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.
Tesla’s brand value actually up, from 28 to 9 per this article



5DE235D2-7EDC-4869-88AB-491CCC2EF9F6.jpeg



Full report by Brand Finance linked in the article.
 
Option C: I wasn't disputing your math. I totally understand that you were focusing purely on mathematics and weren't trying to bash EV's, and that you were focusing on Supercharging. No worries - I don't view you negatively at all.

I dispute the presupposition that the math is meaningful or useful as a comparative metric: that is the "dead wrong" bit. I reject the equivalency between fueling up time and charging up in any context - even on the road with a Supercharger, which I have done for years, it is fundamentally different. In fact, I should also add that we need to flip the argument that a 4-minute fuel-up is somehow superior on a road trip: it is in fact unhealthy (even without taking into consideration fumes and greasy/packaged gas station food).

I started with at-home charging to point out the principle. You may have missed my 3rd last paragraph (yeah, I talk too much) about Supercharging - I was ending up there. I'll expand:

On my most recent road trip with my son, we decided to see how fast we could go. We arrived at each Supercharger with 3-10% charge remaining, and then only charged up enough to arrive at the next one at that SoC. It worked like a charm. Twice we underestimated excess consumption, so we slowed down from going 10-15 km/h over the speed limit to speed limit, and it was just fine (and still never arrived with less than 3% remaining). This means we're driving for 1.25 - 2 hours between stops. Actually, studies show that we should be taking breaks from sitting every 30 minutes - so any reduction is healthy for us. It also always keeps us charging near the maximum rate - we'd usually leave with less than 40% SoC. Almost all Superchargers were within 1-2 minutes of the Trans-Canada highway.

The problem was, the car tended to be ready sooner than we were - we enjoyed taking quick hikes around the block, or when we were in the mountains, finding a trail nearby. And, of course, when it was time to eat, a restaurant meant we charged up to 100% and we could skip the next Supercharger stop (if we wanted to - we usually ended up stopping for 5 minutes to stretch our legs and chat with other cool humans: another neat thing about SC's). It would take us 3 extra seconds to plug in (just like at home) since most Superchargers are very near restaurants or strip malls/stores (and we plan it out so we don't hit the crappy SCs in Saskatchewan during supper). So whenever we stopped to eat, even to buy a quick takeout lunch, we were saving time vs a gas car (plus getting more exercise - we didn't have to hang around the pump) because we could charge while consuming.

In the end, I spent less time actually driving (because we have early adopter free Supercharging, we didn't worry about wasting electrons going over the speed limit most of the time...), and the total trip was maybe a couple of hours longer - because we were forcing ourselves to take more breaks of 10+ minutes each, we felt more refreshed at the end of a long day of driving, got better rest, and could get earlier starts.

All this to say, I'm not against "facts," but I believe it's important to avoid falling into comparative traps that don't have pragmatic value, and talking about facts in isolation (ie. Supercharging is really a fraction of charging over a car's lifetime).

When people start pushing back about charging time (road trip or otherwise), and I tell them, "It takes me 3 seconds to charge" - they have never failed to stop, do a double-take, and when I explain, they reply, "Huh, I've never thought about it that way before" (because 3 seconds is just as factually correct as saying the hours/minutes for the battery to fill up on its own: it's a big boy, just needs permission). And if they push further, I then talk about how the only time I EVER charge from near-empty to full is on a road trip, and again, because I only do that while eating at a restaurant, the answer is the same: it only takes me 3 seconds, and then I live my life. 🥂

(sorry mods, I'll stop with this topic now. I think the principle of examining pre-suppositions applies to investing as well, but it's becoming a stretch...😊)

I have no problem with your viewpoint that strictly focusing on charging time is not the appropriate metric of value. That's fine.

But to say "Dead wrong" on a point predicated on the math of charge vs. refuel times (when that timing is not in dispute), and then support it by speaking instead to an entirely separate point (a value judgment regarding the best usage of that time), is not how logical reasoned discourse works.

If you want to say, "I think that's focusing on the wrong thing", then sure.

