Tesla Tops GM by Market Value as Investors See Musk as Future (bloomberg.com)

Tesla became the largest U.S. auto maker by market value on Monday, overtaking General Motors -- a feat that would have seemed highly improbable 13 years ago when the electric-car maker first began tinkering with the idea of making a sports car. From a report: Tesla climbed as much as 3.4 percent in early Monday trading, boosting its market capitalization to about $51 billion. The company was valued at about $1.7 billion more than GM as of 9:35 a.m. in New York. The turnabout shows the extent to which investors have bought into Musk's vision that electric vehicles will eventually rule the road. While GM has beat Tesla to market with a plug-in Chevrolet Bolt with a price and range similar to what Musk has promised for his Model 3 sedan coming later this year, the more than century-old company has failed to match the enthusiasm drummed up by its much smaller and rarely profitable U.S. peer. No matter, say investors who like the stock. Tesla is a technology player with the ability to dominate a market for electric cars and energy storage. To those same investors, GM and Ford are headed for a slowdown in car sales that will erode profits. "Is it fair? No, it isn't fair," Maryann Keller, an auto-industry consultant in Stamford, Connecticut, said of GM ceding the market-cap crown. "Even if Tesla turns a profit, they will eventually have to make enough to justify this valuation."

Comments

Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Kludge]

Large American car companies have been a cluster fuck since the 70s. GM could have dominated this market starting with the EV1 years ago. Idiots.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[DontBeAMoran]

http://www.whokilledtheelectri...

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

Nissan are in danger of missing the boat too. The Leaf is a great car and they have done a lot to get people driving EVs, especially in Europe. The problem is that circumstances have kind of screwed them - Tesla's Model 3 is looking unbeatable right now, so far ahead of anything anyone else can offer it's stunning. That big screen, full self driving if not from day one fairly early in its life, and best of all software updates in an age when most manufacturers can't keep the sat nav up to date.

On top of that they build the Leaf in the UK, and the UK plant's future is uncertain due to Brexit. It seems like they held back with the new model because of these things, hoping to release it with their ProPilot tech which isn't even as good as Telsa's auto-pilot was at release (doesn't work at low/high speeds, can't even change lanes by itself etc.)

Really sad because they could be a big player. They just need to get the next Leaf right but don't appear to have the tech to keep up with Tesla, and when the Model 3 comes along the ~40kWh car with old tech is not going to cut it at the 30k price point.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

134,500 Volts sold,
1,741 Bolts sold
2,958 ELR sold
Spark EV I could only find three year old numbers, at the time it was 2,958 sold.

25,000 model x sold
158,159 Model S sold

Tesla's *total* car sales do marginally outpace GMs electrified cars, but not overwhelmingly so. Also, GM sells a *lot* more cars than the electric vehicles. Note that in a year in the US alone, GM sells over 3 million cars, an order of magnitude more sales than Tesla has had in it's entire existence.

The valuation on Tesla is insane, just like all the 'unicorn' ones, investors obsessed with new and novel behaving irrationally. One could charitably say it's because of hyperloop and such, but I think that's pushing credibility far.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[codealot]

GM and Nissan both struggle to market their electric vehicles. They are building them, sales are sluggish (the Volt is doing okay) and most people know little about them. Dealers aren't prepared to educate consumers.

I think this is a case where they simply don't know what else to do. Musk has won over the mind share by building beautiful cars everyone wants. Nissan built a car that looks like a frog.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's Model 3 is looking unbeatable right now, so far ahead of anything anyone else can offer it's stunning

Well, there is the fact that the Nissan Leaf exists and the Tesla Model 3 does not. I would say that is a pretty big advantage. I can buy a Nissan Leaf today. I cannot buy a Model 3 this year and it's highly unlikely that I will be able to buy one next year. Even if the Model 3 will be as great as Tesla claims, it will have a lot of competition by the time that it will actually be available in significant numbers.

Tesla's Model 3 is looking unbeatable right now, so far ahead of anything anyone else can offer it's stunning. That big screen, full self driving if not from day one fairly early in its life, and best of all software updates in an age when most manufacturers can't keep the sat nav up to date.

The Model 3 will probably never be self-driving. Tesla is very far behind in self-driving technology and it does not have the resources to develop it alone and the reckless way they handled their Autopilot system will make suppliers think twice about self-driving supplying technology to Tesla.

top of that they build the Leaf in the UK, and the UK plant's future is uncertain due to Brexit. It seems like they held back with the new model because of these things

The Leaf is made in three factories around the globe and I doubt they would be holding back a new model because of possible concerns in one of those three factories. At worst, they would delay only the European launch of the new model or move its production to another facility, possibly one owned by their alliance partner Renault.

hoping to release it with their ProPilot tech which isn't even as good as Telsa's auto-pilot was at release (doesn't work at low/high speeds, can't even change lanes by itself etc.)

Nissan seems to be more aware of the fact that lives are at stake when driving assistance systems malfunction and is therefore much more careful than Tesla, who happily dump poorly tested beta software on 2000+kg vehicles used in traffic. I can't say I think Nissan is at fault here.

Really sad because they could be a big player.

They are. The Renault-Nissan Alliance is the market leader in electric vehicles.

They just need to get the next Leaf right but don't appear to have the tech to keep up with Tesla, and when the Model 3 comes along the ~40kWh car with old tech is not going to cut it at the 30k price point.

If Tesla would have some advanced technology hidden somewhere, why would they save it for their cheap model and not use it on their luxury model?

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

Politics are something. Inertia is something as well.

Different people have different reasons for hating on Electric Vehicles. The Petrocar dealerships are threatened because a large part of their revenue stream is based on post-sales service. And the electric car is a hellava lot less prone to the little issues that hit petrocars.

Many Politicians hate Electric Vehicles because tax revenue from petro sales goes down, and those taxes are easier to hide while railing against other taxes. A lot of people have severe inertia issues. "If leaded gas was good enough for Grandpa, it's good enough for me." Anything new is anathema.

And some people are just plain nuts. How are we gonna go "coal rolling in an EV? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Where these insane idiots like to do this when they see an Electric vehicle or hybrid.

It is just going to take time for the normal people, and the actuarial tables for the lunatic fringe to die off - probably via black lung or COPD for the coal rollers - and EVs will take over just like Petrovehicles took over from the horse and buggy.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Guspaz]

The EV1 might have been well loved, but it had many of the same shortcomings of other electric cars of the day which caused electric cars to fail to get any mainstream adoption: poor battery technology (lead acid in the first set of EV1s) and ugly vehicles. It's not a coincidence that the first electric vehicles to find widespread success looked like normal cars and not wierd pod-cars like the EV1.

If GM hadn't killed the EV1, it would have continued on as a niche product.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet Nissan sells more electric cars than Tesla and has been doing so for a while.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

Except Tesla's sales are not that higher than GMs when sticking to elecric vehicles. For GM a lifetime sales of 150k is dismal and hard to justify existance, for Tesla, 150k lifetime sales is roughly their whole sales. Somehow Tesla is viewed as wildly succeeding, despite not moving any more units than the 'pathetic' GM....

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that in a year in the US alone, GM sells over 3 million cars, an order of magnitude more sales than Tesla has had in it's entire existence.

That's true, but the thing is stock valuations are not primarily based on current results. They're based on predicted future results, and people see Tesla as the future, and GM as the past. That gets baked into their stock evaluation.

To some extent it is a self fulfilling prophesy, if it gives a smaller company a much larger R&D war-chest than it would normally have.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of car companies build cars a lot (most) people would want. Delivering them on time, with quality and at a reasonable price are the tough part. Oh, and car buyers tastes change with the wind, plus, you have commercial fleets, police vehicles, standardized parts for service, etc. The idea that Tesla is somehow worth more than a company like GM today is ridiculous.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

GM and Nissan both struggle to market their electric vehicles. They are building them, sales are sluggish (the Volt is doing okay) and most people know little about them. Dealers aren't prepared to educate consumers.

Dealers don't want to sell electric cars. EV's do not have the constant revenue stream that Traditionl vehicles have.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Guspaz]

The Volt and ELR are plug-in hybrids, not EVs: the gasoline engine is still mechanically linked to the drive train. Tesla's valuation is nuts because their revenue is far smaller than GM, not because GM sells almost as many hybrids as Tesla does EVs.

Still, the valuation reflects the market's expectations for future revenue, not current revenue. Tesla is seen as having more potential for revenue growth than GM.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

The Model 3 will have to be judged when it releases. Whether Tesla can really fare better than the traditional automakers when faced with having to support sales of 3 million or cars or more annually is *very* far away. It's much easier to do a lot of these things when you sell on the order of 50k vehicles a year compared to 3 million a year that the likes of GM and Nissan have to deal with.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[DontBeAMoran]

GM is viewed as pathetic because they had their own electric vehicle two decades ago and decided to crush them all despite people wanting to keep them. They had their chance to start the revolution but it got killed from within the company.

The fact that they're making electric vehicles again just seems pathetic and hypocritical.

However, I do wish them luck because electric vehicles or even hybrids are still a better option for most people.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[codealot]

In the luxury market, Model S and X are selling okay. Tesla has managed to deliver enough to rival brands like Cadillac.

Whether their success can translate to the mass market is the $50b question.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[DontBeAMoran]

I wish Nissan would just skip the whole "let's make the car an Internet-connected, entertainment center, self-driving A.I." parts and just make a low-cost electric car with a decent range.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[hey!]

It's really faith in Musk as a visionary, not numbers, that drives this.

If Musk got hit by a bus the market value of the company would evaporate.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[PopeRatzo]

The valuation on Tesla is insane

You held on to your Stanley Steamer stock, didn't you?

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

They manage to outsell a brand that sold 761 cars in all of Europe in 2016? Impressive.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Sperbels]

It seems more like GM wants their piece of the pie if electronic cars take off, but they don't want to influence the market. Prudence, yes. Vision, no.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[guruevi]

Does Nissan or GM sell more electric cars compared to their respective total production and market share?

The Tesla will be hard to get for a long time to come because they haven't yet ramped up production to a Nissan-level. The problem is that no dealer wants to sell the electrics because they lose everything. They're already making minimal margins on the sale of a car, they may get a cut from the bank but they get more income reselling second hand or end-of-leases and the service work.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Archangel Michael]

Its more than that. The Tesla is basically at production limits. Demand is outstripping supply. THAT creates the elusive self fulfilling hype machine with "I have a Tesla on order, but it won't be here for 3 months". You can't beat that kind of viral advertising.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[codealot]

Dealers don't want to sell electric cars. EV's do not have the constant revenue stream that Traditionl vehicles have.

That's only partly true. EVs all need tires, suspension, brakes (rarely). Plus there is steady collision work, though much of that is done by independent shops.

Dealers will solve the revenue problem once they figure out they are marketing a lifestyle, not just a car. Bring on the accessories.

The real problem for the dealers, and the major automakers, is that they have no idea how to break into new markets. They survive through repeat business and stealing each other's customers. They have faced a saturated market for decades.

Still, if enough customers show up in dealers asking for EVs, they will sell them. They will have no choice. This isn't happening today in anything but tiny numbers. I'd love to hear a single story of a dealer who converted a traditional car buyer to electric--I simply don't believe it happens.

(When I bought my Volt I laid a trap for my Chevy dealer. I didn't tell them what car I wanted, instead I described all the features of the Volt without mentioning the electric drivetrain. They never suggested it. Only when I asked "what about the Volt" did the salesman start talking about it.)

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Nutria]

The valuation on Tesla is insane, just like all the 'unicorn' ones, investors obsessed with new and novel behaving irrationally.

Exactly.

Tesla's P/E ratio is... non-existent.
GM's P/E ratio is 5.7 and their dividend yield is 4.46%. GM's If investors had *any* sense, GM's P/E ratio would be 16, which would make it's market cap $141.6B, and Tesla's market cap would be around $10B.

Honestly, obsessing about market cap is *stupid*.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

Of course, the Leaf has outsold them all. There are nearly twice as many Leaf vehicles sold as Tesla.

I don't buy for a second that Tesla has *that* much potential upside.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

The thing that gets me is that already Tesla lags behind Nissan in electric cars sold cumulative *and* ongoing. It's volumes are in line with competing with Maserati, and somehow people don't give FCAU a huge bump because people like Maseratis.

If you want to say it's not about the cars, ok, maybe. I doubt the hyperloop will be a big win, but *maybe* they can be a trusted brand in solar power, which doesn't have household brand names of great strength yet. But at least in the cars (which is what most everyone is talking about), it is crazy over optimistic to say it's more than GM based on vehicles.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

Yeah, that's the other thing, Tesla hasn't shown they can keep up with their current 50k/year volumes that well, and it is a massive undertaking to get to support volumes that would compete with the traditional car companies. Very capital intensive and very ongoing expensive undertaking, and their cars aren't *that* different than what their competitors have on offer already.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Solandri]

You wanna know why GM abandoned the EV1? They developed the EV1 because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated that by 2000, a certain percentage of each auto manufacturer's sales had to be zero-emissions. If an automaker couldn't meet that requirement, either they'd have to buy credits from another automaker, or they'd be locked out of the lucrative California market.

GM built the EV1 (using a lead-acid battery). Ford and Chrysler bet on hydrogen fuel cells, which didn't pan out (still haven't). The Japanese automakers tinkered with EVs, but decided the technology was unfeasible at the time and focused instead on hybrids.

1999 came around and GM was the only company with a car which would meet CARB's emissions-free requirement the next year. GM had invested over a billion dollars developing the EV1, but they stood to make many times that in licensing fees from 2000 and on. Everything was looking rosy for them.

Then the whole thing collapsed. The other automakers convinced CARB that the zero-emissions requirement was technologically unfeasible with year 2000 technology. And that the best they could do at the time were hybrids, which used a battery to improve efficiency, but still got all their energy from the ICE. CARB agreed and rescinded the zero-emissions requirement, instead using a less-stringent low emissions vehicle and ultra-low emissions vehicle requirement (LEV and ULEV).

Basically, CARB pulled the rug out from under GM. They'd coerced GM into investing over a billion dollars in the technology, then on the eve of GM hitting paydirt, CARB changed the rules making it impossible for them to recoup their investment. This is why companies hate government regulations - because unlike real-world physics which remains constant, regulations change based on politicians' whims. You spend a billion dollars trying to comply with an upcoming regulation, then they suddenly change the regulation making all the money you spent irrelevant. CARB even had the unmitigated gall to ask GM to continue selling the EV1 after pulling this double-cross.

Do you understand now why GM recalled all the EV1s and had them destroyed? CARB was trying to get the benefits of the technology developed for the EV1, while denying GM the promised financial payout for developing the technology in the first place. GM wasn't playing that game. If they were going to take a billion dollar bath on the project, there was no way in hell they were going to let CARB derive any benefit from the whole shenanigan.

Tesla is no different. The only reason they made a profit for two quarters, and aren't even further in the red in the other quarters is because they're able to sell carbon credits to automakers who don't meet CARB's zero-emissions requirements. In other words, Tesla's "success" is an artificial regulatory construct. The only difference between Tesla and GM is that CARB stuck with the ZEV requirement this time. If they'd abandoned it at the last minute like they did with GM, you can bet the Musk would've given CARB the middle finger as well and abandoned Tesla.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL, MARKET VALUATION not profits.

FTA: "Even if Tesla turns a profit, they will eventually have to make enough to justify this valuation."

GM posts $9.43B in net profits for 2016 http://www.detroitnews.com/sto...

Tesla NET Income for 2016, $674.9M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Yeah GM is real worried....

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful? The Tesla X looks like a Pontiac Aztek.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[codealot]

The Leaf does fine in winter. Only the drivers who don't know how to precondition their cars are cold and have foggy windows. Once preconditioned, it doesn't have enough battery range to get cold again. 50 miles and you're done until recharged.

The Leaf has two real problems: Not enough range and lack of battery thermal management. The cars in northern, colder states have held up fine. In the south, their batteries become unusable after a few years. Those are pretty big flaws.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[oh_my_080980980]

Musk has sold investors on a vision. He now has to deliver profits. That's the problem for Tesla.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[codealot]

I'm sure you realize this, but Cadillac's main market is North America where they sell ~150k a year.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[oh_my_080980980]

Why? That's where the market is. Gotta understand a business. People are buying SUVs. Stupid move but that's what buyers are doing. Makes little sense to push electric cars where there's a small market.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[brianerst]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Tesla is not just a car company - in fact, I don't think the car company aspect is what's driving valuation.

