I'm sorry, could you explain again what part here is bothering you? The part where we give mothers prenatal care, the part where we have among the most restrictive abortion laws in the west, the part where rates of Down's Syndrome births are pretty much the same as the US, or the part where we treat people with Down's well?
Well clearly Iceland fails then since they commit systematic capital punishment against Downe Syndrome babies without trial.
Get your news somewhere better.
It was funny when US right-wingers started freaking out over what is literally nothing more than free prenatal screenings for pregnant women (for a wide range of diseases), as part of extensive prenatal (and postnatal) healthcare coverage. Literally nothing more than that. That many (no, not 100%) choose to terminate their pregnancy if they find out the fetus has Down's shouldn't be surprising, but there's in no way a policy to encourage (let alone mandate) it. Plenty of people with special needs are carried to term, and they're treated a heck of a lot better here than they are in the US. There's even a theatre troupe of actors with Down's Syndrome (Leikhópurinn Perlan), garnering the most attention for their acting in the Sigur Rós music video "Svefn g Englar" (a play on words between "Sleepwalkers" and "Sleeping Angels"). From statistics, we have 334k people and a birth rate of 13,7 per 1000 per year, or 4576 children per year, of which 5-6 have Down's - 1 in every 832. The rate of Down's Syndrome in the US is 1 in 700 children.
Iceland is actually has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe - more restrictive than the US. We don't have "abortion on request" here. There have to be specific reasons (confirmed by two unrelated parties) among a list of valid reasons; is only legal in the first 16 weeks excepting in the event of deformity or a threat to the mother's life; and requires both pre- and post-abortion counseling, including a course on birth control. The word for abortion in Icelandic literally translates as "fetus destruction"; it's hardly glossed over.
Thank you for boldly asserting falsehoods. That greatly contributes to the conversation.
The only options that are required on the pre-production vehicles are LR and PUP. LR is $9k, and PUP is $5k. Add together 9+5+35 and tell me what you get.
There is no combination of options currently available that adds up to $60k. Beyond LR and PUP, there's paint options for $1k, 19" wheels (instead of the stock 18") for $1,5k, Autopilot for $5k, and full self driving for $3k. More will be coming out in the future (AWD, air suspension, performance) but are not yet available. Add those numbers together and tell me what you get.
And you do not have to get any options. It just means waiting for your place in line. I'm sorry if lines bug you, but that's what you get when half a million people preorder a car.
I did something anethema for Slashdot... I actually read the study. And while most of it was fairly reasonably done, the cost aspect seems to be handled as an afterthought tacked onto the end. There was no estimation of the costs of using HVDC links at all (I've seen studies that did so, and they came to a much more favourable conclusion). As for their battery storage they state that large batteries currently cost $500/kWh. No, they don't. Over a year ago, the price on power-focused Powerpack systems was about $350/kWh. Energy-focused systems will be even cheaper per kWh. And that's old pricing, let alone current pricing, let alone future pricing. Gigafactory was established to bring costs down to under $100/kWh - and Semi appears to be priced on batteries under $100/kWh. A price that the paper mentions as a target but doesn't appear to believe that it will happen in the next couple decades. Next couple decades? Try "next couple years". They also assume a 10 year service life. Power-focused, frequently cycling powerpacks last 15 years; energy-focused systems should last longer due to how less frequently they go through cycles.
In short, the paper is assuming that the future - even the fairly far future - will have worse energy storage tech than we have today.
They also make claims like "For context, storage totaling 12 hours of U.S. mean demand, 5.4 TW h of energy capacity, is 150 years of the annual production capacity of the Tesla Gigafactory (35 GW h)". No, it's not. Gigafactory 1 (note: not "The Tesla Gigafactory", it's called Gigafactory 1, as it's a first generation which they tend to replicate around the world) has a projected output this year of 50 GWh. Design projection at completion is 150 GWh/year. Again: the paper is treating decades in the future as if they won't have what we already have today.
Colour me unimpressed. I've read much more impressive research, where they actually laid out smart grids and did detailed cost calculations on it.
However the reason the Teslas cant tow very much is because the chassis isn't designed for towing. All the torque in the world cant help you if the chassis snaps in half.
