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

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The Taycan Turbo S range dropped on fueleconomy.gov.... it's not even 200 miles:

View attachment 500055
That is actually worse than the last 16K miles on the 2004 Prius, where I averaged 69.2 mpg. I'm sure glad they used the best engineers, because I would hate to see the car created by average engineers.
 
Apologies. I'm just getting into TMC for the first time today since I came across this specific confirmation of recent speculation here that part of the drive upwards to TSLA is business is finally wising up to climate change along with the public:

Larry Fink CEO Letter | BlackRock

If already discussed, please ignore.

Mod Mode: When I get around to limited survey of today's posts will eliminate this and any responses with a pointer to earlier discussion.

Edit: To summarize, "To Hell with climate deniers. It's bad for business." A letter to CEOs! That should make a splash!
 
Last edited:
This is the Turbo S that I believe had 192 before while the Taycan remains on 201mi, more shocking is that a real live test in California from someone who received a delivery, a movie start I believe and big Porsche fans who owns a few did report real life range of 147 miles and true range anxiety as he could not find a fast charger and everything else took ages.

It does not get better from here and Porsche itself seems to struggle with it internally.

As predicted all forces have been trying to develop a "real Porsche" completely ignoring what that may make with the range given the technology they have.

Those companies always manage to beat my already low expectations.

Supercharger advantage strikes again. It's especially bad to not have a proprietary and extensive charging network when your range is significantly worse than the competition.
 
Up to $542 now.
giphy.gif
 
Blackrock out with their 2020 letter.
CEO letter:
Larry Fink CEO Letter | BlackRock
"A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance"

Client letter:
BlackRock Client Letter | Sustainability
"Sustainability as BlackRock’s New Standard for Investing"

Blackrock already holds tsla but seems likely they are increasing their stake given this.
6.4 million shares as of last 13F filing, 30/9.

If they are serious about this move toward sustainability, the significance for the planet and the investment world (and hopefully TSLA) cannot be overstated. Blackrock has $7 trillion under management. That's more than Germany's GDP and the UK's GDP combined.
 
Model Y Plate.jpg
Good thing that Tesla service appointments are made via the app and not the phone:
"Please repeat your license registration number"
"WEEEEEE"...
Good thing that Tesla service appointments are made via the app and not the phone:
"Please repeat your license registration number"
"WEEEEEE"...
 
Apologies. I'm just getting into TMC for the first time today since I came across this specific confirmation of recent speculation here that part of the drive upwards to TSLA is business is finally wising up to climate change along with the public:

Larry Fink CEO Letter | BlackRock

If already discussed, please ignore.

Mod Mode: When I get around to limited survey of today's posts will eliminate this and any responses with a pointer to earlier discussion.

Edit: To summarize, "To Hell with climate deniers. It's bad for business." A letter to CEOs! That should make a splash!
Among others:
BlackRock's Larry Fink: Risks from climate change are bigger than the 2008 financial crisis with no Fed to save us


  • BlackRock will put “sustainability at the center of our investment approach” — from portfolio construction to launching new investment products that screen fossil fuels.

I had missed this from Black Rock’s Fink - thank you, @sundaymorning (I’d read it at oh-dark-00):

“And because capital markets pull future risk forward, we will see changes in capital allocation more quickly than we see changes to the climate itself.”

There are a number of commentators, not a small amount of whom are active within this forum, who subscribe to and describe a conspiracy theory involving, among others, corporations within the fossil fuel industry directly assisting a multi-year attempt to hobble Tesla.

To me, Black Rock’s new mission statement puts paid to the conspiracy concept, irrespective of any validity it may have or have had. An organization that has seven trillion dollars of assets under management dwarfs to insignificance the combined firepower this supposed cabal could muster.

How so? Aren’t the full Forces of Darkness (FoD) as large or larger than that? No, not so. Remember: Koch Industries, XOM, CHV, APC.....and all the rest have real businesses to run and real bank loans to service and real problems of their own to handle. Harken to Fink's words: Allocation of capital occurs more quickly than climate change. And the business of Black Rock IS the investment world. They are orders of magnitude more nimble than the FoD - first, they have to be, and second, they have at their disposal exactly what it takes: billions upon billions trillions of dollars. Not pipelines. Not refineries. Not oil fields. The definition of what asset fungibility entails. And Black Rock, mighty as it is, is by no means alone, but has other titans sharing that zeitgeist: from similar trillion-dollar managers like JIF and Norge, to you and me.

So, regardless of whether you like or hate Mr Fink or Black Rock, they have what it takes to get it done.

Interesting times....and hopeful ones.

Note: edited once I got out of bed and off the iPhone and could type with more facility. And...I am so frustrated at those little icons below. What is it that causes disagreement (just a sole vote as I'm typing this)? It's one thing to hit a "Love" button, but when someone has a disagreement, for crying in the mud, respond with something of substance. Both the poster and the rest of the community can learn from that.