-
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
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Maybe, by your evaluation....
But the company sure as hell isn't! Just keep on doing what you're doing Tesla. All will come right in the end.
Dan
Mark's Beagle
Banned
If you really cared about Tesla, you would HODL.
Just realized that I forgot to respond to this before. It's two factors.
1) By increasing the utilization of existing superchargers (aka only building more where there's overcrowding), Tesla increases Supercharger profitability dramatically. There are very high monthly fixed costs (demand charges), aka which don't vary with traffic - but income varies linearly with traffic. If I recall correctly, Tesla is targeting an average supercharger occupancy of 30%. IMHO, I'm not sure that's realistic, but it's way higher than all of those remote countryside Superchargers see.
2) Supercharger V3 is supposed to have both lower capital *and* operations costs, and be unveiled shortly (was previously targeted at the end of last year), as well as the better (faster) user experience. So it'd be illogical to build more than necessary at present, rather than spending the same amount of money after the V3 introduction.
Likewise, long term we are all dead
EVNow
Well-Known Member
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Tesla always has resistance at odd price levels. Why is 317 a resistance level ? Had 2 minutes of 100k volume already near 317. Still can't cross it.
May be day traders start selling when it is up by certain % or $ on a given day (profit taking).
May be day traders start selling when it is up by certain % or $ on a given day (profit taking).
Really it is fun to watch the day to day spikes...and I know some are trading on that day to day change.
But I will really get excited when it crosses the 420 barrier. And then the 1420 and 2420 barrier.
But I will really get excited when it crosses the 420 barrier. And then the 1420 and 2420 barrier.
@scaesare
Is that your loophole, that you didn't use the word "'must"?
1. I don't consider it a loophole, just an accurate statement of fact.
And for someone "not drawing conclusions", you seem to be drawing conclusions:
"...it seems to me..."
"... appears to have..."
2. Suggesting a postulate is not the same as drawing a firm conclusion, it is a harmless device employed in making one's argument.
(The follow on oblique insults add a nice touch)
3. I don't believe I insulted anyone despite lightly speculating about their true motives in the absence of any other explanation for their illogical position/contortions.
You'de be delighted to see the arguments for that stance? Read a good number of the replies to your posts in this thread.
4. You said there were *compelling* arguments to be made, not that they had already been made in this thread. In any case I have carefully perused all the replies to myself and none have made the argument you claim in a way that holds water. I would still be happy to see any that do.
I already mentioned (power)energy density earlier. From a volumetric standpoint, do you think Audi could be stuffing a 95kWh pack in something with that chassis size that takes up 2X the space of a Model S100 pack? Doesn't seem likely.
5. I don't know about twice the size but almost certainly the e-Tron pack volume is relatively large, given the probably low cell volumetric energy density [am guessing ~500Wh/l at best] and the bulky crash-resistant infrastructure. The designers probably did not have much choice if they were to hit more important target metrics [e.g. fire safety, fast charging] for the vehicle, so AFAICT they erred on the side of big and heavy, which I suppose both contribute to its reportedly poor fuel economy rating.
I presume she understands that a well, but also recognizes that there are a number of other factors, that she's discussed. The physical pack size, weight (excluding pack construction), energy capacity, etc... don't appear to be so significantly different that there's not a reasonable concern that they make be willing to toast the cells.
6. Having a concern, reasonable or otherwise, does not entitle one to elevate it to a pronouncement of definitive fact in the absence of actual evidence, then dogmatically insist [mainly by evasion and twisting of words] that it is the only possible truth. Further I don't believe it is a reasonable concern that any cells are being toasted as we don't yet know the e-Tron pack volume, heat removal efficiency or exact cell energy/power densities relative to Tesla's equivalents.
You might be right... although the vehicle feels niche to me. Perhaps Audi is simply willing to eat costs for the halo effect. (Also, your Model S point doesn't make sense... Total packs Tesla has to deal with is >100K/yr... it doesn't really matter if they are installed in to S or X if you had to replace them as a result of frying them)
7. Yes, fair enough, ~100,000 total S/X packs p.a. Still, Tesla never presumed they would be driven short mileage only and in fact built the SC network to encourage road-tripping. Audi is arguably following that lead by pitching in for the rapidly expanding Ionity infrastructure in Europe. EA network in US was of course somewhat less voluntary but anyhow has the same effect.