1) The base MSRP is $35k. I'm sorry if the fact that you don't get to jump in line ahead of half a million other people if you want a base model bugs you.
2) It's not even possible to buy a $60k Model 3. If you add on every last option that's even possible to add on you end up with $59,5k. The options that are mandatory for people who want to be first-in-line are the LR pack and PUP, meaning you can jump in front of everyone else for a vehicle price of $49k.
3) Here's teardown videos. Point out the "shit build quality" therein.
Regrettably they can't, because the system shuts down due to overheat.
Completely different powertrain. The AC induction motor couldn't handle max power for more than a couple minutes because the rotor would overheat from induction currents. There's no induction currents in a PMSRM. Heating is in the stator, which is trivially cooled.
but what about towing a two-axle mobile stable with two horses in it, steep uphill?
Meh, even Tesla's current induction motor fleet does that sort of stuff just fine. Watch Björn Nýland's videos, he tows huge things through mountains all the time.
Your post is well appreciated (I don't know why you were marked down to -1, that's unfair), but it's premised on obsolete technology. Motor technology is advancing fast, and Tesla has invested a huge amount of money into it.
I can't see how they'd complain about something that's factory spec. There's no door to get into it; you have to remove body panels. But the hollow is pretty massive - big enough for a child to fit inside. They clearly didn't want to have to redesign the whole platform to allow for the front motor, so just left it empty in the RWD version.
You clearly haven't been hanging out on the Model 3 Owners Club. It's amazing the disconnect between how certain individuals seems to want to portray it, and how non-selection-biased random owners describe their vehicles. Or, for that matter, photograph them. I watch person after person get their invite, pick up their car, and then rave at how amazing it is... then I check out the latest article to show up about the Model 3 on Google News where they act like everyone's car is held together by gaffer tape and they're furious.
To put it another way: "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and it was perfect!" doesn't go viral in the same way that "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and there was something wrong with it!". Seriously, for example, the rash of coverage over the person who had a dead 12V battery. Literally the only dead 12V battery that's ever been reported in a Model 3, and there were dozens of articles written about it - despite the fact that Tesla sent a guy to his house to take care of his battery for him.
Or more directly: check out some of the teardown videos linked in TFA. Does any of that look like poor build quality to you? One thing that's neat is you'll notice blue markings on a number of the bolts; that's common in the aerospace industry, but rarely in the automotive industry. Those are witness marks. They're used to double check that bolts were tightened to the proper tightness.
That's not to say that there haven't been some issues. Things that actually have been problems, at least over certain points in time:
* There used to be frequently a small sag in the hood, going a several millimeters out of alignment with the sides at its middle. It's been fixed in recent vehicles.
* While handling has gotten extensive praise, some people who don't like a stiff "sports suspension" feel have been complaining about that. Tesla is reportedly working to soften the suspension some.
* Noise, while quiet by ICE standards, is relatively high by EV standards. Namely, road noise (connected to the aforementioned stiff suspension) and wind noise (worse than the S). But both have been reducing with recent VINs.
* There's some issues that relate to preference. Some people don't like the Aston Martin-style door handles, while others aren't bothered by them. Some people think the door and frunk hood needs to be shut too hard, while others prefer the solid feel. Etc. So whether they're "defects" depends on your personal preference.
There are some GUI issues as well, but they decrease with each over-the-air update, as well as getting new features. At the top of the most-requested features list that hasn't been implemented yet is moving cruise control speed from the GUI to the right steering wheel control (akin to volume control and station selection are on the left steering wheel control). There have also been a couple issues related to it not remembering various types of infotainment / preference settings between drives; most (but not all) of these issues have since been patched.
The discrepancy is about power/horsepower, not torque. The low-end torque is near identical in all runs - the difference is at what speed the torque begins to drop off (~55mph vs. ~68mph)
To expand a bit on the motor: it should be clarified that it's not a normal switched reluctance motor (SRM), but rather a PMSRM (permanent magnet switched reluctance motor).
Reluctance is used to some extent in many hybrid EV motors, in the form of "IPM" - interior permanent magnet motors. These are a hybrid of a conventional surface permanent magnet motor (SPM) and a SRM, allowing for high power at high speeds that SPMs don't allow for, as well as reducing magnet sizes (and thus rare earth consumption). By contrast, a PMSRM is a SPM that incorporates permanent magnets into the stator; they don't move and are readily cooled, while sculpting and enhancing the field to increase torque density and help control torque ripple.
