That's not even remotely what you described. It's what I described before when I wrote:
I've been wracking my brain to try to figure out what you might be talking about. The closest I can think is that Tesla considers salvaged cars that haven't gone through recertification "unsupported", and they can't get updates or use the supercharging network.
That is in no way "bricking the battery" and "requiring a code"
No hits if I put it in quotes, nothing obvious when it's not. Care to try again? The closest I see is a random unsubstantiated post on the net that says that they could do it (but haven't), and has no mention of a "code". Is that what you're talking about?
What packages are you adding on to reach $60k? I'm trying to figure out what you're thinking of.
So, you're starting out by optioning out to the long range battery and the premium interior, since that's first production. But that only adds $9k and $5k, respectively, so $49k. What else are you adding?
It's amazing that Tesla can remotely "brick" one of their cars against the owner's wishes and render it inoperable until they give the owner a code to get it running (if they choose to do so).
What are you even talking about? Tesla does not "remotely brick" cars. The concept of a "code" makes no sense in the concept of a Tesla. Where would you even enter a code?
I've been wracking my brain to try to figure out what you might be talking about. The closest I can think is that Tesla considers salvaged cars that haven't gone through recertification "unsupported", and they can't get updates or use the supercharging network.
Who here is saying that Tesla should get a free pass on this?
BTW; there's lots of people who tear down and build up Teslas. There's a great series over on Youtube from Ingineerix (who salvages wrecked / flooded Teslas), who's been going into how every system on the Model 3 works, down to the nitty-gritty details. One of my favourite things recently was the design of the rear wheel/motor assembly. To take it off involves only disconnecting 2 dampers, 2 brake lines, 3 electrical cables and 4 bolts. And you've entirely removed the rear wheels and motor. Unlike S and X, this car was clearly designed with keeping maintenance labour costs down as a high priority.
Another really interesting thing is in his most recent video, where he shows how much thicker the charge port-to-battery wiring is on Model 3 than Model S and Model X. Now, there's always the possibility they switched from copper to alumium or similar, but as it stands, it looks like they've designed it for much higher max charge powers. Which matches well their plans to introduce a new supercharger (V3) later this year. If it's 180kW per-vehicle, as the speculation has been, a five minute charge at low SoCs would allow for an hour of driving at moderately fast highway speeds (about an hour and a half at the sort of speed limits we have here!)
I've seen this over and over and over again. I'm never buying any sort of OLED phone until either they can get degradation under control, or they've literally driven LCD phones off the market.
Just had a realization here: converting it to pumped hydroelectric might be a boon for the downstream environment.
There's been a number of negative consequences to the dam. It lets out water relatively steadily, so there's no longer any floods. These allow sediment buildup, both in Lake Meade, and downstream. They also have made the river more hazardous to navigate, as rockslides have built up. The deep water is the average temperature of the water year round, so there's no longer summer heat nor winter cold. This has killed off many native species and allowed certain types of vegetation - never exposed to the cold - to overgrow.
If you pump the water back and forth between Lake Mojave and uprate the dam power, however, when you need that extra power, you'll be letting a lot more water through. Aka, you'll be getting more powerful periodic "floods" during high demand times. Also, with the same water being recirculated, and cycled through more frequently, it may start to closer approach the current atmospheric temperature rather than the average year-round temperature.
The only thing that seems to make sense to me - without destroying more landscape - is if they cut Lake Meade in half with a second dam, and had both a "high lake" and a "low lake". Of course, that would mean that the water behind Hoover Dam would generally be at rather low levels, and the water further upstream generally at high levels. Not sure how that would affect recreation. Might slightly increase evaporation / ground losses, too.
And their magicked-into-existence gigafactories to make these things in volume are where, exactly?
Production has significant time delays from when you start paying for it to when you start gaining benefits from it. Wanting to make a "competing product that is as good" doesn't make it just happen. Everyone has some sort of "EV" out there, but they're all in much smaller volumes, and generally loss leaders (aka "compliance cars"). As an example: you know the Jaguar I-Pace, getting all of that press as a "Tesla Killer" (what they call pretty much every Also-Ran)? Never mind that they just delayed it by 4 months and are doing the same thing Tesla did with the Model 3 (lead with the more expensive versions first). Jaguar total - all of its ICE models combined - amass to just 100k per year. And the I-Pace will just be a very small fraction of its total production. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg tracker for the Model 3 believes they'll be over 6k per week in a couple weeks (an annualized rate of over 313k per year). All EVs.