My point holds tho: if those things aren't equal, then we aren't comparing like-for-like.
8. ATM we do not know if they are equal but in general I agree.
Is that your loophole, that you didn't use the word "'must"?
1. I don't consider it a loophole, just an accurate statement of fact.
And for someone "not drawing conclusions", you seem to be drawing conclusions:
"...it seems to me..."
"... appears to have..."
2. Suggesting a postulate is not the same as drawing a firm conclusion, it is a harmless device employed in making one's argument.
(The follow on oblique insults add a nice touch)
3. I don't believe I insulted anyone despite lightly speculating about their true motives in the absence of any other explanation for their illogical position/contortions.
You'de be delighted to see the arguments for that stance? Read a good number of the replies to your posts in this thread.
4. You said there were *compelling* arguments to be made, not that they had already been made in this thread. In any case I have carefully perused all the replies to myself and none have made the argument you claim in a way that holds water. I would still be happy to see any that do.
5. I don't know about twice the size but almost certainly the e-Tron pack volume is relatively large, given the probably low cell volumetric energy density [am guessing ~500Wh/l at best] and the bulky crash-resistant infrastructure. The designers probably did not have much choice if they were to hit more important target metrics [e.g. fire safety, fast charging] for the vehicle, so AFAICT they erred on the side of big and heavy, which I suppose both contribute to its reportedly poor fuel economy rating.
I presume she understands that a well, but also recognizes that there are a number of other factors, that she's discussed. The physical pack size, weight (excluding pack construction), energy capacity, etc... don't appear to be so significantly different that there's not a reasonable concern that they make be willing to toast the cells.
6. Having a concern, reasonable or otherwise, does not entitle one to elevate it to a pronouncement of definitive fact in the absence of actual evidence, then dogmatically insist [mainly by evasion and twisting of words] that it is the only possible truth. Further I don't believe it is a reasonable concern that any cells are being toasted as we don't yet know the e-Tron pack volume, heat removal efficiency or exact cell energy/power densities relative to Tesla's equivalents.
You might be right... although the vehicle feels niche to me. Perhaps Audi is simply willing to eat costs for the halo effect. (Also, your Model S point doesn't make sense... Total packs Tesla has to deal with is >100K/yr... it doesn't really matter if they are installed in to S or X if you had to replace them as a result of frying them)
7. Yes, fair enough, ~100,000 total S/X packs p.a. Still, Tesla never presumed they would be driven short mileage only and in fact built the SC network to encourage road-tripping. Audi is arguably following that lead by pitching in for the rapidly expanding Ionity infrastructure in Europe. EA network in US was of course somewhat less voluntary but anyhow has the same effect.
My point holds tho: if those things aren't equal, then we aren't comparing like-for-like.
8. ATM we do not know if they are equal but in general I agree.
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Only ITMs left in Feb (22 Feb $300s). Will likely start rolling them today. I'm going to let it level out and then decide. In an ideal situation I'd like to ride them as long as possible, but all this macro noise is far from an "ideal situation" :Þ
Last edited:
EVNow
Well-Known Member
BTW, one thing I've noticed is that usually IV tends to go down during the day. Not sure about ITM calls … (ofcourse if the SP keeps going up, IV won't go down). For eg. 2/15 expiry 300 strike is now at 0.50 (was around .48 earlier). Would be interesting to see where it is in the afternoon.
To get back on topic, it's interesting to see various analysts interpreting the recent Model 3 price cuts not as a sign of lack of demand, but a demonstration of the margin actually allowing such cuts. It's also quite nice to finally read other people acknowledging that the "they are running out of cash" narrative is no longer a valid scenario to moan about.
Can we please stop this endless back and forth about the E-Tron pack. Or if you want to continue, use PM. Thank you.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