Tesla is a vertically integrated energy and transportation company - SolarCity to generate electricity, Powerwalls to store it, Teslas that use it plus the most widely used self-driving system on the market (which opens the shipping market). The Gigafactory and the new utility-scale storage business are a lot of what's driving this valuation. The cars were a means to an end.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[oh_my_080980980]

Umm no it does not. GM made NET profits of $9.8 Billion dollars in 2016. Tesla made $675 Million. So no their R&D budget did not expand. Tesla now have to deliver on profits or with will see their stock tank.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[oh_my_080980980]

EXACLTY! No substance to this at all. The fundamentals are not in Tesla's favor.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk has sold investors on a vision. He now has to deliver profits. That's the problem for Tesla.

Spot on, these pie in the sky financial valuations are just that. A ponzi scheme with no substance behind where only the company's ceo and the banks make out like bandits while fucking the rest of the investors. Tesla is a physical company and they sell physical goods (cars) but there is no way in hell the company is worth 50 billion dollars even accounting for potential growth. That's wishful thinking and a dangerous game to play.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

And the electric car is a hellava lot less prone to the little issues that hit petrocars.

Based on what? We really don't have the data that show's EVs will have significantly less 'little issues'. Petro cars in the price range of today's EVs can easily go a couple hundred thousand miles often with minimal problems. We've yet o see how 8 year old mass produced EVs in an economical price range hold up.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nissan built a car that looks like a frog"

Therein lies part of the problem, it seems like the entrenched automotive manufacturers have been trying to sabotage their own EV rollouts for years. Just look at the EV1, people were begging to buy/continue to lease their EV1's, however GM recalled and crushed/disabled them anyways. Perhaps some of the friction can be explained as poor business cases, but building crappy cars and destroying functional ones? It's pretty hard to justify the latter two.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[drinkypoo]

The Leaf is dead. The Hyundai Ioniq is going to put a fork in it. It has the same crappy kind of range, but better driving dynamics and a lower price tag. The Model 3 is the least of Nissan's worries.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's the other thing, Tesla hasn't shown they can keep up with their current 50k/year volumes that well

Uh... I think you'll find they're building a lot more than 50k cars per year right now. Tesla manufactured (and sold) more than 25k cars just in the last quarter. That's double the amount you think they're having trouble keeping up with, and that figure is before they've started any ramping up for Model 3 production.

it is a massive undertaking to get to support volumes that would compete with the traditional car companies. Very capital intensive and very ongoing expensive undertaking

I completely agree with this. It will take them a considerable amount of time before they're at those kinds of volumes, and it won't just be down to needing to ramp up the manufacturing capability. They will also need to ramp up their support and sales infrastructure to match. They may even need to hold back on ramping up manufacturing to allow the rest of their infrastructure to keep up. But they do seem to be aware of this.

and their cars aren't *that* different than what their competitors have on offer already.

Really? If there's one thing that Tesla can claim, it's that they're different. There are a few hints that the competition want to catch up, but right now they're out on their own.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[magarity]

And some people are just plain nuts. How are we gonna go "coal rolling in an EV?

I always thought the diesel Dodge trucks that did that were poorly maintained / poorly manufactured. It would never occur to me that people were dumb enough to do it on purpose. Thanks for making today depressing.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also very legitimate reasons for not wanting an electric vehicle. Over time batteries lose their ability to hold a charge, which leads to a gradual decrease in range. Eventually the batteries will need replacing entirely, and that is incredibly expensive.

An eight year old ICE car is perfectly usable. An eight year old electric car will likely need a fortune spending on it to replace the batteries, which will be more than the car is worth. This gives electric cars a resale value of precisely zero.

With electric cars being new, we haven't started to see these issues yet, but in a few years these problems will start to come out and I suspect many people will be regretting their purchases.

This also brings into question how green an electric car is. The majority of the carbon produced over the life of a car is during the manufacturing stage. If these cars have to be scrapped due to being unsellable, it will mean they're actually less environmentally friendly than traditional gasoline powered cars.

I'm all up for an electric car, but I'm not considering one until the issues with battery lifespan are addresses. That will likely become a pressing issue for electric cars once people start getting hit with huge battery replacement fees.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

The problem for Nissan is that the low cost EV market is saturated with used Leafs. Especially in Europe a lot of people bought them on relatively short term deals, e.g. 2-3 years and then hand the car back.

Especially as a second car in a 2+ car household, a used Leaf is an almost unbeatable buy. Very low maintenance, all the nonsense about batteries lasting 4 years turned out to be utter bollocks (Taxi firms hitting 200k have >90% capacity remaining on 5+ year old cars), and they don't really degrade in performance or develop noises/faults like ICE cars do.

But it means that if Nissan did offer a 10k EV with 200 mile range somehow, it would be competing with a lot of 5k EVs with 100 mile range and relatively little of the usual new car incentives (reliability, warranty etc.)

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

Tesla's advantage is that they are the iPhone of cars. People are willing to put up with beta quality features like auto-pilot until it gets good with a software update. It's not like any other car where if the sat nav is useless you need to return it because there is 0% chance of it ever getting better.

It will be hard for Tesla, but they have a lot of good will on their side and have deliberately made it as different to a traditional car as possible, e.g. with the lack of an instrument cluster and a single large touch screen instead.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[religionofpeas]

The vision is the substance.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[0100010001010011]

That's where the market is.

People were begging GM to keep their EV1s. The market that liked them really liked them. GM said "no" and crushed them.

They could have given the EVs to college campuses and thrown some "prize money" at improving them annually and been way ahead of Tesla by now. Look at what everyone got out of a mere $1M in DARPA prize money (that they didn't even give out the first year).

Caterpillar (sponsors of CMU's Red Team) has self driving dump trucks. Uber came in and poached all of CMU's autonomous grad students & teachers. Pittsburgh is the SV of autonomous vehicles.

GM could have given a budget rounding error to sponsor an EV prize in 1999 and been way ahead of the game by now.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

I really hope you are right. It's not just dealers that need to get with the times though. I was looking at houses recently and very few new builds offer charging facilities, or even the ability to install a charger. They often have a public footpath between the house and the allocated parking space, so you can't trail a cable over it.

I've found dealers to be very mixed when it comes to EVs. Some have almost no interest in them, don't really want to sell you one because they think you might return it or tell people how crap it is or something. Others are just clueless. But some are really good and helpful, it's just that you have to look for them.

I'm not sure about Tesla's model. I hate dealers like everyone else, but I also get massive discounts from them (over 1/3rd on my last car). With Tesla there is no negotiating, so actually their $35k car is probably a lot more expensive than a Nissan $35k car you can actually buy for $25k with a little bit of haggling.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[0100010001010011]

The Leaf does a bit better in winter than a comparable gasser. The battery has a bit of nice heft down low. My wife's leaf with snow tires did great in 3 MI winters.

Re: Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, Tesla's reliability numbers are quite bad (worse than many ICE cars).

Lots of problems with cars are related to suspension, brakes, alignment, etc -- stuff that breaks on electrics too.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

I test drove the Ioniq. It's crap. Really. The "sport" mode is like the Leaf's "Eco" mode. It's uncomfortable, low, lots of gadgets but the instrument cluster is poorly designed. It's particularly bad in an EV because you don't have engine noise for feedback on speed and acceleration, so you need the speedo to be big and clear like it is in the Leaf.

Plus the Ioniq is more expensive than the Leaf (not much on paper, but in terms of actual discounts available from dealers it's huge), and it has the wrong charger for the UK, and it's compromised by being designed as a hybrid option rather than pure EV.

If anything I'd say that the Zoe (in Europe) and Bolt (in the US) are more of a threat to Nissan right now, but the Model 3 is looming large. And the Zoe is Renault-Nissan anyway.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart, innovative companies create new markets where they get a first mover advantage rather than just stagnating along.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Guspaz]

It's kind of an uneven comparison, because the pricepoint of the Leaf and the Model S are so different. It's not unusual for a $35,000 car to outsell a $75,000 car regardless of if they're EVs or not. As you lower the pricepoint, exponentially more people are willing and able to pay that much for the vehicle. A more direct comparison would be to come back in a few years and compare the model 3 to the Leaf, since they're much closer in price. I suspect that Nissan will be shipping the Leaf with a much larger battery by then in order to compete. There is obviously a much larger potential market for the model 3, although I suspect that there will be some consumer pushback to the radical departure in user interface design as compared to a traditional vehicle. I think it was a mistake for Tesla to go all-in on the center touchscreen, resulting in there being no user interface (not even a speedometer) directly in front of the driver.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

People were begging GM to keep their EV1s. The market that liked them really liked them. GM said "no" and crushed them.

People 'saying' they like them doesn't constitute a market. Actual sales and sales demand is what defines the market. People were not lining up to buy those EVs.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was looking at houses recently and very few new builds offer charging facilities, or even the ability to install a charger.

What did you expect? Why would builders include expensive options that only a very small number of customers wants to pay for? If you want to add wiring for a charger, they'll be glad to adjust the price and install it.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[DontBeAMoran]

You could not buy them because GM made a very limited number of them and you could only lease them. GM set themselves up for failure and you're swallowing their lies and repeating them.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've forgotten the minus in front of Tesla's income in 2016.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[thegarbz]

Yet Nissan sells more electric cars than Tesla and has been doing so for a while.

No they don't. They sell more cars with an electric drive train somewhere in the chassis. The Leaf which is Nissans only all electric car with any kind of sales figures is the best selling EV in the world behind the Tesla Model S.

Which is saying something given the insane price and performance differences.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[thegarbz]

EVs all need tires, suspension, brakes (rarely).

Yep EVs need a lot of things that have large equipment costs, small markups, and little labour.

Does not bode well for places which would routinely charge a small fortune for either a fluid check, or worse charge a small fortune for failing to find and fix a problem in an incredibly complicated mechanical system.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[codealot]

Nissan/Renault combined, globally, I think you're correct. The Zoe is the best selling EV in Europe, yet not available outside that market.

Re: Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics. Also Id say a lot of the shareholders in tesla are silicon valleyrs that dont know any better.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Puls4r]

Yep. Eventually we will go all electric - or electric in some form from some kind of energy cell.

But the Tesla valuation is driven by the same idiot investors that continue to drive the .coms and fail to understand reality. Eventually they all come crashing back down to earth for the same reasons.

Ford, GM, Nissan, etc are real manufacturers. They have economy of scale. They have infrastructure. They have a real product that they sell and make money on. But the same gullible lot (mostly younger folks) keep falling into the 'oh that's cool' investing trap. They put money into the 'hot' company without regard for what that company is actually doing. Some are smart and get out before it goes tits-up. Most, though, stay in and lose their cash.

Tesla doesn't make a profit and hasn't. ON top of that, though, they are able to charge a huge premium to the Apple-Style-Fanbois who buy the 'cool' new thing. When Tesla actually has to compete, well.......

Apple is actually in a similar situation. Their product is not special anymore. It's a commodity now. And over time the market will correct to a commondity-style supply and demand, and Apple's price premium will either disappear or drive them out of the market.

This isn't anything surprising or anything earth shaking. It's simply the way things work. Statistics show what happens in every market over time. Can't argue it. It's simple fact. But people want to ignore it, or naive to it. Then they are surprised over and over and over, because frankly they're just stupid.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not entirely artificial, polluters should be paying for the damage they do, really it should happen at the pump but since there its tangible for voters...

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Puls4r]

The only people who view any company as 'pathetic' are the idiots who want to attach emotion to a company. A real company is there to make profits. Tesla is a giant hole that money continues to flow into, even though their 'product' continues to be priced at Boutique prices because of scarcity and apple-esque fanboism.

Those 'pathetic' companies do what they do because it works, and are very risk-adverse for excellent reasons. Sinking money into a vehicle that isn't in high demand isn't an intelligent business decision, even if it's a 'cool' business decision. Yeah Tesla is 'cool'. And not 'pathetic'. They also don't make money even after charging a big premium for their product.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Cyberax]

There are 5 year old Teslas out there. It appears you lose around 15% of the capacity after 150000 miles. It's not too bad compared to a regular car.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[WindBourne]

No, they do not.
Tesla has outsold leaf for some time.
In terms of total sales, they are currently running neck and neck, but that is because Nissan sells the entire world, while Tesla is still pretty confined to America and Europe.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[WindBourne]

actually, in the world, the leaf IS the best selling EV. That is a fact. The interesting part is, that where Tesla sells (other than Japan), they outsell the leaf.

Re: Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Barsteward]

can you post a link to a reputable report to back that claim?

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[WindBourne]

uh no.
The real issue is that all of the money to be made on EVs, is up front. The maintenance costs is SOOO low on an EV that there really will be no money for dealers. Normally, dealers and the OEMs make their REAL money on the maintenance and repair business. In this case, with Tesla about to have a level 5 Autopilot, the number of accidents have already plummeted in Tesla compared to any other car. So again, no real money for them.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Cyberax]

Tesla makes profit on every car. It's just that they are reinvesting everything immediately. Sales of carbon credits are not the main income source for Tesla anymore.

Re: Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an example of the their quality control.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Barsteward]

that battery can be recycled to be used elsewhere like home storage. An 8 year old ICE has the potential to need a new gearbox/engine/shocks/brakes/diff blah blah blah. Guess what, battery prices are dropping all the time........... You should do some real research before spouting off nonsense like the rest of your post.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Nemyst]

As much as I agree that the CARB thing was a huge fuck up (they shouldn't have backed off on it), the problem with saying that it's an "artificial regulatory construct" is that if you remove any and all pollution regulations, the pollution doesn't go away. The manufacturers have been able to benefit from the fact pollution is an external cost for decades. There's exactly one way to ensure that the cost of those emissions factors into their bottom line: regulation. You can't work around that fact.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[rfengr]

I like my base model Leaf because it doesn't have a bunch of tech. The fanciest thing is an LCD display for the radio that functions as a backup camera. No nav system, etc. Just a basic electric car. Sadly I'm probably in the minority as everyone nowadays wan'ts whiz-bang bullshit touchscreens instead of a simple, car.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[rfengr]

Tesla will do well because of the direct sales. No shit-scum car dealers to deal with. My next new one will be Tesla simply so I don't have to deal with the shit-scum.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[WindBourne]

Another link showing how much more S is outselling Leaf.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[rfengr]

Yep. I just bought a used 2015 Leaf (base model with quick charger) @ 19k miles for $8,500. Can't beat that. I love the car and have not pumped gas in 3 months. Plenty of Leafs coming off two year leases. This is a 3rd car in a 2 car household; I now just drive my truck a few miles very other week. In 5 years when my kid can drive it can be hers.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest question... dealers don't deal with them why? Seems I know of states who basically banned Tesla from selling like they do in their states. e.g. Protectionism. As most know, this doesn't work long term and has way more harm long term than just rolling with it.

Is your comment based on one of those states?

(haven't vetted this link, but has basically what I thought)
http://www.ecowatch.com/states-cant-buy-tesla-2278638949.html

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

I think the point is the R&D budget in this case comes from the investors rather than the customers. Which is the whole point of getting investors, to get money to work with before you can get it from customers. You are right in that the investors will revolt if obscene business results are not seen, and I see that as a highly likely outcome.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[will_die]

Go read some the interviews from the lawyers of the people who wanted to keep the cars outside of the movie. They admitted that if something had happened to any of the cars they would of had no problem suing GM no matter the case and papers shown in the movie. Actually looking into reality the movie lied so much about what actually happened and could happen that is should of been labeled fiction.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

The challenge being that there can be no apples to apples comparison. It is not a given that a luxury brand could 'descend' into the general market and anticipate overwhelmingly better success than other markets. If Maserati released a $30k car, it may have no particular advantage over a Honda or similar.

Worse here is there is no evidence that Tesla really knows how to scale up to large volumes even if they do hit success. A lot of businesses have buckled under the weight of their own success because they never could figure out how to grow to a high volume business simply due to the logistical nightmares that come with it.

It's certainly a sufficiently long shot that *already* being more valuable than GM or Ford seems *way* premature.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

With electric cars being new, we haven't started to see these issues yet, but in a few years these problems will start to come out and I suspect many people will be regretting their purchases.

Hybrids have been around for a while and their value is no different of another car. Most hybrid owners can prove a significant cost saving although I still think Hybrids are a joke and have too many moving parts for my liking.

The majority of the carbon produced over the life of a car is during the manufacturing stage.

