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

[Tslynk67]

Only takes 1 to be branded, there should be an update to make sure it’s zero forever.

Would be super easy to program the car to put the airco on if ANY weight was detected in the seat or movement in the car. Make it so, Elon!

 

[humbaba]

And as for: one-pedal vs. two-pedal driving... my personal preference would be one-pedal with a wide "neutral band" in the middle so that you don't have to delicately thread the balance between acceleration and regen.

When I first read about one-pedal driving my gut reaction was to be very skeptical. But when I thought about it a little I realized that with the right interpretation of the pedal (it has to be dynamic) it could only be not-bad, but actually quite good.

Now that I have my Tesla I love it, but that may be in part because I come from driving manual transmission vehicles where I would slow down without using the brakes all that much. My main problem with Tesla's regen is that the amount of regen varies, especially in cold weather, so it can be hard to gauge deceleration. I think I understand why they don't, but I believe it would be an improvement to make regenerative braking 100% consistent by automatically applying the brakes as needed to reach the deceleration that would have been applied via unrestricted regen. Presumably this would lead to increased brake pad wear, but I think the improved repeatability would improve safety and it would certainly make driving easier by removing a variable.

 

[Steve m]

Would be super easy to program the car to put the airco on if ANY weight was detected in the seat or movement in the car. Make it so, Elon!

Remind me not to leave the 30lb bag of cat food on the rear seat

 

[Hock1]

Shortzes won't give up anytime soon:

• some are making big $$ (plain ol' greed)
  
• some are idealogues (c.f. 'zealot')
  
• some are fearful/entrenched (c.f. Uncle Jack)

2020 is an artificial timeline. Let's expand that timeframe to include these possibilities:

• S&P listing: (yes I know, the 3rd rail around here, but there are 2 points to make)
  • Tesla buys Panasonic's N.American operations to become GAAP profitable
    • Tesla gets a 1-yr boost in GAAP profits by declaring GF1 income w/o exps
  • Tesla buys an jr. Insurance Co. that is already part of the S&P1500;
    • combined entity is promoted to S&P 500 by Committee based on Mkt Cap
  • these 2 scenarios are most likely for 2020 (though not assured) imho
  
  
• Tesla issues Digital Shares: (ala @Hock1 to force a buyback of TSLA) (2020?)
  • @Hock1 tells us Overstock.com Inc (OSTK) is issuing a share-for-share distribution of a digital security to all OSTK shareholders
  • we need more details of this scenario, conduct and procedure
    
  • this issue seems to be having a large effect on OSTK SP
  • Up'n'Down +/- 25% over the past week: Paging @Hock1
  • Have Market Makers scoped out this move and countered? What's going on? Anybody?
  
  View attachment 441609
  
  
• Tesla could start a share buy-back program: (2022?)
  • yes I know it's incompatible with growth, but so is:
    • bankwupcy (low Mooney's Rating, ^^^ cost to borrow)
      
    • wild swings in TSLA (Tesla misses out during Capital Raises)
      
    • FUD attacks Demand (effective once they're no longer production constrained)
  • some smallish portion of capital below that threshold of Max. Growth could be used to stabilize shareholder equity (could even return some capital if future raises occur at higher SP)
  • this fund would be targeting the 'swings' and huge 'icicles' common in short trading
    • in effect, swing trade their own stock, soaking up short shares while stabilizing drops
    • cuts off the oxygen to shortzes; eats their lunch; spanks dey bottoms.
    • a billion could do wonders; esp. if trading with Tesla AI software
  • this stability INCREASES shareholder confidence and widens the pool of investors (ie: S&P)
  • my point is to strike some balance between max. growth and robust health of the business
  
  
• TSLA moves to/cross-listed on Long-Term Stock Exchange - LTSE (202?)
  • depending on exact rules and policies of this nascent exchange, TSLA might be more suitable
  • not clear at all the Market Makers won't follow TSLA to LTSE to continue their mischief
  • my least-favorite scenario, seems unlikely to address underlying challenges facing Tesla/TSLA

So that's my short list of how to win in 2020+. I think we should speculate next as to the content of Master Plan - Part Trois (expected in 2020Q1). It's more than just batteries (hint: it's the machine that builds the machine). What do you think?

