Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
...Self reported data would typically exaggerate issues rather than happy customers though. Right? Indifferent or happy people are usually less motivated than those who are upset.
Self-selected respondents do tend to have extreme reports, both positive Nd negative. Depending on context one side or the other predominates. On balance the Bloomberg questions seemed likely to generate over reporting of problems. Without much question the expectations of Tesla among enthusiasts have been higher than they tend to be for other manufacturers. In my view it is not possible to even infer that with confidence.

The only parallel I have that seems equivalent was a survey decades ago of California Porsche club members compared with California Porsche owners. We had Polk data for CA then. At that time 964 owners with PCA were far more favorable than were all CA owners, with a larger % of PCA members reporting 4wd problems. Even that was questionable because PCA members were far more likely to engage in motorsports than were others.

without being able to adjust for such variables it is not too easy to judge.

FWIW, for generic products these problems diminish regularly. I trust Consumers Reports for laundry detergent, but not so much for Smartphones, not at all for cars. selection and reporting bias are greatest when the product itself has very strong reactions. Lacking emotional connection there is minimal bias.
 
All the classic car vendors are between 20 and 30 gram CO2/km above the EU limit. Which means a fine of 2000 to 3000 euro average per car. The most likely outcome is that the car vendors will increase their car prices by 2000 to 3000 euro, which keeps their relative competitive situation intact. The competition will come from Tesla, by closing the price gap by 2000 and 3000 euro, and getting god knows how many euro from FCA/PSA for free.
So...working as a properly priced externality should.
 
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 ...



The badge has 2 words, it is closer to 'Dual Motor' than 'P100D'. Check it at 14:16 for example.

dualmotor.PNG
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    281.7 KB · Views: 45
  • Informative
Reactions: lklundin
She fails to give the kW rating of the system. 15 panels.
We’re planning a new house with a 40 panel 10kW system (roughly 10,000 Australian dollars). So let’s assume they installed less than 4kW.
They either need a bigger system or to improve the efficiency of their energy use.
As the price of panels falls and falls, the viability of solar creeps outwards from the equator.
I believe I remember Elon stating a few years ago that with a solar farm 100 miles square at the 4 corners area, he could power the entire United States. I wonder what it would take for Australia?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCash
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
."

Screenshot_20191031_214547.png
 
OT (slightly)
Stated on Maher Overtime recently by Neil Degrasse Tyson: if Greenland and Antarctica were to melt, the sea level would rise to the elbow of the Statue of Liberty... there was a collective gasp that was quite audible.

Should be heard around the world daily...
That's not slightly. Couple of days ago I posted an article that 300m people were going to get flooded and not 80m and it was busted by the mod. Promoting EVs over climate change concerns is not allowed!
I personally think it should work for 50% and the other 50% - ozone&FPM pollution :rolleyes:
 
The badge has 2 words, it is closer to 'Dual Motor' than 'P100D'. Check it at 14:16 for example.

Top Gear certainly had a Raven, but:
  • Either they didn't do a proper test, and:
    • it was accidental, and once they realized that they screwed up the testing, they falsified the results and lied about who won,
    • or it was a deliberate decision to let the Taycan win, and they falsified the results,
  • or they did a proper test where the Raven won, and falsified the results because they wanted the Taycan to win, and then lied about it a second time.
None of these explanations is favorable to Top Gear, the only thing that differs between these explanations is whether Top Gear lied once or twice, and whether it was deliberate deception or incompetence that they tried to hide by hurting Tesla.

Regardless of what happened, Top Gear has zero credibility left at this point.
 
I believe I remember Elon stating a few years ago that with a solar farm 100 miles square at the 4 corners area, he could power the entire United States. I wonder what it would take for Australia?

Put the maximum number of panels that fit on every roof. Done.

Obviously the calcs would be more detailed than this to optimise returns, but this crude sledgehammer approach is enough to show that we can afford to dramatically over produce. If the building and roof are viable investments, then so is maxing the solar capture by spending a few percent more (and arguably no more, using Tesla solar roof).
 