Reference please. Sounds like an urban myth I've heard too many times. Having been in the car industry long enough, the number that was used was 3 years for average driving (20,000 km or 12500 miles) per year for a total of (60,000km or 37500 miles). Those numbers are far from your claim. Additionally an electric car should have a lower carbon footprint since they are far less heavy components.

If these cars have to be scrapped due to being unsellable, it will mean they're actually less environmentally friendly than traditional gasoline powered cars.

Less environmentally friendly? Have you been to a scrap yard recently? What about your local parking lot? Have you been to your landfill recently? The average car requires 5L of oil every 8000km. After 8 years, most of them are tripling their oil consumption and many of them leak on the ground. I haven't even started talking about coolant and transmission oil.

Additionally it's very desirable and beneficial to rewind electric motors. It's cheap and easy to do (with the right expertise). Combustion engine on the other hand require tones of expertise, equipment and are labour intense to rebuild.

I'm all up for an electric car, but I'm not considering one until the issues with battery lifespan are addresses

Although lifespan is still a concern, it is much less than you think. Stats collected to day show that the average battery degradation in the first 5 years is about 5%. It is however up to 15-30% at 8 years. The average car (gasoline engine) remains on the road 9-11 years (depending on the type of vehicle). Top that off with the decreasing cost of batteries and the increased effectiveness and you're starting to look at a great future for these cars.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

That's a better argument, that essentially Tesla is positioned to be more like GE or Honeywell than an automotive company. Then maybe the valuation isn't *as* crazy, since they are still well behind honeywell valuation, with less scale and proven, but more recognizable brand in the home market (though I still think there's a whole lot of uncertainty in play). But all these articles comparing the stock to Ford and GM don't seem to align with that sort of argument.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Jeremi]

To be fair, the reason GM only leased the vehicles was likely the same reason you can only lease a Fuel Cell-powered car today -- because if they were going to sell them, they'd either have to sell them at a big loss, or price them so high that nobody would buy one. Neither is a good option. It's a dilemma you face when the technology you're trying to sell costs you more to build than people are willing to pay you for it.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

But they do seem to be aware of this.

Being aware is one thing, being *able* to do something is quite another. We won't know until they try. Some very well resourced companies have failed when it came to trying to figure out large scale manufacturing of even consumer electronics, especially not automotive manufacturing.

Really? If there's one thing that Tesla can claim, it's that they're different.

The main unique thing not done even by premium brands they've done is eschew hard buttons in favor of touch screen, and their competition did that years ago and went back to real buttons for common features when that turned out to be a fiasco for driving. They call their smart cruise control autopilot and sometimes kind of pretend it is a fully autonomous system, but really it competes with less outrageously aggressively marketed smart cruise control systems from the competition. People hold their service in high regard, but other similar low volume premium brands similarly extend that sort of service.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

the lack of an instrument cluster and a single large touch screen instead.

The thing here is that a lot of companies did the same thing in the late 2000s, and then went back because of the massive complaints associated with trying to operate such systems while driving, where you want to navigate by touch rather than look.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[taiwanjohn]

Yep. Eventually we will go all electric - or electric in some form from some kind of energy cell.

The adoption of EVs may go faster than most of us expect. I recommend folks take a look at Clean Disruption by Tony Seba. (Watch his lecture here if you prefer video.) He begins with a photo of 5th Avenue in NYC, Easter Sunday, 1900. The street is packed with horse drawn vehicles, but there is one "horseless carriage" visible (if you squint really hard). Next he shows a photo of the same spot, same day, in 1913. The street is packed with Model-T Fords, with only one horse visible (if you squint even harder).

Then he shows some data on the falling price of battery storage, solar PV panels, computing power, etc., and predicts where these secular trends will lead in the next several years. Though the book was published in 2014, his prediction that mid-range, "affordale" EVs ($35k) would come to market around 2017-18 has already come true, ahead of schedule. He then predicts that low-range ($20k) EVs will become available by 2022. At that point, there is no economic reason to buy a gasoline car. (EVs are a fraction of the cost per mile, and their "regular maintenance" is little more than fresh tires and wiper blades.)

In a nutshell, he says the current energy and transportation system will be obsolete by 2030.

Tesla doesn't make a profit and hasn't.

Tesla earns a 25% markup on every car they sell. The only reason they don't "make a profit" is because they reinvest all that revenue into new infrastructure. When CNBC talking heads whine about Tesla not posting profits, what they really mean is that Tesla is not paying dividends yet.

Well, boo-hoo... If you want a stock that pays good dividends, there are plenty on the market. Go buy some. If you want to make a long-term investment in the future, and are not looking for a quick ROI, then Tesla makes more sense.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Eloking]

Nissan are in danger of missing the boat too. The Leaf is a great car and they have done a lot to get people driving EVs, especially in Europe. The problem is that circumstances have kind of screwed them - Tesla's Model 3 is looking unbeatable right now, so far ahead of anything anyone else can offer it's stunning. That big screen, full self driving if not from day one fairly early in its life, and best of all software updates in an age when most manufacturers can't keep the sat nav up to date.

I honestly disagree and here's the main reason why :

https://fsmedia.imgix.net/49/6...

Elon Musk stated that it was temporary, but for now this is what the design look like. I personally hate that "stripped down" inside, there's literally nothing except that "computer screen"

On the other end, ever heard of the Chevrolet Bolt? (Not the Volt)

It's specs and price are similar to the Tesla Model 3. And here's what the inside of the Bolt look like :

http://insideevs.com/wp-conten...

So yeah, I disagree about the Tesla Model 3 being "unbeatable".

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Mike Van Pelt]

I'm on a techie mailing list which includes someone who has a deeper knowledge of the EV1 issues than appears in a tendentious "documentary".

GM was betting on rapid improvement of batteries. By the time they'd have to replace the batteries in a couple of years, they'd have better/cheaper/more powerful batteries. By only leasing the EV1, not selling them, they guaranteed that the batteries would actually get replaced, and not have to rely on everyone paying attention to recall notices, because everyone does not.

The improvements, alas, didn't come in time.

There was a little issue with the batteries, especially as they aged, having a tendency to what he referred to euphemistically as "thermal excursions". Maybe not Samsung Note 7 level, but still, a hazard.

That meant legal liability, increasing as the batteries aged, and the risk of those "thermal excursions" rose. When California dropped the electric vehicle requirement, GM didn't need to take that risk any more.

Yeah, the fans of the EV1 (which were many, it was by most accounts a really nice car) didn't want to give them up, but "leased", not "owned". The legal liability issue was the killer. It could be shown that GM *knew* the batteries had potential issues as they aged, because they did. The owners of the cars could promise not to sue, they could sign a stack of liability releases and disclaimers and knowledge of the risks that weighed more than the cars, and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference in the legal liability to GM. Courts and juries have over and over and over again proved that no release of liability, no matter how strongly worded, or how much the person taking the risk wants it, has any force in the face of some poor pitiful victim of a tragic event wailing in court about the horrible, mean, nasty corporation who sold them the dangerous object, even though their signature is next to every paragraph spelling out each and every hazard, and saying that they swear on a stack of Bibles that they completely understand and accept the risk, and absolve the company of any liability.

I'm not anti electric car. I drive a Prius, and for my next car, I'm seriously considering a Tesla or Volt. But the EV1 issues was far from just the "Evil corporation destroys a non-polluting car because they make money polluting" crap from an exceptionally bad "Captain Planet" episode that's usually presented.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Mike Van Pelt]

... and best of all software updates in an age when most manufacturers can't keep the sat nav up to date.

Bingo. Toyota charges for for one (1) map update than the cost of two (2) brand new Garmin or Tom-Tom GPS units with included lifetime map updates. That has soured me on built-in car nav systems. Google Maps is better anyway, with its real-time routing around traffic jams. If I'm going somewhere likely to not have cell service, I can just download today's offline map.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful? The Tesla X looks like a Pontiac Aztek.

oh, come on... the Model X is fugly... but it's not that bad.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Gavagai80]

Keep in mind that even if every new car sold in 2022 is electric, I'll still be driving my 1998 car and there will be no economic case for me to buy a 2022 car.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It's hard to imagine self driving, big screen or software updates as bonuses. I read that as false security leading to crashes, built in unupgradable tablet, and risk that bad/malicious/government required updates will brick your car.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Mike Van Pelt]

Heh... I'd never heard of "coal rolling" before. Yeah, it's stupid to modify an engine to do that, and ought to be illegal.

My (unmodified) old 1986 Volvo Turbo Diesel did a pretty good job of "coal rolling" if I punched it and wound up the turbocharger. I didn't to that to tick off Prius drivers (I replaced it with a Prius when Diesel hit $5/gallon back in 2008); I'd only do it with malicious intent when some tailgater started riding my bumper. Made them back way off. I don't think "that kind of Diesel engine" is legal any more. Not on new cars, anyway.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[BiggerIsBetter]

Yes and no. Looking at the investment selfishly, then sure, if punters don't get a return within some time-frame then he must have failed to deliver and the company deserves to collapse.

My take is that he's changed the automotive landscape for the better, made a massive contribution to the helping the environment, and also to improving vehicle safety. Looking at it holistically I reckon he's already delivered. Some people invest to line their pockets, while others invest to make good things happen.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[MattskEE]

This has an interesting mirror in the Xerox Corporation. The invented the "xerographic" copier machine which was superior to other copying methods at the time like the mimeograph. Their first machine, the Model A had lots of problems and they initially lost money. But it was still a superior technology, and they learned more from releasing a product than they would by staying in the lab. Their subsequent products improved and they rapidly grew, were highly profitable, and basically developed a monopoly position because nobody could compete with them at that early stage. They created the xerographic copier market by inventing, perfecting, and selling the first commercial copier of this type.

Then they invented and reduced to practice many of the underpinnings of personal computing at their Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). But they had grown fat with bureaucracy and didn't want to enter an unestablished market because they couldn't forecast high revenues since there was no market for personal computing at the time and hence no revenue. They had forgotten their roots as a technology disruptor and market creator!

GM had an opportunity to develop an early lead in EV's and establish themselves as a market leader and disruptor. Whether they really could have done it at the time is unsure - but we'll never know for sure because they weren't committed to the idea.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[St.Creed]

Hybrids have been around for a while and their value is no different of another car. Most hybrid owners can prove a significant cost saving although I still think Hybrids are a joke and have too many moving parts for my liking.

I drive a Prius. Most reliable car I've ever had. Also the one with the best average gas mileage. Well, that is compared to the two Mercedes cars (diesel) and a Nissan Primera 2.0L (gasoline) I had before. And while that is anecdotal evidence, I based my purchase on the breakdown statistics of Germany's largest auto organization. They seem to have the same idea about Toyota as I do.

Not every hybrid is great, but you can't really go very wrong with a Toyota, even if it is a hybrid.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[taiwanjohn]

True. But another of Seba's points is that self-driving tech, combined with ride-sharing apps (like Uber) will make vehicle ownership itself obsolete (or at least 'moribund') by the mid-20s. The overall point is that technology revolutions don't happen incrementally, they follow an "S-curve" of exponential adoption.

Of course, in some situations, it will always make sense to own a car (eg: rural areas), but even then, there will be economic incentives to switch from gasoline to electric, both for maintenance and fuel cost per mile. At that point, it's just a matter of how "emotionally attached" you are to your 20-year-old gas guzzler... especially if oil prices go up again by that time, which is not a particularly unlikely scenario.

Meanwhile, the price of solar just keeps dropping. And the installed 'base' of solar capacity has doubled every two years since the 90s. I don't know what percentage of the world's energy demand is met by solar, but let's just say it's 1%.... how many more "doublings" will it take for solar to dominate the market? As any hacker can tell you, 2 to the 7th power is 128... which means that (if the current trend continues) solar PV will be the dominant player in the energy market by 2030 at the latest.

BTW, Seba puts the tipping point at 2025, when all new vehicles on the market will be electric. It will be interesting to see how that prediction plays out.

Re: Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Market predicts it does not react.

You react

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[taiwanjohn]

Indeed, Elon talked about building-out customer support infrastructure in the recent quarterly "investor call." This is one of the reasons why they won't be paying any stock dividends in the foreseeable future.They need those revenues to build-out the infrastructure you describe.

My point is, they seem to be aware of the challenges you raise, and are devoting significant resources toward meeting them.

PS: I like your .sig.. it looks vaguely familiar. ;-)

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diffusion

The electric drive train generally has lower service and maintenance costs, better fuel economy and lower taxes compared to ICEV, but a significantly higher purchase price.

This is one study- there are more. It's known that maintenance costs will be lower because there are fewer systems requiring maintenance and you don't need things like regular oil changes.

It's more of a calculation of fuel costs and purchase price.

With fuel at $4 per gallon, an electric car can save you $1500 per year on fuel costs. So after 10 years, that's $15,000 dollars. With fuel higher- the savings are greater, with fuel lower- the savings are less. Fuel prices in the U.S. are likely to remain low for another 6-8 years based on our previous oil price spikes but... electric cars could go a long way in extending the duration of the price slump by killing the marginal price of fuel.

Maintenance is probably going to be on the order of about $500 per year, so that's about $5,000 (inflation adjusted 2017 dollars) over 10 years.

A larger question which isn't known yet is how well these cars will hold resale value. Given current prices for electric cars, that could swamp the fuel and maintenance savings. Or it might be a non-factor.

If the price for an electric car is similar to the ICE car (say due to price subsidies or new lower costs of production) then the electric car seems like a no brainer to me for people who mostly travel in the city. As the electric fueling stations are built out tho, they'll be more suitable for casual long distance travel.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

Heh, I probably should change my sig one of these days. I don't feel like there's so much asinine use of XML as there used to be.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[taiwanjohn]

Ditto. Just curious though... are you the originator of it? I copied it from an AC comment around 2000 or so. He (or she) could have gotten it from you.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Enigma2175]

GM's If investors had *any* sense, GM's P/E ratio would be 16

Maybe they are worried that GM will undergo another "restructuring" like the last one, where the current stock of the company is rendered worthless and the executives sell the assets of the company to a "new" company. The execs made plenty of money but the stockholders lost everything and the taxpayers lost around $12 billion.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Junta]

I'm pretty sure I'm not the original, no idea where it came from, around 2000 would fit the height of the overuse of XML age.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Nutria]

Why aren't they worried about Tesla's *abysmal* fundamentals?

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[soft_guy]

Two quick things. There are some improvements to lithium ion batteries that are coming which should reduce or eliminate the loss of capacity over time. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/... Second is that the cost of Lithium Ion batteries goes down over time. Its going down a bit faster because of the Gigafactory. The battery in my LEAF would cost $5K to replace today, but I'm betting that it will cost $3K to replace by the time I need to replace it.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that not everybody is a broke-ass Luddite. For every electric car you don't buy, other people will buy a hundred million.

Re: Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seconded!

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many Politicians hate Electric Vehicles because tax revenue from petro sales goes down, and those taxes are easier to hide while railing against other taxes. A lot of people have severe inertia issues. "If leaded gas was good enough for Grandpa, it's good enough for me." Anything new is anathema.

This is probably exactly why GM will lose in the long run, and is probably why Tesla may be rightfully valued higher: The dealer cartel basically owns GM, and it's somewhat proven that they really don't like electric cars. But electric cars may be the only future, and not for environmental reasons, but because there are speed limits everywhere and so the only way a car can get better for consumers from a practical perspective is by accelerating faster. Petrol cars are basically at their limit in this department, and electric cars won't hit any limits until they can accelerate fast enough to be hazardous to the health of the driver in terms of g-forces.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Henry Keultjes predicts that Tesla will never make a car that the average American can afford $8000 or even one that sells for twice as much, without subsidies, of course.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[im_thatoneguy]

Tesla wants to sell its self-driving car tech to other car companies. At let's say $2.5k profit per vehicle if they could up-sell 10% of new cars that would $5B/profit a year.

There are a lot of other non-obvious ways Tesla is poised to potentially make its market cap downright sensible. For instance if Tesla owners started Ubering out their self driving cars in 2-3 years and Uber took a 33% cut of every dollar Tesla-Uber revenue they would be making billions. That's already worth $50B.

Eventually solar roofs will be a no-brainer cost/benefit choice for most of the country. That's a multi-billion dollar industry.

You have to view Tesla as a tech company with growth potential outside of folded metal. If you added up the market valuation of MobilEye ($15B), Uber ($51B) and a conservative Tesla Cars ($5B) you're already well in excess of their $50B valuation.