Several years from now, Tesla might actually have serious competition, now that some major automakers are finally starting to pump meaningful amounts of money into EVs. Assuming that they're smart enough to target where Tesla will be at that time, rather than where Tesla is today. Because Tesla isn't standing still either.
"Irrational" is looking at past sales rates on a company that's actively undergoing an exponential growth curve, and continues to invest in said curve, and has reservations to buy all of its products (not even just "all of its cars" - all of its products period) years in advance. And yes, that even still applies to the Model 3 - they're milking all of the LR RWD, AWD and P from the US and Canadian markets they can, but that's still just a quarter of their reservations. Eurospec doesn't even start sales until next year. BTW; in case you missed it: wait times went up on new Model 3s orders the other day.
You would have also called Amazon investors "irrational" because they were doing the exact same thing.
Secondly, get your story straight: is Tesla's SG&A too high and they should be cutting back on it, or is cutting back on SG&A spending a sign of doom? You need to pick one story and stick with it.
Third, there is nothing unusual about automakers asking for refunds on ongoing contracts. Unfair? Sure, but welcome to the automotive industry. When you have the bully pulpit, you can get away with things like that.
Lastly, nobody said "forever". But given that they're simultaneously attacking multiple markets each worth hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars, yes, they're only just getting started. Nobody is anywhere close to the rate of EV production scaleup they've achieved this year and are on track to continue in the next coming years. 2-3 years from now that situation may change, given what some established automakers are finally starting to invest in EVs. But until then, Tesla stands alone. It doesn't matter if you're GM, VW, or anyone else - you can't magick Gigafactories into existence overnight.
Note that if you can't even follow news properly, you probably shouldn't be messing with investment. The "refund" discussion wasn't with parts suppliers, it was concerning ongoing unfinished capex projects. Capex != parts. And it went out to fewer than 10 companies.
It appears that someone at one of the companies that got the letter thought that it was going out to all of Tesla's thousands of suppliers and thus wouldn't get in trouble for leaking it; the fact that this incorrect was already discovered in the first article on the topic of the letter, even before Tesla responded. It's a pretty safe bet that, given how few letters Tesla sent out, that they already know who leaked the letter, and I imagine that they won't be receiving any future contracts.
I didn't buy 12 months ago. I bought mostly this spring, at $263. I've had a number of small purchases since then - most significantly positive, a few about the same, and only one meaningfully negative.
I assume you've got your short positions in, in advance of the Q2 report?
It's not about whether it's a good report or a bad report. It's about whether it's a better or worse report than people are expecting. And how well the spin of bulls and bears is taken, because trust me, both will have their own radically different interpretations of the same thing.
I can however tell you that people are expecting a bad report. Particularly since they held back over 10k vehicles to avoid tolling the tax credit limit in Q2, so that's a lot of production that they hadn't gotten paid for yet in Q2. Also, the layoffs, which were basically an SG&A cut, will be a benefit in Q3, but they're a severance hit in Q2.
Basically, if Q2 isn't terrible, it's great. And if Q3 isn't great, it's terrible. Tesla is targeting its first sustained profit in Q3. I think they'll need to show it for at least two quarters (Q3 and Q4) in order to get major sustained stock movement, however - because I know the bears are already writing their "It was a one-time thing!" articles for Q3. On the other hand, the Q2 report might be enough to finally stomp out the silly "bankwutpcy" meme.
Lol, I wouldn't touch Facebook stock. And certainly don't plan to now. Social media platforms don't last.
Apart from retirement funds, whose stocks I don't pick directly, the only stock I own is TSLA. And it's served me quite nicely, thanks.:) But by all means, get your positions in - Q2 report coming out next week.
Apart from things like minor transportation delays, radiation monitors sounding, credit cards failing to work, some phones deleting new messages rather than old when running out of space, etc, probably the worst Y2K bug I heard of was a bunch of expectant mothers in the UK being falsely told that their children were at a high risk of Downs' Syndrome when they weren't, and vice versa, due to miscalculation of the mother's age. There were some abortions in the former group as a result of the email. Still, given all the hype, the actual effects were (as everyone here expected) quite small.
My favorite was when the government of Maine started issuing titles to peoples' new cars describing it as a "Horseless Carriage", as apparently that had been hard-coded as the terminology for vehicles from before 1916.;)
It's not just the grid fins and landing burns that make the first stage easier. The rocket does a boostback burn and a reentry burn, both of which help pointpoint where the rocket will end up. The fairing does no burns; the only control over where it will be when its parachute deploys is when it separates and the trajectory of the upper stage at the time. Errors in precision high up are amplified as the fairing descends and enters the atmosphere.
