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

[humbaba]

Any thoughts about this?

http://www.safetyresearch.net/Library/NHTSA_Autosteer_Safety_Claim.pdf

Is that FUD ?

Just asking and want to understand.

I believe they are guns for hire who pretend to be a safety watch dog. For example, they do not reveal their sources of funding. There is no indication of fund solicitation -- yet they have to have funds in order to operate. Which means they have private clients, which means they have private/hidden motivations. Their paper talks plainly about how they filed an FOI and then sued NHTSA for the underlying data, but is not plain about how they reinterpreted it to reverse the NHTSA results.

For example, "In practice, we do not understand the nature of the mechanism or process that generates the mileage exposure gap but it is not random."

Or, they imply that Tesla provided NHTSA with incomplete data. It's really just a baseless insinuation, and the worst kind because they offer no factual basis for their claim (the insinuation that Tesla gave them bad data is not supported by their statement). Here's the quote:

A recent statement by Tesla that it had introduced a “completely new telemetry stream ... to gather the most critical fleet-wide statistics from the exact moment a crash-related event is detected by our system” suggests that achieving complete, detailed crash coverage may have been less straightforward at the time the data were collected for NHTSA’s investigation.

The damning part is the last. It is equally true to rephrase it as "...suggests that Tesla's comprehensive data is even more detailed than it used to be." It is a non-sequitur and offers no insight into the data they used for analysis. They offer not a single reason as to why the data would be incomplete in reporting airbag deployment (which, overall, is the aim of their insinuation).

I don't have the time to read it carefully and critically enough to grasp the implications of what they leave unsaid, what they overlook, and what they reframe. But if it were as straightforward as they claim it would not be necessary to have such a convoluted description. In other words, it smells of baffling through bullshit, carefully spinning facts to reach the "right" results while using constant twists and turns to confound the reader so that what is missed is the trickery employed.

As a different (and much simpler) example of reaching the desired results, some years ago I read a piece that perpetuated one of the many lies about Mayan calendars and it did so by turning on a very particular point: it presented some math and gave a wrong answer. The presumption was clearly that the reader would follow along the presented logic but not verify that the math calculated to what was claimed. An easy way to work from facts to bullshit.

 

[humbaba]

Not seeing it or reading it. Maybe your funny doesn’t translate well into written word. Like maybe it’s your facial expressions and body language that’s funny. Or maybe that you can do impersonations. Your alias has a certain funny charm except that you’ve chosen dog and this is quite clearly a cat forum.

Oh, I like the alias. Its my type of humor to a T. Unfortunately, the alias is rather more direct in what it reveals about the member.

 

[tinm]

Here.

About the Coalition — EV Drive Coalition

Tesla, Nissan, GM and a bunch of others.

Nope, I saw all that; that About page reveals very little. My questions remain: who runs it, who works for it, how many work there, who funded it, how much money is behind it, where is it headquartered. I’m not suggesting this org isn’t legit, but I sure would like to see a pro-EV outfit be a lot more transparent than your typical Koch Bros astroturf org. Seems odd this group is so shy.

 

[erha]

OK, so no Model 3s were handed over today in Norway.

Still, on the Norwegian BEV forum there is debate whether these Teslas photographed in the port of Drammen include Model 3s,
Båt transport fra USA til Europa/Norge med TM3'er.
- maybe some owners from TMC who have gotten to know the Model 3 well can provide an informed opinion...

PS. I have flashbacks to the Cold War when I was poring over grainy images of vehicles never before seen in Western Europe. This is so much better than the bad old days...

Seems like the consensus now is that those cars are not Model 3s. Apparently they were already there before the ship ‘city of Oslo’ arrived. The crew at Glovis Cosmos have posted that there are Norwegian model 3s on board, while Norwegian reservation holders have been told that their car was on board the first ship, i.e. Glovis Captain. A reasonable assumption is that they are gathering the model 3s for Norway in Zeebrugge before sending them on the same ship to Drammen.

Another interesting fact is that the ship Glovis Courage is currently in San Fran and has previously transported Tesla’s to Drammen, Norway.

 

[Intl Professor]

I am a really funny guy.

What do your friends say, humorous or odd? (I get both.)

 

[EVNow]

Nope, I saw all that; that About page reveals very little. My questions remain: who runs it, who works for it, how many work there, who funded it, how much money is behind it, where is it headquartered. I’m not suggesting this org isn’t legit, but I sure would like to see a pro-EV outfit be a lot more transparent than your typical Koch Bros astroturf org. Seems odd this group is so shy.

Not of much interest to me - as long as we know who is supporting it and why. May be if it is still operating after a couple of years and starts producing ads etc.

 

[30seconds]

I don’t understand all the negative comments about Audi.

I just looked at their press releases and they are a remarkable company

Who could forget
- the stunning introduction in 2010 of their electric cars
- the first all electric R8 launched in 2015
- the first A3 etron also launched in 2014
- their announced dominance of electric vehicles by 2016

How can you not take them at their word with this track record of success?

