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.
You have not convinced me... the gear ratio can be configured for either high speed or torque,I think (I ain't a mechanical guy by nature, but the magic occurring in the "tranny box" is Elon Magic when considering these motors and vehicles. I am under the impression that the Semi will have the carbon fiber wrapped motors which would support the belief that such motors convert electricity to power/work. How it is linked to the wheels determines speed or torque.)
Maybe I am wrong.
I always thought that it was the power of the motor at a given RPM that determined the gearing. More power, higher gearing becomes possible (limited by the strength of the rest of the drivetrain). Of course it can be tweaked a bit, but not all that much.

EDIT: I should have said it also depends on the situation. Because I no longer have a commute, the 32,500 miles on the 2020 X are around 30,500 road trip miles.
 
Last edited:
Personally, all of this doesn't matter to me (not that it wouldn't be nice for it to happen this year). The really big advantage of FSD is that it keeps you awake--or at least handles it safely--during long trips so you don't fall asleep and crash at 80. Just one save and it's paid for itself.
When I bought my M3 I was pretty tight on cash. Had just gone through some major life changes and it was a bit of a stretch purchase. (this was before TSLA changed my situation drastically)

I didn't buy EAP or FSD at delivery. Added EAP right in my car after leaving work late one night with a 1.5 hour drive ahead of me. After thinking about it I considered that even a small chance of not crashing or being seriously injured was worth the $7500 at the time.

Stingy? Tip the dealer?

Although, if you have it on another car, cool - invest (now especially) instead. I think it will still be another year or so before there is a revenue stream from the FSD network. But it does look like take-overs are approaching zero (asymptotically). Disengagements are one of Tesla's FSD quality metrics.

I have it cuz it's my own data, unfiltered. I know a little something about FSD - more than most as a user. And I especially know it's coming very soon to a driverless community or CoP (Community of Practice). It could take a decade for the public to understand the statistics here - how some accidents on FSD will seem avoidable to humans. So I expect FSD FUD for a decade... marching on with the 9s.
I have my model 3 with Beta and a Y that my GF mostly uses. Also have to buy a Cybertruck in hopefully 6 months and saving my pennies so I can actually afford my Roadster.

I'm still tempted though because when I drive the Y I really miss EAP. Maybe 10.69 will come soon and make it a no-brainer.
 
The Chinese economy is slowing very rapidly and providing relief on commodity (read: oil) prices.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens to oil this winter, as there is a gigantic incentive to switch from NG to oil if you can.

Keeping in mind China is now sourcing crude at massive discounts, as a good chunk of demand from the West now refuses a good chunk of supply from Russia.

If this Iran deal gets signed this week, Putin will have bigger incentive to moderate his stance on sending gas to EU this winter. The NG to crude incentive grows even wider.

This might be an interesting topic for @jhm 's oil thread. A lot is discussed there about the overlap between NG/LNG and crude refining. Perhaps we see far less NG inputs to refined fuels over the next 9 months and that makes up some of the global gap? It's my understanding the overlap is quite large.
 
Notoriously...
tor-hern-527x395.jpg

So, the F-series sales have been so high because they have less overhead? /s

Glad to know that the Tesla glass roofs are so much more robust.
 
At first I thought you were describing the new Ford pre-rollover procedure, until I saw there was no helmet mentioned. 🪖

A common procedural misunderstanding. For the Ford pickups, the procedure requires fully reclining the seat prior to rollover to allow ample room for the roof crumple zone to absorb the energy of the impact.
 
Kind of like speech-to-text software is free for those who can't type due to severe arthritis, hearing aid manufacturers offer their products to the hard of hearing for free, and wheelchair makers offer their electric mobility devices for free to people who can't walk? I get my glasses for free too because I became near-sighted (not). This has really improved a lot of lives, all for free! :rolleyes:
If your income is low enough then you qualify for all those things for free or reduced costs.
 
Ha-ha you haven't understood the game. The point is not to make EVs affordable, the point is a bailout for the Big 3, that should be obvious by now.

Prices are a function of supply and demand. If you shift the demand curve upward by $7500, that's how much prices will increase. I get your point about M3 crossing the price limit, but as volumes go up (and they should go up massively with the factories ramping up) prices will sink. If they weren't sinking fast enough Tesla could navigate around the requirement by reconfiguring the lineup.
I don't think a single vehicle right now will qualify for the $7500 and imagine getting the $3750 earmarked for raw materials will be a massive challenge for manufacturers. And then we have this...

By December 31, 2023, a vehicle containing any battery components manufactured by a "foreign entity of concern" will not qualify period.

By December 31, 2024, a vehicle containing any critical minerals that were extracted, processed, or recycled by a "foreign entity of concern" will not qualify period.