Meanwhile GM almost went bankrupt already once within the last 10 years. What are the odds they won't go bankrupt again in the next 10? Best case scenario GM is worth $10B/year for the next 10 years (probably less profit). Worst case scenario you're wiped out in bankruptcy. Best case scenario for Tesla they are cranking out $10B in profit a year (they already have 5x increase in reservations for next year than this last years' sales so that's a good trajectory), selling another $10B in self driving car tech to Ford and Nissan and Honda and Chevy, selling $5B/year in self-driving car rides, capturing 20% of the $144B independent semi-truck driving business with a fleet of self driving electric trucks... the list goes on and on. Or they like GM also go bankrupt.

The upside to Tesla is massive. The risk of losing it all is probably higher in my opinion for GM. Their last CEO went on the record calling Tesla a scam. Anyone who thinks Tesla is just a cash -> steel and wheels business doesn't get why they are valued what they are.

Microsoft used to be microscopic compared to IBM as well...

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh? The reason they won't be paying dividends for the forseeable future is because they've never made a profit and don't have any timeline for doing so.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure where your Bolt sales numbers come from, totals are apparently ~4000 - http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm...

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 5 year old Teslas out there. It appears you lose around 15% of the capacity after 150000 miles. It's not too bad compared to a regular car.

That's terrible compared to a real car.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dealers don't like selling EVs or even hybrids because they don't make them money.

I being driving hybrids for 15+ years now. Today I drive a Volt (went to buy a Tesla 3 on "reserve day"... but didn't like the idea of waiting 2+ years to get it.). During the 15 years of hybrid (now EV), I only had 1 instance of needing repairs (outside of recalls)

In other words, EVs and hybrids require so little maintenance, dealers don't make money with them.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but that means it's essentially not a competitive product. It only does well in a very specific market that is defined in a large part by regulations that differ from the rest of the world and preferences rarely found elsewhere.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 5 year old Teslas out there.

Damned few.

It appears you lose around 15% of the capacity after 150000 miles.

Great, my 10 year old Volvo is still getting the same gas mileage it got when I drove it off the lot, and I haven't lost 15% of my fuel tank capacity in the 165k miles I've driven it.

It's not too bad compared to a regular car.

Boy, Tesla should use that as their marketing slogan: "Introducing the Tesla Model 3 - it's not too bad, compared to a regular car."

You remind me of a project manager in a previous job, who chimed in with this gem to justify a 2-year-long project that was failing, but nobody wanted to admit it: "Well, the original project charter said we couldn't make the defect rate *worse* than the system it's replacing. If we can make it to that point, we can call the project a success!"

If the best you can say for your newfangled technology is that it's "not too bad" compared to the existing tech, you have FAILED.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla earns a 25% markup on every car they sell.

And they spend 33% of the costof every car they sell on operational & capital expenses - which means they are running at a loss.

The only reason they don't "make a profit" is because they reinvest all that revenue into new infrastructure.

Because if they fail to reinvest all of their money into research & infrastructure, they would lose any hope they ever have of becoming profitable. The only reason they don't "make a profit" is because they are not earning more in revenues than they are spending out in expenses. This is simple math: if (expenses > revenues), then "not profitable".

When CNBC talking heads whine about Tesla not posting profits, what they really mean is that Tesla is not paying dividends yet.

No, they mean that they are not taking in more money than they are spending on operational and capital expenses - the very definition of "not profitable." Plenty of companies are profitable, yet post no dividends (or don't pay all of their profits out in dividends) - they're called growth stocks, because they are bought with the expectation that the company, and the business, will grow - making your stock share worth more over time, without necessarily earning you a per-share dividend payout.

It is ENTIRELY fair to say that Tesla is not profitable yet. It is entirely reasonable for them to NOT be profitable - yet. But at some point, they must show that they can operate their business at (or better than) a break-even point, because no investor will continue plowing money into a failing enterprise with no clear path to profitability. The ways they achieve that profitability are myriad - reducing operating expenses by scaling up production, selling higher volumes more efficiently, finding cheaper ways to produce their tech, etc. etc. But it is a legitimate criticism of Tesla to say that they are not profitable, and it's legitimate to argue that their path to profitability is murky and unclear. Musk promised profitability in 2016, and then reversed that promise. They're still promising profitability "sometime", but if Musk is having to write emails to his employees saying "Let's find a way to stick it to those naysayers," then that's pretty much a clear sign that he's saying, "I'm out of ideas - if somebody else has any thoughts on how we can get this shit profitable, let me know, kkthxbye."

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 5 year old Teslas out there.

Many of which have had their complete drivetrains replaced.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Detroit, work in the auto industry and love electric vehicles. This is such a good comment. I didn't actually know this stuff. So, it was actually CARB who killed the electric car. In fact, they probably set the electric car BACK by creating massive uncertainty. Wow. GG, California.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[randallman]

The Roadster came out in 2008, so there are 9 year old Teslas out there. Check out ebay.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[randallman]

Pie in the sky? The energy market alone has enough potential to dwarf the auto market. Grid storage is inevitable. Renewable energy is inevitable.
  There are other competitors in this market, but few, if any, are as aggressive as Tesla. Tesla is hell bent on prodding the transformation to renewable energy and electric cars. Who else in the industry does this? Nobody.

The shift in the energy and auto industry are probably the biggest technological and economic shifts happening in the world today. And Tesla is all in on both. If EVs fail in the market, so will Tesla. But that's what people (myself included) love about them. They're throwing everything in on electric cars and renewable energy, while most everybody else takes a wait and see approach.

Ponzi Scheme? That's just ignorant or insulting.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EV1 drivers did not own the cars. It was lease. GM had full control. In sue happpy America no way GM was not going recycle. Electric cars cannot compete without gov sudsidies in all the forms. I would like to see modern grid with smalller and many more nuke plants and fast charging and 400 mi range. Then it would be competitive.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[randallman]

Tesla sold more Model S, a $100k car than GM did a $40k car. That's freaking amazing.

It's ridiculous to compare GM current sales to Tesla current sales. Tesla sells 2 very expensive models. The question is what's the Model 3 going to do? And if the Model 3 does well, will Tesla create additional models to cover other segments? If GM decides to get serious and not outsource their EVs to LG, how long will it take them to make the capital investments necessary to scale up? Where will they obtain batteries should demand for EVs go mainstream?

Then there is the energy market, possibly larger than the automotive market. Nobody's got a crystal ball, but if Tesla is right about the EV market AND the energy market then their current valuation will look cheap in 5 years.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[david_thornley]

Houses are long-lived and therefore frequently obsolescent in parts. Mine was built in 1892. The bathrooms were added later, extending the existing foundation. It was presumably built with gas light (it's still got lots of the pipes), so the electricity was added later, back when the only use you'd have for it in a living area was to power a few lamps. Now, a few people are buying electric cars that need chargers backed up by more wattage, and it will be a while before garages are normally built with that amount of power coming in. Once that becomes common, the chargers will doubtless change in some way, and the wiring will no longer be optimum..

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[ebvwfbw]

Idiots indeed. Remember when Rick Wagner was fired by President Obama? After all, it's not just anyone that manages to get fired by a President. That takes a special kind of an idiot.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

There are also very legitimate reasons for not wanting an electric vehicle. Over time batteries lose their ability to hold a charge, which leads to a gradual decrease in range. Eventually the batteries will need replacing entirely, and that is incredibly expensive.

Something tells me you have never replaced the engine in an internal combustion car/ I had a 90's Chevy van with the 6 cylinder engine. powerful, but short lived. Replaced it twice, and the third time, got rid of it. 4 Kilobucks each time.

One of the biggest mistakes EV disparagers make is assuming that internal combustion engines suddenly become immortal and perfect, and that the EV's must become perfect before they can be considered real competition.

Dunno if you remember some of the Tesla dissing in here, but it was like major scandal when a Tesla caught fire, the absolute proof that Electric vehicles were unsafe and would never be fit.

Yet Gasoline powered cars catch fire all the time. I had one that did.

Then there were some precautions that Tesla ownersneeded to take in extreme cold - this was an affront to common sense and further showing the obvious - EV's were useless.

Then again there are a lot of devices for internal combustion engines such as engine block, oil, and batttery heaters - indeed electricity provided at parking meters to run them - in the far north. Some diesels are left running 24/7, and I've heard rumors of people starting fires beneath big trucks to heat the oil so they will turn over - dunno about that one though. We also heard about how people who bought Prius vehicles were going to be sorry, as they were going to go broke replacing batteries.

Which is odd, considering that if that Prius battery dies a 99,999.99 miles, you get a free battery. 150,000 miles in California. And yet, they replace very few of them because they aren't dying. Turns out the Prius is a case study in how to make batteries last a long time. If I had a Prius, my biggest hope would be that my battery quit somewhere close to 100 K miles. Brand new battery WooHoo!

Anyhow your best bet is to pay attention to the detractor's claims. Usually they pick some perceived or real or exaggerated problem, and require you to not notice that a traditional car also has problems. I just spent 600 some dollars to replace a Throttle position sensor in my Jeep. I wouldn't have that problem in a Tesla. Skepticism is always a good idea.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

There are 5 year old Teslas out there. It appears you lose around 15% of the capacity after 150000 miles. It's not too bad compared to a regular car.

That's terrible compared to a real car.

True. Regular cars at 150 thousand miles have no problems, and will last for at least 5 million more miles before the first oil change.

Yer talkin' shite.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

And with as much respect as you deserve, you have one big problem with your braggadocio. Yer driving a Volvo.

And with an attitude too!

You've inadvertently won one internet tonight. Tanks for the LulZ.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

that battery can be recycled to be used elsewhere like home storage. An 8 year old ICE has the potential to need a new gearbox/engine/shocks/brakes/diff blah blah blah. Guess what, battery prices are dropping all the time........... You should do some real research before spouting off nonsense like the rest of your post.

Forgive them, for they are bereft of a clue. When they start spouting nonsense shite like that, they are just grasping at straws. Shakespeare's MacBeth comes to mind:

a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

And some people are just plain nuts. How are we gonna go "coal rolling in an EV?

I always thought the diesel Dodge trucks that did that were poorly maintained / poorly manufactured. It would never occur to me that people were dumb enough to do it on purpose. Thanks for making today depressing.

You can get some smoke out of any diesel engine depending if it's cold, or if you really flog it. These coal rollers are just the folks who are in danger of dropping off the bottom rnug of the ladder.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[drinkypoo]

It's particularly bad in an EV because you don't have engine noise for feedback on speed and acceleration,

If you can't tell if you're accelerating or decelerating, you should leave the driving to someone more qualified. Practically no modern vehicles have a decent sensation of speed.

so you need the speedo to be big and clear like it is in the Leaf.

The Ioniq has a massive center speed display, and the Leaf separates the speed display out into a sub-cluster which is closer to the driver and thus more difficult to focus on while driving.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

Have you actually driven an Ioniq? The centre display is like a traditional car, a dial with a needle. If you switch into sport mode it changes to a numeric display, but the numerals are rather small. It's also in the normal position for a car speedo, behind the wheel.

In an EV there is much less sensation of acceleration. In an ICE, even a quiet one, you can hear and feel the engine RPMs climbing. The pitch change is easy to pick out of the background noise, the human ear is very good at that. In an EV it's really easy for your speed to creep up.

The Leaf has a big numeric display right under the windscreen, above the steering wheel. It's really easy to see and doesn't mean moving your eyes and refocusing nearly as much as a traditional speedo. It seems like a small thing, but it's stuff like that which makes the Leaf great. You realize that they really thought about the specific needs of an EV driver and designed something for them, rather than what most manufacturers do which is take an ICE and shove an electric drive-train in it.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

One other big thing with the Ioniq, and actually a lot of EVs including Tesla and BMW, is that the charge port is on the side. On the Leaf and Zoe it is on the front.

Having it on the side is a bad idea IMHO. When parked on the street the charging cable sticks out. In a garage you need more width, although that's less of an issue in countries with sensible garages. The front (or back) is just so much easier and less prone to being damaged. The front is also visible from the driving position, so you don't accidentally drive off with the cable inserted.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[drinkypoo]

I think you're probably right on this one. On the other hand, putting it on the side might make sense in some hypothetical world with charging points on the side of the road where you parallel park.

Everyone and their mom has talked about how poor the driving experience is in the Leaf compared to other EVs, and how goofy it looks compared to a normal car, so I think its appeal really comes down to personal preference. I'm glad it's in the market, but it should really have improved more by now.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[AmiMoJo]

I've used posts at the side of the road where you parallel park, and still like the front charging port. I suppose there is a danger that someone will reverse into it, but it's still preferable to having it stick out where cars or pedestrians are passing.

I like the driving experience in the Leaf. Maybe it is down to personal preference, but I think it's fun. You can enjoy driving efficiently and smoothly, or you can put your foot down and enjoy pretty nice performance. It's really funny taking off from the lights next to some BMW or Honda, the other car's engine screaming and desperately trying to keep up, only to fall back suddenly when it has to change gear.

People think the Leaf is a slow little eco-mobile, but it's actually pretty fast. The ECU has to limit you to 70% power at low speeds, and even then the wheels spin sometimes, even with all that weight on them. I guess where it falls down a bit is cornering. It's not bad but not as nice as the Zoe.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is a whole lot of FUD. Suppositions and assumptions used to warrant claims as facts.

"Eventually"
"Will likely"
"If these cars"

Go shill somewhere else.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the unpredictable happens. What if fuel becomes $5/gal? What happens to your 'economic case' then?

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal rolling idiots don't just do that to hybrids, unfortunately. I had some fuckwit do that to my on my motorcycle... well until I just twisted my wrist and left him in his own smog.

Doing that to a Prius is just annoying. Putting a motorcycle rider in a cloud of soot is dangerous and might be a good way to get shot at.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Ol Olsoc]

Coal rolling idiots don't just do that to hybrids, unfortunately. I had some fuckwit do that to my on my motorcycle... well until I just twisted my wrist and left him in his own smog.

Doing that to a Prius is just annoying. Putting a motorcycle rider in a cloud of soot is dangerous and might be a good way to get shot at.

You do bring up a good point about these coal rolling asshats triggering a second amendment solution on themselves. Especially simce some motorcycle dudes have short fuses, and always carry. And could be the guy supplying them with their meth.

Re:Hey GM, how about that EV1?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuel has been more than US$5 per US gallon in Europe for a very long time and yet the percentage of cars that are electric is not much higher in Europe than it is in the US, where fuel is almost free by comparison.

Ahhh, Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Smell those musky balls. Mmmm

Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

When this company goes under it's going to take so many people's life savings with it it'll look like Madoff's schemes were nothing. And it's all completely legal. I guess it's survival of the fittest; economic darwinism. The smart ones won't get sucked in and will live to invest another day.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[DontBeAMoran]

Tesla has cars on the road, it's not vaporware company. His other companies are also progressing with their goals too.

If you want to talk about something that took a lot of people's life savings and that was completely legal, let's talk about the fucking banks. Not only did they ruin people's lives but they also got more money for bailouts. Banks, the very place that's supposed to be about managing money, fucked everyone and got more money on top of that. I wonder why the people at the top didn't get the firing squad.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[dehachel12]

>I wonder why the people at the top didn't get the firing squad.
because they are in control of the single american party.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[grungeman]

Not sure if I fully agree with your statement, but I will stay away from Tesla stocks, too. Too much of the stock price is hope and emotion, and I suspect there will be a lot of tears at some point in the future.

Oh, and if I had the money for a Tesla X P90D I would buy this car instead: http://www.porsche.com/interna...

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

What little do green conglomerates fail to mention is replacing the current 1.6 billion cars with battery operated cars is just not feasible across the board on all commodities that are used to build and charge them. To make matters worse, we go from foreign dependency on oil to foreign dependency on rare earth minerals with China, not to mention a ramp up in the ability to mine the rare earth minerals, which have environmental impacts of their own. There are also other commodities made from oil that if a production were to cease, it would be very painful for everyone....Including the making of batteries.

Musk is just riding a wave here, which is why he has other ventures. Once the wave hits the shore, he'll be on this next best thing.

But you got the bank problem right. Too bad no one really cares enough or has the power to put them in their place.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Homegrocer.com delivered a brown bag full of produce to my Seattle residence in 1999. I also think that Tesla's "success" is very bank connected.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[jaymemaurice]

Same can be said about Apple or Facebook too, right?
I think the big "when" everyone hopes for is "when" it's not their problem.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[tehcyder]

Tesla has cars on the road, it's not vaporware company.