Cheers!

First, the CEO and OSTK have had a decades long battle with the shorts. I have followed, and been an investor in, OSTK on and off for 15 years or so. This move to distribute a security is definitely a move to get the shorts to cover. OSTK has been developing blockchain technology through their subsidiary, Medici Ventures. They are distributing a digital share to all OSTK shareholders of record as of September 23. If this strategy is going to be successful, it will not necessarily be due to the fact that it is a digital share, per se. It will be due to the fact that it is a new security; a security which cannot be delivered to those to whom shares have been shorted. By contrast, if the company paid a stock dividend, in the form of OSTK shares, the shorts could merely buy shares on the open market and deliver them.

OSTK is working on selling the Overstock e-tail brand in order to become a pure blockchain technology company. The volatility of the shares, on a daily basis, is sometimes attributed to the movement of bitcoin prices (though I don't see a meaningful correlation). As a general matter, TSLA and OSTK are in totally different situations, but they do share the onus of the shorts, an albatross around their necks. I have suggested monitoring what OSTK share price does as we approach September 23 just to see, if in fact, the prospect of the distribution of a new security forces the covering of the short position.

If OSTK's stratagem works, it may be something TSLA should consider in the future, if it makes strategic sense. To be clear, if TSLA were to employ a similar action, it would not have to be a digital share but, as I have suggested, perhaps a distribution of shares in a spin-off of part of the company (say, the charging network, e.g..). Hope this helps.

 

[Unpilot]

Inquiring minds want to know...

Ikom...I know

Why would you turn it off?

Well.....I turn it off because I don't want anymore vampire drain than I have to have. I do a Rd trip that is 268 miles and leave the car sitting for 4-5 days. I usually get home with 30 miles to spare.
In the winter I can't make it without hitting a SC if the car sits for more than 2-3 days.

 

[bhtooefr]

You could probably also reduce range drop by disabling all battery conditioning. That doesn't make it a smart idea.

Even forget about accidentally leaving something or someone important inside (you are not mistake-proof, and don't try to convince yourself otherwise) - do you think it's good for your interior to hit 60°C or more?

Never mind that Tesla's current models were designed for the interior to hit those temperatures on a regular basis as they were designed before the debut of Cabin Overheat Protection in what appears to be 2018.

Never mind that every other car on the market has no such feature. (To be fair, on the ICE vehicles, it's actually illegal in many jurisdictions due to anti-idle laws.)

Never mind that when the battery hits 25% COP shuts off, and the cabin will heat up anyway. And, if it's 100 °F outside, it'll do that fairly quickly.

Never mind that finding out that your range was wasted keeping an empty car's cabin cool for hours, and having to make an unnecessary Supercharger stop, is the kind of thing that angers people.

There are ways to deal with the forgotten kid thing - GM has a heuristic on their cars to tell the driver to check the rear seat if either rear door was opened and closed within 10 minutes of starting the vehicle, or while the vehicle was running, for instance.

 

[mongo]

Would be super easy to program the car to put the airco on if ANY weight was detected in the seat or movement in the car. Make it so, Elon!

Seat weight does not work with a semi-permanent car seat base latched in. It should preload the occupancy sensor.
Wind or passing traffic sway a car more than a newborn in a rear facing seat.
The rear door usage state machine seems like a feasible add on. Other option is a fob on the kid that the Tesla detects. Problem in either scenario is that people might rely on it.

 

[ggr]

I stand by my statement, despite how you've misconstrued it. I wrote, "Coasting is more energy efficient than regen PLUS re-accelerate", since Porsche's stance was in regards to highway cruising.

Regardless, even the misconstrued statement is still true. Coasting is more efficient than regen. Just sum up all your energy losses in the system. When coasting, aero drag, drivetrain frictional losses, and tire rolling resistance are your only losses. While in regen, you have all of those things plus the conversion losses of converting magnetic flux back into electric current and then storing it into the battery.