The terminal guidance with the parachute and catching that with a boat is yet another problem on top of that. At least the parachute slows the descent, giving the boat more time to position itself.
2) Anyone can file a complaint with the SEC. Filing a complaint and "the investigation has already begun" are two entirely separate things.
3) Martin Tripp is the sabateur who tried to frame his coworkers and threatened to shoot up the Gigafactory. Most recently he was caught in a lie about not knowing how to program (people dug up his old Stack Overflow, Scribd and Adafruit accounts - which he then tried to delete to cover up his tracks). Oh, and fun fact: the only other thing on his Scribd account apart from programming and sysadmin docs? Why, NRA gun documents! His alibi for why he had them was hilarious - why, he only had them to trade for guitar tabs, dontcha know!;)
It's weird... after having been vegetarian for 17 years, the concept of making a vegetarian burger taste more like meat only strikes feelings of "eww, gross" in me. And I imagine that's a pretty common reaction.
But I guess it's good for non-vegetarians and maybe people who are newly vegetarian.
On the upside, I imagine this product is a good source of iron, since heme iron is well absorbed.
No, he's saying that Tesla doesn't usually get ~25% gross profit margins on their vehicles, and they're lying to the SEC.
Now cue the SG&A arguments that pretend that SG&A is A) linear with volume, B) requires no pre-ramp spend up, C) that we can ignore that SG&A requires hiring, and Tesla's hiring hasn't come close to matching Model 3 production scaleup rates, D) not mentioning that Tesla's layoffs were SG&A cuts, E) forgetting that the Supercharger network is transitioning from a SG&A loss leader to self sustaining now that they're charging for it and an exponentially-growing number of Model 3s are now paying to fill up at Superchargers. And about a dozen other things.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not even remotely what you described. It's what I described before when I wrote:
That is in no way "bricking the battery" and "requiring a code"
No hits if I put it in quotes, nothing obvious when it's not. Care to try again? The closest I see is a random unsubstantiated post on the net that says that they could do it (but haven't), and has no mention of a "code". Is that what you're talking about?
Welcome to Slashdot, where a company designing a vehicle to be easy to repair is spun as a bad thing.
Amazing.
What packages are you adding on to reach $60k? I'm trying to figure out what you're thinking of.
So, you're starting out by optioning out to the long range battery and the premium interior, since that's first production. But that only adds $9k and $5k, respectively, so $49k. What else are you adding?
That's exactly the point the GP is making A base Ford F-150 costs $28k. But you can option it out to over $100k.
And really, stop the presses: car maker starts out a new model line with only more expensive options availables. Details at 11!
(FYI, both I-Pace and Kona are doing the exact same thing)
What are you even talking about? Tesla does not "remotely brick" cars. The concept of a "code" makes no sense in the concept of a Tesla. Where would you even enter a code?
I've been wracking my brain to try to figure out what you might be talking about. The closest I can think is that Tesla considers salvaged cars that haven't gone through recertification "unsupported", and they can't get updates or use the supercharging network.
Who here is saying that Tesla should get a free pass on this?
BTW; there's lots of people who tear down and build up Teslas. There's a great series over on Youtube from Ingineerix (who salvages wrecked / flooded Teslas), who's been going into how every system on the Model 3 works, down to the nitty-gritty details. One of my favourite things recently was the design of the rear wheel/motor assembly. To take it off involves only disconnecting 2 dampers, 2 brake lines, 3 electrical cables and 4 bolts. And you've entirely removed the rear wheels and motor. Unlike S and X, this car was clearly designed with keeping maintenance labour costs down as a high priority.
Another really interesting thing is in his most recent video, where he shows how much thicker the charge port-to-battery wiring is on Model 3 than Model S and Model X. Now, there's always the possibility they switched from copper to alumium or similar, but as it stands, it looks like they've designed it for much higher max charge powers. Which matches well their plans to introduce a new supercharger (V3) later this year. If it's 180kW per-vehicle, as the speculation has been, a five minute charge at low SoCs would allow for an hour of driving at moderately fast highway speeds (about an hour and a half at the sort of speed limits we have here!)
.... whose display quality doesn't become lousy after 6-12 months of usage? (Check out the pictures between the phone that had been used regularly and the one that had almost never been used)
I've seen this over and over and over again. I'm never buying any sort of OLED phone until either they can get degradation under control, or they've literally driven LCD phones off the market.
Just had a realization here: converting it to pumped hydroelectric might be a boon for the downstream environment.