There is a continuum from "long established manufacturing company with a proven history of sales and profits" to "perpetual motion type scam". Just because Tesla is not the latter does not make its valuation realistic.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Junta]

Yes, they have real product and companies are acheiving goals, so it's not empty.

However, it's not 'worth more than General Motors' degree of success either. Also no signs that will change any time soon, *maybe* in a decade. It's certainly premature for the valuation to be where it is already, whatever your optimism is for the companies chances.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[grungeman]

Apple: No, huge margin and profit Facebook: Maybe

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of it having cars on the road, it's building out a nationwide network of superchargers, so it is putting in place the infrastructure that will be needed to transition to an electric car future. Unlike GM's attempts people believe in Tesla's, which is why their valuation is so high. They are doing it for real, not as a "look it can't work!" exercise like GM.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[oh_my_080980980]

But the Profits are...Tesla needs to make profits or investors will start to dump the stock because they were sold a bill of goods.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[dbialac]

First, thank you for (correctly) calling out Musk as the lying, manipulative douche bag that he is. If you give his cars a bad review, he goes ape shit which results in automotive journalists being very careful what they say. As such I will never never trust a review of a Tesla.

Moving on, cars GM makes that I want/could settle for:

• Cadillac CTS-V
• Corvette C7
• Chevy Camaro

Cars Tesla makes that I want/could settle for:

• (none)

If you travel at all (I do all of the time), Tesla's entire product line is more or less useless. In addition, their cars become very expensive bricks when the batteries die and not recyclable. Meanwhile, an ICE car or hybrid such as the Volt or Karma can run forever and that ICE car is almost 100% recyclable. That, and given that Boeing found a way to produce ethanol efficiently, the more fuel inefficient your car is, the better it will become as far as CO2 goes.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[jiriw]

There are more than enough rare-earth minable sands in the U.S. It's just, no-one (kept) invest(s/ing) in it, so China is cheaper. If you guys really are going to need those rare-earths, you'll build mines on your own soil... now I think about it, what IS holding you back??? Didn't you need more jobs?

In Europe, things are be a bit different... too small and too overpopulated in most places and the wrong regimes in the few areas (way east) where it might be possible.

world map of rare earth element deposits

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if I fully agree with your statement, but I will stay away from Tesla stocks, too. Too much of the stock price is hope and emotion, and I suspect there will be a lot of tears at some point in the future.

Honestly, if you don't already own Tesla stocks, you've missed the boat.

Whether the valuation is realistic or not in the long term, the fact is that the stock is currently very high compared with the actual asset value of the company, and that should make it a no-buy for any sensible investor.

That doesn't mean there's any problem with owning them; the company is looking perfectly healthy in itself and its future will be dictated by product delivery, not share price. I just wouldn't buy their stock right now.

If you already own Tesla stock, lucky you. I say hold on to it.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Freischutz]

Tesla has cars on the road, it's not vaporware company. His other companies are also progressing with their goals too.

Yeah, but I still won't take him seriously until he unveils the Iron Man suit.

Re: Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Emissions regulations wont allow for profitable mining in the US. "Green" energy is a farce. Its all about putting the emissons somewhere else.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Musk did go apeshit over a few bad reviews. But specifically it was the ones where the journalist was misrepresenting what happened, or out an out lying (as in, telling the world they got stranded after the car runs out of go juice 100 miles early when the reported stats for the car clearly show that was a lie and that the guy intentionally ran it dry, was given tons of warnings, and wasn't "stranded").

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

You're aware that the big cause of not mining rare earths in the US was environmental impact, right? It wasn't a lack of investing, it was that government regulation literally put it out of business. And this isn't a slam against government regulation, rare earth mining is extremely nasty business. China leads because they don't care about having a country that can support life due to pollution. I'm not personally interested in the US turning into a similar hell hole.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Nemyst]

And you'd ironically have identical 0-100 km/h and similar handling characteristics but lesser technology, higher fuel cost and much higher maintenance cost. Like it or not, Tesla's stuff can compete with premium cars pretty handily.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[MMC Monster]

Well, I guess you aren't interested in my review.

I love my Tesla Model S. I don't drive a lot compared to you. Maybe 80 miles a day on work days and may a hundred total on the weekends. I've owned mine for just over three years and have nearly 80k miles on it.

Plusses:
* The pickup is wonderful. Not just the 0-60, but the 50-80 on the highways.
* The battery gets just as much out of a charge now as it did when I first got it. (It's apparently warrantied for 8 years unlimited miles so long as you don't damage it by discharging it completely)
* Streaming audio is free and great (mine has 3G built in and free so far, newer ones have LTE built in and free so far). They don't use your phone at all. You can stream audio from TuneIn streaming radio and a service similar to Pandora in functionality.
* Software updates can add functionality; they come out a few times a year and are free. They download in the background and you are given the option to install them after you leave the car or overnight.
* Map updates (separate from software updates) occur a couple times a year and are free.
* Maintenance is minimal. One service a year and even then it's just to check the brakes (still original and with almost no wear) and top off the windshield wiper fluid.
* I get the equivalent of 24 miles for every dollar of electricity. (This was even more impressive when comparing it to $4/gallon gasoline a few years ago.)

Minuses:
* The wheels wear down a bit faster than I expected. I'm on my third set and plan on getting replacements next year.
* The software is mediocre. Though it has gotten better since I've gotten it.
* The media system to play your own music is substandard. Doesn't apparently sync iPods. If you want MP3s, you have to play them on your phone and use bluetooth streaming or use a USB drive. The USB drive gets all your metadata so you can browse by artist or album, but there's no playlist functionality.
* Software updates can remove functionality. Sometimes the updates make minor changes in the UI that appear just cosmetic.
* The maintenance schedule is confusing. They don't give me a recommendation on when to bring the car back in. So I take it in once a year.
* It's an expensive car. Even among luxury cars.

About electric vehicles in general:
* Most of your charging is going to be at home, overnight. So have a garage available to plug in nightly. Roadside charging is available but time consuming compared to gassing up a gas-powered car. The Tesla superchargers are significantly faster than plugging in anywhere else, but even they will take more than an hour to charge a car from near-empty to near-full.
* Charging at home means never leaving home without a "full" charge (Tesla recommends charging to 90% most of the time). I never stop at a gas station, let alone during rain or freezing weather.
* Regenerative brakes mean your disc breaks will last a lot longer than in a gas or diesel car.

All in all, I'm very happy to own my Model S. It's pricey and I probably wouldn't want to get another can at that price range. But I will definitely get another luxury all-electric car as my next car. If it's a Tesla depends on price breaks on the Model S going forwards rather than offerings from other luxury car manufacturers. Tesla has to lose me as a customer before someone else can win me over.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[jcr]

I agree that Tesla is a bubble stock, but Musk isn't cooking his books. The shares are up there because of wishful thinking on the part of the investors, not because anyone's lying to them.

For my part, I plan to make a pile of money shorting Tesla whenever Apple enters their market.

-jcr

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[jcr]

Apple's P/E ratio is only 17.6. FB's is 40.6. I'd say Apple is undervalued, and FB is a bubble stock.

-jcr

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[dbialac]

How? It was Tesla's own engineers who told Top Gear that the range on their track given how they were driving it was 55 miles. That's factual and in fact I wouldn't expect my car to go anywhere near as far driving it on a track as compared to on a normal highway. And regardless of why the brakes were broken (broken capacitor), they were still broken.

In the case of the New York Times, he lamblasted the reporter by trying to gather intent from engineering data. For example, the reporter didn't loop around a dark parking lot to, as Musk claimed, run out the batteries, but instead because it was dark and he couldn't find the charge points.

So, given that, yeah, I don't trust reviews of his cars to be impartial.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[Enigma2175]

What the fuck do rare-earth metals have to do with Tesla? Their current model (Model S) uses no rare-earth metals at all.

From https://forums.tesla.com/forum...

Tesla does not use rare earth metals in our battery or motor. Typically, rare earth metals apply to DC motors, which use magnets. One of the reasons we use an AC induction motor is it does not require magnets, which often contain the rare earth metals.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[david_thornley]

Tesla needs to have a path to profitability, which will work as well as profits. Right now, Tesla could be running a profit, but instead it's reinvesting what would be profits. So, either Tesla builds up and becomes more valuable, or it runs a decent profit, and either works.

Re:Madoff is small time compared to Musk

[david_thornley]

I'd say Apple's undervaluation is because it's not clear that Apple can continue the success it had with Jobs. Apple made billions and billions coming up with neat stuff that transformed the market, and it doesn't look like it's going to do that again.

TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

If you made money on it, good for you. The company is grossly overvalued. Get out while you can.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[thegarbz]

The company is grossly overvalued.

Compared to a competition which only survived due to a loan from the government?

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla has only survived due to handouts from the government.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[monkeyxpress]

It is. I have a friend who works in electric vehicles in Germany. All the big players are moving on this now. Nobody argues about it being the future anymore, the discussion has moved on to how they smooth the transition into electric vehicles while best protecting their existing investments.

To a large extent, Elon has been responsible for bringing about this change in attitude so quickly. But look at your average car buyer. They don't care how many cylinders or fancy engine tech the thing has. Fiat put a humble panda in a new shell, almost doubled the price, and boom you have a top selling car (the 500). The problem for Tesla is that the novelty of electric will wear off rather quickly and people will go back to buying on the basis of cup holders and satnavs, and existing car companies have been excelling at doing those sorts of things for decades now.

I think what Tesla has achieved is fantastic, but I can't see how it wouldn't make sense for them to eventually flog of the coach building side of things to one of the bigger players, and focus on core components, which is the sort of supply chain model most of the automotive world uses anyway. It will still make a lot of money, but the valuations are just a bit stupid at the moment.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to a competition which only survived due to a loan from the government?

Yes.

Take Ford (F) right now. Paying out healthy dividends, has a positive earnings per share (around two bucks for last year), and it costs around $12.

Then there's Tesla (TSLA). Stock price is $300. Lost $4 per share last year.

Tesla is being valued as if it wildly succeeded, becoming equivalent to one of the "Bíg Three". Now I'm not saying it won't, but there's an element of risk - will Tesla be able to scale up production, will Tesla lose it's early advantage, etc.

Tesla is overvalued.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Altus]

Yeah because tesla's only competition in the car market is from US Companies.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are mistaken regarding the Fiat 500. It is not a rehashed Panda.
The Fiat 500 was first released in 1957 (and was in production until 1975) and was re-released in 2007 on its 50th anniversary

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

The current Fiat 500 is based on the Panda and is not in any way related to the 1957 Fiat 500.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to a competition which only survived due to a loan from the government?

Not because GM didn't have revenues or assets, but because Banks weren't offering credit or loans to anybody, and GM got caught in a particularly bad bit of timing.

Their debt was due, but while in normal times, banks would revolve it through, at that moment, everybody was afraid to do anything, and none of it was related to GM's actual performance, but rather the bank's own shoddy practices.

By comparison, Ford was riding the wave, having already secured lots of credit, but having time to pay it off.

GM (and Chrysler), of course, being big players, were able to persuade the US government to cover things for them, and even get the benefits of performing most of a Bankruptcy without actually putting their own assets at risk.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, TSLA shorter.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Freischutz]

Compared to a competition which only survived due to a loan from the government?

Yes.

Take Ford (F) right now. Paying out healthy dividends, has a positive earnings per share (around two bucks for last year), and it costs around $12.

Then there's Tesla (TSLA). Stock price is $300. Lost $4 per share last year.

Tesla is being valued as if it wildly succeeded, becoming equivalent to one of the "Bíg Three". Now I'm not saying it won't, but there's an element of risk - will Tesla be able to scale up production, will Tesla lose it's early advantage, etc.

Tesla is overvalued.

I've never been a fan of the Tesla product line, it's to luxury oriented, so I can see how they may look overvalued from that point of view. However, the technology Tesla represents is the future and even if Tesla's product line of sports cars and luxury sedans has a limited market, it's the technologies Tesla has developed and the associated patent portfolio that makes the company valuable. This is especially true of patents on battery technology patents, and early investments in battery production capacity. Fossil fuel cars are going to become an anachronism with in the next twenty years or so, like film cameras or buggy whips and whoever owns the patents and has the tech ready when the tipping point comes is going to cash in big time. If I was to invest in Tesla today it would not be because I think Tesla has wildly succeeded, I'd invest because I'd be willing to risk some serious venture capital on the hypothesis that Tesla is going to wildly succeed, down the line. Everybody thought Apple, the iPod and iTunes was a huge mistake that was doomed to failure, well that analysis turned out to be wrong in a whole shitload of ways. Some people play the long game.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[MMC Monster]

Absolutely agree.

A lot of people with a bit of "play money" are putting it in TSLA. I know I did when I was buying individual stocks a couple years ago. I sold (at a reasonable profit) and got out, but a lot of friends get anxiety frequently with the turbulent ride of TSLA in the market.

The cars are excellent (I own a Model S), but there's no way the company can justify the valuation of the stock (nor are they trying).

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[Anonymous Coward]

The company is grossly overvalued.

Compared to a competition which only survived due to a loan from the government?

A company whose government wont let it fail is vastly undervalued at any price.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[soft_guy]

People are betting on the success of the Model 3 and probably also the solar shingles. Neither of which are crazy bets, but still they are bets. My guess is that the Model 3 will be a success. I'd put that about a 70% chance based on the quality/popularity of the Model S and the large number of pre-orders.

Re:TSLA is a sentiment stock

[randallman]

Yea. That's what people said when they hit $90. And $200. You might be right in the future, but your track record sucks.

The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's shocking how much faith investors seem to have in what is essentially a Ponzi scheme with stockholder money despite how obvious it is. There is no way Tesla is ever going to make a profit in many years to come, even if it manages to pour more money into it several more times. The hallowed Model 3 will get trampled in the mass market. Several major companies that actually know how to build cars will have competing electric cars right around the time the Model 3 will be available in significant numbers, with probably very few redeeming features to set it apart, but with Tesla's famously lacklustre build quality. The Model S has been aging for a while and its target market is saturating. Moreover, it will get just as much competition as the Model S, with Audi, Mercedes-Benz and BMW all working on luxury electric vehicles that will put the Model S to shame.

Apart from two quarters artificially made profitable by accounting tricks, Tesla has never been able to make a real profit selling expensive cars in a niche market without any real competition, where buyers are Tesla fans and typically willing to forgive the shortcomings of Tesla's products. There is no way they can succesfully compete in the mass market, where margins are razor thin and customers tend to depend on a car they buy as their only vehicle, even if they can somehow stay afloat while trying.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[codealot]

Do you believe then that a majority of Model 3 deposits will not convert to sales? If just half of the deposits become sales, the Model 3 will be the top selling EV of all time. Leaf sales are sluggish and the Bolt EV is expensive and slow to roll out. Anyone else is a small player in the market or doesn't have a vehicle in production yet. The best competition so far seems to be the Volt, which is a plug-in hybrid rather than a true EV.

Tesla is going to sell as many as it can build, certainly this year and for probably most/all of 2018. The real struggle for Tesla will be scaling up its production, service and support, and still making a profit. But the initial Model 3 purchases starting this year are certainly going to improve its cash flow.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. That said, Tesla has an uphill battle and the stock price is much too high.
But they've, all by themselves, made EVs cool and assured that almost every company will build them going forward.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of deposits becoming sales would be extremely optimistic, but even then, it will be years before Tesla has actually made them and by that time, there will be enormous competition from companies that have huge resources, lots of experience building cars and lots of capacity, and who can support their electric efforts with the profits from internal combustion engined cars, while Tesla will have its hands full just keeping things afloat while selling Model 3s at a loss for at least a few years.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Junta]

I agree with you, though I do like the traditional car companies seeing:

1) Enough to make them worry and be competitive.

2) The amount of investor money up for grabs by being visibly innovative.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[bazorg]

[...]There is no way Tesla is ever going to make a profit in many years to come[...]

Well if AC can speculate, so can I !

One way to accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles would be to make legislation to phase out ICE cars. Mainstream manufacturers would not like it but one way to deal with the chicken and egg problems of electric car adoption would be to set out a modular design for passenger cars and mandate that from... say 2025, all new models need to be ready for retrofitting an electric drivetrain as per the standard. Non-compliant manufacturers will have to take their focus away from passenger vehicles.
If manufacturers were clever enough to devise and adopt emissions test defeating software, they had better work together to help fix the tailpipe emissions problem.
That's one way Tesla can get to profit sooner - with governments getting serious about phasing out ICE.