So even with one-pedal driving, driving smoothly is the most efficient. It really helps efficiency to try to keep a constant speed by expending only enough energy to overcome aero drag and rolling resistance. Bouncing between regen and acceleration consumes more energy than maintaining a constant speed. Something that autopilot helps with considerably.

Regen is only better than friction brakes. That's its magic role.

I disagree too. You agree that "driving smoothly is the most efficient". Well, I can drive smoothly with just one pedal. I don't "bounce between regen and acceleration". The only time I would do that is if I needed to slow down and coasting doesn't apply in that situation. Coasting implies fairly constant speed, only slowing because of the external forces, so comparing it to "regen and acceleration" is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[KarenRei]

First, the CEO and OSTK have had a decades long battle with the shorts. I have followed, and been an investor in, OSTK on and off for 15 years or so. This move to distribute a security is definitely a move to get the shorts to cover. OSTK has been developing blockchain technology through their subsidiary, Medici Ventures. They are distributing a digital share to all OSTK shareholders of record as of September 23. If this strategy is going to be successful, it will not necessarily be due to the fact that it is a digital share, per se. It will be due to the fact that it is a new security; a security which cannot be delivered to those to whom shares have been shorted. By contrast, if the company paid a stock dividend, in the form of OSTK shares, the shorts could merely buy shares on the open market and deliver them.

OSTK is working on selling the Overstock e-tail brand in order to become a pure blockchain technology company. The volatility of the shares, on a daily basis, is sometimes attributed to the movement of bitcoin prices (though I don't see a meaningful correlation). As a general matter, TSLA and OSTK are in totally different situations, but they do share the onus of the shorts, an albatross around their necks. I have suggested monitoring what OSTK share price does as we approach September 23 just to see, if in fact, the prospect of the distribution of a new security forces the covering of the short position.

If OSTK's stratagem works, it may be something TSLA should consider in the future, if it makes strategic sense. To be clear, if TSLA were to employ a similar action, it would not have to be a digital share but, as I have suggested, perhaps a distribution of shares in a spin-off of part of the company (say, the charging network, e.g..). Hope this helps.

The problem with all of these "burn the shorts" ideas is it makes you look desperate. It makes it look like you're unsustainable, and instead of beating shorts by performing well, can only beat them through tricks.

 

[LN1_Casey]

It’s about a feature that gives parents peace of mind. And like dog mode it can be a setting so folks like you or I wouldn’t have deal with it. And since the sensor already has some ability to sense a child in a seat to disable airbags it is more about perfecting the logic then adding new hardware. If I had small children I’d tolerate the false notifications for the knowledge that I was driving the safest car in the world for children.

I'm sorry, what? I've never heard of such a feature. My googling only lead to "airbags are a danger to children" links, I'm afraid the bolded section I've doubts on. Do you have a link to this feature?

If they don't have such an ability yet, than it really would be a new tech they'd have to develop, and really, statistically does it make sound sense to do so? How many people would actually use the feature, and also be the type of person who would forget about their child in the backseat? If they're a forgetful person, probably they'd also forget to turn the feature on.

This could be as simple as a selectable “car seat mode” option on the safety menu. If after driving, the drivers door opens and the driver seat senses no weight, and there is weight in the backseat, and neither rear door opens, then send a reminder via Tesla app saying “check backseat for child”. Leave a/c on until message is acknowledged.

Above argument applies. How many people would have this feature, remember to turn this feature on, and also forget their child?

I will say that this one of sensing the doors opening/closing would make more sense than a weight limitation alone. It'd elliminate the all/nothing weight allotment, and car would only have to install a simple weight scale and some software to enact, vice build a whole new system to calculate when a child is or is not in the safety seat that is constantly left in the car.

 

[humbaba]

The problem with all of these "burn the shorts" ideas is it makes you look desperate. It makes it look like you're unsustainable, and instead of beating shorts by performing well, can only beat them through tricks.

I don't mind that. But I'm not sure they won't face a legal challenge. Its an interesting idea, but it is so blatantly anti-short that I would expect the Shortseller Enrichment Committee to be outraged and require Overstock to sell the digital token specifically to permit the continued shorting of OSTK.

