-
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
Krugerrand
Meow
Why, indeed?
I bet, not gunna happen. And even though Elon just said in the ER call that Tesla could sell to other OEMs. The pause before he said it and how he said it (with little enthusiasm) did not give me warm fuzzy feelings and confidence it would happen.
Perhaps my own bias getting in the way of that interpretation because I’m heavily leaning toward wanting to witness a big OEM bonfire. But if Tesla does it, then let it be Dodge/Chrysler/Plymouth/Daimler/whatever they’ll be called next as I still have a tiny soft spot left in my heart for them for saving Tesla and for a long history of great vehicles (for me personally) over a number of decades.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Ah, so that’s a hypothetical, then. If anybody can actually match Tesla on those things then, yes, they’ll have some competition.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Yes, I had the exact same feeling too when listening to it: Elon wanted to instinctively reply "hell no", but went for the non-answer instead - which was wiser.
Tesla isn't in a position to be forced to sell their crown jewels to other OEMs anymore.
Top Gear to their credit has responded to the criticisms.
Porsche Taycan vs Tesla Model S Drag Race: clarification
"These were numbers we recorded in a Model S on a previous occasion. We ran them because these are the best figures we’ve achieved in a Model S to date so we know that’s what the car is capable of.
And just to be clear, the Tesla was in Ludicrous+ mode, the battery was pre-conditioned and both cars had around 85 per cent charge before the first run."
Porsche Taycan vs Tesla Model S Drag Race: clarification
"These were numbers we recorded in a Model S on a previous occasion. We ran them because these are the best figures we’ve achieved in a Model S to date so we know that’s what the car is capable of.
And just to be clear, the Tesla was in Ludicrous+ mode, the battery was pre-conditioned and both cars had around 85 per cent charge before the first run."
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
Todd Burch
14-Year Member
That does not address the major criticism. They did not confirm that it's a Raven S (it almost certainly isn't). It's like using an older model year in a comparison.
Tesla to allow MCU upgrade for older Model S and X for better gaming experience
Last I had read, it sounded like they were about to start scheduling people for retrofits and then nothing happened. I imagine it'll happen eventually, but is probably one of those things that got delayed to focus on more immediately important things like achieving the results of Q3 ...
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
So they are admitting they were comparing a new Porche (that you can't even get yet) with a Model S that has been since superseded with the Raven?
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
Hey, its only for entertainment purposes
Where does it state it wasn't Raven? In the comment section there are those who state it was a Raven, though I do know what is there proof.
Serious question, to those who have bought the S/X with the Raven update, does it state Raven anywhere on your paperwork?
You can't pay for internet marketing like this, Porsche and Tesla are secretly jumping for joy.
humbaba
sleeping until $7000
You mean the part where they admit to re-using the Model S run times from 2017? I guess the Raven is so fast it went back in time, but the resulting warp slowed its performance down to a 2017 era Model S
OK, one by one
This subject becomes fairly technical and subject to myriad constraints. To delve in detail will go seriously off topic. I am happy to do so by PM or otherwise, but to do so will be very time consuming. FWIW, the Marketing 'professionals' who do focus groups are those who miss these points most egregiously. Focus groups serve only to reassure nervous people of the wisdom fo a course they are taking. Having administered many of them I am confident that I have never failed to get the desired outcome.
The dominant error is self-selected responded vs randomly selected ones. Self-selection always produces stronger opinions than do randomly selected ones. Random selection is always more expensive than is self-selection. Further, self-selection based on prior selection from a topic that is arcane or not mainstream will draw stronger reactions, not necessarily related to the broader universe.
In this specific case Bloomberg drew from an audience already deeply attached to the subject. It is af if they were drawing predominately from TMC members. We all must know that we are serious outliers since TMC total membership is much less than 5% of Tesla owners. Can we rely on our own views? Certainly not, unless we want to know what other rapidly involved Tesla addicts/haters think.
I have personally made quite a few errors with "mother-in-law" research, that being teh historical term for such errors.
Political polling is subject to a wide variety of similar errors. a website:
https://fivethirtyeight.com. managed by Nate Silver regularly deals with such issues, mostly involving politics and sports. Their methodology for evaluating accuracy of US political pollsters is instructive.
With Tesla all this becomes particularly fraught because the very base marketing structure of Tesla is built on attracting only people who are technologically literate. That saves them lots fo money because nobody else can figure out to use a Tesla will any degree of competence. In turn polling sourcing and bias management become far different than in other less technical fields. To that extent Amazon, Apple and Google are three examples of entities taht defy conventional polling techniques. Others abound, almost all of them being fairly narrow in their survey/opinion research. Oddly some, like all three of those examples plus Alibaba and many others become quite large and dominant commercially while still serving a very constrained audience.
None of those ever become accurately evaluated from self-selected responses. Why? Simply because none of those are really a broadly based company.
What they do have is the most active portion of the total audience. So Apple makes 90% of industry profits with a 10% market share. Check Amazon actual share of US customers vs share fo US retail sales.
What has that to do with surveys? Simply self-selection for any of them draws only the extremes so one has haters and lovers but few mediocres.
Even when not self selected the medium becomes part of the selection problem. That is why the Chicago tribune famously reported that Dewey beat Truman.
As investors in Tesla we really need to understand these issues because they explain FUD as well as absurdly high owner loyalty. Bloomberg, almost by definition, self selects an abnormal group. Interesting, but distinctly not normal.
