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

[ammulder]

I think the prop up will be massive government funding of battery factories, and massive loans to keep them going through the fall of the ICE business until the EV business is ramped up enough to put the company on its own feet again.

Except, where's the technology for those battery factories going to come from? Not from LG Chem or CATL or Tesla. You think Japan will basically fund Panasonic to massively scale capacity? And Germany would invest in what, Northvolt? It's a big gamble that they'll still be on top of the battery game at that time. (Some possibilities: what if someone else comes out with solid state and lithium ion goes by the wayside? What if Tesla actually does come up with substantially superior lithium ion? What if CATL eats everybody's lunch?)

I guess they could fund an outsider to build giant battery factories for the local OEMs (as if the US had paid for Panasonic's part of GF1), but that seems like it would defeat the purpose of propping up locals.

If those countries don't seriously invest in battery technology, like, yesterday -- I don't see how a plan to build massive battery factories some time in the future is going to help.

 

[Chocochip]

I was thinking a delivery tent.

That was my first thought as well, but... the Shanghai GF is in a fairly remote area, as far as I can tell. Also, that area is at the back of the factory… wouldn’t it make more sense to have a customer delivery area close to the main gate, at the front? Unless they start organising factory tours...

 

[elasalle]

"The new Mercedes-Benz EQC, which will enter the market next year doesn't have a frunk"
"Daimler intends to produce the EQC together with the C-Class, GLC and GLC Coupe, on the same production line..."
WTF?

"The front drive module and the rear axle assembly arrive at the factory already bolted to their subframes before being installed to the chassis..."
WTF?

I thought there was no frunk because of that cool 300 lb engine block/transmission structural simulator.

View attachment 496638

And now it turns out you can’t even show it off to your friends. It’s covered up by plastic panels. Bummer.
View attachment 496644


Daimler evidently mis-read the rules for avoiding 2020 emission penalties. You actually have to sell the EVs.

Looks like displaying the LOGO for nostalgic purposes is very important design element

 

[humbaba]

I always shake my head when I see people refer to "Tesla's competition" and they are obviously referring only to other EV's.

Make no mistake, Tesla is competing for head to head with ICE cars. It's only a small percentage of Tesla buyers whose primary reason is the environment.

But the people who just don't get it always assume someone would only buy an EV to quiet their environmental conscious. I think that's a positive motivating force for many while not being the primary motivating force.

tl;dr : I very much agree with this

Anecdote, something, something.

I bought my Tesla Model 3 because:

1) it is the safest car

2) it is performant

3) it has autopilot

4) it is the future

5) it is electric (kinda subset of #2)

Pretty much in that order. "Save the planet" wasn't really a motivating factor for me.* Post purchase my reasons are structured differently, and I just commented to someone that my concerns about environment have increased since buying a Tesla. For example, I grew up cooking on a gas stove and have always preferred that to electric. When I bought my house some years ago it was all electric and I didn't like that, but I accepted it. Wanted the house, we could afford it, and beggars can't be choosers. Years later when a neighbor installed gas I talked to him and discovered it really hadn't cost him that much and I considered doing so myself. But I'm a cheapskate. Now it isn't even a consideration. No way, won't do it.

My mom lives in an old house that is heated with propane and the furnace went out. As in died (not sure how many decades old the furnace is, but the burner was literally falling apart). For the time being she's making do with a 1500 watt electric heater (there's another supplemental gas heater they had installed years ago, so it isn't just the electric) and we're discussing options. When the electric heater showed up it worried the gas guys who've been working on her furnace and are trying to come up with a replacement quote. They let her know they could sell her a portable gas heater to keep her on the propane bill. She found that amusing and asked to buy my electric heater off of me.

I've been environmentally aware for decades, though I used to be pro-nuclear** (some clear arguments here from @KarenRei and @Fact Checking dissuaded me), but it has never been something that I've ever taken personally. I'm one of those losers whose been happy to add to landfills while knowing how bad they are.

For me, buying a Tesla seems to have been a tipping point. Instead of being merely aware, I now have (at least somewhat of) a conscience about these things.

Now, I realize this is all anecdotal and people have a tendency to believe that others are like themselves. But I think it is fair to say that most Americans are where I used to be: we've been informed about environmental concerns for decades now and have to be aware even if they do not care. But if they do something that is environmental (like buying solar or an EV) the consequences of this purchase/investment can make them care more, even if their motivation wasn't (directly, anyway) the environment. Like folks going for grid independence in California. Or installing solar because local electric prices are too high. Or getting an EV because it is high performance, or because it has best-in-class driver assistance.

