Slashdot Mirror

And there we are. He clearly spent the last few days holed up with his lawyers trying to figure out the best way to perfume this pig, but thus far the market doesn't seem thrilled with the story. He basically admits that "funding secured" was just his own spin on a verbal, aspirational conversation with the managing director of the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, and that in fact the fund had not yet committed to the transaction when he tweeted:

Following the August 7th announcement , I have continued to communicate with the Managing Director of the Saudi fund. He has expressed support for proceeding subject to financial and other due diligence and their internal review process for obtaining approvals .

I'm generally a classic butter and salt kind of guy, but the fallout from this could go on long enough that I may throw in an occasional batch of caramel corn for variety. Stay tuned....

Taking Tesla private also means that you don't have to worry about filing those pesky quarterly and annual SEC reports with 20 pages of risk factor discussions tacked on the end at the insistence of the auditors http://ir.tesla.com/node/18946...

If Musk takes the company private, I expect it'll have a more substantial basis than ire at short sellers. Could be a genuine concern about the difficulty of arranging financing against a background of stock market tribulation. (I thought Tesla was gonna be profitable any day now. Why would financing be a concern?)

Anyway, this is beyond my pay grade, but I would point out taking the company private is something one might consider if they expected serious bad news in the near to medium term future.

Yes he confirmed it was because of the shorts: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tak...

The guy is unhinged.

Elon posted a blog about it: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tak...

Looks like a great plan!

Don't know if you have been in the business world, but capital is depreciated over the usable life of the investment.

Accountant speaking here. No capital investments are decidedly NOT always depreciated. In fact most companies prefer to avoid depreciating assets when they can avoid it. (depreciation does not always accurately reflect economic reality) Plus even if you do have a large amount of capex with depreciation attached there often are current period expenses attached to it that are not depreciated. For example if I buy a large press I would depreciate the press but I might not depreciate the cost of the riggers to place it, the upgrades to the electrical system to run it, the training of the labor to operate it, the slow productivity at first while we figure out how to use it, the extra workers hired to operate it, the engineers time to get it working, etc. It's not uncommon to have more costs that aren't capitalized (and thus depreciated) than the ones that are capitalized.

I think you are missing the point - a loss is a loss in Wall Street reported earnings. Special one time stuff is often very well called out.

This isn't special one time stuff for the most part and if you actually read their financial statements you would know that.

Wheeling out a ton of cash now in the build up for something in the future would be a footnote on current earnings.

Have you actually read Tesla's financial statements including the footnotes? They actually talk about issues relating to gross margin which basically are amortization of fixed costs from the assembly line and productivity improvements. They have this new and expensive assembly line which A) isn't running at full speed yet and B) costs a lot to operate no matter how many vehicles they make. Until they can amortize the fixed costs over enough cars per unit time they are going to lose money.

I truly admire this (or any other EM) company's ability to say "look over here, don't look at reality".

You might actually consider figuring out what reality actually is before making judgements about it. Tesla's situation isn't an uncommon one, just more high profile than most.

If you have interest in Tesla (and regardless of how it turns out, it really is the financial story of the decade, with such passion and huge bets on both sides of the aisle - and will be talked about for many decades to come), you should read the quarterly newsletters and join the investor calls. All of this comes from there. Old conference call transcripts are kept public at Seeking Alpha (you can probably find audio of them on YouTube), and you can find the quarterly newsletters here. There won't be another one until three months from now, of course.

The Slashdot summary was a bit off. The actual quote from Tesla is: " We believe that increasing capacity by improving utilization of our existing lines and making selective improvements to address bottlenecks rather than creating entirely new duplicated lines will be the most capital efficient approach. "

It's a forward-looking statement, not a past looking statement. I'm actually surprised that you haven't heard about GA4. The Sprung structure that they built has commonly been called "The Tent" in the media, although that gives a misleading impression; Sprung structures are rated to withstand major earthquakes and have survived category 5 hurricanes, can be fully climate controlled, and are used from the tropics to the high arctic (I definitely recommend going to Sprung's website and reading about them, they're rather cool). Also, a common misnomer is that there's only one; there's actually several at the Tesla factory, this is just the largest.

First off, here's the full post I submitted. It goes into much more detail:

After the release of Tesla's Q2 results and followed by the investor call, Tesla's stock surged around 9% in aftermarket trading today. Among the main drivers: automotive gross margins rose to 21%, Model 3 gross margins turned positive (before the start of sales of AWD and performance variants, which are making up half of all new orders), and the reiteration and reinforcement of guidance for sustainable profitability from Q3 onward. Q3 production rates are expected to be around 4k/wk average while achieving a 6k/wk line speed, and a Model 3 gross margin of 15% is expected (25% is targeted in Q1-Q2). Some lines are on track to reach 10k/wk before the end of the year, but achieving that rate with all lines and suppliers is not anticipated until next year. Sales in Q3 will be boosted as the current delivery backlog clears, while restructuring and severance costs, realized in Q2, will reduce expenses starting in Q3. Cash on hand in Q2 declined from $2,66B to $2,23B; no ZEV credits were claimed during this period. While no longer using a reservation system in the US for first-production orders (retaining it only for less expensive Model 3 variants and overseas orders), new North American first-production orders are making up a large portion of current orders; consequently, no changes are announced for timing of overseas orders. The average selling price is expected to remain high "for several quarters" due to "a richer mix in the initial wave of Model 3 deliveries to Europe and APAC"; the "normalization of the Model 3 average selling price" is anticipated in the second half of 2019, and is not expected to impact gross margins, due to improved production cost efficiency over time.