Source and quote:

``(7) Excluded entities.--For purposes of this section, the
term `new clean vehicle' shall not include--
``(A) any vehicle placed in service after December 31,
2024, with respect to which any of the applicable critical
minerals contained in the battery of such vehicle (as described
in subsection (e)(1)(A)) were extracted, processed, or recycled
by a foreign entity of concern (as defined in section
40207(a)(5) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (42
U.S.C. 18741(a)(5))), or
``(B) any vehicle placed in service after December 31,
2023, with respect to which any of the components contained in
the battery of such vehicle (as described in subsection
(e)(2)(A)) were manufactured or assembled by a foreign entity
of concern (as so defined).''.

This will disqualify vehicles with literally any battery components coming from China by the end of 2023 and any critical minerals from China by the end of 2024.


It would also apply to things coming out of Russia, North Korea, and other nations "covered" by them, but the EV battery supply chain relies massively on China right now and particularly when it comes to keeping the vehicles affordable.

This is extremely unfriendly to the current supply chain structure.
 
I agree that the IRA is not yet reflected in the stock price. I think most analysts are waiting to see which models will be eligible. I do think Tesla will have to raise prices on those models, but it won't be a full $7500.

The government won't tweak the requirements just to exclude Tesla because the rules will still have to follow the law as passed. Any way they tweak the rules, Tesla will be in the best position to capitalize. This is a longer discussion, but I think I'm right about this. The IRA is a bigger boost to Tesla than anyone else no matter what.

As for China, a Chinese automaker is free to set up shop in North America and qualify for the credit here. Tesla already has a factory in China, so if China did retaliate it would not be an apples to apples reaction.
How does the IRA help the stock price? Tesla can sell up to the production limit of the factories. They will do that with or without the rebate.... (not trying to be sarcastic)
 
Goal of big 3 is to sell crappy cars, with less batteries kWh and get the most credits.
win-win
The goal of the big 3 is to ensure the CEOs of the big 3 get paid as much money as possible.

For Mary Barra, that means they have to put lipstick on the pigs pulling GM around the track so investors don't realize they are pigs until Mary is retired.

Farley has a trickier hand, he hasn't been CEO long enough to have a solid golden parachute.

You can see the effects of these motivations in the performance of the companies and showmanship of the CEOs.
 
Last edited:
How does the IRA help the stock price? Tesla can sell up to the production limit of the factories. They will do that with or without the rebate.... (not trying to be sarcastic)

Agreed. Tesla doesn't have to cater to the rebate-inspired buyers until they have production enough to meet existing demand. They are already trying to stem the orders, not increase them.

If, in the mean time, other OEMs are able to increase their sales, that then is moving toward achieving the mission. Yes, even Hybrids are still slightly better than full ICE.

Once factories have ramped to achieve reasonable lead times, Tesla will have plenty of wiggle room in their per unit profits to remain a dominant player. Until then, there is no sense of urgency to tailor their products to meet the IRA criteria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN Mtn Man
Spectators, please stand behind the line marked as a danger zone. The stored energy in the wound spring may release suddenly, resulting in an uncontrolled rise in SP.

Passengers HODLers, place your seat back in the full, upright position and stow all seat trays. Buckle seat belts. Prepare for liftoff.

🚀🌝
I believe I’ve gotten on a completely different ride today.
 
Last edited:
Keeping in mind China is now sourcing crude at massive discounts, as a good chunk of demand from the West now refuses a good chunk of supply from Russia.

If this Iran deal gets signed this week, Putin will have bigger incentive to moderate his stance on sending gas to EU this winter. The NG to crude incentive grows even wider.

This might be an interesting topic for @jhm 's oil thread. A lot is discussed there about the overlap between NG/LNG and crude refining. Perhaps we see far less NG inputs to refined fuels over the next 9 months and that makes up some of the global gap? It's my understanding the overlap is quite large.

Putin is going to sell NG at whatever price maximizes revenue.

Russia is a petro state, you have to remember the Russian government gets something like half of its revenue from oil & gas. Because of the rise in the ruble, which Russian oil production costs are priced in, and that they have to sell their oil at a steep discount, the amount of revenue the Russian government gets from oil has plunged. Last year Russian production costs were estimated to be ~$40/barrel, which was ~₽3,000/barrel. Before Russia invaded, when oil was ~$90/b (₽6,750) Russia was getting ₽3,750 for every barrel of oil it sold. Now Russia has to sell its oil ~$70b, and the ruble has risen to ₽60/$1, meaning the Russian price is ₽4,200, and revenue is now ₽1,200/b… roughly a 2/3rds drop!

Russia has Europe caught in a corner on gas, and the government needs this revenue to fund their war. The sanctions have massively reduced their borrowing ability, so Russia would have to do some or all of the following massively unpopular actions:

-print money
-massive austerity
-large tax increases
-ending domestic fuel subsidies

If the choice is between that or continuing to gouge Europe for as long as they can, well …