But my point is NOT dead wrong. You can refuel an ICE vehicle faster than you can recharge your Tesla. Full stop. If you want further proof on that, simply look at Tesla's charging page, wherein in states you can gain 200 miles of range in 15 minutes. Compare that to the average car that gets 25MPG. In the 15 minutes it takes a Tesla to gain 200 miles of range, that ICE car (at than half the rate what Wikipedia says gas pumps can do) could pump 75 gallons. That's 1,875 miles worth of gas, provided it had the tank size.

So by all means, make all the points you want about the value of that extra time. I'll likely be in your corner on that., But that's a separate argument.
 
Profitable Investing is not a popularity contest. quite the opposite. All it requires is placing a bigger and heavier bet whenever odds are in your favor and letting it play itself out. so, in practice you could be wrong most of the time but as long as you do not lose your entire capital, all you need is one big bet or a few good bets that turn out in your favor and you make big money. many unsophisticated investors mistake clarity of thought, being inordinately articulate and brilliant presentation of facts/opinions as equivalent to great investing results. not necessarily. great orators can be great investors but it is not a requirement. it can actually be quite hard to find that unique combination. so, listening to influencers in Tesla community may not necessarily be a critical ingredient for good results.
why should anyone listen to what i have to say? they should not. Highly profitable Investing is a relatively lone profession. while TMC is a great place to get timely information and also a good place to learn from experienced investors, it is not a substitute for your own thinking.
as far as blaming anyone else beside yourself for your investment outcome, that is mark of an unsuccessful investor. i would even argue that great investors do not blame even themselves. they accept the outcome of their decisions, learn from them and move on.
Successful Investing is very simple in theory but very hard in practice. less than 1% succeed while 99% fail.
that is all i have to say tonight. good to see TSLA in green. Odds of 2023 being a repeat of 2022 are lower while odds of 2023 similar to 2009 are probably higher.
 
How much would you pay for a Plaid Model 3? You know, 2 carbon-wrapped SRPM motors (no front AC motor). Up to 760 hp (software limited), or 850 hp uncorked (battery limited). Est'd 0-60 mph in 2.9 sec, Quarter mile in 10.3 sec @ 131 mph. Top speed - software limited to max tire speed rating.

Maybe we're seeing a Plaid Model 3 prototype testing on the track at Fremont in this week's video: :D

Tesla Fremont 01/17 | Met God in Wilderness / YouTube - videos


BTW 830 hp in a 4,200 lb car (w. driver) gives a 10.00 sec Qtr-mile at 135 mph (track mode)

So... wood u pay $70Gs? :D
 
Last edited:
How much would you pay for a Plaid Model 3? You know, 2 carbon-wrapped SRPM motors (no front AC motor). Up to 760 hp (software limited), or 850 hp uncorked (battery limited). Est'd 0-60 mph in 2.9 sec, Quarter mile in 10.3 sec @ 131 mph. Top speed - software limited to max tire speed rating.

Maybe we're seeing a Plaid Model 3 prototype testing on the track at Fremont in this week's video: :D

Tesla Fremont 01/17 | Met God in Wilderness / YouTube - videos


BTW 830 hp in a 4,200 lb car (w. driver) gives a 10.00 sec Qtr-mile at 135 mph (track mode)

So... wood u pay $70Gs? :D
Ship it with a 100kwh pack and we can chat.
 
Mod: I just deleted 12 out of about 30 posts, some of them even said "Mod, you can delete...". If you yourself suggest that, well...
My reason is that really all of those posts boiled down to "I won't mention Twitter, I'll just point out that this person on twitter is now fed up with Elon's behavior because of you-know-what." Insufficient excuse. I actually kept some of the more reasoned ones. But I mean it, there will be consequences if people continue this line of discussion. Capische? --ggr

PS: Thanks to those who did actually delete their own postings. You are helping to keep a moderator somewhat sane.
 
Last edited:
Ok, fine. But still doesn't proof the video was fake.
They probably had to do many tryouts before they could shoot a successful completion of the route.

Hey, Fred agrees with me:

As we reported in 2017, Tesla ran a pre-determined route many times over in order for the system to be able to do it once without disengagement for the video.

There’s an argument that the video is indeed “staged” based on that, but the real thing in contention is that the video starts with Tesla saying this:

“The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not doing anything. The car is driving itself.”

