And still no SR+ in the mix! It’s great to see there is still so much appetite in Norway for LR (mainly AWD) and P.
-
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
And still no SR+ in the mix! It’s great to see there is still so much appetite in Norway for LR (mainly AWD) and P.
It took many years but we have finally looked at Tesla from every angle.
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
I'm happy with no news for weeks at a time. Don't get elon distracted, and keep churning out more and more and more EVs while the competition are still working on their latest diesel cheat devices.
I suspect things may heat up by friday/monday though.
I am hoping for a nice Q2 results bump. maybe a mini bump for EV delivery figures, and a big one for the results.
I suspect things may heat up by friday/monday though.
I am hoping for a nice Q2 results bump. maybe a mini bump for EV delivery figures, and a big one for the results.
JusRelax
Active Member
I actually feel fortunate thinking that with today's low volume, the shorts missed a huge opportunity to push the stock price down.
Mike Smith
Active Member
This adds up to about $1.5M in savings
UPDATE 1-U.S. waives tariffs on Japanese aluminum for Tesla battery cells
UPDATE 1-U.S. waives tariffs on Japanese aluminum for Tesla battery cells
andrewt3000
Member
What is your twitter handle? Also tweet to Michael Bloomberg... he goes on about he is for the environment but let's bloomberg news report tons of FUD about Tesla.
Timing is when GS and MS and the rest of the shorts and short enablers decide it is.
Found some spare change to ad ten shares today. Lost total today of $3.6 on the trade. (Last purchase at $350.) No regrets. I shouldn't buy ice cream cones anyway.
Time to move to a higher dimensional space.
Please be armed with this comment from Kathy Christianson in particular.
NYTimes Spreads Misinformation About EVs — Let's Clean Up The Mess | CleanTechnica
Lots of us have pointed out how easy this trip is in a Tesla. Ms. Christianson, however, does the LA-Las Vegas trip routinely in a Bolt, and it's no problem.
Which really raises the question of what was wrong with Mr. Penn's trip planning. And calls for a followup article to tell the real story of LA - Las Vegas in a Bolt.
Causalien
Prime 8 ball Oracle
I look forward to what will happen when more complex and addictive games come out. There will be more business opportunities to serve car owners that opt to stay in the car while charging to play these games.
Maybe a return to fast food in your car type diners where the server comes to your car while you charge and play games.
Which makes the resale value also interesting as version 2.5 hardware should have the best graphic chip...
A tie up with nintendo switch is probably a good idea. It just need a HDMI input to the screen.
When dealing with Tesla's abysmal communications, lately I've been very politely waiting a week after first contact attempt, so that when I spend 4 hours on the phone the second time I have justification to yell at anyone "I've been waiting a week to get a call back, do not dare hang up on me!"
Since I have no idea when Tesla will send me a front license plate bracket, I ordered a third party bracket at four times the cost. Just because Tesla can't be trusted to actually do anything. Isn't that lovely?
I can't recommend Teslas to anyone until they start answering their phones.
Perfectly likely. Tesla's network is not robust. Unfortunately, they need to get more robust providers. Dependence on outside providers isn't working out well for them. Can't get Starlink up fast enough, can they?
The timing doesn't match whatever killed Tesla's internal systems last week. Maybe there are multiple attacks going on.
The Plain Old Telephone System was more reliable and if Tesla wanted reliability...
Volume is still pretty low but there is definitely potential there.
Regarding food, you are describing a Sonic with chargers built in.
Chris Harris, king of petrolheads actually says he's going to buy a Model 3 after his review on Top Gear. This is like the pope becoming a buddhist.
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
Update:
What follows is my personal opinion only.
So I had a great call with the NYT reporter. We spoke on the phone for nearly two hours (really). Covered a lot of ground, got a lot of context, learned a lot -- I suspect both of us; l know I learned a lot. Ivan is a good guy, he's not a bad guy. Suffice to say, he's heard a ton from Tesla owners since the article came out.
No time to write up a longer summary now -- it's midafternoon, I'm starving, and haven't had lunch yet -- but suffice to say there is no great NYT conspiracy to screw Tesla. I just don't see it. There is no Broder, the secret puppeteer, controlling everything from behind the curtain. Hell, these reporters don't even know nor have ever communicated with Broder. Forget Broder. We really as a community have to put that theory to rest for good. Broder has become to Tesla what Soros is for the GOP: the bogeyman. Same goes for Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of LA Times: he is not dictating what Russ Mitchell or other LA Times reporters should write. These theories are not going to move things forward constructively. Time to retire them.