It's a new type of motor, combining extreme efficiency, high torque density, and reliability over that offered by an IPM. Getting a PMSRM to work smoothly is an impressive job.
Do you know why they were able to show that much cash on hand? For all the supposed smarts on this site, no one seems to be able to read a quarterly result, much less a 10K. Tesla currently has $2.3B in accounts receivable. That's what they owed their suppliers at the end of 2017.
For someone who wants to lecture someone about how to read a quarterly result, you should probably start by learning the difference between accounts payable and accounts receivable.
Secondly, in Q4, accounts payable was $2.390.250k. In Q3 it was $2.385.778k. OMG! SELL SELL SELL!;)
They also blew out their entire stale inventory of Model S and Model X at a huge discount to help show less cash burn... Those were auto lease bonds based off the income of their Model S and Model X leases. They gave up future cash flow from those leases to keep the company afloat. A desperate move.
A company undergoing a major capex spend would be entirely negligent if they didn't move future revenue potential to the present. To the point that if they didn't so, the management ought to be fired. The earnings potential from auto loans is nothing compared to the value of first mover and scale advantages in the (numerous) markets Tesla is rapidly expanding into. You'd have them cut capex in order to profit off of auto loans, and hold onto inventory for future sales. Weren't you shorts bitterly complaining that Tesla had too much inventory? And now that they reduce their inventory, that's another reason to dig into them?
And they horded all their ZEV credits to be used for 4Q... These are one time events to make things look better than they are
You know, it's amusing that you shorts only ever see the "one time events" after they happen. Where were you last quarter talking about their hoarded credits? Where were you talking about their potential to sell inventory for cash? Where were you talking about their bond offering? Nowhere, that's where. If it contradicts your "imminent doom narrative", it's simply ignored. Like literally half my post above.
Did you check out the 10K that was released Friday? Look at the section on risks. Some read like they belong on The Onion.
You act like that's the first time you've ever seen a 10K. Go check out, say, Ford's or GM's "Risk Factors" section in their 10-K. It's no prettier. "Risk Factors" is by definition supposed to be doom-and-gloom.
1Q results are going to be even worse
Why thank you, Amazing Kreskin.
Tesla is on the hook to buy more cells than they need
Better tell the SEC, since that's in direct contradiction to Tesla's statements on the subject. They've repeatedly stated that they're cell constrained on 18650s. And they have no incentive to work with Panasonic on an expansion of their purchase arrangement since they're switching to 2170s.
Model S and Model X demand has plateaued and dropped over the last year. Look at the seasonally adjusted sale numbers.
Tesla's vehicle sales are up 36.4% year-over-year.
Tesla management said they are reducing production of the Model S and Model X to a total of 100K a year because of demand.
I feel like I'm talking with someone who lives in an alternate reality. From the conference call:
Romit Jitendra Shah - Nomura Instinet
Yes. Thank you. It sounds like from the letter that you could do more than 100,000 S and X in 2018, but you're constrained by the 18650s. And I'm just curious what would it take to see the 2170 cells in these vehicles?
Yep, sure looks like a company on the fast route to bankruptcy. And never you mind that ever-increasing revenue from Model 3 sales, the increasing orders for Powerpacks in the wake of the huge success of the Australian battery project, the fact that the Solar Gigafactory just went online, the fact that Model S and X demand exceeds Panasonic's ability to supply cells... No no no, clearly, they'll run out of cash any day now, just like we've been hearing nonstop for the past decade.
And clearly the bond market has no interest in them! It's not like as though they sold half a billion dollars of bonds a month ago, mostly at a.3% premium to the benchmark swap rate, with the highest possible credit rating, with initial investor orders as much as 14x what the company intended to sell. No no, clearly bankrupt! Tomorrow, maybe the day after, surely!
And hey let's slip into a world that for some reason Tesla did run out of cash and had to sell shares. 1/5th of the volume of TSLA is shorts. That's artificially depressing the stock relative to demand. Now, I'm sure you'd laugh if stock had to be diluted, but that'd be little comfort vs. the steady share price that would result from the cash influx. Don't think that there would be a cash influx? Have you not watched what happens whenever there's any bad news? The share price drops on the news, then a month or two later it's back up to where it was because of all of the people who want to buy low, even slightly low - let alone as low as you'd get from a major dilution.