I'm not sure why 'staged' is in scare quotes. A video that requires multiple takes to have a car follow a pre-mapped route without driver intervention is unquestionably a staged video. That's not necessarily bad if they presented it as a vision for the future, but the video plainly states that the driver is only there for legal purposes even though the driver was there as a safety measure to take over when the system (frequently) disengaged...

Some think that the comment is inaccurate, but the car is actually driving itself in the video, which is unedited. It’s just that it can’t do it off the lot. Tesla had to custom-build software and maps for it, but the automaker never claimed otherwise.

 
Where does this belief come from? I suspect it’s because historically the car makers *have* been bailed - “too big to fail” is embedded in people’s thinking.

But it was different then, they had a prospect of recovery. I don’t see how bailout attempts can be justified when it’s clearly dead money. Not possible to turn a GM into a Tesla with any size bucket of cash.

GM is taking hostages to increase the chances they get bailed out again. The hostages are going to be the 30 new EV models (announced for 2025!) they will have on the drawing board when bankruptcy is knocking on their door. They will tell us we don't get all their wonderful EV's unless we pay for them by bailing them out again.

I hope it doesn't work.
 
How much would you pay for a Plaid Model 3? You know, 2 carbon-wrapped SRPM motors (no front AC motor). Up to 760 hp (software limited), or 850 hp uncorked (battery limited). Est'd 0-60 mph in 2.9 sec, Quarter mile in 10.3 sec @ 131 mph. Top speed - software limited to max tire speed rating.

Maybe we're seeing a Plaid Model 3 prototype testing on the track at Fremont in this week's video: :D

Tesla Fremont 01/17 | Met God in Wilderness / YouTube - videos


BTW 830 hp in a 4,200 lb car (w. driver) gives a 10.00 sec Qtr-mile at 135 mph (track mode)

So... wood u pay $70Gs? :D
Solves the LR sku problem. Old performance is the new LR, plaid is the new performance.
 
Question: do bankrupt auto companies actually lead to permanent loss of jobs & production in most of their factories? or is it usually a temporary situation as other companies swoop in and gobble up the auto plants for cents on the dollar?

Just thinking that large ICE auto factories in USA, Japan, EU are still probably good assets in terms of the fact they are already built (saving years of design & construction), are operating with all the consents / permits needed for auto production, have some assets that can be reused for EV auto production (paint shops etc).

So maybe GM or Ford etc going bankrupt wont lead to widespread doom as expected in the areas they operate, as new owners will still need workers when they takeover (much like Tesla did in Fremont). Sure it will be gloomy for sure for Ford/GM shareholders - and the UAW - but for the cities they operate in it might actually bring new life into their areas eventually as new owners (EV companies presumably) arrive with actual sustainable businesses.

Or am I being too optimistic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GOVA
Question: do bankrupt auto companies actually lead to permanent loss of jobs & production in most of their factories, or is it usually a temporary situation as other companies swoop in and gobble up the auto plants for cents on the dollar?

Just thinking that large ICE auto factories in USA, Japan, EU are still probably good assets in terms of the fact they are already built (saving years of design & construction), are operating with all the consents / permits needed for auto production, have some assets that can be reused for EV auto production (paint shops etc).

So maybe GM or Ford etc going bankrupt wont lead to widespread doom as expected in the areas they operate, as new owners will still need workers when they takeover (much like Tesla did in Fremont). Sure it will be gloomy for sure for Ford/GM shareholders - and the UAW - but for the cities they operate in it might actually bring new life into their areas eventually as new owners (EV companies presumably) arrive with actual sustainable businesses.

Or am I being too optimistic?
Based on the last financial crisis, many merged to stay Alice. However some divisions are cut. Any money losers are gone, like autonomous programs and sedans and maybe even EVs. EVs currently serves one purpose for legacy auto, which is to act as a pillar of support for the stock. If share price goes down the toilet then we will see a lot of trucks being made and nothing else.
 