A lot gets cut from news stories and a lot got cut from this one. He did the EVgo/Chevy Bolt drive from LA->Vegas sometime in April, two months ago. He did not pick EVGo, they reached out to him. They offered the car; he did not pick the car. He rode with EVGo reps in the car, I suppose he thought it was worth a try, he might learn something about the charging infrastructure available to the public. There is so much context that gets lost by what winds up in the few words that survive to print. He did all sorts of research for this story which was ostensibly about charging and charging networks--not about the cars. He covers alternative energy and has an interest in EV charging networks and in battery storage. There was a ton more about Tesla in the article originally that didn't make it into the final piece (Tesla gave him a Model 3 to drive for a weekend--he thought it was a great car, no complaints, though he did have some interesting charging experiences, which is the thing he was mainly interested in). But still, I learned that apparently Tesla's PR team is generally happy with the resulting story, and is not bent out of shape the way many in the Tesla community have been since this story came out. Something to think about.
There is a difference between the individual journalist and the publication or media outlet that puts out the story. We too often forget that. There are also editors, copy editors, headline editors, web producers, and all sorts of other team members who are editing, guiding, cutting, pasting, rearranging, A/B testing of headlines (once again, I learned that the reporter had no say or input or anything as to what the headline of the story was: that's done in NYC, and this reporter is LA based), and packaging the final product that readers see in print or online.
For now I'll just say that I suspect a lot of the dissatisfaction many of us feel in terms of how the EV phenomenon is being depicted and covered in major media actually stems from how the stories are packaged by the publication, not from the reporters themselves. But we tend to direct our unhappiness solely onto the name of the reporter attached to the article. On social media, the reporter gets the brunt of the grief, the attacks, the ad-hominems. If we want to move media coverage of EVs forward we have to figure out a way to constructively engage at the editorial level; reporters in general are not the enemy. (Yes, yes, there are writers out there who genuinely don't like Tesla, and have a bias, I will stipulate. Ivan isn't one of 'em.) Tweeting flames to NYT editors isn't the answer, unfortunately; I suspect they a) just tune that stuff out and b), worse, it all just fuels a view--deserved or undeserved--that Tesla owners are elitist and reactionary. (Perhaps a bunch of brief, respectful, thoughtful letters to the editor would be a better approach at engaging with higher-ups in the press. If only the New York Times still had an ombudsman/public editor.)
I think the EV crowd sometimes views news articles like this latest NYT piece as massive tsunami waves, wreaking destruction on the public's understanding of EVs. The more I discuss the articles with journalists at these media outlets, the more I start realizing that each article is indeed a wave, but just one ordinary wave, and it is the lapping of many waves over years that will ultimately cause the shape of a continent to change.
One thing that would really help is for the people in the press to begin owning EVs, so they have personal hands-on day-in/day-out experience with them. But realistically the industry isn't quite there yet. Early adopter Tesla owners, of which I am one, often easily forget that. Teslas are still pretty exotic/expensive vehicles, and EVs, be they Tesla or made elsewhere, are still out of reach economically and practically by many people for all sorts of reasons we often don't think about. So sure, there are Tesla superchargers all over, but to the ordinary public who doesn't own a Tesla, they mean nothing. I suspect this reporter was more interested in the state of charging for everything non-Tesla. Furthermore, I suspect EVs in general, and definitely Teslas, are still not even on the purchase horizon of most people who work at news-gathering organizations. As a consequence I suspect editors are cutting stuff from stories that might have helped the overall context, stuff existing Tesla owners would have seen as no-brainers and crucial for increasing the public's understanding. I really think this is where the disconnect is. Sadly it's not going to get fixed overnight, or even in a year. But I am hopeful it is going to get better over time as EVs become more mainstream.
So, I suggest we all take a deep breath and work to find constructive ways outside of swift social media reactions to get better media coverage of the EV revolution. Ideally everyone ought to pitch in: owners, EV-makers, editors, and reporters. I suggested to this reporter that we ought to have a conference and hash these issues out constructively. Maybe that would move the needle forward a little bit. It's a dream, anyway.
What follows is my personal opinion only.
So I had a great call with the NYT reporter. We spoke on the phone for nearly two hours (really). Covered a lot of ground, got a lot of context, learned a lot -- I suspect both of us; l know I learned a lot. Ivan is a good guy, he's not a bad guy. Suffice to say, he's heard a ton from Tesla owners since the article came out.
No time to write up a longer summary now -- it's midafternoon, I'm starving, and haven't had lunch yet -- but suffice to say there is no great NYT conspiracy to screw Tesla. I just don't see it. There is no Broder, the secret puppeteer, controlling everything from behind the curtain. Hell, these reporters don't even know nor have ever communicated with Broder. Forget Broder. We really as a community have to put that theory to rest for good. Broder has become to Tesla what Soros is for the GOP: the bogeyman. Same goes for Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of LA Times: he is not dictating what Russ Mitchell or other LA Times reporters should write. These theories are not going to move things forward constructively. Time to retire them.