The hallowed Model 3 will get trampled in the mass market. Several major companies that actually know how to build cars will have competing electric cars right around the time the Model 3 will be available in significant numbers, with probably very few redeeming features to set it apart

Sure. They are just waiting for Model 3 to be released to *then* defeat Tesla. It's nearly a Bond-villainesque scheme, made primarily to defeat Tesla in the most visible way possible, while sacrificing current market and mindshare. (that was me being sarcastic)
AFAIK new models for this year started development a LONG time ago. It's very hard to believe that there is not a Tesla model 4 or 5 in the pipeline, as there should be Ford, Mercedes, Renault, VW, etc. The Model 3 is in production, where are the others?

Moreover, it will get just as much competition as the Model S, with Audi, Mercedes-Benz and BMW all working on luxury electric vehicles that will put the Model S to shame.

Normally, the S Class Mercedes shows the technology that all cars should have several years later. Ever since the Tesla S was released with its lovely software updates, that doesn't seem to be the rule any longer. I'm not from the USA, the German and French car industries are much closer to home... and I just don't see anything good enough to take back the tech leadership. Yes, there's plenty of $1M+ cars in magazines, but only so many oil barons to buy them.

If Mercedes, BMW and the VW Group want to put the Tesla S to shame, they really need to build something instead of making drawings for magazines.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[oh_my_080980980]

Not $9.8 Billion worth. You really need to focus on the companies financials.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[argStyopa]

What you've just written pretty much defines the investing market since the dot.com era, aside from one (painful) deep breath of rationality in 2007.

Financially, the world is literally sitting atop a soap-bubble, with governments desperately scrambling to maintain the illusion for the wallowing masses.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if AC can speculate, so can I !

Speculating is easy, but it is worthless if you do not base it on facts.

That's one way Tesla can get to profit sooner - with governments getting serious about phasing out ICE.

How does that solve any of Tesla's profitability problems? It will only create more competition.

Sure. They are just waiting for Model 3 to be released to *then* defeat Tesla

It has very little to do with Tesla. Developing a new car takes years and costs billions. Most manufacturers do not spend too much resources on models that they do not think they can sell profitably, unless there are other financial interests. Starting in 2021, EU regulations will become effective that will in steps reduce fleet average CO2 emissions to limits that cannot be reached without a significant fraction of EV sales. Manufacturers who do not meet the targets will pay billions in fines. Hence, they all started developing mass-market electric models with the aim of having them on the market by that time.

It's very hard to believe that there is not a Tesla model 4 or 5 in the pipeline

It's easy to believe if you look at Tesla's operations. They have a small R&D budget and they have been concentrating their resources on the Model 3 for years. It isn't finished yet. I doubt there is more than a few sketches on anything beyond that at this time.

The Model 3 is in production, where are the others?

It isn't and it won't be for quite some time. Renault-Nissan, VW, BMW and GM/Opel have some affordable electric cars on sale today.

Normally, the S Class Mercedes shows the technology that all cars should have several years later. Ever since the Tesla S was released with its lovely software updates, that doesn't seem to be the rule any longer.

It's lovely that Tesla can fix some of the bugs in the beta software it installs on roadgoing vehicles with over the air updates, but that does not change much about the technological leadership of the S Class. Have you ever been in a Tesla?

I'm not from the USA, the German and French car industries are much closer to home... and I just don't see anything good enough to take back the tech leadership

They cannot take back something they never lost.

If Mercedes, BMW and the VW Group want to put the Tesla S to shame, they really need to build something instead of making drawings for magazines.

In 2016, Mercedes, BMW and VW Group together built slightly over 180 times the number of cars Tesla built.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[codealot]

No question they have their hands full, and an uphill battle for years to come. But I'm not going to count them out yet. Tesla has emerged from adversity over and over. They are focused and driven, and this attitude mirrors their leader, Musk.

With the projected volume that Musk has committed to, 10,000 cars a week by the end of 2018, they may catch up to demand in a couple years. Of course they also have a history of slipped schedules, so there is still much to prove. The car doesn't need to be profitable at first, but they do need revenue, which will come with deliveries.

That said, there are risks to becoming a public company, and if shareholders decided to pull out tomorrow Tesla would be in trouble. But I don't see that happening soon unless there are any crippling setbacks for the young company.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are all those companies going to be buying all those batteries from? Hmm, maybe the Gigafactory, or one of the other two Gigafactories that are in the plans.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably from Panasonic, Samsung, LG or one of the many Chinese companies that make them. Some are also planning on producing their own batteries.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Nemyst]

Panasonic, Tesla's partner for their Gigafactory?

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe then that a majority of Model 3 deposits will not convert to sales?

Yes, they are fully refundable deposits.

Re:The emperor's new clothes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that Panasonic. Why?

Popcorn time

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh boy, Slashdot is going to erupt like a pus filled cyst. Electric vehicles, Elon Musk, the only thing missing is wind power.

Electric vehicles are the future. It isn't like oil or other fossil fuels are going to last forever. And the abiotic oil concept isn't going to work.

Neither is the Fred Flintstone type vehicle.

Re:Popcorn time

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree electric vehicles are the future, but I'm not convinced Tesla style ones are. Battery powered (at least batteries in their current form) have too many drawbacks. Yes, they work for the day to day, average case, but any engineer will tell you the average case isn't what makes or breaks a system. It's the edge case, and current battery systems suck for the edge cases.

But yes, this is popcorn time. Since GM and Ford are clearly much larger companies than Tesla, which is it? Is Tesla massively overvalued and anyone with a brain should get out while the getting is good? Or are Ford and GM massively undervalued and anyone with a brain should buy buy buy?

My guess is the former.

Re:Popcorn time

[iggymanz]

except we have fossil fuel reserves sufficient for about 1000 years (mostly coal, which can be broken into any desired length hydrocarbon: gasoline, diesel, nat gas, kerosene, bunker oil for cargo ships, etc.)

Tesla makes expense toys for the well to do.

smarter countries will have cheap electric cars and be recharging them with mix of fossil and nuclear power. smart long term solution would be arrays of solar panels and storage, U.S. too dumb to lead like that.

Re:Popcorn time

[Junta]

I think battery can be competitve, as for many drivers and conditions, the drawbacks are less severe. On the other hand, the amount of maintenance required is significantly reduced compared to an internal combustion engine. Of course, I don't see how Tesla is somehow magically more advantaged, particularly since Nissan has moved a lot more leaf vehicles than Tesla has moved any vehicle.

Re:Popcorn time

[Anonymous Coward]

What? This is nothing. There's no 3D printing or privately-mined space asteroid colonies.

Re:Popcorn time

[Anonymous Coward]

My big thing is the refueling time. I know so many people say "but 99% of the time it's fine range wise", but look at how many people buy pickups because "I might need to haul something". Most of those pickups will never haul anything, and yet the F150 is the number one selling vehicle in the US. Edge cases define peoples buying habits for better or for worse. I don't think it's unsolvable, just that we aren't there yet. I tend to think fuel cells will probably be the ultimate answer, and I am now prepared for all the people who will call me an idiot for thinking fuel cells are they ultimate solution, but eh.

Re:Popcorn time

[Junta]

*If* a slow charging reality comes around, it would most likely mean a change in workplaces and restaraunts and shopping, where electric charging is a perk or paid aspect of your spot rather than something you have to do just for the benefit of the car.

If I just plugged my car in at my real destination without having to make a stop *just* for the car, I would be ecstatic (gas stations are not exactly pleasant places to 'hang out' compared to wherever I *really* want to be). I hate my weekly trip to the gas station, and would similarly hate a weekly trip to a fast charging station, even if it were the same amount of time.

Re:Popcorn time

[jcr]

current battery systems suck for the edge cases.

I'm convinced that battery cars will prove to be the transitional stage between gasoline and hydrogen. Toyota and Honda are the biggest makers of hybrids, and they're both betting on hydrogen, big time.

Toyota's HFC car takes three minutes to refuel for a 300 mile range. That beats any existing battery charging technology all to hell.

-jcr

Re:Popcorn time

[Ol Olsoc]

*If* a slow charging reality comes around, it would most likely mean a change in workplaces and restaraunts and shopping, where electric charging is a perk or paid aspect of your spot rather than something you have to do just for the benefit of the car.

There is precedent for widespread adoption of this. In Alaska, there are parking meters with power on them. Used to keep engine blocks and battery's warm - note that despite anti-EV folk whining about EV battery power issues, it isn't like petrofueled vehicles don't need a lot of help in the cold, including altered fuel configuration. Winter gasoline contains a lot of butanol because you need a higher vapor pressure in the cold.

If I just plugged my car in at my real destination without having to make a stop *just* for the car, I would be ecstatic (gas stations are not exactly pleasant places to 'hang out' compared to wherever I *really* want to be). I hate my weekly trip to the gas station, and would similarly hate a weekly trip to a fast charging station, even if it were the same amount of time.

Well yeah - the ideal situation is that you would never have to think about fueling your vehicle ever, not even plug it in (witness those who think wireless charging is a lifesaver)

My guess is that EV's and their charging will be a little like phones and laptops. A lot of people topping them off regularly, and some having trouble with that concept. My plan is to tap into solar power charging at home, and taking advantage of whatever convenient charging port is available.

This would be a good time to promote one of my alternative reality scenarios for people who have problems with a paradigm shift like this.

Let's assume that instead of being petrofueld, the world ran on battery EV's. Charging ports all over, and research bringing us better range and storage because that would be a natural thing when everyone's running EV.

So now someone decides - "Let's use the higher grades of petroleum distillates of that crude oil we use for lubrication!"

"All we have to do is drill more wells, build a lot of refineries, and build a whole infrastructure to transport the fuel, which is prone to deflagration by the way, so we'll need tanker trucks and railroad cars, and pumping stations and a whole bunch of other infrastructure to replace the plugs we are using now."

People wouldn't just be fighting that plan based on inertia, they'd be calling the plan insane.

Re:Popcorn time

[Junta]

(witness those who think wireless charging is a lifesaver)

I still think that conventional wireless charging is overrated, and a auto-mating direct electrical connection is underrated. Having a 'dock' sort of arrangement has always seemed fine by be and is easier to execute and is more efficient. Been so strange that hasn't been a more prevalent theme.

Gasoline and internal combustion engines are a pain in the ass, we are just way too used to them and people try to apply the same strategies to electric cars, even though better strategies are available that aren't popular today because it's just too impractical with gasoline.

Re:Popcorn time

[Ol Olsoc]

(witness those who think wireless charging is a lifesaver)

I still think that conventional wireless charging is overrated, and a auto-mating direct electrical connection is underrated. Having a 'dock' sort of arrangement has always seemed fine by be and is easier to execute and is more efficient.

If you look in any parking lot, you can see why wireless will never be feasible for vehicle charging. The ancient concept of wireless charging requires the secondary of a transformer to be inside the device being charged. In order for it to be remotely close to efficient, it has to be just about in contact with the device being charged. Docks are the simplest way to approach charging if you don't want to plug in a cord.mI have several HT's that have docks. Drop 'em in, and you're in business. For wirelss charging, you are going to have something that is pretty much like a dock anyhow, since the secondary of that transformer has to be almost touching the primary in the charger.

I think people have the mistaken impression that wireless charging means you just have it somewhere in the room.

Auto mating is probably goint to be the main thing in homes. Probably take a while longer in public parking lots where plug in will be used.

Gasoline and internal combustion engines are a pain in the ass, we are just way too used to them and people try to apply the same strategies to electric cars, even though better strategies are available that aren't popular today because it's just too impractical with gasoline.

I could live my lifestyle, which includes a lot of travel, with present day battery technology - with one exception. I will occasionally do a trip form the Northeast to Florida, about 16 hours to my destination. I'll jump in the car, and get there the next day mid-day.

However, as of late, I've been doing a one overnight stay, then drive the rest of the way the next morning. A hotel with a charger would get my money.

In the meantime, I wouldn't let that stop me from my plans to use solar EV to charge an EV vehicle at home, and eliminate gasoline purchases.

And this is coming from a gearhead BTW. I'm just not stuck in the past. I'm excited to get my first EV bike and auto.

Only dog knows why so many Slashdotters are stuck there though. We still have people who can't figure out how solar electric can be used at night.

Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[Eloking]

Yeah the Stock is severely overpriced and, as much as I like Tesla, there's no way it's value can compare to GM and Ford at the moment. We all know that, and we all know this balloon will eventually deflate. So what?

Unless someone put a gun in your head and force you to buy Tesla stock and kept them no matter what happens, this is good news for everyone. It's a proof of confidence to an emerging car maker in North America (who would have thought this would be possible in the 2000s?). Also, it send a serious message to the GM/Ford and it make them better (Ford is back on track and it's Ford Fusion is, in my opinion, the best mid-size sedan in the market, and for GM is launching the best competitor to Tesla Model 3 with the Chevy Bolt).

This is better for the car industry and it's better for the environment.

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL proof of nothing other than investors are extremely foolish. For the morons who don't don't bother with details:

GM posts $9.43B in net profits for 2016

Tesla posts $675M in net profits for 2016

Tesla has a LONG way to go.

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla posted a net loss of $773 million in 2016.

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[PoopJuggler]

You don't seem to understand the concept of investment. These investors are betting that Tesla will grow, they're not investing in "current profit". What's the point of investing in GM when they've shown they're pretty much incompetent and not likely to move into the EV-age with any sort of dominance? Tesla will dominate the EV market. They're already 10+ years ahead of everyone else, and I don't see any other car makers dedicated to EVs.

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla will dominate the EV market. They're already 10+ years ahead of everyone else, and I don't see any other car makers dedicated to EVs.

LOL.

True, no other car maker has every egg in the EV basket. So if that is your idea of a sound business development strategy. . .

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[jcr]

Tesla will dominate the EV market.

Apple will crush them like a bug.

-jcr

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly? Apple has abandoned their car project. Tesla will no doubt be crushed, but not by Apple.

Re:Yeah this is overvalued, so what?

[randallman]

As an engineer (M.E.), I love the car, but the energy side is potentially bigger. Energy storage is a no-brainer from a design standpoint. It's ridiculous to match generation to demand, but that's what we've done because storage is too expensive. That cost is coming down rapidly and once it crosses a threshold, it will transform the energy industry. Add in a shift to renewables and it may be the most significant technological and economic shifts in our lifetime.

Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[codealot]

Electric vehicles are fighting for market share at a time near historically low gasoline prices. There are several reasons for that--a price war between OPEC and domestic producers, fossil fuel industry protecting itself from growth of EVs, and decreased fuel demand due to more EVs and fuel efficient cars.

But the net effect is that few consumers can see the real value of an electric vehicle, and that's not about to change. With Tesla, consumers are seeing something else besides driving on pure electricity.

Re:Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[Junta]

Tesla sells around 50k vehicles a year.

Nissan moves around 5.5 million units a year.
GM moves around 10 million vehicles a year.
Toyato around 17 million a year

Tesla is more like Maserati than a general car company (similar regard, similar volumes of sales, similar pricing). Maserati is only a small slice of FCAU, and FCAU market cap is less than half of GM.

Re:Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[drinkypoo]

Electric vehicles are fighting for market share at a time near historically low gasoline prices.

EV market share just jumped over 20%. It's still under 3% but clearly fuel prices are not the only major driver of EV sales.

Re:Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[Gilgaron]

I'd be interested just for the lack of required maintenance. I got a new lithium ion battery line trimmer when my ICE one bit the dust, and it performs so well compared to the old NiCad stuff I'd love to replace all my ICE equipment. (I'm to cheap so I'll keep them until they break, but I don't see them getting replaced with more ICE stuff)

Re:Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla sells around 50k vehicles a year.

Nissan moves around 5.5 million units a year.
GM moves around 10 million vehicles a year.
Toyato around 17 million a year

Tesla is more like Maserati than a general car company (similar regard, similar volumes of sales, similar pricing). Maserati is only a small slice of FCAU, and FCAU market cap is less than half of GM.

Toyota doesn't sell 17mil vehicles a year, in 2016 Toyota, and Volkswagen were just over 10mil, GM at 9.5mil and Renault-Nissan ~9mil.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271608/global-vehicle-sales-of-automobile-manufacturers/

Re:Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[Junta]

I don't feel like paying to follow a link, I was using wikipedia. Whichever statistic is right, Tesla is nowhere near the same sort of thing.

Re:Meanwhile, gas hovers near $2 per gallon.

