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.
I’m just struggling to see how GM is going to be able to launch their Equinox EV which is supposed to be under $30k. I just looked at the LYRIQ (what a stupid name) and it has a 100 kWh pack with just 300 miles of range. That’s in the ballpark of $13,000 for the pack which doesn’t even go as far as the Model Y…. How do they launch a $30,000 car that is remotely profitable and has a useful range with that sort of efficiency?

I suspect it’ll be like the Silverado. They’ll trot out one which is $30,000 but only 1% will roll off the line at that price. You’ll have to pay $10,000 to upgrade to their “Electronics convenience package” to get keyless entry. 95% will cost $40k - 50k.
 
Tesla has already said that they will upgrade anyone whose hardware won’t work with FSD to the hardware required for FSD when it is 100%.

So the idea that someone paid for hardware that won’t work doesn’t really mesh. If the hardware won’t work, they will upgrade your car.
Maybe you should respond to op who mentioned the hardware then. I was simply pointing out that Elon has not lied to him yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ogre
Not sure "confirmed" is the right word there.

Average daily volume over the same reported period was over 34 million shares. Per day.

You think an extra 1.6 million total shares sold short, and those spread over a 2 week period, is "the" cause of a large drop in share price- at the same time macro saw significant dips too?
Yes macro was bad too, but we all know that most of daily volume is just HFTs, etc. passing the same shares back and forth. Those were 1.6m new shares entering the market. So the relative impact is certainly bigger than it seems at first glance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Queeg500
He lied to me when Tesla told me that my car had all the necessary hardware to operate as a robotaxi or be summoned, empty, from one coast to the other. And there are whole threads here about his long string of broken promises regarding FSD, promises he has to have known could not be met, yet he still keeps making them.
If Elon believes he is speaking the truth, or giving his best estimate, that isn't a lie, merely being over optimistic..
 
FUD is all about delaying the inevitable...this would do just that.
Are there any examples of a particular hardware solution being specified for auto safety requirements? When I was involved with government procurements, we were very careful to specify performance requirements, not anyone's favorite hardware solution. The reason was obvious - so as not to promote/penalize any particular competitor.

For on-going requirements, this could also eliminate future superior systems as technology evolved, or force continuous rewriting of the specifications.

I think it would be very difficult for the government to specify LIDAR as a requirement for autonomous vehicles. They would instantly open themselves up to protests and lawsuits, and they'd likely lose.

edit: as an example, I don’t think the government specifies HOW to engineer a car for crash-worthiness, but rather the types of impacts that should be protected against and the specifics of the tests that will be used to evaluate compliance.
 
Last edited:
The shameless copying continues. This week alone, insurance and now this.


Also, remember their Ford chargers from a few weeks back?
 
The shameless copying continues. This week alone, insurance and now this.


Also, remember their Ford chargers from a few weeks back?
I'll at least give them credit for coming up with ways of extending the idea (opening various openings, playing particular media at particular volumes, etc), they didn't just rename "Dog Mode" to "Pet Mode" and submit the patent.
 
The shameless copying continues. This week alone, insurance and now this.


Also, remember their Ford chargers from a few weeks back?

The priority application of this US patent was filed in 2018 (25 October).

Tesla introduced dog mode in 2019, according to this article.


Opening a door is a rather poor solution to the problem.… . I wouldn’t have recommended filing a patent application.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Baumisch
Why? CCS2 is around 350kw today - still same charging time as any other EV, just higher power right? At 1,5C around 50minutes 10-80 I`d guess - that's better than my nerfed P85+ ;)
Depends much on the location as those 350kW (non-tesla SC) are peak under perfect circumstances. Normally a lot is shared between different stalls. Also we do not know if the Hummer is somehow limited in charging to protect the battery pack. Or if the location even has the powergrid to support that. I mean .. not every supermarket-lot can put up a 4x 350kW infrastructure without proper backing (or expensive buffers in the form of batteries).

350kW is mostly at "select locations" or limited to a few stalls - and those then will always get blocked making other EV-Users quite unhappy with those tanks taking ages to fill up :D
 
Bloomberg and AP are reporting about the NHTSA opening a formal probe into Tesla for phantom braking after receiving 354 complaints.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
'They' have to come up with some sort of hit piece every day and that's just today's. There will be another along tomorrow.
Like a bad smell, if you're exposed to it long enough you don't smell it any more.
I think we're close to peak stink.
 
The leaf was the best selling EV in the world in total sales from 2010 until early 2020. A decade of being in the lead overall.

Not sure how you call it a compliance car to avoid buying Tesla credits, especially when it launches years before Tesla had any significant number to sell.
Correct. The Leaf isn't a compliance car, but it is a second car. You can't use it for everything a first car would be used for. I have a 2015 that Denise drives. We got it because Denise didn't want a large car and the Leaf was the only choice at the time (she just totaled her previous car). It's been fine except for the horrid dealers. If you need a second cheap car that doesn't need to go more than a few miles back and forth to work, it's a good choice.
 
I've never seen Elon make any promises regarding FSD. I've seen him make estimates (which turned out to be wrong) based on information available at the time.