Here's another anecdote: my absolutely not liberal in-laws (who live in the northeast) installed solar a few years ago. After our last visit with them they bought a hybrid. While I think they would've been better served with an EV, it was all about the benjamins and they couldn't get a useful EV for what they paid for the used hybrid. I don't know if they are developing an environmental conscience, but at the very least they are moving in the right direction.

While someone might argue they bought a gas car (hybrid) over an EV that would be missing the point that they didn't purchase yet another gas guzzler -- there was a purchase lost to regular gas cars.

My purchase of an EV wasn't directly at the expense of gas cars because I wasn't even in the market for another car. I had years, if not a decade or more, left on my gas cars. But my buying an EV did cost all future gas car purchases as I will never buy another one.

When I got in an argument with one of my allegedly pro-EV friends (he'd be all in for EV, he says, if only they were actually a usable replacement) I was surprised when another -- who likes to repeat every Tesla FUD story -- backed me up. I think its conceivable the second one's next car will be an EV. Maybe not a Tesla, but that'd be his loss

Perhaps quite long-winded, but I think anyone thinking EVs compete with EVs is wrong. Sure, that happens, but only after someone has already switched from gas. And I find it hard to believe that Tesla's US sales haven't gone well outside the environmentally conscious demographic a long time ago.

I can think of a few reasons why someone, e.g., boards of legacy car companies, might hang on to the notion that EVs represent a separate and tiny market. At best, those are short-sighted and represent some mighty fine chunibyo, "reality rejected."


* admittedly I'm writing this more than a year later and memory can be tricky, but I don't feel like trolling through my old posts to verify

** a lot of anti-nuclear sentiment (the FUD kind) is funded by oil interests. They've been spending dollars for decades to avoid switching to anything else. Most greenies don't seem to know where the anti-nuclear money came from.

 

[mongo]

Okay, my Oct 3rd prediction for 2019Q4 Model 3 Production was off by 14 cars:

View attachment 496617

Compare that to Artful Dodger, Oct 3, 2019 also quoted above (feel free to subscribe).

86,958 (produced) - 86,944 (predicted) = 14 more produced than I predicted.*

And yes, that prediction was published here on October freakin' 3rd, 2019.

Paging @mongo (We bruh)

If anyone doesn't understand why this level of precision in production planning is required a full quarter in advance, you should Google "logistics".

Spoiler: Army Logistics wins the fight

Cheers!

*beyotches

Wow, they are still increasing at a rate of 1 Dodger Unit. Quite impressive.

Any predictions for a slope change?

Edit: off by one error

 

[Chocochip]

In case people here missed it, a while back Elon agreed to an interview with the guys from the Third Row Tesla podcast (which is when I personally became aware of this new podcast, and I still haven’t listened to any so far).

According to a tweet from Elon’s mom, the interview happened on Friday Saturday, 4th Jan. And now this happens:

Twitter

Fasten your seatbelts, and prepare to kiss your loved ones farewell for a while…

 

[printf42]

Friday I missed out on the post-P&D-report party here because I was driving back from Italy.
But I was having my own little party, see photo.

On a more technical note, I think an improvement can be made to the predicted SoC-on-arrival, which is splayed at the end of the list of navigation points for the active route.
Usually, this prediction is _very_ accurate, allowing the driver to select a driving speed that leads to arrival with exactly the desired SoC. So for road-tripping I often try to end my supercharging session so that my desired driving speed causes me to arrive at the next supercharger (or at my destination) with an SoC of e.g. 10%. (For non-roadtripping I keep the SoC between 30%-80%).

The attached photo is from the Brenner Supercharger, located on the E-45 just North of the Brenner pass which lies at an altitude of 1370 m. My preceding supercharging session was at Affi, which lies at an altitude of ca. 191 m. I looked up the altitudes after getting home.

The car was heavily loaded, not only with gear for both a winter + seaside vacation (incl. e.g. snow chains + 30m extension cord for overnight charging in the mountains) but we also always stock up on pasta, rice, olive oil, wine, cheese, coffee, vegetables etc. (saffron...) when returning from Italy. This time we also had our Christmas presents.