And why do people want to own Tesla? Because whether you do or not, Tesla is seen by a very large number of people as breaking a path to the future, in a wide range of fields. Again, you personally may not agree, but you have many millions of people to convince otherwise if you want to see your dreams of a bankrupt Tesla realized.
Beyond what ai4px wrote: also, it's not just an outlet. There's data and sense pins, and a thermocouple in the connector. EV charge connectors have a lot more safety built into them than simple outlets. The same goes for how power is drawn - even if you plug into a normal power socket with a mobile connector, the vehicle will measure the voltage drop as it ramps up to determine if there's unexpectedly high resistance coming from the wall, and if so will limit its max charging power. And said plug is temperature-fused on the plug end as an added precaution.
It'd be nice if all electronic devices (or at least high power ones) took safety this seriously - but of course it comes at a cost.
So if I gave you a free computer, and said, "Now, you'll obviously have to pay for the power to run it..." would you turn around and respond, "AHA, so it's NOT really free, now is it?"
I'm confused. We're talking about workplace chargers, right? So in your place of work, you're going to start shutting off breakers? Or are you breaking into someone else's workplace to shut off breakers? Just because some employees' choice of car annoys you for some inexplicable reason?
Beyond that, are you unaware that if charging is interrupted that they'll instantaneously get a phone alert?
$35k MSRP. I know, I know, we're going to pretend that the fact that if you want a base version you don't get to line-jump in front of half a million other people on the waiting list means that it's not really a $35k MSRP; I'm well aware of this curious "argument".
The "walled garden" is more coming from different national / multinational entities rather than anything else. The EU is trying to force everyone to use CCS/Type-2, China is trying to force everyone to use GB/T, Japan wanted everyone to use CHAdeMO (they may have to give up on that dream), the US is moving in the direction of CCS/Type-1, etc. Tesla wanted to have a single global standard. They had to give up on that when they moved to the EU, but at least managed to keep their charge port relatively similar by going with a modified Type-2 and reusing AC pins for DC. To accomodate the mandated GB/T port, however, they had to make an ugly hack to their China-spec cars.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, could you explain again what part here is bothering you? The part where we give mothers prenatal care, the part where we have among the most restrictive abortion laws in the west, the part where rates of Down's Syndrome births are pretty much the same as the US, or the part where we treat people with Down's well?
Get your news somewhere better.
It was funny when US right-wingers started freaking out over what is literally nothing more than free prenatal screenings for pregnant women (for a wide range of diseases), as part of extensive prenatal (and postnatal) healthcare coverage. Literally nothing more than that. That many (no, not 100%) choose to terminate their pregnancy if they find out the fetus has Down's shouldn't be surprising, but there's in no way a policy to encourage (let alone mandate) it. Plenty of people with special needs are carried to term, and they're treated a heck of a lot better here than they are in the US. There's even a theatre troupe of actors with Down's Syndrome (Leikhópurinn Perlan), garnering the most attention for their acting in the Sigur Rós music video "Svefn g Englar" (a play on words between "Sleepwalkers" and "Sleeping Angels"). From statistics, we have 334k people and a birth rate of 13,7 per 1000 per year, or 4576 children per year, of which 5-6 have Down's - 1 in every 832. The rate of Down's Syndrome in the US is 1 in 700 children.
Iceland is actually has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe - more restrictive than the US. We don't have "abortion on request" here. There have to be specific reasons (confirmed by two unrelated parties) among a list of valid reasons; is only legal in the first 16 weeks excepting in the event of deformity or a threat to the mother's life; and requires both pre- and post-abortion counseling, including a course on birth control. The word for abortion in Icelandic literally translates as "fetus destruction"; it's hardly glossed over.
I'll repeat: get your news from better sources.
Ed: early production, not pre production.
Thank you for boldly asserting falsehoods. That greatly contributes to the conversation.
The only options that are required on the pre-production vehicles are LR and PUP. LR is $9k, and PUP is $5k. Add together 9+5+35 and tell me what you get.