On the conference call, Musk sounded tired and admitted to getting too little sleep. He apologized twice, but was told by an investor: "Don't let the trolls get you down, but we do like it when you tease the trolls a bit"

Secondly: your Q1 number is wrong. Loss attributed to shareholders in Q1 was 20,8% of revenues, not 17,5%.

But again, companies aren't valued based on past revenue. They're based on the present value of future revenue. A past balance sheet may draw your attention to a company (for good or bad reasons), but it does not substitute for modeling the company's fundamentals. Which includes what margins they'll be getting on sales in upcoming quarters, what production numbers will be in upcoming quarters, etc, as well as properly handling deferred revenue and one-time costs. And as noted above, Q2 was full of them, all of them to the benefit of Q3 and beyond.

If you don't understand why the market is up over 9% after this report, you probably shouldn't be investing in this stock. The numbers in this report make it quite clear that Tesla is highly likely to be profitable in Q3. And this is the result of years of capex, R&D, and a long-hard scaleup slog. You pay, then later you reap the rewards. Not simultaneously.

It's about the same range as the Tesla truck, but given it's an H2 truck, if there are fuel stations, you can refill in about 10-15 minutes, which means long-haul is a potential. The rumored Tesla semi truck will have somewhere around 600 kWh of battery, meaning it would take a supercharger around 5 hours to recharge. That's a big advantage of liquid or gas fuels - near-instant refills. Range on a tank is really much less important when you have to stop every 4-5 hours to refill for 15 minutes, versus stopping every 4-5 hours to recharge for 4-5 hours.

He drive 510km at normal highway speed in Norway in the tyres/wheels that the car comes with. What do you want Rei, what specific set-up do you require for the Rei Certified Efficient Driving Range Test?

You don't have to do "Youtube drive tests" to measure efficiencies. That's what drive cycles are for. Hyundai expects Kona to receive a 250 mile rating in the US. Tesla expects Model 3 SR to receive 220 miles. LR received 310, but RWD was downrated from 334. These are the facts. I'm sorry if you don't like them.

Look at the speedometer

He specifically stated that the average was 120. Regardless of what the speedometer happened to show at some random time.

He was doing the speed limit or slightly above. Most of Europe has the same limit.

1. Nope.
2. You've been acting like that's "fast", "inefficient". When in reality it's below average.

He got 220 miles, which is the same as the similarly priced Model 3 SR gets with efficient driving.

What's your obsession with ignoring formal drivecycle measurements? Guess I have to repeat what I wrote before: "Model 3 LR starts at $44k USD. You're adding PUP and who knows what else in. The "long range" Kona starts at £34,500 in the UK (no US pricing yet). So subtracting 20% VAT and converting to USD, that's $37830. Pricewise, that's slotting in 31% of the way between SR and LR. Range-wise, that's 33% of the way between SR and the nominal LR range of 310 miles, or 26% of the way between SR and the measured LR range of 334 miles."

And your beloved Model 3 also tanks efficiency at higher speeds. That's how drag works

To be more specifically, drag works by CdA. Kona's Cd is reported as 0,29, Model 3's is 0,22. A is not 32% more in Model 3. Do the math.

And the Kona is still showing better efficiency at 120 kph in Bjorn's test.

189 Wh/km / 304Wh/mi is not better than Model 3 at 120 kph / 75mph (on aero wheels and eco tires like the Kona). Not even better than the heavier Model 3 LR, let alone Model 3 SR. 304 Wh/mi at 120kph/75mph is Model S levels of energy consumption, not Model 3.

Since you prefer ancedotes to drivecycles, here you go.

Wheels: unknown. Time of year unknown. Lifetime average: 267 Wh/mi, primarily at 79-83 mph: "Have you set a separate trip meter at 75 mph to see what your wh / mi would be?" "Yep I’ve tested that. Goes down to about 244 Wh/mi.

Wheels: unknown. January in Portland : "75 mph - 303 wh/mile"

Wheels: unknown. Time of year unknown "Similar numbers. Model 3 LR, ~600 miles, 19" wheels, Colorado. 239Wh/mile, majority at 65-75mph."

Wheels unknown: ". In summer, dry road conditions I am able to get 285 miles on a full charge driving 75-80 MPH, or 305 miles if I back it down to 65 MPH." (285 mi = 263 Wh/mi) "going 75 MPH over 200 miles, I lost around 35 miles of rated range" (275mi = 272 Wh/mi) "Long road trip on very hot days: 80 mph with A/C I lost 20% of my range. I have 18" w/Aeros on. I think that's as bad as it could ever get." (258mi = 290 Wh/mi)

Random Model 3s: "All other Wh/mi at hwy speeds (75/80/90) were much higher than in your figure. I've seen 255-300 "

These are just the first hits I get for searching "model 3 Wh/mi 75mph

He drive 510km at normal highway speed in Norway in the tyres/wheels that the car comes with. What do you want Rei, what specific set-up do you require for the Rei Certified Efficient Driving Range Test?

You don't have to do "Youtube drive tests" to measure efficiencies. That's what drive cycles are for. Hyundai expects Kona to receive a 250 mile rating in the US. Tesla expects Model 3 SR to receive 220 miles. LR received 310, but RWD was downrated from 334. These are the facts. I'm sorry if you don't like them.

Look at the speedometer

He specifically stated that the average was 120. Regardless of what the speedometer happened to show at some random time.

He was doing the speed limit or slightly above. Most of Europe has the same limit.

1. Nope.
2. You've been acting like that's "fast", "inefficient". When in reality it's below average.

He got 220 miles, which is the same as the similarly priced Model 3 SR gets with efficient driving.