Naturally, hauling this extra payload up a mountain meant that its weight would have to be converted to potential energy, which would thus pose an extra drain on the battery. As we set out from Affi, I verified on the Energy->Trip screen that the projected draw on the battery was indeed taking into account the climb up the mountain, the screen clearly displayed this as a steeper gradient on the SoC depletion, especially during the final ascent up to the pass.

Still, as we started the drive up to Brenner, I noticed how the predicted SoC-on-arrival kept dropping. It started out at 17% and quickly settled at 12%. That's normal for me (presumably because I drive a bit faster than what the computer assumes to be typical). Then as the uphill part started it dropped to 10% and I thought: "Fine, that's what I go for in Germany when there is no speed limit". When the hills turned into a mountain side it dropped further first to 8% and then to 6%. At this point the not particularly steep climb was still such that we were overtaking SUVs and other heavy vehicles, but otherwise keeping up with left-lane traffic. It remained at 6% for quite a while, but during the last ca. 30km, the predicted SoC-on-arrival dropped to 3%. On this stretch the highway has a lot of curves, so I opted to reduce the speed a bit. Just below the pass, when the actual SoC was at 3%, the predicted SoC briefly showed 2%, but then went back up to 3% as we reached the pass. Shortly after we arrived at the Supercharger with actual and predicted SoC both at 3%. During the whole drive, the car's climate control settings were unchanged (and set at a 1-speed chill 19C for the windshield only, with A/C off - when the supercharging power tapers off I increase the climate setting to warm up the car).
Also, during the drive I checked that the battery had its full capacity for regen (i.e. no dots on the left of the power-line indicator), so the battery stayed warm enough during the drive).

For less experienced drivers this would not be an optimal experience, so I wondered what could throw off the prediction of the SoC-on-arrival.

According to the Owner's Manual, my Model 3 LR AWD has an empty weight of 1847 kg and a maximum allowed weight of 2265 kg, for a maximum allowed payload of 418 kg. Compared to when I drive the car by myself, we probably set out with an additional payload of 300 kg. The added potential energy would be 9.81 m/s^2 * ( 1370 m - 191 m ) * 300 kg = 3470 kJ, i.e. slightly less than 1 kWh. To get its drain on the battery, one would need to divide by the efficiency of not only the battery + drive train but also friction losses at the tires. (Aerodynamic losses should not be a factor because the selected driving speed is assumed to be independent of the payload). I don't know what this efficiency is, but have to assume it is less than 80% and for a clear but slightly wet road surface we had probably not worse than 2/3). This would correspond to an additional SoC-depletion of 1% or maybe 2%. The difference caused by the full payload range (i.e. an unmanned robotaxi vs a fully loaded car) would be 40% more.

Additionally, the climb involved a drop of the ambient temperature of about 7C just because of the higher altitude (something that the car's computer would also know). Such a drop can cause the car's climate system to draw more power from the battery, since there is an increased heat loss from the cabin. We were driving at high-way speed so in our case, the substantial heat losses from the drive-train should help maintain an optimal battery temperature.

Anyway, what seems to be possible, is that the navigation system becomes better at estimating the additional SoC depletion during a climb up a mountain. It should for example be possible to get a good estimate of the car's actual weight, by measuring its acceleration when it is driving on a flat stretch of road with a given amount of power and comparing that actual acceleration to expected values for an empty car. For a car that when empty weighs 1847 kg and which accelerates at only 90% of what is expected when empty, the weight would simply be estimated as 1847 kg / 0.9 (i.e. a payload of 205 kg). Also, the additional power draw from the climate control could be estimated, given the typical temperature drop when driving up a mountain.

Anyway, these are the things that one is free to think about, when the car drives itself on AP...

PS. To convince myself that I was actually not going to fully deplete the battery while driving up to Brenner, I repeatedly had my son compute the allowed maximum driving force (consumption) [Wh/km], i.e. SoC (minus margin of 3%) times 75 kWh (assumed available capacity at SoC=100%) per remaining distance. These numbers came out around 350-375 Wh/km and I was driving with a force of up to around 330 Wh/km. If it had been a closer call, I would have reset the trip-counter more often, to get a reading of the consumption that way.

I sense DeepPlanning coming from a certain Palo Aloto office building.

 

[Unpilot]

Had breakfast with my son the other day. As we left the restaurant there were 3 other Tesla's in the parking lot. This is in "fly over" country.
Have had several discussion's about cybertruck with complete strangers.