There is no combination of options currently available that adds up to $60k. Beyond LR and PUP, there's paint options for $1k, 19" wheels (instead of the stock 18") for $1,5k, Autopilot for $5k, and full self driving for $3k. More will be coming out in the future (AWD, air suspension, performance) but are not yet available. Add those numbers together and tell me what you get.
And you do not have to get any options. It just means waiting for your place in line. I'm sorry if lines bug you, but that's what you get when half a million people preorder a car.
I did something anethema for Slashdot... I actually read the study. And while most of it was fairly reasonably done, the cost aspect seems to be handled as an afterthought tacked onto the end. There was no estimation of the costs of using HVDC links at all (I've seen studies that did so, and they came to a much more favourable conclusion). As for their battery storage they state that large batteries currently cost $500/kWh. No, they don't. Over a year ago, the price on power-focused Powerpack systems was about $350/kWh. Energy-focused systems will be even cheaper per kWh. And that's old pricing, let alone current pricing, let alone future pricing. Gigafactory was established to bring costs down to under $100/kWh - and Semi appears to be priced on batteries under $100/kWh. A price that the paper mentions as a target but doesn't appear to believe that it will happen in the next couple decades. Next couple decades? Try "next couple years". They also assume a 10 year service life. Power-focused, frequently cycling powerpacks last 15 years; energy-focused systems should last longer due to how less frequently they go through cycles.
In short, the paper is assuming that the future - even the fairly far future - will have worse energy storage tech than we have today.
They also make claims like "For context, storage totaling 12 hours of U.S. mean demand, 5.4 TW h of energy capacity, is 150 years of the annual production capacity of the Tesla Gigafactory (35 GW h)". No, it's not. Gigafactory 1 (note: not "The Tesla Gigafactory", it's called Gigafactory 1, as it's a first generation which they tend to replicate around the world) has a projected output this year of 50 GWh. Design projection at completion is 150 GWh/year. Again: the paper is treating decades in the future as if they won't have what we already have today.
Colour me unimpressed. I've read much more impressive research, where they actually laid out smart grids and did detailed cost calculations on it.
Again, I'm confused as to why people think you can't tow with Teslas.
If you know anything about me, you'd start by using the right pronoun.
You'd then stop making up straw men; I've never criticized Consumer Reports, and quite to the contrary, have frequently cited them.
Lastly, if you think the views of owners about their cars is irrelevant, then I can't imagine what you consider to be a proper measure.
You could repurpose a Model 3 powertrain to make a blender that will blend a Model 3 ;)
This is simply incorrect.
1) The base MSRP is $35k. I'm sorry if the fact that you don't get to jump in line ahead of half a million other people if you want a base model bugs you.
2) It's not even possible to buy a $60k Model 3. If you add on every last option that's even possible to add on you end up with $59,5k. The options that are mandatory for people who want to be first-in-line are the LR pack and PUP, meaning you can jump in front of everyone else for a vehicle price of $49k.
3) Here's teardown videos. Point out the "shit build quality" therein.
See this post.
Was at a showroom in late December, so I have no clue where you're coming from.
Completely different powertrain. The AC induction motor couldn't handle max power for more than a couple minutes because the rotor would overheat from induction currents. There's no induction currents in a PMSRM. Heating is in the stator, which is trivially cooled.
Meh, even Tesla's current induction motor fleet does that sort of stuff just fine. Watch Björn Nýland's videos, he tows huge things through mountains all the time.
Your post is well appreciated (I don't know why you were marked down to -1, that's unfair), but it's premised on obsolete technology. Motor technology is advancing fast, and Tesla has invested a huge amount of money into it.
I can't see how they'd complain about something that's factory spec. There's no door to get into it; you have to remove body panels. But the hollow is pretty massive - big enough for a child to fit inside. They clearly didn't want to have to redesign the whole platform to allow for the front motor, so just left it empty in the RWD version.
You clearly haven't been hanging out on the Model 3 Owners Club. It's amazing the disconnect between how certain individuals seems to want to portray it, and how non-selection-biased random owners describe their vehicles. Or, for that matter, photograph them. I watch person after person get their invite, pick up their car, and then rave at how amazing it is... then I check out the latest article to show up about the Model 3 on Google News where they act like everyone's car is held together by gaffer tape and they're furious.