What's your obsession with ignoring formal drivecycle measurements? Guess I have to repeat what I wrote before: "Model 3 LR starts at $44k USD. You're adding PUP and who knows what else in. The "long range" Kona starts at £34,500 in the UK (no US pricing yet). So subtracting 20% VAT and converting to USD, that's $37830. Pricewise, that's slotting in 31% of the way between SR and LR. Range-wise, that's 33% of the way between SR and the nominal LR range of 310 miles, or 26% of the way between SR and the measured LR range of 334 miles."

And your beloved Model 3 also tanks efficiency at higher speeds. That's how drag works

To be more specifically, drag works by CdA. Kona's Cd is reported as 0,29, Model 3's is 0,22. A is not 32% more in Model 3. Do the math.

And the Kona is still showing better efficiency at 120 kph in Bjorn's test.

189 Wh/km / 304Wh/mi is not better than Model 3 at 120 kph / 75mph (on aero wheels and eco tires like the Kona). Not even better than the heavier Model 3 LR, let alone Model 3 SR. 304 Wh/mi at 120kph/75mph is Model S levels of energy consumption, not Model 3.

Since you prefer ancedotes to drivecycles, here you go.

Wheels: unknown. Time of year unknown. Lifetime average: 267 Wh/mi, primarily at 79-83 mph: "Have you set a separate trip meter at 75 mph to see what your wh / mi would be?" "Yep I’ve tested that. Goes down to about 244 Wh/mi.

Wheels: unknown. January in Portland : "75 mph - 303 wh/mile"

Wheels: unknown. Time of year unknown "Similar numbers. Model 3 LR, ~600 miles, 19" wheels, Colorado. 239Wh/mile, majority at 65-75mph."

Wheels unknown: ". In summer, dry road conditions I am able to get 285 miles on a full charge driving 75-80 MPH, or 305 miles if I back it down to 65 MPH." (285 mi = 263 Wh/mi) "going 75 MPH over 200 miles, I lost around 35 miles of rated range" (275mi = 272 Wh/mi) "Long road trip on very hot days: 80 mph with A/C I lost 20% of my range. I have 18" w/Aeros on. I think that's as bad as it could ever get." (258mi = 290 Wh/mi)

Random Model 3s: "All other Wh/mi at hwy speeds (75/80/90) were much higher than in your figure. I've seen 255-300 "

These are just the first hits I get for searching "model 3 Wh/mi 75mph

Suspect you've seen them and not realized it. A few years ago after I became interested in Tesla, and became familiar with what they looked like, I started to notice them all around Houston, though predominantly in the Galleria area. Now I see them all around town, even in my neck of the woods (Fresno, off highway 6 between Missouri City and Pearland). As of the end of May people around here now regularly see my blue Model 3.

There's no signs for Superchargers along the highways/interstates as there's no need - the car tells you were they are. They're often not visible from the road either, so if you didn't already know they were there you'd drive right past them and be none the wiser. This past weekend I went to San Antonio and Austin. I drove past the Superchargers in Columbus, stopped for dinner and charged in Flatonia, then made it to my friends in San Antonio and plugged into a 120V outlet (slowest charging option, but still gained 50 miles of range overnight). We went up to Austin for Classic Game Fest, then on the way back stopped for dinner in San Marcos and charged. Of the three, the Flatonia location is the only one you'd have had any chance of seeing from the interstate.

Up until now the expectation was you would charge at home, or if traveling then at the place you stayed at (known as Destination Charging). So at the moment most Superchargers are along the roads between cities. As the cars drop in price the need for apartment dwellers to charge becomes a concern, so Tesla's rolling out Urban Superchargers(starting with Chicago and Boston).

"Outselling everyone" is for current sales, which does not cause all the cars sold in previous years to suddenly disappear from the roads. As such it'll take time for the increase in Tesla sales to become visible amongst all the existing vehicles.

If you're interested in seeing the cars and learning more, check out the National Drive Electric Week events that are occurring from September 8-16. The Houston Event is on the 15th from 9:30am -12:30pm at Ikea. So far 17 cars are scheduled to be there, covering 8 different vehicles.

Suspect you've seen them and not realized it. A few years ago after I became interested in Tesla, and became familiar with what they looked like, I started to notice them all around Houston, though predominantly in the Galleria area. Now I see them all around town, even in my neck of the woods (Fresno, off highway 6 between Missouri City and Pearland). As of the end of May people around here now regularly see my blue Model 3.

There's no signs for Superchargers along the highways/interstates as there's no need - the car tells you were they are. They're often not visible from the road either, so if you didn't already know they were there you'd drive right past them and be none the wiser. This past weekend I went to San Antonio and Austin. I drove past the Superchargers in Columbus, stopped for dinner and charged in Flatonia, then made it to my friends in San Antonio and plugged into a 120V outlet (slowest charging option, but still gained 50 miles of range overnight). We went up to Austin for Classic Game Fest, then on the way back stopped for dinner in San Marcos and charged. Of the three, the Flatonia location is the only one you'd have had any chance of seeing from the interstate.

Up until now the expectation was you would charge at home, or if traveling then at the place you stayed at (known as Destination Charging). So at the moment most Superchargers are along the roads between cities. As the cars drop in price the need for apartment dwellers to charge becomes a concern, so Tesla's rolling out Urban Superchargers(starting with Chicago and Boston).

"Outselling everyone" is for current sales, which does not cause all the cars sold in previous years to suddenly disappear from the roads. As such it'll take time for the increase in Tesla sales to become visible amongst all the existing vehicles.

If you're interested in seeing the cars and learning more, check out the National Drive Electric Week events that are occurring from September 8-16. The Houston Event is on the 15th from 9:30am -12:30pm at Ikea. So far 17 cars are scheduled to be there, covering 8 different vehicles.

Long distance towing at highway speed is too much for the currently available Li-on battery packs.