To me it is further proof we are at a tipping point.

I got to wondering how and why this tipping point has been reached. It seems so many different part's had to come together to make it happen.
Love him or hate him President Obama set in motion the difficult task of turning the USA to renewable's.

Energy policy of the Barack Obama administration - Wikipedia

Of course Mr Musk and Tesla are at the forefront and most people here will reap the benefit from owning the stock...but many different actors had to come together to make this happen.

tl;dr : I very much agree with this

Anecdote, something, something.

I bought my Tesla Model 3 because:

1) it is the safest car

2) it is performant

3) it has autopilot

4) it is the future

5) it is electric (kinda subset of #2)

Pretty much in that order. "Save the planet" wasn't really a motivating factor for me.* Post purchase my reasons are structured differently, and I just commented to someone that my concerns about environment have increased since buying a Tesla. For example, I grew up cooking on a gas stove and have always preferred that to electric. When I bought my house some years ago it was all electric and I didn't like that, but I accepted it. Wanted the house, we could afford it, and beggars can't be choosers. Years later when a neighbor installed gas I talked to him and discovered it really hadn't cost him that much and I considered doing so myself. But I'm a cheapskate. Now it isn't even a consideration. No way, won't do it.

My mom lives in an old house that is heated with propane and the furnace went out. As in died (not sure how many decades old the furnace is, but the burner was literally falling apart). For the time being she's making do with a 1500 watt electric heater (there's another supplemental gas heater they had installed years ago, so it isn't just the electric) and we're discussing options. When the electric heater showed up it worried the gas guys who've been working on her furnace and are trying to come up with a replacement quote. They let her know they could sell her a portable gas heater to keep her on the propane bill. She found that amusing and asked to buy my electric heater off of me.

I've been environmentally aware for decades, though I used to be pro-nuclear** (some clear arguments here from @KarenRei and @Fact Checking dissuaded me), but it has never been something that I've ever taken personally. I'm one of those losers whose been happy to add to landfills while knowing how bad they are.

For me, buying a Tesla seems to have been a tipping point. Instead of being merely aware, I now have (at least somewhat of) a conscience about these things.

Now, I realize this is all anecdotal and people have a tendency to believe that others are like themselves. But I think it is fair to say that most Americans are where I used to be: we've been informed about environmental concerns for decades now and have to be aware even if they do not care. But if they do something that is environmental (like buying solar or an EV) the consequences of this purchase/investment can make them care more, even if their motivation wasn't (directly, anyway) the environment. Like folks going for grid independence in California. Or installing solar because local electric prices are too high. Or getting an EV because it is high performance, or because it has best-in-class driver assistance.

Here's another anecdote: my absolutely not liberal in-laws (who live in the northeast) installed solar a few years ago. After our last visit with them they bought a hybrid. While I think they would've been better served with an EV, it was all about the benjamins and they couldn't get a useful EV for what they paid for the used hybrid. I don't know if they are developing an environmental conscience, but at the very least they are moving in the right direction.

While someone might argue they bought a gas car (hybrid) over an EV that would be missing the point that they didn't purchase yet another gas guzzler -- there was a purchase lost to regular gas cars.

My purchase of an EV wasn't directly at the expense of gas cars because I wasn't even in the market for another car. I had years, if not a decade or more, left on my gas cars. But my buying an EV did cost all future gas car purchases as I will never buy another one.

When I got in an argument with one of my allegedly pro-EV friends (he'd be all in for EV, he says, if only they were actually a usable replacement) I was surprised when another -- who likes to repeat every Tesla FUD story -- backed me up. I think its conceivable the second one's next car will be an EV. Maybe not a Tesla, but that'd be his loss

Perhaps quite long-winded, but I think anyone thinking EVs compete with EVs is wrong. Sure, that happens, but only after someone has already switched from gas. And I find it hard to believe that Tesla's US sales haven't gone well outside the environmentally conscious demographic a long time ago.

I can think of a few reasons why someone, e.g., boards of legacy car companies, might hang on to the notion that EVs represent a separate and tiny market. At best, those are short-sighted and represent some mighty fine chunibyo, "reality rejected."


* admittedly I'm writing this more than a year later and memory can be tricky, but I don't feel like trolling through my old posts to verify

** a lot of anti-nuclear sentiment (the FUD kind) is funded by oil interests. They've been spending dollars for decades to avoid switching to anything else. Most greenies don't seem to know where the anti-nuclear money came from.