To put it another way: "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and it was perfect!" doesn't go viral in the same way that "I just picked up my new (insert-topic-of-interest) and there was something wrong with it!". Seriously, for example, the rash of coverage over the person who had a dead 12V battery. Literally the only dead 12V battery that's ever been reported in a Model 3, and there were dozens of articles written about it - despite the fact that Tesla sent a guy to his house to take care of his battery for him.
Or more directly: check out some of the teardown videos linked in TFA. Does any of that look like poor build quality to you? One thing that's neat is you'll notice blue markings on a number of the bolts; that's common in the aerospace industry, but rarely in the automotive industry. Those are witness marks. They're used to double check that bolts were tightened to the proper tightness.
That's not to say that there haven't been some issues. Things that actually have been problems, at least over certain points in time:
* There used to be frequently a small sag in the hood, going a several millimeters out of alignment with the sides at its middle. It's been fixed in recent vehicles.
* While handling has gotten extensive praise, some people who don't like a stiff "sports suspension" feel have been complaining about that. Tesla is reportedly working to soften the suspension some.
* Noise, while quiet by ICE standards, is relatively high by EV standards. Namely, road noise (connected to the aforementioned stiff suspension) and wind noise (worse than the S). But both have been reducing with recent VINs.
* There's some issues that relate to preference. Some people don't like the Aston Martin-style door handles, while others aren't bothered by them. Some people think the door and frunk hood needs to be shut too hard, while others prefer the solid feel. Etc. So whether they're "defects" depends on your personal preference.
There are some GUI issues as well, but they decrease with each over-the-air update, as well as getting new features. At the top of the most-requested features list that hasn't been implemented yet is moving cruise control speed from the GUI to the right steering wheel control (akin to volume control and station selection are on the left steering wheel control). There have also been a couple issues related to it not remembering various types of infotainment / preference settings between drives; most (but not all) of these issues have since been patched.
Probably a couple other things I'm forgetting.
Does that mean that the CDR was left behind here on Earth?
The discrepancy is about power/horsepower, not torque. The low-end torque is near identical in all runs - the difference is at what speed the torque begins to drop off (~55mph vs. ~68mph)
To expand a bit on the motor: it should be clarified that it's not a normal switched reluctance motor (SRM), but rather a PMSRM (permanent magnet switched reluctance motor).
Reluctance is used to some extent in many hybrid EV motors, in the form of "IPM" - interior permanent magnet motors. These are a hybrid of a conventional surface permanent magnet motor (SPM) and a SRM, allowing for high power at high speeds that SPMs don't allow for, as well as reducing magnet sizes (and thus rare earth consumption). By contrast, a PMSRM is a SPM that incorporates permanent magnets into the stator; they don't move and are readily cooled, while sculpting and enhancing the field to increase torque density and help control torque ripple.
It's a new type of motor, combining extreme efficiency, high torque density, and reliability over that offered by an IPM. Getting a PMSRM to work smoothly is an impressive job.
Unfortunately, the receiver for that is the size of a pizza box. I mean, I guess you could carry one on a plane, but it's not exactly small.
For someone who wants to lecture someone about how to read a quarterly result, you should probably start by learning the difference between accounts payable and accounts receivable.
Secondly, in Q4, accounts payable was $2.390.250k. In Q3 it was $2.385.778k. OMG! SELL SELL SELL! ;)
A company undergoing a major capex spend would be entirely negligent if they didn't move future revenue potential to the present. To the point that if they didn't so, the management ought to be fired. The earnings potential from auto loans is nothing compared to the value of first mover and scale advantages in the (numerous) markets Tesla is rapidly expanding into. You'd have them cut capex in order to profit off of auto loans, and hold onto inventory for future sales. Weren't you shorts bitterly complaining that Tesla had too much inventory? And now that they reduce their inventory, that's another reason to dig into them?
You know, it's amusing that you shorts only ever see the "one time events" after they happen. Where were you last quarter talking about their hoarded credits? Where were you talking about their potential to sell inventory for cash? Where were you talking about their bond offering? Nowhere, that's where. If it contradicts your "imminent doom narrative", it's simply ignored. Like literally half my post above.