Unsurprisingly Tesla doesn't seem to agree with you on this point. They seem to be working on a pickup which I'm personally quite curious about.

For the Model X, towing 3500 lbs at 60 mph will probably cut your range by 40-60% depending on road condition & weather

Towing doesn't do wonders for the range of ICE powered vehicles either. And frankly I'm not convinced this is a serious issue. There are a considerable number of use cases for towing where even a big hit to range would still be well within the single charge distance of of a Tesla. I'd wager to say that aside from people moving and vacation RV use, most instances of towing are less than 100 miles. And it's not as if the technology doesn't exist to extend the range of an EV. There are fast charge stations in many places. Even if we ignore plug in hybrids you could simply put a ICE on the trailer itself and thereby charge the EV for long trips by turning into a de-facto hybrid when necessary. Best of both worlds. Access to the gasoline refueling stations for long trips but don't have to carry around the ICE when you don't need it which is most of the time.

Deleted from the website, huh? (search "standard battery")
Funny, that (Scroll to "Model 3 specs")

That's the press kit and the Model 3 info page, respectively - the two most prominent places on the website to look for info on the Model 3.

Deleted from the website, huh? (search "standard battery")
Funny, that (Scroll to "Model 3 specs")

That's the press kit and the Model 3 info page, respectively - the two most prominent places on the website to look for info on the Model 3.

maybe you are not looking https://www.tesla.com/findus/l...

Tesla has no dealers, so yeah, it is a lie.

Tesla dealers
Or, are YOU saying that Elon Musk is the liar?

The BMW 340i has an EPA rated city range of 336 miles (16 gallons, 21 MPG), the Tesla Model 3 LR has a range of 310 (according to Tesla.

The BMW 340i can be refueled in under 10 minutes, the Tesla Model 3 takes a bit longer.

Super Cruise is a feature of Cadillac vehicles, not Tesla. I believe the Tesla feature is called Autopilot.

so many lies there.
1) we have a 2013 Tesla (i.e. 5 years old), and we are still at 95% load. Basically the same as what it was at 5K miles. According to others, it will remain above 85% clear until 300K miles. All of that is a little bit longer than 3-5 years.
2) Tesla is already recycling their own batteries.
3) Hydro does not work well without water. And considering that CA is being hit by longer and longer droughts, and many of the reservoirs are still down, means a number of hydrodams are about to no longer work.
4) Energy storage spread around on a macrogrid, makes it possible for utilities to buffer their networks, handle varying demands and supplies, and deal with downtimes on the grids.
5) If CA was smart, they would add a number of nuclear SMRs around the state to provide various capabilities.

> 2) That's an entire year's worth. The concept that they can't become profitable in a year at the current high burn rate - let alone a declining rate - is utter nonsense.

I didn't even notice this in your comment.

No. They had $3.96B in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash on Jan 1. They had $3.22B in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash on Mar 31. During this time they took in $1.78B in debt financing.

http://ir.tesla.com/node/18711...

Not really,

Yes, really. Margins, both GAAP and non-GAAP, continue rising. SG&A remains steady, while volumes keep climbing.

And guess what? SG&A will be falling in Q3 due to the layoffs. And Tesla is transitioning the supercharger network from a subsidy to an entity that pays for its own expansion, something that was too small of an effect to be visible in Q1, will be small but meaningful in Q2, and increasingly huge from Q3 onward. Meanwhile, Tesla Energy (Powerwall, Powerpacks, solar roofing products) are all scheduled to undergo massive growth in Q4 (small in Q3, insignificant in Q2). Tesla for example just announced a Powerpack project nearly an order of magnitude larger than the largest they've ever built.

Yep, I did. Promise: 6000 vehicles a week. Result: 2000 vehicles a week.

You do realize that even if you're dumb enough to view a target of achieving a 6k/wk rate in order to achieve a goal of a 5k/wk rate by the end of the quarter as meaning "we plan to produce 6k per week every week this quarter", the average person is not that stupid, don't you?

I know that some people have waited two years, but that was because they were not building them yet. I placed my order last August and picked it up earlier this month. Yes, a 10-month wait isn't great either but there was a lot of pent-up demand. I waited 5 months for my Porsche and they had been building that model for 4 years before I ordered it.

If you ordered a Model 3 today I don't think you would wait more than six months for it. Still not the instant gratification we are all used to, but when you put it in the context of a car that is almost entirely aluminum with almost zero maintenance, an 8-year warranty on the battery, and very very low operating costs it is worth the wait (IMHO). I'm a little worried that I'm going to get really sick of the vehicle before I can justify getting rid of it for something else. The maintenance is so low on these things that Tesla just has maintenance people driving around in vans to come and "fix" your car rather than have you drive to a shop. Obviously, if there is a catastrophic failure you're going to have to get towed to a shop, but most things (80%) can be done in your driveway.

I wouldn't classify myself as a fanboy, but I know what you mean and they are certainly out there. Everybody wants to think that they are brilliant for buying whatever it is they blew their money on (there is a name for that but it escapes me right now).

Time will tell, but it just seems to me at this stage that a Model 3 is a much better investment in terms of total cost of ownership than, say a 3 series BMW or another quasi-luxury sedan. I think it would still be hard for Tesla to compete with the value of a Japanese sedan like a Camry or something by Hyundai. I think this is why you see the German manufacturers tripping over themselves to electrify their fleet while the Japanese manufacturers are sticking with hybrid tech for now and don't seem in as much of a hurry.

Bottom line: Tesla's current "cheap" and cheerful model is more of a threat to the mid-market segment than the actual "cheap and cheerful" segment. We'll see what happens when the lower-range model comes out, but I think they are going to struggle against something like a Camry.