There's been a number of negative consequences to the dam. It lets out water relatively steadily, so there's no longer any floods. These allow sediment buildup, both in Lake Meade, and downstream. They also have made the river more hazardous to navigate, as rockslides have built up. The deep water is the average temperature of the water year round, so there's no longer summer heat nor winter cold. This has killed off many native species and allowed certain types of vegetation - never exposed to the cold - to overgrow.
If you pump the water back and forth between Lake Mojave and uprate the dam power, however, when you need that extra power, you'll be letting a lot more water through. Aka, you'll be getting more powerful periodic "floods" during high demand times. Also, with the same water being recirculated, and cycled through more frequently, it may start to closer approach the current atmospheric temperature rather than the average year-round temperature.
Just did some checks with a clickable elevation map
Nominal elevation of Lake Meade: 372m
River at the base: ~223m (hard to tell)
Nominal elevation of Lake Mohave: 198m.
So looks like you lose about 25m between the dam and Lake Mojave.
If Lake Meade were relatively full, 25m losses wouldn't be that great. They become more significant the lower the dam height, of course.
The only thing that seems to make sense to me - without destroying more landscape - is if they cut Lake Meade in half with a second dam, and had both a "high lake" and a "low lake". Of course, that would mean that the water behind Hoover Dam would generally be at rather low levels, and the water further upstream generally at high levels. Not sure how that would affect recreation. Might slightly increase evaporation / ground losses, too.
The problem is... where's the lower reservoir? The Colorado River isn't going to run backwards for you.
Also:
I assume they mean 2,6 and 1,5 cents, respectively.
And their magicked-into-existence gigafactories to make these things in volume are where, exactly?
Production has significant time delays from when you start paying for it to when you start gaining benefits from it. Wanting to make a "competing product that is as good" doesn't make it just happen. Everyone has some sort of "EV" out there, but they're all in much smaller volumes, and generally loss leaders (aka "compliance cars"). As an example: you know the Jaguar I-Pace, getting all of that press as a "Tesla Killer" (what they call pretty much every Also-Ran)? Never mind that they just delayed it by 4 months and are doing the same thing Tesla did with the Model 3 (lead with the more expensive versions first). Jaguar total - all of its ICE models combined - amass to just 100k per year. And the I-Pace will just be a very small fraction of its total production. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg tracker for the Model 3 believes they'll be over 6k per week in a couple weeks (an annualized rate of over 313k per year). All EVs.
Several years from now, Tesla might actually have serious competition, now that some major automakers are finally starting to pump meaningful amounts of money into EVs. Assuming that they're smart enough to target where Tesla will be at that time, rather than where Tesla is today. Because Tesla isn't standing still either.
"Irrational" is looking at past sales rates on a company that's actively undergoing an exponential growth curve, and continues to invest in said curve, and has reservations to buy all of its products (not even just "all of its cars" - all of its products period) years in advance. And yes, that even still applies to the Model 3 - they're milking all of the LR RWD, AWD and P from the US and Canadian markets they can, but that's still just a quarter of their reservations. Eurospec doesn't even start sales until next year. BTW; in case you missed it: wait times went up on new Model 3s orders the other day.
You would have also called Amazon investors "irrational" because they were doing the exact same thing.
Total assets = $27.3B
Total liabilities = $21,6B
Secondly, get your story straight: is Tesla's SG&A too high and they should be cutting back on it, or is cutting back on SG&A spending a sign of doom? You need to pick one story and stick with it.
Third, there is nothing unusual about automakers asking for refunds on ongoing contracts. Unfair? Sure, but welcome to the automotive industry. When you have the bully pulpit, you can get away with things like that.
Lastly, nobody said "forever". But given that they're simultaneously attacking multiple markets each worth hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars, yes, they're only just getting started. Nobody is anywhere close to the rate of EV production scaleup they've achieved this year and are on track to continue in the next coming years. 2-3 years from now that situation may change, given what some established automakers are finally starting to invest in EVs. But until then, Tesla stands alone. It doesn't matter if you're GM, VW, or anyone else - you can't magick Gigafactories into existence overnight.
Note that if you can't even follow news properly, you probably shouldn't be messing with investment. The "refund" discussion wasn't with parts suppliers, it was concerning ongoing unfinished capex projects. Capex != parts. And it went out to fewer than 10 companies.