This is along the lines I have experienced as well.
The options are now available and cheap enough people who aren't "full blown tree huggers" are jumping on board.
We need this admittedly small wave to become a avalanche.

I believe it is happening

 

[Artful Dodger]

Wow, they are still increasing at a rate of 1 Dodger Units. Quite impressive.

Any predictions for a slope change?

No doubt, wot?

I think I'll wait for some guidance during the 2019Q4 CC as to Tesla's production intentions. It's simple to do another linear estimate, but also Fremont is starting to bump up against the ceiling WRT production.

There was an Analyst's note in Sep 2019 that Tesla could easily expand to 7K/wk for a few 10s of million$ in CapEx (now acheived), or 8.5K for quite a few more megabucks.

I think with the Model Y program clearly accelerated now (vs. what was known in Sep), they may choose to keep Model 3 prod. steady and invest in the Model Y line as a better use of that capital.

My hope is, once Model Y ramps, we'll see a revision of the Model 3 line to include the Y upgrades (ie: rigid wiring, cast sub-frame). And of course the Holy Grail for Fremont 3/Y production would be 2 flex-lines that are both capable of producing either product.

The advantages of 2 flexible manufacturing lines are clear:

• total control over Model mix to follow market demand
  
• flexibility in maintenance downtime as the lines age
• shared stamping/paint maximizes resource use/capital efficiency

So that's all I'll say on 2020Q1 Model 3 production for now, but I'll leave you with this quote, which was my S/X 'Plaid' prediction from Jun 12, 2019: (I'll highlight this part)

"I predict sub-10 sec quarter miles, a 300+ kph top speed, and a 500 mile range on a 125 KWh Maxcell pack to be released around 2023. Prices should be comparable to current levels."​

Obviously, Model S/X needed the sales boost and the program has been advanced, leapfrogging even the 2020 Roadster. Elon did tweet that he would find out what was going on with S/X sales, and fix it. Well, DAWGGG! Oh, and this bit on Cybertruck, also from Jun 12, 2019:

"Since this tri-motor design already exists in the Roadster, Tesla can use that design for the Cyberpunk truck and the eventual new S/X platform."​

The S/X rear AC motors do not spin freely; the controller is set to "torque sleep". This zero net thrust mode has lower losses than the drag of an unpowered axle pulled by a powered axle. In torque sleep, most work is done by the more efficient front motor.

The Roadster2 likely won't have a AC motor in the front. It achieves both a 1.9 sec 0-60 performance and a 250+ mph top speed. AC motors don't allow this range of performance with a single speed drive.

Further, we saw the Roadster do 0-70mph 'wind-sprints' for an hour at the reveal event. An AC motor would melt doing this demonstration. The simpliest explanation for all these capabilities is that there are three Model 3 SRPM motors in the Roadster2.

Since this tri-motor design already exists in the Roadster, Tesla can use that design for the Cyberpunk truck and the eventual new S/X platform. There is no need for a large rear AC motor which are replaced by two SRPM motors on that axle. That's over 760 hp, which is more than the performance AC motor but at lower cost, higher efficiency and better performance.

This is also why talk of an imminent S/X 'refresh' is baseless, The halo product has to come first, and it sounds like the Roadster is not planned for 2020, which will be the year of the Model Y then the Semi. The Cyberpunk truck may also beat Roadster to the gate. I expect to hear more plans during the reveal later this Summer.

It will be years before the tri-motor architecture appears in the S/X. I predict sub-10 sec quarter miles, a 300+ kph top speed, and a 500 mile range on a 125 KWh Maxcell pack to be released around 2023. Prices should be comparable to current levels.

Beyond this, my crystal ball grows dim. But I know Tesla will always be at the intersection of science and technology. It's their unique art.

Cheers!

 

[defc0n]

tl;dr : I very much agree with this

Anecdote, something, something.

I bought my Tesla Model 3 because:

1) it is the safest car

2) it is performant

3) it has autopilot

4) it is the future

5) it is electric (kinda subset of #2)

Pretty much in that order. "Save the planet" wasn't really a motivating factor for me.* Post purchase my reasons are structured differently, and I just commented to someone that my concerns about environment have increased since buying a Tesla. For example, I grew up cooking on a gas stove and have always preferred that to electric. When I bought my house some years ago it was all electric and I didn't like that, but I accepted it. Wanted the house, we could afford it, and beggars can't be choosers. Years later when a neighbor installed gas I talked to him and discovered it really hadn't cost him that much and I considered doing so myself. But I'm a cheapskate. Now it isn't even a consideration. No way, won't do it.