 

[bhtooefr]

I'm sorry, what? I've never heard of such a feature. My googling only lead to "airbags are a danger to children" links, I'm afraid the bolded section I've doubts on. Do you have a link to this feature?

If they don't have such an ability yet, than it really would be a new tech they'd have to develop, and really, statistically does it make sound sense to do so? How many people would actually use the feature, and also be the type of person who would forget about their child in the backseat? If they're a forgetful person, probably they'd also forget to turn the feature on.

Air Bags

Many advanced frontal air bag systems automatically turn off the passenger air bag when the vehicle detects a small-stature passenger or child, a child in a child restraint system, or no occupant in the right front passenger seat.

Note that this isn't a thing in the rear seats (the side airbags will blow regardless of what's in the seats, AFAIK, if the crash type warrants it), although Teslas do have some sort of occupant detection in the rear seats, to notify the driver of unbuckled seatbelts in the rear seats.

 

[KarenRei]

Never mind that Tesla's current models were designed for the interior to hit those temperatures on a regular basis as they were designed before the debut of Cabin Overheat Protection in what appears to be 2018.

And indeed, shorts argue that it was introduced precisely because Tesla was having longevity problems with its interior. I think that's garbage, but the simple fact is, a cooler interior lasts longer than a hot one. One of the primary elements of accelerated aging tests is raising the temperature of the item; damage rates tend to increase exponentially with temperature.

Never mind that every other car on the market has no such feature. (To be fair, on the ICE vehicles, it's actually illegal in many jurisdictions due to anti-idle laws.)

Never mind that they neither have purely-electric climate control systems, nor the battery capacity. To put it another way: they surely would if they could.

Never mind that when the battery hits 25% COP shuts off, and the cabin will heat up anyway.

Would you rather they wait until 0% to be forced to shut off? There obviously will always come a point when it gets shut off. That does not describe the vast majority of the time, because EVs don't spend the majority of their time sitting around under 25%.

Never mind that finding out that your range was wasted keeping an empty car's cabin cool for hours, and having to make an unnecessary Supercharger stop, is the kind of thing that angers people.

Sorry to hear that not accelerated-aging your interior and avoiding the risk of accidentally killing someone or something (or more commonly, ruining something (groceries, etc) that you accidentally left in the car) might inconvenience you to the tune of ~1 1/2 miles per hour when the fan is running / much less when it's not.

 

[ZeApelido]

Regen / coasting argument is dumb. You can still coast with 1 pedal driving, while reaping all the benefits of smooth / instantaneous aceel/decel without the clumsy delays of moving your foot between pedals all the time.

So 20th century...

 

[Prunesquallor]

You could probably also reduce range drop by disabling all battery conditioning. That doesn't make it a smart idea.

Even forget about accidentally leaving something or someone important inside (you are not mistake-proof, and don't try to convince yourself otherwise) - do you think it's good for your interior to hit 60°C or more?

For some reason, having Overheat Protection on causes some battery drain even if it never triggers the cooling system. Don’t ask me why, but I have gotten repeatable results. When I park in my airport’s parking garage (never gets hot enough to trigger Overheat Protection) and leave Overheat on, I get about 2% drain per day. When I leave it off, I get about 1% per week.

 

[Tim S]

Why would you turn it off?

I turned it off. It uses battery and I don't have kids.

 

[UncaNed]

Why would you turn it off?

No kids, no pets, long term parking...

 

[Tslynk67]

For some reason, having Overheat Protection on causes some battery drain even if it never triggers the cooling system. Don’t ask me why, but I have gotten repeatable results. When I park in my airport’s parking garage (never gets hot enough to trigger Overheat Protection) and leave Overheat on, I get about 2% drain per day. When I leave it off, I get about 1% per week.

COP only functions for 12 hours after you've left the vehicle, so indeed that's weird.

 

[UncaNed]

At some point I expect Tesla to integrate learned situational analysis to determine how much coast and how much regen for a section of road to maximize efficiency.

There should be a setting for max efficiency - including some coasting, geo-specific topography and learned owner habits over time...

Hey, is there a forum for this?

 

[Zaxxon]

Hey, remember when investors came to this thread to discuss Tesla investments?

Those were the days.