 

[avoigt]

I believe they are guns for hire who pretend to be a safety watch dog. For example, they do not reveal their sources of funding. There is no indication of fund solicitation -- yet they have to have funds in order to operate. Which means they have private clients, which means they have private/hidden motivations. Their paper talks plainly about how they filed an FOI and then sued NHTSA for the underlying data, but is not plain about how they reinterpreted it to reverse the NHTSA results.

For example, "In practice, we do not understand the nature of the mechanism or process that generates the mileage exposure gap but it is not random."

Or, they imply that Tesla provided NHTSA with incomplete data. It's really just a baseless insinuation, and the worst kind because they offer no factual basis for their claim (the insinuation that Tesla gave them bad data is not supported by their statement). Here's the quote:


The damning part is the last. It is equally true to rephrase it as "...suggests that Tesla's comprehensive data is even more detailed than it used to be." It is a non-sequitur and offers no insight into the data they used for analysis. They offer not a single reason as to why the data would be incomplete in reporting airbag deployment (which, overall, is the aim of their insinuation).

I don't have the time to read it carefully and critically enough to grasp the implications of what they leave unsaid, what they overlook, and what they reframe. But if it were as straightforward as they claim it would not be necessary to have such a convoluted description. In other words, it smells of baffling through bullshit, carefully spinning facts to reach the "right" results while using constant twists and turns to confound the reader so that what is missed is the trickery employed.

As a different (and much simpler) example of reaching the desired results, some years ago I read a piece that perpetuated one of the many lies about Mayan calendars and it did so by turning on a very particular point: it presented some math and gave a wrong answer. The presumption was clearly that the reader would follow along the presented logic but not verify that the math calculated to what was claimed. An easy way to work from facts to bullshit.

Thanks that's helpful and my impression when I did read it as well without going deep in the details.

Of course the German Media did already write hit pieces about this just repeating but without checking if thats a source that is trustworthy. I guess the probably do not care even as long as it creates clicks.... sad world.

 

[avoigt]

My thoughts about the status of the German Auto Industry.

To All German Automakers: Believe Me, You Are Still Sleeping! | CleanTechnica

@ZachShahan, thanks for publishing!

Felling another 5 minutes of fame now after Maye Musk commented on Twitter.


Maye Musk‏Verified account @mayemusk
Maye Musk Retweeted CleanTechnica

Toller Artikel. Traurig, aber wahr. #EVs #CleanEnergyIsTheFuture

Maye Musk added,

Maye Musk on Twitter

 

[EVMeister]

Speaking of Audi, I just saw a sponsored Tweet about the E-tron. Order now. From £71,000. Reading the comments was great. Lots of Tesla love in there, a lot of disbelief at the E-tron's price. Not the warmest of receptions here in the UK.

 

[Mike Ambler]

View attachment 375804

Karen,
Auto spare parts are anywhere up to 10x the OEM buy price.
Ciao,
Mike

 

[Navin]

I believe they are guns for hire who pretend to be a safety watch dog. For example, they do not reveal their sources of funding. There is no indication of fund solicitation -- yet they have to have funds in order to operate. Which means they have private clients, which means they have private/hidden motivations. Their paper talks plainly about how they filed an FOI and then sued NHTSA for the underlying data, but is not plain about how they reinterpreted it to reverse the NHTSA results.

For example, "In practice, we do not understand the nature of the mechanism or process that generates the mileage exposure gap but it is not random."

Or, they imply that Tesla provided NHTSA with incomplete data. It's really just a baseless insinuation, and the worst kind because they offer no factual basis for their claim (the insinuation that Tesla gave them bad data is not supported by their statement). Here's the quote:


The damning part is the last. It is equally true to rephrase it as "...suggests that Tesla's comprehensive data is even more detailed than it used to be." It is a non-sequitur and offers no insight into the data they used for analysis. They offer not a single reason as to why the data would be incomplete in reporting airbag deployment (which, overall, is the aim of their insinuation).

I don't have the time to read it carefully and critically enough to grasp the implications of what they leave unsaid, what they overlook, and what they reframe. But if it were as straightforward as they claim it would not be necessary to have such a convoluted description. In other words, it smells of baffling through bullshit, carefully spinning facts to reach the "right" results while using constant twists and turns to confound the reader so that what is missed is the trickery employed.

As a different (and much simpler) example of reaching the desired results, some years ago I read a piece that perpetuated one of the many lies about Mayan calendars and it did so by turning on a very particular point: it presented some math and gave a wrong answer. The presumption was clearly that the reader would follow along the presented logic but not verify that the math calculated to what was claimed. An easy way to work from facts to bullshit.

Agreed. These guys are likely being funded by some law firm suing Tesla or some special interest group trying to drag or discredit Tesla.

Toyota Critic Safety Research & Strategies Founder Admits Report Funding Came From Firms Suing Toyota » AutoGuide.com News

 

[elasalle]

MacGyver on Twitter
#GlovisSymphony has arrived in the Port of Tianjin bringing the first shipment of Model 3s to China!

 

[gene]

I don’t understand all the negative comments about Audi.