I guess there is a first for everything. . . "I can’t say for sure, but I would guess it’s currently the only vehicle assembly for a high volume car going on under a tent right now,"

The thing is, there are estimates that the difference in moving parts are 20 vs 10,000!!! Perhaps once EVs take over, all cars will be assembled in tents?

With the Tesla... There's a Supercharger site not far from the BMW dealership... It's just a couple thousand feet off the highway, and there are 8 stations. I can't tell with PlugShare how many of the chargers are occupied

You can view that within the car - Tesla unlocks real-time Supercharger occupancy data on vehicle map. Not sure how accurate it is, just got back from our first road trip in a Tesla and on the way back to Houston the Nacogdoches Supercharger showed 5 of 8 stalls in use, but only one spot was occupied - and it was ICED at that.

When a CEO that has a history of lying, you would have to be a total retard to even begin to thing this is true.

That may be true this time, however, the same thing has been said for every previous technological advance.

You're doing inference from stupid. It's like wisdom of the crowds in reverse: round up all the people who've been gloriously wrong (over and over again) into a small pen, and then go opposite George.

News flash: you can't squeeze a correct prediction out of a teapot of stupid people.

The fall of Rome was predicted many times. These predictions were wrong every time—until it actually happened (only some historians dispute that this did ever happen; it kind of depends on how you choose to view Byzantium). Either way, the heyday years of the Roman empire did, indeed, come to an abrupt end (only historians dispute this too: some claim the end arrived in gradual stages).

One of the rationales floating around before the crash of 2008 was "well, the housing market has never gone done, everywhere, all at once." Until it did.

Let's just look at this from the point of view of sampling bias.

Get a large group of people, have them all make predictions about some future bright line, sort those predictions into time sequence.

Here's something that's guaranteed: if you get to the median prediction without it having come true (yet), half of all of the people can be entirely written off as Chicken Littles, while the other half can not (yet) be written off as Chicken Lates. Interesting asymmetry, isn't it?

False positive, false negative; Chicken Little, Chicken Latte (as in, Nero cozied up to an espresso bar while Rome burned).

And here your are trumpeting navigating through the rear-view mirror as some kind of great, refined wisdom.

———

Last night I was reading Sapiens (2014) by Yuval Noah Harari. I was really looking forward to this book, but to be honest, halfway into the second chapter, I'm pretty bummed out by his cavalier roll-ups. Such an enormous step down after Sapolsky's Behave (2017).

In any case, Sapiens is nothing but a litany of enduring, world-redefining change.

It's one of the main reasons people tend to predict alarming change Real Soon Now: because that's what history is actually made from. (Only people tend to forget that history is denominated on a log scale, while the future is usually denominated on a linear scale, which goes a long way toward accounting for the tragic surplus on the Chicken Little side of the fence; that, and thrill-seeking eschatology boners.)

———

I generally try to root my predictions about the future in the perceptions of people who can successfully translate from a log to a linear scale. Try it sometime. You might discover that No Change Ever is not the Bayesian all-world prior you imagine it to be.

Over the last century or so, the number of borderline unemployable males in Western democracy has gone from about 5% to about 15% due to the relentless inflation in the norms of educational attainment.

But a man could get by without an education, if he had physical competence and a work ethic, because there was always roofing to fall back on.

Power your Home with Beautiful Solar

Made with tempered glass, Solar Roof tiles are more than three times stronger than standard roofing tiles. That's why we offer the best warranty in the industry — the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. Watch our hail test video to see how we take durability to a whole new level.

Society is already failing to manufacture enough meaningful work to employ industrious, boisterous males who don't finish school.

I suspect we're more likely to address this problem in future by changing the broken educational system (broken for those whom it least serves) than by making the demands of the modern workforce less cognitively arduous.

Tesla has debt. Heaping mountains of debt with loads piled on every day. Here it is in black and white: http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling....

No other company will buy them as a distressed entity. They have so much debt that the only option for the company will be bankruptcy court.

And not the warm and fuzzy Chapter 11 route, it will be the chop up the body version, Chapter 7. Soon.

The numbers and relations you claim are way off, which is particularly egregious given that so much of this data is readily available in press releases from Nissan and Tesla.

While Nissan sold a 100 MILLION.

In what time period, or should I say era? According to Nissan's own press report, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance combined sold 10.6 million units in 2017, with Nissan's portion being 5.8 million. Your claim is off by almost a factor of 20! To put how outrageous your claim is in context, the total number of cars produced worldwide, over all companies and excluding commercial vehicles, appears to only be about 73 million! Even including commercial vehicles still falls short of 100 million.

They've sold more Nissan Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars, and the Leaf is just a footnote for Nissan.

In another press release, also from January 2018, Nissan states that they sold their 300,000th Leaf vehicle. Meanwhile, in February 2018, it has been reported that Tesla delivered their 300,000th vehicle. So your claim that Nissan has sold more Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars is certainly debatable. With currently available data from searching the web, it looks like Nissan and Tesla were roughly at parity in Feb. 2018 in terms of electric vehicles sold.

In any recent period, if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million.

That is a bit of disingenuous comparison. Of course Nissan sells more cars than Tesla currently does since Nissan is a much older and larger company and it manufactures more types of vehicles and at many different price levels. Meanwhile, Tesla is a much younger company that so far has mostly catered to the luxury market (though it is starting to push the prices down with its newer Model 3). Nevertheless, your relational claim of "if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million" is way off, again by almost a factor of 20! Per the figure I cited above, Nissan sold 5.8 million vehicles in 2017 while Tesla delivered 101,312 Model S and Model X vehicles in 2017 (note that Tesla also sold a handful of Model 3s in 2017 not included in the 101,312 figure). The correct relation, which is only good for 2017, is that Nissan sold about 57 times as many vehicles as Tesla did, not 1000 times as you claimed. But who cares about comparing total vehicles sold over all types!