My mom lives in an old house that is heated with propane and the furnace went out. As in died (not sure how many decades old the furnace is, but the burner was literally falling apart). For the time being she's making do with a 1500 watt electric heater (there's another supplemental gas heater they had installed years ago, so it isn't just the electric) and we're discussing options. When the electric heater showed up it worried the gas guys who've been working on her furnace and are trying to come up with a replacement quote. They let her know they could sell her a portable gas heater to keep her on the propane bill. She found that amusing and asked to buy my electric heater off of me.

I've been environmentally aware for decades, though I used to be pro-nuclear** (some clear arguments here from @KarenRei and @Fact Checking dissuaded me), but it has never been something that I've ever taken personally. I'm one of those losers whose been happy to add to landfills while knowing how bad they are.

For me, buying a Tesla seems to have been a tipping point. Instead of being merely aware, I now have (at least somewhat of) a conscience about these things.

Now, I realize this is all anecdotal and people have a tendency to believe that others are like themselves. But I think it is fair to say that most Americans are where I used to be: we've been informed about environmental concerns for decades now and have to be aware even if they do not care. But if they do something that is environmental (like buying solar or an EV) the consequences of this purchase/investment can make them care more, even if their motivation wasn't (directly, anyway) the environment. Like folks going for grid independence in California. Or installing solar because local electric prices are too high. Or getting an EV because it is high performance, or because it has best-in-class driver assistance.

Here's another anecdote: my absolutely not liberal in-laws (who live in the northeast) installed solar a few years ago. After our last visit with them they bought a hybrid. While I think they would've been better served with an EV, it was all about the benjamins and they couldn't get a useful EV for what they paid for the used hybrid. I don't know if they are developing an environmental conscience, but at the very least they are moving in the right direction.

While someone might argue they bought a gas car (hybrid) over an EV that would be missing the point that they didn't purchase yet another gas guzzler -- there was a purchase lost to regular gas cars.

My purchase of an EV wasn't directly at the expense of gas cars because I wasn't even in the market for another car. I had years, if not a decade or more, left on my gas cars. But my buying an EV did cost all future gas car purchases as I will never buy another one.

When I got in an argument with one of my allegedly pro-EV friends (he'd be all in for EV, he says, if only they were actually a usable replacement) I was surprised when another -- who likes to repeat every Tesla FUD story -- backed me up. I think its conceivable the second one's next car will be an EV. Maybe not a Tesla, but that'd be his loss

Perhaps quite long-winded, but I think anyone thinking EVs compete with EVs is wrong. Sure, that happens, but only after someone has already switched from gas. And I find it hard to believe that Tesla's US sales haven't gone well outside the environmentally conscious demographic a long time ago.

I can think of a few reasons why someone, e.g., boards of legacy car companies, might hang on to the notion that EVs represent a separate and tiny market. At best, those are short-sighted and represent some mighty fine chunibyo, "reality rejected."


* admittedly I'm writing this more than a year later and memory can be tricky, but I don't feel like trolling through my old posts to verify

** a lot of anti-nuclear sentiment (the FUD kind) is funded by oil interests. They've been spending dollars for decades to avoid switching to anything else. Most greenies don't seem to know where the anti-nuclear money came from.

I wasn’t environmentally conscious either when getting interested in Tesla. The price per performance, total cost of ownership, increasing emission regulations, and rapidly falling battery costs are what sold me. And maybe most importantly the fact the rest of the field is so far behind.

I am a car guy at least by virtue of following auto racing and was at least very successful at that myself in the online simulation world We do have the Formula E series now which admittedly I don’t follow at all.

My guess is they will have to support battery swaps before we see electric cars in the Indy 500 or LeMans.

Oh I was also a strong believer in nuclear power until I saw that the total cost of renewables is less than building and maintaining a nuclear (or natty gas) plant.

One only needs to look at economics and not even emissions to know Tesla is or will soon be on the winning side on that front.

 

[StealthP3D]

Judging from the comments on it, he thinks Tesla is overvalued at the moment.