I just looked at their press releases and they are a remarkable company

Who could forget
- the stunning introduction in 2010 of their electric cars
- the first all electric R8 launched in 2015
- the first A3 etron also launched in 2014
- their announced dominance of electric vehicles by 2016

How can you not take them at their word with this track record of success?

And you must reward Audi for having super polluter diesel cars that are lessening lifespans, further reducing the world's problematic over-population!

 

[skitown]

And you must reward Audi for having super polluter diesel cars that are lessening lifespans, further reducing the world's problematic over-population!

That’s nitpicking isn’t it?

 

[dgatwood]

I can’t decide if they just simply haven’t given it all they have, or if they just don’t have it to give - (or combination of both).

IMO, neither. I think they're all content to let somebody else (Tesla) do all the R&D work, see what works and what doesn't, and then copy what they can and license what they can't.

I still think the only way to get it done (besides via another startup like a Nio, Lucid etc...) is to open a brand new division, hire new people (along with a handful of your current not-attached-to-ICE-cars) employees, who have manufacturing experience, and let that EV only division behave like a startup, while paring down your ICE business in concert.

That's one approach, but I suspect what they'll actually do is design a series hybrid vehicle so that the engine can either exist or not, with either a full-size battery pack or a partial pack and a partial gas tank that fits into the same space. Then, the EV just becomes the high-end model and gradually displaces the non-EV version.

Not seeing it or reading it. Maybe your funny doesn’t translate well into written word. Like maybe it’s your facial expressions and body language that’s funny. Or maybe that you can do impersonations. Your alias has a certain funny charm except that you’ve chosen dog and this is quite clearly a cat forum.

Wait... that's a cat!?! I thought it was something out of one of those alien movies.

Agreed. These guys are likely being funded by some law firm suing Tesla or some special interest group trying to drag or discredit Tesla.

You shouldn't rule out the possibility that it was a competitor trying to make its own self-driving failures look less bad by saying, "See! Teslas drive over pedestrians, too."

 

[SPadival]

Guys, need some help in getting this out.

Russ Mitchell, an LA Times reporter is openly collaborating with an abusive Tesla parking lot truther called latrilife

S Padival on Twitter

FYI, latrilife has been previously doxxed and said to be this guy

Meet Donegan McCuaig of realestateLA.com in Downtown Los Angeles - Voyage LA Magazine | LA City Guide

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

No, you're wrong there as well: my statement on e-Tron pack power density was only relative to S100D pack. Here it is again to aid your defective memory:





Do you have a figure in mind for "that much power density"? Otherwise please explain what this is supposed to mean.



I never made that assumption. I said the E-Tron pack is less energy dense than S100D, which remains quite true. From which I suspect, despite the different pack constructions, that the cells used in that Audi pack are also less energy dense than Tesla's 21700 at 247Wh/kg, but that remains to be demonstrated when someone does an e-Tron teardown and weighs a cell, or Audi releases that data.



Yes, it is very interesting that Porsche claims 270Wh/kg for the Taycan pack but that does nothing to assist your baseless speculation that Audi/Porsche are frying their batteries.

In your back and forth with Karen, I think you need to get some facts straight first.

The 270wh/kg is for the cell level density of the Taycan pack, NOT the pack density.

250wh/kg is Tesla's cell level density: Tesla Model 3 2170 Energy Density Compared To Bolt, Model S P100D

Audi's battery pack weighs 700kg, but the Tesla P100D weighs over 600kg (extrapolated, since we only have: Tesla's 85kwh battery pack weighs 540kg, and the 100 weighs at least 130 lbs more than that). So their pack weights are much closer than your original number.

The Audi pack is considerably heavier by design - follow the link to see how they have the cooling system cool the cell modules instead of the cells directly, and the cell modules are individually incased in an aluminium crash cage.

Factor all that together, and it is most definitely reasonable to assume that Audi's cell density is comparable to Tesla's or Porsche's cell density. With that, you can definitely say that those cells are energy-dense versus power-dense by design.

 

[madodel]

I don’t understand all the negative comments about Audi.

I just looked at their press releases and they are a remarkable company

Who could forget
- the stunning introduction in 2010 of their electric cars
- the first all electric R8 launched in 2015
- the first A3 etron also launched in 2014
- their announced dominance of electric vehicles by 2016

How can you not take them at their word with this track record of success?

I guess Monday I will sell all my TSLA and buy Audi. They are the future as demonstrated by all these great plans, and they don't have to have special people on the interwebs dedicated to unveiling their secret evil master plan. They have government agencies to do that.

 

[Todd Burch]

Guys, need some help in getting this out.

Russ Mitchell, an LA Times reporter is openly collaborating with an abusive Tesla parking lot truther called latrilife

S Padival on Twitter

FYI, latrilife has been previously doxxed and said to be this guy

Meet Donegan McCuaig of realestateLA.com in Downtown Los Angeles - Voyage LA Magazine | LA City Guide

Russ is a tool. Total disgrace to journalism. LA Times needs to drop him.