The appropriate comparison here is the number of electric passenger cars sold and with that we see a much different perspective. Per the above figures, Tesla and Nissan appear to be at near parity over Tesla's entire production history. But since you said "in any recent period", let's look at more recent, shorter term, data. According to Tesla's press release, they delivered 29,997 Teslas in Q1 2018. By contrast, in the same time period (January through March 2018), Nissan sold 23,989 Leafs. Note that Nissan reports its sales by month, per region, so one has to add up the Leaf sale figures for Japan, Europe, and the US across the January through March 2018 production and sales PDFs, all found here. Point is, in the most recent quarter, Tesla outsold the

The numbers and relations you claim are way off, which is particularly egregious given that so much of this data is readily available in press releases from Nissan and Tesla.

While Nissan sold a 100 MILLION.

In what time period, or should I say era? According to Nissan's own press report, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance combined sold 10.6 million units in 2017, with Nissan's portion being 5.8 million. Your claim is off by almost a factor of 20! To put how outrageous your claim is in context, the total number of cars produced worldwide, over all companies and excluding commercial vehicles, appears to only be about 73 million! Even including commercial vehicles still falls short of 100 million.

They've sold more Nissan Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars, and the Leaf is just a footnote for Nissan.

In another press release, also from January 2018, Nissan states that they sold their 300,000th Leaf vehicle. Meanwhile, in February 2018, it has been reported that Tesla delivered their 300,000th vehicle. So your claim that Nissan has sold more Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars is certainly debatable. With currently available data from searching the web, it looks like Nissan and Tesla were roughly at parity in Feb. 2018 in terms of electric vehicles sold.

In any recent period, if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million.

That is a bit of disingenuous comparison. Of course Nissan sells more cars than Tesla currently does since Nissan is a much older and larger company and it manufactures more types of vehicles and at many different price levels. Meanwhile, Tesla is a much younger company that so far has mostly catered to the luxury market (though it is starting to push the prices down with its newer Model 3). Nevertheless, your relational claim of "if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million" is way off, again by almost a factor of 20! Per the figure I cited above, Nissan sold 5.8 million vehicles in 2017 while Tesla delivered 101,312 Model S and Model X vehicles in 2017 (note that Tesla also sold a handful of Model 3s in 2017 not included in the 101,312 figure). The correct relation, which is only good for 2017, is that Nissan sold about 57 times as many vehicles as Tesla did, not 1000 times as you claimed. But who cares about comparing total vehicles sold over all types!

The appropriate comparison here is the number of electric passenger cars sold and with that we see a much different perspective. Per the above figures, Tesla and Nissan appear to be at near parity over Tesla's entire production history. But since you said "in any recent period", let's look at more recent, shorter term, data. According to Tesla's press release, they delivered 29,997 Teslas in Q1 2018. By contrast, in the same time period (January through March 2018), Nissan sold 23,989 Leafs. Note that Nissan reports its sales by month, per region, so one has to add up the Leaf sale figures for Japan, Europe, and the US across the January through March 2018 production and sales PDFs, all found here. Point is, in the most recent quarter, Tesla outsold the

I want controls you can adjust without looking, and with gloves in the winter.

Do you really need gloves if you can remote-control the interior temp?

When you go to the page: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/au... you are presented with "Full Self driving hardware on All Cars" in large type. You have to scroll down quite a long way before you get to the bit where it says that full self driving is not available yet.

And let's be honest, they don't even know if they really do have enough hardware for full self driving since they are miles away from having it working.

Have you checked their webpage on it, it is literally what it says RIGHT NOW.

Uhm.... no, it doesn't. It talks about a separately purchased "self driving option", which on their web page says, in large font:

Full Self-Driving Capability ... it is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available

Meaning NOT AVAILABLE NOW.

So yes, the page uses the words "self driving capability", but it is crystal clear that it is not ready at the moment nor is it part of the autopilot package. They even price it separately. The entire paragraph about it talks about the future: you "will be able to", etc.

Unless someone has a serious literacy problem, it is perfectly clear they are talking about a future product.

I guess you missed their actual words describing the self driving option:

"in the future, Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat [...] It is not possible to know exactly when it will be available.

I guess you "accidentally" overlooked the words "in the future" there, huh? And, you know, the future tense "will be able to...", rather than "is able to". And the text about not knowing when it will be available.

They might call it autopilot, but on their web site where they describe the feature it says: "Every driver is responsible for remaining alert and active when using Autopilot, and must be prepared to take action at any time." How could anyone possibly interpret that as "I can take a nap while my car drives me home"? https://www.tesla.com/autopilo...

Not that I disbelieve you, but exactly what, if anything, does this autopilot thingee actually do other than warn you occasionally that your hands belong on the wheel? I think I could probably design a keep_your_hands_on_the_wheel_stupid warning system that costs less that $3000 and still have a healthy profit margin.

The material at https://www.tesla.com/autopilo... says " "Automatic Emergency Braking Designed to detect objects that the car may impact and applies the brakes accordingly" But in the fine print, it warns me that some capabilities may not be available -- apparently because my local regulators don't want my car avoiding accidents. And I infer that many of the promised capabilities actually haven't shipped yet.

IMO the key is replacing the roof itself with solar panels

That is what Tesla Solar Roof is. It is a replacement for a normal roof. This is why it makes sense to put solar on new houses. The cost is lower because the "original" roof is never built, and contractors can negotiate lower prices with the panel suppliers.

It is also cheaper for homeowners because the cost of the solar panels is built into the purchase price of the house, and is financed as part of the regular mortgage. So if you have a 5% mortgage, and get a typical 8-12% ROI on your solar panels, then your monthly mortgage+utility payments will be LOWER than if there were no solar panels.