No, that was not my take-away. I believe he said TSLA has near-term value of around $900 (but I would have to re-listen to confirm absolutely). What he actually said is that his Put position was not because he thought Tesla was under-performing or there was anything wrong with the company, but because of the circus surrounding TSLA and the trading of Tesla. He thinks it will become very volatile (first up after Q4 earnings release and assumed short squeeze and then down after short-covering is satisfied).

I think he is over-confident to predict such a scenario with such apparent confidence. Totally baffling.

 

[Unpilot]

I think he is over-confident to predict such a scenario with such apparent confidence. Totally baffling.

Not really....my experience has been over confidence is a common trait with smart people.
Jack is smart in some area's.....not in all area's.

 

[Artful Dodger]

We need this admittedly small wave to become a avalanche ICE tsunami.

FTFY

 

[printf42]

Looks like I should buy some NIO as hedge
Watch this video and the comments from Chinese customers— they prefer NIO more because of quality and customer service ( if you know Chinese language)

Chinese “online marketing campaign” is a totally different animal.
If you are new to it, just assume 95% of the comments or forum posts are not from real customers.

That’s a real Wild West for smear campaigns, just yesterday I saw article saying MIC Model 3 will drop price by a further 30%, buried in a seemingly bullish article but in fact just trying to deter buyers by starting rumors.

For NIO, they had built up a strong user following, mostly through referrals programs, also by nationalism driven irrational decisions.

Disclaimer, I am long NIO with play money.

 

[Thumper]

Not really....my experience has been over confidence is a common trait with smart people.
Jack is smart in some area's.....not in all area's.

Case in point: He smokes!

 

[CorneliusXX]

In case people here missed it, a while back Elon agreed to an interview with the guys from the Third Row Tesla podcast (which is when I personally became aware of this new podcast, and I still haven’t listened to any so far).

According to a tweet from Elon’s mom, the interview happened on Friday Saturday, 4th Jan. And now this happens:View attachment 496650

Twitter

Fasten your seatbelts, and prepare to kiss your loved ones farewell for a while…

I can't wait to listen to it. But I bet the negative narratives by taking comments out of context will last for the next couple of months.

When Elon riffs with fanboys (I consider myself one) the shorts always take sentences out of context for their own purpose.

 

[humbaba]

Chinese “online marketing campaign” is a totally different animal.
If you are new to it, just assume 95% of the comments or forum posts are not from real customers.

That’s a real Wild West for smear campaigns, just yesterday I saw article saying MIC Model 3 will drop price by a further 30%, buried in a seemingly bullish article but in fact just trying to deter buyers by starting rumors.

For NIO, they had built up a strong user following, mostly through referrals programs, also by nationalism driven irrational decisions.

Disclaimer, I am long NIO with play money.

IMO nothing wrong with that and I did the same until I became convinced that it was a pump and dump stock of a company that really is what the FUDsters claim about Tesla. I sold what little I had and haven't looked back. In short, I believe it could crash at any time due to fraud revelations and in the meantime it is being manipulated for profit so unless I could track the manipulators I'd be likely to lose money on it.

Not trying to give advice as to what to hold, but if you haven't considered those points yet it might be worth some thought.

 

[Artful Dodger]

My guess is they will have to support battery swaps before we see electric cars in the Indy 500 or LeMans.

Not if they use 'platooning'. Team Lead car sits in the middle of the pack, drafting like Andretti. Be much easier if it was just a driverless skateboard, RADAR/FSD maintains the millisecond spacing interval (<1 meter) that no human could ever hope to do for 2.5 hrs.

No Crashes? Maybe takes the fun out too, but hate to see any driver hurt, and it happens all to often (and not just on the racetrack).

EDIT: Think of it more as a 'demo' than a 'race', it'd have to be cooperative. More like a Team Time Trial at the Tour d'France than an Indy 500 competition.

Cheers!

 

[jbcarioca]

I disagree - I believe the reason the great share of the passive index-mirroring funds are able to come as close as they do to matching the performance of their respective indices - which otherwise is nigh-impossible because of transaction costs and management fees - is through lending their shares to short sellers. Happy to learn otherwise through any incontrovertible evidence someone may have.

My post actually referred to changing regulatory and reporting environments that are evolving to challenge past practices.