A lot gets cut from news stories and a lot got cut from this one. He did the EVgo/Chevy Bolt drive from LA->Vegas sometime in April, two months ago. He did not pick EVGo, they reached out to him. They offered the car; he did not pick the car. He rode with EVGo reps in the car, I suppose he thought it was worth a try, he might learn something about the charging infrastructure available to the public. There is so much context that gets lost by what winds up in the few words that survive to print. He did all sorts of research for this story which was ostensibly about charging and charging networks--not about the cars. He covers alternative energy and has an interest in EV charging networks and in battery storage. There was a ton more about Tesla in the article originally that didn't make it into the final piece (Tesla gave him a Model 3 to drive for a weekend--he thought it was a great car, no complaints, though he did have some interesting charging experiences, which is the thing he was mainly interested in). But still, I learned that apparently Tesla's PR team is generally happy with the resulting story, and is not bent out of shape the way many in the Tesla community have been since this story came out. Something to think about.
There is a difference between the individual journalist and the publication or media outlet that puts out the story. We too often forget that. There are also editors, copy editors, headline editors, web producers, and all sorts of other team members who are editing, guiding, cutting, pasting, rearranging, A/B testing of headlines (once again, I learned that the reporter had no say or input or anything as to what the headline of the story was: that's done in NYC, and this reporter is LA based), and packaging the final product that readers see in print or online.
For now I'll just say that I suspect a lot of the dissatisfaction many of us feel in terms of how the EV phenomenon is being depicted and covered in major media actually stems from how the stories are packaged by the publication, not from the reporters themselves. But we tend to direct our unhappiness solely onto the name of the reporter attached to the article. On social media, the reporter gets the brunt of the grief, the attacks, the ad-hominems. If we want to move media coverage of EVs forward we have to figure out a way to constructively engage at the editorial level; reporters in general are not the enemy. (Yes, yes, there are writers out there who genuinely don't like Tesla, and have a bias, I will stipulate. Ivan isn't one of 'em.) Tweeting flames to NYT editors isn't the answer, unfortunately; I suspect they a) just tune that stuff out and b), worse, it all just fuels a view--deserved or undeserved--that Tesla owners are elitist and reactionary. (Perhaps a bunch of brief, respectful, thoughtful letters to the editor would be a better approach at engaging with higher-ups in the press. If only the New York Times still had an ombudsman/public editor.)
I think the EV crowd sometimes views news articles like this latest NYT piece as massive tsunami waves, wreaking destruction on the public's understanding of EVs. The more I discuss the articles with journalists at these media outlets, the more I start realizing that each article is indeed a wave, but just one ordinary wave, and it is the lapping of many waves over years that will ultimately cause the shape of a continent to change.
One thing that would really help is for the people in the press to begin owning EVs, so they have personal hands-on day-in/day-out experience with them. But realistically the industry isn't quite there yet. Early adopter Tesla owners, of which I am one, often easily forget that. Teslas are still pretty exotic/expensive vehicles, and EVs, be they Tesla or made elsewhere, are still out of reach economically and practically by many people for all sorts of reasons we often don't think about. So sure, there are Tesla superchargers all over, but to the ordinary public who doesn't own a Tesla, they mean nothing. I suspect this reporter was more interested in the state of charging for everything non-Tesla. Furthermore, I suspect EVs in general, and definitely Teslas, are still not even on the purchase horizon of most people who work at news-gathering organizations. As a consequence I suspect editors are cutting stuff from stories that might have helped the overall context, stuff existing Tesla owners would have seen as no-brainers and crucial for increasing the public's understanding. I really think this is where the disconnect is. Sadly it's not going to get fixed overnight, or even in a year. But I am hopeful it is going to get better over time as EVs become more mainstream.
So, I suggest we all take a deep breath and work to find constructive ways outside of swift social media reactions to get better media coverage of the EV revolution. Ideally everyone ought to pitch in: owners, EV-makers, editors, and reporters. I suggested to this reporter that we ought to have a conference and hash these issues out constructively. Maybe that would move the needle forward a little bit. It's a dream, anyway.
Judging from EV-CPO, the S new inventory (pre-Raven) is pretty much cleared in the US; there's still some in Canada, the Dubai inventory is still stitting, and there's 221 in Europe (which is an addition I think, so perhaps they were released from loaner duties or something). There's still still no pre-Raven X inventory visible to speak of (43 worldwide), none in the US.
FWIW, there appears to be only one Raven S or X in inventory (it's an X in Europe).
Joe F
Disruption is hard.