It appears that someone at one of the companies that got the letter thought that it was going out to all of Tesla's thousands of suppliers and thus wouldn't get in trouble for leaking it; the fact that this incorrect was already discovered in the first article on the topic of the letter, even before Tesla responded. It's a pretty safe bet that, given how few letters Tesla sent out, that they already know who leaked the letter, and I imagine that they won't be receiving any future contracts.
I didn't buy 12 months ago. I bought mostly this spring, at $263. I've had a number of small purchases since then - most significantly positive, a few about the same, and only one meaningfully negative.
I assume you've got your short positions in, in advance of the Q2 report?
It's not about whether it's a good report or a bad report. It's about whether it's a better or worse report than people are expecting. And how well the spin of bulls and bears is taken, because trust me, both will have their own radically different interpretations of the same thing.
I can however tell you that people are expecting a bad report. Particularly since they held back over 10k vehicles to avoid tolling the tax credit limit in Q2, so that's a lot of production that they hadn't gotten paid for yet in Q2. Also, the layoffs, which were basically an SG&A cut, will be a benefit in Q3, but they're a severance hit in Q2.
Basically, if Q2 isn't terrible, it's great. And if Q3 isn't great, it's terrible. Tesla is targeting its first sustained profit in Q3. I think they'll need to show it for at least two quarters (Q3 and Q4) in order to get major sustained stock movement, however - because I know the bears are already writing their "It was a one-time thing!" articles for Q3. On the other hand, the Q2 report might be enough to finally stomp out the silly "bankwutpcy" meme.
Lol, I wouldn't touch Facebook stock. And certainly don't plan to now. Social media platforms don't last.
Apart from retirement funds, whose stocks I don't pick directly, the only stock I own is TSLA. And it's served me quite nicely, thanks. :) But by all means, get your positions in - Q2 report coming out next week.
Apart from things like minor transportation delays, radiation monitors sounding, credit cards failing to work, some phones deleting new messages rather than old when running out of space, etc, probably the worst Y2K bug I heard of was a bunch of expectant mothers in the UK being falsely told that their children were at a high risk of Downs' Syndrome when they weren't, and vice versa, due to miscalculation of the mother's age. There were some abortions in the former group as a result of the email. Still, given all the hype, the actual effects were (as everyone here expected) quite small.
My favorite was when the government of Maine started issuing titles to peoples' new cars describing it as a "Horseless Carriage", as apparently that had been hard-coded as the terminology for vehicles from before 1916. ;)
It's not just the grid fins and landing burns that make the first stage easier. The rocket does a boostback burn and a reentry burn, both of which help pointpoint where the rocket will end up. The fairing does no burns; the only control over where it will be when its parachute deploys is when it separates and the trajectory of the upper stage at the time. Errors in precision high up are amplified as the fairing descends and enters the atmosphere.
The terminal guidance with the parachute and catching that with a boat is yet another problem on top of that. At least the parachute slows the descent, giving the boat more time to position itself.
1) That's not concerning the topic involved.
2) Anyone can file a complaint with the SEC. Filing a complaint and "the investigation has already begun" are two entirely separate things.
3) Martin Tripp is the sabateur who tried to frame his coworkers and threatened to shoot up the Gigafactory. Most recently he was caught in a lie about not knowing how to program (people dug up his old Stack Overflow, Scribd and Adafruit accounts - which he then tried to delete to cover up his tracks). Oh, and fun fact: the only other thing on his Scribd account apart from programming and sysadmin docs? Why, NRA gun documents! His alibi for why he had them was hilarious - why, he only had them to trade for guitar tabs, dontcha know! ;)
It's weird... after having been vegetarian for 17 years, the concept of making a vegetarian burger taste more like meat only strikes feelings of "eww, gross" in me. And I imagine that's a pretty common reaction.
But I guess it's good for non-vegetarians and maybe people who are newly vegetarian.
On the upside, I imagine this product is a good source of iron, since heme iron is well absorbed.
So you're accusing Tesla of making false statements? Why are you posting on Slashdot rather than alerting the SEC?
No, he's saying that Tesla doesn't usually get ~25% gross profit margins on their vehicles, and they're lying to the SEC.
Now cue the SG&A arguments that pretend that SG&A is A) linear with volume, B) requires no pre-ramp spend up, C) that we can ignore that SG&A requires hiring, and Tesla's hiring hasn't come close to matching Model 3 production scaleup rates, D) not mentioning that Tesla's layoffs were SG&A cuts, E) forgetting that the Supercharger network is transitioning from a SG&A loss leader to self sustaining now that they're charging for it and an exponentially-growing number of Model 3s are now paying to fill up at Superchargers. And about a dozen other things.