Four of the largest US participants self-deal by having both their own funds lending, but also using their affiliated lending agent (forced reporting since 2017) as well as affiliated brokers (unreported) and affiliated MMF (unreported). The latter two seem highly probable but are not disclosed. The four are State Street, Fidelity, Goldman Sachs and Vanguard. They did not even report lending agents until forced by 2017 legislation. Three others are more subtle about this by mostly acting for others i.e. State Street, BNY Mellon and Brown Brothers Harriman. We may safely assume that under current the US administration nobody will look at this, much less challenge it. This article becomes quite technical but it does lay out a pretty clear case for the net detriment to total returns tending to result from current securities lending practices.
SSRN-id3081123.pdf





However the EU is quite different because they ARE challenging these practices.
62946b2e-1a36-3bd9-9515-f48dfda43b2a.
That is a paywalled link to a recent illustrative FT article. I cannot post it openly here, but it points out how specifically the EU is attacking Securities Lending practice.

None of this suggests that following S&P inclusion TSLA net volatility will increase because of reduced participation by institutional investors. Black Rock first and foremost will fight with all their power to preserve their income streams, with the only slightly less connected ones, Fidelity, Goldman and Vanguard fighting with them. Obviously the third-party processing powers will do all they can to remain invisible outside the cognoscenti.

However, following S&P inclusion and the coming debt ratings improvements we also have both GF-3 and GF-4 which themselves will be powerful impetus for non-US institutional investor action. That non-US portion is very unlikely to participate in securities lending even through their favored US intermediaries. Specifically Deutsche, Commerzbank and nearly every major sovereign risk fund will be out of this practice. It is clear that until very recently many non-US regulators have turned blind eyes. Just as with other commercial issues (e.g. Boeing, Huawei) some US administration positions are engendering opposition rather than support.

So, in TSLA we have one of those rare species in which support outside the US is defiantly stronger than it is in the US. US attacks on TSLA are not well received, especially when they involve securities manipulations that are deemed illegal or, at best, suspicious by the EU and others.

Thus I argue that through S&P inclusion of TSLA, as symbol of maturity, quite a large body of investors will begin to participate that are distinctly different from the big US mutual funds and others. Those will have the net effect of reducing available float for lending.

There is my logic. I'm confident of it. There are many more research and opinion articles on the subject.

I am often wrong! Please argue if you think I'm off base.

Lastly, my belief is that some substantial part of current buying activity is the direct result of forthcoming GF-3 and GF-4 as demonstrations of major global support. For support of this thesis there are historical precedents recent and older. This topic becomes very long. In short: watch TSLA Supercharger expansions to see correlation to Belt and Road Initiative. As that effect grows more and more true 'buy and hold' non-US investors will rise rapidly.

On this one I am NOT wrong!! The evidence was overwhelming the day GF-3 began and repeated when GF-4 was so quickly begun.

 

[humbaba]

I wasn’t environmentally conscious either when getting interested in Tesla. The price per performance, total cost of ownership, increasing emission regulations, and rapidly falling battery costs are what sold me. And maybe most importantly the fact the rest of the field is so far behind.

I am a car guy at least by virtue of following auto racing and was at least very successful at that myself in the online simulation world We do have the Formula E series now which admittedly I don’t follow at all.

My guess is they will have to support battery swaps before we see electric cars in the Indy 500 or LeMans.

Oh I was also a strong believer in nuclear power until I saw that the total cost of renewables is less than building and maintaining a nuclear (or natty gas) plant.

One only needs to look at economics and not even emissions to know Tesla is or will soon be on the winning side on that front.

Although I put safety as first priority (there was a post here from someone whose name I do not recall that really got to me about losing loved ones due to safety features being optional -- I can get pretty emotional and I have no doubt about that being my top reason for buying a model 3) the performance side was/is significant for me. I've never had the money to buy a performance car, nor the skill & time to build one up (I've run into guys who've done that, more power to them). So I've always liked driving games -- it was the only way I was going to get drive those sorts of cars. Besides, driving a jag might be fun, but they are also notoriously expensive to maintain.

Now I can drive my Model 3 on the backroads and it handles beautifully. Its like its glued to the road, almost like driving on rails. Obviously I love it. Though I temper my joy of driving with prudence and safety -- gotta be mindful of driveways, farm equipment and the like. But the games have nothing on the real thing.

Electric will likely take a while to displace some of the racing -- I'm not sure how well suited it really is for something like Indy 500 even with battery swaps -- but it may not be too long before people are driving electric because that is what they can afford and only drive gas cars in sims.