Usually I agree with you, however, not in this case. There is no way anyone, Tesla included, can use the Internet without going through (usually multiple) network providers routers. There is no point "A" to "B" route. It's a fragile web of devices, often prone to misconfigurations that can gum up the works.
Don't know if it's gotten any better, but I've called up NOC's in the past at 5 AM to tell then they has an outage, only to be told they had a crew out working on it. Right, sure you do. It was two routers flapping in the wind, sending packets back and forth in a game of hot potato, neither knowing what to do with the packet. It's very easy to screw things up, and even easier to point to the service you're trying to get to as being at fault. I have a different view based on 30 years or so of experience. So, I can't fault Tesla to some extent for network related issues at least.
Manipulations Vocabulary
A few years ago I created terms to help forum members express manipulations of TSLA. The terms are:
Mandatory Morning Dip (MMD)- The rather dependable quick and often sizable dip in the TSLA stock price in morning trading engineered to scare traders away from Tesla that day or to act as a catalyst and induce further selling.
Capping- Selling (usually short-selling) to keep TSLA from climbing above a certain price point. It is often followed by some effort to then sink the stock price so that those manipulators who did the capping can cover before day's end at a profit.
Dip on Steroids- If there is a dip (macros, news-based, etc.) shorts will sometimes join in the selling so that the dip takes on a disproportionately steep or long descent. Dips on steroids are used to confuse longs into believing that the macro event or the news article is creating such a large decrease in stock price, when in reality the additional short-selling is what has accelerated TSLA's descent.
Sticky Dip- We haven't seen this dip recently too much, but it was a favorite tactic in the past. The idea is that when there is a dip in the macros and then a recovery in the macros, some capping is applied to TSLA when the stock price is way down so that TSLA does not recover with the macros.
Descent into close- Here's a really common manipulation in use these days. As late afternoon approaches and volume is light, short-selling is used to cause TSLA to descend late in the day and close lower than its been trading. I see descent into close as a way of gaming the system and arriving at a lower closing price for TSLA while employing the least necessary resources.
Whack-the-mole- This is the technique of selling TSLA any time it dares stick its head into the green. The "whack" sends TSLA back into the red, and the manipulator waits patiently for the little fella to try to stick his head back into the green again. Sometimes we've seen as many as a dozen whack-the-mole moments to keep TSLA in the red and restrain it from any impulse to rally.
I really do smile every time I see one of these terms used nowadays. When I first proposed the idea that the short-sellers or other manipulators were exerting a major influence on how TSLA traded, many forum members ridiculed such notions and I suspect they thought I ought to be carted off to Happydale. With time, people opened their eyes and saw the manipulations. Now the manipulations are regarded as fact, but it wasn't always that way.
A few years ago I created terms to help forum members express manipulations of TSLA. The terms are:
Mandatory Morning Dip (MMD)- The rather dependable quick and often sizable dip in the TSLA stock price in morning trading engineered to scare traders away from Tesla that day or to act as a catalyst and induce further selling.
Capping- Selling (usually short-selling) to keep TSLA from climbing above a certain price point. It is often followed by some effort to then sink the stock price so that those manipulators who did the capping can cover before day's end at a profit.
Dip on Steroids- If there is a dip (macros, news-based, etc.) shorts will sometimes join in the selling so that the dip takes on a disproportionately steep or long descent. Dips on steroids are used to confuse longs into believing that the macro event or the news article is creating such a large decrease in stock price, when in reality the additional short-selling is what has accelerated TSLA's descent.
Sticky Dip- We haven't seen this dip recently too much, but it was a favorite tactic in the past. The idea is that when there is a dip in the macros and then a recovery in the macros, some capping is applied to TSLA when the stock price is way down so that TSLA does not recover with the macros.
Descent into close- Here's a really common manipulation in use these days. As late afternoon approaches and volume is light, short-selling is used to cause TSLA to descend late in the day and close lower than its been trading. I see descent into close as a way of gaming the system and arriving at a lower closing price for TSLA while employing the least necessary resources.
Whack-the-mole- This is the technique of selling TSLA any time it dares stick its head into the green. The "whack" sends TSLA back into the red, and the manipulator waits patiently for the little fella to try to stick his head back into the green again. Sometimes we've seen as many as a dozen whack-the-mole moments to keep TSLA in the red and restrain it from any impulse to rally.
I really do smile every time I see one of these terms used nowadays. When I first proposed the idea that the short-sellers or other manipulators were exerting a major influence on how TSLA traded, many forum members ridiculed such notions and I suspect they thought I ought to be carted off to Happydale. With time, people opened their eyes and saw the manipulations. Now the manipulations are regarded as fact, but it wasn't always that way.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