Profitable Investing is not a popularity contest. quite the opposite. All it requires is placing a bigger and heavier bet whenever odds are in your favor and letting it play itself out. so, in practice you could be wrong most of the time but as long as you do not lose your entire capital, all you need is one big bet or a few good bets that turn out in your favor and you make big money. many unsophisticated investors mistake clarity of thought, being inordinately articulate and brilliant presentation of facts/opinions as equivalent to great investing results. not necessarily. great orators can be great investors but it is not a requirement. it can actually be quite hard to find that unique combination. so, listening to influencers in Tesla community may not necessarily be a critical ingredient for good results.
why should anyone listen to what i have to say? they should not. Highly profitable Investing is a relatively lone profession. while TMC is a great place to get timely information and also a good place to learn from experienced investors, it is not a substitute for your own thinking.
as far as blaming anyone else beside yourself for your investment outcome, that is mark of an unsuccessful investor. i would even argue that great investors do not blame even themselves. they accept the outcome of their decisions, learn from them and move on.
Successful Investing is very simple in theory but very hard in practice. less than 1% succeed while 99% fail.
that is all i have to say tonight. good to see TSLA in green. Odds of 2023 being a repeat of 2022 are lower while odds of 2023 similar to 2009 are probably higher.

You made very important points there that I agree with.

Listening to influencers in the Tesla community is definitely not a critical ingredient for success. And I like the emphasis on using your own thinking. To that I would add, you need to make sure your thinking is correct. And the best way to do this is to reduce the problem down to things that actually matter and that you actually know are true. Investing well for the long term is primarily a matter of making sure you on the right horse, the horse that can go the distance. And there is a lot of noise around things that have very little to do with that. Tesla is winning because they have a huge advantage in terms of being able to crank out industry leading products at prices no one can match (even if they could make equivalent products).

Remember that businesses are economic machines. Your job is to judge whether that machine is equipped to scale and grow. To my way of thinking, Elon is a big part of that because he has repeatedly demonstrated he knows what he's doing. And I don't find his idiosyncrasies to be troubling at all, they have always been there so I just back that right of the list of things I need to analyze. Analyze the way he is running the business, don't make up scary scenarios where he scares all the customers away, that's just not how things work. It would trouble me if he were no longer leading Tesla because that would likely be too risky for me. I'm not afraid of taking risks but they are definitely a negative that needs to balanced by a reward if I'm going to take it. So, Elon not running the show is a huge risk with no visible upside. Investing requires a certain amount of abstract and reductionistic thinking and very little "if, then" thinking.

And be patient. Growing your capital without taking big chances requires patience and a steady hand.
 
After teaching a phrase "DEMÄÄÄND problem" I'd like to introduce you our next topic: "BRÄÄÄND DÄMAGE".

Please, repeat after me: "BRÄÄÄND! BÄÄÄD!" /s

"Brand Finance is an independent brand valuation and strategy consultancy, and it has helped clients quantify the financial value of their respective brands since 1996. As per the firm’s most recent rankings, Tesla is currently ranked 9th among the World’s Top 25 Most Valuable Brands. For comparison, Tesla was ranked 28th place in last year’s rankings."

 
Solves the LR sku problem. Old performance is the new LR, plaid is the new performance.
I agree 100%

In Belgium, the price difference between LR and PR is too much for the added value.

New M3P: plaid motors, BIGGER brakes, carbon front and rear spoiler (i know, but optics matter) and the M3P will sell like hotwheels 😎
 
Yesterday was a first taste. Today is part deux of the Coup de Grace.

BYD already reacts, XPeng slashed price
s (no luck in the US/Europe),

while Mercedes replaces the head of AMG and TEV (premier group within Benz, consiting of Maybach, GWagon and AMG).

Next heads will roll soon. Where will they start? My guess- BMW design and RnD/Marketing.

Then Audi. The Celestiq- well that´s the emperors new clothes. GM is unable to trim the Detroit fat.


Screenshot Kong.jpg
 
Last edited:
So, Elon not running the show is a huge risk with no visible upside.
Not for me. I have read the Vance book. There is a risk IMO. I invest in Tesla in a big way because I was an electrical millwright many years ago. Electrical motors run critical industrial infrastructure across the world.

The only limiting factor dragging on the total domination of electric motors in all transportation applications is battery technology.

Batteries are on the cusp of determining game over for internal combustion technology in the transportation industry. You could be PeeWee Herman with the right battery technology and be highly successful Electrifying transportation. Elon knows this too hence he is moving on to new challenges.

Elon has done very well with EVs but his big win IMO is really SpaceX where ironically external combustion is the appropriate technology.

Tesla is appropriately named. Electricity is the future as I see it. Tesla is the right bet at the right time. YMMV