Put the maximum number of panels that fit on every roof. Done.

Obviously the calcs would be more detailed than this to optimise returns, but this crude sledgehammer approach is enough to show that we can afford to dramatically over produce. If the building and roof are viable investments, then so is maxing the solar capture by spending a few percent more (and arguably no more, using Tesla solar roof).
Yes, that could be done but with all the unused space in the middle of the continent, it would seem to make more sense to build a gigantic solar farm to power the whole country. It's quite possible that I'm ignorant about the availability of territory down under, but it seems that Australia is as close to the perfect area to prove Elon's theory, perhaps combined with solar roofs and powerwalls strategically located as well.

If anybody can do it I'm sure it's me mates and Sheilas down under!
 
I don't remember seeing this posted here but anytime these polluters get shut down is a good thing.


Germany Is Closing 84 Coal Plants to Save the Planet

Headlines like that are gold. They give powerful ammunition to our #stopadani protest. No point building a mega coal mine if nobody wants our filthy coal. (Self evident to the protesters, but for some reason it has to be made clearer to our MPs).
 
Top Gear certainly had a Raven, but:
  • Either they didn't do a proper test, and:
    • it was accidental, and once they realized that they screwed up the testing, they falsified the results and lied about who won,
    • or it was a deliberate decision to let the Taycan win, and they falsified the results,
  • or they did a proper test where the Raven won, and falsified the results because they wanted the Taycan to win, and then lied about it a second time.
None of these explanations is favorable to Top Gear, the only thing that differs between these explanations is whether Top Gear lied once or twice, and whether it was deliberate deception or incompetence that they tried to hide by hurting Tesla.

Regardless of what happened, Top Gear has zero credibility left at this point.

The screenshot picture of the S cockpit during the race posted above by KarenRei (#98185) is pretty damning ... Range Mode, really ???
 
Key quotes:
  • "Morgan Stanley's Adam Jonas asked Manley for insight on just how much FCA is paying Tesla to pool vehicle fleets for regulatory compliance reasons in Europe, to avoid fines. The figure has been reported at levels ranging from millions to billions, but Manley declined to provide Jonas with any additional information."
IMO FCA would probably only decline to give a figure if it's high ...

It's also interesting that Adam Jonas spent his precious FCA earnings call analyst question to the CEO to inquire about ... Tesla. ;)
  • "The customer will be agnostic" to certain components, Manley said, noting that batteries and drivetrain would be among them. He added that a company could buy a "skateboard" platform from Tesla, then tune other systems, such as suspension and handling, to suit various brands (FCA already has marques as diverse as Jeep, RAM, Maserati, and Alfa Romeo in its portfolio).
Btw., "skateboard design from Tesla" would include the drive train - that's why he listed the differentiation components as "suspension" and "handling".
  • "Manley also said that FCA's pooling deal with Tesla would conclude in 2021, with 2022 being the first year that the company achieves the full benefit of its own efforts."
Translation: FCA admits that they'll need Tesla's credits for at least the next 2 years. Whether they'll be able to ramp up BEV products and production by 2022 is an open question.

I'm sure Audi would prefer to sell hundreds of thousands of Etrons per year, instead of the current trickle of tens of thousands. Competing against Tesla is not easy.
  • "Our relationship with Tesla goes back a long way," Manley said. "It really has helped us. But FCA are absolutely committed to reducing CO2 emissions around the world."
It's good IMO that the FCA CEO sees Tesla as a positive factor. Obviously they'd want to eliminate all CO2 emissions penalties - but that's easier said than done.

Does anyone have a link to the full FCA earnings call transcript?

Given FCA chose to comment at all, i think it is likely they have at least discussed a EV Powertrain supply deal with Tesla. Perhaps they bought credits for 2019-2021 and then laid out initial plans to start buying EV Powertrains from Tesla instead in 2022. This would give Tesla time to ramp up battery and powertrain production.