What that means for me is that I strongly think that any responsible attempt to survey Tesla owners should pay unusual attention to incomes, ages, occupations and educational background. In our specific case Bloomberg active users are a distinctly different class than are all Tesla owners. Once those differences are understood we might be able to judge whether or not we actually learn anything from their Tesla reports. Anyway, Bloomberg is doing thsi more for entertainment than for actual useful data. Were it the latter they would have very different methodology.
anecdotes and statistics are different things, unrelated. Every single consumer poll received anecdotal data. anecdotes are a form fo data that requires different adjustment techniques than does objective data. BY definition a consumer stating an opinion or reporting an event is anecdotal. So for example, a large number of witnesses to an event report what they observed. Separately there is evidence from a data recorder that observed the same events. Thirdly there were a number of witnesses who were technically adept in the subject matter observed. In microcosm that is the dilemma of all survey data.
This subject becomes fairly technical and subject to myriad constraints. To delve in detail will go seriously off topic. I am happy to do so by PM or otherwise, but to do so will be very time consuming. FWIW, the Marketing 'professionals' who do focus groups are those who miss these points most egregiously. Focus groups serve only to reassure nervous people of the wisdom fo a course they are taking. Having administered many of them I am confident that I have never failed to get the desired outcome.
The dominant error is self-selected responded vs randomly selected ones. Self-selection always produces stronger opinions than do randomly selected ones. Random selection is always more expensive than is self-selection. Further, self-selection based on prior selection from a topic that is arcane or not mainstream will draw stronger reactions, not necessarily related to the broader universe.
In this specific case Bloomberg drew from an audience already deeply attached to the subject. It is af if they were drawing predominately from TMC members. We all must know that we are serious outliers since TMC total membership is much less than 5% of Tesla owners. Can we rely on our own views? Certainly not, unless we want to know what other rapidly involved Tesla addicts/haters think.
I have personally made quite a few errors with "mother-in-law" research, that being teh historical term for such errors.
Political polling is subject to a wide variety of similar errors. a website:
https://fivethirtyeight.com. managed by Nate Silver regularly deals with such issues, mostly involving politics and sports. Their methodology for evaluating accuracy of US political pollsters is instructive.
With Tesla all this becomes particularly fraught because the very base marketing structure of Tesla is built on attracting only people who are technologically literate. That saves them lots fo money because nobody else can figure out to use a Tesla will any degree of competence. In turn polling sourcing and bias management become far different than in other less technical fields. To that extent Amazon, Apple and Google are three examples of entities taht defy conventional polling techniques. Others abound, almost all of them being fairly narrow in their survey/opinion research. Oddly some, like all three of those examples plus Alibaba and many others become quite large and dominant commercially while still serving a very constrained audience.
None of those ever become accurately evaluated from self-selected responses. Why? Simply because none of those are really a broadly based company.
What they do have is the most active portion of the total audience. So Apple makes 90% of industry profits with a 10% market share. Check Amazon actual share of US customers vs share fo US retail sales.
What has that to do with surveys? Simply self-selection for any of them draws only the extremes so one has haters and lovers but few mediocres.
Even when not self selected the medium becomes part of the selection problem. That is why the Chicago tribune famously reported that Dewey beat Truman.
As investors in Tesla we really need to understand these issues because they explain FUD as well as absurdly high owner loyalty. Bloomberg, almost by definition, self selects an abnormal group. Interesting, but distinctly not normal.
What that means for me is that I strongly think that any responsible attempt to survey Tesla owners should pay unusual attention to incomes, ages, occupations and educational background. In our specific case Bloomberg active users are a distinctly different class than are all Tesla owners. Once those differences are understood we might be able to judge whether or not we actually learn anything from their Tesla reports. Anyway, Bloomberg is doing thsi more for entertainment than for actual useful data. Were it the latter they would have very different methodology.
I'm sorry for the OT, but this is EPIC
A must see
Musk AF on Twitter
Edit:
Did not realize this is an old video, but did not see it before
A must see
Musk AF on Twitter
Edit:
Did not realize this is an old video, but did not see it before
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
The Raven badge says "Dual Motor" - the pre-Raven says "P100D". The Performance models have red brake calipers. Hard to miss clues.
Btw., Top Gear's "clarification" didn't specify whether they put the Raven into "Launch Mode":
Top Gear has a long history of "entertaining" at the expense of Tesla, in favor of ICE incumbents.
As for all future Top Gear claims: notarized video or it didn't happen ...
Last edited:
You mean this?
"The best figures we recorded for the Tesla Model S Performance were:
0-60: 2.83
0-100: 6.64
¼ mile: 11.23s @ 123.2mph
The numbers we posted in the video for the Tesla were:
0-60: 2.68
0-100: 6.46
¼ mile: 11.08s @ 124.0mph
These were numbers we recorded in a Model S on a previous occasion. We ran them because these are the best figures we’ve achieved in a Model S to date so we know that’s what the car is capable of."
They did Tesla a solid. To be frank,Top Gear should NOT have done that. That alone opens them to scrutiny and suspicion.
Most of it would be perfect placement for Solar though... as flat as the eye can see and as you state, barren wasteland.It's just jealousy. They couldn't afford the wonderful climate and beaches of California so they had to move to a barren patch of desert in Mexico. Well, it was formerly Mexican wasteland, now it's technically part of the U.S.A.
I think you should add a few years on to the timeline. Even Panasonic, a battery veteran, has taken time to scale.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