You act like that's the first time you've ever seen a 10K. Go check out, say, Ford's or GM's "Risk Factors" section in their 10-K. It's no prettier. "Risk Factors" is by definition supposed to be doom-and-gloom.
Why thank you, Amazing Kreskin.
Better tell the SEC, since that's in direct contradiction to Tesla's statements on the subject. They've repeatedly stated that they're cell constrained on 18650s. And they have no incentive to work with Panasonic on an expansion of their purchase arrangement since they're switching to 2170s.
Tesla's vehicle sales are up 36.4% year-over-year.
I feel like I'm talking with someone who lives in an alternate reality. From the conference call:
Q3 2016 cash-on-hand: $3,1B
Q4 2016 cash-on-hand: $3,4B
Q1 2017 cash-on-hand: $4,0B
Q2 2017 cash-on-hand: $3,1B
Q3 2017 cash-on-hand: $3,5B
Q4 2017 cash-on-hand: $3,4B
Yep, sure looks like a company on the fast route to bankruptcy. And never you mind that ever-increasing revenue from Model 3 sales, the increasing orders for Powerpacks in the wake of the huge success of the Australian battery project, the fact that the Solar Gigafactory just went online, the fact that Model S and X demand exceeds Panasonic's ability to supply cells... No no no, clearly, they'll run out of cash any day now, just like we've been hearing nonstop for the past decade.
And clearly the bond market has no interest in them! It's not like as though they sold half a billion dollars of bonds a month ago, mostly at a .3% premium to the benchmark swap rate, with the highest possible credit rating, with initial investor orders as much as 14x what the company intended to sell. No no, clearly bankrupt! Tomorrow, maybe the day after, surely!
And hey let's slip into a world that for some reason Tesla did run out of cash and had to sell shares. 1/5th of the volume of TSLA is shorts. That's artificially depressing the stock relative to demand. Now, I'm sure you'd laugh if stock had to be diluted, but that'd be little comfort vs. the steady share price that would result from the cash influx. Don't think that there would be a cash influx? Have you not watched what happens whenever there's any bad news? The share price drops on the news, then a month or two later it's back up to where it was because of all of the people who want to buy low, even slightly low - let alone as low as you'd get from a major dilution.
And why do people want to own Tesla? Because whether you do or not, Tesla is seen by a very large number of people as breaking a path to the future, in a wide range of fields. Again, you personally may not agree, but you have many millions of people to convince otherwise if you want to see your dreams of a bankrupt Tesla realized.
Beyond what ai4px wrote: also, it's not just an outlet. There's data and sense pins, and a thermocouple in the connector. EV charge connectors have a lot more safety built into them than simple outlets. The same goes for how power is drawn - even if you plug into a normal power socket with a mobile connector, the vehicle will measure the voltage drop as it ramps up to determine if there's unexpectedly high resistance coming from the wall, and if so will limit its max charging power. And said plug is temperature-fused on the plug end as an added precaution.
It'd be nice if all electronic devices (or at least high power ones) took safety this seriously - but of course it comes at a cost.
So if I gave you a free computer, and said, "Now, you'll obviously have to pay for the power to run it..." would you turn around and respond, "AHA, so it's NOT really free, now is it?"
I'm confused. We're talking about workplace chargers, right? So in your place of work, you're going to start shutting off breakers? Or are you breaking into someone else's workplace to shut off breakers? Just because some employees' choice of car annoys you for some inexplicable reason?
Beyond that, are you unaware that if charging is interrupted that they'll instantaneously get a phone alert?
$35k MSRP. I know, I know, we're going to pretend that the fact that if you want a base version you don't get to line-jump in front of half a million other people on the waiting list means that it's not really a $35k MSRP; I'm well aware of this curious "argument".
The "walled garden" is more coming from different national / multinational entities rather than anything else. The EU is trying to force everyone to use CCS/Type-2, China is trying to force everyone to use GB/T, Japan wanted everyone to use CHAdeMO (they may have to give up on that dream), the US is moving in the direction of CCS/Type-1, etc. Tesla wanted to have a single global standard. They had to give up on that when they moved to the EU, but at least managed to keep their charge port relatively similar by going with a modified Type-2 and reusing AC pins for DC. To accomodate the mandated GB/T port, however, they had to make an ugly hack to their China-spec cars.