Elon Musk is trying to save humanity. His endgame goal is to use all the money generated by his various companies and invest it in getting us the hell off this planet before we destroy ourselves. Considering politics these days, I hope he hurries up.

I am sorry for being so cynical, but that isn't how it works. If that was really what Musk was doing it would be a con game of the first order and he would need to go to prison. The investors are entitled to answers, and considerable say in how the money they invested in Musk's venture is being managed. This isn't a Bernie Madoff 'trust me' enterprise.

You're sorry all right, because that is precisely how it works. Tesla's public mission statement states in no uncertain terms that it is to "accelerate the advent of sustainable transport by bringing compelling mass market electric cars to market as soon as possible." The company bylaws do not require maximization of profit, nor does the certificate of incorporation. The investors are entitled to answers, and they got them. Musk let them know that he is continuing to follow Tesla Motors' mission, and if they don't like it, they should not buy Tesla stock. They are only entitled to answers which support Tesla's publicly-avowed mission. If they don't want stock in a company whose purpose is to promote EV adoption, then they should not buy stock in that company.

TL;DR: They are entitled to answers, but they are not entitled to the answers they want.

I wouldn't be so confident that investment will become durable first mover advantage for Tesla

Well, I am confident.

Right now, almost all electric cars are great "second cars" suitable for short trips and terrible for long trips. Tesla cars, combined with the Tesla network of Supercharger stations, are okay for long trips. A car that can drive for three to four hours, then recharges in the time it takes you to eat a meal... that's not significantly worse than a gasoline car for long trips.

A Tesla really can be your only car. A Nissan Leaf can be your only car... if you don't mind renting some other car when you want to make a long trip.

So you have all the other electric cars, and Tesla. There really is no substitute, yet. If Tesla can make enough Model 3s, they could have a few million on the road before the Big 3 car makers can really come up with serious competition.

I don't know if Tesla can dominate electric cars forever. However, I am convinced that their worst-case scenario is to become the Apple of car makers, having carved out their own niche and with fanatically loyal customers. Apple can't sell more phones than the Android competitors combined sell, but they still sell plenty of phones and make a solid profit doing it. And Apple sure made a lot of money off their first-mover advantage. (Even though smartphones existed before the iPhone, Apple made the first smartphone that didn't suck, and I claim that Apple got first-mover advantage. Then they did it again with the first tablet that didn't suck, the iPad. The iOS ecosystem remains tremendously profitable even though Android devices now are able to compete.)

So I'm prepared to imagine the Big 3 actually competing with Tesla... but they haven't even started yet. For anyone to really compete with Tesla they are going to have to spend big. GM loses $9000 per Chevy Bolt... maybe if they built their own battery factory, like Tesla did, they could sell Bolts at a profit? But they don't have their own battery factory, which may explain why Elon Musk is really not worried about competition from GM or the others.

And the Tesla network has over 1200 Supercharger stations worldwide, with more being opened. The Big 3 can't just snap their fingers and have an equivalent network overnight. But in the long run, I expect they will build out something comparable to what Tesla already has, and be more able to compete with Tesla. Again, they haven't even started.

Tesla does NOT have the battery operation im-house. He simply has a 'deal' going with Panasonic.

Tell me: who owns this building, and what is manufactured inside this building?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/battery-cell-production-begins-gigafactory

Also, is this a drop in the bucket or can the factory produce a significant number of cells?

https://electrek.co/2017/08/08/tesla-gigafactory-battery-cell-production-elon-musk/

https://electrek.co/2018/01/03/tesla-gigafactory-hiring-effort-battery-production/

I believe it is fair to say that Tesla really does have battery production in-house. It's a significant reason why Tesla can make $10,000 on a Model 3 while GM loses $9,000 on a Chevy Bolt. (Note: making $10K per car will require Tesla to get production rates up, as the major expense is depreciation on the factory, and currently the depreciation expense is spread over 2000 cars per week instead of 5000 cars per week.)

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

This is very different from the way Amazon ran at a loss for a long time. Amazon was building retail sales network in a totally new market. Tesla is just selling cars to the small number of millineals in the 1%.

Tesla is just selling a small number of cars!

Well, and inventing a better battery pack technology than anyone else has.

And building out the best car charging network, period.

And building their own battery factories to get their costs down.

And building out their factories. (A company like GM has spent decades building out its factories, but Tesla is a new company and is building from nothing.)

And investing in R&D to invent profitable new things like the Tesla semi-truck.

Hmm, maybe Tesla is doing more than just selling a small number of cars.

Tesla has never advertised its vehicles as, and I quote from the Mercedes ad, "A self-driving car"

I quote from tesla.com, "Full Self-Driving Capability".

BTW, Rei you said TSLA was accepting money $3k I think you said, for "FSD" which you now admit is vaporware that TSLA has yet to develop?
Isn't that like Apple taking $3k extra for an iphone with a Taser built in?

FYI, https://www.tesla.com/where-yo... Gives a estimate of costs from Tesla, they used to give a mpg slider but took that away, now they compare a 21 MPG car's cost to the Tesla (Compared to a performance car, that is fair.) But for something like a Prius, as long as the savings is less than the cost, a 41 MPG vehicle would be cheaper to fuel.

So for me $.15 for electric, for Gasoline up to $2.35 a gallon, 41 MPG is the same price.