[AvitarX]

I'd buy a used Leaf as a daily driver if my insurance company wouldn't charge me ridiculous.

I doubt I'd save money, but never going to the gas station would be a worthy perk IMO.

Figure $8,500, -> $4,000 value in 4 years = $100/month.

Insuring it effectively doubles the price, but I'd save $50 or so/month in gas, and never need to fill the tank, I could still use my Truck when needed and for longer trips. If it was a two car household, the Leaf would be a no brainer for a second car.

invester logic: loss promises, profits disappoint

[Anonymous Coward]

That's invester logic for ya. If you make no profit, you show potential for huge future profits. If you show a profit, any profit, you're a disappointment.

It's the battery stupid

[goombah99]

A mac computer, these days, is the thingy you plug you iphone or tablet into. The latter two are more visible sexy status symbols whereas the latter is less so and if it's a desktop doesn't even get seen in public. And yet it's still a money maker and more importantly gets you to embrace the whole apple ecosystem which becomes self re-inforcing with itunes, and appleTV and any number of things you'd prefer not to lose if you were to switch to something else. Wrap that up in a superior customer service package and voila. It's home.

Likewise the tesla battery is not only what you plug your status symbol Tesla car into but also your gorgeous tesla roof and you power your house off of. And each of these items is best in class with great customer service experience and little complexity to be concerned about.

You will be able to plug your Ford or GM car into your telsa battery just like you can plug your microsoft phone into an apple computer. But it won't be smooth I would bet. When you update the OS in your battery (yes your battery is intelligent) you will need to wait for the new driver miodification from Ford to use the new features. Whereas the tesla battery and car will work together always.

Or so I think.

Tesla isn't just building a car. It's building an energy ecosytem.

Re: It's the battery stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we on the same planet? Teslas are ugly as sin.

Re:It's the battery stupid

[oh_my_080980980]

And iPad and iPhone sales are diminishing. Your point is.....

Re:It's the battery stupid

[goombah99]

i think most companies would love a market as large as a diminished iphone market. on top of which the deployed base is not diminishing-- lots of money from apps and music. Your point is...

Portfolio snobbery

[Anonymous Coward]

Portfolio managers want to point to having Tesla in their portfolio.
That shows they are Cool and Tech Savvy.
It does not show how many cars they will sell or how much the company would be worth if Musk got hit by a bus, or harassment lawsuit.

Remember AOL

[tomhath]

Tesla "worth" $51 billion? Pfft. Back in the dot bomb bubble days AOL was "worth" $224 billion, now it's under $5 billion. We'll see how Tesla holds up.

Backlog/Demand is the reason for the valuation

[mykepredko]

I'm trying to find the current backlog for Tesla cars and it seems to be somewhere north of 400k vehicles with close to a billion in deposits for the orders. Nobody else has that kind of traction (if you'll excuse the pun) for current, announced or planned vehicles - in comparison, in 2016 Mercedes sold 374k vehicles in the US.

Yes, the investors are taking a risk on Tesla, but isn't that part of the job description?

Along with this, there seems to be a significant demand for electric vehicles. I don't expect them to overtake fossil fueled vehicles any time soon, but at least 10% of buyers are seriously interested in EVs and Tesla is the number one name there with generally great reviews for products compared to the competition (ie the Leaf makes you feel like you're settling for less and the Volt/Bolt just don't have the cachet), the company is serious about renewables/reducing customers' carbon footprint and a rock star CEO.

You can say it's a fad stock, but there are some solid fundamentals there in terms of backlog and customer demand which justify a high stock price.

Maybe if the Model 3 turns out to be a lemon, things will change with regards to the stock, but as I said, part of the job description for an investor is to take risks and people seem to think that there will be a reward at the end of the day.

Re:Backlog/Demand is the reason for the valuation

[brianerst]

I'd argue that the fact that Tesla isn't a car company is also part of the valuation.

Everyone commenting on this article seems to have a vision of Tesla as it was several years ago (as a company that put electric drivetrains into Lotus cars). But Tesla hasn't been that in years - Tesla is a vertically integrated energy and transportation company. Electric vehicles are just the sexy front end - the Gigafactory, utility scale storage, SolarCity, and an actual live, working, iterating self-driving system are the market cap driving back end.

Now, there's a lot of "maybes" in a lot of this, but Tesla could shut down the car division tomorrow and the rest of the company would be a compelling story.

Re:Backlog/Demand is the reason for the valuation

[mjwx]

Maybe if the Model 3 turns out to be a lemon, things will change with regards to the stock, but as I said, part of the job description for an investor is to take risks and people seem to think that there will be a reward at the end of the day.

I doubt the Model 3 will be a flop, it wont do as well as expected due to competition, but it wont flop either.

The problem is, the technology isn't quite there... and the infrastructure is nowhere near there. there are only 680 locations with fast chargers in the UK, even then you're looking at an hour per charge from less than empty. Take note, only 188 of the 1004 chargers (across 680 locations) are Tesla's supercharger stations, most of them are slower chargers that take over twice as long.

So an EV is fine for someone who pootles about town and keeps the car plugged in for 14 hours a day at home, but for the motorist doing 8000 miles a year, running out of charge is a real risk and will remain a real risk until cars can be charged much faster, in more locations and batteries and motors become much more efficient.

So I doubt the majority of cars on roads in the next decade will be fully electric. We're looking at hybrids and petrols for a long time yet. When that sinks in, Tesla's value will fall to a more accurate representation of what the company is worth. I'm not saying Tesla will fail, but I am saying its over-valued and that will be corrected in time.

Re:Backlog/Demand is the reason for the valuation

[Anonymous Coward]

I've put 65,000 miles on my Tesla in 18 months. There's no real risk of running out of charge if you can look at the computer screen which tells you exactly when to charge and where.

If you can't plug in either at home or at work, then it would be very annoying to have to sit around and wait for the hour it takes to charge every few days. Doable, but annoying. But anyone who has a charger at home (in their garage or carport) or who has access to a charger at their work will have no problems with an electric car, including spending less personal time on maintenance, fueling up, and regular oil changes. It's not for everyone, but it's perfectly feasible for a very large minority of people.

Re:Backlog/Demand is the reason for the valuation

[swillden]

The problem is, the technology isn't quite there... and the infrastructure is nowhere near there.

For most people not living in apartments, infrastructure is irrelevant as long as the car has enough range to get them to and from work, plus a bit of running around. If you can charge at home, infrastructure only matters when you go on long trips.

So an EV is fine for someone who pootles about town and keeps the car plugged in for 14 hours a day at home, but for the motorist doing 8000 miles a year

8000 miles per year? That is "pootling about town". I put over 24,000 miles per year on my LEAF (now that it's not artificially constrained by lease limitations). I almost never charge anywhere except home, because there's almost no place to charge where I live. I do have a level 2 charging station in my garage, so a charge from empty takes a little over three hours.

So I doubt the majority of cars on roads in the next decade will be fully electric.

Well, since the majority of cars on the roads ten years from now will be like those that are selling now, that's a very safe bet. On the other hand, I think that it's entirely reasonable to believe that the majority of sales ten years from now will be EVs. Barring regulatory forcing (which could happen), it'll take another decade for them to become the majority of cars on road.

I'm not saying Tesla will fail, but I am saying its over-valued and that will be corrected in time.

That, however, seems entirely likely. I think the Model 3 will be quite popular and that Tesla will do very well. That doesn't mean that Tesla will own the market in a decade, though they'll probably be a significant player. Basically, their current valuation is probably about what their valuation will be in ten years.

"Market value"

[fustakrakich]

That has to be one of the biggest scams on the planet.

Nice bubble you got there. Sure would hate to see anything happen to it.

Stop it with the EV1

[sjbe]

Large American car companies have been a cluster fuck since the 70s.

And yet people continue to buy their vehicles by the millions. I work in the industry and have for a lot of years. Fact is that the big US car companies are pretty well managed - they are at worst comparable to most of their competition. The problems they've had have mostly been legacy problems from back in the 80s and earlier when they didn't have as much competition. Primarily high labor and pension costs that they simply could not shed and that their competition was not subject to. US cars today are largely of good quality (with some exceptions) and all the US auto makers have managed to get their costs more competitive. FCA is still something of a mess but Ford and GM are pretty well managed and very profitable at the moment.

GM could have dominated this market starting with the EV1 years ago.

GM could have possible dominated the EV market but not with the EV1 and probably not its hypothetical successor either. They would have had to have a much longer investment horizon on EVs than was probably reasonable to expect. The EV1 was a nice enough little car if it happened to fit your needs but it was wildly impractical for most people (it was a two seater with very limited range) and hugely expensive to build. There was no way GM could have sold them profitably without huge government subsidies and it was never going to be a car with mass appeal. The battery pack in it only gave a range of 100 miles and the batteries on the last models were NiMh batteries with a capacity of 26.4kWh (a Tesla Model S has capacity 3-4X that amount). The EV1 routinely earns spots on worst car lists because it was a vehicle that relied on technology that just wasn't ready yet. EVs are only becoming practical now because of progress in battery technology.

Re:Stop it with the EV1

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't much of that battery technology progress stagnate specifically from them mothballing the battery technology of the time capable of running an electric car and then banning them from being use in that?

I remember something about the NiMH batteries of the time used to run it being bought out by a company owned by Cheveron and GM and being blocked from being used in the cars again, which also makes it kinda funny that they are just now taking off when that technology should be hitting public domain soon anyways so they couldn't stop it.

If it wasn't for them blocking it, that battery technology could have potentially come much sooner and we be further ahead than we are now. Much of the progress we have made I think is actually thanks to Telsa helping to force mass production to lower costs.

Tesla is cool. GM not dead.

[enjar]

Tesla is undoubtedly cool. Their cars seem to be holding up well, despite some hiccups and a weird amount of hate from the 'MURICA folks -- especially given that Tesla is

1) on track to be the most "domestic" of domestic automakers -- 90% when the gigafactory is fully working.
2) creating jobs in America
3) creating EVs that are sporty, fun to drive, etc.

I do see them as the future -- but they are a growing niche player. As an American I'm happy they are here and I'm happy to see what they are doing. It's good someone is out there pushing the envelope. Plus with Elon you get all the fun of Space X, solar, battery storage, tunnel boring and he's a fan of Iain Banks, so much so he names his recovery drones after Culture ships. Add powered armor and you can get to Tony Stark pretty quickly.

GM, though, is not dead yet. Not by far. I drive a Volt every day and it's probably the nicest small sedan I've owned. Decent power, very efficient and used models are very reasonably priced. Plus they have been really putting money and resources into EVs -- the Spark and Bolt are recent additions. Sure, it's not a pure EV, but also at the same time it's not as expensive as it would of been if it was and long distance travel is very possible in it. I know EV range is getting better and charging times are decreasing -- but for many Americans it's not anything approaching reality. I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford a house with a garage and have an employer that has on site EV charging. Therefore, I have easy charging at home and work and I do 85-90% of my driving on battery. For many people this isn't reality -- they park on the street or live in an apartment/condo complex with no access to charging infrastructure. Or they don't have the ability to spend the money to install a charging station at home, as it can approach $1K.

The other big money maker is trucks and SUVs. Tesla has the Model X, but honestly at its price point it only competes with top of the line Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac and Lexus SUVs. GM has a full range of SUVs and pickups -- and Chevy pumped out ~700K Silverado/GMC Sierra pickups in 2016, plus 215K Equinoxes, 200K Mailbus, and 171K Cruzes. That's well north of 1M vehicles delivered in the US alone. Tesla delivered 76K worldwide.

Of course, that's apples to oranges since Tesla competes in the luxury segment exclusively at this point. Not to mention that I can't recall people pledging $1000 to get in line for any GM vehicle launch. Maybe people put payments in advance on the next Corvette, but I've never heard of someone prepaying on the Cadillac that competes with the Model 3.

Re:Tesla is cool. GM not dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Irconically the prepayments are likely due to Tesla's incredibly slow vehicle production ramp up. I.e. GM/Ford can produce as many Corvettes as are demanded, quickly. Tesla's production is slow so you pay a deposit to get your before others.

Who knows what the deposit situation might be if there was a scarcity of other brands cars. In this case deposits are a double or triple edged sword.

1) Past: Pre-orders only make sense because of past failures in production ramp up "proves" it is worth paying the deposit to secure the car earlier. AKA- No faith from customers in a quick production ramp up.
2) Present: Free cash today for Tesla! Yay!
3) Future: Tesla has already received a sizable portion of any expected profit in the form of deposits so clearing the backlog doesn't generate cash profits in the future. In fact, if the net profit is less than $1,000, each car sold will HURT their cash position.

Re:invester logic: loss promises, profits disappoi

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, but what's an "invester"?

The Leaf is not a great car

[sjbe]

The Leaf is a great car and they have done a lot to get people driving EVs, especially in Europe.

The Leaf is not a great car. It's a good enough car that proves there is demand for EVs but objectively it is a car with some very serious deficiencies. The worst deficiencies are that it's ugly and the range of the vehicle stinks. And before anyone repeats the meme about how far people drive in a day, it doesn't matter. If the car can't go at least 200-300 miles on a change then it is a crap car as far as the mass market is concerned in the current market. My brother-in-law has one and it's fine for a second commuter car but it's not a great car for most people.

The problem is that circumstances have kind of screwed them - Tesla's Model 3 is looking unbeatable right now, so far ahead of anything anyone else can offer it's stunning.

How do you figure? Sure it's got a lot of hype and interest but the Model 3 isn't even on the market yet. The Chevy Bolt has similar range and is apparently a pretty solid car and you can buy one today. Even the vaunted pre-orders for the Model 3 are misleading because it doesn't tell you much about what steady state demand for it will be. Once Telsa delivers the pent up demand to the true believers it's unclear what number they will sell on an ongoing basis. I hope they do well but we just don't know.

That big screen, full self driving if not from day one fairly early in its life, and best of all software updates in an age when most manufacturers can't keep the sat nav up to date.

The Model 3 will not be a self driving vehicle. It will have some technology to enable some of that but to call it a self driving car is not really accurate.

Re:The Leaf is not a great car

[AmiMoJo]

I've owned two Leafs. They are great cars, and you don't realize how great until you live with one. For example, the interior and instrument cluster layout is brilliant, and every other EV I've tried doesn't come close. Some look better, with fancy graphics and the like, but in terms of usability the Leaf is king.

The range is absolutely fine for most people most of the time. And most people have access to more than one car - via a partner or family member. Nissan will loan be an ICE for a couple of weeks if I need it anyway, but I never have. Even long trips have been no problem.

The M3 will be fully self driving in time, just like the Model S and X. Unless Tesla screw up spectacularly, any model bought with auto-pilot hardware will get a software update to enable fully autonomous driving.

It's not a car it's a software platform

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep going back to this point, and it is missed by a lot of analysts(remember you can't spell analyst without anal). Telsa is merging two technologies, horseless carriages and electronic adding machines.

What's important is that Telsa can get a steady flow of cash from their consumers via: electric charging stations, and software updates, advertising.

The most profitable companies in the world are built upon delivering software and advertisements to consumers. Remember when Apple was building an 'ipod'? And everybody laughed at them?
Then they built an 'iPhone' and everybody laughed at them?

It's not about cars, well not JUST cars, it's about technology and technology sells.

When you buy a car from GM, they get the profit margin on the car, that's it. Then they beg and plead for you to bring it back to them for service, and to buy parts so they can continue to make money.

Tesla will post an app on a website, which will install to their cars, which cost them a couple million to develop. They can then sell it for $100.00, and start printing money.

It isn't a car, it is a software delivery system.

Re:It's not a car it's a software platform

[ledow]

Electric charging stations? Anyone could make a compatible one if Tesla's really took off. And they can likely do it a lot cheaper if they happen to own, say, thousands of fuel stations in convenient locations. There's no market there.

Software updates? To do what?

Advertising? Where? To passengers? You can't advertise to drivers while they're driving.

Apple don't make money on advertising. Or software. They give it away with their hardware. You can't buy MacOS for anything other than a Mac.

Similarly for iTunes Music - though there are cross-platform apps they are second-class citizens. It's about selling the product (music / hardware), not the software.

What can you sell that you can put on a car's computer? Satnav? Good luck. Entertainment might work but someone only has to go to Apple, Amazon, Netflix, etc. and say "You can be the exclusive content provider to Ford in-car systems". Game over.