Your equating of the two confirms my guess about your knowledge of his actual behavior.
Oh please... they sold FSD as something that would get to L4/5 until 2019 when they removed any promise. Daniel is absolutely right that he made promises that cannot be fulfilled. They can't. Period. End of story. Broken promise/Lie. Some people are forgiving given the mission and most people that could plop down thousands for a Tesla could afford to lose some on a broken promise. Does not mean the promise was not broken. A broken agreement is what if not a lie?

I can't stress the following enough for all you investors: Tesla is building risk into the company re it's approach to interacting with regulators and statements are approaching lies. As someone that dealt with IG solutions related to investigations and litigation on some of the largest companies in the world I can assure you that companies that build a reputation of disdain for regulators have risk. When you blame not opening a GF on regulators when you haven't submitted the paperwork needed to BEGIN the approval process, and get called out for it by the regulator, and you do similar behavior again and again ...there is risk. This is what ended up costing VW . IT was VW's attitude as well. It wiped out 30% of VWs stock value which was never inflated. Tesla must change how they manage regulatory agencies and engage in communication and process or they will find a crisis and no friend. I had something to do with the VW outcome, though peripheral. VW's communication and hubris and attitudes were the problem for regulators, more so than the actual facts. Tesla is at the point where they could find themselves with a Court appointed compliance manager reporting not to EM and the Tesla BOD but to the Court of CA. I don't think many here are valuing that risk appropriately. It sucks. Court appointed monitors ...suck. They drain management hours at rates you can't believe. They slow things down. They can quickly move from State to Federal. Like a cancer.

In summary. Yes, EM has some challenges regarding truth- I don't think it is malicious but he has broken promises and the FSD software he sold to Daniel will never work - not debatable. He has hubris that has permeated his companies- good. Hubris is impacting the companies relationship with those charged with ensuring safety and well being of society- BAD. If you disagree with this you have not read the current statements from CA by the govt regulator- they are public docs. They are a shot across Tesla's bow. They are all FACTUAL. When regulators say Tesla has not responded to inquiries it means Tesla did not respond. My $0.02 from someone that has actually managed the IG actions of one of the world largest automotive entities. I don't have a dollar in Tesla but if I did I'm at the point where the history of EM and regulators seems to be coming to a head and increasing risk.
 
Last edited:
Bloomberg and AP are reporting about the NHTSA opening a formal probe into Tesla for phantom braking after receiving 354 complaints.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Strange before the article on the graph published by a newpaper we have 100 phantom breaking and suddenly 354 ?????
And if you take a look at the graph since december the number really decrease as a factor of 4x
 
Oh please... they sold FSD as something that would get to L4/5 until 2019 when they removed any promise. Daniel is absolutely right that he made promises that cannot be fulfilled. They can't. Period. End of story. Broken promise/Lie. Some people are forgiving given the mission and most people that could plop down thousands for a Tesla could afford to lose some on a broken promise. Does not mean the promise was not broken. A broken agreement is what if not a lie?

I can't stress the following enough for all you investors: Tesla is building risk into the company re it's approach to interacting with regulators and statements are approaching lies. As someone that dealt with IG solutions related to investigations and litigation on some of the largest companies in the world I can assure you that companies that build a reputation of disdain for regulators have risk. When you blame not opening a GF on regulators when you haven't submitted the paperwork needed to BEGIN the approval process, and get called out for it by the regulator, and you do similar behavior again and again ...there is risk. This is what ended up costing VW . IT was VW's attitude as well. It wiped out 30% of VWs stock value which was never inflated. Tesla must change how they manage regulatory agencies and engage in communication and process or they will find a crisis and no friend. I had something to do with the VW outcome, though peripheral. VW's communication and hubris and attitudes were the problem for regulators, more so than the actual facts. Tesla is at the point where they could find themselves with a Court appointed compliance manager reporting not to EM and the Tesla BOD but to the Court of CA. I don't think many here are valuing that risk appropriately. It sucks. Court appointed monitors ...suck. They drain management hours at rates you can't believe. They slow things down. They can quickly move from State to Federal. Like a cancer.

In summary. Yes, EM has some challenges regarding truth- I don't think it is malicious but he has broken promises and the FSD software he sold to Daniel will never work - not debatable. He has hubris that has permeated his companies- good. Hubris is impacting the companies relationship with those charged with ensuring safety and well being of society- BAD. If you disagree with this you have not read the current statements from CA by the govt regulator- they are public docs. They are a shot across Tesla's bow. They are all FACTUAL. When regulators say Tesla has not responded to inquiries it means Tesla did not respond. My $0.02 from someone that has actually managed the IG actions of one of the world largest automotive entities. I don't have a dollar in Tesla but if I did I'm at the point where the history of EM and regulators seems to be coming to a head and increasing risk.
There's a difference between lying and making bad predictions. It's all about what the actor know at the time. If Tesla shut down their autonomous division or is planning on shutting it down while Elon is on stage making promises about the company trying to bring autonomous driving to paying customers, then that's a lie.

If Trevor Milton said " this Nikola one will eventually run on pure hydrogen", then that is not a lie. If he says "this truck fully works and runs on pure hydrogen right now" then that's a lie.

Elon never claimed L5 is working at the time of purchase and did a rug pull once you bought it. It was always "eventually...." and then proceed to give a prediction of time frame.