They also say you can only use the SuperCharger for free up to 1000 miles. I don't think that is enforced strictly today though.
At least for now, their maintenance cost is a little more. IE you pay from $500 to $900 a year for maintenance, and if you ever plan to sell your Tesla, you better buy the service plan. A Tesla with maintenance plans look to lose about $10k-15k a year over the first 3 years, while one without will take a $10k hit to the sell price. I do all my own maintenance, so far in 10 years $350 is the most I have spent in a year, average more like $150 (minus tires) a year. But spending over $300 on a gas car in the first 3 years would be excessive even at a dealer.

If you go to https://www.tesla.com/models/design and click the boxes to buy a Tesla Model S, you get to click this box:

Full Self-Driving Capability

This doubles the number of active cameras from four to eight, enabling full self-driving in almost all circumstances, at what we believe will be a probability of safety at least twice as good as the average human driver. The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat. For Superchargers that have automatic charge connection enabled, you will not even need to plug in your vehicle.

All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go. If you don’t say anything, the car will look at your calendar and take you there as the assumed destination or just home if nothing is on the calendar. Your Tesla will figure out the optimal route, navigate urban streets (even without lane markings), manage complex intersections with traffic lights, stop signs and roundabouts, and handle densely packed freeways with cars moving at high speed. When you arrive at your destination, simply step out at the entrance and your car will enter park seek mode, automatically search for a spot and park itself. A tap on your phone summons it back to you.

Please note that Self-Driving functionality is dependent upon extensive software validation and regulatory approval, which may vary widely by jurisdiction. It is not possible to know exactly when each element of the functionality described above will be available, as this is highly dependent on local regulatory approval. Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year.

$44 /mo.

$4,000 after delivery

Requires Enhanced Autopilot

Show me where Tesla has lied about the capabilities of their system. I've never once seen them make the claim that the driver wasn't responsible for watching the road and taking control if the autopilot functions fail for any reason. If the system doesn't kick in early enough the driver should take control. Tesla has been quite unambiguous about this.

OK, here you go:

The text at the beginning of the video at https://www.tesla.com/autopilot states: "THE PERSON IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT IS ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS. HE IS NOT DOING ANYTHING. THE CAR IS DRIVING ITSELF.".

Nothing in that video states that the driver is responsible for anything. He's "ONLY THERE FOR LEGAL REASONS".

And he exits the vehicle whereupon the car parks itself; potentially running over a baby crawling in the road perhaps?

sabri writes:

Auto-pilot is the same thing. It is a driver assistance function, not an autonomous vehicle function.

Tesla however writes:
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

"Full self-driving" sounds an awful lot like an "autonomous vehicle function" as you phrased it.

Do you work for Tesla? Some sort of PR firm?

"Put up or shut up."
Ok!
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot?redirect=no

"All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."

I'm sure that link will be removed soon too, because you can't even get that video from Tesla's own youtube channel anymore, other than reposts.
But hey, go ahead and call me a liar! As if none of these videos ever existed.

Before "people stop thinking about Autopilot as self-driving and start thinking about it as cruise control", as you say, perhaps Tesla ought to describe it as you do instead of the way they describe it:

https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

Full Self-Driving Hardware on All Cars

All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.

Straight from the horses mouth Full AutoPilot
This reminds me of the area of "unlimited" data.
Tesla clearly advertise this as "Full", as in it needs no more AutoPilot to make it drive around on AutoPilot. AutoPilot is done, settled.
I believe they should be forced to say "Semi" AutoPilot. And cut the crap that it's 100% American Beef when sure, the beef that is in there is 100% but dam that other stench makes up the 90% bullcrap.

when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages

It is not AI, it is in fact AutoPilot

Yeah the name autopilot is one of the things that kills me about what they are truly selling. Tesla's cars are at best a level two self driving car, that is hands off only. You have to have eyes on and you have to give continual input to the system. It is adaptive cruse control, lane keeping, and auto parking. It has some guidance from GPS and on-board software, but the production car that you buy is nowhere near this crap. That video is clearly showing a level three car and the car is handling cleared intersections easily, something the current level twos would be suicide if you tried.

The autopilot is anything but. I'm totally pro-self driving cars, but folks need to know what they are buying and not have a hyped up product sold to them and they think it will do something it won't. Tesla cars are a hands off only car, period, the end. You have to keep eyes up, no matter what. Additionally, you need to know the absolute limits of camera/radar combos, that's right Teslas do not have LiDAR. Radar requires a calculation between differences in order to work. If traffic is stopping up ahead and the car in front of you that your Tesla is tracking suddenly pulls out of the lane to expose a car up ahead at a complete stop, your Tesla is going to ram full speed into that stopped car if you don't do something. That's because radar was tracking something and now it's not there. So the machine needs to recalculate everything, which if you're going highway speeds, you're going to end up dead before the car figures it out.

The cars need to see lines on the road. If the lines are iffy, you're going to end up dead. Traffic needs to follow a pace, it doesn't matter if it is start and stop, or if cars gracefully merge in and out of your lane. It just needs to follow a smooth flow to things and you slowly build up a feel for what's gradual enough and what isn't. If you don't pay attention to that, you're going to end up dead. If you are coming up on a change in the road's shape, like where two highways split off and you're in the lane closest to the split, you need to turn off autopilot and handle it yourself. Most of these kinds of things have really crappy indicators on the road that a split is happening and if you don't, you are going to end up like that dude. Dead.

Now if you think that level two automation is a half baked idea, that's cool. It sort of is, which is why everyone is aiming for that holy grail of level five. So perhaps maybe sit the sidelines till we get there? If what you are comparing to is level five, you're right, this shit is beta-level crap on crap. If you're talking about actual level two automation, the Tesla and all the other cars that offer level two are pretty solid. But people need to understand what they are getting themselves into and if that's not what you were expecting, then yeah, you shouldn't buy one. However, I also fault Tesla, since they post up videos like that one I linked and people buy their cars thinking, that's what they are getting which it isn't.