Tesla's unique selling point is an all-electric vehicle. They're trying to make it also "the best battery". Both are markets that can become heavily contested overnight and there's nothing to suggest that Tesla would lead in either case. They're hoping to win "by scale" on batteries. I bet the Ford petty cash fund outperforms anything they can muster to build on scale.

By the numbers, Tesla produces not very much for a lot of money. And their share price is basically fake at this stage. Share price = the gamble on their future demand. It has little correlation to profit, product or even real life in some cases. Go see Twitter's share price. It was $31bn at IPO.
  And then ask yourself how much money has Twitter ever seen come in except investment? Tesla is only worth slightly more than Twitter, in that respect.

Tesla will be left behind the second their products are taken seriously by consumers. Most people will still have never heard of them by then.

Re:It's not a car it's a software platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Two problems, one is Tesla gets really big orders for Model 3 and has big problems with lack of charging stations and proper service capacity or has a big quality control problem. Second issue is that Tesla never get's the Model 3 past initial sales and Tesla see's less growth than promised. I have seen some interest in charging stations but clearly its limited mostly to higher populated cities. Some have even experienced chargers already out of service, or unable to process a charge properly. With gas stations prevalent and fuel rather cheap, big vehicles have risen back to top sellers. This may not be so great for a EV car maker. At least with a GM they have a selection of vehicles to focus on what is selling currently. Tesla is a one hit wonder, that is focused totally on a EV vehicle.

Tesla's prospects

[sjbe]

Tesla has cars on the road, it's not vaporware company. His other companies are also progressing with their goals too.

Tesla hasn't made a sustained profit yet and it's still not clear if it is going to ultimately succeed as an ongoing enterprise. The fact that they've sold some product is nice but not sufficient. TSLA as a stock is wildly over valued given the likely prospects of the company in the next 10 years.

If you want to talk about something that took a lot of people's life savings and that was completely legal, let's talk about the fucking banks. Not only did they ruin people's lives but they also got more money for bailouts.

What the banks did is utterly irrelevant as to whether Tesla is a good investment or not. Your argument is nonsense. They have absolutely nothing to do with one another nor are they comparable.

Re:Tesla's prospects

[codealot]

He wasn't comparing them to each other, he was comparing both to a Madoff scheme (going back to the OP). I understood his point, you apparently missed it entirely.

It was a flawed topic to begin with. Madoff's "enterprise" was entirely financial, Tesla is a technology and manufacturing company. Madoff's collapse was only a matter of time, Tesla's future remains to be seen.

Not completely insane

[crow]

The price isn't completely insane. If you figure that GM sells 10 million cars a year, but has very narrow profit margins. Tesla is looking for a production rate of 0.5 million cars by the end of next year and 1 million cars a few years after that. But Tesla has a much higher margin on its cars than GM. So if you look at the projected profits of Tesla selling 1m cars vs. GM selling 10m cars, Tesla comes out on top.

Of course, when Tesla is selling 1m cars per year, they'll likely still be expanding, so the profits will be lower, but Wall Street generally likes to see companies use their margin to fuel growth instead of using their margin for profits--it's always about the future.

Re:Not completely insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong metric.

ROC is a better indicator of profitability.

GM generates positive free cash flow from capital spend. Tesla does not. There is no fundamental reason to believe Tesla is a going concern.

Re:Not completely insane

[crow]

Nonsense. If you look at what Tesla would be making if they weren't investing in the future, they would be making a handsome profit on the Model S and X. The difference in capital spending between Tesla and GM is that Tesla is expanding, while GM is spending on maintaining their business. Tesla is spending to become a much larger company, while GM is spending to try to stay the same size.

Overvalued if just a car company

[funkman]

If you think Tesla is a car company - then it's overvalued.

If you think Tesla is a battery company that happens to sell cars - then the valuation is closer to correct.

The real key to their offering is batter management. Taking tons of little batteries as commodities and making them appear as one big battery. Then resizing that big battery for accomplishing things which at the time was expensive. Such as powering a car or a house.

Re:Overvalued if just a car company

[drinkypoo]

The real key to their offering is batter management. Taking tons of little batteries as commodities and making them appear as one big battery.

Uh no. Even the Honda Insight did that from the beginning.

Re:Overvalued if just a car company

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they haven't advanced battery technology at all. It's still the same sucky Lithium-ion batteries that power everything else, just bigger.

And what is the liability when they have a glitchy manufacturing run and start burning people's houses down with this crap technology?

If they had truly advanced battery technology, I would say the current valuation is low, but they have not made any real breakthroughs there.

Re:Overvalued if just a car company

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla's huge investment in batteries is a big risk. They have no advanced battery technology, they are using the same as everyone else. Asians will not buy Tesla batteries and will gladly sell at lower prices to Tesla competitors. Tesla's battery production costs will be higher until they start producing huge number, no telling how many years that will be.

If there is a battery technology breakthrough in the next 8 years that supercedes Li Ion , Tesla's gigafactory investment will be a lead weight around their neck.

Re:invester logic: loss promises, profits disappoi

[oh_my_080980980]

a moron with money to burn....

Happy for Musk but...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I'm overjoyed to see a new company with a vibrant, dynamic CEO shaking up the stagnant car market the way Apple shook up the music industry. However, before things get completely out of hand, keep in mind Tesla shipped roughly 80,000 cars total last year. GM shipped 9.8 million cars in 2015 and even more in 2016.

This reminds me so much of the rabid speculation of the dot-com era. Netscape was valued at $10 billion in 1999. Today...Netscape who? PointCast, the "push" media of the future, once commanded $450 million. It was ultimately sold for $7 million just months before being shut down completely. AOL? Red Hat? Shall I go on? The investment road is littered with the corpses of speculative "next big thing" companies.

I sincerely hope Tesla does not fall prey to this same demise. I don't own a Tesla product but I expect to benefit from them pushing the sluggish Ford, GM, etc. to actually innovate for a change.

Re:Happy for Musk but...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a pretty good summary.

Tesla is the new corporate hotness right now, and I'm not sad about it. Tesla seems to have a pretty good product; it's still not quite at mass market stage but maybe that will materialize. If Tesla can mature and justify their market cap all will be well. If not, well then, share ownership has ups and downs. Investors know the risks.

Once upon a time GM was a corporate darling too. Also, Sears, steel companies, the railroads, numerous mining firms, lots of firms. Mutual fund companies and wealth management firms have done well in recent decades. Currently Apple sits atop the hill, though there is a hint of corporate drift going on at Apple these days.

Re:Happy for Musk but...

[soc_cost_priv_gains]

From what I've read it looks like Elon wants to have competition, for him its more about the environment than about pure profit. Yes profit is important but that is not what drives him. Some people forget that and criticize his business practices but his behavior makes sense if you keep his ultimate goals in mind. Why else would he make his patents freely available if not to increase competition?

The Leaf is a niche vehicle

[sjbe]

I've owned two Leafs. They are great cars, and you don't realize how great until you live with one.

I've driven one a fair bit and my brother-in-law owns one so I've spent enough time behind the wheel to get a good opinion. It's fine but all the stuff you are talking about as good features (which I don't dispute) are second order considerations. It has crap range and therefore it's mass market appeal is going to be limited. I'd buy a Chevy Bolt over a Leaf without question for the range alone. It also is a rather ugly vehicle from the outside. Most people don't care how nice the interior is if it doesn't get them where they need to go. They also won't buy it if they think it looks hideous. It mystifies me why so many EV makers insist on making intentionally ugly hatchbacks.

The Leaf is fine if your needs for a vehicle are decidedly limited and you don't car how it looks and you have access to a second car. But it isn't a great car in any general sense of the term. Double the range and it might become worth considering.

The range is absolutely fine for most people most of the time.

Most people don't want a vehicle that is fine "most of the time". Most want a vehicle that is fine ALL of the time. I exceed the range of a Leaf at least 4 times per month and sometimes more often. I seldom exceed the range of a Tesla or even a Chevy Bolt. The number of people willing to live with a 100 mile range is not a huge number.

And most people have access to more than one car - via a partner or family member.

So to buy a Leaf you have to periodically sponge off of someone else with a gas powered vehicle or own two cars. Fine if you have lots of money and forgiving friends but not a situation I want to be in personally. If I buy an EV it will have enough range that it is rarely going to be a problem. That means >200 miles minimum. I should be able to drive from Detroit to Cleveland without stopping. $30K+ for a vehicle that cannot do that is a rather stupid waste of money in my estimation.

The M3 will be fully self driving in time, just like the Model S and X.

Neither the Model S or Model X are self driving in any general sense of the term. Not yet anyway. No production car is. Presumably you are talking about autopilot which is the basis for what Tesla hopes will be full self driving features in the future. They have the hardware and some nifty features for some limited circumstances but that's not the same thing as being a self driving car.

Re:The Leaf is a niche vehicle

[Nemyst]

They also won't buy it if they think it looks hideous. It mystifies me why so many EV makers insist on making intentionally ugly hatchbacks.

This, so much. There's a reason why Tesla was seen by many as a game changer: they made desirable cars. I think the Leaf, Bolt, Volt, Prius and more are all great cars, but to pick one would be an entirely rational choice and would have to put my aesthetic inclinations on the backburner. The Model S is desirable, it's luxurious. It'd sell well even if it weren't an electric car.

This is also why I'm looking at the Model 3 and the VW e-Golf with interest. Mass-market yet still good looking electric cars are going to be a big deal.

Re:The Leaf is a niche vehicle

[rfengr]

Presently I cab buy 10 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla, or 4 for the price of a Bolt. A used Leaf is the ideal way to ease into an EV.

Re:The Leaf is a niche vehicle

[soft_guy]

Your point that the LEAF is "ugly" is an opinion. It is not a fact. I personally like the looks of it. I own a LEAF and I agree with what you are saying about the range. The range is fine for me in town, but I can't take the car out of town. My wife and I also have a Toyota Highlander because we have a large family and often need a car with third row seating. So we are covered when it comes to long trips and mostly needed the LEAF as a car to get around town. And for that purpose, its awesome.

Re:The Leaf is a niche vehicle

[minogully]

Except that because of the Leaf's poor thermal management strategy on the battery (air cooled), the battery degrades at a much faster rate than a Tesla's. This is increased depending on how hot your climate is.

Here's a resource to estimate your battery capacity for a Nissan Leaf.

Basically, a used Leaf from Phoenix, AZ that's only 2.5 years old would only have 70% its original capacity. But a used Leaf from Syracuse, NY would not get to 70% capacity until it's 8.3 years old.

A Tesla on the other hand has been shown to have more than 90% capacity after 200,000 miles (approx. 13.3 years of driving, for a 15,000 miles per year mileage). In fact, simulations have the battery still above 80% after 500,000 miles.

So, considering the Phoenix example. Let's say your lightly used Leaf requires a battery replacement straight away because it's already 2.5 years old, that's another $10,000 on your car purchase bringing the cost up to $20,000. And another $10,000 every 2.5 years thereafter. You'll have paid about $50,000 on battery replacements by the time you've made it to 13.3 years of driving, and $60,000 overall. So, by that metric, you can only afford 1.6 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.

Just for fun, in Syracuse, your money will go further. You'll only need one battery replacement in 13.3 years. So you can afford 5 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.

Not only that

[Sycraft-fu]

GM looks severely undervalued. What a "normal" P/E valuation should be varies depending on who you ask but usually in the realm of 14-20. In really bad bear markets indexes go down to like 7-10.

Well, GM is like 5. That would imply that it is quite undervalued at the moment.

So you have a very undervalued stock, compared to a stock that people are buying heavily on hyper/hope. That doesn't make for an accurate comparison. Sure Tesla has a bigger market cap... now compare earnings and get back to me.

Teasla market value

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of money in the world, and some of that money is held by stupid people. 85,000 or so vs 10,000,000 or so, ridiculous.

really, WHO GIVES A FUCK about EV1?

[WindBourne]

Seriously, the EV1 is dead and over.
And you are full of shit about the ZEV. Those amount to SQUAT relative to the Model S/X prices.
Sadly, you fucked up neo-cons will continue to BS your way through anything.
And finally, GM and others are SOOO heavily subsidized by you GOP that it is AMAZING that Tesla is winning in America.

Re:invester logic: loss promises, profits disappoi

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, but what's an "invester"?

Somebody who is so rich that he can afford to pretend that "O" is always a digit and never a letter.

such speculation is foolish

[WindBourne]

While I have no doubt that Tesla WILL be huge in the future, it is not this big.
There is way too much speculation and stock manipulation that is occurring on Tesla.

Petrocars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that now how we differentiate petroleum-fueled vehicles from the other 1% of vehicles now on the road?

Valuation == company assets - company debt

[GreatDrok]

Tesla has very little debt so while it isn't as big as GM or Ford, they're both carrying massive debt. Simple as that. Oh, and Tesla is making cars that people want to buy. They're expensive now, but you get that back in the long run and you get a car that is much nicer to drive and live with than anything the other car manufacturers produce with a smelly old engine. More to the point, the car manufacturers don't actually have the ability to make EVs in any great numbers because they don't have the batteries. Tesla knows this and has invested in building the batteries to power their cars. That's how Tesla will be able to sell hundreds of thousands of Model 3s a year and GM can't even make more than a few thousand Bolts. They could sell a lot more Bolts than they will because without batteries they're going nowhere.

Reality is not the Tesla investor

[Anonymous Coward]

Reality of real numbers doesn't play into a Tesla investor. These are short timers looking for quick money, and the rest are wishful thinkers. So far the reality of what Tesla has done wouldn't get most investors excited in the long term. Truth is Tesla has a lot of potential, but so far has not even shown a profit. To me this is a high risk with potential to go either way. Nothing against EV but clearly if batteries do not improve significantly soon in capacity vs weight. Your going to run out of potential buyers who do not see a EV as viable with their lifestyle. I would say, make a reasonably priced EV that get's 400 miles to a charge and watch them come.
Until then, its rather limited to its potential market. The model 3 will be the big test for Tesla in many ways, from sales, to services, to growth.

Battery tech investment

[sjbe]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't much of that battery technology progress stagnate specifically from them mothballing the battery technology of the time capable of running an electric car and then banning them from being use in that?

I'm sure the lack of investment into battery tech by GM and others probably did stagnate matters though it's hard to put a number on how much since it didn't happen. One thing that is clear is that NiMh batteries were a dead end as far as electric vehicles were concerned. Too many problems with them. And as a result the EV1 was a dead end as well because an electric car is only as good as the battery tech in it. I've never seen any evidence that GM was seriously working on Li-Ion or other more advanced battery tech at the time of the EV1 and it certainly wasn't market ready at the time.

If it wasn't for them blocking it, that battery technology could have potentially come much sooner and we be further ahead than we are now.

Maybe but I'm not sure it really mattered much if true. The battery tech we use now (primarily Li-Ion) was already being worked on at the time so it's not entirely clear how much GM's activities could have accelerated the process or how much it held matters back. Maybe a lot, maybe not much. We'll never really know. My guess is that GM came in to the market too early. The EV1 was a vehicle with too many compromises to have been a game changer like the Model S has been. I'm also not sure if GM really could have brought pure EVs to market - I think there were too many competing forces within the company. Sort of a classic innovator's dilemma problem.

Consensus on ugly

[sjbe]

Your point that the LEAF is "ugly" is an opinion.

True but it is not an opinion unique to me. When enough people concur that it is ugly then it is de-facto ugly. I don't think I'd have a hard time finding a quorum of people who think the Leaf is not a particularly attractive vehicle aesthetically speaking. It has it's charms to be sure but external styling was clearly not a priority. The Tesla vehicles are supermodels by comparison. The Model S is a gorgeous car even if you completely ignore the fact that it is electric. I think you'll find that most people will say the Model 3 is FAR better looking than the Leaf.

Purchasing a Leaf can be a very practical decision for some people but nobody is buying it because they think it is drop dead beautiful to look at.

Re:Consensus on ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tesla Model S does look reasonably OK, but have you ever seen the Model X? The Nissan Leaf is gorgeous by comparison.

Depreciation

[sjbe]

Presently I cab buy 10 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla, or 4 for the price of a Bolt. A used Leaf is the ideal way to ease into an EV.

That just indicates that they depreciate faster than milk goes bad. That's probably not a good thing. Cars that depreciate that fast generally do so for a reason so one has to ask the question why are they so cheap if they are such great cars? Second hand cars that sell at steep discounts generally do so because of serious flaws and lack of demand for them.

Breaking News

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in...

A tech company that doesn't make any money has a ridiculously high market valuation.

Also, water is wet.