I think a deal like this would be very positive for Tesla. Increased economies of scale can reduce capex and production costs for their own products.
I'm sure Tesla are confident in maintaining enough cost and technology lead even if they supply competitors with EV Powertrains. Tesla will have 1) A price advantage equal to their EV Powertrain gross profit. 2) Dealership vertical integration and online sales cost advantage. 3) Non EV-Powertrain innovation advantage. 4) Autonomous features and possibly Robotaxi advantage. 5) Entertainment and OS software advantage. 6) Safety advantage (structural design for safety). 7) Car durability advantage (more than just the powertrain designed for 1 million miles, plus they probably won't sell 1 million mile battery chemistry anyway). 8) Ability for rapid and continuous improvement of the car design, production process or software with its agile development processes.

The hardest bit of any deal would be to convince any potential customer that Tesla will not just cut supply and prioritise internal production whenever it meets any supply/production bottlenecks.
 
Last edited:
Top Gear certainly had a Raven, but:
  • Either they didn't do a proper test, and:
    • it was accidental, and once they realized that they screwed up the testing, they falsified the results and lied about who won,
    • or it was a deliberate decision to let the Taycan win, and they falsified the results,
  • or they did a proper test where the Raven won, and falsified the results because they wanted the Taycan to win, and then lied about it a second time.
None of these explanations is favorable to Top Gear, the only thing that differs between these explanations is whether Top Gear lied once or twice, and whether it was deliberate deception or incompetence that they tried to hide by hurting Tesla.

Regardless of what happened, Top Gear has zero credibility left at this point.

FactsBot disagreed with FC's post ... I'm sensing a software bug.... Someone reprogram FactsBot before he goes right of the rails.
 
Why do we still have people bringing up Tesla-Apple partnership/buy out subject? It’s as tired an argument as Model S is getting an interior refresh/2170 batteries any day now.

Because if Apple is still serious about releasing an EV, then the easiest path In terms of battery supply and Vehicle manufacturing is buying or partnering with Tesla, which they can afford to do without blinking (as of yesterday they have $206 Billion in cash on hand, and annual net income of $55 Billion).

Apple was one of the only large companies to see the early potential in Tesla (so much so that they were in negotiations with Tesla to acquire it earlier this decade - but couldn’t agree on terms), and currently is one of the only large companies with the resources where they could acquire Tesla without any sort of increased debt risk. They are also one of the only large US companies that also have a strong relationship with China authorities.

I want Tesla to stay independent (for my own maximum return on investment), but if they were going to get bought or enter a partnership with anyone else I would hope it would be Apple. One would hope in any acquisition that it stays as a subsidiary & Elon would stay on to run Tesla operations for 5-10 years (and he keeps a similar compensation plan), and once Mars bound crewed Starships start departing Elon can retire from Tesla and focus on SpaceX / building the mars settlement full time.
 
Because if Apple is still serious about releasing an EV, then the easiest path In terms of battery supply and Vehicle manufacturing is buying or partnering with Tesla, which they can afford to do without blinking (as of yesterday they have $206 Billion in cash on hand, and annual net income of $55 Billion).

Apple was one of the only large companies to see the early potential in Tesla (so much so that they were in negotiations with Tesla to acquire it earlier this decade - but couldn’t agree on terms), and currently is one of the only large companies with the resources where they could acquire Tesla without any sort of increased debt risk. They are also one of the only large US companies that also have a strong relationship with China authorities.

I want Tesla to stay independent (for my own maximum return on investment), but if they were going to get bought or enter a partnership with anyone else I would hope it would be Apple. One would hope in any acquisition that it stays as a subsidiary & Elon would stay on to run Tesla operations for 5-10 years (and he keeps a similar compensation plan), and once Mars bound crewed Starships start departing Elon can retire from Tesla and focus on SpaceX / building the mars settlement full time.

The current market cap tells you almost nothing about how much it would cost to acquire Tesla. Most shareholders are likely to hold out for a far far higher valuation before accepting any offer.