, by ReflexFunds

It very concisely summarizes one of Tesla’s top technological leads in one post.
————-

I would like to drill down into the sentence Elon is betting on 10’s of billions of miles approach. Not arguing, just clarifying what betting means. Specifically what happens if Tesla is wrong for some reason.

In addition to Tesla having a clear lead in Autonomy, I also believe they are in the best position of any car company EVEN IF their approach never works and someone else solves it first:
- Tesla will still have a very, very nice and useful driver assist functionality.
- Whoever solves it will still need millions and millions of EV drivetrains for their robo-taxi fleets and Tesla is best situated to provide them.
- For quite awhile affluent people and enthusiasts will still want to drive their own vehicles, and performance/luxury vehicles will see the least diminution in sales. I.e. the appliance cars will lose the most.
- Tesla Energy, Semi, Ship, Aircraft, Heavy Machinery... divisions will still be massive.

 

[AlexS]

anyone have idea when M3 SR+ will hit Norway delivery centers?

Looked it up on elbil forum, looks like 20-sh of August is when the frenzy will start in Norway

 

[mrmage]

I really struggle to see how anyone with neural net experience who has spent a lot of time thinking about the nature and the difficulty of the self driving problem cannot see deep down that Tesla's Data Heavy approach is the only one that will work. The longer it takes other companies to pivot in Tesla's direction, the further ahead Tesla is going to get.

We have now seen George Hotz saying Tesla will win Level 5 and Waymo/Cruise/everyone else's approach will not work.
We've seen Anthony Levandowski admit that Elon was right about Lidar all along.
We've also seen Alex Krizhevsky (behind Alexnet which kicked off the deep learning revolution in 2012) admitting Tesla is in the lead (after working at Google and Waymo). “I think Tesla has the unique advantage of being able to collect data from a very wide variety of environments because there are Tesla owners with self-driving hardware all over the world,” “This is very important for machine learning algorithms to generalize. So I would guess that at least from the data side, if not the algorithmic side, Tesla might be ahead.”

I think the industry is finding it so hard to pivot to Tesla's approach for several reasons:

• Many of the self driving project teams are led by roboticist/Lidar experts who do not have a deep understanding of neural nets.
• Waymo etc have already invested so much time and resources into their approach it is difficult to admit they were heading in the wrong direction.
• All so called "self driving experts" consulted by corporates, investors and the media originated from the DARPA challenge and therefore have experience in the Hardware Heavy, Data Light approach, and have also invested their whole careers into it. This has convinced CEOs and investors etc to bet on the wrong strategy.
• Everyone else is so far behind Tesla in their ability to role out a mass produced self driving data filtering, processing and collection consumer fleet, now their only hope is to somehow solve self-driving without the data.
• Some people really think 10s of millions of miles of real world driving experience is enough to train the car and to verify safety. Elon is betting it will require 10s of billions of miles of real world driving.
  
• Some people really believe simulation can substitute for real data and somehow think a software developer in silicon valley has the imagination to program all possible 1 in 10 million driving scenarios, and has the ability to accurately program artificial conscious beings in the simulation.
• Some people really think it's impossible to get distance and velocity measurements from cameras alone (despite all the evidence to the contrary).

There seems to be a false narrative spun by the industry that Elon's rational for choosing the Hardware Light approach was just to save on manufacturing costs and/or an arbitrary rejection of lidar. This is completely false. There are two mutually exclusive choices for self driving strategy: 1) Hardware Light, Data Heavy or 2) Hardware Heavy, Data Light. It is impossible to choose a Hardware Heavy, Data Heavy approach because a car fleet of Tesla's size using this approach would cost the company towards $100bn capex and development costs. Elon choose his approach because he correctly understood that data is key to neural nets, solving edge cases and verifying safety. Elon knew there is a proof of concept (us) that driving can work through vision alone, but he took a gamble at how long it would take to solve distance/velocity with vision rather than lidar. Fortunately everything is suggesting Tesla (and other AI researchers) are making rapid progress on this (if not solved sufficiently already).

Basically, everyone is just doing what’s feasible for them, but both are just points along a spectrum and eventually both will be overkills.

A one eyed human with barely passable vision can be a safe driver after hundreds of miles of driving. That proves that both approaches can work given sufficient advancement in ML. But for current ML:

- Google cannot afford to collect billions of miles of data, so they rely on hardware and maps to compensate.

- Tesla cannot afford expensive hw on consumer vehicles, so they collect billions of miles to compensate.

I believe both will work in certain markets, and neither will work well in certain situations, especially when people react to cars. Eg people won’t feel as obligated to yield to driverless cars.

 

[StealthP3D]

Also, i presume given the high registration taxes, car scrappage is relatively rare.

No, Hong Kong is a very wealthy and advanced city, cars are scrapped en masse. Most of them are either stripped of parts for sale to poorer, less developed areas of the world or exported as whole vehicles if they are in good enough condition. The process is still called "scrapping", the government is trying to get older cars off the streets of Hong Kong.

 

[Christine69420]

anyone have idea when M3 SR+ will hit Norway delivery centers?

If you are interested enough keep an eye on this Norwegian thread:

Model 3 SR+ forventet levering?